Regulatory Update: Regulatory Update: Trends in Industrial Coatings and How They Impact You

Alison B. Kaelin, CQAABKaelin, LLC

Outline• EPA– Proposed Rule for Hazardous Waste Generators

• OSHA– Proposed Rule on Beryllium– Hazard Communication Clarifications– Confined Space Entry in Construction Insights

• Cal OSHA Lead Update

EPA• First major regulatory change in 30 years, EPA has proposed

comprehensive changes to generator requirements– Reorganize the regulations to make them more user- friendly– Provide greater flexibility for hazardous waste generators to

manage waste– Strengthen environmental protection by addressing

identified gaps in the regulations– Clarify certain components of the hazardous waste

generator program to address ambiguities and foster improved compliance

EPA• Generator requirements apply across the coatings industry

– Manufacturers– Contractors / Fabricators– Structure and facility owners

• EPA regulates owners and contractors on repainting projects as co-generators

• Which rules apply depends on the quantity of waste generated on a monthly basis– LQG, SQG, CESQG

EPA• Reorganized as follows:

Provision Existing Citation Proposed Citation

Generator CategoryDetermination

§ 261.5(c)-(e) § 262.13

CESQG Provisions § 261.5(a), (b), (f)-(g) § 262.14

Satellite AccumulationArea Provisions

§ 262.34(c) § 262.15

SQG Provisions § 262.34(d)-(f) § 262.16

LQG Provisions § 262.34(a), (b), (g)-(i), (m)

§ 262.17

EPA• Major Rule Changes Effecting Coatings

Industry– Hazardous Waste Determinations– Emergency Planning and Preparedness– Labeling– Episodic Generation

Proposed EPA Generator Changes• Hazardous Waste Determinations Changes– Collection of waste samples at the Point of

Generation– Requirements for ongoing evaluation– Application of generator knowledge– Increased Documentation

Proposed Changes – Hazard Determinations at Point of Generation

• Representative samples of potential characteristic waste collected at the point of generation.

• Point of generation is when the waste first becomes a solid waste (will no longer be reused or recycled). – For spent abrasives or paint wastes, this would be

the floor of the containment.– For recycled abrasives it would at the discharge port

of the recycler.– Solvent or paint wastes are considered hazardous

when their intended use has ceased, they begin to be accumulated or stored for disposal, re-use, or reclamation• For paint wastes, this would be the container.

– This seems to prohibit the collection of samples after containerization or from waste containers

Proposed Changes – Hazard Determinations – Ongoing Evaluation

• “The generator has an ongoing responsibility to monitor a non-hazardous waste that may exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic, for potential changes if there is reason to believe that the waste may physically or chemically change during management in a way that might cause the waste, or a portion of the waste, to become hazardous”

Proposed Changes – Hazard Determinations – Ongoing Evaluation

• What conditions could change the hazardous waste characteristics on a typical project?– Varying concentrations of lead and hazardous metals on

the structure or facility– Varying thicknesses of coatings on a structure or facility– Varying concentrations of trace contaminants in abrasives– Varying amounts of additives (used that render the waste

non-hazardous) in each batch or application– Waste resulting from the use of steel and iron abrasives

Proposed Changes – Hazard Determinations – Ongoing Evaluation

• We typically determine if the waste is hazardous at the start of a project and base all resulting management on this testing

• Do we need to do this on an on-going basis due to the potential for the nature of the waste to change?

• What would our sampling strategy be based on:– Varying conditions or– An established frequency

Proposed Changes – Hazard Determinations – Ongoing Evaluation

• Generator are also obligated to notify any subsequent handlers of the waste so they are aware that they should also monitor the waste for changes. – Would this apply to waste resulting from the use of steel or iron

abrasives that is classified as non-hazardous, but the due to the temporary stabilization provided by steel would the generators need to test it or notify the landfill that its characteristics may change?

– Do landfills and other entities accepting non-hazardous waste resulting from the use of additives, need to be advised?

Proposed Changes – Hazard Determinations – Generator Knowledge

• EPA stated that when a test method is specified in the regulation (such as the TCLP test for hazardous coatings materials) it is definitive evidence of the hazard determination.

• Alternately, generators must use knowledge of the materials, processes, by-products, safety Data sheets, testing, etc.

Proposed Changes – Hazard Determinations – Documentation

• SQG and LQGs to maintain documentation of hazardous determinations (both positive and negative) for 3 years– Process and material descriptions, sampling

strategy and test (TCLP) results, waste analyses, or other determinations made to conclude the waste was non-hazardous

• Owners and contractors (as co-generators) would need to determine who is responsible

Proposed Changes – Preparedness and Prevention and Contingency Planning

LQGs• Provide full length contingency plan to emergency

management authorities • New LQGs must add an executive summary

– Types and amounts of hazardous waste– Maps of site and of surrounding area– Location of water supply– Identification of on-site notification systems (e.g., telephones, PA

system)– Emergency contact

Proposed Changes -Labeling / Risk Communication

• Use of OSHA Hazardous Communication Standard labels and DOT labels in addition to Hazardous Waste labels

• Plain English– ”toxic paint wastes”– “spent ignitable solvents”

Proposed Changes – Episodic Generation

• Generator status can change monthly based on the amount of waste generated

• Would allow CESQG and SQG to have a one-time event (once per year) like a paint removal project where they generate > 1,000 kg of waste without reclassification as a LQG.– This would require that EPA or state be notified in advance and

that the event did not exceed 45 days (including shipment of waste off-site (an additional 30 day extension is possible).

• This could be a positive impact for owners and DOTs who are normally CESQG and SQGs but whose maintenance coatings activities make them LQGs

Commenting on the Proposed Rule

• Will be accepted until December 24, 2015• To submit comments, go to Regulations.gov,

search for Docket No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121 and follow the online instructions

• Owners, contractors and others should consider providing comments and seek clarification on issues related to coatings industry

Beryllium• A metal found as a component of coal, oil,

certain rock minerals, volcanic dust, and soil. • A compound that may be found coal slag and

copper slag contain varying concentrations of beryllium, usually less than 0.1% by weight.

Beryllium Health Effects• Exposure through inhalation,

ingestion, dermal and mucus membranes

• Inflammation of upper respiratory system; pain below the sternum; cough; shortness of breath; irritation of the skin and eyes, allergic contact dermatitis

• Chronic Beryllium Disease• NIOSH carcinogen, associated

with lung cancer

Beryllium Regulatory History• EPA regulates as a Hazardous Air Pollutant or HAPs (i.e.

pollutant known to cause cancer or other serious health effects)

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rules, known as NESHAPs – Regulated by industry sector and source such as metal finishing.

• EPA also has a drinking water standard for beryllium of 4 parts per billion

• Use of abrasives containing beryllium has been a focus for the last several years

Beryllium Regulatory History• Currently only regulated by OSHA for general industry under

1910 Subpart Z, Toxic and hazardous substances and 1910.1000, Table Z-1, Limits for air contaminants.

• The current OSHA for Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for beryllium is: – 2 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 as an 8-hour TWA)– 5 µg/m3 as a ceiling not to be exceeded for > 30 minutes &– 25 µg/m3 as a peak exposure never to be exceeded.

• The OSHA limits have been in place for nearly 30 years and have not been updated.

• AHIA TLV is 0.05 µg/m3 as 8-hour TWA

Proposed Rule - Beryllium• Applicable only to General Industry

(1910.1024) when beryllium present above 0.1% by weight– PEL of 0.2 micrograms of respirable beryllium per

cubic meter of air (μg/m3) averaged over 8 hours– Action level of 0.1 μg/m3

– Short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 μg/m3 as determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes

Proposed Rule - Beryllium• Elements of a comprehensive health standard, including

requirements for the following (when present): – exposure assessment of PEL and STEL– written exposure control plan– identifies preferred methods for controlling exposure– respiratory protection– regulated area– personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE)– medical surveillance and removal– hazard communication training– recordkeeping

Proposed Rule – BerylliumNotable Provisions

• Establish and maintain a beryllium work and regulated areas wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium, regardless of the level of exposure

• Procedures for minimizing cross contamination, including preventing the transfer of beryllium between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, and articles within beryllium work areas.

Proposed Rule Options - Beryllium• Like the recent proposed rules for Confined

Space Entry in Construction and Silica, the proposed rule provides 4 regulatory alternatives for comment and consideration– 1a– 1b– 2a– 2b

Proposed Alternative #1a- Beryllium• Regulatory Alternative #1a would expand the

scope of the proposed standard to include all operations in general industry where beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant; that is, where the materials used contain no more than 0.1% beryllium by weight

Proposed Alternative #1b- Beryllium• Regulatory Alternative #1b would expand the scope of

the proposed standard to include all operations in general industry where beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant; that is, where the materials used contain no more than 0.1% beryllium by weight BUT

• exempts operations where the employer can show that employees’ exposures will not meet or exceed the action level or exceed the STEL

Proposed Alternative #2a- Beryllium• Regulatory Alternative #2a would expand the

scope of the proposed standard to also include employers in construction and maritime

• This alternative would cover abrasive blasters, pot tenders, and cleanup staff working in construction and shipyards who have the potential for airborne beryllium exposure during blasting operations and during cleanup of spent media

Proposed Alternative #2b- Beryllium• Regulatory Alternative #2b would expand the scope of the proposed standard to

also include employers in construction and maritime. For example, this alternative would cover abrasive blasters, pot tenders, and cleanup staff working in construction and shipyards who have the potential for airborne beryllium exposure during blasting operations and during cleanup of spent media

AND

• Regulatory Alternative #2b would update §§ 1910.1000 Tables Z–1 and Z–2, 1915.1000 Table Z, and 1926.55 Appendix A so that the proposed TWA PEL and STEL would apply to all employers and employees in general industry, shipyards, and construction, including occupations where beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant

• However, all other provisions of the standard would be in effect only for employers and employee that fall within the scope of the proposed rule

Proposed Rule- BerylliumComments on Abrasive Blasting

• OSHA has judged that abrasive blasters and their helpers in construction and maritime industries have the potential for significant airborne exposure during blasting operations and during cleanup of spent media.

• Airborne concentrations of beryllium have been measured above the current TWA PEL of 2 g/m3 when blast media containing beryllium are used

Proposed Rule- BerylliumComments on Abrasive Blasting

• OSHA concluded abrasive blasting in construction is already covered by:– The Ventilation standard (29 CFR 1926.57) and abrasive

blasting subsection (29 CFR 1926.57(f)– The respiratory protection standard (1910.134)– Dermal protection used during abrasive blasting

• OSHA concluded abrasive blasting in maritime is covered by the respiratory protection standard (1915.34)

• Comments were due by 11/5/15

Hazard Communication Compliance Directive

• Published July 2015, CPL 02-02-079 Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012)

• 3 scenarios applicable to industrial painting– Known to be Present– Steel Coated with Lead and Hazardous Coatings– Multi-employer Worksites

HCS Compliance DirectiveKnown to be Present

• Employer has the responsibility for conveying information about the hazards even if not the manufacturer of the hazard

• if an employer is aware that his/her employees are exposed to chemicals brought onto a multi-employer worksite by other employer(s) … An employer whose employees are exposed to chemicals "known to be present" must include in their hazard communication program information concerning the hazards of those chemicals.

• In an industrial painting scenario, this would appear to apply to lead and hazardous coating removal (where hazardous materials are known to be present). As such, the hazard communication program would need to address those hazards and applies to owner, third party and others who know it is present

HCS Compliance DirectiveSteel Coated with Lead and Hazardous Coatings

• Similarly, the CPL states that if a supplier sent a product that contained hazardous chemicals, as would be the case if a company scraps pipes containing a hazardous chemical or its residue, that could be released in more than small or trace quantities, present a physical hazard, or present a health risk, the supplier must provide a label and SDSs to the scrap dealer.

• OSHA has not defined supplier, other than in examples, but based on the above, would the scrapping of demolished steel containing lead and hazardous coatings fall under this requirement?

• Do Agencies performing demolition of bridges need to provide labels and SDS under HCS?

HCS Compliance DirectiveMulti-employer Worksites

• The CPL indicates that on multi-employer worksites where employers may expose others to hazardous chemicals that their Hazard communication programs must include: – Methods to provide the other employers on-site:– access to SDSs for each hazardous chemical to which

they may be exposed.– precautionary measures to protect employees– information about the labeling system used

HCS Compliance DirectiveMulti-employer Worksites (cont.)

• The CPL requires that other trades, third party inspectors and consultants, owners and other employers on such sites who do not use hazardous chemicals, but whose employees are exposed to the chemicals used by other employers, have a program and train their employees on the hazards of the chemicals in the work areas

• All participants in coating projects have to consider how to achieve this notification, training, labeling and access to SDS on projects

Observations on the Confined Space Construction Standard

Limited Egress/Restricted means of Entry Defined

• “If an entrant's ability to escape in an emergency would be hindered.” – “pipes, conduits, ducts, or equipment or

materials that an employee would be required to crawl over or under or squeeze around in order to escape, has limited or restricted means of exit.”

• Many industrial painting projects involve spaces where these conditions exist

• Competent Persons performing confined space determinations should take this into consideration

Observations on the Confined Space Construction Standard

Ventilation • Ventilation calculations should account for additional gases

generated by painting or application of coating, and ensure that the ventilation is adequate to account for the introduced hazards

• Those designing ventilation for permit required confined spaces should review the Safety Data Sheets for coatings and thinners to be used and verify that ventilation provided (e.g. air changes) is sufficient to account for these hazards in addition to any that may already be present such as hydrogen sulfide or hydrocarbon residue

Observations on the Confined Space Construction Standard

Information Sharing /“Hidden Dangers” • “Surface coatings such as paints and epoxies are

seemingly stable …these same substances may create significant safety and health hazards to employees who perform welding and other processes involving heat while working in a confined space.”

• polyurethanes exposed to heat through welding could break down and release hazardous fumes

• A welding contractor may not recognize this hazard

• Would rely on information from a host employer or controlling contractor about the potential hazard

CAL-OSHA Lead Standard ChangesItem to Change Current Federal OSHA

RequirementsCurrent

Cal/OSHA Standard

Proposed in "Discussion Draft"

PEL 50 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 10 μg/m3PEL Action Level 30 μg/m3 30 μg/m3 2 μg/m3

Allowable employee exposure

calculation

400 divided by hours worked in the day

400 divided by hours worked in

the day

80 divided by hours worked in the day

Medical Surveillance

Program

30 days 30 days 10 days

Acceptable Blood Lead Levels

40 μg/dl 40 μg/dl 10 μg/dl

Conclusions• OSHA regulatory updates and clarifications

appear to be focusing on: – Improved communication of hazards among all

employers on-site– Ventilation

• EPA regulations appear to require changes in how potential hazardous waste is determination is performed, documented and ongoing generator responsiblities

Conclusions• Pay attention to regulatory changes now

in effect: – Confined Space in Construction– Hazard Communications

• Comment on and plan for compliance with:– Beryllium – EPA Generator Requirements

• Don’t forget silica…and Cal OSHA Lead are coming