OSHA issues REVISED 2017 National Emphasis Program for PSM Covered Chemical Facilities

This week OSHA issued a REVISED PSM NEP. This instruction describes an updated initiative by OSHA. Under the previous related instructions, OSHA conducted inspections of facilities covered by OSHA’s PSM standard either through an instruction specific to petroleum refineries or an instruction related to all other PSM covered chemical facilities excluding petroleum refineries. This REVISED instruction is applicable to ALL facilities, including petroleum refineries, covered by the PSM standard. NEP inspections conducted at petroleum refineries will NOW be conducted in the SAME MANNER as NEP inspections conducted at all other facilities covered by this instruction. The PSM-covered Chemical Facilities NEP (CHEM NEP) REQUIRES State Plan adoption. Inspection targeting sources have been added to include the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Risk Management Plan (RMP) Program Levels 1 and 2 processes. This instruction also clarifies that targeting of explosive manufacturing includes pyrotechnic manufacturing facilities. This new emphasis program CANCELS CPL 03-00-014, PSM Covered Chemical Facilities National Emphasis Program, issued November 29, 2011.

OSHA promulgated the PSM standard in 1992 in response to a number of catastrophic incidents that occurred worldwide. These incidents spurred broad recognition that handling HHCs could lead to incidents that may occur infrequently but, due to their catastrophic nature, often result in multiple injuries and fatalities. On September 28, 1992, OSHA issued instruction CPL 02-02-045, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals – Compliance Guidelines and Enforcement Procedures. CPL 02-02-045 established policies, procedures, clarifications, and compliance guidance for enforcement of the PSM standard. The instruction acknowledged that Program Quality Verification (PQV) inspections were resource intensive and, therefore, OSHA would perform only a limited number each year. Consequently, very few PQV inspections have been conducted since OSHA issued CPL 02-02-045.

OSHA implemented a PSM NEP for petroleum refineries in June 2007 and an update in August 2009 (Refinery NEP). This NEP resulted in the inspection of all eligible [i.e., non-Voluntary Protection Program (VPP)] petroleum refineries in OSHA’s Federal jurisdiction. Utilizing the refinery NEP inspection program, OSHA identified a significant number of hazards that required abatement by employers. OSHA found that the inspection methodology specified by the Refinery NEP required significant resources for each inspection conducted. The Refinery NEP ended in 2011 in areas under Federal jurisdiction.

In July 2009, OSHA implemented a pilot NEP for PSM-covered chemical facilities. The pilot outlined a modified approach for inspecting PSM-covered facilities that allowed for a greater number of inspections by better allocation of OSHA resources. The pilot proved to be effective in increasing the number of PSM facilities inspected while at the same time limiting the resources required for each inspection. After a review of the pilot NEP, OSHA implemented the CHEM NEP in November 2011. This NEP applied to all non-VPP PSM-covered processes, except for petroleum refineries. Like the pilot, it employed an inspection methodology that better allocated resources, thereby allowing for a greater number of inspections. OSHA has continued to find a substantial number of hazards at facilities that are inspected under the CHEM NEP.

Since 2010, the Agency has issued 69 significant enforcement cases to chemical facility employers inspected under the CHEM NEP. During the same period, OSHA issued 24 significant enforcement cases to petroleum refinery employers. Petroleum refineries also have experienced numerous fatal and/or catastrophic process-related incidents since 2010, including the following cases:

A heat exchanger catastrophically ruptured, which caused an explosion and fire killing seven workers.
A crew was realigning pumps due to a pump seal leak in an isomerization unit when flammable materials were released, formed a vapor cloud and ignited. The fire killed one worker and hospitalized three with burn injuries.
An explosion and fire killed one worker attempting to light a process heater at a catalytic cracking unit.
A fire killed one worker and injured four when a heat exchanger in a catalytic desulfurization unit released hydrocarbons.
A sight glass failed in a hydrofluoric acid alkylation unit resulting in a hydrofluoric acid release that killed one worker.
An explosion killed two workers attempting to light a boiler at a fluid catalytic cracking unit.
Ignition of a release of flammable materials killed one contract worker attempting to install a blind flange on a knockout drum.
Flammable materials draining from a tank to a drainage system ignited hospitalizing four workers with burns.
An eight-inch-diameter pipe catastrophically ruptured, releasing flammable, high temperature light gas oil, which then formed a large vapor cloud that ignited. The ensuing explosion and fire caused minor injuries to six workers and hospitalized approximately 20 residents of the community near the refinery.
A worker died from an acute hydrogen sulfide exposure while attempting to seal a leak at a Reformer Unit.
A contract worker performing fire watch duties died from hydrogen sulfide exposure when a release occurred during “shutdown” maintenance on a catalytic cracking unit.

Based on the enforcement data, feedback from OSHA personnel and the continuation of a large number of significant petroleum refinery incidents in the U.S., OSHA has issued this instruction that outlines a modified CHEM NEP that will include petroleum refineries and will be launched OSHA-wide.

OSHA will use four (4) sources for targeting inspections:

EPA Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, Program 1, Program 2 and Program 3 RMP operator/employer submittals;
Explosives and pyrotechnics manufacturing NAICS codes;
OSHA’s Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) and OSHA’s Information System (OIS) databases for establishments with prior OSHA PSM citations; and
OSHA Area Office knowledge of local facilities

OSHA’s National Office will use the following procedure to create the National PSM Covered Chemical/Refining Targeting List:

Directorate of Enforcement Programs (DEP), OSHA National Office will obtain a list of facilities that submitted EPA Program 1, Program 2, and 3 RMPs;
Office of Statistical Analysis (OSA), OSHA National Office – Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management will provide DEP with a list of facilities identified in the IMIS or OIS databases as having been previously cited under PSM with an issuance date between January 1, 2000 through September 30, 2015;
OSA will provide DEP with a list of facilities with NAICS and/or SIC codes identified as explosives and pyrotechnics manufacturing;
To identify petroleum refining facilities DEP will use:
- the RMP Program 1, Program 2, and Program 3 list;
- the OSA list;
- the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration’s list; and
- DEP’s list of refineries from the Refinery NEP

DEP will combine these lists and sort them into four lists:

Category 1 – Facilities with NAICS Codes likely to have ammonia used for refrigeration as the ONLY HHC;
Category 2 – NAICS 32411 or 324110, Petroleum Refineries;
Category 3 – NAICS 325, Chemical Manufacturing;
Category 4 – NAICS Codes for facilities that are likely PSM covered but not Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3.

OSA will provide each region with an initial master list for their jurisdiction. Based on their familiarity with local facilities, regional offices (or at the discretion of the RO, this list can be compiled by the AO) shall:

Add any facility that is not on the national list, but are known by the Regional Office (RO) or the Area Office (AO) to operate in their jurisdiction, and are known as likely to be PSM-covered. Regional offices should note that because EPA’s RMP and OSHA’s PSM cover different chemicals, the national list may be missing PSM covered facilities – particularly those that use flammable liquids. Therefore, regional or area offices should add any listed facility that based on local knowledge is likely to be PSM-covered.
Mark for deletion any facility that is known to be out of business, documenting the basis for such determinations;
Mark for deletion any facility that is an approved participant in OSHA’s VPP or OSHA Consultation’s Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP); NOTE: VPP sites are subject to CHEM NEP inspections that are initiated by an unprogrammed activity; and
Mark for deletion any facility that has already received an inspection under the CHEM NEP in the last three (3) years since the opening conference date of the last inspection. Include the inspection number and opening conference date of the prior inspection.

The National Office will provide the regions with four (4) final master lists (one for each category) by area office jurisdiction in random number order. The NO will also provide the regions with the required number of inspections for each category at the regional level. The regions will be responsible for distributing the required number of assignments for each category amongst its area offices. The area offices will select the establishments from the master lists in the random number order provided.

For example, if Region 4 is required to complete ten (10) Category 1 inspections, it may assign

two (2) to Area Office A,
three (3) to Area Office B,
three (3) to Area Office C, and
two (2) to Area Office D

Area Office A will inspect the first two (2) establishments from its Category 1 list;
Area Office B will inspect the first three (3) establishments from its Category 1 list;
Area Office C will inspect the first three (3) establishments from its Category 1 list; and
Area Office D will inspect the first two (2) establishments from its Category 1 list

To ensure that inspections are appropriately allocated across all hazardous processes, programmed inspections will be apportioned to five (5) categories as listed below:

Category 1 – approximately 25% of the total programmed inspections;
Category 2 – The national goal will be allocated across regions by the percentage of U.S. refineries located in each region. For example, given a national annual goal of 30 refinery inspections conducted under this instruction, Region 5 would be expected to conduct 3 programmed petroleum refinery CHEM NEP inspections [30 (example national goal of total targeted programmed refinery inspections in U.S.) times 0.10 (Region 5 percentage of total U.S. refineries) = 3 targeted programmed refinery inspections in Region 5].

Note, when regions allocate inspection assignments to their area offices as discussed below, the number of programmed inspections at petroleum refineries must be met based on the PSM OSHApedia, Distribution of Programmed Federal Refinery Inspections by Region.

Category 3 Master List programmed inspections – approximately 45% of the total programmed inspections; and
Category 4 Master List programmed inspections – approximately 30% of the total programmed inspections.

The number of required inspections under this instruction is set at the regional level. The RO will allocate assignments to their area offices to meet their required annual number of inspections per the target category percentages. The region will base the allocation on available resources at the AO level. Once an AO is assigned the number of inspections to be completed, the AO must select and inspect establishments in the random order provided on their final master lists. However, the Establishment-Targeting Lists for Emphasis Programs, regional administrators memorandum allows the AO options for scheduling inspections. One of the options, for example, is the AO may select the first three establishments on the master list, sorted by ascending random number as a first cycle of three establishments. The AO can then inspect those three establishments in any order, but must finish the cycle prior to beginning a second cycle. Once the first cycle is complete, the area
office can inspect the next three establishments on the randomized master list as its second cycle. If an AO has not completed inspecting all the facilities on its master lists from the prior CHEM NEP instruction, the AO will discontinue any further inspections scheduled from the prior instruction and use the final master lists that have been developed for the update to this instruction.

Programmed Inspections vs. Unprogrammed Inspections

Programmed Inspections

Programmed inspections will be initiated using this instruction. Some establishments with PSM-covered processes may also be selected for inspection based on instructions provided in other national emphasis programs/local emphasis programs.

Unprogrammed Inspections

The following guidelines should be used for all unprogrammed inspection activities related to PSM-covered processes nationwide:

Complaint or Referral

If a complaint or referral is received relating to a PSM-covered process and it:

Involves an application of the PSM standard – the AD shall evaluate the complaint or referral item(s) according to the FOM and conduct an inspection using this instruction.

If the complaint or referral item(s) are initiated due to a complaint or referral related to a contractor employer, inspections of both the contractor and host employer should be conducted. Normally, the inspection should be limited to the complaint and referral item(s)/subject(s) and the CHEM NEP dynamic list contractor questions.

Does NOT involve an application of the PSM standard (for example, there is a complaint about fall protection hazards in a PSMcovered process) – the inspection or inquiry will normally be limited to the complaint and referral item(s)/subject(s). However, if the facility has not already been inspected using this instruction, a concurrent inspection using this NEP may be conducted at the AD’s discretion.

Using EPA’s RMP Data

EPA’s RMP rule requires operators (employers) with an RMP-covered process to develop and submit an RMP to EPA. EPA in turn posts this information to its access-limited RMP Info database through its EPA Central Data Exchange. CSHOs are encouraged to access this information prior to opening a programmed inspection, and early in the inspection process for unprogrammed inspections. OSHA and State Plan personnel may gain access to EPA’s RMP Info database. To gain access to RMP Info, follow the instructions contained in the PSM OSHApedia Intranet Web site, Instructions for Obtaining Access to EPA’s RMP Info Database.

As most RMP facilities are also covered by OSHA’s PSM standard, the specific site’s RMP Info is a resource that can be helpful for PSM inspections. For instance, RMP Info data can be used by CSHOs to determine:

Whether employers consider themselves to have either an RMP or PSM-covered process (Note: there is a specific element of RMP Info that requires operators to state whether their process is covered by PSM);
Which RMP covered chemicals and quantities are on-site;
The RMP Program Level the operator assigns and reports, which can give insight into whether the process is PSM-covered or if the operator claims a PSM exemption;
If there have been any incidents that were required to be reported to the RMP accident database;
Existing prevention and mitigation measures as reported by the operator; and
Off-site consequence analysis (OCA) data required of operators (employers) to analyze their RMP-covered process worst-case and alternate case release scenarios of covered chemicals. (Note, OCA data can provide information about potential worker exposures during releases).

To assist in the coordination of enforcement inspections, regional PSM coordinators may contact their local EPA RMP coordinators to share inspection information/results.

Emphasis on Implementation over Documentation

Based on inspection history at refineries and large chemical plants, OSHA has found that employers may have an extensive written process safety management program, but insufficient program implementation. Therefore, CSHOs should verify the implementation of PSM elements to ensure that the employer’s actual program is consistent with the written program.

Inspect Both Host and Contract Employers

CSHOs should inspect BOTH the host employer AND contract employers.

Documentation to be Requested – General and Process-Related

Documents That Should Be Requested PRIOR to Identifying the Selected Unit(s)

OSHA 300 logs for the previous three (3) years for the employer AND the process related contractors*.
ALL contract employee injury and illness logs as required by 1910.119(h)(2)(vi)*.
A list of ALL PSM-covered process/units in the complex.

A list of ALL units and the Maximum Intended Inventories* of ALL chemicals (in pounds) in each of the listed units.

Compliance Guidance: 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(C) requires employers to have process safety information (PSI) for the maximum intended inventories of chemicals that are part of their PSM-covered processes.

A summary description of the facility’s PSM program.
Unit process flow diagrams*.
Process narrative descriptions.
Host employer’s program for evaluating contract employer’s safety information.
Host employer’s program/safe work practices for controlling the entrance/exit/work of contractors and their workers in covered process areas.
Emergency Action Plan* (If the employer has 10 or fewer employees they may communicate the plan orally (29 CFR 1910.38(b)) — i.e., they may not have a written emergency action plan; and
Emergency Response Plan* if the facility is also required to comply with 29 CFR 1910.120(q).
Host employer’s program for periodically evaluating contractor performance.

Documents That Should Be Requested AFTER the Selected Unit(s) Are Identified

Piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) including legends*.
Unit electrical classification documents*.
Descriptions of safety systems (e.g., interlocks, detection or suppression systems)*.
Design codes and standards employed for process*## and equipment*## in the Selected Unit(s).
A list of all workers (i.e., hourly and supervisory) presently involved in operating the Selected Units(s), including names, job titles, work shifts, start date in the unit, and the name of the person(s) to whom they report (their supervisor).
The initial process hazard analysis*(PHA) and the most recent update/redo or revalidation* for the Selected Unit (s); this includes PHA reports*, PHA worksheets*, actions to address findings and recommendations promptly*, written schedules for actions to be completed*, and documentation of findings and recommendations*.
- Compliance Guidance: Any PHA performed after May 25, 1987 that meets the requirements of 1910.119(e) may be claimed by the employer as the initial PHA for compliance purposes, see 1910.119(e)(1)(v).
Safe upper and lower operating limits for the Selected Unit(s)*.
A list by title and unit of each PSM incident report; all PSM incident reports for the Selected Unit*.
Contract employer’s safety information and programs (this will be requested from the host employer after it is determined which contractor(s) will be inspected).
Contractor employer’s documentation of contract workers’ training, including the means used to verify employees’ understanding of the training* (this will be requested from the respective contractor employer(s) after it is determined which contractor(s) will be inspected).
Other documents as specified in the Dynamic Lists

*Documents specifically required by an OSHA standard or regulation are identified.

If employers do not have these identified/required documents, then employers may be cited independent of the dynamic list questions. In some cases, documentation may have been produced by a consultant or contractor.

Prior to beginning the initial walkaround inspections, the team shall request an explanation of the company’s PSM programs including, but not limited to:

A briefing on the PSM program components and how the facility implements them;
Identification by name and position of personnel responsible for implementing the standard’s various elements;
A description of company records used to verify compliance with standards; and
A review of the written summary description of the PSM program

Initial Walkaround

After the opening conference, the inspection may begin with a brief initial walkaround inspection of those portions of the facility within the scope of the PSM standard. During the initial walk around CSHOs should:

Look for differences between what was presented in the PSM overview discussion and actual conditions;
Gather information to aid in the selection of the process unit(s) a.k.a. selected unit(s) to be inspected;
Obtain a basic overview of the facility’s operations;
Observe potential hazards including, but not limited to, pipe work at risk of impact, corroded or leaking equipment, unit or control room siting and trailer location, relief devices and vents that discharge to atmosphere, and ongoing construction and maintenance activities;
Solicit input from workers and their representatives and contract employees concerning potential PSM program deficiencies.
- Compliance Guidance: Additional walkaround activity will be necessary after the Selected Unit(s) is identified.

Inspection of Contractors and Temporary Workers

If the facility is using contractors in PSM covered operations:

ALL contractors (including subcontractors) working on or adjacent to the selected unit should be inspected as per the Programmed Inspection section in this instruction. If an inspection is initiated as a result of an unprogrammed activity, contractors should be inspected as per the Unprogrammed Inspection section in this instruction.
CSHOs should use the applicable questions in the current Chemical NEP Dynamic List of Questions; General List – Host and Contract Employer Questions (Required) (See PSM OSHApedia Intranet Web site) when evaluating host and contractor employer compliance. CSHOs should also use the applicable questions in this list to evaluate the employer’s compliance with PSM requirements for host and contract employers and their employees.
If there are no contractors working on or adjacent to the selected unit when the team leader is prepared to inspect the contract employers, then the team leader needs to choose an additional PSM-covered process where contractors are known to be working, and inspect those contractors.

Temporary workers (workers supplied to a host employer and paid by a staffing agency). CSHOs should determine if there are any workers working on or near a PSMcovered selected unit and exposed to a violative condition are temporary. When OSHA finds a temporary worker exposed to a violative condition, and is it determined that a joint employer situation exists, OSHA may issue citations to either or both of the employers, depending on the specific facts of the case.

CLICK HERE for the FULL NEP

Related Posts