Managing boilers attached to a PSM/RMP covered process

Last week I posted a June 2016 OSHRC decision in which an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided with OSHA on a number of PSM citations regarding a fatal boiler explosion that occurred within a PSM-covered process.  Since that posting, I have received dozens of e-mails asking for more explanation and how I suggest managing this type of situation.  PLEASE know that I merely clean-up, edit out names, and make the decision easier to read and post the info as a “for your information” article.  I am in no way picking on any industry, company, nor am I 100% in agreement with OSHA or the OSHRC on each decision; those who read all my posting will attest to that.  But this decision I fully agree with and yet – that in NO WAY means that every boiler “connected” to a PSM/RMP covered process will be within the battery limits of the covered process.  In the OSHRCS case, the boiler was clearly “covered” but for reasons that many other boilers would not be impacted by.  Let me explain…

As noted in the decision, the boiler is covered because it actually met ALL three (3) means to be included in the battery limits and the one (1) exception the company attempted to use (fuels used solely for workplace consumption as a fuel) was NOT applicable:

1. It was connected to a covered process
2. It was co-located (i.e. in the middle of the process)
3. The fuel being used (Refinery Fuel Gas) was NOT used solely for workplace consumption as a fuel AND the RFG was part of a covered process

Interconnected

The boiler, in this case, was “connected” to the covered process via its primary fuel source; whereas most boilers are “interconnected” via their steam lines.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction regarding connectivity!  If the ONLY connection is via steam lines AND the steam is NOT used as a “critical utility” in a safety system then we MAY be able to demonstrate that the boiler is NOT part of the covered process.

This means that if your boiler:

1. has its OWN FUEL SOURCE which is NOT part of a covered process, and
2. the steam it produces is NOT used in a safety system, and
3. the PHA demonstrates that the steam (too much or not enough) can not cause a process deviation that results in a PSM incident

then we have a great start to documenting our boiler would NOT be included in our PSM/RMP program.  But if our boiler is receiving its fuel from a covered process, this will be VERY DIFFICULT (if not impossible) to demonstrate that the boiler is not part of the covered process, as OSHA’s exemption clearly states…

1910.119(a)(1)(ii)(A) Hydrocarbon fuels used solely for workplace consumption as a fuel (e.g., propane used for comfort heating, gasoline for vehicle refueling), if such fuels are not a part of a process containing another highly hazardous chemical covered by this standard;

Location

Most, but not all, boilers supplying steam or hot water to a covered process are located OUTSIDE the battery limits of the covered process.  When we can show the boiler is sited far enough away (via our facility siting assessment) such that any catastrophic failure of the boiler would NOT impact our process we have clear evidence that the boiler would not impact the covered process.  However, when the boiler is sited within the battery limits or close enough outside the battery limits where a failure of the boiler could impact our covered process we will have a much more difficult job in demonstrating the boiler is not “covered”.   

Steam is a CRITICAL utility

Regardless of connectivity and/or location, if steam is used in a “safety system” or in any means which PREVENTS an incident, PROTECTS assets, and/or MITIGATES consequences then the steam becomes a “critical utility” and becomes PSM/RMP covered.  Much like Nitrogen is a “critical utility” when it is used to blanket storage tanks or purge vessels during filling, the Nitrogen process needs to be managed as a PSM/RMP process in and of itself – the same would apply to STEAM.  OSHA (and EPA) will look at our PHA(s) and if they see “steam” or a safety system that uses steam listed in the safeguards column this opens the door to “steam” being part of the PSM/RMP covered process and thus the boiler generating the steam would become “covered”.

So to be clear, the refinery’s boiler was part of the covered process because:

1. the boiler was interconnected to a covered process through the refinery fuel gas (RFG) system;
2. the boiler was located such that an HHC could be involved in a potential release due to a catastrophic failure of the boiler;
3. the exception for workplace fuel consumption did not apply since the fuel source was part of a process containing another HHC.

So if we have a boiler…

1. that has a dedicated fuel source that is NOT connected to a covered process, AND
2. the boiler is located far enough away so as to its catastrophic failure will NOT impact our covered process, AND
3. the steam it is producing is NOT used in a safety system within our covered process AND the “loss of steam” or “too much steam” will NOT have consequences on our covered process,

there is a good chance we can DOCUMENT the boiler is NOT part of the PSM/RMP covered process.