Preventing and Better Preparing for Emergencies at Chemical Plants is Job One
By Mathy Stanislaus
The chemical industry provides critical products we use every day, creates jobs, and is a staple of the U.S. economy. While numerous chemical plants operate safely, in the past 10 years nearly 60 people died, some 17,000 people were injured or sought medical treatment, and almost 500,000 people were evacuated or sheltered-in-place as a result of accidental releases at chemical plants. During that time, more than 1,500 incidents were reported causing over $2 billion in property damages.
To prevent and reduce the number of accidents and protect communities and first responders, we are proposing revisions to the accidental release prevention requirements under the Clean Air Act, also known as our Risk Management Program (RMP). In the Report to the President on implementing Executive Order (EO) 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (August 2013), we committed to amending the RMP regulations in 2016.
This proposal is based on extensive engagement over two years with community leaders, first responders, local and state governments, industry and many other stakeholders – nearly 1,800 participants across the country in over 25 states. The Executive Order Working group reviewed existing programs, recommendations from the safety and security communities, and feedback from the EO listening session, as well as investigative reports of major incidents. In 2014 the EO Working Group published for stakeholder comment a preliminary list of options for improving chemical facility safety and security. The May 2014 Progress Report to the President, Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security – A Shared Commitment, summarized the federal governments’ progress. Modernizing the RMP rule was identified as one of the top priorities to improve chemical facility safety and security. In July, 2014 we sought comment on potential revisions to modernize EPA’s regulations, guidance and policies by issuing a Request for Information. In 2015, prior to convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, we conducted outreach with small entities potentially affected by these regulations. EPA invited the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 32 potentially affected small entity representatives to a conference call and solicited comments from them on preliminary information. These comments and concerns have been reflected in today’s proposal.
The proposed amendments are intended to improve existing risk management plan requirements to enhance chemical safety at RMP facilities by:
- Requiring the consideration of safer technologies and alternatives by including the assessment of Inherently Safer Technologies and Designs in the Process Hazard Assessment
- Requiring third party audits and root cause analysis to identify process safety improvements for accident prevention
- Enhancing emergency planning and preparedness requirements to ensure coordination between facilities and local communities
- Ensuring that emergency response capabilities are available to mitigate the effects of a chemical accident
- Improving the ability of local emergency planning committees and local emergency response officials to better prepare for emergencies
- Increasing public access to information to help the public understand the risks at RMP facilities, and increase community involvement in accident planning for when communities need to evacuate or shelter-in-place during an accident
I participated in many of the listening sessions and stakeholder conferences and heard first-hand from local responders and communities about their concerns about accidental chemical releases and their ideas to improve planning and prevent emergencies. Together we can work to strengthen preparedness and prevention efforts in our communities.
This proposal is a step in the right direction. We want to build on the success of leaders in the chemical industry by enhancing their operations to prevent accidents, and we want to make sure that communities are fully prepared for a chemical plant accident, so that first responders, workers, and neighboring community members are protected.
The proposed rule is just one of the actions the U.S. government has undertaken to enhance the safety and security of chemical facilities under EO 13650. In addition to these revisions, we continue our work under EO 13650 by assisting local communities in developing local emergency contingency plans and facilitating a dialog between communities and chemical facilities on chemical accident prevention and preparedness.
Learn more about the proposal here: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed-changes-risk-management-program-rmp-rule
Follow us on Twitter at @EPAland.
Feb 26, 2016 @ 07:29:43
Thanks for share that information with us
Feb 26, 2016 @ 07:30:33
thank for sharing that information with us
Feb 26, 2016 @ 18:28:40
Thank you for the information. Perhaps the actual proposal will clarify my confusion over bullet point number two regarding third party audits and root cause analysis. An audit is used to verify that a site has implemented their risk management plan. A root cause analysis is used during an incident investigation. The two are not used together therefore this bullet point makes no sense to me. Second, the common term used in the industry is Process Hazard Analysis (not assessment). My third comment is more needs to be done to have LEPC take their role more seriously. It took me two years to get our county LEPC to post shelter in place information on the emergency website. Their need to be credentials and requirements for LEPC committee members. I hope to see some language about that in the proposal.
Mar 01, 2016 @ 13:18:14
Although these proposed changes to the chemical industry’s risk management practices are badly needed, I just hope the EPA actually just the message out to make sure all factories and other industrial facilities are made aware of these proposed changes. As a company that supplies facilities with industrial hygiene products, I can tell you that not all industrial hygiene managers pay attention to every last rule change, or proposed rule change, at least not in a timely manner.
Mar 04, 2016 @ 01:59:47
This is a good first step. I hope that we continue in this direction and find the best practices to safely navigate the chemical industry.
Mar 05, 2016 @ 14:29:43
Here’s an idea – and it doesn’t cost anything!
EPA can switch all the radiation monitors back on so people in pklaces like Porter Ranch who have exposure to industrial accidents can see if they are also being exposed to deadly fallout from Japan.
Mar 18, 2016 @ 08:38:50
You have shared your observations for e-cigarettes Today smoking product are used very much in the society. We should stop this culture of smoking for our own health and for our loved ones.
May 17, 2016 @ 10:25:49
more than 1,500 incidents were reported causing over $2 billion in property damages.
WOW
May 17, 2016 @ 23:46:52
Good! I love the yellow and small design ideas; on the one hand it’s simple, on the other is so creative! Shows an interesting spirit of the owner for sure.
Jul 04, 2016 @ 04:34:11
Those are some great tips on safety. Since that’s one of the most important thing in the workplace, we can’t stress enough that the management should be rational about teaching their employees about it. Great article!
Nov 13, 2016 @ 01:07:50
I can tell you that not all industrial hygiene managers pay attention to every last rule change.