How many have noticed that OSHA's listing of Sulfur Dioxide in 1910.119 Appendix A has a special designation?
So what does the "liquid" designation mean?
Incidence rates can be used to show the relative level of injuries and illnesses among different industries, firms, or operations within a single firm. Because a common base and a specific period of time are involved, these rates can help determine both problem areas and progress in preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. An incidence rate of injuries and illnesses may be computed from the following formula: (Number of injuries and illnesses X 200,000) / Employee hours worked = Incidence rate. The 200,000 figure in the formula represents the number of hours 100 employees working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year would work, and provides the standard base for calculating incidence rate for an entire year.
OSHA found multiple safety violations at an ethanol refinery expansion project after a 38-year-old pipefitter suffered fatal burn injuries when ethanol spilled from a process pipe he was working on and was ignited by flames from nearby welding operations. On Nov. 1, 2016, OSHA issued five serious safety violations to the worker's employer, the project's construction contractor. Inspectors determined the contractor allowed welding work to occur without verifying that the area was free of flammable liquids. OSHA cited the refinery operator and owner for three serious violations of OSHA's process safety management standards including failing to ensure the process pipe being removed did not contain ethanol. Investigators determined the pipefitter was removing a vent line on the sixth floor of the refinery's distillation building on May 6, 2016, when the incident occurred. As he detached a nine-foot segment of this line, 190-proof ethanol spilled onto him, flowed through the grated flooring, and ignited on the fourth floor due to the welding operations occurring there. The resulting fire engulfed the worker, causing fatal injuries that led to his death the following day. Here are the citations:
NOTE: this is the first 1926.64 Citations (Construction PSM Standard) that I am aware of being issued in 24 years!
Ohio EPA has offered up three (3) scenarios to walk us through the thought process of establishing the "program level" for our RMP covered process(s). These are actually quite good examples...
Recently in the Pacific North West, Coast Guard marine inspectors experienced two different circumstances involving the alarm and control system of steering gears onboard relatively new vessels. Although neither event resulted in a marine casualty, they serve as a reminder to the potentially dangerous results that may occur when an alarm system is deliberately ignored. A false sense of operational safety develops when crew members continually silence what they consider to be a “nuisance alarm,” enabling a false perception of normalcy to develop. Inspectors observed on two vessels that repetitive alarms occurred every time crew members performed steering tests that attempted to move the rudder through its range of motion. The alarms indicated that “hydraulic lock” events had occurred. Each time, the alarm was simply acknowledged by the crew and the steering gear adequately moved the rudder. However, no further investigation was conducted to identify the cause of the alarm.
Is there any justification to not record an STS shift on employee exposure after de-rating falls below 85 dBA? (OSHA LOI 2016)
OSHA recently posted one of the most interesting LOI's I have seen in quite a while. Somone asked: If an employee exposure after de-rating falls below 85 dBA, would that be a justification to not record an STS shift on the OSHA 300 Log? Of course OSHA said NO, but it was a nice try. Here is OSHA's full answer...
Question: If an employee with a neatly trimmed goatee is wearing a respirator and it does not interfere with the seal of the face piece or valve function, and has passed a fit test, does this meet the intent of the OSHA’s Respiratory Protection standard?
Response: The Respiratory Protection standard, paragraph 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A), states that respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function. Facial hair is allowed as long as it does not protrude under the respirator seal, or extend far enough to interfere with the device's valve function. Short mustaches, sideburns, and small goatees that are neatly trimmed so that no hair compromises the seal of the respirator usually do not present a hazard and, therefore, do not violate paragraph 1910.134(g)(1)(i).
As usual, OSHA released their annual news at the National Safety Council's Congress and Expo... OSHA's Top 10 Standards Cited. The Top 10 for FY 2016* are:
*Preliminary figures as of Sept. 30, 2016
This article is intended to walk us through the DOT requirements for UNLOADING LPG and NH3 tanker trucks. In the DOT requirements covered in this article, we will see items that mirror OSHA's PSM and EPA's RMP requirements for DOCUMENTING Safety Systems and their intended functions. The material covered here should be incorporated into all UNLOADING SOPs and even in the risks evalauation for a facility to specify what they want in reagrds to the delivery truck(s) emergency discharge control equipment. Remember, one of the HIGHEST risk we face is when we are transferring thousands of gallons of our hazardous material(s) through temporary connections and a hose, so our level of SAFETY should rise to the level of risks. DOT has done a nice job structuring the requirements for Liquefied Compressed Gas (LCG) service and we should take heed as process safety and safety professionals.
This is an investigative report of the March 16, 2016 hydrogen/oxygen explosion at the University of Hawaii at Manoa campus (UH), in which a postdoctoral researcher lost her arm and sustained burns to her face and temporary loss of hearing. The postdoctoral researcher was working in a laboratory at the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute in the Pacific Ocean Science and Technology (POST) building. The University of California Center for Laboratory Safety, in its capacity as an independent third party review team, was contracted to investigate the circumstances that led to this laboratory accident. The report is separated into two sections. The immediate cause of the accident was traced to the digital pressure gauge which acted as a path to ground for a static charge that ignited the hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture contained within a 13 gallon (50 liter) pressure tank. Extensive analytical testing of an identical gas tank/pressure gauge system did not reproduce a stray electrical current within the digital pressure gauge suggesting that the initiation event was due to a static discharge generated in the tank or the researcher. The explosive gas mixture was most likely ignited when the statically charged researcher touched the metal housing of the gauge and a charge transfer occurred causing a corona or brush discharge within the gauge stem. While the likely point of initiation of the explosion was determined to be due to static discharge through the digital pressure gauge, it should be emphasized that there are numerous means by which a hydrogen/oxygen gas explosion can be initiated. It is imperative that, hydrogen/oxygen gas mixtures in the explosive range should not be stored, and experiments using hydrogen/oxygen gas mixtures, such as the culture of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria, should undergo rigorous hazard analysis and mitigation efforts to eliminate possible sources of ignition.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urge employers (owners and operators) to conduct a root cause analysis following an incident or near miss at a facility.1 A root cause is a fundamental, underlying, system-related reason why an incident occurred that identifies one or more correctable system failures.2 By conducting a root cause analysis and addressing root causes, an employer may be able to substantially or completely prevent the same or a similar incident from recurring.
OSHA Process Safety Management and EPA Risk Management Program Requirements
I am teaching another 1-Day Course for ASSE
Intro to Process Safety Management
February 13, 2017
The Rio, Las Vegas, NV
My Friend Jonathan Zimmerman and I are presenting at ASSE's Safety 2017
Topic: Safe Work Permit Management System
Day and Time to be posted later.
I am also working on details to do a
POST conference PSM course in CO as well.
Details to be posted later.
an unpaid endorsement
an unpaid endorsement
an unpaid endorsement
an unpaid endorsement