Standard Interpretations - (Archived) Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1910.10|
October 19, 1990
|MEMORANDUM FOR:||Regional Administrators|
Regions II, III, V, and VI
|THROUGH:||Leo Carey, Director Office of Field Programs|
|FROM:||Patricia K. Clark|
Directorate of Compliance Programs
|Subject:||Clarification of Paragraph H.1 of OSHA Notice CPL 2, and On-site Contractor Issues|
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the intent of paragraph H.1 of OSHA Notice CPL 2 issued in connection with the special emphasis program in the petrochemical industry, and to address issues raised during the telephone conference of September 14, 1990 held in connection with the ongoing PETROSEP inspections in the four Regions.
A series of questions from various industry organizations and OSHA Regional Offices revealed the need to clarify the intent of paragraph H.1 of OSHA Notice CPL 2. The paragraph describes how firms are selected for PETROSEP inspections. Firms must have a combined total of more than 2500 employees in one or more establishments within one or more of the following SIC codes: 2821, 2869, and 2911.
During the telephone conference of September 14, which involved members from the National Office, Regional Offices, and participating Area Offices, two questions pertaining to on-site contractor activities were raised, as follows:
1) OSHA Notice CPL 2 calls for all contractors on-site to be inspected-- Are the Area Offices required to inspect all contractors on-site?The intent of the PETROSEP is to focus primarily on contractors whose activities involve conditions that may result in catastrophic events. The contractors who contribute to the potential of catastrophic failures, normally include welding contractors, and maintenance contractors involved in replacing and cleaning pipes, valves, pumps, tanks, and other fittings. While inspecting these contractors, emphasis should be placed on hazard communication program, and on their work permit procedures such as hot work, line-breaking, confined space entry, lockout/tagout, and emergency escape procedures. However, other hazards observed while inspecting these contractors shall be noted for citation issuance purposes. Contractors engaged in activities such as grading, painting, construction of new units, etc., whose activities would not create or contribute to catastrophic events, need not be inspected. In any event, all contractors engaged in activities that may result in catastrophic events must be inspected. This would also include contractors that through their activities could introduce ignition sources in classified areas.
2) The contractors may be actively involved in their contract work one day, and may not be on-site for the next several days. How can an Area Office handle such a flux of contractors, when their presence on-site is staggered?
Due to the staggered nature of contractors' work activities on there sites, it is very unlikely that all targeted contractors on-site can be inspected. The first option to address the flux of contractors is to obtain copies of the daily work permits from the manager of the establishment and inspect the contractors based on the activity information obtained from the work permits. This option is the preferred method for identifying and selecting contractors for inspection. If the permits are not voluntarily provided by the facility management, then administrative subpoenas should be utilized to obtain them.
If the work permits are not available, a second option is to inspect all contractors encountered during any plant tours and walkaround portions of the inspection.
A contractor who has been inspected once during the inspection need not be inspected again, provided apparent violations are not observed with that contractor.
|Standard Interpretations - (Archived) Table of Contents|