Combustible Dust Hazard OnlineTraining-Free

The North American Die Casting Association (NADCA) hosts a free combustible dust hazard training program on their website through a series of 39 videos, which also includes a section quiz after viewing each video segment . OSHA through a Susan Harwood training grant awarded NADCA funding so as to develop these excellent combustible dust hazard training videos.

Other national industries (NAICS) that have combustible dust hazards present in the workplace will discover that many of the video segments are pertinent to their application in regards to identifying, evaluating, and controlling the risk from combustible dust related fires and explosions.

The North American Die Casting Association (NADCA) represents the worlds most effective die casters that create the worlds best cast products. Working with a North American die caster guarantees innovation, integrity, accessibility, and reliability.

2008 Susan Harwood Grant Awardees
Combustible Dust Training

Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation
Atlanta, GA
$203,327

Georgia Tech will conduct a needs assessment and develop an 8-hour proficiency-level module on combustible dust prevention and mitigation. The training will focus on National Fire Protection Association, National Electric Code, OSHA Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP), Process Safety Management and Incident Command Systems information. Georgia Tech will deliver 10 courses for 500 employers and employees reaching safety and health professionals, plant managers, maintenance and front-line supervisors in industries most commonly affected by combustible dust issues. Next class: June 15th, 2009 | Nashville, TN Combustible Dust Free One Day Seminar

Kirkwood Community College
Cedar Rapids, IA
$174,978

The College will develop, deliver, and evaluate a 2 ½-hour awareness-level combustible dust safety course addressing grain dust, bio-solids, and other organic dusts such as sugar, flour and paper. Trainers will conduct 150 courses in 14 midwestern states for 3,000 employers and employees primarily in the agriculture, food processing and fiber sectors with a focus on grain elevators and ethanol bio-refineries.


Texas Engineering Extension Service
College Station, TX
$188,166

TEEX will conduct several existing courses on Process Safety Management and Dust Behavior in OSHA Region VI, which includes Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico . It will also develop and conduct Combustible Dust Explosion Hazards Awareness courses. A total of 19 courses will be conducted for 325 participants. Recruiting will be targeted to industries in SIC codes at risk for dust explosions. The Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center will offer a course in "Dust Explosion Behavior."


Resources
YouTube-NACDA Combustible Dust Training

Combustible Dust Hazards OSHA Rulemaking

In the near future OSHA will be accepting comments and data concerning a future combustible dust regulation, through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). A very informative definition of the entire rulemaking process can be found on Wikipedia.

The helpful informational YouTube video is a brief overview of how the rulemaking process proceeds according to the Administrative Procedures Act

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This optional step entails publishing the agency's initial analysis of the subject matter, often asking for early public input on key issue. Any data or communications regarding the upcoming rule would be made available to the public for review. Occasionally, a board of potentially affected parties is comprised to do give-and-take bargaining over rulemaking subject-matter which would otherwise result in deadlocked opposition by an interested party.^[2]This is commonly called "negotiated rulemaking"^[2], and results in more custom-tailored proposed rule.

Did OSHA miss a step here in not allowing negotiated rulemaking with such a complex subject?

The ANPRM is an ideal time for all stakeholders to provide input on the very complex topic of combustible dust hazards in the workplace. Especially when the current data provided by the Chemical Safety Board concerning the number of workplace combustible dust incidents since 1980 is inaccurate. Additionally, input from stakeholders would assist OSHA in acquiring a better overview of the current situation concerning combustible dust related fires and explosions. The reissued OSHA Combustible Dust NEP has left out many national industries (NAICS) that are experiencing repetitive combustible dust incidents.

Any attempt to model a general industry combustible dust standard after the OSHA Grain Facility Standard would not be wise. Especially when in 2008 there was over 50 combustible dust related fires and explosions in the grain industry, which included 15 explosions according to media reports. Furthermore, the OSHA press release notes a recent grain facility explosion (SIC 2048) that occured last month, injuring three workers in Illinois in the same sentence as the Imperial Sugar incident. Dust explosions cannot be entirely prevented, only the probability and severity reduced through administrative controls and best engineering practices as outlined in the NFPA combustible dust standards.

A hybrid of the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) concerning combustible dust would be the most appropiate venue and would include layers of protection not yet mentioned in the NFPA combustible dust standards. Stakeholder input is vital in this area with combustible dust incidents that involve deflagrations similiar in explosive severity as flammable gases, liquids, and
vapors.

Below is a brief overview of the timeline for the current OSHA Grain Facility Standard 29 CFR 1910.272 which was formulated over two decades ago in protecting workers from grain dust explosions.

Overview: Rulemaking Process Grain Facilty Standard

• 1977, deaths of 13 USDA inspectors killed in grain elevator explosions prompted USDA to set up a special task force on grain elevator safety and explosions
• 1978 , National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted an international symposium on grain elevator explosions. Following the symposium, OSHA requested NAS to establish a Panel on Causes and Prevention of Grain Elevator Explosions
• 1979, a General Accounting Office (GAO) study on grain dust explosions recommended that the U.S. Department of Labor evaluate the adequacy of the coverage for grain elevators in the OSHA general industry standards
• 1980, OSHA published a request for comments and information and notice of public meetings, concerning the safety and health hazards in grain handling facilities
• 1984, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
• 1987, OSHA Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule published
  
• 1988, effective date OSHA Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule
• 1989, a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) v. OSHA
• 1990 OSHA issued an ANPRM
• 1996, OSHA amended its Grain Handling Standard
• November 8, 1996, OSHA issued a compliance directive, CPL 2-1.4C, "Inspection of Grain Handling Facilities."

Resources
REGULATORY REVIEW OF OSHA'S GRAIN HANDLING FACILITIES STANDARD 29 CFR 1910.272

Industry Combustible Dust Hazards-Podcast #6

Brian Edwards, Director of Engineering at Conversion Technology Inc. discusses specific industries and the dust hazards at each. In addition to how knowledgeable the safety managers and people in industry tend to be and the types of OSHA citations some of these industrial facilities are receiving for failing to address combustible dust hazards.

Resources

Podcast Outline

Imperial Sugar CEO John Sheptor Industrial Sweetener Colloquium Presentation

Dust Explosions and Corporate Homicide Prosecutions

A very informative article by Cesar de Castro was recently posted in the New York Law Journal, "Sorting Out the Law on Homicide Prosecutions Against Corporations." which addresses issues concerning corporate homicide prosecution such as workplace fatalities arising from dust explosions. The article mentioned the People v. Warner-Lambertt case where in 1976 a dust explosion at the American Chicle plant in Queens, New York, killed six people and injured 55.

Magnesium stearate (MS) was utilized in the manufacturing process of Freshen-Up chewing gum at the Queen's chewing gum plant. Court documents provided information, "that at the end of one of the work shifts workers were engaged in removing settled MS dust from the bottom of a machine and from overhead pipes by broom sweeping and by the use of air hoses. Suddenly an explosion occurred in the area of the operating machine, followed almost immediately by a second, much larger explosion."

After a lengthy investigation, a grand jury indicted Warner-Lambert and four of its executives on charges of reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. In 1978 the state court dismissed the charges. The following year, in 1979, the New York State appellate court restored the indictments. A year later, in 1980, the state court again dismissed all charges in connection with the explosion.

Cesar de Castro's excellent article provides helpful insight concerning litigation that ensues following catastrophic incidents such as in the above example. Hopefully manufacturing facilities will adhere to proper preventative and mitigative measures as outlined in the NFPA combustible dust standards in addition to other measures in minimizing the severity and probability of dust explosions from occurring.

Conducting a Google Search on Magnesium Stearate MSDS's produced varying results. Some MSDS's provide information on the dust explosion and fire hazards, yet others don't. The most extensive MSDS was from Mallinckrodt Chemical, which lists the deflagration index (Kst), Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE), Minimum Explosible Concentration (MEC), Minimum Ignition Temperature (MIT)-Dust Cloud, Minimum Ignition Temperature-Dust Layer, and Limiting Oxygen Concentration (LOC).

Reviewing the MSDS provided by Mallinckrodt Chemical is an excellent example of the proactive measures that stakeholders must utilize in providing hazard communication information on the fire and explosion hazards of combustible dust throughout a facility that handle such dusts. With this vital information workers, plant managers, and owners can take the appropiate measures in preventing future fatalities and injuries as what occurred over three decades ago at the American Chicle plant in Queens, New York.

Dust Explosions-Not Cleared For Public Release

Its a bit odd and bewildering how data of combustible dust explosions in the Chemical Safety Board, Combustible Dust Hazard Investigation Report that was submitted to OSHA in November 2006 did not include the fatalities and injuries such as the incident that occurred at a Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing plant in Mount Jewett, PA back in February 2001. How can appropiate layers of protection be implemented in the workplace if stakeholders do not know the probability and severity of occurrences if full transparency of the complex combustible dust issue is not adhered to?

Incident # 190, which occurred 2/14/2001, is listed in the CSB Dust Incident Data File. But the description is omitted with the statement, "Information not cleared for public release. " How can that be, with the vital information not cleared, when adjacent to the date of the incident is the OSHA Activity Number which provides a description of the above incident and many others labeled "not cleared for public release."?

OSHA has been citing facilities for combustible dust hazards many years prior to the series of catastrophic dust explosions that occurred in 2003. These citations referenced the NFPA Combustible Dust Standards utilizing the General Duty Clause. OSHA through national consensus continues to cite facilities for combustible dust hazards with the power of the General Duty Clause.

Subsequently, OSHA needs to thoroughly review CSB's helpful recommendations in addition to instituting other layers of protection that will provide sufficient preventative and mitigative measures for the workplace in regards to combustible dust hazards. It shouldn't take an Act of Congress with the reissued combustible dust bill to get the ball rolling. Hopefully with the new administration and appointees within OSHA's leadership structure the entire combustible dust issue will be reevaluated in proper context.

The first step must be revising the Combustible Dust NEP so as to reflect the reality of the majority of incidents (over 60%) occuring in national industries (NAICS) not listed in the NEP. OSHA Region 4 has set an excellent example inspecting facilities for dust hazards that are not listed in the Dust NEP. A good rule of thumb would be if a facility has a dust collector on the premises, then there is a potential for a combustible dust related explosion or fire. Think of a dust collector as a hand grenade with the pin pulled and all that is needed next is an ignition source when the lever is released. That just might get everyone's attention with this sort of proactive attitude.

No matter how stringent OSHA enforcement and inspection activities are pursued, combustible dust explosions and fires will continue to occur. Legislators who drafted the current reissued combustible dust bill have all the great intentions in preventing further fatalities and injuries as occurred at Imperial Sugar Refinery last year. But the reality which they must be educated to understand is that dust explosions and fires cannot be totally prevented. Only the probability and severity can be reduced.

A good example is the ethanol plant explosion earlier this month in Hastings, Nebraska with the grain grinder explosion resulting in two injuries. Ethanol plants have the most stringent governmental regulations protecting the worker, public ,and environment with the EPA Risk Management Program (RMP), OSHA Process Safety Management Standard (PSM), in addition to the OSHA Grain Facility Standard. It doesn't get any more stringent than this. The current combustible dust bill as written won't even come close to providing this much of protection. Ironically, with all the layers of protection in this industry, it has the highest rate of explosions and fires over the past twelve months than any of the other 426 national industries (NAICS) in the manufacturing sector.

The current position that legislators and the CSB of possible protective measures is a great start. But should not be the sole solution, especially when other important aspects of the very complex and dynamic combustible dust hazard issue is not also addressed to the full extent. Hopefully insight from continued in-depth research on combustible dust related fires and explosions that the Combustible Dust Policy Institute is conducting will provide additional helpful information on a broad horizon useful to all stakeholders.

OSHA Region 4 Tough on Combustible Dust

In less than a week several OSHA Regional New Releases issued from the OSHA Region 4 main office in Atlanta, Georgia provided details concerning three establishments, proposing over $400,000 in penalties for safety and health violations, which includes combustible dust hazard violations. Each company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

OSHA Region 4 includes the states of Alabama , Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The numerous citations came from the manufacturing sectors of wood, food, and transportation equipment. Of special interest was the national industry NAICS 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing, which is not included in the OSHA Combustible Dust NEP as an at risk industry, yet the Georgia facility was cited for using high pressure compressed air to clean equipment resulting in clouds of resin dust, and a second repeat violation for exposing employees to high concentrations of airborne particulates.

Reviewing details of OSHA inspections conducted at manufacturing facilities in Region 4 brings to light that OSHA inspectors are conducting combustible dust inspection and enforcement activities at many other facilities with NAICS not listed in Appendix D-1 and D-2 of the OSHA Combustible Dust NEP. This enhanced enforcement activity concerning combustible dust hazards in the workplace illustrates that all manufacturing and non-manufacturing facilities that handle combustible particulate solids that generate combustible dust must proactively address dust hazards with preventative administrative and engineering control measures.

Resources:
NAICS 321113 D-1 NEP Sawmills
NAICS 311312 D-1 NEP Cane Sugar Refining
NAICS 336360 Non-NEP Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Mfg.