Combustible Dust Stakeholder Meeting

Washington, D.C.

December 14, 2009

Meeting Summary Report

February 9, 2010

Table of Contents

	Page Number

  TOC \o "1-1" \h \z    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564125"  1	Introduction	 
PAGEREF _Toc250564125 \h  1  

Morning Session

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564126"  2	Opening Remarks	  PAGEREF
_Toc250564126 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564127"  3	Administration of the Meeting	 
PAGEREF _Toc250564127 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564128"  4	Suggested Points for Group Discussion	
 PAGEREF _Toc250564128 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564129"  5	Closing Remarks	  PAGEREF
_Toc250564129 \h  1  

Afternoon Session

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564130"  6	Opening Remarks	  PAGEREF
_Toc250564130 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564131"  7	Administration of the Meeting	 
PAGEREF _Toc250564131 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564132"  8	Suggested Points for Group Discussion	
 PAGEREF _Toc250564132 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc250564133"  9	Closing Remarks	  PAGEREF
_Toc250564133 \h  1  

 

Introduction

This report summarizes key discussion points during two stakeholder
meetings that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
convened pertaining to its rulemaking on combustible dust. The two
3-hour meetings were held on December 14, 2009, at the Washington
Marriott at Metro Center in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meetings
was to obtain feedback from stakeholders on issues raised in the
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) of a combustible dust
standard. OSHA issued the ANPR on October 21, 2009.

Announcements of the stakeholder meetings were published in the Federal
Register on November 10, 2009, and explained that parties interested in
attending and participating should register in advance of the meeting.
For these first two meetings, 71 people participated – 34 in the
morning session and 37 in the afternoon. These participants included
employer and labor representatives from industries that may be regulated
by the standard, as well as consultants, attorneys, and other parties.
All participants were given the opportunity to provide verbal comments
at the meetings. Members of the general public were allowed to observe
the meetings (but not participate) on a first-come, first-served basis
as space permitted. Seventy nine people attended the two meetings as
observers – 51 in the morning session 28 in the afternoon. 

The stakeholder meetings provided a setting for interested parties to
provide verbal comments on the ANPR. For feedback to be officially
considered in the development of the proposed standard, stakeholders
were instructed to submit formal written comments to OSHA by January 19,
2010.  

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) provided logistical support for the
stakeholder meetings, and a technical writer from ERG attended the
meetings and prepared this summary report. This report captures the main
discussion points that stakeholders raised during the meetings, but is
not a verbatim transcript of the meetings. The content throughout this
report reflects the remarks made by stakeholders at the meetings and
should not necessarily be viewed as the opinions of ERG. 

Combustible Dust

Stakeholder Meeting

Washington, D.C.

December 14, 2009

Meeting Summary Report

Morning Session

Opening Remarks

Dorothy Dougherty, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
welcomed the stakeholders to the morning session of the Combustible Dust
Stakeholder Meeting. Ms. Dougherty emphasized that the stakeholders
should consider the meeting an informal discussion for OSHA to gather
data, rather than a formal meeting or hearing. OSHA is planning to host
two or three additional stakeholder meetings on combustible dust over
the next several months. OSHA is considering holding one of the
additional meetings in Atlanta, another in the Midwest/West, and perhaps
another one in D.C. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain the best
data and information for analysis and development of a protective and
feasible standard for combustible dust. OSHA has been involved in a
number of activities to support the combustible dust efforts, including
releasing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in October,
having technical staff actively participate in National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) committees, and enlisting contractors to conduct site
visits. Ms. Dougherty stressed the importance of stakeholders submitting
formal written comments to OSHA by January 19, 2010, for official
consideration. The release date of the proposed standard has not yet
been determined, but Ms. Dougherty emphasized that stakeholder input
will help expedite these efforts. Ms. Dougherty highlighted the OSHA and
Department of Labor staff who contributed to the combustible dust
rulemaking effort, and thanked the stakeholders for their time and
participation.

Later during the meeting, OSHA Deputy Assistant Secretary Jordan Barab
welcomed the stakeholders and provided background on the combustible
dust issue. Mr. Barab stated that OSHA has been involved in this issue
for quite a while. The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) report identified 119
fatalities, not including the Imperial Sugar incident. Mr. Barab
expressed his concern over the unreported lower-impact dangers of
combustible dust that could act as warnings, and requested that the
stakeholders take these dangers into account when discussing this issue.
OSHA has implemented several efforts to address the combustible dust
issue, such as guidance documents, outreach, and a national emphasis
program to identify the scope and seriousness of the problem. Mr. Barab
stressed the importance of the meeting, and of OSHA’s commitment to an
open and transparent regulatory process and to worker protection. Mr.
Barab requested that the stakeholders actively participate in the
combustible dust forums to assist OSHA in identifying what practices are
effective in workplaces so that OSHA can develop a protective standard.
Mr. Barab concluded by encouraging the stakeholders to participate in
the rest of the rulemaking process. 

Administration of the Meeting

Meeting facilitator Elizabeth Vasquez (of Management Consulting
Associates) provided the stakeholders with an overview of the meeting
format. Ms. Vasquez explained that the meeting should be considered an
informal forum to present comments, and that any written statements
provided during the meeting should not take the place of any formal
comments submitted to the docket. Ms. Vasquez encouraged the
stakeholders to provide their points of view, explaining that although
the meeting was being recorded and a summary report developed, no
attribution would be made to individual commenters. Ms. Vasquez informed
the observers that OSHA would invite questions and comments from them at
the end of the meeting, if time allowed.

Ms. Vasquez also provided the stakeholders with an overview of the
agenda, and presented the specific questions that OSHA requested the
stakeholders to address. 

Suggested Points for Group Discussion

OSHA representatives sought specific information regarding the use of
NFPA Standards, the scope of the combustible dust standard, the economic
impact of implementing such a standard, and hazard mitigation practices.
The following is a summary of the key stakeholder comments made during
the meeting. Comments are grouped together by topic, without reference
to the identity of the commenter.

NFPA Standards—Do you use NFPA standards to mitigate the hazards of
combustible dust? If so, what benefits or challenges have you
encountered? What benefits or challenges do you foresee if OSHA uses
NFPA standards as sanctioned compliance alternatives?

Stakeholders provided the following comments and recommendations
regarding the use of NFPA standards in developing a combustible dust
standard:

The use of NFPA standards poses two challenges for small businesses: 

Language: The use of plain language is essential. Currently, the
language used in the NFPA standard is not much easier to understand than
government standards. In order to communicate information to those who
are not sophisticated in interpreting regulations, the standard must use
language that would be accessible to the small business community. In
order to ensure compliance, OSHA needs to make sure that small
businesses understand the requirements of the standard. OSHA should
consider conducting focus groups to ensure that the standard uses
language easily understood by small businesses. 

Financial challenges: When Congress passed a toy safety standard, small
businesses were immediately faced with the financial burden of having to
purchase the standard. Such a financial burden could cause small or
start-up businesses to go out of business (e.g., companies that make
only two or three boats per year). OSHA needs to address such an issue
and make any mandatory standard available to small businesses at no
cost.

NFPA standards are viewable for free via the Internet in an online
“read only” format. Hard copies or electronic versions must be
purchased. However, some small businesses (e.g., boat makers) may not
yet have access to the Internet so OSHA should not rely on the Internet
exclusively. 

NFPA provides outreach to stakeholders to ensure that small businesses
understand the NFPA standards, and welcomes the opportunity to work with
OSHA on outreach efforts for the combustible dust standard. 

NFPA also provides training to stakeholders to help them implement the
NFPA standards.

Agencies are supposed to base standards on existing consensus standards
when making rules. NFPA standards are industry-specific and would
provide a good framework for the combustible dust standard. 

NFPA 654 is a good starting point. However, OSHA should not focus solely
on NFPA 654 given that many other standards are involved.

OSHA should consider making the combustible dust standard
industry-specific and incorporate process safety management, similar to
Europe.

NFPA is a guide, but a voluntary standard is not enough. OSHA should aim
for a mandatory standard. 

OSHA should publish the standard in its entirety, and make it accessible
and available, especially if incorporated by reference.

In addition to plain language, specific technical language is also
important (e.g., defining what is excessive and combustible so that
small businesses are able to interpret the specifications). The standard
needs to read like a manual to provide guidance and ensure that it is
enforceable. 

Small businesses do not want to be put out of business by excessive
regulation, but also do not want to be put out of business by explosions
or have workers die.

NFPA guidelines are complex and do not use consistent language
(different committees write different sections). OSHA should use more
straightforward and cohesive language to explain what is required.

When developing the standard, OSHA should also take into account that 1)
time is of the essence; 2) dust explosion is an inexact science and the
standards will need to be constantly updated to reflect current science;
and 3) results using the current dust testing method could be faulty
(OSHA dust testing is currently under review) so OSHA should consider
using alternative screening methodologies. 

NFPA 654 is a useful model and should be a key reference in the
combustible dust standard. This standard is currently being updated, and
the new NFPA edition should be released in 2011. If OSHA uses NFPA 654
as a framework, or incorporates it as a reference, OSHA should use the
most current version. Time is of the essence, but OSHA needs to take
into account the state of the art. 

Many NFPA standards are unclear, and often small businesses do not know
that their facilities have a problem. Liability insurers could be a key
element to the process by explaining the standards to small businesses
in a way that they can understand and implement.

The cabinet industry is predominantly made up of smaller businesses, and
regulations are often a mystery to them. Small businesses may respond
better to a performance-based approach, which allows for innovative
technology and creativity in efforts to comply with the standard.

The smaller-sized plants in the food manufacturing industry need
guidance as soon as possible. In addition to the NFPA consensus
standards, unions would also be a good place to start.

Many businesses that have less than 50 employees are not aware of the
NFPA standards. Once the businesses are made aware of the regulations,
they want to keep their workers safe. Elements of the updated NFPA 654
(currently in development) should be incorporated into a language and
format that small businesses can understand. 

Current consensus standards are a good place to start but are
incomplete, leaving businesses unsure of what practices to apply.

Regulations are often released that are impossible to implement. Without
stakeholder input, regulations can result in dangerous scenarios with
unintended consequences.

Education is critical in the implementation of the standard. OSHA needs
to put into practice a sustained outreach and awareness approach, while
keeping up with current science and technology (including equipment).

OSHA needs to ensure that the standard is uniform and consistent with
existing rules. 

OSHA should adopt the principles of the NFPA standards. All consensus
standards are not useful all of the time. NFPA 654 is the most relevant,
but others exist that are also applicable. NFPA 654 would need to be
expanded so that businesses do not need to refer to multiple resources.

CSB recommended that OSHA develop the regulatory standard quickly and
effectively with enhanced education.

Using NFPA standards as a compliance alternative to the OSHA combustible
dust standard would be a reasonable option (and good for companies that
are already using NFPA standards), as long as the NFPA standards contain
all the key regulatory elements that OSHA includes in the combustible
dust standard (i.e., the alternative standard provides equivalent or
greater protection than the OSHA standard) and the employer is required
to develop a comprehensive safety plan. 

Scope—Are there facilities that handle combustible dust that should
not be covered, or are there certain combustible dust materials that
should not be covered? If so, on what technical basis?

All sites that handle combustible dust should be covered by the standard
(unless covered by another industry-specific standard).

If a site does not handle combustible dust, or if another
industry-specific standard already applies to the site that provides
equivalent protection, the site can be excluded. These two situations
should be the only exceptions. For example:

Specific noncombustible mineral dusts found in the mining environment
should be exempt from the standard (e.g., silica, sulfates, limestone). 

Utilities that have industry-specific standards should be exempt.
Multiple standards would cause confusion.

Facilities should consider reevaluating the heating process. When
heating fuel (i.e., natural gas) is reintroduced into the process, the
dust could blow up (e.g., cement, some aggregates, certain metals). One
option is to incorporate a venting mechanism.

A risk-based approach that takes the specific substances into account
could have some merit.

Cement and aggregate industries are covered under Mine Safety and Health
Administration regulations.

Further exploration will probably find that silica, sulfates, and
limestone are not combustible and, therefore, outside the scope of the
OSHA combustible dust regulation.

Safety professionals will want to conduct risk assessments, which should
be a part of any rulemaking.

Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) should indicate whether a material
is a combustible dust hazard. 

The standard should cover small dust collectors. Small dust collectors
that are currently on the market can be dangerous if used indoors. OSHA
cannot prohibit the production of them, but many exist. 

Economic Impact—What kinds of costs and benefits do you foresee? What
regulatory approaches do you think would be most effective in minimizing
costs and optimizing benefits?

The cost of retrofitting old equipment would result in economic
hardship. For example, updating power plant equipment according to NFPA
654 would result in a substantial economic burden, costing about $6
million per power plant. If current equipment can meet standard
requirements, facilities should not have to replace the equipment.

Five elements are necessary for a combustible dust explosion to take
place. Not every kind of dust is combustible. Over half of dust
explosions are caused by dust collectors. Dust collectors draw dust into
an enclosure, and if the dust is combustible, then an ignition source
could cause an explosion. Employers need to ensure that an explosion
vent is present, and should keep the dust collector outside or on the
roof.

The boat-building industry has difficulty keeping up with existing
regulations, let alone new ones. OSHA needs to streamline the new
standards to make implementation easier on small businesses. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that OSHA evaluate the effect of
a regulation on small business. OSHA should host a small business panel
and invite small businesses to discuss the impact of the standard and
potential alternatives.

Record-keeping is a burden on employers. Safety professionals spend a
significant amount of time dealing with the associated paperwork.
Ensuring that workers and unions have access to records is critical for
getting workers involved and informed.

A large retrofitting operation is currently underway in the food
products industry that provides an estimate of current costs associated
with bringing equipment up to state-of-the-art. The cost to bring one
spray dryer up to specifications is roughly $500,000. This total
includes an average of $240,000 per machine to upgrade, $100,000 each
for an explosion suppression system, and $150,000 to $250,000 each for
explosion venting. An additional $225,000 was required to upgrade seven
dust collectors at another facility. On average, retrofitting the dust
collectors cost $35,000 per collector for proper venting or suppression
system, system isolation, and proper grounding and bonding. 

Small businesses often are paralyzed by too great a regulatory and/or
economic burden. The requirements of the standard need to be manageable
so that employers are able to implement them. OSHA needs to involve
small business when developing the standard to ensure that the
requirements are feasible.

The new standard will pose challenges to small business employers who
are not experienced in retrofitting and testing. Small businesses will
have trouble acquiring assistance on combustible dust issues. Not many
inspectors are trained on combustible dust. Small businesses will have
to rely on insurance representatives, who are not combustible dust
specialists. Small business employers need combustible dust advisors.
American Society of Safety Engineers members are a potential resource.
OSHA should evaluate its resources for employer compliance assistance
(not enforcement).

Dust collectors are responsible for half of the combustible dust hazards
at facilities; the other half is predominantly a matter of good
housekeeping. Dust collectors and good housekeeping do not require
expensive equipment or practices. However, many facilities are not in
compliance.

Industry needs to be educated and allowed time to implement hazard
reduction requirements (e.g., retrofitting, testing, moving dust
collectors outside). Difficulties with implementing the standard are not
always a matter of cost, but a matter of time for the facilities to make
the changes. 

Additional studies are needed on combustible dust hazard abatement.
Combustible dust testing for individual facilities imposes a financial
burden on small operations (each test costs about $1,500). 

Significant costs are associated with implementation of the standard and
the associated upgrades that will be required. NFPA will help OSHA
develop guidelines, checklists, and outreach to assist the small
business community in complying with the standard. These efforts should
help minimize the economic impact on small businesses.

Stakeholder involvement will help the acceptance and implementation of
the standard.

Accidents will always be part of the work environment. Flame-resistant
clothing for workers offers protection for workers. The costs associated
with protective clothing are worth the expense.

The standard needs to balance the economic impact of implementation with
the emotional cost and loss of life associated with the explosions. The
ultimate goal of the standard should be to protect workers while using
economically feasible methods. 

OSHA needs to consider the economic implications of domestic companies
competing with imports. Small businesses could go out of business
struggling to afford the costs of implementing the standard.

Using good safety practices from the beginning is less expensive than
going back and fixing problems after an accident has occurred. 

Smaller businesses have a smaller bottom line. Risk assessments allow
small businesses to address hazards over time, not on a sudden basis.
This distributes the costs over time as opposed to companies incurring a
large, crippling cost at one time.

OSHA should require training programs for all those who handle
combustible dusts, including managers, operators, and staff. Training
programs could educate workers on issues from housekeeping to shutting
down operations if something goes wrong. Workers need to be trained on
troubleshooting and managing processes to help prevent accidents. 

Small businesses pay approximately 45 percent more in regulatory
compliance costs compared to large businesses. Small businesses have to
hire consultants, contract out testing, etc. Financial impact will be
greater on small businesses.

The main concern for small businesses is recurring, unnecessary costs.
Common sense alternatives need to be developed and available to small
businesses. If a small business does not have adequate resources, the
business could choose an uninformed, expensive option. Mitigating the
impact on small businesses would require significant expense, time, and
effort. OSHA needs to educate small businesses owners on how to evaluate
and choose the best and most economical option. OSHA should talk to
Chris Wagner at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about outreach. The
IRS has a great small business outreach program. 

Even large companies sometimes have small operations. Plant size often
varies within a large company. Smaller plants can have similar economic
issues to small businesses due to limited fund allocation. Large
companies may provide some support to the smaller plants, but with a
limited budget.

OSHA recognizes the importance of very small businesses. OSHA reduces
fines for small businesses, but other costs are involved. Small
businesses face the challenge of hiring legal staff. Lean manufacturing
or lean production (referred to as “lean”) has been very successful
in engaging managers and employees in safety improvement. OSHA should
help small businesses protect their financial sustainability. OSHA is
encouraged to incorporate language into the rule that emphasizes
employee involvement (e.g., Lean concepts). Employee involvement should
not cost small businesses a significant amount of money, but would help
decrease hazardous situations.

Safety professionals do not support a blanket exemption for small
businesses based on size. Dangerous scenarios will cause explosions no
matter what the size of the business. The challenge with very small
businesses is identifying these companies. Many small businesses do not
belong to larger trade associations. Often the first encounter OSHA has
with these businesses is during a site visit for the national emphasis
program. OSHA should start identifying very small businesses via state
associations or local chambers of commerce (as opposed to national
associations) prior to the rule. Contacting large trade associations
might not reach very small businesses. 

Businesses can be broken down into two categories: 1) larger companies
that are expected to know, or are capable of knowing, about new
standards; and 2) smaller companies that are less likely to know of new
regulations because they do not have a designated safety or human
resources person (companies employing fewer than 50 workers often fit
into this category). 

Insurance carriers have some role in educating small businesses on
general safety regulations but do not focus specifically on combustible
dust. OSHA should conduct outreach to insurance carriers. 

OSHA should also conduct outreach to fire inspectors, who are generally
unfamiliar with combustible dust issues. However, fire inspectors do not
visit businesses very often.

The OSHA Alliance Program has been very successful on the state and
national level (although some employers are hesitant to ask OSHA about
it).

NFPA provides free, but limited, training to fire marshals. Fire
marshals are often reluctant to inform business owners that their
housekeeping practices are inadequate and could lead to dangerous
situations. Marshals do not have a complete understanding on what is
required for the different industries.

Another issue is that insurance companies have their own standards, and
often only look at the dust collectors and other obvious components. 

OSHA could work with trade associations to communicate the importance of
this standard to industry. Communications could also pass along
housekeeping information.

OSHA will conduct an inspection of one plant after 10 years and find
numerous citations, and then visit all the other companies in that
field, without warning. Often small businesses are not aware of new
regulations after such a long period. OSHA needs to provide notice to
plants they are visiting and inform them of any new regulations since
their last inspection. 

Safety is the cost of doing business. OSHA should conduct extensive
outreach to assist companies.

Hazard Mitigation—How do you determine where engineering and/or
administrative controls are applied? Do you use a hazard analysis or
other methods to make this determination?

The new version of NFPA 654 contains principles that apply to all
industries, including those places with combustible solids, and should
be used as model for the combustible dust standard. The new NFPA 654
provides a great platform for determination of risk. 

The OSHA process safety management standard could be written to include
combustible dust. 

OSHA should provide assistance to small businesses to ensure that their
safety and health management systems correctly address the combustible
dust standard. OSHA should provide instruction that walks a business
through a hazard analysis assessment. Specifically, OSHA should:

Address the introduction of new equipment and materials.

Encourage companies to conduct self-audits (OSHA should not use the
results against the company during inspections).

Encourage greater knowledge of risk assessment among employees.

Use subject matter experts to understand how existing systems work and
to stay abreast of current technology. (Small businesses typically do
not have in-house expertise.)

Determine whether a reporting requirement is warranted.

Establish a common performance-based method for assessments.

Establish a method to classify dusts with different chemical
compositions and different particle sizes.

Address control measures of differently sized dusts (smaller-sized dust
has higher explosivity and would require different control measures than
larger-sized dust).

Address the issue of dust layer depth. (NFPA is investigating this
ever-changing issue and recommends using a risk-based method.)

Housekeeping is expensive, and should be viewed as a secondary means of
prevention. Dust control should be considered the primary means.
Housekeeping expenses will decrease if companies implement better
primary prevention (i.e., implement controls to prevent dust from
escaping in the first place). 

Housekeeping is an administrative control that requires employer
administration, time and resources, training, and proper equipment.
Given the extensive resources required, housekeeping is an issue for
most industries. 

OSHA should ensure that properly trained scientific experts are involved
in the hazard assessments. 

Worker involvement is essential. Operators of the machinery provide
crucial knowledge and information on any hazards associated with
processes and equipment (e.g., small fire locations, where systems are
failing). OSHA should include language in the combustible dust standard
to protect workers who report these types of issues. Workers should feel
safe, and reporting such issues ultimately protects the workers and
benefits employers.

Housekeeping is only one component of a system of controls. Companies
should not rely solely on housekeeping for hazard prevention.

Companies need to identify problems and institute preventive
maintenance. Companies need to apply a holistic approach and create a
hazard mitigation system that incorporates both engineering controls and
housekeeping. 

Guidelines and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for identification
and prevention are not factored into costs, but part of management and
administrative expenses. Identifying issues (e.g., faulty valves) and
understanding equipment and processes (e.g., what types of vacuums to
use, when to use compressed air) could keep costs down by preventing
product loss. A good management system would decrease costs (e.g., lower
housekeeping costs because fewer employees would be needed to clean up,
vacuum, etc.).

A performance-based approach for hazard mitigation is very much
supported; however, a prescriptive approach could better serve some
industries. A performance-based approach is often more complicated to
implement. A prescriptive standard with well-devised requirements for
engineering, education, and housekeeping would be more effective, less
confusing, and implemented in a timely manner.

OSHA informed the stakeholders that the source of data will be provided
in ANPR Table 1; however, the table is not definitive regarding the
scope. OSHA will provide more background information in the docket.

Closing Remarks

OSHA representatives thanked the stakeholders for their participation.
Ms. Dougherty emphasized that OSHA has not started writing the standard
yet, and that the stakeholder input will really help OSHA formulate the
standard. Therefore, Ms. Dougherty urged the stakeholders to stay active
in both the informal meetings and the formal comment submittal process.
Although OSHA has not set a release date, OSHA has made the standard a
priority and is trying to move as quickly as possible. Ms. Dougherty
informed the stakeholders that the next steps following the stakeholder
meetings are to start the SBREFA process with its associated meetings
with small entity representatives. Ms. Dougherty closed the morning
session by encouraging the stakeholders to help expedite the rulemaking
process by engaging other stakeholders.

*     *     *     *

Combustible Dust

Stakeholder Meeting

Washington, D.C.

December 14, 2009

Meeting Summary Report

Afternoon Session

Opening Remarks

Dorothy Dougherty, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
welcomed the stakeholders to the afternoon session of the Combustible
Dust Stakeholder Meeting. Ms. Dougherty made the same opening remarks as
at the morning session (see Section 1 of this report). 

Later in the meeting, David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor,
welcomed the stakeholders and provided background on the combustible
dust issue. Dr. Michaels stated that these informal meetings are a way
for OSHA to learn first-hand about stakeholder concerns. Combustible
dust accidents increased from 2006 to 2008. This issue is more than just
statistics: people were killed. Dr. Michaels stated that OSHA is facing
a complex task, but is committed to helping employers and employees. Dr.
Michaels concluded by thanking all the stakeholders for their
participation.

Administration of the Meeting

Elizabeth Vasquez, the meeting facilitator, provided the stakeholders
with the same overview as at the morning session (see Section 2 of this
report).

 

Suggested Points for Group Discussion

OSHA representatives sought specific information regarding the use of
NFPA standards, the scope of the combustible dust standard, the economic
impact of implementing such a standard, and hazard mitigation practices.
The following is a summary of the key stakeholder comments made during
the meeting. Comments are grouped together by topic, without reference
to the identity of the commenter.

NFPA Standards—Do you use NFPA standards to mitigate the hazards of
combustible dust? If so, what benefits or challenges have you
encountered? What benefits or challenges do you foresee if OSHA uses
NFPA standards as sanctioned compliance alternatives?

Many companies became aware of (and started implementing) NFPA standards
after an OSHA citation. 

NFPA 505 is a dangerous document that includes unsafe practices. OSHA
should be wary when adopting NFPA standards.

NFPA standards are well-researched and contain good technical detail;
however, implementation of the standards is confusing. Companies are
often unsure how and when to implement an NFPA standard. In some
instances, parts of many different NFPA standards will apply to a
situation, and in other situations, several different standards will
apply to a single situation. Companies are confused on which standard to
follow, and on which one they will be held accountable for. OSHA should
focus on reducing the confusion of implementation. 

OSHA should seriously consider elements of the NFPA standards during a
comprehensive rulemaking process; however, certain elements that are not
included in the NFPA standards should also be considered. For example,
employee involvement should be part of the standard development process.


NFPA 70E (Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace) is an
especially good model on how to administer hazard assessments. Concern
for electrical safety increased considerably in the 1970s after a series
of serious accidents. As a result, industry worked with OSHA to
establish an effective standard. Similar collaboration occurred for NFPA
654 to reduce explosions and injuries.

Pure adoption of NFPA standards would be a big mistake. Principles and
research of the standards are excellent, but the standard did not
undergo the full regulatory process (e.g., no economic analysis was
done). 

OSHA needs to address whether the combustible dust regulations will
supersede other standards. OSHA representatives informed the
stakeholders that no decision on this matter has been made. Because the
standard has not been written yet, no decisions have been made on the
scope. 

OSHA general industry standards provide excellent groundwork. The recent
status report on the Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program,
released in October, indicated that 2,200 of approximately 4,000
citations involved combustible dust. Ninety percent of the citations are
for general industry (housekeeping, etc.). However, no mention of
combustible dust is found in general housekeeping regulations. 

NFPA standards have a good infrastructure but OSHA needs to develop
something representative of modern technology. OSHA needs to focus on
more than just best engineering practices, and consider administrative
controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and design. 

OSHA should use current information, but avoid redundancy. NFPA 654
should not be a requirement based on the concern that OSHA will cite
facilities for requirements that were not in place when the facilities
were built. Existing facilities could face hardships trying to retrofit
their equipment to meet this standard. The OSHA standard should attempt
to satisfy priorities. 

Several concerns exist for using NFPA standards as a basis for an OSHA
standard.

Costs: NFPA standards do not include an economic analysis and,
therefore, do not consider the high costs of implementation.

Complexity: NFPA standards are confusing to implement.

Prescriptive: NFPA standards tell facilities what they should do, but do
not provide instructions or suggestions on how to accomplish it.

Incorporating by reference: NFPA standards are updated frequently and,
therefore, would be hard to reference in the standard. 

NFPA 2112 and 2113 are also relevant. The two standards provide
companies with information on what to do after a combustible dust event
occurs. NFPA 2113 states that combustible dust is the number two cause
of flash fires. 

Any discrepancy between NFPA standards and the OSHA standard would
affect small business. Small businesses rely on insurance providers or
fire officials for information, and are often unaware that they are not
in compliance with a standard until cited by OSHA. 

NFPA standards have many elements not included in OSHA requirements,
such as design, construction, and operations. However, NFPA standards do
not really address the human element. OSHA requirements address work
practices, housekeeping, and other aspects that protect workers.

NFPA standards are consensus and, therefore, involve stakeholders and
address stakeholder concerns. NFPA should consider developing a proper
framework to integrate their series of standards to ensure consistency,
and to make them easier to understand and enforce. NFPA standards
continuously evolve as more information on hazards become available.
NFPA standards are available electronically.

Stakeholders should provide examples of “too complex” NFPA language
and “plain language” in their formal comments to OSHA.

NFPA standards are written by technical experts and consultants, often
resulting in complicated standards with no clear explanation of the
background science used to develop the requirements (e.g., the equation
used to develop the requirement for dust layer level and the assumption
that the dust becomes airborne). 

Employees should have a role in the development of standards; instead,
technical standards are often created by individuals who have not even
talked to workers who use the standards and who are familiar with the
processes and equipment.

Small businesses often have difficulty funding a representative to
participate on NFPA committees. 

OSHA should address any overlap with existing standards (e.g.,
facilities that have bucket elevators and are not in the grain industry
need to follow grain standards).

Overestimation of risk can be more dangerous than the targeted hazard.

Secondary fires are of more concern than primary ones. The U.S. Fire
Administration has been documenting fires and causes for several years.
Findings indicate faulty equipment as the leading cause.

In 2008, over 80 percent of combustible dust incidents were
combustible-dust-related fires, and 30 percent of dust explosions
occurred at facilities that had experienced prior related fires. 

Facilities need to identify risks, especially precursors to explosions.
Housekeeping is often a major risk factor. 

OSHA is trying to address whether to incorporate the NFPA standards by
reference, pull in text from the NFPA standards, or use NFPA standards
or others as compliance alternatives. The latter option gives employers
more choices, and would allow small businesses to follow a
performance-based standard.

NFPA standards are reviewed every 5 years to ensure that the most
up-to-date science is included. If OSHA incorporates NFPA standards by
reference, OSHA must consider whether it is capable of reviewing the
combustible dust standard every 5 years and updating the standard as
science evolves. The compliance alternative option could potentially
make it easier to update the OSHA standard.

Small companies may face difficulty being part of the rulemaking process
due to financial issues. Small businesses often learn about standards
after being issued a citation (e.g., one company was cited for NFPA
654). They must often resort to terminating employees in order to afford
an engineer to come in and address the violation. When OSHA returns to
the company, the business is told that the remedy is inadequate. One
small business is spending 34 percent of its gross revenue to comply
with OSHA standards.

NFPA provides little guidance to small businesses on how to identify
risk. An engineer or specialist is often required to address different
aspects of risk identification. 

OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) cannot enforce NFPA
standards. OSHA needs to hire enforcement personnel. 

The OSHA standard should include management leadership and employee
participation. Complying with NFPA standards should not excuse
facilities from including management and employee input.

OSHA should provide education to businesses to aid them in understanding
and complying with the standard. NFPA attempts to meet the need for
education outreach through free training to facilities and OSHA. 

OSHA has an interactive program for fire prevention on its Web site
(“Fire Safety Advisor”) that is an excellent resource and provides
an example of a potential tool that OSHA could use for combustible dust
(to download the program, search for “fire prevention” on OSHA’s
Web site). Using this interactive program, a company inputs requested
information, and the program provides a printout describing what the
facility needs for fire protection, housekeeping, etc. However, the
program does not include combustible dust. OSHA should develop an
interactive tool for the general industry standard (which includes fire
protection, housekeeping, and hazard identification) and include
information on combustible dust to assist small businesses in addressing
the explosion issue. 

Scope—Are there facilities that handle combustible dust that should
not be covered, or are there certain combustible dust materials that
should not be covered? If so, on what technical basis?

OSHA needs to provide clarity on what the rule covers (e.g., white
potato was just added to the list). Businesses want OSHA to educate them
(e.g., is greasy fish meal that is not dusty okay?).

OSHA needs to consider the financial ramifications of testing for
combustible dust. Some facilities have multiple production lines
throughout which materials can have changing chemical and physical
states. Testing to fully characterize the changing nature of these
materials would be extremely expensive, considering that some individual
analyses can cost $3,800 per test. Many small businesses already have
difficulty paying such a steep fee. 

OSHA needs to consider what is expected of businesses at each stage of
the production and manufacturing process. For example, a research and
development company that deals with manufacturing pet food can be cited
for violation involving pelletizing fish meal with ash (a combustible
dust); however, the company that supplies the fish meal with ash is not
penalized. Processing alters a product. For example, milk in liquid form
is not explosive but milk powder is highly reactive. A tank of milk is
not hazardous, but when milk is processed into milk powder, the result
is a combustible dust hazard. The MSDS does not list the hazard severity
because the processor of the milk powder is not the original raw source
(the hazard communication standard does not require testing at raw
source). In some cases, raw source manufacturers may not know the effect
that downstream processing will have on a product. In other instances,
manufacturers may not provide accurate MSDSs (a review of 150 MSDSs from
product manufacturers revealed that only a few had limited information
on combustibility), especially regarding flashpoint, explosivity, and
combustibility (these values can change in different conditions).
Companies may transport products in dust form but the MSDSs do not state
that the products are dust hazards and provide no information on
explosivity. Therefore, OSHA needs to determine who should be regulated
under the combustible dust standard and who should be responsible for
testing and developing accurate MSDSs (the manufacturer versus the user
of products containing combustible dust). Overall, OSHA needs to address
the larger issue of hazard communication throughout the life cycle of a
product. This is a complex issue that may require revising the hazard
communication standard.

The combustible dust standard needs to apply to all types of facilities
where combustible dust is present; however, some facilities may require
more stringent requirements than others, depending on the materials and
how is the materials are processed.

OSHA needs to define the dividing line between related standards (e.g.,
NFPA 564, grain standard), and note clear exclusions when appropriate.

Defining the scope of the standard is challenging. OSHA should make an
effort to align the standard with Mine Safety and Health Administration
rules on mining products and mining facilities to balance the scope of
the two standards. OSHA will also address hazard identification issue.

OSHA needs to properly define combustible dust, addressing particle
size, moisture content, etc. OSHA should also include a list of dusts
that are not combustible. OSHA does not need to regulate combustible
dust outside buildings.

Economic Impact—What kinds of costs and benefits do you foresee? What
regulatory approaches do you think would be most effective in minimizing
costs and optimizing benefits?

Bob Burt, Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis, provided a brief
background on economic analysis (i.e., overall cost-benefit analysis).
The OSH Act requires that OSHA perform a technical feasibility study of
the standard. In addition, in accordance with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), OSHA will also hold a
panel for small businesses affected by the standard to obtain input.
OSHA is interested in benefits and costs, with special interest in small
businesses.

In addition to economic impact, OSHA should be interested in the human
impact (i.e., how workers and their families are affected). OSHA should
view PPE as important. OSHA should recommend that a facility conduct a
solid assessment of whether a hazard is present, and then implement
appropriate PPE for the situation. PPE has become more comfortable
(e.g., wicking action). A study on burn centers conducted from 1999 to
2008 revealed that of the 127,000 cases, 4,466 were work-related
involving fire and flame. The medical costs for burn treatment for the
4,466 people totaled $1.3 billion. The cost to have equipped the burn
victims with PPE is $4.46 million. Using PPE would have resulted in $900
million in savings.

OSHA should evaluate the costs and benefits for better outreach and
improved enforcement, and then decide on a performance-based standard.
OSHA needs to be a good steward of resources. OSHA should start
evaluating costs prior to the development of the regulation.

Burn injuries are the second most expensive injury requiring
hospitalization in the United States. An Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) paper specific to the electric utility
indicated the same cost ratio previously discussed. Victims were not
wearing appropriate PPE, and the medical costs for the two incidents
totaled $2 million. To equip the workers with PPE would have cost a
total of $50,000 for the two incidents.

OSHA should factor the cost of identifying the risk into the economic
analysis. Defining combustible dust would help decrease costs. 

One of the major impacts on the economics of the new standard would be
the ease of interpretation. The ease of interpretation would make a huge
impact on the cost of compliance for a company. An explicit standard
that guides the companies and CSHOs would result in no discrepancies
between enforcement officer and employer on what the standard means.
Companies could spend money on compliance, instead of citations and then
compliance.

Previously, OSHA established a standard that was based on the assumption
that certain equipment was readily of available; however, the equipment
was never developed because of poor economic incentives (the equipment
certification process costs roughly $250,000). OSHA should consider this
issue when developing the CD standard in order to avoid a similar error.


Problems with housekeeping may have been oversimplified. Many innovative
housekeeping alternatives are available to control dust, such as:

Using oil additives to retain dust so the dust does not become airborne
(prevents the formation of dust clouds).

Pressurizing equipment to prevent dust from leaking into the workplace.

Using water for wash-down.

Identifying leaks and eliminating them (instead of using temporary
patches).

Adjusting equipment operations, such as running conveyer belts slower to
prevent mechanical problems and dust generation. 

OSHA should focus on a risk and performance approach because of the
complexities of the hazards and the different ways to mitigate and
control dust (and should not develop a “one size fits all”
standard).

Companies that control dust will have better insurance rates, so
products will potentially be cheaper for consumers. Everybody benefits.

The reality is that consumers are not paying more for products just
because the workers wear PPE. Companies need to institute engineering
controls, such as ventilation. Companies have to find a way to give
customers what they want at a price that they can afford. 

OSHA should adopt a different regulatory approach. During the first site
visit to a business, OSHA should not assess fines for violations, but
rather allow the business some time for compliance (i.e., allow a
business an opportunity for compliance before enacting a punishment).
This practice would provide a learning experience for small businesses,
and benefit small businesses that otherwise would be forced out of
business due to the cost of one citation.

OSHA requested that the stakeholders provide OSHA with specific
suggestions regarding the advantages of performance-based standards. 

The current OSHA consultation program prevents an employer from using
its services if the employer has been cited. OSHA should make
consultation mandatory if an employer is cited, as opposed to
prohibiting it. 

Hazard Mitigation—How do you determine where engineering and/or
administrative controls are applied? Do you use a hazard analysis or
other methods to make this determination?

OSHA should consider a potential regulatory approach that would merge
existing rules addressing similar hazards (e.g., explosive atmospheres,
dust and vapor explosions, elements of product safety management), such
as:

The “ATEX Directive” that was developed to protect employees in
areas with explosive atmospheres. The directive describes what equipment
and work environment is allowed in an environment with an explosive
atmosphere.

The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) 2005 Hazard Identification document.

Combustible dust is not included in the hazards of many of the general
industry standards (e.g., housekeeping, PPE, hazard communication). 

OSHA needs to provide businesses with guidance and assistance on
identifying a combustible dust risk.

OSHA must determine what constitutes a combustible dust hazard prior to
developing a regulation. OSHA needs to address how to identify a
threshold for combustible dust. 

OSHA should consider contractor participation in the development of the
standard. 

Employers and workers need to document and evaluate accidents, injuries,
and near misses to identify commonalities. 

An NFPA technical committee is currently working to identify enforceable
clear guidelines to develop a combustible dust hazard guidance document.
The committee is comparing the differences between existing standards
and their threshold requirements to develop an NFPA threshold
requirement. NFPA is receiving considerable industry support for this
project (e.g., Proctor and Gamble, Honeywell, Abbott Laboratories).

New facilities or facilities undergoing major renovations should focus
on engineering controls. Existing facilities should focus on
administrative controls (e.g., operating procedures, housekeeping,
preventive maintenance). 

For each facility, the balance between administrative controls and
engineering controls varies, and OSHA should allow flexibility in the
regulations to acknowledge the variability.

OSHA should refer to the process safety management standard—a great
model for hazard analysis.

A performance-based approach may be problematic because of complexities
associated with the incorporation of many standards by reference.
Employers may need more straightforward guidelines.

Documents on inherent safe design provide excellent examples of
operation and administration practices. Inherent safe design is based on
the concepts of minimizing the amount of hazardous material present,
substituting with less hazardous materials, moderating hazards by
reducing the strength of the effect, and simplifying processes by
addressing hazards during the design phase rather than through
retrofits. Facilities could use inherent safe design as a foundation to
establish a hazard mitigation system that focuses on life safety and
addresses administrative controls, PPE, etc. 

Closing Remarks

OSHA representatives thanked the stakeholders for their participation.
Ms. Dougherty reiterated that OSHA is planning additional stakeholder
meetings in upcoming months. The first additional meeting will most
likely be held in Atlanta in February, followed by another meeting in
the Midwest/West in the spring. OSHA is also considering another meeting
based in Washington, D.C. Ms. Dougherty reminded the stakeholders that
the ANPR is still open, and encouraged the stakeholders to submit formal
comments for consideration. Ms. Dougherty informed the stakeholders that
next steps include starting the SBREFA process, and requested that the
stakeholders contact OSHA if they would like to participate. Ms.
Dougherty closed the afternoon session by requesting that stakeholders
interested in volunteering for site visits contact OSHA. Ms. Dougherty
stressed that volunteers would deal directly with a contractor, and
would remain anonymous to OSHA.

*     *     *     *

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

		  PAGE  8 

