Company with production plants in multiple countries with differing requirements

Agrium has high risk operations that require Emergency Response capability

Capability costs serious moneyMoney decision responsibility of site or

regional management

Two Industrial Pumpers up for replacement Estimate 1 million plus range This was just the current issue in a long

list of future capital items for Emergency Response

Reluctance to commit because no standard in place that said you had to do it

The issue was stalled Required a process to break the stalemate

and manage the issue

Response equipment competes for money against operations and other needs

People will make difficult choices if you make it easy for them to do so

Provide the decision maker with the supportive argument they need to make their boss agree

People usually are comfortable following;▪ A standard▪ Regulations▪ Common practice of like industry

Emergency Preparedness Element identifies specific requirements that must be followed

E:\Emergency Preparedness EMS 3.12.01 Element .docx

Production plants are audited regularly to ensure compliance with the EP element

The Manufacturing Management System uses a specific format that employees are familiar with

Non compliance is reported to Senior Executive levels and the Board Of Directors

Looked for tools already being used internally

Assessed them to see what would apply

Looked for a format that was; Commonly used Had weight/importance with management Easily understood Easy to explain and support

Step 1 - Developed a background study that covered; E:\Agrium Wholesale Site Emergency Response Capability Study SCN

2010.docx

Primary risks that require large capacity pumps

Issues/limitations involved in exclusively relying on local fire departments

NFPA standards and recommendations Regulatory standards and requirements Staffing required to operate large capacity

pumps

Step 2 - Focused on Process Hazard Analysis common tool used to determine industry risk Engineering/managerial staff instantly

recognize and trust the PHA process E:\ER Equipment Best Practice ver 14.docx

Step 3 - Focused on Regulatory requirements Allows quantification of risk Hard to argue against regulations

Step 4 - Combined the PHA and Regulatory requirements into a “Best Practice” using the internal MMS format that people were familiar with

Item 5.1 thru 6.4 specify the requirements of the Best Practice E:\ER

Equipment Best Practice ver 14.docx

A production plant must conduct a PHA and conform to the results if they have risks such as; Chemical volumes over the threshold If they have population densities over

5000 within 5 Kilometres

If relying on local fire departments for primary emergency response capability you must verify their capability (6.0) E:\ER Equipment Best Practice ver 14.docx

Pump capacity, response time, minimum crew, appropriate skill sets

Review must be done annually Local General Manager must approve

reliance on local fire department

PHA must be conducted E:\ER Equipment Best Practice

ver 14.docx

When new production plant is being designed

Current pump capability reaches 20 year vintage

Table 1 chemicals added to site inventory

When Table 1 chemical volumes meet or exceed table thresholds

Once process was approved; Quickly gained approval for 2011 capital Moved 2012 capital items forward

Executive levels want the system developed to cover off “other” ER requirements; Rescue/Command, Medical, Haz Mat units Fire water systems Fire Halls Training equipment PPE

Work required to build the process Once in place it can be used again &

again Allows for calm rational discussion as

the process is easy to follow and support

Senior Management comfortable with outcome

Eliminates the “bloody nose” when requesting funding