Last year (2014) SAFTENG was asked to perform an assessment on several brewers to ensure compliance with OSHA standards, specifically in regards to Permit Required Confined Spaces. This review was brought on largely due to the 2013 confined space accident in Mexico which claimed the lives of seven (7) workers. We still do not know the details of that tragic accident, but it did spur quite a bit of discussion among brewers about the safety of their facilities. We were told before our arrival that the locations we would be visiting had worked closely with their insurer(s) to develop the safety program(s) in place. Still we were shocked at some of the “safety practices” we came across and the response was… this is “industry practice” and they had written documentation that this was an “accepted industry practice”. Here are the two most serious compliance issues (e.g. “practices”) we took issue with regarding HAZCOM and PRCS…
HAZCOM Labeling of secondary containers
New twist on HAZCOM labeling. Chapter 4, section 4.1.3 regarding labeling secondary containers…
“Labels are not required on portable transfer containers of less than 10 gallons, as long as the container is emptied by the end of the work shift. For example, a 5 gallon pail of iodophor solution which is left overnight at the brewery must be labeled, but the same pail discarded at the end of the shift does not need labeling during the shift in which it is used.”
Anyone have a clue where the “10 gallon” exception “if used by the end of the shift” even came from?
OSHA’s exception is actually…
1910.1200(f)(8) The employer is not required to label portable containers into which hazardous chemicals are transferred from labeled containers, and which are intended only for the immediate use of the employee who performs the transfer.
There is NO quantity (e.g. 10 gallons) listed and nothing about the “end of the shift”. The intent is that if the sole employee who did the transfer from a labeled container into their unlabeled container AND they are the ONLY employee to have exposure to the chemical in the unlabeled container, then that container does not have to be labeled as long as it remains in the employee’s possession.
Permit Required Confined Spaces
Reclassifying a PRCS to Non-PRCS using 1910.146(c)(7) is NOT a simple task and in NO WAY would OSHA rely on a control circuit to do this reclassification! But the insurance safety manual seems this is an “industry wide accepted practice for mash tuns”…
Section 4.3 states:
A mash tun with a powered mash rake is therefore a permit space according to OSHA: it has limited access, is large enough to admit a worker, is not designed for continuous occupancy, and presents the risk of mauling by the mash rake should it become activated while a worker is present in the tun. A mash tun which has an interlock, a device that locks out the mash rake when the manway is opened, may not require a permit procedure, so long as there is no other recognized hazard associated with the entry.
You can only imagine my shock when we came across workers inside a PRCS with NO LOTO applied and using a rudimentary interlock (at best) on the manway to be the sole means of energy isolation for the workers inside the PRCS. I stopped the entry and asked the workers to exit the space until the situation could be made safe. It was not welcomed by the area supervisor; even though the facility manager and the safety committee chair person both had told us that if we saw anything of serious concern they wanted us to take action immediately. Everyone was shocked at my actions and how out of line the practice actually was. It took me and the attorney I was working for the rest of the week to convince them that what they were doing was in NO WAY safe or compliant.
First:
OSHA’s 1910.147 definition of an “Energy isolating device” excludes the use of a control circut as such…
A mechanical device that physically prevents the transmission or release of energy, including but not limited to the following: A manually operated electrical circuit breaker; a disconnect switch; a manually operated switch by which the conductors of a circuit can be disconnected from all ungrounded supply conductors, and, in addition, no pole can be operated independently; a line valve; a block; and any similar device used to block or isolate energy. Push buttons, selector switches and other control circuit type devices are not energy isolating devices.
OSHA’s CPL on LOTO states:
Push-buttons, selector switches, safety interlocks and other control circuit type devices are NOT energy isolating devices.
Second:
OSHA also states in the LOTO CPL:
Pursuant to the §1910.146 standard (including its final rule preamble), electromechanical types of hazards, associated with a PRCS, must be isolated in accordance with the LOTO standard (or guarded in accordance with Machine guarding, Subpart O, requirements)
So in the most basic sense, using an unrated interlock switch which has NEVER been tested and has no certification from UL as a safety switch, can NOT be used to reclassify a PRCS. The “mash rake” MUST be locked out at its disconnect switch AND ALL entrants must have EXCLUSIVE CONTROL of that energy isolation device(s) for the rake. And folks that ONLY takes care of the “rake”. In my professional opinion all the lines to and from the mash tun must be isolated by either DB&B, Blinding/Blanking, or Disconnect & misalignment. Some of these tuns have the ability to “boil” their contents so the source of heating certainly has to be isolated using one of these three methods. I had a ton of questions about hazardous atmosphere in these vessels as there is a lot going on inside them chemically, as well as they are connected to the fermentation vessels where CO2 is present! I still have many questions about the potential for HAZ ATMs in these vessels and if there is the “potential” for a HAZ ATM to be present then the space can NOT be reclassified using (c)(7)!
Bottom line, an interlock on the manway is NOT energy isolation and in NO WAY should be used to allow entry into a Non-PRCS under (c)(7).
Want to see a picture of a Mash Tun? Click Here
NOTE: These policies apparently are used widely in the brewing industry. And although, we found these two issues (not making light of the PRCS concern) the rest of the materials were well written. I have reached out to the organization that provided the HAZCOM guidance and PRCS guidance but the reception was not warm. We encourage small businesses to reach out to RELIABLE resources (e.g. OSHA consultation and their insurance providers) to improve their safety and health; however, the cheapest (e.g. free) resource may not be the best resource. These safety manuals are very dated; going back to the days of the OSHA 200 Log (i.e. circa 1999) but they are still available for download today by anyone and apparently are used by many breweries. To be an insurance company and offering these materials is quite shocking, so user beware!