Analyze

Historical and Spatial Analytics for widening the "scope" of hazards

danapowell
In response to

The Sampson County landfill can be smelled before seen. This olfactory indicator points toward the sensory scale of these pungent emissions but also toward the geographic scope: this landfill receives waste from as far away as Orange County (the state's most expensive property/tax base), among dozens of other distant counties, making this "hazardous site" a lesson in realizing impact beyond the immediate locale. So when we answer the question, "What is this hazard?" we must think not only about the landfill as a thing in itself but as a set of economic and political relations of capital and the transit of other peoples' trash, into this lower-income, rural, predominantly African-American neighborhood. In this way, 'thinking with a landfill' (like this one in Sampson County) enables us to analyze wider sets of relationships, NIMBY-ist policymaking, consumerism, waste management, and the racialized spatial politics that enable Sampson County to be the recipient of trash from all over the state. At the same time we think spatially and in transit, we can think historically to (a) inquire about the DEQ policies that enable this kind of waste management system; and (b) the emergent "solutions" in the green energy sector that propose to capture the landfill's methane in order to render the stench productive for the future -- that is, to enable more consumption, by turning garbage into gas. As such, the idea of "hazard" can expand beyond the site itself - impactful and affective as that site might be - to examine the uneven relations of exchange and capitalist-driven values of productivity that further entrench infrastructures such as these. [This offers a conceptual corrollary to thinking, as well, about the entrenchment of CAFOs for "green" biogas development, as we address elsewhere in the platform].

Hazard Analysis: CalARP and Federal RMP

albrowne
Annotation of
In response to
 

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

 

EiJ Calhoun County Ethylene Oxide

Lauren
Annotation of
In response to

Ethylene oxide, as defined and according to the EPA, “Ethylene oxide is a flammable, colorless gas used to make other chemicals that are used in making a range of products, including antifreeze, textiles, plastics, detergents and adhesives. Ethylene oxide also is used to sterilize equipment and plastic devices that cannot be sterilized by steam, such as medical equipment.”

Lack of coverage and training for environmental journalism in Germany

tschuetz
In response to

"What does the lack in prominence of environmental coverage in German TV tell us about the general state of environmental journalism in Germany? It is almost impossible to draw con- clusions based on hard facts and numbers.There is no national organization of professionals in the media dealing with this topic like the Society of Environmental Journalists in the USA, for instance.That means there are also no statistics about how many editors, reporters, or producers would count themselves as environmental journalists; nobody is keeping track. Communications scholars, when asked about the number of environmental journalists in Germany, reply with: “That’s something I would also like to know; tell me if you find out.”There is no formal educa- tion, and only a few training opportunities are offered for established writers and editors who want to specialize in the field. In recent years, some well-qualified and experienced reporters on newspapers with influential voices have departed (or been made to depart) the publishing houses or even journalism per se, leaving a noticeable gap." (Schrader 2020)


"Summarizing, environmental journalism in Germany appears to be in a transition phase. Many traditional media and press outlets are struggling to keep their business model or find a new one. And reporting on air quality, biodiversity, or the climate beyond their often-superficial implications for national politics is not high on the list of priorities. Much of the work might be shifting to online publishing in new contexts and organizations, but those are still forming and far from settled."

pece_annotation_1473358538

erin_tuttle
Annotation of
In response to

This program is one of many run by Handicap International, and supported by the United States Agency for International Development. The program was run at Healing Hands for Haiti (http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-14990-haiti-health-first-in-haiti-tra…), with instructors from the Universidad de Don Bosco in El Salvador.