Date post: | 06-May-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | david-horowitz |
View: | 189 times |
Download: | 2 times |
New England Water Environment Association’s Annual Conference
Strengthening Treatment Facility Chemical Process Safety
David P. Horowitz, P.E., CSPTighe & Bond53 Southampton RoadWestfield, MA [email protected]
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., [email protected]
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/dphorowitzTwitter: @dphorowitz
Offices throughout New Englandwww.tighebond.com