On the most basic level, can a PSM/RMP program function and comply with all regulatory requirements and NOT have a calibrated direct-reading instrument? This is not meant to be a trick question, but rather looking to “ground me” in my expectations. Having grown up in the PSM/RMP era in petrochem for 20 years, having a […]
U.S. Department of TransportationPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety AdministrationOffice of Hazardous Material Safety2013 (All Column Values) Hazmat Summary by Transportation Phase CLICK HERECLICK HERE to work with the database
Last week I shared an article from allgov.com that provided some data on Ammonia releases. The article was not well received by some folks and others appreciated the info, which is par for the course when you post this kind of material. But some have gone off the deep-end and called the article “spin” and
2014 Fatality Tracker Electrical 31 (2013 = 32) (2012 = 68) Forklift/Manlift 34 (2013=62) (2012 = 52) Mining* 389 2013=87*) (2012 = 92*) *no longer includes China Explosions 137 (2013=194) (2012 = 241) Cranes 14 (2013=51) (2012 = 52) Falls 74 (2013=106) (2012 = 99) Work Zone 20 (2013=42) (2012 = 62) Trenching
The host facility, an anhydrous ammonia storage facility, contracted with a company, who in turn, contracted with Respondent (sub-contractor) to perform services on pipelines within the facility. Respondent provides sixteen different services or “lines”, as it refers to them. Each of these lines is comprised of crew members that have been trained and tested in
At approximately 0645 (UTC+1) on 26 May 2014, three crew members on board a cargo ship were found unconscious in the main cargo hold forward access compartment, which was sited in the vessel’s forecastle. The crew members were recovered from the compartment but, despite intensive resuscitation efforts by their rescuers, they did not survive.
Respondent owns and operates an agricultural chemical manufacturing facility. Respondent has been subject to the RMP requirements since June 21, 1999, as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(a)(1), because the facility used, stored, manufactured, or handled more than the TQ of 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a single process as of that date. Respondent
Respondent owns and operates a liquefied petroleum gas manufacturing and storage facility. On January 26, 2005 Respondent submitted to U.S. EPA a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for its Facility. On July 5, 2012, U.S. EPA conducted an inspection at Respondent’s Facility to determine its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondent held 10,000 lbs. or
Respondent’s denaturant process contains a mixture with a NFPA rating of 4, and is therefore a flammable mixture as specified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.115(b)(2). On or about May 2-3, 2012, EPA conducted an inspection to determine compliance with RMP 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondent’s denaturant process stores approximately 715,000 pounds, with the entire weight
EPA Region 10 cited a seafood processing facility located in Alaska for RMP issues around their Anhydrous ammonia and Chlorine processes. Respondent has been subject to the RMP requirements since June 21, 1999, the date on which the facility first used, stored, manufactured, or handled more than the TQ of anhydrous ammonia in a single
