[Federal Register: April 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 71)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18791-18845]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap07-25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1910
Explosives; Proposed Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (formerly Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665]
RIN 1218-AC09
Explosives
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the explosives and blasting agents
standard in subpart H of part 1910. This revision of Sec. 1910.109 is
intended to enhance the protections provided to employees engaged in
the manufacture, storage, sale, transportation, handling, and use of
explosives. The proposal updates and clarifies the regulatory language,
addresses regulatory inconsistencies between OSHA and other Federal
agencies, incorporates updated consensus standards, and provides the
regulated community with greater compliance flexibility.
DATES: Written comments and hearing requests must be submitted by the
following dates:
Hard copy: Comments and hearing requests must be submitted
(postmarked or sent) by July 12, 2007.
Facsimile and electronic transmissions: Comments and hearing
requests must be sent by July 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0032, by any of the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions.
Fax: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the "Public
Participation" heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in
response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0032 at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All comments and submissions are listed in the http://
http://www.regulations.gov index, however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
Web page. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
For information on accessing exhibits referenced in this Federal
Register notice, see the "References and Exhibits" and "Public
Participation" headings in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://regulations.gov. Copies also are available from the OSHA
Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant
information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Office of Communications, Room N-
3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical
inquiries, contact Donald Pittenger, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2255 or fax
(202) 693-1663.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
References and Exhibits
In this Federal Register notice, OSHA references a number of
supporting materials. References to these materials are given as
"Ex." followed by the number of the document. The referenced
materials are posted in both Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 (which is
available at http://www.regulations.osha.gov) and OSHA Docket No. S-031 (which is available at http://dockets.osha.gov). The documents are also
available at the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). For
further information about accessing exhibits referenced in this Federal
Register notice, see the "Public Participation" heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Legal Considerations
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
IV. Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Screening Analysis
V. Environmental Impact Analysis
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plan Standards
IX. Unfunded Mandates
X. Public Participation
XI. List of Subjects in 29 CFR part 1910
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. Amendments to Standards
I. Background
History of the Standard
In 1970, Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) (the Act or the OSH Act) directing OSHA to
promulgate safety and health standards to assure, as far as possible,
safe and healthful working conditions for every employee in the Nation.
To expedite OSHA's mission, Congress directed the Secretary of Labor
through section 6(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)) to promulgate safety
and health standards within the first two years of the Act's enactment
by summarily adopting existing national consensus and established
Federal standards, without requiring the Agency to go through the
rulemaking procedures detailed in section 6 of the Act.
On May 29, 1971, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act, OSHA
promulgated its explosives and blasting agents standard at 29 CFR
1910.109 (36 FR 10553-10562). The standard was based on two national
consensus standards--the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
495-1970 Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, and Use of
Explosives and Blasting Agents, and NFPA 490-1970 Code for the Storage of
Ammonium Nitrate.
The explosives and blasting agents standard promulgated in 1971 was
similar to the current standard found at Sec. 1910.109 and included
provisions on the storage of explosives, blasting agents, and ammonium
nitrate; the transportation of explosives; and the use of explosives
and blasting agents. Few significant changes have been made to the
standard since its promulgation. On March 31, 1972, OSHA amended the
standard by adding paragraph (j) "Small arms ammunition, small arms
primers, and small arms propellants" (37 FR 6577). It also added
paragraph (k) "Scope," which stated in part that: "This section
applies to the manufacture, keeping, having, storage, sale,
transportation, and use of explosives, blasting agents, and
pyrotechnics" 37 FR 6577.
On February 24, 1992, OSHA issued a new standard at Sec. 1910.119
"Process Safety Management" (PSM) covering working conditions during
the manufacture of highly hazardous chemicals (57 FR 6356). Both the
manufacture of explosives (excluding blasting agents) and the
manufacture of pyrotechnics must meet the requirements contained in the
PSM standard. 57 FR 6356. The PSM final rule revised the scope
provision in the explosives and blasting agents standard by adding
Sec. 1910.109(k)(2) which states that the manufacture of explosives
must meet the requirements contained in Sec. 1910.119 and by adding
Sec. 1910.109(k)(3) which states that the manufacture of pyrotechnics
must meet the requirements in Sec. 1910.119. 57 FR 6356.
The most recent revisions made to Sec. 1910.109 were on June 18,
1998 (63 FR 33450) in which OSHA amended two provisions to make them
consistent with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. The
revisions now allow blasting caps to be transported on the same vehicle
with other explosives (Sec. 1910.109(d)(1)(iv)) and allow the re-use
of containers and packaging materials that have previously contained
explosives provided that such re-use is performed in accordance with
DOT regulations at 49 CFR 173.28 (Sec. 1910.109(e)(2)(i)).
The Petition
On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition (the Petition) from the
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) to revise the standard. A
copy of the Petition can be found at Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665
(Ex. 2-1). IME is an association of manufacturers of high explosives
and other companies that distribute explosives or provide other related
services and the SAAMI is an association of manufacturers of sporting
firearms, ammunition, and related components. The Petition claimed that
Sec. 1910.109 does not reflect significant technological and safety
advances made by the explosives industry since the standard was
promulgated. It further contended that the standard contains outdated
references, classifications, and jurisdiction-related provisions that
do not accurately represent the current regulatory environment.
The Petition requested OSHA to make a number of changes to the
standard, including the following, and provided draft regulatory
language:
Exclude the manufacture of explosives from the PSM
requirements of Sec. 1910.119 and incorporate revised PSM requirements
for the manufacture of explosives into Sec. 1910.109;
Replace references to outdated DOT explosives
classifications with the current DOT classification system;
Eliminate the provisions in Sec. 1910.109 covering the
storage of explosives and the construction of magazines because they
are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF);
Eliminate provisions in Sec. 1910.109 applicable to the
transportation of explosives on public highways because such
transportation is regulated by DOT;
Update provisions for guarding against accidental
initiation by sources of extraneous electricity;
Include provisions governing the intra-plant
transportation of explosives;
Include provisions for the use of nonelectric detonation
systems;
Revise provisions regarding the crimping of detonators to
safety fuse;
Update provisions for clearing the blasting area of
unauthorized personnel; and
Update the provisions for the design of bulk delivery and
mixing vehicles and of mixing equipment.
In response to the Petition, OSHA carefully reviewed the
requirements of the current standard and other related OSHA standards.
It analyzed the recommendations as well as the draft regulatory
language provided in the Petition. OSHA also examined the regulations
of other federal agencies relating to explosives and consulted with
interested parties about the need to revise the standard. Apart from
IME and SAAMI, these interested parties included the International
Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE), the American Pyrotechnics
Association (APA), the United Steel Workers of America (USWA), and the
Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International
(PACE). In addition, OSHA consulted with other Federal agencies about
their explosives regulations and procedures. These Federal agencies
included the DOT, ATF, the Interagency Committee on Explosives (ICE),
the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB), the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
Based upon its review of the Petition and the standard, OSHA has
concluded that the following actions are appropriate. These actions are
discussed in greater detail in the summary and explanation section of
the proposed rule (see section III).
A. Update the Standard
Workplace hazards associated with explosives activities pose
significant risks to employees. OSHA has determined that the existing
standard needs to be updated to adequately protect employees from these
risks. Each year, over 5 billion pounds of explosives are manufactured
or imported into the U.S.A. These explosives are used on a daily basis
in many different ways. The manufacture, storage, transportation, sale,
and use of explosives present significant risks not only to the
employees who work directly with them but to the many other employees
who may work in the immediate vicinity of the explosives.
Explosives are, by their nature and design, inherently dangerous
and their safe handling, storage, and use are critical to the safety of
those working with or near them. There have been many incidents in the
past of injuries and deaths resulting from the accidental detonation of
explosives. One of the most famous examples, the Texas City Disaster,
did not actually involve explosives but ammonium nitrate, one of the
ingredients used to make a type of explosive called blasting agents. On
April 16, 1947, a ship named the SS Grandcamp was docked at the port of
Texas City, Texas. Its cargo hold was full of ammonium nitrate. Shortly
after a small fire was detected in the hold, the ammonium nitrate
detonated. The explosion killed at least 581 people, injured over 5,000
others, destroyed the port, and severely damaged the town. The
shockwave from the explosion shattered windows in Houston, over 40
miles away. Only three years earlier, another ship docked at Port
Chicago, California, exploded when its cargo of explosives detonated.
The explosion killed 320 sailors and civilians and injured over 400 others.
A review of accidents involving explosives indicates that such
incidents are most often caused by unsafe work practices or faulty
equipment. These factors are frequently exacerbated by the failure to
properly train not only the employees handling and using the explosives
but also the employees in the vicinity of the explosives in question.
In many cases, the initial incident, while serious, triggers even
greater loss of life and property by spreading to nearby facilities or
causing serious injury to employees trying to fight the resulting fire.
The existing standard has undergone few significant revisions since
it was promulgated over 35 years ago and many of its requirements do
not accurately reflect current working conditions in the explosives
industry. Over the last 35 years, the explosives industry has changed
significantly. New forms of explosives have been developed (e.g.,
emulsions), new kinds of detonators have been introduced (e.g.,
electronic detonators), and substantial changes have been made in the
processes and equipment employed to create, handle and use explosives
(e.g., new kinds of bulk delivery vehicles). OSHA has concluded that
the existing standard must be updated to reflect these changes and to
adequately protect employees from the significant risks involved in
working with or near explosives. To update the standard, OSHA has
consulted with other federal agencies and with interested parties about
new technologies, products, and procedures used by the explosives
industry and has incorporated these developments into the proposed
rule. It has also updated all references in the standard to current
national consensus standards.
B. Increase the Clarity and Focus of the Standard
Many of the existing requirements in Sec. 1910.109 are difficult
to understand, repetitive, and internally inconsistent. In addition,
some of these existing requirements address issues, such as general
public safety, that go beyond OSHA's authority to regulate. When the
standard was promulgated in 1971 through section 6(a) of the Act, OSHA
adopted much of the language contained in the national consensus
standards upon which it was based (i.e., NFPA 495 and NFPA 490). These
national consensus standards were not written in language well suited
for a Federal regulation and had broader coverage (e.g., public safety)
than needed by OSHA to cover working conditions in the explosives
industry.
To make the standard more "user-friendly," the proposal has been
rewritten in plain language. Internal inconsistencies and duplicative
requirements have been eliminated. In addition, it has been rewritten
to eliminate references to public safety that are beyond OSHA's
authority to regulate.
C. Increase the Regulatory Consistency of the Standard
There are inconsistencies between the explosives regulations of
different Federal agencies. For example, OSHA classifies explosives in
its current standard as Class A, Class B, and Class C explosives. ATF
classifies explosives in terms of high explosives, low explosives, and
blasting agents (27 CFR 555.202). DOT has adopted the United Nations
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
(GHS) (Ex. 2-2). The GHS is intended to harmonize existing
communication systems on chemicals in order to develop a single,
worldwide harmonized system to address classification of chemicals
according to their hazards, and communicate the related information
through labels and safety data sheets. Based on the GHS, DOT classifies
all explosives as Class 1 chemicals and further subdivides them into
Division 1.1 through 1.6 explosives (49 CFR 173.50).
Magazines (structures used for the storage of explosives) are also
classified differently by different Federal agencies. For example, OSHA
classifies magazines as Class I and Class II (Sec. 1910.109(c)(1)) but
ATF classifies them as Type 1 through Type 5 (27 CFR 555.203).
One of OSHA's major goals in this proposed rulemaking is to
increase regulatory consistency with other Federal agencies involved in
regulating the explosives industry and to eliminate confusion within
the regulated community. To achieve this goal, OSHA proposes to adopt
the GHS definitional classification system for "explosives." This
will make OSHA's classification system consistent with the one used by
DOT, which is also based on the GHS.
D. Increase the Regulatory Flexibility of the Standard
To provide the regulated community with greater regulatory
flexibility, OSHA has endeavored to use general performance-oriented
language in the proposed standard. This allows OSHA to draft a
requirement in terms of a goal and it allows the employer greater
choice on how to achieve that goal.
E. Resolve Authority Issues in the Standard
There is some confusion in the regulated community over the
boundaries of OSHA's authority to regulate working conditions in the
explosives industry. One of OSHA's goals in this rulemaking is to
clarify the extent of its authority to regulate working conditions in
the explosives industry. In particular, OSHA discusses the boundaries
of its authority to regulate working conditions during the storage of
explosives and during the transportation of explosives.
II. Legal Considerations
The purpose of the OSH Act is "to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources." 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards (see 29
U.S.C. 655(a) authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and
federal standards within two years of Act's enactment, 655(b)
authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment,
and 654(b) requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards).
A safety or health standard is a standard "which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment" (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).
A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of Section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates
significant risk, and is economically feasible, technologically
feasible, and cost effective, and is consistent with prior Agency
action or is a justified departure, is supported by substantial
evidence, and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any
national consensus standard it supersedes. See 58 FR 16612-16616 (March
30, 1993).
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA, 452
U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI); American Iron and Steel Institute v. OSHA,
939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (AISI).
A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the costs of compliance without threatening its long-term profitability or
competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 55; AISI, 939 F.2d
at 980. A standard is cost effective if the protective measures it
requires are the least costly of the available alternatives that
achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S. at 514 n. 32;
International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
(LOTO II).
Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to include among a standard's
requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other
information gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).
All standards must be highly protective. See 58 FR at 16614-16615;
LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668-669. Finally, whenever practical, standards
shall "be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the
performance desired." 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
OSHA's Authority To Regulate
The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify the degree to
which OSHA has authority to regulate working conditions relating to
explosives. A number of Federal agencies have authority to regulate
explosives. For example, the OSH Act grants OSHA authority to create
and enforce standards covering workplace safety and health. As part of
its mission, OSHA currently regulates working conditions in the
storage, sale, transportation, manufacture, and use of explosives (29
CFR 1910.109 and 1910.119 and part 1926 subpart U). The Mine Safety and
Health Administration is responsible for regulating the transportation,
storage, and use of explosives at mining facilities subject to the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Its relevant regulations
can be found at 30 CFR 56.6000 to 56.6905, 57.6000 to 57.6960, 75.1300
to 75.1328, and 77.1300 to 77.1304. The United States Department of
Transportation (DOT), under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), is responsible for regulating the safe
transportation of explosives in intrastate, interstate, and foreign
commerce. Its regulations cover not only the movement of explosives in
commerce but also the loading, unloading, and storage of explosives
incidental to that movement (49 CFR parts 171 to 180 and 397).
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
regulations cover the import, manufacture, distribution, and storage of
explosives (27 CFR part 555). Its regulations require all
manufacturers, importers, and dealers in explosives to obtain a Federal
license from ATF and require certain users of explosives to obtain a
Federal permit from ATF. The Agency also regulates the safe and secure
storage of explosives at approved facilities. The United States Coast
Guard has regulations covering the loading, transportation, unloading,
and stowage of explosives on vessels and at related land-side
facilities (33 CFR part 126, 46 CFR part 194, 49 CFR parts 171 to 173
and 176).
The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates consumer fireworks
as part of its mission to protect the public from unreasonable risks of
serious injury or death from consumer products (16 CFR parts 1500 and
1507). Its regulations contain construction, performance, and labeling
requirements for consumer fireworks. The Environmental Protection
Agency, under such statutes as the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), and the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), regulates
releases and wastes involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of
explosives. The United States Department of the Interior's Office of
Surface Mining is responsible for regulating blast effects, such as
flyrock and ground vibration, near surface mines (30 CFR 816, 817, and
850).
Given that there are multiple federal agencies that have authority
to regulate explosives and that there are several different aspects to
the regulation of explosives, areas can develop where federal agency
authorities overlap. OSHA recognizes that there is the potential for
overlap between provisions of this NPRM and a recent Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) proposed regulation. Pursuant to the DHS
Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295 (October 4, 2006), DHS
has authority to regulate the security of chemical facilities. DHS
published an Advance Notice of Rulemaking titled Chemical Facility
Anti-terrorism Standards (71 FR 78276) (December 28, 2006) and will
publish an implementing interim final rule on the matter. The DHS
Advance Notice proposes to require high-risk chemical facilities to
develop and implement "Site Security Plans" with measures that
address their security vulnerabilities (as determined through a
"Vulnerability Assessment") and that address the DHS risk-based
performance standards for security at chemical facilities. To the
extent that any overlapping issues develop, OSHA and DHS will work to
resolve those issues.
The above description is not a complete listing of all the Federal
agencies that regulate explosives. With so many agencies involved,
confusion has occurred in the regulated community over the regulatory
boundaries between some agencies. One issue that has arisen concerns
the degree of overlap in OSHA and ATF regulations covering the storage
of explosives. Another issue involves whether OSHA has the authority to
regulate working conditions during the transportation of explosives
when DOT and the United States Coast Guard also regulates such
transportation. The following is a discussion of these two issues.
OSHA's Authority to Regulate the Storage of Explosives. The OSH Act
gives OSHA broad authority to promulgate and enforce standards to
promote workplace safety and health. 29 U.S.C. 651. The courts have
supported this broad interpretation of OSHA's authority. Southern
Railway Co. v. OSHRC, 539 F.2d 335, 338 (4th Cir. 1976) cert. denied,
429 U.S. 999 (1976) ("OSHA was enacted in response to an appalling
record of death and disability in our industrial environment, and it
was the clear intent of Congress to meet the problem with broad and,
hopefully, effective legislation."). However, OSHA's authority to
regulate working conditions is restricted by section 4(b)(1) of the OSH
Act (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)), which states that:
Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of
employees with respect to which other Federal agencies * * *
exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or
regulations affecting occupational safety or health.
Congress enacted this provision, called the "preemption
provision," to avoid duplicative regulatory coverage between OSHA and
other Federal agencies in the area of workplace safety and health.
Organized Migrants in Community Action v. Brennan, 520 F.2d 1161, 1161
(D.C. Cir. 1975). The preemption provision prevents OSHA from
regulating working conditions when another Federal agency exercises its
statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations
covering those working conditions. Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.,
524 U.S. 235, 241 (2002). OSHA is not preempted if another Federal
agency has statutory authority but has not exercised that authority.
524 U.S. at 241.
Is OSHA preempted by ATF under the preemption provision of the OSH
Act from regulating working conditions relating to the storage of explosives?
To answer this question, the following questions must be answered. Does ATF
have statutory authority to regulate the storage of explosives? If so, is ATF
exercising that authority? If so, to what extent do ATF's requirements cover
the same working conditions as OSHA's requirements?
Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-
452, 84 Stat. 922, gives ATF, through the Secretary of the Treasury,
the statutory authority to regulate the storage of explosives. Section
1101 of Title XI states that "[t]he Congress hereby declares that the
purpose of this title is to protect interstate and foreign commerce
against interference and interruption by reducing the hazard to persons
and property arising from misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of
explosive materials." 84 Stat. 952. Thus, Congress gave ATF the
statutory authority to issue and enforce regulations to protect persons
(including employees) from the unsafe storage of explosives. ATF has
exercised this authority by promulgating and enforcing regulations
covering the storage of explosives (see 27 CFR part 555).
ATF's explosive storage regulations are very similar to OSHA's
requirements for working conditions involved in the storage of
explosives. Many of ATF's requirements affect the same types of working
conditions as OSHA's requirements. The following table shows the
overlap between ATF's regulations and OSHA's requirements for the
storage of explosives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF's requirements OSHA's requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 CFR 555.203 Types of magazines......... 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(1)(iv)
and (v).
27 CFR 555.206 Location of magazines...... 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(1)(vi),
(vii) and (viii).
27 CFR 555.207 to .211 Construction of 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(2), (3)
magazines. and (4).
27 CFR 555.212 Smoking and open flames.... 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(5)(vii).
27 CFR 555.213 Quantity and storage 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(1)(ii).
restrictions.
27 CFR 555.214 Storage within magazines... 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(5).
27 CFR 555.215 Housekeeping............... 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(5)(iv)
and (v).
27 CFR 555.216 Repair of magazines........ 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(5)(vi).
27 CFR 555.217 Lighting................... 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(2)(vi).
27 CFR 555.218 to .220 Tables of distances 29 CFR 1910.109(c)(1) Table
for storage of explosive materials. H-21.
29 CFR 1910.109(g)(4) Table
H-22.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF's regulations for the storage of explosives apply to the same
kinds of working conditions as OSHA's requirements for the storage of
explosives. Although ATF's regulations do not always contain the same
or similar requirements as OSHA's requirements, they cover the same
general working conditions. In some cases, ATF's regulations include
working conditions not covered as extensively by OSHA's requirements.
For example, unlike OSHA's requirements, ATF's regulations contain
separate requirements for the storage of display fireworks, pyrotechnic
compositions, and explosive materials used in assembling fireworks (see
27 CFR 555.221 to .224).
In summary, ATF has statutory authority to regulate the storage of
explosives and it exercises this statutory authority through its
promulgation and enforcement of regulations covering explosives
storage. Its storage regulations affect the same kinds of working
conditions as those covered by OSHA's requirements in Sec. 1910.109.
Therefore, OSHA has concluded that its storage requirements for
explosives in Sec. 1910.109(c) are preempted under section 4(b)(1) of
the OSH Act by ATF's regulations at 27 CFR part 555 subpart K. As a
consequence, OSHA is proposing in this rulemaking to eliminate the
provisions in Sec. 1910.109 that deal with the storage of explosives.
OSHA is proposing to retain the provisions in Sec. 1910.109(i)
that cover the storage of ammonium nitrate. These provisions are not
pre-empted by ATF's explosive storage regulations in 27 CFR part 555
subpart K because, although ammonium nitrate is a component of certain
explosives such as ANFO, by itself, it is not an explosive. Therefore,
it is not regulated by these ATF regulations. In addition, OSHA is also
proposing to retain the provisions in Sec. 1910.109(j) that cover the
storage of small arms ammunition and components of small arms
ammunition. Although small arms ammunition and components of small arms
ammunition, such as small arms primers and smokeless propellants, are
explosives, ATF's explosives storage regulations do not apply to the
storage of ammunition as defined in 27 CFR 555.11 (see 27 CFR
555.141(a)(4)). Thus, OSHA's existing Sec. 1910.109(j) covering the
storage of small arms ammunition and components of small arms
ammunition are not preempted by ATF's regulations.
Furthermore, ATF's explosives regulations (see 27 CFR
555.141(a)(7)) do not apply to consumer fireworks as defined in 27 CFR
555.11. These items are generally classified as UN0336, UN0337, UN0431,
and UN0432 by DOT at 49 CFR 172.101, and generally known as consumer
fireworks or articles pyrotechnic. These fireworks are classified as
Class 1 Division 1.4 explosives by DOT at 40 CFR 172.101. Because ATF
does not regulate the storage of these types of fireworks, OSHA retains
authority to regulate their storage. At this time, however, OSHA is not
proposing to regulate the storage of these types of fireworks in the
proposed standard but plans to deal with them in a future rulemaking on
pyrotechnics.
Issue #1: As discussed above, OSHA is proposing to withdraw its
requirements in Sec. 1910.109 covering the storage of explosives. OSHA
is seeking comments on the following issue. Apart from small arms
ammunition and related components, are there any explosives that are
currently covered by the storage requirements in Sec. 1910.109 that
are not covered by ATF's storage regulations?
OSHA's Authority to Regulate the Transportation of Explosives. Do
DOT and the United States Coast Guard preempt OSHA from regulating
working conditions during the transportation of explosives? DOT
regulates the transportation of hazardous materials, including
explosives, by statutory authority granted to it by the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (the Hazmat Act) enacted in 1975 (49
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). DOT has exercised this statutory authority by
promulgating and enforcing regulations covering the transportation of
hazardous materials (49 CFR parts 171 to 180). The United States Coast
Guard is called to enforce these authorities during the transportation
of hazardous materials on vessels upon the navigable waters of the
United States. In addition, the United States Coast Guard is authorized
to regulate the handling of dangerous cargo, including explosives, at
waterfront facilities under 33 CFR part 126.
In 1990, Congress amended the Hazmat Act (Pub. L. 101-615, Sec.
2936, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3244) and added the following reverse
preemption language in Sec. 1805(b)(3):
For purposes of section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)), no action taken by the
[DOT] Secretary pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be an
exercise of statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or
regulations affecting occupational safety or health.
The section in the Hazmat Act referred to in the reverse preemption
language was Sec. 1805 "Handling of hazardous materials." Section
1805(a) covered the number, training, and qualifications of personnel
involved in handling hazardous materials; the type and frequency of
inspections; the equipment used to detect, warn, and control the risks
posed by hazardous materials; the use of equipment and facilities
employed in the handling and transportation of hazardous materials; and
systems for monitoring the safety assurance procedures for transporting
hazardous materials. Section 1805(b) included training criteria for the
safe handling and transportation of hazardous materials. The remaining
provisions in Sec. 1805 covered the registration, filing, and permit
requirements for transporters of hazardous materials.
The reverse preemption language in Sec. 1805(b)(3) of the Hazmat
Act nullified any effect of the OSH Act's 4(b)(1) preemption provision
over matters covered by Sec. 1805 of the Hazmat Act. Because Sec.
1805 covered such things as the training, equipment and facilities used
during the handling and transportation of hazardous materials, OSHA
could regulate working conditions associated with these aspects of the
handling and transportation of hazardous materials.
In 1994, Congress amended and recodified the Hazmat Act to its
current form as 49 U.S.C. chapter 51--Transportation of Hazardous
Material, Sec. 5101 et seq. (Pub. L. 103-272, July 5, 1994, 108 Stat.
745). Although the reverse preemption language was altered and
recodified at Sec. 5107(f)(2), its meaning and coverage remained the
same. Section 5107(f)(2) states:
Sec. 5107 Hazmat employee training requirements and grants
* * * * *
(f) Relationship to other laws.
* * * * *
(2) An action of the Secretary of Transportation under
subsections (a)-(d) of this section and sections 5106, 5108(a)-
(g)(1) and (h), and 5109 of this title is not an exercise, under
section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)), of statutory authority to prescribe or
enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety and
health.
Section 5106 involves criteria for the handling of hazardous
materials and includes the following:
The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe criteria for
handling hazardous material, including:
(1) a minimum number of personnel;
(2) minimum levels of training and qualifications for personnel;
(3) the kind and frequency of inspections;
(4) equipment for detecting, warning of, and controlling risks
posed by the hazardous material;
(5) specifications for the use of equipment and facilities used
in handling and transporting the hazardous material; and
(6) a system of monitoring safety procedures for transporting
the hazardous material.
Section 5107(a) to (d) covers training requirements for employees
working with hazardous materials. Section 5108(a) to (g)(1) and (h)
involves registration requirements for transporting hazardous materials
and Sec. 5109 covers safety permits for motor carriers transporting
hazardous materials.
Similar to the reverse preemption language in the 1990 amendments
to the Hazmat Act, Sec. 5107(f)(2) of the 1994 amendments to the
Hazmat Act nullifies any effect of the OSH Act's 4(b)(1) preemption
provision over matters covered by Sec. Sec. 5106, 5107(a) to (d),
5108(a) to (g)(1) and (h), and 5109. This allows OSHA to regulate
working conditions relating to these matters, which include "the use
of equipment and facilities used in handling and transporting the
hazardous material" (49 U.S.C. 5106(5)). Accordingly, OSHA has the
authority to not only regulate working conditions at facilities
involved in the transportation of hazardous materials but also when
equipment is used during the transportation of hazardous materials. It
is noteworthy that the reverse preemption language in the 1994
amendments to the Hazmat Act does not exclude DOT from also regulating
the areas covered by Sec. Sec. 5106, 5107(a) to (d), 5108(a) to (g)(1)
and (h), and 5109.
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission examined the
reverse preemption language in Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 17 BNA
OSHC 1699, 1995-97 CCH OSHD ] 31,105 (No. 93-3292, 1996). In that case,
the operator of a freight terminal argued that OSHA's citations against
it were invalid because OSHA was preempted from regulating working
conditions at the terminal by DOT under the 4(b)(1) preemption
provision of the OSH Act. The Commission disagreed with the operator
and concluded that when Congress amended Sec. 1805(b)(3) in the 1990
amendments to the Hazmat Act, it "intended to nullify the preemptive
effect of DOT actions taken under section 1805." Id. at 1701. It also
made the equivalent finding about the reverse preemption language in
the 1994 amendments to the Hazmat Act. Id. At the invitation of the
Commission, DOT submitted its interpretation of Sec. 1805(b)(3) in the
Yellow Freight case. DOT stated that the reverse preemption language
"found in Sec. 1805(b)(3) * * * referred to the entirety of Sec.
1805." Id. Thus, DOT agreed that OSHA was not preempted from
regulating working conditions in those aspects of the transportation of
hazardous materials covered by Sec. 1805.
On October 30, 2003, DOT issued a final rule clarifying the
application of its hazardous materials regulations to the loading,
unloading, and storage of hazardous materials incidental to movement in
commerce (68 FR 61906). DOT's hazardous materials regulations cover
pre-transportation functions involving the preparation of hazardous
materials for transportation in commerce. Id. at 61906, 61908. They
also cover transportation functions involving the actual movement of
hazardous materials in commerce, including the loading, unloading, and
storage of hazardous materials that is incidental to that movement. Id.
at 61906, 61914.
In the preamble to the final rule, DOT noted the reverse preemption
language at Sec. 5107(f)(2) in the 1994 amendments to the Hazmat Act
and stated that: "Such `reverse preemption language' functions to
nullify any effect the OSH Act's 4(b)(1) provision might otherwise have
and thus ensures that OSHA's standards remain applicable (68 FR
61926)." DOT further stated that it "neither affirmatively
regulate[s] the working conditions at facilities where pre-
transportation and transportation functions are performed, nor
assert[s] comprehensive regulatory jurisdiction over the working
conditions at these facilities. * * * This final rule makes clear that
[DOT does] not intend to exercise [its] statutory authority in a manner
that precludes OSHA from regulating at facilities where pre-
transportation and transportation functions are performed." Id. Thus,
DOT recognizes that, through the reverse preemption language of the
Hazmat Law, OSHA has the statutory authority to regulate working
conditions at facilities where pre-transportation and transportation
functions are performed.
In its final rule, DOT did not directly address whether OSHA has
statutory authority to regulate working conditions during the actual
movement of hazardous materials in commerce. However, it stated that
DOT "has developed a special expertise that makes the Department
uniquely qualified to play the primary Federal regulatory role in the
protection of employees who operate motor vehicles, trains, aircraft,
and vessels used to transport hazardous materials." Id. at 61927.
OSHA agrees that DOT has the unique expertise to play a lead role
in the protection of employees during the transportation of hazardous
materials. However, OSHA also recognizes that, through the reverse
preemption language of Sec. 5107(f)(2) in the 1994 amendments to the
Hazmat Act, Congress has granted OSHA statutory authority to regulate
working conditions during the handling and transportation of hazardous
materials. The Agency views this statutory authority to include working
conditions during the actual movement of hazardous material in
commerce, as well as during the preparation of hazardous materials
prior to movement, and the loading, unloading, and temporary storage of
hazardous material incidental to movement.
Although OSHA has the statutory authority to regulate working
conditions at each stage in the transportation of hazardous materials,
the Agency is not required to exercise that authority. OSHA recognizes
DOT and the United States Coast Guard's extensive regulatory expertise
and coverage in the area of the safe transportation of hazardous
materials. The Agency also believes it is important to avoid
duplicative or conflicting regulatory requirements between federal
agencies. As a result, OSHA has no current plans to expand its
regulation of working conditions during the transportation of hazardous
materials.
The following preamble discussion explains significant changes made
in the proposal to the existing standard. The proposed standard changes
the title of 29 CFR 1910.109 from "Explosives and Blasting Agents" to
"Explosives." Since the proposal includes blasting agents in the
definition of explosives (discussed below), it is no longer appropriate
for the title of the section to include both terms.
This proposed rule contains a complete revision and re-organization
of existing Sec. 1910.109. In addition to requesting comments on any
of the requirements in the proposed standard, OSHA has identified
issues throughout the preamble and has requested comments on these
issues.
OSHA's development of the proposed rule was based in part on the
2001 edition of NFPA 495--Explosive Materials Code. NFPA has recently
issued a 2006 edition of this code. OSHA has compared the differences
between the 2001 and 2006 editions. Any significant changes relevant to
the proposed rule in the 2006 edition compared to the 2001 edition are
discussed at the appropriate location in the preamble. OSHA is
interested in comments on whether there are any requirements in the
2006 edition of NFPA 495 that should be in the proposed rule but have
not been included.
The proposed rule references DOT regulations in several provisions.
OSHA has included these references to DOT regulations to ensure that
the proposed rule is consistent with DOT's regulations. However, OSHA
is interested in comments on whether such DOT references should be
retained, excluded, or replaced with an alternative in the final rule.
If you think some or all of the references to DOT regulations should be
replaced with an alternative, please provide the alternative language
for the affected provisions in the proposed rule.
As an aid to understanding the changes in the proposed rule, a
table, "Proposed Reorganization of Existing Requirements," has been
placed in the docket (Ex. 2-22) listing the requirements in the
existing standard and identifying where they are located in the
proposed rule. In addition, a second table, "New Requirements in
Proposed Rule," has been placed in the docket (Ex. 2-23) listing all
the new provisions in the proposed rule that are not in the existing
standard.
Paragraph (a) Scope. Proposed paragraph (a) defines the
applicability of Sec. 1910.109, and has been moved from existing
paragraph (k), at the end of the standard, to the beginning of the
proposed standard. This change enables a reader to quickly determine
the applicability of the standard.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would apply this section to the
manufacture, storage, sale, transportation, handling, and use of
explosives, including blasting agents and pyrotechnics. The proposed
paragraph is similar to existing paragraph (k)(1) except in three ways.
First, for ease of compliance, each of the multiple requirements in
existing paragraph (k)(1) has been moved to a separate proposed
paragraph. As a result, the requirement in existing paragraph (k)(1) on
the applicability of the standard to the use of explosives in medicines
and medicinal agents has been moved to proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii).
The requirement in existing paragraph (k)(1) on the applicability of
the standard to the sale and use of pyrotechnics has been moved to
proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii).
Second, proposed paragraph (a)(1) has been rewritten for clarity.
For example, ambiguous terms such as "keeping" and "having" in
existing paragraph (k)(1) have been removed in proposed paragraph
(a)(1). OSHA believes the proposed language is clearer and more concise
than the existing language, and will enhance compliance.
Third, the application of this section to storage has been removed.
The reason for this is explained in the OSHA's Authority to Regulate
discussion above.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires the employer to comply with
Sec. 1910.119, Process Safety Management (PSM), for operations
involving the manufacture of explosives, as defined in proposed
paragraph (b). The proposed paragraph revises the requirements in
existing paragraph (k)(2), which requires the manufacture of
explosives, as defined in existing paragraph (a)(3), to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 1910.119.
The proposal deletes existing paragraph (k)(3) which requires the
manufacture of pyrotechnics, as defined in existing paragraph (a)(10),
to comply with the requirements of Sec. 1910.119. Paragraph (b) of the
proposed standard defines pyrotechnics as explosives (see discussion
below on proposed paragraph (b)). Thus, it is no longer necessary to
have one provision requiring that the manufacture of explosives comply
with Sec. 1910.119 and another provision requiring that the
manufacture of pyrotechnics comply with Sec. 1910.119. Proposed
paragraph (a)(2) requiring that the manufacture of explosives comply
with Sec. 1910.119 covers all explosives as defined in proposed
paragraph (b), including pyrotechnics.
Under both the existing standard (existing paragraph (k)) and the
proposed standard (proposed paragraph (a)(2)), the manufacture of
blasting agents does not have to comply with the PSM standard at Sec.
1910.119. The existing standard does not define blasting agents as
explosives but the proposed standard classifies them as Class 1
Division 1.5 explosives (see discussion below on proposed paragraph
(b)). Even though the proposed standard includes blasting agents as
explosives and requires that the manufacture of explosives comply with
Sec. 1910.119, OSHA in proposed paragraph (a)(2) is specifically
excluding blasting agents from the requirements of Sec. 1910.119. This
exclusion includes water gels, slurries, and emulsions classified as
Class 1 Division 1.5 explosives.
The PSM standard was developed to safeguard employees from
catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or
explosive chemicals (see Sec. 1910.119 Purpose). Blasting agents, as
Class 1 Division 1.5 explosives, are very insensitive and have a very
low probability of causing an unintended mass explosion. For this
reason, OSHA has concluded that blasting agents, unlike Division 1.1 to
1.4 explosives, do not pose the potential catastrophic consequences to
employees required of chemicals subject to Sec. 1910.119 and should be
excluded from the PSM standard. However, if one or more ingredients of
a blasting agent is otherwise classified as an explosive (i.e., as a
Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4 explosive), then the manufacturing
process for that blasting agent would be required to comply with Sec.
1910.119. Although the manufacture of blasting agents is not subject to
the PSM standard, both the existing standard at Sec. 1910.109(g) and
(h) and the proposed standard at Sec. 1910.109(c) and (g) have
requirements covering the safe manufacture of blasting agents.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) clarifies that Sec. 1910.109, as a
general industry standard, does not apply to construction work covered
by 29 CFR part 1926. This paragraph is new but does not change the
scope of the existing standard because the existing standard also does
not apply to construction work. Subpart U of 29 CFR part 1926
specifically addresses blasting and the use of explosives in the
construction industry. OSHA believes the proposed language clarifies
the scope of the proposed standard and addresses some confusion on the
issue that was revealed during discussions with stakeholders.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) states that this section does not
apply to the use of explosives in medicines and medicinal agents in the
forms prescribed by the official United States Pharmacopeia and the
National Formulary (USP-NF). The USP-NF is available from the United
States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., 12601 Twinbrook Parkway,
Rockville, MD, 20852. The proposal continues the existing standard's
exclusion of medicines and medical agents containing explosives from
the standard's requirements. For ease of compliance, this exclusion was
separated from other requirements within existing paragraph (k)(1) and
made into a separate proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii). The proposed
language is similar to the existing exclusion, and was modified to be
consistent with paragraph 1.1.7 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-
5).
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) states that the section does not
apply to the use or sale of both public display and consumer
pyrotechnics. For ease of compliance, this requirement was separated
from other requirements within existing paragraph (k)(1) and is
proposed as paragraph (a)(3)(iii). The application of the proposed
paragraph has not changed from that of existing (k)(1). However, OSHA
has revised the paragraph to clarify that the proposed standard does
not apply to the use or sale of both public display and consumer
fireworks. Note that, although they are not covered by the existing or
proposed Sec. 1910.109 standard, OSHA has the authority to regulate
the use of public display fireworks and the sale of public display and
consumer fireworks. However, the use of consumer fireworks by the
public does not fall within OSHA's authority to regulate workplace
safety and health. OSHA believes the proposed language is clearer than
the existing language in paragraph (k)(1).
Since the initial publication of Sec. 1910.109, NFPA has published
three codes for the use and sale of pyrotechnics: (1) NFPA 1123-2000--
Code for Fireworks Display; (2) NFPA 1124-2003--Code for the
Manufacture, Storage, and Retail Sales of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic
Articles; and (3) NFPA 1126-2001--Standard for the use of Pyrotechnics
before a Proximate Audience. In the future, OSHA intends to conduct
further rulemaking based upon these NFPA codes and at that time will
modify the scope of Sec. 1910.109 to include the sale of both public
display pyrotechnics and consumer fireworks and the use of pyrotechnics
at public displays. Unless otherwise stated, the provisions of the
proposed rule, like those in the current rule, apply to pyrotechnics as
well as to other types of explosives. In addition, the proposal
continues to apply OSHA's PSM regulations to the manufacture of
pyrotechnics as discussed in proposed paragraph (a)(2) above. However,
OSHA has decided, because of time and resource constraints, to address
additional issues regarding pyrotechnics in a separate rulemaking. OSHA
believes that trying to expand pyrotechnics coverage in the current
rulemaking would result in significant delay in providing needed
protection from explosives hazards. Proposed paragraph (i) is being
reserved for this future pyrotechnics rulemaking.
Paragraph (b) Definitions applicable to this section. Paragraph (b)
lists and defines all major terms used in the proposed standard. Some
of the proposed definitions are the same as those in the existing
standard, while others have been reworded. Some definitions are new and
some have not been retained from the existing standard.
New Definitions
Upon consideration of technological developments in the explosives
field, the plain language initiative, inconsistencies in definitions
among Federal agencies, and definitions used in relation to public
safety versus employee safety, OSHA proposes the following new
definitions:
Blast area. OSHA is proposing to define this term to mean the area
of a blast within the influence of flying rock or other debris, gases,
and concussion. This term is commonly used in the explosives industry
and is being added to the proposal to clarify its safety requirements
for blasting operations. The use of the term in the proposal is
consistent with its use in the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Blast site. This term would be defined to mean the area where
explosives are handled during the preparation and loading of drill
holes, including 50 feet (15.2 m) in all directions from the perimeter
formed by loaded holes. The 50-foot distance requirement, applies in
all directions along the full depth of the drill hole and the blast
site exists until the explosives are detonated. This term is commonly
used in the explosives industry and is being added to the proposal to
clarify its safety requirements for blasting operations. The use of the
term in the proposal is consistent with its use in the 2001 edition of
NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Issue #2: In subsequent discussions with the Institute of Makers of
Explosives (IME) following their submission of the Petition, they
recommended that OSHA revise the definition of blast site to decrease
the 50-foot requirement to 30 feet if "the perimeter of loaded holes
is marked and separated from non-blast site areas by a barrier." IME
would define a barrier as a "material object or objects that
separates, keeps apart, or demarcates in a conspicuous manner such as
cones or a warning sign or tape." OSHA, however, is concerned that
simply installing a barrier, as defined by IME, at a blast site may not
provide the degree of safety needed to allow employees to be as close
as 30 feet to explosion hazards. OSHA requests specific comments on the
IME recommendation.
Blaster-in-charge. OSHA would define this term to mean the person
in charge of the handling, loading, and firing of explosives within the
blast site and blast area. This term is intended to identify a person
designated by the employer to be in charge of the handling, loading, and
firing of explosives.
The 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) does not use the term
"blaster-in-charge" but uses the term "blaster" as a person
"qualified to be in charge of and responsible for the loading and
firing of a blast." While NFPA 495 does not specifically require one
person to be in charge of the blast area, the definition of blaster-in-
charge in the proposed standard requires that one person is in charge
of the blast area and the blast site. This is being done to enhance
safety by centralizing control in one person. The proposed term
"blaster-in-charge" is based upon a recommendation in the Petition
(Ex. 2-1).
Bulk delivery vehicle. This term would be defined to mean any
vehicle that transports blasting agents or their ingredients, in bulk
form. Bulk delivery vehicles may also be capable of mixing ingredients
to form blasting agents and loading blasting agents directly into drill
holes. For example, bulk delivery vehicles may contain ammonium nitrate
and a fuel oil in separate compartments and mix the two to form a
blasting agent just before the blasting agent is transferred into the
drill hole. The bulk delivery vehicle may also be capable of adding an
emulsion to the mixture. The bulk delivery vehicle will either auger or
pump the blasting agent into the drill hole. This definition is
intended to provide clarity and reflects technological advancements in
bulk blasting agent delivery methods.
Competent person. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean an
employee designated by the employer who, by way of training and/or
experience, is knowledgeable of applicable standards, is capable of
identifying workplace hazards relating to explosives, and has authority
to take appropriate corrective actions to control such hazards.
Although not defined, this term is used in the existing standard at
(c)(5)(viii), (c)(5)(ix), (d)(2)(iii)(b), and (g)(5)(vii). Defining the
term in the proposed standard enhances safety by clearly stating the
required qualifications of the competent person.
Detonator. OSHA is proposing to define this term to mean any device
containing an initiating or primary explosive that is used for
initiating detonation in another explosive material. A detonator may
not contain more than .35 ounces (10 grams) of total explosives by
weight, excluding ignition or delay charges. The term includes, but is
not limited to, electric blasting caps of instantaneous and delay
types, electronic detonators, blasting caps for use with safety fuse,
detonating cord delay connectors, and nonelectric instantaneous and
delay blasting caps which use detonating cord, shock tube, or any other
replacement for electric leg wires. Although the term is used in the
existing standard in paragraph (e)(1)(ii), it is not defined. The
proposed standard defines the term to enhance regulatory clarity and to
reflect recent technological advances in detonation methods.
Electric detonator. OSHA is proposing that this term be defined as
a detonator designed for, and capable of, initiation by means of an
electric current. This term is reflective of recent technological
advancements in detonation methods.
Electronic detonator. OSHA would define this term to mean a
detonator that utilizes stored electrical energy as a means of powering
an electronic timing delay element/module and that provides initiation
energy for firing the base charge. This term is reflective of recent
technological advancements in detonation methods.
Emulsion. This term would be defined to mean an explosive that
either contains substantial amounts of oxidizer dissolved in water
droplets that are surrounded by an immiscible fuel, or contains
droplets of an immiscible fuel that are surrounded by water containing
substantial amounts of oxidizer. Emulsions, depending on their
properties, are classified as Division 1.1 explosives or Division 1.5
blasting agents. This term has been added due to the development and
routine use of emulsions by the industry, and is based upon a
recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Hot work. OSHA is proposing to define this term to mean any work
involving electric or gas welding, cutting, brazing, or similar flame
or spark-producing operations. This term is consistent with the
definition in the PSM standard (Sec. 1910.119(b)).
Vehicle. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean any motor
vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer propelled or drawn
by mechanical power and used in the transportation of explosives. This
replaces the existing definition of "motor vehicle." Unlike the
existing definition of "motor vehicle," the proposed definition does
not contain the word "highway" because the proposed standard covers
vehicles that are used both on and off the highway. The term "self-
propelled" in the existing definition would be replaced by the phrase
"propelled or drawn by mechanical power" to be consistent with the
DOT definition of motor vehicle at 49 CFR 171.8 and recommendations of
the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Revised Definitions
OSHA is proposing the following revisions to existing definitions
in Sec. 1910.109:
Blasting agent. OSHA is proposing that this term be defined as any
material or mixture intended for blasting that is classified as a
Division 1.5 explosive. This is different from the definition in
existing paragraph (a)(1) that reads:
Blasting agent--any material or mixture, consisting of a fuel
and oxidizer, intended for blasting, not otherwise classified as an
explosive and in which none of the ingredients are classified as an
explosive, provided that the finished product, as mixed and packaged
for use or shipment, cannot be detonated by means of a No. 8 test
blasting cap when unconfined.
OSHA has changed the definition of "blasting agent" in the
proposed standard to update it and make it consistent with the
definition used by the DOT and the United Nations' Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (see discussion
below) explosives classification system. The changes were also
recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Explosive. This term would be defined to mean any device, or liquid
or solid chemical compound or mixture, the primary or common purpose of
which is to function by explosion. The term "explosive" would be
defined to include all material included as a Class 1 explosive by DOT
in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term would include, but would
not be limited to, dynamite, black powder, pellet powders, detonators,
blasting agents, initiating explosives, blasting caps, safety fuse,
fuse lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau detonant fuse,
instantaneous fuse, igniter cord, igniters, pyrotechnics, special
industrial explosive materials, small arms ammunition, small arms
ammunition primers, smokeless propellant, cartridges for propellant-
actuated power devices, and cartridges for industrial guns.
In the proposed standard, OSHA would classify explosives using the
same classification system as DOT (see 49 CFR 173.50). Explosives would
be classified using the following divisions:
(i) Division 1.1 consists of explosives that have a mass explosion
hazard. A mass explosion is one which affects almost the entire load
instantaneously.
(ii) Division 1.2 consists of explosives that have a projection
hazard but not a mass explosion hazard.
(iii) Division 1.3 consists of explosives that have a fire hazard
and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both,
but not a mass explosion hazard.
(iv) Division 1.4 consists of explosives that present a minor
explosion hazard. The explosive effects are largely confined to the
package and no projection of fragments of appreciable size or range is
to be expected. An external fire must not cause virtually instantaneous
explosion of almost the entire contents of the package.
(v) Division 1.5 consists of very insensitive explosives. This
division is comprised of substances which have a mass explosion hazard
but are so insensitive that there is very little probability of
initiation or of transition from burning to detonation under normal
conditions. (The probability of transition from burning to detonation
is greater when large quantities are involved.)
(vi) Division 1.6 consists of extremely insensitive articles which
do not have a mass explosive hazard. This division is comprised of
articles which contain only extremely insensitive detonating substances
and which demonstrate a negligible probability of accidental initiation
or propagation. (The risk from articles of Division 1.6 is limited to
the explosion of a single article.)
These definitions are different from the existing paragraph (a)(3)
that reads:
Explosive--any chemical compound, mixture, or device, the
primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion,
i.e., with substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat,
unless such compound, mixture, or device is otherwise specifically
classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation; see 49 CFR
chapter I. The term "explosives" shall include all material which
is classified as Class A, Class B, and Class C explosives by the
U.S. Department of Transportation, and includes, but is not limited
to dynamite, black powder, pellet powders, initiating explosives,
blasting caps, electric blasting caps, safety fuse, fuse lighters,
fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau detonant fuse, instantaneous fuse,
igniter cord, igniters, small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition
primers, smokeless propellant, cartridges for propellant-actuated
power devices, and cartridges for industrial guns. Commercial
explosives are those explosives which are intended to be used in
commercial or industrial operations.
Note 1: Classification of explosives is described by the U.S.
Department of Transportation as follows (see 49 CFR chapter I):
(i) Class A explosives. Possessing, detonating, or otherwise
maximum hazard; such as dynamite, nitroglycerin, picric acid, lead
azide, fulminate of mercury, black powder, blasting caps, and
detonating primers.
(ii) Class B explosives. Possessing flammable hazard, such as
propellant explosives (including some smokeless propellants),
photographic flash powders, and some special fireworks.
(iii) Class C explosives. Includes certain types of manufactured
articles which contain Class A or Class B explosives, or both, as
components but in restricted quantities.
(iv) Forbidden or not acceptable explosives. Explosives which
are forbidden or not acceptable for transportation by common
carriers by rail freight, rail express, highway, or water in
accordance with the regulations of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 49 CFR chapter I.
The term "explosive" in the proposed standard has been modified
to be more consistent with the definition currently used by DOT. When
Sec. 1910.109 was originally promulgated in 1971, OSHA defined
explosives in terms of Class A, Class B, and Class C explosives.
Blasting agents were considered separately from explosives. At that
time, DOT classified explosives in the same way. While OSHA continues
to use this classification system in the existing standard, DOT has
revised its explosive classification system.
On December 21, 1990, DOT issued a final rule that revised the
"Hazardous Materials Regulations" contained in 49 CFR chapter I that
cover the classification, packaging and shipping of explosives
(including blasting agents), oxidizers, and flammable liquids and
solids. Essentially, the revisions adopted the United Nations (UN)
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (Ex. 2-18),
standardizing the testing, classification, packaging, labeling,
placarding, and handling of explosives, thereby reducing regulatory
inconsistencies that existed between the United States and other
countries for purposes of transport of dangerous goods.
The revision of DOT's classification system eliminated Classes A,
B, C, and blasting agents, and adopted the UN classification system
that assigns all explosives to Class 1. This UN classification system
is called the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling
of Chemicals (GHS) (Ex. 2-2). The system further categorizes Class 1
explosives into Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. This
classification system includes blasting agents defined as explosives,
and assigns them to Division 1.5.
ATF's classification of explosive materials at 27 CFR 555.202 is
different from both the former and current DOT classification systems
and places explosive materials in three categories: high, low, and
blasting agents. In addition, a list of explosive materials is to be
published at least annually by ATF (see 27 CFR 555.23).
The use of different explosives classification systems by DOT, ATF,
and OSHA is confusing and burdensome for the regulated community.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing to adopt the DOT UN-based classification
system as part of the definition of explosives as applied in Sec.
1910.109(b). The use of this globally-harmonized system enhances
clarity and reduces confusion, thereby resulting in greater
understanding and increased safety in the use of explosives.
Stakeholders have indicated the desire that other departments and
agencies should also consider adoption of the DOT UN-based
classification system to reduce the burden for and misunderstanding
within the industry.
Another change in the definition of explosives in the proposed
standard is the specific inclusion of blasting agents and pyrotechnics.
Since blasting agents and pyrotechnics are considered explosives by DOT
and are listed in the ATF list of explosive materials, they should be
included in the OSHA definition of explosives. There is no significant
impact expected from this change since, in both the existing and
proposed standards, the manufacture of blasting agents is excluded and
the manufacture of pyrotechnics is covered by the PSM requirements (see
existing standard Sec. Sec. 1910.109(k)(2) and (3) and proposed
standard Sec. Sec. 1910.109(a)(2) and (b)).
The following conversion table has been developed to illustrate the
differences between the existing (labeled "Current OSHA
Classification") and the proposed (labeled "Proposed OSHA/Current DOT
Classification") classification systems and a similar table would be
inserted at the end of the proposed definition of "explosives".
Classification Conversion Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed OSHA/ current DOT classification Current OSHA classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 1.1.............................. Class A explosives.
Division 1.2.............................. Class A or Class B
explosives.
Division 1.3.............................. Class B explosives.
Division 1.4.............................. Class C explosives.
Division 1.5.............................. Blasting agents.
Division 1.6.............................. No applicable hazard class.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrotechnics. OSHA would define this term to mean any combustible
or explosive compositions or manufactured articles designed and
prepared for the purpose of producing audible or visible effects by
combustion, deflagration, or detonation, which are commonly referred to
as fireworks. This proposed definition is the same as the
existing definition in (a)(10) except that it includes the additional
words "by combustion, deflagration, or detonation." These words have
been added to the proposed definition to make it consistent with the
definitions used by ATF and NFPA for fireworks.
ATF defines fireworks in 27 CFR 555.11 (Ex. 2-4) as "any
composition or device designed to produce a visible or an audible
effect by combustion, deflagration, or detonation, and which meets the
definition of `consumer fireworks' or `display fireworks' as defined by
this section." NFPA similarly defines fireworks in paragraph 3.3.30 in
the 2003 edition of NFPA 1124 (Ex. 2-19) as "any composition or device
for the purpose of producing a visible or an audible effect by
combustion, deflagration, or detonation, and that meets the definition
of consumer fireworks or display fireworks as set forth in this code."
The DOT regulations do not explicitly define fireworks. However,
like the proposed standard, fireworks may be classified under the DOT
regulations (49 CFR 172.101) as Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4
explosives, depending on the properties of the composition.
Semiconductive hose. OSHA is proposing to define this term to mean
a hose with an electrical resistance high enough to limit flow of stray
electric currents to safe levels, yet not so high as to prevent
drainage of static electric charges to ground; or a hose of not more
than two megohms resistance over its entire length and of not less than
1,000 ohms per foot. This definition has been modified from the
existing requirement in paragraph (a)(12) which states:
"Semiconductive hose--a hose with an electrical resistance high enough
to limit flow of stray electric currents to safe levels, yet not so
high as to prevent drainage of static electric charges to ground; hose
of not more than 2 megohms resistance over its entire length and of not
less than 5,000 ohms per foot meets the requirement." The modification
of the existing text requirement of "not less than 5,000 ohms per foot
resistance" to the proposed text of "not less than 1,000 ohms per
foot resistance" is recommended in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and is also
in accordance with the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) definition.
In addition, after further discussion on this issue, IME maintained
that the use of 1,000 ohms has become the accepted practice in the
industry and it is a better balance in terms of safety to ensure the
hose does not become electrically charged and create a source of static
electricity. A resistance that is too high can cause the hose to become
electrically charged and become a dangerous source of static
electricity. The proposed reduction in resistance to 1,000 ohms creates
a safer work environment by eliminating the possibility of a static
charge that can create a spark at the blast hole. At the same time,
anything less than 1,000 ohms may be conductive, which could create a
current path from the vehicle directly to the drill hole.
Smokeless propellants. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean
solid propellants, commonly called smokeless powders, used in small
arms ammunition, cannon, rockets, and propellant-actuated power
devices. This proposed definition is essentially the same as the
existing definition in paragraph (a)(15). However, the phrase "in the
trade" immediately after the phrase "commonly called smokeless
propellants" in the existing definition has been eliminated in the
proposed definition because it is unnecessary.
Water gels or slurries. OSHA is proposing that this term be defined
as explosives that contain substantial proportions of water, oxidizers,
and fuel with a cross-linking agent, a gelling, or a thickening agent
added. Water gels or slurries, depending on their properties, are
classified as Division 1.1 explosives or Division 1.5 blasting agents.
This definition is a plain language rewrite of the existing definition
in (a)(18) with no substantive change. The proposed change is
consistent with the definition of water gel in paragraph 3.3.58 of the
2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5), and is based upon a recommendation
in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
The definitions in the existing standard for the following terms
have not been included in the proposed standard because the terms are
not used in the proposed standard: Explosive-actuated power devices,
highway, special industrial explosive devices, and DOT specifications.
Existing paragraph (a)(7), which reads: "Motor vehicle--any self-
propelled vehicle, truck, tractor, semitrailer, or truck-full trailers
used for the transportation of freight over public highways," has not
been retained in the proposal and has been replaced with the term
"vehicle" as part of the plain language rewrite to eliminate the
confusion created in the existing standard which uses several different
terms to describe a vehicle.
The definitions of the following terms have remained the same in
the proposed standard as in the existing standard: Magazine,
propellant-actuated power device, small arms ammunition, small arms
ammunition primers, and special industrial explosive materials.
Paragraph (c) General provisions. As OSHA reviewed the existing
standard, it appeared that many of the provisions contained in other
paragraphs of existing Sec. 1910.109 were more suitably placed under
the general provisions in proposed paragraph (c) since they have broad
applicability. As a result, proposed paragraph (c) contains general
provisions that apply to all explosives activities, including a number
of provisions that were previously located in other paragraphs in the
existing rule.
Paragraph (c)(1) of the proposal addresses explosive hazards.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives are manufactured, transported, sold, handled, and used in a
safe manner. This requirement is essentially the same as and replaces
existing paragraph (b)(1) except that, unlike the existing paragraph,
the requirements for safe manufacture and sale of explosives are
included in the proposed paragraph to be consistent with the scope of
the standard in proposed paragraph (a), as described earlier. In
addition, the proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) will not apply to storage of
explosives. The reason for this is explained in the OSHA's Authority to
Regulate discussion above.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that only
persons trained in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section handle
or use explosives. Loading and unloading of explosives are examples of
handling, and blasting of slag pockets is an example of the use of
explosives. This is a new requirement that reinforces the importance of
training for all employees engaged in the handling and use of
explosives. This proposed paragraph is based on a recommendation in the
Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that
blasting equipment or explosives that are unsafe due to deterioration,
damage, or other causes are not used, and are disposed of by a person
experienced in the safe disposal of such materials as soon as possible
in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. This paragraph is
derived from and replaces existing paragraph (c)(5)(v) which deals with
disposal of deteriorated explosives in storage and (e)(2)(iii) which
prohibits the use of deteriorated or damaged explosives or blasting
equipment. The two existing requirements were combined into one
requirement in the proposal covering explosives that may have
deteriorated or been damaged to the point where they have become
unstable and may be unsafe. This requirement is also consistent with
paragraph 9.6.3 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) for the
disposal of explosive materials.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) addresses housekeeping and would require the
employer to ensure that proper housekeeping is performed to prevent
hazardous accumulations of explosives, oxidizers, or fuels and other
sensitizers in, on, or in close proximity to facilities and equipment
containing explosives. This would include any amount of accumulation
that could potentially create a hazardous situation resulting in a fire
or explosion. This is a new requirement and was recommended by the
Petition (Ex. 2-1) to ensure that proper housekeeping is maintained to
prevent an explosion.
Paragraph (c)(1)(v) would require the employer to ensure that all
equipment is maintained in good working condition. In addition,
paragraph (c)(1)(vi) would require a program of systematic maintenance
of equipment be conducted on a regular schedule. Proposed paragraphs
(c)(1)(v) and (vi) contain similar requirements as existing paragraph
(h)(3)(v)(b). However, while the requirements in existing paragraph
(h)(3)(v)(b) only apply to water gels, the requirements in proposed
paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (vi) would apply to all explosives covered by
the proposed standard. OSHA believes it is important for employee
safety that equipment involved with any explosives, not just water
gels, is maintained in good working condition. The proposed paragraphs
have also been re-written in clearer and more concise language. In
addition, the proposed requirements are generally consistent with the
requirements in paragraph 6.3.5(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5) for explosives mixing facilities.
Paragraph (c)(1)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that no
person is allowed to enter facilities containing explosives, or to
transport, handle, or use explosives while under the influence of
intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or other drugs that may cause the
person to act in an unsafe manner in the workplace. Due to safety
considerations, OSHA is proposing that such persons be completely
restricted from access to a facility where explosives are manufactured
or stored as well as restricting them from the handling and
transportation of explosives. This requirement is a result of combining
and replacing requirements in existing paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(g)(6)(iv) that deal with hazards associated with intoxicating liquors,
narcotics, or other dangerous drugs. This is another example of where
OSHA is proposing to combine two similar requirements into one clearer,
more concise requirement. Since this proposed requirement applies to
all explosives activities, OSHA is proposing to relocate it in the
general requirements paragraph. Existing paragraph (e)(1)(i) also
addresses the hazards of smoking, matches, and flame near explosives
but these issues are dealt with in proposed paragraph (c)(3).
Paragraph (c)(1)(viii) would require the employer to ensure that no
person enters a facility containing explosives or a blast site unless
authorized by the employer to enter the facility. This is a new
requirement that was recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and is
intended to prevent unnecessary entrance of employees into areas where
explosives are present. Due to the nature of explosives, it is
imperative that only employees necessary to perform required work are
allowed to enter the facility or area containing explosives. In
addition, in the event of an accidental explosion, this requirement
would limit the number of persons exposed to the hazard. The proposal
recognizes the fact that there may be occasions where other persons
have a legitimate need to be in these areas and the proposed wording
gives the employer sufficient flexibility to allow others to enter when
necessary. Such situations may occur when an employer needs to conduct
an environmental site tour, a customer or regulator site tour, an
internal contractor audit, a senior management safety inspection, or
other similar circumstances.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ix) would require the employer to ensure that no
flammable cleaning solvents are present in facilities containing
explosives except where authorized by the employer and where their
presence does not endanger the safety of employees. This is a new
requirement and is based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Due to their potential to create a fire and thus cause an explosion, it
is generally not safe to have flammable cleaning solvents in facilities
containing explosives. There are a number of situations, however, where
the use of such substances may be appropriate. For example, isopropyl
alcohol is used in some instances to clean articles. For storage
magazines, ATF requirements in 27 CFR 555.215 (Ex. 2-4) require
volatile materials be kept at least 50 feet from outdoor magazines.
The requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed standard
address the electrical hazards associated with explosives. Requirements
for electrical protection are scattered throughout the existing Sec.
1910.109 standard. Those requirements have been consolidated into one
set of requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed standard. This
will more clearly identify to employers the requirements that must be
followed to prevent fires or explosions due to electrical hazards. OSHA
notes that the requirements in proposed paragraph (c)(2) supplement the
general electrical requirements of 29 CFR part 1910 Subpart S.
Employers must, therefore, follow both the Subpart S requirements for
all explosives facilities and the additional requirements proposed in
paragraph (c)(2).
Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require the employer to ensure that the
primary electrical supply to any part of the facility (e.g., building,
loading dock, etc.) containing explosives can be disconnected at a safe
remote location away from that part of the facility. A safe remote
location from a part of the facility containing explosives is a
location far enough away to ensure that, if all the explosives in that
part of the facility detonated, a person at the remote location would
not be injured by the explosion. In determining what a safe remote
location is, the employer will need to consider factors such as the
type and amount of explosives present.
This is a new requirement that was recommended by the Petition (Ex.
2-1). It is consistent with the requirements in Sec. 1910.308(c) for
special electrical systems and would require a remote, electrical power
shut-off switch to each part of a facility containing explosives. It is
important that, in the event of an evacuation due to a fire or
explosion in part of a facility, the electrical power to that part of
the facility can be turned off remotely to prevent any further problems
caused by energized circuits such as an electrical short circuit. A
"part of a facility containing explosives" would include any building
on a site where explosives are manufactured, handled or stored.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) deals with safety hazards caused by
electrical storms. During the approach and progress of an electrical
storm, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure
that all explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended,
and paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
employees located in or near facilities containing explosives, or in
blast sites, are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location. A
safe remote location in this case would be a location far enough away
from all the explosives in the facility or blast site so that a person
would not be injured if there were an explosion. These proposed
requirements are based on the requirements in existing paragraph
(e)(1)(vii)(a) which requires employers to remove employees from the
blasting area during the approach and progress of an electrical storm.
However, proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) has been expanded to require
the suspension of explosive manufacturing operations and proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(ii)(B) also requires the immediate withdrawal of employees located
near explosives. This reduces the time the employees are exposed to a
potential hazard. The expansion of the existing requirement is in
recognition that an electrical storm may be hazardous to employees at
facilities and blast sites containing explosives and that employees
need to be kept a safe distance away from a potential explosion. This
is standard practice in the industry and is consistent with a
recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably
the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing
explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for
static electricity protection that would require any new static
electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static
Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application
of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date
of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing
facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet
the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives
are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further
argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the
requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an
explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection
systems may be needed should already have been identified through the
process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate
safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM
standard.
OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be
important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The
Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph (c) that would
require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing
explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection
systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The
Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked
sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of
static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional
information on these issues through public comments.
Issue #3: Do some or all types of facilities containing explosives
require static electricity protection systems? If you think such
protection systems are necessary, please explain when and why they are
necessary. Should different kinds of protection systems be used in
different circumstances, such as in different kinds of facilities,
explosives, or geographic locations? What would be the costs associated
with requiring static electricity protection systems? To what extent
are such protection systems currently being used? What benefit in
employee safety, if any, would be gained from using such protection
systems? Are there any disadvantages to requiring facilities covered by
this standard to install static electricity protection systems?
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) contains requirements that address fire
and explosion hazards. Some of the requirements in paragraph (c)(3) are
new and others are requirements from existing Sec. 1910.109 that have
been consolidated, clarified, and moved to this general fire and
explosion prevention paragraph. The purpose of this consolidation is to
make it easier for users of the standard to know what fire and
explosion prevention regulations are required by combining them into
one paragraph.
Paragraph (c)(3)(i) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives are handled in a manner that minimizes the spillage and
jarring, the generation of explosive dust, and the creation of friction
in or in close proximity to explosives. This is a new requirement that
is based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and OSHA
believes it is an important precaution for handling and moving shock
and friction sensitive explosive materials.
Paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that
when a fire is in imminent danger of contact with explosives, employees
do not fight the fire. In addition, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(B) and (C)
would require that all employees be moved to a safe area and the fire
be guarded against intruders. These are new requirements based on a
recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and are consistent with the
language in paragraph 9.1.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
OSHA considers these to be widely accepted practices within the
industry when dealing with fires near explosive materials. If the fire
is past the point where it can be prevented from reaching explosive
materials, the requirements in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii) would help
to ensure that employees are safely away from the explosives in the
event that the fire causes them to detonate.
The hazards of flame, matches, and spark producing devices are
dealt with in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) by requiring the
employer to ensure that no open flames, matches, or spark producing
devices are located within 50 feet of explosives or facilities
containing explosives. As mentioned earlier, "facilities containing
explosives" refers to any building on a site where explosives are
manufactured, handled or stored. This requirement is a consolidation of
four requirements in the existing standard that have been combined into
one general requirement and clarified in the proposed rule. Existing
paragraphs (c)(5)(vii), (e)(1)(i), (g)(2)(vi)(d), and (g)(5)(iii) deal
with open flames, matches, or spark producing devices around magazines,
near explosives, near buildings or facilities used to mix blasting
agents, and near blasting agent storage warehouses. The term
"facilities containing explosives" used in proposed paragraph
(c)(1)(vii) covers all these situations. The 50-foot prohibition is
consistent throughout this proposed rule and, in general, is considered
to be an acceptable safe distance.
Issue #4: OSHA seeks specific comments on the impact proposed
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) would have on the storage and retail sale of
small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants.
Do open flames, matches, or spark producing devices create a hazard
when located within 50 feet of small arms ammunition, small arms
primers, or smokeless propellants, or facilities containing these
products? Can employers involved in the storage or retail sale of small
arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants prevent
all open flames, matches, or spark producing devices from coming within
50 feet of these products or facilities containing these products? If
not, why not? Should proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) use a protective
distance other than 50 feet and, if so, what distance should it be and
why? Should OSHA exclude small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and
smokeless propellants from the requirements of proposed paragraph
(c)(3)(iii)?
Existing paragraphs (c)(5)(vii), (g)(2)(vi)(d), and (g)(5)(iii)
also deal with smoking and the hazards of firearms near storage
magazines and blasting agent mixing plants. The proposed standard
separates these two concepts and deals with them as individual
requirements in proposed paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(B) and (C). Proposed
paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that smoking
is only permitted in authorized smoking areas. This requirement is a change
from the existing requirements that allow smoking as long as it is done more
than 50 feet away from particular activities or operations. Under the proposed
requirement, the employer would have to ensure that smoking areas are a
safe distance from explosives.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C) would require the employer to
ensure that no person carries firearms, ammunition, or similar articles
in facilities containing explosives or blast sites except as required
for work duties. This proposed requirement is different from the
existing requirements which prohibit firearms within 50 feet of storage
magazines and blasting agent mixing plants. The proposed requirement
would prohibit firearms at facilities containing explosives and at
blast sites. In addition, as recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1), the
proposed requirement would prohibit ammunition and similar articles
along with firearms. The requirement would allow firearms, ammunition,
or similar articles to be carried by guards as needed to perform their
work duties.
Paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(D) would require the employer to ensure that
vehicles are not refueled within 50 feet of a facility containing
explosives or a blast site. This is a new requirement based on a
recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1). A fire or explosion caused by
refueling a vehicle could in turn cause explosives to explode if they
are too near to the refueling vehicle. Proposed paragraph
(c)(3)(iii)(D) addresses this hazard by requiring a safe 50-foot
distance between explosives and refueling vehicles.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) covers general maintenance and repairs.
These requirements deal with the possibility of maintenance or repair
work being a potential cause of an explosion. Paragraph (c)(4)(i) would
require the employer to ensure that, before any maintenance or repairs
are started in or in close proximity to any facility containing
explosives or a blast site, the immediate area surrounding the
maintenance or repair work is free of explosives, including residues
and dusts containing explosives. The removal of explosives and the
cleaning of the surrounding area is a basic precaution necessary to
prevent an explosion. Maintenance and repair work may create sparking
and may require the use of welding equipment. Such activities could be
a source of ignition for explosives and their remnants, including
residues and dusts. This proposed safety requirement is based on a
recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1). OSHA also believes such
cleaning around maintenance or repair work to be standard industry
practice.
The proposal does not specify a distance around the maintenance or
repair work that must be cleaned. The employer must make the
determination of what distance is safe based on the situation. For hot
work operations, whether done for maintenance, repair, or for any other
reason, the employer must also comply with proposed paragraph
(c)(4)(ii), which requires the employer to ensure that the fire
prevention and protection requirements in Sec. 1910.252(a) and
proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section are implemented prior to
beginning hot work operations. The requirements in Sec. 1910.252(a)
provide general rules for welding operations. In addition, proposed
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) would require that any hot work operations, since
they are fire hazards, be performed 50 feet or more away from
explosives or facilities containing explosives. Therefore, hot work
operations may not be performed inside or within 50 feet of facilities
containing explosives.
One area that continues to create confusion in the explosives
industry is labeling requirements. The existing Sec. 1910.109 standard
does not contain labeling requirements. However, labels are required by
the Department of Transportation (DOT) for the transportation of
packages or containment devices that contain hazardous materials
meeting one or more of DOT's hazard class definitions (see 49 CFR part
172, subpart E) (Ex. 2-8). In addition, OSHA's Hazard Communication
Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, requires labels for hazardous chemicals.
Specifically, Sec. 1910.1200(f)(1) requires the chemical manufacturer,
importer, or distributor to ensure that each container of hazardous
chemicals is labeled, tagged, or marked prior to leaving the workplace.
The information must contain the identity of the hazardous chemical(s),
appropriate hazard warnings, and the name and address of the chemical
manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party. In addition, Sec.
1910.1200(f)(5) requires the employer to ensure that each container of
hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged, or marked with
information about the identity and hazards of the chemicals in the
containers. In both cases, the requirements are performance-oriented
and do not specify the design or appearance of the label.
In an effort to clarify the labeling requirements for explosives,
OSHA is clarifying in proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) that the employer
must communicate hazards associated with explosives in accordance with
the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard, Sec. 1910.1200.
This simply clarifies that packages of explosives are required to be
labeled in accordance with Sec. 1901.1200. In addition, the proposed
requirement specifies that, where labeling of explosives is required
under Sec. 1910.1200, Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) (Ex. 2-2) labels must be used for the
different divisions of explosives. This makes the labeling requirements
in the proposed standard more consistent with the DOT labeling
requirements. To make it easier to comply with the proposed label
requirements, in addition to describing the contents of the labels,
OSHA has proposed to include pictures of the required GHS labels. The
labels would have a signal word, a hazard statement, and either a
division designation or a pictogram. The pictogram would be black on a
white background with a red frame sufficiently large to be clearly
visible.
In practical terms, the label required by the proposed standard
depends on the status of the container, package, box, or bag. For
transport containers, a GHS label would not be required where a DOT
label is used (see GHS document paragraph 1.4.10.5.1) (Ex. 2-2). Thus,
a truck containing explosives would be placarded on the outside
according to DOT requirements, and all transport containers inside the
truck would need to be provided with a DOT label. Any packages, boxes,
or bags within the transport containers in the truck would require
labels in accordance with OSHA's Hazard Communication standard (Sec.
1910.1200) and proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) would require the labels to
be GHS. In addition, all in-plant containers, packages, boxes, or bags
would be required to follow Sec. 1910.1200 requirements and thus would
be required to have the GHS labels required by proposed paragraph
(c)(5)(i).
In effect, proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) is not adding a label
requirement, but merely specifying the type of label that must be
present for compliance with Sec. 1910.1200. Labels required for
compliance with Sec. 1910.1200 and those required by DOT will still be
necessary.
Issue #5: This proposed paragraph does not contain a phase-in
period of time for compliance with the GHS label requirements. The
Agency seeks input on whether employers need a phase-in period to comply
with the new requirement of proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) that requires
labels be GHS labels? If so, how long should the phase-in period be to
allow employers sufficient time to become familiar with and have the
capability to provide these labels on containers?
In addition, OSHA is aware that a United Nations Sub-Committee is
considering adding unstable explosives to the GHS on the classification
of explosives. They claim that even though unstable explosives are
precluded from transport, they may occur in the workplace and need to
be classified so that they can be regulated. The Agency seeks
information on unstable explosives in the commercial explosives
industry, where these unstable explosives occur, and what the hazards
are? Are there hazards from unstable explosives that OSHA should
regulate?
Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ii) incorporates the already existing
requirement that the employer ensure that DOT markings, placards, and
labels are retained in accordance with Sec. 1910.1201. The purpose of
proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ii) is to clarify employer requirements
concerning the use of DOT markings, placards and labels on packages,
vehicles, and freight cars or containers containing explosives. Under
Sec. 1910.1201, any employer who receives a package of explosives
which is required to be marked, labeled, or placarded in accordance
with DOT's hazardous materials regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through
180) must retain those markings, labels, and placards on the package
until the packaging is sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of
vapors to remove any potential hazards. Section 1910.1201 also requires
that any employer who receives a vehicle, freight car, or container
that is required to be marked or placarded in accordance with DOT's
hazardous materials regulations must retain those markings and placards
on the vehicle, freight car, or container until the explosives that
require the marking or placarding are sufficiently removed to prevent
any potential hazards. However, note that under Sec. 1910.1201(d), for
non-bulk packages containing explosives that will not be reshipped, the
requirements of Sec. 1910.1201 are met if a label or other acceptable
marking is affixed in accordance with the Hazard Communication standard
(see Sec. 1910.1201(d)). Under Sec. 1910.1201(e), non-bulk packaging
is defined at 49 CFR 171.8 as packaging which has: (1) a maximum
capacity of 119 gallons (450 L) or less as a receptacle for a liquid;
(2) a maximum net mass of 882 pounds (400 kg) or less and a maximum
capacity of 119 gallons (450 L) or less as a receptacle for a solid; or
(3) a water capacity of 1000 pounds (454 kg) or less as a receptacle
for a gas as defined in 49 CFR 173.115.
Paragraph (d) Storage of ammonium nitrate. As discussed in the
preamble above, "OSHA's Authority to Regulate," OSHA is proposing to
withdraw the provisions in existing paragraph (c) for the storage of
explosives because they are preempted by ATF's regulations covering the
storage of explosives (see 27 CFR part 555). In the proposed standard,
OSHA proposes to continue to regulate the storage of ammonium nitrate
(which is not an explosive) and the storage of small arms ammunition,
primers, and smokeless propellants (which are not preempted by ATF's
regulations).
Proposed paragraph (d) sets forth requirements for the storage of
ammonium nitrate. The existing requirements for ammonium nitrate
storage in Sec. 1910.109(i) are based on the 1970 edition of NFPA 490.
The proposed requirements are based on the 2002 edition of NFPA 490
(Ex. 2-6). The Petition (Ex. 2-1) did not recommend any changes to the
existing requirements for the storage of ammonium nitrate.
OSHA is proposing to remove requirements from existing paragraph
(i)(1) that are either unnecessary or outdated. Specifically, the
requirements in existing paragraphs (i)(1)(i)(b) and (c) would be
removed. Existing paragraph (i)(1)(i)(b) states that the regulations
addressing the storage of ammonium nitrate do not apply to the
transportation of ammonium nitrate. OSHA has concluded that this
requirement is inappropriate because provisions covering the storage of
ammonium nitrate are clearly different from provisions covering the
transportation of ammonium nitrate.
Existing paragraph (i)(1)(c) states that paragraph (i) covering the
storage of ammonium nitrate does not apply to the storage of ammonium
nitrate under the jurisdiction of and in compliance with the
regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard at 46 CFR parts 146 to 149. OSHA
proposes to eliminate this requirement from the proposed standard
because it is inaccurate and not related to the storage of ammonium
nitrate. Parts 146 and 149 of the U.S. Coast Guard regulations are
reserved parts that do not contain any regulations. Parts 147 and 148
contain regulations covering the transportation of hazardous materials
on ships. In particular, 46 CFR 148.03-11 and 33 CFR 126.28 describes
stowage requirements for Ammonium Nitrate onboard vessels and
facilities respectively. Stowage is the general term used for
"storage" onboard ships and waterfront facilities under the
regulations found in 46 CFR part 148 and 33 CFR part 126.
Existing paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(b) states that the standards for
ammonium nitrate (nitrous oxide grade) are those found in the
"Specifications, Properties, and Recommendations for Packaging,
Transportation, Storage, and Use of Ammonium Nitrate," available from
the Compressed Gas Association, Inc., which is incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 1910.6. The purpose and intent of the
requirement is not clear. First, this existing paragraph merely
references a document containing standards for nitrous oxide grade
ammonium nitrate. It does not explain how such standards should be
applied. Second, nitrous oxide grade ammonium nitrate is not used in
the manufacture of explosives. It is not necessary to provide
references in Sec. 1910.109 for grades of ammonium nitrate that are
not used in the explosives industry. Since this requirement is both
unnecessary and confusing, OSHA proposes to eliminate it and its
associated incorporation by reference in the proposed standard.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) sets out the applicability of the
requirements for the storage of ammonium nitrate. Proposed paragraph
(d)(1)(i) states that proposed paragraph (d) applies to the storage of
ammonium nitrate in quantities of 1,000 pounds (454 kg) or more to be
used in the manufacture of explosives. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i)
replaces existing paragraph (i)(2)(i) with a plain-language re-write to
clarify that OSHA intends the requirements to apply to ammonium nitrate
that will be used in the manufacture of explosives and that the
requirements apply specifically to the storage of ammonium nitrate.
OSHA is retaining the 1,000 pounds or more quantity for inclusion in
proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i). Ammonium nitrate in quantities of 1,000
pounds or more must be stored according to proposed paragraph (d). This
designated limit is consistent with paragraph 1.3 of the 2002 edition
of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6) and is considered an acceptable threshold in the
explosives industry.
Issue #6: OSHA seeks specific comments on whether the storage
requirements for ammonium nitrate should be triggered by specific
quantities. If so, please explain what those quantities should be and
why.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) revises existing paragraph
(i)(1)(i)(a) to clarify that paragraph (d) does not apply to ammonium
nitrate that can be classified as an explosive. As discussed earlier,
the storage of ammonium nitrate that can be classified as an explosive
would be covered by the storage requirements for explosives in ATF's
regulations (27 CFR part 555). Proposed paragraph (d)(2) addresses
ammonium nitrate stored in buildings. Most of the requirements in the
paragraph are consistent with paragraphs in the existing standard and
are also consistent with the 2002 edition of NFPA 490. Any proposed
requirements that differ from the existing requirements are discussed below.
Paragraph (d)(2)(i) states that buildings or structures constructed
and used to store ammonium nitrate since before August 27, 1971, and
that do not meet the requirements of proposed paragraph (d)(2), are
deemed to be acceptable for the continued storage of ammonium nitrate,
provided such use does not endanger the safety of employees. To fall
within this exception, the building or structure must have been used to
store ammonium nitrate from before August 27, 1971, until the effective
date of this proposed standard. This proposed paragraph is consistent
with and would replace existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(e) which allows
continued use of buildings or structures built and used to store
ammonium nitrate prior to the August 27, 1971 effective date of the
existing standard (36 FR 10466), provided that such use does not
endanger the safety of employees.
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that
ammonium nitrate is stored in a manner that minimizes as far as
possible fire and explosion hazards, including exposure to toxic vapors
from burning or decomposing ammonium nitrate. This proposed requirement
is similar to existing paragraph (i)(2)(ii) except that it covers all
quantities of ammonium nitrate of 1,000 pounds or more stored in a
building, whereas existing (i)(2)(ii) and paragraph 4.1.4 of the 2002
edition of NFPA 490 limit the requirement to "large quantity storage"
of ammonium nitrate.
It is not clear what amount of ammonium nitrate would be considered
a large quantity. Since "large quantity" is undefined in NFPA 490,
OSHA believes it is necessary and appropriate to propose a more finite
quantity to assure adequate employee protection. As a result, OSHA is
proposing to apply this requirement to all quantities of ammonium
nitrate covered by proposed paragraph (d). Other minor revisions have
been added that are consistent with the plain language re-write and do
not change the intent of the existing standard.
Paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(B) and (d)(2)(ii)(C) would require the
employer to ensure that storage buildings are not over one story in
height above ground level and storage buildings do not have basements
unless the basements are open on at least one side. These proposed
requirements are the same as and replace the requirements in existing
paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(a). To be consistent with maintaining one
requirement per paragraph, the proposal replaces the requirements in
existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(a) with two separate paragraphs. Both of
these proposed requirements are similar to paragraph 4.2.1 of the 2002
edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D) would require the employer to ensure that
storage buildings are adequately ventilated to prevent unsafe heat or
fume accumulations. This is essentially the same as existing paragraph
(i)(2)(iii)(b), and paragraph 4.2.2 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490
(Ex. 2-6) except that it does not contain the option that the building
be constructed to be self-ventilating in the event of a fire. The
purpose of the self-ventilation requirement in existing paragraph
(i)(2)(iii)(b) is unclear. OSHA understands "self-ventilating" to
mean the building is equipped with automatic (smoke or heat operated)
roof vents, presumably to operate prior to fire department arrival. Use
of these types of vents, however, has been somewhat controversial over
the years for general commodity storage. Existing paragraph
(i)(4)(i)(a) also deals with ventilation for warehouses that store bulk
ammonium nitrate. In OSHA's continued effort in this proposed rule to
combine duplicate requirements in the existing standard, OSHA is
combining existing paragraphs (i)(2)(iii)(b) and (i)(4)(i)(a) in
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D).
Issue #7: In proposed paragraph (d)(2), OSHA is requiring that the
ventilation in storage buildings should prevent the accumulation of
heat or fumes that could cause a fire rather than be designed to
ventilate the storage building once a fire has started. OSHA requests
specific comments on this issue, including the proposed approach
emphasizing pre-fire safety rather than safety during a fire, and
whether self-ventilation should be required for buildings or structures
that store ammonium nitrate.
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E) would require the employer to ensure that
storage building walls are constructed to meet a four-hour fire
resistant rating whenever they face and are within 50 feet of a
combustible building, forest, pile of combustible materials, or other
similar hazards. This proposed paragraph also would allow that, in lieu
of a four-hour fire resistant wall, other equivalent means of exposure
protection may be used. This proposed requirement is essentially the
same as and replaces requirements in existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(c)
except that "fire-resistive construction" was changed to "four-hour
fire resistant rating" to be consistent with the 2002 edition of NFPA
490. The term "four-hour fire resistant rating" is derived from
paragraph 4.2.3 in NFPA 490-2002, which requires a Type I wall for the
exposed storage wall, and references NFPA 220, Standard on Types of
Building Construction (Ex. 2-20), for a description of the wall to be
used. Based on Table 3-1 of NFPA 220, OSHA has determined that the
appropriate and most protective wall to be used is a four-hour fire
resistant wall for protection against combustible materials.
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F) would require the employer to ensure that
roof coverings of buildings or structures used to store ammonium
nitrate, at a minimum, afford a light degree of fire protection to the
roof deck, do not slip from position, and do not present a flying brand
hazard. This proposed requirement is equivalent to and replaces the
similar requirement in existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(c) except that
OSHA proposes to delete the reference to the NFPA standard contained in
existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(c) and include a more performance based
requirement instead.\1\ Circumstances may differ from facility to
facility. OSHA has considered the relevant NFPA standards and has
determined that a Class C (as defined in NFPA 256-2003) or better roof
would meet the requirements of this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(c) references NFPA 203M-1970
(Ex. 2-14) to determine whether the roof meets a rating of Class C
or better. This is an incorrect reference since NFPA 203M-1970 does
not define a Class C roof covering. NFPA 256 actually provides the
test methods to determine the rating of a roof. The 2000 edition of
NFPA 203 (NFPA 203M was re-designated as NFPA 203) (Ex. 2-15)
references paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.5 in NFPA 256 for the test
methods to determine the classification of roof coverings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue #8: Does paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F) as proposed provide adequate
guidance for employers to follow in providing a safe roof for buildings
or structures used to store ammonium nitrate?
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(G) would require the employer to
ensure that storage buildings do not exceed a height of 40 feet unless
constructed of noncombustible material or adequate facilities for fighting
a roof fire are available. This proposed requirement is the same as and
replaces existing paragraph (i)(4)(i)(b) except that the proposed requirement
covers the storage of bulk ammonium nitrate and the storage of ammonium nitrate
in bags, drums or other containers whereas the existing requirement only covers
the storage of bulk ammonium nitrate. The proposed paragraph has also been
re-written in clearer language. In addition, it is consistent with
paragraph 6.1.2 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(H) would require the employer to ensure that
all flooring is of noncombustible material. Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(I)
would require the employer to ensure that all flooring is protected
against impregnation by ammonium nitrate. Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(J) would
require the employer to ensure that no flooring has drains or piping
into which any molten ammonium nitrate could flow and be confined in
the event of fire. These proposed requirements are the same as and
replace existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(d) except that they have been
separated into individual provisions and re-written in clearer and more
concise language. The proposed requirements are also consistent with
paragraph 4.2.4 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(K) would require the employer to ensure that
storage buildings are dry and free from water seepage. This proposed
requirement has been re-written in clearer and more concise language
and replaces existing paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(f). Proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(ii)(K) is also consistent with paragraph 4.2.6 of the 2002
edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(L) would require the employer to ensure that
unauthorized persons do not enter an ammonium nitrate storage area.
This proposed requirement is the same as and replaces existing
paragraph (i)(6)(iii) except that it has been re-written in more
succinct and understandable language.
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(M) would require the employer to ensure that
ammonium nitrate and storage buildings containing ammonium nitrate are
located at a safe distance from readily combustible fuels. This
proposed requirement is the same as and replaces existing paragraph
(g)(5)(v) except that it has been re-written in clearer language. The
proposed paragraph is also consistent with paragraph 5.5.2 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). OSHA believes that it is important for
employee safety to keep combustible fuels away from all ammonium
nitrate, not just piles of ammonium nitrate (as in the existing
requirement).
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(N) would require the employer to ensure that
in areas where lightning storms are prevalent, lightning protection
systems are provided. Lightning protection systems meeting the safety
requirements found in Appendix K of National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 780-2004, Standard for the Installation of Lightning
Protection Systems), or other equally protective criteria would meet
the requirements of this provision.
This proposed requirement is similar to and replaces existing
paragraph (i)(6)(ii) except that the reference to NFPA has been
updated, as discussed below, and compliance options broadened.
OSHA found the requirement in existing paragraph (i)(6)(ii) may be
confusing and difficult for employers to comply with for two reasons.
First, the phrase "in areas where lightning storms are prevalent" is
somewhat vague. Without clarification of where these areas are, the
Agency believes this requirement may be difficult to comply with and
difficult for OSHA to enforce. Second, the existing requirement also
refers to NFPA 78-1968, Lightning Protection Code (Ex. 2-11), which
appears to be problematic as well as outdated. When reviewing this NFPA
document, OSHA found it difficult to determine how lightning protection
for explosives is covered by NFPA 78-1968. In the NFPA 78-1968
document, Section 20, paragraph 2001 states that the code does not
apply to "explosives manufacturing buildings and magazines."
The current Lightning Protection Code, NFPA 780-2004 (Ex. 2-10) (in
1992 the numerical designation of the code was changed from NFPA 78 to
NFPA 780), is similarly confusing in its application to explosives. The
scope of NFPA 780-2004 states in paragraph 1.1.2(1) that the document
does not cover lightning protection system installation requirements
for explosives manufacturing buildings and magazines. However, in an
explanatory note, the reason given for the exclusion is that these
structures need special consideration because the contents of the
structures are sensitive to arc or spark ignition. The note goes on to
direct the reader to Appendix K of NFPA 780-2004 for guidance on
protection of such structures. Based on this, it appears that NFPA made
a determination to add guidance for lightning protection for explosives
facilities after 1968 and those guidelines were placed in an Appendix K
to NFPA 780-2004. It also appears that even though the scope of NFPA
780-2004 excludes explosives facilities, the standard does contain
requirements for lightning protection at explosives facilities in its
Appendix K.
Therefore, proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(N) specifically indicates
that Appendix K of NFPA 780-2004 or other equally protective criteria
can be used for guidance on installing a lightning protection system.
OSHA believes this will clarify the applicability of NFPA 780-2004.
However, the systems identified in NFPA 780-2004 Appendix K are not the
only systems that can be used. They are identified for purposes of
providing guidance to employers on possible systems that meet the
requirements of the proposed standard and employers are free to employ
any protective systems that would afford equivalent protection.
OSHA did not change the requirement that lightning protection be
provided only in areas where lightning storms are prevalent and did not
change the applicability to storage of ammonium nitrate. To make the
proposed lightning protection requirement easier to understand and
comply with, OSHA considered revising the language to eliminate the
restriction to "areas where lightning storms are prevalent." In
addition, OSHA considered expanding the requirement's application to
all facilities containing explosives. This would mean that any existing
facility without a lightning protection system would need to be
retrofitted with a system.
These changes have not been included in this proposed rule because
OSHA believes that additional information is needed in order to fully
evaluate the potential impact of such changes on affected facilities.
The Agency is seeking specific comments as described below.
Issue #9: Should OSHA require lightning protection systems for any
facility that contains ammonium nitrate or explosives? What would these
systems cost? What would it cost to install lightning protection
systems at facilities that currently do not have them? Is the meaning
of the words "in areas where lightning storms are prevalent" in
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(N) clear? If not, is there any language
OSHA should consider using to clarify the meaning of the proposed
provision? Should OSHA require lightning protection systems in all
areas since lightning storms can occur anywhere? Is it appropriate for
OSHA to refer in proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(N) to NFPA 780-2004
Appendix K for recommended methods of compliance for buildings storing
ammonium nitrate?
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) addresses the storage of ammonium nitrate
in bags and containers and is similar to existing paragraph (i)(3). In
proposed paragraph (d)(3), OSHA uses the term "containers" to mean
any container used for the storage of ammonium nitrate (including
drums). Although existing paragraph (i)(3) includes the term "drums,"
the term is not used in any of the requirements that follow existing
paragraph (i)(3). OSHA believes this could lead to confusion and has
proposed, for clarity purposes, that drums be treated the same as other
containers used to store ammonium nitrate. OSHA believes this is the
intent of both existing paragraph (i)(3) and Chapter 5 of the 2002
edition of NFPA 490.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) would require the employer to ensure that
bags and containers used for ammonium nitrate storage are constructed
in accordance with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter I). Paragraph
(d)(3)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that bags and
containers used for ammonium nitrate storage are labeled in accordance
with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter I) or Sec. 1910.1200 regulations,
as applicable. The proposed requirements in (d)(3)(i) (A) and (B) are
similar to and replace existing paragraph (i)(3)(i)(a) except that they
have been re-written in clearer language using the terms and references
consistent with those used throughout this proposed rule. They are also
consistent with paragraph 5.1 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-
6). In addition, for ease of compliance, the proposed requirements were
revised into two separate subparagraphs, one covering the construction
of the bags and containers used for ammonium nitrate storage and the
other for the labeling of the bags and containers. This clarifies that
the referenced DOT regulations include both construction and labeling
criteria and, to be consistent with proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i), the
labeling requirements in proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) include
compliance with Sec. 1910.1200, as applicable.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) and (d)(3)(i)(B) are not intended
to cover bags or containers used for the temporary holding of ammonium
nitrate during the manufacture of explosives. If a bag or container is
used to temporarily hold ammonium nitrate during the manufacturing of
explosives, it is not considered storage. Since the temporary holding
of material during the manufacturing process is not considered storage,
OSHA is proposing not to retain existing paragraph (i)(3)(i)(b) which
excludes containers used in the actual manufacturing of explosives from
compliance with existing paragraph (i)(3)(i)(a).
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that bags
and containers of ammonium nitrate are not placed into storage when the
temperature of the ammonium nitrate exceeds 130 [deg]F. This proposed
requirement is essentially the same as and replaces existing paragraph
(i)(3)(ii)(a) except that it has been rewritten in clearer language
using terms consistent with the proposed rule. In addition, unlike the
existing requirement that only applies to containers, the proposed
requirement applies to both bags and containers since they are treated
the same in the proposed standard. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii) is
also consistent with paragraph 5.2.1 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490
(Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that
bags and containers of ammonium nitrate are not stored within 30 inches
of storage building walls and partitions. This proposed requirement is
the same as and replaces existing paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(b) except that
it also includes containers to be consistent with other requirements in
proposed paragraph (d)(3). Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(iii) is also
slightly different than paragraph 5.2.2 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490
(Ex. 2-6) which only addresses bags. However, as stated earlier, OSHA
is treating bags and containers in the same way in this proposed
standard.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) would require the employer to ensure that
stacks of bags or containers of ammonium nitrate do not exceed 20 feet
in height or 20 feet in width. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(v) would
require the employer to ensure that stacks of bags or containers of
ammonium nitrate are limited to 50 feet in length unless located in a
building of non-combustible construction or protected by an automatic
sprinkler system. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(vi) would require the
employer to ensure that bags or containers of ammonium nitrate are not
stacked within 36 inches of the roof or overhead supporting structure
of the storage building. These three requirements are the same as and
replace those in existing paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(c) except that the
proposed requirements use the terms "stacks of bags or containers"
whereas existing paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(c) uses the term "piles."
Proposed paragraphs (d)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi) are also consistent with
paragraphs 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(3)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that
aisles at least 3-feet wide are provided to separate stacks of bags or
containers of ammonium nitrate and paragraph (d)(3)(viii) would require
the employer to ensure that at least one main aisle separating stacks
of bags or containers of ammonium nitrate in the storage area is at
least 4-feet wide. The purpose of this wider aisle requirement is to
facilitate egress in case of an emergency. These proposed requirements
are the same as and replace the requirements in existing paragraph
(i)(3)(ii)(d) except that they have been rewritten in clearer language.
In addition, the term "piles" in existing paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(d) has
been replaced in proposed paragraph (d)(3)(vii) and (viii) with the
phrase "stacks of bags or containers." The proposed requirements are
also consistent with those in paragraph 5.2.5 of the 2002 edition of
NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) addresses storage of bulk ammonium
nitrate. Paragraph (d)(4)(i) would require the employer to ensure that
bulk storage bins used to store ammonium nitrate are clean and free of
materials which may contaminate the ammonium nitrate. The proposed
requirement is essentially the same as and replaces existing paragraph
(i)(4)(ii)(a) except that the proposed language uses the term "bulk
storage bins" instead of just "bins." OSHA believes the term "bulk
storage bins" better describes the bins that are regulated. Proposed
paragraph (d)(4)(i) is also consistent with paragraph 6.2.1 of the 2002
edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(4)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that, to
avoid contamination of the ammonium nitrate, galvanized iron, copper,
lead, and zinc are not used in the construction of ammonium nitrate
bulk storage bins unless suitably protected against the corrosive and
reactive properties of the ammonium nitrate. Proposed paragraph
(d)(4)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that aluminum and
wooden bulk storage bins used to store ammonium nitrate are protected
against ammonium nitrate impregnation. Proposed paragraph (d)(4)(iv)
would require the employer to ensure that the partitions dividing
stored ammonium nitrate from other products are constructed to prevent
contamination of the ammonium nitrate with these other products. All
three of these proposed requirements are essentially the same as and
replace the requirements in existing paragraph (i)(4)(ii)(b). They are
also consistent with paragraphs 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of the 2002 edition of
NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6). To be consistent with the goal of specifying one
requirement per paragraph, the proposal simply splits the requirements
in existing paragraph (i)(4)(ii)(b) into three separate paragraphs.
Each of the three proposed requirements has been re-written in clearer
language without changing the intent of the existing requirements.
Paragraph (d)(4)(v) would require the employer to ensure that
ammonium nitrate bulk storage bins or piles are clearly identified by
signs reading "Ammonium Nitrate" with letters at least 2-inches high.
This proposed requirement is the same as existing paragraph
(i)(4)(ii)(c) except that the proposed requirement uses the term "bulk
storage bins," as discussed earlier. It is also consistent with
paragraph 6.2.4 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(4)(vi) would require the employer to ensure that bulk
ammonium nitrate in piles or in bulk storage bins is loosened or moved
periodically to minimize caking. This proposed requirement is the same
as and replaces existing paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(a) except that it has
been rewritten in clearer, more concise language. The word "loosened"
was added to provide a better description of what OSHA intends the
standard to require to prevent caking. The proposed paragraph is also
consistent with paragraph 6.3.1 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-
6).
Paragraph (d)(4)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives are not used to break up or loosen caked ammonium nitrate.
This proposed requirement is essentially the same as and replaces
existing paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(d) except that it has been rewritten in
clearer language using terms consistent with those defined in this
proposed standard. The proposed requirement is also consistent with
paragraph 6.3.4 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(4)(viii) would require the employer to ensure that
the top of a bulk ammonium nitrate pile is no closer than 36 inches
below the roof or supporting structure of the storage building. This
proposed requirement is a change from existing paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(b)
and paragraph 6.3.2 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6). The
existing requirement states that: "Height or depth of piles shall be
limited by the pressure-setting tendency of the product." Because this
sentence is more of an informative statement and is not a safety
requirement, OSHA is not retaining it in proposed paragraph
(d)(4)(viii). Aside from the elimination of this sentence, the proposed
paragraph has been rewritten in clearer language.
Paragraph (d)(4)(ix) would require the employer to ensure that bulk
ammonium nitrate is not placed into storage when its temperature
exceeds 130 [deg]F. This proposed requirement is the same as and
replaces existing paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(c) except that it has been re-
written to be consistent with the similar requirement for storage of
bags and containers in proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii). Proposed
paragraph (d)(4)(ix) is also consistent with paragraph 6.3.3 of the
2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Proposed paragraph (d)(5) contains requirements that address
ammonium nitrate contaminants. Paragraph (d)(5)(i) would require the
employer to ensure that ammonium nitrate is kept in its own building,
or is separated from flammable, combustible, corrosive, explosive, or
contaminating materials or processes by a wall with at least a 1-hour
fire-resistant rating. The separation wall would have to extend at
least to the underside of the roof. In lieu of separation walls,
ammonium nitrate may be separated from these materials or processes by
a space of at least 30 feet with means to prevent mixing, such as sills
or curbs. This proposed requirement is a combination of requirements in
existing paragraphs (i)(5)(i)(a) and (i)(5)(i)(b). For purposes of
clarity and ease of compliance, OSHA proposes to replace the list of
items \2\ in existing paragraph (i)(5)(i)(a) that ammonium nitrate
should be separated from with a description of the types of materials
from which ammonium nitrate should be separated. OSHA believes
flammable, combustible, corrosive, explosive, or contaminating
materials or processes covers all items in the list in existing
paragraph (i)(5)(i)(a) and would allow for any other materials or newly
developed materials to be covered where the existing list might not
include them due to its more restrictive scope. OSHA is concerned that
a hazardous material not contained in the existing list could be
misconstrued as being safe to store with ammonium nitrate. Also the
alternate means to prevent mixing of materials (a 30-foot or more
separation) contained in existing paragraph (i)(5)(i)(b) was included
in proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) to make the requirement self-contained
for ease of compliance. The addition of a means to prevent mixing by
use of sills or curbs was added to proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) to be
consistent with paragraph 7.1.3 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-
6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Existing paragraph 1910.109(i)(5)(i)(a) states that:
"Ammonium nitrate shall be in a separate building or shall be
separated by approved type firewalls of not less than 1 hour fire-
resistance rating from storage of organic chemicals, acids, or other
corrosive materials, materials that may require blasting during
processing or handling, compressed flammable gases, flammable and
combustible materials or other contaminating substances, including
but not limited to animal fats, baled cotton, baled rags, baled
scrap paper, bleaching powder, burlap or cotton bags, caustic soda,
coal, coke, charcoal, cork, camphor, excelsior, fibers of any kind,
fish oils, fish meal, foam rubber, hay, lubricating oil, linseed
oil, or other oxidizable or drying oils, naphthalene, oakum, oiled
clothing, oiled paper, oiled textiles, paint, straw, sawdust, wood
shavings, or vegetable oils. Walls referred to in this subdivision
need extend only to the underside of the roof."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (d)(5)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that
flammable liquids are not placed or stored in buildings used for the
storage of ammonium nitrate except where permitted by Sec. 1910.106
and proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) of Sec. 1910.109. Section 1910.106
contains OSHA's general requirements for flammable and combustible
liquids. Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(ii) is essentially the same as and
replaces existing paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c) except that it has been
rewritten in clearer language with redundancies and extraneous words
removed. The proposed paragraph is also consistent with paragraph 7.1.4
of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6). In addition, proposed
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) applies to the placement as well as the storage of
flammable liquids in buildings used to store ammonium nitrate. OSHA is
convinced that even short term placement of flammable liquids in such
buildings can be hazardous unless adequate precautions are taken.
Paragraph (d)(5)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that no
liquefied petroleum gas is placed or stored in a building used to store
ammonium nitrate except in accordance with Sec. 1910.110. Section
1910.110 contains OSHA's general requirements for storage and handling
of liquefied petroleum gases. The proposed requirement is essentially
the same as and replaces existing paragraph (i)(5)(i)(d). Proposed
paragraph (d)(5)(iii) is also consistent with paragraph 7.1.5 of the
2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
Paragraph (d)(5)(iv) would require the employer to ensure that
sulfur and finely divided metals are not stored in the same building
with ammonium nitrate. This proposed requirement is the same as and
replaces existing paragraph (i)(5)(ii)(a) except that it has been
rewritten in clearer language. Sulfur and finely divided metals can
create a fire hazard and should be kept in a separate building from the
ammonium nitrate building. The proposed paragraph is also consistent
with paragraph 7.2.1 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-6).
OSHA is not retaining paragraphs (i)(5)(ii)(b) through
(i)(5)(ii)(d) in the existing standard because they focus on the storage
of explosives (including blasting agents) rather than the storage of
ammonium nitrate. As discussed earlier, the storage of explosives
(including blasting agents) is covered by ATF regulations.
The final topic addressing the storage of ammonium nitrate deals
with fire protection. Proposed paragraph (d)(6)(i) would require the
employer to ensure that buildings in which greater than 2500 tons of
ammonium nitrate is stored are equipped with an automatic sprinkler
system that complies with Sec. 1910.159. The proposed requirement is
similar to and replaces existing paragraph (i)(7)(i). It is also
consistent with paragraph 9.1.1 of the 2002 edition of NFPA 490 (Ex. 2-
6).
Issue #10: OSHA requests comments on the issue of automatic
sprinkler systems for the storage of ammonium nitrate. In terms of
employee safety, is it appropriate to only require an automatic
sprinkler system for the storage of ammonium nitrate in quantities
exceeding 2,500 tons? Should the storage of ammonium nitrate in
quantities less than 2,500 tons, e.g. 1,000 tons, require an automatic
sprinkler system? Should the storage of ammonium nitrate, regardless of
quantity, always require an automatic sprinkler system? Alternatively,
should OSHA consider eliminating the requirement for automatic
sprinkler systems for ammonium nitrate storage? What evidence would
support the elimination of this requirement?
Paragraph (d)(6)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that all
fire protection equipment and systems in ammonium nitrate storage
buildings meet the requirements of Subpart L, Fire Protection, of this
part. This proposed requirement replaces existing paragraphs
(i)(7)(ii)(a) and (i)(7)(ii)(b) and requires the use of the more
updated and specific OSHA regulations for fire protection equipment and
systems contained in subpart L.
Paragraph (e) Transportation of explosives. As discussed earlier in
the Authority to Regulate section of the preamble, OSHA has authority
to regulate working conditions during the transportation of explosives.
Unless otherwise specified, all the requirements in proposed paragraph
(e) apply to the transportation of explosives both within and outside
private facilities and worksites.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) addresses general provisions associated
with the transportation of explosives. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)
would require the employer to ensure that no employee smokes, carries
matches or any other flame-producing device, or carries any firearms or
cartridges (except firearms and cartridges required to be carried by
guards) while in, or within 25 feet (7.63m) of, a vehicle containing
explosives. This proposed requirement replaces a comparable requirement
in existing paragraph (d)(1)(i) except this proposed paragraph includes
an exception for firearms and cartridges required to be carried by
guards. It is also consistent with paragraph 7.1.4 of the 2001 edition
of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Existing paragraph (d)(1)(i) states that: "No employee shall be
allowed to smoke, carry matches or any other flame-producing device, or
carry any firearms or loaded cartridges while in or near a motor
vehicle transporting explosives" (emphasis added). To eliminate
confusion over the meaning of the term "near" as used in existing
paragraph (d)(1)(i), OSHA specifies in proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)
that such items and activities must remain at least 25 feet away from
the vehicle. The proposed 25-foot requirement is also consistent with
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirements in 49 CFR
397.13.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i), along with many others in this
proposed transportation paragraph, uses the term "vehicle." As
discussed in the definitions section of this preamble, OSHA has defined
the term "vehicle" in this proposal, as described in the preamble
above when discussing definitions. The reason for defining and using
the term "vehicle" is to eliminate any confusion created in the
existing standard which uses several different terms, such as a motor
vehicle, semitrailer, truck, and van, to describe a vehicle.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that no
employee drives, loads, or unloads a vehicle containing explosives in
an unsafe manner. This proposed requirement is essentially the same as
and replaces a requirement in existing paragraph (d)(1)(i) except that
it has been re-written in clearer language. It is also consistent with
paragraph 7.1.5 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). To achieve
the goal of specifying one requirement per paragraph, OSHA has split
the requirements in existing paragraph (d)(1)(i) into two separate
proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii).
Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another without
informing local fire and police departments. This will help to ensure
that the transfer is performed in a safe manner. In addition, a
competent person must supervise the transfer of explosives. This is
applicable to all transfer work whether it is done within private
facilities or on public highways. A competent person is defined in
proposed paragraph (b) as an employee designated by the employer who,
by way of training and/or experience, is knowledgeable about applicable
standards, is capable of identifying workplace hazards relating to
explosives, and has authority to take appropriate corrective actions to
control such hazards. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would also require
the employer to ensure that in the event of breakdown or collision, the
local fire and police departments are promptly notified. Informing such
local authorities will help to ensure that the breakdown or collision
is handled in a safe manner. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iii) differs
from existing paragraph (d)(1)(iii), but is compatible with paragraph
7.1.7 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). The existing
requirement only requires a competent person when the transfer involves
a disabled vehicle, whereas the proposal would require the supervision
of a competent person whenever a transfer of explosives occurs between
two vehicles, whether or not the transfer is caused by the breakdown of
one of the vehicles. OSHA recognizes the risks involved in the transfer
of explosives and proposes to ensure that this activity is always done
under the supervision of a competent person as defined in paragraph
(b).
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) would require the employer to ensure that no
repair work, other than emergency repairs that do not present a source
of ignition, is performed on a vehicle containing explosives. This is a
new requirement based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
OSHA agrees with the Petition that there are risks involved in making
vehicle repairs near explosives since certain repair work could be a
source of ignition for the explosives in the vehicle. As a result, OSHA
is only permitting such repair work in emergency situations when the
work can be performed safely. The proposed paragraph is consistent with
requirements in proposed paragraph (c)(4) discussed above.
Paragraph (e)(1)(v) would require the employer to ensure that
detonators are not transported with other explosives in the same
vehicle, unless packaged, segregated, and transported in accordance
with the regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter I) (Ex. 2-8). This proposed
requirement replaces existing paragraph (d)(1)(iv) except that, instead
of using the terms "blasting caps" and "electric blasting caps" as
in the existing paragraph, OSHA is proposing to use the term "detonators"
(which includes blasting caps and electric blasting caps) to be consistent
with the industry use of this term. The proposed paragraph is also
consistent with paragraph 7.1.8 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (e)(1)(vi) would require the employer to ensure that when
explosives are transported on a railway car utilizing private railroad
tracks, the car, its contents, and method of loading are in accordance
with the regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter I) (Ex. 2-8). This proposed
requirement replaces existing paragraph (f)(1). While DOT regulations
cover railway cars on public railroad tracks, the proposed requirement
covers such cars on private railroad tracks. OSHA's intent here is to
ensure that employees are provided the same level of safety when the
railway car is on private tracks as compared to public railway tracks.
The proposed language is also consistent with paragraph 11.1.1 of the
2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (e)(1)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives at a railway facility, truck terminal, pier, harbor
facility, or airport terminal, whether for delivery to a consignee or
forwarded to some other destination, are kept in a manner that
minimizes risk to employees. This proposed requirement is changed
somewhat from existing paragraph (f)(4) and paragraph 11.1.4 of the
2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). Compared to the existing
requirement and the NFPA standard, the proposed paragraph places more
emphasis on employee safety to ensure that risk to employees is
minimized.
Paragraph (e)(1)(viii) would require the driver or other employee
attending the vehicle be knowledgeable about the nature and hazards of
the explosives contained in the vehicle and the procedures for handling
emergency situations. This proposed requirement replaces a requirement
in existing paragraph (d)(3)(iii) except that it has been updated and
rewritten in clearer and more concise language. OSHA has eliminated the
language in existing paragraph (d)(3)(iii) that refers to public safety
because such issues are outside of OSHA's authority to regulate.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) addresses vehicles used in the
transportation of explosives. Paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(A) through (C) would
require the employer to ensure that any vehicle used to carry
explosives is able to safely carry the designated load, has close-
fitting floors, and has wood or other non-sparking materials covering
any exposed spark-producing metal on the inside of the vehicle body.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) rewrites and simplifies the requirements
in existing paragraph (d)(2)(i), putting the revised requirements into
three separate proposed paragraphs, (e)(2)(i)(A) through (C). The
proposed requirements are also consistent with paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.3,
and 7.2.4 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Issue #11: Existing paragraph (d)(2)(i) and proposed paragraph
(e)(2)(i)(C) require the employer to ensure that any vehicle used to
carry explosives has wood or other non-sparking materials covering any
exposed spark-producing metal on the inside of the vehicle body. This
is not consistent with paragraph 8.2.3 of the 2006 edition of NFPA 495
(Ex. 2-21) which requires: "Vehicles used for transporting frictional
spark-sensitive explosive materials such as Black Powder and primary
explosives shall have no exposed spark-producing surface inside of the
cargo body." Should the requirements in proposed paragraph
(e)(2)(i)(C) only apply to frictional spark-sensitive explosives? Would
such a limitation in proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i)(C) reduce the cost of
transporting non-frictional spark-sensitive explosives?
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that any
vehicle containing explosives or oxidizers located at a private
facility or blast site has exterior markings or placards designed and
displayed in accordance with the regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter I)
(Ex. 2-8). This proposed requirement is a change from and replaces
existing paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(a) which contains a table of required
OSHA markings and placards. Since DOT already addresses vehicle
markings and placards, and compliance with DOT regulations during the
transportation of explosives outside of private facilities is required
throughout the explosives industry, OSHA proposes to adopt DOT
regulations and apply them to vehicles containing explosives or
oxidizers in private facilities rather than continue to require a
separate set of placards and markings. OSHA believes this proposed
language will make it easier for employers to comply with placarding
and marking requirements and will increase safety by eliminating any
possible confusion created by different OSHA and DOT requirements for
the similar activities. Since DOT placarding and marking regulations
already cover transportation outside of private facilities, this
proposed paragraph applies the same requirements to vehicles on private
facilities.
Because OSHA proposes to reference DOT regulations for placarding
and marking of vehicles, the placarding and marking requirements in
existing paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(c), (d), and (e) are no longer necessary
and are not included in the proposed standard.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) addresses open-bodied vehicles.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) would require the employer to ensure
that any explosives on an open-bodied vehicle are protected with a
flameproof and moisture-proof tarpaulin or other effective means of
protection from fire, sparks, and moisture. This proposed requirement
is essentially the same as and replaces a requirement in existing
paragraph (d)(2)(i) except that it has been re-written in clearer
language and the proposed paragraph includes protection from fire as
well as sparks and moisture. A similar requirement was contained in
paragraph 421 of the 1970 version of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-13). It is not,
however, in the current 2001 edition of NFPA 495. While OSHA is not
sure why this requirement was eliminated from the 2001 edition, it
believes that this type of protection is still important for employee
protection and proposes to retain this requirement in the proposed
standard.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
the explosives in open-bodied vehicles are not loaded above the sides
of the vehicle. This proposed requirement is the same as and replaces a
requirement in existing paragraph (d)(2)(i). This requirement was also
in paragraph 421 of the 1970 version of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-13) but is not
in the 2001 edition. However, OSHA believes this to be an important
requirement for employee protection and is proposing to retain it in
this proposed standard. As discussed earlier, existing paragraph
(d)(2)(i) is a very long requirement containing many separate
requirements. To encourage better understanding, OSHA is proposing to
split existing paragraph (d)(2)(i) into several paragraphs, each
containing an individual requirement.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) addresses the necessity for fire
extinguishers in vehicles used to carry explosives. Paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(A) would require the employer to ensure that each vehicle
used to carry explosives is equipped with at least two fire
extinguishers filled and in good working order, each having a rating of
at least 4-A:40-B:C. This proposed requirement is essentially the same
as existing paragraph (d)(2)(iii) except that the required fire
extinguishers have been upgraded to meet the standards in paragraph
8.2.6 of the 2006 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-21). In addition, the
changes in the proposed requirement were recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
each vehicle used to carry explosives has one fire extinguisher located
in close proximity to the driver's seat. This proposed requirement is
derived from existing paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(b) and paragraph 7.2.6 of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). The extinguisher filling and
examination requirements contained in existing paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(b)
are addressed in proposed paragraph (e)(2)(v)(A), as discussed below.
The multiple requirements contained in existing paragraph
(d)(2)(iii)(b) have been split up in the proposed standard. OSHA
believes this will make the proposed requirements easier to comply with
and more understandable. In addition, the proposed requirement
substitutes the term "in close proximity" for "near" which is used
in the existing standard to describe the required location of the
extinguisher in relation to the driver's seat. OSHA believes "in close
proximity" is a more definitive term than "near" the driver's seat
and is intended to convey the requirement that the vehicle driver have
quick access to a fire extinguisher in the event of an emergency.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) would require the employer to ensure that
each vehicle used to carry explosives is equipped only with fire
extinguishers listed or approved by a nationally recognized testing
laboratory. The proposed requirement also refers to Sec.
1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) for a definition of listed fire extinguishers and
Sec. 1910.7 for nationally recognized testing laboratories. This
proposed requirement is essentially the same as and replaces existing
paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(a). It is also consistent with paragraph 7.2.6.1
of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(v) contains additional requirements for
vehicles used for carrying explosives. Paragraph (e)(2)(v)(A) would
require the employer to ensure that the fire extinguishers required in
proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) above are used, maintained, and tested
in accordance with Sec. 1910.157. This proposed requirement is changed
from existing paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(a) in that the existing provision
simply requires that extinguishers be filled and in working order
without specifying how this should be done. Since OSHA has standards
for portable fire extinguishers in Sec. 1910.157, the Agency wants to
emphasize in the proposed requirement that portable fire extinguishers
in vehicles used for carrying explosives must comply with Sec.
1910.157 requirements in addition to the requirements in this proposed
standard.
Paragraph (e)(2)(v)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
the use of fire extinguishers is restricted to fighting non-explosive
fires involving tires, batteries, engines, cabs, etc., where the fire
is not in imminent danger of reaching the explosive cargo. OSHA
believes it is important to clarify that the fire extinguishers should
not be used to fight explosives fires or fires that have the potential
to rapidly reach the explosives. Portable extinguishers are not
effective enough to sufficiently protect the safety of employees
fighting such dangerous fires. The proposed language was recommended by
the Petition (Ex. 2-1). This is a new requirement which is consistent
with proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) which requires employers to
ensure that employees do not fight fires if they are in imminent danger
of contact with explosives.
Paragraph (e)(2)(v)(C) would require the employer to ensure that
the explosive cargo cannot shift, spill, or become damaged during
transit. This is a new requirement based on a recommendation in the
Petition (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes that spillage and damage to
containers can create a potential explosion hazard and should be
eliminated. This requirement would simply require that the explosive
cargo be secured to ensure that no spillage or damage occurs to the
containers.
Paragraph (e)(2)(vi) would require the employer to ensure that any
vehicle containing explosives is maintained in good and safe working
condition. This is a change from existing paragraph (d)(2)(iv) which
contains a detailed list of items to be inspected on the vehicle and
paragraph 7.2.7 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which
contains the same list of inspection items. OSHA is adopting a more
performance oriented approach and is proposing to simplify and replace
the existing detailed, but not necessarily all inclusive, requirements
by requiring the employer to ensure that the vehicle is in proper
working order. OSHA does not want to limit the inspection to a specific
set of items to ensure the vehicle is in safe working condition. Some
common items that should be checked during an inspection include but
are not limited to fire extinguishers; electrical wiring; fuel tank and
feedline; brakes; lights; horn; windshield wipers; steering apparatus;
and tires. While the proposal does not require an inspection prior to
each use of the vehicle, it does require the employer to ensure that
the vehicle is kept properly maintained at all times.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) addresses the operation of vehicles
containing explosives. Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(A) would require the
employer to ensure that only employees designated by the employer are
permitted to ride in or drive a vehicle containing explosives. This is
a new requirement proposed by the Petition (Ex. 2-1). OSHA agrees that
it is important to workplace safety that only employees given
permission to do so by the employer should operate or ride in vehicles
containing explosives. Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B) would require the
employer to ensure that vehicles containing explosives are only driven
by and are in the charge of a driver who is familiar with relevant
traffic regulations and the provisions of this section, and possesses a
valid driver's license appropriate for the vehicle being driven. This
proposed requirement is similar to and replaces existing paragraphs
(d)(3)(i) and (g)(6)(ii) which address general explosive transportation
and specific transportation for blasting agents, respectively. Since
blasting agents are defined as explosives in this proposed standard,
OSHA is combining these two existing requirements into one general
proposed requirement for driving a vehicle containing explosives. OSHA
believes the proposed language is a simpler, more concise way to
describe the responsibilities of the driver.
Issue #12: OSHA requests comments on the appropriateness of
proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B) for the on-site transportation of
explosives at private facilities. The proposal would require that
employees have a valid driver's license appropriate for the vehicle
being driven. In certain situations, employees who transport explosives
or blasting agents on the employer's premises may be required to obtain
a commercial driver's license (CDL) and hazardous materials
endorsement. Even drivers whose activities are limited to tasks such as
moving a loaded vehicle from the loading dock to an onsite
transportation staging area, or backing a vehicle up to a loading dock
would need a valid driver's license appropriate for the vehicle being
driven and, depending on the vehicle type, that may require a CDL. OSHA
is seeking specific comments on whether it is appropriate for safety
reasons to require a valid driver's license for on-site transportation.
Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(C) would require the employer to ensure that,
except under emergency conditions, no vehicle containing explosives is
parked before reaching its destination on any public street adjacent to
or in close proximity to any place of employment. The proposed requirement
is similar to existing paragraph (d)(3)(ii). It is also consistent with
paragraph 7.3.3 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(D) would require the employer to ensure that no
spark-producing metal, spark-producing tools, oils, matches, firearms,
electric storage batteries, flammable substances, acids, oxidizers, or
corrosive compounds are carried in the body of any vehicle containing
explosives, unless the carrying of such dangerous articles and the
explosives comply with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter I) (Ex. 2-8).
The body of the vehicle is intended to mean the cargo-carrying body
that contains the explosives and not the cab portion or engine
compartment of the vehicle. The proposed requirement is a combination
of existing paragraphs (d)(3)(iv) and (g)(6)(iii), which address
general explosives transportation and specific transportation for
blasting agents, respectively. Since blasting agents are defined as
explosives in the proposed rule, OSHA is combining these two existing
requirements into one general proposed requirement for driving a
vehicle containing explosives.
Paragraph (e)(3)(i)(E) would require the employer to ensure that
deliveries of explosives are only received by employees authorized by
the employer to receive such explosives. This proposed requirement is
based on existing paragraph (d)(3)(vi) which addresses both the
delivery of explosives and the storage of the delivered explosives. The
proposed paragraph is also consistent with paragraph 7.3.8 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). Because the storage of delivered
explosives is already covered by ATF's regulations at 27 CFR part 555,
the proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i)(E) only covers the delivery of
explosives to authorized employees.
Paragraph (e)(3)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that
every vehicle containing Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosives at the
employer's worksite or facility is attended at all times by the driver
or other responsible person authorized by the employer. This proposed
requirement is similar to a requirement contained in existing paragraph
(d)(3)(iii) except that it has been rewritten in clearer language and
revised to be consistent with the proposed explosives classification
system discussed earlier. The proposed paragraph is also consistent
with paragraph 7.3.4 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) except
that the proposed paragraph only applies to vehicles at an employer's
worksite or facility. The term "transporting" in existing paragraph
(d)(3)(iii) has been replaced with the term "containing" in the
proposed paragraph to clarify that the provision applies to stationary
as well as moving vehicles. OSHA is restricting proposed paragraph
(e)(3)(ii) to employers' worksites and facilities because DOT already
has attendant requirements for vehicles containing explosives on public
highways at 49 CFR 397.5.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) clarifies that the vehicle
containing explosives is considered "attended" only when the driver
or another responsible person authorized by the employer is physically
on or in the vehicle, or can see and reach the vehicle quickly without
any interference. In addition, this proposed paragraph states that
"attended" also means that the driver or other responsible authorized
person is awake, alert, and not engaged in other duties or activities
which may divert his or her attention from the vehicle. If the driver
needs to leave the vehicle to obtain food or drink or to use a
restroom, a second authorized responsible employee should remain with
the vehicle. Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) replaces existing
paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(a) except that the exception in the existing
paragraph for communication or to obtain food or physical comfort has
not been retained in the proposed paragraph. The Agency believes that
vehicles containing explosives should not be left unattended for any
period of time. Any exception to this would directly conflict with the
requirements in proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii), discussed above, which
requires that vehicles be attended at all times. Proposed paragraph
(e)(3)(ii)(A) is similar to paragraph 7.3.5 of the 2001 edition of NFPA
495 (Ex. 2-5) but the NFPA standard has an exception for communication
and to obtain food or physical comfort.
Paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) would require the driver or other employee
attending the vehicle to be authorized, capable, and have the necessary
means to safely drive the assigned vehicle. This proposed requirement
replaces a requirement in existing paragraph (d)(3)(iii) except that it
has been rewritten in clearer and more concise language.
Two requirements in existing paragraph (d)(3) covering the
transportation of explosives have not been retained in the proposed
standard. Existing paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(b) allows the unattended
parking of a vehicle containing Class A or B explosives if it is parked
within a securely fenced or walled area with all gates or entrances
locked or if it is at a magazine site established solely for the
purpose of storing explosives. OSHA has not included these requirements
in the proposed standard because similar provisions are already
required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations at 49 CFR
397.5. OSHA does not want to unnecessarily duplicate the regulations of
other federal agencies.
Existing paragraph (d)(3)(v) requires that vehicles transporting
explosives avoid congested areas and heavy traffic. Since equivalent
requirements are already contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration regulations at 49 CFR 397.67, OSHA is not retaining this
requirement in the proposed rule to avoid duplicating the requirements
of other Federal agencies.
Paragraph (f) Use of explosives for blasting. Proposed paragraph
(f) addresses the use of explosives for blasting. Most explosives in
the United States are used for blasting purposes in the construction
and mining industries. These blasting operations are not covered by
Sec. 1910.109 but are covered by OSHA's construction regulations (29
CFR part 1926 subpart U) and MSHA's blasting regulations (30 CFR part
56 subpart E, 30 CFR part 57 subpart E, 30 CFR part 75 subpart N, and
30 CFR part 77 subpart N). However, Sec. 1910.109 does cover the use
of explosives by general industry. These general industry uses, when
not part of construction or mining activities, include the blasting of
rocks, slag pockets, and beaver dams, as well as blasting associated
with metal hardening, stump removal, pond creation, and avalanche
control, and various types of blasting used to create art sculptures.
Compared to the use of explosives by the mining and construction
industries, these general industry uses do not require large amounts of
explosives and are performed relatively infrequently.
Paragraph (f)(1) of the proposed standard sets out the general
requirements for blasting. Proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through
(f)(1)(i)(E) are new requirements that prescribe the duties and
responsibilities of the blaster-in-charge to ensure the blast site and
blast area are safe at all times. Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) would require
the employer to ensure that the blaster-in-charge is trained,
knowledgeable, and experienced in the storage, transportation,
handling, and use of explosives. This new requirement is intended to
ensure that the blaster-in-charge has the necessary training and
experience in all relevant aspects of explosives. Throughout this
proposed paragraph, the blaster-in-charge is given the authority by the
employer to control the blast site and the blast area. In
addition to training and experience, proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B)
requires the employer to ensure that the blaster-in-charge is
knowledgeable about relevant federal, state, and local regulations
pertaining to explosives. These include all applicable OSHA regulations
and any other Federal regulations that apply, including ATF and DOT
requirements. In addition, the blaster-in-charge must be aware of any
state and local regulations that may impact the blast site and blast
area. OSHA believes that without the prescribed training, knowledge,
and experience, the blaster-in-charge will be unable to satisfactorily
do his or her job and that the employer will be unable to ensure
employee safety during workplace blasting operations.
Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(C) would require the employer to ensure that
the blaster-in-charge is trained, knowledgeable, and experienced in the
use of each type of blasting method being used. Since every blast site
is unique and the methods used may vary from one blast site to another,
it is important that the blaster-in-charge have the training,
knowledge, and experience in the particular method to be used to ensure
a safe blast site.
Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D) would require the employer to ensure that
the blaster-in-charge is in control of the blasting operations, blast
site, and blast area. This new proposed requirement ensures that the
blaster-in-charge has overall control of the blast site and blasting
operations, including control over the employees entering the blast
site, as well as all the safety and security requirements before,
during, and after the blast is fired. This is a general requirement
that includes all aspects of the blasting operations from setting the
blast site and blast area dimensions to giving the all-clear signal
after the blast has been completed.
Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E) would require the employer to ensure that
the blaster-in-charge evaluates each blast site and blast area and
implements the measures that will ensure the safety of employees and
the security of each blast site and blast area. This requires the
blaster-in-charge to evaluate each unique blast site and blast area,
using his or her knowledge, training, and experience to determine
proper procedures during the set-up and firing of the blast and during
the post-blast operations to ensure that the blast site and blast area
are safe and secure for all employees.
Although proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through (E) require the
employer to place significant duties on the blaster-in-charge, it is
ultimately the responsibility of the employer to designate a blaster-
in-charge and to ensure that he or she has the proper knowledge,
training, and experience to be qualified as a blaster-in-charge and
that all requirements in proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through (E)
are met.
The requirements in proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i) were recommended
by the Petition (Ex. 2-1). It recommended that only one person at the
blast site should control all the activities of the site and be in
charge of the safety and security of the blast site and blast area.
OSHA agrees that these duties should be handled by one person, the
blaster-in-charge, who is highly trained, knowledgeable, and
experienced in blasting operations. Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)
replaces existing paragraph (e)(1)(iv) with a much more complete set of
responsibilities for the newly defined blaster-in-charge. OSHA believes
the requirements in proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i) are clearer and more
precise than the existing requirements and will allow for easier
compliance with the proposed requirement. The concept of a "blaster-
in-charge" is evident in existing paragraph (e) and in Chapter 9 of
NFPA 495-2001 which contain descriptions of the duties of the person in
charge of blasting operations. Since the term "blaster-in-charge" is
commonly used in the explosives industry to describe the duties of this
person, OSHA believes the use of this term is appropriate in the
proposed standard.
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives are used in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations.
This is a new requirement recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1). OSHA
agrees with the Petition that it is important for employee safety
during blasting operations to follow manufacturers' recommendations and
proposes to include this requirement in the proposed standard.
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
all employees involved in blasting operations work only under the
supervision of the blaster-in-charge. This is a new requirement which
OSHA believes is essential for employee safety during blasting
operations. It ensures that the blaster-in-charge has the overall
control of the blasting operations.
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C) would require the employer to ensure that
only Type 3 magazines or the original containers are used to transport
detonators and other explosives from magazines to the blast site.
"Original container" here means the containers in which the
detonators were originally transported from the detonator manufacturer.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C) is similar to existing paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) except that it has been modified by updating the type of
magazine that can be used for the transportation of the explosives.
Existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires a Class II magazine whereas
proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(c) requires a Type 3 magazine. A Type 3
magazine, as defined by ATF at 27 CFR 555.203(c) (Ex. 2-4), is a
portable outdoor magazine for the temporary storage of high explosives.
To be consistent with the newer ATF magazine types, the proposed
paragraph references a Type 3 magazine which is classified as a class
II magazine under the existing standard. Type 3 magazines containing
explosives must never be left unattended (27 CFR 555.209). A Type 3
magazine is commonly called a "day box".
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D) would require the employer to ensure that
employees are protected from flying fragments produced during blasting
operations by removing employees to a safe distance, using protective
barricades, or utilizing other equivalent means to protect employees.
This proposed requirement is loosely based on existing paragraph
(e)(1)(iii) and has been modified to improve employee safety. The
existing requirement addresses adjacent structure damage and,
presumably, pedestrian protection in congested areas near the blasting
operations. In the proposed standard, the protective measures have
changed to focus on employee safety and include removal of employees to
safe locations or the use of other equivalent means to protect
employees.
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(E) would require the employer to ensure that
adequate precautions are taken to prevent sources of induced current,
such as lightning, adjacent power lines, dust storms, snow storms,
radar, radio transmitters, cellular phones, or other sources of
extraneous electricity, from causing the accidental detonation of
electric blasting caps. This proposed paragraph replaces a similar
requirement in existing paragraph (e)(1)(vii) except that it has been
revised to include snow storms and cellular phones. Both snow storms
and cellular phones can generate extraneous electricity and be
potential sources of accidental ignition. The addition of snow storms
is consistent with the requirements in paragraph 9.1.16 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). In addition, due to the increasing use
of cellular phones and their potential to be a source of ignition, OSHA
proposes to add cellular phones to the list of items to be controlled.
This addition was based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(F) would require the employer to post signs
warning against the use of mobile radio transmitters or cellular phones
on all roads within 350 feet of the blasting operations. This is
similar to existing paragraph (e)(1)(vii)(b), except that cellular
phones have been added to the proposed language. Cellular phones have
been included because of their increased use and potential to be a
source of ignition for electric blasting caps. Unlike existing
paragraph (e)(1)(vii)(b), proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(F) identifies
the specific warning language to be displayed on the signs:
WARNING
EXPLOSIVES HAZARD
DO NOT USE MOBILE RADIO TRANSMITTERS OR CELLULAR PHONES
Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii) deals with certain types of blasting
operations. Paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(A) would require the employer to
ensure that all surface blasting operations are conducted only during
daylight hours. This proposed language is similar to and replaces
existing paragraph (e)(1)(v), except that the existing requirement
applies to "blasting operations" whereas the proposed language limits
the requirement to "surface blasting operations." The proposed
language is the same as paragraph 9.1.14 of the 2001 edition of NFPA
495 (Ex. 2-5). Surface blasting operations rely on natural light
whereas underground blasting operations are illuminated with artificial
light. Therefore, OSHA proposes to limit (f)(1)(iii)(A) to surface
blasting operations because it believes it is unnecessary for the
purposes of employee safety to restrict underground blasting operations
to daylight hours.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) provides a limited exception to
proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(A). It allows unusual blasting
operations associated with industrial processes, such as blasting slag
pockets and dustcatchers, to be performed at any time of the day,
provided they are performed indoors and a minimum illumination density
of 20 lumens per square foot is provided within a 5-foot (1.5 m) radius
of locations where explosives are being assembled, placed, or attached
to detonators. This is a new requirement but it is consistent with OSHA
policy contained in OSHA Instruction STD 1-5.12, dated October 30, 1978
(Ex. 2-3). In that directive, OSHA identified several necessary
revisions it planned to make to Sec. 1910.109, including a revision to
allow unusual blasting operations associated with industrial processes
to occur at any time of day, provided proper illumination and other
appropriate requirements were met. Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) is
intended to implement the Agency's stated intention.
Paragraph (f)(1)(iv) would require that whenever blasting
operations are being conducted in close proximity to gas, electric,
water, telephone, or other similar utilities, the employer shall not
commence such blasting operations until receiving and documenting
approval from the appropriate utility representatives. This proposed
paragraph replaces existing paragraph (e)(1)(vi). The existing standard
only requires notification of the affected utility 24 hours in advance
of blasting. It does not require a response from the utility prior to
the employer beginning blasting. Thus, the employer may have already
begun or even completed the blasting operation before a utility has had
adequate time to identify a potential problem with the blasting
operation and communicate this fact to the employer. The Agency
believes this is a flaw in the existing standard and could lead to the
endangerment of employees working in blasting operations near utility
lines. Obtaining and documenting approval from the utility prior to
blasting is important to employee safety. The approval process will
vary by locality depending on already established procedures and may,
in fact, often take less than 24 hours. Documentation may be in the
form of a fax, e-mail, or record of a conversation.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) addresses the handling and storage of
explosives at blast sites. Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would require
the employer to ensure that empty containers and paper and fiber
packing materials which previously contained explosives are disposed of
in a safe manner, or reused in accordance with DOT regulations (49 CFR
chapter I) (Ex. 2-8). This proposed requirement is the same as existing
paragraph (e)(2)(i) except that it has been re-written in clearer
language. The proposed requirement is also consistent with paragraph
9.6.1 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that only
non-sparking tools are used to open containers of explosives. This
proposed requirement is consistent with the requirement in existing
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) which allows the use of non-sparking metallic
slitters for opening fiberboard cases. However, this proposed paragraph
differs from paragraph 9.1.10 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5)
which does not require that metal slitters used for opening fiberboard
containers be non-sparking. OSHA believes the requirement to use non-
sparking slitters is needed to reduce the potential for introducing any
material that can create sparks into areas where explosives are
located. The Agency does not believe the exception for fiberboard
containers is necessary and is concerned that it may actually create a
hazard by allowing a sparking tool in the area of explosives. If
permitted, the tool could potentially be mistakenly used for a task
other than opening fiberboard containers. As a general approach, this
proposed rule requires the consistent use of only non-sparking tools
and materials when working with explosives.
Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that no
explosives are abandoned. This proposed requirement is the same as and
replaces existing paragraph (e)(2)(iv) and is consistent with paragraph
9.1.2 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) and ensures that
abandoned explosives are not accidentally detonated.
Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) would require the employer to ensure that all
unused explosives are returned immediately to appropriate magazines.
This proposed requirement is similar to a requirement in existing
paragraph (e)(3)(iv) except that it has been moved to proposed
paragraph (f)(2) which addresses the storage of explosives at blast
sites. The proposed paragraph is intended to address safety and
security by ensuring that no unused explosives are left behind after a
blast and are returned immediately to the proper storage magazine if
not used. Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iv) is consistent with paragraph
9.2.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which requires that all
excess explosive materials be removed from the area and returned to the
proper storage facilities.
The requirement in existing paragraph (e)(2)(ii) that containers of
explosives not be opened in any magazine or within 50 feet of any
magazine has not been retained in the proposed rule because it is
already covered by ATF at 27 CFR 555.214(c) and OSHA does not want to
duplicate the regulations of other federal agencies. In addition, the
language in existing paragraph (e)(2)(ii) addressing the opening of
kegs and wooden cases is not in the proposed rule since these types of
containers are no longer used in the industry.
Paragraph (f)(3) in the proposal addresses the loading of
explosives in drill holes. Paragraph (f)(3)(i) would require the employer
to ensure that all drill holes are of sufficient size to permit the free
insertion of explosives. Attempting to force explosives into a drill
hole that is too small for the size of the explosives may in some
circumstances cause the explosives to detonate. This proposed
requirement replaces existing paragraph (e)(3)(i) except that it has
been re-written in clearer language. The proposed language is also
consistent with the requirement in paragraph 9.2.2 of the 2001 edition
of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(ii) addresses safe procedures for tamping
explosives. Paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) would require the employer to
ensure that tamping of explosives is performed only with non-sparking
tools. This proposed requirement replaces a requirement in existing
paragraph (e)(3)(ii) except that it has been rewritten to simplify the
requirement by only allowing the use of non-sparking tools. The
existing requirement limits the tool to be used for tamping to wood
rods. Rather than specifying the type of tamping rods used, OSHA is
using performance language to allow any non-sparking tool to be used.
In this way, an employer may elect to use a non-wood tamping rod
provided it is only comprised of non-sparking material. OSHA's intent
is that no part of the rod, including any connectors, can be made of a
sparking material.
Paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
tamping of explosives is performed in a manner that does not degrade,
or otherwise damage the explosives or cause the explosives to detonate.
This proposed requirement is consistent with a requirement in existing
paragraph (e)(3)(ii) except that it has been revised to better clarify
the meaning of violent tamping. Both existing paragraph (e)(3)(ii) and
paragraph 9.2.5.1 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) require
that violent tamping be avoided. Initiation of explosives by impact or
friction could result from severe or violent tamping, especially if a
detonator is involved. In the proposal, OSHA more clearly expresses the
intent of the requirement by using performance language and stating
that tamping must be done in a manner that does not degrade or damage
the explosives or cause the explosives to detonate. The Agency believes
this better describes the intent of the existing requirement and the
meaning of the term "violent tamping," and will aid in compliance
with the regulation.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3)(iii) would require the employer to ensure
that certain requirements are followed when performing pneumatic
loading of explosives into drill holes primed with electric detonators
or other static electricity-sensitive initiation systems. For example,
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that the
equipment is bonded and grounded, paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(B) would
require the employer to ensure that a semi-conductive hose is used, and
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(C) would require the employer to ensure that the
blaster-in-charge evaluates all systems to assure that they will safely
dissipate static electricity under potential field conditions. These
proposed requirements are essentially the same as and replace existing
Sec. 1910.109(e)(3)(iii) and (g)(3)(iv)(c). The only modification to
the language in the proposed rule is an update to include drill holes
primed with electric detonators or other static electricity-sensitive
initiation systems. The existing language in (e)(3)(iii) only addresses
electric blasting caps. This modification reflects current industry
practice and is consistent with the paragraph 9.2.4 of the 2001 edition
of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (f)(3)(iv) would require the employer to ensure that no
employee drills into explosives or any portion of a hole that at any
time contained explosives. This proposed requirement modifies existing
paragraph (e)(3)(vi), which prohibits the deepening of drill holes that
have previously contained explosives. The proposed language increases
employee safety by expanding the coverage of existing paragraph
(e)(3)(vi) to prohibit drilling into explosives or any portion of a
hole that at any time contained explosives. This includes drilling
through a cross-section of a drill hole that once contained explosives.
This proposed language was recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Paragraph (f)(3)(v) would require the employer to ensure that,
after the drill hole loading process is completed but before
detonation, all remaining explosives, including detonators, are
immediately returned to the appropriate magazines. This ensures that
none of the remaining explosives are unintentionally left near the
loaded drill holes and detonated when the loaded drill holes are
detonated. The proposed requirement replaces existing paragraph
(e)(3)(vii) except that, without changing the intent of the
requirement, it has been rewritten in clearer language using terms more
consistent with those used in other parts of the proposed standard.
Unlike the existing requirement, the proposed version explicitly states
that all the remaining explosives must be immediately returned to the
appropriate magazines before the loaded explosives are detonated. This
proposed requirement is also consistent with paragraph 9.2.6 of the
2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which addresses storage of excess
explosive materials.
Paragraph (f)(3)(vi) would require the employer to ensure that,
during the time that drill holes are loaded or are being loaded, only
personnel who are engaged in drilling or loading operations, or are
otherwise authorized by the employer, may enter the blast site. The
time when the drill holes are loaded or being loaded is a period of
increased risk of accidental detonation of the explosives. The proposed
provision reduces the risk to employees by ensuring that only essential
employees are in the blast site during this time. This is a new
requirement recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1). The Agency agrees
that this is an important consideration for the safety and security of
the blast site and should be addressed in the proposed rule. This
proposed requirement is also consistent with paragraph 9.2.1 of the
2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which addresses unauthorized
personnel entering the blast site during loading operations.
Paragraph (f)(3)(vii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that,
after the loaded drill holes are connected but prior to them being
connected to a source of initiation, the blast area is barricaded and
posted, guarded, or both. If the blast area is barricaded and posted,
the posted sign must contain sufficient language, such as "DANGER--
EXPLOSIVES HAZARD--DO NOT ENTER," to ensure that employees are aware
of the hazards involved within the blast area. In addition, paragraph
(f)(3)(vii)(B) would require all personnel to be removed from the blast
area. These proposed requirements are new and were recommended by the
Petition (Ex. 2-1). The Agency agrees with the Petition that it is
necessary to ensure that all employees are removed from the blast area
for their safety during this stage of the blasting operations. These
proposed requirements are also consistent with paragraph 9.2.7 of the
2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which addresses personnel in the
blast area during pre-blast and post-blast operations.
Proposed paragraph (f)(4) continues with the blasting operation
sequence and addresses the initiation of the explosives. Paragraph
(f)(4)(i) would require the employer to ensure that, where sources of
extraneous electricity in excess of fifty (50) milliamperes (flowing
through a one-ohm resistor) are present, electric detonators are used
only after sufficient measures are taken
to ensure that the detonators will not inadvertently activate. This is
a new requirement based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1)
and is consistent with paragraph 9.3.3 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495
(Ex. 2-5). This determination about whether to use electric detonators
would need to be made by the blaster-in-charge on a case-by-case basis.
As discussed earlier in proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(E), certain
sources of electrical current can cause accidental ignitions of
electric detonators and paragraph (f)(4)(i) is being proposed to ensure
that appropriate steps are taken so that electric detonators do not
activate accidentally.
Paragraph (f)(4)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that the
blaster-in-charge supervises selection and installation of the blast
initiation system. This is a new requirement based on a recommendation
in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and is consistent with paragraph 9.3.6.4(1)
of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that the proper initiation system is selected
and installed depending on the particular blast to be performed.
Paragraph (f)(4)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that the
initiation system is used in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. This is a new requirement based on a recommendation in
the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and is consistent with paragraph 9.3.6.4(2) of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). This proposed requirement
applies to both electric and electronic detonators and OSHA believes it
would increase employee safety in the use of initiation systems.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(4)(iv), (f)(4)(v), and (f)(4)(vi) address
requirements that are specific to non-electric initiation systems,
including electronic initiation systems. The proposal also contains
similar (where applicable) requirements specific to electric initiation
systems below in proposed paragraphs (f)(4)(xi) and (f)(4)(xii).
Paragraph (f)(4)(iv) would require the employer to ensure that the
blaster-in-charge checks the initiation system visually after the blast
hookup. This is a new requirement based on a recommendation in the
Petition (Ex. 2-1) and is consistent with paragraph 9.3.6.4(3) of the
2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). The purpose of this requirement is
to visually ensure the connections in the initiation system were made
properly in order to prevent misfires. Paragraph (f)(4)(v) would
require the employer to ensure that the blaster-in-charge tests the
blast layout for continuity as recommended by the manufacturer. This is
a new requirement based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1)
and is consistent with paragraph 9.3.6.4(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA
495 (Ex. 2-5). OSHA believes this new requirement will enhance employee
safety during blasting operations by reducing the chance of misfires
due to improper connections.
Paragraph (f)(4)(vi) would require the employer to ensure that
where deemed necessary by the blaster-in-charge, a double trunk line or
closed-loop hookup is used in the initiation system. This is a new
requirement based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and is
consistent with paragraph 9.3.6.4(5) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495
(Ex. 2-5). OSHA believes this proposed requirement would increase
employee safety by reducing misfires through the use, where necessary,
of double trunk lines or closed-loop hookups.
Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(vii) would require the employer to ensure
that when a safety fuse is used, only a crimper approved by the
detonator manufacturer or the safety fuse manufacturer is used to
connect the detonator to the safety fuse. This requirement replaces a
requirement in existing paragraph (e)(4)(ii) that, when a fuse is used,
the blasting cap must be securely attached to the safety fuse with a
standard-ring type cap crimper. Compared to the existing requirement,
the new language enhances employee safety by ensuring that the
appropriate type of crimper is used to connect the detonator to the
safety fuse. This new requirement was recommended by the Petition (Ex.
2-1).
Issue #13: Paragraph 10.3.2 of the 2006 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-
21) includes a requirement that when a safety fuse is used, "in no
case shall fuse lengths of less than 3 ft or with a burn time of less
than 120 seconds be used." The proposed standard does not contain this
requirement. Should it be included in the standard? If so, are the fuse
length and burn time restrictions adequate to protect the safety of
employees?
Paragraph (f)(4)(viii) would require the employer to ensure that
all primers are assembled at least 50 feet (15.25 m) away from any
magazine. This proposed requirement replaces a similar requirement in
existing paragraph (e)(4)(ii). It is also consistent with a requirement
in paragraph 9.3.6.1 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Issue #14: After further discussions with IME concerning the
Petition, IME suggested an exception to proposed paragraph (f)(4)(viii)
to allow primers to be assembled within 50 feet of a Type 3 "day box"
magazine. IME argued that worksite conditions and space restrictions
may make it impractical or impossible to keep the Type 3 magazine, in
which detonators are located, at a distance of 50 feet or more from the
place where the primer is being assembled. IME asserted that such
situations may occur when blasting is taking place in an underground or
other confined area. IME argued that the 50 foot restriction in the
proposed paragraph requires the blaster-in-charge to transport only one
detonator at a time from the Type 3 magazine which could potentially
leave the primers unattended and could result in the magazine being
located in an area out of the sight and physical control of the
blaster-in-charge. OSHA requests comments on whether proposed paragraph
(f)(4)(viii) should apply to all magazines including Type 3 magazines?
Alternatively, when warranted by work conditions, should primers be
allowed to be assembled within 50 feet of a Type 3 magazine? If so,
what kinds of work conditions would warrant such an exception? If an
exception is made for Type 3 magazines, how close to such a magazine
can primers be assembled safely?
Paragraph (f)(4)(ix) would require the employer to ensure that
primers are made up only as needed for immediate use. This proposed
requirement is the same as and replaces existing paragraph (e)(4)(iii)
except that it has been rewritten in clearer language without changing
the intent of the requirement. In addition, the proposed requirement is
consistent with a requirement in paragraph 9.3.6.1 of the 2001 edition
of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (f)(4)(x) would require the employer to ensure that when
an explosives cartridge that does not have a detonator well is used as
a primer, a hole large enough to accommodate the detonator is made in
the cartridge with a spark-resistant powder punch approved either by
the explosives manufacturer or by the blaster-in-charge. This proposed
paragraph is based on and replaces existing paragraph (e)(4)(iv) but
has been revised to reflect current industry practice. The revised
language also clarifies the kind of powder punch that can be used to
make a well for the detonator. The proposed requirement allows the use
of a spark-resistant cap crimper for this purpose since it is a form of
a powder punch. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that, for
safe use, the detonator well is made in the correct manner and is the
correct size to accommodate the detonator. For safety
reasons, the employer should never use a cast primer or booster if the
hole for the detonator is too small. Further, the employer should never
enlarge a hole in a cast primer or booster to accept a detonator or
force or attempt to force a detonator into explosive material. The
revisions in the proposed paragraph were recommended by the Petition
(Ex. 2-1) and are consistent with the requirements contained in
paragraph 9.3.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (f)(4)(xi) would require the employer to ensure that,
when testing electric circuits that connect loaded drill holes, only
blasting galvanometers or other instruments specifically designed for
this purpose are used. This proposed requirement is similar to existing
paragraph (e)(4)(vii) except that it has been updated to be consistent
with paragraph 9.3.5 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which
allows other test instruments to be used as long as they are designed
for that purpose.
Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(xii) addresses requirements for
electrical firing of blasts. Paragraph (f)(4)(xii)(A) would require the
employer to ensure that only the person making the lead-line
connections or the blaster-in-charge fires the shot. This paragraph is
essentially the same as a requirement in existing paragraph
(e)(4)(viii) but has been revised to allow the blaster-in-charge the
authority to fire the shot in addition to the person making the lead-
line connections. The change was made to be consistent with the
responsibilities given to the blaster-in-charge in this proposed rule
and to be consistent with paragraph 9.3.7 of the 2001 edition of NFPA
495 (Ex. 2-5), which allows the blaster-in-charge to fire the shot. In
some cases, the blaster-in-charge may need to delegate the
responsibility of firing the shot to the person who made the lead-line
connections. This is the only other person the blaster-in-charge may
delegate to perform this duty.
Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(xii)(B) would require the employer to
ensure that blasting lead lines remain shunted (shorted) and not
connected to the blasting machine or other source of current until the
charge is to be fired. This proposed requirement is the same as and
replaces a requirement in existing paragraph (e)(4)(viii) except that
the term "shunted" has been added to clarify the intent of the
requirement and to be consistent with paragraph 9.3.7 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Issue #15: The proposed rule does not address static sensitive
detonators. OSHA would like specific comments on whether there is a
potential hazard associated with static electricity setting off
electric detonators. If there is a hazard, should OSHA address this
hazard in Sec. 1910.109 by requiring all electric detonators be tested
for electrostatic sensitivity? If so, what testing procedures should be
used? Is it technically and economically feasible to require detonator
manufacturers to test for static sensitivity? Are there procedures
employees can take to eliminate an electrostatic hazard such as using
rubber gloves or friction tape when working with electric detonators?
Proposed paragraph (f)(5) addresses the need for a warning signal
prior to firing a blast. Paragraph (f)(5) would require the employer to
ensure that, before a blast is fired, all persons and vehicles are at a
safe distance outside the blast area or under sufficient cover, and
that an adequate warning signal is given. This proposed requirement is
essentially the same as and replaces existing paragraph (e)(5) except
that it has been rewritten in clearer language. Unlike the existing
paragraph, the proposed paragraph does not include a requirement that
surplus explosives be in a safe place because this requirement is
already addressed in proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(iv) and (f)(3)(v) which
require that unused explosives and detonators be immediately returned
to the appropriate magazines. The purpose of the warning signal,
usually a siren, is to ensure that all employees are a safe distance
away from the blast when fired. Typically, the blast area is cleared by
the blaster-in-charge well before the siren sounds. The siren is used
to warn of an imminent blast (the siren usually sounds up to a minute
before the blast). If anyone is still in the blast area, it provides
them with adequate time to get out safely. Also, the warning siren
allows anyone outside the blast area a chance to move behind a barrier
or use necessary hearing protection. Proposed paragraph (f)(5) is
consistent with paragraph 9.3.8 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-
5).
Paragraph (f)(6) in the proposal addresses post blast procedures.
Paragraph (f)(6)(i) would require the employer to ensure that, after a
blast, no other person enters the blast area until it is inspected by
the blaster-in-charge and found to be free of misfires and other safety
hazards and the blaster-in-charge has given an all-clear signal. This
is a new requirement that requires the blaster-in-charge to conduct a
search for safety hazards and to prevent all persons from entering the
blast area until the blaster-in-charge determines it is safe. It is
also consistent with paragraphs 9.4.1 and 9.4.3 of the 2001 edition of
NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (f)(6)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that the
blaster-in-charge does not enter the blast site until sufficient time
has passed to allow smoke and fumes to dissipate and dust to settle.
This is a new requirement intended to prevent the blaster-in-charge
from entering the blast site before it is safe to conduct the
inspection of the blast site. It is also consistent with paragraph
9.4.2 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (f)(7) in the proposal addresses misfires. It is a
consolidation of many paragraphs scattered throughout the existing
standard concerning misfires. OSHA felt it would be easier for
employers to understand the requirements involving misfires if they
were located in the same paragraph.
Paragraph (f)(7)(i) would require the employer to ensure that,
whenever there is a misfire while using blasting cap and fuse or
electronic detonators, all employees remain outside the blast area for
at least 1 hour. If electric detonators or non-electric detonators are
used and a misfire occurs, this waiting period may be reduced to 30
minutes. This proposed requirement is essentially the same as existing
paragraph (e)(4)(vi) and paragraphs 9.5.4 and 9.5.5 of the 2001 edition
of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). The only changes are that, compared to the
existing requirement, the proposed requirement has been rewritten for
clarity and electronic detonators have been added. Since electronic
detonators are relatively new technology, the existing standard does
not contain requirements that address a waiting period following a
misfire involving electronic detonators.
Issue #16: OSHA is seeking comments on what is an appropriate
waiting period after misfires. The Agency is proposing a misfire
waiting period of at least 1 hour if a blasting cap and fuse or an
electronic detonator was used and a misfire waiting period of at least
30 minutes if an electric or non-electric (other than blasting cap and
fuse) detonator was used. OSHA's construction standard at Sec.
1926.911(d) requires a waiting period of at least one hour if there is
a misfire while using cap and fuse. On the other hand, MSHA's
regulations at 30 CFR Sec. Sec. 56.6310 and 57.6310 require persons to
wait 30 minutes if a safety fuse and blasting caps are used and 15
minutes if any other type of detonator is used. These MSHA requirements
apply to surface metal and nonmetal mines and to underground metal and
nonmetal mines. Paragraphs 9.5.4 and 9.5.5 of the 2001 edition of NFPA
495 require a 1-hour waiting period after a misfire using
cap and fuse and a 30 minute waiting period after a misfire using an
electric or non-electric detonator (other than cap and fuse). However,
the 2006 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-21) has reduced the waiting periods
to 30 minutes when using electronic or cap and fuse initiation and 15
minutes for all others.
OSHA is seeking comment on whether the waiting periods for misfires
in its proposed standard are appropriate for employee safety. Should
the Agency consider the waiting periods in the 2006 edition of NFPA 495
or other alternative waiting periods and, if so, why? What is the
general industry practice for waiting periods after misfires?
Paragraph (f)(7)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that,
whenever explosives remain in a misfired hole, a new primer is inserted
and the hole is reblasted. Where reblasting presents a hazard, the
remaining explosives shall be washed out with water, or, where the
misfire is underwater, blown out with air. This proposed requirement is
similar to and replaces existing paragraph (e)(4)(v) and has been
rewritten in clearer language. Unlike the existing requirement, when
reblasting presents a hazard, the proposed paragraph allows the
explosive to be extracted using water or, where the misfire is
underwater, using air. This is consistent with the requirements in
paragraph 9.5.3 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) and provides
for misfire situations where reblasting may be unsafe.
Paragraph (f)(7)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that
misfires are handled under the direction of the blaster-in-charge and
all initiation paths are carefully traced and a thorough search made
for unexploded charges. This proposed requirement is essentially the
same as and replaces requirements in existing paragraph (e)(4)(vi)
except that the blaster-in-charge is specifically assigned the duty to
direct the handling misfires. This proposed requirement is also
consistent with paragraphs 9.5.6 and 9.5.7 of the 2001 edition of NFPA
495 (Ex. 2-5) which address the employer's responsibility concerning
misfires and the need to conduct a search for unexploded charges.
Paragraph (f)(7)(iv) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives recovered from blasting misfires are placed in a magazine
that is used only for the storage of misfired explosives and are then
disposed of as soon as possible in accordance with the manufacturers'
recommendations. This would be a new requirement and is consistent with
the requirements in paragraph 8.8.4 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495
(Ex. 2-5). The proposed paragraph is intended to protect employee
safety by requiring possibly dangerous and unstable misfired explosives
to be isolated in magazines and to be kept away from other explosives.
Paragraph (f)(7)(v) would require the employer to ensure that
detonators recovered from blasting misfires are not reused and are
disposed of as soon as possible in accordance with the manufacturers'
recommendations. Proposed paragraphs (f)(7)(iv) and (v) are essentially
the same as and replace those in existing paragraph (c)(5)(ix) and are
also consistent with the requirements in paragraph 8.8.4 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (g) Blasting agents, water gels, slurries, and emulsions.
In paragraph (g), OSHA is proposing specific requirements for blasting
agents, water gels, slurries, and emulsions. Existing paragraph (g)
covers blasting agents and existing paragraph (h) covers water gels and
slurries. OSHA has determined that these two paragraphs contain many
duplicative requirements. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to combine these
two existing paragraphs into one proposed paragraph (g) to cover
blasting agents, water gels, slurries, and emulsions. Most of the
requirements in proposed paragraph (g) would cover blasting agents,
water gels, slurries, and emulsions, but some would only cover water
gels, slurries, and emulsions.
Existing paragraph (h) addresses water gels and slurries but does
not address emulsions. Emulsions are similar to water gels and slurries
but are a relatively new product which did not exist when the current
Sec. 1910.109 standard was promulgated. They are being included with
blasting agents, water gels, and slurries in proposed paragraph (g).
Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A) would require that, unless
otherwise specified in proposed paragraph (g), blasting agents, water
gels, slurries, and emulsions shall be stored, transported, handled,
and used in the same manner as other explosives. The revised
requirement is essentially the same as existing paragraph (g)(1) and
(h)(1).
Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B) would require that, unless
otherwise specified in proposed paragraph (g), water gels, slurries,
and emulsions classified as Division 1.1 or Division 1.5 must meet the
same requirements as blasting agents in paragraph (g). As mentioned
above in the preamble, there is a large overlap between existing
paragraph (g) covering blasting agents and existing paragraph (h)
covering water gels and slurries. To avoid unnecessary duplication,
these two existing paragraphs are being combined in proposed paragraph
(g), which would apply to blasting agents, water gels, slurries, and
emulsions. In addition, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B) states that the
manufacture of water gels, slurries, and emulsions that can be
classified as Division 1.1 explosives must also comply with Sec.
1910.119 Process Safety Management. However, unless specified in the
proposed standard, water gels, slurries, and emulsions that can be
classified as Division 1.5 explosives are subject to the same
requirements in the proposed standard that apply to other kinds of
blasting agents. This includes the requirements in the proposed
standard covering the manufacture of such Division 1.5 water gels,
slurries, and emulsions.
Consolidation of Requirements in Existing Paragraphs (g) and (h) Into
Proposed Paragraph (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph
(g) blasting
Existing paragraph (g) blasting Existing paragraph agents, water
agents (h) water gels gels, slurries,
and emulsions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)(2)(ii)(a)................... (h)(3)(ii)(a)..... (g)(2)(i)(A).
(g)(2)(ii)(b)................... (h)(3)(ii)(b)..... (g)(2)(i)(B).
(g)(2)(ii)(d)................... (h)(3)(ii)(d)..... (g)(2)(i)(C).
(g)(2)(ii)(e)................... (h)(3)(ii)(e)..... (g)(2)(i)(D)-(F).
(g)(2)(ii)(f)................... (h)(3)(ii)(f)..... (g)(2)(i)(G) and
(H).
(g)(2)(ii)(c)................... (h)(3)(ii)(c)..... (g)(2)(i)(J).
(g)(2)(iii)(a).................. (h)(3)(iv)(a)..... (g)(2)(ii)(A).
(g)(3)(iii)(a).................. (h)(4)(ii)(b)..... (g)(3)(iii)(A) and
(B).
(g)(3)(iii)(c).................. (h)(4)(ii)(d)..... (g)(3)(iii)(C).
(g)(3)(iii)(d).................. (h)(4)(ii)(e)..... (g)(3)(iii)(E).
(g)(3)(iii)(e).................. (h)(4)(ii)(f)..... (g)(3)(iii)(G).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that
caked oxidizers, either in bags or in bulk, are not loosened by
blasting. The provision is the same as existing (g)(5)(vi) and
consistent with paragraph 5.5.3 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-
5).
Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
equipment used for mixing and packaging blasting agents is constructed
of materials compatible with the blasting agent composition. The
proposed paragraph is phrased in performance language but is consistent
with existing paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(b) and with paragraph 5.2.4.2 of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(C) would require the employer to ensure that
spills or leaks which may contaminate
combustible materials are cleaned up immediately. The provision is
equivalent to and replaces existing paragraph (h)(3)(iii)(b) with the
exception that the proposed requirement does not retain the statement
that: "Nitrate-water solutions may be stored in tank cars, tank
trucks, or fixed tanks without quantity or distance limitations." OSHA
has omitted this statement from the proposal because it is merely
advisory and does not improve employee safety. In addition, the
proposed paragraph extends the coverage of the existing paragraph to
cover not only water gels, slurries, and emulsions but also blasting
agents in general. OSHA believes that the expansion of the existing
requirement to blasting agents in general will enhance employee safety.
Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(D) would require the employer to ensure that
ingredients are not kept with incompatible materials that may endanger
the safety of employees if the ingredients and incompatible materials
are commingled. This proposed requirement is essentially the same as
and replaces the corresponding existing provision (h)(3)(iii)(d) and is
consistent with paragraph 6.3.3(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5). While the existing paragraph only applies to water gels,
slurries, and emulsions, the proposed paragraph also applies to
blasting agents in general. OSHA believes that it is important for
employee safety that ingredients of blasting agents in general, and not
only those of water gels, slurries, and emulsions, be kept away from
incompatible materials.
Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(E) would require the employer to ensure that
water gels, slurries, and emulsions maintain their liquid or water
content. This is a new requirement based on a recommendation in the
Petition (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes the requirement is needed because,
according to IME, when water gels, slurries, and emulsions lose their
liquid or water content, their stability decreases and the possibility
of unintentional detonation increases. Therefore, maintaining the water
content of water gels, slurries, and emulsions helps to maintain their
stability and avoid unintentional deteriorations.
Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(iii) would apply where a Type 5 magazine
is used as a bulk storage container for blasting agents and would
require the employer to ensure that any electrically-driven conveyor
used for loading or unloading the magazine be designed to minimize
damage from corrosion. This proposed provision is consistent with the
requirements of existing (g)(4)(iv) and with paragraph 5.4.5 of NFPA
495-2001 (Ex. 2-5). One minor change is that OSHA has not retained the
language in existing paragraph (g)(4)(iv) that specifically requires
electrically driven conveyors to conform to subpart S (Electrical)
because the obligation is already imposed in subpart S and, therefore,
there is no need to restate that requirement.
Existing paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (iii), covering explosives
storage, are not being retained in the proposed standard because they
are preempted by ATF's explosives storage regulations at 27 CFR part
555. See the discussion above at "OSHA's Authority to Regulate" on
how ATF's explosives storage regulations preempt OSHA's explosives
storage regulations in Sec. 1910.109.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) sets forth a number of requirements
related to fixed location mixing of blasting agents. The requirements
are essentially the same as existing requirements except for editorial
revisions to make the provisions easier to understand. The proposed
requirements are also consistent with the 2001 edition of NFPA 495.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) would require the employer to
ensure that buildings used for the mixing of blasting agents are of
noncombustible construction or constructed of sheet metal on wood
studs. The provision is equivalent to existing (g)(2)(ii)(a) and
(h)(3)(ii)(a) and is consistent with paragraphs 5.2.3.1 and 6.3.2(1) of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B) would require the employer to
ensure that the floors of any building used for mixing blasting agents
are constructed of concrete or other minimally absorbent material and
have no drains or piping into which molten materials could flow and be
confined during a fire. Apart from minor revisions, the provision is
equivalent to existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(b), (g)(2)(vi)(a), and
(h)(3)(ii)(b) and is consistent with paragraphs 5.2.3.2 and 6.3.2(2) of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). Specifically, the word
"nonabsorbent" in the existing provision has been changed to
"minimally absorbent" to reflect that concrete floors can allow some
liquid to penetrate their surface. Concrete floors are common in fixed
location mixing buildings, and the "nonabsorbent" language of the
existing provision has caused some concern about the use of concrete.
Therefore, the purpose of the revision is to clarify the requirements
of the proposed provision. OSHA believes this minor change will have no
negative effect on employee safety.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(C) would require the employer to
ensure that the building is ventilated to prevent unsafe heat or fume
accumulations. The provision is equivalent to and replaces existing
paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(d) and (h)(3)(ii)(d) and is consistent with
5.2.3.4 and 6.3.2(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) .
However, existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(d) and (h)(3)(ii)(d) and
paragraphs 5.2.3.4 and 6.3.2(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 use the
phrase "well ventilated." The proposed paragraph uses the phrase
"ventilated to prevent unsafe heat or fume accumulations." OSHA
believes the proposed language more clearly expresses the intent of the
requirement.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(D) would require the employer to
ensure that heating, if supplied for the building, is provided in a
manner that does not create a fire or ignition hazard. Proposed
paragraph (g)(2)(i)(E) would further require that all direct sources of
indoor heat be provided exclusively from units located outside the
building. For example, if heat is pumped into the building, the heating
element must be located outside the building to eliminate the ignition
source from within the building. Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(F) would
clarify that heating units may be used in the building if they do not
depend on combustion processes, such as electric heaters, and do not
create a fire or ignition hazard. Examples of unacceptable heating
units are those that use kerosene or propane. The provisions replace
requirements in existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(e) and (h)(3)(ii)(e) and
are consistent with paragraphs 5.2.3.5 and 6.3.2(5) of the 2001 edition
of NFPA (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(G) would require the employer to
ensure that all internal combustion engines are located outside the
building, or that they are safely ventilated and isolated by a fire
barrier wall with at least a 1-hour rating. Proposed paragraph
(g)(2)(i)(H) would require the employer to ensure that the exhaust
systems on all internal-combustion engines are located so that no
sparks or other ignition sources create a hazard to any materials in or
in close proximity to the building. These requirements are essentially
the same as and replace those in existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(f) and
(h)(3)(ii)(f) and are consistent with paragraphs 5.2.3.6 and 6.3.2(6)
of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(I) would require the employer to
ensure that all electric equipment located in the mixing room meets the
requirements in subpart S of this part for Class II, Division 2
locations. The proposed provision is equivalent to and replaces existing
paragraph (g)(2)(v) and is consistent with paragraph 5.2.6 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (g)(2)(i)(J) would require the employer to ensure that
all fuel-oil storage facilities are separated from the mixing building
and located in such a manner that in case of tank rupture, the oil will
drain away from the mixing building and other facilities containing
explosives or employees. Alternatively, tanks may be diked in a manner
that will contain the entire tank contents in case of rupture. The
proposed provision replaces existing paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(c) and
(h)(3)(ii)(c) except that OSHA has made two changes in the proposed
paragraph compared to the existing paragraphs. First, in the proposed
paragraph, OSHA has added the alternative method of diking tanks. This
addition is based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1). OSHA
believes this alternative method is as safe as allowing the oil to
drain away from the mixing building. Second, the existing paragraphs
only require the oil from a ruptured tank to drain away from the mixing
building, whereas the proposed paragraph requires such oil to drain
away from all buildings and other facilities containing explosives or
employees. OSHA believes this expansion increases safety for employees
at the workplace by ensuring that oil from a ruptured tank is diverted
away from buildings and other facilities where employees may be
located. Except for these two additions, the proposed paragraph is
consistent with paragraphs 5.2.3.3 and 6.3.2(3) of the 2001 edition of
NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(K) would require the employer to
ensure that the land surrounding blasting agent mixing plants be kept
clear of all combustible materials for a distance of at least 25 feet.
This proposed paragraph is the same as and replaces existing paragraph
(g)(2)(vi)(e) and is consistent with paragraph 5.2.8(5) in the 2001
edition of NFP A 495. Note that under Sec. 1910.119(e)(3)(v), the
employer must already identify and control any hazards, such as nearby
combustible materials, relating to the siting of a facility at which
Division 1.1 to 1.4 explosives are manufactured, that could initiate a
catastrophic release within the manufacturing process.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) sets forth requirements for equipment
used for mixing of blasting agents at fixed locations. Like the
requirements of proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i), the requirements in
proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) are essentially the same as those in the
existing standard and in paragraph 5.2 of NFPA 495 except that they
have been reorganized into separate provisions so they are easier to
understand.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to
ensure that the mixing equipment minimizes the possibility of
frictional heating, compaction, and confinement of the explosives
present. The provision is equivalent to and replaces corresponding
requirements in existing paragraphs (g)(2)(iii)(a) and (h)(3)(iv)(a)
and is consistent with paragraphs 5.2.4.1 and 6.3.4(1) of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B) would require the employer to
ensure that all surfaces of the mixing equipment are accessible for
cleaning. The provision is equivalent to and replaces the corresponding
requirement in existing paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(a) and is consistent with
paragraph 5.2.4.1 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(C) would require the employer to
ensure that all bearings and drive assemblies are mounted outside the
mixer and are protected against dust accumulation. The provision is
equivalent to and replaces the corresponding requirement of existing
paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(a) and is consistent with paragraph 5.2.4.1 of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(D) would require the employer to
ensure that fuel oil is prevented from flowing to the mixer in case of
fire. It further requires that in gravity-flow systems, an automatic
spring-loaded shutoff valve with a fusible link be installed. The
provision is equivalent to and replaces the corresponding requirement
of existing paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(c) and is consistent with paragraph
5.2.4.3 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(E) would require the employer to
ensure that both the equipment and handling procedures prevent the
inadvertent introduction of foreign objects or materials into the
mixing process. The provision is equivalent to and replaces existing
paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(b) and is consistent with paragraph 6.3.4(2) of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(F) would require the employer to
ensure that mixers, pumps, valves, and related equipment are regularly
and periodically flushed, cleaned, dismantled, and inspected. The
provision is equivalent to and replaces existing paragraph
(h)(3)(iv)(c) and is consistent with paragraph 6.3.4(3) of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). In the existing standard, the
requirements in paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(b) and (c) apply only to water
gels and slurries whereas proposed paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(E) and (F) are
applying these requirements to all blasting agents, including water
gels, slurries, and emulsions. OSHA believes that the regular and
periodic flushing, cleaning, dismantling, and inspection of these types
of equipment help to prevent the malfunction of the equipment. Such
malfunctions could lead to a potential explosion hazard and endanger
the safety of employees. OSHA further believes that these safety
provisions should cover the manufacture of all blasting agents and not
just water gels and slurries.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii) sets forth requirements for blasting
agent compositions in fixed mixing locations. Paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(A)
would require the employer to ensure that oxidizers of small particle
size, such as crushed ammonium nitrate prills or fines, which may be
more sensitive than coarser products, are handled with additional care
compared to the coarser products. These oxidizers of small particle
size may be more sensitive and more likely to be accidentally ignited
or initiated if care is not taken in their handling. The provision is
equivalent to and replaces the requirement of existing paragraph
(g)(2)(iv)(b) and is consistent with paragraph 5.2.5.1 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B) would require the employer to
ensure that no hydrocarbon liquid fuel with a flashpoint lower than 125
[deg]F (51.7 [deg]C) is used in the manufacture of blasting agents
except at ambient air temperatures below 45 [deg]F (7.2 [deg]C) where
fuel oils with flashpoints as low as 100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C) are used.
The requirement replaces existing paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(c) and has been
updated to be consistent with paragraph 5.2.5.2 of the 2001 edition of
NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(C) would require the employer to
ensure that crude oil and crankcase oil are not used as blasting agent
ingredients. This requirement is the same as and replaces existing
paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(d).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(D) would require the employer to
ensure that metal powders such as aluminum are kept dry and stored in
moisture-resistant or weather-tight containers. Proposed paragraph
(g)(2)(iii)(E) would require that solid fuels be used in a manner that
minimizes dust explosion hazards as far as possible. These requirements
are essentially the same as and replace those in existing paragraph
(g)(2)(iv)(e) and are consistent with paragraph 5.2.5.4 of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(F) would prohibit the use of
peroxides and chlorates in mixing blasting agents. The provision is
equivalent to and replaces existing paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(f) and is
consistent with paragraph 5.2.5.5 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv) sets forth requirements for mixing
operations for blasting agents and water gels, slurries, and emulsions
classified as Division 1.5 blasting agents. However, water gels,
slurries, and emulsions classified as Division 1.1 explosives must meet
the requirements of Sec. 1910.119. Paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(A) would
require the employer to ensure that empty ammonium nitrate bags are
disposed of daily in a safe manner. The provision is equivalent to
existing paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(f) and is consistent with paragraph
5.2.8(6) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(B) would require the employer to
ensure that no hot work or open flame is permitted in or around the
mixing building unless the equipment and surrounding area have been
completely washed down and all oxidizers and fuels removed. This
provision is similar to existing paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(g) except the
more general term "hot work" has been substituted in the proposal for
the term "welding" in the existing standard. As discussed above in
Definitions, proposed paragraph (b), "hot work" means any work
involving electric or gas welding, cutting, brazing, or similar flame
or spark-producing operations. Hot work in general, including welding,
can be a hazard in the presence of explosives. The proposed language is
consistent with Sec. 1910.119, the process safety management standard,
and was recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(C) would require the employer to
ensure that, before welding or repairing hollow shafts of mixing
equipment, all blasting agents and their ingredients are removed from
the outside and inside of the shaft, and the shaft is vented through an
opening at least one-half inch in diameter. This provision is
equivalent to and replaces existing paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(h) and is
consistent with paragraph 5.2.8(8) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(D) would require the employer to
ensure that no explosives other than blasting agents (Class 1, Division
1.5 explosives) are located inside or within 50 feet (15.25 m) of any
building used for the mixing of blasting agents. The provision is
equivalent to and replaces existing paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(i) and is
consistent with paragraph 5.2.8(9) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) sets forth requirements for bulk delivery
vehicles transporting blasting agents and their ingredients. Proposed
paragraph (g)(3)(i) would require that, in addition to the provisions
of proposed paragraph (g)(3), bulk delivery vehicles also meet the
requirements of proposed paragraph (e) Transportation of explosives.
OSHA has added the new language to make it clear that bulk delivery
vehicles transporting blasting agents or their ingredients in bulk form
are subject to both proposed paragraph (e) and (g)(3).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii) sets forth requirements for the
construction of bulk delivery vehicles. Proposed paragraph
(g)(3)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that the vehicle
body is constructed of noncombustible materials. Proposed paragraph
(g)(3)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that bulk delivery
vehicles have enclosed bodies. Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(C) would
require the employer to ensure that all moving parts of the mixing
system are designed to prevent heat buildup. Proposed paragraph
(g)(3)(ii)(D) would require the employer to ensure that shafts or axles
which contact the blasting agent or blasting agent ingredients have
outboard bearings with a 1-inch (2.54 cm) minimum clearance between the
bearings and outside of the product container. The requirements in
proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii) replace those in existing paragraph
(g)(3)(ii)(a) through (c) and are consistent with paragraph 5.3.2(1)
through 5.3.2(3) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). The
proposal does not retain the portion of existing paragraph
(g)(3)(ii)(c) that requires the employer to give particular attention
to clearances on moving parts. The intent of the provision is unclear,
the issue of clearance is covered in part by proposed paragraphs
(g)(3)(ii)(A), (C), and (D), and the provision would be difficult to
enforce
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(E) would require the employer to
ensure that when electrical power is supplied by a self-contained
generator located on the vehicle, the generator is located where it
will not create a fire or ignition hazard. The requirement is similar
to and replaces existing paragraph (h)(4)(i)(b) and is consistent with
paragraph 6.4.1(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5), except
that the existing requirement and the NFPA provision only apply to
vehicles used to deliver water gels. OSHA is proposing to revise the
requirement to apply to vehicles used to deliver all types of blasting
agents, not just water gels. This change is based on a recommendation
in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and OSHA believes it will improve employee
safety by ensuring that the location of the generator will not create a
fire or ignition hazard on bulk delivery vehicles transporting all
types of blasting agents. The proposed requirement also differs from
the existing requirement and the NFPA provision in that they only
require a generator to be at a point separate from the where the water
gel is discharged, whereas the proposed requirement contains
performance language and requires that the generator be located so that
it does not create a fire or ignition hazard.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(F) would require the employer to
ensure that the vehicle is able to safely carry the designated load.
This requirement is equivalent to a requirement in existing paragraph
(g)(3)(ii)(d) and is consistent with paragraph 5.3.2(4) of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(G) would require the employer to
ensure that the vehicle's processing equipment, including its mixing
and conveying equipment, is compatible with the relative sensitivity of
the materials being handled and does not create a risk of accidental
ignition or detonation of the materials. The provision is equivalent to
and replaces the corresponding requirement of existing (h)(4)(i)(c)
(which refers to existing paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(a)) and consistent with
paragraph 6.4.1(3) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) except the
existing requirement only applies to vehicles used to deliver water
gels. The proposed requirement would apply to vehicles used to deliver
all types of blasting agents, not just water gels. OSHA believes that
this application is reasonable, is important for employee safety, and
reflects current industry practice.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(H) would require the employer to
ensure that all hollow shafts in the vehicle's processing equipment are
constructed to permit venting through an opening at least one-half inch
in diameter. Although this is a new requirement, it is already
implicitly contained in existing paragraph (g)(3)(v)(b) which requires
that, before welding or making repairs to a hollow shaft on bulk
delivery and mixing vehicles, the shaft must be vented through a
minimum one-half-inch diameter opening. The new requirement was
recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and is consistent with paragraph
5.3.5(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which requires that
all oxidizing material be removed from the outside and inside of the shaft
and the shaft is vented with an opening at least one-half inch in diameter.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(H) is also consistent with proposed paragraph
(g)(3)(v)(B) which requires the employer to ensure that, before welding
or repairing a hollow shaft on bulk delivery vehicles, the shaft must
be vented with an opening at least one-half inch in diameter.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(I) would require the employer to
ensure that suitable means are provided to prevent the flow of fuel oil
to the mixer in case of fire. The proposed requirement would also
require that, in a gravity-flow system, an automatic spring-loaded
shutoff valve with a fusible link be installed. This proposed
requirement is the same as existing paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(c) and
proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(D) for fixed location mixing of blasting
agents. The requirement is being proposed for the construction of bulk
delivery vehicles since the hazard of fire is the same as in fixed
location mixing of blasting agents. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) also
recommended extending this requirement to cover the construction of
bulk delivery vehicles.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii) sets forth requirements for the
operation of bulk delivery vehicles. Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(A)
would require the employer to ensure that the driver of the vehicle is
trained and capable of safely operating the vehicle. Proposed paragraph
(g)(3)(iii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that the operator,
whether the driver or another employee, is trained and capable of
safely operating the mixing, conveying, and related equipment on the
vehicle. As described above in the preamble on definitions, proposed
paragraph (b), some bulk delivery vehicles only transport blasting
agents or their ingredients but have no mixing, conveying or related
equipment. Other bulk delivery vehicles include such additional
equipment. On these vehicles, this additional equipment may be operated
by the driver or by one or more additional employees. Proposed
paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(B) requires the employer to ensure that, whoever
is the operator of the mixing, conveying and related equipment, they
must be trained and capable of operating the equipment in a safe
manner. Proposed paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) are equivalent to
and replace requirements in existing paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(a) and
(h)(4)(ii)(b), and are consistent with paragraphs 5.3.3(2) and 6.4.2(1)
of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(C) would prohibit smoking, matches,
open flames, spark-producing devices, and firearms (except firearms
required to be carried by guards) within 25 feet (7.63 m) of bulk
delivery vehicles. The proposed paragraph differs from the existing
provisions in paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(c) and (h)(4)(ii)(d) as well as
paragraphs 5.3.3(5) and 6.4.2(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5). The proposal sets a distance of 25 feet (7.63 m) from the vehicle
where smoking, matches, open flames, spark producing devices, and
firearms are not permitted whereas the existing requirements in
paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(c) and (h)(4)(ii)(d) use the phrase "in or
about bulk vehicles" and the NFPA standard uses the phrase "in or
around bulk vehicles" to describe the distance or area in which
smoking, carrying matches, etc., is not permitted. The proposed change
is based on a recommendation from the Petition (Ex. 2-1). OSHA believes
the language in the existing requirements is too vague and should be
replaced with the more concise restriction of 25 feet.
A similar 25-foot restriction is imposed by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in its transportation of
hazardous materials regulations. At 49 CFR 397.13, FMCSA requires that
"[n]o person may smoke or carry a lighted cigarette, cigar, or pipe on
or within 25 feet of (a) A motor vehicle which contains Class 1
materials." However, this FMCSA regulation only applies to motor
vehicles on public highways whereas paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(C) in the
proposal applies at all times to bulk delivery vehicles, whether or not
they are at private facilities or worksites or on public highways.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(D) would require the employer to
ensure that the transfer of blasting agents or their ingredients from
one bulk delivery vehicle to another vehicle is performed at a safe
distance away from any blast site where drill holes are loaded or in
the process of being loaded. This proposed requirement is similar to
existing paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(g) except the existing requirement only
applies to vehicles used to deliver water gels whereas the proposed
requirement applies to vehicles used to deliver all types of blasting
agents. The proposed paragraph is also consistent with paragraph
6.4.2(5) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). OSHA believes that
this proposed language is reasonable, necessary to minimize the risk of
accidental detonation, and reflects current industry practice.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(E) would require the employer to
ensure that while the bulk delivery vehicle is in a blast site, caution
is exercised to avoid driving the vehicle over hoses or dragging hoses
over firing lines, detonating cords, detonator wires or tubes, or
explosives. Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(F) would require the
employer to ensure that the driver has the assistance of a second
person to act as a guide to ensure the safe movement of the bulk
delivery vehicle in the blast site. These provisions are equivalent to
and replace the requirements in existing paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(d) and
(h)(4)(ii)(e) and are consistent with paragraphs 5.3.3(6) and 6.4.2(3)
of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(G) would prohibit the mixing of
blasting agent ingredients while the bulk delivery vehicle is in
transit. This proposed requirement is equivalent to and replaces
existing paragraphs (g)(3)(iii)(e) and (h)(4)(ii)(f) and is consistent
with paragraphs 5.3.3(7) and 6.4.2(4) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495
(Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(H) would require the employer to
ensure that a positive action parking brake, which sets the wheel
brakes on at least one axle, is used during bulk delivery operations.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(I) would require the employer to ensure
that at least two wheels are chocked whenever necessary to prevent
vehicle movement. These provisions are similar to existing paragraph
(h)(4)(i)(d) and are consistent with paragraph 6.4.1(4) of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). However, unlike the existing
requirement, the proposed requirement applies to vehicles used to
deliver all types of blasting agents, not just water gels. OSHA
believes that this proposed requirement will increase employee safety
compared to the existing requirement and reflects current industry
practice.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(J) would require the employer to
ensure that the vehicle is maintained in good mechanical condition.
This requirement is equivalent to and replaces corresponding
requirements in existing paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)(d) and (g)(6)(vi). The
proposed paragraph is also consistent with paragraphs 5.3.2(4),
5.3.3(4), and 5.6.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iv) sets forth requirements for drill
holes, primed with electric detonators or other static-electricity
sensitive systems that are being pneumatically loaded from bulk
delivery vehicles. Paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(A) would require the employer
to ensure that the blaster-in-charge evaluates all such systems to
determine that they adequately dissipate static
electricity under potential field conditions. The proposed provision
substitutes "blaster-in-charge" for the term "qualified person"
used in existing paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(c) and is consistent with
paragraph 5.3.4(3) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(B) would require the employer to
ensure that a grounding device is used to prevent the accumulation of
static electricity. This provision is equivalent to and replaces
existing paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(a) and is consistent with paragraph
5.3.4(1) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(C) would require the employer to
ensure that the discharge hose used has a resistance range sufficient
to prevent conducting stray currents, yet is conductive enough to bleed
off static electricity buildup. The provision is equivalent to and
replaces existing paragraph (g)(3)(iv)(b) and is consistent with
paragraph 5.3.4(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(v) proposes requirements for repairs to
bulk delivery vehicles. Paragraph (g)(3)(v)(A) would prohibit hot work
from being performed, or open flames used, on or around any part of the
bulk delivery vehicle until all blasting agents and their ingredients
have been removed and the vehicle has been completely washed down. This
provision is similar to existing paragraph (g)(3)(v)(a) and paragraph
5.3.5(1) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) except in two areas.
First, the existing paragraph and the NFPA standard use the term
"welding" whereas the proposed paragraph uses the term "hot work."
As discussed above in the explanation of proposed paragraph (b), "hot
work" means any work involving electric or gas welding, cutting,
brazing, or similar flame or spark-producing operations. Thus, "hot
work" includes welding but is a more general term. Use of the term
"hot work" in the proposed paragraph broadens the protective scope of
the provision and is consistent with the use of the term in other parts
of the proposed standard. Second, the existing language requires that
welding must not be performed unless "all oxidizer material" has been
removed. The proposed language is more general in that it requires
"all blasting agents and their ingredients" be removed before hot
work is performed. Again, the language of the proposed paragraph
broadens the protective scope of the provision. OSHA believes that the
broader language in proposed paragraph (g)(3)(v)(A) provides greater
safety for employees. Similar language for this proposed provision was
recommended by the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(v)(B) would require the employer to
ensure that before welding or repairing hollow shafts of equipment, all
blasting agents and their ingredients are removed from the outside and
inside of the shaft and the shaft is vented through an opening at least
one-half inch in diameter. The proposed language is similar to and
replaces existing paragraph (g)(3)(v)(b) and is consistent with
paragraph 5.3.5(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). However,
the proposed language is more specific than the existing language by
requiring that "all blasting agents and their ingredients be
removed." The existing language only requires that the shaft be
thoroughly cleaned but does not specify what is to be removed. OSHA
believes the proposed language is more understandable and increases
workplace safety by explicitly requiring that all blasting agents and
their ingredients must be removed before such welding or repair work.
Existing paragraphs (g)(4)(v), (g)(4)(vi), and (g)(5) (except for
(g)(5)(v) and (vi)) are not retained in the proposed standard because
they deal with issues covered by ATF regulations at 27 CFR part 555
subpart K (see preamble discussion above on preemption of storage
requirements in Sec. 1910.109 by ATF's regulations). Existing
paragraphs (g)(5)(v) and (vi) are retained in the proposed standard in
proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(B) and (g)(1)(i)(B), respectively (see
the preamble discussion above on these two proposed paragraphs for a
detailed explanation).
Existing paragraph (g)(7) requires persons using blasting agents to
comply with all applicable provisions of existing paragraph (e), Use of
explosives and blasting agents. With the redefining of explosives in
the proposed standard to include blasting agents, existing paragraph
(g)(7) becomes redundant and therefore is not retained in the proposed
rule.
Paragraph (h) Small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and
smokeless propellants. The requirements of proposed paragraph (h) are
very similar to the requirements in existing paragraph (j). Most of the
revisions have been made to make proposed paragraph (h) consistent with
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495.
Small arms ammunitions are finished consumer products that pose
lesser hazards to employees when compared with most other forms of
explosives. There are very small quantities of explosive matter sealed
in the ammunition shells which, when inadvertently detonated (except
when confined as in the firing chamber of a weapon), do not constitute
a substantial projection or mass explosion hazard. Therefore, the safe
storage and transportation requirements for small arms ammunition are
different from other explosives.
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) states that proposed paragraph (h) does
not apply to in-process temporary storage during the manufacture of
small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants.
This is similar to and replaces existing paragraph (j)(1) except that
the proposed language uses the phrase "temporary in-process storage"
whereas the existing language only uses the phrase "in-process
storage." The term "temporary" has been added to emphasize that in-
process storage is limited to storage which is temporary in nature and
is an integral and indispensable part of the manufacturing process.
However, proposed paragraph (h) does apply to the non-temporary storage
of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless
propellants. In addition, existing paragraph (j)(1) states that
existing paragraph (j) does not apply to the intraplant transportation
during the manufacture of small arms ammunition, small arms primers,
and smokeless propellants. This provision has not been retained in the
proposed paragraph because none of the requirements in proposed
paragraph (h) apply to such intraplant transportation.
Existing paragraph (j)(2)(i) contains a requirement that states:
"No quantity limitations are imposed on the storage of small arms
ammunition in warehouses, retail stores, and other general occupancy
facilities, except those imposed by limitations of storage
facilities." This statement has not been included in proposed
paragraph (h) because it is not mandatory in the existing paragraph and
does not improve employee safety.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require the employer to ensure that
small arms ammunition is separated from flammable liquids, flammable
solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with at least a
1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet. The
proposed requirement replaces the existing paragraph (j)(2)(ii). The
existing provision defines "flammable solid" in terms of the
classification used by DOT. The proposed rule has dropped the reference
to DOT's classification because "flammable solid" is defined in
OSHA's Hazard Communication standard at Sec. 1910.1200.
Issue #17: Although proposed paragraph (h)(2) is consistent with
paragraph 923 of the 1970 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-13), it is not
consistent with paragraph 13.2.3 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5). In the 2001 edition, NFPA has reduced the separation distance
from 25 to 15 feet. This reduction in distance may reduce employee
protection. OSHA requests specific comments on whether the minimum
separation distance between small arms ammunition and flammable
liquids, flammable solids, and oxidizing materials should remain 25
feet, be reduced to 15 feet, or be changed to some other distance.
Existing paragraph (j)(2)(iii), which addresses small arms
ammunition storage with Class A and Class B explosives, has not been
retained in the proposed rule because it is already covered by ATF
storage regulations (27 CFR part 555 subpart K) and OSHA does not want
to duplicate the regulations of other federal agencies.
Proposed paragraph (h)(3) sets forth requirements for smokeless
propellants. Paragraph (h)(3)(i)(A) would require the employer to
ensure that all smokeless propellants be stored in shipping containers
in accordance with DOT regulations at 49 CFR part 173 for smokeless
propellants. The proposed provision is consistent with paragraph 13.3.6
of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) and substantially the same as
existing paragraph (j)(3)(i).
Paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that no
more than 20 pounds of smokeless propellants, in containers not to
exceed 1 pound, are displayed in a commercial establishment. The
existing standard does not have any provisions restricting the quantity
of smokeless propellants that may be displayed in commercial
establishments. On March 31, 1972, OSHA revised Sec. 1910.109 to
include the following language: "Not more than 20 pounds of smokeless
propellants, in containers of 1 pound maximum capacity, shall be
displayed in commercial establishments" (37 FR 6577). This is
identical to the intent of proposed paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B). However, on
October 24, 1978, OSHA removed this language from the explosives
standard because it believed it addressed public safety requirements
that are subject to the control of local building and fire code
officials (43 FR 49726). While OSHA agrees that the provision did cover
a public safety issue, it now believes that it also addressed an
employee safety issue because employees in commercial establishments
that display smokeless propellants are often in close proximity to the
propellants. OSHA believes that having no restriction on the quantity
of smokeless propellants that can be displayed in commercial
establishments is contrary to employee safety. Therefore, OSHA is
reinstating this provision in the proposed standard as paragraph
(h)(3)(i)(B).
Issue #18: Although proposed paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) is consistent
with paragraph 937 of the 1970 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-13), it is
not consistent with paragraph 13.3.8 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495
(Ex. 2-5), which allows not more than 50 pounds of smokeless
propellants to be displayed in a commercial establishment. The 1970
edition appears to provide greater employee safety. OSHA requests
specific comments on whether there should be a weight restriction for
the display of smokeless propellants in commercial establishments and,
if so, whether the maximum weight limit should be 20 pounds, 50 pounds,
or some other quantity.
Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii) sets forth storage requirements for
commercial stocks of smokeless propellants. Proposed paragraph
(h)(3)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that quantities of
smokeless propellants over 20 pounds and not exceeding 100 pounds be
stored in portable wooden boxes having walls at least 1 inch thick.
Issue #19: Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) is not consistent with
paragraph 13.3.9(1) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5) which
requires commercial stocks of smokeless propellants exceeding 50 pounds
but not over 100 pounds to be stored in portable wooden boxes having
walls at least 1 inch thick. The weight restrictions in proposed
paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) are the same as in paragraph 937 of the 1970
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-13) and in existing paragraph (j)(3)(iii)
(i.e., over 20 pounds but not over 100 pounds). Thus they appear to
provide better employee protection than the 2001 edition of NFPA 495.
OSHA requests comments on whether the weight restrictions should be
over 20 pounds but not over 100 pounds, over 50 pounds but not over 100
pounds, or some other range of weights. In addition, OSHA seeks
comments on whether it should allow storage of quantities of 20 to 100
pounds in either portable wooden containers or non-portable cabinets.
Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
quantities of smokeless propellants over 100 pounds and not exceeding
750 pounds are stored in non-portable cabinets having walls at least 1
inch thick. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) would require that not more than
400 pounds be permitted to be stored in any one non-portable cabinet,
and paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) would require non-portable cabinets be
separated by a distance of at least 25 feet or by a fire barrier wall
with at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating. Proposed paragraphs
(h)(3)(ii)(B) and (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) are similar to existing paragraph
(j)(3)(iv). Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) is a new requirement
that OSHA believes would increase employee safety and is contained in
paragraph 13.3.9(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Issue #20: Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B) is not consistent with
paragraph 13.3.9(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5), insofar
as the NFPA provision requires commercial stocks of smokeless
propellants exceeding 100 pounds but not over 800 pounds to be stored
in nonportable storage cabinets having walls at least 1 inch thick. The
weight restrictions in proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B) (over 100
pounds but not over 750 pounds) are the same as in paragraph 937 of the
1970 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-13). Thus they appear to provide better
employee protection than the 2001 edition of NFPA 495. OSHA requests
comments on whether the weight restrictions for the storage of
commercial stocks of smokeless propellants should be over 100 pounds
but not over 750 pounds, over 100 pounds but not over 800 pounds, or
some other range of weights.
Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C) would require the employer to ensure that
quantities of smokeless propellants over 750 pounds and not exceeding
5,000 pounds are stored in a building only if the requirements in
proposed provisions (h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (h)(3)(ii)(C)(7) are met.
These proposed provisions are new and offer an alternate means of
compliance to existing paragraph (j)(3)(v) for commercial stocks of
smokeless propellants over 750 pounds but less than 5,000 pounds. If
the quantity of smokeless propellants is greater than 750 pounds, and
the provisions in proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (7) are
not met, storage in accordance with the proposed (h)(3)(iii) is
required. If the quantity of smokeless propellants is over 5000 pounds,
then the storage requirements in proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iii) must be
met.
Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) would require that the warehouse or
storage room not be accessible to unauthorized personnel. Paragraph
(h)(3)(ii)(C)(2) would require that smokeless propellants be stored in
nonportable storage cabinets having wood walls at least 1 inch thick
and having shelves with no more than 3 feet of separation between shelves.
Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(3) would require that no more than 400 pounds
be stored in any one cabinet. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(4) would require
that cabinets be located against the walls of the storage room or
warehouse. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(5) would require the cabinets to be
at least 40 feet apart. It further allows that the separation between
cabinets shall be permitted to be reduced to 20 feet where barricades
twice the height of the cabinets are attached to the wall midway
between each cabinet and the barricades extend at least 10 feet
outward, and are constructed of either 1/4-inch boiler plate, 2-inch
thick wood, brick, or concrete block. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(6) would
require that smokeless propellants be separated from flammable liquids,
flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a distance of at least 25
feet or by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-hour fire resistance
rating. Paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C)(7) would require that the building be
protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with
Sec. 1910.159. Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(C)(1) to (7) are based
on paragraphs 13.3.9(3)(a) to (g) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5). OSHA believes that the level of safety provided by these
requirements in proposed paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C) would provide an
equivalent level of employee safety to existing paragraph (j)(3)(v).
Paragraph (h)(3)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that
smokeless propellants exceeding 5,000 pounds or not stored in
accordance with proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this
section are stored in a Type 4 magazine in accordance with ATF
regulations for the storage of explosives (27 CFR 555.203 and 555.210).
Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iii) is equivalent to existing paragraph
(j)(3)(v) except that it also covers the new requirements in proposed
paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C) for quantities over 750 pounds but not
exceeding 5,000 pounds.
Proposed paragraph (h)(4) sets forth requirements for small arms
ammunition primers. Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(A) would require the employer
to ensure that small arms ammunition primers be stored in shipping
containers in accordance with the applicable regulations of DOT (49 CFR
chapter I) (Ex. 2-8). This is substantially the same as existing
paragraph (j)(4)(i).
Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
small arms ammunition primers be separated from flammable liquids,
flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with
at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least
25 feet. The proposed requirement is similar to existing paragraph
(j)(4)(iii) and is consistent with paragraph 13.5.6(2)(f) of the 2001
edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). The existing provision defines
"flammable solid" in terms of the classification used by DOT. The
proposed rule has dropped the reference to DOT's classification because
"flammable solid" is defined in OSHA's Hazard Communication standard
at Sec. 1910.1200.
Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C) would require the employer to ensure that no
more than 10,000 small arms primers be displayed in a commercial
establishment. This requirement is in accordance with paragraph 13.5.5
of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). In a notice published in the
Federal Register on October 24, 1978 (43 FR 49726), OSHA revoked a
similar provision that it believed addressed public safety requirements
subject to the control of local building and fire code officials. As
with proposed paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) discussed above, OSHA agrees that
this is a public safety issue but believes that it is also an employee
safety issue because employees, as well as the public, can be near
primers in a commercial establishment that displays them. Limiting
display quantities of small arms primers protects such employees.
Therefore, a display limitation is included in proposed paragraph
(h)(4)(i)(C).
Issue #21: Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(B) and (h)(4)(i)(C) place
restrictions on the quantity of smokeless propellants and small arms
primers, respectively, that can be displayed in commercial
establishments. Should OSHA further clarify the quantity limitations
for smokeless propellants and small arms primers to allow multiple
displays in commercial establishments? If so, what quantities should be
allowed and should the quantities be based on the size of the
commercial establishment? Should there be a minimum distance between
displays to ensure employee safety? Should the same limitations placed
on commercial establishments also apply to gun shows?
Proposed paragraph (h)(4)(ii) sets forth requirements for
commercial stocks of small arms primers. Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(A)(1) and
(2) would require the employer to ensure that, when quantities of
750,000 or less are stored in a building, not more than 100,000 are
stored in any one pile and the piles are at least 15 feet (4.6 m)
apart. The proposed provisions are equivalent to and replace existing
paragraph (j)(4)(iv) and are in accordance with paragraph 13.5.6(1) of
the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5).
Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
quantities of small arms ammunition primers in excess of 750,000 are
stored in a building only if it meets the requirements in proposed
paragraphs (h)(4)(ii)(B)(1) through (h)(4)(ii)(B)(7).
Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(1) would require that the warehouse or
storage room not be accessible to unauthorized personnel. Paragraph
(h)(4)(ii)(B)(2) would require primers to be stored in cabinets with no
more than 200,000 primers stored in any one cabinet. Paragraph
(h)(4)(ii)(B)(3) would require that shelves in cabinets have a vertical
separation of at least 2 feet. Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(4) would require
cabinets to be located against the walls of the warehouse or storage
room. Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(5) would require the cabinets be at least
40 feet apart. It further allows that the separation between cabinets
may be reduced to 20 feet where barricades twice the height of the
cabinets are firmly attached to the wall midway between each cabinet
and the barricades extend at least 10 feet outward and are constructed
of either \1/4\-inch boiler plate, 2-inch thick wood, brick, or
concrete block. Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(6) would require primers to be
separated from materials classified by DOT as flammable liquids,
flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a distance of at least 25
feet or by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-hour fire resistance
rating. Paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B)(7) would require the building to be
protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with
Sec. 1910.159. Proposed paragraphs (h)(4)(ii)(B)(1) to (7) are based
on paragraph 13.5.6(2) of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). These
proposed paragraphs are all new and offer an alternate means of
compliance to existing paragraph (j)(4)(v), which requires primers in
excess of 750,000 to be stored in magazines. OSHA believes that the
level of safety provided by these alternative requirements would
provide an equivalent level of employee safety as the existing
paragraphs (j)(4)(iv) and (j)(4)(v).
Proposed paragraph (h)(4)(iii) would require the employer to ensure
that small arms ammunition primers that are not stored in accordance
with proposed paragraph (h)(4)(ii) be stored in a magazine in
accordance with ATF regulations for the storage of explosives (27 CFR
555.203 and 555.210).
Issue #22: Paragraph 14.1.6 of the 2006 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-
21) requires that: "The bulk repackaging of small arms ammunition,
primers, smokeless propellants, or Black Powder propellants shall not
be performed in retail stores." The proposed standard does not contain
this requirement. Should it be included in the standard to protect the
safety of employees and, if so, why?
Paragraph (i) Pyrotechnics. Proposed paragraph (i) is reserved for
the future development of pyrotechnic regulations. The existing
standard has no separate requirements for pyrotechnics, although they
are covered, where applicable, by the general explosives provisions of
the proposed standard as well as other existing OSHA standards, such as
Sec. 1910.119, Process safety management.
Paragraph (j) Training. Proposed paragraph (j) is new and contains
proposed training requirements for employees in the explosives
industry. OSHA believes that the proposed training requirements will
enhance the workplace safety benefits resulting from the proposal's
safety provisions. This paragraph has been written to clearly state
what training is required and to avoid overlapping training
requirements with other standards.
Paragraph (j)(1) would require the employer to provide information
and training on safe work practices for each employee prior to or at
the time of the employee's initial job assignment involving the
manufacture, storage, sale, transportation, handling, or use of
explosives, including repair or maintenance of related facilities and
equipment. An equivalent training requirement is contained in OSHA's
hazard communication standard at Sec. 1910.1200(h)(1).
Paragraph (j)(2) would require the employer to ensure that the
training provided under proposed paragraph (j) is specific to each
employee's unique work duties. It is not the intent of OSHA that each
employee should be trained in all aspects of an operation. However,
every employee needs to be trained to do his or her specific job
safely.
Paragraph (j)(3) would reinforce the training requirements in Sec.
1910.1200, the Hazard Communication standard, and further requires the
employer to inform each employee of the requirements in Sec. 1910.109
that apply to the employee's work duties. Employers must also make
available to employees a copy of the Sec. 1910.109 standard. This will
help employees to be better informed about workplace hazards involving
explosives.
Paragraph (j)(4) would require employers to train employees in
safety practices, including applicable emergency procedures, that
relate to their work involving explosives and are necessary for their
safety. OSHA is proposing this paragraph because it believes that
training in safety practices, including applicable emergency
procedures, enhances workplace safety.
Paragraph (j)(5) would require the employer to retrain employees as
necessary to ensure that each employee has the requisite proficiency in
the relevant safe work practices whenever there are workplace changes,
such as the institution of new or modified procedures or products.
Workplace changes can create new safety hazards to employees. OSHA
believes that, when such changes create new workplace hazards,
retraining is necessary to ensure employee safety and health.
Paragraph (j)(6) would require the employer to conduct retraining
whenever the employer has reason to believe that there are inadequacies
in the employee's knowledge or performance of safe work practices.
These reasons may include, but are not limited to, observation of
unsafe work practices and errors in operating procedures. Considering
the potential catastrophic impact of unsafe work practices in the
explosives industry, such unsafe work practices or habits need to be
detected and corrected as soon as possible before a tragedy occurs.
Paragraph (j)(7) would require the employer to provide information
and training in a manner that is understandable to each employee.
Differences in language, reading capabilities, and physical challenges
may create communication issues in a workplace. It is essential that
employers adapt their training methods so that individual employees
comprehend the information and training provided.
Paragraph (j)(8) would require the employer to determine that each
employee has demonstrated proficiency in all aspects of the required
training. Such demonstrations help to identify comprehension
deficiencies or training failures so they can be corrected in a prompt
manner.
Paragraph (j)(9) would state that an employer is deemed to be in
compliance with a training provision in proposed paragraph (j) of this
section for an employee if an identical training provision has been
satisfied for that employee under Sec. 1910.1200, Hazard Communication
or DOT training requirements (49 CFR part 172) (Ex. 2-8). This
provision is consistent with OSHA's goal that duplicative training
efforts are not required.
All existing "reserved" paragraphs in Sec. 1910.109 would be
eliminated in the proposed standard. These existing paragraphs are:
(a)(5), (a)(9), (a)(11), (c)(3)(viii), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2)(ii)(b),
(e)(4)(i), (g)(2)(i), (g)(6)(v), (h)(3)(i), (i)(1)(ii)(a), (j)(3)(ii),
and (j)(4)(ii).
OSHA is proposing to revise the definition of explosives in OSHA's
hazard communication standard at Sec. 1910.1200 by replacing it with
the definition of explosives in paragraph (b) of the proposed standard.
This revision of the definition of explosives in the hazard
communication standard would not only make the definition consistent
with the one used in the proposed standard, it would also make it
consistent with the definition of explosives used by DOT. As discussed
earlier, the definition in the proposed standard incorporates the
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
(GHS). Thus, the revised definition of explosives in the hazard
communication standard would also incorporate the GHS.
IV. Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Screening Analysis
Overview
The proposed rule would revise and update the provisions contained
in Sec. 1910.109 of the existing Subpart H standards. OSHA has
determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. In sum, the proposed rule
is anticipated to generate a maximum of $1.5 million in regulatory
costs annually. These costs will be at least partially, if not fully,
offset by cost savings that may be attributed to the de-regulatory
aspects of the proposed revision.
The proposed requirements primarily update and clarify regulatory
language and address regulatory inconsistencies between OSHA and other
Federal agencies. A number of the new requirements are deregulatory in
nature, and will yield cost-savings relative to the existing standards.
For example, in cases where there is overlap between OSHA and other
agencies, the result of this action could potentially be a reduction in
regulatory burden as covered employers will no longer have to track and
comply with multiple sets of Federal regulations for explosives.
OSHA has conducted detailed comparisons of the existing and
proposed rules in order to determine which provisions are expected to
increase compliance costs, which are expected to be neutral with
respect to costs, and which are expected to reduce employers'
regulatory burden. Generally, the cost-neutral changes to the existing
standard are changes that fall into two categories: (1) Clarifications
to the scope of the standard and (2) some of the overlaps with other
OSHA or Federal standards that have precedence over Sec. 1910.109. As
an example of the first category, proposed Sec. 1910.109(a)(3)(i)
explicitly excludes the construction industry, which is consistent with
the OSHA convention that a specific OSHA standard supersedes the more
general applicable standard. Activities occurring during construction
or demolition would be covered under the part 1926 construction
standards rather than the part 1910 general industry standards for
explosives and blasting agents. While the explicit exclusion of
construction improves clarity, it does not represent any change in
regulatory burden.
Several provisions represent changes with deregulatory or cost-
saving features. For example, proposed paragraph (b) adds the
definition of a "competent person," which is applied in proposed
paragraph (e)(1)(iii), replacing existing paragraph (d)(1)(iii). This
existing requirement states that "proper and qualified supervision"
needs to be provided for transferring explosives from one vehicle to
another, which tends to infer that a supervisor may be required for
such a transfer. In the proposed standard, the competent person needed
to perform these duties need not be a supervisor, so there will be a
cost savings due to differential wage rates associated with the new
wording. These cost savings are estimated below. As a second example,
the labeling criteria for explosives in proposed paragraph (c)(5), by
recognizing the globally harmonized system criteria, may provide a cost
savings as these are the same criteria that DOT is using for the
transportation of explosives. This will help remove the need for having
two different sets of labeling for shipments overseas or within the
United States. The proposed rule also eliminates storage requirements.
Currently, the employer must follow the storage requirements for
explosives in Sec. 1910.109 and ATF's storage regulations in 27 CFR
part 555. Under the proposed rule, the employer would only have to
comply with the ATF regulations. This reduction in overlapping
regulations should result in cost savings for the employer.
Compliance Cost Estimates
There are a few provisions in the proposed standard that may
potentially result in cost increases for affected employers.
Specifically, these relate to new general provisions in paragraph (c)
and new training provisions in paragraph (j), as described below. OSHA
estimates that the costs associated with complying with the provisions
in paragraph (c) would be $549,375 annually and the training provisions
in paragraph (j) would be $908,354 annually. OSHA believes that the
cost estimates presented below represent upper bound estimates since
the overwhelming majority of employers in the explosives industry are
subject to other explosives regulations in addition to Sec. 1910.109.
In addition, provisions in current paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(b) and (c)
that now apply only to water gels will apply to all blasting agents in
proposed paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(E) and (F). OSHA believes that employers
are currently meeting the proposed requirements that both equipment and
handling procedures be designed to prevent the introduction of foreign
objects or materials and that mixers, pumps, valves, and related
equipment be designed to permit regular and periodic flushing,
cleaning, dismantling, and inspection. Thus, employers will not incur
new costs. OSHA welcomes comments on this assumption.
New General Provisions in Paragraph (c)
The manufacturers of blasting agents may be affected by new
provisions that are contained in proposed paragraph (c). Specifically,
the provisions with potential cost implications are:
Requiring that the primary electrical supply to a facility
containing explosives be able to be disconnected from a safe remote
location [proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i)];
requiring the removal of explosive materials, prior to the
conduct of maintenance or repair activities, from the immediate area
where such activities are to take place [proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i)].
These new provisions affect only areas where blasting agents
(explosives classified as Division 1.5 explosives) are manufactured or
loaded. Since the manufacturing of Division 1.1-1.4 explosives must
follow the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard requirements (which
already include these types of requirements), manufacturers of blasting
agents, who in general also manufacture other explosives, are already
likely to be in compliance with the proposed paragraph (c) provisions.
Manufacturers of blasting agents are classified in the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as code 325920,
Explosives Manufacturing. This classification includes all types of
explosives manufacturing, not just blasting agent manufacturing.
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce's (USDOC, 2003) 2001
County Business Patterns (CBP) database and as shown in Table 1, there
are 100 establishments with a total of 7,325 employees in NAICS 325920.
These include all types of explosives manufacturing, not just blasting
agents.
OSHA estimates that the costs to comply with the above requirements
are a function of the size of the establishment. Larger establishments
typically: (1) Require a greater investment for disconnecting the
primary electrical supply to a facility from a remote location and (2)
have larger amounts of maintenance and repair activities where the
removal of explosive materials would be required. Thus, to account for
the size of the establishment, the compliance costs were expressed on a
per-employee basis.
In OSHA's professional judgment, a reasonable estimate of the
annualized expenses associated with complying with these provisions is
$75 per employee. Thus, with 7,325 employees affected by the new
general provisions in paragraph (c), the aggregate annual costs of
complying with the provisions in (c) are estimated to be $549,375 for
all affected facilities. OSHA estimates that providing a remote way to
disconnect electricity to a facility would be about $25 per employee or
$250 for a facility with 10 employees. Other costs, such as labor costs
to remove explosive materials during maintenance and repair activities
are estimated to be $50 per employee. For a facility with 10 employees,
$500 translates into roughly 25 hours per year (or 2 hours per month)
at a wage rate of $20.44 for production and maintenance workers.\3\
This seemed reasonable for maintenance activities that occur during the
year. OSHA requests comments on these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The hourly wage rate (including fringe benefits) is based on
the average hourly wage data for 2002 reported in the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates (BLS, 2003). The BLS wage data are
discussed in greater detail in estimating the costs associated with
new training requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures are considered to represent upper bound estimates for
several reasons. First, the above estimates assume that all explosive
manufacturers produce blasting agents, which is not likely to be the
case. Second, not all employees at all facilities are involved in
making blasting agents. Third, many manufacturers of blasting agents
also manufacture other explosives and are already likely to be in
compliance with these new requirements in the buildings where the other
explosives are handled, since they are subject to PSM requirements.
Finally, the above requirements represent IME or NFPA recommended practices,
which many manufacturers follow voluntarily.
New Training Provisions in Paragraph (j)
The new training requirements include the following:
Providing information and training on safe work practices
for each employee prior to or at the time of the employee's initial job
assignment involving the manufacture, storage, sale, transportation,
handling, or use of explosives, including repair or maintenance of
facilities and related equipment;
ensuring that the training provided is specific to each
employee's unique work duties;
in addition to the information and training requirements
of Sec. 1910.1200, Hazard Communication, informing each employee of
the requirements of this section that apply to the employee's work
duties and making a copy of the standard available to the employee;
training employees in any safety practices, including
applicable emergency procedures that relate to their work and are
necessary for their safety;
whenever there are workplace changes, such as the
institution of new or modified procedures or products, retraining
employees, as necessary, to ensure that each employee has the requisite
proficiency in the relevant safe work practices;
retraining employees whenever the employer has reason to
believe that there are inadequacies in the employees' knowledge of or
performance of safe work practices;
providing information and training in a manner that is
understandable to each employee; and
determining that each employee has demonstrated
proficiency in all aspects of the required training.
The proposed training requirements also state that an employer will
be deemed to be in compliance with the training requirements for an
employee if an identical training provision has been satisfied for that
employee under Section 1910.1200, Hazard Communication, or the DOT
training requirements (in 49 CFR part 172).
The proposed training requirements could primarily affect employees
who come into contact with explosive materials during the manufacturing
of explosives, including blasting agents (NAICS 325920) and small arms
ammunition (NAICS 332992). In particular, these employees primarily
include production employees, as well as installation/maintenance/
repair employees and transportation/material moving employees. Some
transportation workers (i.e., truck drivers, packers, and packagers),
as well as shipping clerks and order fillers, must already be trained
in accordance with DOT requirements, so their employers would already
be in compliance with the training required by proposed paragraph (j).
In addition, the ATF requirements described earlier will apply to
persons involved with handling, storing, and using explosives and
pyrotechnics. The ATF requirements have training and qualification
criteria and Hazcom training requirements are applicable (so these
persons, too, would already have training meeting the requirements of
proposed paragraph (j)).
Table 1 presents summary data for the manufacturing of explosives,
including blasting agents (NAICS 325920) and small arms ammunition
(NAICS 332992). According to the U.S. Department of Commerce's (USDOC,
2003) 2001 County Business Patterns (CBP) database, there are 100
establishments with 7,325 employees in NAICS 325920. An estimated 58
percent are installation/maintenance/repair, production, and
transportation/material moving workers (excluding truck drivers,
packers, and packagers), based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS,
2003) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey data for 2002 for
NAICS 3259. Similarly, the 2001 CBP database (USDOC, 2003) indicates
that there are 111 establishments with 6,717 employees in NAICS 332992.
An estimated 66 percent are installation/maintenance/repair,
production, and transportation/material moving workers (excluding truck
drivers, packers, and packagers) based on the BLS (2003) OES Survey
data for 2002 for NAICS 3329. Thus, combined, there are, after
rounding, approximately 8,700 employees who potentially will need
training in accordance with proposed paragraph (j).
The estimation of the compliance costs associated with providing
the necessary training to these employees has been determined based on:
(1) An assessment of the risks faced by each employee given each
employee's unique work duties; (2) the provision of training courses to
employees that satisfy the hazard communication requirements tailored
to explosive chemicals; and (3) the allowance for some additional time
to go over emergency evacuation procedures with each employee. The
number of chemicals that an employee will be using and exposed to in
making blasting agents will be limited in number. Therefore, the
training can be more targeted to the chemicals being used, rather than
to more general training on all types of chemicals.
The compliance cost estimates for the risk assessment are based on
the amount of supervisor time (15 minutes per employee) and clerical
support time (3 minutes per employee) required to determine the risk of
exposure and the appropriate training level for each employee (given
each employee's unique work duties), coupled with supervisor and
clerical wages.
The cost estimates for the necessary training materials are based
upon two alternative approaches: (1) Using a self-paced on-line
training course (example at http://www.hazmatschool.com) or (2) using a
self-paced interactive training course available on CD-ROM (example at
http://www.jjkeller.com). With each of the training approaches,
approximately two hours of employee time is expected to be required to
complete the course, including time to demonstrate a proficiency with
the material learned to a supervisor. Thus, the compliance cost
estimates associated with the hazard communication training are
calculated based on estimates of the average cost of the training
course (about $50 per employee), the amount of training time required
for each employee to take the course, clerical support time (3 minutes
per employee) to document that the training was taken and successfully
completed, coupled with employee and clerical wages.
Finally, the compliance cost estimates associated with explaining
the emergency evacuation procedures to each employee are based on the
amount of supervisor time (5 minutes per employee) and employee time (5
minutes per employee) required, coupled with supervisor and employee
wages.
The hourly wage rates for the above employees are based on the
average hourly wage data for 2002 and were obtained from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates (BLS, 2003) for those occupational
categories and affected industry sectors where explosives (including
blasting agents) and small arms ammunition are manufactured. For
benefits data, the March 2000 edition of Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation (BLS, 2000) was used, which indicates a fringe benefits
rate of 37 percent of the hourly wage rate. Specifically, average
hourly wage rates (including fringe benefits) of $31.34, $20.42, and
$16.40 were used for supervisors, employees, and clerical support,
respectively, within NAICS 3259 and NAICS 3329.
Combining the training course cost with the labor hour estimates
and the hourly wage rates produces a total training cost of
approximately $105 per employee. This consists of $9 per employee for
the risk assessment, $92 per employee for the training itself, and $4
per employee for the review of the evacuation procedures. For the 8,682
employees that require training, the annual training cost is estimated
to be $908,354. Again, these figures are considered to represent upper
bound estimates in that most explosives and small arms ammunition
manufacturers are believed to be in compliance with these new training
requirements since they represent current industry recommended
practices, as well as overlap with other OSHA, DOT, and ATF
regulations.
As described earlier in the Summary and Explanation section of this
Notice, for blasting operations conducted near gas, electric, water,
telephone, or other similar utilities, proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iv)
would require that, prior to the start of blasting operations,
employers document the approval given by utility representatives. The
current standard, at paragraph (e)(1)(vi), specifies that employers are
to notify utility representatives in writing at least 24 hours in
advance of the blasting operations. The 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex.
2-5) contains provisions for written notification of utilities that are
nearly identical to OSHA's current requirement.
Based on a review of the consensus standard indicated above and
discussions with industry experts, OSHA believes that most employers
maintain a written record of communication with utilities prior to
blasting operations. However, even if that were not the case, the
incremental employer burden associated with the documentation of
approval given by utilities would in all likelihood be modest,
representing, at most, three minutes of a clerical employee's time to
document and maintain a written record that the utility representative
has approved the blasting operation. By applying a conservative
estimate that as many as 1,000 blasting operations could be affected by
this provision, total costs would equal $820 (1,000 operations x 3
minutes x $16.40/hour). With costs for the other requirements in the
proposed standard totaling $1.5 million, the costs for documenting
approval of blasting operations near utilities would increase total
costs by 0.06 percent and would therefore not present economic
feasibility concerns. OSHA requests public comment on this cost issue.
Technological and Economic Feasibility
The proposed requirements primarily update and clarify regulatory
language and address regulatory inconsistencies between OSHA standards
and those of other Federal agencies. A number of the new requirements
are deregulatory in nature, and will yield cost-savings relative to the
existing standard. The new requirements that potentially generate costs
are consistent with OSHA standards that apply in similar industries.
Moreover, OSHA believes that most explosives and small arms ammunition
manufacturers are already in compliance with the proposed training
requirements since they represent current industry recommended
practices, as well as overlap with OSHA's PSM requirements and with the
requirements of DOT and ATF regulations. High levels of current
compliance with the proposed rule clearly demonstrate that the proposed
rule is both technologically and economically feasible. OSHA
anticipates that there will be no technological barriers for employers
to achieve compliance with the proposed standard.
OSHA estimated the cost to employers of the proposed standard and
considered whether it would be economically feasible. This analysis is
presented in Table 2. For NAICS 325920 and 332992, estimated upper
bound compliance costs are significantly less than one percent of
revenue, and 2.6 percent and 1.9 percent of profits respectively.
Therefore, OSHA has determined that the proposed standard is
economically feasible.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
In order to determine whether a regulatory flexibility analysis is
required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA has evaluated the
potential economic impacts of this action on small entities. Table 3
and Table 4 present the data used in this analysis to determine whether
this standard would have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For purposes of this analysis, OSHA used the Small
Business Administration (SBA) definition of a small firm. For NAICS
325920 and NAICS 332992, SBA uses an employment based standard of 500
and 1,000 employees, respectively.
OSHA derived estimates of profits and revenues using data from the
U.S. Census Bureau and Dun and Bradstreet. As shown in Table 4, upper
bound gross compliance costs represent 0.07 percent of the revenues for
NAICS 325920 and 0.08 percent of the revenues for NAICS 332992. Upper
bound gross compliance costs constitute 1.7 percent of profits for
NAICS 325920 and 2.4 percent of profits for NAICS 332992. Based on this
evaluation, OSHA certifies that this proposed regulation will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Benefits
De-Regulatory Benefits. Several provisions in the proposed standard
potentially reduce compliance costs. As noted above, one area of cost
savings is in the change in definition of competent person. In the
proposed standard, a competent person need not be a supervisor, so
there are some cost savings due to differential wage rates.
These cost savings will accrue primarily to employers involved in
the manufacturing of explosives, including blasting agents (NAICS
325920) and small arms ammunition (NAICS 332992). The U.S. Department
of Commerce's (USDOC, 2003) 2001 County Business Patterns (CBP)
database reports that there are 100 establishments with 7,325 employees
in NAICS 325920 and 111 establishments with 6,717 employees in NAICS
332992. An estimated 4.1 percent of the employees in NAICS 325920 and
3.9 percent of the employees in NAICS 332992 (based on the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS, 2003) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES)
Survey data for 2002 for NAICS 3259 and NAICS 3329, respectively) are
supervisory personnel responsible for the production and transport of
explosive materials. Thus, combined, there are an estimated 561
supervisory employees.
The hourly wage rates (including fringe benefits) for all
production and transportation personnel and for all production and
transportation supervisory personnel are estimated to be $19.85 and
$30.88, respectively, for NAICS 3259 and NAICS 3329 combined. These
estimates are based on average hourly wage data for 2002, which were
obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Industry-
Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (BLS, 2003) for
these occupational categories for the affected industry sectors (NAICS
3259 and NAICS 3329) where explosives and small arms ammunition are
manufactured. For benefits data, the March 2000 edition of Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation (BLS, 2000) was used, which indicates a
fringe benefits rate of 37 percent of the hourly wage rate.
To the extent that certain responsibilities under the proposal can
be handled by a trained competent person rather than by a supervisor, a
savings in labor costs of about $11 per hour can be realized. Depending
on the amount of time devoted to these activities, the cost-savings
could be quite significant. For example, if each of the 561 supervisors
delegate to competent persons the responsibilities of enforcing safety
requirements and precautions related to the transferring of explosives
from one vehicle to another for approximately 80 hours per year
(equivalent to 2 weeks), then the total labor savings would be equal to
$0.5 million per year.
The above cost savings estimate applies only to the competent
person requirement. OSHA believes that the proposed rule offers many
other opportunities for cost savings. For example, while the existing
standard covers the storage of explosives (including small arms
ammunition, primers, and smokeless propellants), the proposed standard
would only cover the storage of small arms ammunition, primers, and
smokeless propellants, but not other explosives. OSHA is proposing this
change because ATF regulates the storage of explosives (but not the
storage of small arms ammunition, primers, and smokeless propellants
designed for use in small arms). OSHA has determined that its authority
to regulate the storage of these explosives is preempted by ATF's
regulations. Therefore, currently an employer must comply with both
OSHA and ATF regulations for the storage of explosives while under the
proposed standard, the employer would only have to comply with the ATF
regulations. This reduction in regulatory burden would likely lead to
cost reductions. Another example relates to the exterior markings or
placards on vehicles that transport explosives. Currently employers
must comply with OSHA's marking and placarding requirements and with
those of the DOT. Under the proposed standard, employers would only
have to use the markings and placards required by DOT. Again, this
reduction in regulatory burden should lead to cost savings by
employers.
The proposal's elimination of overlapping (and sometimes
conflicting) regulatory requirements should save some time each year in
assuring compliance with the standard. For example, if the revised
standard can save, on average, four hours of review by a lawyer, as
well as four hours of review by a health or safety engineer for each
establishment, the potential cost savings would equal $108,200. This
estimate is based on an hourly wage rate of $87.51 for lawyers and
$40.73 for health or safety engineers, which includes 37 percent for
fringe benefits applied to the 211 establishments in NAICS 325920 and
NAICS 332992 (BLS, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, 2000; and
National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,
2003).
Safety Benefits. The potential safety benefits of the proposed
standard include a reduction in the number of injuries and deaths
associated with accidents involving explosives. In addition,
significant property damage often occurs during these accidents. Unlike
injury and fatality data, OSHA does not systematically collect data on
the amount of property damage which is incurred during workplace
accidents. Consequently, OSHA did not attempt to estimate benefits
associated with reduced property damage.
To determine the extent to which the proposed standard may reduce
the number of deaths and injuries attributable to explosive accidents,
OSHA examined its accident investigation reports. The most recent and
complete reports cover 1992-2002, and provide detailed information
regarding accidents involving explosive materials. During 1992-2002,
there were 39 accidents, including 18 that were fatal.
As noted above, the proposed standard primarily affects explosive
manufacturing that is not covered under PSM. Upon review of the
accident reports, OSHA found that seven of the 39 accidents occurred
during the manufacture of explosives. Seven fatalities and five
hospitalizations occurred as a consequence of these accidents during
1992-2002. Upon further review, OSHA found that at least one of these
accidents, which involved two fatalities, could have potentially been
prevented through compliance with the new training requirements.
Specifically, in this particular accident, the employer did not assure
that the employees were wearing appropriate protective clothing or that
spark producing devices were not taken into explosive processing areas.
Focusing only on this single accident, the proposed standard would
have produced $12.6 million in total benefits or $1.3 million annually
if it were 100 percent effective at preventing these deaths.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Based on EPA's estimate of a value of $6.1 million for a
statistical life, updated to $6.3 million for inflation (See EPA's
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240-R-00-003,
September 2000).
Table 1.--Summary of Explosives Manufacturing and Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing Industries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
NAICS code Number of Number of Employment \1\ compliance Compliance cost
establishments \1\ firms \1\ costs per firm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
325920.......................................................... 100 63 7,325 $993,888 $15,776
332992.......................................................... 111 105 6,717 463,840 4,418
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001.
Table 2.--Economic Feasibility Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Compliance
Number of Total Profit rate Revenue per Profit per cost as a cost as a
NAICS code firms \1\ revenue \3\ firm firm percent of percent of
($1,000) \2\ (percent) ($1,000) ($1,000) revenue profit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
325920................................................ 63 1,582,333 2.45 25,116 615,352 0.06 2.56
332992................................................ 105 1,051,301 2.28 10,012 228,282 0.04 1.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001.
\2\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 1997, updated to 2002 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator (NAICS 325920 maps to SIC
2892 and NAICS 332992 maps to SIC 3482)
\3\ Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, 2000/2001. An alternative source of profit data is the IRS Corporation Source Book of
Statistics of Income, which suggests profit rates of 5.05 percent and 7.09 percent, respectively. OSHA chose the lower rates reported in Dun &
Bradstreet to keep the analysis conservative.
Table 3.--Summary of Employment Data and Compliance Cost Estimates for Small Explosives and Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
SBA employment Number of SBA Number of SBA compliance Compliance cost
NAICS code size standard establishments \1\ firms \1\ costs for SBA per firm
firms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
325920.......................................................... 500 59 52 $269,062 $5,174
332992.......................................................... 1,000 101 99 84,178 850
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001.
Note: The published data for NAICS 332992 (SIC 3482) does not
provide information for the < 1,000 employment size class, so the
analysis was based on the < 500 size class. Because the overwhelming
majority of establishments/firms fall into the < 500 category, OSHA
believes the approach is reasonable. Comments are welcome.
Table 4.--Screening Analysis for Small Firms Affected by the Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total SBA
Number of revenue Profit rate Revenue per Profit per Compliance cost as Compliance cost as
NAICS code SBA firms ($1,000) \3\ firm firm a percent of a percent of
\1\ \2\ (percent) revenue profit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
325920......................................... 52 383,261 4.16 $7,370,406 $306,609 0.07 1.69
332992......................................... 99 105,296 3.31 1,063,595 35,205 0.08 2.42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2001.
\2\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 1997, updated to 2002 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator (NAICS 325920 maps to SIC
2892 and NAICS 332992 maps to SIC 3482).
\3\ Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, 2000/2001. An alternative source of profit data is the IRS Corporation Source Book of
Statistics of Income, which suggests profit rates of 5.05 percent and 7.09 percent, respectively. OSHA chose the lower rates reported in Dun &
Bradstreet to keep the analysis conservative.
Note: The published data for NAICS 332992 (SIC 3482) does not
provide information for the < 1,000 employment size class, so the
analysis was based on the < 500 size class. Because the overwhelming
majority of establishments/firms fall into the < 500 category, OSHA
believes the approach is reasonable. Comments are welcome.
V. Environmental Impact Analysis
The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures
(29 CFR part 11). The provisions of the proposed standard focus on the
reduction and avoidance of employee injuries and deaths during the
storage, handling, transportation and use of explosives, including
blasting agents and pyrotechnics. OSHA has determined that these
proposed provisions will have no significant effect on air, water, or
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land, or other aspects
of the environment.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
After review of the proposed revisions to the Explosives Standard,
OSHA has identified one new collection of information (paperwork)
requirement and determined other paragraphs are not paperwork
requirements or impose no burden hours or costs on employers.
Collection of information requirements are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq., and its regulation at 5 CFR
part 1320. PRA95 defines a collection of information to mean "the
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the
disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or
for an agency regardless of form or format" (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
The new paperwork requirement, contained in proposed paragraph
(f)(1)(iv), requires employers to document approval from the utility
prior to blasting operations that are being conducted in close
proximity to gas, electric, water, telephone, or other similar
utilities. Documentation may be in the form of a fax, email, or record
of a conversation.
The title, summary, description of the need for and proposed use of
the collection of information requirement, description of respondents,
and the frequency of response of the information collection requirement
are described below with an estimate of the annual cost and reporting
burden as required by Sec. 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and Sec. 1320.8(d)(2).
The reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
Whether the proposed collection of information requirement
is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions to
protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the collection of information requirement, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information-
collection and transmission techniques.
Title: Explosives (29 CFR 1910.109).
Summary: Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iv) would require that whenever
blasting operations are being conducted in close proximity to gas,
electric, water, telephone, or other similar utilities, the employer
will not commence such blasting operations until receiving and
documenting approval from the appropriate utility representatives.
Description: The current Standard does not require a response from
the utility prior to the employer beginning blasting; this could lead to
the endangerment of employees working in blasting operations near
utility lines. Obtaining and documenting approval from the utility
prior to blasting will better ensure employee safety during these
operations.
Respondents: Employers in general industry who conduct blasting
operations near utilities.
Frequency: On occasion. Employer will contact the utility prior to
blasting near gas, electric, water, telephone, or other utilities.
Average Time per Response: OSHA estimates on average, the employer
will spend 3 minutes (.05 hour) to document and maintain written
approval that the utility representative has approved the blasting
operation.
Total Burden Hours: 25.
Costs (purchase of capital/startup costs): None.
The Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR)
for the proposed standard to OMB for review and approval of the
collection of information contained in proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iv).
Other proposed paragraphs reviewed for paperwork are not new; or,
are not collection of information requirements for the following
reasons: (1) The paperwork requirements are contained in existing
standards; (2) the requirements are exempt from the definition of a
collection of information, since the Government provides specific
language for signs/labels for public disclosure (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2));
(3) the requirements are usual and customary business activities that
impose no new burden hours or costs on employers (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2));
and, (4) the training provisions are performance-oriented, and are not
considered collections of information.
Proposed paragraphs containing paperwork requirements that are in
existing standards include: Sec. 1910.109(c)(5) Labels, Sec.
1910.109(d)(3) Storage of ammonium nitrate in bags and containers, and
Sec. 1910.109(e)(2) Vehicles. Proposed paragraphs that provide
specific language for labels and/or signs include: again, Sec.
1910.109(c)(5) Labels, Sec. 1910.109(d)(4) Storage of bulk ammonium
nitrate, and Sec. 1910.109(f)(1) and (3) Use of explosives for
blasting. Proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.109(e)(1) Transportation of
explosives, contains a notification requirement that is the same as the
notification requirement in paragraph 7.1.7 of the 2001 edition of NFPA
495 (Ex. 2-5). Since employers routinely follow the NFPA Codes, the
notification is a usual and customary business practice. Finally,
paragraphs Sec. 1910.109(f)(3) Use of explosives for blasting, Sec.
1910.109(g)(3) Bulk delivery vehicles, and Sec. 1910.109(j) Training,
contain training requirements that are not counted since these
provisions provide the employer a "performance-oriented" approach.
Interested parties who wish to comment on OSHA's ICR seeking OMB
approval for paragraph (f)(1)(iv), or OSHA's determination that
proposed paragraphs in the preceding paragraph impose no new burden
hours or costs on employers must send their written comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer
for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 726 Jackson
Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency also encourages commenters
to submit their comments on this paperwork determination to OSHA along
with their other comments on the proposed rule. To read or download the
complete ICR, go to http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665) or http://dockets.osha.gov (Docket No. S-031). You also may
obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR at http://www.reginfo.gov.
Click on "Inventory of Approved Information Collections, Collections
Under Review, Recently Approved/ Expired," then scroll under "Currently
Under Review" to Department of Labor (DOL) to view all of the DOL's ICRs,
including those ICRs submitted for proposed rulemakings. To make inquiries,
or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
VII. Federalism
OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the
Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), which requires that agencies, to the extent possible,
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior
to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and
take such actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and
the presence of a problem of national scope. Executive Order 13132
provides for preemption of State law only if there is a clear
congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to
be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) expresses
Congress's intent to preempt State laws where OSHA has promulgated
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State
can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal standards only if it
submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of
such standards and their enforcement (State-Plan State). 29 U.S.C. 667.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State-Plan
States must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are free to
develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for safety
and health standards.
This proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132. As Congress
has expressed a clear intent for OSHA standards to preempt State job
safety and health rules in areas addressed by OSHA standards in States
without OSHA-approved State Plans, this proposed rule would limit State
policy options in the same manner as all OSHA standards. In States with
OSHA-approved State Plans, this action does not significantly limit
State policy options.
State comments are invited on this proposal and will be fully
considered prior to promulgation of a final rule.
VIII. State Plan Standards
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 26 States and U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must
revise their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or
show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g., because an existing
State standard covering this area is already "at least as effective"
as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). The State
standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must
be applicable to both the private and public (State and local
government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months
of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment to a standard which does not
impose additional or more stringent requirements than an existing
standard, States are not required to revise their standards, although
OSHA may encourage them to do so. The 26 States and territories with
OSHA-approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut
(plan covers only State and local government employees), Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, New Jersey (plan covers only State and local
government employees), New York (plan covers only State and local
government employees), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands (plan
covers only State and local government employees), Washington, and
Wyoming.
IX. Unfunded Mandates
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order
12875 and determined that this rule does not include any Federal
mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of
more than $100 million in any year.
X. Public Participation
Submission of Comments and Access to Docket
OSHA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule.
Throughout this document OSHA has invited comment on specific issues
and requested information and data about practices at your
establishment and in your industry. OSHA will carefully review and
evaluate these comments, information and data, as well as all other
information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed.
You may submit comments in response to this document (1)
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0032). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional
materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must
submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your
comments.
Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket
No. OSHA-2007-0032). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth.
Exhibits referenced in this Federal Register document are posted in
both Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov)
and OSHA Docket No. S-031 (which is available at http://dockets.osha.gov.
Although all submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice and exhibits referenced in this notice are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov and http://dockets.osha.gov indexes, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download from those Web pages. All submissions and exhibits,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). Information
on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web page to submit comments and
access dockets is available at the Web page's User Tips link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
through the Web pages and for assistance in using the internet to
locate docket submissions.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and
other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at
.
Requests for Informal Public Hearings
Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, members of
the public may request an informal hearing by following the
instructions under the section of this Federal Register notice titled
ADDRESSES. These requests must include the objections to the proposal
that warrant a hearing. The hearing requests must:
Include the name and address of the party requesting the
hearing;
Ensure that the request is sent or postmarked no later
than June 12, 2007;
Number each objection separately;
Specify with particularity the grounds for each objection;
Include a detailed summary of the evidence supporting each
objection which the requester plans to offer at the requested hearing.
XI. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Blasting agents, Explosives, Health, Occupational safety and
health, Pyrotechnics, Safety.
XII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the authority of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. Pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008), and 29 CFR part 1911, it is hereby amending subpart H of 29 CFR
part 1910 as set forth below.
Signed at Washington, DC on April 4, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
XIII. Amendments to Standards
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend
Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Subpart A--General
1. The authority citation for Subpart A of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2002 (67 FR
65008), as applicable.
Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5
U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB Circular
A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).
2. Section 1910.6 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(k)(9), (q)(17), and (q)(25).
Subpart H--Hazardous Materials
3. The authority citation for subpart H of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017),
or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119,
1910.120, and 1910.122 through 126 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.
Section 1910.119 also issued under section 304, Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 Note.
Section 1910.120 also issued under section 126, Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655
Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.
4. Section 1910.109 of subpart H is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.109 Explosives.
(a) Scope. (1) This section applies to the manufacture, storage,
sale, transportation, handling, and use of explosives, including
blasting agents and pyrotechnics.
(2) The employer also shall comply with Sec. 1910.119, Process
Safety Management, for operations involving the manufacture of
explosives as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. However,
blasting agents as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, including
water gels, slurries, and emulsions classified as Division 1.5
explosives, are not covered by Sec. 1910.119.
(3) This section does not apply to:
(i) Construction work covered by 29 CFR part 1926;
(ii) The use of explosives in medicines and medicinal agents in the
forms prescribed by the official United States Pharmacopeia and the
National Formulary (USP-NF); or
(iii) The sale and use of consumer and public display pyrotechnics.
(b) Definitions applicable to this section. Blast area means the
area of a blast within the influence of flying rock or other debris,
gases, and concussion.
Blast site means the area where explosives are handled during the
preparation and loading of drill holes, including 50 feet (15.2 m) in
all directions from the perimeter formed by loaded holes. The 50 foot
distance requirement applies in all directions along the full depth of
the drill hole.
Blaster-in-charge means the person in charge of the handling,
loading, and firing of explosives within the blast site and blast area.
Blasting agent means any material or mixture intended for blasting
that is classified as a Division 1.5 explosive.
Bulk delivery vehicle means any vehicle that transports blasting
agents or their ingredients in bulk form including bulk delivery
vehicles that are capable of mixing the ingredients to form blasting
agents and loading the blasting agents directly into drill holes.
Competent person means an employee designated by the employer who,
by way of training and experience, is knowledgeable of applicable
standards, is capable of identifying workplace hazards relating to
explosives, and has authority to take appropriate corrective actions to
control such hazards.
Detonator means any device containing an initiating or primary
explosive that is used for initiating detonation in another explosive
material. A detonator may not contain more than .35 ounces (10 g) of
total explosives by weight, excluding ignition or delay charges. The
term includes, but is not limited to, electric blasting caps of
instantaneous and delay types, electronic detonators, blasting caps for
use with safety fuse, detonating cord delay connectors, and nonelectric
instantaneous and delay blasting caps which use detonating cord, shock
tube, or any other replacement for electric leg wires.
Electric detonator means a detonator designed for, and capable of,
initiation by means of an electric current.
Electronic detonator means a detonator that utilizes stored
electrical energy as a means of powering an electronic timing delay
element/module and that provides initiation energy for firing the base
charge.
Emulsion means an explosive that either contains substantial
amounts of oxidizer dissolved in water droplets that are surrounded by
an immiscible fuel, or contains droplets of an immiscible fuel that are
surrounded by water containing substantial amounts of oxidizer.
Emulsions, depending on their properties, are classified as Division
1.1 explosives or Division 1.5 blasting agents.
Explosive means any device, or liquid or solid chemical compound or
mixture, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by
explosion.
(i) The term "explosive" includes all material included as a
Class 1 explosive by DOT in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term
includes, but is not limited to, dynamite, black powder, pellet
powders, detonators, blasting agents, initiating explosives, blasting
caps, safety fuse, fuse lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau
detonant fuse, instantaneous fuse, igniter cord, igniters,
pyrotechnics, special industrial explosive materials, small arms
ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless propellant,
cartridges for propellant-actuated power devices, and cartridges for
industrial guns.
(ii) Explosives are classified using the same classification system
as used by DOT (see 49 CFR 173.50). Explosives are classified into the
following divisions:
(A) Division 1.1 consists of explosives that have a mass explosion
hazard. A mass explosion is one which affects almost the entire load
instantaneously.
(B) Division 1.2 consists of explosives that have a projection
hazard but not a mass explosion hazard.
(C) Division 1.3 consists of explosives that have a fire hazard and
either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both, but
not a mass explosion hazard.
(D) Division 1.4 consists of explosives that present a minor
explosion hazard. The explosive effects are largely confined to the
package and no projection of fragments of appreciable size or range is
to be expected. An external fire must not cause virtually instantaneous
explosion of almost the entire contents of the package.
(E) Division 1.5 consists of very insensitive explosives. This
division is comprised of substances which have a mass explosion hazard
but are so insensitive that there is very little probability of
initiation or of transition from burning to detonation under normal
conditions. (The probability of transition from burning to detonation
is greater when large quantities are involved.)
(F) Division 1.6 consists of extremely insensitive articles which
do not have a mass explosive hazard. This division is comprised of
articles which contain only extremely insensitive detonating substances
and which demonstrate a negligible probability of accidental initiation
or propagation. (The risk from articles of Division 1.6 is limited to
the explosion of a single article.)
Classification Conversion Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OSHA/DOT classification Prior OSHA classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 1.1.............................. Class A explosives.
Division 1.2.............................. Class A or Class B
explosives.
Division 1.3.............................. Class B explosives.
Division 1.4.............................. Class C explosives.
Division 1.5.............................. Blasting agents.
Division 1.6.............................. No applicable hazard class.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot work means any work involving electric or gas welding, cutting,
brazing, or similar flame or spark-producing operations.
Magazine means any building or structure, other than an explosives
manufacturing building, used for the storage of explosives.
Propellant-actuated power device means any tool or special
mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a
propellant or which releases and directs work through a smokeless
propellant charge.
Pyrotechnics means combustible or explosive compositions or
manufactured articles designed and prepared for the purpose of
producing audible or visible effects by combustion, deflagration, or
detonation. They are commonly referred to as fireworks.
Semiconductive hose means a hose with an electrical resistance high
enough to limit flow of stray electric currents to safe levels, yet not
so high as to prevent drainage of static electric charges to ground; or
a hose of not more than two megohms resistance over its entire length
and of not less than 1,000 ohms per foot.
Small arms ammunition means any shotgun, rifle, pistol, or revolver
cartridge, and cartridges for propellant-actuated power devices and
industrial guns. Military-type ammunition containing explosive-bursting
charges, or incendiary, tracer, spotting, or pyrotechnic projectiles
are excluded from this definition.
Small arms ammunition primers mean small percussion-sensitive
explosive charges, encased in a cap, and used to ignite propellant
powder.
Smokeless propellants mean solid propellants, commonly called
smokeless powders, used in small arms ammunition, cannons, rockets, and
propellant-actuated power devices.
Special industrial explosive materials mean shaped materials and
sheet forms and various other extrusions, pellets, and packages of high
explosives, which include dynamite, trinitrotoluene (TNT),
pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-s-
triazine (RDX), and other similar compounds used for high-energy-rate
forming, expanding, and shaping in metal fabrication, and for
dismemberment and quick reduction of scrap metal.
Vehicle means any motor vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or
semi-trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used in the
transportation of explosives.
Water gels or slurries mean explosives that contain substantial
proportions of water, oxidizers, and fuel with a cross-linking agent, a
gelling, or a thickening agent added. Water gels or slurries, depending
on their properties, are classified as Division 1.1 explosives or
Division 1.5 blasting agents.
(c) General provisions. (1) Explosives hazards. The employer shall
ensure the following:
(i) Explosives are manufactured, stored, sold, transported,
handled, and used in a safe manner;
(ii) Only persons trained in accordance with paragraph (j) of this
section handle or use explosives;
(iii) Blasting equipment or explosives that are unsafe due to
deterioration, damage, or other causes are not used, and are disposed
of by an experienced person as soon as possible in accordance with
manufacturers' recommendations;
(iv) Proper housekeeping is performed to prevent hazardous
accumulations of explosives, oxidizers, or fuels and other sensitizers
in, on, or in close proximity to facilities and equipment containing
explosives;
(v) All equipment is maintained in good working condition;
(vi) A program of systematic maintenance of equipment is conducted
on a regular schedule;
(vii) No person is allowed to enter facilities containing
explosives, or to transport, handle, or use explosives while under the
influence of intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or other drugs that may
cause the person to act in an unsafe manner in the workplace;
(viii) No person enters a facility containing explosives or a blast
site unless authorized to do so by the employer; and
(ix) No flammable cleaning solvents are permitted in facilities
containing explosives except where authorized by the employer who
determines that their presence does not endanger the safety of
employees.
(2) Electrical hazards. (i) The employer shall ensure that the
primary electrical supply to a facility containing explosives can be
disconnected at a safe remote location away from the facility.
(ii) During the approach and progress of an electrical storm, the
employer shall ensure that:
(A) All explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are
suspended; and
(B) Employees located in or near facilities containing explosives
or in blast sites are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location.
(3) Fire and Explosion Prevention. (i) The employer shall ensure
that explosives are handled in a manner that minimizes their spillage
and jarring, the generation of explosive dust, and the creation of
friction in or in close proximity to explosives.
(ii) When a fire is in imminent danger of contact with explosives,
the employer shall ensure that:
(A) Employees do not fight the fire;
(B) All employees are immediately removed to a safe area; and
(C) The fire area is guarded against intruders.
(iii) The employer shall ensure that:
(A) No open flames, matches, or spark-producing devices are located
within 50 feet (15.2 m) of explosives or facilities containing
explosives;
(B) Smoking is only permitted in authorized smoking areas located a
safe distance from explosives;
(C) No person carries firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in
facilities containing explosives or blast sites except as required for
work duties; and
(D) Vehicles are not refueled within 50 feet (15.25 m) of a
facility containing explosives or a blast site.
(4) Maintenance and Repairs. The employer shall ensure the
following:
(i) Before maintenance or repairs are started in or in close
proximity to any facility containing explosives or in a blast site, the
immediate area surrounding the maintenance or repair work is free of
explosives, including residues and dusts containing explosives; and
(ii) The fire prevention and protection requirements in Sec.
1910.252(a) and paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section are implemented
prior to beginning hot work operations.
(5) Labels. (i) The employer shall communicate hazards associated
with explosives in accordance with the requirements of the Hazard
Communication Standard, Sec. 1910.1200. Where labeling of explosives
is required under Sec. 1910.1200, Globally Harmonized System (GHS)
labels shall be used as shown in the figure below for different
divisions of explosives. The labels shall have a signal word, a hazard
statement, and either a division designation or a pictogram as shown in
the figure below. The pictogram shall be black on a white background
with a red frame sufficiently large to be clearly visible.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP07.000
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
(ii) The employer shall ensure that DOT markings, placards, and
labels are retained in accordance with Sec. 1910.1201.
(d) Storage of ammonium nitrate. (1) Applicability. (i) Paragraph
(d) of this section applies to the storage of ammonium nitrate in
quantities of 1,000 pounds (454 kg) or more to be used in the
manufacture of explosives.
(ii) Paragraph (d) of this section does not apply to ammonium
nitrate that can be classified as an explosive as defined in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(2) Storage buildings. (i) Buildings or structures constructed and
used to store ammonium nitrate since before August 27, 1971, and that
do not meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, shall
be deemed to be acceptable for continued storage use when such use does
not endanger the safety of employees.
(ii) The employer shall ensure the following:
(A) Ammonium nitrate is stored in a manner that minimizes as far as
possible fire and explosion hazards, including exposure to toxic vapors
from burning or decomposing ammonium nitrate;
(B) Storage buildings are not over one story in height above ground
level;
(C) Storage buildings do not have basements unless the basements
are open on at least one side;
(D) Storage buildings are adequately ventilated to prevent unsafe
heat or fume accumulations;
(E) Storage building walls are constructed to meet a four-hour fire
resistant rating whenever they face and are within 50 feet (15.2 m) of
a combustible building, forest, pile of combustible materials, or other
similar hazards. In lieu of a four-hour fire resistant wall, other
equivalent means of exposure protection may be used;
(F) At a minimum, the roof coverings afford a light degree of fire
protection to the roof deck, do not slip from position, and do not
present a flying brand hazard;
(G) Storage buildings do not exceed a height of 40 feet unless
constructed of noncombustible material or adequate facilities for
fighting a roof fire are available;
(H) All flooring is of noncombustible material;
(I) All flooring is protected against impregnation by ammonium
nitrate;
(J) Flooring has no drains or piping into which any molten ammonium
nitrate could flow and be confined in the event of fire;
(K) Storage buildings are dry and free from water seepage;
(L) Unauthorized persons do not enter an ammonium nitrate storage
area;
(M) Ammonium nitrate and storage buildings containing ammonium
nitrate are located at a safe distance from readily combustible fuels;
and
(N) In areas where lightning storms are prevalent, lightning
protection systems are provided. Lightning protection systems meeting
the safety requirements found in Appendix K of National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 780-2004, Standard for the Installation of Lightning
Protection Systems, or other equally protective criteria would meet the
requirements of this provision.
(3) Storage of ammonium nitrate in bags and containers. The
employer shall ensure that:
(i) Bags and containers used for ammonium nitrate storage are:
(A) Constructed in accordance with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter
I); and
(B) Labeled in accordance with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter I)
or Sec. 1910.1200, as applicable;
(ii) Bags and containers of ammonium nitrate are not placed into
storage when the temperature of the ammonium nitrate exceeds 130 F[deg]
(54 [deg]C);
(iii) Bags and containers of ammonium nitrate are not stored within
30 inches (76.2 cm) of storage building walls and partitions;
(iv) Stacks of bags or containers of ammonium nitrate do not exceed
20 feet (6.1 m) in height or 20 feet (6.1 m) in width;
(v) Stacks of bags or containers of ammonium nitrate are limited to
50 feet (15.2 m) in length unless located in a building of non-
combustible construction or protected by an automatic sprinkler system;
(vi) Bags or containers of ammonium nitrate are not stacked within
36 inches (91.4 cm) of the roof or overhead supporting structure of the
storage building;
(vii) Aisles at least 3-feet (91.4 cm) wide are provided to
separate stacks of bags or containers of ammonium nitrate; and
(viii) At least one main aisle separating stacks of bags or
containers of ammonium nitrate in the storage area is at least 4-feet
(1.2 m) wide.
(4) Storage of bulk ammonium nitrate. The employer shall ensure the
following:
(i) Bulk storage bins used to store ammonium nitrate are clean and
free of materials which may contaminate ammonium nitrate;
(ii) Galvanized iron, copper, lead, and zinc are not used in the
construction of ammonium nitrate bulk storage bins, unless suitably
protected against the corrosive and reactive properties of ammonium
nitrate, to avoid contamination of the ammonium nitrate by these
metals;
(iii) Aluminum and wooden bulk storage bins used to store ammonium
nitrate are protected against ammonium nitrate impregnation;
(iv) The partitions dividing stored ammonium nitrate from other
products are constructed to prevent contamination of the ammonium
nitrate with these other products;
(v) Ammonium nitrate bulk storage bins or piles are clearly
identified by signs reading "Ammonium Nitrate" with letters at least
2 inches (5.1 cm) high;
(vi) Ammonium nitrate in piles or in bulk storage bins is loosened
or moved periodically to minimize caking;
(vii) Explosives are not used to break up or loosen caked ammonium
nitrate;
(viii) The top of an ammonium nitrate pile is no closer than 36
inches (91.4 cm) below the roof or supporting structure of the storage
building; and
(ix) Bulk ammonium nitrate is not placed into storage when its
temperature exceeds 130 [deg]F (54 [deg]C);
(5) Contaminants. The employer shall ensure that:
(i) Ammonium nitrate is kept in a separate building or is separated
from flammable, combustible, corrosive, explosive, or contaminating
materials or processes by a wall with at least a 1-hour fire-resistant
rating. This separation wall shall extend at least to the underside of
the roof. In lieu of separation walls, ammonium nitrate may be
separated from these materials or processes by a space of at least 30
feet (9.1 m) with means to prevent mixing, such as sills or curbs;
(ii) Flammable liquids are not placed or stored in buildings used
for the storage of ammonium nitrate except in accordance with Sec.
1910.106, and paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section;
(iii) No liquefied petroleum gas is placed or stored in the storage
building except in accordance with Sec. 1910.110; and
(iv) Sulfur and finely divided metals are not stored in the same
building with ammonium nitrate.
(6) Fire protection. The employer shall ensure the following:
(i) Buildings in which greater than 2500 tons (2268 metric tons) of
ammonium nitrate is stored are equipped with an automatic sprinkler
system that complies with Sec. 1910.159; and
(ii) All fire protection equipment and systems in ammonium nitrate
storage buildings meet the requirements of subpart L of this part.
(e) Transportation of explosives. (1) General provisions. The
employer shall ensure that:
(i) No employee smokes, carries matches or any other flame-
producing device, or carries any firearms or cartridges (except
firearms and cartridges required to be carried by guards) while in,
or within 25 feet (7.63m) of, a vehicle containing explosives;
(ii) No employee drives, loads, or unloads a vehicle containing
explosives in an unsafe manner;
(iii) Explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another
without informing local fire and police departments. A competent person
shall supervise the transfer of explosives. In the event of breakdown
or collision, the local fire and police departments shall be promptly
notified;
(iv) No repair work, other than emergency repairs that do not
present a source of ignition, is performed on a vehicle containing
explosives;
(v) Detonators are not transported with other explosives on the
same vehicle, unless packaged, segregated, and transported in
accordance with the regulations of DOT (49 CFR 177.835(g));
(vi) When explosives are transported on a railway car utilizing
private railroad tracks, the car, its contents, and method of loading
are in accordance with the regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter I);
(vii) Explosives at a railway facility, truck terminal, pier,
harbor facility, or airport terminal, whether for delivery to a
consignee or forwarded to some other destination, are kept in a manner
that minimizes risk to employees; and
(viii) The driver or other employee attending the vehicle is
knowledgeable about the nature and hazards of the explosives contained
in the vehicle and the procedures for handling emergency situations.
(2) Vehicles. (i) The employer shall ensure that any vehicle used
to carry explosives:
(A) Is able to safely carry the designated load;
(B) Has close-fitting floors; and
(C) Has wood or other non-sparking materials covering any exposed
spark-producing metal on the inside of the vehicle body.
(ii) The employer shall ensure that any vehicle containing
explosives or oxidizers located at a private facility or blast site has
exterior markings or placards designed and displayed in accordance with
the regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter I).
(iii) For all open-bodied vehicles containing explosives, the
employer shall ensure that:
(A) The explosives are protected with a flameproof and moisture-
proof tarpaulin or other effective means of protection from fire,
sparks, and moisture; and
(B) The explosives are not loaded above the sides of the vehicle.
(iv) For each vehicle used to carry explosives, the employer shall
ensure that:
(A) The vehicle is equipped with at least two fire extinguishers
filled and in good working order, each having a rating of at least 4-
A:40-B:C;
(B) One of the fire extinguishers on the vehicle is located in
close proximity to the driver's seat; and
(C) The fire extinguishers on the vehicle are listed or approved by
a nationally recognized testing laboratory (refer to Sec.
1910.155(c)(3)(iv)(A) for definition of listed fire extinguishers, and
Sec. 1910.7 for nationally recognized testing laboratories).
(v) For each vehicle used for carrying explosives, the employer
shall ensure the following:
(A) Fire extinguishers are used, maintained, and tested in
accordance with Sec. 1910.157;
(B) Fire extinguishers are used only to fight non-explosive fires;
i.e., tire fires, battery fires, engine fires, cab fires, etc., where
the fire has not yet reached the explosive cargo; and
(C) The explosive cargo cannot shift, spill, or become damaged
during transit.
(vi) The employer shall ensure that any vehicle containing
explosives is maintained in good and safe working condition for
transporting explosives.
(3) Operation of vehicles. (i) The employer shall ensure that:
(A) Only employees designated by the employer ride in or drive a
vehicle containing explosives;
(B) Vehicles containing explosives are only driven by and are in
the charge of a driver who is familiar with relevant traffic
regulations and the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section, and
possesses a valid driver's license appropriate for the vehicle;
(C) Except under emergency conditions, no vehicle containing
explosives is parked before reaching its destination on any public
street adjacent to or in close proximity to any place of employment;
(D) No spark-producing metal, spark-producing tools, oils, matches,
firearms, electric storage batteries, flammable substances, acids,
oxidizers, or corrosive compounds are carried in the body of any
vehicle containing explosives, unless the carrying of such dangerous
articles and the explosives complies with DOT regulations (49 CFR
chapter I); and
(E) Deliveries of explosives are received only by employees
authorized by the employer to receive such explosives.
(ii) The employer shall ensure that every vehicle containing
Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosives at the employer's worksite or
facility is attended at all times by the driver or other responsible
person authorized by the employer.
(A) For the purposes of this section, the vehicle shall be
considered "attended" only when the driver or other responsible
person authorized by the employer is physically on or in the vehicle,
or can see and reach the vehicle quickly and without any interference.
"Attended" also means that the driver or other employee is awake,
alert, and not engaged in other duties or activities which may divert
attention from the vehicle; and
(B) The driver or other employee attending the vehicle shall be
authorized, capable, and have the necessary means to drive the assigned
vehicle safely.
(f) Use of explosives for blasting. (1) General provisions. (i) The
employer shall ensure that the blaster-in-charge:
(A) Is trained, knowledgeable, and experienced in the storage,
transportation, handling, and use of explosives;
(B) Is knowledgeable about relevant federal, state, and local
regulations pertaining to explosives;
(C) Is trained, knowledgeable, and experienced in the use of each
type of blasting method being used;
(D) Is in control of the blasting operations, blast site, and blast
area; and
(E) Evaluates each blast site and blast area for which he or she is
responsible and implements the measures that will ensure the safety of
employees and the security of those areas.
(ii) The employer shall ensure the following: (A) Explosives are
used in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations;
(B) All employees involved in blasting operations work only under
the supervision of the blaster-in-charge;
(C) Only Type 3 magazines or the original containers are used to
transport detonators and other explosives from magazines to the blast
site;
(D) Employees are protected from flying fragments produced during
blasting operations by removing employees to a safe distance, using
protective barricades, or utilizing other equivalent means to protect
employees;
(E) Adequate precautions are taken to prevent sources of induced
current, such as lightning, adjacent power lines, dust storms, snow
storms, radar, radio transmitters, cellular phones, or other sources of
extraneous electricity, from causing the accidental ignition of
electric blasting caps; and
(F) Signs are posted warning against the use of mobile radio
transmitters or cellular phones on all roads within 350
feet (106.7 m) of the blasting operations. The signs shall read:
WARNING
EXPLOSIVES HAZARD
DO NOT USE MOBILE RADIO TRANSMITTERS OR CELLULAR PHONES
(iii) (A) The employer shall ensure that all surface blasting
operations are conducted only during daylight hours; except as provided
in (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(B) Unusual blasting operations associated with industrial
processes, such as blasting slag pockets and dustcatchers, that are
performed indoors are permitted at any time of day when a minimum
illumination density of 20 lumens per square foot is provided within a
5-foot (1.5 m) radius of locations where explosives are being
assembled, placed, or attached to detonators.
(iv) Whenever blasting operations are being conducted in close
proximity to gas, electric, water, telephone, or other similar
utilities, the employer shall not commence such blasting operations
until receiving and documenting approval from the appropriate utility
representatives.
(2) Explosives at blast sites. The employer shall ensure that:
(i) Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which
previously contained explosives are disposed of in a safe manner, or
reused in accordance with DOT regulations (49 CFR chapter I);
(ii) Only non-sparking tools shall be used to open containers of
explosives;
(iii) No explosives are abandoned; and
(iv) All unused explosives are immediately returned to appropriate
magazines.
(3) Loading of explosives in drill holes. The employer shall ensure
that:
(i) All drill holes are of sufficient size to permit the free
insertion of explosives;
(ii) Tamping of explosives is performed:
(A) Only with non-sparking tools; and
(B) In a manner that does not degrade or otherwise damage the
explosives or cause the explosives to detonate;
(iii) Pneumatic loading of explosives into drill holes primed with
electric detonators or other static electricity-sensitive initiation
systems conforms to the following requirements:
(A) Equipment is bonded and grounded;
(B) A semi-conductive hose is used; and
(C) The blaster-in-charge evaluates all systems to assure that they
will safely dissipate static electricity under potential field
conditions;
(iv) No employee drills into explosives or any portion of a hole
that at any time contained explosives;
(v) After loading for a blast is completed but before detonation,
all remaining explosives, including detonators, are immediately
returned to the appropriate magazines;
(vi) During the time that drill holes are loaded or are being
loaded, only personnel who are engaged in drilling or loading
operations, or are otherwise authorized by the employer, may enter the
blast site; and
(vii) After the loaded drill holes are connected but prior to them
being connected to a source of initiation:
(A) The blast area shall be barricaded and posted, guarded, or
both. If barricaded and posted, the posted sign shall read "DANGER--
EXPLOSIVES HAZARD--DO NOT ENTER" or equivalent language; and
(B) All personnel shall be removed from the blast area.
(4) Initiation of explosive charges. The employer shall ensure
that:
(i) Where sources of extraneous electricity in excess of fifty (50)
milliamperes (flowing through a one-ohm resistor) are present, electric
detonators are used only if sufficient measures are taken to ensure
that the detonators will not inadvertently activate;
(ii) The blaster-in-charge supervises selection and installation of
the initiation system;
(iii) The initiation system is used in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations;
(iv) The blaster-in-charge checks the initiation system visually
after blast hookup;
(v) The blaster-in-charge tests the blast layout for continuity as
recommended by the manufacturer;
(vi) Where deemed necessary by the blaster-in-charge, a double
trunk line or closed-loop hookup is used in the initiation system;
(vii) When a safety fuse is used, only a crimper approved by the
detonator manufacturer or the safety fuse manufacturer is used to
connect the detonator to the safety fuse;
(viii) All primers are assembled at least 50 feet (15.25 m) away
from any magazine;
(ix) Primers are made up only as needed for immediate use;
(x) When an explosives cartridge that does not have a detonator
well is used as a primer, a hole large enough to accommodate the
detonator is made in the cartridge with a spark-resistant powder punch
approved either by the explosives manufacturer or by the blaster-in-
charge;
(xi) When testing electric circuits that lead to loaded drill
holes, only blasting galvanometers or other instruments specifically
designed for this purpose are used; and
(xii) In electrical firing:
(A) Only the person making the lead line connections or the
blaster-in-charge shall fire the shot; and
(B) Blasting lead lines shall remain shunted (shorted) and not
connected to the blasting machine or other source of current until the
charge is to be fired.
(5) Warning signal. The employer shall ensure that, before a blast
is fired, all persons and vehicles are at a safe distance outside the
blast area or under sufficient cover, and that an adequate warning
signal is given.
(6) Post blast procedures. After a blast, the employer shall ensure
that:
(i) No other person enters the blast area until it is inspected by
the blaster-in-charge and found to be free of misfires and other safety
hazards and the blaster-in-charge has given an all-clear signal; and
(ii) The blaster-in-charge does not enter the blast site until
sufficient time has passed to allow smoke and fumes to dissipate and
dust to settle.
(7) Misfires. The employer shall ensure that:
(i) Whenever there is a misfire while using blasting cap and fuse
or electronic detonators, all employees remain outside the blast area
for at least 1 hour. If electric detonators or nonelectric detonators
(other than cap and fuse) are used and a misfire occurs, this waiting
period may be reduced to 30 minutes;
(ii) Whenever explosives remain in a misfired hole, a new primer is
inserted and the hole is reblasted. Where reblasting presents a hazard,
the remaining explosives shall be washed out with water, or, where the
misfire is underwater, blown out with air;
(iii) Misfires are handled under the direction of the blaster-in-
charge and all initiation paths are carefully traced and a thorough
search made for unexploded charges;
(iv) Explosives recovered from blasting misfires are placed in a
magazine that is used only for the storage of misfired explosives and
are then disposed of as soon as possible in accordance with the
manufacturers' recommendations; and
(v) Detonators recovered from blasting misfires are not reused and
are disposed of as soon as possible in accordance with the
manufacturers' recommendations.
(g) Blasting agents, water gels, slurries, and emulsions. (1)
General provisions.
(i) Unless otherwise set forth in this paragraph (g):
(A) Blasting agents, water gels, slurries, and emulsions shall be
stored, transported, handled, and used in the same manner as other
explosives; and
(B) Water gels, slurries, and emulsions classified as Division 1.1
or Division 1.5 shall meet the same requirements as blasting agents in
paragraph (g). However, the manufacture of water gels, slurries, and
emulsions classified as Division 1.1 explosives also shall comply with
Sec. 1910.119 Process Safety Management.
(ii) The employer shall ensure the following:
(A) Caked oxidizers, either in bags or in bulk, are not loosened by
blasting;
(B) Equipment used for mixing and packaging of blasting agents is
constructed of materials compatible with the blasting agent
composition;
(C) Spills or leaks which may contaminate combustible materials are
cleaned up immediately;
(D) Ingredients are not kept with incompatible materials; and
(E) Water gels, slurries, and emulsions, or their liquid
ingredients maintain their liquid or water content.
(iii) If a Type 5 magazine is used as a bulk storage container for
blasting agents, the employer shall ensure that any electrically driven
conveyors used for loading or unloading the magazine are designed to
minimize damage from corrosion.
(2) Fixed location mixing. (i) In a building used for the mixing of
blasting agents, the employer shall ensure the following:
(A) The building is of noncombustible construction or constructed
of sheet metal on wood studs;
(B) Floors are constructed of concrete or other minimally absorbent
material and have no drains or piping into which molten materials could
flow and be confined during a fire;
(C) The building is ventilated to prevent unsafe heat or fume
accumulations;
(D) Heating, if supplied for the building, is provided in a manner
that does not create a fire or ignition hazard;
(E) All direct sources of building heat shall be provided
exclusively from units located outside the building;
(F) Heating units which do not depend on combustion processes may
be used in the building if they do not create a fire or ignition
hazard;
(G) All internal-combustion engines are located outside the
building, or are safely ventilated and isolated by a fire barrier wall
with at least a 1-hour rating;
(H) The exhaust systems on all internal-combustion engines are
located so that no sparks or other ignition sources create a hazard to
any materials in or in close proximity to the building;
(I) All electric equipment located in the mixing room is in
accordance with the requirements in subpart S of this part for Class
II, Division 2 locations;
(J) All fuel-oil storage facilities are separated from the mixing
building and located in such a manner that in case of tank rupture, the
oil will drain away from the building and other facilities containing
explosives or employees. Alternatively, tanks may be diked in a manner
that will contain the entire tank contents in case of rupture; and
(K) The land surrounding the building is kept clear of all
combustible materials for a distance of at least 25 feet (7.63 m).
(ii) Equipment used for mixing blasting agents. The employer shall
ensure that:
(A) The mixing equipment minimizes the possibility of frictional
heating, compaction, and confinement;
(B) All surfaces of the mixing equipment are accessible for
cleaning;
(C) All bearings and drive assemblies are mounted outside the mixer
and protected against dust accumulation;
(D) Suitable means are provided to prevent the flow of fuel oil to
the mixer in case of fire. In gravity-flow systems, an automatic
spring-loaded shutoff valve with a fusible link shall be installed;
(E) Both equipment and handling procedures prevent the inadvertent
introduction of foreign objects or materials into the mixing process;
and
(F) Mixers, pumps, valves, and related equipment are regularly and
periodically flushed, cleaned, dismantled, and inspected.
(iii) Blasting agent compositions. The employer shall ensure that:
(A) Oxidizers of small particle size, such as crushed ammonium
nitrate prills or fines, which may be more sensitive than coarser
products, are handled with additional care compared to the coarser
products;
(B) No hydrocarbon liquid fuel with a flashpoint lower than 125
[deg]F (51.7 [deg]C) is used except at ambient air temperatures below
45 [deg]F (7.2 [deg]C) where fuel oils with flashpoints as low as 100
[deg]F (37.8 [deg]C) are used;
(C) Crude oil and crankcase oil are not used as a blasting agent
ingredient;
(D) Metal powders such as aluminum are kept dry and stored in
moisture-resistant or weather tight containers;
(E) Solid fuels are used in a manner that minimizes dust explosion
hazards as far as possible; and
(F) Peroxides and chlorates are not used.
(iv) Mixing operations. The employer shall ensure the following:
(A) Empty ammonium nitrate bags are disposed of daily in a safe
manner;
(B) No hot work or open flames are permitted in or around the
mixing building unless the equipment and surrounding area have been
completely washed down and all oxidizers and fuels removed;
(C) Before welding or repairing hollow shafts of mixing equipment,
all blasting agents and their ingredients are removed from the outside
and inside of the shaft, and the shaft is vented through an opening at
least one-half inch in diameter; and
(D) No explosives other than blasting agents are located inside or
within 50 feet (15.25 m) of any building used for the mixing of
blasting agents.
(3) Bulk delivery vehicles. (i) Applicability. The provisions of
paragraph (e) of this section also apply to bulk delivery vehicles
transporting blasting agents or their ingredients in bulk form.
(ii) Bulk delivery vehicle construction. The employer shall ensure
that the following requirements are met for bulk delivery vehicles:
(A) The vehicle body is constructed of noncombustible materials;
(B) Vehicles have enclosed bodies;
(C) All moving parts of the mixing system are designed to prevent
heat buildup;
(D) Shafts or axles which contact the blasting agent or blasting
agent ingredients have outboard bearings with a 1-inch (2.54 cm)
minimum clearance between the bearings and the outside of the product
container;
(E) When electrical power is supplied by a self-contained generator
located on the vehicle, the generator is located where it will not
create a fire or ignition hazard;
(F) The vehicle is able to safely carry the designated load;
(G) The vehicle's processing equipment, including its mixing and
conveying equipment, is compatible with the relative sensitivity of the
materials being handled;
(H) All hollow shafts of the vehicle's processing equipment are
constructed to permit venting through an opening at least one-half inch
in diameter; and
(I) Means are provided on the vehicle to prevent the flow of fuel
to the mixer in case of fire. In gravity flow systems, an automatic
spring-loaded shut-off valve with fusible link shall be installed;
(iii) Bulk delivery vehicle operation. The employer shall ensure
the following requirements are met for bulk delivery vehicle operation:
(A) The driver of the vehicle is trained and capable of safely
operating the vehicle;
(B) The operator, whether the driver or another employee, is
trained and capable of safely operating the mixing, conveying, and
related equipment on the vehicle;
(C) Smoking, matches, open flames, spark-producing devices, and
firearms (except firearms required to be carried by guards) are not
permitted within 25 feet (7.63 m) of the vehicle;
(D) The transfer of blasting agents or their ingredients from one
bulk delivery vehicle to another vehicle is performed at a safe
distance away from any blast site where drill holes are loaded or in
the process of being loaded;
(E) While the bulk delivery vehicle is in a blast site, caution is
exercised to avoid driving the vehicle over hoses or dragging hoses
over firing lines, detonating cords, detonator wires or tubes, or
explosives;
(F) To ensure the safe movement of the bulk delivery vehicle in the
blast site, the driver has the assistance of a second person to guide
the vehicle's movements;
(G) Blasting agent ingredients are not mixed while the bulk
delivery vehicle is in transit.
(H) A positive action parking brake, which will set the wheel
brakes on at least one axle, is used during bulk delivery operations;
(I) At least two wheels are chocked whenever necessary to prevent
vehicle movement; and
(J) The vehicle is maintained in good mechanical condition.
(iv) Pneumatic loading from bulk delivery vehicles. When drill
holes, primed with electric detonators or other static-electricity
sensitive systems, are pneumatically loaded from bulk delivery
vehicles, the employer shall ensure that:
(A) The blaster-in-charge evaluates all systems to determine that
they will adequately dissipate static electricity under potential field
conditions;
(B) A grounding device is used to prevent the accumulation of
static electricity; and
(C) A discharge hose is used that has a resistance range that will
prevent conducting stray currents, but that is conductive enough to
bleed off static buildup.
(v) Repairs to bulk delivery vehicles. The employer shall ensure
that:
(A) No hot work is performed or open flames used on or around any
part of the bulk delivery vehicle until all blasting agents and their
ingredients have been removed and the vehicle has been completely
washed down; and
(B) Before welding or repairing hollow shafts of equipment, all
blasting agents and their ingredients are removed from the outside and
inside of the shaft and the shaft is vented through an opening at least
one-half inch in diameter.
(h) Small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless
propellants.
(1) Applicability. This paragraph does not apply to temporary in-
process storage during the manufacture of small arms ammunition, small
arms primers, or smokeless propellants.
(2) Small arms ammunition. The employer shall ensure that small
arms ammunition is separated from flammable liquids, flammable solids,
and oxidizing materials, by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-hour
rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet (7.6 m).
(3) Smokeless propellants. (i) The employer shall ensure that:
(A) All smokeless propellants are stored in shipping containers in
accordance with DOT regulations at 49 CFR part 173 for smokeless
propellants; and
(B) No more than 20 pounds (9.1 kg) of smokeless propellants, in
containers not to exceed 1 pound (.45 kg), are displayed in a
commercial establishment.
(ii) For commercial stocks of smokeless propellants, the employer
shall ensure the following:
(A) Quantities over 20 pounds (9.1 kg) and not exceeding 100 pounds
(45.4 kg) are stored in portable wooden boxes having walls at least 1-
inch (2.54 cm) thick;
(B) Quantities over 100 pounds (45.4 kg) and not exceeding 750
pounds (340.5 kg) are stored in non-portable cabinets having walls at
least 1-inch (2.54 cm) thick, and:
(1) Not more than 400 pounds (181.6 kg) shall be permitted to be
stored in any one non-portable cabinet; and
(2) The non-portable cabinets shall be separated by a distance of
at least 25 feet (7.6 m) or by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-
hour rating; and
(C) Quantities over 750 pounds (340.5 kg) and not exceeding 5,000
pounds (2270 kg) are not stored in a building unless the following
requirements are met:
(1) The warehouse or storage room shall not be accessible to
unauthorized personnel;
(2) Smokeless propellants shall be stored in non-portable storage
cabinets having wood walls at least 1-inch (2.54 cm) thick and having
shelves with no more than 3 feet (0.91 m) of separation between
shelves;
(3) No more than 400 pounds (181.6 kg) shall be stored in any one
cabinet;
(4) Cabinets shall be located against the walls of the storage room
or warehouse;
(5) Cabinets shall be separated by at least 40 feet (12.2 m). The
separation between cabinets shall be permitted to be reduced to 20 feet
(6.1) where barricades twice the height of the cabinets are attached to
the wall midway between each cabinet. The barricades shall extend at
least 10 feet (3.0 m) outward and be constructed of either \1/4\-inch
(6.35 mm) boiler plate, 2-inch (5.1 cm) thick wood, brick, or concrete
block;
(6) Smokeless propellant shall be separated from flammable liquids,
flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a distance of at least 25
feet (7.6 m) or by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-hour rating;
and
(7) The building shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Sec. 1910.159.
(iii) The employer shall ensure that smokeless propellants
exceeding 5,000 pounds (2270 kg) or not stored in accordance with
paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section are stored in a Type 4 magazine in
accordance with ATF regulations for the storage of explosives (27 CFR
555.203 and 555.210).
(4) Small arms ammunition primers. (i) The employer shall ensure
that:
(A) Small arms ammunition primers are stored in shipping containers
in accordance with the applicable regulations of DOT (49 CFR chapter
I);
(B) Small arms ammunition primers are separated from flammable
liquids, flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier
wall with at least a 1-hour rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet
(7.6 m); and
(C) No more than 10,000 small arms primers are displayed in a
commercial establishment.
(ii) For commercial stocks of small arms primers, the employer
shall ensure the following:
(A) When quantities of 750,000 or less are stored in a building:
(1) Not more than 100,000 shall be stored in any one pile; and
(2) Piles shall be at least 15 feet (4.6 m) apart; and
(B) When quantities in excess of 750,000 are stored in a building:
(1) The warehouse or storage room shall not be accessible to
unauthorized personnel;
(2) Primers shall be stored in cabinets with no more than 200,000
primers stored in any one cabinet;
(3) Shelves in cabinets shall have a vertical separation of at
least 2 feet (0.6 m);
(4) Cabinets shall be located against the walls of the warehouse or
storage room;
(5) Cabinets shall be separated by at least 40 feet (12.2 m). The
separation between cabinets shall be permitted to be reduced to 20 feet
(6.1 m) where barricades twice the height of the cabinets are firmly
attached to the wall, midway between each cabinet. The barricades shall
extend at least 10 feet (3.0 m) outward and shall be constructed of
either \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) boiler plate, 2-inch (5t.2cm) thick wood,
brick, or concrete block;
(6) Primers shall be separated from materials classified by the
U.S. Department of Transportation as flammable liquids, flammable
solids, and oxidizing materials by a distance of at least 25 feet (7.6
m) or by a fire barrier wall with at least a 1-hour rating; and
(7) The building shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Sec. 1910.159.
(iii) The employer shall ensure that small arms primers that are
not stored in accordance with paragraph (h)(4)(ii) are stored in a Type
4 magazine in accordance with ATF regulations for the storage of
explosives (27 CFR 555.203 and 555.210).
(i) Pyrotechnics. [Reserved]
(j) Training. (1) The employer shall provide information and
training on safe work practices for each employee prior to or at the
time of the employee's initial job assignment involving the
manufacture, storage, sale, transportation, handling, or use of
explosives, including repair or maintenance of related facilities and
equipment.
(2) The employer shall ensure that the training provided under
paragraph (j) of this section is specific to each employee's unique
work duties.
(3) In addition to the information and training requirements of
Sec. 1910.1200, Hazard Communication, the employer shall inform each
employee of the requirements in Sec. 1910.109 that apply to the
employee's work duties and make a copy of the Sec. 1910.109 standard
available to the employee.
(4) Employers shall train employees in all safety practices,
including applicable emergency procedures, that relate to their work
and are necessary for their safety.
(5) Whenever there are workplace changes, such as the institution
of new or modified procedures or products, employees shall be retrained
as necessary to ensure that each employee has the requisite proficiency
in the relevant safe work practices.
(6) The employer shall conduct retraining whenever the employer has
reason to believe that there are inadequacies in the employee's
knowledge of or performance of safe work practices.
(7) The employer shall provide information and training in a manner
that is understandable to each employee.
(8) The employer shall determine that each employee has
demonstrated proficiency in all aspects of the training required by
paragraph (j) of this section.
(9) An employer is deemed to be in compliance with an employee
training provision in paragraph (j) of this section if an identical
training provision has been satisfied for that employee under Sec.
1910.1200, Hazard Communication or DOT training requirements (49 CFR
part 172).
5. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1910.119 is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.119 Process safety management of highly hazardous
chemicals.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The manufacture of explosives as defined in Sec.
1910.109(b), but does not apply to the manufacture of blasting agents,
as defined in Sec. 1910.109(b), including water gels, slurries, and
emulsions classified as Division 1.5 explosives by the U.S. Department
of Transportation (49 CFR Chapter I).
* * * * *
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
6. The authority citation for subpart Z of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable, and 29 CFR part
1911.
All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, except those substances that have
exposure limits in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The
latter were issued under section (6)(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C.
655(a)).
Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911, except for the inorganic
arsenic, benzene, and cotton dust listings, and chromium (VI)
listings.
Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704) and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under
29 U.S.C. 653. Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430,
114 Stat. 1901.
7. The definition of "explosive" in paragraph (c) of Sec.
1910.1200 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1200 Hazard communication.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Explosive means any device, or liquid or solid chemical compound or
mixture, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by
explosion.
(i) The term "explosive" includes all material included as a
Class 1 explosive by DOT in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term
includes, but is not limited to, dynamite, black powder, pellet
powders, detonators, blasting agents, initiating explosives, blasting
caps, safety fuse, fuse lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau
detonant fuse, instantaneous fuse, igniter cord, igniters,
pyrotechnics, special industrial explosive materials, small arms
ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless propellant,
cartridges for propellant-actuated power devices, and cartridges for
industrial guns.
(ii) Explosives are classified using the same classification system
as used by DOT (see 49 CFR Sec. 173.50). Explosives are classified
into the following divisions:
(A) Division 1.1 consists of explosives that have a mass explosion
hazard. A mass explosion is one which affects almost the entire load
instantaneously.
(B) Division 1.2 consists of explosives that have a projection
hazard but not a mass explosion hazard.
(C) Division 1.3 consists of explosives that have a fire hazard and
either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both, but
not a mass explosion hazard.
(D) Division 1.4 consists of explosives that present a minor
explosion hazard. The explosive effects are largely confined to the
package and no projection of fragments of appreciable size or range is
to be expected. An external fire must not cause virtually instantaneous
explosion of almost the entire contents of the package.
(E) Division 1.5 consists of very insensitive explosives. This
division is comprised of substances which have a mass explosion hazard
but are so insensitive that there is very little probability of
initiation or of transition from burning to detonation under normal
conditions. (The probability of transition from burning to detonation
is greater when large quantities are involved.)
(F) Division 1.6 consists of extremely insensitive articles which
do not have a mass explosive hazard. This division is comprised of articles
which contain only extremely insensitive detonating substances and which
demonstrate a negligible probability of accidental initiation or
propagation. (The risk from articles of Division 1.6 is limited to the
explosion of a single article.)
Classification Conversion Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OSHA/DOT classification Prior OSHA classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 1.1.............................. Class A explosives.
Division 1.2.............................. Class A or Class B
explosives.
Division 1.3.............................. Class B explosives.
Division 1.4.............................. Class C explosives.
Division 1.5.............................. Blasting agents.
Division 1.6.............................. No applicable hazard class.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-6607 Filed 4-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
|
Federal Registers - Table of Contents
Back to Top