Safety overhaul for chemical plants under review

Chemical accidents have fuelled the need
for better mandatory safeguards.

An interagency panel created to weigh new chemical safety regulations in response to last April’s deadly explosion in Texas is considering a major overhaul of the way volatile substances are handled and stored, a new federal document shows.

The Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group, a task force made up of top-level officials from a variety of federal agencies, is asking for feedback on an array of potential new rules that could help avert future disasters.

The agencies offer nine sets of options across several categories, including mandatory — rather than voluntary — new safeguards. The regulations could include a shift to inherently safer technologies and the creation of a third-party audit system.

The working group, led by the secretaries of Homeland Security and Labor, along with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), stressed that the list of potential actions, released late Friday, is merely a starting point.

“This document is a tool for prompting additional thought and obtaining additional information necessary to further evaluate, refine, and supplement these initial options, and we anticipate that the options may change significantly in the coming months,” the agencies wrote.

Included in the proposal are measures to tighten regulations for the storage and handling of ammonium nitrate, the chemical involved in last April’s fertilizer plant in West, Texas, which killed 15 people and injured more than 200.

The agencies are seeking information about the costs associated with implementing the measures under consideration.

Still, the proposal raised red flags within the industry, where businesses fear the working group will pursue actions “that will further complicate an overly complex regulatory system,” according to a statement from the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

The council said it was encouraged that the agencies incorporated some of the industry’s suggestions in the report, including measures to strengthen coordination between various regulators and improve information sharing between first responders.

But the ACC, which favors shoring up existing rules, is worried that the agencies are considering “a regulatory model that would exceed the authority the agencies have today instead of focusing on how to improve current programs,” according to the statement.

More than 100 groups making up the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters contend that a transition from reactive safeguards to a more preventive set of policies is exactly what is needed to prevent future accidents, or at least minimize their impact.

The group is encouraged by the breadth and scope of the potential actions under consideration, including the incorporation of “inherently safer technologies,” said Rick Hind, who serves as legislative director for Greenpeace, a member of the coalition.

“They’re actually taking a look at the regulatory gaps,” Hind said.

Members of the public and interested parties can weigh in on the potential actions being floated.

President Obama created the working group via executive order on Aug. 1, though the panel's work has been fraught with delays connected to last fall's government shutdown.

Source: The Hill

Protect yourself from hazardous fumes and chemicals by running a high-quality air purifier for chemical and odor control (and using other protective measures, of course). Electrocorp's air cleaners for chemical processing plants and air purifiers for industry applications feature many pounds of granular activated carbon to remove airborne chemicals, vapors, particles and other contaminants from the ambient air. Contact Electrocorp for more information.

US chemical safety data almost always wrong: Study

Chemical accidents can lead to
chemical exposure  and adverse
health effects.

Chemical exposure can be serious, but currently there is no way to keep track of accidents and spills, a study shows.

Even the best national data on chemical accidents is wrong nine times out of 10.

A Dallas Morning News analysis of more than 750,000 federal records found pervasive inaccuracies and holes in data on chemical accidents, such as the one in West that killed 15 people and injured more than 300.

In fact, no one at any level of government knows how often serious chemical accidents occur each year in the United States. And there is no plan in place for federal agencies to gather more accurate information.

As a result, the kind of data sharing ordered by President Barack Obama in response to West is unlikely to improve the government’s ability to answer even the most basic questions about chemical safety.

After the West explosion in April, The News asked a simple question: How often do serious or potentially serious industrial chemical accidents occur in Texas and nationwide? After scouring the four federal databases with the most comprehensive information available on chemical safety, The News concluded that there was no way to know.

For a recent four-year period, the paper managed to confirm at least 24 industrial chemical accidents in Texas that resulted in deaths, injuries or evacuations. But the poor data quality guarantees that number does not account for all accidents. Nor was it possible to make a meaningful comparison with other states that would lend important context to the safety picture in Texas.

Large data systems have inherent problems with accuracy — an issue that experts caution will only worsen in an era when huge amounts of electronic data are being collected. Even so, government investigators and researchers have been warning for at least 25 years about the problems with chemical accident data. The News found report after report that said chemical accident data were insufficient to spot even basic accident patterns and suggest solutions.

What’s needed, experts say, is an overhaul of the data-collection process or the expansion of an existing pilot program that has labored under years of inadequate funding.

One agency focused on chemical accidents

Only one agency collects nationally comprehensive information specifically on chemical accidents. The U.S. Coast Guard’s National Response Center receives reports of chemical spills and other accidents from companies, emergency responders and the general public.

But the NRC data is no more than a call log, like a 911 hotline for environmental emergencies, and first reports often turn out to be wrong. Following up those initial reports to update the data and record what actually happened is not part of the center’s mission.

Government reports citing serious problems with chemical safety data go back to at least the 1980s. That’s when an accidental release of methyl isocyanate from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killed more than 5,000 people.

The 1984 disaster spurred the Environmental Protection Agency to attempt to create a chemical accident database. The effort began in 1985. But researchers quickly found that many serious chemical accidents never came to the attention of any federal agency. By 1989, funding for the project had ended.

The chemical industry had started self-reporting on incidents, but many chemical companies strongly oppose publicly releasing their accident data.

This article has been edited for length. Source: The Dallas Morning News

A chemical spill is a serious threat to people's health and well-being. Electrocorp works with environmental agencies, consultants and industry professionals to help bring cleaner air to industrial, commercial and residential spaces. Contact Electrocorp for more information.

Company faces 200K EPA penalty for not following chemical accident prevention procedures

A cold storage and ice manufacturing company in Sandwich, Mass. and E. Providence, R.I. has agreed to pay penalties of $225,000 to settle claims by EPA that the company violated federal Clean Air Act requirements meant to prevent chemical releases of ammonia at facilities located in East Providence, R.I., and Sandwich, Mass.

According to EPA’s complaint, JP Lillis Enterprises, which does business under the trade name Cape Cod Ice, failed to put in place a required “Risk Management Plan” for ammonia used in the refrigeration system at its East Providence facility, in violation of the federal Clean Air Act. EPA also alleged that the company violated the Clean Air Act’s General Duty Clause, which applies to facilities where extremely hazardous substances such as ammonia are present, at its Sandwich location.

Under the General Duty Clause, owners and operators of these facilities are required to identify hazards, design and maintain the facility in a safe manner, taking steps to prevent accidental releases of the extremely hazardous substance, and take steps to minimize the consequences of any accidental releases that occur.

The company had not taken required steps to design and maintain a safe facility or taken precautions that would minimize the consequences of an accidental release of ammonia, if one were to occur, at its Sandwich facility. For example, they failed to provide mechanical ventilation; working ammonia detectors and an emergency shutdown switch for the machinery room; develop operating procedures and a comprehensive mechanical integrity program; and train employees in the proper operation of the system at the Sandwich facility.

Ammonia presents a significant health hazard because it is corrosive to the skin, eyes and lungs. Exposure to 300 parts per million is immediately dangerous to life and health. Ammonia is also flammable at concentrations of about 15 to 28 percent by volume in air. It can explode if it is released in an enclosed space with a source of ignition present, or if a vessel containing anhydrous ammonia is exposed to fire.

Risk Management Plans required under the Clean Air Act, and steps required under the General Duty Clause, help prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the environment from short-term exposures and reduces the severity of releases that do occur. A company that fails to take these steps can leave the public and environment at risk from accidental releases.

Both Cape Cod Ice facilities are located less than a fifth of a mile from residential homes, and less than a quarter of a mile from retail and office areas.

This case stems from information learned about JP’s facilities following an inspection of the Sandwich facility by EPA in November 2011. After EPA’s inspection, JP developed and submitted a risk management plan for its East Providence facility, and the company is currently working to fix problems identified at the Sandwich facility. For example, the company has installed an ammonia detector at the Sandwich Facility and investigated and corrected pipe corrosion and vibration problems noted by EPA inspectors. JP also plans to install a ventilation fan and an emergency shutdown switch and to prepare and implement an improved maintenance program for the system.