The major information collection requirements of the PSM Standard include:
OSHA, PPE Hazard Assessment, Injuries, Feasibility, greater hazard, and Industry Practices (OSHRC Decision)
We see this argument from time to time, hence I am sharing this OSHRC decision from last week as a discussion "starter" at facilities, especially food facilities where safety glasses are not used for whatever reason(s). This case involved a chicken processing facility that chose to NOT use safety glasses on a "chicken deboning line". The facility had one previous eye injury on the line and the second eye injury is what brought OSHA in as it was a hospitalization. The company used several arguments to justify the lack of eye protection: infeasible, they fog up, not needed, safety glasses would create a greater hazard, safety glasses create a food safety hazard, and "employee misconduct". The ALG was NOT impressed, to say the least, with any of the defenses and sided with OSHA. Of course, this case may go before the full OSHRC and get reversed. Here are the details...
Employees working on the debone line wear protective equipment. Each wears a gown over street clothes, cut-resistant gloves and sleeves, hearing protection, a hair net (and beard net where applicable), an apron, and rubber boots. Although used in other parts of the facility, employees on the debone line do NOT wear eye protection. According to unrebutted statements made by employees to the CSHO, employees are provided safety glasses by the temporary employment staffing agency but are prohibited from wearing them on the debone line by the host company.
Establishments in the following industries with 20 to 249 employees must submit injury and illness summary (Form 300A) data to OSHA electronically
The new rule, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2017, requires certain employers to electronically submit injury and illness summary (Form 300A) data. The amount of data submitted will vary depending on the size of company and type of industry. The new reporting requirements will be phased in over two years. Establishments in the following industries with 20 to 249 employees must submit injury and illness summary (Form 300A) data to OSHA electronically...
For those who have been adamant and faithful followers of 1910.146, know that the standard requires the Entry Supervisor to verify rescue services are available and that the means for summoning them are operable BEFORE he/she signs the entry permit and allows entry to begin. Although we get a lot of pushback on this, as many people do not believe this is actually required for EACH ENTRY, here is the actual wording...
Oregon OSHA has published their PSM NEP which focuses on processes with Ammonia, Chlorine, and Formaldehyde. The NEP also EXEMPTS VPP sites from any inspections under their Emphasis Program. To make the most effective use of its limited resources, OR-OSHA will use annual data gathered by the Oregon Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) Hazardous Substance Information System (HSIS) to generate PSM inspection scheduling lists. The most current HSIS database will be sorted to generate a list of all employers who reported having chemicals stored at their facilities in excess of the PSM Threshold Quantities (PSM-TQ). The majority of PSM employers have threshold quantities of ammonia, chlorine, or formaldehyde. Oregon OSHA will divide the list into four groups:
A factory refrigeration technician who lost his lungs to an anhydrous ammonia leak has no case against his employer, a poultry plant in N.C. The incident in June 2009 killed one refrigeration technician and injured another refrigeration technician and their supervisor. The injured refrigeration technician was in a coma for four to five months and had to have a double-lung transplant. It all started in April 2009 when the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected the poultry plant and ordered the facility to replace a part in its refrigeration equipment, a votator heat exchanger, which uses anhydrous ammonia to chill the poultry before packaging. The company received the part, an inner sleeve, in June 2009 and decided to use its own employees instead of hiring an outside contractor to install it. The instructions for replacing the inner sleeve include a warning that all of the refrigerant - the anhydrous ammonia - must be removed first.
OSHA began an inspection Nov. 12, 2015, at the coffee manufacturing facility after the release of carbon dioxide asphyxiated a 53-year-old shift supervisor. Following its inspection, OSHA issued citations for nine serious violations. The employer did not provide proper training to its workers for stopping the release of a hazardous chemical. Additionally, the company did not have the proper procedures in place for stopping releases. Here is a breakdown of the emergency response citations:
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
May 5, 2016
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
The United States Court of Appeals
District of Columbia Circuit
333 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Re. 28(j) Letter – Agricultural Retailers Association, et al. v. United States Department of Labor, et al., Nos. 15-1326 and 15-1340
Dear Mr. Langer:
Respondents write to advise the Court that earlier today OSHA initiated Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act proceedings, the first step in a comprehensive rulemaking to update its 20-year-old Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard (see attached representative letter to Mr. Auger). As part of this rulemaking, OSHA is considering whether to codify its current interpretation of the term “retail,” i.e., the interpretation contained in the July 22, 2015, memorandum that is the subject of this litigation, in the text of the PSM Standard.