Summary of Discussion on RMP Proposed Rule

3/24/16

Meeting:

EPA’s Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) - Cleaning Up Our Communities (CUOC) Workgroup 

Monthly Teleconference

Date: 

3/24/16, 12:00-1:00 pm

Participants:

Jill Duson, CUOC Chairwoman -- City Councilor, Portland, ME

Carolyn Peterson –County Commissioner, Ithaca, NY

Manna Jo Greene – County Legislator, Ulster County, NY

Steve Williams –Mayor, Huntington, WV

Brad Pierce – City Councilor, Aurora, CO

Reggie Cheatham–Director, Office of Emergency Management, 

Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), USEPA

Jackie Harwood – OLEM, Office of Communication, Partnerships, and Analysis

Jack Bowles –Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR), USEPA

DemondMatthews – OCIR

Materials:

Powerpoint presentation (attached)

Summary of Discussion and Comments:

• Reggie Cheatham went through the attached PowerPoint presentation and asked if there were 

any questions. 

• None of the participants had questions or comments.

• Chairwoman Jill Duson ended the discussion by suggesting to her subcommittee that they 

review the information in greater detail and provide formal subcommittee comments before the 

end of the comment period.

• County Commissioner Carolyn Peterson agreed with the Chairwoman and suggested they share 

the information with the LGAC EJ Subcommittee in case they wanted to submit comments as 

well.
Risk Management 

Modernization 

Rule 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Agenda

Background 

Overview of proposed rule provisions and costs

Additional resources 

Questions

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2
Background

On August 1, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 

13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security following several 

catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States. 

◦ Focus is to reduce risks associated with hazardous chemicals to owners and 

operators, workers, and communities by enhancing the safety and security of 

chemical facilities.

The keys areas of emphasis under the EO are:

◦ Strengthening community planning and preparedness,

◦ Enhancing federal operational coordination,

◦ Improving data management, and

◦ Modernizing policies and regulations.

◦ EPA issued a request for information (RFI) on July 31, 2014, and 

◦ Convened a Small Business Advocacy Review panel on November 4, 2015.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 3
Existing regulatory framework

The Risk Management Program is one of several programs that 

address chemical facility safety and security:

◦ OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard-Management program 

for highly hazardous chemicals aimed at preventing and minimizing 

occupational/onsite exposure

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

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-Facility owner/operators have a 

general duty to prevent and minimize releases

◦ Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS)-DHS security 

requirements 

◦ ATF requirements for explosives

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

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 4 4
Risk Management Program rule

◦ Promulgated in 1996 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments

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

threshold quantity of a regulated substance (approx. 12,500 sources)

◦ Includes a wide variety of industry sectors, including: refining, chemical 

manufacturing, energy production, ammonia refrigeration, water treatment, bulk 

storage, chemical distribution, agricultural retail, and chemical warehouses 

◦ Requires the source to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) 

◦ Addresses elements aimed at preventing accidental releases and reducing the 

severity of releases that occur

◦ Prepare and submit an RMP to EPA at least every 5 years

◦ Covered processes fall within one of three prevention program levels based on:

◦ The potential for offsite consequences from a worst-case accidental release;

◦ Accident history; and

◦ Regulation under OSHA PSM

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 5
Program levels

PROGRAM 1

642 Facilities

PROGRAM 2

1,272 Facilities*

Processes not eligible 

for Program 1, not 

subject to Program 3

◦ Mainly water & 

wastewater treatment in 

Federal OSHA states

◦ Additional hazard 

assessment, accident 

prevention, management, 

and emergency response 

requirements

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

*Analysis reflects OSHA change to PSM retail exemption issued July 2015

6

Processes subject to 

OSHA’s PSM or in one of 

10 specified NAICS 

codes

◦ Larger facilities or those 

with complex processes

◦ Examples include: refining, 

chemical manufacturing, 

energy production, water 

treatment

◦ Must use OSHA’s PSM as 

accident prevention 

program and include 

additional hazard 

assessment, management, and 

emergency response 

requirements

PROGRAM 3

10,628 Facilities*

Processes that would 

not affect the public in 

the event of a worst- case release & no 

accidents with offsite 

consequences in the last 

five years

◦ Small quantities of 

flammables, less volatile 

toxics

◦ Limited accident 

prevention including 

hazard assessment and 

emergency response 

requirements
Program level comparison

PROGRAM 1 PROGRAM 2 PROGRAM 3

• Worst case analysis

• 5-year accident history

• Document management 

system

• Worst case analysis

• 5-year accident history

• Document management system

• Worst case analysis

• 5-year accident history

• Document management system

Prevention Program

Certify no additional 

prevention steps needed

• Safety information

• Hazard review

• Operating procedures

• Training

• Maintenance

• Incident investigation

• Compliance audit

• Process safety information

• Process hazard analysis (PHA)

• Operating procedures

• Training

• Maintenance

• Incident investigation

• Compliance audit

• Management of change 

• Pre-startup review 

• Contractors

• Employee participation

• Hot work permits

Emergency Response Program

Coordinate with local 

responders

Develop plan/program and 

coordinate with local responders

Develop plan/program and 

coordinate with local responders

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 7
Overview of Proposed Revisions

P1 P2 P3

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

accident) [Estimated 150/year]

√ √

Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with 

accidents/near misses) [Estimated 150/year]

√ √

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

NAICS codes) [Estimated 1,692 Facilities/4,308 Processes]

√

CoordinatingEmergency Response Program Requirements with 

Local Responders

√ √

Emergency Response Exercises √ √

Information Sharing √ √ √

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 8
Third-party compliance audits

Proposed revisions require all P2 and P3 facilities to conduct a thirdparty audit in lieu of a compliance audit following an RMP reportable 

accident.* 

◦ Must be completed within 12 months of an RMP reportable accident or 

within 3 years of completion of the previous compliance audit, whichever is 

sooner. 

◦ Note that this audit and its schedule are independent of the incident investigation 

requirement and its schedule.

◦ Same scope as the current compliance audit provisions (i.e., audit 

prevention program implementation for all covered processes).

◦ EPA is proposing criteria for auditor independence, impartiality, and 

competence.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 9

* RMP reportable accident means an accidental release meeting the criteria in §68.42(a) 

from a covered process at a stationary source.
Incident investigations and 

root cause analysis

Proposed Revisions (Applies to P2 and P3): 

◦ Revise incident investigation requirements to:

◦ Clarify that it 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) 

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

incident occurred and the correctable failures in management systems)

◦ Require a report be completed within 12 months (unless extension approved, in 

writing, by implementing agency)

◦ Clarify the definition of catastrophic release to be consistent with reportable 

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

sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage

◦ Add a definition of root cause to mean a fundamental, underlying, systemrelated reason why an incident occurred that identifies correctable failure(s) 

in management systems

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 10
Safer technology and 

alternatives analysis (STAA)

Would apply to P3 facilities in NAICS 

codes:

◦ 322 (paper manufacturing), 

◦ 324 (petroleum & coal products 

manufacturing), and 

◦ 325 (chemical manufacturing) 

The STAA would consider, in the 

following order of preference:

◦ Inherently safer technology (IST) or design, 

◦ Passive measures, 

◦ Active measures, and 

◦ Procedural measures

ISTs are those measures that reduce or 

eliminate the hazards and include 

minimization, substitution of less 

hazardous chemicals, moderation of 

the process, and simplification of the 

process/procedures

Owner/operator would not be 

required to implement any prescribed 

technology, however EPA is requesting 

comment on whether the rule 

should require implementation

EPA is proposing several

definitions including feasible

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 11

Proposed revisions to require the source to conduct a STAA and 

determine feasibility of inherently safer technologies and designs 

considered:
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 

◦ LEPC/emergency responders can request source to prepare an emergency response 

(ER) program

What are the outcomes of “coordination”?

◦ “Non-responding” source – coordination 

indicates that local public response 

capabilities are adequate to respond, 

appropriate notification mechanisms are in 

place, and local authorities have not 

requested that owner develop ER program

◦ “Responding” source –coordination indicates 

that local public response capabilities are not 

adequate to respond, or local authorities 

request that owner develop ER program 

◦ Facility must develop an emergency 

response program following § 68.95

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 12

What is “coordination”?

◦ Facility and local responders meet & 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
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 an annual notification exercise

◦ Require “responding” facilities to conduct the field and tabletop exercises and 

invite local responders to participate:

Tabletop exercise

◦ Frequency: Annually except in the year 

of a field exercise

◦ Scope: Same as field exercise without 

actual mobilization of personnel & 

equipment

An exercise evaluation report must be 

completed within 90 days

of each exercise.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

13 OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 13

Field exercise

◦ Frequency: Every 5 years and within one 

year following a reportable accident

◦ Scope: Test procedures for notification, 

evacuation, medical treatment, 

communications systems, emergency 

response personnel mobilization 

(including contractors, if appropriate), 

coordination with local responders, 

equipment deployment, and other actions 

identified in ER program as appropriate
Information sharing

Proposed revisions add new disclosure elements for all facilities:

◦ To LEPCs and emergency responders

◦ To general public

◦ Public meetings within 30 days of an RMP reportable accident

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 LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 14
Information sharing-LEPC

Require summaries of chemical hazard information to be provided to 

LEPC or local emergency response official, upon request:

◦ Information on RMP regulated substances−names and quantities of regulated 

substances held in a process

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

◦ Compliance audits

◦ Incident investigation reports (with root cause findings)

◦ IST implemented or planned to be implemented, if applicable

◦ No requirement to implement, but if a source does implement ISTs it is 

useful information for LEPCs/first responders to have in their local 

emergency planning efforts

◦ Exercises, including schedules and reports

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 15
Information sharing-public

Require chemical hazard information to be provided in an easily 

accessible manner (i.e. posting on a company website, public file sharing 

website, or social media website, or placing a file at a public library or local 

government office)

◦ Names of RMP regulated substances held in a process

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

facility

◦ Emergency response program summary information 

◦ Five-year accident history information reported under §68.42

◦ Exercise summary information

◦ LEPC contact information

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 16
Information sharing- public meetings

Proposed revisions would require a public meeting to be held within 30 

days of an RMP reportable accident and addresses:

◦ Information about the accident;

◦ Other relevant chemical hazard information (such as what would be provided 

to the public)

Can be held in concurrence with a regularly scheduled LEPC meeting that 

is open to the public

Facilities must notify the community about the public meeting and can 

use various methods including: 

◦ Publishing a notice in a local paper, 

◦ Social media, and/or 

◦ Fliers in public places, like the 

local library

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 17
OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Estimated unit costs (in actual $)*

Type of Cost Estimated 

Compliance Cost* Notes

Third-party Compliance 

Audits $18,000 to $49,000 Applies to facilities with P2 and P3 processes after an RMP reportable accident.

Incident Investigation Root 

Cause Analysis $2,000 to $5,000 Applies to facilities with P2 and P3 processes only after an RMP reportable accident or a near miss.

STAA $29,000 to $49,000 

per process

Applies to facilities in select NAICS codes with P3 processes. 

Occurs once every 5 years.

Coordination with local 

responders $300 to $400 Applies to P2 and P3 facilities. Occurs annually.

New Responder Costs(estimated costs that may apply if a current non-responding facility becomes a responding facility as a 

result of local coordination activities)

Develop Plan $2,000 to $8,000 Initial year costs. New responders will also be subject to 

exercises costs below. Train employees $11,000 to $65,000

Purchase equipment $50,000 to $60,000

Emergency Response Exercises (P2 and P3)

Notification drills $100 to $200 Applies to both responders and non-responders. Occurs 

annually.

Tabletop exercises $5,000 to $24,000 Applies to responding facilities. Tabletop exercises occur 

annually except in the year of a field exercises which occurs 

once every five years. Field exercises $8,000 to $66,000

Information Sharing (All RMP facilities)

LEPC/local responders $4,000 to $10,000

These ranges represent the combined costs for all required 

reports. Costs will vary on an annual basis based on which 

reports must be submitted.

Public $200 to $1,600 Update annually.

Public meetings $2,000 to $4,000 After an RMP reportable accident.

* Sources for 

estimates 

include 

technical 

literature, 

public 

comments, 

other similar 

programs, 

RMP database, 

and EPA labor 

models 

18
Additional resources

RMP rule webpage: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed-changes-riskmanagement-program-rmp-rule

EO activities under EO 13650: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/executiveorder-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security

A copy of EO 13650 is available at: 

https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html.

A copy of the Report to the President: Actions to Improve Chemical 

Facility Safety and Security–A Shared Commitment is available at 

https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html.

A copy of the EPA RFI is available at 

https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-18037.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 19
Questions?

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

20