how did TEXAS protect its citizens and workers from injury due to failure of Pressure vessel?

The same is true for New Mexico, Michigan, Connecticut, Louisiana, West Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, South Carolina, Montana, and South Dakota:


I'm not sure why the states listed above don't make stamping mandatory but in my experience companies in those states still require "U" stamps for their pressure vessels.


-Christine

Thanks, Christine.
i try my best to figure out a answer that maybe the system in US is so good that, Texas and other states without regulation just benefit from the system without effort.

still i have another question, do all the insurance companies dictate U stamp in US when providing service?
is it insurance company's own choice based on market competition or forced by any state/federal law or regulation?

who may provide any insight on this?
thanks so much.

jay Personal opinion here, but the way I see it is this: a regulatory body - which may or may not be the government at municipal, state, or federal level - can set certain requirements - sometimes as a guide (i.e., "you can choose to do this since it's a good idea"), sometimes as a recommendation (i.e., "you really should do this but we can't force you to do so"), or as a standard (i.e., "you don't have a choice anymore - you must do it this way"). In some areas, the public regulatory bodies - meaning the government at various levels - tend to have a laissez-faire attitude toward business in general, in the hopes that more business will come their way, yielding the inevitable tax dollars to fund other things in the community. Other areas think everyone is guilty until proven innocent - or at least have enough bad experiences to bring the hammer down and they tend to set stricter regulations. It is interesting to note that the more populous regions tend to be stricter, whereas where there are still "wide open spaces" there is less regulatory interaction. Perhaps this is a case of "out of sight, out of mind"?

As to insurance: their first priority is to make money (for themselves), which generally means not paying out on claims if at all possible. As a result, the insurance company sets requirements that are at least as stringent as the regulatory body - and sometimes more so. One example of the "more so" is the requirement that costly "critical" spares be kept in working order to limit loss of production (which can often be part of the claimed damages from an incident). Companies are also interested in keeping profits: with the virtually no limits on maximum financial damages due to warranty or compensation (read "machine fails" for a manufacturer, and "people get injured" for an operator), it behooves the company to do everything it can to prevent that unwanted outflow of capital. Thus the "sharing best practices" approach between companies in similar industries - particularly petroleum and chemical industries, but other industries as well. Some industries even go so far as to have their own "standards" related to safety and performance - most often a direct result of "lessons learned". An example of industry-specific standards in this vein is the group of API (American Petroleum Institute) standards related to mechanical, electrical, civil, and process engineering.

Converting energy to motion for more than half a century

Gr8blu,

Thanks for your valuable insight, which really inspires me so much.

Regards.

Gr8blu,
i am still a little confused, as i just accidentally heard that A manufacturer of lithium carbonate is investing a project in South Carolina without Insurance.

now let's just imagine such a condition that, the State don't mandate ASME U stamp for Pressure vessels, and Insurance company are completely absent, if the company is daring enough to earn the last cent at the cost of risking workers' safety, who may protect workers and residents living around the plant. Does their safety just rely on the company's conscience?
where is check and balance?

i favor the theory that government shall not intervene the business activity too much, but if it is related to the people's health and welfare, government shall be present.

Thanks in advance.

Not unusual for vessel contracts to state "design, manufacture, inspect to" Code, but not stamped.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Thanks Mike,
and i just like to figure out why the company behaves that way as you stated.
yeah maybe the question has nothing to do with CODE anymore, more economics-related probably.

Thanks.

I don't know for sure, but I understood, at least for Texas, that if stamped, periodic inspections (annual? by the state?) were required, if not stamped they were not. These were shell & tube HX in refinery service mostly. So take that for what its worth

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Why do you think everything (safety related) goes so well in Texas? Numerous accidents in the petrochemical and chemical industries have occured in the past and will occur in the future. Not to mention gun related and motorist related deaths.

In terms of workplace fatalities per capita, Texas appears to be fairly average as compared with other states. And I would guess that Texas probably has more oil refineries, chemical plants, and other dangerous heavy industries per capita than most states.


Statistics for motor vehicle fatalities per capita are similar, nothing really out of the ordinary.



-Christine

Mike,weldstan,
thanks for your comments.

Christine
THanks for your sharing, data talks.

Cheers.

hi Christine74,
Could you please share a snapshot of the workplace fatalities per capita, asi can't access the site you posted.
thanks so much.

jay_pv,

Click on my links above then click "Data Table" then "Download Table" (sorry it didn't let me provide a direct link). The data provided is the Total Fatal Injuries Rate per state per year, so you would probably need to average several years together to get a meaningful comparison.


-Christine