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 management of change. Management of change is a highly vital element in any process safety program. Many of the catastrophic accidents over the past few decades can be traced, in large part, to a management of change system that was not in place or was not functional (e.g., Flixborough, Bhopal).

Interpretations of PSM Standard With Respect to Management of Change

Question: May an employer, who has developed and reviewed an initially accurate set of operating procedures and who has effective management of change procedures in place (in compliance with 1910.119(l)), certify on an annual basis thereafter that the operating procedures are current and accurate without actually performing a review of the procedures each year after the initial review?
Answer: Yes. The standard states that operating procedures must be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice. If an employer determines that modifications resulting from management of change are incorporated into operating procedures and determines that no other changes occur, then the employer could certify that the procedures are current and accurate and have been reviewed as often as necessary. While §1910.119(p)(3) requires annual certification that operating procedures are current and accurate, there is no requirement for an annual review, as such. [OSHA letter of 3/9/94]

Question: Under paragraph §1910.119(i)(2)(iii), a process hazard analysis (PHA) must be performed and recommendations must be resolved or implemented before startup 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? We find the PSM standard to be very clear in the definition of "replacement in kind" and how to determine the point when a facility is considered "modified", but less clear on the issue of when changes have progressed beyond "modification".
Answer: Please note under paragraph §1910.119(b), "Definitions" that a "facility" means buildings, containers and equipment which contain a process. A facility constructed on a work site where there are no other facilities is considered a new facility. Thereafter, when placed into operation, this new facility becomes an existing facility. A facility, subsequently constructed on the work site such that it is physically separated from and otherwise independent from existing facilities, is considered a new facility. (A facility is considered independent when the facility including the process(es) contained in the facility would not affect or be affected by an existing facility including the process(es) it contains. Otherwise the facility is considered a dependent facility.) Thereafter, when placed into operation, this new facility becomes an existing facility, and so on. A facility, subsequently constructed on the work site such that the facility or the process(es) it contains is connected to or otherwise dependent on an existing facility including the process(es) it contains, is considered collectively to be a modified facility. Under §1910.119(i)(1), the prestart up safety review standard would be applicable to "new facilities and to modified facilities which contain a covered process", that is, a process in which (at any one point in time) there is a threshold quantity or great amount of a HHC specified as being covered by the PSM standard. [OSHA letter of 1/11/96]

Question: 1) Do the management of change (MOC) provisions of the PSM regulations apply when maintenance procedures are changed? 2) Would the MOC process be required for changes made to equipment test and inspection frequencies?
Answer: According to Paragraph 1910.119(l)(1), except for replacements in kind (please see definition in 1910.119), the management of change (MOC) provisions, l(1) through l(5), would apply to changes in maintenance procedures and for changes made to equipment test and inspection frequencies. OSHA believes that it is necessary to thoroughly evaluate any contemplated changes to a process to assess the potential impact on the safety and health of employees and to determine what modifications to operating procedures may be necessary. [OSHA letter of 10/31/96]

Question: Is training under "management of change" considered to be refresher training?
Answer: No. It is an independent training requirement, in addition to other training requirements of the standard. [OSHA CPL 2-2.45A CH-1 9/13/94]


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. The following clarification published in OSHA 3133 is pertinent to hot work permits:

• MOC procedure should ensure that equipment and procedures are returned to their original conditions at the end of a temporary change.
• MOC forms/clearance sheets are acceptable control methods of tracking changes.
• More complex changes requires a more "formal hazard evaluation" than simple changes (PHA not specifically mentioned).

Possible pre-modification issues:

• check codes, standards, internal engineering specifications
• complete design review
• perform reactivity testing for new substances
• add materials to TSCA/SARA inventories
• complete safety and health impact review
• comply with safety and loss prevention requirements
• complete maintenance review/revise spare parts list
• evaluate change against vent, relief, flare capability
• complete industrial hygiene review
• review change against existing environmental permits
• obtain approvals

Possible post-modification issues (before startup):

• completed PSSR
• completed training on change for affected employees
• SOPs marked-up
• P&IDs, PFDs, plot plans and other affected PSI marked-up
• training program modifications identified
• preventive maintenance program modifications identified
• DCS computer code changed and documented

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. 

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 the AcuSafe newsletter, we will include additional discussions of interpretations related to PSSR. 

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.