### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BUREAU OF RELEASE PREVENTION

Guidance for Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA)

Inherently Safer Technology (IST) Review

Issued: August 1 6 , 20122



### Introduction

Purs uant to N.J.A.C. 7: 31

- 4.12

, facilities that are subject to the applicability requirements of the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) Program rules must complete Inherently Safer Technology ( IST ) review s

. The TCPA Program Rule s are available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/tcpadown.htm

. The purpose of this guidance document is to assist owner s or operator s of planned or existing TCPA facilities in under standing the requirements for perform ing the IST review and preparing and submitting the IST review report

. The Department suggests that owners or

operators refer to “Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: A Life Cycle Approach

, ” 2 nd Edition,
2008, published by the Center for Chemical P rocess Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers

. This book presents the principles and strategies for applying inherently safer thinking throughout the life cycle of a facility

.



### I. When IST Reviews Must B e Completed

In accordance with N.J .A.C. 7:31

- 4.12(b), the IST review must be updated every five years at the same time the process hazard analysis with risk assessment ( PHA /RA) for the covered process is due. In general, whenever a PHA/RA is performed, an IST review must also be performed . It is preferred that the IST review and PHA be performed concurrently

. Conducting the IST Review concurrently with the PHA/RA is more time efficient

, results in a more thorough review, and the same team can perform both studies

. However, i t may be

nec essary to supplement the PHA /RA team with members meeting the IST experience requirements

.



### II. Who Must Perform the IST Review

Each inherently safer technology review required by this section must be conducted by a team of qualified experts convened b y the owner or operator, whose members must have expertise in environmental health and safety, chemistry, design and engineering, process controls

and instrumentation, maintenance, production and operations, and chemical process safety. It is highly recomm ended that an operator be included in the IST review process.



### III. What Must B e Studied in the IST Review

Each inherently safer technology review must identify all commercially available inherently safer technology alternatives or combinations of alternatives that minimize or

eliminate the potential for an EHS release. Using any available inherently safer technology analysis method, this review must include, at a minimum, an analysis of the following principles and techniques: 1. Reducing the am ount of EHS material that potentially may be released; 2. Substituting less hazardous materials; 3. Using EHSs in the least hazardous process conditions or form; and 4. Designing equipment and processes to minimize the potential for equipment3

failure and h uman error.

Chapter 4 of the CCPS book covers each of these items.



### IV. Methods to Conduct the IST Review

A ny available inherently safer technology analysis method may be utilized to perform the IST review. There are, however, two methods which are co mmonly used:

1

. I ncorporating an analysis of the four IST principles listed in II I . above into the PHA.

This is a much more detailed analysis and is preferred to the checklist method

. It is

s trongly recommend ed that an integrated PHA/IST study approach be used . When the team identifies a hazard in the PHA, it appl ies IST principles to evaluate and address the

hazard. The following e xamples of this method are available :

- See slides 65

- 68 in IST Concepts and Methodologies posted on the TCPA website

at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/tcpadown.htm

. .

- See Method 3 on pages 12

- 15 in IST Sample Worksheets also on the TCPA website

.

- Chapter 11 of “Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: A Life Cycle Approach

, ” 2 nd

Edition, 2008, has worked examples a nd case studies of IST principles and concepts.

2. A checklist method

. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) has prepared a checklist in Appendix A in “Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: A Life Cycle Approach.” Some facilities have

used similar variations of this checklist

. For a n ew facility , the checklist approach could be used for a more global evaluation of the process. During the design phase of a new facility or process , it is ea sier to implement substitution.



### V. Determining the Feasibility of IST Alternatives

Each inherently safer technology review must include a determination of whether each of the inherently safer technologies identified is feasible. For purposes of this de termination,

feasible is defined at N.J.A.C. 7:31

- 1.5 as “ capable of being accomplished in a successful manner, taking into account environmental, public health and safety, legal, technological, and

economic factors. ”

See Attachment 1 for a discussion of feasibility.



### V I . IST Review Report

The owner or operator must prepare and submit to the Department a report that documents each inherently safer technology review required by this section. For existing facilities, IST report s prepared for the 5

- year PH A/RA update and management of changes must be submitted with the next annual report pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:31

- 4.9 (b)6 . For new covered4

processes, the report must be sent to the Department as part of the new covered process submittal pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7 :31

- 4.12. The report must include:

a. An identification of the covered process that is the subject of the review; a list of the review team members with name, position, affiliation, responsibilities, qualifications and experience for each; the date of rep ort completion; and the inherently safer technology analysis

method used to complete the review;

b . The questions asked and answered to address the inherently safer technology principles

and t echniques pursuant to 7:31

- 4.12(d)

. This is the detailed works heets u sed to address and analyze the four IST principles. If you used the CCPS checklist method, submit the completed checklist. If you incorporated the IST review into the PHA, you can submit the complete PHA

worksheets

, or you can extract the sections that address the four IST principles.

c . A list of inherently safer technologies determined to be already present in the covered

process

. This should be a complete, current list of all ISTs that have been included in the process. ( It m ust be a separate li st that only itemizes the ISTs already present ; o ther formats are not acceptable. )

d . A list of additional inherently safer technologies identified in this current IST review

. ( It m ust be a separate list that only itemizes the additional ISTs identified ; o ther formats are not acceptable )

. If no additiona l ISTs were identified, state so

.

e . A list of the additional inherently safer technologies selected to be implemented and a

schedu le for their implementation

. ( It m ust be a separate list that only itemize s the additional

ISTs selected to be implemented ; o ther formats are not acceptable )

. If no additional ISTs were

sele cted to be implemented, state so

.

f . A list of the inherently safer technolog ies determined to be infeasible

. ( It m ust be a

separate list t hat only itemizes the ISTs determined to be infeasible ; o ther formats are not acceptable )

. If no ISTs were deter mined to be infeasible, state so

.

g . A written explanation justifying the infeasibility determination for each inherently safer technology det ermined to be infeasible. The owner or operator must substantiate the infeasibility determination using a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of environmental, public health and safety, legal, technological, and economic factors. If infeasibility of a particular IST is not

established in accordance with the rule

, it would be considered feasible. However, the implementation of any IST determined to be feasible is not mandatory.

See A ttachment 2 for a sample report.



### V I I. Confidentiality

An owner or operator may file a claim with the Department pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:31

- 10

to w ithhold from public disclosure confidential information included in an inherently safer technology review report required to be submitted to the Department

. (Details are avail able at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/tcpadown.htm under the Special Topics section. ) N.J.A.C.

7:31

- 10 .4 specifies how a facility must submit confidential information; this includes requi rements such as marking the document, sealing it in a separate envelope marked5

confidential, and providing a complete confidential information claim form. If a request is made by the public to view the information claimed confidential

, the Department will contact the

claim ant to substantiate the confidentiality claim

.6 Attachment 1

Feasibility Guidance

Determine whether IST is feasible, that is, capable of being accomplished in a successful manner, taking into account the following factors:

- Enviro nmental

- Public health and safety

- Legal

- Technological

- Economic

Feasibility Factors Examples:

Under each factor below except for economic feasibility

, some examples are listed for illustration purposes. These examples are not intended to be all inclusive. Also

, a clarification is included whether a qualitative and/or quantitative justification is expected

.

A. Environmental and Public Health and Safety Feasibility There would be a significant negative environmental impact

Consideration of wa ter resources, water pollution, air pollution, solid and hazardous wastes, noise, etc.

The IST could decrease the hazard but would increase the overall risk

The risk would be shifted to another location where the risk would be the same or higher

If inf easibility claimed because of risk, need to document the difference in frequency

and/or consequences with and without the IST All qualitative and quantitative B. Legal Feasibility

The IST c ould result in a conflict with existing federal, state, or l ocal laws

The IST c ould violate a license agreement and the license agreement cannot be modified

and must remain in effect Qualitative C. Technological Feasibility Is in conflict with Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (qua litative, cite reference documents) Product quality specifications cannot be met (qualitative and quantitative) Availability of materials (qualitative and quantitative) Space restrictions (qualitative and quantitative) Impact on production rate (qualit ative and quantitative) Commercially available or not

D. Economic Feasibility If a given IST is claimed to be infeasible due to economic reasons the infeasibility justification should address the following elements: Life Cycle Analysis Capital investm ent, including design and implementation Net operating costs7

Change in the cost of materials including transportation and handling related costs Change in energy consumption Change in human costs such as number of operators, training Any other direct manufacturing costs Net regulatory compliance cost, change in fees Demolition and future cleanup and disposal cost

Not affordability of an IST alternative relative to the o/o ’s facility

Quantitative ( cost/benefit analysis )

Generally , a n IST is feasible if the IST has been successfully applied to similar processes or

similar situations unless there are unique circumstances at the facility. The justification should highlight those unique circumstances and how they relate to the feasibilit y factors.8 Attachment 2

Sample IST Report

1. Identification of Covered Process(es) :

Date of Report Completion:

IST Analysis Method Used:

This is the IST Report for the XYZ Company (TCPA ID# 9999) for the IST review performed in conjunction with the PHA for the chlorine reaction process. The report was completed on July 1,

2011. The What

- if method was used to perform the review. The review team members are

listed in the table below.

List of IST Review Team Members:

Name Position Affiliati on Responsibilities, Qualifications, Experience

John Brown Partner A BC Consulting, LLC 17 years experience in leading PHAs,

BS Chemical Engineering

Mary Jones SHE

Manager XYZ Company 22 years experience in chemical industry

James Smith Lead

Engineer XYZ Company Developed chlorine process. Managed process since its inception

Robert Johnson Process

Engineer XYZ Company MS Chemical Engineering 10 years experience process controls

and instrumentation Joseph Williams Maintenance

Manager XYZ Company 16 year s experience in chemical industry

– maintenance

Susan Jackson Operator XYZ Company 32 years of operating experience

2. Questions Asked and Answered to Address IST Principles and Techniques: The IST review was performed as part of the PHA revalidation. The worksheets developed during the

IST Review which list the questions asked and answered are attached in Appendix 1

.

3. List of I nherently S afer T echnologies determined to be already present :9

a. Chlorine detectors and alarms

b. Bulletproof glass in chlorine room windows

c. Ton containers are inside a chlorine room

d. Automatic shutdown activated by leak detector

e. etc.

4. List of Additional ISTs Identified:

No additional IST was identified.

Or

The following additional IST s were ident ified:

a. Use another reactant instead of chlorine

b. Use 150 lb cylinders rather than ton containers.

c. Add a scrubber to remove chlorine in the event of a release

d. etc.

5. List of Additional ISTs Selected to be Implemented Including Implemen tation Schedule:

Since no new IST was identified, there is no list of those selected.

Or

- Item c above was selected to be implemented. The scrubber will be added in the third quarter of 2012.

6. List of ISTs Determined to be Infeasible:

Since no new IST was identified, there is no list of those deemed to be infeasible.

Or

6. Item a. was deemed to be infeasible since, while iodine is much safer than chlorine, it doesn’t react nearly as well. (The facility owner/operator must provide detailed infor mation comparing other potential reactants with chlorine for reactivity data , different equipment needed, room required, or that it couldn’t meet other regulatory requirements, etc. )

Item b. was deemed infeasible because it was felt that the frequent chang ing of 150 lb

. cylinders which would be required by the amount of chlorine utilized would actually increase the risk associated with the process rather than decreasing it. (The facility owner/operator must provide10

detailed information comparing the risks of both cases ( an analysis comparing the consequences

and likelihoods of both cases ). It is i nfeasible only if the facility owner/operator can show that

the risk at the facility would be greater with the potential IST alternative.

Note that the above sample is very simplistic. Actual IST review will, in most cases, produce numerous examples of existing IST and perhaps numerous items of new IST which may or may not be feasible and which may or may not be implemented. A PHA will often list hundreds of questions which were asked as part of the revalidation process. What this example does is provide a very rough guide to the information the Department expects to see included in an IST

Review report.

Appendix 1

Attach the detailed worksheets used in t he IST Review, which provide all the questions asked

and answered for the review.