Incident Investigations and PHA Integration — OSHA Letters of Interpretation

A law firm asked OSHA to review its PHA revalidation procedure. OSHA said (e)(6) only specifies that revalidation happen at least every five years by a team meeting (e)(4), and that it does not require an all-new PHA. But the revalidation must at least: evaluate the existing PHA against every (e)(3) item; confirm changes since the last PHA went through MOC and are reflected; confirm all PSI is complete and current, not just P&IDs; verify procedures are adequate and followed; confirm prior recommendations were documented and implemented; and review every incident investigation report under (m) and incorporate it. The revalidation must be documented.

In its letter on PHA consequence requirements, OSHA noted that (e)(3) also requires the team to address (e)(3)(ii), the identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace, along with facility siting and human factors.

In its letter on restarting after an extended shutdown, OSHA listed a review of prior incident investigations and audit findings among the steps an employer should take before reintroducing highly hazardous chemicals.

OSHA's RAGAGEP memo tells inspectors that when employers specify safeguards based on PHA, incident investigation, or MOC findings and fail to implement or complete the documented actions, the failure may be cited under the relevant provision, such as (e), (l), or (m).