House Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
Republicans
Rep. Howard P. “Buck†McKeon
Ranking Member
Fiscally responsible reforms for students, workers and retirees.
NEWSROOM
Dear Colleague
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: Alexa Marrero |
Reject H.R. 5522 and Its Costly, Duplicative Mandates on Grain Producers
Dear Colleague:
A commitment to worker safety is shared by all of us, regardless of party affiliation. But while we all support strong protections for workers, we also recognize that duplicative new mandates may cause more harm than good for our nation’s industries and the workers they employ. Such is the case with the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act (H.R. 5522), which is expected to receive a vote on the floor of the House today.
One organization concerned about the duplicative nature of H.R. 5522 is the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA). As NGFA points out, the bill’s requirement that OSHA include specific standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) – standards that are currently voluntary guidelines used to enhance safety efforts, not industry-wide mandates – will have a negative and duplicative impact on grain-handling facilities. These facilities are already governed by OSHA regulations developed specifically to protect against combustible dust hazards related to grains. These existing OSHA standards are working – the number of grain facility explosions has declined by 60 percent since the current standard was implemented.
Unfortunately, the bill’s one-size-fits-all regulatory approach threatens to bog down our grain industry with complex and costly new requirements.
In a recent letter to Education and Labor Committee leaders, included below, the President of the NGFA wrote:
“The NGFA is very concerned about the significant impact of this language . . . In particular, we wanted to make the committee aware that NFPA 61 is more comprehensive than [the current grain handling standard] and does not consider the economic impact of its recommendations, if utilized. A review and comparison of [the current grain handling standard] and NFPA 61 reveals that there are over 146 additional provisions addressing design, construction and operation of its affected facilities.”
Unfortunately, the bill that will be voted on today fails to address this costly new burden on our grain industry. Although an amendment is expected to be offered (the Miller amendment) that eliminates the direct mandate for a specific NFPA standard, the bill continues to require that OSHA include “relevant and appropriate” NFPA standards in the final regulation.
NFPA standards are voluntary guidelines that offer a far more complex, stringent protocol that may be adopted in whole or in part by industry participants. These guidelines play an important role as voluntary practices that can enhance safety efforts. But they are entirely inappropriate as a replacement for effective OSHA rulemaking. The consequence of this legislation will be costly and burdensome new mandates on grain producers.
We urge you to reject this expensive and unnecessary burden on the grain facilities that are so integral to America’s food production. For more information, please contact the Education and Labor Committee Republican staff at x5-7101.
Sincerely,
/s/
Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA)
Senior Republican Member
Education and Labor Committee
/s/
Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Senior Republican Member
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
April 22, 2008
The Honorable George Miller, Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Buck McKeon, Ranking Member
Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
2101 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC. 20515
Dear Chairman and Ranking Member:
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) understands that included in a revised version of H.R. 5522, the “Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008” is a reference to the National Fire Protection Association voluntary standard NFPA 61- Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities. The bill specifically cites that “relevant and appropriate provisions” of NFPA’s combustible dust standards are required to be included in OSHA’s final standard. The NGFA is very concerned about the significant impact of this language since NFPA 61 is much more extensive than the grain handling standard, 1910.272.
Prior to the committee’s vote on the revised version of the bill, NGFA worked closely with it’s majority and minority staff to remove the duplicative language referencing the food, flour, starch and feed facilities. NGFA was concerned about the unintended consequences of this language since feed, corn and flour mills already are covered by the existing OSHA grain-handling standard, 1910.272. NGFA appreciates the Committee’s acknowledgement of our concerns and the subsequent change from “food (such as candy, starch, flour, feed)” to “organic dust (such as sugar, candy, paper, soap and dried blood)” in the revised version.
Established in 1896, NGFA consists of 900 member companies that operate about 6,000 grain, feed, processing, biofuel and exporting facilities and handle 70 percent of the U.S. grain and oilseed crop. The NGFA also consists of 35 state and regional grain and feed associations.
The NGFA has worked closely with OSHA in the past to address critical safety issues, e.g. fires and explosions and engulfment and NGFA members have been and are continually encouraged to provide a safe work environment and to comply with current federal OSHA standards, especially the grain-handling standard promulgated in 1988. As you know, Bill Wright, interim chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, testified during the committee's March 12, 2008 hearing that the frequency of grain facility explosions declined by 60 percent following implementation of the grain-handling standard, a testament to the combination of industry research, education, training and government involvement.
In particular, we wanted to make the committee aware that NFPA 61 is more comprehensive than 1910.272 and does not consider the economic impact of its recommendations, if utilized. A review and comparison of 1910.272 and NFPA 61 reveals that there are over 146 additional provisions addressing design, construction and operation of its affected facilities. Neither the NFPA 61 technical committee, nor any other NFPA committee, conducts an economic impact study on their proposed standards before they are formally approved. As a result, the NFPA committee does not consider the impact of its detailed recommendations on industry and small businesses, in particular.
There are a substantial number of small businesses in the grain, feed and grain processing sectors. According to a recent OSHA 610 review, in 1996 there were 3171 firms with fewer than 20 employees in SIC 5153/NAICS 42251 alone. See Table 12 of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) report; the full report here. For SIC 5153, SBA’s size standard is 100 employees or less.
OSHA’s 610 review stated that “…OSHA concludes that the Grain Handling Facilities Standard should continue without major change.” However, by requiring OSHA to include certain provisions of NFPA 61 in a general industry combustible dust standard, Congress would be significantly expanding the scope, and dramatically increasing the economic impact of the standard on the industry. For instance, under 1910.272, OSHA determined that the sections on bucket elevator, emergency escape, and dryer requirements should only apply to grain elevators. However, under NFPA 61, the previously mentioned sections would be extended to apply to the other industries covered by 1910.272 e.g. feed mills, flour mills and other sectors.
After reviewing the revised version of H.R. 5522, we wanted to make the Committee aware of its potential impacts on the grain-handling facilities that already are covered by 1910.272 and we encourage the committee to remove any reference to NFPA 61 from the current version of the bill. We recognize the importance of the issues addressed in “Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008” and look forward to working with you to address this important issue. Thank you for consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Kendell W. Keith
President