Risk Management 

Modernization 

Rule 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015

SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW 

PANEL OUTREACH MEETING

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Agenda

Background on the Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule

Related Federal Regulations

How Small Entity Representatives (SERs) Can Help

Potentially Impacted Small Entities

RMP Universe of Facilities

Overview of Proposed Rule Provisions and Costs

Benefits

Additional SER Suggestions from Pre-panel Outreach

Next Steps in Panel Process

Questions & Comments

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2
Background- RMP rule

Key aspects of the rule:

◦ Applies to all stationary sources with processes that contain more than a 

threshold quantity of a regulated substance

◦ Regulated substances listed based on toxicity, volatility, and flammability criteria*

◦ Plan elements aimed at preventing accidental releases and reducing the 

severity of releases that occur

◦ All sources must 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;

◦ Accident history; and

◦ Regulation under OSHA PSM

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

* Specific listing criteria for the RMP rule can be found in “Additional Information” section 

on slides 77-79

3
Background - RMP rule Program 

Levels

Program 1 (642 facilities)

◦ Processes that would not affect the public in the event of a worst case release & 

no accidents with offsite consequences in the last 5 years

◦ Small quantities of flammables, less volatile toxics

◦ Limited accident prevention including hazard assessment and emergency response requirements

Program 2 (1272 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

Program 3 (10628 facilities)*

◦ Processes subject to OSHA’s PSM or in one of 10 specified NAICS codes (see 

“Additional Information” section slide 69 for specific NAICS codes)

◦ Examples include: refining, chemical manufacturing, energy production, water treatment

◦ Must use OSHA’s PSM as accident prevention program and include additional hazard assessment, 

management, and emergency response requirements

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

*Analysis reflects OSHA change to PSM retail exemption issued July, 2015 (For further information, see slide 81

in “Additional Information” section)

4
Related federal regulations

The RMP is one of several programs regarding chemical facility safety and 

security, including:

◦ OSHA PSM standard

◦ Management program for highly hazardous chemicals aimed at preventing and minimizing 

occupational/onsite exposure

◦ Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) requirements 

(For more information on EPCRA, see slide 82 under “Additional Information”)

◦ Local emergency planning and preparedness, emergency release notification, community right-toknow: provision of hazardous chemical storage inventory and toxic chemical release inventory to the 

community and first responders

◦ CAA Section 112(r)(1) general duty clause for facility owners/operators

◦ Must identify hazards, design, maintain and safely operate a facility; prevent and minimize releases

◦ DHS requirements –Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS)

◦ ATF requirements for explosives

◦ State/local requirements (e.g., NJ; Contra Costa County, CA regulations)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 5
OSHA PSM & EPA RMP

Together, OSHA PSM & EPA RMP form the U.S. regulatory 

framework for prevention of catastrophic chemical accidents 

at fixed facilities

◦ Both regulations authorized by Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

◦ OSHA PSM standard (29 CFR part 1910.119):

◦ Focuses on protecting workers from chemical accidents 

◦ Promulgated in 1992

◦ EPA RMP regulation (40 CFR part 68):

◦ Focuses on protecting public health & the environment from chemical 

accidents

◦ Promulgated in 1996

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 6
PSM & RMP: similarities

PSM and RMP were intentionally designed by OSHA and EPA to have 

similar requirements at facilities regulated by both:

◦ The accident prevention program requirements of both regulations are 

almost identical

◦ RMP uses OSHA PSM coverage as a factor in determining RMP program level

◦ RMP Program 3 prevention requirements include all PSM elements except trade secrets & 

emergency planning and response (RMP addresses ER outside of prevention program)

◦ RMP regulatory interpretations & guidance generally align with OSHA PSM 

standard interpretations & guidance

◦ RMP & PSM have similar applicability criteria:

◦ Regulated substance lists & threshold quantities

◦ Many chemicals common to both lists

◦ Same or similar threshold quantities

◦ Some similar regulatory exemptions

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 7
PSM vs RMP: differences

There are several differences between the PSM and RMP which were 

designed to accommodate different statutory requirements and ensure 

the protection of the community and environment from chemical 

accidents. 

◦ List* & threshold differences:

◦ RMP list (40 CFR Part 68.130) covers 27 toxic chemicals not listed in PSM

◦ PSM list (29 CFR Part 1910.119) covers 76 toxic & reactive chemicals not listed in RMP

◦ PSM covers a wider range of flammable substances than RMP

◦ RMP TQs ≥ PSM TQs

◦ Additional RMP requirements not contained in PSM (For more information on 

EPCRA, see slide 72 under “Additional Information”):

◦ Management system (40 CFR section 68.15)

◦ Hazard assessment (40 CFR sections 68.20 through 68.42).

◦ Submit RMP to EPA (40 CFR section 68.150)

◦ PSM has no program levels or tiers – any process subject to the 

standard is subject to all of its requirements.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

* Chemicals included on both the RMP and PSM lists are shown in the attached spreadsheet.

8
PSM vs RMP prevention programs

PSM Standard

•Process Safety Information

•PHA

•Operating Procedures

•Training

•Mechanical Integrity

•Compliance Audits

•Incident Investigations

•Management of Change

•Pre-Startup Safety Review

•Employee Participation

•Hot Work Permits

•Contractors

•Emergency Planning and Response

•Trade Secrets

RMP Program 3

•Process Safety Information

•PHA

•Operating Procedures

•Training

•Mechanical Integrity

•Compliance Audits

•Incident Investigations

•Management of Change

•Pre-Startup Review

•Employee Participation

•Hot Work Permits

•Contractors

•Emergency Response (ER)

•CBI

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

RMP Program 2

•Safety Information

•Hazard Review

•Operating Procedures

•Training

•Maintenance

•Compliance Audits

•Incident Investigations

•N/A

•N/A

•N/A

•N/A

•N/A

•ER

•CBI

9
CFATS relationship to RMP*

There are several areas of the RMP requirements and 

methodology which were used in the development of the CFATS 

requirements:

◦ CFATS Top-Screen process uses an adaptation of RMP modeling criteria 

to determine off-site release distances for RMP chemicals

◦ CFATS Top-Screen collects some RMP data elements from RMP facilities 

required to submit Top-Screen data

◦ Several RMP exemptions are replicated in or adapted to CFATS 

regulations

◦ Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures, transportation, laboratories, etc.

◦ Some commonalities between CFATS risk-based performance standards 

(RBPS) and RMP requirements:

◦ RBPS 3 – Screen & Control Access

◦ RBPS 9 – Response

◦ RBPS 11 – Training

◦ RBPS 17 – Officials and Organization

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

* See slides 84-85 in “Additional Information” section for more information on the CFATS program

10
Background – EO 13650

Executive Order 13650, entitled Improving Chemical Facility Safety and 

Security (EO 13650) 

◦ Directs the government to conduct a number of tasks, including modernizing 

regulations and strengthening community planning and preparedness

◦ Aimed at preventing chemical accidents, such as the explosion in West, Texas 

on April 17, 2013

Report for the President (May 2014)

◦ Provided an update on actions taken to improve chemical facility safety and 

security

◦ Committed to proposing priority amendments to RMP rule in 2015 and 

publishing final rule in 2016

Factsheet (June 2015)

◦ Describes accomplishments over the past year

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 11
Background

RMP regulatory actions

EPA initiated this rulemaking to modernize the RMP regulation in 

accordance with EO 13650

July 31, 2014-EPA issued a Request for Information (RFI) on 19 issues 

under consideration (79 FR 44603)

◦ EPA identified priority elements from the RFI to include in the proposed rule

OSHA issued an RFI on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73756) and expects to 

revise PSM standard

EPA and OSHA are both conducting SBAR panels to inform rulemakings

It is EPA’s understanding that OSHA intends to hold a SBAR panel on its 

PSM regulations following EPA’s panel on RMP

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 12
EPA RFI items relating to OSHA RFI

1. Update the List of Regulated substances

a) Adding other toxic or flammable substances

b) Adding high and/or low explosives

c) Adding ammonium nitrate

d) Adding reactive substances and reactivity hazards

e) Adding other categories of substances

f) Removing certain substances from the list or raising TQ

g) Lowering the TQ for substances currently on the list

2. Additional Risk Management Program Elements

3. Define and Require Evaluation of Updates to RAGAGEP

4. Extend Mechanical Integrity Requirements to Cover Any Safety-Critical Equipment

5. Require Owners and Operators to Manage Organizational Changes

6. Require Third-Party Compliance Audits

7. Coordination of Emergency Planning with Local Responders

8. Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 13
Additional items raised in EPA RFI

1. Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis

2. Emergency Drills & Exercises

3. Automated Detection and Monitoring for Releases 

4. Additional Stationary Source Location Requirements

5. Compliance with Emergency Response Program Requirements in Coordination 

with Local Responders 

6. Incident Investigation and Accident History Requirements

7. Worst Case Release Scenario Quantity Requirements for Processes Involving 

Numerous Small Vessels Stored Together

8. Information Sharing

9. Threshold Quantities and OCA Endpoints for Regulated Substances Based on AEGL 

Toxicity Values

10. Program 3 NAICS Codes Based on RMP Accident History Data

11. The “Safety Case” Regulatory Model

12. Streamlining RMP Requirements

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 14
How SERs can help

Helpful Information:

◦ Consider how the options presented might impact your business or 

organization

◦ Provide specific examples of impacts

◦ Provide cost data, if available

◦ Suggest other relevant options; provide data on their costs and information 

on how to ensure compliance

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 15
Potentially impacted small entities

Examples include, but are not limited, to:

◦ Ammonia refrigeration facilities,

◦ Water and wastewater treatment plants (private or government-owned),

◦ Warehouses,

◦ Chemical manufacturers,

◦ Natural gas processing facilities,

◦ Petroleum refineries,

◦ Chemical and petroleum distributors, and

◦ Agricultural wholesale and retail facilities.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 16
RMP Universe of Facilities*

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3

Small Large Small Large Small Large

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg 5 8 0 3 21 119 156

Chemical Manufacturing 32 21 49 15 458 891 1466

Food/Beverage Manufacturing 1 2 6 5 368 1094 1476

Paper Manufacturing 0 1 0 1 5 63 70

Other Manufacturing 33 29 34 39 113 136 384

Agricultural Distributors 9 1 0 0 1564 2093 3667

Chemical /petroleum wholesale 5 15 0 0 160 429 609

Other wholesale 0 5 0 0 100 197 302

Warehouses 11 59 0 0 267 719 1056

Water / POTW 6 10 527 418 463 601 2025

Oil & gas production 88 222 13 28 104 286 741

Other 29 50 66 68 128 249 590

Totals

219 423 695 577 3751 6877

12542 642 1272 10628

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

RMP Facility Type Total

17

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
RMP Accidents (2004 – 2013)*

Category (% of facilities that are small 

business in each category)

P1 P2 P3 Total

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg (15%) 8 0 161 169

Chemical Manufacturing (36%) 6 6 518 530

Food/Beverage Manufacturing (25%) 0 2 268 270

Paper Manufacturing (7%) 0 0 46 46

Other Manufacturing (45%) 1 9 43 53

Agricultural Distributors (43%) 0 0 156 156

Chemical/petroleum wholesale (27%) 2 0 36 38

Other wholesale (34%) 0 0 20 20

Warehouses (27%) 1 0 71 72

Water / POTW (49%) 0 34 41 75

Oil & gas production (27%) 8 1 44 53

Other (38%) 9 5 21 35

Totals 35 57 1425 1517

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 18

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
Overview of Proposed Revisions

P1 P2 P3

Third-party audits (applies to the next scheduled audit after an 

accident) *

√ √

Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with 

accidents/near misses) *

√ √

Safer Alternatives Analysis (applies to a subset of P3 in certain 

NAICS codes) *

√

CoordinatingEmergency Response Program Requirements with 

Local Responders

√ √

Emergency Response Exercises * √ √

Information Sharing * √ √ √

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

* New Proposed Requirement

19
Third-Party Compliance Audits

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must perform compliance audits every 

three years. (Applies to all P2 and P3)

Issue to Address: Self-auditing may be insufficient to ensure compliance with RMP requirements and promote safe stationary source operation and accident prevention. 

◦ Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and EPA have identified a lack of rigorous compliance audits which failed to identify key safety deficiencies as a contributing factor in several accidents (i.e., BP Texas 

City refinery and Citgo Corpus Christi refinery).(See slides 87 in “Additional Information” section for more 

information)

◦ Third-party audits are required by other federal programs to ensure safe operations. For example, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) promulgated revisions to their Safety 

and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS II) requirements, following the BP Deepwater 

Horizon spill, to ensure the safe operations of offshore oil and natural gas drilling and production facilities. (See slides 87-88 in “Additional Information” section for more information)

◦ Industry recognizes the benefits of third-party auditing programs and has established programs and standards for third-party audits for many facilities subject to the RMP rule. Some industry groups, such as SOCMA and the Center for Offshore Safety (COS), require certain types of third- party audits for their members. (See slides 89 in “Additional Information” section for more information)

◦ Research shows that without sufficient safeguards to ensure auditor independence, auditors are 

more likely to provide lenient or biased audit reports that can fail to accurately identify problems 

and violations by the regulated entity. (See slides 90-91 in “Additional Information” section for more 

information)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 20
Third-Party Compliance Audits

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.* 

◦ The scope of the third-party audit shall be the same as the compliance audit 

(i.e., audit prevention program implementation for all covered processes).

◦ The third-party audit shall 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: This audit and its schedule are 

independent of the incident investigation requirement and its schedule.] 

◦ Criteria and standards for third-party auditor competence include: 

◦ knowledgeable with the requirements of the RMP Prevention program 

requirements; 

◦ experienced with the facility type and processes being audited and the applicable 

recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP); 

◦ trained or certified in proper auditing techniques; and 

◦ be a licensed Professional Engineer (PE), or include a licensed PE on the audit team. 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 21

* An RMP reportable accident means an accidental release meeting the criteria in 

§68.42(a) from a covered process at a stationary source
Third-Party Compliance Audits

Independence and impartiality requirements for 

third party auditors and audit teams include: 

◦ Acting impartially when performing all third-party 

audit activities; 

◦ Receiving no financial benefit from the outcome of 

the audit, apart from payment for auditing services; 

◦ Not having conducted past research, development, 

design, construction services, or consulting* for the 

owner or operator within the last 3 years (including 

any “associated” third-party auditors);

◦ Not providing other business or consulting services to 

the owner or operator, including advice or assistance 

to implement the findings or recommendations in an 

audit report, for a period of at least 3 years following 

submission of the final audit report; 

◦ Ensuring all personnel involved on the audit team sign 

and date a conflict of interest statement certify that 

the audit followed the requirements of the rule and 

contains not false statements; and 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 22

* Note- participation in third-party audits does not constitute “consulting” and “future employment” 

for the purposes of this requirement.

◦ Ensuring all personnel involved in the audit do not 

accept future employment* with the owner or 

operator of the facility for a period of at least 3 years 

following submission of the final audit report.

Examples for independence and impartiality 

requirements:

Meets Does Not Meet

Auditor who has audited 

other facilities owned by 

parent company.

Retired employee who 

participated in a corporate 

retirement plan.

Representative on Board of 

Directors for a consultant firm.

Qualified auditors who are 

associated with the company.
Third-Party Compliance Audits

Will auditors who meet these requirements be available and is there data on the pool of auditors that may be available? 

It is not expected that a lot of facilities will need to hire an independent auditor since the requirement only applies after a reportable accident occurs. There are firms that do process safety auditing but there is not a database or number of auditors available. EPA will take comment regarding providing additional flexibility in the criteria if an auditor who meets the criteria cannot be found.

Can EPA set up an industry sharing option (like OSHA’s VPP auditors that use qualified personnel from other facilities or from a different plant) instead of 3rd party for-profit auditing firms?

EPA will not be establishing a industry sharing program for third-party auditors. EPA would not be 

opposed to industry organizing such a sharing option among themselves.

Can EPA provide a training program for internal or external auditor to become certified?

EPA will not be establishing a certification program for third -party auditors.

Will EPA consider other options for third -party compliance audits?

EPA will be taking comments on all the options proposed, including the independence and competence 

criteria and whether these need to be further defined or more flexible or adjusted for maximum 

auditing effectiveness and efficiency (including timeframe for independence criteria). 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 23
Incident Investigations & 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 (includes a “near miss”). (Applies to all P2 and P3)

Issue to Address:

◦ Strengthening incident investigation requirements to identify the underlying 

reasons for a chemical accident which would lead to preventing future accidents 

and ensuring compliance. (See “Additional Information” slides 92-93 for detailed references)

◦ Eliminates the risk of reoccurrence of a particular accident and similar accidents that could result from 

the same system-wide root causes

◦ Current catastrophic release definition (includes a “near miss”) not well defined 

and misinterpreted. 

◦ CSB, industry good safety practices/guidance, EPA and state and local programs 

have all cited support for root cause investigations (See “Additional Information” slides 92-

93 for detailed references)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 24
Incident Investigations & Root Cause 

Analysis

Proposed Revisions (Applies to P2 and P3): 

◦ Propose revisions to “catastrophic release” definition to be consistent with 

reportable accidental release, i.e. an accident with deaths, injuries, 

evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage

◦ Applies to a catastrophic release (i.e., an RMP reportable accident) or an 

incident that could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release (i.e. a 

near miss) 

◦ As part of incident investigation , the owner or operator must complete a 

root cause investigation (i.e. identify the fundamental reasons why an 

incident occurred and the correctable failures in management systems).

◦ EPA would propose to define “root cause” as a fundamental, underlying, 

system-related reason why an incident occurred that identifies a correctable 

failure(s) in management systems.

◦ A report must be completed within 12 months (unless extension approved, 

in writing, by implementing agency)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 25
Incident Investigations & Root Cause 

Analysis

Investigation report would include: ◦ Date, time, location of incident; 

◦ Date investigation began

◦ Incident description in chronological order with relevant facts, 

◦ Regulated substance involved, duration of event, 

◦ Consequences, if any, of event (i.e., death, injuries, # evacuated, # sheltered in place, environmental damage),

◦ Emergency response actions taken

◦ Initiating event, direct and indirect contributing factors, and root causes. Root causes shall be determined by conducting an analysis for each incident using a recognized method

◦ Can use any recognized method or approach. 

◦ Many are explained in CCPS’ Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents

◦ Examples include logic trees, causal factor charting, checklists, root cause trees

◦ Recommendations and a schedule for addressing them. 

No requirement to submit report to EPA, however, facility must keep reports for 5 years.

EPA expects that corrective actions from investigation should be addressed in a reasonable time frame 

and will, as it does in enforcing all other existing requirements, use enforcement discretion to 

determine if the facility was implementing recommendations in a timely manner. 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 26
Incident Investigations & Root Cause 

Analysis-Near Misses

Rule currently requires incident investigations for near misses:

◦ §68.60(a) The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably 

have resulted in a catastrophic release.

◦ §68.81(a) The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably 

have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance. 

EPA is proposing to add the term “near miss” to mean incidents which could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release

Examples include:

◦ Events or unsafe situations that under slightly different circumstances could have resulted in a catastrophic release or had reasonable potential to escalate

◦ Runaway reactions, fires, explosions, or vapor cloud releases that did not result in impacts 

◦ Some process upsets, such as: 

◦ Excursions of process parameters beyond pre-established critical control limits; 

◦ Activation of layers of protection such as relief valves, interlocks, rupture discs, blowdown systems, halon systems, vapor release alarms, and fixed vapor spray systems; and 

◦ Activation of emergency shutdowns. 

EPA will coordinate with OSHA and other agencies as appropriate on explaining the term “near- miss” by continuing staff-level collaboration during rule development and the interagency 

review process. 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 27
Safer Alternatives Analysis

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must develop a PHA to identify, evaluate, and 

control process hazards involving regulated substances. (Applies to all P3)

Issue to Address:

◦ Many RFI comments urged EPA to incorporate safer technologies into the Risk Management Program to 

prevent or minimize the effects of chemical accidents 

◦ Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) guidelines support the use of safer technologies to improve 

chemical safety and reduce risk of chemical accidents (See “Additional Information” slides 96 for detailed 

references)

◦ Various CSB investigations and EPA inspections have indicated that incorporating IST measures could have prevented serious accidents (See “Additional Information” slides 96 and 97 for detailed references on CSB 

reports and recommendations)

◦ Inherently safer technologies are more robust and reliable measures and should be used, if feasible, to 

improve safety (See “Additional Information” slides 99 for detailed references – technical studies and articles)

◦ There are many opportunities for making processes safer and should be seriously considered 

◦ Advances in IST and safer alternatives (See “Additional Information” slides 96 (industry good practices) for detailed 

references)

◦ Adopted by some state and local governments (See “Additional Information” slides 98 for detailed references on State 

programs)

◦ Adopted by some companies (See “Additional Information” slides 96 and 98)

◦ Strengthening PHA requirements to incorporate the full hierarchy of hazard controls

could prevent or minimize the effects of chemical accidents on the local communities, the environment, 

and consumers as well as employees at the facility. (See “Additional Information” slides 98 for detailed references 

and information on State programs and their effects)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 28
Safer Alternatives Analysis

Proposed Revisions would apply to P3 facilities in NAICS codes

◦ 322 (paper manufacturing), 

◦ 324 (petroleum & coal products manufacturing), and 

◦ 325 (chemical manufacturing) 

Requires owner/operator to analyze, as part of PHA, potential safer technologies and alternatives.

◦ Consider, in the following order of preference, inherently safer technology or design, passive measures, active measures, 

and procedural measures. (See “Additional Information” slide 104 for further description of these measures). 

◦ A combination of risk management measures may be used to achieve the desired risk reduction.

◦ Inherently safer technologies 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. 

◦ Determine the feasibility of inherently safer technologies and designs considered.

◦ The PHA would include a description of how the analysis was done, findings and recommendations, and this information 

should be documented and retained at the facility. EPA is not specifying a prescribed level of risk reduction and analysis 

can be done using existing PHA methods (currently in regulations) or other recognized methods for analyzing safer 

technology and alternatives.

EPA would propose to define feasible to mean: 

◦ Capable of being successfully accomplished within a reasonable time, accounting for economic, environmental, legal, 

social, and technological factors. (See “Additional Information” slide 105 for further description of the factors included in 

the feasibility definition). Owner/operator would not be required to implement any prescribed technology, however EPA is 

taking comment on whether implementation should be required.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 29
Local 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. (Applies to all P2 and P3)

Issues to Address: 

◦ States and locals have indicated that some RMP facilities have not adequately coordinated with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and local 

emergency responders. (See “Additional Information” slide 100 for EPA enforcement actions 

and public comments)

◦ CSB accident investigations have identified poor coordination between RMP 

facilities and local responders (See “Additional Information” slide 101 for CSB accident 

investigations)

◦ Provisions intended to clarify existing RMP coordination requirement and supplement existing EPCRA requirements for local emergency planning

◦ EPCRA requires LEPC to develop local emergency plan (For more information about EPCRA, see 

“Additional Information” slide 84) 

◦ RMP requires regulated facilities to coordinate with local responders and if necessary develop facility 

emergency response program & plan

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 30
Local Coordination

Proposed revisions require facilities all P2 and P3 to:

◦ Coordinate annually with the LEPC/emergency responders and ensure response capabilities exist

◦ Document coordination 

◦ Documentation: names & contact information for individuals involved, dates of coordination, and any conclusions/next steps.

◦ LEPC/emergency responders can request facility prepared emergency response program [Note: EPA will take comment on whether procedures are needed to ensure that the request from the LEPC is reasonable and what criteria 

should be considered in those procedures. ]

What is “coordination”?

◦ Facility and local responders meet & discuss response needs, capabilities, and roles:

◦ Determine resources needed to appropriately respond to regulated substance releases at facility

◦ Determine resources available from facility & 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

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 – outcome of coordination indicates that local public response capabilities are not adequate to respond, or local 

authorities request that owner develop ER program. As a result, facility must develop an emergency response program according to Section 68.95 and respond to accidental releases of regulated substances at the facility.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 31
Local Coordination

What if LEPC is not active?

◦ Facility should coordinate with available local emergency responders (e.g., 

fire department) which meet the requirements for this proposal.

Can a facility use external responders other than local public 

responders?

◦ Yes, RMP facilities may meet their emergency response program obligations 

using 

response contractors, mutual aid agreements, etc.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 32
RMP Responder/Non-responder*

Category (% of facilities that are 

small business in each category)

Responder Non-responder % Nonresponder P2 P3 P2 P3 

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg (15%) 1 128 0 12 9%

Chemical Manufacturing (36%) 28 977 36 372 29%

Food/Beverage Manufacturing (25%) 4 958 7 504 35%

Paper Manufacturing (7%) 1 61 0 7 10%

Other Manufacturing (45%) 55 142 18 106 39%

Agricultural Distributors (43%) 0 580 0 3077 84%

Chemical/petroleum wholesale (27%) 0 374 0 218 37%

Other wholesale (34%) 0 89 0 208 70%

Warehouses (27%) 0 557 0 429 44%

Water / POTW (49%) 150 483 795 581 68%

Oil & gas production (27%) 11 238 30 152 42%

Other (38%) 66 216 68 161 45%

Totals 316 4803 954 5827 57%

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 33

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
RMP Responding Facilities*

Category

Program 2 Program 3

Small Large Small Large

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg 0 1 18 110

Chemical Manufacturing 18 10 264 713

Food/Beverage Manufacturing 1 3 200 758

Paper Manufacturing 0 1 5 56

Other Manufacturing 25 30 62 80

Agricultural Distributors 0 0 229 351

Chemical/petroleum wholesale 0 0 68 306

Other wholesale 0 0 22 67

Warehouses 0 0 115 442

Water / POTW 66 84 162 321

Oil & gas production 3 8 53 185

Other 22 44 61 155

Totals 135 181 1259 3544

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 34

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
RMP Non-responding Facilities*

Category

Program 2 Program 3

Small Large Small Large

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg 0 0 3 9

Chemical Manufacturing 31 5 194 178

Food/Beverage Manufacturing 5 2 168 336

Paper Manufacturing 0 0 0 7

Other Manufacturing 9 9 50 56

Agricultural Distributors 0 0 1332 1745

Chemical/petroleum wholesale 0 0 95 123

Other wholesale 0 0 78 130

Warehouses 0 0 152 277

Water / POTW 461 334 301 280

Oil & gas production 10 20 51 101

Other 44 24 67 94

Totals 560 394 2491 3336

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 35

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
Emergency Response Exercises

Current Requirements: No RMP requirement for facilities to 

exercise their emergency response program or plan.

Issues to Address: 

◦ CSB accident investigations indicate that poor emergency response planning 

and execution by RMP facility owners/operators has increased the severity of 

accidents. (See “Additional Information” slide 102 for CSB accident investigations)

◦ Requiring exercises is likely to improve emergency response by facilities and 

community responders and reduce the consequences of an accident on the 

community. (See “Additional Information” slide 102 for Public Comment and Industry 

Guidelines)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 36
Emergency Response Exercises

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 annual 

notification exercise

◦ Require “responding” facilities to conduct field exercise every 5 years 

and tabletop exercise annually in interim years and invite local 

responders to participate

◦ Field exercise 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

◦ Tabletop exercise scope: same as field exercise without actual mobilization of personnel 

& equipment.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 37
Emergency Response Exercises –

Documentation Requirements

◦ Prepare exercise evaluation report within 90 days of each 

exercise.

◦ Report to include:

◦ Description of exercise scenario

◦ Names and organizations of participants

◦ Evaluation of exercise results including lessons learned

◦ Recommendations for improvement or revisions to exercise 

program

◦ Schedule to promptly address and resolve recommendations

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 38
Information Sharing

Current Requirements: Facility RMP must be made available to the 

public and LEPC/first responders (data restrictions apply based on 

security concerns). (Applies to all facilities)

Issue to Address: LEPCs, first responders, and members of the 

public have indicated that (See “Additional Information” slide 103 for EO 13650 

Stakeholder Input and Public Comments) : ◦ Chemical facility information and data-sharing efforts, at the local level, needs 

significant improvement

◦ Improve access and understanding,

◦ Ensure greater transparency without compromising security

◦ LEPCs and first responders need access to the most relevant and actionable 

chemical hazard and risk information for their needs, in a user-friendly format, to 

better support planning and preparedness efforts

◦ Community residents and organizations need basic information regarding 

chemical risks at facilities, presented in a clear and consistent manner

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 39
Information Sharing

Proposed revisions add new disclosure elements for all facilities:

◦ To LEPCs and responders

◦ To general public

◦ Public meetings

The information should be conveyed without revealing CBI or trade 

secret information. 

Any summary information should adequately explain the findings, 

results, or analysis being provided while avoiding technical jargon.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 40
Information Sharing-LEPC

Provide summaries of chemical hazard information:

◦ Information on regulated substances-names and quantities of 

regulated substances held in a process

◦ Five year accident history information (reported under §68.42)

◦ Compliance audits

Summary information would include:

◦ Date of the report; 

◦ Name and contact information of auditor and facility contact person; 

◦ Brief description of the findings and how those findings are being addressed; and

◦ Schedule for addressing each of the findings, as applicable.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTWHAT 41
Information Sharing-LEPC

◦ Incident investigation reports (with root cause findings)

Summary information would include:

◦ Description of the incident and events leading up to it, including a timeline;

◦ Brief description of the process involved; 

◦ Names and contact information of personnel on the investigation team; 

◦ Direct, contributing, and root causes of the incident;

◦ On-site and offsite impacts; 

◦ Emergency response actions taken; and

◦ Recommendations; and schedule for implementing recommendations, as applicable.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTWHAT 42
Information Sharing-LEPC

◦ IST implemented or planned to be implemented, if applicable (note: 

facilities are not required to implement IST, however, if they do, it is useful information for 

LEPCs/first responders to have in their local emergency planning efforts)

Summary information would include:

◦ The RMP process ID and process description, if provided, of the process affected;

◦ Brief description of the IST or ISD and which IST/ISD type of measure best characterizes it: 

minimization, substitution, moderation or simplification; 

◦ Name of the RMP regulated substance(s) whose hazard, potential exposure or risk was or will be 

reduced as a result of the implementation and whether the substance is listed as a toxic or 

flammable. If the chemicals affected are a mixture of flammables, the name “flammable 

mixture” may be used rather than the individual flammable substance names; and

◦ Date of implementation or planned implementation. 

◦ Drill/exercise reports

Summary information would include information on emergency response 

exercises required under §68.96, including:

◦ Schedules for upcoming exercises and 

◦ Reports for completed exercises as described in §68.96(b)(3).

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTWHAT 43
Information Sharing-Public

Provide chemical hazard information:

◦ Regulated substances information. Names and quantities of regulated substances 

held in a process.

◦ Safety data sheets (SDS) for all regulated substances located at the facility. 

◦ Five year accident history information (reported under §68.42)

◦ Emergency response program. Summary information would include:

◦ Whether the source is a responding stationary source or a non-responding stationary source; 

◦ Name, organizational affiliation, phone number, and e-mail address of local emergency response 

organizations with which the owner or operator last coordinated emergency response efforts; and

◦ For “responding stationary sources,” procedures for informing the public and local emergency response 

agencies about accidental releases;

◦ Exercises. Summary information would include information on emergency 

response exercises required under §68.96, including:

◦ Schedules for upcoming exercises, 

◦ Reports for completed exercises as described in §68.96(b)(3), and 

◦ Any other related information.

◦ LEPC contact information, including:

◦ LEPC name, phone number, web address, and email addresses of LEPC contacts, as available. 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTWHAT 44
Information Sharing-Public

Provide information in an easily accessible manner. This includes 

format for scientific terms and ideas. Any of the examples below 

will meet this requirement.

Examples include: 

◦ Posting on a company website,

◦ Posting on public file sharing website, 

◦ Posting on social media website, or

◦ Placing a file at a public library or local government office.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTWHAT 45
Information Sharing

What is an easy format for scientific terms and ideas? 

◦ EPA means an easily accessible format (see previous slide). 

Why share this information with the public?

◦ To improve the public’s awareness of risks to the community and to know what actions to take in the 

event of an accidental release,

◦ To provide assurance to the community that the facility is adequately prepared to properly handle a chemical emergency should it arise, 

◦ To avoid unnecessary public alarm when exercises are conducted. 

◦ NOTE: The proposed provisions would not alter the amount of information shared with the public. 

What about security?

◦ Facility owners or operators should not disclose classified, sensitive, or confidential information.

◦ Information classified by the Department of Defense or other Federal agencies or contractors of such agencies must be controlled in accordance with applicable laws concerning the release of classified information. 

◦ Sensitive information refers to offsite consequence analysis (OCA) information. The proposed rule will require that OCA information be controlled in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 1400 (existing regulations governing RMP OCA 

information, which were published in 2000).

◦ Confidential information means confidential business information (CBI), and the proposed rule will contain specific instructions for 

control of CBI in submissions to LEPCs and in information available to the public. Control of CBI is not a new requirement, as the 

existing rule already contained instructions relating to submission of CBI within an RMP. 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 46
Information Sharing-Public 

Meetings

How frequently are public meetings to be held?

◦ Public meetings are to be held every 5 years or

◦ 30 days after an RMP reportable accident. (EPA is taking comment on this 

timeframe)

Why require public meetings?

◦ To discuss the chemical hazard information that would be provided to the public

◦ Public meetings can provide opportunities for facilities to engage the public to 

address concerns and explain how facilities address risks and prevent accidents

Why require public meetings 30 days after an RMP reportable accident?

◦ To share appropriate information about the accident with the local community, 

and 

◦ Describe the actions taken to prevent a reoccurrence

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 47
Information Sharing

When and where should public meetings be held?

◦ Meetings can be held just about anywhere that space is available. 

◦ Local public libraries, fire stations, city halls, and other public venues may allow space 

to be used for free. 

◦ If multiple facilities want to hold their public meetings together, that is 

also acceptable, as long as all the pertinent information is relayed to 

the public.

◦ Public meetings can be held in concurrence with a regularly scheduled 

LEPC meeting that is open to the public.

How should an owner or operator notify the public about a 

meeting?

◦ Methods of notifying the public about a public meeting can include:

◦ Publishing a notice in a local paper, 

◦ Social media, and/or 

◦ Fliers in public places, like the local library. 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 48
Costs

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 49

Note: Costs are based on modeling of simple and complex facilities.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Total Hours for Contracting Process

Facility Type Management Attorneys Engineers Unit Labor 

Cost

Auditor 

Fee*

Total Unit 

Cost

Simple w/ 0-19 

FTEs 32 4 0 $2,807 $15,000 $17,807

Simple w/ 20-99 

FTEs 44 4 18 $4,701 $15,000 $19,701

Simple w/ 100+ 

FTEs 30 4 56 $5,749 $15,000 $20,749

Complex w/ 0-

19 FTEs 32 4 0 $3,642 $40,000 $43,642

Complex w/ 20-

99 FTEs 44 4 18 $6,209 $40,000 $46,209

Complex w/ 

100+ FTEs 30 4 56 $7,710 $40,000 $47,710

Small Govt 30 0 25 $3,630 $15,000 $18,630

Large Govt 60 0 39 $8,951 $40,000 $48,951

50

Third-Party Compliance Audits

Hourly Assumptions and Unit Costs for Hiring Third Party Auditors

* Auditor 

fee 

information 

based on 

comments 

on the RFI

FTE = Full time Employees
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Incident Investigations & Root Cause 

Analysis

Managers Engineers Production Other 

Costs* Unit Cost

Near Miss -simple 6 4 4 $1,000 $1,785

Near Miss -

complex 12 36 24 n/a $4,937

Accidents -simple 0 4 4 $1,000 $1,335

Accidents -

complex 0 48 0 n/a $3,658

Unit Cost for Root Cause Analysis and Near Miss Investigation

51

* Cost for a trained facilitator to assist with the investigation

For near misses, the estimates include time to conduct an incident 

investigation and root cause.

For accidents, the hourly assumptions include the root cause 

investigation only.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Safer Alternatives Analysis

Sector Labor Hours Total Cost

Initial Analysis Corporate 

Manager Engineer Consultant*

Large facilities 

NAICS 324-325 24 608 n/a $48,754

NAICS 322, 

Small/Medium 324, 

325

16 252 n/a $20,817

Feasibility Analysis Corporate 

Manager Engineer Consultant*

Large facilities 

NAICS 324-325 n/a 80 n/a $6,097

NAICS 322, 

Small/Medium 324, 

325

n/a 80 $8,000 $14,097

52

Hourly Assumptions and Unit Costs for Safer Alternatives Analysis

Hourly labor assumptions for initial analysis and feasibility are based on information 

obtained from engineers with extensive experience in conducting these analyses. 

Feasibility decisions are typically a corporate management function but are included in 

the initial analysis costs.

* No consultant 

estimates for large 

NAICS 322, 324, and 325 

(have in-house 

expertise))
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 53

Facility Type Management Unit Labor Cost

Simple Facilities 4 $300

Complex Facilities 4 $399

Local Coordination

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Coordination with Local Responders

EPA based the hourly estimates on input from EPA regional staff who participate in 

emergency coordination meetings. 
Cost estimates are based on time to:

◦ Develop an emergency response program in accordance with §68.95

◦ Purchase equipment

◦ Train employees

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 54

New Responder Costs
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

New ResponderER Program Development

Facility Type Management Attorney Engineers Production Emergency 

Responders Unit Cost

Simple w/ 0-19 

FTEs 16 0 16 8 0 $2,311

Simple w/ 20-

99 FTEs 16 0 16 8 0 $2,311

Simple w/ 

100+ FTEs 16 0 16 8 0 $2,311

Complex w/ 0-

19 FTEs 32 0 40 32 0 $7,567

Complex w/ 

20-99 FTEs 32 0 40 32 0 $7,567

Complex w/ 

100+ FTEs 32 0 40 32 0 $7,567

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for New Responder Emergency Response Plan Development

55
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

New Responder Equipment Costs*

Item Cost Per Item # of Items Total Cost

Level A Suit $1,750 6 $10,500

Tyvek Suit (bulk pack) $200 1 $200

Cryogenic Gloves $180 10 $1,800

Chemical Resistance Boots $150 6 $900

Vinyl Boot Covers $7.00 6 $42

Neoprene Boot Covers $100 6 $600

Nitrile Rubber Gloves $12 6 $72

Viton Rubber Gloves $10 6 $60

PVC/Nitrile Gloves $56.95 6 $341.70

Self-contained Breathing Apparatus $5,500 6 $33,000

Spare Bottles SCBA $800 6 $4,800

Chlorine Kit “A” $2,300 1 $2,300

Chlorine Kit “B” $2,500 1 $2,500

Non-sparking Tool Kit $900 1 $900

Sledgehammer $55 3 $165

Bolt Cutter $85 1 $85

Sorbent Pad (100/bundle) $64 1 $64

Neutralizer (5 gallon bucket) $436 1 $436

Eye Wash Station $129 1 $129

Plastic Pools $10 3 $30

TOTAL $58,925

* Facility 

equipment costs 

are based on 

EPA’s knowledge 

of emergency 

response 

programs and 

market prices.

56
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

New ResponderPersonnel Training

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for New Responder Personnel Training

Facility Type Management Attorneys Engineers Production Training Fees 

& Travel Unit Cost

Simple w/ 0-19 

FTEs 0 0 72 80 $4,850 $11,107

Simple w/ 20-

99 FTEs 0 0 72 80 $4,850 $11,107

Simple w/ 100+ 

FTEs 0 0 72 80 $4,850 $11,107

Complex w/ 0-

19 FTEs 0 0 96 80 $5,600 $16,241

Complex w/ 

20-99 FTEs 0 0 96 80 $5,600 $16,241

Complex w/ 

100+ FTEs 0 0 384 320 $22,400 $64,964

Local 

Government 0 0 96 80 $5,600 $16,241

The analysis used $450 and $800 for the training fees and $100 per day for travel and expenses.

57
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 58

Notification Exercises

Facility Type Engineers Unit Labor Cost

Simple Facilities 2 $110

Complex Facilities 2 $152

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Notification Exercises
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 59

Tabletop Exercises

Facility Type Management Engineers Production Emergency 

Responders Unit Cost

Simple w/ 0-19 FTEs 24 34 11 26 $5,380

Simple w/ 20-99 FTEs 29 34 28 31 $6,507

Simple w/ 100+ FTEs 61 61 60 48 $12,218

Complex w/ 0-19 FTEs 24 34 11 26 $6,829

Complex w/ 20-99 FTEs 29 34 28 31 $8,301

Complex w/ 100+ FTEs 84 92 98 78 $23,621

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Table-Top Exercises

Costs include planning, exercise, and post-action evaluation and are 

based on EPA regional staff experience in conducting exercises.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 60

Field Exercises

Facility Type Management Engineers Production Emergency 

Responders Unit Cost

Simple w/ 0-19 FTEs 30 38 23 60 $8,209

Simple w/ 20-99 FTEs 48 64 72 87 $13,835

Simple w/ 100+ FTEs 78 68 232 129 $23,111

Complex w/ 0-19 FTEs 30 38 23 60 $10,047

Complex w/ 20-99 FTEs 48 64 72 87 $17,301

Complex w/ 100+ FTEs 136 136 760 192 $65,758

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Field Exercises

Costs include planning, exercise, and post-action evaluation and are 

based on EPA regional staff experience in conducting exercises.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 61

Information for LEPCs

Provision/

Facility Type Management Corporate Management Attorneys Engineers ProductionStaff Unit Costs

Accident History –

Simple 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 $185

Accident History -

Complex 1 1 1 1 0 $390

Audit Report - Simple 2 2 2 4 0 $739

Audit Report -

Complex 4 4 4 8 0 $1,864

Investigation Reports 

- Simple 4 4 2 4 0 $1,054

Investigation Reports 

- Complex 8 4 8 12 0 $3,021

IST – Simple 4 4 4 4 0 $1,258

IST – Complex 8 4 8 16 0 $3,326

Exercise Reports –

Simple 2 1 1 4 0 $555

Exercise Reports -

Complex 2 2 2 8 0 $1,237

Hourly labor and 

unit cost 

estimates for 

the time it 

would take to 

compile 

information and 

provide to LEPCs 
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 62

Information for the Public

Facility Type Management Corporate 

Management Attorneys Engineers ProductionStaff Unit Costs

Small Complex 2 0 0 2 0 $352

Large Complex 8 0 0 8 0 $1,407

Simple 1 0 0 1 0 $130

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Making Information Available to the Public
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 63

Public Meetings

Facility Type Management Engineers Production Other Costs* Unit Cost

Small Complex 

Facilities 8 8 4 $550 $2,123

Large Complex 

Facilities 16 16 8 $550 $3,696

Simple Facilities 8 8 4 $550 $1,706

Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Public Meetings

* Estimated costs for arranging a meeting space
Benefits

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 64
Social Benefits

Four primary social benefit categories associated 

with the proposed rule:

◦ Prevention of future RMP accidents 

◦ Mitigation of future RMP accidents

◦ Improved information 

◦ Prevention and mitigation of future non-RMP accidents at 

RMP Facilities

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 65
Social Benefits

Rule Provision Social Benefits (primary social 

benefit in bold)

Third party audits

Prevention of future RMP facility accidents

Mitigation of future RMP facility accidents

Prevention of future non-RMP accidents at 

RMP facilities

Mitigation of future non-RMP accidents at RMP 

facilities

Root cause analysis

Prevention of future RMP facility accidents

Mitigation of future RMP facility accidents

Prevention of future non-RMP accidents at 

RMP facilities

Mitigation of future non-RMP accidents at RMP 

facilities

Safer technology and 

alternatives analysis

Prevention of future RMP facility accidents

Mitigation of future RMP facility accidents

Prevention of future non-RMP accidents at 

RMP facilities

Mitigation of future non-RMP accidents at RMP 

facilities

Emergency 

coordination

Mitigation of future RMP facility accidents

Improved information

Mitigation of future non-RMP accidents at RMP 

facilities

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 66

Rule Provision

Social Benefits (primary social 

benefit in bold)

Rule Provision Social Benefits (primary social 

benefit in bold)

Emergency exercises Mitigation of future RMP facility 

accidents

Improved information

Mitigation of future non-RMP accidents at 

RMP facilities

LEPC information 

disclosure

Improved information

Mitigation of future RMP facility accidents

Mitigation of future non-RMP accidents at 

RMP facilities

Public information 

availability

Improved information

Mitigation of future RMP facility accidents

Public meetings Improved information

Mitigation of future RMP facility accidents

Bold indicates primary benefit
Benefits

Difficult to accurately project benefits for a rule that 

addresses accidents that are both relatively rare and highly 

variable in their impacts

Reductions in: 

◦ Number of people killed, injured, and evacuated or 

otherwise inconvenienced by sheltering in place; 

◦ Damage caused to property on-site and off including 

product, equipment, and buildings; and

◦ Damages to the environment and ecosystems

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 67
On-Site Impacts by Year

Year Impact 

Accidents

Employee 

Deaths

Employee 

Injuries

Public 

Responder

0r Public 

Injuries

Public 

Responder

0r Public 

Deaths

Value of 

Property 

Damage

2004 197 6 211 46 0 $124,186,397

2005 152 16 370 6 0 $343,100,280

2006 140 3 193 11 0 $181,088,015

2007 204 5 188 60 0 $207,676,070

2008 168 6 194 11 0 $514,472,444

2009 149 5 221 6 2 $87,029,904

2010 128 9 130 5 0 $114,845,119

2011 138 2 127 0 0 $108,642,919

2012 118 1 159 0 0 $86,245,834

2013 123 3 162 3 0 $287,608,254

Annual 

Average

151.7 5.6 195.5 14.8 0 $205,489,524

Total 

Reportable 1,517 56 1,955 148 2 $2,054,895,236

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 68 68
Offsite Impacts by Year

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Year Impact 

Accidents 

with 

Offsite 

Impacts

Number 

of 

Deaths

Hospital 

Visits

People 

undergoing 

Other 

Medical 

Treatment

Number of 

people 

Evacuated

Number 

of people 

Sheltered

in place

Value of 

Property 

Damage

2004 66 0 43 239 5,656 96,958 $1,414,834

2005 54 0 4 32 3,927 135,260 $687,996

2006 53 0 7 26 1,533 11,792 $833,000

2007 61 0 33 212 15,464 32,682 $122,980

2008 45 0 8 74 2,798 4,771 $318,191

2009 44 1 27 37 3,102 8,984 $7,750

2010 36 0 42 112 3,564 4,180 $2,475,500

2011 36 0 2 11 699 47,833 $235,104

2012 36 0 19 14,013 1,008 98,120 $1,536,600

2013 42 0 4 51 838 11,085 $3,720,150

Annual 

Average 47.3 0.1 18.9 1,480.7 3,859 45,167 $1,135,211

Total

Reportable 473 1 189 14,807 38,589 451,665 $11,352,105

69
Monetized Benefits

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 70

Average Impacts per Year and Accident

10-Year Total Ave/Year Average/Accident

On-site

Fatalities 56 5.60 0.037

Injuries 2,103 210 1.386

Property Damage $2,054,895,236 $205,489,524 $1,354,578

Offsite

Fatalities 1 0.10 0.001

Hospitalizations 189 19 0.125

Medical Treatment 14,807 1,481 9.76

Evacuations 38,589 3,859 25.44

Sheltering in Place 451,665 45,167 298

Property Damage $11,352,105 $1,135,211 $7,483

70
Monetized Benefits

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 71

Monetized Accident Costs per Year and Accident

Unit Value 10-Year Total Ave/Year Average/Accident

Onsite

Fatalities $8,583,113 $480,654,328 $48,065,433 $316,845

Injuries $50,000 $105,150,000 $10,515,000 $69,314

Property Damage $2,054,895,236 $205,489,524 $1,354,578

Onsite Total $2,640,699,564 $264,069,956 $1,740,738

Offsite

Fatalities $8,583,113 $8,583,113 $858,311 $5,658

Hospitalizations $36,000 $6,804,000 $680,400 $4,485

Medical Treatment $1,000 $14,807,000 $1,480,700 $9,761

Evacuations $200 $7,717,800 $771,780 $5,088

Sheltering in Place $100 $45,166,500 $4,516,650 $29,774

Property Damage $11,352,105 $1,135,211 $7,483

Offsite Total $94,430,518 $9,443,052 $62,248

Total $2,735,130,082 $273,513,008 $1,802,986

71
Unquantified Accident 

Impacts

Lost product

Emergency response

Cleanup activities

Reduced nearby property values

Environmental impacts

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 72
SER Suggestions from Pre-Panel 

Outreach

Third-party compliance audits:

◦ Consider limiting applicability further:

◦ Apply only to accidents with offsite impacts

◦ Limit to Program 3 facilities

◦ Consider more flexibility on or elimination of independence criteria:

◦ Allowing small businesses to use “associated” auditors

◦ Consider eliminating this option due to the fact that associated auditors are 

more familiar with the processes and can provide a more thorough and 

objective audit.

Incident Investigation/Root Cause Analysis

◦ Consider limited scope/applicability as a root cause analysis may not 

be appropriate for every RMP reportable accident or near miss.

◦ Consider eliminating this option due to the fact that analyzing and 

training to minimize hazards is a business practice already being 

utilized by industry.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 73
SER Suggestions from Pre-Panel 

Outreach

Safer alternative analysis:

◦ Consider limiting requirement to the design stage of a process rather than 

the PHA stage due to high cost of analysis and implementation

◦ Consider eliminating this options due to the fact that:

◦ Existing approved methodologies already provide successful risk mitigation

◦ High labor and resource cost are not justifiable

Local Coordination:

◦ Consider focusing efforts on helping fire departments and LEPCs with their 

responsibilities under EPCRA and getting resources to support the local 

emergency planning efforts rather than adding requirement onto facilities.

◦ Consider addressing violation of existing regulations by enforcing them 

rather than imposing additional requirements on facilities.

Exercises

◦ Consider having Field exercises include off-site activities such as a week of 

training at a reputable fire school 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 74
SER Suggestions from Pre-Panel 

Outreach

Information sharing:

◦ Consider limiting these requirements to:

◦ summaries being provided to LEPCs upon request rather than require submitting all summaries 

to LEPCs

◦ Provision of this information for high risk incidents with offsite effects

◦ One page summaries of each significant chemical hazard which identifies the chemical, it’s 

properties, location, and fire fighting measures which are laminated and available to the 

emergency responders in an emergency

◦ Consider extending time to schedule a public meeting following an accident 

to be 60-90 days rather than 30 days

◦ Consider only having a meeting with LEPCs and emergency responders 60-90 

days after an accident rather than a full public meeting

◦ Consider eliminating this option due to the fact that this is duplicative of 

EPCRA requirements and instead:

◦ improve guidance to SERCs and reformat Tier II information

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 75
Key Next Steps in Panel 

Process

November 4, 2015: Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel 

convened 

November 4, 2015: EPA/OP sent Panel Outreach Package to SERs

November 19, 2015: Panel SER Outreach Meeting

December 3, 2015: SERs submit written comments to SBAC within two 

weeks

December 2015/January 2016: Panel Report is complete and signed by 

the three Panel agencies (EPA/OMB/SBA). 

Panel report will become public when the proposed rule is published in 

the Federal Register.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

76
Questions?

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

77
Additional 

Information

ON CHEMICAL SAFETY AND SECURITY 

REGULATIONS AND THE RMP PROGRAM

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

78
CAA Section 112(r)(3) – Listing Criteria

◦ List at least 100 substances known to cause death, 

injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or 

the environment if accidentally released

◦ Required EPA to use, but not be limited by, EPCRA EHS 

list, with appropriate modifications

◦ 16 specific substances mandated by statute

◦ Listing criteria

◦ Severity of acute adverse health effects

◦ Likelihood of accidental releases

◦ Potential magnitude of human exposure

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

79
Substances Mandated for Listing by CAA

◦ Chlorine

◦ Anhydrous ammonia

◦ Methyl chloride

◦ Ethylene oxide

◦ Vinyl chloride

◦ Methyl isocyanate

◦ Hydrogen cyanide

◦ Ammonia

◦ Hydrogen sulfide

◦ Toluene diisocyanate

◦ Phosgene

◦ Bromine

◦ Anhydrous hydrogen chloride

◦ Hydrogen fluoride

◦ Anhydrous sulfur dioxide

◦ Sulfur trioxide

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

80
Final List of Regulated Substances

◦ 77 toxic & 63 flammable substances listed based on:

◦ Toxicity:

◦ Inhalation LC50 ≤ 0.5 mg/L air

◦ Dermal LD50 ≤ 50 mg/kg body weight

◦ Oral LD50 ≤ 25 mg/kg body weight

◦ Ambient physical state:

◦ Gas

◦ Liquid with vapor pressure > 10 mm Hg

◦ Flammability: NFPA 4 flammability (Flash point < 73oF, Boiling 

point < 100oF)

◦ Production volume & accident history

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

81
Program level 3 NAICS codes*

32211 Pulp mills

32411 Petroleum refineries

32511 Petrochemical manufacturing

325181 Alkali & chlorine manufacturing

325188 All other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing

325192 Cyclic crude & intermediate manufacturing

325199 All other basic organic chemical manufacturing

325211 Plastics material & resin manufacturing

325311 Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing

32532 Pesticide & other agricultural chemical 

manufacturing 

* based on 2002 NAICS listing

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

82
PSM Retail Exemption*

◦ On July 22, 2015, OSHA issued a revised interpretation to the PSM 

retail exemption at 29 CFR 1910.119(a)(2)(i). 

◦ The revised interpretation states that only facilities in NAICS codes 

44 and 45, the retail trade, are eligible for the retail exemption.

◦ When this revision goes into effect, most of the RMP program level 

2 facilities (mostly agricultural chemical distributors) will be subject 

to OSHA PSM and will move from Program level 2 to Program level 

3.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

*https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=29528

83
EPCRA

EPCRA background

◦ Requires Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to 

develop a local emergency response plan based on chemical 

risks in the community

◦ LEPCs can request from facilities information necessary to 

develop the local emergency response plan

◦ Regulated facilities are required to participate in the local 

planning process and provide information to the LEPC

EO activities– under EO 13650, EPA is working to further support SERCs and LEPCs and enhance local emergency 

planning activities and efforts. Activities include:

◦ Providing training and technical assistance

◦ Enhancing responder tools such as CAMEO

◦ Updating guidance & developing fact sheets

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

84
Additional RMP requirements

There are additional RMP requirements not contained in 

PSM, including: 

◦ Management system

◦ Applies to Program 2 and 3 processes

◦ Assign a qualified person or position to be responsible for development, 

implementation, and integration of risk management program elements

◦ Hazard assessment

◦ Offsite consequence analysis: Hypothetical worst-case and alternative release 

scenarios

◦ Five year accident history: Document accidental releases from covered processes 

that resulted in deaths, injuries, significant property damage, environmental 

damage, evacuations or sheltering-in-place

◦ Prepare and submit RMP to EPA

◦ RMP must be updated at least every 5 years or when specified changes occur

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

85
DHS CFATS regulations

Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS) was authorized in the

Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, published at 6 CFR Part 

27 and includes the following requirements:

◦ Chemicals of Interest (COI) list with over 300 chemicals

◦ Most COI derived from existing chemical lists:

◦ EPA RMP list

◦ DOT Hazardous Materials

◦ Poisonous by Inhalation

◦ Explosives

◦ Department of Commerce Chemical Weapons Convention list

◦ Screening Threshold Quantities (STQs) based on release, theft, sabotage

◦ Facilities with COI > STQ must submit Top Screen to DHS

◦ Facilities designated by DHS as high-risk must:

◦ Complete security vulnerability assessment (SVA)

◦ Prepare & implement site security plan (SSP) addressing 18 risk-based performance 

standards (RBPS – listed on slide 39).

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

86
CFATS RBPS

1. Restrict Area Perimeter

2. Secure Site Assets

3. Screen & Control Access

4. Deter, Detect & Delay

5. Shipping, Receipt & Storage

6. Theft & Diversion

7. Sabotage

8. Cyber

9. Response

10. Monitoring

11. Training

12. Personnel Surety

13. Elevated Threats

14. Specific Threats, 

Vulnerabilities or Risks

15. Reporting of Significant 

Security Incidents

16. Significant Security Incidents 

& Suspicious Activities

17. Officials & Organization

18. Records

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

87
RMP Facility Accidents

2004-2013

197

152

140

204

168

148

128

138

118 123

0

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

RMP Facility Accidents

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 88
Third Party Audit Citations

CSB investigation findings that have identified audit deficiencies 

and/or recommended third-party audits: 

◦ CSB Investigation Report, Refinery Explosion and Fire, BP, Texas 

City, Texas, March 23, 2005, Report No. 2005-04-I-TX, March 

2007. http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/CSBFinalReportBP.pdf

◦ The CSB recommended that Citgo complete a third-party audit of all Citgo HF alkylation unit operations after finding that Citgo 

had never conducted a safety audit of hydrofluoric acid (HF) 

alkylation operations at either of its U.S. refineries equipped 

with HF alkylation units in accordance with industry 

recommended practices (CSB. December 9, 2009. Urgent 

Recommendations to Citgo (http://www.csb.gov/csb-issues- urgent-recommendations-to-citgo-finds-inadequate-hydrogen- fluoride-water-mitigation-system-during-corpus-christi-refinery- fire-last-july/)

◦ The CSB recommended that DPC Enterprises, L.P. in Glendale, 

Arizona use a qualified, independent auditor to evaluate DPC’s 

PSM and Risk Management Programs against best practices and 

implement audit recommendations in a timely manner at all 

DPC chlorine repackaging sites following an investigation of a 

November 2003 chlorine release. (CSB. February 2007. Investigation Report, Chlorine Release, DPC Enterprises, L.P., 

Glendale, Arizona, November 17, 2003, Report No. 2004-02-I- AZ.) http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/DPC_Report.pdf

◦ The CSB recommended that Bayer CropScience, LP, in Institute, 

WV commission an independent human factors and ergonomics 

study of all Institute site PSM and Risk Management Program 

covered process control rooms to evaluate the human-control 

system interface, operator fatigue, and control system 

familiarity and training.(CSB. January 2011. Investigation Report, Pesticide Chemical Runaway Reaction Pressure Vessel 

Explosion, Bayer CropScienceLP, Institute, West Virginia, August 

28, 2008, Report No. 2008-08-I-WV.) http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/Bayer_Report_Final.pdf

EPA has required third -party audits in enforcement settlement 

agreements:

◦ Consent Decree, United States v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., E.D. 

Miss., April 4, 2013. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/tyson- foods-inc

◦ Finding of Violation and Administrative Order on Consent, In the 

Matter of Mann Distribution LLC and 3134 Post LLC, Docket Nos. 

RCRA-01-2015-0028 and CAA-01-2015-0029, March 17, 2015. (EPA can provide PDF file)

Required by other EPA rules. Independent third-party audits or other forms of compliance verification are also required in existing EPA rules and EPA rules currently in development to promote compliance with regulatory standards. Examples include:

◦ Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, 

New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, 80 

Fed. Reg. 13671, March 16, 2015. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-16/pdf/2015-03733.pdf

◦ Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products, 78 Fed. 

Reg. 34796, June 10, 2013. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2013-06-10/pdf/2013-13254.pdf

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 89
Third Party Audit Citations (cont.)

Required by Other Federal Programs:

◦ Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) 

Third-Party Programs Final Report(October 22, 2012) 

describes a variety of third-party programs in Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), and Federal Communication 

Commission (FCC) regulations. (McCallister, Lesley. October 22, 2012. THIRD -PARTY PROGRAMS FINALREPORT

(2012), available at http://www.acus.gov/report/third- party-programs-final-report.)

◦ BSEE SEMS II requirements (78 FR 20423; April 5, 2013) incorporate third-party audit requirements in SEMS 

standard, 30 CFR 250, Subpart S. Requires audits be 

conducted by an independent third-party, subject to approval by BSEE, or by designated and qualified 

personnel if the employer implements procedures to 

avoid conflicts of interest. BSEE’s SEMS II revisions to the 

standard require that, by June 4, 2015, the team lead for 

compliance audits must be independent and represent an 

accredited audit service provider. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-05/pdf/2013- 07738.pdf

State Program Citations. Examples include:

◦ Inspection, maintenance, and emissions programs in 

authorized states, (See e.g., Mo. Dep’t of Nat. Res. and 

Mo. State Highway Patrol, First Annual Oversight Report 

of the Decentralized Gateway Vehicle Inspection Program 

(2008), available at 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/gatewayvip/docs/enforcementrp

t.pdf.)

◦ California’s mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting 

program (Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 17 § 95132(b)(4) (2010); see also Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 17 § 95132(b)(1) (describing the firm requirement of having a lead verifier); Cal. Code 

of Regs. tit. 17 § 95132(b)(2) (2010) (describing the lead verifier requirements) and Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 17 §

95132(b)(1)). 

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I047B3A909

A3011E4A28EDDF568E2F8A2?viewType=FullText&origina

tionContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageI

tem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29

◦ Massachusetts Underground Storage Tank (UST) third- party inspection program (MassDEP. 2015. Third-Party Underground Storage Tank (UST) Inspection Program. 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/toxics/ust/t hird-party-ust-inspection-program.html

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 90
Third Party Audit Citations (cont.)

Industry programs:

◦ SOCMA members have a mandatory requirement 

to participate in ChemStewards,® a program 

intended to promote continuous performance 

improvement in batch chemical manufacturing. 

The program offers a three-tiered approach to 

participation. Each tier includes a third-party 

verified management system. (See

http://www.socma.com/ChemStewards/.)

◦ The Center for Offshore Safety (COS) strategy for 

promoting safety and protection of the 

environment includes third-party auditing and 

certification of the COS member company’s 

safety and environmental management systems 

(SEMS) and accreditation of the organizations 

(Audit Service Providers) providing the audit 

services. The third-party audits are intended to 

ensure that COS member companies are 

implementing and maintaining SEMS throughout 

their deepwater operations. (See

http://www.centerforoffshoresafety.org/auditInf

o.html.)

◦ American Chemistry Council (ACC) members are 

required to participate in a Responsible Care 

management system described by ACC as 

including identifying, and acting to address 

potential hazards and risks associated with their 

products, processes, distribution and other 

operations. The Responsible Care management 

system process includes mandatory certification, 

by auditors described by ACC as accredited and 

independent, to ensure the program participants 

have a structure and system in place to measure, 

manage and verify performance. (ACC. 2013. 

Responsible Care Product Safety Code. 

http://responsiblecare.americanchemistry.com/R

esponsible-Care-Program-Elements/Product- Safety-Code.)

◦ American Petroleum Institute (API), in 

collaboration with industry partners, has 

developed a Process Safety Site Assessment 

Program (PSSAP). According to API, the program is intended to provide for the assessment of API 

member sites’ process safety systems by third- party teams of independent, industry-qualified 

process safety expert assessors. (API. 2015. 

Process Safety Site Assessment Programs. See 

http://www.api.org/certification- programs/process-safety-site-assessment- programs.)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 91
Third Party Audit Citations (cont.)

Additional Citations:

◦ Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 

(Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety, March 

2007. CCPS. 

http://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/publicatio

ns/books/guidelines-risk-based-process-safety).

◦ ACUS, in its Recommendation on Agency Use of 

Third-Party Programs to Assess Regulatory 

Compliance (December 6, 2012), found that, 

when well-designed and implemented per the 

Recommendation, “[s]everal broad reasons 

support the growing use of third-party programs 

in Federal regulation.” (Administrative 

Conference of the United States (ACUS); 

Administrative Conference Recommendation 

2012-7; Agency Use of Third-Party Programs to 

Assess Regulatory Compliance (Adopted 

December 6, 2012) at 3-4. 

https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agencyuse-third-party-programs-assess-regulatorycompliance.)

◦ Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party 

Verification, 53 Boston C. L Rev. 1, 21-26 (Jan. 

2012). 

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol53/iss1

/1/

◦ A pair of 2013 studies of independent third-party 

vehicle emission testing in New York considered 

factors impacting third-party independence. 

(Victor Manual Bennet, et al.; Customer-Driven 

Misconduct How Competition Corrupts Business 

Practices; Management Science Vol. 59, No. 8, 

pp. 1725-1742 (August 2013) 

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?nu

m=43347 and Lamar Pierce and Michael W. 

Toffel; The Role of Organizational Scope and 

Governance in Strengthening Private Monitoring; 

Organization Science Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 1558-

1584 (Sept-Oct. 2013).) 

http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/

orsc.1120.0801

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 92
Third Party Audit Citations (cont.)

Additional Citations:

◦ The Public Company Accounting Oversight 

Board (PCAOB) released its third annual 

report on audits of broker-dealers registered 

with the Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC), and found audit deficiencies in portions 

of 70 of the 90 audits. Independence 

problems were found in 21 on the 90 audits. 

(Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; 

Third Progress Report on PCAOB Inspections 

of Broker and Dealer Auditors Shows 

Continued High Number of Findings(Aug. 18, 

2014).) 

http://pcaobus.org/Inspections/Documents/

BD_Interim_Inspection_Program_2014.pdf

◦ In 2014, the New York State Department of 

Financial Services (NYDFS) fined 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) Regulatory 

after finding that PwC improperly altered a 

report submitted to regulators on sanctions 

and anti-money laundering compliance at 

Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi (BTMU). Under 

pressure from BTMU executives who received 

an advance draft of its report to review, PwC 

edited the report, and in the final version of 

the report which was sent to regulators, a 

number of key provisions were deleted or 

otherwise significantly edited. (Press Release: 

NYDFS Announces PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Regulatory Advisory Services Will Face 24-

Month Consulting Suspension; Pay $25 

Million; Implement Reforms After Misconduct 

During Work At Bank Of Tokyo Mitsubishi, 

Aug. 18, 2014.) 

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press/pr14081

81.htm

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 93
Incident Investigation Citations

EPA accident investigations

◦ USEPA. November 1998. EPA Chemical Accident 

Investigation Report, Tosco Avon Refinery, Martinez, 

CA. EPA 550-R-98-009. US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/10003A2E.PDF?D

ockey=10003A2E.PDF

◦ USEPA. August 1999. How to Prevent Runaway 

Reactions, Case Study: Phenol-Formaldehyde 

Reaction Hazards, EPA 550-F99-004. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response. 

http://archive.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/chem/web

/pdf/gpcasstd.pdf

◦ Belke, James C. 1997. Recurring Causes of Recent 

Chemical Accidents. USEPA. 

http://psc.che.tamu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/recurring-causes-of-recentchemical-accidents.pdf

◦ USEPA and OSHA. June 1998. EPA/OSHA Joint 

Chemical Accident Investigation Report, Shell 

Chemical Company, Deer Park, TX EPA 550-R-98-005. 

US Environmental Protection Agency and US 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/100039YA.PDF?D

ockey=100039YA.PDF

Industry good safety practices/guidance

◦ CCPS. March 2003. Guidelines for Investigating 

Chemical Process Incidents, Second Edition, pp.3, 62, 

181, 434. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 

American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 

NY. John Wiley and Sons. 

http://www.aiche.org/ccps/publications/books/guide

lines-investigating-chemical-process-incidents-2ndedition

◦ ACC. October 29, 2014. Comment No. EPA-HQOEM-2014-0328-0694 on Risk Management Program 

Request for Information, PDF p. 43 of 189, from 

American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, DC. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EP

A-HQ-OEM-2014-0328-0694

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 94
Incident Investigation Citations 

(cont.)

EPA inspections and enforcement actions

◦ USEPA. May 29, 2015. USA vs. Millard Refrigerated 

Services, LLC, US District Court for the Southern 

District of Alabama, Civil Action No. 15-186. pp. 9-11, 

and 19-20. Case 1:15-cv-00186-WS-M Document 5. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

06/documents/millard-cp.pdf

See also http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/millardrefrigerated-services-llc-clean-air-act-caa-settlement

State or Local program requirements

◦ Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. 2006. 

California’s Contra Costa County Industrial Safety 

Ordinance, pp. 5, 12-13, 17. See: 

http://cchealth.org/hazmat/pdf/iso/2006_iso_official

_code_complete.pdf

◦ NJDEP TCPA. March 29, 2012. New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection Title 7, 

Chapter 31 Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act Program 

Consolidated Rule Document, pp. 59-60. 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/downloads

/conrulerev9_no%20fonts.pdf

CSB accident investigations

◦ CSB. 1998. Investigation Digest: Morton 

International Explosion, Paterson, NJ, April 8, 1998. 

US Chemical Safety Board, Washington, DC 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/Morton_Digest.pdf

◦ CSB. March 2007. Investigation Report: Vinyl Chloride 

Monomer Explosion, Illiopolis, Illinois, April 23, 2004. 

US Chemical Safety Board, Washington, DC. 

http://www.csb.gov/formosa-plastics-vinyl-chlorideexplosion/

◦ CSB. March 2007. Investigation Report: Refinery 

Explosion and Fire, Texas City, Texas, March 23, 2005. 

US Chemical Safety Board, Washington, DC. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/CSBFinalReportBP.p

df

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 95
Safer Alternatives Citations

CSB accident investigations

◦ CSB. December 9, 2009. CITGO Refinery Hydrofluoric Acid Release 

and Fire, Corpus Christi, Texas. Final Report, Urgent 

Recommendation. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 

Board, Washington, DC. http://www.csb.gov/citgo-refineryhydrofluoric-acid-release-and-fire/

◦ CSB. January 2011. Investigation Report, Pesticide Chemical 

Runaway Reaction Pressure Vessel Explosion, Bayer CropScience, LP, 

Institute, West Virginia, August 28, 2008. Report No. 2008-08-I-WV, 

pp. 88-89.U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 

Washington, DC 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/Bayer_Report_Final.pdf

◦ CSB. July 9, 2008. Investigation Report, LPG Fire at Valero-McKee 

Refinery, Sunray, Texas. Report No. 2007-05-I-TX. U.S. Chemical 

Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Washington, DC 

http://www.csb.gov/valero-refinery-propane-fire/

◦ CSB. January 2014. Regulatory Report- Chevron Richmond Refinery 

Pipe Rupture and Fire, Chevron Richmond Refinery #4 Crude Unit, 

Richmond, California, August 6, 2012. Report No. 2012-03-I-CA. 

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), 

Washington, DC. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/CSB_Chevron_Richmond_Refinery

_Regulatory_Report.pdf

◦ CSB. May 2014. Investigation Report, Catastrophic Rupture of Heat 

Exchanger, Tesoro Anacortes Refinery, Anacortes, Washington, April 

2, 2010. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), 

Washington, DC. See: 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/7/Tesoro_Anacortes_2014-May01.pdf

Industry good safety practices/guidance

◦ CCPS. 2009. Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: A 

Life Cycle Approach, Second Edition, American 

Institute of Chemical Engineers, Center for Chemical 

Process Safety (CCPS) New York, Wiley. 

http://www.aiche.org/ccps/publications/books/inher

ently-safer-chemical-processes-life-cycle-approach2nd-edition

◦ CCPS. July 2010. Final Report: Definition for 

Inherently Safer Technology in Production, 

Transportation, Storage, and Use. Prepared by: 

Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), American 

Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, New York 

for Chemical Security Analysis Center, Science & 

Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD. 

http://www.aiche.org/ccps/documents/definitioninherently-safer-technology

◦ EPA and OSHA. June 2015. Chemical Safety Alert: 

Safer Technology and Alternatives. EPA 550-F-15-503. 

US Environmental Protection Agency and US 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). http://www2.epa.gov/rmp/chemical-safetyalert-safer-technology-and-alternatives

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 96
Safer Alternatives Citations 

(cont.)

EPA inspection/enforcement actions 

◦ EPA News Release. 1/31/2012. South San Francisco 

Food Processing Factory Will Pay Nearly $700,000 in 

Penalties, Spend $6 Million to Update Refrigeration 

System Safety. US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/1c6b8

ee238fd17d185257996005b892f

◦ EPA News Release. 08/14/2013. Abilene Products 

Co., Inc., Agrees to $90,660 Settlement for Violations 

of Clean Air Act at Abilene, Kan., Fertilizer Facility. US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/8BB67

6093B7826FF85257BC7006B3E4C

◦ EPA News Release. 10/1/2012. Settlement with Suiza

Dairy Corporation for Violations at facilities in Puerto 

Rico will make facilities safer, benefit nearby 

communities. US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/319D8

03456BF7B0885257A8A005A4238

◦ USEPA Region 1. 01/20/2104. Consent Agreement 

and Final Order- In the Matter of: Metal Finishing 

Technologies, LLC Docket Number: CAA-01-2013-

0073. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

Boston, MA 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filin

gs/3A95FA64BDE7026C85257C8600214551/$File/CA

FO%20CAA-01-2013-0073.pdf

◦ USEPA Region 1. 09/30/2013. Administrative 

Complaint- In the Matter of: Metal Finishing 

Technologies, LLC Docket Number: CAA-01-2013-

0073. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

Boston, MA 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filin

gs/1BE4A3485C3E1E6B85257C1C0021490D/$File/CA

A-01-2013-0073%20Complaint.pdf

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 97
Safer Alternatives Citations 

(cont.)

State/local program requirements

◦ NJDEP. March 29, 2012. New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection Title 7, Chapter 31 

Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act Program 

Consolidated Rule Document. Pages 16, 64 -65. 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/downl

oads/conrulerev9_no%20fonts.pdf

◦ NJDEP. Revision 1 January 15, 2015. Guidance 

for Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA), 

Inherently Safer Technology (IST) Review. New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), Bureau of Release Prevention, Trenton, 

NJ. See: 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/downloads

/IST_guidance.pdf

◦ Contra Costa County CA. 2006. Industrial Safety 

Ordinance Code, Title 4 – Health and Safety, 

Division 450 – Hazardous Materials and Wastes, 

Chapter 450-8 – Risk Management. Contra Costa 

County, California pp. 5, 21-22. 

http://cchealth.org/hazmat/pdf/iso/2006_iso_of

ficial_code_complete.pdf

◦ CCHS. July 26, 2011. Industrial Safety Ordinance. 

City of Richmond Annual Performance Review 

and Evaluation Report. Contra Costa County 

Health Services (CCHS), Contra Costa County, CA 

http://cchealth.org/hazmat/pdf/iso/iso_report_r

ichmond.pdf

◦ CCHS. February 16, 2013. Annual Performance 

Review and Evaluation- Industrial Safety 

Ordinance. Contra Costa County Health Services 

(CCHS) Contra Costa County, CA. (EPA can 

provide PDF file)

◦ CCHS. December 9, 2014. Annual Performance 

Review and Evaluation- Industrial Safety 

Ordinance. Contra Costa County Health Services 

(CCHS), Contra Costa County, CA. 

http://cchealth.org/hazmat/pdf/iso/isoreport.pdf

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 98
Safer Alternatives Citations 

(cont.)

Technical studies/articles

◦ Orum, Paul and Rushing, Reece. March 2, 

2010. Leading Water Utilities Secure Their 

Chemicals. Center for American Progress, 

Washington, DC. 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/se

curity/news/2010/03/02/7538/leadingwater-utilities-secure-their-chemicals/

◦ M. McCoy. November 9, 2009. Clorox to Stop 

Using Chlorine, Chemical & Engineering 

News, Nov. 9, 2009. 

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/87/i45/8745n

otw2.html

◦ Morris, J. and Hamby, C. May 19, 2014. Use of 

toxic acid puts millions at risk. Center for 

Public Integrity. Washington, DC. 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/02/24/2

118/use-toxic-acid-puts-millions-risk

◦ NAS. 2012. Summary- The Use and Storage 

of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) at Bayer 

CropScience Pgs. 3, 7. National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS), Washington, DC. 

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/staticassets/materials-based-on-reports/reportsin-brief/MIC-Summary-Final.pdf

◦ Paul R. Amyotte, Dustin K. MacDonald, Faisal 

I. Khan. September 2011. An analysis of CSB 

investigation reports concerning the 

hierarchy of controls. Process Safety 

Progress. Volume 30, Issue 3, pp. 261–265. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/p

rs.10461/abstract

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 99
Local Coordination Citations 

EPA inspections and enforcement actions

◦ EPA Press Release. July 20, 2011. National Chemical 

Company will Upgrade Facilities and Pay Fine to 

Settle Clean Air Violations. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab11

24055f3b28525781f0042ed40/9884f5d5e5e6368c85

2578d300642a3e!OpenDocument

◦ EPA Press Release. February 13, 2013. Koch Nitrogen 

Company to Pay $380,000 Civil Penalty for CAA 

Violations at Facilities in Iowa and Kansas. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf66185

25a9efb85257359003fb69d/a9537cb213c0371985257

b1100738628!OpenDocument

◦ EPA Press Release. May 27, 2014. EPA Moves to 

Improve Emergency Planning at Facilities in NJ and 

NY; Inspections Focus on Information on Chemical 

Hazards Needed by First Responders during 

Emergency Responses. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/C6DB6

A8A0918857F85257CE5005FEE24

Public Comments from Emergency Organizations

◦ Gablehouse, T. October 28, 2014. Comment No. EPAHQ-OEM-2014-0328-0679 on Risk Management 

Program RFI, PDF pp. 5-6, National Association of 

SARA Title III* Program Officials ( NASTTPO), Denver, 

CO. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EP

A-HQ-OEM-2014-0328-0679

◦ Elder, M., October 29, 2014. Comment No. EPA-HQOEM-2014-0328-0641 on Risk Management Program 

RFI, Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency 

Response Commission (OHMERC). 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EP

A-HQ-OEM-2014-0328-0641

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 100
Local Coordination Citations

(cont.) 

CSB accident investigations

◦ CSB. January 2011. Investigation Report, Pesticide 

Chemical Runaway Reaction Pressure Vessel 

Explosion, Bayer CropScience, LP, Institute, West 

Virginia, August 28, 2008. Report No. 2008-08-I-WV. 

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 

Washington, DC 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/Bayer_Report_Final

.pdf

◦ See Statement by CSB Chairperson Rafael MoureEraso and Supervisory Investigator Johnnie Banks, 

News Conference, Dallas, TX, West Fertilizer 

Accident. April 22, 2014. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/16/Statement_-

_News_Conference_(Final).pdf

◦ CSB. Investigation Report: Chlorine Release, DPC 

Enterprises, L.P., Festus, Missouri, August 14, 2002. 

Report No. 2002-04-I-MO. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/DPC_Report.pdf

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 101
Emergency Response Exercise 

Citations

CSB accident investigations

◦ CSB. March 2007. Investigation Report: VCM Explosion, 

FPC., Illiopolis, Illinois, April 23, 2004; Report No. 2004-

10-I-IL. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/Formosa_IL_Report.

pdf

◦ CSB. 2015. Final Investigation Report: West Fertilizer 

Plant Fire and Explosion, West, TX, April 17, 2013. 

Report No. 2013-02-I-TX. http://www.csb.gov/westfertilizer-explosion-and-fire-/.

◦ CSB. Investigation Report: Chlorine Release, DPC 

Enterprises, L.P., Festus, Missouri, August 14, 2002. 

Report No. 2002-04-I-MO. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/DPC_Report.pdf

◦ CSB. February 2007. Investigation Report: Chlorine 

Release, DPC Enterprises, L.P., Glendale, Arizona, 

November 17, 2003. Report No. 2004-02-I-AZ. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/DPC2-_Final.pdf

◦ CSB. April 2006. Investigation Report: Toxic Chemical 

Vapor Cloud Release, MFG Chemical, Inc., Dalton, 

Georgia, April 12, 2004. Report No. 2004-09-I-GA. 

http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/MFG_Report.pdf

Public Comment

◦ Gablehouse, T. October 28, 2014. Comment No. EPAHQ-OEM-2014-0328-0679 on Risk Management 

Program RFI, PDF pg 5-6, National Association of 

SARA Title III* Program Officials (NASTTPO), Denver, 

CO. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EP

A-HQ-OEM-2014-0328-0679

Industry Guidelines

◦ CCPS. 2007. Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety. 

American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), NY, Wiley. Pp. 513, 

524-526, 538-540. 

http://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/publications/b

ooks/guidelines-risk-based-process-safety

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 102
Information Sharing Citations 

EO 13650 Stakeholder Input

◦ Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group. 

May 2014. EO 13650 Report to the President – Actions 

to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security – A 

Shared Commitment, pgs. 93-94. 

https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/final_c

hemical_eo_status_report.pdf

Public Comments

◦ CSD. October 20, 2014. Comment No. EPA-HQ-OEM2014-0328-0424 on Risk Management Program RFI, 

pgs.2-3. Center for Science and Democracy. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OEM-2014-0328-0424

◦ MKOPSC. October 29, 2014. Comment No. EPA-HQOEM-2014-0328-0543 on Risk Management Program 

RFI, pgs. 162, 165. Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety 

Center. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OEM-2014-0328-0543

◦ CCHS. October 28, 2014. Comment No. EPA-HQ-OEM2014-0328-0546 on Risk Management Program RFI pg. 

13. Contra Costa County Health Services. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OEM-2014-0328-0546

◦ USW. October 29, 2014. Comment No. EPA-HQ-OEM2014-0328-0547 on Risk Management Program RFI, 

pg. 6. United Steel Workers 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OEM-2014-0328-0547

◦ CPCD. October 29, 2014. Comment No. EPA-HQ-OEM2014-0328-0644 on Risk Management Program RFI, 

pgs. 36-37. The Coalition to Prevent Chemical 

Disasters. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OEM-2014-0328-0644

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 103
Safer Technology and 

Alternatives

◦ Active measures - Risk management measures or engineering controls that 

rely on mechanical, or other energy input to detect and respond to process 

deviations. Examples of active measures include alarms, safety instrumented 

systems, and detection hardware (such as hydrocarbon sensors)

◦ Inherently safer technology or design - Risk management measures that 

minimize the use of regulated substances, substitute less hazardous 

substances, moderate the use of regulated substances, or simplify covered 

processes in order to make accidental releases less likely, or the impacts of 

such releases less severe.

◦ Passive measures – Risk management measures that use design features that 

reduce the hazard without human, mechanical, or other energy input. 

Examples of passive measures include pressure vessel designs, dikes, berms, 

and blast walls. 

◦ Procedural measures - Risk management measures such as policies, 

operating procedures, training, administrative controls, and emergency 

response actions to prevent or minimize incidents.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 104
IST analysis feasibility factors

Feasible is defined as “ . . . capable of being accomplished in a successful 

manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, 

environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” Examples of these 

factors include:

◦ Economic – economically impractical, such that the process unit can no longer be 

financially operated. 

◦ Environmental-may conflict with required environmental permits.

◦ Legal – conflict with existing federal, state, or local laws. May violate a license 

agreement.

◦ Social – negative social impact such that the project should not be implemented. 

Some examples of social impact include the recommendation would have a visual 

or noise impact on the community that is not acceptable and the 

recommendation would cause or increase the traffic congestion.

◦ Technological – may decrease the hazard, but would increase the overall risk or 

may conflict with Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices 

(RAGAGEP). 

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 105