Federal working group issues chemical safety options; ARA, ACC voice concerns about potential new regs
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) said on Jan. 7 that it is concerned about “potentially burdensome new regulations” under consideration by a working group of federal agencies tasked with improving chemical safety and security in the wake of the April 17, 2013, ammonium nitrate (AN) explosion in West, Texas.
In response to an executive order issued by President Obama last August (GM Aug. 5, 2013), the working group on Jan. 3 issued a series of policy options and regulatory changes that it is considering, and asked stakeholders to submit comments on the proposed changes by March 31, 2014.
The working group consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA); the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Among its proposals, the working group said that it is broadly considering options to improve the safe and secure storage, handling, and sale of AN; to expand OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard and EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) rule to address additional regulated substances and types of hazards, and to potentially revise the PSM retail exemption; and to add chemicals to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) chemicals of interest list, and change the screening threshold quantity for certain substances on that list.
Under the regulatory scope of OSHA, EPA, and NPPD, the working group says it is considering a number of options that have raised concerns with the chemical industry in the past, including “assessing safer alternatives as mechanisms to reduce chemical risk,” and expanding regulatory coverage of reactive substances and explosive chemical hazards such as AN. “There are a number of potential mechanisms to improve these areas, including voluntary programs, policy changes, new agency guidance, and regulations,” the working group said.
The group’s list of options for improving AN safety and security include adding AN to EPA’s RMP list of regulated substances; reducing the threshold quantity reporting requirement for AN under CFATS Top-Screen standard, which is currently set at 5,000 pounds or more of explosives-grade AN, 400 pounds or more of explosives-grade AN in transportation packaging, or 2,000 pounds of agricultural grade AN in transportation packaging; changing or eliminating a top-screen filing extension that is currently granted to agricultural facilities; using third-party audits “conducted by appropriate independent auditors who make process safety and regulatory compliance recommendations;” and evaluating the implementation of safer alternatives and best practices for AN.
Regarding the latter, the working group said several stakeholders have suggested incorporating “inherently safer technologies” into risk and process safety programs. “The agencies are requesting additional information on how this concept would be defined, accomplished, and measured,” the working group said. “In addition, the agencies are requesting comment on the potential costs and benefits of implementing such an approach as opposed to other approaches.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a response on Jan. 6 to the working group report, saying that while it was encouraged to see “some of the concepts we have recommended,&rdquo