Back to Federal guidance

Limits of a process safety interpretation after an accident

Summary A safety engineer questioned an earlier OSHA process safety answer after an accident. OSHA said the earlier interpretation was limited by the information then supplied and should not support broader conclusions without more facts. It requested accident details to review its policy; OSHA archives this response as potentially outdated.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1995-03-28-1
Date issued
March 28, 1995
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy.
Status last verified October 10, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

The current status of this document is unclear
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy. It may no longer reflect the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

March 28, 1995

Mr. Robert M. Bachman
System Safety Engineer
[Recipient address omitted]

Dear Mr. Bachman:

Thank you for your letter of February 7, 1995, in which you expressed some concerns regarding OSHA's response to Mr. Douglas H. Delsemme's inquiry of May 25, 1994, regarding coverage under the Process Safety Management Standard. We apologize for the delay in responding to you.

As you have indicated in your letter, the response to Mr. Delsemme's inquiry was based on a strict interpretation of the Process Safety Management (PSM) regulation and the limited information that was supplied to OSHA. In the absence of detailed information on any operation, inferences beyond the strict interpretation of the regulation would not be appropriate.

We are very concerned about the unfortunate accident that you have brought to our attention. We would be very appreciative if you would provide us with additional information surrounding this accident, particularly with regard to the causes of the accident and their relation to our interpretation. It would be most helpful to us if you could have an investigative file forwarded to us, so that we may analyze the information and review our policies. We hope to be able to determine if this unfortunate accident occurred as a result of violations of the PSM Standard or other unrelated reasons. Please advise us of your thoughts on how the inclusion of the repackaging of propellant powder in the PSM regulation would have eliminated the possibility of this type of an accident.

Thank you for your continuing interest in the health and safety of the American workers, and for bringing your concerns to our attention. We look forward to your continued cooperation and assistance. If you have questions about these requests, please contact Ms. Alcmene Haloftis of my staff on 202-219-8031.

Sincerely,
John B. Miles, Jr.,
Director Directorate of Compliance Programs

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace