This Instruction STD from MI-OSHA is too good not to share with those who deal with 1910.106(e) and their flammable liquids safety efforts. It does a nice job comparing the 1910.106 (which is based on the 1968 edition of NFPA 30) with the current NFPA 30 standard.
If you have followed me for years, you know I love to use the International Fire Code over outdated OSHA standards. For me, it is ALL about safety and not compliance; luckily, I have many clients who take the same approach, and we have made some serious improvements to a hazardous process. Here is a
Flammable processing areas are required to have exhaust ventilation per 1910.106(e)(3)(v). But we continue to see serious errors in the ventilation design basis, specifically where the vapors are being exhausted. The OSHA standard simply states the vapors must be exhausted to a “safe location,” but this phrase is not defined nor quantified in 1910.106.
Another great review on the design, construction, and capacity of flammable storage cabinets, a topic that seems never to go away. Safety Tip: Single-walled supply cabinets do not work.
At 1:30 p.m. on December 27, 2021, two employees worked in spray painting operations on a ship. At some point, the hose line was clogged with debris and paint material. The employees poured paint thinner into the hose to attempt to clear the clog. Employee #1 held the hose line while Employee #2 regulated the
This question causes quite the debate during our audits/assessments! My record is 27 full-size cabinets in a single control area. It was actually inside a single, but large room that had NO fire ratings. And when I began to question the number and load of flammables in the room, you would have thought I shot
Call me crazy, but this just blew me away. And once again we find ourselves faced with an “industry practice” vs. “RAGAGEP”. We were at a facility several years ago where pieces of equipment are painted and this painting is a huge pride of the manufacturing sector and hence they have some very tight QA
This is an EXCELLENT 1-page Alert on the hazards of “Splash filling” non-conductive flammable liquids. SPEED MATTERS, as does process design! To read more on handling non-conductive flammable liquids CLICK HERE
The report said an abnormal flow of electricity occurred as a result of “improperly grounded equipment” in the roof area of the tank, a static discharge or ignition charge in the tank was the “most probable cause of ignition” in the October 15, 2019 incident. The tank’s roof
This is a very high-tech and expensive VaneometerTM. I am kidding, it is only around $40 and it may be one of the simplest safety devices we will ever use. But don’t let the price or simplicity fool you – it is an ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL device for those of you that have ventilation systems, especially
Years ago, WorkSafe British Columbia (BC) put out a really nice video about a fatality caused by a worker welding on a used Acetone Drum. Although the video states the drum is a 44-gallon drum, it is in fact a 55-gallon drum. 44 imperial gallons is equal to 52 US gallons – which we call
The major hazard involved with transferring flammable liquids is static build-up due to charge separation with the potential for discharge resulting in fire and subsequent loss of containment. Certain non-polar liquids can be charged while flowing through piping. Detectable and hazardous charges must be expected if the specific resistance of the liquid exceeds 108 ohms.
