ย
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
I am proud to announce that SAFTENG and The Chlorine Institute have renewed our partnership for another year (through 2026).ย Members of The Chlorine Institute receive a FREE SAFTENG membership.ย If you qualify, please contact me
NOTE: Any trade group interested in becoming a partner with SAFTENG for your Member Companies, please reach out, and I can share the plan
SAFTENG has:
- Over 19,000 categorized unsafe acts/conditions and accident/injury photos
- Over 1,500 ppt's & doc's in the SAFTENG Library
- Over 5,000 Technical Articles on Process Safety, Emergency Response & OSH topics
- Over 450 videos (those not allowed on YouTube Channel)
Many THANKS to my NEW Members and those who CONTINUE to support SAFTENG:
Another Fatality OSHA Case file involving a Water Valve Pit (Hazard Information Bulletin regarding Asphyxiation Hazard in Pits: Potential Confined Space Problem) – a SINGLE entrant (the job foreman), a would-be-rescuer, and potentially another would-be-rescuer. The water valve pit was 7 ft in diameter and 16 ft deep. The vault contained a 12″ water main and a 4″ water...
Read More
A few weeks ago we were debating in my FaceBook Group about these vaults being a PRCS. The picture in question (shown to the left – full scale in the article) had a working platform just a little more than 4′ down inside the vault, but the fixed ladder went all the way down to the bottom of the vault, approximately 12′ – 14′ deep. The platform was built with...
Read More
We go all the way back to 1996 and OSHA issued a Hazard Information Bulletin regarding Asphyxiation Hazard in Pits: Potential Confined Space Problem. Fast forward 23 years later and we have this: At 2:23 p.m. on July 8, 2019, a worker employed by a utilities construction company was working in an underground vault. He was checking a water main valve when he lost consciousness and collapsed....
Read More
This inspection was for the purpose of determining compliance with Section 112(r)(7) accidental release prevention requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The scope of this Inspection may include, but is not limited to:
reviewing and obtaining copies of documents and records
Interviews and taking of statements
reviewing of chemical storage, handling, processing. and use
taking samples...
Read More
Respondent is a Poultry Processor doing business in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. On November 10, 2016, the EPA issued to Respondent a Notice of Concern letter which informed the Respondent that EPA had concerns that the Respondent was not in compliance with the CAA Section 112(r). The Respondent and EPA met on February 21, 2017, to discuss the Notice of Concern letter. On March...
Read More
On Sunday, February 23rd at approximately 12:34 AM, the Joplin Fire Department responded to a reported structure fire with people possibly still inside. A Joplin Police Department officer in the neighborhood patroling arrived at the same time we were getting the call and was able to assist all occupants out of the structure through the back door. Fortunately, there were no injuries during this fire...
Read More
This is a lesson in reporting your releases! Two releases of anhydrous ammonia from a refrigeration process result in $150,000 in fines ($75K for EPCRA and $75K for CERCLA) and a $425,000 SEP to install detectors and emergency shutdown systems. The Complaint alleges that:
Respondent violated Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) by failing...
Read More
Respondent owns a chemical supply outlet where chlorine was present in a process above the 2,500 pounds TQ, and sulfur dioxide was in a present in a process above the 5,000 pounds TQ from at least March 16, 2010. Respondent was required to submit and have in place an RMP for the facility. Under 40 C.F.R. ยง 68.10(h) a covered process is subject to Program 3 if the process does not meet the Program...
Read More
On March 2, 2012 Employee #1 of a food processing company was standing-by while a contractor was pressure testing a newly installed compressed air unit. The pipe exploded when the contractor tried to tighten a joint on a leaking pipe and employee #1 was struck in the head by a two-inch steel pipe.
…
HomeRead More »
Read More
We have discussed “pressure testing” and the hazards associated with these required tests many times. This is an example of what can go wrong when doing these tests with a compressed gas vs. hydrostatically! A mechanical contractor was increasing the pressure into the 4-inch compressed air line from approximately 125psi to the TEST PRESSURE of 175 psi a failure occurred. ...
Read More
OSHA has dined a Delaware Rail Car Tank Cleaning And Repair Facility $371,276 for Safety and Health Hazards. This same company, different location, was cited last year after a PRCS fatality inside a Rail Car (PRCS fatality cleaning a railcar (Oxygen Deficient and $551K): Membership Content). This inspection was initiated due to a complaint, but surely OSHA has to be considering...
Read More
Earlier today I posted a recent OSHA citation where a facility was cited for not having procedures regarding the means to isolate and verify ZES for pneumatic energy sources (i.e. plant air). For some reason, on nearly all of my LOTO projects I find that air sources are a bastardized source of energy when it comes to a means to isolate it and verify it is at a Zero Energy State (ZES). A...
Read More
Partner Organizations
Member Associations
