Combustible Dust Hazards questions for the CSP
CSP Domain 6: Occupational Health and Applied Science (6.1 Occupational exposures (combustible dust)). 3 free questions below. Every answer quotes and links the source document it comes from.
Sources covered
- OSHA 3371-08, Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts (2009) Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts
Guidance documents are quoted from the published edition linked above; they are recommendations, not regulations.
Question 1
A plant buys a sugar-based powder and a lab report classifies it as a weak explosion. After the plant switches to a finer grind of the same material with lower moisture, a manager wants to keep using the earlier classification for the new lot without further review. According to OSHA's guidance, what is the best response?
Show answer and source
Answer: D. Treat the earlier class as sample specific and check whether the new particle size and moisture change it.
OSHA's guidance says the actual class is sample specific and depends on traits such as particle size or moisture. A finer, drier lot may differ from the tested sample, so the class should be rechecked. The class is not fixed by the material name, does not automatically jump to the top, and is not erased by moisture.
On the job
A plant engineer at a pharmaceutical tablet facility receives a new lot of excipient powder milled finer than the lot that went to the lab. The earlier test result had assigned an explosion class, but OSHA's guidance says that class is sample specific and depends on traits like particle size or moisture. The engineer holds the old class as unconfirmed and requests testing on the new lot before updating the hazard communication materials.
Study aid, not site-specific safety advice. The official rule controls.
Answer D comes from
OSHA 3371-08, Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts (2009), PDF p. 6(opens osha.gov in a new tab)“The actual class is sample specific and will depend on varying characteristics of the material such as particle size or moisture.”
Question 2
A nonprofit trade association notices that almost no workplaces in its region offer worker training on combustible dust housekeeping. It wants outside funding to run classes. Which OSHA support fits this situation?
Show answer and source
Answer: D. Grant funds that OSHA gives nonprofit organizations to run workplace training in subjects where it sees a training gap
OSHA's guidance says it provides grant funds to nonprofit organizations to conduct workplace training in subjects where OSHA believes training is lacking. The Training Institute option misstates who the Institute serves and what it provides. The Strategic Partnership Program is described as encouraging and recognizing partners, not paying for classes. OSHA funding is not limited to for-profit employers.
On the job
An EHS manager at a grain milling company learns that a regional nonprofit safety council wants to start dust housekeeping classes but lacks funding. The manager points the council to OSHA grant funds, which go to nonprofit organizations to run workplace training in subjects where OSHA sees a lack of training. The council begins preparing an application to support the classes.
Study aid, not site-specific safety advice. The official rule controls.
Answer D comes from
OSHA 3371-08, Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts (2009), PDF p. 11(opens osha.gov in a new tab)“OSHA also provides funds to nonprofit organizations, through grants, to conduct workplace training and education in subjects where OSHA believes there is a lack of workplace training.”
Question 3
A plant buys polyethylene pellets in sealed bags and stores them on racks. Next quarter it will feed the pellets through a pulverizer into a dust collector. A safety manager reviewing combustible dust risk asks where the hazard first needs attention. Which area should the review focus on?
Show answer and source
Answer: B. The pulverizer and dust collector, where the pellets will produce dust particles
OSHA's guidance says plastic pellets rarely pose a combustible dust hazard until they are processed downstream and produce dust. So the pulverizer and collector are the focus. The dock and racks hold intact pellets, not dust. Saying the pellets pose no hazard at any stage ignores the dust produced when they are ground.
On the job
An EHS manager at a toy manufacturer reviews a planned line that will grind scrap plastic pellets into powder for reuse. The pellets in sealed totes on the receiving dock look harmless, and the manager knows intact pellets rarely pose a combustible dust hazard until processing produces dust particles. The dust hazard assessment therefore concentrates on the grinder, its collection ducting and the filter unit.
Study aid, not site-specific safety advice. The official rule controls.
Answer B comes from
OSHA 3371-08, Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts (2009), PDF p. 5(opens osha.gov in a new tab)“Plastic pellets shipped from a polyethylene plant rarely pose a combustible dust hazard until they are processed downstream where they produce dust particles.”