B. What action is the Agency taking? (-)
2. SUMMARY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATORY ACTIONEPA proposes to rescind almost all the requirements added to the accident prevention provisions program of Subparts C (for Program 2 processes) and D (for Program 3 processes). These include rescission of all requirements for third-party compliance audits (§68.58, 68.59, 68.79 and 68.80), safer technology and alternatives analysis (§68.67(c)(8)) for facilities with Program 3 regulated processes in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 322 (paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing), and 325 (chemical manufacturing) and rescinding the words "for each covered process" from the compliance audit provisions in §68.58 and 68.79. EPA also proposes to rescind in §68.50(a)(2), the requirement for the hazard review to include findings from incident investigations. For incident investigations (§68.60 and 68.81), EPA proposes to rescind: Requirements for conducting root cause analysis for incident investigations; for the incident investigation report to have specified added data elements, a schedule to address recommendations, a 12-month completion deadline, and for §68.60 only, a five-year record retention (EPA notes that the existing rule's five-year record retention requirement at §68.200 will still apply); and for investigating any incident resulting in catastrophic releases that also results in the affected process being decommissioned or destroyed. In §68.60 and 68.81, EPA also proposes to rescind clarifying text "(i.e., a near miss)" that was added to describe an incident that could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release. In §68.60, EPA proposes to change the term investigation "report(s)" to "summary(ies)" and rescind the requirement for Program 2 processes to establish an incident investigation team consisting of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with experience to investigate an incident.EPA proposes to rescind employee training requirements (§68.54 and 68.71) that would apply to supervisors responsible for process operations as well as rescind minor wording changes involving description of employees operating a process in §68.54. EPA proposes to rescind the requirement in §68.65 for the owner or operator to keep process safety information up-to-date and the requirement in §68.67(c)(2) for the process hazard analysis to address the findings from all incident investigations required under §68.81, as well as any other potential failure scenarios. EPA will retain two changes that would revise the term "Material Safety Data Sheets" to "Safety Data Sheets (SDS)" in §68.48 and 68.65.
On May 23, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Reinhardt, Peter <peter.reinhardt**At_Symbol_Here**YALE.EDU> wrote:--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchasColleagues,
On 13 January 2017 the U.S. EPA promulgated rules to strengthen risk management planning at high risk chemical facilities. My reading of these new rules is that they are reasonable and necessary, considering the fact that the current RMP program was not doing enough to prevent chemical accidents that endanger workers, neighbors and the environment. In early 2017, the new EPA administrator stayed the rule. On 17 May 2018 EPA formally proposed rescinding the new rules. EPA is requesting public comment now, which they are required to do by law. I encourage you to comment. For more information, see https://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed-risk-management-program-rmp-reconsideration-rule
Further, if ACS cares about safety and the public's image of chemistry, ACS should file a formal comment as well. I hope that the ACS Office of Public Affairs is prepared, authorized and planning to do this. No student wants to major in chemistry with headlines like the one below.
I know that some people on this list are stridently anti-regulation and anti-policy. I suppose they would turn every highway in the U.S. into the autobahn, where every driver could choose their own "safe" speed limit. I, however, subscribe to the maxim often professed by our esteemed colleague Dr. George Wahl who says, "What the law does not require, common sense does not inspire."
Peter A. ReinhardtDirector, Office of Environmental Health & SafetyYale University135 College St., Suite 100New Haven, CT 06510-2411(203) 737-2123
CHEMICAL-PLANT EXPLOSIONS CONTINUE AS EPA PURSUES WEAKER SAFETY RULEShttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.businessinsurance.com_article_20180522_NEWS06_912321429_Chemical-2Dplant-2Dexplosions-2Dcontinue-2Das-2DEPA-2Dpursues-2Dweaker-2Dsafety-2Drules&d=DwIDaQ&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=aLbxX1qloHn0RROa9nDpFDWbAKsTgyPy-YiYvunkb_g&m=bQF34wlT4HmL59tjGXbYW1lzimMh_p8ZYGjAT2TuJac&s=st-TzGXwhc1H8onLA-xnUjoowdcIX107v4PY5NhgOVA&e=Tags: us_TX, public, follow-up, environmental
A new proposed rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would gut an effort to improve the safety of chemical facilities launched under the Obama administration even as incidents at these facilities continue to occur, according to some experts.
In the latest incident, a fire at the Pasadena, Texas, facility of Houston-based chemical company Kuraray America Inc. injured 21 workers on Saturday. Preliminary findings indicate a pressure safety valve released ethylene, causing a flash fire in one of its process units, according to a company statement on Saturday. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is deploying a four-person investigative team to the scene, the agency said in a statement on Monday.
On Thursday, the EPA issued a proposed rule that would rescind changes to the agency's Risk Management Program proposed by the Obama administration in January 2017, including requirements for third-party audits and incident investigations at chemical facilities regulated by the agency.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post