Two paths to choose from:
1) add CD as a PSM covered chemcial without a threshold assigned to it. Why can we not establish a threshold? Unlike other PSM chemicals, CD is a hazard when it is OUTSIDE of the process and allowed to accumulate over time. This is unique to CD and if we set a threshold of even 100 pounds, then those who do not exceed this would be exempt. However, they process say 50 pounds of dust a year (VERY LOW) and over 10 years do you think they may have enough dust on the ledges and hidden drop ceilings to cause an explosion. So my take is no threshold. The PSM standard is a great standard and lays out the frame work of a management system for companies to follow.
The second path would be to mirror the frame work from the PRCS standard where the employer "conducts an evaluation" to determine the applicability of the standard. This path may be troublesome based on a recent OSHRC decision that vacated some OSHA citations where an employer did an evaluation without even visiting the spaces and no documentation. OSHRC stated that 1910.146 does not qualify who and how the eval is to be done and if a company says they did one, then OSHA can not cite them for determining a PRCS is not one and killing a worker.
EDUCATION is the key! With that said, we already have a GREAT frame work in place to educate businesses, safety professionals, engineers, and workers. OSHA's outreach training program could be revamped (since they are making major changes already due to issues with the program) to include a SPECIAL Combustible Dust course. Using the Susan Howard Training grants in 2010, OSHA develops a national training program, trains the trainers just like the OSHA 500/501 courses, and then uses the grant money to provide FREE training for businesses and professionals. If you are the one that will be doing a CD hazard evaluation, you MUST have completed the OSHA 30-hr CD course, which you can get for FREE. Each area office or regional office would select a reputable firm in their area as the FREE outreach instructors and that company would have to offer at least 12 courses for the next 12 months. These courses are FREE and the training company would be paid by OSHA and the company would use the OSHA training program. The training could be attended by consultants and company safety professionals alike. But any one doing a CD eval MUST have completed the 30-hour course. You would also become a SGE as we see used in VPP Assessment and could be a resource for OSHA to help out with CD inspections. Companies would have a choice...sign up for an SGE to do an inspection of your facility voluntarily or wait for OSHA to show up with a team using the CD CPL. We keep hearing that companies need help and this would provide OSHA with a set of eyes in the field looking specifically at this hazard as well as provide non-OSHA personnel as a resource to any businesses who want some help with their CD hazards. The SGE would almost be like the "consulting" side of OSHA where they make recommendations but have no enforcement role.
Even if we do not do the SGE, I think OSHA (if they are serious about this) should use the 2010 Susan Howard Grant money to focus solely on CD Hazard training. OSHA develops a OSHA 502 course for CD training. Anyone who attends the course becomes a certified OSHA CD Outreach training. Then OSHA uses the grant money to pay these instructors to conduct these outreach courses. The 10 hour is just a CD awareness course and the 30-hour certifies you to be able to conduct a CD hazard evaluation. The grant money is used to pay for the course and course materials so there is NO deterrent to companies sending their employees. It helps small businesses on both side of the standard: 1) those who have CD at their business can get free training and resources that OSHA has trained using OSHA materials and 2) it helps small private consulting firm by them doing the training over a one year period.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sensible solution for the Combustible Dust standard...that creates private sector jobs and provides FREE training for companies impacted by the std
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Forklift Operations in Potentially Explosive Atmospeheres
I'd like to share this post that was authored by Robert Zuiderveld, General Manager at Pyroban Corp in the ComDust discussion group.
The recent Forkliftaction.com article by contributing editor Tom Andel,"Keeping forklifts out of explosive situations," clearly illustrates that the majority of stakeholders do not understand the complexities involved in or consequences resulting from operating non- compliant powered industrial equipment in potentially explosion hazardous areas. Even though I appreciate the attention the article is putting on the issues at hand I am concerned with some in the information and statements published in the article.
CAL-OSHA
According to the OSHA IMIS citation and violation data, CAL-OSHA has not written a single OSHA 1910.178. C01 or C02 citation between Jan 1, 2003 and the present. Yet according to the NFIRS data approximately 432 fires were started by powered industrial equipment in California between 2003 and 2007.
As a matter of fact OSHA regions 9 and 10 (entire West Coast region) experienced approximately 600 and 742 fires respectively (according to the NFIRS), while only one (1) OSHA 1910.178. C01 citation was written (Nevada in 2003) between Jan 1, 2003 and the present in both regions.
I can only wonder why CAL-OSHA publishes an article about equipment fire and explosion safety while they appear to have completely ignored enforcement of the issue for at least 6 years?
Lack of Ex Hazard Awareness
I also have to question these statements:
“The problem is it’s not easy or cheap to find replacements,” he says. “For example, an electric forklift designed for heavy use in an outdoor location is not easy to come by. A number of my clients are concerned because they’ve been cited for having unapproved forklifts in their outdoor locations. We’re not sure what the fix is but we know it will be pretty expensive. You can’t use gasoline fired engines because of the various ignition sources. Now they’re coming after diesel.”
Availability of equipment:
The industry offers EX solution for diesel and electric powered trucks which are compliant with ATEX codes and regulation and can and may be safely operated in US facilities handling flammable materials. They are pretty easy to find for anybody with access to a computer, the Internet and the ability to type in “explosion proof forklift truck” in a Google, Yahoo or Bing search engine.
Cost of the equipment:
Yes, explosion protected equipment is more expensive than conventional equipment types. However when you compare their price to the cost involved in injuries, fatalities or adverse economic effects after an fire or explosions incident, there really is not that much money difference. Besides that it appears that litigious nature of society is eager to put a price on a human life, so I would like to challenge anyone to come up with putting a cost on a human life which lower than the cost of an EX forklift truck.
Equipment approvals:
It is true that UL approved EX diesel equipment is hard to find, for that matter none existent. This is due to the fact that UL never develop HAZLOC codes, regulations, construction specification or testing procedures for IC powered industrial equipment used in explosion hazardous areas.
ATEX ATmosphères EXplosibles
OSHA however has not objected to the use of ATEX compliant conversion in explosion hazardous areas in US as long as it passes a hazardous equivalency test and evidence of certification can be provided. OSHA has not cited companies using internationally certified EX equipment because of two little know OSHA enforcement facts:
1. OSHA has the “burden of proof” that equipment is unsafe
2. OSHA will allow the use of international certified equipment if not US certified alternative exists
ATEX certified solutions are available to industry and they meet both criteria, especially when it comes to diesel powered explosion proof equipment.
OSHA Powered Industrial Trucks
And these equipment type suitability/approval claims:
“OSHA’s diesel designations include DS (with safeguards to the exhaust, fuel and electrical systems) and DY (with all the safeguards of DS units plus temperature limitation features). The only forklifts approved for Division 1 hazardous locations are electric-powered, designated EX (with safeguards for use in atmospheres containing flammable vapors or dusts). DS, DY, EE (enclosed electrical equipment) and EX are approved for Division 2.”
Crucial Mistake
Unfortunately OSHA is making a commonly made crucial mistake by implying the suitability of UL approved DS, DY and EE equipment types for use in explosion hazardous areas. UL does not test, certify or approve the use of these equipment types for use in explosion hazardous areas. If equipment is tested and certified for hazardous areas, the appropriate hazardous area classification will be shown on the ID tag of the equipment. If contact your equipment OEM or UL for a written statement of the hazardous area suitability of the of DS, DY and EE type you will be able to quickly verify this info.
Authority Having Jurisdiction:
Keep in mind Lawyers are not listed in the NEC/NFPA standards as an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and their technical judgment of equipment suitability or code interpretation is completely irrelevant.
More interesting to the law factor is the actual US product law:
S.3014
To amend title 18 of the United States Code to penalize the knowing and reckless introduction of a defective product into interstate commerce. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 7, 2000
Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
A BILL To amend title 18 of the United States Code to penalize the knowing and reckless introduction of a defective product into interstate commerce. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
(a) A 'defective' product is one with a flaw in design, manufacture, assembly, or instruction which renders the product dangerous to human life and limb beyond the reasonable and accepted risk associated with such or similar products lacking such a flaw.
(b) To 'introduce' a product into the stream of interstate commerce is to manufacture, assemble, import, sell, or otherwise produce or transfer the product in question.
(c) 'Person' means the employees of any corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, or other business entity.
(d) 'Serious bodily injury' means bodily injury which involves--
(1) a substantial risk of death;
(2) extreme physical pain; or
(3) protected or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
SEC. 2. ENACTMENTS.
(a) A person who in gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care introduces into interstate commerce a product known by that person to be defective which causes the death of any individual shall be guilty of murder in the second degree and shall be imprisoned for a term of up to fifteen years.
(b) A person who in gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care introduces into interstate commerce a defective product which causes serious bodily injury to any individual shall be imprisoned for a term of up to 5 years.
Post By: Robert Zuiderveld
Resources:
Contact Info
Robert Zuiderveld-General Manager at Pyroban Corp.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
OSHA Underground No More
Many visitors here on the ComDust site, have also have visited the OSHA Underground site where a diverse spectrum of health and safety information could be found. Unfortunately the OSHA Underground site was removed a few days ago and visitors will no longer be able to read the helpful information that Kane and contributing authors provided concerning workplace health and safety issues.
As a contributing author, I was much at loss as others into what happened. Especially with all the great content, now vanished at the click of a mouse, that Kane and others provided through comments and posts. To a large extent the ability to write and post content on OSHA Underground as a contributing author enabled me to continue successfully in my combustible dust research project. On many a occasions, Kane and numerous visitors on the site always provided welcome encouragement to continue, which provided the much needed extra boost following hundreds of hours of researching combustible dust incidents.
Recently Abel, the owner of OSHA Aboveground site, obtained an e-mail from Google, the owners of Blogger. I'd like to share with others the content of the email:
Hello,
Google has received a subpoena for information related to anonymous comments posted on your blog. The case is entitled Secretary of Labor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., United States Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Case number SDT-9-0181.
To comply with the law, unless you or an anonymous commenter provide us with a copy of a motion to quash the subpoena (or other formal objection filed in court) via email at legal-support@google.com by 5pm Pacific Time on November 26, 2009, Google will assume you do not have an objection to production of the requested information and may provide responsive documents on this date.
For more information about the subpoena, you may wish to contact the party seeking this information at:
Michael D. Billok
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
(202)887-3500
So that's it. I called Mr. Billok, the attorney representing Wal-Mart and he could not legally provide any additional information that wasn't already in the above letter. It appears that the OSHA Underground site was voluntarily removed by Kane, the owner of the site.
This is a bittersweet ending to the recent award that LexisNexis bestowed on the OSHA Underground as one of the Top 25 Blogs for 2009. I was honored to be one of the four contributing authors in addition to Kane that wrote on subjects concerning workplace issues, which potentially had an impact amongst the readers.
Since the site is down and I can't express my feelings there, so here on the ComDust site I'd like to extend my sincere thanks to all the OSHA Underground readers for your support with your diverse comments that made the site so special as a unique outlet in discussing workplace health and safety issues. Like a friend that you grew up together with in the old neighborhood, all that is left is good memories from those days gone by.
Alternative: Facility Licensing that Generate Combustible Dust
I'd like to share this post that was authored by Timothy Anderson, Owner, Allfeed Process and Packaging Inc in the ComDust discussion group.
Information is powerful and it’s easy to become complacent when life experiences do not match the statistics. For instance, when you operate fork trucks for 30 years and never heard of an LPS classification of forklift or understood that there are also additional classes of electric fork trucks, then its easy to stop looking or stop asking questions to answers you didn't knew exist. Additionally, when the OEM (original equipment manufacturer), does not enlighten you or when OSHA inspectors visit your facility, when you have two, then three, then four trucks, and says nothing until you have ten forklifts then fines you $60,000 dollars, you then immediately realize you can not count on them (and shouldn't) for the answers.
Having farmed for some years (late 70’s to mid 80’s) it was common a few times each day to open the engine compartment to put out the embers from soybean or corn dust that accumulated on the engine and were smoldering. We never looked to see if there were any, there always were, we were just hunting them down.
In the grain elevator business, running corn dryers, we did fire watches each hour. Again not to look to see if there were hot spots but to find the ones that were always there. So in the feed business, when we get done running our LP or diesel equipment, we simply blew down the motors and put out any embers that might be there, and sometimes there are.
This is how it has been done for a long time. I agree with the changes that are coming down the pike but don’t agree with how they are coming down. Licensing is the real answer. Upgrade the test annually so changes are small. These pendulum swings from no knowledge to no tolerance is bad business.
Posted by Timothy Anderson
Resources
Combustible Dust Discussion Group
Monday, November 9, 2009
Wanna play the OSHA 191.178 C02 lottery?
I'd like to share this post that was authored by Robert Zuiderveld, General Manager at Pyroban Corp in the ComDust discussion group. It is an interesting and informative post as it provides insight regarding equipment protection levels of powered industrial trucks and equipment type’s suitability in a potentially combustible dust explosive atmosphere. OSHA PIT 1910.178 violations where third most cited violation according to the recent OSHA status report of the Dust NEP program
Robert Zuiderveld analyzed OHSA citations given for OSHA 1910.178 C02 violations for powered industrial trucks (use of improper equipment types in explosion hazardous areas) between 2003 and 2008.
2003 - 10 citations
2004 -18 citations
2005 -14 citations
2006 -16 citations
2007 -18 citations
2008 -31 citations
Units Sold
During that same time the following estimated number of “rated” forklift trucks (“S”, EE & DY types) were sold based on a 2% market share of total trucks sold (figure agreed upon by forklift OEMs)
2003 - approx. 2800 ES, EE, LPS, DS, DY units sold
2004 - approx. 3300, ES, EE, LPS, DS, DY units sold
2005 - approx. 3600, ES, EE, LPS, DS, DY units sold
2006 - approx. 3800, ES, EE, LPS, DS, DY units sold
2007 - approx. 3500, ES, EE, LPS, DS, DY units sold
2008 - approx. 3000, ES, EE, LPS, DS, DY units sold
Fires
According to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) during this same time period the following number of fires were ignited by forklift trucks and loader:
2003 – 532 fires (+/- 2233 fires if you incl. construction equipment, cranes and misc ind. equipment)
2004 - 572 fires (+/- 2469 fires if you incl. construction equipment, cranes and misc ind. equipment)
2005 - 657 fires (+/- 2795 fires if you incl. construction equipment, cranes and misc ind. equipment)
2006 -686 fires(+/- 2982 fires if you incl. construction equipment, cranes and misc ind. equipment)
2007 -795 fires (+/- 3149 fires if you incl. construction equipment, cranes and misc ind. equipment)
2008 –not available yet
Based on this data, it appears that OSHA inspectors may lack the ability to recognize equipment protection levels and equipment type’s suitability allowing the use of equipment types which are not tested, certified or suitable for use in the Class I and Class II explosion hazardous areas.
Additionally it appears that OSHA enforcement and fines are inconsistent. Citations for 1910.178 C02 are none existent or far and few between in some of the states with the highest number of forklift fires. http://www.pyroban.us/NFIRS-data.htm
If you are located in CA for example you have nothing to worry about. CAL-OSHA appears to be too busy with CARB to address equipment fire safety issues.
Fines have been relatively low ($250 – $2500), unless you have an incident that arouses OSHA scrutiny. Then things get really ugly really quick.
Imperial Sugar $350,000.00
All-feed $35,000.00
Off course if you are an oil refinery a different set of rules appear to apply, since BP Texas City nor Calumet, Shreveport were cited for using unprotected industrial equipment, even though a pickup truck and a vacuum truck were responsible for igniting those explosions.
Many more examples, mostly not cited by OSHA, can be found on our site at:
http://www.pyroban.us/Information_incidentCosts.htm
Why the double standard....only OSHA knows
With 45,000 Dust facilities to inspect (for some unknown reason these industries with known dust fire hazards were not included in the OSHA NEP SIC lists: paper related industries, ethanol plants, Cotton farms) and probably a similar number of companies handling Class I flammable materials. OSHA has its work cut out for them and your chances of getting audited may be similar to your chance of winning the lottery.
Note:
Thanks Robert for the valuable insight. Fantastic job on the excellent research and sharing with others
Robert Zuiderveld-General Manager at Pyroban Corp.
Combustible Dust ANPRM-Stakeholder Meeting
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=21185
SUMMARY: OSHA invites interested parties to participate in informal stakeholder meetings on the workplace hazards of combustible dust. OSHA plans to use the information gathered at these meetings in developing a proposed standard for combustible dust.
OSHA believes the stakeholder meeting discussion should center on major issues such as:
• Possible regulatory approaches
• Scope
• Organization of a prospective standard
• The role of consensus standards
• Economic impacts
• Additional topics as time permit
Meetings Location
The December 14, 2009, meetings will be held at the Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20005. The 2010 meeting dates and locations will be announced in one or more subsequent notices.
Dates/Times for the stakeholder meetings are:
• December 14, 2009, at 9 a.m., in Washington, DC
• December 14, 2009, at 1 p.m., in Washington, DC
• Additional meetings are planned for early 2010, and will be announced in
one or more subsequent notices.
Registration
Submit your notice of intent to participate in one of the scheduled or future stakeholder meetings with the following weblink:
• Electronic. Register at
https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/osha/register-osha-stakeholder.htm
(follow the instructions online).
Resources
Google Map
RSS Feed Subscribe
