PSM, VPP and 2010 (moment in time) June 3, 2010 John Newquist, MS, CSP, CFI Assistant Regional Administrator
Moment in Time
These are a snapshot of issues in the last months.
The next 12 months could be different.
Secretary of Labor – Hilda L. Solis
Assistant Secretary (OSHA)
Dr. David Michaels
Deputy Assistant Secretary (OSHA)
Deputy Assistant Secretary (OSHA)
Chief of Staff (OSHA)
Process Safety Management
Bhopal (’84): focused OSHA’s attention
Institute, WV(’85): shows disasters can happen here = CHEMSEP
1988-91: concern of public & Congress increases w each event = PETROSEP
Feb. 24, 1992: standard in Federal Register
Ghost of PSM past
1984 Mexico City 650 --
1984 Bhopal, India 2500 --
1984 Union Oil, IL 17
1988 Norco, LA 7 42
1989 Morris, IL 2 18
1989 Pasadena, TX 23 130
1990 Houston, TX 17 --
1990 Cincinnati, OH 2 72
1991 Lake Charles, LA 5 --
1991 Sterlington, LA 8 120
2005 Texas 15 170
2010 WA 7 ?
Over a dozen refineries not received comprehensive PSM inspection
Are States going to inspect under the CHEMSEP?
Dr. Michael letter to States in May 2010
Some companies have only one criteria for safety incentive bonus….
The OSHA Lost time rates
Disincentives exist in some facilities that discourage proper recording of accidents
“ Over the years, the working environment had eroded to one characterized by resistance to change, and lacking of trust, motivation, and a sense of purpose. Coupled with unclear expectations around supervisory and management behaviors this meant that rules were not consistently followed, rigor was lacking and individuals felt disempowered from suggesting or initiating improvements.”
May 17 2010
The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company,” Barab said.
The head of OSHA, David Michaels, said the safety problems aren’t limited to BP. “We are very concerned about the commitment of the refining industry to worker health and safety,” he said.
BP Texas – Oct 2009 $87M
BP Ohio – 42, Willful, 20 Serious, $3M
NDK – 500K, 7 Willful 5a1
Repeat OSHA Findings across corporations
If not PSM, then OSHA stds, 5a1 – ASHRAE, NFPA, CCPS etc…
VPP Issue #1
What! I am covered?
“ I meet the MEER decision” (Then what is your work on the tanks and pipe? Hot works? Line Breaking? Leaks? )
1996 Court Case - MEER Decision
Flammable liquid storage tank exemption
Judge ruled - flammable liquids stored or transferred from atmospheric tanks are exempted regardless of quantity 1910.106 and the “General Duty Clause” is used to regulate stored flammables In a 1996 court decision, the judge ruled that coverage under OSHA's Process Safety Management Standard does not extend to stored flammables in "atmospheric tanks," even if they were connected to a "process" within the definition of the standard.
MEER Decision Process * Exemption if atmospheric tanks is used solely for storage * Process is covered if it involves 10,000 pounds or more of flammable liquid Flammable Storage Tank Flammable Liquid Storage Tank & Unit Operation Flammable Liquid Atmosphere Storage Tank with Flammable Gas Blanket * No exemption as the atmosphere tanks are used for purposes beyond storage
What? The host facility is responsible for all that PSM!
The contract employer shall…
assure that each contract employee is trained in the work practices
assure that each contract employee is instructed in the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job and the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.
document that each contract employee has received and understood the training required by this paragraph.
prepare a record which contains the identity of the contract employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
advise the employer of any unique hazards presented by the contract employer's work , or of any hazards found by the contract employer's work.
Facility siting for trailers, Classified locations and ignition sources.
Example: Has the throughput changed from its original design rate for the Selected Unit(s)? If the throughput has changed, has the employer conducted a management of change (MOC) procedure for each throughput change(s) since May 26, 1992? If no, possible violations include: 119(l)(1) – the employer did not conduct an MOC when the throughput in the Selected Unit(s) changed.
Pumps – can employees bring issues to maintenance? Breakdown maintenance?
Pressure vessels toxic, highest pressure, most repairs, corrosive, oldest
Management of Change (more)
Hot Works (more)
Confined space – Who goes in? Who rescues?
Management of Change
1910.119(l)(1) The employer shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for "replacements in kind") to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered process.
A carbon steel valve painted with aluminum paint was used instead of a stainless steel valve. It corroded rapidly.
More Pressure Added.
Higher Temperatures in the Process
Is there a program?
Do they know how to calibrate equipment?
What distance from sparks is safe?
Testing/clear area before work?
Hoses and openings to flammables?
VPP PSM review require 3300 &3400 classes
PSM is having us send out advance person
3300 – 46 People
3400 – 32 People
3430 - reactives
National Emphasis Programs
Chemical Plants / PSM
Air Traffic Control Towers
Willfuls = Most Cited
1910.119(d)(3)(i) Process Safety Information
No U-1 for Isobutane Recycler Coalescer
1910.119(d)(3)(ii) Equipment not meet good engineering practice
PSV providing pressure relief protection to the reflux drum had an inlet pressure drop exceeding 3%
PSV had back pressure less than 10% of its set pressure
NO PSV for pump around cooler
Furnaces have no combustion safeguards
API RP 520
1910.119(d)(3)(iii) Equipment not operated in a safe manner
Cross connections in piping systems
Cross-connections are the links through which it is possible for contaminating materials to enter a piping system
1910.119(e)(5) PHA findings not resolved
Building over pressure scenario
1910.119(j)(4)(ii) Inspections on process equipment
No thickness readings on PV
No thickness reading on piping with a history of leaks
Thickness readings not at half remaining life
1910.119(j)(5) Equipment had deficiencies outside acceptable range
PSV was undersize and adequate to have adequate relieving rate during relief scenarios
Change in ownership of facility – loss of institutional memory, best people, breakdown maintenance
PPE – flames, and arc flash
Where to Start
Risk management – top risks/high severity
Process Safety Information - Walk it down
Process Hazard Analysis
Need to add citation language to IMIS/OIS
OSHA VPP resources are limited
Third Party and VPP?
Comprehensive vs. Partials?
Injury and Illness recording
Trevor Kletz – What Went Wrong
OSHA Public database for 5a1
Rolf Eckhoff – Explosion Hazards in the Processing industry
William Leffler – Petroleum Refining in Nontechnical Language