Gas Pump Static Fire
Although the title of this video claims the fire was caused by a cigarette, we can clearly see that neither person was smoking. I would also point out that the outside temperature is cold (i.e. they are wearing winter coats) and the one person has both hands in his pockets. 9 seconds into the video
Safety Glasses Special
Clear Lens Wrap Around Style Safety Glass – 12/Bx = $0.60/ea Smoke Lens Wrap Around Style Safety Glasses – 12/bx = $0.70/ea Indoor Outdoor (Clear Mirror) Lens Wrap Around Safety Glasses – 12/bx = $1.00/ea Click Here for more on this special!
Difference between OSHA’s PSM and EPA’s RMP requirements
Ever heard anyone say, “PSM and RMP are identical except for the off-site consequence requirements”? There are a lot of similarities between the two chemical safety regulations, but the two are very much different in more ways than just the “off-site consequence requirements.” Most similarities are between RMP “Program 3 Prevention Program” and OSHA’s PSM
Comparison of RMP and PSM Chemicals and Thresholds
Toxic Chemicals Regulated under RMP that are also Regulated under PSM [Alphabetical Order – 78 Substances] Chemical Name CAS No. RMP Threshold Quantity (lbs.) PSM Threshold Quantity (lbs.) Acrolein [2-Propenal] 107-02-8 5,000 150 Acrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile] 107-13-1 20,000 Not Regulated Acrylyl chloride [2-Propenoyl chloride] 814-68-6 5,000 250 Allyl alcohol [2-Propen-1-ol] 107-18-6 15,000 Not Regulated Allylamine [2-Propen-1-amine]
What is a “Safety Can”?
A “safety can” is an approved container of not more than 5-gallon (19 L) capacity having a spring-closing lid and spout cover so designed that it will relieve internal pressure whensubjected to fire exposure. Safety cans are commonly used where limited quantities of flammable and combustible liquids are required for manufacturing or research. The basicpurpose
State of Massachusetts Hazardous Materials Processing regulation (527 CMR 33)
The Massachusetts Department of Fire Services (DFS) has enacted the Hazardous Materials Processing regulation (527 CMR 33). The code was developed to help prevent the occurrence of incidents like the explosion in Leominster in 2005, the fire and explosion in Danvers in 2006 (see the CSB investigation), and the fire and explosion in Middleton in
44 Incidents & 2 Updates (2/26/12)
MANY THANKS to my NEW & RENEWING “Partners in Safety”for their support! since 2006 since 2007 since 2012 since 2006 since 2010 2012 Fatality Tracker Electrical 11 (2011 = 81) (2010 = 90) (2009 = 100) Forklift/Manlift Mobile Equipment 8 (2011 = 84) (2010 = 110) (2009 = 88)
The cord and Plug “exclusive control” concept applies ONLY to electrical cord equipment – NOT valves
So this week my good friend “Jim” and I were talking about an “accepted practice” that has grown into an “industry practice” and how OSHA has definitely drawn the line on the “cord and plug” LOTO practice such that it does NOT include valves. This “practice” involves the concept of defining “exclusive control of an energy isolating
2012 Photo of the Week #8 – Why emergency vents are CRITICAL
This week’s photo is a bit different. It is from my archives and one I use in my Flammable Liquids training courses. For those of have attended my training courses or a PHA’s on a flammable liquids process have seen my video of a very similar “tank launching” incident. The picture shows what happens when
OSHA Compliance and perceived “paperwork deficiencies”
OSHA recognizes that in some situations, violations of certain standards which require the employer to have a written program to address a hazard, or to make a written certification (e.g., hazard communication, personal protective equipment, permit-required confined spaces, and others), are perceived to be “paperwork deficiencies” rather than critically important implementation problems. In other circumstances,