In this week’s Newsletter
- 2011 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index
- Vapor cloud formation: Experiments and modeling
- A reverse look at Facility Siting and Change Management
- Dust from industrial-scale processing of nanomaterials carries high explosion risk
- OSHA extends temporary enforcement measures in residential construction
- How many threads of a bolt must be showing outside a nut to meet RAGAGEP?
- ACGIH® Board Ratifies 2012 TLVs® and BEIs®
- New Legislation Targets Airport Scanner Safety
- New ASTM Standard Provides Aid in Measuring Footwear Slip Resistance
- Federal pipeline safety to get extra $67m million and 120 new employees under Obama proposal
Side Bar Items:
- SAFTENG Blog & SAFTENG LinkedIn Forum
- Safety and Health Tip –
- Civilian Fire Fatalities
- Safety Recalls
- EHS Events
UPDATED Members area with 189 photos (176 MB) on 2/6/12
2011 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index
The annual Workplace Safety Index identifies the top causes of serious non-fatal workplace injuries based on information from Liberty Mutual workers compensation insurance claims, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), and the National Academy of Social Insurance. Using injury event definitions developed by the BLS, researchers collect data about injuries that cause the employee to miss six or more days from work, and rank those injuries by total workers compensation costs. The latest Workplace Safety Index provides statistics for injuries that occurred in 2009, the most recent year for which data are available. The top five injury causes – overexertion, fall on same level, fall to lower level, bodily reaction, and struck by object – accounted for 71.7 percent of the total 2009 cost burden. Overexertion maintained its first-place rank. This event category, which includes injuries related to lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, carrying, or throwing, cost businesses $12.75 billion in direct costs and accounted for more than a quarter of the overall national burden. Fall on same level ranked second as a leading cause of disabling injury. With direct costs of $7.94 billion, this category accounted for 15.8 percent of the total injury burden. Fall to lower level ranked third at $5.35 billion in costs. Bodily reaction, which includes injuries resulting from free bodily motion such as bending, climbing, reaching, standing, sitting, and slipping or tripping without falling, ranked fourth at $5.28 billion. Struck by object took the fifth-place ranking at $4.64 billion.
CLICK HERE for the entire report.
Vapor cloud formation: Experiments and modeling
Hazard analysis for overfilling of a tank with a volatile liquid is a complex and important problem but (prior to the Buncefield incident) had not been the subject of significant research effort. Since the incident HSE has sponsored a program of experimental and modeling research to investigate the technical issues involved and develop methods of analysis. The objective is that HSE, and industries responsible for filling tanks, will be in a position to agree on a reliable method to determine the character of the vapor cloud generated in the event of an overfill. This will allow appropriate consideration of the overfill scenario i.e fluid type, tank size, fill rate etc. to be taken into account in hazard assessments for land use planning and emergency planning purposes. HSE’s Vapor Cloud Assessment method is detailed in Appendix 1. Some example cases are worked through in this Appendix. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. Full report
A reverse look at Facility Siting and Change Management
Ever since the 2005 BP Texas City tragedy, refineries and chemical plants have been working diligently to review “facility siting” risks for their facilities. As with all of the PSM elements, many of us took this new focus as a learning opportunity. We had all done something we called “facility siting” in our Process Hazards Analysis, but in the early 1990’s many of us “did not know what we did not know” in regards to what a real facility siting analysis was suppose to look like. These days, there are single facility siting projects being done in such detail that they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. These studies look at very specific scenarios as they relate to process location and it’s impacts to neighboring process units, control rooms, contractor/maintenance shops, administrative buildings, etc. In other words we have come a LONG WAYS in the past seven years with how we conduct facility siting analysis. But we may be overlooking something in our facility siting analyses that I come across quite often in my work around the world and this is what I want to present. Too long to post in the newsletter CLICK HERE
Dust from industrial-scale processing of nanomaterials carries high explosion risk
With expanded industrial-scale production of nanomaterials fast approaching, scientists are reporting indications that dust generated during processing of nanomaterials may explode more easily than dust from wheat flour, cornstarch and most other common dust explosion hazards. Their article in ACS' journal Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research indicates that nanomaterial dust could explode due to a spark with only 1/30th the energy needed to ignite sugar dust — the cause of the 2008 Portwentworth, Georgia, explosion that killed 13 people, injured 42 people and destroyed a factory. Paul Amyotte and colleagues explain that dust explosions are among the earliest recorded causes of industrial accidents — dating back to a 1785 flour warehouse disaster — and are still a constant threat at facilities that process fine particles of various materials. Despite significant research, there is still much for scientists to learn about the risks of dust explosions in industry, especially of so-called "nontraditional" dusts (such as those made of nanomaterials), and a constant threat exists. That's why the researchers decided to probe the explosibility of three types of nontraditional dusts: nanomaterials; flocculent (fibrous or fuzzy) materials used in various products, such as floor coverings; and hybrid mixtures of a dust and a flammable gas or vapor. After reviewing results of studies that exist on the topic, the researchers concluded that the energy needed to ignite nanomaterials made of metals, such as aluminum, is less than 1 mJ, which is less than 1/30th the energy required to ignite sugar dust or less than 1/60th the energy required to set wheat dust aflame. Flocking is often made with a process that generates static electricity, which could set off an explosion of flocculent dust, they point out. And the addition of a flammable gas or vapor to a dust as a hybrid mixture increases the chance that the dust will explode. The researchers warn that precautions should be taken to prevent these materials from exposure to sparks, collisions or friction, which could fuel an explosion.
Source: American Chemical Society
OSHA extends temporary enforcement measures
in residential construction
OSHA will extend for six months its temporary enforcement measures in residential construction. The temporary enforcement measures, extended through September 15, 2012, include priority free on-site compliance assistance, penalty reductions, extended abatement dates, measures to assure consistency, and increased outreach. Fatalities from falls are the number one cause of workplace death in construction. Over the past year, OSHA has worked closely with the industry, conducting over 1,000 outreach sessions nationwide to assist employers in complying with the new directive. OSHA will continue to work with employers to ensure a clear understanding of, and to facilitate compliance with, the new policy. OSHA's Web page also has a wide variety of educational and training materials to assist employers with compliance. Multiple easy-to-read fact sheets, PowerPoint and slide presentations, as well as other educational materials are available on the Fall Protection in Residential Construction page.
How many threads of a bolt must be showing outside a nut to meet RAGAGEP?
Some may claim this to be a trick question. I assure you it is not meant to be, but as I will point out in this posting, having too much bolt extending beyond its nut can be an issue, as well as not having the bolt flush with the outer surface of the nut. Have you ever come across a nut and bolt assembly where something just did not look right? How about a pipe flange or a manway on a pressurized process where the nuts are just biting onto the bolt, clearly because either the wrong bolts were used or an incorrect gasket assembly is being used and not allowing the two flanges to meet their tolerances? And by the way, this article can apply to any bolt and nut assembly, not just pressurized systems or chemical processes. Me being a safety professional, I use the principle on my kids bicycles!!! The $60,000,000 question is... how far should a bolt pass through a nut in order for that assembly to meet the full ASME design rating? For my entire career in chemical process safety (nearly 20 years now) I was always told by my engineers that at least three (3) threads of the bolt should be showing on the outside of the nut. I also have a "Mechanics Pocket Guide" and this was the "general approach" offered in this publication and it is a GOOD ONE to follow, as it provides AMPLE safety factor in the design of the flange or manway. But what does ASME actually require if the bolt and nut assembly are on a ASME Coded Pressure Vessel and what does ANSI B31 require if the bolt and nut assembly are on a pressurized pipe flange? CLICK HERE for the rest of the story.
ACGIH® Board Ratifies 2012 TLVs® and BEIs®
ACGIH® The ACGIH® Board of Directors ratified the 2012 Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®) for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs®) on December 9 and 15, 2011. The Board also approved recommendations for additions to the Notice of Intended Changes (NIC). For a listing of the substances that were acted upon, click here. The complete Annual Reports are online at the ACGIH®Online Publications Store.
New Legislation Targets Airport Scanner Safety
On 1/31/12, new legislation regarding the safety of airport scanners was introduced by members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) is the sponsor of the bill, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced it, and Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) are cosponsors.
The legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate to commission an independent study on the possible health effects caused by the X-ray radiation produced by some airport scanning machines. The study would be in consultation with the National Science Foundation (NSF). In addition, the bill would require signs that clearly inform travelers of alternative screening options available.
In her statement introducing the bill, Senator Collins said, “Scientific experts have warned Congress and the Administration of the potential public health risks posed by the x-ray backscatter machines. They note that, while the risk that someone might develop cancer because of their exposure to radiation during one screening by such an AIT [Advanced Imaging Technology] machine is very small, we do not truly know the risk of this radiation exposure over multiple screenings, for frequent fliers, those in vulnerable groups, or TSA employees operating these machines.”
New ASTM Standard Provides Aid in Measuring Footwear Slip Resistance
A new ASTM International standard will provide safety and risk management professionals with an aid in measuring the slip resistance of footwear in a wide variety of flooring situations. ASTM F2913, Test Method for Measuring the Coefficient of Friction for Evaluation of Slip Performance of Footwear and Test Surfaces/Flooring Using a Whole Shoe Tester, is under the jurisdiction ofSubcommittee F13.30 on Footwear, part of ASTM International Committee F13 on Pedestrian/Walkway Safety and Footwear. “ASTM F2913 quite simply allows for testing of the whole shoe against a myriad of flooring surface under both dry and contaminated conditions,” says Bill Ells, vice president, component sales, Vibram USA, and vice chairman of F13. “This test method provides the user with a practical comparative set of footwear, flooring and contaminant combinations, allowing for prescreening of product prior to recommended human subject wear trails.” As an example, Ells cites the conditions that might exist in a meat packing plant. “In such environments, one could envision stainless steel flooring, wet or oily contaminants and perhaps a cold climate. Using this method, a safety professional could propose testing footwear that has been preconditioned at a given temperature against stainless steel flooring with an oily contaminant to be applied,” says Ells. ASTM F2913 is derived from TM144, Friction (Slip Resistance) of Footwear and Floorings, a well-established and widely used standard developed by SATRA Technology Center in Kettering, England.
Federal pipeline safety to get extra $67m million and 120 new employees under Obama proposal
President Obama has announced increased resources for pipeline safety following an increase in the number of accidents across the US and growing safety concerns. The funding is part of the president's $3.8 trillion plan, and would almost double the number of enforcement agents nationwide, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The increase also would cover improvements from research to accident investigation to information databases, according to an agency news release. The Obama administration has been pushing for safety system upgrades for more than a year in light of deadly explosions in Allentown, Philadelphia and suburban San Francisco.
SAFTENG Blog &
SAFTENG LinkedIn Forum
Click Here to Join the Safety Engineering Network (SAFTENG) Forum on LinkedIn forum. It's FREE! We now have 1,662 members.
NOTE: If you and I are not "Linked" send me an invitation and I will accept. I accept ALL invitations from safety professionals. Also, if you use LinkedIn PLEASE consider joining the Safety Engineering Network LinkedIn Forum.
Discussions @ Safety Engineering Network LinkedIn Group and my homepage blog:
- I-OSHA fines Local 30 of the International Alliance of Theatrical
- Video of the Week #7 - Horseplay - Safety Engineering Network
- RR908 - Vapour cloud formation: Experiments and modelling
- A reverse look at Facility Siting and Change Management
- 21 Incidents & 3 Updates (2/16/12)
- Dust from industrial-scale processing of nanomaterials carries high
- Safety Poem
- OSHA extends temporary enforcement measures in residential
- Hazardous Materials: Aboveground Tank Locations for Motor Vehicle
- OSHA Compliance Posts - Safety Engineering Network
- Thoughts of an Emergency Responder
- Lawmakers ask Obama EPA not to arm terrorists
- OSHA cites company for violating PSM at a biodiesel plant
- Russia faced major nuclear disaster in 2011-report
- SAFETY ALERT - Flashlights Improperly Marked with MSHA Emblem
- 52 incidents & 1 update (2/13/12)
- Ammonia leak caused by forklift
- Zero injuries should not be our goal
- How many threads of a bolt must be showing outside a nut to meet
- Video of the Week #6 - Roadway Hazards
- Photo of the Week #6 (PFAS Lanyard)
- Hotwork - Learning from Losses
- Summary of Ammonia Accidents In the United States To Which OSHA Investigated
- Interesting RMP Statistics - Where does your process rank?
- Roof work and proper Fall Protection
- Change(s) that REQUIRE a PHA revalidation
- Two New England Companies Fined for Violating RMP (HF Acid)
- UPDATE - INCORRECT Metal Scaffold Board ALERT
- Roger Boisjoly dead at 73: You should know who he is!
- 47 Incidents & 3 Updates (2/6/12)
- HAZMAT Unloading Accident - 4 Fatalities
Safety and Health Tip
Flashlights Improperly Marked with MSHA Emblem
Bayco Products Flashlight Model Numbers XXP-5420B, XXP-5420G, XPP-5422B, and XPP-5422G were improperly labeled with the MSHA emblem making it appear they were MSHA approved products.
Civilian Fire Fatalities
On February 16, 2012, 7 residential fire fatalities were reported by news media throughout the United States
Tumblekins Toys Recalled by International Playthings Due to Choking and Laceration Hazards
Ganz Recalls Dancing Teapots Due to Burn Hazard
Children's Slides Recalled by Landscape Structures due to Fall Hazard
Fire Control Panels Recalled by Bosch Security Systems Corp. Due to Alarm Failure Posing a Fire Hazard
Improvements Catalog Recalls Adjustable Ottoman Beds Due to Fall Hazard
STIHL Recalls Chain Saws Due to Risk of Injury
Tassimo Espresso T Discs Recalled by Kraft Foods Due to Burn Hazard
Tassimo Single-Cup Coffee Makers Recalled by BSH Home Appliances Due to Burn Hazard
Spectrum Home Furnishings Recalls Chandeliers Due to Injury Hazard
Designs Direct Recalls Rooster-Themed Lamps Sold Exclusively at Fred's Inc. Due to Risks of Shock and Fire
Child Safety Seat Recalls
New Jersey Emergency Preparedness Association (NJEPA) Conference
Atlantic City, NJ
April 30 - May 4, 2012
Governor’s Safety and Health Conference
May 8-11, 2012
If you have a conference or an outing for your safety organization, let me now and I can help spread the message. And yes, posting is FREE!