ArticlesWest, TX Fertilizer... a lesson in "process safety" and the "retail facility" exemption?
Before the dust settles and the funerals are complete, the politicians and the media are already clamoring for more regulations in order to prevent another catastrophe like the one in West, TX. However, like in many occasions, it is not the regulatory framework that is the problem; it is the "retail" exemption and its improper application and defining by OSHA that has burned us in this tragedy. The business appears to have done their reporting in 2011 and 2012 properly. We will have to wait for the investigation report to learn if the reporting was not made available to those who needed it most. I am not advocating for more regulation or that Ammonium Nitrate becomes a PSM/RMP chemical. I am going to try and make the case that the current regulatory framework, even with the PSM “retail exemption”, is adequate to prevent such disasters. I am going to try and explain the difference between compliance with the bare minimums (e.g. OSHA’s PSM and EPA’s RMP) and true “process safety”. Here is how our current regulatory framework COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE prevented or certainly lessened the tragedy in West, TX. |
Partner Organizations I am proud to announce that The Chlorine Institute and SAFTENG have extended our"Partners in Safety" agreement for another year (2024) CI Members, send me an e-mail to request your FREE SAFTENG membership
Member Associations
|
Comments
My point is OSHA was not going to require West to do ANYTHING under PSM about the hazard associated with ammonium nitrate because it is simply not something PSM is concerned with. Even Tech grade AN would not trigger PSM.
And so the effect of West being a retail business on RMP Program classification is moot. Even the question of whether West would fall under the RMP general duty clause at all is not obvious.
I read your premise as:
"As I explained in my article "How could the TX fertilizer plant be a Program 2 RMP?", it is OSHA's exemption of "retail facility" that originally allowed the fertilizer distributor to be exempted from OSHA's PSM requirements, which then allowed the facility to be a Program 2 RMP facility. "
Regardless of the retail exemption, West would not have fallen under PSM for the reasons I stated. You may want to pick a fight with the retail exemption, and I have no beef with that, but West is the wrong example. They did not fall under PSM at all. Regardless of the retail exemption.
And whether they fell under RMP at all is also a fair question, for the reasons I stated, regardless of whether they fell under PSM, and regardless of their retail status.
Sorry for the confusion, but did you actually read the article or just the head line. It is not about AN being covered by PSM/RMP and I even state I am not advocating for it to be. The article shows the gap of how A Program 2 RMP does not have to do a facility siting assessment nor have MOC program in place and these two elements could have (if applied correctly) made a difference in West, TX.
Even without the retail exemption, would West have been subject to PSM? Ammonium Nitrate is not a listed chemical and is not a flammable liquid or gas.
Also, would they have been subject to RMP? Again, Ammonium Nitrate is not a listed chemical, and an explosion of solid ammonium nitrate doesn't seem to constitute an "accidental release".
‘‘accidental release’’ means an unanticipated emission of a regulated substance or other extremely hazardous substance into the ambient air from a stationary source.
Is a detonation shock wave considered a release of ammonium nitrate to the ambient air? Would a detonation shock wave of TNT be an ammonium nitrate release?
What would be the "threshhold quantity"? See 42 USC § 7412 (r) (5)
RSS feed for comments to this post