Combustible Dust NEP:

OSHA launched the Combustible Dust NEP after the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board publicized a study of 25 years of combustible dust incidents, which identified 281 combustible dust incidents that killed 119 workers and injured 718. The NEP announced an aggressive inspection campaign with a scope that identified more than 30,000 facilities in 70 different industries as “at risk” for a combustible dust incident.

Since the Combustible Dust NEP inspections commenced, there have been more than 2,600 total inspections.

The resulting enforcement actions from these inspections have resulted in more than 12,000 violations (approx. 8,500 of which have been classified as Serious, Willful or Repeat), with an average of 6.4 violations per Chemical NEP inspection (twice the average of violations per all other types of inspections), and total civil penalties exceeding $24 million.

To date, the top six most frequently cited violations during Combustible Dust NEP inspections have included:

1. Hazard communication (1910.1200)
2. Respiratory protection (1910.134)
3. Housekeeping (1910.22(a))
4. Electrical safety (1910.305)
5. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147)
6. Electrical safety (1910.303)

Combustible Dust Rulemaking:

In October 2009, OSHA announced the issuance of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments regarding a comprehensive Combustible Dust Standard. Since then, OSHA has been gathering information for its rulemaking docket through stakeholder meetings, site visits, and an expert forum. The next step in the Combustible Dust Rulemaking is a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (“SBREFA”) Panel to review the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses. However, the SBREFA Panel has been delayed several times, in large part because OSHA has not been ready to unveil the actual proposed regulatory text for the Rule.

OSHA points to the “success” of the Combustible Dust NEP as evidence of a need for a comprehensive Combustible Dust Standard.

In a speech to the Steel Manufacturers Association in October 2010, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, David Michaels, justified the rulemaking by explaining that “in [just] three years [of OSHA’s Combustible Dust NEP], we have found nearly 9,100 violations at inspected facilities . . . .”

The problem is, the NEP findings would only really support the need for a comprehensive Combustible Dust Standard if OSHA’s existing standards did not adequately outline for employers what steps they needed to take to protect employees from explosion hazards associated with combustible dust, or give OSHA the framework to adequately enforce unsafe combustible dust conditions through citations. If that were actually the case; i.e., that OSHA’s existing standards were inadequate to address combustible dust hazards, then OSHA would surely be relying more heavily on its “catch-all” General Duty Clause in citations arising out of the Combustible Dust NEP.

In reality, however, that has not been the case. The General Duty Clause logs in as the 7^th most frequently cited from the Combustible Dust NEP, with fewer than 500 total citation items as compared to the top 6 violations citing existing specific standards (listed above), which accounted for more than 4,300 total citation items. Similarly, on OSHA’s “Safety and Health Topics” Page for Combustible Dust, OSHA identifies a litany of existing standards it has in its arsenal to address combustible dust hazards:

• § 1910 Subpart D, Walking-working surfaces (1910.22, Housekeeping)
• § 1910 Subpart E, Exit routes, emergency action plans, and fire prevention plans (1910.38, Emergency action plans)
• § 1910 Subpart G, Occupational health and environmental control (1910.94, Ventilation)
• § 1910 Subpart J, General environmental controls (1910.146, Permit-required confined spaces)
• § 1910 Subpart L, Fire protection (1910.157, Portable fire extinguishers / 1910.165, Employee alarm systems)
• § 1910 Subpart N, Materials handling and storage (1910.176, Handling materials / 1910.178, Powered industrial trucks)
• § 1910 Subpart R, Special industries (1910.269, Electric power generation / 1910.272, Grain handling facilities)
• § 1910 Subpart S, Electrical (1910.307, Hazardous (classified) locations)
• § 1910 Subpart Z, Toxic and hazardous substances (1910.1200, Hazard communication)

All of this begs the question whether there really is a recognized hazard that is not sufficiently addressed by existing standards.

Regardless of standards cited under the Combustible Dust NEP, and whether there really is a need for a Combustible Dust Standard, two things are apparent as we head into 2012: (1) OSHA is finding ways to generate very significant enforcement actions related to combustible dust against employers across a broad spectrum of industries; and (2) OSHA is moving forward with developing a new comprehensive standard to address the explosion hazards associated with combustible dust.

* Note that the Combustible Dust NEP enforcement data referenced in this post is current through October 2011.

Article by Amanda R. Strainis-Walker and Eric J. Conn from oshalawupdate.com

“The grinding and sanding of metal work pieces produces fine metallic dust that – even after filtration – can be exposed to sparks, resulting in the dust smoldering, catching fire or causing a dust explosion,” Sullivan notes. “Combustible metals that are common in manufacturing and machining operations include aluminum, lithium, magnesium, niobium, tantalum, titanium, zirconium and even cold-rolled steel.”

Read the full article at EHS Today. If you are interested in learning more about Air Purification’s Dust Collectors and Wet Collectors, please call 1-800-829-0225.

The major topics for discussion included: Scope; Focus on Preventing Secondary Explosions; Existing Facilities; and Multiple Layers of Protection. The meeting was divided into these four topics for discussion, and OSHA posed questions from each to the panel of experts.

Conversion Technology Inc. (CTI) has posted a summary of highlights from the meeting. Below are some of the interesting points that were raised.

• One panel member noted that 95-99% of fatalities and injuries are the result of secondary explosions that occur due to accumulated, fugitive dust.
• The panel agreed that the first step is to keep dust inside the equipment and vessels, and not let it escape into the work environment.
• One panel member stated that $1 spent to contain and/or capture the dust can save $10 in electrical classification, and save $100 in housekeeping cost over 10 years.
• The panel agreed that controlling dust fires and explosions require making a number of choices and selecting a number of controls.
• Several panel members pointed out that each type of control has holes, and multiple layers are required to truly protect a facility. For example, ignition controls are good, but it is impossible to remove all possible ignition sources.
• It was a consensus that multiple layers of protection are needed, but one panel member urged that OSHA must include some flexibility in the rule, as not every hazard mitigation approach works for every situation – and there is no silver bullet for addressing combustible dust hazards.

Visit the CTI Environmental Health and Safety Blog for the complete forum summary.

Foxconn has closed the facility as well as all of its workshops that handle polishing for electronic parts and products pending further inspections. The disaster could cause a shortage of the popular iPad 2 tablet computer, with estimates that Apple could lose production of 500,000 units during the second quarter of this year.

Mainstream media coverage of the explosion has been extensive because of the connection to the iPad, with news outlets from the New York Times to PC World shedding light on the combustible dust threat that remains little known to the general public. A Time Magazine tech blog expressed typical surprise that something as seemingly harmless as dust could trigger such a devastating accident.

“It’s a terrible tragedy, but people need to understand what a huge danger combustible dust is,” said Ron Stumpo, president of Air Purification, Inc. “It’s not just in manufacturing plants in China, but also here in the U.S. and all over the world. That facility should have been utilizing a source capture system combined with an aluminum dust collector with explosion vents located outdoors to reduce the build-up of fugitive dust in the plant. Then an explosion like this could have been prevented.”

Ron added, “At Air Purification, we hope this high-profile incident will build awareness of the combustible dust issue. We don’t hear enough about this in the news. Maybe from all the talk about the iPad factory explosion and aluminum dust hazards, people will start asking questions about industrial safety here at home, and it will get government and business to take action on preventive measures like the ones we provide to solve this problem.”

Below is an excerpt from the article:

Potentially explosive dust from metal finishing operations can be a major concern among fabricators, not only due to the potential safety hazards but because recent changes in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) regulations have toughened compliance.

Grinding and sanding metalwork pieces can produce fine metallic dust that – even after filtration – could be exposed to sparks and result in smoldering, catching fire or even an explosion in circumstances when ordinary dry dust collection methods are used. The situation can become even more hazardous when the dust from certain metals is mixed in a dry collection system. Mixing aluminum and steel dust, for example, is an accident waiting to happen.

Combustible metals that are common in manufacturing and machining operations include aluminum, lithium, magnesium, niobium, tantalum, titanium, zirconium and even cold-rolled steel.

By switching to wet collectors many companies are upgrading their protection against dust fires and also improving air quality for workers. Some wet collection systems can be customized to improve ergonomics for workers by positioning work pieces at more comfortable levels, or facilitating access of hoisting equipment that eliminates the need of workers to lift heavy items. Such improvements may also lead to improved production flow.

Read the full article here, and contact us to learn more about Air Purification’s line of Filter 1 Hydrotron Wet Collectors.

We’d like to hear from our readers. Has anyone out there switched to wet collectors? Let us know about your experiences!

The blog is published by the Law Offices of Lee & Smith, P.A., which estimates that over the last 30 years almost 150 North Carolina workers have been killed and an additional 850 have sustained injuries from combustible dust explosions.

For more information, read Combustible dust a growing hazard to North Carolina workers.

OSHA’s Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP) was recently implemented to reduce the number of fatalities related to workplace explosions. While this program is not an OSHA standard yet, nor has it been passed into law by Congress, non-compliance with the program can and has already resulted in more than 5000 violations nationwide along with fines and required process changes in the industries affected by the change.

You may have a number of questions about the NEP, including the following:

• What prompted OSHA’s NEP?
• What industries present the most hazards?
• What are the factors required for propagation of a dust explosion?
• What is the primary explosion versus the secondary explosion?
• Why did OSHA intensify its focus on combustible dust hazards?
• What are the provisions of the combustible dust NEP?
• What NFPA standards apply?
• What measures can be taken to reduce the risk of an explosion?
• Can existing dust collectors be retrofitted to comply?

Answers to these questions and more can be found on the Powder Bulk Solids website in an exclusive technical editorial written by John Fiegel, a design engineer with our partner company Micro Air. If you are uncertain about any of the issues surrounding the combustible dust program, we recommend that you read the article and contact Air Purification to start building an action plan to make your facilities OSHA compliant.

“Many manufacturers still aren’t sure if the material in their plants is considered explosive or if their equipment meets OSHA recommendations,” said Paul Miller, Vice President and General Manager of Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums. “Our new website strives to answer some of those questions as they relate to maintenance procedures and explosion-proof vacuums, providing a one-stop site for food manufacturers looking to learn more about combustible dust and food safety hazards.”

Air Purification, Inc. has been a proud distributor for Nilfisk-Advance industrial vacuums for 10 years, and we applaud their new site’s efforts to promote education and awareness on food processing combustible dust issues. Contact us for more information on our complete line of Nilfisk intermittent duty vacuums, continuous duty vacuums, oil vacuums and wet/dry vacuums, and ask about scheduling a free onsite application analysis.

Stay tuned for more details coming soon.

Being issued after a recent follow-up inspection to evaluate the status of 2008 violations, the citations noted combustible dust dangers, hexavalent chromium exposure and other safety and health violations. These citations carry fines totaling $95,240.

Read the complete OSHA news release for more details.

Air Purification Inc. can help your facilities gain OSHA compliance on combustible dust and hexavalent chromium issues so you can avoid the prospect of heavy fines. Contact us to learn more.