This is part of a continuing look at the public comments
that have been posted to the
docket for the OSHA Process Safety Management program advance
notice of proposed rulemaking. Earlier posts in the series include:
The comment period on this request for information or
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking closed on Monday. There were 48 new
submissions posted this last week, almost as many as had been posted in all of
the previous weeks. Four of the submissions were from private citizens; the
remaining comments came from the following organizations:
• The
Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
• American
Chemistry Council (ACC)
• Texas
Pipeline Association (TPA)
• Texas
Oil and Gas Association (TXOGA)
• American
Coatings Association (ACA)
• U.S.
Chemical Safety Board (CSB)
• Domestic
Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA)
• The
Vinyl Institute (VI)
• The
Chlorine Institute (CI)
• Marcellus
Shale Coalition (MSC)
• American
Petroleum Institute (API)
• Covidien
• Chemistry
Council of New Jersey (CCNJ)
• De
La Mare Engineering, Inc. (DLM)
• Mary
Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center (MKOPSC)
• Risk
Integrity Safety Knowledge, Inc. (RISK, Inc.)
• Continental
Resources, Inc. (CLR)
As I have been doing with the recent posts in this series I
will address only the new ideas mentioned in these comments.
Ammonium Nitrate
A number of commenters note that including fertilizer grade
ammonium nitrate under §1910.109
may be more appropriate than having it regulated under the PSM standard (§1910.119),
but even that would require significant revisions to the existing standards.
Emergency Response Coordination
A recommendation was made that any added OSHA emergency
response coordination requirement be closely aligned with the EPA’s requirements
in this area under the RMP program. While mainly duplicative they should not be
contradictory.
Another commenter noted that OSHA already addresses the
requirements for an emergency action plan in §1910.38.
Demonstrated
Improvement in Safety
A number of commenters have noted that OSHA has not
suggested any information that would indicate that the suggestions for changes
in the PSM standards would provide any significant improvement in safety. Many
have mentioned that all of the incidents mentioned in the RFI as justifications
for making changes to the PSM standard were all clearly the result of failures
to comply with current PSM requirements.
Comments not Reviewed
in Detail
I’m sorry but I have to admit that there were two comments
that I did not review closely for purposes of this post; the comments from the U.S.
Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and the comments from the Mary
Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center (MKOPSC). Both of these comments were
extensive and comprehensive. Any abstraction of the information presented in
those comments for inclusion in this post would be a disservice.
I would recommend that anyone interested in chemical process
safety should take the time to read both of these documents.
Moving Forward
It will be interesting to see if anything actually comes
from this effort. It is clear from many of the industry comments submitted that
there is some perceived need for updating the PSM requirements. That is still
countered by a general industry reluctance to accepting an increase in the
regulatory burden. Almost all industry commenters noted that any rulemaking
needs to be preceded by a detailed cost-benefit analysis with a clear
identification of the extent of the potential reduction in hazard that is
expected to be gained by any new regulation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment