On December 3, 2020, at approximately 2:30 p.m., an accidental release of chlorine gas occurred at a plastics facility and seriously injured one employee. At the time of the incident, four (4) employees were involved in replacing an empty chlorine container with a full 2,000-pound (one-ton) container at the facility’s Ethylene Glycol unit. The unit […]
This is a perfect (and sad) example of why releases of hazardous materials need to be DEFINED and QUANTIFIED so that personnel know their LIMITATIONS in responding to said releases. This exercise is part of our PRE-PLANNING, starting with using the Tier II forms we submit each year. Just understand, the Tier II forms are
OSHA answers two (2) Respiratory Protection Program questions: To what extent does OSHA’s Respiratory Protection standard, at 29 CFR § 1910.134(e), require that the PLHCP’s medical evaluation for respirator use include consideration of factors beyond respiratory protection that affect fitness to safely perform the expected job tasks while wearing a respirator?Is there a reasonable expectation
At 10 p.m. on 3/19/18, an employee, 34, and coworker were performing preventative maintenance on a chlorine gas system used in a water filtration process. The employee and coworker were removing, and reinstalling, a flange with a black Teflon rubber gasket. They were working in a 48-foot long, 24-foot wide, and 6-foot tall crawl space
This report presents the results of inhalation and exhalation resistance, filtration performance, and organic vapor (OV) service life testing on NIOSH-approved and counterfeit respirator P100 filters, chemical cartridges, and combination cartridges. NIOSH’s pilot project showed: failed to meet all required NIOSH performance tests. CLICK HERE for full report
OSHA has issued $4M+ in citations to an electronic vehicle-related parts manufacturer. This case involves OSHA’s “instance-by-instance” (IBI) citation policy issued in 2024. The citations were for:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) intends to update the medical evaluation provisions currently required by the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) for filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and loose-fitting powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs). This action will be deregulatory and / or burden reducing to employers whose employees wear such devices. This rulemaking
This proposed change would only impact filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). OSHA is proposing an update to the Respiratory Protection Standard to amend the medical evaluation requirements specified in paragraph (e) where an employee is required to wear either a filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) or loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR)
At 11:43 a.m. on February 24, 2025, Employee #1, 61, was spray painting aircraft parts while wearing a supplied air respirator. Nitrogen backflowed into the breathing air system, displacing oxygen and asphyxiating the employee. Employee #1 was fatally injured.
UPDATED on 8/8/25 with OSHA Citations (All are being contested) At approximately 9:34 a.m. on January 10, 2025, an employee, 35, was directed to enter a 23,737-gallon rail tank car containing residues of PCBs and transformer oil to obtain wipe samples of the interior surfaces. The rail tank car was a permit-required confined space. The
Disclaimer: I am NO LONGER a fan of Powered-Air Purifying Respirators (PAPRs). It is not the PAPR’s fault; it is the science behind the increased desire to use PAPRs for all the wrong reasons and how this could be bad news for the users. PAPRs have become increasingly popular over the past decade or so
This aspect of respiratory protection is a SAFETY CRITICAL path when using Air Purifying Respirators (APRs), and in my experience, it is rarely done correctly when it is done at all. I teach my program administrators to do precisely what NIOSH has been stating since 2004. When using the Change Out software, use 1 ppm
