Analyze

Assessing the PM2.5 impact of biomass combustion in megacity Dhaka, Bangladesh - PubMed (nih.gov)

This article is about crop burning in Dhaka, Bangladesh and attempts to figure out if there is more or less harmful PM2.5 particulate air pollution caused by either fossil fuels or biomass, and during which season is one or the other higher in the air pollution it produces. During monsoon season, fossil fuels lead in the most PM2.5 releases at 44.3%. When it is not monsoon season and is the winter season, the percentages are way higher for PM2.5 air particulate releases at 41.4% for the remainder of the year. Across the globe, there are now people stepping up to uncover the true and real environmental and health impacts this harmful particulate byproduct causes in different parts of the world and with differring weather conditions than what we see in North Carolina. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351209404_PM25_Emissions_from_…;

This study is set in South/Southeast Asia and uncovering that, when trying to count the percentages of PM2.5 put off during biomass, the true amount of emissions were being gravely undercalculated. Specifically rice straw burning becuase the amount burned varied so much because of different harvest and burning practices that it just wasn't taken into consideration. What this study does is go bottom up using these strategies: "subnational spatial database of rice-harvested area, region-specific fuel-loading factors, region, and burning-practice-specific emission and combustion factors, including literature-derived estimates of straw and stubble burned"(Lasko et al. 2021, 1). 

The most common air pollutants are called criteria pollutants and are regulated by the Clean Air Act and the EPA. These pollutants are: particles, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfer dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The EPA have sections under the CAA that help regulate factories and air pollution in the environment. For example section 108 requires the EPA to identify the pollutants that are criteria pollutants, listed above, and determine if where they are coming from and if they "endander public health or welfare". Under section 109 the EPA had to set standards across the board for air pulltion in regard to human health and to the environemtn sperately (Christopher D. Ahlers 2016, 51-52).  There are many more sections that go into detail about what the CAA can do and what the EPA members are required to do as well. 

Some of the most important things I think EcoGovLab needs to be skilled in is being able to identify solution pathways for problems we find and problems that are brought to us. We need to be able to clearly envision the actions we need to take in order to respond to problems that will answer research questions. In order to achieve this the lab should be able to connect lab members to these real world problems. This way the lab is able to connect people to research questions while achieving the lab's overall goals. We also have to continue to practice flexibility so that we are always positioned to take on new things while still following through with ongoing research. Communication is another skill everyone should be good at in order to maintain the collaboration and connectivity amongst the lab. When it comes to more technical skills I won't list all of those since I think any skill can fit into the lab and help us move forward. Which again reiterates the point that we should value different perspectives when it comes to approaching our research questions.

The people in the lab right now come from a lot of different backgrounds and are educated in different topics. A lot of people are knowledgeable on education which I think is important in translating the things we do in the lab and better equip us for sharing research to broader audiences. Since a lot of people in the lab are doing anthropological work this also helps us with outreach and communication. Anthropology teaches people how to get into certain spheres of society which supports our ability to obtain information from people and gives us a more robust understanding of problems. The anthropological aspect of the lab also makes us more sensitive to culture which gives us an edge in solving problems. Meaning that since anthropology teaches people to be as objective as possible and puts you in other people's shoes we are able to take  a more holistic approach to identifying and solving problems. I think everyone in the lab has a solid understanding of this and is our most valuable tool. People are also good at utilizing technology to our advantage.

I think I am skilled in finding the information I need and am also good at getting information from people. Over the course of the past few months I have created a network of people within the government (EPA, CalEPA, CUPA’s, LEPC’s) and know how to get information on chemical facilities in the state. This expertise I have created has made it so that I know how to talk with the government and what questions to ask in order to get information (this obviously isn’t perfect but the research I'm doing now is furthering my capabilities). I have connected this research to my bigger goals and view it as integral to furthering my understanding of the country and is defining my thinking. Due to this thought process I am dedicated to the research and do not treat it as a minor thing. Since I want to learn as much as possible about everything I am also open to taking on any project and am very open-minded to new ideas/perspectives. Finally I think my overall mind set makes me a good asset to the lab. If I really believe in what I am doing then I will do whatever is necessary to accomplish the goals of my work.

I want to better understand how the local, state, and federal governments work in all aspects. Alongside this I want to see what strategies the government at these levels are implementing regulations/laws and how they conduct community engagement. I want to see what works for them and which actions are most impactful on people's lives. Inversely I want to see the government's weaknesses so that I can understand where I need to respond and act to make it function better. The other vital piece to this is interacting with communities to see what their needs are and learn how to include them in problem solving. This will help me see where the government needs to improve in order to fully address the State’s and Country’s challenges. In participating with the lab I also want to improve my communication abilities. I want to better learn how to share information, how to get information from people, and how to better listen to people in a way that can help me fix things.

I am using the lab as a place to test my ideas/skills and understand the variety of ways I can approach problems in the world. I use it as a place to put into practice the things I am learning in my life and hope the lab will continue to give me opportunities to work on real world problems. I also am using the things I learn in the lab to build out a to-do list for my future work and to show me what problems I need to respond to. The lab has and hopefully will continue to help me in creating political strategies.

Federal RMP:

CAA Section 112(R) (RMP Rule): Clean Air Act Section 112(r): Accidental Release Prevention / Risk Management Plan Rule (March 2009) (epa.gov)

RMP Rule Guidelines for industry. It's helpful in understanding what responsibilities these facilities undertake: General Guidance on Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accident Prevention (40 CFR Part 68): CHAPTER 2: APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAM LEVELS (April 2004) (epa.gov)

EPA page describing RMP submittal process: When must RMPs be submitted, updated, and corrected? | US EPA

The process safety management standards have huge overlap with RMP program level three requirements, EPA states that any RMP facility that is regulated by OSHA through these standards is automatically enrolled in program level three for the RMP rule. This means that this is a good source to see the workplace safety measurements in level three RMP facilities. THis only applies to the workplace and not offsite consequences: Process Safety Management - Standards | Occupational Safety and Health Administration (osha.gov)

Federally Regulated Substances:

Table 1 Federal Regulated Substances List and Threshold Quantities for Accidental Release Prevention

Federally Regulated Flammable Substances:

Table 2 Federal Regulated Flammable Substances List and Threshold Quantities for Accidental Release Prevention

Presentation on RMP facilities in Santa Ana: Santa Ana RMP Facilities Presentation

Extra slides on RMPs that are useful: EiJ Hazard: Slides (misc): RMPs

Extra Info:

Chemical Disasters- Who's in Danger Report.pdf

kids-in-danger-zones-report.pdf

Seven Years Later— A Progress Report: Eliminating The MHF Refinery Threat - Random Lengths News

CalARP:

Public Request Act (PRA):Codes Display Text (ca.gov) 

(Maybe I can use this to get information?)

Some text on RMP/CalARP here that I wrote:

Annotated: Table 3 State Regulated Substances List and Threshold Quantities for Accidental Release Prevention

CalARP law: Codes Display Text (ca.gov)

CalARP Chemical List and Threshold Quantities: Microsoft Word - CalARPChemicalList.doc (sfdph.org)

CalARP training:California Safety Training Corporation | Bakersfield CA (calarp.com)

Riverside County Enviro Health Page on CalARP: Department of Environmental Health, County of Riverside, CA Accidental Release (CalARP) | Department of Environmental Health | County of Riverside (rivcoeh.org)

Informational powerpoints meant for businesses filing for CalARP: 

Microsoft PowerPoint - 04 - 2019 Stan County Presentation v0.4.pptx (condorearth.com)

Ammonia Refrigeration RAGAGEP (resourcecompliance.com)

DTSC CalARP Info: DTSC California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalARP Fact Sheet | Department of Toxic Substances Control

CalARP description DRAFT: Sources that need to be included are mostly laws. Also link out to the different agency descriptions of the program.

History: The California Accidental Release Prevention program (CalARP) was created in response to the creation of the federal RMP rule, read more about this program in this essay (Link to fed RMP essay). The California State assembly chose to create a stricter Risk Management Plan (RMP) program in 1997. They adopted the federal list of regulated chemicals but added more chemicals to the list and lowered the amount each chemical could be stored at.

Implementation: The CalARP program is at its highest level overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency CalEPA. When it comes to the implementation of the program it falls to the local level. Individual Certified Unified Program Agency’s (CUPA) are responsible for implementing X specific state programs, one of them being the CalARP program. The CUPA is responsible for conducting inspections of CalARP facilities, which is required every three years by state law (source). They are also responsible in identifying and enrolling new qualifying facilities into the program. If needed they are also the agency that is responsible for law enforcement and have the authority to fine and close facilities (source). All the data they gather is submitted in the California Environmental Reporting (CERS) system (link to CERS). Once a year CUPAs are audited by CalEPA to ensure they are operating properly.

Good resource made by OCHCA to better understand CalARP and its differences between the Federal RMP rule:CUPA California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program | Orange County California - Health Care Agency (ochealthinfo.com)

Notable Excerpt: “California replaced the Risk Management and Prevention Program with the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program on January 1, 1997. The CalARP Program is very similar to the EPA's Risk Management Program with the following differences:

• The list of toxic chemicals is larger 276 vs. 77

• The threshold quantities of the chemicals is smaller (e.g., chlorine federal threshold quantity is 2500 pounds vs. California's threshold quantity is 100 pounds)

• Requires an external events analysis be performed, including a seismic analysis

• More interaction with the public and agencies, including a Risk Management Plan

A facility could be simultaneously in the California CalARP Program and the EPA’s RMP program and be subject to inspection by both the CUPA and the Federal Inspectors” 

This is a concise way to state the key differences.

Email from CalARP team at CalEPA:

"Hello Aiden,  

We appreciate your interest in the CalARP program. We hope to provide some useful background information in addition to getting to the bottom of your questions. 

California developed the Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) in 1986.  This program required facilities that handled listed toxic chemicals over a threshold quantity to perform Process Hazard Analyses and to develop an

 accidental release prevention program.  The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 [42 U.S.C. Section 7412(r)] directed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop regulations to prevent accidental chemical releases which became known as the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations.   

California adopted the federal RMP Rule with some RMPP provisions included on January 1, 1997.  This regulation became known as the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, the purpose of which is to prevent catastrophic

 releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, and explosive chemicals.   

You are correct in thinking that the state’s CalARP program has more stringent requirements than the federal RMP program. It is the intent of the California Legislature that compliance with the provisions of the CalARP Program satisfies the requirements of the Federal RMP Program. 

State: 

Statute: Health and Safety Code (HSC) Article 2. Hazardous Materials Management Sections 25531 – 25543.3. 

Regulation: California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 19, Chapter 4.5. California Accidental Release Prevention Articles 1 – 11. 

Federal: 

Law: Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 112 (r).  

Regulation: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), Chapter I. Subchapter C, Part 68 , and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), Chapter IV. Subchapter A - Accidental Release Prevention Requirements; Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7) 

Any facility within California that handles, manufactures, uses, or stores any chemicals (regulated substances) in a process that are above the threshold quantities listed in regulation will be subject to CalARP requirements.  

CalARP regulated substances are listed in 19 CCR Section 2770.5. 

Table

 1 lists federally regulated substances and the corresponding thresholds for accidental release prevention.  

Table

 2 lists federally regulated flammable substances and the corresponding thresholds for accidental release prevention. 

Table

 3 lists substances regulated in the state of California and the corresponding thresholds for accidental release prevention. 

For example, the RMP/federal threshold quantity (TQ) for anhydrous ammonia is 10,000 pounds, but for CalARP is 500 pounds. As you can see, the state of California has lower thresholds for regulated substances in addition to regulating a wider variety of chemicals. 

If a site has a Table 1 or 2 chemical, it must submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) to both the Federal EPA and to their local Unified Program Agency (UPA). A site with a Table 3 chemical process is subject only to the state requirements so only submits the RMP to the local UPA.

Unified Program Agencies (UPAs) are the local government agencies authorized to implement and enforce the CalARP Program in California. UPAs were formerly referred to as Administrating Agencies (AAs) and are also known as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) or Participating Agencies (PA), however are most often collectively called Unified Program Agencies (UPAs). UPAs ensure that regulated facilities meet the requirements of the CalARP Program and determine the appropriate level of detail for the Risk Management Plan (RMP). Facilities are required to work closely with the UPA for guidance to implement the CalARP Program and create the RMP.

As to your question about inspections, UPAs are required by state statue to inspect each CalARP facility once every three years to ensure the adequacy of the RMP and compliance with accidental release prevention provisions. US EPA conducts RMP inspections independently of the UPAs under their own authority. The federal regulations do not mandate a certain number of inspections be performed with any specific frequency.  My understanding is that there are about 10,000 RMP facilities around the country and only about 30 to 40 RMP inspectors. 

Thank you for your patience while our team drafted a response. We hope the information is useful and wish you the best with your research project. 

Please do not hesitate to reply to this email with further questions."

Best, 

California Accidental Release Prevention Team

California Environmental Protection Agency

CalARP@calepa.gov 

1001 I Street

Sacramento, California 95812-0806