Jess McCluerNational Grain and Feed Association

July 12, 2012

Top Regulatory Issues Facing the Grain Handling Industry in 2012

NGFA Fast Facts

NGFA represents more than 1,000 member companies, including: Grain elevators Feed manufacturers Oilseed processors Flour mills Biofuels producers Many other related agri‐businesses

NGFA’s mission and purpose for the last 115 years Secure an abundant and safe food supply Promote free markets

Top OSHA Issues for 2012

• Continued Increased Enforcement Upon Grain Handling Industry

• Sweep Auger Letter of Interpretation

• Combustible Dust Rulemaking

• Rolling Stock Fall Protection

Recent OSHA Trends

Current administration has been very active in changing how regulations are interpreted and applied to grain handling industry:

OSHA says you always have to take atmospheric measurements to prove what the atmosphere is before entry

Is implying that a standard boot pit is now a permit‐required confined space

Can not enter a bin with any augers operating although the original rule allowed it under proper procedures

Redefining where and how fall protection is needed when on top of railcars and discarded previous guidelines

Why Grain Handlers Must Prepare for OSHA

Significant increase in OSHA enforcement

OSHA’s extreme scrutiny of grain handling

Other costs of OSHA inspections/enforcement

Casts workplace in best possible light

Better control over the flow of information

Improves safety

Minimizes exposure to willful violations

Too late to prepare once OSHA arrives

Source: Purdue University Agricultural Safety and Health Program

August 4th 2010 and February 1st 2011 Letters

OSHA has investigated several cases involving worker entry into grain storage bins where we have found that the employer was aware of the hazards and of OSHA’s standards, but failed to train or protect the workersentering the bin,” wrote OSHA Administrator David Michaels. 

Enforcement-Heavy Philosophy

Field Operations Manual amended to force up penalties:• Doubled minimum penalties

• Halved allowable penalty reductions 

for size

• Time for “Repeat” increased       

from 3 to 5 years

• Time for clean history reduction 

expanded from 3 to 5 years

• Maximum 30% penalty reduction 

at informal conference

Enforcement-Heavy Philosophy

• 100+ new CSHOs• More inspections• Increased penalties• More criminal cases• Tripled significant cases • New enforcement initiatives• Added special emphasis programs• Amended FOM to increase final penalties• Expanded scope beyond single workplace

Proactive Targeting Philosophy

Shift from reactive to proactive targeting

Increased use of National Emphasis Programs (“NEP”) and Local Emphasis Programs (“LEP”)

LEPs for Grain Handling Facilities

Falls In General Industry LEP

Combustible Dust  NEP

Injury & Illness Recordkeeping 

NEP

Regional and Local Emphasis Programs

Region V – grain handlingo Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin 

Region VI – grain handlingo Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico

Region VII – grain handlingo Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas

Region VIII – grain handlingo Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota

State Emphasis Programso Iowa and Indiana

Proactive Targeting PhilosophyOSHA

Inspection Statistics (Federal

and State)

FY09 FY10 FY11FY12 (Oct-

Dec)

Total Inspection

238 296 380 91

PercentProgrammedInspections

42% 49% 55% 68%

Total Violations

Issued 858 1,289 1,552 329

Most Frequently Cited OSHA Standards in Grain Handling Industry

1910.272 – Grain Handling Standard 1910.219 – Mechanical power‐transmission apparatus 1910.23 – Guarding floor and wall openings and holes 1910.146 – Permit required confined space 1910.305 – Wiring methods, components and equipment for use

Most frequently cited standards in 1910.272 include: 1910.272 (j)(1) – failure to implement a written housekeeping program 1910.272(g) (1)(i) – failure to issue a permit prior to entering a bin 1910.272(g)(1)(ii) – failure to deenergize and disconnect all equipment in a 

grain storage structure before employees enter. 1910.272 (j)(2)(ii) – failure to immediately remove fugitive dust accumulations, 

or provide equivalent protection 1910.272(m)(3) – failure to maintain a certification record of performed 

preventative maintenance inspections

Follow-up Inspections/Repeat Violations

OSHA historically: • Treated workplaces as individual, independent establishments

• Limited its review of employers’ OSHA records to 3 years

• Reactive Philosophy (less likely to revisit workplaces within a few years)

OSHA now:• Treats workplaces within a corporate family as 1 workplace

• Looks back 5 years at employers’ OSHA enforcement records

• Proactive Philosophy (hand selects past violators as targets for inspection))

Follow-up Inspections/Repeat Violations

OSHA systematically laying groundwork for futureRepeat violations by:

1. Issuing citations with numerous cited standards (often with low‐dollar penalties)

2. OSHA settles these citations by reducing the penalty and/or re‐classifying citations to “Other Than Serious”

3. OSHA conducts “follow‐up” inspections at the same or a related facility

Increased Follow-up Inspections =Increased Repeat Violations =

Much Higher Penalties

Increase in Repeat Violations from 2006 to 2010

Classification of Violations

Percent Change

Serious 22.1%

Repeat & Willful 225.2%

Other-than-Serious - 10.4%

Total 15.5%

Increase in Penalties from 2006 ‐ 2011

*

Increase in Penalties from 2006 ‐ 2011

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2006 2008 2010 2011

$1,000,000 + Cases

Severe Violator Enforcement Program

Severe Violators = Employers who “demonstrate indifference to their OSH Act obligations” by:

Any egregious enforcement action

2+Willful, Repeat or FTA citations related to High-Emphasis Hazards

3+ willful, repeat, or FTA citation related to potential release of a HHC

1+ Willful, Repeat, or FTA citations related to a fatality or catastrophe

OSHA Sweep AugerLetter of Interpretation

On 12/24/09 OSHA issued a letter pertaining to sweep auger operations within grain bins: www.osha.gov (Interpretations)

Prohibits an employee from working inside a bin while an unguarded sweep auger is in operation

OSHA offered no acceptable procedures that would allow a person to work inside a bin when an unguarded auger is in operation

Recent Legal and Political Developments

Administrative Law Judge Decisions on the State and Federal Level

Senator Grassley (R-IA) received a response from OSHA after forwarding constituent letter asking for clarification

Congresswoman Noem (R-SD) recently sent letter to OSHA encouraging agency to work with stakeholders to find practical solution

Legislative language has been introduced that would prevent interpretation of standard which would not allow anyone from working in bin.

Combustible Dust Regulations and Compliance

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) issued on Oct. 21, 2009 outlined agency’s intent to develop a comprehensive combustible dust standard that would apply across different industry sectors: ANPRM posed various 69 questions on which OSHA is soliciting public comment.

NGFA, AFIA and PFI submitted Joint Comments on Jan. 19, 2010. Stakeholder meeting conducted on Dec. 14, Feb. 17 and April 21; NGFA testified at each one. 

NGFA participated in June 28 Web‐based forum. OSHA originally had the CD standard on a fast track to be done in 2 to 3 years (from 2009) but now state a CD standard is indefinite.

Combustible Dust Regulations and Compliance

OSHA is looking at other ways to address combustible dust hazards, such as, using other standards to cover the hazard. Housekeeping Section of  Proposed Walking and Working Surface proposed rule

“Chemical Hazard” Category in Proposed Amendment to Globally Harmonized Communication standard

Injury and Illness Prevention Program  NFPA’s New Standard Covering the Fundamentals of Combustible Dust  

Combustible Dust Regulations and Compliance

GHS Amendment to OSHA Hazard Communication Standard Final Rule: 3/26/2012 Effective Date – 5/25/2012 – 60 Days after publication Combustible Dust is classified as “chemical hazard” and is undefined Shipments of products that could produce combustible dusts e.g. whole grain when used in processing or where dust is produced is subject to new rule

New requirements mean new MSDS’ and labels for manufacturers, distributors and importers. The key question is who is the manufacturer, distributor and importer. 

Training is effective 12/2013 and new requirements go into effect in 6/2015

NGFA along with several other agribusiness organizations has filed a legal petition to review in order to challenge combustible dust requirements

Combustible Dust Regulations and Compliance

OSHA recently issued a “serious” citation to a designated FGIS official agency  for not, “…developing a written Hazard Communication program for using and exposed to chemicals while working in the in‐house laboratory and at on‐site laboratories at the elevator and mill customer locations.”

“Employees were exposed to injury and illness form exposure           to chemicals but not limited to…grain dust.”

Rolling Stock Fall Protection

FGIS cited by OSHA in July 2011 for not using fall protection on top of rail car; being appealed at national levelo Could have significant impact on daily operationso Further example of “broad” interpretation of letter of 

interpretationo OSHA recently cited an FGIS designated official agency

Since 2010 several grain‐handling facilities have been issued individual “willful” citations with fines between $60‐70,000

NGFA has reached out to AAIGWA to work together on important issue

Rolling Stock Fall Protection (cont.)

On March 2, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission issued a decision that reaffirmed the “Miles Memo,” particularly its determination of where fall protection in feasible (inside or contiguous to a building) and where it is not (away from such areas). Also reaffirmed administrative controls can be used to protect employees.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on May 24, 2010 outlined agency’s intent to significantly revise current fall protection standard. 

Specific issues related to grain and feed industry : Seeks comments on whether specific regulations are needed to address rolling stock and commercial motor vehicles

Seeks comments on whether to include specific references to combustible dust in the housekeeping section of the standard

2012 NGFA Safety Projects

• Grain Handling Safety Best Practices Seminar/Webinar o Focus on complying with OSHA Grain Handling

Standardo 4 Regional Sessions

• Kansas State Annual Dust Explosion Studyo Potentially renew the annual dust explosion study through

funding from the National Grain and Feed Foundation

• Cost-benefit Analysis of Applying NFPA Venting Standards to Grain Bins o Can standards be applied at a reasonable cost

Education and Training Education

“Grain Bin Safety: Protection You and Your Family” NGFA and NCGA safety training DVD 

“Your Safety Matters” NGFA and GEAPS safety training DVD

“Don’t Go With the Flow NGFA and Purdue University entrapment rescue training video

Training Safety, Health and Environmental and Grain Quality Conference, August 1‐2, 2012

Thank you!

National Grain and Feed Association1250 I Street, N.W.

Suite 1003Washington, DC 20005

Jess McCluer202‐289‐0873  |   jmccluer@ngfa.org