Articles

"It's just Ammonia" - yep it sure is!

Details
Parent Category: Safety Info Posts
Category: Chemical Process Safety (PSM/RMP)

UPDATED 8/17/14

Routinely we hear the argument that Anhydrous Ammonia should not be on OSHA's or EPA's chemical lists for PSM/RMP inclusion.  Like most industries that use a single highly hazardous chemical as a "utility" in their process(es) v.s. manufacturing the HHC or using the HHC in the manufacturing process, these industries feel "their chemical" is "safe" and no one should have any concerns.  So a client recently challenged me to find any data that would justify a heightened level of concern for a process containing anhydrous ammonia.  Unfortunately, it took me only five minutes to win the bet and now the client clearly understands my "radical PSM views" towards his Anhydrous Ammonia.  The data I used was...

Comments   

#6 Javier M. Davila B. 2013-08-04 15:09
To fully understand the level of risk generated by the use of Ammonia, it is necesary to know the potential failure mechanisms in an Ammonia storage tank. Ammonia tanks are susceptible to generate blisters due to the migration of free hydrogen to the middle of the thickness of tke vessel plate; it is weakened as a consequence, with a high probability to explode. The quiestion is: How many of the Ammonia users do periodical inspections to detect the presence of blisters?
#5 Richard Rhimes 2012-07-23 09:19
A lack of awareness of incidents sometimes leads people to consider some materials are safe. Ammonia and its well-documented hazards and incident history is one such material. "Ignorance is not bliss" when chemicals are involved.
#4 JOHN FORRESTER 2012-07-17 14:38
It would not take long to add another column for OSHA penalties.
+1 #3 JOHN FORRESTER 2012-07-17 14:33
Your client did not know what they were getting into by issuing that challenge. That is like going up to Mike Tyson and asking him to give your chin his best shot.
#2 Bryan 2012-07-16 13:59
Agree 100% Brian. Not many people know (only those of us that read Preambles) that NH3 was originally listed with a threshold of 5,000#'s and was changed to 10,000 in the final rule. I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the room where this discussion/analysis took place to better understand if this was just great lobbying by the NH3 groups or if there was a strong data reflecting the need for the change!
+1 #1 Brian D. Chapin 2012-07-16 13:20
Originally Ammonia was to be placed on the list at 5,000 pounds. I think they may have made a mistake doubling that threshold quantity.

You have no rights to post comments

  
View 's profile on LinkedIn

 

 LinkedIn Group Button

facebookIcon

 

Partner Organizations

 Chlroine Institute Logo 100 years

I am proud to announce that

The Chlorine Institute and SAFTENG

have extended our"Partners in Safety" agreement

for another year (2024)

CI Members, send me an e-mail

to request your FREE SAFTENG membership

 

RCECHILL BW

  

kemkey logo

OHS Solutions logoCEMANE power association logo

 EIT LOGO

 

Member Associations

ASME logo

 

Screen Shot 2018 05 28 at 10.25.35 PM

aiche logo cmyk highres

Chlorine institute

 nfpa logo.5942a119dcb25

 

TOCAS

 

BLR Logo 2018

 

 

 

 

safteng man copy

 

 organdonor