Waiting for OSHA to disappoint on combustible dust?

[Omaha Steve]

http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/waiting-for-osha-to-disappoint-on-combustible-dust/

September 28, 2009 in Confined Space @ TPH, Occupational Health & Safety, Regulation | by Celeste Monforton

Sixteen months ago when OSHA’s Assistant Secretary Edwin Foulke testified before the House Education and Labor Committee, Chairman George Miller chastised OSHA’s failure to aggressively address combustible dust hazards.

“I see such an incredible lack of urgency on your part, about the role of your agency to protect workers, that it’s astounding.”

The hearing came about one month after the catastrophe at the Imperial Sugar plant in Port Wentworth, Georgia, that killed 14 and seriously injured dozens of others. The OSHA chief asserted that his agency was still assessing whether a standard on combustible dust was necessary. The result: no meaningful regulatory action by OSHA on combustible dust. Is Secretary Solis’ OSHA heading down the same path: no meaningful action for workers on combustible dust??

In May of this year, when Secretary Solis issued her first regulatory agenda, listing her agency’s rulemaking priorities, I was disappointed to see the plan for combustible dust did not involve proposing a rule. Instead, it indicated that OSHA would publish an advanced notice about the topic while it considered whether rulemaking was necessary.

At first, I was really irked that President Obama’s OSHA might be following the same script as Mr. G.W. Bush’s OSHA. A brighter, cooler-headed colleague reminded me that this May 2009 regulatory agenda probably did not really reflect Secretary Solis’ priorities (nor the acting OSHA chief), given that she (and he) had only been on the job for a few weeks. My colleague smartly suggested that I withhold judgment.

We both noted confidently that surely OSHA has adequate information to propose a rule on combustible dust (along with a preliminary feasibility assessment and regulatory flexibility analysis.) We could easily tick off sources of available data, including the Chemical Safety Board’s (CSB) 2006 comprehensive report and recommendations on combustible dust explosions, the CSB’s and NFPA’s experts, and OSHA’s own data from two years of special inspection program for dust hazards. I decided to sit tight and wait for OSHA to propose a rule.

But now, it looks like OSHA will disappoint us after all on combustible dust.

FULL story at link.

[katandmoon]

1. Bush III is only marginally less in big business' pocket than Bush II