Bryan Haywood

More Human Factors nightmares (NH3 to LPG Tank)

Last August I posted an incident where a 3rd party carrier unloading his/her NH3 truck to an LPG storage tank (SAFTENG Membership content).  The contents of the LPG tank had to be burned/flared off which took around 60 hours.  There were no injuries in that incident, but the consequences of such an error could be catastrophic.  And unfortunately,

Contractors and Lockout/Tagout

Those of us under Federal OSHA can let our contractors follow their own LOTO program/practices AS LONG AS they explain them to us.  However, in some states, their OSHA plan requires contractors to support the “on-site employer’s” LOTO program.  As I have written about, most workplaces struggle to manage their contractors PROPERLY when LOTO is

Line Break gone bad (Natural Gas)

Those who practice “process safety” are all too familiar with “Line/Equipment Opening” safe work practices.  Although there is NO formal OSHA standard, nor even a RAGAGEP on this extremely hazardous task, we should consider implementing a “permit” of some type to manage the risks associated with opening any pipe, line, hose, equipment that handles a

WA-OSHA’s PRCS Rescue Plan Document

This year WA-OSHA (Washington State Dept. of Labor & Industries) issued their Construction PRCS standard in February.  Since this is a State Plan Standard, it had to be at least as effective or more effective than the Federal Construction Standard on PRCS’s.  With that said, the WA state’s standard does provide us with more information,

Making sense of OSHA’s Construction PRCS Standard (WA-OSHA’s PRCS Construction Standard)

One of my favorite things about state plans… they often provide more insight into OSHA standards.  Take for instance the state of WA OSHA’s, called Washington State Dept. of Labor & Industries, Safety Standards for Confined Spaces document.  The state’s Construction standard on Confined Spaces closely mimics Federal OSHA’s requirements, but it is HOW the state’s standard

Filtering out Confusion: Respirator Reuse and Extended Use (NIOSH)

Nationwide, approximately 1.3 million workplaces provide at least a portion of their employees with respiratory protection. One of the most common types of respiratory protection is the filtering facepiece respirator (FFR), which is designed to be discarded when it becomes unsuitable for further use due to considerations of hygiene, excessive resistance, or physical damage. However,

Filtering out Confusion: User Seal Check (NIOSH)

Over 3 million United States employees in approximately 1.3 million workplaces are required to wear respiratory protection. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.134) requires an annual fit test to confirm the fit of any respirator that forms a tight seal on the wearer’s face before it is used in the workplace.1

Filtering out Confusion: Frequently Asked Questions about Respiratory Protection Fit Testing (NIOSH)

Over 3 million United States employees, in approximately 1.3 million workplaces, are required to wear respiratory protection. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.134) requires an annual respirator fit test to confirm the fit of any respirator that forms a tight seal on the wearer’s face before it is used in the

Scroll to Top