20131217 Late CorrespondenceForwarded message ----------
From: Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
<secretarv@dchas.org >
Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM
Subject: [SAFETY2] CSB Draft Report Proposes Overhaul of Refinery Industry
Regulatory System in California
To: SAFETY2@lists.asu.edu
In Wake of Chevron 2012 Pipe Rupture and Fire in Bay Area Q and Urges
Adoption of the Safety Case Regime to Prevent Major Chemical Accidents
Richmond, California, December 16, 2013 -In a draft report released to the public
today, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) proposes recommendations for
substantial changes to the way refineries are regulated in California. Entitled
"Regulatory Report: Chevron Richmond Refinery Pipe Rupture and Fire," the CSB draft
calls on California to replace the current patchwork of largely reactive and activity-based
regulations with a more rigorous, performance-based regulatory regime -similar to
those successfully adopted overseas in regions such as the United Kingdom, Norway,
and Australia -known as the "safety case" system.
LINK TO REPORT: http://www.idevmail.neUlink.aspx?l=3&d=86&m id=4 14620&m=1280
The draft report is the second part of three in the CSB's investigation of the August 2012
process fire in the crude unit at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California. That fire
endangered 19 workers and sent more than 15,000 residents to the hospital for medical
attention.
CSB Chairperson Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso said, "After exhaustively analyzing the
facts, the CSB investigation team found many ways that major refinery accidents
like the Chevron fire could be made less likely by improving regulations. Refinery
safety rules need to focus on driving down risk to the lowest practicable level,
rather than completing required paperwork. Companies, workers, and communities
will all benefit from a rigorous system like the safety case . I believe California could
serve as a model for the nation by adopting this system. We applaud the work of
the Governor's lnteragency Task Force for their proactive approach and highly positive
recommendations to protect worker and public safety in California. I have great
confidence that California will embrace the recommendations in our draft report and
carry them forward to implement policy change."
The draft report is available at www.csb.gov for public comment until Friday, January 3,
2014 . Comments should be sent to chevroncomments@csb .gov .All comm~nts /J .. J...,,c
received will be reviewed and published on the CSB website . 11Jflic LOllfltneJilv
RECEIVED FROM ATTHE
AND MADE A PART OF 1~:E /1,DJ0J..2
COUNCIL MEETING OF r ,.,;
OFFICE OF THE CITY CL ERK
CARLA MORREALE , CITY CLERK
As detailed in the CSB draft report, the safety case regime requires companies to
demonstrate to refinery industry regulators -through a written "safety case
report" -how major hazards are to be con trolled and risks reduced to "as low as
reasonably practicable," or ALARP. The CSB report notes that the safety case is
more than a written document; rather, it represents a fundamental change bv
shifting the responsibility for continuous reductions in major accident risks from
regulators to the company.
To ensure that a facility's safety goals and programs are accomplished, a safety case
report generated bv the company is rigorously reviewed, audited, and enforced
by highly trained regulatory inspectors, whose technical training and experience
are on par with the personnel employed by the companies they oversee, the draft
report says.
The draft report -which is expected to be considered for formal adoption by the Board
at a public meeting at 6:30 p.m. on January 15, 2014, at Richmond City Hall -follows
the CSB's first, interim report on the accident, which was approved by the Board and
released in April 2013. That report found that Chevron repeatedly failed over a ten -
year period to apply inherently safer desig n principles and upgrade piping in its
crude oil processing unit, which was extremely corroded and ultimately ruptured
on August 6, 2012. The interim report identified missed opportunities on the part of
Chevron to apply inherently safer piping design through the use of more corrosion-
resistant metal alloys. The interim report also found a failure by Chevron to identify and
evaluate damage mechanism hazards, which if acted upon, would likely have identified
the possibility of a catastrophic sulfidation corrosion-related piping failure. There are
currently no federal or state regulatory requirements to apply these important
preventative measures. The investigation team concluded that enhanced
regulatory oversight with greater worker involvement and public participation are
needed to improve petroleum refinery safety.
The draft CSB Chevron Regulatory report released today states there is a considerable
problem with significant and deadly incidents at petroleum refineries over the last
decade. In 2012 alone, the CSB tracked 125 significant process safety incidents at U.S.
petroleum refineries. Seventeen of these took place in California. The draft report
also notes that the U.S. has experienced financial losses from refinery incidents
that are at least three times that of industry counterparts in other countries, citing
insurance industry statistics.
The existing California svstem of regulation can be significantly improved, the
report concludes. Since 2010, the CSB has examined the extent to which a safety
case regime would improve regulatory compliance and better prevent major
accidents, both onshore and offshore. The safety case regime, which originated
in Europe, requires high hazard facilities to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of a
competent regulator, that they are able to operate safely, in conformance with the
latest safety standards, and at the lowest practicable risk levels. The report
illustrates that under a safety case approach, demonstrating control of major
hazards is a pre-condition for a refinery to operate.
Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso said, "In contrast to the safety case, the current regulatory
system for process safety is largely reactive, at both the state and federal level;
companies have a default rig ht to o p erate, and are subject to penalties when
accidents occur or their activities otherwise draw neg ative attention from
regulators . In the case of the Chevron refinery fire, the reactive system of regulation
simply did not work to prevent what was ultimately a preventable accident."
Don Holmstrom, Director of the CSB's Western Regional Office, which is conducting the
Chevron investigation, said, "The Process Safety Management [PSMl standard, the
EPA 's Risk Management Program, and California's system do not work
consistently to prevent industrial process accidents. What is lacking, and what
the safety case regime requires, is an adaptable, rigorously inspected, goal-
setting approach, aimed at continuously reducing risks to "as low as reasonably
p racticabl e -known in the industry as ALARP."
The OSHA PSM standard is a set of requirements for facilities to identify, prevent or
mitigate major chemical releases and catastrophic accidents. The current PSM standard
requires companies to implement 14 elements to control the hazards from processing
chemicals -such as hazard analysis, management of change, and worker training
programs.
Only two of these 14 elements contain goal-based requirements -Process Hazard
Analysis and Mechanical Integrity. Companies are able to comply with the other twelve
elements by simply conducting highly specified activities, such as a "management of
change" review. The current PSM standard does not require refineries to reduce their
risks to a specific level, and companies are not required to submit their safety programs
to regulators for review.
A 2007 CSB report on an explosion at a BP refinery in Texas found that only a handful
of comprehensive process safety compliance inspections were occurring a thousands of
refineries and chemical plants covered by the PSM standard across the U.S. Federal
OSHA instituted an expanded refinery inspection National Emphasis Program following
the explosion in Texas City, but that program was subsequently dropped due to lack of
resources.
The CSB draft regulatory report contains an extensive analysis comparing actions
required by Chevron under the OSHA PSM standard over the years and actions that
would have been required had Chevron operated under a safety case regulatory
regime. For example, Chevron employees recommended implementing the inherently
safer approach of upgrading piping materials to prevent sulfidation corrosion through
PSM activities. However, the CSB draft report found that the California process safety
regulations do not require that these preventative measures be implemented. Prior to
the fire, Chevron had repeatedly failed to implement the proposed recommendations;
using inherently safer approaches, on the other hand, is required under the safety case .
The CSB found that had Chevron implemented these recommendations, the incident
could have been prevented.
Other examples in the report detail how a safety case would have required Chevron to
conduct root-cause investigations, including an evaluation and incorporation of inherent
safety and implementation of safety recommendations that more broadly address safety
system performance. Effective implementation of the safety case requires strong
workforce involvement, proactive inspections and enforcement by a well-resourced
regulator, as well as incorporation of best practice performance standard requirements.
The draft report notes that promulgation of new standards by OSHA requires about
seven years, and that process has made few -if any-changes to its process safety
rules in more than two decades. The report contrasts this ineffectual system for
updating federal safety regulations through rulemaking with the greater adaptability of
the safety case regime. Under a safety case system, changing safety standards, new
technologies, and findings from accident investigations are required to be incorporated
by facilities.
"In the last decade," the draft report states, "the CSB has made a number of process-
safety related recommendations to OSHA and the EPA in its investigation reports and
studies (e.g. Motiva, BP Texas City, and Reactive Hazards). However, none of these
important regulatory recommendations have been implemented, and there have been
no substantive changes made to the PSM or RMP regulations to improve the prevention
of major accidents."
In contrast, regulators in countries such as the UK and Norway are able to more quickly
implement appropriate safety improvements. Available studies summarized in the report
illustrate that the safety case continues to be effective. For example, data from Norway
and the UK show a reduction in hydrocarbon releases offshore under the safety case
regime. The draft report concludes that "Independent studies of the safety case in the
UK have identified improvements to safety performance from the safety case regulatory
regime and support of the safety case by major oil companies."
Chairperson Moure-Eraso said, "The safety case is being increasingly adopted
around the world, and the U.S. safety system has fallen behind. Workers, the public
and the industry itself would benefit greatly from the enhanced advantages of this more
adaptable and effective approach to regulation. Other regimes have long since
recognized the need for increased participation by workers and their representatives,
transparency of information and the use of key process safety indicators to ensure the
system works to prevent major accidents."
Subject to a vote by the board, the draft report would recommend that California
"Develop and implement a step-by-step plan to establish a more rigorous safety
management regulatory framework for petroleum refineries in the state of
California based on the principles of the "safety case" framework in use in
regulatory regimes such as those in the UK, Australia, and Norway." The
recommendation urges specific steps to accomplish this, including ensuring that
workers are formally involved in the development of a safety case approach. The report
also urges California to work with industry in gathering refinery safety indicator data to
be shared with the public.
CSB Investigator Amanda Johnson said, "We believe our draft report provides a
definitive examination of the advantages of the safety case system, one that would not
only benefit California but the U.S. as well."
Ms. Johnson continued, "We have reviewed the literature, studied systems in place
overseas, and held hearings to gather data and opinions. Some critics of the system
fear it would lead to self regulation; by the industry; however, the safety case regime
requires highly qualified regulators, whose technical abilities and experience match
those of the technical staff at refineries. And it provides the regulator with the authority
to accept or reject the safety case report to ensure that the employer has demonstrated
that effective safeguards are in place."
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating serious chemical
accidents. The agency's board members are appointed by the president and confirmed
by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including
physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations,
industry standards, and safety management systems.
The Board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to
plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA
and EPA Visit our website, www.csb.gov
http://www. idevmail. net/link .aspx?l=4&d=86&mid=414620&m= 1280
For more information, contact Communications Manager Hillary Cohen, cell 202-446-
8094 or Sandy Gilmour, Public Affairs, cell 202-251-5496.
This e-mail is from the SAFETY2@asu.edu list.
Archives of list discussions can be found at http ://li sts .asu .ed u/arc hi ves/safety2 .ht ml
Subject: FW: Correction: CDARS deposit program
From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:25 PM
To: Carolyn Lehr; CC
Subject: RE: Correction: CDARS deposit program
True, and I think it's also important to clarify that, per the CFO of their bank, the city of Rolling Hills uses CDARS .
Hope that helps,
Brian
From: Carolyn Lehr [mailto:clehr@rpv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:53 PM
To: Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; CC
Subject: Correction: CDARS deposit program
Councilman Campbell and copy to Council,
Yes, Dennis will provide a brief update on the CDARS implementation this evening. But I felt it was important to clarify
that, per their City Manager and Finance Director, Rolling Hills Estates does not participate in CDARS. The do have
certificates of deposit, which is very different.
Hope that helps,
Carolyn
From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:24 PM
To: CC
Subject: CDARS deposit program
Colleagues,
As a follow up on the staff report from the last meeting, I have attached a link to the public agency portion of the CDARS
web site in case you would like to learn a bit more about how this very simple and long-standing program works for
municipalities and other public agencies. Rolling Hills Estates, for example, has been a part of the program for some
time.
http://www.cdars.com/WhyCDARS/CDARSPublicFunds.aspx
Brian
Brian Campbell
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
~
310-544-7400 cell+ text
424-237-2582 office
888-855-9619 fax
l ~=*·I
RPV Website: www.palosverdes.com/rpv
1
CITY OF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 17, 2013
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
City Manager Report
Description of Material
Email exchange between Councilman Campbell and City
Manager Lehr
Respectf~mitted ,
~ ~JL_
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, December 16, 2013**.
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20131217 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carolyn Lehr
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:53 PM
Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; CC
Correction: CDARS deposit program
Councilman Campbell and copy to Council,
Yes, Dennis will provide a brief update on the CDARS implementation this evening. But I felt it was important to clarify
that, per their City Manager and Finance Director, Rolling Hills Estates does not participate in CDARS. The do have
certificates of deposit, which is very different.
Hope that helps,
Carolyn
From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:24 PM
To: CC
Subject: CDARS deposit program
Colleagues,
As a follow up on. the staff report from the last meeting, I have attached a link to the public agency portion of the CDARS
web site in case you would like to learn a bit more about how this very simple and long-standing program works for
municipalities and other public agencies. Rolling Hills Estates, for example, has been a part of the program for some
time.
http://www.cdars.com/WhyCDARS/CDARSPublicFunds.aspx
Brian
Brian Campbell
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
~
310-544-7 400 cell + text
424-237-2582 office
888-855-9619 fax
Jon our
Mailing List
RPV Website: www.palosverdes.com/rpv
Twitter: http://twitter.com/CampbellforRPV
This e-mail message, and any attachments to it, are for the sole use of the intended recipients, and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email message or its attachments is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email do not necessarily represent those of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Finally, while the company uses virus protection, the
G
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email.
0
f':·1 101:')
h 'J",
l~'.:.1~.~·~
CITY OF
4
O RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 16, 2013
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, December 17, 2013 City Council meeting :
Item No.
6
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Carla Morreale
Description of Materials
Email exchange between Mayor Duhovic and Elizabeth
Sala
W:IAGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas..20131217 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon .doc
Carla Morreale
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Elizabeth,
Jerry Duhovic <jduhovic@hotmail.com >
Monday, December 16, 2013 4:04 PM
etsala@live.com
Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Carla Morreale
FW: LA County West Vector Control District Boa rd
Let me again thank you for your stepping up and representing the City as our Delegate to the LA
County West Vector Control District Board. I know you will do a great job. Someone will be circling
back with you soon with additional details.
As for reporting back, let's chat after you have your first meeting and we can collectively decide what
reporting mechanism and/or presentation would be most appropriate to ensure that the city gets the
full benefit of your participation.
Again, they meet the 2nd Thursday of the month, every other month starting in January (6 meetings
for the year). The meetings are at their Headquarters in Culver City. It is my there is also a stipend
paid to delegates.
Thank you again. I look forward to working with you on this endeavor.
Regards,
Jerry
J e,,yry v. v uho-vlo
C:(310)502-8036
.iduhovic@hotmail.com
From: etsala@ live.com
To: jduh vic @ ho tm a il. om
Subject: Re : L A County W e st V ec tor Control Di strict Board
Date: Thu , 12 Dec 2013 16:15:10 -0800
Hi Jerry,
Thank for your kind words as well as thinking of me for this position.
I would be willing to represent the City in this position for the calendar year 2014. Please advise me as to
how you would like me to report back to you on the proceedings.
Thank you for everything you do for our City.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
310.503.6699
From: Jerry Duhovic
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:59 PM
To: etsala@live.com
Subject: LA County West Vector Control District Board
Hi Elizabeth,
I hope this email finds all is well with you. Let me begin by thanking you for your interest in serving
the City and all that you do and have done on behalf of our residents.
I was speaking to Susan Brooks and she indicated that you might have an interest in representing
the City as our Delegate to the LA County West Vector Control District Board. They meet the 2nd
Thursday of the month, every other month starting in January (6 meetings for the year). The
meetings are at their Headquarters in Culver City.
Here is a link to their website:
http://www.lawestvector.org/
Both Susan and I thought you were the perfect candidate.
I know it's a lot to ask, but I figure I would ask anyway. If you can, great -and thank you. If not, I
understand -and thank you again.
Please let me know if you have any interest.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry V. VUhovlo
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
C:(310)502-8036
.iduhovic@hotmail.com