The Chevron Richmond Refinery fire of 2012, and the recommendations of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board that arose from it, sent regulatory agencies into a tizzy.

In the wake of the recommendations, Cal/OSHA has been busily expanding its requirements and enforcement activities related to process safety management (PSM), starting with passage of Senate Bill (S.B.) 1300 and proposed revisions to Cal/OSHA’s PSM standard.

Federal OSHA is also increasing its PSM emphasis. On June 5, 2015, it issued a new guidance document on “recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices” (RAGAGEP) in PSM enforcement. Keep reading to find out what the regulation means for affected facilities.

RAGAGEP and enforcement

The memorandum will affect all California facilities that fall under OSHA’s Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management National Emphasis Program (Refinery NEP).
In California, the NEP has been largely superseded by Cal/OSHA’s latest PSM enforcement initiative, which requires Cal/OSHA to conduct four Program Quality Verification (PQV) inspections annually. Cal/OSHA will also continue to conduct occasional NEP inspections as needed to ensure that every refinery is inspected on a 3-year cycle.
A PQV inspection is a multipoint inspection performed by specially trained Cal/OSHA compliance personnel. The PQV inspection is more thorough than any other inspection Cal/OSHA performs and includes a comprehensive evaluation of:

• The facility’s PSM program;
• The quality of the facility’s procedures compared to RAGAGEP; and
• Verification of the effectiveness of the facility’s program implementation.

Federal OSHA’s new RAGAGEP guidance will likely be incorporated into these inspections.

RAGAGEP sources

The definition of RAGAGEP is found in the Center for Chemical Process Safety’s (CCPS) Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems. According to the CCPS, RAGAGEP “are the basis for engineering, operation, or maintenance activities and are … based on established codes, standards, published technical reports or recommended practices (RP) or similar documents.”

When inspectors assess how well a facility’s procedures align with RAGAGEP, they will examine:

• Published and widely adopted codes. Many state and municipal codes incorporate or adopt codes such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety and NFPA 70 National Electric codes. These codes are generally accepted as RAGAGEP.
• Published consensus documents. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) sets due process requirements for national standards; standards that meet those requirements are considered RAGAGEP. Standards published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR), for example, meet these requirements.

PRACTICE TIP

When assessing compliance with RAGAGEP, inspectors consider the words ‘shall’ and ‘must’ to signal mandatory requirements, while ‘should’ signals nonmandatory recommendations.

• Published nonconsensus documents. Some published nonconsensus documents don’t conform to ANSI’s due process requirements—but may be widely accepted as good practices in a given industry. Examples include the Chlorine Institute’s pamphlets on chlorine and sodium hypochlorite (bleach) safety and many CCPS guideline books that deal with equipment specific topics. Peer-reviewed technical articles addressing specific hazards may also fall into this category.
• Applicable manufacturer’s recommendations. The operating instructions and manuals that come with a piece of equipment may include maintenance schedules and other information that would be considered RAGAGEP.
• Internal standards. Employers may develop internal standards for use within their facilities. Employers’ internal standards must either meet or exceed the protective requirements of published RAGAGEP, where such RAGAGEP exist.

Enforcement guidance

OSHA’s recommendations to inspectors for evaluating RAGAGEP compliance address numerous issues, including:

• Multiple RAGAGEP. When multiple RAGAGEP apply to a specific process, they may contain similar but not identical requirements. If all applicable RAGAGEP are protective, compliance with one of them is acceptable.
• Applicability of RAGAGEP. If a RAGAGEP provision does not apply to a particular worksite or situation, the employer need not comply.
• Misapplication of RAGAGEP. Some employers apply RAGAGEP outside of their intended area of application. For example, an employer might use ammonia refrigeration pressure vessel inspection recommended practices in a chemical plant or refinery process. OSHA considers this grounds for a citation.
• Inadequate control using RAGAGEP. When fully applicable RAGAGEP do not exist to control hazards in an employer’s covered process, inspectors should look for appropriate internal standards the employer has developed; whether those standards are effective; and whether the employer complies with its own standards.
• Selective application of RAGAGEP. Employers should not mix and match provisions from multiple RAGAGEP sources.
• Inspection, testing, and compliance documentation. Employers must document that their inspection and testing of equipment is in accordance with their selected RAGAGEP. They must also document that their covered process equipment and equipment whose operation could affect that process equipment comply with RAGAGEP.
• Mechanical integrity requirements. Equipment must operate within acceptable limits for mechanical integrity.
• Older equipment. Older equipment may not have an applicable RAGAGEP because none existed at the time of design and construction, or it might have been designed and constructed in compliance with outdated RAGAGEP. Employers must provide documentation that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
• Retroactive revisions to RAGAGEP. Organizations that publish RAGAGEP periodically update them. If the updated RAGAGEP explicitly states that new requirements are retroactive, employers are expected to conform with those provisions. Even if the updated RAGAGEP is not explicitly retroactive, employers should address any applicable issues identified in the updated RAGAGEP.