Regulatory Review of OSHA'S Grain Handling Facilities Standard [29 CFR 1910.272]

U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
www.osha.gov	[skip navigational links]	Search	Advanced Search \| A-Z Index

Laws and Regulations > Lookback Reviews > Regulatory Review of 29 CFR 1910.272

Printing Instructions

REGULATORY REVIEW OF OSHA'S
Grain Handling Facilities Standard
[29 CFR 1910.272]

Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and
Section 5 of Executive Order 12866

Office of Program Evaluation
Occupational Safety and Health Administration

February 2003

REGULATORY REVIEW OF OSHA'S
GRAIN HANDLING FACILITIES STANDARD
[29 CFR 1910.272]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since OSHA promulgated its Grain Handling Facilities Standard in 1987, working in the grain industry is safer. Comments submitted to the Docket for this Section 610 Review from the Food and Allied Service Trades (FAST), AFL-CIO, stated "... since the promulgation of OSHA's standard in December 1987, explosions were reduced by 42 %, the number of injured was reduced by 60 % and the number killed was down by 70%" (Ex. 3-56). In its statement for the OSHA public meeting on this Section 610 Review, the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) described "an unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities" since 1980 (Ex. 4). Furthermore, OSHA's own risk analysis has shown that, since the promulgation of the final Grain Handling Facilities Standard, the average number of annual grain suffocations has decreased by 44 percent.

Therefore, there are fewer fire and explosion-related fatalities occurring in the grain handling industry and fewer suffocations in grain, since the promulgation of OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard. This Standard focuses on requirements for controlling grain fires, grain dust explosions, and hazards associated with entry into bins, silos, and tanks.

This regulatory review of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard meets the requirements of both Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order (EO) 12866. Under Section 610, this review examines whether the standard should be continued without change, rescinded, or amended to minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities considering the continued need for the rule, comments and complaints received, complexity of the rule, whether the rule is duplicative and changes since its issuance. Under Section 5 of EO 12866, this review examines whether the standard has become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances, and whether the standard is compatible with other regulations or is duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate. This review also ensures that the regulation is consistent with the priorities and the principles set forth in EO 12866 within applicable law, and examines whether the effectiveness of the standard can be improved. In order to assist OSHA in this review, OSHA requested public comments on these issues and held two public meetings (63 FR 34139, June 23, 1998).

The Section 610 Review of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard indicates that:

There is a continued need for the rule. Workers continue to be at risk of death and injury from grain explosions, fires, and engulfments. Catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970's focused national attention on hazards associated with the grain handling industry. This increased attention by both government and industrial entities led to safety improvements in the industry; OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard maintains these improvements. In fact, analyses performed for this Section 610 Review indicate a 70% decrease in fatalities from grain explosions and a 44% decrease in suffocations, since the Grain Handling Facilities Standard was promulgated. On average, the Grain Handling Facilities Standard has prevented 5 deaths from explosions and 4.4 deaths from suffocations, each year. Many public commenters viewed the Grain Handling Facilities Standard as both needed and effective; no commenter indicated that the standard should be rescinded.
The OSHA Grain Handling Facilities Standard has not had a negative economic impact on the grain handling industries, generally, or on small businesses in those industries. Data available to OSHA indicate that the small businesses in the grain handling industries remained economically competitive after OSHA issued the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. The number of small business firms and employment in small business firms, generally, did not decline, and the percentage of firms that were small businesses increased.
The rule is not unduly complex. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires OSHA to evaluate public comments and complaints received on a final rule. To meet this requirement, OSHA published a Federal Register notice, requesting comments on the Grain Handling Standard (63 FR 34139, June 23, 1998), and OSHA held two public meetings, soliciting comments. No public comment indicated that the standard was unduly or unreasonably complex.
The Grain Handling Facilities Standard is not in regulatory conflict with other regulations. Some public comments suggested amendments be made to simplify the relationship between the Grain Handling Facilities Standard requirements for de-energizing equipment and for entry into confined spaces and the generic standards in those areas. Comments also suggested several other clarifications. OSHA is responding to those comments as discussed below under conclusions and recommendations.
Technological improvements improved worker safety. Modernization of machinery, as well as improvement in the design of elevators and essential equipment, reduced worker risk. Comments made by industry representatives for both the Docket and the public meetings described the technological improvements made by the grain industry.

An Executive Order 12866 review of the Standard indicates that:

The Grain Handling Facilities Standard remains both justified and necessary.
The Grain Handling Facilities Standard is compatible with other OSHA standards and is not inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate.
The Grain Handling Facilities Standard is compatible with the President's priorities and effective in achieving its mission.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on analyses performed for this 610 Review, OSHA concludes that the Grain Handling Facilities Standard should continue without major change. The Standard should not be rescinded because it is necessary to carry out statutory objectives to protect worker safety, and changes are not needed to minimize significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Fatalities from grain explosions and suffocations have decreased greatly since promulgation of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. Furthermore, testimony at the public meetings and written comments submitted to the OSHA Docket, as well as economic analysis, indicate no negative economic impact resulting from the Standard.

OSHA's analyses of accident reports on grain suffocations indicate that when the Grain Handling Facilities Standard is adhered to, grain suffocations do not occur. Therefore, additional outreach on the dangers of suffocation in grain and education on the entry requirements in the Grain Handling Facilities Standard would help to further decrease fatalities from suffocation in grain. As resources allow, OSHA should increase training and assistance in the dangers of grain suffocations, and notify representatives of the grain industry on the availability of such training. Emphasis will be made to compliance officers on these dangers and the importance of compliance with the Standard's entry requirements. Additionally, as resources allow, an OSHA booklet on the dangers of grain suffocation and the importance of compliance with the Standard could be developed.

Public comments for this Section 610 Review indicated some confusion among compliance officers over whether the 1/8 inch dust level requirement applies to grain mills (which it does not). Therefore, the OSHA training course for compliance officers should reinforce the fact that the 1/8 inch dust level requirement applies to grain elevators, but not to grain mills.

In response to comments, OSHA will be making or considering several amendments to clarify or simplify the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. These include incorporating a cross-reference to certain interpretations applicable to marine terminals and considering, as part of the Standards Improvement Project III, expanding the confined space requirements of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard to all areas of grain mills instead of having some areas covered by the more complex Confined Spaces Standard. As part of OSHA's project to update standards based on national consensus organization standards, OSHA will consider updating references to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements incorporated in the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. OSHA will also review existing interpretations and issue appropriate interpretations, as necessary, which will be posted on the OSHA website.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
OSHA wishes to thank those on its staff who helped with this project, especially John Martonik, Joanna Dizikes Friedrich, Chuck Gordon, Mary Leonard, and Abdiaziz Yassin.

REGULATORY REVIEW OF OSHA'S
GRAIN HANDLING FACILITIES STANDARD
[29 CFR 1910.272]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE REVIEW

CHAPTER I

NEED FOR A GRAIN HANDLING STANDARD
Explosions
Suffocations

CHAPTER II

REGULATORY HISTORY AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARD
Scope of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard
Applicability of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard
Requirements of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard

CHAPTER III

PROFILE OF THE GRAIN HANDLING INDUSTRY
Grain Elevators
Grain Mills

CHAPTER IV

IMPACTS OF OSHA'S GRAIN HANDLING FACILITIES
STANDARD ON EXPLOSIONS, FATALITIES AND INJURIES
Explosions
New Technologies
Risk Analysis and Calculations for Explosions
Suffocations
Database for Suffocations
Risk Analysis for Suffocations
Risk Calculations for Suffocations
Compliance, Enforcement, and Violation History
Number of Inspections Conducted
Enforcement Review

CHAPTER V

IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
Overall Economic Impacts
Impacts on Small Businesses

CHAPTER VI

SECTION 610 REVIEW OF THE STANDARD
Continued Need for the Rule
Complexity of the Rule
Extent to which the Rule Overlaps, Duplicates, or Conflicts
with other Rules
Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, and Other Factors
Public Comments

CHAPTER VII

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866 REVIEW OF THE STANDARD
Whether the Grain Handling Facilities Standard Has Become
Unjustified or Unnecessary as a Result of Changed Circumstances
Whether the Grain Handling Facilities Standard is Compatible
with Other Regulations and Not Duplicative or Inappropriately Burdensome
In the Aggregate
Whether the Grain Handling Facilities Standard is Consistent With the
President's Priorities
Whether the Effectiveness of the Grain Handling Standard Can Be
Improved

CHAPTER VIII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The Standard is Justified and Necessary. There is Continuing
Need For It
The Standard is Not Overly Complex or
Inappropriately Burdensome
The Standard is Compatible With Other Regulations
Technology in the Grain Handling Industry has Advanced,
and the Economic Condition of the Industry is Strong
Conclusions and Recommendations

TABLES

Table 1: Number of Grain Dust-Related Explosions, Deaths, and Injuries, 1958-1998
Table 2: Number and Capacity of Off-Farm Storage Facilities
Table 3: Total Grain Production
Table 4: Reported Grain Suffocations and their Recorded SIC Codes
Table 5: Number of Monthly Suffocations
Table 6: Number of Inspections per Year in SIC's with Grain Handling Facilities
Table 7: Sales and Profits for Selected Major Grain Elevator and Grain Mill SICs
Table 8: Number of Firms in Major Grain Elevator and Grain Mill SICs by Number of Employees
Table 9: Total Employment in Major Grain Elevator SICs by Number of Employees
Table 10: Total Employment in Major Grain Mill SICs by Number of Employees
Table 11: Percentage of Small Businesses in Major Grain Handling Firms
Table 12: Firms and Establishments in Major Grain Handling SICs by Number of Employees
Table 13: Number of Employees in Firms within Major Grain Elevator SICs
Table 14: Number of Employees in Major Grain Mill SICs

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appendix I: Regulatory Flexibility Act - Section 610
Appendix II: Introduction and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Appendix III: NIOSH Recommendations to Prevent Grain Suffocations
Appendix IV: The Grain-Handling Process and Grain Elevators

Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and
Section 5 of Executive Order 12866

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE REVIEW

In 1998, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began a review of its Grain Handling Facilities Standard under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act¹ and Section 5 of Executive Order (EO) 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review.²

The purpose of a review under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act:

"(S)hall be to determine whether such rule should be continued without change, or should be rescinded, or amended consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes to minimize any significant impact of the rules on a substantial number of small entities."
"The Agency shall consider the following factors:
(1) The continued need for the rule;
(2) The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
(3) The complexity of the rule;
(4) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and
(5) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule."

The review requirements of Section 5 of EO 12866 require agencies:

"To reduce the regulatory burden on the American people, their families, their communities, their State, local, and tribal governments, and their industries; to determine whether regulations promulgated by the [Agency] have become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances; to confirm that regulations are both compatible with each other and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate; to ensure that all regulations are consistent with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in this Executive Order, within applicable law; and to otherwise improve the effectiveness of existing regulations."

To carry out these reviews, on June 23, 1998, OSHA asked the public for comments on all issues raised by these provisions (63 FR 34139). Specifically, OSHA requested comments on: the impacts of the rule on small businesses; the benefits and utility of the rule in its current form and, if amended, in its amended form; the continued need for the rule; the complexity of the rule; and whether, and to what extent, the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, and local government rules. OSHA also asked for comments on new developments in technology, economic conditions, or other factors affecting the ability of covered firms to comply with the Grain Handling Standard. Furthermore, OSHA asked for comments on alternatives to the rule that would minimize significant impacts on small businesses, while achieving the objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

OSHA accepted written comments from June 23, 1998 through August 31, 1998.³ OSHA also conducted two public meetings, on July 28 and July 31, 1998, in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC, respectively.⁴ All documents and comments received relevant to the review, transcripts of the oral hearings, and documents discussed in this report are available at the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-117C, Room N-3625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone (202) 693-2350.

CHAPTER I

NEED FOR A GRAIN HANDLING STANDARD

There are numerous, potentially deadly, safety and health hazards associated with grain handling operations. OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard focuses on requirements for the control of fires, grain dust explosions, and hazards associated with entry into bins, silos, and tanks, as well as hazards associated with the release of hazardous energy from equipment. As asserted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the preamble for the Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule, the danger of fires and explosions is "ever present in the industry because of the physical characteristics of organic dust that is generated while handling and processing grain" (52 FR 49595). Furthermore, according to NIOSH, suffocation under silage or grain was the leading cause of grain-handling fatalities for the period 1985 through 1989.⁵ Appendix III summarizes NIOSH recommendations for preventing suffocations under silage or grain.

Explosions

Grain dust explosions are often severe, involving loss of life and substantial property damage. In the last 40 years, there were approximately 600 explosions in grain handling facilities across the United States, which killed 250 people and injured more than 1000. As recently as June 8, 1998, the nation's deadliest explosion in 15 years at the DeBruce Grain Elevator in Wichita, Kansas, left seven people dead and ten others injured.⁶ (See Table 1.)

National attention focused on the destructiveness of explosions in grain handling facilities when a series of explosions occurred in late 1977 and early 1978; in December 1977, alone, 59 deaths and 49 injuries resulted from five grain elevator explosions (52 FR 49592). These catastrophic grain explosions of the late 1970's led to increased national awareness of the hazards associated with the grain handling industry. Actions and research that began in the late 1970's, both inside and outside government, led to the promulgation of OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard. This Standard requires various safety improvements.

The importance of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard in safeguarding the safety improvements made to the grain industry following the catastrophic explosions of the late 1970's was cited in public comments made during this 610 review. A commenter observed that all fire and explosion statistics " ... show that since attention was attracted to the problem that the grain industry has experienced fewer losses" (Ex. 3-56B). The commenter further noted that in the grain industry (as in the underground coal mine industry) " ... high profile accidents led to stringent regulations supported by education" (Ex. 3-56B).

There are four conditions necessary for a grain dust explosion to occur: fuel (e.g., grain dust); heat (ignition source); confinement; and oxygen. Remove any one of these four conditions and an explosion is averted. Dust, whether it is in layers or suspended in air, is a constant fuel source and must be minimized to avoid explosions. According to Dr. Robert Schoeff, Professor Emeritus at Kansas State University, "Every time grain is handled from harvest to end use, there is breakage and scouring that creates dust."⁷ Ignition sources⁸ must be reduced, and the dangers of confined spaces eased with explosion venting.⁹

A grain dust explosion incident may include a series of explosions consisting of a primary explosion, followed by multiple secondary explosions. As explained in the preamble to the Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule, the primary explosion in a grain handling facility may result in shaking loose an additional amount of dust accumulations into the air, causing one or more secondary (or subsequent) explosions (52 FR 49592). Secondary grain dust explosions are by far the most devastating. A study by the National Academy of Sciences in the early 1980s found that secondary explosions accounted for 96% of the property loss, 85% of the fatalities, and 91% of the injuries associated with grain elevator explosions.¹⁰

Suffocations

After entering a grain storage structure, there are three different ways in which a worker may become caught or trapped in the grain: the collapse of bridged grain; the collapse of a vertical wall of grain, and entrapment in flowing grain.¹¹ Moving or flowing grain is involved in all three hazard situations.¹² Workers in grain storage structures may also be asphyxiated because of gases given off from spoiling grain.¹³

Stored grain which is moldy, high in moisture content, or in poor condition may stick together, forming a crust on the surface of the grain. This crust may give the false impression that the surface of the grain is safe to stand on; when, in fact, the worker can not tell if there is grain under the crust or not.¹⁴ If grain below this surface crust is removed from the bin, a hollow cavity will be formed under the crusted grain on the surface.¹⁵ This surface grain crust (also called a "bridge") over the hollow cavity is often not strong enough to support the weight of a person. If a worker steps on this crust in order to break it up (known as "walking down the grain") the worker can fall through the crust into the hollow cavity below and become buried in the grain.

Additionally, grain in poor condition can stick or cake in a large mass against bin walls. This mass of grain can collapse or "avalanche" down on workers who try to break it loose from below.¹⁶ This avalanche of grain can result in crushing or suffocation.

Flowing grain is a very dangerous situation. This hazard is present when grain is flowing downward: in a bin; out of a rail car, truck; and in an auger-pit.¹⁷ Flowing grain creates a strong suction action, and a person caught in flowing grain will be unable to swim, climb, or walk against the grain to get out of the bin; the person will be pulled down and can suffocate under the grain.¹⁸

Gases given off from spoiling grain can also result in suffocation. For example, carbon dioxide may collect above the surface of spoiled grain. If a worker falls through crusted grain and carbon dioxide has gathered under the crust, the worker may not be completely buried by the grain but can still die from lack of oxygen.¹⁹ Also, gases may result in a worker passing out and falling into the grain, thus becoming engulfed by grain and suffocating.

CHAPTER II

REGULATORY HISTORY AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARD

In 1978, discussions began at OSHA and Congressional hearings were held, regarding the development of a standard to protect grain handling workers. These discussions and hearings were prompted by the disastrous explosions that occurred in late 1977 and early 1978. Both grain workers and federal inspectors were killed in these explosions, and these explosions focused national attention on the hazards associated with grain handling facilities. The following represent some of the efforts prompted by the devastating series of grain elevator explosions that occurred in the late 1970's:

In 1978, at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted an international symposium on grain elevator explosions. Following the symposium, OSHA requested NAS to establish a Panel on Causes and Prevention of Grain Elevator Explosions. This Panel investigated 14 different grain elevator explosions between 1979 and 1981. NAS published a series of documents on its findings.²⁰
The deaths of 13 USDA inspectors who were killed in grain elevator explosions in 1977, prompted USDA to set up a special task force on grain elevator safety and explosions. The task force issued a report in 1979 which, among other information, included numerous recommendations for the prevention of grain explosions.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) issued guidelines in 1978 to assist its members in improving fire and explosion safety. NGFA also held several industry conferences resulting in publications on elevator design, elevator dust control, and retrofitting and constructing grain elevators. In 1978, NGFA also established the Fire and Explosion Research Council to continue research.
In 1979, a General Accounting Office (GAO) study on grain dust explosions recommended that the U.S. Department of Labor evaluate the adequacy of the coverage for grain elevators in the OSHA general industry standards (29 CFR Part 1910).²¹

The following timeline presents important developments leading to the promulgation of OSHA's Grain Handling Standard in 1987 and its revision in 1996:

On February 15, 1980, OSHA published a request for comments and information and notice of public meetings, concerning the safety and health hazards in grain handling facilities (45 FR 10732).
In 1981, the Food & Allied Service Trades (FAST)²² Department, AFL-CIO, petitioned OSHA to promulgate a rule regulating the build-up of explosive dust in grain elevators.²³
OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on grain handling facilities (49 FR 996) in the Federal Register on January 6, 1984.
On April 17, 1984, OSHA published a notice announcing: the scheduling of public hearings to receive testimony on all aspects of the proposed grain handling facilities standard; the availability of a supplemental economic analysis; and a request for written comments on certain issues of special concern to OSHA (49 FR 15093).
The OSHA Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule was published December 31, 1987 (52 FR 49592) with an effective date of March 30, 1988.
On January 24, 1989, a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) v. OSHA, 866 F.2d 717, generally upheld the Standard but stayed the 1/8-inch action level until the Agency reconsidered the costs. The Court remanded the standard for reconsideration of two issues: (1) the economic feasibility of the 1/8-inch action level for grain dust; and (2) possible alternatives to applying the action level only to priority areas, including, at a minimum, the alternative of expanding the action level to the entire facility.
On December 4, 1989 (54 FR 49971), OSHA published "a supplemental statement of reasons" in the Federal Register, concluding that the 1/8-inch action level for priority areas was economically feasible. On April 25, 1990, 903 F.2d 308, the Fifth Circuit accepted these conclusions and lifted the stay as of August 1, 1990.
In response to the Court's January 1989 remand, OSHA issued an ANPR on December 10, 1990 (55 FR 50722), requesting comments on the possibility of expanding the Standard beyond priority areas. Interested parties were given until March 11, 1991 to submit comments.
On April 1, 1994 (59 FR 15339), OSHA announced, based on the expanded record, that it would not extend the 1/8-inch action level provision beyond priority areas.
On March 8, 1996, OSHA amended its Grain Handling Standard to clarify requirements intended to provide protection for employees who enter flat storage structures (61 FR 9577).²⁴ This amendment assured protection against engulfment, mechanical, and other hazards regardless of the point at which the employee enters the storage structure. The revised standard also requires that all mechanical, electrical, and pneumatic equipment that presents a danger to employees inside grain storage structures must be de-energized and disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise stopped by other equally effective means or methods. OSHA also adds a definition of "flat storage structure" to clarify its original intent as to the scope of the entry provisions of the standard.²⁵ The amendment to the final rule became effective April 8, 1996.
On November 8, 1996, OSHA issued a compliance directive, CPL 2-1.4C, "Inspection of Grain Handling Facilities," that contains inspection guidance for compliance officers. CPL 2-1.4 contains information on: the scope and application of the standard; emergency action plans; training; hot work permits; entry into grain storage structures; entry into flat storage structures; contractors; general housekeeping, priority housekeeping, and blowdown operations; grain and product spills; grate openings; filter collectors; preventive maintenance; emergency escape; continuous-flow bulk raw grain dryers; inside bucket elevators, belts, bearings, belt alignment, visual inspection of legs; and dust concentrations.

Scope of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard

The scope of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard contains requirements for the control of grain dust fires and explosions, and certain other safety hazards associated with grain handling facilities. It applies in addition to all other relevant provisions of Part 1910 (or Part 1917 at marine terminals).

Applicability of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard

The Grain Handling Facilities Standard applies to the following types of grain handling facilities: grain elevators, feed mills, flour mills, rice mills, dust pelletizing plants, dry corn mills, soybean flaking operations, and the dry grinding operations of soycake.

Requirements of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard

The following are requirements of the OSHA Grain Handling Facilities Final Standard:

Definitions.

"Choked leg" means a condition of material buildup in the bucket elevator that results in the stoppage of material flow and bucket movement. A bucket elevator is not considered choked that has the up-leg partially or fully loaded and has the boot and discharge cleared allowing bucket movement.
"Flat storage structure" means a grain storage building or structure that will not empty completely by gravity, has an unrestricted ground level opening for entry, and must be entered to reclaim the residual grain using powered equipment or manual means.
"Fugitive grain dust" means combustible dust particles, emitted from the stock handling system, of such size as will pass through a U.S. Standard 40 mesh sieve (425 microns or less).
"Grain elevator" means a facility engaged in the receipt, handling, storage, and shipment of bulk raw agricultural commodities such as corn, wheat, oats, barley, sunflower seeds, and soybeans.
"Hot work" means work involving electric or gas welding, cutting, brazing, or similar flame producing operations.
"Inside bucket elevator" means a bucket elevator that has the boot and more than 20 percent of the total leg height (above grade or ground level) inside the grain elevator structure. Bucket elevators with leg casings that are inside (and pass through the roofs) of rail or truck dump sheds with the remainder of the leg outside of the grain elevator structure, are not considered inside bucket elevators.
"Jogging" means repeated starting and stopping of drive motors in an attempt to clear choked legs.
"Lagging" means a covering on drive pulleys used to increase the coefficient of friction between the pulley and the belt.
"Permit" means the written certification by the employer authorizing employees to perform identified work operations subject to specified precautions.

Emergency Action Plan

The employer shall develop and implement an emergency action plan meeting the requirements contained in 1910.38(a), which requires written plans for facilities with 11 or more employees and permits oral instructions for sites with 10 or fewer employees.

Training

The employer shall provide training to employees at least annually and when changes in job assignment will expose them to new hazards. Current employees and new employees prior to starting work, shall be trained in at least the following:

General safety precautions associated with the facility, including recognition and preventive measures for the hazards related to dust accumulations and common ignition sources such as smoking; and,
Specific procedures and safety practices applicable to their job tasks including but not limited to, cleaning procedures for grinding equipment, clearing procedures for choked legs, housekeeping procedures, hot work procedures, preventive maintenance procedures and lock-out/tag-out procedures.

Employees assigned special tasks, such as bin entry and handling of flammable or toxic substances, shall be provided training to perform these tasks safely. Training for an employee who enters grain storage structures includes training about engulfment and mechanical hazards and how to avoid them.

Hot Work Permit

The employer shall issue a permit for all hot work, with the following exceptions:

Where the employer or the employer's representative (who would otherwise authorize the permit) is present while the hot work is being performed;
In welding shops authorized by the employer; and
In hot work areas authorized by the employer which are located outside of the grain handling structure.

The permit shall certify that the requirements contained in 1910.252(a) have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations. The permit shall be kept on file until completion of the hot work operations.

Entry Into Grain Storage Structures

The following requirements apply when employees are entering bins, silos, tanks, or other grain storage structures (except flat storage structures):

The employer shall issue a permit for entering bins, silos, or tanks unless the employer or the employer's representative (who would otherwise authorize the permit) is present during the entire operation. The permit shall certify that the precautions contained in this paragraph (1910.272(g)) have been implemented prior to employees entering bins, silos or tanks. The permit shall be kept on file until completion of the entry operations.
All mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment which presents a danger to employees inside grain storage structures shall be deenergized and shall be disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise prevented from operating by other equally effective means or methods.
The atmosphere within a bin, silo, or tank shall be tested for the presence of combustible gases, vapors, and toxic agents when the employer has reason to believe they may be present. Additionally, the atmosphere within a bin, silo, or tank shall be tested for oxygen content unless there is continuous natural air movement or continuous forced-air ventilation before and during the period employees are inside. If the oxygen level is less than 19.5%, or if combustible gas or vapor is detected in excess of 10% of the lower flammable limit, or if toxic agents are present in excess of the ceiling values listed in Subpart Z of 29 CFR Part 1910, or if toxic agents are present in concentrations that will cause health effects which prevent employees from effecting self-rescue or communication to obtain assistance, the following provisions apply:
- Ventilation shall be provided until the unsafe condition or conditions are eliminated, and the ventilation shall be continued as long as there is a possibility of recurrence of the unsafe condition while the bin, silo, or tank is occupied by employees.
- If toxicity or oxygen deficiency cannot be eliminated by ventilation, employees entering the bin, silo, or tank shall wear an appropriate respirator. Respirator use shall be in accordance with the requirements of 1910.134.
"Walking down grain" and similar practices where an employee walks on grain to make it flow within or out from a grain storage structure, or where an employee is on moving grain, are prohibited.
Whenever an employee enters a grain storage structure from a level at or above the level of the stored grain or grain products, or whenever an employee walks or stands on or in stored grain of a depth which poses an engulfment hazard, the employer shall equip the employee with a body harness with lifeline, or a boatswain's chair that meets the requirements of 1910 subpart D. The lifeline shall be so positioned, and of sufficient length, to prevent the employee from sinking further than waist-deep in the grain. Exception: Where the employer can demonstrate that the protection required by this paragraph is not feasible or creates a greater hazard, the employer shall provide an alternative means of protection which is demonstrated to prevent the employee from sinking further than waist-deep in the grain. When the employee is standing or walking on a surface which the employer demonstrates is free from engulfment hazards, the lifeline or alternative means may be disconnected or removed.
An observer, equipped to provide assistance, shall be stationed outside the bin, silo, or tank being entered by an employee. Communications (visual, voice, or signal line) shall be maintained between the observer and employee entering the bin, silo, or tank..
The employer shall provide equipment for rescue operations which is specifically suited for the bin, silo, or tank being entered.
The employee acting as observer shall be trained in rescue procedures, including notification methods for obtaining additional assistance.
Employees shall not enter bins, silos, or tanks underneath a bridging condition, or where a buildup of grain products on the sides could fall and bury them.

Entry Into Flat Storage Structures

The following requirements apply when employees are entering flat storage structures:

Each employee who walks or stands on or in stored grain, where the depth of the grain poses an engulfment hazard, shall be equipped with a lifeline or alternative means which the employer demonstrates will prevent the employee from sinking further than waist-deep into the grain. When the employee is standing or walking on a surface which the employer demonstrates is free from engulfment hazards, the lifeline or alternative means may be disconnected or removed.
Whenever an employee walks or stands on or in stored grain or grain products of a depth which poses an engulfment hazard, all equipment which presents a danger to that employee (such as an auger or other grain transport equipment) shall be deenergized, and shall be disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise prevented from operating by other equally effective means or methods.
"Walking down grain" and similar practices where an employee walks on grain to make it flow within or out from a grain storage structure, or where an employee is on moving grain, are prohibited.
No employee shall be permitted to be either underneath a bridging condition, or in any other location where an accumulation of grain on the sides or elsewhere could fall and engulf that employee.

Contractors

The employer shall inform contractors performing work at the grain handling facility of known potential fire and explosion hazards related to the contractor's work and work area. The employer shall also inform contractors of the applicable safety rules of the facility. The employer shall explain the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan to contractors.

Housekeeping

The employer shall develop and implement a written housekeeping program that establishes the frequency and method(s) determined best to reduce accumulations of fugitive grain dust on ledges, floors, equipment, and other exposed surfaces.

In addition, the housekeeping program for grain elevators shall address fugitive grain dust accumulations at priority housekeeping areas. Priority housekeeping areas shall include at least the following:

Floor areas within 35 feet (10.7 m) of inside bucket elevators;
Floors of enclosed areas containing grinding equipment; and
Floors of enclosed areas containing grain dryers located inside the facility.

The employer shall immediately remove any fugitive grain dust accumulations whenever they exceed 1/8 inch (.32 cm) at priority housekeeping areas, pursuant to the housekeeping program, or shall demonstrate and assure, through the development and implementation of the housekeeping program, that equivalent protection is provided.

The use of compressed air to blow dust from ledges, walls, and other areas shall only be permitted when all machinery that presents an ignition source in the area is shut-down, and all other known potential ignition sources in the area are removed or controlled.

Grain and product spills shall not be considered fugitive grain dust accumulations. However, the housekeeping program shall address the procedures for removing such spills from the work area.

Grate Openings

Receiving-pit feed openings, such as truck or railcar receiving-pits, shall be covered by grates. The width of openings in the grates shall be a maximum of 2 1/2 inches (6.35 cm).

Filter collectors

All fabric dust filter collectors which are a part of a pneumatic dust collection system shall be equipped with a monitoring device that will indicate a pressure drop across the surface of the filter.

Filter collectors installed after March 30, 1988 shall be located:

outside the facility
in an area inside the facility protected by an explosion suppression system; or
in an area inside the facility that is separated from other areas of the
facility by construction having at least a one hour fire-resistance rating, and which is adjacent to an exterior wall and vented to the outside; the vent and ductwork shall be designed to resist rupture due to deflagration.

Preventive Maintenance

The employer shall implement preventive maintenance procedures consisting of:

Regularly scheduled inspections of at least the mechanical and safety control equipment associated with dryers, grain stream processing equipment, dust collection equipment including filter collectors, and bucket elevators;
Lubrication and other appropriate maintenance in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations, or as determined necessary by prior operating records.

The employer shall promptly correct dust collection systems which are malfunctioning or which are operating below designed efficiency. Additionally, the employer shall promptly correct, or remove from service, overheated bearings and slipping or misaligned belts associated with inside bucket elevators.

A certification record shall be maintained of each inspection, containing the date of the inspection, the name of the person who performed the inspection and the serial number, or other identifier, of the equipment that was inspected.

The employer shall implement procedures for the use of tags and locks which will prevent the inadvertent application of energy or motion to equipment being repaired, serviced, or adjusted, which could result in employee injury. Such locks and tags shall be removed in accordance with established procedures only by the employee installing them or, if unavailable, by his or her supervisor.

Grain Stream Processing Equipment

The employer shall equip grain stream processing equipment (such as hammer mills, grinders, and pulverizers) with an effective means of removing ferrous material from the incoming grain stream.

Emergency Escape

The employer shall provide at least two means of emergency escape from galleries (bin decks). The employer shall provide at least one means of emergency escape in tunnels of existing grain elevators. Tunnels in grain elevators constructed after March 1988 shall be provided with at least two means of emergency escape.

Continuous-Flow Bulk Raw Grain Dryers

All direct-heat grain dryers shall be equipped with automatic controls that:

will shut-off the fuel supply in case of power or flame failure or interruption of air movement through the exhaust fan; and,
will stop the grain from being fed into the dryer if excessive temperature occurs in the exhaust of the drying section.

Direct-heat grain dryers installed after March 30, 1988 shall be located:

outside the grain elevator;
in an area inside the grain elevator protected by a fire or explosion suppression system; or
in an area inside the grain elevator which is separated from other areas of the facility by construction having at least a one hour fire-resistance rating.

Inside Bucket Elevators

Bucket elevators shall not be jogged to free a choked leg. All belts and lagging purchased after March 30, 1988 shall be conductive. Such belts shall have a surface electrical resistance not to exceed 300 megohms. All bucket elevators shall be equipped with a means of access to the head pulley section to allow inspection of the head pulley, lagging, belt, and discharge throat of the elevator head. The boot section shall also be provided with a means of access for clean-out of the boot and for inspection of the boot, pulley, and belt.

The employer shall mount bearings externally to the leg casing, or provide vibration monitoring, temperature monitoring, or other means to monitor the condition of those bearings mounted inside or partially inside the leg casing. This requirement does not apply to bucket elevators which are equipped with an operational fire and explosion suppression system capable of protecting at least the head and boot section of the bucket elevator, or to bucket elevators which are equipped with pneumatic or other dust control systems or methods that keep the dust concentration inside the bucket elevator at least 25% below the lower explosive limit at all times during operations.

The employer shall equip bucket elevators with a motion detection device which will shut-down the bucket elevator when the belt speed is reduced by no more than 20% of the normal operating speed. This requirement does not apply to grain elevators having a permanent storage capacity of less than one million bushels, provided that daily visual inspection is made of bucket movement and tracking of the belt. Also, this requirement does not apply to bucket elevators which are equipped with an operational fire and explosion suppression system capable of protecting at least the head and boot section of the bucket elevator, or to bucket elevators which are equipped with pneumatic or other dust control systems or methods that keep the dust concentration inside the bucket elevator at least 25% below the lower explosive limit at all times during operations.

The employer shall equip bucket elevators with a belt alignment monitoring device which will initiate an alarm to employees when the belt is not tracking properly, or provide a means to keep the belt tracking properly, such as a system that provides constant alignment adjustment of belts. This requirement does not apply to grain elevators having a permanent storage capacity of less than one million bushels, provided that daily visual inspection is made of bucket movement and tracking of the belt. Also, this requirement does not apply to bucket elevators which are equipped with an operational fire and explosion suppression system capable of protecting at least the head and boot section of the bucket elevator, or to bucket elevators which are equipped with pneumatic or other dust control systems or methods that keep the dust concentration inside the bucket elevator at least 25% below the lower explosive limit at all times during operations.

CHAPTER III

PROFILE OF THE GRAIN HANDLING INDUSTRY

Appendix IV describes the grain handling process and grain elevators. The majority of facilities covered by the standard are found in the five Standard Industrial Code (SIC) groups listed below:

2041 - Flour and other Grain Mill products
2044 - Rice Milling
2048 - Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Not elsewhere classified
4221 - Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
5153 - Grain

The following, additional SICs have grain elevators that are also covered by the standard:

0723 - Crop Preparation Services for Market, except cotton ginning
2047 - Grain Processing
2075 - Oil Seed Processing

(The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) has replaced the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. NAICS replaces or revises some 60% of the previously available SIC industries. It provides 358 industries that the SIC did not identify, 390 that are revised from their SIC counterparts, and 422 that continue substantially unchanged. The first NAICS-based United States statistics are the 1997 Economic Census data. The analyses for this 610 Review used the SIC system so that data could be compared and also because the SIC system was the system used for the vast majority of the available data.)

Covered workplaces may also be found in other SICs where grain elevators are not the primary business. If a facility has a grain elevator onsite that receives, handles, stores and ships (including transfer to another part of the facility) a bulk, raw, agricultural commodity, the standard applies to the grain elevator there, too. An example of this type of facility is a grain elevator used in support of a brewery. (The important factor is that a bulk, raw, agricultural commodity enters the facility, is handled and stored, and then leaves the facility in the same form.)

The major sectors affected by the Grain Handling Facilities Final Standard are grain elevators and grain mills. For the final standard, grain elevators with similar economic and other characteristics were grouped into the following industry segments: country elevators; inland elevators; high-throughput inland terminal elevators; and export terminal elevators. The grain processing segments affected by the final standard include feed mills, flour mills, rice mills, dry corn mills, and dust palletizing plants. The final standard also applies to facilities involved in soybean flaking operations and dry soycake grinding operations. (See 52 FR 49619.)

Grain Elevators

Grain elevators are concentrated in the following SICs, and these were the grain elevator
SICs evaluated for the final standard:

SIC 0723: Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning
SIC 4221: Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
SIC 5153: Grain and Field Beans

There were four main types of grain elevators classified in OSHA's 1987 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Grain Handling Facilities Final Standard:

Country Elevators - There were about 13,200 country elevators at the time the final rule was promulgated. Country elevators were defined as those elevators with a storage capacity of less than 2 million bushels and a throughput ratio of less than three. At the time of the final rule, total storage capacity of all country elevators was determined to be approximately 7.1 billion bushels, and employment was estimated to be 70,800 full-time equivalent employees (52 FR 49620). Since promulgation of the final rule in 1987, no parallel estimates of the total number of country elevators and the workers they employ have been available.

Country elevators primarily provide storage and purchasing services to farmers in their immediate areas. They may also provide services such as grain cleaning, drying, and blending (collectively known as grain conditioning) (52 FR 49620).

At the time the final rule was promulgated, the country elevator business was highly competitive and localized. The operations were primarily owned by individual family corporations or partnerships, farmer cooperatives, or large companies that own a network of facilities (52 FR 4960).
Inland-Terminal Elevators - These elevators are those with a storage capacity of more than 2 million bushels. They function primarily as seasonal long-term storage facilities. At the time the final rule was promulgated, there were about 450 inland-terminal elevators, with total storage capacity of approximately 1.5 billion bushels, or 3.4 million bushels per facility. The total employment in this sector was estimated to be 6,100 full-time equivalent employees, or about 12.4 full-time employees and 8.3 part-time employees per establishment. (See 52 FR 49620.)

At the time the final rule was promulgated, many inland-terminal elevators had become obsolete because of elevator capacity limitations, difficulty in complying with air pollution control and other regulations, and changes in rail handling capabilities. In other instances, firms made substantial investments in order to upgrade older facilities to meet the new operating requirements. (See 52 FR 49620.)
High-Throughput Inland Terminal Elevators - The operators of high-throughput terminal elevators are essentially grain merchandisers who provide few storage or drying services. These elevators are low-margin operations, and their profits are based on the ability to assemble grain at the least cost and to direct it toward profitable markets with minimum transportation costs. (See 49 FR 49620.)

At the time the final rule was promulgated, there were about 250 high-throughput inland elevators in the U.S. with a total storage capacity estimated at 887.5 million bushels. They generally have storage capacities that are greater than 2 million bushels and almost all have storage capacities ranging from .5 million to 7 million bushels. (See 52 FR 49620.)

At the time the final rule was promulgated, there was a estimated average of 13.6 full-time employees and 6.1 part-time employees per establishment. Total employment was estimated at 3,700 full-time equivalent employees in this sector.
Export Terminal Elevators - At the time the final rule was promulgated, there were about 75 export terminals in the United States. These typically had large storage capacities and high-throughput ratios and were located in areas where they could provide access for ships and barges for the export market. At the time the final rule was promulgated, the total storage capacity of export elevators was estimated at 370.5 million bushels. (See 52 FR 49620.)

At the time the final rule was promulgated, it was estimated that an export elevator would employ an average of 55.4 full-time employees and 11 part-time employees. There were also an estimated 4,350 full-time equivalent employees in this sector at the time the final rule was promulgated. (See 52 FR 49620.)

In the years before and after the promulgation of the Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule, the number of off-farm storage facilities decreased while the capacity of off-farm storage facilities increased. According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there were nearly 10,000 off-farm grain storage facilities in the country in 1999, with storage capacity of more than 8 billion bushels. (See Table 2.) While the number of storage facilities decreased by 34% from 1977 to 1999, the off-farm storage capacity increased by approximately 28% during the same time period. Average grain production in the United States between 1988 and 1998 was greater than the average grain production between 1977 and 1987. (See Table 3.)

Grain Mills

There were three major types of grain mills evaluated for the Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule: prepared feeds and feed ingredients (SIC 2048); oil seed processing (SIC 2075); and grain processing (SICs 2041,2044, and 2047).

SIC 2048: Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients

The prepared feeds and feed ingredients sector is primarily engaged in the manufacture of animal feeds. Feed mills grind and process grain, grain byproducts, and oilseed meals in the production of animal feeds. (See 52 FR 49620.) At the time the final rule was promulgated, there were slightly more than 9,000 feed mill facilities in the United States (1984 data). Also, during this period, about 900 mills produced over 50,000 tons per year, 2,000 mills produced between 15,000 and 49,999 tons per year, and 6,100 mills produced up to 14,999 tons per year. (See 52 FR 49620.)

There were an estimated 98,500 workers employed at feed mills at the time the final rule was promulgated. The average small feed mill had 5.03 full-time employees and 1.60 seasonal part-time employees who worked about 10 weeks per year. Large feed mills employed 24.19 full-time employees and 2.86 seasonal employees 10 weeks per year. (See 52 FR 49620.)

Many mills are attached to country elevators, and therefore, many employees work in both elevators and mills. At the time the final rule was promulgated, OSHA estimated that 90 percent of the employees in small and medium-sized mills were included in its estimate of the number of employees in country elevators. Therefore, 57,353 of the estimated 63,726 full-time equivalent employees of small and medium-sized mills would also have been country elevator employees. (See 52 FR 49620.)

SIC 2075: Oil Seed Processing

As explained in the preamble for the Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule, soybean oil mills produce diverse products for various uses. The soybean processing industry includes establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture of soybean oil, and byproduct cake and meal. (See 52 FR 49620.)

At the time the final rule was promulgated, the National Soybean Processors Association (NSPA) reported that about 80 processing plants operated in the Unites States during 1984. According to NSPA, at that time, there were about 25 production employees per facility. (See 52 FR 49620.)

SICs 2041, 2044, and 2047: Grain Processing

This sector includes: flour mills (SIC 2041); rice mills (SIC 2044); and dog, cat, and other pet food mills (SIC 2047).

At the time the final rule was promulgated, Census of Manufacturers data for 1985 showed there were 360 flour mills with 11,400 production employees and 70 rice mills with 4,400 production employees. There were also 285 dog, cat, and other pet food plants with 12,800 production employees. (See 52 FR 49620.)

CHAPTER IV

IMPACTS OF OSHA'S GRAIN HANDLING FACILITIES STANDARD ON EXPLOSIONS, FATALITIES AND INJURIES

The Grain Handling Facilities Standard contains provisions that address several safety hazards. The hazards these provisions address include: fires; explosions; toxic substance and oxygen deficiencies from entry into bins, silos, or tanks; release of hazardous energy from equipment; and engulfment by grain in bins, silos, or tanks. [Note that the promulgation of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard preceded OSHA's generic standards for the Control of Hazardous Energy Source (29 CFR 1910.147) published September 1, 1989 and the Permit-required Confined Spaces (29 CFR 1910.146) published January 14, 1993.] The standard was also expected to have the additional benefit of reducing occupationally-related lung disease by reducing the amount of grain dust inhaled by workers. Furthermore, the requirement for grates on openings, in order to keep foreign objects out of the grain flow, could also prevent workers' body parts from entering augers.

This Chapter will present risk reduction analyses focusing on two end points: 1.) injuries and fatalities from grain dust explosions; and 2.) suffocations which result when a worker is engulfed or crushed by grain. Limited resources do not allow us to analyze all of the standard's benefits. These endpoints have been selected for this Section 610 review's risk reduction analysis because accessible data exist for these endpoints. Furthermore, a reduction in fatalities from suffocations and reductions in both injuries and fatalities from explosions are primary and substantial benefits anticipated from the promulgation of the Standard.

As will be presented in this Chapter, since the promulgation of OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard, fatalities from explosions and suffocations have decreased. Furthermore, in comparing these risks over time, it is important to note that the number and capacity of off-farm storage facilities has changed since 1977. Specifically, as Table 2 shows, the number of facilities has been decreasing while the rated off-farm storage capacity has been increasing. Because of this, grain in these larger capacity storage facilities must be turned over more often; the higher turn-over of grain in the facilities means the grain is moved faster and more often. Since explosions and suffocations occur when grain is being moved (e.g., movement stirs up grain dust, workers may enter grain bins to loosen grain that is not flowing), there may be more potential now than in earlier years for explosions and suffocations to occur. However, as this chapter will show, the number of explosions has not increased, and the number of fatalities from explosions and suffocations has decreased.

In OSHA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 1987 Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) data were available on injuries and fatalities from grain explosions, and fatality data on suffocations were estimated from various sources. However, for this risk reduction analysis, suffocation data from OSHA's IMIS (Integrated Management Information System) database were available and were used. A detailed description of how the IMIS database was used is presented below, in this Chapter.

Explosions

New Technologies

As discussed in Chapter I, the catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970's lead to increased government, industry, and public awareness of the need for safety improvements in grain handling facilities. Greater safety awareness also led to the development of new technologies. In its statement for OSHA's Public Meeting to Review the Grain Handling Facilities Standard (29 CFR 1910.272) on July 28, 1998, a representative of the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) described industry research efforts that resulted from these catastrophic explosions. According to NGFA, among the knowledge gained by this research were technological advances, including: revolutionized design, layout, and construction of grain handling facilities, (most notably, grain handling equipment, particularly the bucket elevator, which is now located outside the main structure in new and renovated facilities); development of fundamental techniques to successfully vent bucket elevators, grain bins, galleries and tunnels; and development of a new portable suppression device to extinguish a fire or explosion at its earliest stages in bucket elevators.²⁶ NGFA further stated that "overall, there has been little change in the general physical characteristics of grain elevators since the standard was published in 1988, with the exception that the industry has clearly installed and implemented a substantial amount of safety equipment and implemented better operating practices that have contributed strongly to improved safety."27

Risk Analysis and Calculations for Explosions

As stated in public comments for this 610 review, "Within the United States, The Federal Grain Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture has maintained the most accurate records concerning explosions occurring in grain handling facilities".²⁸

Therefore, this 610 review risk analysis, as well as OSHA's RIA for the 1987 Grain Handling Facilities Standard, used explosion data and explosion-related injury and fatality data obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). See Table 1.

The decline in explosions and explosion-related injuries and fatalities since the development and promulgation of the 1987 Grain Handling Facilities Standard was cited by both labor and industry representatives in public comments for this 610 review. Using the USDA data found in Table 1, comments submitted to the OSHA Docket from the Food and Allied Service Trades (FAST), AFL-CIO, stated " ... since the promulgation of OSHA's standard in December 1987, explosions were reduced by 42 %, the number of injured was reduced by 60 % and the number killed was down by 70%".²⁹ In addition, FAST commented that the Grain Handling Facilities Standard "has been a resounding success in controlling deadly explosions and other serious safety hazards in the grain industry".³⁰ On average, the Standard has prevented 5 deaths each year from grain dust explosions; as Table 1 shows, the pre-regulatory average is 7.3 deaths each year from explosions, and the post-regulatory average is 2.3 deaths each year from explosions.

In its statement for the OSHA public meeting, NGFA described "an unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities" since 1980.³¹ Figure 1 shows data on the average number of explosions, injuries, and fatalities at grain handling facilities, presented by NGFA in its statement for the OSHA public meeting, for the period 1977/78 through 1997.32 According to NGFA, the data in Figure 1 were compiled by Kansas State University and USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. NGFA presented the data in Figure 1 as averages for the indicated five-year periods, beginning with the explosions that occurred in December 1977; the "1977/78" time period includes explosions, injuries, and fatalities from December 1977 through December 1978.³³ Also, according to NGFA, these data were "adjusted to remove facilities not covered by the standard, such as toy, candy and sugar manufacturing facilities".³⁴

Figure 1³⁵
All Grain Handling Facilities Covered by the Standard
(average for the indicated time period)

STATISTIC	1977/78-1982	1983-1987	1988-1992	1993-1997
Explosions	25	18	11	14
Injuries	50	19	7	11
Fatalities	20	3	2	1

According to the NGFA, the data presented in Figure 1 "show that, between the 1977/78-1982 and 1993-1997 periods, explosions declined by 44%, injuries by 78% and fatalities by 95% at all grain handling facilities".³⁶

NGFA also analyzed data for grain elevators only, since grain elevators are required by the Standard to meet more stringent housekeeping standards. Figure 2 shows the data from Figure 1 that is applicable only to grain elevators.

Figure 2³⁷
Grain Elevators Only
(average for the indicated time period)

STATISTIC	1977/78-1982	1983-1987	1988-1992	1993-1997
Explosions	21	12	8	6
Injuries	47	10	7	4
Fatalities	19	2	2	1

According to NGFA, the data in Figure 2 show that "grain elevators clearly follow the same pattern as other types of grain handling facilities. Namely, between the 1977/78-1982 and 1993-1997 periods, explosions declined by 71%, injuries by 91% and fatalities by 95% at grain elevators. It is indisputable that great strides have been made in reducing the incidence and severity of fires and explosions at grain handling facilities since the late 1970's. The record of improvement in reducing the risk of personal injury and equipment damage from grain dust explosions is unprecedented".³⁸

Figure 3 shows the data from Figure 1, divided into the years before and the years after the Grain Handling Facilities Standard was issued. Clearly, there is a decrease in the average number of explosions, injuries, and fatalities since issuance of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. It is clear to OSHA that when OSHA and NGFA began publishing information on the control of grain dust explosions and later when OSHA issued its proposed Grain Handling Facilities Standard, some elevators began instituting controls without waiting for the final Grain Handling Facilities Standard to be issued. Issuance of the final Standard completed the process of requiring upgraded controls to reduce deaths from grain dust explosions and suffocations.

Figure 3
All Grain Handling Facilities Covered by the Standard
(average for the indicated time period)

STATISTIC	1977/78-1987	1988-1997
Explosions	21	12
Injuries	34	9
Fatalities	11	1

The above statistics illustrate what was previously stated in this 610 Review; namely, the catastrophic grain explosions of the late 1970's led to increased national awareness of the hazards associated with the grain handling industry, and actions and research that began in the late 1970's led to the promulgation of OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard.

Suffocations

The analysis below will show that, in the years since the promulgation of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard, the average number of annual grain suffocations has decreased by over 40 percent, compared to the estimated average number of annual grain suffocations presented in OSHA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Grain Handling Facilities Standard Final Rule. This analysis will also indicate that when the requirements of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard are complied with, suffocations in grain do not occur.

Database for Suffocations

In OSHA's RIA for the 1987 Grain Handling Facilities Final Rule, OSHA estimated that an average of 10 employees suffocate annually in grain storage bins. This estimate was based on several sources and included suffocation data reported from 1977 to 1981 for the 27 states which were under Federal OSHA jurisdiction; data were not available from states which ran their own occupational safety and health programs (i.e., "State-Plan-States").

When the RIA for the 1987 Final Rule was developed, complete fatality data from OSHA's IMIS (Integrated Management Information System) database were not available. Now, the IMIS database contains information on over 2.5 million inspections. The information is continually being updated with new data originating from OSHA Federal and state enforcement offices.

Since 1984, statistics from the IMIS database have included all states except: Michigan (which began reporting health inspections in 1989 and safety inspections in 1989); Washington (which began reporting all inspections in 1990); and California (which began reporting all inspections in 1990.) (Also, note that California was under Federal jurisdiction from approximately 1987 to 1989.) The suffocation risk analysis for this Section 610 Review is based on suffocation fatalities reported in OSHA's IMIS database. Therefore, because the IMIS database was not very complete until about 1984, the suffocation data used for this Section 610 Review analysis starts in 1984.

The information sources used to determine the suffocation fatalities, which are recorded on the IMIS database, were the Accident Investigation Summaries (OSHA-170 form); these Accident Investigation Summaries result from OSHA accident inspections. For this risk analysis, OSHA examined only suffocation fatalities, not injuries. Due to the severity of the hazard, most complete engulfments in grain result in death. Partial engulfments which do not result in death usually do not result in injury either and often go unreported. Furthermore, all fatalities and three or more injuries which result in overnight hospitalizations are required by Federal OSHA to be reported by employers in states under OSHA's jurisdiction. However, State-Plan-States may have different reporting requirements for injuries (e.g., California reports more injuries than some other states). Therefore, the most reliable and accurate data in the IMIS database for grain entrapments are the fatality data.

In order to obtain the suffocation fatality reports from the IMIS database, six runs of the IMIS database were performed, using each of the following keywords: grain*; suffocat*; entrap*; suffo*; engulf*; and asphyx*. The symbol "*" is used to catch all fatality reports on the IMIS that are keyed with the letters preceding the "*". Six runs were performed in order to obtain as many grain suffocation fatality reports as possible. The six runs selected a total of 1551 fatalities due to suffocation. These cases were reviewed to determine which were grain suffocations. The fatalities determined to be grain suffocations were then further examined to determine which were covered under the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. Finally, 93 suffocations from 1984 through 1999 were determined to be covered under the Grain Handling Facilities Standard.

Table 4 shows the number of suffocations and their related SIC codes, found on the IMIS database for each year from 1984 through 1999. Some of the SICs listed in Table 4 were not included in the 8 major grain handling SICs evaluated for the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. This is because information from IMIS fatality accident reports was used to determine the number of suffocations, irrespective of the SIC recorded on the reports. There was one fatality for each accident, except for two events, where there were two fatalities, each. As explained above, suffocations from every State-Plan-State may not have been recorded in the IMIS for the years 1984 through 1990, and suffocations which occurred in the years 2000 and 2001 are not included on Table 4. Table 5 shows these 93 suffocations, broken down by the number of monthly suffocations reported for each year, from 1984 through 1999.

Risk Analysis for Suffocations

Each of these 93 suffocation accident reports from the IMIS database was examined to determine, if possible, the factors which contributed to the fatality and whether these factors indicated a weakness in the Grain Handling Facilities Standard or lack of compliance with the Standard. The circumstances leading to the fatality could not be determined from 43% of the IMIS fatality accident reports. Equipment/machinery which was not turned-off was stated to be a factor in 34% of the suffocation fatalities. A body harness and lifeline was stated not to be present in 34% of these IMIS fatality accident reports. Only 4% of the IMIS fatality accident reports stated that a body harness and lifeline were present; in one case the worker disconnected the body harness, and in another case, there was too much slack in the lifeline. Only 16% of the IMIS fatality accident reports stated that the worker who died was not alone; in most of these cases, only a second person was present, and he was there for reasons other than as a safety precaution to help prevent entrapments. No IMIS fatality accident report stated that a fatality occurred when all requirements in the Grain Handling Facilities Standard were met.

These 93 IMIS fatality accident reports were also examined to determine the age and sex of the victims, as well as the grain most often implicated in these fatalities. All fatalities were males. The ages ranged from 14 years-old to 71 years-old; the average age was 40 years-old. The grain involved in the suffocation was not identified in 31 IMIS fatality accident reports (34%). Corn was the grain most often implicated in the suffocation deaths; twenty-six IMIS fatality accident reports (29%) stated that the victim suffocated in corn. This finding is supported by a 1998 study of entrapments and suffocations at commercial grain facilities, where corn was also the grain most often implicated in suffocation deaths.³⁹ In a telephone interview with one of the study's authors, he stated that corn was most often implicated, not only because the United States produces more corn than other grains, but also because the nature of corn is to be stored at higher moisture. As previously discussed, moisture may result in grain sticking or caking to the sides of a storage bin, and entrapments and suffocations have occurred when workers enter such bins to loosen the grain.

Risk Calculations for Suffocations

In OSHA's RIA for the 1987 Grain Handling Facilities Standard, the estimated average of 10 suffocations each year was derived by dividing the estimated total number of suffocations (50) by the number of years (1977 to 1981 = 5 years). Using the data from the IMIS database, if the number of grain suffocations determined for 1984 through 1999 (93) is divided by the number of years (16), grain suffocation fatalities average 5.8 annually, a marked decrease from the estimated average of 10 annual suffocations, given in the RIA. Furthermore, for the years since the promulgation of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard (1988 through 1999), the average is 5.6 suffocations, annually. Therefore, in the years since the promulgation of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard, the average number of annual grain suffocations has decreased by 44 percent.

As with the reduction in deaths from grain dust explosions, the reduction in deaths from suffocations began to occur in the early to mid-1980's, with the publication of various government and industry guidelines, and OSHA's proposed Grain Handling Facilities Standard. The decrease in fatalities was taken further and made permanent by the final Grain Handling Facilities Standard.

OSHA's suffocations risk analysis using the IMIS database is supported by the results of the 1998 published study referred to above.⁴⁰ Using mostly newspaper clippings, the 1998 study of commercial grain facilities found an average of 5 fatalities annually, for the years 1988 through 1995.⁴¹ To compare, using the IMIS accident fatality reports only for 1988 through 1995, the same years used in the 1998 study, an annual average of 5.5 suffocation deaths is found. Additionally, in the 1998 study of commercial grain facilities, an annual rate of 4.3 suffocation fatalities per 10,000 commercial grain facilities was estimated for the years 1988 through 1995.⁴² Using the IMIS fatality accident reports for that same period (1988 through 1995), an estimated 4.4 suffocation fatalities per 10,000 commercial grain facilities occurred annually.

Compliance, Enforcement, and Violation History

The OSHA Training Institute offers a comprehensive training course for compliance officers conducting inspections of grain handling facilities. Furthermore, in June 1998, OSHA and the USDA and its Farm Service Agency (FSA) entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) "to address the referral of information regarding possible hazards associated with grain dust accumulation found during the course of warehouse examinations conducted by FSA employees at grain warehouses in the United States." This MOU states that during a warehouse examination, if a FSA warehouse examiner sees an accumulation of grain dust which may put the quality or quantity of the stored warehouse product at risk, the FSA examiner is to report those grain dust accumulations to the warehouse manager for corrective action; the grain dust accumulations are reported for corrective action in a Memorandum of Adjustments. The Memorandum of Adjustment is part of the warehouse examination report, and FSA provides the appropriate OSHA Regional Administrator with copies of all Memoranda of Adjustments. The FSA informs the warehouse operator that the OSHA Regional Administrator is also being informed of the grain dust conditions in the warehouse.

Number of Inspections Conducted

Table 6 shows the number of inspections conducted in each of these SICs for the 22 year period from 1979 to 2000. The inspection numbers include those performed by State-Plan-States. The date of the inspection is based on the date of the opening conference (i.e., when the Federal or State OSHA inspector initiated the inspection.) Since 1979, 4,280 inspections have been conducted in SIC 5153 - Grain, and 4,217 inspections have been conducted in SIC 2048 - Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, not elsewhere classified. This is followed by 1,543 inspections conducted in SIC 0723 - Crop Preparation Services for Market and 1,215 inspections in SIC 2041 - Flour and other Grain Mill Products, and 1,029 inspections conducted in SIC 4221. Together, these five SIC groups account for the majority (94%) of the inspections in SICs where grain elevators are present. e 6 and Figure 4 also show the number of inspections conducted in SICs with grain elevators for each calendar year. If one compares the number of inspections conducted prior to the issuance of the grain handling facilities standard in 1987 with the number conducted since, it is apparent that the OSHA inspection activity has declined since the standard was issued. In the period from 1979 through 1987 the average annual number of inspections was 830.7. Since the standard was issued through to the year 2000, the average number of inspections in SICs with grain elevators was 434.3.

Figure 4

TEXT VERSION OF CHART DATA:

Chart Title: Inspections in SICs with Grain handling Facilities
Chart Type: Vertical Bar by Year
Chart Elements: 22 - One bar for each year between 1979 & 2000 with number of inspections.
Values:

1979 = 876
1980 = 648
1981 = 365
1982 = 707
1983 = 808
1984 = 1299
1985 = 1156
1986 = 1000
1987 = 617
1988 = 500
1989 = 466
1990 = 604
1991 = 532
1992 = 408
1993 = 316
1994 = 397
1995 = 422
1996 = 335
1997 = 410
1998 = 346
1999 = 485
2000 = 427

Enforcement Review

OSHA reviewed its enforcement of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard to determine how enforcement and compliance assistance could be improved. This review asked the following questions:

How often is the average grain elevator inspected?

For the period 1995-2000, very few Federal and State OSHA inspections were conducted at the same establishment. A query of the inspections conducted in five SICs (2041 - Flour and other Grain Mill products; 2044 - Rice Milling; 2048 - Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Not elsewhere classified; 4221 - Farm Product Warehousing and Storage; and, 5153 - Grain) showed that, of the 287 inspections conducted in both Federal and State-Plan-States with opening conference dates between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2000, 27 were repeat inspections of the same facility. (Safety and health inspections of the same facility at the same time were not included in this count, nor were follow-up inspections.)

As Figure 5 shows, the penetration rate for the eight SICs that are likely to have grain handling facilities is 4%, meaning that 4% of establishments are inspected by either Federal or State OSHA each year. Other standards are also cited during inspections of these facilities.

Figure 5

Facilities and Number of Facilities Inspected in 8 SIC's with Grain Elevators

SIC	Number of Establishments (Source U.S. Census)⁴³	Number of Federal and State Inspections - CY2000	Penetration Rate (Establishments/Establishments Inspected)
2041	392	33	33/391 = 8.4%
2044	69	3	3/69 = 4.3%
2048	1,555	89	89/1,555 = 5.7%
4221	488	44	44/488 = 9.0%
5153	6,518	111	111/6,518 = 1.7%
0723	1,224	108	108/1,224 = 8.8%
2047	192	29	29/192 = 15.1%
2075	122	10	10/122 = 8.2%
Total	10,560	427	427/10,560 = 4.0%

How many small businesses were inspected?

During the period 1988-1998, there were 795 inspections conducted where the employer had 500 or more employees; there were a total of 5201 inspections during this time period. Therefore, 15.3% of all inspections were conducted at larger firms (as defined by the Small Business Administration) during this time period. These firms were major corporations, such as Conagra, Quaker Oats, and Archer Daniels Midland.

How many of the facilities where engulfment (grain suffocation) fatalities occurred had been inspected previously by OSHA?

Of the 91 inspections of engulfment fatalities from 1984 to 1999, 66 of the establishments had never before had an OSHA inspection. Of those 25 establishments which were inspected previously, about half (12) of the inspections were conducted more than three years prior to the fatal accident. Of the remaining 13 establishments inspected previously, five were complaint inspections and three were either records check only inspections or were denied entry or the establishment was out of business at the time.

CHAPTER V

1 IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS

The OSHA Grain Handling Facilities Standard has not had a negative economic impact on the grain handling industries generally or on small businesses in those industries. As discussed above, it has provided the benefits it was designed to achieve, by reducing injuries and deaths from explosions, fires, engulfments, and other hazards such as entry and the release of hazardous energy from equipment.

The grain storage handling and processing industries are impacted economically by many factors which have far greater economic impacts than the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. These include grain prices and production, both domestic and foreign, exports, weather, U.S. farm policies, technological developments and others.⁴⁴

Overall Economic Impacts

Since the Grain Handling Facilities Standard was issued in 1987, overall industry sales and profits have increased.⁴⁵ This is illustrated by comparing the 1987 (the year before the standard took effect) and 1997 sales and profit figures in the three SICs most impacted by the standard. In SIC 5153, Grain and Bean Trade, sales went from $73.5 billion to $120.3 billion and profits went from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion. In SIC 4221, Farm Product Storage, sales went from $586 million to $673 million and profits went from $28 million to $32 million. In SIC 2048, Prepared Feeds, sales went from $8.87 billion to $19.2 billion and profits went from $160 million to $403 million. See Table 7. (These three SICs account for approximately 80% of citations under the Grain Handling Facilities Standard.)

There has been a continuous reduction in the number of storage facilities since 1977. However, storage capacity has fluctuated, growing from 1977 to 1989, declining until 1995 and then stabilizing at a level 25% higher than 1977 levels. See Table 2. These changes are explained to a great extent by technology improvements which increase productivity. High speed grain terminals can move grain more efficiently and require fewer facilities and capacity.⁴⁶

The number of firms in the grain elevator SICs (723, 4221, 5153) has been reduced much less than the number of facilities. From 1990 to 1996 the number of firms has only been reduced by 10% reflecting a modest amount of consolidation in the industry. See Table 8; please note that data for Tables 8 and 12 were not available before 1990 and that Table 8 is a summary of the data presented in Table 12. The continuing economic health in the industry is reflected by the increase in employment in the industry while productivity was increasing. See Table 9.

The number of firms in the Grain Mill SICs (2041, 2049, 2097, 2048, 2079) has increased from 1990 to 1996. See Table 8. Employment has dropped slightly in that period. See Table 10.

Overall the grain handling and processing industries have shared continuous economic health since the OSHA Grain Handling Facilities final rule was issued. Sales and profits have increased substantially in that period. Overall the number of firms and employment has not changed substantially, though there has been some relatively small fluctuations in the various affected SIC's.

Impacts on Small Businesses

The main purpose of Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on a substantial number of small entities in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statues ...." This chapter discusses the overall impact of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard on small businesses. It demonstrates that small businesses have continued to prosper since the regulation was issued. Earlier chapters have shown that the fewer workers have died or been injured from grain explosions, fires and engulfments, that being the goal of the applicable statute, the OSH Act. The following chapter discusses the more detailed requirements of Section 610 of the RFA.

The grain handling industry, like many industrial sectors, is a mix of large, medium, and small businesses. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), companies in the grain processing industry (SICs 2041, 2044, 2047), Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients Mills (2048), and the Oil Seed Processing Mills (SIC 2075) are classified as small businesses if they employ 500 workers or less. For two grain elevator SICs, Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning (SIC 0723) and Farm Product Warehousing and Storage (SIC 4221), SBAs small business classification depends upon the annual revenue generated by the companies in these SICs. Within SIC 0723, a company's revenues must be $5 million or less and $18.5 million or less within SIC 4221, for classification as small business by the SBA. The SBA considers grain elevators within Grain and Field Beans (SIC 5153), which have 100 employees, or less, small businesses.

Small businesses showed continued economic strength after OSHA issued the Grain Handling Facilities Standard at the end of 1987. Despite some consolidation in the industry, the percentage of businesses which are small by SBA definition have increased, in some cases substantially. From 1990 to 1996, the percentage of business which are small remained at 99% in SIC 5153 (Grain and Field Beans); increased from 91% to 92% in SIC 2041 (Flour Mill Products); from 81 to 88% in SIC 2044 (Rice milling) and there were similar increases in other SICs. See Table 11. This increase in the percentage of firms which are small businesses indicate that the smaller firms still successfully compete against the larger firms and remain economically viable after the issuance of the Grain Handling Standard.

The data on number of firms by employee size also demonstrates the continuous competitiveness of effected small business after OSHA issued the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. From 1990 - 1996, in the major grain elevator SICs (723, 4221, 5153), the number of firms in the 100 - 499 employee category increased about 12% , remained almost the same in the 20 - 99 category and decreased about 14% in the 1 - 19 category. From 1990 - 1996, in the major grain mill SICs (2041, 2044, 2042, 2048, 2079), the number of firms with 1-19 employees increased slightly, the number of firms with 20 - 99 increased by 14% and the number with 100 - 499 employees decreased 15%. See Table 8 and the more detailed data in Table 12.

These data indicate that broken down by size categories, there were small fluctuations, but overall, the number of smaller firms in the various employment categories increased as often as they decreased. This evidence suggests that smaller firms remained economically competitive and viable.

Further evidence that small businesses remained economically competitive after the Grain Handling Facilities Standard was issued is indicated by the employment data. Small business (1 - 499 employees) in the major grain handling SICs had no reduction in employment from 1990 - 1996, employment being approximately 73,000 in both years. In the major grain mill SICs, employment in small businesses declined slightly in that period from 29,000 to 28,000. See Tables 9, 10, 13, and 14.

The data available to OSHA indicate that the small businesses in the grain handling industries remained economically competitive after OSHA issued the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. The number of small business firms and employment in small business firms, generally, did not decline, and the percentage of firms that were small businesses increased.

Furthermore, as mentioned in previous chapters, on June 23, 1998 (63 FR 34139), OSHA asked the public for comments on the Grain Handling Facilities Standard, including impacts of the Standard on small businesses. OSHA also conducted two public meetings, on July 28 and July 31, 1998, in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC, respectively, requesting comments on the impact of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard on small businesses. OSHA received no complaints from small businesses on the overall impact of the Standard on small businesses.

Consequently, OSHA concludes that the Grain Handling Standard should be continued without major change and should not be rescinded. It is necessary to carry out the statutory objectives of protecting workers from grain fires, explosions, engulfments, and other hazards, such as entry and the release of hazardous energy from equipment, and major changes are not needed to minimize significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, based on comments, OSHA will make or consider several modifications to simplify or make more cost effective compliance.

CHAPTER VI

SECTION 610 REVIEW OF THE STANDARD

Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to review impacts of regulations on small businesses. Chapter V discussed the overall impact of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard on small firms and found no negative impact.

Section 610 also provides that agencies should specifically consider five areas in reviewing the impact of a regulation on small businesses.⁴⁷ This Chapter discusses the impact of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard in those five areas, which are:

The continued need for the Grain Handling Facilities Standard.
The concerns about the complexity of the rule.
The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules.
The degree to which technology, economic conditions, and other factors have changed to affect the Grain Handling Facilities Standard.
The nature of complaints and comments received by OSHA about the Grain Handling Facilities Standard.

Continued Need for the Rule

There is a continued need for the rule. Workers continue to be at risk of death and injury from grain explosions, fires, engulfments, and other hazards such as entry and the release of hazardous energy from equipment. Catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970's focused national attention on hazards associated with the grain handling industry. This increased attention by both government and industrial entities led to safety improvements in the industry; OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard maintains and increases these improvements. In fact, analyses performed for this Section 610 Review indicate a decrease in fatalities from grain explosions and suffocations since the Grain Handling Facilities Standard was promulgated.

Many public commenters viewed the Grain Handling Facilities Standard as both needed and effective; no commenter indicated that the standard should be rescinded. The decline in explosions and explosion-related injuries and fatalities since the development and promulgation of the 1987 Grain Handling Facilities Standard was cited by both labor and industry representatives in public comments for this 610 Review. Using the USDA data found in Table 1, comments submitted to the OSHA Docket from the Food and Allied Service Trades (FAST), AFL-CIO, stated " ... since the promulgation of OSHA's standard in December 1987, explosions were reduced by 42 %, the number of injured was reduced by 60 % and the number killed was down by 70%".⁴⁸ In addition, FAST commented that the Grain Handling Facilities Standard "has been a resounding success in controlling deadly explosions and other serious safety hazards in the grain industry".⁴⁹ In its statement for the OSHA public meeting, NGFA described "an unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities" since 1980.⁵⁰

Complexity of the Rule

The rule is not unduly complex. As previously mentioned and discussed in detail below, Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires OSHA to evaluate public comments and complaints received on a final rule. To meet this requirement, OSHA published a Federal Register notice, requesting comments on the Grain Handling Facilities Standard (63 FR 34139, June 23, 1998), and OSHA held two public meetings, soliciting comments. No public comment indicated that the standard was unduly or unreasonably complex.

Extent to which the Rule Overlaps, Duplicates, or Conflicts with other Rules

The Grain Handling Facilities Standard is not in regulatory conflict with other regulations. Some public comments suggested amendments be made to simplify the relationship between the Grain Handling Facilities Standard requirements for de-energizing equipment and for entry into confined spaces and the generic standards in those areas. In response to comments, OSHA will be making or considering several amendments to clarify or simplify the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. These include incorporating a cross-reference to certain interpretations applicable to marine terminals and considering, as part of the Standards Improvement Project III, expanding the confined space requirements of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard to all areas of grain mills instead of having some areas covered by the more complex Confined Spaces Standard. As part of OSHA's project to update standards based on national consensus organization standards, OSHA will consider updating references to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements incorporated in the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. Comments also suggested several other clarifications. OSHA is responding to those comments as discussed below in the Public Comments section.

Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, and other Factors

As discussed in Chapter I, the catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970's lead to increased government, industry, and public awareness of the need for safety improvements in grain handling facilities. Greater safety awareness also led to the development of new technologies. Technological improvements improved worker safety. Modernization of machinery and improvement in the design of elevators and essential equipment reduced worker risk. In its statement for OSHA's Public Meeting to Review the Grain Handling Facilities Standard (29 CFR 1910.272) on July 28, 1998, a representative of the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) described industry research efforts that resulted from these catastrophic explosions. According to NGFA, among the knowledge gained by this research were technological advances, including: revolutionized design, layout, and construction of grain handling facilities, (most notably, grain handling equipment, particularly the bucket elevator, which is now located outside the main structure in new and renovated facilities); development of fundamental techniques to successfully vent bucket elevators, grain bins, galleries and tunnels; and development of a new portable suppression device to extinguish a fire or explosion at its earliest stages in bucket elevators.⁵¹ NGFA further stated that "overall, there has been little change in the general physical characteristics of grain elevators since the standard was published in 1988, with the exception that the industry has clearly installed and implemented a substantial amount of safety equipment and implemented better operating practices that have contributed strongly to improved safety".⁵²

Public Comments

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA invited public comment on the Section 610 review of the rule by publishing a Federal Register notice requesting comments on the Grain Handling Facilities Standard (63 FR 34139, June 23, 1998). Also, two public meetings were held, one in Chicago on July 28, 1998 and another in Washington, DC on July 31, 1998.

OSHA opened public docket H-117C to hold this solicited information. A total of 63 commenters provided information to the docket. In addition to remarks from OSHA representatives, one witness, a representative from the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), made a statement at the public meeting in Chicago on July 28, 1998. At the public meeting in Washington, D.C. on July 31, 1998, two witnesses from the NGFA and one witness from the American Feed Industry (AFI) made statements. Transcripts of the meetings are in the record as Exhibits 13x and 12x, respectively.

Representatives from both the grain industry and labor unions cited the Grain Handling Facilities Standard as useful in reducing grain explosions, fatalities and injuries. The Food and Allied Service Trades (FAST), AFL-CIO, stated "... since the promulgation of OSHA's standard in December 1987, explosions were reduced by 42%, the number of injured was reduced by 60 % and the number killed was down by 70%".⁵³ In addition, FAST commented that the Grain Handling Facilities Standard "has been a resounding success in controlling deadly explosions and other serious safety hazards in the grain industry".⁵⁴ In its statement for the OSHA public meeting, NGFA described "an unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities" since 1980.⁵⁵ Additionally, in its statement NGFA noted that the Grain Handling Facilities Standard may also "prove helpful to facilities that do not have access to educational material ...."

No one who commented on this 610 Review believed the Grain Handling Facilities Standard should be rescinded, and no evidence was presented of economic hardship resulting from implementation of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. The following are public comments, received on specific issues relating to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. Some of these comments are from the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA). However, the NGFA stated it did not advocate changing the Grain Handling Facilities Standard at this time (Ex. 4, p. 8).

Control of Hazardous Energy. Although the main objective of the Grain Handling Standard is to prevent fires and explosions, the standard also provides worker protection from hazards associated with entry into bins, silos, tanks, and other grain storage structures and entry into flat storage structures in which mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment presents a danger to employees inside grain storage structures. Equipment must be disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise prevented from operating by some other equally effective means or methods. In addition, the provisions addressing preventive maintenance procedures requires the employer to implement procedures for the use of locks which will prevent the inadvertent application of energy or motion to equipment being repaired, serviced, or adjusted, which could result in employee injury. Such locks must be removed in accordance with established procedures only by the employee installing them or, if unavailable, by his or her supervisor. Two commenters (Ex.3-59, 4) pointed out differences between the provisions of the Grain Handling Standard covering hazardous energy sources, 1910.272 (g)(1)(ii) and (h)(2)(i) and the Control of Hazardous Energy standard, 1910.147. According to the commenters, the standards differ because the Control of Hazardous Energy Standard allows the employer to lock out or tag out energy sources, the Grain Handling Facilities Standard requires the energy sources to be locked out and tagged out.

At the time that the Grain Handling Facilities standard was promulgated on December 31, 1987 (52 FR 49592-49631), the existing OSHA standards did not adequately address hazards associated with the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of machines or equipment, or release of stored energy would injure workers. Therefore, when developing the Grain Handling Facilities Standard, OSHA was concerned about these hazards as they occurred when entering bins, silos and tanks in grain handling facilities, and the final standard contained requirements to both lock out and tag out mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment. Another provision, (l)(4) of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard, covered equipment being repaired, serviced, or adjusted, which could result in employee injury. These lock out provisions were crafted by OSHA based upon the best available evidence in the grain handling facilities rulemaking record.

On September 1, 1989, OSHA promulgated the Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) Standard that covered servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment could cause injury to employees (54 FR 36644-36696). The standard applied to most general industry conditions. This standard preferred the use of lock out devices over the use of tags. OSHA determined that lockout is a surer means of assuring deenergization of equipment than tagout, and that it should be the preferred method used. Tags were permitted if an energy-isolating device purchased prior to the Standard was not capable of being locked out; thus, OSHA acknowledged a feasibility constraint to this Standard as it applied to a wide range of industries. However, the Lockout/Tagout Standard required all new equipment to be capable of Lockout. In grain handling facilities, OSHA determined that it was feasible to use locks and required tags to be used, in addition.

On March 8, 1996 OSHA amended the Grain Handling Facilities Standard to expand the scope to include flat storage structures, regardless of their point of entry (47 FR 9578 - 9584). The expansion applied to lock out and tag out provisions. This rulemaking did not identify problems associated with locking out and tagging out machinery and equipment in grain handling facilities.

OSHA's response: There is no conflict between the Grain Handling Standard and Control of Hazardous Energy Standard, but there are differences. The lockout provisions of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard are the provisions applicable to facilitie