OSHA PSM Citation Summary


		AcuSafe Home Page -> February 2002 Newsletter
		OSHA Interpretations: Process Hazard Analysis

Interpretations of the PSM Standard regarding Interfacing Utility Systems

The following interpretations of the PSM Standard have been paraphrased and summarized for ease of reading and for space considerations in this article. The exact wording, including fuller explanations by OSHA made be found in the actual documents referenced.

Question: Does the five-year timeframe for PHA revalidations adjust if a site revalidates a PHA earlier than the five-year point?
Answer: When employers update and revalidate a PHA before the 5-year deadline, the subsequent update and revalidation must be completed within the next 5-year period. (OSHA letter of 10/28/92).

Question: Under paragraph §1910.119(i)(2)(iii), a process hazard analysis (PHA) must be performed and recommendations must be resolved or implemented before start up of a "new facility." "Modified" facilities must meet the requirements contained in paragraph §1910.119(l) Management of change, which does not specifically require a PHA, nor does it require specific action to update or modify an original PHA. However, paragraph §1910.119(l)(2)(ii), the impact of change on safety and health, leads implicitly to consideration of how the changes will affect results of previous PHAs. How can we determine the point where changes to an existing facility have become so extensive that it should be considered a "new" facility?
Answer: Under paragraph §1910.119(i)(2)(iii), a PHA must be performed and recommendations resolved before start up of a new facility. Also under paragraph §1910.119(i)(2)(iii), an employer must comply with the management of change standard when existing facilities are modified more than by "replacement in kind." The pre-start up safety review standard does not specifically require an employer to conduct a PHA when a facility is modified. Under paragraph §1910.119(e)(6), a PHA must be completed initially and at least every five years thereafter. Existing facilities as of May 31, 1992, the effective date of the PSM standard, and new facilities, thereafter, are subject to the "initially completed PHA" requirement of paragraph §1910.119(e)(1). "At least every five years thereafter" is interpreted to mean that a periodic PHA may be required more frequently, for example, when an existing facility is modified more than slightly, to assure that the PHA (corresponding to the existing facility before modification) is consistent with the current process (emphasis added). (OSHA letter of January 1, 1996)

Question: Would OSHA find a PHA conducted as described below acceptable? The PHA team leader performs the PHA by himself/herself or with the help of other technically knowledgeable people, but not as a team effort. The PHA worksheets are completely filled-in except for the recommendation's column. The team leader then brings the results of that effort to a PHA team representing the unit/process under consideration, the team reviews the completed worksheets, and makes the appropriate recommendations.
Answer: Section 1910.119(e)(4) states that the process hazard analysis shall be performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations, and the team shall include at least one employee who has experience and the knowledge specific to the process being evaluated. Also, one member of the team must be knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used. Your question indicates that the "PHA team leader" performs the PHA, but "not as a team effort." In that respect, there is no PHA team, and it is inaccurate to state that the person filling in the worksheets is a team leader. This scenario is not consistent with the requirements of the Standard (see preamble at 57 Federal Register at 6378). In addition, your letter does not indicate exactly what information is "filled in" on the worksheets, and therefore, on what basis the PHA team makes recommendations. Please note that the scenario you have described for conducting a PHA would not meet the intent of the standard. (OSHA letter of October 31, 1996)

With respect to the use of PHA in the determination of the limits of a process and PSM coverage: OSHA intends that the PHA be an objective verification to ensure that the process, as determined by the employer is managed in accordance with the requirements of the PSM Standard. (OSHA memorandum of February 28, 1997). The employer must determine to what extent (if any) it is required to comply with the performance oriented Process Safety Management (emphasis added) standards as the PSM requirements may apply to a process or processes at a particular work site. The process safety analysis [sic] (PHA) can serve as a means by which the PHA team independently verifies the extent of coverage and other PSM determinations made by the employer. (OSHA letter of November 30, 1994)

Question: What must be included in the scope of a PHA revalidation?
Answer: The subject standard is a performance oriented standard and therefore, it would not be appropriate for OSHA to evaluate your set of specific procedures to determine if they apply to all workplaces covered by the PSM standard. The only requirements OSHA specifies in the subject standard is that the PHA update and revalidation be conducted at least every five years by a team which meets the requirements of 1910.119(e)(4). Even though OSHA does not specify other requirements for this standard, 1910.119(e)(6), OSHA does require employers to insure that PHAs are current and accurately reflect covered processes. To determine if a PHA can be revalidated and updated, employers must make evaluations of existing PHAs using the specific requirements to be addressed in a PHA as defined in 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3). After employers evaluate existing PHAs using the 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3) criteria and have made updates when necessary, then employers may revalidate their respective PHAs as being current and accurate. OSHA does not intend that the requirement to update and revalidate PHAs at least every five years mean that an employer must conduct all new and complete PHAs on processes which have received initial PHAs as required by the standard (emphasis added). To accomplish this employers must establish the scope and extent of their PHA updates and revalidations to include at least the following: evaluations of existing PHAs for accuracy and completeness using the criteria set forth in 1910.119(e)(3); checks to ensure that modifications to processes since the last PHAs have gone through management of change procedures or PHAs when required and that those changes are reflected in the PHAs; an evaluation of process safety information (PSI) to ensure that it is complete, current and accurate; verifications to ensure PHA specified procedures are adequate, up-to-date and are being implemented; determinations that existing PHA recommendations have been documented in their required respective areas such as PSI, PHAs, and procedures (operating, mechanical integrity, emergency response, etc.) and have been implemented; a review of all incident investigation reports required by 1910.119(m) to assure all affected PSI, procedures, training, etc., have been updated to reflect recommendations set forth in the subject reports and that appropriate information from those reports have been incorporated into the PHAs. Finally, OSHA intends that the PHA update and revalidation be documented. (OSHA letter of June 22, 1998)

Question: Do PHAs have to include connected utility systems?
Answer: A utility system connected to a PSM covered process would have to be addressed in the Process Hazard Analysis. If the Process Hazard Analysis indicates that the utility system has no adverse effect on the process, it, continues to be a considered part of a covered process. For example, modifications may be made to a process that might change the impact of the utility on the process. Additionally, if there are several covered processes served by a utility system, then you would have to consider the impact of the utility system in the Process Hazard Analyses of those processes as well. (OSHA letter of March 10, 1994)

Question: How does Facility Siting relate to PHA?
Answer: With respect to existing plants, "siting" does not refer to the site of the plant in relation to the surrounding community. It refers, rather, to the location of various components within the establishment. For example, safe distances for locating control rooms may be based on studies of the individual characteristics of equipment involved such as: types of construction of the room, types and quantities of materials, types of reactions and processes, operating pressures and temperatures, presence of ignition sources, fire protection facilities, capabilities to respond to explosions, drainage facilities, location of fresh air intakes, etc.) (OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.45A CH-1 9/94 - Compliance Directive for PSM)

Question: What are human factors?
Answer: Such factors may include a review of operator/process and operator/equipment interface, the number of tasks operators must perform and the frequency, the evaluation of extended or unusual work schedules, the clarity and simplicity of control displays, automatic instrumentation versus manual procedures, operator feedback, clarity of signs and codes, etc. (OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.45A CH-1 9/94 - Compliance Directive for PSM)

Question: Does a PHA revalidation only have to confirm that the P&ID is up-to-date?
Answer: OSHA requires employers to review all PSI, including P&IDs to ensure that it is complete, current and accurate. (OSHA letter of June 22, 1998)

Question: If a company has five sites with facilities performing the same process, does a separate PHA need to be performed for each site, for each facility at these sites or for each process at each facility?
Answer: The PSM Standard is applicable, on a site-by-site basis, to each worksite, which has one or more facilities containing one or more processes involving one or more of the covered highly hazardous chemicals. A worksite may be simply one facility containing a single process. (See the definition of "facility" in Subsection (b) of §1910.119). On the other hand, a worksite may be a complex of facilities, each containing one or more processes. By paragraph §1910.119(e)(1), employers are required to perform initial PHAs on processes involving highly hazardous chemicals covered by the PSM Standard. An employer may use a generic hazard analysis approach for the same (or nearly the same) covered process at an individual worksite. The employer must account for variations (differences in siting, incident histories, technology, equipment, operations, etc.) for each process covered by this generic approach (emphasis added). Generic process hazard analysis is addressed in section 4. of non-mandatory Appendix C, Compliance Guidelines and Recommendation for Process Safety Management, to section §1910.119. (OSHA letters of October 28, 1992 and June 1, 1995)

Employers must "promptly" address the problems identified in the PHA in a "timely manner," and complete actions "as soon as possible." What time frame did OSHA intend here? The standard's intent is for the employer to take corrective action as soon as possible. As soon as possible means that the employer shall proceed with all due speed, considering the complexity of the recommendation and the difficulty of implementation. OSHA expects employers to develop a schedule for completion of corrective actions, to document what actions are to be taken, and to document the completion of those actions as they occur. (OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.45A CH-1 9/94 - Compliance Directive for PSM)

OSHA considers an employer to have "resolved" the team's findings and recommendations when the employer either has adopted the recommendations, or has justifiably declined to do so. Where a recommendation is rejected, the employer must communicate this to the team, and expeditiously resolve any subsequent recommendations of the team. An employer can justifiably decline to adopt a recommendation where the employer can document, in writing and based upon adequate evidence, that one or more of the following conditions is true:

The analysis upon which the recommendation is based contains material factual errors.
The recommendation is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the employer's own employees, or the employees of contractors.
An alternative measure would provide a sufficient level of protection.
The recommendation is infeasible. (OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.45A CH-1 9/94 - Compliance Directive for PSM)

Question: How long must the process hazard analyses, updates, and revalidations be retained?
Answer: For the life of the process. (OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.45A CH-1 9/94 - Compliance Directive for PSM)

Although verbal interpretations have no official standing and federal employees rarely speak for attribution, there have been a number forums following the adoption of the PSM Standard where OSHA representatives have made themselves available to speak about PSM and answer questions. These verbal interpretations on PHA contain some interesting information on OSHA's thinking (or at least the thinking of the person answering the question). Also, OSHA has published non-mandatory guidance on PSM issues in OSHA Publication 3133 (the "purple booklet:). This guidance is also unofficial. The following verbal clarifications and other non-mandatory guidance of the PHA element of the PSM Standard has been issued:

Definition of facility siting: An analysis, during the PHA, of the spatial relationship between where the hazards are located and where the people congregate. Merely stating in the PHA that that industry spacing standards have been met is not sufficient. Industry spacing standards (API, NFPA, etc.) are equipment-to-equipment standards, not equipment-to- people standards. (OSHA co-sponsored PSM workshops in Spring 93)

Definition of human factors: The PHA team must account for:

Human error as a cause of hazard scenarios and,
Human factors engineering and human resources, e.g. the clarity, readability, and accessibility of controls and devices; operator task frequency/overload; shift rotation. The body of knowledge in human factors is not complete at this time. OSHA is looking for common sense items, not a formal ergonomic study (OSHA co-sponsored PSM workshops in Spring 93) (OSHA Region VI presentations on PSM in January 94)

For PHA team leaders, OSHA will look for documentation of formal training - course certificates are acceptable. For PHA team leaders, qualification gained through experience is acceptable, OSHA might want to see examples of PHA reports led by a team leader qualified in this manner (OSHA co-sponsored PSM workshops in Spring 93)

Previous participation in a PHA would not qualify a team leader to lead an initial PHA or revalidation (OSHA co-sponsored PSM workshops in Spring 93)
PHA team leaders should be impartial for studies they lead. (OSHA Publication 3133)

There is a distinction between PHAs conducted to meet the requirements of paragraph (e) of the PSM Standard and a PHA conducted as part of a MOC program. MOC-related PHAs do not have to follow the same rules as those studies intended to satisfy paragraph (e) of the PSM Standard. Note: If the MOC-related PHAs are later collected together and intended to satisfy the requirement that PHAs be revalidated, then they must address the same issues as a paragraph (e) PHA. (OSHA co-sponsored PSM workshops in Spring 93)

Using different PHA methodologies in different parts of a process is acceptable if needed. (OSHA Publication 3133)

For batch operations, products may be grouped into representative batches and PHAs performed on the groups of products (OSHA Publication 3133)

To see a specific letter or other interpretive document published by OSHA, visit OSHA's website at http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/toc_interps.html. As a service to our clients and readers, Acutech has included many of these documents, including the letters of interpretation discussed above, in a continuous Word® file. This file allows for easier searching for keywords that might be of interest and makes it easier to determine if an interpretative document has been published on a particular topic or if any of them address a specific PSM-related issue. This file may be found at http://www.acusafe.com/psm/process-safety-management-interp_letters.html

If you have an interpretation that you would like to share with AcuSafe or feedback about this feature, please email us at editor@acusafe.com. To go back to the OSHA Interpretations Feature Index, click here or go back to AcuSafe.