As I have said for years, we may never know where the nasty rumor came from that installing threaded and/or flanged piping is easier and cheaper than welded pipe. That is a “pipe dream”… LOL see what I did there? For example, did you know that if the piping will be pneumatically pressure tested, then […]
One of the significant deficiencies we find in our audits/investigations is the lack of meeting ASME B31.3/.5 to install process piping. I have written about this topic for decades, and I still get inquiries monthly about this standard and its critical role in real process safety management. For those who attend my 5-day Advanced PS
Those of you who practice in the Process Safety arena are well aware of OSHA’s and EPA’s requirements to have “written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.” (1910.119(j)(2). However, OSHA and EPA also have a section in their Mechanical Integrity elements titled “Quality Assurance.” 1910.119(j)(6) Quality assurance. 1910.119(j)(6)(i) In the construction of
Most safety professionals are well aware of the many medical evaluations required by OSHA standards, such as those for workers wearing respirators, emergency responders, etc. But we also have a medical evaluation requirement in Process Safety Management that plays a critical role in our piping Quality Assurance (QA) program. When using either ASME B31.3 or
I see severe risk-taking regarding “safety assumptions” in process safety in my travels. I guess I am just “old school” and believe that every Pressure Vessel (PV) deserves its very own Pressure Relieving Device (PRD). But in today’s economy, where “costs” can be a driver in decision-making, I have experienced numerous scenarios where a single
For my Process Safety followers, here is your Monday Morning “trick question” (which I do not know the answer to)… Scenario: I have an ASME Section VIII Pressure Vessel that will be used in flammable liquid service. The “dip leg(s)” inside the vessel do not extend down to 6″ from the bottom of the vessel
Please note, this is NOT a chemical process safety incident, but the design failures and human errors are directly related to process safety hazards. The design of a new passenger ferry’s engine and inadequate follow-on training for engineering crewmembers led to a 2022 fire aboard a Staten Island Ferry. The fire broke out in the
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General is issuing this fraud alert to highlight an increasingly common phishing scam involving fraudulent EPA Notice of Violation letters. In this scam, a fraudster sends a falsified EPA Notice of Violation letter to a target business and requests that the business respond by phone or email.
The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) updated its published list of reported chemical release incidents. These are not incidents that the CSB is investigating, these are incidents that were reported to the CSB under their Accidental Release Reporting rules (40 CFR 1604).
Members can view the frame-by-frame footage showing the event…
I love the CSB’s work, but this study could have been said in really simple terms… State Fire Code(s)! I have written dozens of articles explaining the specific requirements of the International Fire Code (IFC), from which most of the 50 states have adopted some “revised” version. Chapter 50 of the IFC (and those states
Many thanks to my friend in safety down under, Mr. Peter Hunt, Director and Principal Consultant, Whamcorp Pty Ltd On 25 March 1991, a contractor died after an ammonia tank he was upgrading exploded at the ICI plant. BACKGROUND
