annual report on the richmond industrial safety ordinance
TRANSCRIPT
Industrial Safety Ordinance Annual Report
Randall L. SawyerCho Nai CheungOctober 19, 2004
October 19, 2004 Page 2
IntroductionBackgroundIndustrial Safety OrdinanceFindingsTrendsAccident HistoryPublic ParticipationPublic Information BankWhat is Next?
October 19, 2004 Page 3
HistoryImplemented California’s Risk Management and Prevention Program 198936% Reduction of Acutely Hazardous Materials (excluding sulfuric acid) from 1990 – 1994Another 18% Reduction from 1994 -1997
October 19, 2004 Page 4
HistoryCalifornia Accidental Release Prevention Program
Most facilities substituted aqueous ammonia for anhydrous ammoniaAll waste water treatment plants substituted chlorine with sodium hypochlorite or other disinfectant such as Ultraviolet lightOnly three water treatment plants use chlorineRefineries found substitute for chlorineRefineries found substitute for anhydrous ammonia or reduced the amount of anhydrous ammonia onsite
October 19, 2004 Page 5
Industrial Safety OrdinanceApplies to nine different facilities
County’s unincorporated areas (7) and the City of Richmond (2)Petroleum Refinery or Chemical PlantProgram 3 Federal Risk Management Program
Additional RequirementsHuman FactorsRoot Cause AnalysesInherently Safer SystemsAll processes in a covered facility
October 19, 2004 Page 6
Audit Questions
CalARP Program 1 – 75 QuestionsCalARP Program 2 – 136 QuestionsCalARP Program 3 – 356 QuestionsISO Additional Question – 133CalARP Program 3 + ISO – 489 Questions
October 19, 2004 Page 7
Audit Topics
Inherently Safer SystemsRoot Cause AnalysisManagement of Organizational Change
Latent ConditionsContractorsTraining
Confined SpaceEmployee ParticipationOperating Procedures
Logout/TagoutIncident InvestigationProcess Hazard Analysis
Line OpeningCompliance AuditsProcess Safety Information
Covered Process Modification
Pre-Startup ReviewManagement Systems
Emergency Response Program
Management of ChangeHazard Assessment
Hot WorkMechanical IntegrityApplicability
October 19, 2004 Page 8
Audit Summary
• 62 Audits Conducted• (2000 – 2004)
• Collected findings and actions of 34 of these audits
• Separated findings and actions by worksheet and question number
Figure 1Number of Facilities Audited by Program Level
0
5
10
15
20
25
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3 & ISO
Program Level
Num
ber
of F
acili
ties
October 19, 2004 Page 9
Relative Percentages of the Audit Actions by Audit Topics
Operating Procedures
9%
HazardAssessment
6%
5%
Lockout/Tagout4%
Incident Investigation
4%PSI 4%Management of
Change4%
Opening Lines4%
Hot WorkOther9%44%
PHA's7%
Emergency Response
October 19, 2004 Page 10
CalARP Program First Audit Round Issues
Refresher training of operators for all current proceduresInformation that is given to affected employees is not retainedThe auditing of Contractors is not consistent and completeProcess Information not completeHot Work Permit information not documentedNear Miss reporting is poor
October 19, 2004 Page 11
CalARP Program First Audit Round Issues Cont’d
Hazard Assessment Documentation cannot be foundMaintenance Procedures are incompleteNot all of the required information is included in the Operating Procedures and certifiedCCHS is not always consulted for major modificationsIn general Compliance Audits were complete
October 19, 2004 Page 12
First Round ISO IssuesConfusion in applying Inherently Safer SystemsImplementation of Latent ConditionsManagement System Latent Condition ReviewSpecialized Training for Latent Conditions not documentedRoot Cause Analysis not completeManagement of Organizational Change documentation incompleteProcedural PHA’s
October 19, 2004 Page 13
Second Round of Audits
In general the issues from the first audit findings have been addressedNew Issues
MOC and PSSR Information does not include a redundant verification
October 19, 2004 Page 14
Second Round of Audits Cont’d
Continued Issues from the First Round of Audits
Refresher training of operators for all current proceduresInformation that is given to effected employees is not retainedThe auditing of Contractors is not consistent and completeMaintenance procedures are incompleteImplementation of Latent ConditionsSpecialized Training for Latent Conditions not documentedProcedural PHA’s
October 19, 2004 Page 15
Results
Overall the second round of audits were more favorableMost of issues were addressed from first roundSome issues are continuing and need to be resolved
October 19, 2004 Page 16
Major Chemical Accidents or Releases
Serious – A fatality, serious injuries, or major onsite and/or offsite damage occurredMedium – An impact to the community occurred, or if the situation was slightly different the accident may have been considered major, or there is a recurring type of incident at that facilityMinor – A release where there was no or minor injuries, the release had no or slight impact to the community, or there was no or minor onsite damage
October 19, 2004 Page 17
Major Chemical Accidents or Releases Continued
ISO Stationary Sources MCAR's
0123456789
10
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Num
ber o
f MC
AR
's
Total MCAR
Serious
Medium
Minor
October 19, 2004 Page 18
Major Chemical Accidents or Releases - Continued
Major Chemical Accidents and Releases
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Num
ber o
f MC
AR
's
Total MCARs
Serious
Medium
Minor
October 19, 2004 Page 19
Public ParticipationWest County Outreach (Attachment B)
47 Meetings to Community Groups618 People Attended these meetings
Four Public MeetingsJune 22, Rodeo – ConocoPhillipsJune 24, Richmond – Chevron, General ChemicalJuly 6, North Richmond – Chevron, General ChemicalJuly 8, Crockett - ConocoPhillips
October 19, 2004 Page 20
Public Information Bank
Industrial Safety OrdinanceDescription of covered facilitiesRisk Management Chapter Discussion
Copy of OrdinanceSafety Program Guidance DocumentPublic Participation Process
Land Use Permit Chapter DiscussionCopy of Ordinance
October 19, 2004 Page 21
Public Information Bank -Continued
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Guidance DocumentProgram Level DescriptionMap Locating Regulated Sources
Description of Stationary SourcesChemicals HandledInformation on Chemicals
October 19, 2004 Page 22
What Is Next?County is working with the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on Safety Performance IndicatorsIndication of Change based on auditsWork with stakeholders to resolve existing issuesStreamline Audit Questions for third audit of the facilities