These slides were presented at the October 24th Environmental Health and Safety Regulatory Update Seminar held in Framingham MA sponsored by Tighe & Bond

1. Breakfast Seminar Series
Environmental, Health & Safety
Regulatory Updates
Introductions
October 3 Taunton Mass
October 24 Framingham Mass
Wayne E. Bates, PhD, PE, Principal Engineer

2. Firm Overview
■ Multi-disciplinary Consulting Firm Founded in 1911
■ Full Service Capabilities: 330 Person Staff
■ Employee Owned
■ 8 Offices in MA, CT, NH and NY

3. Geographic Coverage

4. Tighe & Bond Full Service Capabilities
Civil Engineering
•Dams & Levees
•Geotechnical
Engineering
•Infrastructure
•Land Use Planning
•Low Impact Design
•Parking & Circulation
•Site Planning &
Design
•Transportation
Environmental
Consulting
•Brownfields
•Demolition &
Asbestos/ Hazardous
Materials
•Environmental
Permitting & Planning
•Fuel Storage
•Health & Safety
•Regulatory
Compliance
•Site Assessment &
Remediation
•Wetlands and
Ecological Services
Building Services
•Geotechnical
Engineering
•Electrical &
Mechanical
Engineering
•LEED Green Design
•Owner’s Project
Manager
•Structural Engineering
Technology
•3D Modeling
•GIS
Sustainability
•Energy & Resource
Conservation
•LEED Green Design
•Low Impact Design
•Renewable Energy
Environmental
Engineering
•Drinking Water
•Solid Waste
•Stormwater
•Wastewater

5. About our Speakers?
■ Regulatory Experts
■ Actively engaged in professional societies
■ Track regulations
■ Good reputation among regulators
■ History of helping clients with regulatory
challenges
■ Ability to assist in determining applicability

6. Agenda

7. Questions – Expectations

8. Breakfast Seminar Series
EH&S Regulatory Updates
October 3 Taunton Mass
October 24 Framingham Mass
David P. Horowitz, P.E., CSP, Project Manager
Environmental Regulations

9. Agenda – Regulatory Updates
■ Tanks
■ EPCRA – Tier II
■ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
■ Toxics Use Reduction (TUR)
■ Stormwater (MSGP)
■ Source Registration
■ Enforcement Notes

10. Regulatory Updates – Tanks (Above ground)
■ 502 CMR 5.0
– Tanks >10,000 capacity
storing any fluid other than
water
– Regulation Changes
» April 2015
» Consistency with national
standards
– EPA
– West Virginia
– New York
» 5 year versus 1 year
permits
» Inspectors propose test
protocol

11. Regulatory Updates – Tanks (Underground)
■ MassDEP’s new system for managing UST data
– Requires the person responsible for updating the information to
submit a Proof of Identification (POI) form to MassDEP.
– We recommend creating an account first, then submitting the
form – otherwise it will go into a pile of “orphan” forms and will
likely take longer to be processed.

12. Planning for 2018 – Tanks (underground)
■ Included in the January 2015
UST regulation update
– Sumps & Spill Buckets - hydrostatic or
pressure testing no later than 1/2/2017
» Spill buckets need to be retested
every 5 years
» Sumps are one-time tests
– Compliance Certifications due 18
months after a Third Party Inspection.

13. Top Five Things Regulators Look For
1. 18 month mid-cycle for
certification (USTs)
– 30 Day Return to Compliance
2. Managing sumps & spill
buckets (USTs)
3. A/B/C Operator coverage
(USTs)
4. Financial Assurance (USTs)
5. Proposed inspection
protocols (ASTs)

14. Questions

15. Agenda – Regulatory Updates
■ Tanks
■ EPCRA – Tier II
■ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
■ Toxics Use Reduction (TUR)
■ Stormwater (MSGP)
■ Source Registration
■ Enforcement Notes

16. Regulatory Updates – EPCRA
■ Tier II Reporting
– March 1 Deadline
– 10,000 pounds
– EHS substances
– Tier II Manager
– Change in Hazard ID

20. Questions

21. Agenda – Regulatory Updates
■ Tanks
■ EPCRA – Tier II
■ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
■ Toxics Use Reduction (TUR)
■ Stormwater (MSGP)
■ Source Registration
■ Enforcement Notes

22. Regulatory Update – TRI/TURA
■ DEP/EPA Workshops
■ TRI
– TRIme Web enhanced
– 1-Bromopropane (n-propyl-bromide) added
■ TURA
– Grant opportunities
– High hazard chemicals (1,000 Lbs)
» N-propyl bromide, cyanide compounds, hydrogen fluoride,
dimethylformamide, toluene diisocyanates
■ CSAT is back
■ TSCA Changes

23. Questions

24. Agenda – Regulatory Updates
■ Tanks
■ EPCRA – Tier II
■ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
■ Toxics Use Reduction (TUR)
■ Stormwater (MSGP)
■ Source Registration
■ Enforcement Notes

25. Objectives/Takeways
■ Industrial Stormwater
Introduction
■ Stormwater requirements
■ Potential pollutant sources
■ New England framework
– MSGP Data Review
■ What are regulators looking for?

26. Regulatory Background
■ Industrial Stormwater Dischargers
– 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit
– 2000 Multi-Sector General Permit
» Renewed
– 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit
» Renewed three years after expiration
– 2015 Multi-Sector General Permit
» Renewed two years after expiration

27. Storm Water Discharges – What do
these states have in common?

28. Delegated States
■ Most states are delegated to oversee
program
– 46 are delegated
– States issue permits
■ Four states are not delegated
– Massachusetts
– New Hampshire
– Idaho
– New Mexico
– EPA issues permits

29. New England States
State
General Permit - Effective
Date
General Permit - Expiration
Date
Comment
Massachusetts June 4, 2015 June 4, 2020 Federal Permit
New Hampshire June 4, 2015 June 4, 2020 Federal Permit
Maine April 26, 2011
April 25, 2016
(September 2016 Draft)
State Permit
Connecticut October 1, 2011
September 30, 2018
(Extended from 2016)
State Permit
Rhode Island August 15, 2013 August 14, 2018 State Permit
Vermont August 4, 2011
August 4, 2016
(Administratively continued)
State Permit

30. NPDES - Industrial
■ Permitting Options?
– Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)
– Federal or state
– Meant to be easy
– No Exposure Certification (NOE)
– Still need to file!
– Individual Wastewater Discharge Permit
– Don’t want these for stormwater

31. Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)
Applicability
■ Sectors organized by SIC Codes
– Sector A: Timber Products
– Sector E: Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete
and Gypsum Products
– Sector M: Automobile Salvage Yards
– Sector L: Landfills (Active & Closed)
– Sector N: Scrap and Waste Recycling
– Sector P: Land Transportation and
Warehousing
– Sector S: Airports
– Sector T: Wastewater Treatment Plants
(>1 MGD)

32. Stormwater Changes
■ 2015 MSGP
– Added NAICS code cross-reference
– North American Industrial Classification System
– Added specificity for effluent limits
– Electronic filing required
– Improved public accessibility
» Post plan
» Provide plan elements in NOI

33. General
■ No Exposure Certification (NOE)
– Activities are designed to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt
and/or runoff
– Material handling equipment or activities
– Material handling activities
» Storage, loading and unloading, transportation, or conveyance
– raw material, intermediate product, final product or waste
product
» Final products intended for outdoor use are not required to be
stored indoors or in a storm-resistant shelter.

34. 2000, 2008 & 2015 MSGP Comparison
Let’s look at the data!

35. 2000, 2008 & 2015 MSGP Comparison
County 2016 MSGP 2008 MSGP 2000 MSGP
Barnstable 6 22 29
Berkshire 27 20 50
Bristol 86 55 105
Dukes 7 4 4
Essex 101 56 104
Franklin 16 10 18
Hampden 71 46 97
Hampshire 31 28 38
Middlesex 82 64 193
Nantucket 2 1 1
Norfolk 64 44 94
Plymouth 59 35 55
Suffolk 44 23 38
Worcester 119 67 158
TOTALS 715 475 984

36. 2000, 2008 & 2016 NOE Comparison
County 2016 NOE 2008 NOE 2000 NOE
Barnstable 0 12 6
Berkshire 5 17 7
Bristol 22 49 25
Dukes 1 0 0
Essex 25 56 21
Franklin 7 8 8
Hampden 6 29 16
Hampshire 7 13 10
Middlesex 60 143 56
Nantucket 1 2 1
Norfolk 21 46 20
Plymouth 7 24 17
Suffolk 27 9 6
Worcester 36 77 36
TOTALS 225 485 229

37. Data Review
2016 MSGP 2008 MSGP 2000 MSGP
715 475 984
2016 NOE 2008 NOE 2000 NOE
225 485 229
940 960 1213

38. Data Review
■ Shift to/away from No Exposure
■ Less Sites Covered
■ Site closures?
■ Re-evaluation of regulated discharges?
■ “Delegated” impact – “Out of sight, out of mind”?
2016 MSGP 2008 MSGP 2000 MSGP
715 475 984
2016 NOE 2008 NOE 2000 NOE
225 485 229
940 960 1213

39. Questions

40. Agenda – Regulatory Updates
■ Tanks
■ EPCRA – Tier II
■ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
■ Toxics Use Reduction (TUR)
■ Stormwater (MSGP)
■ Source Registration
■ Enforcement Notes

41. Source Registration

42. ■ SR forms (including GHG) anticipated by December 31, 2017
■ 2016 Reports: Deferring 2016 reporting for triennial reporters to the
2017 RY
■ Annual reporters must submit their 2016 SR
■ MassDEP will notify annual filers of the deadline by which they must
submit a 2016 SR
■ 2017 Reports: MassDEP will notify facilities required to submit a
2017 SR, and will indicate deadlines for filing
■ IMPORTANT NOTE: MassDEP cannot accept 2016 and 2017 SR
reports at the same time - Annual reporters should file their 2016
reports when notified by MassDEP & then wait
■ GHG REPORTERS: Information regarding GHG reporting is being
communicated to separately
Thank you for your continued patience while MassDEP transitions SR/GHG reporting

43. Questions

44. Agenda – Regulatory Updates
■ Tanks
■ EPCRA – Tier II
■ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
■ Toxics Use Reduction (TUR)
■ Stormwater (MSGP)
■ Enforcement Notes

45. Enforcement Notes - USTs

46. Enforcement Notes – TRI/TURA

47. Questions

48. Breakfast Seminar Series
EH&S Regulatory Updates
October 3, 2017 Taunton, MA
October 24, 2017 Framingham, MA
Daniel C. Williams – Sr. Environmental Compliance Specialist
Safety & Health

49. Regulatory Updates – Safety & Health
■ Respirable Crystalline Silica
■ Walking & Working Surfaces
■ OSHA Top Ten Most Cited

50. Regulatory Updates – Safety & Health
■ Respirable Crystalline Silica
– Issue Date: March 25, 2016 / Effective Date: June 23, 2016
– Compliance Dates:
» Construction: Sept. 23, 2017 / General Industry: June 23, 2018

51. Regulatory Updates – Safety & Health
■ Why a new standard?
– Silica is a known problem for over 80 years
– OSHA PELs are >40 years old
– Current PELs reflect 1960s research, not current
scientific evidence
– Evidence shows current limits do not adequately
protect workers.
– The technology exists to adequately protect workers
and many employers have already adopted these
methods

52. Regulatory Updates – Safety & Health
– Highlights:
» New P.E.L. of 50 µg/m3 / 8 hour shift
(1/2 Prior Limit in General Industry / 5 times lower
in Construction)
» New Action Level of 25 µg/m3 / 8 hour shift
» Requires initial, in some cases follow-up, exposure
monitoring
» Requires engineering controls and work practices
» Requires development of an Exposure Control
Plan
» Must consider designated list of controls

53. Employer Requirements
■ Employers MUST:
» Measure amount of exposure
» Protect against exposures over the PEL
» Implement controls
» Establish a written exposure control program
» Offer medical exams for exposed employees at
over above action level for 30 days or more per
year.
» Train workers
» Keep records of exposure monitoring and exams

54. Exposure Control
■ In most cases, wet methods and ventilation are
sufficient to control exposures
– For example, a granite saw that applies water to the
blade or grinding that takes place in a ventilated
booth.
■ Engineering controls, Work Practices, and PPE must
all be evaluated to keep exposures at or below PEL

55. ■ Silica Rule for Construction - Table 1
– Allows for compliance based on common and frequent tasks and
equipment
» Handheld power saws
» Walk-behind saws
» Rig-mounted core saws and drills
» Jackhammers and chipping tools
» Grinders for mortar removal
» Milling machines
» Crushing machines
» Demolition of silica-containing materials
– Makes compliance much easier. Employers who fully implement
controls of Table 1 are not required to measure exposures for
verification.
Regulatory Updates – Safety & Health

56. Regulatory Updates – Safety & Health
■ Respirable Crystalline Silica – Case Studies
– Abrasive Products Manufacturer
» Exposure concerns
– Visual observations appeared to warrant concern
» Personal and area sampling
» Average 0.15 µg/m3
– Paper Processing Facility
» Exposure concerns
– Again, visual observations appeared to warrant concern
» Personal and area sampling
» Average 0.02 µg/m3

57. Regulatory Updates – Safety & Health
■ Walking & Working Surfaces & Fall Protection
– Effective January 17, 2017
■ The new rule incorporates:
– Advances in technology
– Industry best practices
– National consensus standards
■ Specifically:
– Updates to standards addressing slip, trip, and fall
– Updates to fall hazard (subpart D)
– Adds requirements for personal fall protection systems

58. Regulatory Update – Safety & Health
■ OSHA estimates new rule will prevent 29 fatalities
■ New rule provides greater flexibility to employers
– Eliminates existing mandate to use guardrails as a
primary fall protection method, and allows use of
other acceptable systems
■ OSHA’s goal was to align general industry standards
with construction standards as much as possible to
make compliance easier.

59. Regulatory Update – Safety & Health
■ Exposed workers trained on fall hazards (May 17, 2017)
■ Inspection/certification permanent anchorages for rope descent systems
(November 20, 2017)
■ Installing personal fall arrest or ladder safety systems on new fixed
ladders over 24 feet and on replacement ladders/ladder sections
(November 19, 2018)
■ Existing fixed ladders over 24 feet are equipped with a cage, well,
personal fall arrest system, or ladder safety system (November 19, 2018)
■ Replacing cages and wells with ladder safety or personal fall arrest
systems on all fixed ladders over 24 feet (November 18, 2036)

60. Planning for 2018 – Safety & Health
■ Annual Safety & Health Requirements
– Post OSHA 300A Log: Post from Feb 1 → through April 30
– Initial Training:
» LoTo, Emergency Action Plan, HazCom, PPE, Hearing Protection…
– Refresher Training:
» Annual: Hearing Protection, Respirators, Access to Medical Records…
» 3-Year: Powered Industrial Trucks
– Mandatory Program Reviews:
» Exposure Control Plan (BB Pathogens), Confined Space, LoTo….
– Annual Evaluations:
» Audiograms, Respirator Fit Tests
– Process Changes:
» Training, Program Updates, Hazard Reviews, PPE Assessments…

61. OSHA’s Top Ten Most Cited

62. OSHA Top Ten
■ Electrical design
■ Arc Flash (NFPA 70E)
System specific
evaluations
■ Proposed equipment
■ Existing equipment
■ PPE

63. OSHA Top Ten

64. OSHA Top Ten

65. OSHA Top Ten

66. OSHA Top Ten

67. OSHA Top Ten

69. OSHA Top Ten

70. OSHA Top Ten

71. OSHA Top Ten
■ Globally Harmonized System
■ Risk Management Planning
– Chlorine Gas = >2,500 Lbs (RMP)
– Chlorine Gas = >1,500 Lbs (PSM)

72. OSHA Top Ten

73. Questions

74. PCB in Building Materials –
Assume Control and “Proceed with
Caution”
Marc J. Richards, P.E., LSP, Vice President
PCBs?

75. My Passion

76. PCBs as a Plasticizer

77. EPA Flow Chart

78. The Assumption Approach
■ Refer to recent EPA Q&A – July 28, 2015
– #18, in lieu of testing…may be assumed to contain regulated
PCBs…
■ May not be right for every project
■ Basic strategy is to assume CERTAIN building
materials may contain PCBs
■ Common bad actors to consider:
– Caulking/glazing
– Paints
– Mastics
– Waterproofing
Should this be
avoided?

79. Potential PCB Sources –
Where should you focus?
• Painted Metal Items
• Caulking*
• Window Glazing*
• Basketball Hoop Backboard
• Gymnasium Floor Wood
Varnish
• Interior Painted Concrete
Block Walls*
• Exterior Brick Walls*
• Exterior Soils
• Structural Concrete
• Light ballasts*
*Items in case study
• Unit Ventilator Gasket Foam
and Insulation
• Exercise Mats
• Floor Tile
• Floor Tile Mastic
• Acoustic Ceiling Tiles
• Cove Molding
• Painted Gymnasium
Bleachers
• Foam Padding on Chairs
• Pin Boards

80. Assuming - Pros and Cons
■ The Client Meeting!
■ Pros –
– Protect project schedule
– Define project costs (bracket your risks)
– Limited funding
– Define the construction project and not the necessarily the PCB
project
» Example – one window verses entire campus of windows.
■ Cons –
– Potential Cost premiums
– May overly complicate a project if PCB are
not present
– Client/contractor communication challenging
– Requires attentive contractor
– May not address exposures concerns
(building occupants)

81. So Why Assume and Not Just Ignore
■ First Do No Additional Harm
– The “Hippocratic Oath” of PCBs
– Don't make things worse!
■ Consider the following:
– Worker protection/exposure
» Limit potential exposures
– Waste management
» Help control disposal/recycling liability
– Protect interior and exterior environment

82. Worker Protection
■ Assume PCBs present
■ Similar to lead paint protection
■ No push back so far from contractors
■ Cost premiums (maybe)
■ Required worker training – not defined
– 40 Hour OSHA and/or
– General PCB awareness training
■ Contractor shrewdness
– Public versus private bidding
– Change order management

83. Metal Recycling
■ If PCBs present
– Lose salvage value
– Paint removal
– Huge cost impacts
■ Is sampling required?
– Maybe not for recycling
■ Approach to Consider
– Consider assuming PCBs
present for worker
protection only
– Consider avoiding
sampling
– BMPs when painted metal
is generated

84. Painted Aggregate
■ Particularly challenging
■ Renovation versus demolition
■ Renovation
– Manage what you touch/disturb
– Worker protection
– BMPs to control work area
– Repainting
■ Demolition
– Sampling may be okay
– Full component removal as bulk product waste
– Sampling generated volume. Is this ok?

85. Painted Aggregate
■ Screening sampling
– Is there value?
– “Scarified” wipe sampling
– XRF screening
– Results may help guide you
■ Approach to Consider
– Consider sampling certain discrete waste streams
– Volume considerations
– Disposal as an assumed PCB Bulk Product waste
» Leachable PCB sampling; total PCBs often not required
■ Beneficial Use Determination (Mass. BUD)
– Will require PCB sampling in Mass
– May preclude on-site reuse
– BUD reuse in Mass. landfills

86. Substrate Management
■ Demolition
– Surgical removals of adjacent materials
– Often more costly than just assuming entire façade is a Bulk
Product Waste
■ Renovation
– Potential sources(s) removed as assumed waste
– BMPs
– Often no verification sampling performed
■ Wide variety of client approaches
– Proactive encapsulation

88. General C&D Waste
■ Waste sampling required?
■ Should generator be concerned?
■ Worker exposure
■ Approach to Consider
– Consider avoiding sampling of individual items or consider
composite sampling of generated waste stream
– Solid waste regulations in receiving state often apply. Similar to
lead paint sampling.
– Many potential sources can be classified
as “incidental”

89. Interior and Exterior Environment
■ Best Management Practices
– Regulated work areas
■ Protect the ground surface
■ Protect/clean the interior work areas
■ Consider pre and post dust wipe sampling
■ Well written technical specifications
– Overlap of trades
» Asbestos workers
» Masons
» Window contractors
» Painters
» Carpenters

90. Soil
■ Client meeting!
■ A potential big issue
■ Consider IH/MCP issues
■ Consider sampling if,
– Soil will get disturbed
– Demolition
– Targeted renovation areas
– Exposure concerns
■ Options for management
– MCP (LRAs, RAM, IRAs)
– TSCA Performance-based disposal
– TSCA Risk-based/Self Implementing Plan
■ If found in soil, does that trigger need to sample
the building?

91. If Potential Risk is the Driving Factor
■ Sensitive receptors?
– Schools, housing, campuses?
■ Consider a phased approach:
– Air sample
– Wipe sample
– Clean air ducts
– Remove light ballasts
– Resample air
– Then consider additional source/sink evaluations
■ Not the focus of today

92. Owner Liability
■ Disclaimer – we are not attorneys*
■ Standard of care – is there one?
– Wide variability
■ Owner needs to understand risks –
– Receptors
– Perceptions
– Cost premiums
– Schedule delays
– Expanded projects
* Always consult a qualified environmental attorney

93. Regulatory Interpretations
■ Consider the following:
– PCB Bulk Product Waste (PBPW)
» How to sample – definition references “debris from
demolition”. Is the actual PBPW the full system and not the
coating? Do you agree?
» Does in-place PBPW meet the TSCA definition?
– States “…at the time of designation for disposal”
» TSCA regulates disposal only and not in-place materials –
Do you agree?
– If PBPW not triggered for in place materials, does TSCA apply?

94. Regulatory Interpretations
■ Consider the following
– Do you need to sample substrate after confirmed PBPW is
removed?
» Likely not
» No clear requirement in TSCA
» Compare to “Performance-Based” Disposal Options
– No clear sampling requirement
» Many are now sampling sources but not sampling/addressing
substrates
» Or collecting a “reasonable” amount of verification samples
using professional judgment
» Back to the standard of care discussion

95. Take-a-ways
■ Assumption approach can be appropriate for most
construction projects
– No one-size solution exists
■ Best Management Practices (BMPs)
– Well written technical specifications
■ Consider site receptors
■ Think before you sample
■ Have very clear objectives
■ TSCA does not require sampling
■ Don’t make site conditions worse

96. Questions?

97. Breakfast Seminar Series
October 3 Taunton Mass
October 24 Framingham Mass
Michael A. Toto, MEP Group Manager
Arc Flash – 70E Discussion

98. NFPA 70E
■ NFPA’s 70E Standard for Electrical
Safety Is Changing with the Times,
and You Should Too
– The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports there were
2,000 fatal and more than 24,000 non-fatal work-related
electrical injuries between 2005 and 2015, including
those sustained from an arc flash
– That’s about one fatality a day out of 11 total work
related deaths per day, according to The National
Safety Council.

99. NFPA 70E DISCUSSION
– Arc flashes can also result in business disruptions,
expensive equipment damage, legal liability, higher
insurance costs, and heavy fines.
– The goal of NFPA 70E electrical standards is to reduce
worker exposure to shock, electrocution, arc flash, and
arc blast while they are working in close proximity to
energized or potentially energized electrical conductors
or circuit parts.
– Voluntary in the sense that it hasn’t been adopted
directly as an official law.
– NFPA 70E, is the “industry consensus standard”
referenced in OSHA standards.

100. NFPA 70E DISCUSSION
■ What is required per 70E
– Provide a practical safe working area for employees relative to
hazards arising from the use of electricity.
– Article 110 – General Requirements for Electrical Safety-Related
Work Practices
» Electrical Safety Program
» Training
» Host and Contract Employee Responsibilities
» Use of electrical equipment

101. NFPA 70E DISCUSSION
■ What is required per 70E
– Article 120 – Establishing and Electrically Safe Work Condition
– Article 130 – Work Involving Electrical Hazards
» 130.5 Arc Flash Risk Assessment

102. NFPA 70E DISCUSSION
■ ARTICLE 130.5 ARC FLASH RISK ASSESSMENT
– (A) Documentation. The results of the arc flash risk assessment
shall be documented.
– (B) Determine the boundary at a distance at which the incident
energy equals 1.2 cal/cm2
– (C) One of two methods shall be used to for the selection of PPE.
Either but not both methods shall be permitted to be used on a
single piece of equipment.
» Incident Energy Method (engineered solution with worse case
labeling)
» Arc Flash PPE Category Method (Task Based Table Method)

103. NFPA 70E DISCUSSION
■ ARTICLE 130.5 ARC FLASH RISK ASSESSMENT
– (D) Equipment Labeling.
» Nominal System Voltage
» Arc Flash Boundary
» One of the following
– Available incident energy at working distance (or PPE
category if using the table method)
– Minimum arc rating of clothing
– Site specific PPE

104. NFPA 70E DISCUSSION
■ What goes into an Arc Flash Study
– An accurate one-line is needed from the service entrance to the
loads that will be labeled such as
» Switchboards
» Panelboards
» Industrial Control Panels
» Meter socket enclosures
» Motor control centers
» Equipment likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing
or maintenance while energized.

105. NFPA 70E DISCUSSION
■ What goes into an Arc Flash Study
– Typical data gathered for new and existing systems and equipment
» Sources of power, voltage and system configuration
» Equipment manufacturer, model numbers, breaker settings.
» Conduit type, cable length to within 10% of actual distance
» Generic information is not acceptable…garbage in equals
garbage out

106. Questions

107. Breakfast Seminar Series
PSM / RMP Updates
October 3 Taunton, MA
October 24 Framingham, MA
November 14 Holyoke, MA
Alan Stratton, CSP
Project Manager
413.875.1604
adstratton@tighebond.com

108. Introduction
■ Does your facility need to look like this to consider
Chemical Safety?

109. Introduction
■ No – It can look like this:

110. Chemical Safety
■ Chemical Safety:
– Process Safety: Inside the fence line
– Risk Management: Outside the fence line
■ Process Safety:
– Regulated by OSHA
– Program called Process Safety Management, or PSM
– Designed to protect employees
■ Risk Management:
– Regulated by EPA
– Program called Risk Management Program (RMP) or Chemical
Accident Prevention (CAP) program
– Designed to protect the environment and public

111. Applicability
■ Process Safety Management:
– A process which involves a chemical at or above the specified threshold
quantity in Appendix A or a flammable gas/liquid in excess of 10,000 lbs
■ Risk Management Program:
– A stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance in a process
■ The Devil is in the Details:
– What defines a “Process”?
– Is this applicable to only pure chemicals?
– Are there exemptions?
– What changes are being considered/made?

112. Applicability
■ Commonly Applicable Chemicals:
– Ammonia (Anhydrous and some ammonium solutions)
– Chlorine
– Formaldehyde
– Hydrochloric Acid
– Hydrogen peroxide
– Methanol
– Nitric acid
– Propane
PSM has 137 chemicals plus flammables
RMP has 140 Listed chemicals
The two lists are not the same

113. Applicability
■ I use one of those – Am I in?
– Maybe:
» Concentrations are important:
– Hydrochloric Acid (only anhydrous counts)
– Nitric acid (80% & 94.5% or greater)
– Ammonia (20% & 44% or greater)
– If a concentration is not specified (>100 chemicals):
» “Commercial Grade” rules had applied for PSM
» As of July 2016, OSHA has gone to the 1% rule
» EPA applies the 1% rule to RMP chemicals

114. Applicability
■ I’m in for use of a chemical – Am I in yet?
– Maybe:
» The process is important:
– Process = Any activity involving a highly hazardous chemical
including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-
site movement of such chemicals, or combination of these
activities. For purposes of this definition, any group of vessels
which are interconnected and separate vessels which are
located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved
in a potential release shall be considered a single process.
Interconnected Separated, but close Separate and Separated

115. Applicability
■ I use a PSM/RMP chemical, in a process – Am I in yet?
– Maybe:
» Thresholds are important:
– Look at both RMP & PSM thresholds
– Consider the 1% Rule
– Thresholds apply – Per Process – Not Total Site

116. Applicability
■ I’m out!! - Am I out?
– No:
» You are subject to EPA’s General Duty Clause:
– Applies to any stationary source producing, processing, handling, or
storing regulated substances or other extremely hazardous
substances.
» What does that mean?
– You must:
» Know the hazards posed by the chemicals and assess the
impacts of possible releases,
» Design and maintain a safe facility to prevent accidental releases,
» Minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur
Requires Hazard Reviews, management systems, emergency
planning, and meeting industry standards

117. PSM/RMP Facilities
■ I’m in – Now what?
– Design and operate
your process safely
– Implement a process
management system
– Meet OSHA’s 14
PSM elements
– Submit your Risk
Management Plan
to EPA
– Involve your employees
– Evaluate potential
releases and impacts
– Have an emergency
Plan in place

118. What’s New/Coming?
■ OSHA – PSM:
– 1% Rule is new interpretation – will be enforced in 2017/2018
– National Emphasis Program launched in January 2017
– RAGAGEP clarified in 2015/2016
– OSHA working to address President's Executive Order 13650, “Improving
Chemical Facility Safety and Security”
» Enhanced employee involvement
» Additional management system elements
» Formalizing OSHA interpretations
» Increased coordination with responders
» More formal documentation
» Modification of applicable chemicals
» Others

119. What’s New/Coming?
■ EPA – RMP:
– Rule Amendments
» In January 2017, RMP Rule amendments were finalized
» On June 9, 2017, the EPA delayed the effective date of the RMP
rule amendments for 20 months until February 19, 2019.
– Third part audits
– Improved accident investigations
– Enhance emergency response
– Expand public access

120. How Serious are the Regulators?
■ Recent Fines:
– EPA - RMP:
» 2013 Inspection: $118,000
» 2009-2014 Inspections: $200,000 (and 3 year probation)
» 2012 Inspection: $126,000
» 2017 case: $184,000
» $15,000 + $60,000 Supplemental
» 2013 Tyson Foods (National): $3,950,000
– EPA – General Duty:
» 2011 inspection $12,000 + $40,000 Supplemental
» 2014 inspection: $132,000
– OSHA PSM:
» Ammonia Release/fatality: $173,000
» 2016 inspection: $61,000

121. Questions