What’s in a Name?

We are growing!  As a result, we need more amazing people.  So, I recently posted a job position, on LinkedIn, for Project Managers in our Philadelphia, Atlanta and Houston offices…which got me thinking (very dangerous).  What’s in a name?  

I’m not trying to explain away my secret love (no need to worry hubby) for a family enemy.  I just want to get a little philosophical – Can we really rely on a name or a couple of words to describe who we are or what we do?  Take, for example, our job titles.   At ALL4, we have an amazing team of Project Managers.  If you were to research that term (a fun activity in your spare time), you would find this Wikipedia definition, “A project manager is the person responsible for accomplishing the stated project objectives.”  What does that tell you?  Nothing.  So what do they really do at ALL4?  They are trained problem-solvers and so much more.  They are fearless leaders, mentoring staff and supporting their clients.  Our project managers are entrepreneurs who are inspired to build their own brand.  They take ownership and are accountable, dedicated to ongoing learning and open to feedback.  Detail-oriented and authentic, these project managers are passionate towards professional and personal growth, providing high-end, strategic, air quality consulting.  Go ahead; try putting that in a title.

Here’s another example.  I am not a Project Manager.  I am the Strategic Relations Director.  What the heck is that??  Well, to put it simply, it all comes down to building strong relationships.  I’ll compare it to the art of baking, (which I never, ever do).  It’s a rather easy recipe for success, and it’s delicious with clients, employees and even prospects and recruits… it all starts with an ingredient called trust (turn to page 23 for that recipe).  Once you have that, seek to truly understand their needs. Then add: do what you said you would do, when you said you would do it. Next, sprinkle:  exceed expectations (if you have the ingredient available). When you’re finished, ask for open and honest feedback, also known as:  taste and adjust accordingly.  Hmm, maybe my title should be The Relationship Baker.

So as I make a passing reference to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet while comparing the art of relationship building to baking, I ask you this: Does your job title truly explain all that you do?  If it does, maybe it’s time to try a new recipe and take on a challenge that offers you many more opportunities than just your title.

Check out our careers page and our job posting on LinkedIn to learn more about the opportunities at ALL4.

The Saga of the Affirmative Defense and Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Continues

I felt that the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for saga “a long and complicated story with many details” was appropriate for identifying the latest affirmative defense rulemaking action.  The saga continues, because a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) to “affirmative defense” provisions in state plans was published in the September 17, 2014 Federal Register.

The purpose of this blog is to provide the following:

1. Awareness of the action,
2. A convenient reference to the SNPR, and
3. A summary of some of the main items of the action taken by the U.S. EPA

If you read this far, I have already accomplished Nos. 1 and 2 above.  I would like to note that this action potentially affects all states, U.S. territories, local authorities, and eligible tribes because it is evaluating U.S. EPA’s latest interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and also the legitimacy of U.S. EPA approved state implementation plans (SIPs).  This action should be of special interest to those that are subject to emission limits in SIPs because it may require changes to state rules applicable to excess emissions.

A basic and holistic summary of this affirmative defense SNPR is that the U.S. EPA proposed to supplement and revise its February 2013 proposal (i.e., its response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club) to ensure states have plans in place that require industrial facilities across the country to follow applicable air pollution rules during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).  This action reflects the recent federal court ruling that the CAA prevents the U.S. EPA from creating affirmative defense provisions applicable to private civil suites.  This SNPR is proposing to apply U.S. EPA’s latest interpretation of the CAA as it relates to affirmative defense provisions applicable to excess emissions during SSM events in SIPs.  This proposal would not change what the U.S. EPA proposed in the February 2013 notice for other issues that were not related to affirmative defense in SIPs.

The bottom line is that states will not only be prohibited from allowing excess emissions during SSM events, as spelled out in the original SIP call, they will also be prohibited from allowing regulated facilities to use the affirmative defense to avoid civil penalties for such emissions.

For those that would like to dig deeper into the finer details of this SNPR, I provided a list below of some of the issues that the U.S. EPA is proposing to address with this action.  Be sure to also check out the actual SNPR using the hyperlink I provided above.

Background…

• Sierra Club filed “the Petition” with the U.S. EPA June 30, 2011.
  • Among other items, the Petition requested that the U.S. EPA rescind its SSM Policy element interpreting the CAA to allow SIPs to include affirmative defense provisions for violations due to excess emissions during any type of SSM events.
• U.S. EPA proposed to take action on the petition by notice published in the February 22, 2013 Federal Register.
• The deadline for this final action has been rescheduled from June 12, 2014 until May 22, 2015.

Issues this SNPR is addressing…

• U.S. EPA is supplementing and revising what they proposed February 22, 2013, but only to the extent the requests narrowly concern affirmative defense provisions in SIPs.
• U.S. EPA is not revising or seeking further comment on any other aspects of proposed action.
• U.S. EPA is proposing to grant the Petitioner’s overarching request that it rescind its SSM Policy element that interpreted the CAA to allow affirmative defense provisions in SIPs.
• U.S. EPA is proposing to grant the Petitioner’s request to apply a revised interpretation to, and execute the removal of existing affirmative defense provisions in SIPs of 13 states.
• U.S. EPA has also proposed action for an additional six states’ SIPs that they independently identified.
• U.S. EPA proposes to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ with respect to that SIP provision that are affected.
• See Table 1 of the SNPR for a list of states that the U.S. EPA proposes to grant the petition for or has been independently identified by the U.S. EPA.
• The final action will establish a deadline by which the state must make a SIP submission to rectify the deficiency (the full 18-month permissible period has been proposed).
• If the EPA’s final action is disseminated in May 2015, the SIP submission deadline for each of the states subject to the final SIP call could potentially be 18 months later (i.e., November 2016).

Lastly, here are a few key upcoming dates to mark on your calendar:

• Comments are due for this SNPR on or before November 6, 2014
• A public hearing  is scheduled for October 7, 2014

As always, if you would like to learn how ALL4 can provide your organization with compliance assistance related to this and other air quality compliance issues, please contact me at (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or at jkleinle@all4inc.com.

Radar and Rainfall and Clouds, Oh My!

Rain and thunderstorms have always amazed me.  I used to sit on my grandparent’s balcony in Florida and watch the clouds build up as a storm rolled in, darkening the sky as giant rain drops would begin to fall and lightning would illuminate the sky.  The magic of it all intrigued me to study atmospheric science in undergraduate and graduate school.  While in graduate school at Texas A&M University, I got the opportunity to work on a research project involving tropical convection (i.e., intense, heavy rainfall) in the Indian Ocean.  After I wrote and defended my thesis, and graduated, I worked with my two (2) advisors, Courtney Schumacher and Anita Rapp, to publish my work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal called the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.  If you have a nerdy side, or are just plain interested in understanding weather phenomena, read on and learn about my methods and results from analyzing in situ and remotely sensed data from the tropics!

A multinational field campaign took place in the tropical Indian Ocean from October 2, 2011 to February 9, 2012, to study the initiation of a large-scale convective event, called the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO).  The MJO exists on a time scale of 30-90 days, and commonly initiates over the Indian Ocean and propagates eastward into the western Pacific Ocean.  The MJO creates an “envelope” of convection that works to sustain the phenomenon as it moves slowly.  The MJO has two (2) distinct phases, the active and the suppressed phase.  An MJO is considered in an active phase when deep convection and precipitation occurs.  A suppressed MJO occurs in regions around the active MJO, associated with decreased cloud cover and less precipitation.

The campaign was comprised of three (3) field experiments: the Dynamics of the Madden Julian Oscillation (DYNAMO), the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Madden-Julian Oscillation Investigation Experiment (AMIE), and the Cooperative Indian Ocean Experiment on Intraseasonal Variability in the Year 2011 (CINDY2011).  Texas A&M deployed a mobile Doppler radar on a tiny island just below the equator, Addu Atoll (0.6°S, 73°E), part of the Maldives.  The radar was accompanied by additional land-based radars and meteorological instruments deployed by the Department of Energy (DOE) and other universities.  There were multiple aircraft with radar and dropsondes (a tool literally “dropped” from the aircraft to measure atmospheric properties as it falls to the surface), as well as ship-based radar, deployed by different U.S., European, and Asian agencies.  The entire field campaign was planned to continue through March 2012, but due to political unrest, the program had to be cut short (right before I was supposed to join!).

The Texas A&M radar, known as SMART-R (Shared Mobile Atmospheric Research and Teaching Radar) was a C-band radar, which means that it has a 5-cm wavelength, and is best at detecting precipitation and raining clouds.  Every three (3) hours, DOE launched radiosondes, or weather balloons, which retrieved temperature, pressure, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity as they ascended into the atmosphere.  A vertical cloud radar, called KAZR (K_a Zenith Radar) was also located on the DOE site, with a smaller 8.6 mm wavelength, best for detecting smaller, cloud-sized particles.

The research I was involved in used the radar data from SMART-R and KAZR and the atmospheric profiles from the daily weather balloons to analyze the convective patterns during the MJO events.  I was especially interested in observing how the MJO events interacted with other smaller equatorial atmospheric waves, known as convectively coupled Kelvin Waves (KWs).   KWs also move eastward on a timescale of 2-20 days.  They can be associated with convection, which was the basis of my study.  My goal was to analyze the precipitation and environmental properties of KWs during the active and suppressed phases of the MJO.

Using the data collected during the field campaign, as well as some processed data provided by other atmospheric scientists, I wrote software to visualize and analyze the KWs during the MJO events that occurred.  During the field campaign, three (3) strong MJO events and ten (10) strong KWs occurred, where four (4) KWs occurred during the active MJO, five (5) occurred during the suppressed MJO, and one (1) occurred as the MJO was developing.  I examined these events both individually and by compositing them based on maximum convective rainfall.  A short summary of these results is provided below.

When KWs occurred during the active MJO, they were accompanied by two (2) peaks of large amounts of convective (heavy) and stratiform (lighter) rain.  There was no evident humidity buildup as the KW developed, since it was trapped in the moist envelope provided by the MJO.  The extent and number of clouds was greater in KWs during the active MJO.  During the suppressed MJO, KWs had fewer clouds and less rainfall.  There was also a slower build up to maximum rainfall.  These KWs displayed the expected moisture buildup as they developed.  Low-level humidity preceded convective rain development, suggesting that low-level humidity preconditions the atmosphere for convective development.

You can read a much more detailed and in-depth account of my research methods and conclusions in my publication, found here.  If you are unable to access the article, shoot me an email at adepasquale@all4inc.com and I’d be happy to provide a PDF copy of it!  I had the pleasure of presenting this research at the 2012 American Geophysical Union Conference in San Francisco, CA; the 2013 American Meteorological Society Conference in Austin, TX; and the MJO Field Data and Science Workshop in Kohala Coast, HI.  This is on-going research within the atmospheric science community, so keep an eye out for more publications studying the tropical convection of the MJO and KWs!

Why the Proposed New Emission Factor For Flares Could Have Huge Impacts on Industry

U.S. EPA is proposing a substantial increase in the emission factor for nitrogen oxides (NO_X) emitted from industrial flares.  The change, if finalized as currently written, could have far-reaching impacts in industrial sectors that rely on the use of industrial flares, including petroleum refineries, chemical plants, natural gas processing plants, oil or gas production sites, and offshore oil and gas rigs.

In May 2013, environmental groups filed a lawsuit against U.S. EPA for failure to perform compulsory duties pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review, and, if necessary, revise the emission factors for volatile organic compounds (VOC) for flares, liquid storage tanks, and wastewater collection, treatment, and storage systems.  Section 130 of the CAA states that this review should be completed at least once every three (3) years.  As a result of the litigation, in early 2014, U.S. EPA entered into a consent decree stipulating that they were to review and, if necessary, propose new emissions factors for VOC for the aforementioned sources.

In August 2014, based largely on data collected during the 2011 Refinery Information Collection Request (ICR), the data referenced in the litigation, and other test data available to U.S. EPA, it was determined that the data was not adequate to allow for revisions to existing emissions estimation methods for tanks and wastewater treatment systems.  However, U.S. EPA decided to propose a new VOC emission factor for flares, as well as other emission factors for refinery operations and pollutants that were not specifically covered by the 2014 consent decree. 

Of particular note, U.S. EPA has proposed to update Section 13.5 of AP-42 (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors), emissions factors for industrial flares, to incorporate the following new and revised emissions factors.

Facilities that are most likely to be impacted by this proposed revision are those who operate industrial flares and have relied upon the current NO_X emission factor for emissions reporting and/or permit compliance.  Please note, U.S. EPA has not proposed to adjust the flare emission factors of Chapter 2, which are specific to flares operated at Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.  As seen in the table above, the proposed NO_X emission factor is approximately 43 times the existing factor!  Additionally, the data used to develop the new and revised emission factors reflects both steam-assisted and air-assisted flares; therefore the new factor applies to all types of flares.

Many flare owners and operators rely on emission factors from Chapter 13 of AP-42 for the purposes of calculating flare emissions because it is difficult and costly to perform emissions tests of an individual flare that is already in operation on-site. As stated in “Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares” written by U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in April 2012, “measuring emissions from a flare can be difficult and dangerous because flares lack an enclosed combustion chamber, may be elevated, and come in many different designs and sizes. With combustion taking place at and above the tip of the flare, the combusted gases are released into the atmosphere in any direction given the meteorological conditions and flare vent gas velocity that exist at that moment.”

Extractive test methods have been used, however, to measure flare emissions.  These techniques require placement of a hood-like structure, sampling rake with multiple sample ports, or another method to capture the flare plume.  Though these methods are technically feasible, testing industrial flares using extractive techniques is impractical and relegated to research studies, usually on much smaller flares.

Another testing method that has only become available recently due to technological advances, involves the use of remote sensing instruments to identify combustion products without the difficulties of physically extracting a sample of a flare plume.  These remote sensing techniques include: Active Fourier Transform Infrared (AFTIR) and Passive Fourier Transform Infrared (PFTIR).  The main difference between AFTIR and PFTIR is that AFTIR requires the remote sensor be aligned to an artificial light source; whereas PFTIR simply detects infrared radiation emitted as heat (i.e., PFTIR uses thermal imaging).  U.S. EPA notes that “AFTIR and PFTIR remote sensing offers an attractive alternative to characterize emissions from flares; AFTIR and PFTIR are relatively expensive, new tools that currently have no approved methods for universal use on flares.”  Furthermore, AFTIR and PFTIR do not capture and/or account for all chemical species that may be found in flare vent gas, and, as of 2012, the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) are only aware of one company currently using the PFTIR test technique on flares. (Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, 2012)

In conclusion, this proposed action is expected to have far reaching impacts on industry.  and there is sure to be additional information released in the coming weeks.  According to the consent decree, U.S. EPA must finalize the revision to the emission factors by December 19, 2014.  The proposed emission factors could impact reported emissions as soon as 2015. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed action is instructed by U.S. EPA to submit written comments by October 19, 2014.  Comments should be e-mailed to refineryfactor@epa.gov.

New Jersey Increases Air Permitting Fees

As published in the August 18, 2014 New Jersey Register, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has proposed to increase the service fees for permitting stationary sources of air pollution.  Current revenue received from existing fees is less than the costs incurred by NJDEP to perform permitting, enforcement, and planning.  The proposed fee increase will affect the following permit application fees:

• Air permit applications for minor facilities, as regulated by N.J.A.C. 7:27-8,
• Air permit applications for major facilities, as regulated by N.J.A.C. 7:27-22,
• General air permit registration fees for minor facilities, and
• General air permit registration fees for major facilities.

The proposed increase to the service fees for both minor and major facilities is approximately 44%.  For example, the fee for an application for a preconstruction permit will increase from $1,755 to $2,527 for the first piece of equipment and from $410 to $590 for each additional piece of equipment.  Fees to renew an operating certificate will increase from $880 to $1,267.  Fees for Best Available Control Technology (BACT), Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), and State of the Art (SOTA) evaluations will increase from $5,845 to $8,417.  MACT evaluations will increase from $1,755 per MACT standard to $2,527, while NSPS evaluations will increase more dramatically from $1,755 per NSPS standard to $8,417.  NJDEP proposes to raise all general permit registration and renewal fees for minor facilities to $820. 

A public hearing is scheduled for September 22, 2014 and comments will be accepted electronically until October 17, 2014.  The proposed fees will become effective 60 days after adoption.  

Get Prepared for Major Changes to the Risk Management Program Regulations!

On July 31, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published potential revisions to the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations, which are codified at 40 CFR Part 68.  U.S. EPA issued a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit and obtain information on specific regulatory elements regarding RMP and its closely-related standard regulated under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s), Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (29 CFR §1910.119; often referred to as PSM.  This action stems from an executive order signed by President Obama on August 1, 2013 that directed the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group to carry out a number of tasks with the overall goal to prevent chemical accidents such as the explosion that occurred at West Fertilizer in West, Texas on April 17, 2013. To underscore the severity of the West incident, and one (1) of the major driving forces behind the RFI, please visit OSHA’s website to review the associated citations.

Part of the executive order requires U.S. EPA to “review the chemical hazards covered by the Risk Management Program (RMP) and the Process Safety Management Standard (PSM) and determine if the RMP or PSM can and should be expanded to address additional regulated substances and types of hazards.”  Since the OSHA PSM standard and U.S. EPA RMP regulation are closely aligned in content, policy interpretations, Agency guidance, and enforcement, this RFI will allow U.S. EPA to evaluate potential updates to the RMP regulations in parallel to OSHA’s evaluation of potential updates to the PSM standard.  U.S. EPA has divided the topics covered by the RFI into two (2) categories: those addressed in parallel to the OSHA RFI, and additional topics not addressed by OSHA.

Let’s start with those topics that are being addressed in parallel to the OSHA RFI.

Updating the List of Regulated Substances

U.S. EPA is requesting information pertaining to modifying the list of regulated substances by the following:

• Adding other toxic or flammable substances
• Adding high and/or low explosives
• Adding ammonium nitrate
• Adding reactive substances and reactivity hazards
• Adding other categories of substances
• Removing certain substances from the list or raising their threshold quantity (TQ)
• Lowering the TQ for substances currently on the list

Each topic is discussed in the subsections below.

Adding Other Toxic or Flammable Substances

U.S. EPA is interested in determining whether there are other substances that meet the established toxicity or flammability criteria, are in commerce, and are present in quantities that would pose a risk to the community if accidentally released. Such substances could be added to the regulatory programs, triggering the need for facilities to comply with applicable RMP requirements.

Adding High and/or Low Explosives

Due to the West Fertilizer explosion, U.S. EPA is reconsidering if explosives should be included on the RMP list, specifically ammonium nitrate.  High explosives were listed on the RMP list in 1994 but were later removed in 1998.

Adding Ammonium Nitrate

The explosion at West Fertilizer has highlighted the explosive properties of ammonium nitrate under certain conditions, such as heat, shock, contamination, and confinement.  The accident at West Fertilizer also highlighted the adverse impact to the surrounding community if it decomposes and detonates.  U.S. EPA could list ammonium nitrate on the RMP list with a high threshold in order to prioritize process safety requirements where large amounts of ammonium nitrate are stored.

”

Adding Reactive Substances and Reactivity Hazards

Currently, the RMP list does not address reactive chemicals.  However, U.S. EPA is considering listing chemicals based on the hazards of their reaction byproducts.  One such example is chlorosilanes that produce hydrochloric acid upon release to the air.  One approach that U.S. EPA is evaluating with respect to handling reactive substances is the approach used in the New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA).

The New Jersey TCPA contains a list of individual reactive hazardous substance and also a list of reactive hazard substances mixture functional groups.  The New Jersey TCPA takes into account the certain specific chemicals and their overall reactivity in determining the level of coverage needed.

Another approach being evaluated by U.S. EPA is the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Hazardous Materials Code.  This Code specifies storage, use, and handling requirements for various categories of hazardous materials.

Adding Other Categories of Substances

U.S. EPA is determining if substances that are not traditionally classified as highly toxic, flammable, or explosive could cause or contribute to serious accidents.  These types of substances could cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the environment in the event of an accident.  Such examples of these substances include, but are not limited to, organic peroxides, oxidizers, combustible dusts or other flammable solids.

Removing Certain Substances from the List or Raising their TQ

U.S. EPA is determining whether certain substances should remain on the RMP list.  There are six (6) RMP-regulated substances s that have never had a RMP Plan submitted by a facility:

1. Arsenous Trichloride
2. Cyanogen Chloride
3. Sulfur Tetrafluoride
4. Tetramethyl Lead
5. Chlorine Monoxide
6. Ethyl Nitrite

These six (6) substances, along with toluene diisocyanate (TDI) and 1,3-pentadiene, are being evaluated to see if they should remain on the current RMP list.  TDI is only reactive under certain conditions, and 1,3-pentadiene was originally listed due to a typographical error for its boiling point.

Lowering the TQ for Substances Currently on the RMP List

U.S. EPA is interested in receiving information regarding the TQs for the currently RMP regulated substances.  They are interested in knowing if the current TQs are protective of human health and the environment, if there would be any economic impacts of lowering TQs, and are there any special circumstances that involve small entities that should be considering when lowering the TQs.

”

Revising Additional RMP Elements

U.S. EPA is interested in receiving and reviewing information regarding the management system elements that were identified in the OSHA RFI, but with a focus on the applicable the RMP requirements.  U.S. EPA is considering incorporating three (3) elements taken from the Risk Based Process Safety Program by the Center for Chemical Process Safety: (1) measurements and metrics, (2) management review and continuous improvement, and (3) process safety competency.  The first element, measurements and metrics, would require a facility to establish performance and efficiency indicators to track the effectiveness of the risk management system and to identify opportunities for improvement of its elements and work activities.  An example of a measurement and metrics indicator may be to track the frequency of process upsets and near-miss accidents.

The second element, management review and continuous improvement, would focus on the “due diligence” of management reviews that fill the gap between day-to-day work activities and formal audits.  This element would not rely on a formal audit to identify deficiencies.

The third element, process safety competency, would focus on organizational learning so that process knowledge can be applied to situations in order to effectively manage risk.  Three (3) activities would be involved: continuously improve knowledge and competency; ensuring appropriate information is available to those who need it; and consistently applying lessons learned.

U.S. EPA is also interested in gathering comments on other management-system programs, such as a stop work authority and ultimate work authority.  These programs would allow workers to stop work when witnessing an activity that creates a threat of danger, and sets definition around who has the ultimate authority on the facility for operational safety and decision making.

Defining and Requiring Evaluation of Updates to Applicable Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices

There are references to recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) within 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart D.  U.S. EPA is soliciting information from facilities as to what their definition of RAGAGEP is, what sources are covered under RAGAGEP, and if the facility evaluates updates to its selected RAGAGEP.  U.S. EPA could potentially add a specific definition of RAGAGEP to the RMP rules and require a re-evaluation or update the facilities selected RAGAGEP.

Extending Mechanical Integrity Requirements to Cover Any Safety-Critical Equipment

U.S. EPA is gathering information on whether the scope of the mechanical integrity provisions of the RMP rule should be extended to cover the mechanical integrity of any safety-critical equipment, and whether additional mechanical integrity requirements should be added to the rule.  U.S. EPA has noted during compliance inspections that facilities have failed to apply mechanical integrity program measures to certain systems that could be deemed critical to process safety.  Some examples identified were computer software systems that interact with process components, electrical power systems, and other utility systems that interact with pumps, valves, or control systems.

Requiring Owners and Operators to Manage Organizational Changes

OSHA’s PSM standard includes management-of-change procedures for equipment and some situations for organizational changes.  The RMP rule contains almost identical management-of-change procedures as the PSM standard; therefore, U.S. EPA is interested in information regarding how facilities handle organizational change in context of process safety.

Requiring Third-Party Audits

Currently, neither OSHA nor U.S. EPA requires the use of a third-party auditor to conduct compliance audits.  However, one finding from the 2005 BP Texas City Refinery explosion has prompted OSHA and U.S. EPA to re-consider third-party auditing.  The finding was that BP lacked rigorous compliance audits.  U.S. EPA is considering requiring that owners and operators employ third-party auditors to conduct compliance audits.  U.S. EPA is gathering information from facilities on current audit practices.

Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability

U.S. EPA is re-evaluating Program 2 eligibility, which is dependent on OSHA’s PSM standard.  OSHA is considering restriction of eligibility for its retail exemption to facilities selling small containers, packages, or allotments to the general public.  If OSHA restricts the above-mentioned exemption, and U.S. EPA requires all RMP-covered water and wastewater treatment plants that are not eligible for Program 1 to comply with Program 3, then only approximately 200 RMP-covered processes nationwide would remain eligible for Program 2.  Under this scenario, U.S. EPA is considering modification of the Program 2 eligibility criteria, or eliminating Program 2 altogether.  If Program 2 is eliminated, then all formerly Program 2 processes would comply with Programs 1 or 3 requirements.

Now that we’ve covered what U.S. EPA is including in the RFI that is in parallel with OSHA’s RFI on the PSM standard, let’s take a look at the information U.S. EPA is considering outside of the OSHA RFI.

Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis

Historically, U.S. EPA has not mandated the use of safer technology and alternatives.  However, under the current RFI, U.S. EPA is evaluating how to assess safer technologies and alternatives.  It realizes that this undertaking gets complicated due to the varying amount and quality of information available regarding safer technologies and alternatives implementation by industry.  U.S. EPA is planning to complete the following in regards to safer technologies and alternatives:

• Publishing a joint alert with OSHA to detail the concepts, principles, and examples of safer technology and alternatives.  This publication would raise awareness for industry and provide sources of information for further investigation and review.
• Publishing a voluntary guidance document with OSHA for operators to gain knowledge on how to reduce risks through the use of safer technology and alternatives.  The publication would also offer a more thorough examination of alternative measures and safety techniques.
• Based on feedback from the above-mentioned publications and the information received from the RFI, U.S. EPA is considering an amendment to the RMP rules to require the following:
  • Analysis and documentation of safer technologies and alternatives
  • Integration of the safer technologies and alternatives analysis into the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
  • Implementation of safer technologies and alternatives where feasible.

Emergency Drills to Test a Source’s Emergency Response Program or Plan

Currently, under 40 CFR Part 68 Subpart E, RMP-covered facilities are required to coordinate emergency response actions with the local emergency planning and response agencies.  Facilities that fall under Program 2 or Program 3 are also required to develop and implement an emergency response program if facility personnel will respond to accidental releases.  If facility personnel will not be responding to accidental releases, then coordination with community emergency planners and responders is required.  U.S. EPA refers to other Federal programs, specifically the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR Part 112), that require exercises and drills as a requirement of their emergency response program.  U.S. EPA is considering a similar requirement for the RMP regulation.  U.S. EPA is interested in obtaining information on this requirement, such as what should the frequency of such drills be, who should be involved in the drills and/or exercises, and are these types of drills already going on at facilities.

Automated Detection and Monitoring for Releases of Regulated Substances

The current RMP regulations have requirements regarding process hazards and equipment maintenance and inspection.  However, the current regulations do not address detection methods, early warning signals, and incident notifications.  U.S. EPA does recognize that such methods and systems may not be available for particular chemical hazards and may be costly.  They are still interested in obtaining information on how facilities currently handle continuous detection and monitoring for chemical hazards.

Additional Stationary Source Location Requirements

U.S. EPA is contemplating adding more specific requirements to the RMP rules to address stationary source siting.  U.S. EPA feels that both the siting of processes within a stationary source and the siting of the stationary source itself can affect the impact of an accidental release.  U.S. EPA is considering adding such requirements as establishing buffer or setback zones for new covered stationary sources or establishing safety criteria for siting of occupancies inside a facility.

Compliance with Emergency Response Program Requirements in Coordination with Local Responders

If a facility subject to RMP rules falls within Program 2 or Program 3, the facility has two (2) emergency response options.  Either the facility has employees who will respond to an accidental release or the facility’s employees will not respond to an accidental release.  During more recent U.S. EPA inspections of site RMP programs, it has found that facilities are not included in the community emergency plan or have not properly coordinated response actions with local authorities.  U.S. EPA is considering revising the current provisions in Subpart E to more explicitly state the requirements regarding coordination with local authorities.

Incident Investigation and Accident History Requirements

U.S. EPA feels that incident investigations and accident history reporting can provide valuable information about potential hazards and prevent future events.  It does recognize that the current requirements for incident investigation and accident history reporting are somewhat limited.  U.S. EPA is considering broadening the current RMP regulations to include clear requirements to investigate near misses and determine root causes of accidents, near misses, and process upsets.  U.S. EPA is specifically looking for feedback regarding time frames of such investigations, current practices regarding incident investigations, how to disseminate lessons learned across industry, and economic impacts of broadening the RMP rules to require root cause analysis and incident investigations.

Worst Case Release Scenario Quantity Requirements for Processes Involving Numerous Small Vessels Stored Together

The current RMP rules, specifically §68.25(b) requires the owner or operator to determine a worst-case release quantity.  The current rules states that “the worst case release quantity shall be the greater of the following: (1) For substances in a vessel, the greatest amount held in a single vessel, taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity; or (2) For substances in a pipe, the greatest amount in a pipe, taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity.”  U.S. EPA believes that for most cases the current requirements yield a reasonable estimate of worst case releases.  However, there are certain facilities, such as chemical warehouses, where large numbers of regulated containers are stored closely together that may need a different approach for determining the worst case release.  U.S. EPA is considering revising the RMP rule to account for such a scenario.

Public Disclosure of Information to Promote Regulatory Compliance and Improve Community Understanding of Chemical Risks

U.S. EPA is seeking feedback on if disclosing more information to the public and local authorities would improve compliance.  U.S. EPA has some suggestions such as listing unrestricted RMP information on a company’s website as a means to disclose more information to the public.  U.S. EPA is interested in ways for facility information to more readily available for local emergency planning committees and first responders.

TQs and Off-site Consequence Analysis Endpoints for Regulated Substances Based on Acute Exposure Guideline Level Toxicity Values

U.S. EPA is considering the recalculation of RMP reporting thresholds and toxic endpoints for off-site consequence analyses based on the use of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs), which are developed by the National Advisory Committee (NAC) for AEGLs for Hazardous Substances.  This methodology could better reflect the potential for adverse effects of an accidental release upon a community.  The current TQs are based on the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) value developed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

U.S. EPA is considering the recalculation of the IDLH-based TQs for the following:

• The IDLH is based on response of healthy male workers and does not take into account the exposure of more sensitive individuals, such as the elderly, pregnant women, children, or people with health problems.
• The IDLH is based on a maximum 30-minute exposure period, which may not reflect actual exposures to accidental airborne releases.
• The IDLH may not reflect the concentration that could result in serious but reversible injury because the IDLH values were designed to protect workers against concentrations that would prevent death or irreversible health effects or other effects that would prevent escape from an accidental release.

AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to eight (8) hours.  U.S. EPA feels that the use of AEGLs would better reflect the potential for adverse effects of an accidental release and is soliciting feedback on this approach.

Program 3 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes Based on RMP Accident History Data

The current Program 3 facilities apply to a specified list of NAICS codes.  Since the current RMP database now contains nearly 20 years of accident history reports from covered sources, U.S. EPA feels that these reports give a more representative picture of what industry sectors are most frequently associated with accidents.  U.S. EPA is soliciting feedback on Program 3 applicability based on the accident history reports.  The 10 NAICS codes most frequently associated with accidents in RMP-regulated processes are the following, in no particular order:

• 32411: Petroleum Refineries
• 325199: All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
• 325188: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
• 22131: Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
• 42491: Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
• 22132: Sewage Treatment Facilities
• 325181: Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing
• 311615: Poultry Processing
• 49312: Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
• 32211: Pulp Mills.

The “Safety Case” Regulatory Model

The “safety case” regulatory model is a structure for regulating high-risk industries where facilities are required to demonstrate to the regulator that they have reduced risks to a level that is “as low as reasonably practicable” (ALARP).  This approach has been utilized for the chemical and refining industries outside of the United States and for nuclear reactor facilities regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  U.S. EPA realizes that completely replacing the current RMP regulation (and PSM standard) with the safety case model would be a significant undertaking.  However, U.S. EPA is requesting information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of such a program.

Streamlining RMP Requirements

U.S. EPA is interested in gathering information on any other areas of 40 CFR Part 68 that has not been already covered in the RFI.  U.S. EPA invites any comments on modernizing, strengthening, or clarifying the RMP regulations.

From the looks of this RFI, some significant changes to the RMP regulations are in the works.  U.S. EPA is soliciting feedback so if you have some, now is the time to let them hear it…all of it, the good, the bad, and the ugly! The RFI was published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2014, and you have until October 29, 2014 to provide feedback and comments. Now is the time to voice your opinions!