Does your Emergency Action Plan provide for your employees in the event of a plant evacuation?

A northern Kentucky food processing plant experienced an ammonia leak that forced the evacuation of about 160 workers. The employees sat in groups on the lawn outside the building waiting to get belongings like car keys for nearly 11 hours.

I have heard variations on this story dozens of times. Has your Emergency Action Plan considered what you will need to provide for your employees if such an event happens at your facility? Bathrooms, Food, Shelter, Water, Cooling and Air Conditioning are not easy to come by without proper planning.

Posted in Community Involvement, Incidents | Tagged | Comments Off on Does your Emergency Action Plan provide for your employees in the event of a plant evacuation?

First, Do no Harm!

The OSHA Law Blog has a nice post up called “Best Practices? Or Safety Run Amuck” about the unintended consequences that can occur when people rationalize their opinions as “Best Practice” without bothering to consult with the workers who are expected to implement those company policies. While the incident they describe doesn’t concern Process Safety Management, the issues it discusses are VERY relevant.

Sometimes additional safety policies and procedures can actually reduce safety by adding complexity and a false sense of security. How many times have you dealt with a “policy” that made no sense? Can you think of some at your workplace – perhaps some that have safety consequences?

Posted in General Information, System Optimization | Tagged , , | Comments Off on First, Do no Harm!

PSM Citations – A year broken down by Industrial Classification

OSHA has posted a breakdown of PSM citations so you can compare industry groups that have been cited by Federal OSHA during the period October 2010 through September 2011.

I plugged this data into Excel and ran some numbers between SIC codes for Ammonia Refrigeration process and the Petrochem facilities – it was not surprising that the results were as follows:

There’s essentially no significant difference there. If you are one of those people who believe that “Ammonia refrigeration” is not really a PSM process, you should know that OSHA doesn’t share your beliefs.

Please note that this data ends directly BEFORE the Chemical National Emphasis Program went nation-wide. The data I’ve seen since then shows these numbers have gone up significantly in both number of citations and the amounts of the fine.

Posted in Compliance, General Information, NEP | Tagged , , | Comments Off on PSM Citations – A year broken down by Industrial Classification

Avoiding training requirements by hiring Contractors? Think again…

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to see a great many different ways to tackle PSM compliance as I audit PSM programs around the country. One thing that surprises me very often is how many people think that they can ignore large portions of the PSM requirements simply by hiring contractors. I’ve seen plants that had no operator training program and no written operating procedures that claimed they didn’t need them because contractors did all the work. It’s not a pleasant experience to show them guidance from OSHA that is over 20 years old, explaining that their plan won’t work:

While paragraph (h)(2) (contractors element) sets forth the duties of the host employer to contract employers, the extent and the depth of these duties will depend to some degree on the category of contractor present. For example, should a contract employer provide employees to operate a process, then those employees would obviously have to be trained to the same extent as the directed hire employees “involved in operating a process” under paragraph (g) (training element) of the final standard.

Generally speaking, all OSHA standards cover all employees including contract employees. In something of a break with tradition, the process safety management rule has separate provisions covering the training of contract employees. This was done primarily for emphasis since contract employees make up a significant portion of some segments of industries covered by the final rule. This is not to say, however, that paragraph (h) is the only section of the process safety rule that applies to contractors. As already indicated, under appropriate circumstances, all of the provisions of the standard may apply to a contractor (i.e., a contractor operated facility). After all, employees of an independent contractor are still employees in the broadest sense of the word and they and their employers must not only follow the process safety management rule, but they must also take care that they do nothing to endanger the safety of those working nearby who work for another employer. Moreover, the fact that this rule has a separate section that specifically lays out the duty of contractors on the job site does not mean that other OSHA standards, lacking a similar section, do not apply to contract employers.

OSHA’s “Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule”

One way to deal with the issue of contractors is to mentally banish the word from your mind when it comes to anything outside the contractor element: treat them the same way you would a “similarly situated employee.” You train them the same way, you require them to follow the same site rules as the rest of your employees such as hot work / line opening permits, and you require them to adhere to the written operating procedures of your process as well as PSM policies such as Incident Investigation and Management of Change.

While it’s possible to outsource the work of a PSM program including the whole operation of the system, you can’t outsource the responsibility of complying with the regulations. If your contractor drops the ball, you’re on the hook with OSHA and the EPA, not the contractor. The absolute worst programs I’ve seen across this country were in plants where the company decided to outsource their compliance and trusted the contractor to make them compliant. Usually they also trust the contractor to audit their own performance as well. They are very shocked and upset when OSHA or the EPA come in for an inspection and find they are nowhere near compliant.

If you haven’t taken the rime to read OSHA’s “Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule” then I would strongly advise you to do so. There’s some real good info in there that will help you better understand why the PSM regulation was designed the way it was.

Posted in Compliance, Contractors, Operator Training, Training | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Avoiding training requirements by hiring Contractors? Think again…

A few links I wanted to share…

First up, S.K. Energy Consulting: There are some simple to understand articles on Floating Head Pressure and Optimizing Defrost. Check out the articles archives which contain almost 80 newsletters going back several years. Very informational site that I am surprised I hadn’t come across before.

.

Second, my friend and colleague Bryan Haywood has an excellent article at SAFTENG.NET about how the state of Oregon has changed the rules of the game concerning the retail exemption  for PSM regarding Ammonia. Bryan explains the implications for the RMP filing situation as well. SAFTENG.NET is always worth your time to check out and if you are on LinkedIn they also have an excellent forum there.

Posted in Compliance, General Information, Standardization, System Optimization | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on A few links I wanted to share…

Unclear on the concept…

This one starts simply enough:

1910.119(d)(3)(ii) The employer did not document that the equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.

In this case the citation is in regards to an MSA gas monitor that wasn’t installed per the manufacturer’s recommendations. What did they do wrong? The CSHO added some details in the 1B:

The gas monitor in the storage room was wired directly to a light switch; this light switch can be easily turned off by someone walking by carrying materials or wearing heavy clothing; I contacted the manufacturer of the MSA gas monitor and the technical support representative stated it was unacceptable for the gas monitor to have a disconnect such as a light switch; he stated the light switch needs to have a cover that can be locked to protect the gas monitor from being turned off by accident; the water treatment plant wrote on the light switch cover “CL2 Leave On” ; the operating manual for the MSA gas monitor states use a circuit breaker or external switch for disconnecting purposes, after talking to the MSA technical personnel they did not mean a light switch.

I think we’ve all seen far worse. All kidding aside, it’s important that we read an understand the recommendations from manufacturer’s considering their equipment installation, maintenance and operation.

Posted in Compliance, LOTO, Oddities | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Unclear on the concept…

Revisions to the Tier I and II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms

The following is an update from EPA’s Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center:

On July 13, 2012, EPA modified the EPCRA Section 312 Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II) to add new mandatory and optional data elements under the facility identification and contact information sections of both forms.  EPA also revised some existing data elements on the chemical reporting section of the forms to make reporting easier for facilities and make the forms more user-friendly for state and local officials.

In the final rule, EPA added the following new mandatory data elements to the Tier I and II forms: the facility’s latitude and longitude; identification numbers assigned under the TRI program and risk management program; whether the facility is manned or unmanned; the maximum number of occupants present at the facility at any one time; whether the facility is subject to EPCRA Section 302 and the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) risk management program; contact information for the individual responsible for completing the forms; emergency coordinator contact information for facilities subject to EPCRA Section 302; and e-mail addresses for the owner or operator and emergency contact.  The rule also revised the range codes on the forms for the maximum amount and the average daily amount of the hazardous chemical at the facility and added optional data elements for the facility phone number and parent company contact information.

In the rule, EPA also made revisions specific to the Tier II form.  Separate data fields were added for reporting pure chemical and mixtures; facilities must provide a description for storage types and conditions rather than reporting codes; and the form was revised to allow facilities to report any additional state or local reporting requirements or to voluntarily report hazardous chemicals below the reporting thresholds.

The final rule becomes effective on January 1, 2014, and facilities must comply with the new requirements on the Tier II inventory form starting reporting year 2013, which is due by March 1, 2014.  Additional information, including a copy of the final rule and fact sheet, is available at the following URL:

www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/epcra

For questions regarding the revisions to the forms, please contact the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center at:

(800) 424-9346 — Toll Free
(703) 412-9810 — Metropolitan DC area and international calls
(800) 553-7672 — Toll Free TDD
(703) 412-3323 — Metropolitan DC area and international TDD

To speak with an Information Specialist, please call between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM (EST), Monday through Thursday.  Information Specialists are available between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM (EST) Monday through Friday during May, June, and July.

Posted in Compliance, Tier II | Tagged , | Comments Off on Revisions to the Tier I and II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms

Violation by Violation – Training at Tribe Mediterranean Foods

It looks like Tribe may be working towards a quick settlement in their recent citations. The citation is a good example of what can happen with Willful citations: Seven employees weren’t trained properly for LO/TO and each was cited as a separate Willful citation. Initially that was nearly $500,000 – the informal settlement has brought it closer to $400,000.

There are many, many refrigeration facilities out there who are ripe for this type of citation for Operator Training.

I work for an Ammonia training school and am a bit amazed how many students came in due to recent citations. It would be nice if businesses started looking at training as a cost avoidance strategy rather than as part of an abatement strategy.

Posted in Compliance, LOTO, Operator Training | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Violation by Violation – Training at Tribe Mediterranean Foods

Ammonia citations under the General Duty clause

Most of us in the Ammonia Refrigeration industry are dealing with a PSM covered process, but there are some of us who are not required to implement PSM because we don’t have a threshold quantity. The real worry for those non-PSM Ammonia Refrigeration plants is the General Duty clause.

OSHA’s General Duty clause is located in the Occupation Safety & Health Act which we reference as 29 USC§654 at section 5(a)(1).

29 USC§654.5(a)(1) Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees

OSHA states “Employers can be cited for violating the General Duty Clause if there is a recognized hazard and they do not take reasonable steps to prevent or abate the hazard.”

The ability for OSHA to issue a General Duty Citation is not unlimited; they must meet each of the following conditions:

  1. The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed;
  2. The hazard was recognized;
  3. The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and
  4. There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.

Let’s see how this works in practice, shall we? What follows is an actual 5(a)(1) worksheet from a citation issued to a dairy that used Ammonia as a refrigerant but was not required to implement PSM:

Nature of Hazard: The employer owns and operates an ammonia refrigeration system at its dairy facility in (REDACTED).  The employer has not inspected or replaced the safety relief valves on the refrigeration system within the last 5 years.  These valves are critical to the safe operation of the ammonia refrigeration system. Without appropriate relief, the ammonia storage vessel and other vessels in the process could become over-pressurized and explode.  The explosion could hurt someone with debris and would result in a subsequent release of anhydrous ammonia, which is highly toxic in large doses. The acute exposures could cause severe chemical burns, severe respiratory distress, and death.  The employer recently had an accident when the condenser vessel on the boiler became over-pressurized due to ice build-up on the vent.

The company did not routinely inspect this vent to ensure that it was kept clear and, as a result, the vessel exploded.  No one was hurt. However, the explosion caused severe property damage.  This incident was investigated under Inspection #(REDACTED). The (REDACTED) Fire Department has informed OHSA of several calls on which surrounding neighbors have complained of a strong ammonia odor coming from the plant.  (REDACTED), Fire Chief, (REDACTED) Fire Department, stated that he believes the leaks might be coming from the safety relief  valves which have lifted on a couple of  occasions.

Employees Exposed to the Hazard: All of the 11 employees at the plant have exposure to the hazard.  An explosion could be catastrophic if people are in the area and an ammonia release could permeate throughout the plant and expose everyone.

Industry Recognition: It has long been recognized by the industry that ammonia system pressure vessels must be protected by safety valves.  It has also been long recognized that these valves require routine inspection and maintenance and that no more than five years should lapse between inspections.  ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 15-2010, Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems, Section 9.4.9 requires that the seats and discs of pressure-relief devices shall be constructed of suitable material to resist refrigerant corrosion or other chemicals action caused by the refrigerant.  Seats or discs of cast iron shall not be used.  Seats and discs shall be limited in distortion, by pressure or other cause, to a set pressure change of not more than 5% in a span of five years.

Employer Recognition: The employer was informed of the existence and some of the requirements of the ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 15-2001, in 2005 when OSHA issue a hazard alert letter for non compliance of the ammonia refrigeration system.  In this version, replacement of the valves was required every five years.  This standard was withdrawn and replaced with Standard 15-2010.  The employer has neither inspected nor replaced the relief valves.

Common Sense Recognition: For a person with some knowledge about pressure vessels, it would have been common sense to ensure that valves were routinely inspected.  (REDACTED) was aware of the standard because he had been informed of some of the requirements of this standard as it applied to his refrigeration system.  The employer’s due diligence dictates that he should have consulted the standard to ensure complete compliance with the standard.

The Hazard was Causing or Likely to Cause Death or Serious Physical Harm: The hazard is the possibility of explosion of the pressure vessels on the anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system if the system cannot relieve over­pressurization due to inactive relief valves.  The explosion itself could cause fractures, lacerations, blunt-force trauma and death.  The subsequent release of ammonia could also cause severe chemical burns, severe respiratory damage and distress and death.

Feasible Methods by Which the Hazard May be Corrected: This hazard could be corrected by complying with the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2010, and having all relief valves inspected and/ or replaced.

I’ve seen most of the industry’s RAGAGEP required under 5(a)(1) by now. Here are a few examples:

Finally, if you want to see why I suggest you implement PSM for Ammonia Refrigeration even if you aren’t required to, take a look at this citation: OSHA Link

Posted in Compliance, General Information, Good Engineering Practices | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Ammonia citations under the General Duty clause

Pressure Relief Valves – The Five Year Replacement Interval

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the five year inspection interval for Pressure Relief valves. I believe that a lot of this discussion comes from this quote out of the National Emphasis Program for Refineries CPL 03-00-010:

“If an employer has predetermined they will replace an existing relief valve with a new valve instead of testing it, they must still inspect the existing relief valve to determine if its service condition dictates that the inspection interval for the new relief valve should be shortened.”

This raises the question: If you are relying on the manufacturer’s recommendation to replace the Pressure Relief valves “at least every five years,” how do you know that the valve is actually still working after five years in service?

To answer this question some facilities are sending out a statistically significant number of their relief valves to be tested at a professional shop. There’s nothing wrong with that – but as of this moment I can’t find a single citation for NOT doing this.

OSHA’s own guidance in the NEP states that the facility must “inspect” the valve and that is not difficult to do. What you are looking for is obvious signs of corrosion or fouling. Generally speaking, fouling isn’t a big issue in Ammonia refrigeration systems, but corrosion can be if the headers aren’t designed properly.

It seems a general consensus is forming about how to deal with the question and it is this:

  1. Require inspection of your relief valves when they are replaced in your written Mechanical Integrity procedure. This inspection should be done by a supervisor that is competent to subjectively analyze the valve condition.
  2. Require that a valve be objectively analyzed (sent to a shop) if the condition of the valve cannot be determined subjectively.
  3. Require that the replacement interval for the Pressure Relief valve is set based on this inspection. (it should not be less frequent than the five year interval suggested by the manufacturer unless you can support that interval with engineering studies)

I believe if you do the above you’ll no longer have to worry about answering this type of NEP question regarding Relief Valves.

Posted in Compliance, Good Engineering Practices, Mechanical Integrity, NEP | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Pressure Relief Valves – The Five Year Replacement Interval