5 Things You Should Know About OSHA's Latest PSM Interpretation - Kenexis

5 things you should know about OSHA’s latest PSM
interpretation
kenexis.com/5-things-you-should-know-about-oshas-latest-psm-interpretation
Kevin Mitchell
On June 8, 2015, OSHA issued a formal Letter of Interpretation regarding the application of
Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP) to the Process
Safety Management (PSM) Standard 29 CFR 1910.119. The requirements to comply with
RAGAGEP are located in subpart (d) Process Safety Information and subpart (j) Mechanical
Integrity. The new information is not a change in the PSM Standard, but a change in how
OSHA interprets and intends to enforce the Standard. Because RAGAGEP by its nature is
somewhat of a moving target, the OSHA interpretation is going to have an impact on how
industry complies with PSM. There have also been concerns on the part of industry that
OSHA is overreaching its authority and effectively changed the standard without formal
rulemaking process.
Here is a link the OSHA Letter of Interpretation.
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?
p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=29414
Some of the more significant clarifications on how OSHA intends to interpret RAGAGEP are:
1. Published consensus documents have long been accepted by industry as RAGAGEP.

Examples of ‘consensus’ RAGAGEP are ASME’s Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ANSI
Piping Code, API’s Recommended Practice on relief valve design, and ISA’s standard on
Safety Instrumented Systems. However, OSHA now asserts that published ‘non-consensus’
documents may be RAGAGEP. My concern here is technical papers, pamphlets, and the
guidelines series books from CCPS, all of which contain a wealth of good ideas or
considerations; however, these do not reflect consensus of a committee of wide range of
industry representatives. These sources may represent an individual, an organization, or
small select committee assigned to oversee authoring of a publication. Guidance from
consensus standards organizations such ANSI, API, ASME, and ISA etc. have rigorous
protocols to ensure that minimum requirements reflect a consensus of experts before it is
published. Non-consensus documents are not necessarily vetted by a broad technical
committee that ensures wide agreement in technical practices before publishing. You should
expect OSHA to try to cite industry using non-consensus
2. Employers were previously in compliance with RAGAGEP if they developed their own
internal standards that were technical sound and justifiable. OSHA states it will no longer
accept these. A company that does not comply with applicable published RAGAGEP will be
open to enforcement action. For example, a company that uses only an internal standard
that does not incorporate requirements of published RAGAGEP will now need to reconsider
that position or face enforcement actions. An example would be a company that does not use
concepts in and requirements of ANSI/ISA 84 as the basis of design for safety critical
interlocks. Note; OSHA recognizes that internal standards are often used to describe how
company-specific procedures that meet or exceed with RAGAGEP. OSHA’s position is those
are acceptable, as long as they still conform with RAGAGEP requirements.
3. No longer is it acceptable to implement only portions of a published RAGAGEP. OSHA
asserts that if it applies, then the whole of the document applies. Here OSHA is giving
deference to the writers of published RAGAGEP (typically standards committees) instead of
deference to a company’s interpretation of how it applies to their operations. This does not
mean ‘shoulds’ become ‘shalls’; but you need to implement all the ‘shalls’ within a published
source of RAGAGEP.
4. Moreover, OSHA intends to cite a company if it ignores ‘shoulds’ in RAGAGEP without

sound technical justification. Do your internal practices only address the ‘shalls’? If so, you
should be prepared to have OSHA’s inspectors probe as to why you didn’t implement the
‘shoulds’ that are contained within Normative parts of RAGAGEP.
5. OSHA expects companies to document that covered process equipment and equipment
whose operation could affect that process equipment complies with RAGAGEP. The
underlined phrase is somewhat of a surprise here because it does not show up in the PSM
standard itself. The Standard only speaks to “covered process equipment”. Do you
document how your instrument air system complies with RAGAGEP? … cooling water
system ? This may have a significant impact on the extents of a covered process. I would
expect this one will be challenged by industry.
Author note: CCPS indicates on their website that “All CCPS books are written by technical
committees of experts in process safety and represent decades of experience and learning.
The publications are peer reviewed and provide technically sound concepts and guidelines
in the areas of engineering and process safety”. I take no issue with that claim, and I believe
their guidance is usually very technically sound. Application of those guidelines is very
helpful for some companies. However, it is not developed under standards for gaining
industry consensus. For more information about consensus standards process, see the
American National Standards Institute. ANSI’s standards development process is “guided by
the Institute’s cardinal principles of consensus, due process and openness and depends
heavily upon data gathering and compromises among a diverse range of stakeholders.”

5 Things You Should Know About OSHA's Latest PSM Interpretation - Kenexis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Things You Should Know About OSHA's Latest PSM Interpretation - Kenexis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Things You Should Know About OSHA's Latest PSM Interpretation - Kenexis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 things you should know about OSHA’s latest PSM

Here is a link the OSHA Letter of Interpretation.

1. Published consensus documents have long been accepted by industry as RAGAGEP.

4. Moreover, OSHA intends to cite a company if it ignores ‘shoulds’ in RAGAGEP without

You might also like