{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015459723352318959, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016273393002441008, 'mean_word_length': 5.3076923076923075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reducing boiler operating staff? It might be legal but think through the risks!

There's a dire shortage of qualified and licensed boiler operators. Many states have boiler operator laws that set minimum requirements for boiler operators. Many states have allowed for variances to permit remote and unattended operations that help to counter shortages of qualified operators. In some cases, unattended operations are now permitted for periods of time that do not accurately consider all of the risks. Some states require process hazard analyses (PHAs) to allow for variances to boiler operator requirements and licensing requirements. Some states use as a reference NFPA 85, the Boiler Combustion Hazards Code, and this documents reference to PHAs for unattended operations. This document's guidance does not contain many factors related to process safety practices that are important for conducting and implementing PHAs. This article seeks to provide guidance to those who are considering reducing boiler operations staff and/or allowing for remote or unattended operations. It provides a number of considerations that address process safety risk assessment practices that should be used when these kinds of decisions are made.