On March 6, 2018, a 49-year-old pipefitter was hit in the chest by a pressurized 12-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe during a hydrostatic pressure test of a fire suppression system. The sudden pipe movement was attributed to a pipe joint connection failure in a buried section of the pipeline. The failure was due to […]
Imagine driving a vehicle without a dashboard. No feedback whatsoever as to how well you and the vehicle are performing. Sure, we can do it, but without feedback on our performance and the vehicle’s, I doubt we’d meet the state’s defined and quantified standards for “safe operation of a motor vehicle.” Just consider speed as
Natural gas was released into the basement of the Realty Building and caused an explosion in Youngstown, Ohio, after a member of a scrap removal crew cut into a steel pipeline. Although the cut pipeline had not been marked or otherwise identified as containing natural gas, it did contain gas, pressurized at about 38 psig,
This is not only about a failed pressure test gone bad, but it is an excellent example of how “contributing factors” play a role in accidents. Deviating from the test plan, changing the time frame in which the test is to be conducted due to a noise ordinance, etc., played a role in this multimillion-dollar
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) intends to update the medical evaluation provisions currently required by the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) for filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and loose-fitting powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs). This action will be deregulatory and / or burden reducing to employers whose employees wear such devices. This rulemaking
OSHA updated its agenda page and is saying it will publish an NPRM for the LOTO standard this December. Recent technological advancements that employ computer-based controls of hazardous energy (e.g., mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, chemical, and radiation) conflict with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) existing lock-out/tag-out (LOTO) standard. The use of these computer-based controls
WorkSafe BC (British Columbia) is proposing some thoughtful improvements to its Part 6, Substance Specific Requirements, sections 6.116 to 6.132 — Toxic Process Gases. The hazardous materials that this effort focuses on are: This standard reads much like OSHA’s PSM standard; however, this standard has a bit more specific requirements. Some Highlights of the proposed
Upon investigation, it was found that an oxygen–acetylene welding setup inside the shipping container leaked, causing the closed shipping container to fill with the highly flammable mixture of oxygen and acetylene. There was also an upright freezer in use, powered by an extension cord running into the shipping container. This energized equipment provided an ignition
This memorandum rescinds and replaces the memorandum dated January 26, 2023, on the same subject. This memorandum further clarifies the policy described in the earlier memorandum. Under this policy, Regional Administrators and/or Area Directors may refrain from grouping violations where the violations are separate and distinct, even if other OSHA policies or directives recommend grouping
It has taken me 20 years to truly understand what Clive Lloyd said in his book “From Compliance to Care.” One of my top five safety books I recommend for every safety professional and front-line manager. “Behaviors are NOT the problem – they are expressions of the problem.” I have conducted over 100 safety assessments
In less than one (1) week, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) has claimed eleven (11) souls: Six (6) at a Dairy in CO Three (3) in a sewer in TX Two (2) in a Sewage Treatment Plant This chemical has a long history of killing workers: (Note: SAFTENG membership required to access article)
Respondent is a power gas-fed generation facility, utilizing Anhydrous Ammonia in its SCR. It shares its ammonia with a neighbor who uses the NH3 in its refrigeration process. (Don’t ask me how I know) ALLEGED VIOLATIONSFollowing its February 5th, 2025, inspection, EPA alleges Respondent’s failure to:
