New regulations mean dust at grain elevators may be treated like hazardous chemical release
Published on: November 12, 2014
In late October the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an opinion supporting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on regulating businesses that handle and process grain and other agricultural products which create dust.
The case was a challenge to OSHA's revised Hazard Communication Standard, which in effect states that grain dust is a hazardous chemical. But you may want a little background on how the Government's regulatory wheels spin before this makes much sense.
OSHA already sets workplace requirements for the control of grain dust which may create fires, explosions and safety hazards associated with grain handling facilities. OSHA's present rule applies to grain elevators, feed mills, flour mills, rice mills, pelletizing plants, dry corn mills, soybean flaking operations, and dry grinding operations of soy cake. The 1987 rule made it clear that such facilities are to control fugitive grain dust which was defined as combustible dust particles of a certain size.
New regulations mean dust at grain elevators may be treated like hazardous chemical release
Also, OSHA has been told by Congress to keep its hands off of farm grain storage operations with 10 or fewer employees.
The OSHA Act of 1970 allows the Secretary of Labor to promulgate work place safety and health standards. The Act wants "…to insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed."
With this background, OSHA in 2012 issued a "Hazard Communication Standard".
The revised standard simply required all employers across industries to develop a program for classifying the dangers of workplace hazardous chemicals and conveying those dangers to their employees.
The National Oilseed Processors and the American Feed Industry Association challenged the rule. OSHA said it was issuing the rule to conform to the Globally Harmonized System.
OSHA said that combustible dust is a dangerous hazardous chemical. OSHA further noted that "dusts are known to be subject to deflagration and subsequent explosion…" However, OSHA did not include in this proposed HCS rule a definition of combustible dust.
The petitioners objected to the HCS rule and noted that OSHA in 2009 issued a proposed rule on combustible dust which has yet to be issued by the Agency.
Incredible admission
The three-judge panel on the court made an incredible admission when it suggested it has difficulty with such cases involving dust from agricultural products. It said such regulations are "…rooted in
inferences from complex scientific and factual data, which often necessarily involve highly speculative projections of technological development in areas wholly lacking in scientific and economic certainty."
In essence the court was saying it does not understand the factual background at all.
The petitioners contended they had no opportunity to comment on the inclusion of combustible dust from grain in the final HCS rule because combustible grain dust was not mentioned in the proposed rule.
The court made it clear that industry knows very well what constitutes combustible dust. It tells industry petitioners that they need only to read from OSHA's National Emphasis Program which defines combustible dust as well as agricultural dust.
Agricultural dust is defined as "any finely divided solid agricultural material 420 microns or smaller in diameter…that presents a fire or explosion hazard when dispersed and ignited in air." The petitioners were told they need not worry about the HCS not defining combustible dust because there were plenty of definitions and industry only need to read and follow them.
The trade associations also claimed the new rule violated constitutional due process because the term "combustible dust" is not sufficiently clear. The court made short work of this argument by simply
saying your argument fails on the merits.
OSHA's rule and the Court of Appeals make it clear combustible dust is a hazardous chemical. Both made clear that employers must control fugitive dust which may become combustible. As a result, grain dust must be treated just as any hazardous chemical release.
The opinions of Gary Baise are not necessarily those of Farm Futures or the Penton Farm Progress Group.
The opinions above are not necessarily those of IndustrialFirePrevention.blogspot.com
The growth of agro-based industries along with agricultural products brings forth greater integration with different sectors. Check out more about Agriculture Business
Fire Triangle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation , search The fire triangle. The fire triangle or combustion triangle is a simple model for understanding the ingredients necessary for most fires . [1] It has been replaced in the fire fighting and protection industry partially by the fire tetrahedron (see below). The triangle illustrates a fire requires three elements: heat , fuel , and an oxidizing agent (usually oxygen ). The fire is prevented or extinguished by removing any one of them. A fire naturally occurs when the elements are combined in the right mixture. Without sufficient heat , a fire cannot begin, and it cannot continue. Heat can be removed by the application of a substance which reduces the amount of heat available to the fire reaction. This is often water, which requires heat for phase change from water to steam. Introducing sufficient quantities and types of powder or gas in the flame reduces the amount of heat available for t...
Is Cinnamon Flammable? - Science - ChefSteps Made from the dried bark of Cinnamomum verum , a tree indigenous to Sri Lanka, cinnamon's exotic perfume and subtle flavor come from its two major components: cinnamaldehyde and eugenol. These two chemicals are volatile, meaning they readily vaporize at temperatures comfortable to humans, which is in fact why cinnamon is so fragrant. But those same vapors are also highly combustible (indeed, combustion only happens in the presence of vapors), making cinnamon a highly flammable material under the right conditions. Now a cloud of cinnamon dust isn’t the kind of thing most people would consider dangerous, but add enough heat and you’ll quickly have an expanding ball of fire known as a dust explosion. For dealing with this situation, we can only recommend a good pair of running shoes. In fact, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration issues warnings about cinnamon explosions in food manufacturing plants....
From Chemical Processing Don’t Confuse a Functional Safety Audit with a Functional Safety Assessment Understand the critical differences between the two essential evaluations By John Walkington, ABB Safety Lead Competency Centre Apr 19, 2017 Many people working in safety instrumented system (SIS) project development, execution, operation and maintenance treat a functional safety audit (FS Audit) and a functional safety assessment (FSA) as one and the same. So, based on this assumption, they simply ensure that such an activity is undertaken and perhaps signify the need to perform this evaluation at some point when it appears as a milestone on the project schedule. Moreover, often they call upon someone working on the project, who may or may not have had some previous experience in quality auditing, to deliver this audit/assessment. However, this is not a reasonable approach because the concepts for the audit and assessment markedly differ. An FS Audit provides...
The growth of agro-based industries along with agricultural products brings forth greater integration with different sectors. Check out more about Agriculture Business
ReplyDelete