What is “corrosion allowance” and why should I care about it?
Simply put, “corrosion allowance” is an extra amount of thickness added to the thickness of the pipe/vessel wall based on the expected exposure the pipe/vessel may see during its lifespan. Typically, my experience has been that corrosion allowance has a safety factor equivalent to 2 when the vessel/pipe was knowingly going to be exposed to
EPA RMP citations @ food and cold storage facilities (NH3 & $70K)
Respondent owned and operated two food warehousing facilities. One is used for food manufacturing and refrigerated warehouse and storage and the other is used for refrigerated storage. Respondent, as owner/operator of the Facilities, has handled and/or stored anhydrous ammonia at an amount greater than the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds in a process since at
Flame-Resistant Clothing and emblems (and reflective striping) on the garments (Size now matters!)
If you have been too busy to read the latest edition of NFPA 2112 (e.g. 2018), oh boy have you missed some fun reading. For the most part, the standard is the same, but there are some significant nuggets that stand to impact a lot of facilities, especially those who allow “emblems” on their FRC.
Is Chlorine a “Highly Toxic” or just a “Toxic” HAZMAT?
Once again I go to the well that just keeps on giving guidance… the International Fire Code (IFC). And again I do this as OSHA nor EPA have any standards for Chlorine when the amount is below the 1,500 pounds for OSHA’s PSM standard to apply. Of course, there is EPA’s RMP General Duty Clause,
2018 Video of the Week #41 (LOTO failure of epic proportions)
When you use your isolation device and verify the energy is at a ZES only to find out that this is your lockout device… Guess now we need to begin verifying our lockout device actually functions as such!
NYC RMPs
I came across an interesting “Annual HAZMAT Report” for New York City and in it was a listing of the RMP facilities within the cities boundaries. Who would have ever guessed there were 366 RMP facilities within NYC borders!
Does my flammable liquid storage/processing require “explosion venting” design?
As I have said many times, OSHA’s 1910.106 is badly outdated, so for those who are looking for that extra edge to improve flammable liquids process safety (not just OSHA PSM/EPA RMP compliance, but real process safety), we should consider utilizing the 2018 International Fire Code (IFC). I should also point out that a fair
Flammable Liquids and Piping Design (IFC 2018)
The 2018 IFC has some great design requirements for flammable liquids (as does NFPA 30). Abiding by this 2018 IFC, Chapter 57 would provide a much higher degree of safety as compared to meeting OSHA’s 1910.106. So I have broken down and discussed these IFC requirements for those looking to improve their flammable liquid piping
Flammable Liquids and “low-melting-point materials”
Here we sit in the year 2018 and here I sit posting about the use of “low-melting-point materials” for use in flammable liquids and flammable gases piping systems – oh the insanity, but this debate seems to happen far too often these days! I have been working with Hazardous Materials, most notably Flammable Liquids and
EPA RMP GDC release investigation @ refinery (Flammables and Toxics; improper flange/gasketing arrangement)
Respondent owned and operated a petroleum refinery and it’s RMP lists covered processes subject to Program 3 requirements, including the Ultracracker (ULC) unit which consists of three sixty-three-foot-tall pressure cylindrical reactors, each containing five individual catalyst beds. The hydrocracking reaction converts the larger hydrocarbon chains into smaller, more valuable hydrocarbons. On March 10, 2018, operators