Many of the facilities* that you insure may be subject to the EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule that had an initial compliance deadline of June 21, 1999. If your firm is like many who seek to offer value-added services to its customers, perhaps you should consider readying yourself to assist those insureds that have an obligation to prepare an audit of their program within the next 12 months.
The Risk Management Program regulation, under which facilities must implement Plans to prevent and prepare for chemical accidents, requires comprehensive self-audits (or independent audits) within the first three years after adopting a RMP. This means that by June 21, 2002 at the latest, each facility that is subject the RMP rule must conduct a self-audit. This audit review is to determine whether they are meeting the promised goals of their Plan, or whether there are any other proactive things they can do to reduce their exposure to the chemicals they identified in their Plan. This sounds like a perfect fit for value-added support!
As an added incentive to start now, we believe that regulatory agencies will soon begin more frequent site visits and inspections to monitor the success of the RMP Rule. We have been contacted by one client who was visited within the past few months as part of an EPA sweep in their region. According to an EPA fact sheet:
"Each implementing agency (either a State agency that has obtained delegation of the RMP Program or an EPA Regional Office) is required to periodically audit RMPs to assess whether the plans are adequate or need to be revised to comply with the regulation."
ERL has several senior chemical engineering staff throughout its offices who have hands-on experience writing RMP plans for a variety of industries, especially including large users of chlorine and/or ammonia. We have recently completed one major audit of the RMP Program of a large metropolitan water utility, among others.
If you would like to learn more about the Risk Management Program or explore options for using ERL in a support role as you develop a value-added service, please contact me at 1-800-883-1568. If you have questions about a specific facility or portfolio, I will put you in touch with the technical manager best suited for that particular risk.
*According to EPA more than 14,500 facilities nationwide registered as users of large volumes of flammable or toxic chemicals.
Lessons Learned: CTDEP Audits of Licensed Environmental Professional Reviews
In a May 2001 letter ERL's Manager of Law Firms and Corporate Counsel, David I. Brandwein, Principal and Environmental Counsel wrote the following:
In 1996, the State of Connecticut adopted Remediation Standards Regulations which better defined the goals of environmental remediation in the state, and specified the technical demonstrations that must be made to document compliance with those goals. Having adopted the RSRs, the CTDEP then authorized partial "privatization" of the oversight program through the licensure of environmental professionals and granted the authority for LEPs to sign off (i.e., "verify") on certain types of sites that remediation had been completed. Different situations allow differing amounts of autonomy for the LEP.
In spite of its promise, implementation of this system has been far from a cure-all. Statistics recently released by CTDEP (see other side) have indicated that much work by LEPs is being rejected as inadequate following CTDEP audits. According to the 4th Quarter 2000 Audit Report, only 15% of verification reports submitted under Section 22a-134 "demonstrated adequate characterization of the site and that the LEP exhibited proper application of the … RSRs." (Note more than 50% of all submittals have been audited.)
Why are so many reports being rejected? It's simple, and complicated, all at once. Reports are being rejected because of poor or inadequate characterization of the site. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of LEPs are competent to do a better job, their studies are often compromised due to cost or schedule limitations imposed by site owners (i.e., clients) usually due to unwillingness or inability to pay for the level of investigation required.
The key to a successful verification is planning. It is essential to identify all Areas of Concern (AOC's) and all Constituents of Concern (COC's) across the entire site, and then systematically make a determination whether any AOC caused a release to the environment. If any releases are discovered, the LEP must document the extent of the problem, determine whether remediation is needed, document that the remediation effort has been effective, and demonstrate that any post remedial monitoring obligations have been completed. Each step of the process builds on the previous steps; each decision is subject to questioning during an audit. With poor planning (especially in the early stages), the project can be kicked far back in the process. With sound planning and implementation, the basis for an LEP's verification will be solid and much less subject to second-guessing by the State.
My advice? If you are reviewing a site in Connecticut, I encourage you to call early in the process and discuss the site with an LEP. By having an open discussion about your goals - including listening to the LEP's strategy - you can lay the groundwork to avoid the aggravations that so often befall poorly planned projects.
LEPs at ERL are:
Gordon Brookman
Richard Desrosiers
David Purington
Chlorine Concerns at Water Treatment Plants - Are RMP Plans Being Followed?
In a letter to our clients and friends, dated December 2000, ERL wrote the following:
About 18 months ago, the deadline arrived for compliance with a major environmental regulation - EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP). Facilities that stored or used large quantities of certain chemicals were obligated to evaluate the potential for off-site exposures resulting from a sudden release - then make plans to minimize those scenarios from occurring, or mitigate impacts of such a release.
Many facilities hired outside consultants to prepare their plans. The majority of our RMP clients turned out to be big users of chlorine. The largest chlorine users tended to be water treatment facilities and wastewater treatment plants (both public and private). All in all, we participated in the preparation of RMP Plans at more than 18 individual plants or facilities.
The RMP work slacked off after the deadline passed, but now, 18 months later we have started to get calls again. This time around we are hearing from facilities that already have their RMP in place (or from their insurance companies) - but who want an independent review of the adequacy and/or implementation of that Plan. Many are also inquiring as to whether there are other proactive things they can do to improve safety.
We have been told during this second go-round of RMP work that we are among the few firms that have substantial hands-on experience writing RMP plans for chlorine at water and sewage treatment plants. If you or any of your insureds are interested in an independent review of chlorine-related RMP plans, please call ERL at (860) 242-9933.
Schools at Risk - When "Bad" Things Happen to "Good" Places
Several out-of-the-ordinary incidents involving contamination in school settings have occurred in the past few months. They have highlighted the fact that serious risks with costly results can and do occur in the most innocent-appearing of locations; not all environmental problems can be traced to factories and power plants and landfills.
In the Spring, the issue was a mercury spill at a high school. The source was an old weather barometer cleaned out of a science closet and thrown away. Unfortunately, the barometer broke, mercury was released, and a series of errors led to the contamination of floors and shoes of a number of students. Students were essentially quarantined until appropriate clean up measures could be taken.
Another mercury spill at a high school occurred in July when a custodian cleaning a chemistry classroom knocked over a pressure gauge filled with mercury. The school was evacuated and the four custodians who came in contact with the substance were treated at the scene. The DEP's hazardous materials unit and a commercial clean-up company rushed to the scene; fire and EMS crews also arrived as a precautionary measure. The DEP stated the spill was minor and would cause no long-term problem for the school. Still, there was press coverage and lots of concerned parents.
Of even greater significance was a small fire that affected a clock mechanism at Southington High School in Connecticut, resulting in the release of PCBs. That event forced the school to remain closed for more than a week and burdened officials with a clean up bill totaling at least $2 million. Although there was no building-wide contamination, the basement boiler area was seriously impacted. Smoke-damaged equipment and supplies (including all of the athletic uniforms) had to be disposed of as PCB-waste. A laundry would not do. The "culprit" was the capacitor used in some older mechanized clock systems that are still used in some school systems. The clock's manufacturer had sent warning letters to schools indicating that there had been failures, with the potential of PCB releases, which would require special cleanup.
It just shows that although we think we have a handle on what could go wrong environmentally, even at "innocuous" institutional facilities, another shoe (or in this case, a barometer) drops. There are always new or uncontemplated risks that can crop up. Training of electricians and janitorial and maintenance staff must be continually upgraded. Environmental audit protocols must be revised to reflect new information.
