# Risk Management Modernization Rule U PDAT E D N OVE M B E R 23, 2015 ( altered t it le s t o “Ac c ide nt C os t s” on slides 70
- 71, new comment due date of Dec 9 on slide 76 and corrected references to Additional Info slides starting after slide 78) SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PAN E L 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 79 - 81 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 83 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 84 under “Additional Information”) ◦ Local emergency planning and preparedness, emergency release notification, community right -to know: 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 these requirements, see slide 85 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 86- 87 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 o n 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 i tems 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 i tems 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 a udits (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) * √ Coordinating Emergency 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 89 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 89 - 90 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 91 in “Additional Information” section for more informatio n ) ◦ 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 92 - 93 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); ◦ N ot 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 3 rd 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 94 -95 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 94 - 95 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; ◦ D ate 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 not ification 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 % Non responder 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; ◦ B rief description of the process involved; ◦ N ames 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: ◦ S chedules 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: ◦ P ublishing a notice in a local paper, ◦ S ocial media, and/or ◦ F liers 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 EmployeesOFFICE 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 CostsOFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

# New Responder
ER 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

55OFFICE 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.

56OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

# New Responder
Personnel 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. 57OFFICE 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 ExercisesOFFICE 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 Production Staff 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 LEPCsOFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 62 

# Information for the Public

Facility Type Management Corporate Management Attorneys Engineers Production Staff 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 PublicOFFICE 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

# Accident Costs

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

# Accident Costs

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: ◦ A llowing 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 9, 2015: SERs submit written comments to SBAC (Submit via email to free.laura@epa.gov, unless your submission contains CBI. If your submission contains CBI, call Laura Free at 202 - 564 -2653 before submitting anything.) 

## 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 LD 50 

## ≤ 50 mg/kg body weight ◦ Oral LD 50 

## ≤ 25 mg/kg body weight 

# ◦ Ambient physical state: ◦ Gas ◦ Liquid with vapor pressure > 10 mm Hg 

# ◦ Flammability: NFPA 4 flammability (Flash point < 73 o 

# F, Boiling point < 100 o 

# F) ◦ 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 CropScience LP, 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 P ROGRAMS F INAL R EPORT (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/agency use-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 - 2nd edition ◦ 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/millard refrigerated - 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 - chloride explosion/ ◦ 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 - approach 2nd - 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/definition inherently- 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/iso report.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 Moure Eraso 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- OEM 2014- 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- OEM 2014- 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- OEM 2014- 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- OEM 2014- 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