On August 18, 2022, EPA signed the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) rule, which proposes revisions to the Risk Management Program (RMP) to further protect vulnerable communities from chemical accidents, especially those living near facilities with high accident rates. The proposed rule would strengthen the existing program and includes new safeguards that have not […]
Two workers received 1st and 2nd-degree chemical burns after an ammonia leak at a food processing facility. An employee of the facility attempted to isolate the auto-purger and turn it off but was exposed to ammonia. A refrigeration technician then entered the mechanical room wearing a short-sleeve t-shirt and received chemical burns. One individual received
Ruptured pipe due to corrosion under insulation Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI) is prevalent in major hazard plants both on and offshore, including nuclear and chemical plants, oil refineries, and offshore installations.
At 11:00 a.m. on May 23, 2019, an employee removed a regulator from a chlorine gas cylinder to perform yearly maintenance and repacking. When the employee attempted the close the shutoff valve, the valve malfunctioned and stopped turning while still slightly open without the employee’s knowledge. When the employee removed the regulator, chlorine gas escaped.
I have been referring SAFTENG members to subscribe to the “Bulletin,” a FREE publication from the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors. This publication is an EXCELLENT resource for those safety professionals dealing with pressure vessel safety, especially those in the process safety arena. Their latest edition covers two (2) very significant changes
The regulation governing the reporting of accidental releases can be found in title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1604, Reporting of Accidental Releases. The regulation requires the owner or operator of a stationary source to report any accidental release resulting in a fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damages. The purpose of this
Massachusetts Fire Code hazardous material processing regulation (527 CMR 33) requires a hazard evaluation or limited process safety program for many companies that have never faced this requirement before, (though many companies have been essentially performing these tasks as good practice). Many companies covered by this regulation must now document that a hazard evaluation has
This past week we witnessed a tragic incident involving chlorine (Cl2), a 25-ton ISO container, and a crane/sling failure. The incident claimed 13 workers’ lives and sent another 250 to hospitals for emergency care. Many have claimed this to be the “worst-possible outcome”. Here in the USA, we call these “Worst Case Release Scenarios” (WCS).
As we saw in Jordan last week, gases stored as liquids can “auto-refrigerate” in large-scale accelerated releases. In the aftermath pictures, we can see a clear frost line along the bottom of the ISO container, which is evidence of a refrigerated liquid level within the container. (See pic and explanation below)
Pursuant to the risk management program regulations, facilities must perform an offsite consequence analysis for the worst-case release scenario. Do the quantities of two separate vessels that are interconnected with a closed valve need to be aggregated for the worst-case release scenario analysis? NO
Stationary sources subject to the Program 3 Prevention Program requirements in 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart D, must include in their Risk Management Plan (RMP) the date of the most recent review or revision of hot work permit procedures in Section 7.13. What are hot work permit procedures and what date should the stationary source
A process covered under 40 CFR Part 68 is eligible for Program 1 requirements if it meets all of the criteria listed at 40 CFR §68.10(b). Those criteria include a requirement that the process cannot have had an accidental release of a regulated substance that led to offsite death, injury, or environmental response or restoration
