Back in March 2016, the Incident Alerts reported an incident at a refinery where workers were overcome while wearing air-line respirators. The facility, media, and OSHA were silent on details, but now OSHA has posted their accident summary: At approximately 8:45 a.m. on March 2, 2016, Employee #1 and Employee #2 were removing bolts from a […]
On February 2, 2011, Employees #1 and #2 were working for a petroleum and petroleum product company. Employee #1 was on top of a transport tanker into which the vice-president of the firm was transferring #1 diesel fuel, mixing it with about 1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) of #2 diesel fuel. Employee #2 was on the
On March 28, 2014, Employee #1, working at a construction company’s job site, was engaged in exterior carpentry. He was using a cutting torch. A spark from the torch fell into the worker’s front pocket. The worker had a butane lighter in his pocket. The spark caused the lighter to explode, and the worker sustained
At 3:11 p.m. on August 26, 2015, Employee #1, who had worked with the company for three months as a forklift operator/ repacking, was working alone in the repacking area making a transfer of flammable liquid acetone from an elevated 793-gallon stainless steel intermediate bulk container (tote) to a 350-gallon stainless steel tote on the
OSHA promulgated the LOTO standard in 1989, nearly 30 years ago, and yet… This is the “classic failure” that brought about the LOTO standard – employee kills employee – so when your employees say it never happens, you can provide this. At 11:57 a.m. on December 27, 2016, an employee was performing a salt flush on
Anyone who has been through an in-depth PSM/RMP audit realizes that a single finding can have far-reaching impacts and causes. This means that the finding may need more than “fixing”; it may need to be investigated. What do I mean? Here is an excellent example…
Respondent owns and operates a poultry processing facility which handles and stores approximately 49,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in its ammonia refrigeration system. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on March 31, 2014 to determine Respondent’s compliance with CAA Section 112(r)(7) and the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The Chemical
May is National Electric Safety Month – so you can guys what my videos of the week and pictures of the week will entail.
I normally do not follow or write about Construction related safety matters as it is not an area I have a lot of experience, but this decision caught my attention because next month (May 2017) OSHA’s new General Industry Fall Protection standards take hold and some of the issues in this case will be dealt
Respondent operates a breakfast food production facility that uses ammonia as its refrigerant and has on-site for use, 15,000 pounds of ammonia. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, an ammonia refrigeration process. On May 20, 2014, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of
Respondent owns and operates a Refinery and on August 26-28, 2014 EPA Region 6 conducted an unannounced, onsite CAA 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) Partial Compliance Evaluation of the Facility. The facility’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) lists covered processes subject to Program 3 requirements with flammable substances that are held above the threshold quantities identified
