Risk Management 

Modernization 

Rule 

Presented at Small Business Administration Environmental Roundtable

By Patty Gioffre and Kathy Franklin, Office of Emergency 

Management,USEPA

APRIL 22, 2016

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
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 (SBAR) panel on November 4, 2015.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2
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 140 regulated substances (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 

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

◦ 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 Process Safety Management Standard (PSM)

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 3
OSHA Process Safety 

Management Standard (PSM)

◦ Process safety management program for highly hazardous chemicals aimed at 

preventing and minimizing occupational/onsite exposure

◦ Authorized by Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

◦ OSHA PSM standard found at 29 CFR part 1910.119

◦ Focuses on protecting workers from chemical accidents 

◦ Promulgated in 1992

◦ OSHA also considering revisions of the PSM standard and has initiated a Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel. For more info, see: 

https://www.osha.gov/dsg/psm/index.html

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

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

framework for prevention of catastrophic 

chemical accidents at fixed facilities

4
RMP Program level applicability

PROGRAM 1

642 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 2

1,272 Facilities*

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

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

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

5

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

◦ Covered by OSHA’s PSM 

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
RMP 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 6
Proposed 

Revisions

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 7
Key Dates

RFI

SBAR Panel

◦ Formal notification 

◦ Pre-panel outreach 

◦ Panel convened 

◦ Panel outreach 

◦ Report signed 

Proposed rule published

Public hearing

Tribal consultation

Comment period ends

Final rule

July 31, 2014

July 10, 2015

September 22, 2015

November 4, 2015

November 19, 2015

February 19, 2016

March 14, 2016

March 29, 2016

April 20 and 26, 2016

May 13, 2016

TBD

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 8
Overview of RMP Proposed Revisions

P1 P2 P3

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

accident) [Estimated 150 accidents/year]

√ √

Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with 

accidents/near misses) [Estimated 300 incidents/year]

√ √

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

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

√

Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements 

with Local Responders

√ √

Emergency Response Exercises √ √

Information Sharing √ √ √

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 9

*Applies to paper manufacturing, petroleum and coal products manufacturing, and 

chemical manufacturing facilities 
Third-party compliance audits

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must perform 

compliance audits every three years.

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. 

◦ 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 10

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

from a covered process at a stationary source (i.e., includes accident with deaths, 

injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage).
Third-party compliance audits

SBAR Feedback

◦ Eliminate provision

◦ Limit applicability

◦ Revise or eliminate independence criterion

◦ Concerns with Professional Engineer (PE) criterion

◦ Concerns with auditor availability

◦ Security

EPA anticipates minimal impacts on small businesses

◦ Applies only after an RMP reportable accident (i.e., only those accidents with 

deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or 

environmental damage)

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 11
Third-party audits

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Consider streamlined independence requirements for 

small businesses 

Limit the independence criteria to individuals 

participating in the audit rather than the entire 

company 

Seek comment on:

◦ Eliminating the independence requirement

◦ Limiting applicability to Program 3 facilities, 

triggered by major accidents that have offsite 

impacts 

◦ Deleting the current PE requirement and 

considering other independent accreditation for 

third-party auditors 

◦ The impacts on facility security and measures to 

protect facilities from terrorism or release of CBI 

from a third-party auditor

SBA RECOMMENDATIONS

EPA should follow Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 

approach for small firms, using a simplified 

small business size standard

Small firms should be allowed to submit a 

waiver request of the independence 

requirement, based on consideration of the 

specific facts, such as the limited availability 

of qualified independent auditors 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 12
Incident investigations and 

root cause analysis

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must conduct incident 

investigations following an incident that resulted in or could reasonably 

have resulted in a catastrophic release.

Proposed revisions (Applies to P2 and P3): 

◦ Clarify/emphasize current investigation requirements for incidents that could 

reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release. Add the term “near miss” to 

regulations with examples in preamble. 

◦ 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)

◦ Require a root cause investigation and define root cause to mean a fundamental, 

underlying, system-related reason why an incident occurred that identifies 

correctable failure(s) in management systems

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

writing, by implementing agency)

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 13
Incident investigations and 

root cause analysis

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Clarify its intent that incident investigations are 

not intended to cover minor accidents or minor 

near misses 

Consider requiring root cause analysis only for 

reportable releases, not including near misses 

Clarify in the preamble the comparative 

advantages of a root cause analysis to the current 

incident investigation requirements 

Seek comment on:

◦ Whether to eliminate root cause analysis 

requirement 

◦ The revised definition of catastrophic release 

and whether it should be further limited 

◦ Examples of near misses 

SBA RECOMMENDATIONS

EPA retain the root cause analysis 

requirement, but not revise the definition 

of catastrophic release from the 1996 

version which SBA believes is limited to 

major accidents, and maintains consistency 

with the current OSHA PSM definition of 

catastrophic release which refers to a 

“major uncontrolled emission, fire or 

explosion,” presenting a “serious danger”

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 14
Safer technology and 

alternatives analysis (STAA)

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must develop a PHA to identify, evaluate, and control process hazards involving regulated 

substances.

Proposed revisions to require the source to conduct a STAA and determine feasibility of inherently safer technologies and designs considered:

◦ Would apply to P3 facilities in: Paper Mfg; Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg.; and Chemical Mfg.

◦ 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 chemical, 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

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 15
STAA

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Explain why EPA is reconsidering the 1996 

assessment that analysis of inherently safer 

technology was unlikely to yield additional 

benefits 

Seek comment on:

◦ Whether to eliminate requirement 

◦ Limiting this provision to require 

analyses only to be conducted at the 

design stage of new processes

◦ Exempting batch toll manufacturers 

from this requirement

SBA RECOMMENDATIONS

Small firms (under 250 employees) should 

not be subject to this provision until three 

years after the rule’s compliance date for 

large firms

Exempt batch toll processors from this 

provision unless the firm has a contractual 

relationship with the customer of five or 

more years

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 16
Local emergency response 

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. 

Proposed revisions require all P2 and P3 facilities to: ◦ Coordinate annually with the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs)/ 

emergency responders and ensure response capabilities exist

◦ Document coordination 

◦ LEPCs/emergency responders can request source to prepare an emergency 

response (ER) program

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 17
Local emergency response 

coordination

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Explain how coordination should occur 

between local emergency response officials 

and small facilities and clarify requirements 

for facilities that make a “good faith” effort 

to coordinate with local emergency 

response officials 

Seek comment on proposed frequency for 

annual coordination

SBA RECOMMENDATIONS

SBA does believe that it is not appropriate 

to require small firms to provide 

emergency response capability in the 

absence of a public response mechanism 

EPA should follow hazardous waste 

generators requirements to “attempt” to 

make arrangements with local responders 

and document failure to complete such 

arrangements

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 18
Emergency Response Exercises

No Current Requirements

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

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 19 19

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
Emergency Response Exercises

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Clarify that participation by local responders is 

not required for a facility to comply 

Clarify that exercises required by other state and 

federal regulations could meet this requirement if 

the facility’s emergency response plan is tested 

Seek comment on:

◦ Whether the exercise provision should be 

eliminated

◦ How to address postponement and rescheduling 

issues (which SERs have indicated may take up to 

a year); 

◦ Limiting the requirement to only tabletop 

exercises; and 

◦ The frequency of required field and tabletop 

exercises 

SBA RECOMMENDATIONS

Propose tabletop exercises alone, and 

include no minimum requirements for field 

exercises 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 20
Information availability

Current RMP data availability

◦ Only emergency response and other govt. officials can access the RMP data 

via a non-public EPA database

◦ Public access to worst case off-site consequence analysis (OCA) data is 

restricted to viewing only in Federal Reading Rooms

◦ Public can access non-OCA RMP data in Federal Reading Rooms or by FOIA 

request

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 21
Information availability-LEPC

Proposed revisions: 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 22
Information availability-LEPC

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Consider only requiring facilities to develop chemical hazard information 

summaries and allow LEPCs to make reasonable requests for additional 

information

Make chemical hazard information available upon request by the LEPC rather 

than requiring it to be automatically submitted by the facility. 

Seek comment on:

◦ Narrowing the approach to require a one page summary of each significant 

chemical hazard during a fire identifying the product, its properties, its location and 

firefighting measures for responders-- a one-page summary of information that 

addresses chemical hazard information and emergency response measures

◦ Limiting the amount of information to be shared with LEPCs

◦ Whether EPA should specify a format for summary information to make it easier for 

local officials to find and interpret the information that they need 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 23
Information availability-public

◦ Names of RMP regulated substances held in a process

◦ Safety data sheets (SDS) for all RMP 

regulated substances located at the 

facility

◦ Emergency response program 

summary information 

◦ Five-year accident history information reported under §68.42

◦ Exercise summary information

◦ Local Emergency Planning Committee 

(LEPC) contact information

Posting on a

◦ company website,

◦ public file sharing website, 

or 

◦ social media website

Placing a file at a public library or local government office

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 24

Proposed Revisions: Require chemical hazard information to be 

provided in an easily accessible manner
Information availability-public

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Seek comment on:

◦ Ways to limit the scope of the information elements shared with the 

public as well as the format in which information should be provided (e.g. 

a one-page summary of information that addresses chemical hazard 

information and emergency response measures)

◦ Whether the existing RMP data, including the executive summary, are 

adequate for the public in the absence of a specific request

◦ Whether additional information should only be provided to the public 

upon request

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 25
Information availability- public meetings

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

days of an RMP reportable accident. 

◦ The meeting would address:

◦ 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 26
Information availabilitypublic meetings

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

EPA require that a public meeting 

be held only after an RMP 

reportable accident

EPA should consider allowing the 

public meeting to be combined 

with any meeting open to the 

general public (e.g. city council, 

municipal board, or LEPC meeting) 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 27

Seek comment on:

◦ Whether it is appropriate to require public 

meetings 

◦ Whether to eliminate the public meeting 

requirement and instead require the facility 

to schedule a meeting with the LEPC and/or 

emergency responders 60 to 90 days after 

an accident or incident; 

◦ Whether public meetings should be held 

upon request (e.g., LEPC or its community 

equivalent) rather than automatically within 

an established timeframe; and 

◦ Extending the timeframe from 30 to 90 

days or whether there is a more 

appropriate timeframe for scheduling

a meeting following an RMP 

reportable accident and who should

be included in the invitation
Estimated Unit Costs 

(in actual $)*

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

* Sources for 

estimate 

include 

technical 

literature, 

public 

comments, 

other similar 

programs, RMP 

database, and 

EPA labor 

models 

28
Additional resources

EO 13650 Resources: 

◦ EO 13650 Improving Chemical Safety and Security: 

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

◦ Report for the President: Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and 

Security–A Shared Commitment: 

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

port.pdf

◦ Activities under EO 13650: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/executive-orderimproving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 29
Submit Comments

RMP proposed rule website: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed-changesrisk-management-program-rmp-rule

◦ Includes proposed rule supporting documents

◦ Frequently asked questions 

Proposed rule published March 14, 2016:

◦ https://federalregister.gov/a/2016-05191 

Submit comments on or before May 13, 2016 

◦ http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 30
Questions?

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

31
1

SBA Roundtable Presentation on RMP Proposed Rule- Questions and Answers

April 22, 2016

27 in-person attendees and 11 persons participating by teleconference phone

Q: When does EPA project the final rule would be completed?

A: We cannot give an exact date but this rulemaking is a priority for this Administration.

Q. From review of the proposed rule, it looks like the Agency based analysis on 7 years of 

accidental release data. Why was this timeframe chosen?

A: EPA’s analysis covered 10 years of accident data. This covers two reporting cycles (each 

cycle is 5 years).

Q: The RIA seemed to have a good qualitative analysis of benefits of the proposed rule. Can 

EPA isolate the benefits for each provision of the rule?

A: EPA welcomes any information that stakeholders have that could provide benefits for each 

provision. EPA looked at a net benefits of the entire rule. We did not have information to 

estimate benefits for individual provisions.

Q: EPA could look at other rules with similar requirements, such as the SEMS2 rule that had 

auditing provisions.

A: Please provide that suggestion as part of your written comments including any other examples 

that EPA should consider.

Q: Were there many comments from process safety consultants in the SBREFA process?

A: No, process safety consultants would not have been eligible because....only those entities 

that are small businesses directly subject to the regulation are allowed to participate in the Small 

Business Advocacy Review process. We did have one consultant provide comments at the 

March 29 public meeting.

Q: The International Dairy Foods Association will be filing a request for extension of the 

comment period for another 30 days. EPA has a lot of data to be reviewed for this rule. The 

association needs more time to gather and analyze data so they can prepare meaningful 

comments.
2

A: EPA will take this message back to our management.

Q: (SOCMA) 90% of the preventable accident damage benefits seems to be associated with 

only on-site impacts. EPA and OSHA needs to decide which agency can claim these benefits as 

part of their rulemaking and not double count the benefits.

A: EPA agrees. We coordinate with OSHA regularly. If EPA issues a final rule before OSHA, 

OSHA would not claim as benefits those that are already in the EPA rule.