1997OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Open access

Accidental release prevention requirement: Risk management programs under Clean Air Act section 112(r)(7)

Jaesik Hahn

Open full text 8 citations

Abstract

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration promulgates and enforces regulations that govern the health and safety of workers. OSHA rules often are considered to govern what happens {open_quotes}inside the fence line,{close_quotes} or within the physical boundaries of the facility. In some ways, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes over where OSHA leaves off. The U.S. EPA is responsible for environmental programs {open_quotes}outside the fence line.{close_quotes} The concept is as simple as drawing a line, or is it? Anyone developing and implementing compliance programs, whether for OSHA or EPA, will tell you nothing is that simple. EPA`s recent promulgation of rules pertaining to risk management programs is a case in point. A new EPA rule is intended to compliment OSHA requirements under the Process Safety Management (PSM) rule. Under the OSHA rule, plant operators developed programs that ensure safe measures are in use when handling certain chemicals. During the past three years, waste-to-energy facilities faced difficult decisions when complying with the PSM requirements. Earlier this year, the US EPA promulgated its 112(r)(7) rule that is intended to `complement` OSHA`s PSM requirements. This is not always the case. Unfortunately, these new Clean Air Act requirements do not always complement, but may instead confuse plant operators. For example, EPA`s 112(r) rule may force plant operators to change, once again, their decisions on the use of selected chemicals. The US EPA estimates that approximately 66,000 facilities, including the 114 waste-to-energy facilities nationwide, may be affected by the list and risk management planning rules. The facilities include chemical and many other manufacturers, cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems, public water treatment systems, wholesalers and distributors of these chemicals, propane retailers, utilities, and federal facilities.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration promulgates and enforces regulations that govern the health and safety of workers. OSHA rules often are considered to govern what happens {open_quotes}inside the fence line,{close_quotes} or within the physical boundaries of the facility. In some ways, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes over where OSHA leaves off. The U.S. EPA is responsible for environmental programs {open_quotes}outside the fence line.{close_quotes} The concept is as simple as drawing a line, or is it? Anyone developing and implementing compliance programs, whether for OSHA or EPA, will tell you nothing is that simple. EPA`s recent promulgation of rules pertaining to risk management programs is a case in point. A new EPA rule is intended to compliment OSHA requirements under the Process Safety Management (PSM) rule. Under the OSHA rule, plant operators developed programs that ensure safe measures are in use when handling certain chemicals. During the past three years, waste-to-energy facilities faced difficult decisions when complying with the PSM requirements. Earlier this year, the US EPA promulgated its 112(r)(7) rule that is intended to `complement` OSHA`s PSM requirements. This is not always the case. Unfortunately, these new Clean Air Act requirements do not always complement, but may instead confuse plant operators. For example, EPA`s 112(r) rule may force plant operators to change, once again, their decisions on the use of selected chemicals. The US EPA estimates that approximately 66,000 facilities, including the 114 waste-to-energy facilities nationwide, may be affected by the list and risk management planning rules. The facilities include chemical and many other manufacturers, cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems, public water treatment systems, wholesalers and distributors of these chemicals, propane retailers, utilities, and federal facilities.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration promulgates and enforces regulations that govern the health and safety of workers. OSHA rules often are considered to govern what happens {open_quotes}inside the fence line,{close_quotes} or within the physical boundaries of the facility. In some ways, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes over where OSHA leaves off. The U.S. EPA is responsible for environmental programs {open_quotes}outside the fence line.{close_quotes} The concept is as simple as drawing a line, or is it? Anyone developing and implementing compliance programs, whether for OSHA or EPA, will tell you nothing is that simple. EPA`s recent promulgation of rules pertaining to risk management programs is a case in point. A new EPA rule is intended to compliment OSHA requirements under the Process Safety Management (PSM) rule. Under the OSHA rule, plant operators developed programs that ensure safe measures are in use when handling certain chemicals. During the past three years, waste-to-energy facilities faced difficult decisions when complying with the PSM requirements. Earlier this year, the US EPA promulgated its 112(r)(7) rule that is intended to `complement` OSHA`s PSM requirements. This is not always the case. Unfortunately, these new Clean Air Act requirements do not always complement, but may instead confuse plant operators. For example, EPA`s 112(r) rule may force plant operators to change, once again, their decisions on the use of selected chemicals. The US EPA estimates that approximately 66,000 facilities, including the 114 waste-to-energy facilities nationwide, may be affected by the list and risk management planning rules. The facilities include chemical and many other manufacturers, cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems, public water treatment systems, wholesalers and distributors of these chemicals, propane retailers, utilities, and federal facilities.

Key concepts: Clean Air Act, Process safety management, Promulgation, Agency (philosophy), Engineering, Risk analysis (engineering), Business, Hazardous waste

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Accidental release prevention requirement: Risk management programs under Clean Air Act section 112(r)(7) — Research Paper | ScholarLens