This can be a sensitive topic at many facilities. I was raised to believe that whenever the pressure-retaining boundary is physically broken during line or equipment opening tasks, the line or equipment MUST be pressure- and leak-tested before being returned to service. I get a lot of hate mail and even more weird looks when […]
Does the fabricator of a B31.3 piping system still have to pressure test components that are manufactured to a standard listed in Table 326.1 when that standard states that the component is hydrotested as a requirement of the standard?
To quote the IFC committee, “the purpose of performance-based design criteria is to promote innovative, flexible and responsive solutions that optimize the expenditure and consumption of resources while preserving social and economic value.” Section 5001.3 Performance-Based Design Alternative is intended to be compatible with EPA’s RMP and OSHA’s PSM requirements, so it would reduce the burden
In the video, you can see the gas company employees placing the ladder and pulling the hose that runs from the unit with the pipe. In an instant, the hose apparently ruptured, and it shot out; even the final section of the hose, where the dispensing pump is located, was about to hit another worker,
10/28/25 UPDATE: Hydrogen (H2) FATAL Line Break RIP 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙? The two deceased workers, identified as Mr K (43) and Mr A (50s), were subcontractors conducting scheduled maintenance on a hydrogen pipeline. The task involved inserting a blocking plate into a pipeline to isolate flow, a process requiring the loosening of flange bolts. The explosion
Make it make sense… I have a “water-reactive” chemical, and yet the IFC/IBC allows me to double my MAQ when the area is “sprinkled”. d. Maximum allowable quantities shall be increased 100 percent in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. Where Note e also applies, the increase for
Two (2) maintenance men at an electric power generation plant removed a check valve cover from a steam system. The section of the steam line was isolated and tagged, but it could not be vented or drained first. The section was only partially depressurized when the cover was loosened. When the employees removed all fasteners
At about 9:27 a.m. on September 5, 2008, Employee #1, was assigned to remove the cap of a check valve on a propane tank to connect a valve with a hose for a “pump down.” Instead, he removed the entire check valve, causing the rapid release of a large amount of liquid propane. The vapor
On July 26, 2006, Employee #1 performed a pneumatic leak test on a 6-in. diameter, Schedule 40, jacketed, steel pipe, after coworkers welded sections of it. Employee #1 then secured a test tree on the end of the pipe with an adjustable wrench, then pressurized the pipe, and checked it for leaks for ten minutes.
At 2:00 p.m. on March 15, 2018, Employee #1 was conducting a leak test. Sulfuric acid sprayed out and onto the employee. He suffered chemical burns to his legs and thighs and was hospitalized. Source: https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=1340616.015
Do you see it? The safety system. It’s right there in front of your eyes. This is a PSM-covered process involving flammable liquids. And what we are seeing is an air line made of plastic. This is intended to melt in a fire scenario, which would release the air, and the Fail-Safe-CLOSED valve will close.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announced a settlement with an Electric Utility, resolving a violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the CSB’s 2020 Accidental Release Reporting rule. This is the first time EPA has taken an enforcement action and reached a settlement with
