1

CCPS Global Congress on Process Safety

Houston, TX April 13, 2016

Executive Order 13650 -Improving Chemical Safety and Security: An Update

Risk Management Program Proposed Rule EPA – Kathy Franklin

Slide 1: EPA Proposed Modifications to RMP Rule

• Third party compliance audits

• Incident investigation/root cause analysis

• Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)

• Coordination with Local Responders

• Emergency Response Exercises

• Information Availability 

Slide 2: RMP NPRM Information

• NPRM published in FR on 14 March, 2016

• Rule and supporting materials available at public docket

– www.regulations.gov, docket ID# EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725

• 60-day public comment period ends 13 May, 2016

– Please submit comments via regulations.gov

Slide 3: EPA Plans and Priorities

• Finalize Proposed RMP Modernization Rule

• Prepare to implement (beginning in Oct 2016) National Enforcement 

Initiative for Chemical Accident Prevention-Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) Led Project 

• Develop additional guidance materials with OSHA (Safer Technology and 

Alternatives, Root cause analysis)

• Develop Oil and Gas Production Safety Alert

Risk Management Program Proposed Rule EPA – Kathy Franklin:
2

o EPA issued a request for information (RFI) back in July 2014 seeking public 

comment on updating its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulation. Thanks to 

those of you who sent us comments. For the numerous topics presented, we paired 

down and focused on the items that were priorities of the administration and our 

stakeholders. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal 

Register on March 14, 2016. Comments on the proposed rule are due by May 13, 

2016. EPA prefers to have comments submitted via regulations.gov website, docket 

number will be provided on a slide.

o The EPA proposed modifications to the RMP Rule include 6 types of 

modifications involving three parts of the RMP program: accident prevention, 

emergency response, and availability of information:

o The first topic involving the accident prevention program is:

• Third Party Compliance AuditsCurrently, facility owners/operators must perform compliance audits every three years.

EPA proposes, that in the event of an RMP reportable accident, a facility in Program 2 or 

3 would use an independent third party to conduct its next scheduled compliance audit. 

The third party audit must be completed within 12 months of the accident or within 3 

years of completion of the previous compliance audit, whichever is sooner. 

Note that this third party audit and its schedule would be independent of the incident 

investigation requirement and its schedule.

The third party audit would have the same scope as the current compliance audit 

provisions, (covering implementation of the prevention program for all covered 

processes).

EPA is proposing criteria for third party auditor independence, impartiality, and 

competence.

The second accident prevention modification is:

• Incident Investigation/Root Cause Analysis-
3

Currently, facility owners/operators with Program 2 or 3 processes must conduct an 

incident investigation following an incident that resulted in or could reasonably have 

resulted in a catastrophic release.

EPA’s proposal clarifies the definition of catastrophic release to be consistent with an 

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

sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage).

The investigation would require analysis to identify root causes with root cause defined 

as a fundamental, underlying, system-related reason why an incident occurred that 

identifies correctable failure(s) in management systems. 

The incident investigation report must be completed within 12 months (unless an 

extension is approved, in writing, by implementing agency)

The third accident prevention topic is:

• Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)-

Currently, facility owners/operators must develop a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) to 

identify, evaluate, and control process hazards involving regulated substances.

The proposed revisions would require the facility to conduct a STAA and determine 

feasibility of any inherently safer technologies and designs considered:

o This provision would apply only to Program 3 facilities in: Paper Mfg.; Petroleum 

and Coal Products Mfg.; and Chemical Mfg.

o The STAA would consider, in the following order of preference:

Inherently safer technology or design or IST, 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 or procedures.
4

An owner/operator would not be required to implement any prescribed technology; 

however EPA is requesting comment on whether the rule should require such 

implementation.

The next two topics involve the emergency response program. First:

Coordination with Local Responders:

Under current requirements, facilities must develop an emergency response program 

unless the community emergency response plan addresses toxic substances at the facility, 

and response actions for flammable substances have been coordinated with the local fire 

department. 

The proposed revisions would require all facilities in Programs 2 and 3 to have an annual,

documented coordination with the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPCs) or 

emergency responders and ensure that response capabilities exist.

LEPCs/emergency responders may request that a facility prepare an emergency response 

(ER) program.

This annual coordination would increase facility communication with Local Emergency

Planning Committees (LEPCs) and clarify response needs, emergency plans, roles, and 

responsibilities.

The second emergency response topic is:

• Emergency Response Exercises:

Currently, there are no requirements for emergency response exercises.

The proposal would require:

• All facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes would perform annual notification 

exercises. 
5

• Responding facilities (those required to have an emergency response program) 

would conduct annual tabletop emergency response exercises and conduct a field 

exercise every 5 years. 

• Responding facilities that have had an RMP reportable accident would also have 

to conduct a full field exercise within a year of the accident, and the facility 

should invite local responders to participate.

The last item on the list involves information availability.

• Information AvailabilityCurrently:

o Only emergency response and other govt. officials can access the RMP data via a 

non-public EPA database.

o Public can access non-sensitive RMP data in Federal Reading Rooms or by FOIA 

request.

o Public access to the sensitive worst case scenario off-site consequence analysis 

(OCA) data is restricted to viewing only in Federal Reading Rooms.

The proposed revisions would require the following information to be provided to the 

LEPC or local emergency response official, only upon request:

o Names and quantities of RMP regulated substances held in a process

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

o Summaries of compliance audits, incident investigation reports, emergency 

exercises and any IST implemented or planned to be implemented, if applicable.

The proposed revisions would also require the following to be provided to the public in 

an easily accessible manner (i.e., posting on a website or making it available at a library 

or other accessible location).

o Chemical Names and safety data sheets of RMP regulated substances held in a 

process

o Five-year accident history information reported under §68.42

o Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) contact information
6

o Summaries of emergency response program and emergency exercises (for 

responding RMP facilities only)

The proposed revisions would require a public meeting to be held within 30 days of an 

RMP reportable accident and should address information about the accident and other 

relevant hazard information.

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

is open to the public

Facilities must notify the community about the public meeting and can use various 

notification methods.

In closing, here are priorities for HQ EPA through the remainder of 2016:

• We hope to finalize the proposed RMP Modernization Rule. 

• EPA also hopes to develop additional guidance materials with OSHA on topics 

such as IST and Root Cause Analysis. EPA also plans an Alert on Oil and Gas 

production safety.

• Also, beginning in October 2016 and beyond, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) will have a National Enforcement Initiative to 

focus on reducing the risk of accidental releases from RMP facilities. 

Follow up questions and answers from the audience (approximately 100 

attendees)

Q: In the proposed rule, why did EPA not address adding ammonium nitrate to the list of 

regulated substances?

A: OSHA and DHS are both considering possible changes for coverage of ammonium nitrate 

under their regulations. EPA decided to wait and see how they might address ammonium nitrate 

before it considers making any changes to the RMP list of substances. EPA may consider 

coverage of ammonium nitrate in some future rulemaking.

Q: What changes were made to the rule based on input from the small business review? 

A: EPA made changes to the information availability requirements for LEPC- additional 

chemical hazard information is required to be provided to the LEPC upon if it requests it. EPA 

also is requiring a public meeting only after an RMP reportable accident, and not every 5 years.
7

Q: How should facilities address coordination with LEPC if an LEPC is not active?

A: If an LEPC is not active or responsive, a facility should communicate and coordinate with 

local emergency responders or the fire department for emergency response planning for a 

chemical release.