CLICK HERE to Renew your Membership
CLICK HERE for a NEW Membership
CLICK HERE to see eligibility requirements for FREE Membership
If you have any questions, please contact me

SAFTENG has:

Many THANKS to my NEW Members and those who CONTINUE to support SAFTENG:

Since 2015
Since 2012
Since 2012
Since 2025
Since 2005
Since 2015
Since 2009
Since 2025
since 2023
Since 2025
Since 2025
Since 2025
Since 2021
Since 2025
csb1
CSB Issues Final Report into 2023 Fire at a Renewables Facility in Martinez, CA
Fire Severely Burned an Employee and Resulted in $350 Million in Damages The CSB released its final investigation report into the November 19, 2023, fire at the renewable diesel facility in Martinez, CA.  The incident seriously injured one employee, who suffered third-degree burns over most of his face and body and resulted in approximately $350 million in property damage to the facility. ...
Read More
Hierarchy of Excuses
Never be too confident of our written SOPs/JSAs
We MUST never be too confident of our written SOPs/JSAs. There is a good reason why “Administrative Controls” are down on the Hierarchy of Controls. When we think our SOPs/Plans are infallible, our workers will show us a thing or two… And when we investigate adverse events and this leads us to “failure to follow SOP/Training, etc.”, please remember this funny clip, as...
Read More
Victor_pic
An MOC for relocating a production line in a food processing facility?
Victor Dearman Jr. CIRO, CRST No, it doesn’t involve anything with refrigeration. Same equipment, the same people, and a better layout to improve efficiency. So why would an MOC be required if it doesn’t impact refrigeration/PSM? Well, we have to think a little beyond equipment changes in the refrigeration system for a moment, or procedural changes, etc. that we normally think about. And...
Read More
UK's HSE "Adverse Events" publication (HSG245)
Many workplaces struggle with one of the most critical elements of any attempt to manage safety and health via a safety management system – Incident Investigations. From the struggles of getting personnel to REPORT incidents (including near misses) to management recognizing these reports are GIFTS handed to us! But what normally happens, is we get employees reporting and we lose a lot of credibility...
Read More
Safety masquerading behind Hi-Vis gear
I like the fact the thieves wore “high vis” clothing to make themselves look “legitimate”. But as the story points out they were getting injured in arc flash events. I support Hi Vis workwear, as it can’t hurt to be more visible in a busy workplace, especially with a lot of mobile equipment around. My issue with high-vis requirements is that far too many think it’s some type of visible...
Read More
The European Solvents Industry Group (ESIG) lists the Top 16 Root Cause(s) of Flammable Liquid Accidents
Common root causes of incidents are: (in no specific order) … HomeRead More »
Read More
nfpa-77-code-7724
If my bonding/grounding system's resistance to ground needs to be <10/25 ohms, then why is ESD footwear allowed a resistance of 1,000,000 ohms?
This is another Top 10 question on flammable liquids safety I get from clients, cold calls, referrals, and friends. Most are familiar with the testing limits for path to ground on bonding/grounding stations of 10/25 ohms. In my previous post tonight I explained where these 10 and 25 ohm limits came from and how they are essential very LARGE SAFETY MARGINS for our systems. When we look at NFPA 77 (2024)...
Read More
nfpa-77-code-7724
If 1 meg-ohm is adequate resistance to ground, then why do we test to 10 or 25 ohms?
Theoretically, a resistance to ground of 1,000,000 ohms is considered capable of dissipating a static electrical charge. So why then does my safety program (and NFPA 77) require a resistance to ground of 10 or 25 ohms OR LESS, depending on the metal used in my system? (e.g. end-to-end resistance of a bonding wire should be less than 10 ohms for COPPER and less than 25 ohms for STAINLESS STEEL) Well,...
Read More
csb1
The CSB releases Volume 2 of its Incident Reports
Volume 2 covers 25 serious chemical incidents in 14 states: Arkansas, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois,  Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska,  Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.  These serious incidents resulted in 7 fatalities, 23 serious injuries, and approximately $1 billion in property damage. Link to Volume 2: http://www.idevmail.net/link.aspx?l=1&d=86&mid=421120&m=2672...
Read More
1983 Texaco 1
1983 Newark 1.8 Million Gasoline Storage Tank Explosion
On January 7, 1983, at approximately 12:15 am EST, a massive explosion, ignited by an overflowing gasoline storage tank at the Texaco storage facility in Newark, NJ, and a nearby incinerator, destroyed three tanks, killing one person and injuring 24, while the blast was felt up to 100 miles away. Cause:The explosion was said to be caused by a human error; specifically, workers failed to monitor a pipeline...
Read More
Biofuel Tank Fire 2024
Biofuel Tank Fire (12/2024; damaged heating coil)
Providence Fire Department Field Notes Date: 26Dec2024 Time: 15:04 Address: 130 Terminal Rd Incident No.: 2024-45273 Investigator: Eric Pedro SUMMARY  On December 26, 2024, at approximately 15:30 hours, Fire Investigators from the Providence Fire Department responded to 130 Terminal Road to conduct a fire scene investigation.  Investigators determined the fire originated in a distribution tank...
Read More
Static electricity from flowing gasoline?
Gasoline (UN1203) is a NON-conductive flammable liquid. These liquids, as all liquids, generate static electricity as they flow through hoses, piping, and free fall into tanks and containers. Since the liquid is non-conductive, it can not conduct the static charge to the hose/pipe/container so the charge can be dissipated to the “ground”. Authorities say quick work by staff helped ease...
Read More
1 12 13 14 15 16 692

Partner Organizations

Member Associations

Scroll to Top