Perspectives: Compliance Advisor

Spotlight Shines on Plant Safety

Efforts underway could significantly revamp process safety policies, regulations and standards

By Lynn Bergeson, regulatory editor

Chemical plant safety is once again in the limelight due to some high profile and very public catastrophes. On January 3, 2014, a federal working group created by the Obama administration’s Executive Order (EO) 13650 issued a set of preliminary options intended to improve chemical plant safety and security. This is a priority topic commanding considerable attention and readers should be aware of and engaged in these developments. This column explains why.

Call for Improved Safety
A little over a year ago, the world was riveted by a major explosion at a West, Texas, fertilizer warehouse. Fifteen people were killed and 160 injured in one of the worst chemical facility disasters in history.

In response to the blast, President Obama signed EO 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. The EO established the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group. The EO tasks the working group with considering options to improve and modernize key policies, regulations and standards to enhance the safety and security of chemical facilities. The group includes representatives from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and other federal agencies. Each of these bodies has had significant regulatory engagement in chemical safety management.

Preliminary Options
The working group developed a preliminary list of options for improving chemical facility safety and security for further discussion and comment. According to OSHA, the recommendations will serve as a starting point for additional stakeholder discussion. The group offered nine sets of options across several categories and requested comment on each, including mandatory new safeguards. These options comprise “clusters” of issues; actions to address these will have broad and enduring implications for many businesses in the chemical community. The options are:
•    Improving the safe and secure storage, handling, and sale of ammonium nitrate;
•    Process safety improvement and modernization;
•    Coverage of additional hazardous chemicals or categories of chemicals under process safety and security regulations;
•    Chemical reactivity hazards;
•    Explosive chemical hazards;
•    Oil and gas facilities;
•    Coverage of bulk storage of flammable liquids under process safety and security regulations;
•    Process and hazardous chemical security; and
•    Identifying facilities covered under existing process safety and security regulations.

Request for Comment
The working group requested comment on examples of where implementation of the same or similar options have succeeded; information or data that would characterize the positive impacts the options might have, including additional benefits; potential limitations or unintended consequences of the options described; methods for implementing the options, including methods for potentially increasing benefits or reducing costs; and alternatives to the options that could achieve substantially the same result.

It’s apparent from the list of options that the agencies comprising the working group are considering additional and new regulations. For example, the working group states that “[t]he agencies are considering whether to initiate rulemakings for updating the PSM [Process Safety Management] standard and RMP [Risk Management Program] rule.  The EPA and OSHA have collaborated on implementation of these programs, and are considering a number of options for modernizing regulations, policy and guidance that would maintain parallel requirements and ensure harmony between the regulations.” The agencies also are considering expanding the scope of chemicals regulated under the PSM standard and RMP rule.

The workings of the interagency taskforce are critically important to the chemical community and the industries it serves. This type of regulatory “gap analysis” will require significant engagement from regulated sectors to ensure the working group is fully informed and able to make prudent decisions.

Although the comment period closed in March, the solicitation for public comment document is a must read as it provides a useful summary of the federal regulation of chemical facilities and offers significant insight into where new regulatory authority may be directed.


bergeson-color.jpgLYNN BERGESON is Chemical Processing's Regulatory Editor. You can e-mail her at lbergeson@putman.net

Lynn is managing director of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., a Washington, D.C.-based law firm that concentrates on conventional, biobased, and nanoscale chemical industry issues. She served as chair of the American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (2005-2006).

More from this perspective...

Title

EPA pushes material-management challenges

The agency is striving to increase cooperative projects with industry to conserve resources.

08/25/2005

EPA Proposes New Use Rules

Proposal could limit the use of 14 nanoscale substances.

01/16/2012

EPA Plans to Improve IRIS Process

Mandated review may determine how best to update chemical health effects database.

10/25/2012

EPA must reconsider carbon dioxide

Court rules that the agency has power to regulate greenhouse gases. Regulator Editor Lynn Bergeson how the ruling came to be and its impace on the industry.

04/24/2007

EPA Moves Ahead With BPA Action Plan

Agency seeks input on best approach to determine bisphenol A's risk to environment.

08/10/2011

EPA Launches Online Discussion

It’s your chance to impact National Enforcement Program priorities.

09/08/2009

EPA Keeps Close Eye on Cadmium

Precedent-setting rule requires manufacturers to submit health and safety studies.

12/13/2012

EPA Issues Final Weight-of-Evidence Guidance

Document addresses analysis for endocrine-disruptor Tier 1 screening assays.

10/12/2011

EPA Issues Final Rules for Boilers

New subcategories place emission limits on different types of boilers.

04/19/2011

EPA Issues Chemical Data Reporting Rule

Companies must contend with significant changes.

09/08/2011

EPA Fines Dover Chemical $1.4 Million

Expect EPA to be more creative and ambitious in enforcing TSCA violations.

03/14/2012

EPA Finally Amends Definition of Solid Waste

Rule provides exclusions for reclamation of hazardous secondary materials.

10/22/2008

EPA Expands Endocrine Disruptor Testing

Agency mandates screening of more chemicals and issues guidance

02/17/2011

EPA clarifies position on ion-generating equipment

Claims about a product’s ability to kill pests, including germs, can lead to EPA regulation, says Lynn Bergeson, regulatory editor.

10/30/2007

EPA assesses link to greenhouse gases

Steps taken during manufacturing can significantly impact landfill emissions, advises Lynn Bergeson, regulatory editor, in this month's Compliance Advisor column.

09/27/2007

EPA Amends TSCA Reporting Obligations

Documents can now be filed electronically

12/17/2013

Election Results Impact Chemical Forecast

Federal and state legislation and regulations will likely rev up in the new year

11/26/2012

Disclosure Protection May Narrow

EPA targets confidential business information claims.

02/09/2010

DHS aims to lock down security rules

Expect a final ruling this summer on chemicals covered and some other key issues, warns Lynn Bergeson, regulatory editor.

07/06/2007

Develop an air-tight defense

Chemical processors face significant challenges in controlling fugitive emissions. The emissions escape from valves, compressors, pumps, piping components, etc. It is a difficult task, but necessary to avoid penalties and other liability.

04/24/2006