A worker, 41, sustained a serious head injury and died during a piping pressure test. A pipe had been pressurized for testing, and during the pressure release process, a plate from the pipe system broke free and hit the worker in the head. The MI-OSHA case file is still open…. Membership Required You must be...
Pressure Testing GONE BAD (Fire Protection System) Read More »
Four employees were testing an 8″ chiller pipe with pressure when a piping joint failed and an employee was struck in the shoulder and head by a valve cap. The employee was transported by ambulance to a Hospital…. Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership LevelsAlready a member? Log in...
Pressure Testing GONE BAD (8″ Pipe Failure) Read More »
On August 28, 2023, at 7:30 a.m., a worker was welding in a confined space on a ship under construction. The victim was found unresponsive inside of the confined space. Per the medical examiner’s report, the employee was killed as a result of suffocation in an oxygen-deficient environment. NOTE: this is likely due to a…...
PRCS fatality – welding in ship under construction (oxygen-deficiency during welding) Read More »
Your letter discusses concerns with the safety of compressed gas cylinders on some types of portable carts configured for “in use” or “connected for use.” Specifically, you mention that cylinders, which are top heavy and therefore can be unstable (unbalanced), are commonly found poorly secured to the cart and leave the cylinders susceptible to toppling…...
OSHA addresses Compressed Gas cylinders on carts (OSHA LOI) Read More »
After 30+ years of OSHA’s PSM standard (1910.119), we still come across far too many businesses that just do not understand the difference between the “INVESTIGATION” and the “CASUAL ANALYSIS.” I use this image from my training course(s) to help them differentiate between the two INDIVIDUAL and SEPARATE steps in the Incident Investigation element (1910.119(m))…....
Why a “causal analysis” needs to be thorough (Things may not be as they appear) Read More »
1910.165(b)(3) The employee alarm shall be distinctive and recognizable as a signal to evacuate the work area or to perform actions designated under the emergency action plan. After an employee becomes aware of an emergency situation, the next step involves actions to be performed by that employee. Generally, the actions include evacuation or emergency…...
Understanding why we have 1910.165(b)(3) (all pun intended) Read More »
My Dad had my brother and I set goals in our lives when we turned 16 years old. Financial, Professional, etc. At 16, we were too young to understand any of it, but he got us thinking. By 18, we started to have an idea of what we wanted when we “grew up”. Take for…...
What we measure and HOW we achieve our safety goals MATTERS! Read More »
I’m not asking for much, but before I leave this great and honorable profession, I just hope we can GET BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTALS! A great place to start would be to eradicate all these “Worked ____ Days” signs and progress to celebrate what got us those injury-free days. As I have said for decades……...
Literally, what it LOOKS like to leave blind luck behind and embrace LEADING INDICATORS Read More »
Did the 2024 edition of NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity establish a norm for “relaxation time”? In six (6) different sections across five (5) chapters, the recommended practice cites “30 seconds” as a “suitable precaution.” (emphasis by me)… Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership LevelsAlready a member?...
Did NFPA make “30 seconds” the norm for “relaxation time”? Read More »
How many of you have thought these two images would ever have a place in Process Safety? I use them as visual aids when teaching some of my RAGAGEP courses, as they place a mental image that most can grasp into the students’ heads and provide them with a valid engineering metric they can…...
Defining and Quantify when Shut Off Valves are necessary/required Read More »
Have you ever read a RAGAGEP and wished you had been a fly on the wall in the room where a particular requirement was presented and debated amongst the committee members? I have set on my fair share of RAGAGEP committees over the past 20 years and in almost all of muy experiences, when someone…...
What to do when my RAGAGEPs conflict (CGA 2.1, 5.8.2.1) Read More »
As we continue to “dumb down” RAGAGEPs to take away OSHA/EPA’s ability to cite fundamental engineering failures found in processes handling HHC/EHS, the issue of “conflicting requirements” continues to be troubling. As my Anhydrous Ammonia clients learned firsthand last year, with the 7th edition of CGA 2.1, the RAGAGEP has some NEW requirements for pressure…...
What to do when my RAGAGEPs conflict (CGA 2.1, 5.6.10 vs. B31.3, 345.5) Read More »
