OSHA’s Interest in Chemical Plant

Thomas H. Seymour Deputy Director Safety Standards Programs

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Washington, D.C. 20210

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) has been required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to promulgate a process safety management (PSM) standard for the prevention of catastrophic incidents and to protect the safety and health of employees in the coveredplants. The law requires the OSHA standard to cover at least 14 areas or issues and to cover highly hazardous chemicals which include toxic, flammable, highly reactive and explosive substances. The paper will describe in detail how OSHA has responded to this statute and what we have accomplished in the rulemaking effort. Also the interface with other relevant OSHA standards, including the Hazard Communication standard, the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard, the Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout) standard, and others will be discussed. In addition other recent laws that relate to and impact the OSHA PSM standard such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990,the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, will be explained as to their relationship to PSM, The emergency preparedness efforts required of employers under PSM and the relationship to SARA Title 111 efforts by local community emergency response organizations will be covered, as well as the interface with the EPA Risk Management Program initiative that EPA must do under the Clean Air Act Amendments.

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) [ I ] of 1990 has ushered in a new era of emphasis on the prevention of unwanted releases of hazardous chemicals into the workplace, the local community, and the environment. The CAAA, in section 304, requires the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to promulgate a chemical process safety management (PSM) standard within one year. This PSM standard must include a list of highly hazardous chemicals which includes toxic, flammable, and highly reactive and explosive substances. The content of the PSM standard must address 14 subject areas and issues as a minimum. Some of the topics that must be addressed include: written safety information package, hazard assessments, written operating procedures, training for employees and contractors, emergency response, maintenance and mechanical integrity, pre-startup safety reviews, management of change, incident investigations and follow-up, and others. From just this partial list, one can see that the U.S. Congress wishes to make it clear that OSHA

is to promulgate a comprehensive PSM standard. OSHA published its proposed PSM standard [2] in the Fed-

eral Register on July 17, 1990. Over 270 written comments have been received from the public on the proposal plus the public participation in two public hearing locations-Wash- ington, D.C., and Houston, Texas. This public input has pro- vided the Agency with valuable insights and suggestions for writing an improved final standard. A number of issues were raised and discussed in the public hearings and in the post- hearing comment period. Among these issues were: the sched- ule for completing initial process hazards analyses (PHA) for each covered process; the content and degree of specificity of the safety information package required for each covered proc- ess and the means and methods to keep this safety information current; the makeup or membership of the PHA teams, in- cident investigation teams and the safety audit teams and the level of involvement by rank and file employees in these teams; the criteria for selection of, and for the orientation, training

164 July, 1992 PIantlOperations Progress (Val. 11, No. 3)

and control of contractors’ employees who may work in or adjacent to covered processes.

The OSHA PSM standard is targeted at preventing cata- strophic chemical incidents. This was done in response to Sen- ator Durenberger’s bill for Toxics Release Prevention Act which was later folded into thc CAAA. OSHA has, for the first time, mandated a systems analysis approach to detecting hazards, documenting them anc developing corrective action, imple- menting the corrective actions, and then doing follow-up. This approach is to be don: for new processes as well as being applied to existing ones. Each employer will have to decide what means and methods to use to establish multiple lines of defense to first prevent the unwanted release of the chemical. Each employer will have to decide what means and methods to use to mitigate unwanted chemical releases when they do occur and what to do to completely stop the release. The PSM standard’s requirements such as those addressing mechanical integrity, operating procedures, training, management of change and others will direct the employer to address these concerns in a systematic manner.

The design basis for the process for normal operating con- ditions is the first line of (defense. The employer will be required to maintain the integrity of this line of defense and to strengthen it where improvements are needed. The second line of defense is the systems that have been designed into the process to handle upset conditions where the chemicals are released from the normal operating system to vent flares or scrubbers or overflow holding tanks, etc. This second line of defense still maintains effective control over the: hazardous chemical. These two lines of defense are the primary lines of defense to prevent unwanted releases. The secondary lines of defense would include: fixed fire protection systems like sprinklers, water spray, or deluge systems, monitor guns, etc; dikes; designed drainage systems; and others to control or mitigate hazardous chemicals once an unwanted release occurs, These primary and secondary lines of defense are what the preventive maintenance program needs to protect the integrity of and to strengthen where appropriate. These lines of defense are the major targets for the mechanical integrity provisions as sell as other provisions of the PSM standard. The employer will need to implement a preventive maintenance program that maintains the mechanical integrity of these lines of defense. Break down maintenance on these lines of defense is an unacceptable practice and will not meet the goals of the OSHA PSM standard’s initiative. OSHA ex- pects employers, through their maintenance and engineering departments, to develop equipment lists and then categorize the equipment as to its inspections and testing frequency, whether external or internal inspections are required, replace- ment schedules, etc. Critical equipment will obviously be ex- pected to be more closely scrutinized to better maintain its integrity. In the meantime, failure data from manufacturers and related data from the employers’ own experiences with using various equipment parts along with the criteria from the recognized codes and standards are to be used in determining testing and inspection frequency and parts replacement sched- ules.

Non-routine work in the process area is another issue that was extensively discussed during the public comment period. Line breaking, confined space entry, hot work, etc., are some examples of the types of work activity that requires effective management control. Each employer is to implement proce- dures to control these job tasks in a consistent manner via a work authorization or permit procedure. This procedure is to assure proper management control over these activities; to better assure the safety and health of those performing the job, to communicate to operating personnel that the work is to be done; and to provide for complete closure on the work by making operating personnel and others aware that the job is completed.

Each employer is to address what actions employees are to take when there is an unwanted release of a highly hazardous chemical into the work environment. Pre-planning for these emergencies, which is the tertiary line of defense, is a must for all employers. This pre-plan is to include an emergency action plan, which addressed evacuation of employees to a safe zone or area, and, in addition, what resources and actions the em- ployer wishes to take in mitigating the release. If the employer wishes to use the plant fire brigade, spill control team, haz- ardous materials team or other employees to come and handle the incident, they must then comply with the HAZWOPER standard. If mutual aid units are to be used, they must also follow the HAZWOPER standard. The Superfund Amend- ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title 111 local com- munity emergency response planners and emergency response organizations should be utilized by employers to better assure for good effective support to handle significant releases. Em- ployers need to interface their plans with the local community emergency response plan that has been developed under SARA Title 111. Employers should participate in drills and exercises that will be conducted by local emergency response planners to improve the local emergency preparedness.

Other recent laws that impact local emergency preparedness include the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [3] and the hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA) [q. The Oil Pollution Act will be having the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in cooperation with others to develop contingency plans to assure better emergency prepar- edness for oils spills in ports and on navigable waterways. Also, EPA is to do similar work for oil spills to cover areas not covered by the USCG planning efforts.

The HMTUSA provides for a training grant program to help local emergency response organizations to meet the HAZ- WOPER criteria as well as improve the level of emergency preparedness. This law also provides grants to help the local emergency planners to complete and improve the local emer- gency response plans under SARA Title 111. Other aspects of this law directly impact the transportation of hazardous chem- icals and other related issues.

This PSM standard by OSHA and the EPA Risk Manage- ment Plan will cause the nation to move in the direction of lowering the risk of unwanted hazardous chemical releases. This shift will improve the safety and health of American workers, and will enhance the safety and health of the local citizens. It will also enhance American industries’ ability to compete in the global market.

Literature Cited

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101- 549, November 15, 1990, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chem- icals; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 137 Part 111, July 17, 1990 (pps 29150-29173), Washington, D.C. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Public Law 101-380, August 18, 1990, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act, Public Law 101-615, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.

This paper (70e) was presented at the AlChE Spring National Meeting in New Orleans, LA on March 30, 1991.

PlantlOperations Progress (Vol. 11, NO. 3) July, 1992 165