Risk Management 

Modernization 

Rule 

JANUARY 5, 2016

EO 12866 INTERAGENCY BRIEFING ON THE 

MODERNIZATION OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM NPRM

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Agenda

Background on:

◦ Existing regulatory framework for chemical facility safety and security and

◦ The current Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule

RMP Universe of Facilities

Overview of Proposed Rule Provisions and Costs

Questions & Comments

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2
Background on Existing Regulatory Framework 

for chemical facility safety and security

The RMP is one of several programs regarding chemical facility safety, including:

◦ OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard

◦ Management program for highly hazardous chemicals aimed at preventing and minimizing occupational/onsite 

exposure

◦ Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know (EPCRA) requirements

◦ Local emergency planning and preparedness, emergency release notification, community right-to-know: 

provision of hazardous chemical storage inventory and toxic chemical release inventory to the community and 

first responders

◦ CAA Section 112(r)(1) general duty clause

◦ Facility owner/operators have a general duty to prevent and minimize releases

◦ DHS requirements – Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS)

◦ ATF requirements for explosives

◦ State/local requirements (e.g., NJ, Contra Costa County, CA regulations)

The RMP program closely aligns with OSHA’s PSM standard in content, policy interpretations, Agency guidance, and enforcement in order to avoid redundancy, 

conflict, and extra burden to industry.

The RMP program expands upon the information provided to States and Local 

Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) under EPCRA.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 3 3
Background on how RMP 

interconnects with PSM and EPCRA

OSHA’s PSM

◦ Focused on risks to onsite employees and facility

◦ Triggered if the facility has an applicable chemical above the specified TQ in a process.

◦ There are 62 chemicals on both the RMP and PSM list of chemicals. RMP covers 27 chemicals not listed in 

PSM and PSM covers ~76 chemicals not listed in RMP. PSM covers wider range of flammables than RMP.

◦ Requires 14 elements, most of which are also RMP Program 3 requirements. 

EPCRA

◦ Emergency response elements

◦ Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) must develop a community emergency response plan, review the 

plan at least annually, and provide information about chemicals in the community to citizen.

◦ Identify facilities and transportation routes of extremely hazardous substances

◦ Describe on and off-site emergency response procedures

◦ Determine the probable affected area and population by releases

◦ Describe local emergency equipment and facilities

◦ Training program for emergency responders and methods/schedules for drills

◦ Procedures for informing the public before, during, and after an accident 

◦ Risk Management Plan information builds upon the information provided to 

LEPCs under EPCRA, focuses on facility-specific planning, and further expands planning and prevention efforts at the local level.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 4 4
Background- current RMP rule

Key aspects of the rule:

◦ Applies to all stationary sources with processes that contain more 

than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance

◦ Plan elements aimed at preventing accidental releases and reducing 

the severity of releases that occur

◦ All sources must 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 PSM

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 5
Background - RMP rule Program 

Levels

Program 1 (642 facilities)

◦ Processes that would not affect the public in the event of a worst case 

release & no accidents with offsite consequences in the last 5 years

◦ Small quantities of flammables, less volatile toxics

◦ Limited accident prevention including hazard assessment and emergency response 

requirements

Program 2 (1272 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 3 (10628 facilities)*

◦ 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

◦ Must use OSHA’s PSM as accident prevention program and include additional hazard 

assessment, management, and emergency response requirements

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

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

6
Comparison of RMP Program 

Requirements

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 7 7
RMP Universe of Facilities*

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3

Small Large Small Large Small Large

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg 5 8 0 3 21 119 156

Chemical Manufacturing 32 21 49 15 458 891 1466

Food/Beverage Manufacturing 1 2 6 5 368 1094 1476

Paper Manufacturing 0 1 0 1 5 63 70

Other Manufacturing 33 29 34 39 113 136 384

Agricultural Distributors 9 1 0 0 1564 2093 3667

Chemical /petroleum wholesale 5 15 0 0 160 429 609

Other wholesale 0 5 0 0 100 197 302

Warehouses 11 59 0 0 267 719 1056

Water / POTW 6 10 527 418 463 601 2025

Oil & gas production 88 222 13 28 104 286 741

Other 29 50 66 68 128 249 590

Totals

219 423 695 577 3751 6877

12542 642 1272 10628

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

RMP Facility Type Total

8

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Category (% of facilities that are small 

business in each category)

P1 P2 P3 Total

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg (15%) 8 0 161 169

Chemical Manufacturing (36%) 6 6 518 530

Food/Beverage Manufacturing (25%) 0 2 268 270

Paper Manufacturing (7%) 0 0 46 46

Other Manufacturing (45%) 1 9 43 53

Agricultural Distributors (43%) 0 0 156 156

Chemical/petroleum wholesale (27%) 2 0 36 38

Other wholesale (34%) 0 0 20 20

Warehouses (27%) 1 0 71 72

Water / POTW (49%) 0 34 41 75

Oil & gas production (27%) 8 1 44 53

Other (38%) 9 5 21 35

Totals 35 57 1425 1517

RMP Accidents (2004 – 2013)*

9

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
Overview of Proposed Revisions

P1 P2 P3

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

accident) * [Estimated 150/year]

√ √

Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with 

accidents/near misses) * [Estimated 150/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

* New Proposed Requirement

10
Local 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. (Applies to all P2 and P3)

Issues to Address: 

◦ States and locals have indicated that some RMP facilities have not 

adequately coordinated with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) 

and local emergency responders. 

◦ CSB accident investigations have identified poor coordination between RMP 

facilities and local responders

◦ Provisions intended to clarify existing RMP coordination requirement and 

supplement existing EPCRA requirements for local emergency planning

◦ EPCRA requires LEPC to develop local emergency plan 

◦ RMP requires regulated facilities to coordinate with local responders and,

if necessary, develop facility emergency response program & plan

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 11
RMP Responder/Non-responder*

Category (% of facilities that are 

small business in each category)

Responder Non-responder % Nonresponder P2 P3 P2 P3 

Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg (15%) 1 128 0 12 9%

Chemical Manufacturing (36%) 28 977 36 372 29%

Food/Beverage Manufacturing (25%) 4 958 7 504 35%

Paper Manufacturing (7%) 1 61 0 7 10%

Other Manufacturing (45%) 55 142 18 106 39%

Agricultural Distributors (43%) 0 580 0 3077 84%

Chemical/petroleum wholesale (27%) 0 374 0 218 37%

Other wholesale (34%) 0 89 0 208 70%

Warehouses (27%) 0 557 0 429 44%

Water / POTW (49%) 150 483 795 581 68%

Oil & gas production (27%) 11 238 30 152 42%

Other (38%) 66 216 68 161 45%

Totals 316 4803 954 5827 57%

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 12

* Information obtained from 

EPA RMP database
Local Coordination

Proposed revisions require facilities all P2 and P3 to:

◦ Coordinate annually with the LEPC/emergency responders and ensure response capabilities 

exist

◦ Document coordination (Include names & contact information for individuals involved, dates of coordination, and any conclusions/next steps).

◦ LEPC/emergency responders can request facility prepare emergency response program

What are the outcomes of “coordination”?

◦ “Non-responding” source – coordination 

indicates that local public response 

capabilities are adequate to respond, 

appropriate notification mechanisms are in 

place, and local authorities have not 

requested that owner develop ER program

◦ “Responding” source – outcome of 

coordination indicates that local public 

response capabilities are not adequate to 

respond, or local authorities request that 

owner develop ER program. As a result, facility 

must develop an emergency response 

program according to Section 68.95 and 

respond to accidental releases of

regulated substances at the facility.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 13

What is “coordination”?

◦ Facility and local responders meet & discuss 

response needs, capabilities, and roles:

◦ Determine resources needed to appropriately 

respond to regulated substance releases at 

facility

◦ Determine resources available from facility & 

local responders

◦ Identify capability gaps and develop plans to 

address

◦ Decide whether facility or local responders 

will respond to releases of regulated 

substances

◦ Assign response action roles and 

responsibilities
Emergency Response Exercises

Current Requirements: No RMP requirement for facilities to 

exercise their emergency response program or plan.

Issues to Address: 

◦ CSB accident investigations indicate that poor emergency response planning 

and execution by RMP facility owners/operators has increased the severity of 

accidents

◦ Requiring exercises is likely to improve emergency response by facilities and 

community responders and reduce the consequences of an accident on the 

community

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 14
Emergency Response Exercises

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 following 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

15 OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

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

15
Information Sharing

Current Requirements: Facility RMP must be made available to the 

public and LEPC/first responders (data restrictions apply based on 

security concerns). (Applies to all facilities)

Issue to Address: LEPCs, first responders, and members of the 

public have indicated that: 

◦ Chemical facility information and data-sharing efforts, at the local level, needs 

significant improvement

◦ Improve access and understanding,

◦ Ensure greater transparency without compromising security

◦ LEPCs and first responders need access to the most relevant and actionable 

chemical hazard and risk information for their needs, in an easily accessible 

format, to better support planning and preparedness efforts

◦ Community residents and organizations need basic information regarding 

chemical risks at facilities, presented in a clear and consistent manner

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 16
Information Sharing

Proposed revisions add new disclosure elements for all facilities:

◦ To LEPCs and emergency responders

◦ To general public

◦ Public meetings (Every 5 years and within 30 days of a reportable 

accident)

The information should be conveyed without revealing CBI or trade 

secret information. 

Any summary information should adequately explain the findings, 

results, or analysis being provided while avoiding technical jargon.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 17
Information Sharing-LEPC

Summaries of chemical hazard information must be provided for the 

following:

◦ 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 (note: 

facilities are not required to implement IST, however, if they do, 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 18
Information Sharing-Public

Chemical hazard information must be provided in an easily accessible manner (i.e. Posting on a company website, public file sharing website, or social media website, 

or placing a file at a public library or local government office):

◦ Five year accident history information 

(reported under §68.42)

◦ Exercises. Summary information would 

include information on emergency 

response exercises required under 

§68.96, including:

◦ Schedules for upcoming exercises, 

◦ Reports for completed exercises as described 

in §68.96(b)(3), and 

◦ Any other related information

◦ LEPC contact information, including:

◦ LEPC name, phone number, web address, and 

email addresses of LEPC contacts, as available 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 19

◦ RMP Regulated substances information. Names and quantities of regulated 

substances held in a process

◦ Safety data sheets (SDS) for all 

regulated substances located at the 

facility

◦ Emergency response program.

Summary information would include:

◦ Whether the source is a responding stationary 

source or a non-responding stationary source; 

◦ Name, organizational affiliation, phone 

number, and e-mail address of local 

emergency response organizations with which 

the owner or operator last coordinated 

emergency response efforts; and

◦ For “responding stationary sources,” 

procedures for informing the public and local 

emergency response agencies about 

accidental releases
Information Sharing-Public 

Meetings

Public meeting must be held:

◦ Every five years and 

◦ Within 30 days of a reportable 

accident

Public meeting will discuss:

◦ The chemical hazard information 

that would be provided to the 

public

◦ Provide the opportunity for the 

facility to explain how they are 

addressing risks and preventing 

accidents

Multiple facilities can hold their 

public meetings together and/or 

Public meeting 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 20
Incident Investigations & Root Cause 

Analysis

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must conduct incident 

investigations following an incident that resulted in or could have 

resulted in a catastrophic release (includes a “near miss”). (Applies to all 

P2 and P3)

Issue to Address:

◦ Strengthening incident investigation requirements to identify the underlying 

reasons for a chemical accident which would lead to preventing future 

accidents and ensuring compliance. Eliminates the risk of reoccurrence of a 

particular accident and similar accidents that could result from the same 

system-wide root causes

◦ Current catastrophic release definition (includes a “near miss”) not well 

defined and misinterpreted. 

◦ CSB, industry good safety practices/guidance, EPA and state and local 

programs have all cited support for root cause investigations

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 21
Incident Investigations & Root Cause 

Analysis

Proposed Revisions (Applies to P2 and P3): 

◦ Propose revisions to “catastrophic release” definition to be consistent with 

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

evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage

◦ Applies to a catastrophic release (i.e., an RMP reportable accident) or an 

incident that could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release (i.e. a 

near miss) 

◦ As part of incident investigation, the owner or operator must complete a 

root cause investigation (i.e. identify the fundamental reasons why an 

incident occurred and the correctable failures in management systems)

◦ EPA would propose to define “root cause” as a fundamental, underlying, 

system-related reason why an incident occurred that identifies correctable 

failure(s) in management systems

◦ A report must be completed within 12 months (unless extension approved, 

in writing, by implementing agency)

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 22
Incident Investigations & Root Cause 

Analysis-Near Misses

Rule currently requires incident 

investigations for near misses:

◦ §68.60(a) The owner or operator shall 

investigate each incident which resulted 

in, or could reasonably have resulted in a 

catastrophic release.

◦ §68.81(a) The owner or operator shall 

investigate each incident which resulted 

in, or could reasonably have resulted in a 

catastrophic release of a regulated 

substance. 

EPA is proposing to add the term “near 

miss” to mean incidents which could 

reasonably have resulted in a 

catastrophic release

Examples include:

◦ Events or unsafe situations that under 

slightly different circumstances could 

have resulted in a catastrophic release 

or had reasonable potential to escalate

◦ Runaway reactions, fires, explosions, or 

vapor cloud releases that did not result 

in impacts 

◦ Some process upsets, such as: 

◦ Excursions of process parameters beyond 

pre-established critical control limits; 

◦ Activation of layers of protection such as 

relief valves, interlocks, rupture discs, 

blowdown systems, halon systems, vapor 

release alarms, and fixed vapor spray 

systems; and 

◦ Activation of emergency shutdowns. 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 23

EPA will coordinate with OSHA and other agencies as appropriate on explaining the term 

“near-miss” by continuing staff-level collaboration during rule development and the 

interagency review process. 
Safer Alternatives Analysis

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must develop a PHA to identify, 

evaluate, and control process hazards involving regulated substances. (Applies to all P3)

Issue to Address:

◦ Many RFI comments urged EPA to incorporate safer technologies into the Risk Management 

Program to prevent or minimize the effects of chemical accidents 

◦ Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) guidelines support the use of safer technologies to 

improve chemical safety and reduce risk of chemical accidents

◦ Various CSB investigations and EPA inspections have indicated that incorporating IST measures 

could have prevented serious accidents

◦ Inherently safer technologies are more robust and reliable measures and should be used, if 

feasible, to improve safety 

◦ There are many opportunities for making processes safer and should be seriously considered 

◦ Advances in IST and safer alternatives 

◦ Adopted by some state and local governments 

◦ Adopted by some companies 

◦ Strengthening PHA requirements to incorporate the full hierarchy of hazard controls

could prevent or minimize the effects of chemical accidents on the local communities, the 

environment, and consumers as well as employees at the facility

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 24
Safer Alternatives Analysis

Proposed Revisions would apply to P3 facilities in 

NAICS codes:

◦ 322 (paper manufacturing), 

◦ 324 (petroleum & coal products 

manufacturing), and 

◦ 325 (chemical manufacturing) 

EPA would propose to define feasible to mean: 

◦ Capable of being successfully accomplished 

within a reasonable time, accounting for 

economic, environmental, legal, social, and 

technological factors. 

Owner/operator would not be required to 

implement any prescribed technology, however 

EPA is taking comment on 

whether implementation should be 

required.

Requires owner/operator to analyze, as part of 

PHA, potential safer technologies and 

alternatives.

◦ Consider, in the following order of preference, 

inherently safer technology or design, passive 

measures, active measures, and procedural 

measures. 

◦ A combination of risk management measures 

may be used to achieve the desired risk 

reduction.

◦ Inherently safer technologies 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. 

◦ Determine the feasibility of inherently safer 

technologies and designs considered.

◦ The PHA would include a description of how the 

analysis was done, findings and 

recommendations, and this information should 

be documented and retained at the facility. EPA 

is not specifying a prescribed level of risk 

reduction and analysis can be done using existing 

PHA methods (currently in regulations) or other 

recognized methods for analyzing safer 

technology and alternatives.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 25
Third-Party Compliance Audits

Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must perform compliance audits every three years. (Applies to all P2 and P3)

Issue to Address: Self-auditing may be insufficient to ensure compliance with RMP requirements and promote safe stationary source operation and accident 

prevention. 

◦ Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and EPA have identified a lack of rigorous compliance audits which failed to identify key safety deficiencies as a contributing factor in several accidents 

(i.e., BP Texas City refinery and Citgo Corpus Christi refinery).

◦ Third-party audits are required by other federal programs to ensure safe operations. For 

example, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) promulgated revisions 

to their Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS II) requirements, following 

the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, to ensure the safe operations of offshore oil and natural gas drilling and production facilities. 

◦ Industry recognizes the benefits of third-party auditing programs and has established 

programs and standards for third-party audits for many facilities subject to the RMP rule. Some industry groups, such as SOCMA and the Center for Offshore Safety (COS), require 

certain types of third-party audits for their members. 

◦ Research shows that without sufficient safeguards to ensure auditor independence, auditors 

are more likely to provide lenient or biased audit reports that can fail to accurately identify 

problems and violations by the regulated entity

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 26
Third-Party Compliance Audits

Proposed revisions require all P2 and P3 facilities to conduct a third-party 

audit in lieu of a compliance audit following an RMP reportable accident.* 

◦ The scope of the third-party audit shall be the same as the compliance audit (i.e., 

audit prevention program implementation for all covered processes).

◦ The third-party audit shall be completed within 12 months of an RMP reportable 

accident or within 3 years of completion of the previous compliance audit, 

whichever is sooner. [Note: This audit and its schedule are independent of the incident 

investigation requirement and its schedule.] 

◦ Criteria and standards for third-party auditor competence include: 

• knowledgeable with the requirements of the RMP Prevention program requirements; 

• experienced with the facility type and processes being audited and the applicable 

recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP); 

• trained or certified in proper auditing techniques; and 

• be a licensed Professional Engineer (PE), or include a licensed PE on the audit team 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 27

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

from a covered process at a stationary source
Third-Party Compliance Audits

Independence and impartiality requirements for third party auditors and audit 

teams include: 

◦ Acting impartially when performing all third-party audit activities; 

◦ Receiving no financial benefit from the outcome of the audit, apart from payment for auditing 

services; 

◦ Not having conducted past research, development, design, construction services, or consulting* 

for the owner or operator within the last 3 years (including any “associated” third-party auditors); 

◦ Not providing other business or consulting services to the owner or operator, including advice or 

assistance to implement the findings or recommendations in an audit report, for a period of at 

least 3 years following submission of the final audit report; 

◦ Ensuring all personnel involved on the audit team sign and date a conflict of interest statement 

certify that the audit followed the requirements of the rule and contains not false statements; and 

◦ Ensuring all personnel involved in the audit do not accept future employment* with the owner or 

operator of the facility for a period of at least 3 years following submission of the final audit report.

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 28

* Note- participation in third-party audits does not constitute “consulting” and “future employment” 

for the purposes of this requirement.

28
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 

29
Questions?

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

30