Underground Construction - December 2019 - 12

WASHINGTONWATCH

Stephen Barlas | Washington Editor

OSHA Reconsidering Digging Controls
for Silica Exposure
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) is thinking about
broadening its acceptable control methods
for silica dust in the construction standard
it first issued in 2016. There are two silica
standards: one for construction, one for
general industry. Pipeline construction
is covered under the general industry
standard. However, and here is where this
new OSHA initiative may positively affect
pipeline digging operations, general industry companies can use construction control
methods and control equipment in the
cases when the task performed is indistinguishable from a construction task listed on
a table OSHA publishes, called Table 1, and
the task will not be performed regularly in
the same environment and conditions.
There are 19 tasks listed in Table 1 of
the construction standard. Many of them
require engineering controls only, some
require respiratory protection. Several tasks
listed on Table 1 provide a choice of compliance methods because each can consistently reduce exposures to the permissible
exposure limit (PEL) or below or are equally
effective in limiting exposure. For example,
for jackhammers and handheld powered
chipping tools, employers can satisfy Table
1's requirements by using either a tool with
a water delivery system that supplies a
continuous stream or spray of water to the
point of impact, or a tool equipped with a
commercially available shroud and dust collection system. Employers that comply with
these alternative exposure control methods
in Table 1 are exempted from the standard's
other exposure monitoring, engineering,
and work practice control requirements.
The OSHA may add to those tasks based on
input it receives as a result of the request
for information it issued in August.

EPA Considers Regulatory Relief
for Pipeline Facility RICEs
The Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America (INGAA) and the American
12

DECEMBER 2019 | UConOnline.com

This new OSHA initiative
may positively affect pipeline
digging operations. General
industry companies can use
construction control methods
and control equipment in the
cases when the task performed
is indistinguishable from a
construction task listed on
a table OSHA publishes...
Gas Association (AGA) are pressing the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to finalize changes to air emission rules
the agency has been considering for
over a decade.
At issue is when facilities - inside the
natural gas industry and outside - can
voluntarily re-designate emission sources
as "area sources" after they were originally
labeled "major sources." Area sources are
more lightly regulated, generally at the
state level. A 1995 memorandum that
established EPA's "Once In Always In"
(OIAI) policy for NESHAP source reclassification has made voluntary re-designation very difficult. National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) - of which there are a few
hundred - are one of the regulatory
programs under the Clean Air Act.
The Bush administration proposed
more leeway for re-designation in 2007
but never finalized a new policy. The
Obama EPA dropped the effort. Last summer the Trump administration breathed
new life into formally easing re-designation with a proposed rule which followed
up a January 2018 memorandum from a
top EPA official to the EPA Regional Air
Division Directors titled "Reclassification
of Major Sources as Area Sources Under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act." The

Proposed Rule would essentially formalize
that memorandum and allow a major
source of HAPs - such as a reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) -
to become an area source at any time
by accepting a "potential to emit" (PTE)
limit below the major source thresholds
of 10 tons per year (TPY) of a single
HAP or 25 TPY considering all HAPs.
INGAA and AGA have told the EPA their
members "have been encumbered by the
1995 OIAI policy guidelines that introduced unnecessary complexity and burden
to NESHAP compliance." There are many
NESHAP standards, each with multiple
parts, and the dominant one for the natural gas industry is Subpart ZZZZ. It affects
emissions for RICEs. Different engines
in different parts of a facility, installed at
different times, can have different designations, either "area" or "major." INGAA and
AGA complained in comments to the EPA:
"This inconsistency leads to unnecessary
confusion and complexity for companies
implementing compliance measures and
when engaged in permitting activities and
reporting and recordkeeping."
If the proposed rule is adopted, companies will be incentivized to voluntarily
install additional pollution prevention
equipment or pursue process changes that
reduce HAP emissions because they will
not be subject to the major source regulatory administrative burdens once they have
shown they can achieve area source status,
according to the two trade groups. After
the EPA official issued his memorandum
in January 2018, one INGAA member
voluntarily modified its permit to become
an area source. As a result, that site is now
subject to enforceable formaldehyde limits
and annual testing requirements on four
engines, and additional pollution controls
were installed on one engine which is now
subject to operating and emissions limits.
A basic difference between regulation
of major and area sources is that the
http://www.UConOnline.com
Underground Construction - December 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Underground Construction - December 2019
