Most of the letters of interpretation issued by OSHA over the years have dealt with PSM applicability issues. This newsletter will focus on several interpretations dealing with emergency response planning, specifically employee alarm systems. The regulation governing employee alarm systems is considered part of the PSM Standard by reference. Paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.119, the PSM emergency response element, refers to 29 CFR 1910.38(a), the requirements for an emergency action plan for any facility subject to an OSHA standard. This regulation, in turn refers to 29 CFR 1910.165, which is the regulation that contains the requirements for employee alarm systems. Note that most of these interpretations pre-date the adoption of the final PSM Standard.

The following utility 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: In 1910.165(b)(2) what does the word "perceived" means? 
Answer: OSHA interprets "perceived" to mean employees shall be able to hear, see, or feel an alarm signal to the extent necessary to understand what it means. If an establishment uses an alarm system that uses sound as a means of signaling its employees, then the sound must be loud and clear enough to be understood by all employees of that establishment, irrespective of where the employees are located within the establishment. Employees must understand the meaning of each such alarm signal. There may be instances where establishments have alarm systems with loudspeakers installed in such a manner that employees may hear the alarm but cannot understand the signals because the same signals are coming from other parts of the plant. Such instances (where employees may get confused because of loudspeaker arrangement) will not meet the requirements of the standard. (OSHA letter of 1/23/91)

Question: In 1910.165(b)(3), what is the meaning of the phrase "to perform actions designated under the emergency action plan?" 
Answer: After an employee becomes aware of an emergency situation, the next step involves actions to be performed by that employee. Generally, the actions include evacuation, or emergency response to mitigate an emergency situation. The alarm need not announce by voice the actions to be taken by employees. However, under the requirement of this standard, when employees become aware of an emergency condition, they shall follow and perform the actions for which they have been trained under their emergency action plan. For instance, some employees under their emergency actions plan may evacuate the plant in a safe manner, and some may be required to participate in actions responding to emergency. (OSHA letter of 1/23/91)

Point of Interest: In 1910.165(b)(4), we interpret that the method by which priority is given to emergency messages over non-emergency messages (where a communication system also serves as the employee alarm system), could be either by manual or by automatic systems. (OSHA letter of 1/23/91)

Question: In 1910.165(c)(1), what does “approval” of the emergency equipment mean? 
Answer: The term "approved" used in this standard means that the equipment is listed or approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) described in the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1910.7. At present, OSHA recognizes six NRTL's. (OSHA letter of 1/23/91) Editor’s note: This interpretation would seem to indicate that “home-grown” alarm systems that are not designed, installed, or maintained in accordance with a NRTL would not meet the requirements of 1910.165.

Question: Pertaining to 1910.165(d)(3) does the back-up means of alarm need to meet the requirements of the primary means of alarm? 
Answer: The back-up means of alarm is not required to meet all of the primary means; however, it must be capable of effectively providing alarm service equivalent to the primary means. The standard gives examples of other means of alarms that may be used when the primary systems are out-of-service. In other words, the back-up system need not be a duplicate of the primary system. (OSHA letter of 1/23/91)

Question: Pertaining to 1910.165(d)(4), what is the meaning of “systems that are capable of being supervised are supervised?” 
Answer: This standard does not require that all employee alarm circuitry installed after January 1, 1981, be capable of being supervised. However, if certain systems installed have the capability of being supervised, then only those systems need to be supervised. Please refer to Appendix A of 1910.165 for examples and a variety of ways that may be used to continuously monitor the system to assure it is operational and to identify trouble in the system and give a warning signal. (OSHA letter of 1/23/91) Editor’s Note: The definition of “supervised” from 1910 Subpart L, Appendix A is as follows: The requirements for supervising the employee alarm system circuitry and power supply may be accomplished in a variety of ways. Typically, electrically operated sensors for air pressure, fluid pressure, steam pressure, or electrical continuity of circuitry may be used to continuously monitor the system to assure it is operational and to identify trouble in the system and give a warning signal. Note that this Appendix is not mandatory and does not require that an employee alarm system be supervised.

Question with regard to tone-only systems: Given the restraints of radio and phone, how does a tone only system comply with the requirement of the standard if employees may have to go through the contaminated areas in order to reach a designated "muster area" or may walk into a hazard if the nearest phone happens to be in the wrong direction? 
Answer: During an OSHA inspection, if it is determined through employee interviews that they are not trained to perform proper actions, such as walking away from contaminated areas (that is to walk upwind from the contaminated areas) in order to either use a phone or to evacuate the area, then citations may result for violation of the OSHA standards, particularly of 1910.38(a), 1910.120(l) and (q). Employers may choose tone-only systems, among other alarm systems, provided their employees are trained to take appropriate actions. (OSHA letter of 1/23/91)

Question: What are the requirements with respect to alarm system complexity and sophistication? 
Answer: The complexity and sophistication of the alarm system required depends on the number and size of operations and the associated degree of hazard for a given facility. A small, single-process plant may only require a simple siren to call for evacuations. In a larger more complex facility, where multiple contingent responses or multiple contingent evacuation routes may be required of employees, the alarm system should convey clearly the information necessary to allow employees to respond or evacuate in a safe and appropriate manner. Depending on the facility, this may require communicating the location of the release, the type of the release (i.e., vapor, gas, liquid), the ambient conditions that may affect response or evacuation options, and ultimately, which contingent response or evacuation procedure is to be followed. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: What are the training requirements with respect to alarm systems? 
Answer: The level of training required for employees regarding the alarm system increases directly with the complexity and sophistication of the system. Training would be required to cover how and what the alarm system communicates to employees during an emergency. A facility, although having an adequate alarm system, and found to be in compliance with all of the pertinent OSHA hardware regulations, may not have trained its employees in the proper contingent responses indicated by the alarm system. This would be a deficiency in the required training program (e.g. 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2)(ii) or 1910.120(q)(6)), and would be so cited by OSHA. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: Does OSHA certify alarm systems? 
Answer: OSHA does not certify alarm systems as to their "meeting compliance". The employer is responsible for analyzing the circumstances of the facility and choosing a system that meets the requirements of the law. OSHA will provide guidance and interpretation as to the standard's intent; however, OSHA does not endorse any products nor design systems. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: Pertaining to 1910.165(b)(3) what does “distinctive and recognizable as a signal to evacuate the work area or to perform actions designated under the emergency action plan” mean? 
Answer: This portion of the regulation emphasizes the need for the signal to be "distinctive and recognizable". Following is an excerpt from 29 CFR 1910.165 "Summary And Explanation of Final Rule:" (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Section 1910.165 Employee Alarm Systems paragraph (b)(3) of the proposal provided that employee alarms be distinctive and recognizable to employees as signals to perform actions designated in the emergency action plan. OSHA has decided to adopt the proposed language with minor corrections as the final requirement. In addition, OSHA does not intend that the final requirement mean that each signal must be generated by a separate device or system; rather, OSHA will recognize a single system with distinctive code signals or a voice communication system. 

Alarm system function, where contingent actions are stipulated by the emergency response plan, can be stated this way: At those sites where the emergency response plan contains multiple contingent responses the alarm system must provide distinctive and recognizable signals as necessary for proper action as designated in the emergency response plan.

The "Employee Alarm Systems" standard requires employers to design a system, appropriate for their workplace, that must provide warning for necessary emergency action. For facilities that have developed several contingent responses or evacuation procedures, the alarm system "must provide distinctive and recognizable signals as necessary for proper action as designated in the emergency response plan." (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: What is the meaning of the standard's performance-oriented language requiring that the "warning" and "notification" be communicated through the alarm system or through some other form of communication (i.e. verbally at muster points) in order to allow adequate "reaction time for safe escape of employees from the workplace or the immediate work area"? 

Answer: If all employees are given notification and warning in sufficient time to escape before the "critical moment", which might be defined as the point at which the emergency becomes injury- or life-threatening, this would meet compliance with the intent of the standard. OSHA recognizes that there may be emergencies in which the alarm is sounded after the critical moment for a certain group of employees in the immediate incident area. The alarm is intended to warn others more remote from the incident. For example, a fire or explosion may occur followed by an alarm to warn others to take action or evacuate. This is not a violation of the standard. Paragraph1910.165(b)(1) creates a performance standard for the amount of time allotted for the alarm system to accomplish its task. Alarm systems must inform employees not only that an emergency exists, but where contingent responses or evacuation procedures are in place, what they are expected to do in response to the alarm system's warning. This information must be relayed by the alarm system to the employee in sufficient time to provide for reaction time for safe escape of employees from the workplace or immediate work area. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: For systems not having a battery back-up, would the use of an alternate source of power such as a generator or noninterruptable power supply be necessary? 
Answer: Yes. For systems not having a battery back-up, the use of an alternate source of power such as a generator or noninterruptable power supply would be necessary. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: Are manually operated actuation devices, such as pull boxes required? 
Answer: Manually operated actuation devices, such as pull boxes, are not required but if used must be evident and readily accessible. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: Is the telephone is an acceptable alternative to the use of manually operated actuation devices? 
Answer: Yes, the telephone is an acceptable alternative to the use of manually operated actuation devices. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

Question: Is it required that a communication device be supervised? 
Answer: No, the communication device need not be supervised. (OSHA letter of 12/16/92)

The following deficiencies were found at a particular site:

• Interviews with employees at Site B indicated that some were not familiar with the meaning of the emergency signals identified in the SAHP, indicating the need to provide more frequent training and practice drills. 
• The site relied heavily on the use of small air horns located strategically throughout the site to provide notification of emergency situations; however, access to some of these horns was blocked by drums and equipment. 
• In addition, the main siren located at the site had not been tested periodically because of concerns about alarming the surrounding community.

Editor’s Note: The above deficiencies were not included in a letter of interpretation, but were part of a report published on September 16, 1993 by OSHA summarizing safety and health inspections of Superfund Incinerator sites. However, the emergency response and alarm findings of these inspections are applicable to any PSM-covered facility.

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 non-mandatory guidance on PSM issues in OSHA Publication 3133 (the “purple booklet”). This guidance is also unofficial and is not mandatory. To our knowledge, there have been no verbal clarifications or other non-mandatory guidance on employee alarm systems that has been issued.

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 (go to http://www.acusafe.com/psm/process-safety-management-interp_letters.html). 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. 

Note to our readers who have downloaded or used the interpretations file in the past: This file has been updated and now includes interpretations from the OSHA regulations that form the requirements for an emergency response plan, including alarm system and HAZWOPER training requirements. The updated file may be found at http://www.acusafe.com/psm/process-safety-management-interp_letters.html 

In the next month’s issue of AcuSafe News, we will include additional discussions of interpretations related to emergency response planning (HAZWOPER training) that are referenced by the PSM Standard.