At 8:04 a.m. on May 11, 2023, an employee working for an oil and gas support services company was found dead. On 5/10/23, the night before, the employee had instructed his coworkers from other contractors to go home, and he would finish the job. This was the last time anyone had spoken to the employee until he was found deceased. The employee had been pressure testing a pipe with nitrogen. The pipe had been opened, and nitrogen leaked into the ambient environment. The employee was asphyxiated due to the displacement of oxygen, causing his death.
At 8:00 a.m. on May 8, 2014, an employee was inspecting fire extinguishers. The fire extinguisher discharged and struck the employee in the head, killing him.
On October 16, 2023, Employee #1 worked for a construction gas & oil support contractor. Coworkers were cutting and welding an eye-lifting plate on a compressor skid.
Miscellaneous petroleum products had been allowed to accumulate on, in, and around the compressor skid area, creating a fire hazard.
It is good that we are finding fewer and fewer facilities without pressure testing and leak testing records on their process piping. But now comes the difficult question:
Is pressure and leak testing required after maintenance or alterations on piping systems?
So, most companies will have their newly installed piping pressure tested and leak tested by the contractor who performed the installation. But two months into operating said piping, some maintenance work is necessary and this work will require us to OPEN the piping system, make repairs, and then return the piping to service. How many of you will include some type of integrity testing on this circuit of piping that has been opened/altered/repaired BEFORE we return it to service?
Using my favorite Piping Maintenance RAGAGEP, API 570, we can see that... (emphasis by me)
Six people were confirmed dead in a boiler explosion at a wood factory in the southern province of Dong Nai on May 1, 2024. The accident also injured five others.
The provincial People's Committee has offered condolences and financial support to the victims' families (20 million VND or 789 USD for each fatality and 10 million VND for each injury).
The incident occurred at around 8:30 a.m. The injured are receiving treatment at hospitals in the province, and further investigations are being conducted.
In the world of industrial safety, we are not at a loss for the desire to try new things. Many consulting companies are waiting to sell us their shiny gadgets. One of these latest crazes is called "SIF"—Serious Injuries and Fatalities. The concept behind this model is based on the progress many have made in reducing their recordable injuries of lesser severity; however, the risk of a significant incident may still be present. Take OSHA data, for example; as a nation, we have seen a drastic drop in "OSHA recordable" injuries, but we have not seen the same drop in fatalities. So the thought process is that we need to IDENTIFY those risks that can lead to a serious injury or fatality (SIF) and analyze the controls/barriers/safeguards we have in place AND their real-time ability to PREVENT, PROTECTION, and/or MITIGATE these SIF events.
Most of us are already informally doing SIF. I like to start my clients out with their BIG THREE:
Ammonia is held for sale by a retailer in a large storage tank. The retailer sells ammonia as an agricultural fertilizer and a coolant for air conditioning systems.
Section 311(e)(5) of EPCRA exempts from the definition of a hazardous chemical "(a)ny substance to the extent it is used in routine agricultural operations or is a fertilizer held for sale by a retailer to the ultimate customer."
For purposes of EPCRA sections 311/312 reporting, how would this combined usage of the ammonia tank be affected by the agricultural use exemption under EPCRA section 311(e)(5)?
The Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) impose comprehensive federal security regulations for high-risk chemical facilities.
Do the CFATS alter the requirements that apply to a facility covered under both CFATS and either the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) or the Clean Air Act §112(r) (i.e., the Risk Management Program (RMP))?
The current list of delegated states and counties is:
NOTE: Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands no longer implement the program, and the regional office has taken over the implementation of those areas.