OSHA Chemical Safety Initiatives

SOCMA

Washington, DC December 5, 2007

Fatality/Catastrophe PSM Incidents

24 25 19 20 18 17 17 18 15 13 11 10 12 5 4 3 10 7 5 0 1992 1994 1996

From DEP Fatality Study

1998 2000 2002 2004

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

Refinery Complex 7 Propane Bullets >>> TQ Interconnected to Distribution Terminal

• 2 Business Units – Refinery – Distribution Terminal • Interconnection of >>> TQ flammable gas • Fire During Loading – Driver burned

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

12 Refinery FAT/CATS by Most Frequent SIC 178 Total PSM FAT/CAT Incidents 11 12 SIC 2911 SIC 2869 SIC 2899 SIC 2892 36

Breakdown of 152 U.S. Refineries

Federal vs. State-Plan Refineries 51 Feds States 101 101 "Federal NEP" Refineries 20 81 To Be Inspected VPP Sites From EPA RMP Submittals

Distribution of U.S. Refineries by Region

69 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 R1 6 R2 8 R3 7 16 R4 R5 R6 Regions 3 18 17 7 R7 R8 R9 R10

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” Compliance Directive

• 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/C PL_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

Questions

Mike Marshall 202-693-2179 [email protected]