Are You Ready?

As you may know, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently issued two standards—one for general and maritime industries, and the other for construction—to protect workers from exposure to respirable crystalline silica which can cause an incurable, often fatal lung disease.

On September 23, 2017, OSHA began enforcing their silica standard for the construction industry. And the deadline—June 23, 2018—for the maritime and general industries is not far behind. The enforcement of these standards is as stringent as the requirements themselves with steep fines and a recently released memorandum that outlines—in no uncertain terms—OSHA’s impending inspection procedures. OSHA is ready.

And despite several industry groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, who aggressively challenged the new standard, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently upheld it, rejecting all of industry’s challenges.

So there’s no recourse and OSHA is ready. The question is, “Are you?”

And other questions naturally stem from there. Have you reviewed the requirements? Do you know what applies? What doesn’t? Are you familiar with the table (Table 1: “Specified Exposure Control Methods When Working with Materials Containing Crystalline Silica”)? Do you have the necessary engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection needed for each of your tasks? Do you know what to do if your tasks or equipment don’t fit any of the descriptions in the table? Do you know how to effectively assess and limit employee exposure? What if you had conducted prior air monitoring under the former permissible exposure limit (PEL) for silica, do you know whether that prior testing is still valid? Are your employees fully trained in prevention, protection, and risk? Do you understand when medical surveillance must occur and how to document it appropriately? Do you know when you should use the performance option or the scheduled monitoring option when it comes to monitoring?

Or on the flip side, maybe you’re already compliant. You may have your act together, but do you know if your subcontractors do? Or more importantly, can you provide their written exposure control plan if an OSHA investigator arrives on site? Are your subcontractors ready?

The PEL for silica is 5x more stringent than the prior OSHA standard. The new PEL is 50 µg/m³ over an eight-hour period, with an action level of 25 µg/m³. That’s the amount of micrograms per cubic meter.  Breaking it down in layperson’s terms, that means if you were to cut one standard patio paver using a table saw and breathed in 100% of that cloud of dust in that task alone, you’d breathe in 29 years’ worth of silica, per the new standard.^[i] To break it down further, you face a significant risk of lung cancer with exposure to as little as 0.2 µg/m³ over several years or with greater exposure over a shorter period of time. The good news, fortunately, is that those risks are avoidable.

The new silica standards—for the construction, general, and maritime industries—are designed to prevent the deaths of more than 600 workers annually. In that way their objectives are similar, and so are the requirements, with a few key differences. The construction industry must follow Table 1 which identifies 18 common tasks that generate high silica exposure levels while specifying the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection necessary to safeguard your employees. These include wetting down operations, using local exhaust ventilation, process isolation approaches, flow rate procedures, among others. If you fully and properly implement those, you won’t need to measure exposure levels for those tasks. Maritime/general industry employers whose workers are using the same types of equipment and tasks may also use Table 1 exposure control methods vs. exposure monitoring. But, as we referenced earlier, knowing when and how to do either of these countermeasures is the tricky part.

Regardless of your industry, however, you must have a written exposure plan that details all the tasks in your workplace that involve silica exposure as well as the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection and the housekeeping practices you use to limit that exposure. You must also provide detailed silica labeling and safety data sheets as part of a robust hazard communications program, offer medical exams, and keep comprehensive records of worker exposure and medical exams. In addition, training is essential. You must train your workers on any operations that result in exposure as well as how to limit it and you must train all of your employees on hazard communications and risks.

Within the construction industry, you will also need to designate a competent person who is capable of identifying both existing and foreseeable silica workplace hazards. He or she must implement your exposure control plan and must be authorized to take prompt action to eliminate or minimize any exposures. Beyond identifying who will fill that crucial role, you must comprehensively train him or her regarding the written exposure control plan and any ongoing modifications to your hazard communication program and silica labeling. OSHA left it up to each employer to develop their own training systems for their competent person—and with so much at stake (should we highlight the adjective foreseeable?), it’s in your best interest to go well beyond the minimum training to reduce further liabilities.

In short, there’s a lot to take in: a looming deadline, significant risk, potential fines and litigation, and clearly what’s paramount—planning to continuously ensure the health and safety of your workers.

Breathe easy. We can help.

Partner with an environmental expert in industrial hygiene and tackle the silica standard with maximum efficiency and minimal disruption to your daily operations.

Our turnkey silica response solution includes:

• Exposure Monitoring and Assessments
• Written Exposure Control Plans
• Worker Training
• Recordkeeping and Data Management

^[i] https://iqpowertools.com/how-much-silica-dust-is-too-much/

When it comes to emergency or disaster response, speed, safety, and effectiveness are simply non-negotiable. Small unmanned aircraft systems (sUASs) or drones deliver those results exponentially. From addressing natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding and tornados to oil and gas and other hazardous materials releases, drones provide high resolution imagery with precise data that can only be collected by an airborne system in real time—all at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.

But before you hire a company to use drones for your emergency response (ER) needs, there are three things you should take into serious consideration:

1. Insurance Matters

While drone technology is becoming commonplace—its adoption often downplays the reality that the technology itself, while mitigating project risk, can actually cause risk for your organization if it’s not properly procured. Be sure to ask your environmental services provider for details regarding the type of insurance they carry for their drone use. The differences between a general liability policy and aircraft-specific liability policy can be staggering. It’s truly the pivotal point between being fully covered or fully liable. Though many companies are unaware, there’s always an aviation exclusion clause within a general liability policy which precludes the coverage of drone use. So make sure the company you’re partnering with has aircraft-specific insurance. Only partner with those companies who can ensure that your organization is adequately protected throughout the course of the project. And determine who is named on the policy. You want to work with companies who assume your risk, as well as theirs.

Additionally, be wary of the difference between insured and certified. Being insured does not guarantee certification and vice versa. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates that commercial drone operators must have a Section 333 Exemption or Part 107 Remote Pilots Certification which allows the use of drone in a United States airspace. Make sure that your pilot has both the appropriate insurance and appropriate certification.

2. All Pilots Are Not Created Equal

While the FAA no longer requires commercial drone operators to obtain a traditional pilots license, firms who do have licensed pilots—backed by months of manned aircraft flight experience—provide their clients with a distinct advantage. A licensed pilot’s extensive training and understanding of the FAA rules complexity means their flight plans and preparation of the standard operating procedures the FAA requires before, during and after each flight will be comprehensive and compliant.

Safety is another key aspect. Manned aircraft pilots who function as drone operators are highly-trained regarding gauging weather and wind conditions, the value of close interaction between the observer and the operator, determining airworthiness, and pre-flight and post-flight checks.

But here’s where you need to pay closer attention. All that we’ve outlined prior pertains to drone operations in general circumstances, e.g. most typical drone-related projects. Factor in the chaos and complexity of an emergency response situation, however, and the demands dramatically increase.

Safety is critical. The environmental services provider you partner with must have behavior-based safety training and expertise, specifically in the ER situation you are addressing. Crisis situations demand intensive planning, extensive preparation, and nearly flawless execution. Drone pilots who have experience handling ER situations on the ground excel when they handle them in the air. These pilots understand that applying the Incident Command System—a standardized approach to the command, control, and coordination of an ER effort—yields the safest, most efficient operations. Conversely, a lack of ER experience and a lack of in-depth understanding of all the intricacies involved in chaotic situations may not only derail your project and cost you both time and money in the process—it may increase your liability and more importantly, pose significant risks to health and human safety.

3. Transforming Imagery into Insight

Expertise is the defining factor between paying for a service and achieving results. If you simply want to capture photos of an emergency response situation, it might not matter what company you hire for drone operations. But, if you want true insight into the problems you face in an emergency response such as capturing data about the root cause, establishing a baseline of site conditions to be used for future efforts, or properly delineating a hazardous materials release, you need drone pilots who are safety-certified, environmental services professionals, backed by a nationwide network of geologists, hydrogeologists, engineers, air quality specialists, environmental scientists, information management experts, industrial hygienists, and field technicians. This way, you not only gain a mobile, scalable and flexible technology, you turn imagery into insight and insight into action in the safest, most expedient and effective manner possible.

Many companies don’t have a formalized approach to addressing environmental risk. Do you? Are you among the many businesses that react to the most pressing concerns of the day instead of proactively managing environment issues? If so, you might find yourself paying financial penalties and high costs to remedy problems while jeopardizing your company’s image and reputation.

Resolving environment risks concurrently is not always practical due to budget and staff constraints. However, a structured risk management approach can improve regulatory compliance, enhance safety, minimize liabilities, and even save money. By using a formalized process, you can evaluate risks and prioritize those with the most potential exposure.

The risks vary. If you’re focused on due diligence in advance or property development for example, the biggest environmental risk may be failing to meet tight deadlines that directly impact your business goals. However, when site clean-up is your primary objective, the risk is failing to satisfy the regulatory requirements. Below is a general guide to project prioritization that addresses both of these diverse scenarios:

1. Identify the Project’s Main Objective

• Does it meet a critical deadline (financial, technical, regulatory, etc.)?
• Is it needed to reduce actual or potential liabilities (legal, regulatory)?
• Does it improve profitability or reduce losses?
• Is it a technical precursor to a much bigger project or need?

 2. Define Factors that Impact Meeting Your Objective

• What are the safety and health issues, legal agreements, etc.?
• Is cash available and is the project consistent with cash flow management requirements?
• Are key staff or resources available? Any technical difficulties?
• What is the critical path schedule (including impacts on other projects)?

 3. Determine the Resources Required

• Identify critical resources early and obtain commitments using incentives/disincentives
• Work backward from the business goal to ensure resources are focused on the correct tasks—not side projects
• Allocate limited resources wisely and stay focused on critical path
• Have a backup plan if a critical vendor/resource is unavailable
• Don’t wait too long to change direction if something is wrong

 4. Follow-up/Readjust Priorities/Close-out ASAP

• Make frequent status checks and comparisons to plan
• Don’t be afraid to make changes, but they should be to correct problems and not changes for the sake of change
• Don’t forget administrative closeout documentation

By taking a proactive approach to managing environment risk, you can identify issues with the most potential for exposure and enforcement actions, define strategies to avoid future problems, and ultimately, get the best return on your intellectual and capital investment.

Although hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) often occurs thousands of feet below the deepest aquifers, many claim that it impacts the quality of the local water supply. The EPA, in its draft study, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, stated that “hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systematic impacts to drinking water resources.”

The EPA study concluded that hydraulic fracturing is safe, but mistakes associated with fracing close to the ground surface could affect drinking water. Specifically, it found that water quality can be affected when:

1. Water availability in specific areas is low;
2. Fracing fluid and produced water spills occur at the surface;
3. Fracing directly into underground drinking water resources;
4. Below ground migration of Liquids and gases; and
5. Wastewater is inadequately treated and discharged

When one or more of the above conditions have occurred, the quality of drinking water, including the contamination of drinking water wells, can be impacted. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

As a fracing operator, what does this mean to you? Quite simply, that the use of proper well construction techniques and surface management controls is a best practice that can help ensure water quality.

Apex’s Environmental Quality Inspection Program (EQuIP^SM) supports your drilling and completions operations and minimizes the potential for contamination issues during the process. This 3^rd party oversight program—customizable to your risk and budgetary needs—may include:

• Liner and Containment Installation and Maintenance Inspections
• Fluid Transfers
• BMPs—E&SC and SWPPPs
• Monitoring Wells

Bottom Line: Hydraulic fracturing can be done responsibly and safely.

Environmental Forensics is the use of scientific data analysis to answer questions about causation. When the cause of a release is unknown, common questions our clients ask are:

1. When did the release occur?
2. How many releases occurred?
3. Did anyone else contribute?
4. How much of the cost should the other party have to pay?

Litigation, dispute resolution, and insurance claims are some common applications for Environmental Forensics. These projects require critical thinking in the areas of chemistry, physics, biology, history, and industrial archaeology. Done correctly, multiple lines of reasoning will converge at the best answer for how the environmental injury occurred at some time in the past. The experienced forensics scientist will select complementary techniques from a broad field of options in order to make the strongest and most convincing case. Some forensics methodologies include:

• Simple Research: Site history, tanks, historic industrial processes, materials, historic aerial photographs, compliance records, and Sanborn fire insurance maps are searched.
• Crude Oil and Fuel Typing: Identifies petroleum by performing a simple analytical test on whole oil using a Gas Chromatograph with a Flame Ionization Detector (GC/FID). This test produces a chromatogram with product-specific patterns.
• Comparison to a Reference Standard: Compares chemical content between a known reference sample and actual contaminants in the environment.
• Diagnostic Species: Identifiesspecific contaminant species indicative of release source or age. For example, gasoline additives such as tetraethyl lead, MtBE, MMT, and ethanol have changed over time, allowing releases to be age-dated. Petroleum weathering indicators and biomarkers are also useful.
• Fuel Regulatory Specifications: Regulatory specifications for fuel have changed greatly over the years, such as minimum octane for gasoline, minimumcetanefor diesel fuel, mandated fuel dying, and different maximum sulfur contents over time for distillate fuels.
• Vintage Refining Methods: Changed refining methods over time are imprinted on fuels during their manufacture, allowing fuel age to be determined.
• Crude Oil and Fuel Age Profiling: Gas Chromatograph using a Mass Spectrometer detector (GC/MS) provides quantitative concentrations of individual hydrocarbons present.
• Coal Tar vs. Petroleum: Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found associated with all kinds of industrial sites such as smelters, coal gasification plants, and refineries. Apex uses alkylated PAH profiles with diagnostic source ratios to conclusively determine the source for PAHs found in the environment.
• Fate and Transport Modeling: Analytical or computer modeling can be performed to either predict future movement of a plume, regress in time to reconstruct where a plume originated, or rule out certain sources as implausible based on site physical characteristics.
• Carbon Isotope Speciation: This is used both to age date the carbon in hydrocarbons, confirm or rule out a link to petroleum, and also to compare and contrast different samples. This testing uses both radioactive carbon (C14) and stable carbon isotopes (C12 and C13).

These are only a few of the Environmental Forensics methods applied by Apex in determining the source, cause, or age of environmental contaminants. Forensic science is constantly evolving with new methods, or new ways of exploiting existing methods. Regardless of the methods employed, forensic science is an exciting field for Apex’s senior scientists and has benefited numerous Apex clients at scores of sites across the United States.

As environmental professionals, we often focus on legal and regulatory environmental requirements. However, many organizations have an environmental management system (EMS) based on voluntary international standards to help manage environmental performance beyond legal requirements. More often than not, the EMS runs in parallel or is integrated with other management systems such as a quality or occupational health & safety management system.

There has been quite a bit of activity recently regarding the predominant international standard for EMS ISO 14001, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) environmental management system standard. The draft international standard (DIS) to revise ISO 14001—Environmental Management Systems (ISO/DIS 14001) was released in July 2014 and is scheduled to be finalized and published in 2015 (most likely mid-to-end of 2015).

Like all new ISO management system standards, ISO 14001 is reformatted to conform to Annex SL, the high level structure for ISO technical committees to use when drafting revised or new management system standards. By using a standard format along with common terms and definitions, integrating multiple ISO management systems is easier. In addition to formatting changes, other ISO/DIS 14001 changes include:

• Requiring top management to incorporate EMS requirements into business processes and take accountability for the effectiveness of the EMS
• Expanding the minimum EMS policy requirements including requiring a commitment to environmental protection (not just pollution prevention)
• Requiring life cycle perspective be taken into account when determining environmental aspects as well as operational planning and control
• Replacing “potential non-conformities” with “risks and opportunities” (to align with Annex SL and drive risk based thinking and planning)

Other ISO developments include:

• ISO is in the process of updating ISO 14004, the general guidelines for developing and implementing an EMS. The revisions to ISO 14004 are expected to be finalized shortly after ISO 14001.
• ISO is in the process of revising the quality management system standard (ISO 9001—Quality Management Systems). The draft international standard (ISO/DIS 9001) was released in May 2014) and the finalized standard is scheduled to be published in late 2015 (around the same time as ISO 14001).
• ISO is in the process of creating an occupational health & safety management system standard (ISO 45001) which is based on the existing British Standards Institute (BSI) OHSAS 18001. The first draft (the committee draft—CD) was just released and the finalized standard is scheduled to be published in late 2016.
• ISO is in the process of creating Compliance Management System guidelines (ISO 19600). The final standard is scheduled to be published late 2014/early 2015.
• ISO published the final standard for asset management systems (ISO 55001) in January 2014 which was based on BSI’s PAS 55 (Publicly Available Standard 55).