New England Water Environment Association’s Annual Conference

Strengthening Treatment Facility Chemical Process Safety

David P. Horowitz, P.E., CSPTighe & Bond53 Southampton RoadWestfield, MA 01085dphorowitz@tighebond.com

New England Water Environment Association’s Annual Conference

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Adam Lomartire – Global PetroleumAndrew Klein – Tighe & Bond

Strengthening Treatment Facility Chemical Process Safety

Takeaways

■ Significant safety concerns– West, TX

■ Significant environmental concerns– Charleston, WV

■ Regulatory requirement– 29 CFR 1910.119

– 40 CFR 68

Agenda

■ Regulatory requirements

■ Program elements

■ EPA inspections

■ Areas of focus

Regulatory Requirements

■ OSHA – Process Safety Management (PSM)– 29 CFR 1910.119– Promulgated 1992

■ EPA – Chemical Accident Prevention (CAP)– AKA The “risk management plan” or “RMP” rule– 40 CFR 68– Promulgated in 1998– Revisions in 2000 and 2004

What is “Process Safety Management”?

■ Management system■ Ties elements together

– Engineering– Operations– Maintenance

■ Data driven– Prove assumptions– Documented backup

■ Feedback loop■ Ongoing requirements

Applicability Thresholds

*: applicable only if pressurized for distribution in the facility

What About the Rest of Us?

The owners and operators of stationary sources producing, processing, handling or storing such substances have a general duty, in the same manner and to the same extent as section 654, title 29 of the United States Code, to identify hazards which may result from such releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur.

-- Section 112(r)(1) of the Clean Air Act

General Duty Clause

GDC Requirements

■ Hazard identification■ Design safety■ Operational safety■ Consequence evaluation■ Consequence minimization■ Communication

EPA CAP Program Levels

■ Three program levels■ Increasing requirements for

each■ Program 3 = OSHA PSM plus

– Registration– Off-site consequence

analysis

Consequence Evaluation

■ Effects of release

■ Simple modeling

■ Impacts to the community

■ Emergency planning

Communicate consequences to local Fire Department and/or Emergency Planning Commission

Communicate consequences to local Fire Department and/or Emergency Planning Commission

EPA CAP Program Levels

■ Level 1 – No off site impact– No prior incidents– Not subject to OSHA PSM

1

EPA CAP Program Levels

■ Level 2 – Potential off site impacts – Not subject to OSHA PSM

■ Level 1 – No off site impact– No prior incidents– Not subject to OSHA PSM

1

2

EPA CAP Program Levels

■ Level 3 off site impacts– Potential off site impacts – Subject to OSHA PSM; or– One of 10 designed industries

by NAICS code■ Level 2

– Potential off site impacts – Not subject to OSHA PSM

■ Level 1 – No off site impact– No prior incidents– Not subject to OSHA PSM

1

2

3

RMP Elements

■ Management system■ Hazard assessment■ Process safety information■ Process hazard analysis■ Operating procedures■ Training■ Mechanical integrity■ Management of change

■ Startup review■ Compliance audits■ Incident investigation■ Employee participation■ Hot work permits■ Contractor safety■ Emergency preparedness■ Trade secrets

EPA FocusEPA Focus

■ Chemical safety incorporated into almost every field audit

■ Enhanced training for field personnel 2011

■ More rigorous inspections

Inspection Experience

■ “General Duty” is a broad concept

■ Gives inspectors a wide range of latitude

■ Prior inspections were less detailed

■ Staffing

EPA “Hot Buttons”

■ Management system■ Hazard assessment■ Process safety information■ Process hazard analysis■ Operating procedures■ Training■ Mechanical integrity■ Management of change

■ Startup review■ Compliance audits■ Incident investigation■ Employee participation■ Hot work permits■ Contractor safety■ Emergency preparedness■ Trade secrets

Process Safety Information

■ Operating limits■ Ventilation design

– TR-16, MA PWS guidelines■ Design standards■ Material and energy

balance■ Piping and

instrumentation diagrams– Up to date

Process Hazard Analysis

■ Correct methodology■ Process safety information available

– Document what was available to the team■ Sign-in for the team members■ Documented recommendations

Process Hazard Analysis

■ Corrective action plan– Complete within one year

■ Proof of corrective action■ Review during compliance

audit (3-year)

■ Maintain for the life of the process

Mechanical Integrity

■ Components■ Schedule■ Justification■ Proof of Completion

Management of Change

■ Process changes■ Impacts■ Checklist■ Integrated elements

What might Change?

■ Process chemistry

■ Mechanical integrity

■ Procedures

■ System drawings

■ Safety and alarm systems

■ Emergency preparedness

Emergency Preparedness

■ Call list■ Strategy■ Objectives■ Training■ Coordination

Windsocks

And more Windsocks

Emergency Preparedness

■ Relate to off-site consequence■ Plan for a worst-case event■ Endorsement■ Contractor involvement

ER Training Records

■ Sign-in

■ What was provided

■ Assessment

■ Qualifications

Ongoing Requirements

EPA Audit Tips

■ Take great notes

■ Cooperate

■ Action plan

■ Verification

■ Good faith

ConclusionsConclusions

■ Significant safety concerns

■ Significant environmental concerns

■ Regulatory requirement– Compliance not easy

Questions

David P. Horowitz, P.E., CSP413.572.3211dphorowitz@tighebond.com

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/dphorowitzTwitter: @dphorowitz

Offices throughout New Englandwww.tighebond.com