Risk Management Program Interagency Meeting Summary 

Meeting with the Chemical Safety Board 

February 17, 2016 

• EPA provided an overview of the federal government efforts under the Executive Order for 

improving chemical facility safety and security, including conducting multiple listening sessions, 

Webinars, and meetings with stakeholder groups. These efforts led to the May 2014 publishing 

of the Progress Report for the President, Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security 

-A Shared Commitment, summarizing the federal government's accomplishments and next 

steps. This report identified revising the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule as one of the top 

priorities to improve chemical facility safety and security. The Agency published a request for 

information (RFI) to gather further input and from that effort, identified priority provisions to 

consider in revising the RMP regulations. 

• EPA highlighted the similarities of the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard and 

EPA's RMP rule, as well as where the two requirements differ. 

• EPA identified the universe of facilities currently covered by the RMP regulations broken down 

by industry sectors and large and small facilities. EPA also identified the 10 year accident history 

for these RMP facilities, which included $2 billion in total property damage, 59 deaths, 15,000 

people requiring medical attention, 40,000 people evacuated, and 450,000 people sheltered in 

place. 

• EPA walked through the options being considered in the RMP Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including: 

o Third Party Audits- This provision would require a Program 2 or 3 facility that has an 

RMP reportable accident to use an independent third party to conduct its next 

scheduled audit. The proposal contains criteria for auditor competence and 

independence. 

o Incident Investigations and Root Cause Analysis- The proposal would require an 

incident investigation after any incident that resulted in or could have resulted in a 

catastrophic release. The facility would identify the root cause of (i.e., the fundamental 

reason for) the incident and submit a report. 

o Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis- Program 3 facilities in 3 industry categories 

(paper manufacturing, coal and petroleum products manufacturing, and chemical 

manufacturing) would be required to evaluate safer technology and alternatives when 

conducting the process hazard assessment already required by the current RMP rule. 

o Local Coordination- The proposal would increase communication with Local Emergency 

Planning Committees (LEPCs) by requiring annual coordination by facilities with LEPCs to 

clarify response needs, emergency plans, roles, and responsibilities. 

o Emergency Response Exercises- The proposal would require responding facilities to 

conduct annual tabletop emergency response exercises with a field exercise every 5 

years. All facilities would perform annual notification exercises. 

1 
o Information Sharing- The proposal would add new disclosure requirements for facilities 

to LEPCs and the general public. LEPCs would receive Incident Investigation Reports, a 

summary of inherently safer technology adopted according to a Safer Technology 

Alternatives Analysis, and emergency response exercise reports. The public would 

receive chemical hazard information, summaries of emergency response exercises, and 

LEPC contact information. 

• CSB asked whether this proposed RMP rule would change any requirements under the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know (EPCRA) regulations. EPA confirmed that it 

would not change the EPCRA requirements. 

• CSB asked why wastewater treatment facilities were not included as one of the industry 

categories in the proposed Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis option, as they have been 

identified by various stakeholders of being a potential risk to the public due to their large 

quantities of chlorine. EPA explained that the basis for determining which industry categories to 

include in this option was accident frequency and the 3 industry categories chosen were the 

categories with the highest frequency of accidents. 

• CSB asked why the Agency is not requiring implementation of the Safer Technology Alternatives 

Analysis and how the Agency expects to reduce risks without requiring implementation of the 

Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis. EPA explained that the requirement to add Safer 

Technology Alternatives Analysis is part of the requirement for Program 3 facilities to complete 

a Process Hazard Analysis to identify, evaluate, and control hazards involved in the process. EPA 

believes that some improvements regarding safer alternatives may be the result of this analysis. 

• CSB asked what is the Agency proposing for third party audits. EPA stated that EPA is proposing 

to require all Program 2 and 3 facilities that have had an RMP reportable accident to use an 

independent third party to conduct its next scheduled audit. The proposal contains criteria for 

auditor competence and independence. 

• CSB asked if there is a clear definition of "near miss" and whether we needed a sub-task force to 

define "near miss." EPA is not defining "near miss" as it is not easy to define. EPA will see how 

the record develops on this and align to OSHA. 

• CSB stated that the statute mentions risk reduction. How do you ensure risk reduction? EPA 

responded that upon analyzing accidents in various industry categories, EPA is adding more rigor 

to prevent further accidents. Requested CSB to inform EPA of anything further that can be said 

in this regard. 

• For the local coordination effort, CSB want to know if non-responders are not under the 

requirement. EPA stated that all responding and non-responding facilities must coordinate 

annually with LEPCs and/or local responders and ensure response capabilities exist. 

• CSB wanted to know if EPA is proposing any reduction to the requirement to provide 

information to the public that the public already has access to or whether EPA is restricting any 

public information. EPA stated that no reductions in requirements are planned nor is EPA 

restricting any public information. 

• CSB asked if there is any anticipated time line for publication of the rule. EPA responded that CSB 

will be notified when the rule is signed and published. It will be posted on EPA's website. EPA 

will push for an expedited public comment period. When providing comments (especially on the 

alternatives being proposed) specificity of data would help towards finalizing the rule. 

2 
• 

• 

CSB wanted to know if safer alternative assessments are to be made publically. EPA stated that 

under the RMP they are not publically available but are available to inspectors. CSB stated that 

since safer alternative assessments are not deemed confidential why not make them public. EPA 

responded that the Agency grapples with safety concerns and right-to-know concerns. 

CSB was curious where EPA expected the most push-back on the proposed rule. EPA expects to 

receive significant comments on all aspects of the rule. Similarly CSB wanted to know from the 

public/stakeholder outreach and RFI public comment period did EPA receive any statements of 

"great idea." EPA stated that not much were in agreement; some wanted everything suggested 

to be done, whereas others wanted nothing to be done. The Agency is seeking to strike a 

balance. 

• CSB wondered if there has been any consideration given to collecting information/documents to 

de-register from the RMP. EPA stated that this is not being done within this rule's perspective. 

• CSB asked whether EPA had identified any non-compliant RMP facilities as a result of the 

analysis of the DHS database of CFATs facilities. EPA responded that approximately a dozen 

facilities had been identified as potential non-compliant facilities, however, based on further 

research, less than a handful were actually identified as being required to submit an RMP. 

• Given that EPA issued a revision to its Inspector Guidance on June 2012 to ensure inclusion of 

workers in inspections at the facility, CSB wanted to know if EPA considered whether making 

this as part of the rule or another rule. EPA stated that it was not considered since having a role 

in RMP inspections is not a rule requirement. 

• CSB mentioned experience with active third party audits. Recommends having controls in place 

to make more effective. EPA requested CSB provide these comments during the public comment 

period supported with specific information. 

• CSB wanted to know the state of capacity and planning at LEPCs and chemical facility 

engagement with LEPCs under EPCRA. EPA stated that there are varying levels of capacity and 

planning within LEPCs around the country. 

• CSB is not convinced that a best practices approach will work financially for LEPCs (given LEPCs 

are typically voluntary, have lay-offs, etc). Has EPA done an assessment for funding LEPCs? EPA 

stated that the President proposed 2 years in a row for grant programs to states to fund LEPCs. 

Under the EO's report to the President we did look at this funding issue. The EO Website has 

information regarding funding for local communities. Some states collect fees when Tier 2 

reports are submitted. The Congress gave states flexibility on how to fund their LEPCs. EPA 

requested CSB consider what role they could have to focus on LEPC and SERCs to being 

attention to this issue. 

Documents provided at the meeting include the RMP Panel Outreach materials from to Small Business 

Representatives on 11-19-15. 

3 
RMP Rule 

Meeting with Chemical Safety Board 

February 17, 2016