### Risk Management Program Interagency Meeting Summary Meetingwith the Chemical Safety Board February 17, 2016

• EPA provided an overview ofthe federal government efforts underthe Executive Order for improving chemical facility safety and security, including conducting multiple listening sessions, Webinars, and meetingswith stakeholder groups. These efforts led to the May2014 publishing ofthe Progress Reportforthe President, Actions to Improve Chemical FacilitySafetyandSecurity -A Shared Commitment, 

### summarizing the federal government's accomplishments and next steps. This report identified revising the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule as one ofthetop priorities to improve chemical facility safety and security. The Agency published a request for information (RFI) to gatherfurther input and from that effort, identified priority provisions to consider in revising the RMP regulations. • EPA highlighted the similarities ofthe OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard and EPA's RMP rule, as well as where the two requirements differ. • EPA identified the universe offacilities currently covered 

### by the RMP regulations broken down by industry sectors and large and small facilities. EPA also identified the 10year 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 ThirdPartyAudits-

### This provision would require a Program 2 or3facility that has an RMP reportable accident to use an independentthird partyto conduct its next scheduled audit. The proposal contains criteria for auditor competence and independence.



### o Incident Investigations and Root CauseAnalysis-

### The proposal would require an incident investigation afterany incident that resulted in or could have resulted in a catastrophic release. The facility would identifythe root cause of (i.e., the fundamental reason for) the incident and submit a report.
o Safer TechnologyAlternativesAnalysis- 

### 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 afield 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 inherentlysafer technology adopted according to a SaferTechnology Alternatives Analysis, and emergency response exercise reports. The public would receive chemical hazard information, summaries ofemergency response exercises, and LEPC contact information.
• CSB asked whether this proposed RMP rule would change any requirements underthe Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know (EPCRA) regulations. EPA confirmed that it would not change the EPCRA requirements. • CSB asked whywastewater treatment facilities were not included as one ofthe industry categories in the proposed Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis option, as they have been identified by various stakeholders ofbeing a potential risk to the public due to their large quantities ofchlorine. 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 ofaccidents. • CSB asked why the Agency is not requiring implementation ofthe SaferTechnologyAlternatives Analysis and how the Agency expects to reduce risks without requiring implementationofthe SaferTechnology Alternatives Analysis. EPA explained that the requirement to add Safer Technology AlternativesAnalysis is part ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ifthere is a cleardefinition of "near miss" and whetherwe needed a sub-task force to define "near miss." EPA is notdefining "near miss" as it is noteasy to define. EPA will see how the record develops on this and align to OSHA. • CSB stated that the statute mentions risk reduction. Howdo 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 ofanything further that can be said in this regard. • Forthe local coordination effort, CSB want to know ifnon-responders are not underthe requirement. EPA stated that all responding and non-responding facilities mustcoordinate 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 orwhether EPA is restricting any public information. EPA stated that no reductions in requirements are planned nor is EPA restricting any public information. • CSB asked ifthere is any anticipated timeline for publication ofthe 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 foran expedited public comment period. When providing comments (especially on the alternatives being proposed) specificity ofdata would helptowards finalizing the rule.
2

# •

• CSB wanted to know ifsaferalternative assessments are to be made publically. EPA stated that underthe 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 withsafety 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 ofthe 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 ifthere has been any consideration given to collecting information/documentsto de
-register from the RMP. EPA stated that this is not being donewithin this rule's perspective. • CSB asked whether EPA had identified any non-compliant RMP facilities as a result ofthe analysis ofthe DHS database ofCFATs 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 InspectorGuidance on June 2012 to ensure inclusion of workers in inspections atthe facility, CSB wanted to know if EPA considered whether making this as part ofthe rule oranother rule. EPA stated that itwas notconsidered 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 ofcapacityand planning at LEPCs and chemical facility engagement with LEPCs under EPCRA. EPA stated thatthere are varying levels ofcapacity and planning within LEPCs around the country. • CSB is not convinced that a best practices approach will workfinancially for LEPCs (given LEPCs are typicallyvoluntary, have lay
-offs, etc). Has EPA done an assessment forfunding LEPCs? EPA stated thatthe President proposed 2years in a row forgrant programs to states to fund LEPCs. Underthe EO's report to the President we did look atthis 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 howto 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.



### 3RMP Rule Meetingwith Chemical Safety Board February 17, 2016