Last year, one of the scientists working with Micah 6:8 Mission (Denise-Trabbic Pointer CHMM) wrote a summary of the importance of Process Safety Management and Risk Management Regulatory requirements. At the end of her explanation, she encouraged us to take action and explained that these regulatory requirements were at risk.
They are no longer at risk, they are gutted.
The Trump administration has eliminated 2024 requirements that forced chemical facilities to explicitly assess risks from natural hazards such as hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, a critical omission given that many RMP facilities are in high-risk areas.
This is of grave concern to Southwest Louisiana, given the high number RMP facilities here.
Removing requirements for planning around power loss and natural disasters leaves communities at risk of increased chemical releases during extreme weather events.
WE HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED THESE RELEASES DURING/AFTER HURRICANE LAURA.
They have removed some of the protections put in place to allow fenceline community members information about potential hazards.
IF WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE ARE AT RISK FROM, WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO PREPARE!
The new regulation rescind requirements for facilities to evaluate “Inherently Safer Technologies” (IST) and alternative chemical processes.
THIS PUTS US EVEN MORE AT RISK FROM ACCIDENTS AND WILL AFFECT THE DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR THESE FACILITIES AND THE PIPELINES THAT CARRY THEIR PRODUCTS – LIKE CO2!
It also reduces workers’ ability to respond or stop an ongoing emergency.
THESE WORKERS ARE OUR FAMILY MEMBERS AND NEIGHBORS! THEY DESERVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND US!
From EarthJustice:
“Chemical disasters have caused over $6.5 billion in damages, affecting families, businesses, and our nation’s economy – and have made homes and neighborhoods less affordable by decreasing neighbors’ property value. The average amount of monetized damages from industrial chemical emergencies was over $540.2 million per year.”
These regulation changes are unsound from both an economic and public health perspective. Join us as we work to stop unsafe permitting applications and improve the health of our communities.
From Denise-Trabbic Pointer, CHMM:
Process Safety Management and Risk Management Plan Regulatory Requirements and Their Importance to Public Safety
Does it feel like there are too many environmental incidents at industrial facilities in the Sulphur, Westlake and “Greater Lake Charles Area”? Do you feel safe from the potential impacts from living close to these facilities? How can you learn more about how you’re being proactively protected?
Some of the most dangerous industrial incidents in the Greater Lake Charles Area have happened because the facilities did not follow OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard and/or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements. Why are these two regulations so important to your safety and why do they exist?
There is a design and purpose and a supportive relationship between the two regulations. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required OSHA to adopt the PSM standard to protect workers and required EPA to protect the community and environment by issuing the Risk Management Plan Rule (RMP). PSM and RMP were written to complement each other in accomplishing these Congressional goals. Both regulations are detailed and complex and require proactive assessment and control over similar key operational elements like mechanical integrity of process equipment, proper maintenance and calibration of the equipment, and training programs for employees and contractors on the hazards of the materials and processes that they interact with. Both also require employee input and participation. The PSM regulation even requires an environmental consequence analysis and protective actions if there is a potential for onsite incidents to threaten the nearby community or environment.
None of this works if the facilities and LDEQ do not do their job. The facilities need to meet the two regulations and LDEQ must oversee compliance and follow their enforcement policy and associated timeframes.
What we have observed is that compliance to PSM and RMP by Great Lakes Charles Area industrial facilities is inconsistent at best and that LDEQ is too lax in allowing facilities to extend deadlines or just not meet them at all. It is common for us to ultimately see LDEQ enforcement actions that include a long list of facility violations over several years before they finally serve the facility with a warning letter and/or compliance order and penalty. There’s nothing proactive about the way LDEQ manages noncompliance in Louisiana.
The fear and concern is that there could be a major incident at one or more of these facilities while the community waits for facilities to comply with PSM and RMP requirements and LDEQ to recognize the problem and commence enforcement actions.
One example of a major incident that illustrates the reality and consequences of inaction by the facility and/or LDEQ to meet their obligations, happened at the Westlake Lake Charles South facility on January 26, 2022 when four Westlake employees sustained recordable injuries and a facility tank collapsed (photo below).
What is important to know is that 4 years prior, in August 2018, the facility received a PSM inspection that resulted in a lengthy list of missed and overdue maintenance and testing of critical safety and control equipment.
Also important to know is that the tank that collapsed was associated with an RMP regulated process and Region 6 EPA performed an inspection in 2022 following the incident where they found 20 failures by Westlake to meet RMP requirements.
If you agree that facility compliance to PSM and RMP requirements and effective oversight and enforcement by LDEQ is important, TAKE ACTION!
The RMP rules are at risk! AND HAVE BEEN GUTTED!
Many of the industrial facilities in the Greater Lake Charles Area are subject to RMP but the actual number is difficult to obtain because of the secrecy around the RMP Rules. According to NRDC, there are 37 RMP facilities in the Lake Charles area. EPA has a website that describes how to obtain information about RMP facilities in your area.
From its inception, RMP has been cloaked in secrecy at the insistence of groups like the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), arguing that making RMP facility information public is dangerous. Not surprisingly, whoever is in control of the Executive Office and Congress dictates whether the public gets access to the information. For example, the Biden Administration increased the protections of the RMP Rule in 2024 and included a provision improving public availability to chemical hazard information. Unfortunately, and predictably, the Trump EPA announced, among several pronouncements of deregulatory activity, its intent to reconsider the RMP rule enacted by the Biden administration, continuing the tug-of-war over RMP requirements that has spanned multiple administrations.
