In recent PSM audit work, it has come to our attention that the body of written and verbal information issued by OSHA since the inception of the PSM Standard has not received wide dissemination. Conforming to these clarifications and interpretations is not mandatory, and covered facilities cannot even be held responsible for not being aware of their existence. The opinions stated in these interpretations are also subject to change, and on a few occasions conflicting guidance has been given. However, they do represent OSHA’s official (written) and unofficial (verbal) guidance on what they expect in a PSM program, and are therefore worthy of attention.

The following information on PSM clarifications and interpretations represents the continuation of a series of articles in order to provide wider distribution of this information. We welcome your feedback on this feature of the AcuSafe newsletter, and also welcome any clarification and interpretation information that you might have discovered for inclusion in a future issue.

Most of the letters of interpretation issued by OSHA over the years have dealt with PSM applicability issues. However, this newsletter will focus on several interpretations dealing with Compliance Audits.


Interpretations of PSM Standard With Respect to Compliance Audits

• Question: Would a new facility covered by the PSM Standard have to have completed a compliance audit initially prior to operation?

Answer: No, a PSM-covered facility would not require a compliance audit initially prior to operation. [OSHA letter of 1/5/95] Editor’s note: OSHA noted in the same letter that the PSSR element of the Standard does not require a compliance audit for a new facility. Aside from reinforcing the interpretation that a compliance audit is not required for a new facility, this portion of OSHA’s response seems to indicate that the pre-operation PSM requirements for new facilities are driven by the PSSR element and not the other PSM elements.

• Question: Would a new facility require a compliance audit earlier than 3 years from the start of its operations?

Answer: A compliance audit may be required before a three year period. For example, if your facility, for any reason, would need to hire contractors (before a period of three years) to perform specialty work on a covered process, then paragraph (h) of §1910.119 would also become applicable to your facility, and a written compliance audit would have to be conducted. [OSHA letter of 1/5/95] Editor’s note: This part of OSHA’s response seems to imply that as PSM elements become effective and they have not initially been examined as part of the PSSR (e.g., contractor safety as in the example above), then a compliance audit would be required, even if the 3 year anniversary of the facility startup has not been reached.

• Question: Should compliance audit deficiencies be corrected within a three year timeframe, or promptly after the audit is conducted?

Answer: OSHA believes that a compliance safety audit provides an important function in assuring that an effective process safety management system is in place and working. If deficiencies are discovered, it is imperative that corrective actions be initiated immediately, so that corrective measures can be implemented as soon as possible. [OSHA letter of 2/24/95]

• Question: Can OSHA provide any guidance on sampling size for documents in elements which are specific to one covered process (such process safety information) in order to produce confident audit results?

Answer: Concerning the request for sampling guidance, this is a matter which must be determined by persons knowledgeable of the processes that are responsible for the audit. They should be able to explain their sampling strategies in terms of statistical validity and common sense results (see Appendix C of 1910.119). [OSHA letter of 10/31/96] Editor’s note: Non-mandatory Appendix C of the PSM Standard states the following with respect to audit sample sizes: “An audit is a technique used to gather sufficient facts and information, including statistical information, to verify compliance with standards. Auditors should select as part of their preplanning a sample size sufficient to give a degree of confidence that the audit reflects the level of compliance with the standard.” Hence, no mandatory percentage or other formal measure of sampling size is required.

• Question: How is the three year audit frequency measured?

Answer: Employers must certify at least every 3 years that they have evaluated compliance with 1910.119. Under 1910.119(o)(1), employers must conduct compliance audits in a timely manner to meet this certification requirement. The first certification is required no later than May 26, 1995. When employers conduct compliance audits and certify compliance with 1910.119 before May 26, 1995, the subsequent certification must be within 3 years from the certification date. [OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.45A CH-1, Appendix B]

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 to answer questions. These verbal interpretations contain some interesting information on OSHA’s thinking (or at least the thinking of the person answering the question). Also, OSHA has published guidance on PSM issues in OSHA Publication 3133 (the “purple booklet”). This guidance is also unofficial and is not mandatory.

• Tracking systems should be used to manage audit recommendations/corrective actions. [OSHA 3133]
• OSHA states that companies will not be cited for violations for finding deficiencies themselves during their internal audits - they will be cited for not correcting those deficiencies in a reasonable amount of time. [OSHA Region VI presentations on PSM in January, 1994, and AIChE Biennial PSM Symposium in Houston (2/94, & 4/96)] Editor’s note: The issue of a federal regulator citing a company for violations when the violations were discovered by the company during an audit required by the same regulation has been the subject of federal case law.
• Third party (outside) auditors not required. [OSHA co-sponsored PSM workshops in Spring, 1993]
• The audit should be conducted or led by a person knowledgeable in audit techniques who is impartial towards the facility or area being audited. [OSHA 3133, meeting with OSHA Region VI on 4/6/95, 11th Annual VPP Association Conference in September, 1995]
• Certification of audit required by responsible person - must include signature and date. [meeting with OSHA Region VI on 4/6/95]
• Deficiencies found by OSHA and not found by company in audit will be cited for both the element where the deficiency was found and the audit element. [AIChE Biennial PSM Symposium in Houston (2/94, & 4/96), meeting with OSHA Region VI on 4/6/95]
• Resolving Audit Recommendations [meeting with OSHA Region VI on 4/6/95]:
 Not expecting everything to be completed in 2-3 months.
 Everything should be completed in 6 months, unless justification is warranted for longer period (e.g. lead time on material).
 Key will be what interim steps have been taken to assure employee safety.
Editor’s note: The same philosophy on resolution of recommendations could be applied to other PSM elements.
• No particular audit protocol,/checklist or report format is required. [AIChE Biennial PSM Symposium in Houston (2/94, & 4/96)]

To see a specific letter or other interpretive document published by OSHA, visit OSHA’s website at www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/toc_interps.html. As a service to our clients and readers, AcuTech has included most of these documents, including the letters of interpretation discussed above, in a continuous MS 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.

In the next issue of the AcuSafe newsletter, we will include a discussion of interpretations related to operating procedures.

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.