OSHA has “officially” announced the potential changes to the scope of the current PSM standard it is considering

The best birthday present a process safety engineer could ask for; especially on a birthday when a client is dealing with a tragedy.

OSHA has “officially” announced the potential changes to the scope of the current PSM standard it is considering:

Clarifying the exemption for atmospheric storage tanks;

The existing PSM standard applies in part to processes involving a flammable liquid or gas on site in one location in a quantity of 10,000 pounds or more. However, the existing PSM standard contains an exemption for “[f]lammable liquids stored in atmospheric tanks or transferred which are kept below their normal boiling point without benefit of chilling or refrigeration.” 29 CFR § 1910.119(a)(1)(ii)(B). OSHA is considering changing the language in § 1910.119(a)(1)(ii)(B) to make clear that it applies only to processes in NAICS 4247 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers.

Expanding the scope to include oil- and gas-well drilling and servicing;

The PSM standard exempts oil and gas drilling and servicing operations. At the time the existing PSM standard was promulgated, OSHA planned to adopt a separate rule to address process safety hazards associated with these operations. However, that standard was never promulgated, and at this time OSHA has no specific standards covering the process safety hazards at these facilities.

Resuming enforcement for oil and gas production facilities;

The existing PSM standard covers oil and gas production. However, the American Petroleum Institute (API) asserted that PSM coverage of oil and gas production facilities was invalid because OSHA did not conduct an economic analysis during the original PSM rulemaking proceedings addressing such coverage. In a March 7, 2000 letter to API, OSHA stated that the original economic analysis for the PSM standard did not include oil and gas production operations. OSHA stated that it would suspend enforcement of the PSM standard for oil and gas production operations until it performed this analysis.

Expanding PSM coverage and requirements for reactive chemical hazards;

The existing PSM standard does not address chemicals which pose reactive chemical hazards other than those already included in the current Appendix A list of chemicals. Reactive chemicals are associated with the generation of heat or toxic products when combined with other chemicals. OSHA is interested in expanding PSM to cover these additional reactive chemical hazards.

Updating and expanding the list of highly hazardous chemicals in Appendix A;

At the time of promulgation, PSM’s Appendix A list did not include every chemical that had a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reactivity rating of 3 or 4. Additionally, OSHA recognizes that there may be other non-reactive (i.e., flammable or toxic) chemicals that present hazards that should be addressed through PSM coverage. As a result, OSHA is considering adding some additional chemicals to Appendix A.

Amending paragraph (k) of the Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard (Sec. 1910.109) to extend PSM requirements to cover dismantling and disposal of explosives and pyrotechnics;

Under § 1910.109(k)(2) and (3), the manufacture of explosives and pyrotechnics must follow the requirements of the PSM standard. Although dismantling and disposing explosives can be just as hazardous as the covered activities, dismantling and disposing are not activities that the existing standard covers. OSHA is considering extending the requirements of the PSM standard to these activities as well.

Clarifying the scope of the retail facilities exemption; and

OSHA is considering updating the current employee participation element in § 1910.119(c). This includes SWA, a policy for all employees, including employees of contractors, to recommend to the operator in charge of a process that an operation or process be shut down based on safety or health concerns; and a policy giving the operator in charge of a process the authority to shut down an operation or process based on safety or health concerns.

Defining the limits of a PSM-covered process.

The potential changes to particular provisions of the current PSM standard that OSHA is considering include:

Amending paragraph (b) to include a definition of RAGAGEP;
Amending paragraph (b) to include a definition of critical equipment;
Expanding paragraph (c) to strengthen employee participation and include stop work authority;

Amending paragraph (d) to require evaluation of updates to applicable recognized and generally accepted as good engineering practices (RAGAGEP);

PSM requires employers to document that covered equipment complies with RAGAGEP. However, the PSM standard does not require employers to evaluate updates to applicable RAGAGEP or to examine new RAGAGEP after evaluating and documenting compliance with PSM. OSHA is considering adding a requirement that employers periodically review RAGAGEP for updates.

Amending paragraph (d) to require continuous updating of collected information;

Amending paragraph (e) to require formal resolution of Process Hazard Analysis team recommendations that are not utilized;

Typically, in conducting a PHA, a PHA team identifies hazards and makes recommendations to management, who then decides whether to implement those
recommendations or not. Management may decide not to implement PHA team recommendations for a variety of reasons. This revision would specify that if management decides not to implement or make modifications based on PHA team findings and recommendations, management will ensure that the hazard identified by the PHA team has been adequately addressed. This could take the form of a formal document with management signature(s), approving the actions taken (or lack thereof) in order to resolve PHA team recommendations.

Expanding paragraph (e) by requiring safer technology and alternatives analysis;

Safer technology and alternatives refer to risk reduction strategies developed through analysis using the hierarchy of controls. The hierarchy of controls organizes hazard controls into a framework. The hierarchy establishes that inherently safer options (e.g., elimination/ reduction, substitution, attenuation, and simplification) are preferable and occupy the top of the hierarchy. Engineering controls (automatic digital or mechanical system controls) are preferable to administrative controls (controls requiring human action). These higher levels of control are all preferable to personal protective equipment – the last line of defense. OSHA is considering adding a requirement to PSM that employers identify and evaluate applicable safer technology and alternatives.

Clarifying paragraph (e) to require consideration of natural disasters and extreme temperatures in their PSM programs, in response to E.O. 13990;
Expanding paragraph (j) to cover the mechanical integrity of any critical equipment;

OSHA is considering expanding the list of equipment to which the requirements of the mechanical integrity (MI) requirements of 1910.119(j) apply. Currently, the MI section of the PSM regulation applies to six categories of equipment. The revision would require facilities to include all “critical” equipment in their MI program.

Clarifying paragraph (j) to better explain “equipment deficiencies.”
Clarifying that paragraph (l) covers organizational changes;

OSHA is contemplating the addition of an explicit requirement that employers manage organizational changes

Amending paragraph (m) to require root cause analysis;

This revision would add a requirement specifying that the employer conduct a root cause investigation of all incidents that require an investigation under the current PSM standard.

Revising paragraph (n) to require coordination of emergency planning with local emergency-response authorities;

While some OSHA standards require employers to coordinate emergency planning with local emergency response authorities, the existing PSM standard does not. OSHA is considering adding additional requirements for emergency response planning, including coordination with local responders, conducting
emergency drills, and evaluation of local emergency response capabilities.

Amending paragraph (o) to require third-party compliance audits;

At present, the PSM standard specifies that employers shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the PSM provisions at least every three years and that the audit is performed by at least one person knowledgeable in the covered process. OSHA is considering whether to add additional requirements that the audit be conducted by an independent third party, possibly accredited by a recognized accrediting agency.

Including requirements for employers to develop a system for periodic review of and necessary revisions to their PSM management systems (previously referred to as “Evaluation and Corrective Action”);
Requiring the development of written procedures for all elements specified in the standard, and to identify records required by the standard along with a records retention policy (previously referred to as “Written PSM Management Systems”).

Related Posts