Tip: In the “good old days,” this was crystal clear, such that a 3rd grader could audit these requirements! Today, one needs a calculator and a long tape measure to make this determination!!! Let’s break this down by OSHA first, then NFPA, then IFC…
Regional OSHA activity and compliance publications over the past month highlight renewed inspection scrutiny surrounding flammable liquid transfer, storage, and bonding/grounding:
The CSB examines two (2) high-consequence incidents in 2025 that were caused by workers mistakenly disassembling the wrong equipment.
Fireproofing piping supports — specifically the application of Passive Fire Protection (PFP)— is a critical mitigation strategy designed to prevent the structural collapse of pipe racks during a flammable liquid fire. In most state fire codes and the IFC, flammable liquid piping supports inside a secondary containment are REQUIRED to be protected from the effects
PLEASE ensure your “life safety” contractor inspector for Exits, Fire Extinguishers, EW/SSs, etc., is FULLY trained on the hazards of the area(s) they will be working in. This year, we have found two (2) national companies that provide these inspection services using electronic devices NOT rated for the hazardous areas where they are working. We
Four (4) workers were injured at a worksite on April 30, 2024, while offloading flammable solvents from a vacuum truck into a storage tanker. At the same time, other workers positioned a hydrovac truck in an adjacent bay to offload a wastewater-and-slurry mixture. During this process, flammable vapors were released and drawn into the idling
NOTE: If you’re in an INDUSTRIAL facility, especially one with a PSM/RMP-covered process, B31.9 is NOT your piping RAGAGEP! IFC 5703.6.3 dictates that piping for flammable and combustible liquids must be hydrostatically tested to 150% of the maximum anticipated pressure (or pneumatically tested to 110%). However, it offers a carve-out: “Unless tested in accordance with
When flammable liquid tanks are equalized — meaning they are interconnected by piping that allows fluid levels to equalize between them — we MUST account for this in our secondary containment design. From a regulatory and engineering standpoint, the governing principle is to protect against the worst-case single-event release. If tanks are interconnected, a failure
A worker was standing on top of a tanker truck to transfer gasoline from a tanker trailer to the tanker truck. The tanker truck’s engine was running, and the pumping system was engaged. The worker opened access hole covers to a compartment in the truck that held diesel and to another that was empty. Some
OSHA, IFC, and NFPA have “separation distance” requirements for flammable liquid storage tanks. These requirements have been around longer than I have been dealing with hazardous materials and process safety, and yet we always come across some wildly out of “compliance” arrangements of these flammable liquid tanks. using OSHA’s Flammable Liquid Standard 1910.106 we can
NFPA has updated its NFPA 497, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Flammable Liquids, Gases, or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, with a few minor revisions. Probably the most significant revision is NFPA’s position on “intentional releases and maintenance venting.” The most beneficial revision was NFPA officially
In the 2027 edition of NFPA 30, the standard now provides a NEW schematic illustrating the spatial layout of hazardous (classified) locations for indoor areas with process equipment containing ignitible (flammable or combustible) liquids at pressures of 100 psig or less. I am not sure why they included this in NFPA 30 (Chapter 7) or
