Science
BOS3125 Columbia Southern University Process Safety Management Report

BOS3125

Columbia Southern University

Question Description

Unit V Research Paper m( attached is the CSU library article)

OSHA issued the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals Standard (PSM) (29 CFR 1910.119) which

contains requirements for the safe management of chemicals for companies that exceed OSHA's threshold quantities for

highly hazardous substances. This standard requires the establishment of a management program that includes

conducting process hazard analyses, establishing detailed operating procedures, and includes other important

requirements to mitigate the possibility of a serious, chemical related incident occurring at the facility.

For this assignment, suppose you are a safety manager at a chemical manufacturing facility that manufactures

concentrated nitric acid. You have heard that employees who load nitric acid into rail tank cars have been checking the preinspection

checklist from the rail shipping office instead of actually inspecting the vehicles with the checklist in hand as

required by the operating procedure. This has not been the first time the shipping crew has been lax about process safety

related work rules. Based on this scenario, please compose a research paper which includes the following information:

Identify the chemical properties, uses, and primary hazards associated with common oxidizers including concentrated

nitric acid.

Identify important occupational exposure limits (OELs) associated with at least 3 common oxidizers.

Identify PSM requirements that would be useful for preventing or minimizing the consequences of a significant oxidizer

related incident.

Using the OSHA Standard and your own experience, justify and validate the importance of the PSM standard to your

facility (if it stores and processes highly hazardous materials) or a facility that may impact your community or a near-by

community. Examples might include a water treatment facility that utilizes liquefied chlorine gas, a coal fired power plant

that utilizes liquefied chlorine gas for water treatment, a food processing plant with a large ammonia refrigeration system,

a fertilizer manufacturing or storage facility, a chemical manufacturing facility, etc..

Your research paper must be at least two pages in length. You are required to cite the OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.119 in

your response as well as at least two other sources, one of which must come from the CSU Online Library. All sources

used, including the textbook, must be referenced. Paraphrased and/or quoted materials must have accompanying citations

in APA format.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act Publication info: The Federal Register / FIND ; Washington , Vol. 82, Iss. 009, (Jan 13, 2017). ProQuest document link ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT) Final rule. CFR Part: "40 CFR Part 68" RIN Number: "RIN 2050-AG82" Citation: "82 FR 4594" Document Number: "EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9954-46-OLEM" Page Number: "4594" "Rules and Regulations" SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to Executive Order 13650, is amending its Risk Management Program regulations. The revisions contain several changes to the accident prevention program requirements including an additional analysis of safer technology and alternatives as part of the process hazard analysis for some Program 3 processes, third-party audits and incident investigation root cause analysis for Program 2 and Program 3 processes; enhancements to the emergency preparedness requirements; increased public availability of chemical hazard information; and several other changes to certain regulatory definitions and data elements submitted in risk management plans. These amendments seek to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sources. FULL TEXT Source: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) Final rule. CFR Part: "40 CFR Part 68" RIN Number: "RIN 2050-AG82" Citation: "82 FR 4594" Document Number: "EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9954-46-OLEM" Page Number: "4594" "Rules and Regulations" SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to Executive Order 13650, is amending its Risk Management Program regulations. The revisions contain several changes to the accident prevention program requirements including an additional analysis of safer technology and alternatives as part of the process hazard analysis for some Program 3 processes, third-party audits and incident investigation root cause analysis for Program 2 and Program 3 processes; enhancements to the emergency preparedness requirements; increased public availability of chemical hazard information; and several other changes to certain regulatory definitions and data elements submitted in risk management plans. These amendments seek to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness of PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 194 chemical hazards at regulated sources. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on March 14, 2017. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Belke, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8023; email address: belke.jim@epa.gov, or: Kathy Franklin, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7987; email address: franklin.kathy@epa.gov. Electronic copies of this document and related news releases are available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/rmp. Copies of this final rule are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are: I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? II. Background A. Events Leading to This Action B. Overview of EPA's Risk Management Program Regulations III. Additional Information A. Agency's Authority for Taking This Action B. List of Regulated Substances IV. Prevention Program Requirements A. Incident Investigation and Accident History Requirements B. Third-Party Audits C. Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) D. Stationary Source Location and Emergency Shutdown V. Emergency Response Preparedness Requirements A. Emergency Response Program Coordination With Local Responders B. Facility Exercises VI. Information Availability Requirements A. Disclosure Requirements to LEPCs or Emergency Response Officials B. Information Availability to the Public C. Public Meetings VII. Risk Management Plan Streamlining, Clarifications, and RMP Rule Technical Corrections A. Revisions to SEC 68.160 (Registration) B. Revisions to SEC 68.170 (Prevention Program/Program 2) C. Revisions to SEC 68.175 (Prevention Program/Program 3) D. Revisions to SEC 68.180 (Emergency Response Program) E. Technical Corrections VIII. Compliance Dates A. Summary of Proposed Rulemaking B. Summary of Final Rule C. Discussion of Comments PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 194 D. Compliance Date Examples IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action The purpose of this action is to improve safety at facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals. In response to catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States, including the explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013 that killed 15 people (on May 11, 2016, ATF ruled that the fire was intentionally set.) /1/ President Obama issued Executive Order 13650, "Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security," on August 1, 2013. /2/ FOOTNOTE 1 See ATF Announces $50,000 Reward in West, Texas Fatality Fire, https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/atfannounces-50000-reward-west-texas-fatality-fire. END FOOTNOTE FOOTNOTE 2 For more information on the Executive Order see https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/08/01/executive-order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security. END FOOTNOTE Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 13650 requires that various Federal agencies develop options for improved chemical facility safety and security that identify "improvements to existing risk management practices through agency programs, private sector initiatives, Government guidance, outreach, standards, and regulations." One existing agency program is the Risk Management Program implemented by EPA under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). Section 6(c) of Executive Order 13650 requires the Administrator of EPA to review the chemical hazards covered by the Risk Management Program and expand, implement and enforce the Risk Management Program to address any additional hazards. EPA proposed changes to its Risk Management Program regulations (40 CFR part 68) on March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13637) after publishing a "Request for Information" notice or "RFI" that solicited comments and information from the public regarding potential changes to the Risk Management Program regulations (July 31, 2014, 79 FR 44604). While developing the proposed rulemaking, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to receive input from Small Entity Representatives (SERs). EPA also hosted a public hearing on March 29, 2016 to provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The Risk Management Program regulations have been effective in preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the United States. However, EPA believes that revisions could further protect human health and the environment from chemical hazards through advancement of process safety management based on lessons learned. 2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action This action amends EPA's Risk Management Program regulations at 40 CFR part 68. These regulations apply to stationary sources (also referred to as "facilities") that hold specific "regulated substances" in excess of threshold quantities. These facilities are required to assess their potential release impacts, undertake steps to prevent PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 194 releases, plan for emergency response to releases, and summarize this information in a risk management plan (RMP) submitted to EPA. The release prevention steps vary depending on the type of process, but progressively gain granularity and rigor over three program levels (i.e., Program 1, Program 2, and Program 3). The major provisions of this rule include several changes to the accident prevention program requirements, as well as enhancements to the emergency response requirements, and improvements to the public availability of chemical hazard information. Each of these revisions is introduced in the following paragraphs of this section and described in greater detail in sections IV through VI, later in this preamble. Certain revised provisions would apply to a subset of the processes based on program levels described in 40 CFR part 68 (or in one case, to a subset of processes within a program level). A full description of these program levels is provided in section II of this preamble. a. Accident Prevention Program Revisions This action includes three changes to the accident prevention program requirements. First, the rule requires all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes to conduct a root cause analysis as part of an incident investigation of a catastrophic release or an incident that could have reasonably resulted in a catastrophic release (i.e., a near-miss). This provision is intended to reduce the number of chemical accidents by requiring facilities to identify the underlying causes of an incident so that they may be addressed. Identifying the root causes, rather than isolating and correcting solely the immediate cause of the incident, will help prevent similar incidents at other locations, and will yield the maximum benefit or lessons learned from the incident investigation. Second, the rule requires regulated facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes to contract with an independent third-party, or assemble an audit team led by an independent third-party, to perform a compliance audit after the facility has an RMP reportable accident. Compliance audits are required under the existing rule, but are allowed to be self-audits (i.e., performed by the owner or operator of the regulated facility). This provision is intended to reduce the risk of future accidents by requiring an objective auditing process to determine whether the owner or operator of the facility is effectively complying with the accident prevention procedures and practices required under 40 CFR part 68. The third revision to the prevention program adds an element to the process hazard analysis (PHA), which is updated every five years. Specifically, owners or operators of 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) are required to conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) as part of their PHA, and to evaluate the practicability of any inherently safer technology (IST) identified. The current PHA requirements include consideration of active, passive, and procedural measures to control hazards. These revisions support the analysis of those measures and adds consideration of IST alternatives. The provision is intended to reduce the risk of serious accidental releases by requiring facilities in these sectors to conduct a careful examination of potentially safer technology and designs that they could implement in lieu of, or in addition to, their current technologies. b. Emergency Response Enhancements This action also enhances the rule's emergency response requirements. Owners or operators of all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes are required to coordinate with the local emergency response agencies at least once a year to determine how the source is addressed in the community emergency response plan and to ensure that local response organizations are aware of the regulated substances at the source, their quantities, the risks presented by covered processes, and the resources and capabilities at the facility to respond to an accidental release of a regulated substance. Additionally, all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes are required to conduct notification exercises annually to ensure that their emergency contact information is accurate and complete. This provision is intended to reduce the impact of accidents by ensuring that appropriate mechanisms and processes are in place to notify local responders when an accident occurs. One of the factors that can contribute to the severity of chemical accidents is a lack of effective coordination between a facility and local emergency responders. Increasing such coordination PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 194 and establishing appropriate emergency response procedures can help reduce the effects of accidents. This action also requires that all facilities subject to the emergency response program requirements of subpart E of the rule (or "responding facilities") conduct field exercises and tabletop exercises. The frequency of these exercises shall be established in consultation with local emergency response officials, but at a minimum, full field exercises will be conducted at least once every ten years and tabletop exercises conducted at least once every three years. Responding facilities that have an RMP reportable accident, and document the response activities in an after-action report comparable to the exercise evaluation reports may use that response to satisfy the field exercise requirements. Furthermore, owner and operators of responding facilities that conduct exercises to meet other Federal, state or local exercise requirements may satisfy the RMP exercise requirements provided that the scope of the exercise includes the objectives of an RMP exercise. The purpose of this provision is to reduce the impact of accidents by ensuring that emergency response personnel understand their roles in the event of an incident, that local responders are familiar with the hazards at a facility, and that the emergency response plan is up-to-date. Improved coordination with emergency response personnel will better prepare responders to respond effectively to an incident and take steps to notify the community of appropriate actions, such as shelter-in-place or evacuation. c. Enhanced Availability of Information This action includes various enhancements to the public availability of chemical hazard information. The rule requires all facilities to provide certain basic information to the public, upon request. The owner or operator of the facility shall provide ongoing notification of availability of information elements on a company Web site, social media platforms, or through some other publicly accessible means. The rule also requires all facilities to hold a public meeting for the local community within 90 days of an RMP reportable accident. This provision will ensure that first responders and members of the community have easier access to appropriate facility chemical hazard information, which can significantly improve emergency preparedness and their understanding of how the facility is addressing potential risks. EPA proposed requirements for facilities to provide certain information to the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), Tribal Emergency Planning Committee (TEPC) /3/ or other local emergency response agencies. However, rather than prescribe information elements that must be provided upon request, EPA is requiring the owner or operator of a stationary source to share information that is relevant to emergency response planning as part of the coordination activities that occur annually between facility representatives and local emergency response agencies. FOOTNOTE 3 Note for the purposes of this document the term TEPC can be substituted for LEPC, as appropriate. END FOOTNOTE In addition to the major provisions described previously in this section, this action discusses comments received on other aspects of the proposed action including revisions to the list of regulated substances, location of stationary sources (related to their proximity to public receptors), requirements for emergency shutdown systems, compliance dates, technical corrections and revisions to the RMP requirements. 3. Costs and Benefits a. Summary of Potential Costs Approximately 12,500 facilities have filed current RMPs with EPA and are potentially affected by the revised rule. These facilities range from petroleum refineries and large chemical manufacturers to water and wastewater treatment systems; chemical and petroleum wholesalers and terminals; food manufacturers, packing plants, and other cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems; agricultural chemical distributors; midstream gas plants; and a limited number of other sources, including Federal installations that use RMP-regulated substances. Table 1 presents the number of facilities according to the latest RMP reporting as of February 2015 by industrial sector and chemical use. PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 194 _____Table_1--Number_of_Affected_Facilities_by_Sector Sector________________NAICS_codes______Total_facilities_Chemical_uses Administration_of_____924______________1,923____________Use_chlorine_and environmental_quality___________________________________other_chemicals_for programs_(i.e.,_________________________________________treatment. governments) Agricultural_chemical_111,_112,_115,___3,667____________Store_ammonia_for distributors/wholesal_42491_____________________________sale;_some_in_NAICS ers_____________________________________________________111_and_115_use ________________________________________________________ammonia_as_a ________________________________________________________refrigerant. Chemical______________325______________1,466____________Manufacture,_process, manufacturing___________________________________________store. Chemical_wholesalers__4246_____________333______________Store_for_sale. Food_and_beverage_____311,_312_________1,476____________Use--mostly_ammonia manufacturing___________________________________________as_a_refrigerant. Oil_and_gas___________211______________741______________Intermediate extraction______________________________________________processing_(mostly ________________________________________________________regulated_flammable ________________________________________________________substances_and ________________________________________________________flammable_mixtures). Other_________________44,_45,_48,_54,__247______________Use_chemicals_for ______________________56,_61,_72________________________wastewa ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

Please let me know if there is anything needs to be changed or added. I will be also appreciated that you can let me know if there is any problem or you have not received the work Good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know Can you please confirm if you have received the work? Once again, thanks for allowing me to help you R P.S: Studypool is facing high level of traffic which may delay the downloading process. MESSAGE TO STUDYPOOL NO OUTLINE IS NEEDED

Process Safety Management
report
by 2703-11 Hal

Submission date: 27-Mar-2018 07:53AM (UT C-0400)
Submission ID: 936947536
File name: OSHA1-_Process_Saf ety_Management_report.docx (26.87K)
Word count: 767
Character count: 4509

Process Safety Management report
ORIGINALITY REPORT

2

%

SIMILARIT Y INDEX

2%

0%

2%

INT ERNET SOURCES

PUBLICAT IONS

ST UDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1

2%

charliemanson.com
Int ernet Source

Exclude quotes

On

Exclude bibliography

On

Exclude matches

Of f


Running head: RESEARCH PAPER

1

OSHA
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Instructor
Date

RESEARCH PAPER

2

OSHA

Chemical properties use and primary hazards of common oxidizers
A. Chemical properties
Oxidizers, when in contact with inor...

Robert__F (45014)
UT Austin

Anonymous
The tutor managed to follow the requirements for my assignment and helped me understand the concepts on it.

Anonymous
The tutor was knowledgeable, will be using the service again.

Anonymous
Awesome quality of the tutor. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors