Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1910.1450|
September 7, 1990
Mr. William E. Clark
Dear Mr. Clark:
This is in response to your letter of July 2, regarding the Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP) under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Laboratory Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1450. Your letter proposed to incorporate the CHP into your current Hazard Communication and/or other related manuals.
As Mr. Brown of OSHA's Oklahoma City area office indicated to you, this situation would be sufficient as long as ALL information in 29 CFR 1910.1450 is covered, easily identified and readily accessible. Please note the requirement for a Chemical Hygiene Officer or a Committee to implement the CHP.
We are sending copies of this interpretation to all of our Regional Offices. Among the states you mentioned in your letter, Iowa and Minnesota are not within Federal OSHA's jurisdiction but are state-plan states which handle their own health and safety programs. Their standards are at least as effective as Federal OSHA's but can be stricter. We suggest that you contact them for their interpretation on the subject. Their addresses and phone numbers are as follows:
Iowa Division of Labor Services
If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Patricia K. Clark
July 17, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR: PATRICIA CLARK Director Directorate of Compliance Programs THROUGH: LEO CAREY Director Office of Field Programs SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation - Williams Pipe Line CompanyThe attached request for interpretation is forwarded for your response because it pertains to state plan locations and federal jurisdiction in states outside Region VI (Regions V, VII and VIII). The request is dated July 2, 1990, and was directed to our Oklahoma City Area Office by Mr. William Clark of Williams Pipe Line Company.
Please respond directly to Mr. Clark and furnish a copy of your response to Mr. White of the Oklahoma City Area Office and Jerry Bailey, Assistant Regional Administrator for Technical Support.
Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
GILBERT J. SAULTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Reply to the attention of: Oklahoma City Area Office 420 West Main, Suite 725 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405/231-5351
July 11, 1990
MEMORANDUM TO: Gilbert J. Saulter, Regional Administrator ATTENTION: Jerry D. Bailey, ARA for Technical Support FROM: William W. White, Jr., Area Director, Oklahoma City AO/JEBThe attached request for interpretation is forwarded for response because it pertains to state plan locations as well as federal jurisdiction. Please respond directly to Mr. Clark and copy this office.
WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANY
July 2, 1990
Mr. William White
Dear Mr. White:
According to Mr. Jim Brown, Manager of Industrial Hygiene with your office, a national or regional ruling may be necessary for the questions that Williams Pipe Line Company (WPL) has about the Hazard Communication Program (HazCom) and the Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP).
Williams Pipe Line Company operates the nation's largest independently owned common carrier liquid pipeline; an 8,500 mile system that serves ten (10) midwestern states. As a common carrier pipeline, WPL does not own the products that are transported, rather, the Company works with more than 75 shippers who hire the pipeline to ship their products.
Williams Pipe Line Company has a revised Hazard Communication Manual that closely coincides with the Chemical Hygiene Plan guidelines (29 CFR 1910.1450). WPL also has other manuals (i.e., Safety, Operations, etc.) that contain pertinent information that also relates to the requirements of the Chemical Hygiene Plan.
Williams Pipe Line Company has laboratories that are essentially for testing the transported petroleum products to ensure they meet certain quality assurance guidelines.
Due to the fact that WPL's laboratories are for quality assurance testing and not chemical manufacturing, and WPL's HazCom and other Company manuals contain the pertinent information covered by the Chemical Hygiene Plan, your approval is requested for WPL to incorporate or reference the requirements of the CHP in our HazCom and/or other related manuals versus one designated "CHP" manual. The proposed manuals would be easily identified, readily accessible, and contain all of the information required by 29 CFR 1910.1450.
The benefits derived from using the current manuals and incorporating the CHP are; to avoid duplication of information, avoid future revision difficulties, and to enable the Company to continue providing the employees with effective information communicated in the current manuals.
Information gathered from Mr. Brown indicates that this situation would be sufficient for Oklahoma, as long as ALL information in 29 CFR 1910.1450 is covered. But since WPL operates in nine other states besides Oklahoma, would this proposal be sufficient in the other states? The other states include Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
Williams Pipe Line believes that if all areas are covered from both standards, (29 CFR 1910.1200 and 29 CFR 1910.1450) it is reasonable and appropriate to reference the CHP in our current HazCom and other related Company manuals. This would enable WPL to cover all areas in question, use all pertinent information, have only one set of MSDS information, and still have an effective program.
Your cooperation on this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call me at 918/588-3337.
William E. Clark
cc: M. J. Mistelske
Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|