Stakeholder Comments OSHA Combustible Dust Rulemaking

Follow this link to the numerous stakeholder comments for the OSHA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Regulations.Gov site Better yet, got to the "View by Docket Folder" tab and Sign up for Email alerts on the right side of the page.

OSHA Combustible Dust Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwXCwzOQ_F0wYTc1YmJmZTMtN2FhNC00YzNlLTk2NTgtOWQyNjJhNGQ1YjFh&hl=en

Here is link to the OSHA ANPRM (15 pages) on combustible dust that was published in the Federal Register today. There are some excellent points on accident investigation and fire-fighter hazard awareness, which seeks public comment in addition to many other important issues.

Combustible Dust Hazards Lacking in Safety Data Sheets

In the global workplace, identifying and evaluating the risk from combustible dust related fires and explosions supposedly begin with the information provided on Safety Data or Material Safety Data Sheets (SDS/MSDS). These essential documents provide essential hazard identification, information on ingredients, first aid measures, fire-fighting procedures, handling and storage information, exposure controls/personnel protection, physical and chemical properties, etc.

Yet vital combustible dust physical characteristics of ignition sensitivity and explosion severity is lacking in a majority SDS’s. So how do stakeholders manage the risk in the workplace if important fire and explosion data is lacking?

Physical Fire and Explosion Hazards
An important development in hazard communication amongst international trading partners is the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). This system provides a universal method of communicating the potential health and physical hazards that chemicals pose in the workplace, during transportation, or consumer usage of chemical products. Yet unfortunately, harmonization in communicating the physical and chemical hazards of combustible dust is also deficient in the newly implemented United Nations GHS.

Additionally a major problem arises with materials that are not chemicals, such as wood, paper, food, etc that are not included in the GHS Safety Data Sheet hazard communication protocol. How are the physical hazards of potential combustible dust related fire and explosions suppose to be communicated to the workplace from these non-chemical substances? The problem is intensified with the requirement that the raw product manufacturer or importer must provide the physical property data in the initial preparation of the SDS.

Life-cycle Hazard Awareness
This is great at the initial stage of a raw product’s lifecycle. But what about later on in the life-cycle when a product manufacturer utilizes the raw product in the production process? The production process handles the combustible particulate solid and generates combustible dust in operations such as cutting, grinding, polishing, crushing, conveying, mixing, sifting or screening of materials.

Now all of a sudden the physical properties have changed from a raw bulk product with a minimal hazard to a substance that provides a potentially explosive atmosphere under the right conditions. All that is needed for a dust explosion in addition to the basic fire triangle is a rendezvous with confinement and suspension .Understanding the parameters to initiate a combustible dust flash fire or dust explosion is where the SDS should come into the picture in managing the fire and explosion risk, but unfortunately does not.

Global Harmonization Deficiency
Back in April 2009, the USA Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) submitted a working document to the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The document requested that the Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling form a conference committee in developing classification criteria for combustible dusts in the Safety Data Sheets.

Currently GHS recognizes combustible dust is a hazard by identifying dust in the SDS. Solely identifying is not sufficient enough. The global workplace needs additional information such as guidance in fire-fighting measures, exposure controls/personnel protection, handling/storage, physical and chemical properties, etc.

Explosive Atmospheres
Additionally combustible dust needs to be classified like flammable liquids and gases, which also can present an explosive atmosphere in the global workplace. In the EU, the ATEX Directives (Appareils destinés à être utilisés en ATmosphères EXplosibles) already recognizes the explosive nature of combustible dust that have the same explosive severity as vapor cloud explosions. Yet communicating the risk amongst international trading partners is another story through the GHS Safety Data Sheets.

In the United States recognition of the fire and explosion hazards from combustible dust that have the potential of an explosive atmosphere is not on the same level of awareness as the ATEX Directives in the EU. Currently in the USA, there is no occupational health and safety regulation that specifically references combustible dust in the industrial setting. In contrast there is an OSHA Grain Facility Standard that was implemented back in the 1980’s that addresses combustible dust hazards in grain mills, feed mills, etc.

Rulemaking Process
Following the catastrophic 2008 Imperial Sugar Refinery dust explosion in Port Wentworth, Georgia OSHA began taking enhanced measures in addressing combustible dust in the manufacturing workplace. Currently OSHA is in a general industry combustible dust rulemaking process. An undisclosed source says that OSHA will announce next week in the Federal Register the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) where stakeholders can comment in the development of the proposed general industry regulation.

On another front, concerning hazard communication, OSHA is proposing to modify its existing Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) that includes Materiel Safety Data Sheets to conform with the United Nations’ (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Two weeks ago OSHA issued its proposed rule in the Federal Register concerning harmonization of its current Hazardous Communication System with GHS and will seek comments from stakeholders for a ninety day period.

In addition to proposing to the United Nations committee that combustible dust be classified in the GHS Safety Data Sheets its also seeking comments from stakeholders in the USA whether the interim coverage of combustible dust as an unclassified hazard in the GHS SDS is sufficient in communicating the risk throughout the workplace. Hopefully stakeholders will provide OSHA with a plethora of comments on this very complex issue of combustible dust related fires and explosion in the industrial workplace.

Conclusion
Presently all global manufacturing facilities are at risk with the deficient ignition sensitivity and explosion severity information not included in the Safety Data and Material Data Sheets. The only alternative in properly managing the risk proactively would be for plant owners and managers to have their combustible dust tested for minimum ignition temperature (MIT), minimum ignition energy (MIE), minimum explosive concentration (MEC), explosion severity, volume resistivity, etc. Solely relying on physical fire and explosion hazard data in the SDS or MSDS that the raw product manufacturer or importer provided at the top of the lifecycle is an accident waiting to happen.

Resources

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).

Working Document ComDust GHS

ATEX directive
Hazard Communication Guidance ComDust
OSHA HazCom Proposed Rule GHS

Georgia Combustible Dust Regulation

Subscribe Free Add to my Page

Stakeholders in the manufacturing, non-manufacturing, and utility sectors are eagerly awaiting OSHA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register. Following the Chemical Safety Board’s recent key findings and recommendations on the Imperial Sugar Refinery dust explosion, OSHA submitted the combustible dust regulation for review to the Office of Management and Budget, a Cabinet-level office within the Executive Office of the President of the United States. On a state level and moving much faster than Federal actions, Georgia recently held a public hearing for their combustible dust regulation.

A diverse spectrum of the manufacturing sector attended a public hearing last week at the Fire Commissioners Hearing Room in Atlanta, Georgia where they submitted final comments to the Administrative Law Judge for consideration. Representatives of Georgia’s manufacturing sector are not opposed to fire and explosion safety in the workplace and have been working tirelessly with the Commissioners office in developing a consensus.

Since the Imperial Sugar Refinery explosion, stakeholders have worked closely with Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner, John Oxendine, in developing a combustible dust regulation that will provide appropriate layers of protection in minimizing the probability and reducing the severity of future combustible dust related fires and explosions.

In contrast, a point of contention does arise within the manufacturing sector concerning the feasibility of a regulation during the nation’s economic recession. For instance, costly best engineering practices for combustible dust fire and explosion hazards is not required amongst many global trading partners and many argue this would result in a competitive disadvantage for Georgia businesses.

Georgia’s combustible dust rulemaking process has national significance in that stakeholders across a diverse spectrum of state manufacturing subsectors are also representative on a larger scale of national manufacturing subsectors. So could the comments and input to Georgia government officials be a precursor to future comments in the upcoming federal action during the OSHA combustible dust rulemaking process?

The Combustible Dust Policy Institute proposes a possible solution in alleviating economic concerns. This would initially include administrative control measures and safe working practices that would not put small businesses at a global competitive disadvantage.

For example, good housekeeping (CSB recommendation), OSHA hazard communication training, contractor participation (PSM), explosion protection documents (ATEX) and accident investigation (PSM) protocol would minimize the severity and likelihood of future incidents immensely.

Essential but costly, best engineering practices and inherent safety design, phased in over a period of several years in conjunction with the global economy rebounding is a viable option that needs further discussion. An excellent example of a phase-in- period occurred with the EU ATEX directives for potentially explosive atmospheres in the workplace.

In this podcast segment, Jeff Romine, a Corporate Safety Director for national flooring manufacturer, attended the Georgia public hearing on combustible dust and shares with listeners a first hand perspective of industry concerns that were presented to the Administrative Law Judge. These same concerns have a national significance in the Federal OSHA combustible dust rulemaking.

Mr. Romine has over 20 years of experience in consultation, auditing, safety, education and insurance, and is a Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Certified Professional Environmental Auditor (CPEA), and OSHA Outreach General Industry Trainer. Mr. Romine is currently serving as a Senior Corporate Safety Manager in the Risk Management Department for Shaw Industries one of the leading flooring manufactures in the United States, a Berkshire Hathaway Company. He lives in Ringgold GA with his wife Cindy, daughter Katie (Senior at the University of GA) and son Alex aka “AJ” (freshman at Oglethorpe University)

Resources

Mark-up Georgia Combustible Dust Regulation 120-3-24-0.14
Georgia Emergency Regulation 120-3-24-0.12

FM Global

Twitter Combustible Dust

Twitter, a social networking and micro-blogging resource is an excellent utility in which stakeholders can communicate in real-time amongst themselves concerning combustible dust hazard issues. This is especially important with the current OSHA combustible dust hazard rulemaking process that is occurring under the new administration in the Department of Labor.

Stakeholders can share ideas concerning possible regulatory methods in regards to data and comments on issues that OSHA is requesting related to combustible dust such as hazard recognition, assessment, communication in addition to defining combustible dust and other concerns.

Farr Air Pollution Control (APC) a company that provides dust collectors to the manufacturing sector is leading the pack in providing helpful information through Twitter on combustible dust testing, anatomy of a dust collector, how a dust collector works, and other helpful information. In 2008, through media reports over 30% of combustible dust related fires and explosions occurred in dust collectors. The information that Farr APC provides on Twitter in addition to their blog, "Industrial Dust Collectors-Info and News," reduces the probability of future combustible dust incidents through their helpful posts.

It's easy to sign up for Twitter, just provide an email address and password. Then to set up with your BlackBerry Smartphone for updates install the TwitterBerry icon for posting updates to Twitter. It works over the data network, so you don't need to use SMS. Once you are all set up, you can use the keyword, "combustible dust," when searching for resources on your Twitter Home page.

Hope to see more informational and educational content in the future concerning combustible dust on Twitter, like Farr APC is providing, which needs to be addressed in providing a safe workplace in the prevention and mitigation of future combustible dust related fires and explosions.

Update 5/18/09
Now Explovent (explosion ventilation panels) and Nilfisk CFM (explosion-proof vacuums) are posting on Twitter, which is an excellent venue in reaching the workers concerning combustible dust hazards. So far all this combustible dust hazard awareness has been mostly directed towards management, which is fine. But we need to reach the workers who work long shifts on the factory floor and are exposed daily to potentially explosive atmospheres of combustible dust.

Update 5/21/09
South East Fire Prevention, Inc. on Twitter Providing solutions to special hazards associated with dust collection and manufacturing; mission, purpose and cause is to help prevent industrial combustible dust fires and explosions

Other Helpful Twitter Post Examples
newmdiajim (CBS News Cameraman)
hurricanes
alaska_avo (Mount Redoubt Volcano Updates)
Everything Twitter

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