1 CCPS Global Congress on Process Safety Houston, TX April 13, 2016
E xecutive 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 Ini tiative 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 R isk Management Program (R MP ) regulation

. Thank s to those of you who sent us comments. For the numerous topics presented, w e 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 Marc h 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 involv ing the accident prevention program is:

• Third Party Compliance Audits

Currently, facility owners/oper ators 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 con duct its next scheduled compliance audit.

The third party audit m ust 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 an d its schedule.

The third party audit would have the s ame 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, imp artiality, and competence.

The second accident prevention modification is:

• Incident Investigation/Root Cause Analysis

-3 Currently, f acility owners/operators with Program 2 or 3 processes must conduct an incident investigation following an incident that r esulted 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 cause s with root cause defined

as a fundamental, underlying, system

- related reason why an incident occurred that identifies correctabl e 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, f acility 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 w ould apply only to P rogram 3 facilities in: Paper Mfg.; Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg.; and Chemical Mfg.

o The STAA would consider, in the following orde r 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 chemical s , mod eration of the process, and simplification of the process or procedures.4 An o wner/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 tw o topics involve the emergency response program. First:

Coordination with Local Responders:

Under c urrent r equirements

, 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 Program s 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

.

Th is annual coordination would increase facility communication with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and clarify response needs, emergency plans, roles, and responsibilities.

The second emergency re sponse topic is:

• Emergency Response Exercises:

Currently, t here 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 Availability

Currently:

o Only emergency respons e 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 propo sed 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 information6 o Summaries of emergency response program and emergency exercises (for responding RMP facilities only)

The p roposed 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 LEP C 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 f inalize 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 a udience (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 regula tions. 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 ru le 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 p ublic 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 loc al emergency responders or the fire department for emergency response planning for a chemical release.