osha chemical safety initiatives socma washington, dc december 5, 2007
TRANSCRIPT
OSHA Chemical Safety Initiatives
SOCMA
Washington, DC
December 5, 2007
Fatality/Catastrophe PSM Incidents
4
19
24
18
1311
17 1718
12
3
10
75
0
5
10
15
20
25
FA
T-C
AT
S
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
From DEP Fatality Study
What’s Up with OSHA
• Refinery National Emphasis Program (NEP)
• Pilot “Chemical Plant” CPL
• “MOTIVA” Interpretation
– Federal Register Notice
• Combustible Dust NEP
• Guidance
• HAZ Comm/GHS ANPR
‘Motiva” Interpretation
• 2 Business Units– Refinery– Distribution Terminal
• Interconnection of >>> TQ flammable gas
• Fire During Loading– Driver burned
Refinery Complex
7 Propane Bullets >>> TQ
Interconnected to Distribution Terminal
Truck Distribution Rack
Distribution Terminal
Motiva Background
• Issue of interconnection of flammable materials is key to the enforcement of the PSM standard
• Motiva appealed OSHA PSM citations– Motiva only argued scope/application of standard– OSHA won the case at the ALJ level.
• OSHA then lost case at the OSH Review Commission - Motiva Enterprises, 21 BNA OSHC 1696 (OSHRC No. 02-2160, 2006).
• The Review Commission questioned whether the regulatory text was meant to limit the coverage of the PSM standard to a HHC process, that was both “on-site” and “in one location” as per scope/application of 1910.119.
Motiva Background
• Review Commission decided – Could not determine that the cited activities were "on site" and "in one
location”– Absence of an authoritative interpretation – Vacated the citations.
• The Review Commission recognized– OSHA is the agency responsible for policymaking under the OSH Act– Commission left it to OSHA to decide
• "in the first instance . . . the meaning of these terms and offer an 'authoritative interpretation.'"
• "[a]ny such subsequent interpretation" would be reviewed in a future case "under 'standard deference principles.'"
• FR Notice addresses OSHA’s interpretation of the term “on site in one location” in the scope and application section of the PSM standard
• Bottom Line– Interpretation and application of scope provisions of PSM stays the same– NOTHING has changed – FR Notice reiterated OSHA’s current interpretation
Refinery National Emphasis Program
• OSHA national PSM enforcement program– Program (NEP) for inspecting petroleum refineries
– SIC 2911 and NAICS 324110
• Contains policies and procedures to verify employers’
compliance with OSHA’s PSM standard
• Primary Purpose: Tool for OSHA CSHOs to determine
compliance w/PSM
Why Refinery NEP
• Need for OSHA to conduct programmed inspections at high risk facilities
• FAT/CAT data indicates refineries are good place to start– SIC 2911 experienced 36
FAT/CATS since 1992– Top 4 SICs account for 40% of all
PSM FAT/CATS– Refineries account for 20% of Total– Refinery FAT/CATs > other 3 top
SICs combined
• Recent Refinery Incidents– BP TCR
Refinery FAT/CATSby Most Frequent SIC
178 Total PSM FAT/CAT Incidents
36
12
12
11
SIC 2911 SIC 2899
SIC 2869 SIC 2892
Breakdown of 152 U.S. Refineries
Federal vs. State-Plan Refineries
101
51
Feds States
101 "Federal NEP" Refineries
81
20
To Be Inspected VPP Sites
From EPA RMP Submittals
Distribution of U.S. Refineries by Region
06
8 7
16
69
3
1817
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Nu
mb
er o
f R
egio
n R
efin
erie
s
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Regions
NEP Focus Areas
• Prioritize on Implementation versus the existence of documentation– Ensure that employers do what they have committed to do
• RAGAGEP– 119(d)(3)(ii) – “…shall comply with RAGAGEP”– Mostly Equipment
• Vessels, Piping, Relief Systems, Blowdown Systems
• PHA– 119(e)(1) - “…shall identify, evaluate, and control hazards of
process” • Equipment Deficiencies
– 119(j)(5) – fix deficient equipment before further use or take necessary means to assure safe operation until deficiency can be fixed at next opportunity
• Others
New Inspection Strategy
• Evaluate PSM compliance using Inspection Priority Items (IPI)– Gap Analysis (Yes, No, N/A Questions)– Questions developed in-house
• will work in questions provided by anybody
• List Based IPI– Static List
• 95 Questions• Like all OSHA CPLs, posted on public website
– Dynamic List• 8 to 15 questions/list• Changes every 2 to 6 weeks• “Secret List” for inspection integrity
– Not posted on OSHA’s public website
So Far….
• NEP launched June 7, 2007
• 16 NEP inspections started/on-going– No inspections have been completed– Therefore, no citations issued to-date
• Early inspections finding many deficiencies– CSHOs going “off-script”
• Many deficiencies found that are not related to IPI• Resulting in longer inspections than originally planned
Some Findings…
• Findings are varied• Some specific deficiencies found
– PHA recommendations not resolved– No car seals for isolation valves on relief discharge lines
• Low hanging fruit
– Piping well below retirement thickness– Facility siting – control room– Facility siting – emergency isolation valves– Relief study recommendations as part of PHA not resolved– Factors contributing to the incident not listed in report– Contractors not included in investigation team when required– MOC documentation not complete for vessel rerate– Design basis for relief system does not exist– LOTO failure to verify deenerization– Contractors hot work practices
“Chemical Plant” ComplianceDirective
• Need for programmed inspections at high risk chemical facilities
• PSM inspection resources fully deployed conducting NEP
• Pilot Program for Chemical Facilities– Regions with few NEP inspections– 1 year in duration
• Decision near end of NEP to fully deploy Chem CPL
Pilot Chem CPL
• Details TBD• Thoughts
– Targeting Sites to be Inspected• Use RMP Program 3 facilities as main target for
selecting sites for inspection• Add SICs typically covered by PSM which are
not covered by RMP
– Inspection Strategy• Many inspections, shorter duration• Use Dynamic List IPI concept
Combustible Dust NEP
• 280 dust fires and explosions in U.S. industrial facilities – past 25 years– 119 fatalities and over 700 injuries– Per CSB
• National Emphasis Program• Policies and procedures for inspecting
workplaces that create or handle combustible dusts.
Combustible Dust CPL
• CPL 03-00-006– http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/
CPL_03-00-006.pdf
• Issued October 18, 2007
Hazard Communication
• Considering adoption of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS)
• Published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 9/12/2006
• Accepted comments until 11/13/2006
Hazard Communication
• Other OSHA standards may be affected
• Will likely need to change hazard communication provisions in OSHA’s substance-specific standards to be consistent.
• May also need to address parts of other standards that have criteria for hazard definitions, such as flammable liquids.
Completed Guidance Projects
• Motor vehicle safety
• Combustible dust (SHIB)
• Indoor air (mold)
• Pandemic flu preparedness
• Glutaraldehyde
• Perchloroethylene
Completed Guidance Projects
• Guidance for Hazard Determination (HazCom)
• Motor vehicle safety at marine terminals
• Slings
• Marine terminal crane radio communication
Guidance Projects in Development
• Hazard communication/GHS
• PPE for emergency response
• Reactive chemicals
• Combustible dust poster
• Lockout/tagout checklist
