Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1/4/2018
1
Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule
OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTOFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Existing regulatory frameworkThe Risk Management Program is one of several programs that address chemical facility safety and security:◦ OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard‐Management program for highly hazardous chemicals aimed at preventing and minimizing occupational/onsite exposure
◦ Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to‐know (EPCRA) requirements Local emergency planning and preparedness, emergency release notification, community right‐to‐know: provision of hazardous chemical storage inventory and toxic chemical release inventory to the community and first responders
◦ CAA Section 112(r)(1) general duty clause‐Facility owner/operators have a general duty to prevent and minimize releases
◦ Chemical Facility Anti‐terrorism Standards (CFATS)‐DHS security requirements
◦ ATF requirements for explosives
◦ State/local requirements (e.g., NJ, Contra Costa County, CA regulations)
22
Risk Management Program rule
◦ Promulgated in 1996 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments
◦ Applies to all stationary sources with processes that contain more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance (approx. 12,500 sources)◦ Includes a wide variety of industry sectors, including: refining, chemical manufacturing, energy production, ammonia refrigeration, water treatment, bulk storage, chemical distribution, agricultural retail, and chemical warehouses
3
1/4/2018
2
Applicability
4
Final List of Regulated Substances 140 substances
(63 flammable, 77 toxic)
5
6
1/4/2018
3
7
EPA RMP ExemptionsMixtures < 1% concentration (flammable and toxic)
Gasoline used as fuel for internal combustion engines
Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to processing
“Articles”
Activities in laboratories
Flammable substances used as fuel or held for retail sale
Specified uses ◦ As structural component of stationary source
◦ For routine janitorial maintenance
◦ As foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items
◦ In process water, non‐contact cooling water, compressed air, or air used for combustion
Outer continental shelf sources
Anhydrous ammonia held by farmers for use as nutrient
Transportation
8
9
1/4/2018
4
10
11
12
1/4/2018
5
Colorado by Program Level
P1: 29
P2: 67
P3: 77
13
RMP Requirements◦ Requires the source to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) ◦ Addresses elements aimed at preventing accidental releases and reducing the severity of releases that occur
◦ Prepare and submit an RMP to EPA at least every 5 years
◦ Covered processes fall within one of three prevention program levels based on:
◦ The potential for offsite consequences from a worst‐case accidental release;
◦ Accident history; and
◦ Regulation under OSHA PSM
14
Program levelsPROGRAM 1642 Facilities
PROGRAM 21,272 Facilities*
Processes not eligible for Program 1, not subject to Program 3◦ Mainly water & wastewater treatment in Federal OSHA states
◦ Additional hazard assessment, accident prevention, management, and emergency response requirements
*Analysis reflects OSHA change to PSM retail exemption issued July 2015
15
Processes subject to OSHA’s PSM or in one of 10 specified NAICS codes◦ Larger facilities or those with complex processes
◦ Examples include: refining, chemical manufacturing, energy production, water treatment
◦ Must use OSHA’s PSM as accident prevention program and include additional hazard assessment,management, and emergency response requirements
PROGRAM 310,628 Facilities*
Processes that would not affect the public in the event of a worst‐case release & no accidents with offsite consequences in the last five years◦ Small quantities of flammables, less volatile toxics
◦ Limited accident prevention including hazard assessment and emergency response requirements
1/4/2018
6
Program level comparisonPROGRAM 1 PROGRAM 2 PROGRAM 3
Worst case analysis 5‐year accident history Document management
system
Worst case analysis 5‐year accident history Document management system
Worst case analysis 5‐year accident history Document management system
Prevention Program
Certify no additional prevention steps needed
Safety information Hazard review Operating procedures Training Maintenance Incident investigation Compliance audit
Process safety information Process hazard analysis (PHA) Operating procedures Training Maintenance Incident investigation Compliance audit Management of change Pre‐startup review Contractors Employee participation Hot work permits
Emergency Response Program
Coordinate with local responders
Develop plan/program and coordinate with local responders
Develop plan/program and coordinate with local responders
16
PSM v. RMPNot the same!
Different listed chemicals, concentrations, thresholds
Some RMP elements not included in PSM –Management System, 5 year accident history
Use different terminology
17
PSM Exemptions – NOT RMPNon‐fuel substances sold at retail facilities
Flammable liquids stored in atmospheric storage tanks
Normally unoccupied remote facilities
18
1/4/2018
7
Program LevelsWrong program level determination
Management system: fail to document names of people or positions and define the lines of authority
Program Level 1: ◦ Proper documentation not maintained for worst‐case release scenarios
◦ Claim to be P1 but do not meet criteria
19
5 Year Accident History Requirements (all Program Levels)The release must be from a covered process and involve a regulated substance held above its threshold quantity in the process.
The release must have caused at least one of the following: ◦ On‐site deaths, injuries, or significant property damage OR
◦ Known offsite deaths, injuries, property damage, environmental damage, evacuations, or sheltering in place
20
5 Year Accident HistoryFailure to report◦ Incidents requiring more than first aid
◦ Offsite Data◦ Do not know accurate number of people sheltered in place or evacuated
◦ Do not have numbers for property or environmental damage
◦ Triggers that require RMP reporting◦ Consequences onsite and offsite
◦ Accidents with amounts below CERCLA/EPCRA RQs
21
1/4/2018
8
Offsite Consequence Analysis
Estimate “distance to endpoint” for hypothetical worst case and alternative chemical release
Identify public and environmental receptors
P1: one worst case for each P1 process
P2 &3: ◦ 1 worst case for ALL toxics
◦ 1 worst case for ALL flammables
◦ Additional worst case for another process if different receptors
◦ At least 1 alternative release for each toxic
◦ At least 2 alternative release for ALL flammables
22
OCAWrong release quantity or inconsistency between release quantity & endpoint distance
Wrong chemical chosen for worst‐case scenario
Gross mismatch between process & release quantity
23
Safety Information (P2)
24
1/4/2018
9
Prevention Program P2: Safety InformationNo or outdated SDS
No documentation on max inventory, upper/low limits
Obsolete equipment or design with no plans to change or documentation to show still safe
Safety information not updated when change occurred
25
Process Safety Information (P3)
26
Prevention Program P3:Process Safety InformationNo documentation showing equipment designed to old costs/standards is still safe (68.65(c)(3))
Did not evaluate consequences of deviation
PSI incomplete, not current, or inaccurate◦ Safe Operating Control Limits not specified◦ P&IDs◦ Title block missing date
◦ No “checked” or “approved by” signature
◦ Inaccuracies noted during walk through
27
1/4/2018
10
Hazard Review (P2)
28
Process Hazard Analysis (P3)
29
Hazard Review/PHAP2◦ Do not look beyond industry check list Have not looked at industry standard since facility was designed/built
P3◦ PHA findings not resolved, documented, or tracked
◦ Safety information not up to date so PHA not started on time
◦ Stationary source siting not addressed
◦ Miss 5 year update or not retained for the life of the process
30
1/4/2018
11
Operating Procedures (P2)
31
Operating Procedures (P3)
32
Operating ProceduresNot maintaining temporary operating procedures
Did not assign responsibility for emergency shutdown
Did not include operating limits & consequences of deviations
Relying solely on existing industry or manufacturer’s operating procedures
No start up after emergency shut down procedure
33
1/4/2018
12
Operating Procedures 2Do not have all required written procedures
Operators not able to access procedures
Did not certify operating procedures annually (P3)
Operating procedures not current
34
TrainingMust train new operators on the operating procedures and cover health and safety hazards, emergency operations, and safe work practices
Refresher every three years (consult with employees re: frequency)
Required to determine that each operator has received and understood the training
Keep a record for each employee with the date of the training and the method used to verify that the employee understood the training.
35
Maintenance (P2)
36
1/4/2018
13
Mechanical Integrity (P3)
37
Management of Change (P3)
38
Management of Change (P3)Not performed on changed process or equipment (was not “in kind”)
PSI not updated
SOP not updated
Mechanical integrity procedures not updated
MOC done after change completed
MOC signed off but actual changes not done39
1/4/2018
14
Pre‐Startup Review (P3)
40
Pre‐Startup Safety Review (P3)Not done, even though PSI information changed
Not done prior to introduction of regulated substance
Construction documents not used as basis of pre‐startup review
PSSR has sign offs but not reflected in actual operations (training, SOPs)
41
Employee Participation
42
1/4/2018
15
Hot Work Permits
43
Contractors
44
Employee Participation/Hot Work Permit/Contractors (P3)Employee Participation◦ No written employee participation program
◦ Written program not followed
Hot Work Permit◦ Permit not fully completed
◦ Fire protection requirements not implemented prior to hot work
Contractors◦ Contractor safety performance & programs not evaluated
◦ Safe work practices not followed
45
1/4/2018
16
Incident Investigations (P2/3)
46
Incident Investigations “Near misses” not investigated
Unresolved or undocumented findings/recommendations
Unreported incidents in 5‐year accident history
Reports never finished due to liability
Not getting to “root cause”
Attorney does incident investigation, then claims attorney/client privilege
47
Compliance AuditConduct an audit of the process to evaluate compliance with the prevention program requirements at least once every three years.
At least one person involved in the audit must be knowledgeable about the process.
Develop a report of the findings and document appropriate responses to each finding and document that deficiencies have been addressed.
The two most recent audit reports must be kept on‐site.
48
1/4/2018
17
Compliance Audit IssuesNot completed at least every 3 years, if at all
Does not review all RMP prevention program requirements
No certifier or left blank
Does not identify person responsible for addressing findings/recommendation, time/schedule, or what actions to be taken
Resolutions/corrective actions not documented
Perpetually in process
49
More Compliance AuditDid not “promptly” address recommendations
Did not address previous PHA and/or compliance audit recommendations; same finding from previous audit
Missing documentation (MOC, PSSR, incident investigations)
Did not identify overdue inspections, testing, or equipment replacement per applicable code, standard, or RAGAGEP
Using PSM audit (not same!!)50
Emergency Response Program Non‐responding: coordinate with LEPC or FD as appropriate.
Responding: Need Emergency Response Program◦ Maintain an emergency response plan (maintained at the facility) that includes: ◦ Procedures for informing the public and emergency response agencies about releases,
◦ Documentation of proper first aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat human exposures, and
◦ Procedures and measures for emergency response.
◦ Procedures for using, inspecting, testing, and maintaining your emergency response equipment;
◦ Training for all employees in relevant procedures; and ◦ Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the facility and ensure that employees are informed of changes.
51
1/4/2018
18
Emergency ResponseWrong phone numbers
Long chain of phone calls to be made – not “immediately”
Don’t know where plan or SDSs are, what to do to report a major release
Say respond when don’t have the capability
No first aid information for RMP chemicals
Outdated
Use Fire Department; did not coordinate
52
Risk Management Modernization Rule
OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTOFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
BackgroundOn August 1, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security following several catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States. ◦ Focus is to reduce risks associated with hazardous chemicals to owners and operators, workers, and communities by enhancing the safety and security of chemical facilities.
54
1/4/2018
19
More BackgroundThe keys areas of emphasis under the EO are:◦ Strengthening community planning and preparedness,
◦ Enhancing federal operational coordination,
◦ Improving data management, and
◦Modernizing policies and regulations.◦ EPA issued a request for information (RFI) on July 31, 2014, and
◦ Convened a Small Business Advocacy Review panel on November 4, 2015.
Delayed until 2019/lawsuit pending
55
Overview of Proposed RevisionsP1 P2 P3
Third‐party audits (applies to the next scheduled audit after an accident) [Estimated 150/year]
√ √
Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with accidents/near misses) [Estimated 150/year]
√ √
Safer Alternatives Analysis (applies to a subset of P3 in certain NAICS codes) [Estimated 1,692 Facilities/4,308 Processes]
√
Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements with Local Responders
√ √
Emergency Response Exercises √ √
Information Sharing √ √ √
56
Additional resourcesRMP rule webpage: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed‐changes‐risk‐management‐program‐rmp‐rule
EO activities under EO 13650: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/executive‐order‐improving‐chemical‐facility‐safety‐and‐security
A copy of EO 13650 is available at: https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html.
A copy of the Report to the President: Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security–A Shared Commitment is available at https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html.
A copy of the EPA RFI is available at https://federalregister.gov/a/2014‐18037.
57
1/4/2018
20
ToolsWISER, CAMEO
58
WISER: wiser.nlm.nih.govWireless Information System for Emergency Responders◦ Substance Identification Support
◦ Physical characteristics
◦ Human health info
◦ Contaminant and suppressant guidance
Standalone app or with internet
59
60
1/4/2018
21
61
62
CAMEOCAMEO Chemicals
CAMEOfm Database
Mapping Applications for Response, Planning, and Local Operational Tasks –(MARPLOT)
Areal Locations Of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA)
63
1/4/2018
22
CAMEO for Responders/PlanningQuickly identify chemical properties, response procedures, and PPE with CAMEO Chemicals
Don’t need internet
Import GIS Shapefiles into MARPLOT
Develop mock scenarios of potential releases and predict worse case releases
Develop emergency response plans using models of threat zones associated with a release(s) of hazardous chemicals
Plot sensitive populations, county‐specific attributes, potential contamination sources
64
Download: http://www.epa.gov/cameo
65
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSEOFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
66
1/4/2018
23
CAMEO Chemicals ‐ Desktop, Online, Mobile
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSEOFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
67
68
CAMEOfm
69
1/4/2018
24
70
MARPLOT: Mapping Applications for Response, Planning, and Local Operational Tasks
71
72
1/4/2018
25
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSEOFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
73
ALOHA: Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres
74
75
1/4/2018
26
76
77
78
