# Risk Management Modernization Rule Small Business Environmental Assistance Program Technical Subcommittee Meeting MARCH 15, 2016

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

# Risk Management Program (RMP) Proposed Rule

• Proposed rule published March 14, 2016 at

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2016-03 - 14/pdf/2016-05191.pdf • Submit comments on or before May 13, 2016 at

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA - HQ- OEM - 2015 -0725 • Public Hearing on Proposed Rule on March 29, 2016 (9 am – 8 pm) in

Washington, DC. Register at https://rmp - proposed - rule.eventbrite.com • Proposed Changes to RMP Rule Q&As https://www.epa.gov/rmp/frequent questions - proposed - changes - risk- managment- program - rmp - rule

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2

# Background On August 1, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security following several catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States.

◦ Focus is to reduce risks associated with hazardous chemicals to owners and operators, workers, and communities by enhancing the safety and security of chemical facilities. 

## The keys areas of emphasis under the EO are:

◦ Strengthening community planning and preparedness, ◦ Enhancing federal operational coordination, ◦ Improving data management, and ◦ Modernizing policies and regulations. ◦ EPA issued a request for information (RFI) on July 31, 2014, and ◦ Convened a Small Business Advocacy Review panel on November 4, 2015.

3 OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

# Risk Management Program rule

◦ Promulgated in 1996 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments ◦ Applies to all stationary sources with processes that contain more than a threshold quantity of 140 regulated substances (approx. 12,500 sources) ◦ Includes a wide variety of industry sectors including: refining, chemical manufacturing, energy production, ammonia refrigeration, water treatment, bulk storage, chemical distribution, agricultural retail, and chemical warehouses ◦ Regulated substances listed based on toxicity, volatility, and flammability criteria 

### ◦ Requires the source to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) ◦ Addresses elements aimed at preventing accidental releases and reducing the severity of releases that occur ◦ Prepare and submit an RMP to EPA at least every 5 years 

### ◦ Covered processes fall within one of three prevention program levels based on: ◦ The potential for offsite consequences from a worst- case accidental release; ◦ Accident history; and ◦ Regulation under OSHA Process Safety Management Standard (PSM)

4 OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

# OSHA Process Safety Management Standard (PSM)

◦ Process safety management program for highly hazardous chemicals aimed at preventing and minimizing occupational/onsite exposure ◦ Authorized by Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ◦ OSHA PSM standard found at 29 CFR part 1910.119 ◦ Focuses on protecting workers from chemical accidents ◦ Promulgated in 1992 ◦ OSHA PSM & EPA RMP form the U.S. regulatory framework for prevention of catastrophic chemical accidents at fixed facilities o OSHA also considering revisions of the PSM standard and has initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. For more info, see: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/psm/index.html

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 5

# RMP Program level comparison PROGRAM 1 PROGRAM 2 PROGRAM 3 • Worst case analysis • 5 -year accident history • Document management system • Worst case analysis • 5 -year accident history • Document management system • Worst case analysis • 5 -year accident history • Document management system Prevention Program Certify no additional prevention steps needed • Safety information • Hazard review • Operating procedures • Training • Maintenance • Incident investigation • Compliance audit • Process safety information • Process hazard analysis (PHA) • Operating procedures • Training • Maintenance • Incident investigation • Compliance audit • Management of change • Pre - startup review • Contractors • Employee participation • Hot work permits Emergency Response Program Coordinate with local responders Develop plan/program and coordinate with local responders Develop plan/program and coordinate with local responders

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 6

# RMP Program level applicability PROGRAM 1

642 Facilities 

## PROGRAM 2 1,272 Facilities* Processes not eligible for Program 1, not subject to Program 3 ◦ Mainly water & wastewater treatment in Federal OSHA states ◦ Additional hazard assessment, accident prevention, management, and emergency response requirements

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT *Analysis reflects OSHA change to PSM retail exemption issued July 2015. See OSHA PSM Retail Exemption Policy at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=29528 7 

### Processes subject to OSHA’s PSM or in one of 10 specified NAICS codes ◦ Larger facilities or those with complex processes ◦ Examples include: refining, chemical manufacturing, energy production, water treatment ◦ Covered by OSHA’s PSM accident prevention program and include additional hazard assessment, management, and emergency response requirements 

## PROGRAM 3 10,628 Facilities * Processes that would not affect the public in the event of a worst - case release & no accidents with offsite consequences in the last five years ◦ Small quantities of flammables, less volatile toxics ◦ Limited accident prevention including hazard assessment and emergency response requirements

# Overview of RMP Proposed Revisions P1 P2 P3 Third - party a udits (applies to the next scheduled audit after an accident) [Estimated 150 accidents/year] √ √ Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with accidents/near misses) [Estimated 300 incidents/year] √ √ Safer Alternatives Analysis (applies to a subset of P3 in certain NAICS codes*) [Estimated 1,692 Facilities/4,308 Processes] √ Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements with Local Responders √ √ Emergency Response Exercises √ √ Information Sharing √ √ √

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 8 *Applies to paper manufacturing, petroleum and coal products manufacturing, and chemical manufacturing facilities

# Third

- party compliance audits Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must perform compliance audits every three years. Proposed revisions require all P2 and P3 facilities to conduct a third -party audit in lieu of a compliance audit following an RMP reportable accident.*

◦ Must be completed within 12 months of an RMP reportable accident or within 3 years of completion of the previous compliance audit, whichever is sooner. ◦ Note that this audit and its schedule are independent of the incident investigation requirement and its schedule. 

### ◦ Same scope as the current compliance audit provisions (i.e., audit prevention program implementation for all covered processes). ◦ EPA is proposing criteria for auditor independence, impartiality, and competence.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 9 * RMP reportable accident means an accidental release meeting the criteria in § 68.42(a) from a covered process at a stationary source (i.e., includes accident with deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage).

# Incident investigations and root cause analysis Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must conduct incident investigations following an incident that resulted in or could have resulted in a catastrophic release. 

## Proposed revisions (Applies to P2 and P3): ◦ Clarify/emphasize current investigation requirements for incidents that could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release. Add the term “near miss” to regulations with examples in preamble. ◦ Clarify the definition of catastrophic release to be consistent with reportable accidental release (i.e., an accident with deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage) ◦ Require a root cause investigation and define root cause to mean a fundamental, underlying, system - related reason why an incident occurred that identifies correctable failure(s) in management systems ◦ Require a report be completed within 12 months (unless extension approved, in writing, by implementing agency)

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 10OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 11 

# Safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must develop a PHA to identify, evaluate, and control process hazards involving regulated substances. Proposed revisions to require the source to conduct a STAA and determine feasibility of inherently safer technologies and designs considered: o Would apply to P3 facilities in: Paper Mfg ; Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg.; and Chemical Mfg. o The STAA would consider, in the following order of preference: o Inherently safer technology (IST) or design, Passive measures, Active measures, and Procedural measures o ISTs are those measures that reduce or eliminate the hazards and include minimization , substitution of less hazardous chemical, moderation of the process, and simplification of the process/procedures. o Owner/operator would not be required to implement any prescribed technology; however EPA is requesting comment on whether the rule should require implementation.

# Local emergency response coordination Current Requirements: Facilities must develop an emergency response program except when the community emergency response plan addresses toxic substances at the facility, or owner/operator has coordinated response actions for flammable substances with local fire department. 

## Proposed revisions require all P2 and P3 facilities to: ◦ Coordinate annually with the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs*) /emergency responders and ensure response capabilities exist ◦ Document coordination ◦ LEPCs*/emergency responders can request source to prepare an emergency response (ER) program What are the outcomes of “coordination”? ◦ “Non - responding” source – coordination indicates that local public response capabilities are adequate to respond, appropriate notification mechanisms are in place, and local authorities have not requested that owner develop ER program ◦ “Responding” source – coordination indicates that local public response capabilities are not adequate to respond, or local authorities request that owner develop ER program ◦ Facility must develop an emergency response program following § 68.95

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 12 What is “coordination”?

◦ Facility and local responders meet and discuss response needs, capabilities, and roles: • Determine resources needed to appropriately respond to regulated substance releases at facility • Determine resources available from facility and local responders • Identify capability gaps and develop plans to address • Decide whether facility or local responders will respond to releases of regulated substances • Assign response action roles and responsibilities * Applicable to Tribal Emergency Planning Committees (TEPCs)

# Emergency Response Exercises Current Requirements: None Proposed revisions: Require facilities to test their emergency response program through notification, tabletop, and field exercises (Applies to all P2 and P3)

◦ Require “responding” and “non - responding” facilities to conduct an annual notification exercise ◦ Require “responding” facilities to conduct the field and tabletop exercises and invite local responders to participate: Tabletop exercise ◦ Frequency: Annually except in the year of a field exercise ◦ Scope : Same as field exercise without actual mobilization of personnel & equipment An exercise evaluation report must be completed within 90 days of each exercise.

13 13 

### Field exercise

◦ Frequency: Every 5 years and within one year following a reportable accident ◦ Scope : Test procedures for notification, evacuation, medical treatment, communications systems, emergency response personnel mobilization (including contractors, if appropriate), coordination with local responders, equipment deployment, and other actions identified in ER program as appropriate

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

# Current RMP data availability

• Only emergency response and other govt. officials can access the RMP

data via a non - public EPA database. • Public access to worst case off-site consequence analysis (OCA) data is

restricted to viewing only in Federal Reading Rooms. • Public can access non - OCA RMP data in Federal Reading Rooms or by

FOIA request.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 14

# Information sharing

- LEPC Proposed revisions: Require summaries of chemical hazard information to be provided to LEPC* or local emergency response official, upon request: ◦ Information on RMP regulated substances−names and quantities of regulated substances held in a process ◦ Five -year accident history information (reported under § 68.42) ◦ Compliance audits ◦ Incident investigation reports (with root cause findings) ◦ IST implemented or planned to be implemented, if applicable ◦ No requirement to implement, but if a source does implement ISTs it is useful information for LEPCs*/first responders to have in their local emergency planning efforts ◦ Exercises, including schedules and reports

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 15 * Applicable to TEPCs

# Information sharing

- public Proposed Revisions: Require chemical hazard information to be provided in an easily accessible manner (i.e., posting on a company website, public file sharing website, or social media website, or placing a file at a public library or local government office) 

## ◦ Names of RMP regulated substances held in a process ◦ Safety data sheets (SDS) for all RMP regulated substances located at the facility ◦ Emergency response program summary information ◦ Five -year accident history information reported under § 68.42 ◦ Exercise summary information ◦ Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) contact information

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 16

# Information sharing

- public meetings Proposed revisions would require a public meeting to be held within 30 days of an RMP reportable accident. The meeting would address:

◦ Information about the accident; ◦ Other relevant chemical hazard information (such as what would be provided to the public) 

## Can be held in concurrence with a regularly scheduled LEPC* meeting that is open to the public Facilities must notify the community about the public meeting and can use various methods including:

◦ Publishing a notice in a local paper, ◦ Social media, and/or ◦ Fliers in public places, like the local library

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 17 * Applicable to TEPCs

# Additional resources RMP proposed rule webpage: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed changes - risk- management- program - rmp - rule EO 13650 Improving Chemical Safety and Security: https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html EO activities under EO 13650: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/executive order- improving - chemical -facility-safety- and - security Report for the President: Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security –

A Shared Commitment : https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/final_chemical_eo_stat us_report.pdf

18 OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

# Questions?

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 19