EPA is proposing to require all facilities with Program 2 and 3 processes to conduct a root cause analysis as part of an incident investigation for an RMP-reportable accident as defined under 40 CFR 68.42. This includes requiring the root cause analysis to include specific elements, requiring the use of a recognized investigation method, and […]
EPA is proposing a requirement in 40 CFR 68.67(c)(9) for some Program 3 regulated processes to consider and document the feasibility of applying safer technologies and alternatives as part of their PHA. This requirement applies to petroleum and coal products manufacturing processes (classified in NAICS code 324) and chemical manufacturing processes (NAICS code 325) that
The location of stationary sources, and the location and configuration of regulated processes and equipment within a source, can significantly affect the severity of an accidental release. The location of the stationary source in relation to public and environmental receptors may exacerbate the impacts of an accidental release, such as blast overpressures or concentrations of
Whether caused by a natural hazard or some other event, power loss at hazardous chemical facilities can lead to a variety of negative impacts. Pumps and compressors may stop running, stirrers may quit mixing, lights may go out, and instruments and controls may malfunction. These equipment outages can lead to tank overflows, runaway chemical reactions,
A hazard evaluation is defined as the identification of individual hazards of a system, determination of the mechanisms by which they could give rise to undesired events, and evaluation of the consequences of these events on health (including public health), environment, and property. These evaluations often use qualitative techniques to pinpoint weaknesses in the design
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
