Knowledge and understanding check: Can OSHA cite a facility with a PSM or non-PSM covered closed-loop ammonia refrigeration system for failing to conduct an IIAR-9 audit when that standard is required to be implemented (assume January 1, 2026)? The short answer is no, they cannot (though they may try). Why not? Make sure you read the question thoroughly.
First, OSHA cannot, in most cases, dictate which Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP) a facility must follow unless the RAGAGEP is incorporated by reference in a specific OSHA standard or regulation. This applies regardless of whether the facility is covered under Process Safety Management (PSM) or is Non-PSM. It is accurate that the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) or other local and state governing bodies could require the facility to adopt or adhere to a consensus standard such as IIAR-9, but this is not an OSHA requirement.
Non-PSM Covered Facility
The General Duty Clause (GDC), specifically Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) Act, requires employers to provide their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. This means that employers must take reasonable steps to identify and address hazards, even if no specific OSHA standard applies to that particular hazard. While OSHA has many regulations addressing a variety of hazards, a closed-loop ammonia refrigeration system (CLARS) containing less than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia is NOT one of them. The key words in the OSH Act are “recognized hazards.” In the past, OSHA has cited facilities with less than 10,000 pounds under the GDC, but this has been somewhat challenging, given the lack of a consensus standard applicable to CLARS with less than 10,000 pounds. However, with the creation of IIAR-9, an industry-recognized “hazards” document now exists to support a GDC citation and provides a reasonable means of abatement. Furthermore, it is crucial not to overlook the word “hazards.” OSHA should always cite hazards, not “programs” or “paperwork” issues. OSHA still needs a rationale for the inspection (there is no National Emphasis Program (NEP) for a CLARS less than 10,000 pounds). This must be directly linked to the CLARS and not be a “just because you have one” situation. Without probable cause for conducting the inspection, they cannot perform the inspection.
Example: A facility contains a CLARS; the AHJ does not require the facility to follow any specific RAGAGEP and has not explicitly adopted IIAR-9.
The facility has released ammonia, resulting in an exposure that sent three people to the hospital (probable cause and OSHA now has the authority to conduct an inspection). OSHA would request inventory information to determine whether the CLARS has less than 10,000 (Yes, you need to know how much you have). If it is less than 10,000 pounds, OSHA should continue the inspection based on the fact that it falls under GDC and not PSM. It is expected that they would ask for information contained in IIAR-9 (minimum safety requirements) and verify that all measures have been implemented. Also, keep in mind that some OSHA regulations could be cited outside of a GDC, such as the need for and placement of safety showers and early warning systems (alarms) or emergency response/action.
Potential Outcomes:
1. If the facility failed to implement specific safety systems, these should be cited via the GDC using IIAR-9 as the basis (recognized hazards and reasonable means of abatement). Each system not implemented would count as a single instance in the GDC citation. Very rarely are multiple GDCs issued, but if egregious, I would support that! Since the facility did not adopt IIAR-9, it would be inappropriate to include the audit, as that is NOT a hazard, while the other items are. If they had adopted IIAR-9 or the AHJ required it, then it might be appropriate to add an instance to the GDC for failing to conduct the audit.
2. If the facility had implemented all specific safety systems but had NOT conducted an IIAR-9 audit, it would NOT be appropriate to cite the failure to conduct the audit. Regardless of whether the facility had adopted IIAR-9 or was required to follow it (AHJ), the failure to perform the audit is a “paperwork” issue, as it would be difficult to prove how not conducting an audit could expose employees and “cause death or physical harm.”
3. As part of a settlement agreement or abatement, OSHA could require that the facility adopt IIAR-9 and adhere to those requirements. However, I believe they should suggest adherence to a more stringent program such as PSM, regardless of quantity. It costs very little more to follow a PSM program than not!
PSM Covered Facility
For a PSM-covered facility, OSHA has specific regulations or standards that apply to a CLARS containing 10,000 pounds or more of anhydrous ammonia. The standard requires that the facility, prior to conducting the initial Process Hazard Analysis (PHA), document its process safety information, including details pertaining to the equipment in the process (as IIAR-9 has limited requirements). The PHA must then address the “hazards of the process,” which aligns with the OSH Act: “employers provide their employees with a workplace that is free from recognized hazards.” In this case, the hazards outlined in IIAR-9 as minimum safety requirements have been known for years; therefore, if a PSM facility has not implemented them, then, to be blunt, the facility's program is woefully inadequate! As a former OSHA CSHO, I was recommending PSM citations outlined in IIAR-9 requirements back in 2012. PSM is a management system based on the Plan, Do, Act (PDA) principle; thus, a facility must continuously seek improvement, including exploring new ways to address hazards outlined in RAGAGEP or from other sources, such as investigations conducted by the CSB or other third parties whose findings are publicly disseminated. Though it is true that OSHA cannot require a facility to update to the latest RAGAGEP, they still can and should cite the facility for failing to address a hazard that the newer RAGAGEP addresses. If there are known industry hazards, they MUST be addressed in the PHA via 1910.119(e)(1) through e(3)(vii). Failure to address the known hazards should result in a PHA-related citation and NOT anything related to IIAR-9, though IIAR-9 could be used to demonstrate employer knowledge (constructive) of hazards for any citation.
Example: A facility contains a CLARS; there is no requirement by the AHJ to follow any specific RAGAGEP, and the facility had not specifically adopted IIAR-9.
The facility experienced an ammonia release, resulting in three people being sent to the hospital. (Probable cause and OSHA now have the authority to conduct an inspection) or it was selected for an inspection via a National Emphasis Program (NEP). OSHA would request inventory information to determine whether the CLARS exceeds 10,000 pounds. If it does exceed 10,000 pounds, OSHA would continue the inspection since it falls under 1910.119 (PSM). It is expected that they would ask for information related to the various PSM elements, which should include items contained in IIAR-9 (minimum safety requirements), and verify that all have been implemented. In addition, a review of the PHA should be conducted to ensure that later RAGAGEP safety systems have been addressed, regardless of whether the facility adopted a specific RAGAGEP or not. The facility may have indicated that it adopted IIAR-2 (1998), but it is known that there are hazards that were not properly addressed in the older RAGAGEPs; therefore, the facility must address those during PHA revalidations. Some OSHA regulations could also be cited outside of the PSM standard, such as the need and placement of safety showers, early warning systems (alarms), emergency response/action, and HAZWOPER.
Note: If the inspection of the CLARS was conducted as an NEP and it is determined that it contains less than 10,000 pounds, OSHA should end the inspection since it would no longer have the authority to conduct it.
Potential Outcomes:
1. If the facility failed to implement specific safety systems, these should be cited via the specific PSM element if directly related, or the PHA if the hazard was not addressed. Each unimplemented item could be grouped or cited separately. Since the facility did not adopt IIAR-9, it would be inappropriate to include the audit, as they would not be required to follow that standard, and it is expected that the facility should be well beyond “minimum safety requirements."
Summary
OSHA should not cite for failing to conduct an IIAR-9 audit but should instead cite the facility for failing to address the hazards that the minimum safety system outlined in IIAR-9 is meant to tackle. OSHA should always cite hazards since those are what the OSH Act is intended to address to ”keep a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”