For those of us living the process safety world, we will find this report laughable! By that I mean, we have to evaluate our contractor’s safety performance before hiring them to work in, on or adjacent to our covered processes, but apparently the government does not see the value in evaluating the contractors it hires! […]
Plant was cited for six process safety management standard violations, including one willful, after an explosion in June killed two workers and injured 80 people. A willful violation was cited for failing to develop clear, written procedures for how to change and put idle pressure vessels into service. The five (5) serious and one (1)
OSHA has cited a manufacturer of polystyrene foam core board for willful, repeat and serious safety violations. The business faces a total of $105,490 in proposed penalties following two inspections by OSHA’s Hartford Area Office. The first inspection, begun on May 31, identified several deficiencies in the plant’s process safety management program involving the chemical
OSHA has cited an industrial gas manufacturer for 19 serious safety violations following an inspection at its repackaging facility. The inspection began in May under OSHA’s national emphasis program for process safety management for covered chemical facilities. Proposed fines total $49,200. Here is a breakdown of the actual citations:
Many do not realize I am on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. I am friends with several OSHA personnel (active and retired), CSB personnel (active and retired), etc. and we have some really nice discussions on-line about safety and accidents. One of my safety friends, John Newquist, Retired Assistant Regional Administrator OSHA Region V, out this together after
ASME has introduced a new Certification Mark with the 2011 Addenda to the Code. All new applicants receive the Certification Mark this year. Until December 31, 2012, the Code Symbol Stamps may still be used, but will be replaced by the new Certification Mark together with the designator letter “U”, “S”, “PP”, etc. As of
This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements referenced below and may not be applicable to any question not included in your original correspondence. You inquire about OSHA’s standard for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM), 29 CFR 1910.119. Specifically, you ask about for mechanics repairing and/or testing pressure relief devices. We
IBC Table 307.1(1)—Maximum Allowable Quantity per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard sets forth maximum allowable quantities for physical hazard materials. All three (3) situations (storage, use-closed, and use-open) are considered. For the specific case of gases, maximum allowable amounts are all listed under storage and use-closed because the definition of “Use”
The IFC and IBC are written based on the Maximum Allowable Quantity (MAQ) of the hazardous materials involved. Many will look at the tables and find their MAQ; however, the footnotes contain a lot of liberties that could quadruple the MAQs if certain designs are in place. Given this basic understanding of maximum allowable quantities
The Logistics Section Chief (LSC), a member of the General Staff, is responsible for providing facilities, services and materials in support of the incident. The LSC participates in development and implementation of the Incident Action Plan (IAP), activates and supervises assigned Branches/Units, and is responsible for the safety and welfare of Logistics Section personnel.
Here is a look at the 12 things OSHA wants to revise with regards to the PSM standard and its enforcement: Clarifying the PSM Exemption for Atmospheric Storage Tanks Expanding PSM Coverage and Requirements for Reactivity Hazards Updating the List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals in Appendix A of the PSM Standard Revising the PSM Standard
On July 17, 2013, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the CAA. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the CAA by failing to comply with
