If you deal with emergency planning and response to releases of hazardous substances you can take a deep breath and have a sigh of relief… OSHA is NOT touching its HAZWOPER standard under its proposed revision to its emergency response standards. The changes OSHA is proposing will apply ONLY to its Fire Brigade standard, 1910.156. […]
As you know, I am a huge fan of the FM Global Data Sheets and I still recommend them to all my clients. If your business is too cheap to buy RAGAGEPs, these Data Sheets are by far your next best options as they are FREE. And in some situations, I actually prefer the FM
Who might be covered by a new Emergency Response standard? The draft Emergency Response standard would apply to employers that mitigate a hazard in an emergency response situation and the activity is currently covered by 29 CFR 1910.156, or is not covered by another OSHA standard. The standard would apply to, but not be limited
Have you seen OSHA’s proposed ER standard? It will replace 1910.156 and encompass all aspects of emergency response, such as firefighting, fire rescue, emergency medical service, technical rescue (rope/high angle, cave, etc.), vehicle/machinery rescue, water rescue/recovery (land/shore-based, Swiftwater, underwater), search and rescue (urban, mountain, wilderness). I have gone through the proposed standard and structured it
Having had the privilege of working with a railroad this year, I have learned a lot about how “safety” functions in an industry sector I knew absolutely nothing about. But in this time, I have come to really like the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) approach to managing safety across this industry. The FRA had to
Today I got one of my favorite magazines, of which I have been suggesting everyone in the PSM arena subscribe to (for FREE) – The BULLETIN from the National Board. And in this edition, the NB has an article on the Hanson RV that has an indicator telling when the valve has been activated. These
Respondent operates a petrochemical manufacturing process at the Facility, utilizing regulated substances to produce vinyl chloride monomer, meeting the definition of ” process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, vinyl chloride and propylene (collectively, “regulated substances”) are each a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. EPA conducted an
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a Brewery and has registered an RMPlan with the EPA for its Facility and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the Facility. At its Facility: Respondent operates an ammonia refrigeration plant. Respondent has on-site for use, 160,300 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. Respondent has one RMProgram
WTH? Did Haywood just say that? Yep – I am afraid I did and I mean it. Now my personal actions do not reflect that belief, as I am a safety professional and I want every decision you make to be one based on YOUR SAFETY. But as a business, safety can never be #1!
Buzz words… oh how I have come to hate them. In my earlier days in this profession, it was called “flavor of the month safety” as we had some catchphrase or “program” we’d implement to try and break through the “mental fog” that caused workers to work unsafely. Then came along the “silver bullet of
We do a lot of work in flammable atmospheres so yes we have rather high standards for what “minimal compliance” looks like. We recently came across this situation while performing an assessment for a facility that has suffered from a flash fire months earlier. During our walk-thru of the area (they knew we were coming)
Both 1910.178 and 1910.147 have requirements that we periodically evaluate employees’ performance in their ability to perform LOTO and drive PITs in the manner in which they were trained. As I have discussed many times, just doing annual LOTO training without some type of “field verification” that the authorized employees are functioning within the program’s
