Risk Management Modernization Rule SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PRE-PANEL OUTREACH MEETING WITH...

Risk Management Modernization Rule SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PRE-PANEL OUTREACH MEETING WITH OMB/SBA

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSEOFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

2

Agenda Background on the Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule

Related Federal Regulations

How Small Entity Representatives (SERs) Can Help

Potentially Impacted Small Entities

RMP Universe of Facilities

Overview of Proposed Rule Provisions

Your Input on EPA Rule Options Under Consideration

Preliminary Cost Estimates

Next Steps in Panel Process

Questions & Comments


3

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

◦ 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;◦ Accident history; and◦ Regulation under OSHA PSM.


* Specific listing criteria for the RMP rule can be found in “Additional Information” section on Slides 34-36

4

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 (see

“Additional Information” section slide 32 for specific NAICS codes)◦ 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


*Analysis reflects OSHA change to PSM retail exemption issued July, 2015 (For further information, see slide 37 in “Additional Information” section)

5

Related federal regulations

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

◦ OSHA PSM standard◦ Management program for highly hazardous chemicals aimed at preventing and minimizing

occupational/onsite exposure

◦ Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (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 for facility owners/operators◦ Must identify hazards, design, maintain and safely operate a facility; 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)


6

OSHA PSM & EPA RMP Together, OSHA PSM & EPA RMP form the U.S. regulatory framework for prevention of catastrophic chemical accidents at fixed facilities◦ Both regulations authorized by Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990◦ OSHA PSM standard (29 CFR part 1910.119):

◦ Focuses on protecting workers from chemical accidents ◦ Promulgated in 1992

◦ EPA RMP regulation (40 CFR part 68):◦ Focuses on protecting public health & the environment from chemical

accidents◦ Promulgated in 1996


7

PSM & RMP: similarities PSM and RMP were intentionally designed by OSHA and EPA to have similar requirements at facilities regulated by both:

◦ The accident prevention program requirements of both regulations are almost identical◦ RMP uses OSHA PSM coverage as a factor in determining RMP program level◦ RMP Program 3 prevention requirements include all PSM elements except trade secrets &

emergency planning and response (RMP addresses ER outside of prevention program)

◦ RMP regulatory interpretations & guidance generally align with OSHA PSM standard interpretations & guidance

◦ RMP & PSM have similar applicability criteria:◦ Regulated substance lists & threshold quantities◦ Many chemicals common to both lists◦ Same or similar threshold quantities◦ Some similar regulatory exemptions


8

PSM vs RMP: differences There are several differences between the PSM and RMP which were designed to accommodate different statutory requirements and ensure the protection of the community and environment from chemical accidents.

◦ List* & threshold differences:◦ RMP list (40 CFR Part 68.130) covers 27 toxic chemicals not listed in PSM◦ PSM list (29 CFR Part 1910.119) covers 76 toxic & reactive chemicals not listed in RMP◦ PSM covers a wider range of flammable substances than RMP◦ RMP TQs ≥ PSM TQs

◦ Additional RMP requirements not contained in PSM:◦ Management system (40 CFR section 68.15)◦ Hazard assessment (40 CFR section 68.50)◦ Submit RMP to EPA (40 CFR section 68.150)

◦ PSM has no program levels or tiers – any process subject to the standard is subject to all of its requirements.


* Chemicals included on both the RMP and PSM lists are shown in the attached spreadsheet.

PSM vs RMP prevention programs

PSM Standard•Process Safety Information•PHA•Operating Procedures•Training•Mechanical Integrity•Compliance Audits• Incident Investigations•Management of Change•Pre-Startup Safety Review•Employee Participation•Hot Work Permits•Contractors•Emergency Planning and Response•Trade Secrets


RMP Program 3•Process Safety Information•PHA•Operating Procedures•Training•Mechanical Integrity•Compliance Audits•Incident Investigations•Management of Change•Pre-Startup Review•Employee Participation•Hot Work Permits•Contractors•Emergency Response (ER)•CBI

RMP Program 2•Safety Information•Hazard Review•Operating Procedures•Training•Maintenance•Compliance Audits•Incident Investigations•N/A•N/A•N/A•N/A•N/A•ER•CBI

9

10

CFATS relationship to RMP*

There are several areas of the RMP requirements and methodology which were used in the development of the CFATS requirements:

◦ CFATS Top-Screen process uses an adaptation of RMP modeling criteria to determine off-site release distances for RMP chemicals

◦ CFATS Top-Screen collects some RMP data elements from RMP facilities required to submit Top-Screen data

◦ Several RMP exemptions are replicated in or adapted to CFATS regulations◦ Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures, transportation, laboratories, etc.

◦ Some commonalities between CFATS risk-based performance standards (RBPS) and RMP requirements:◦ RBPS 3 – Screen & Control Access◦ RBPS 9 – Response◦ RBPS 11 – Training◦ RBPS 17 – Officials and Organization


* See slides 38-39 in “Additional Information” section for more information on the CFATS program

11

Background – EO 13650 Executive Order 13650, entitled Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (EO 13650)

◦ Directs the government to conduct a number of tasks, including modernizing regulations

◦ Aimed at preventing chemical accidents, such as the explosion in West, Texas on April 17, 2013

Report for the President (May 2014)◦ Provided an update on actions taken to improve chemical facility safety and

security◦ Committed to proposing priority amendments to RMP rule in 2015 and

publishing final rule in 2016

Factsheet (June 2015)◦ Describes accomplishments over the past year


https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/final_chemical_eo_status_report.pdf

https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/EO13650FS-ImprovingChemicalFacilitySafety.pdf

12

BackgroundRMP regulatory actions

EPA initiated this rulemaking to modernize the RMP regulation in accordance with EO 13650

July 31, 2014-EPA issued a Request for Information (RFI) on 19 issues under consideration (79 FR 44603)

◦ EPA identified priority elements from the RFI to include in the proposed rule

OSHA issued an RFI on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73756) and expects to revise PSM standard

EPA and OSHA are both conducting SBAR panels to inform rulemakings

It is EPA’s understanding that OSHA intends to hold a SBAR panel on its PSM regulations following EPA’s panel on RMP


https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/31/2014-18037/accidental-release-prevention-requirements-risk-management-programs-under-the-clean-air-act-section

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/12/09/2013-29197/process-safety-management-and-prevention-of-major-chemical-accidents

13

EPA RFI items relating to OSHA RFI

1. Update the List of Regulated substancesa) Adding other toxic or flammable substancesb) Adding high and/or low explosivesc) Adding ammonium nitrated) Adding reactive substances and reactivity hazardse) Adding other categories of substancesf) Removing certain substances from the list or raising TQg) Lowering the TQ for substances currently on the list

2. Additional Risk Management Program Elements

3. Define and Require Evaluation of Updates to RAGAGEP

4. Extend Mechanical Integrity Requirements to Cover Any Safety-Critical Equipment

5. Require Owners and Operators to Manage Organizational Changes

6. Require Third-Party Compliance Audits

7. Coordination of Emergency Planning with Local Responders

8. Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP ApplicabilityOFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

14

Additional items raised in EPA RFI1. Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis

2. Emergency Drills & Exercises

3. Automated Detection and Monitoring for Releases

4. Additional Stationary Source Location Requirements

5. Compliance with Emergency Response Program Requirements in Coordination with Local Responders

6. Incident Investigation and Accident History Requirements

7. Worst Case Release Scenario Quantity Requirements for Processes Involving Numerous Small Vessels Stored Together

8. Information Sharing

9. Threshold Quantities and OCA Endpoints for Regulated Substances Based on AEGL Toxicity Values

10. Program 3 NAICS Codes Based on RMP Accident History Data

11. The “Safety Case” Regulatory Model

12. Streamlining RMP RequirementsOFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

15

How SERs can help Helpful Information:

◦ Consider how the options presented might impact your business or organization

◦ Provide specific examples of impacts◦ Provide cost data, if available◦ Suggest other relevant options; provide data on their costs and information

on how to ensure compliance


16

Potentially impacted small entities

Examples include, but are not limited, to:◦ Ammonia refrigeration facilities,◦ Water and wastewater treatment plants (private or government-owned),◦ Warehouses,◦ Chemical manufacturers,◦ Natural gas processing facilities,◦ Petroleum refineries,◦ Chemical and petroleum distributors, and◦ Agricultural wholesale and retail facilities.


17

RMP Universe of Facilities*Program 1 Program 2 Program 3

Small Large Small Large Small Large

Refineries 5 8 0 3 21 119 156Chemical Manufacturing 32 21 49 15 458 891 1466Food/Beverage Manufacturing 1 2 6 5 368 1094 1476Pulp and Paper 0 1 0 1 5 63 70Other Manufacturing 33 29 34 39 113 136 384Agricultural Distributors 9 1 0 0 1564 2093 3667Chemical /petroleum wholesale 5 15 0 0 160 429 609Other wholesale 0 5 0 0 100 197 302Warehouses 11 59 0 0 267 719 1056Water / POTW 6 10 527 418 463 601 2025Oil & gas production 88 222 13 28 104 286 741Other 29 50 66 68 128 249 590

Totals219 423 695 577 3751 6877

12542642 1272 10628


RMP Facility Type Total

* Information obtained from EPA RMP database

18

RMP Accidents (2004 – 2013)*Category (% small business) P1 P2 P3 Total

Refineries (17%) 8 0 161 169Chemical Manufacturing (37%) 6 6 518 530Food/Beverage Manufacturing (25%) 0 2 268 270Pulp and Paper (7%) 0 0 46 46Other Manufacturing (47%) 1 9 43 53Agricultural Distributors (43%) 0 0 156 156Chemical /petroleum wholesale (27%) 2 0 36 38Other wholesale (33%) 0 0 20 20Warehouses (26%) 1 0 71 72Water / POTW (49%) 0 34 41 75Oil & gas production (28%) 8 1 44 53Other (38%) 9 5 21 35Totals 35 57 1425 1517



Overview of Proposed Revisions

19

P1 P2 P3

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

√ √

Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with accidents/near misses) *

√ √

Safer Alternatives Analysis (applies to a subset of P3 in certain NAICS codes) *

√

Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements with Local Responders

√ √

Emergency Response Exercises * √ √

Information Sharing * √ √ √

* New Proposed Requirement


Third-Party Compliance Audits

20

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. Lack of auditor independence can result in more lenient or biased audit results that are less accurate and reliable.

Proposed revisions require facilities to (Applies to first audit following an accident for all P2 and P3 in lieu of a compliance audit) :

◦ Conduct an independent audit.◦ Auditor must not be associated with the regulated facility or parent

company.


Incident Investigations & Root Cause Analysis

21

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: Facilities not required to complete root cause analysis which could identify the underlying reasons for a chemical accident to prevent future accidents and ensure compliance. Current catastrophic release definition not well defined and misinterpreted. Criteria used for reportable accidents is better defined and understood.

Proposed Revisions require facilities to (Applies to P2 and P3): ◦ Within 12 months, complete a root cause investigation (i.e. identifying the

fundamental reason why an incident occurred and the correctable failures(s) in management systems) for all RMP reportable incidents and near miss incidents.


Safer Alternatives Analysis

22

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: Facilities are not required to consider safer technologies and alternatives (including inherently safer technologies) that could prevent or minimize the effects of chemical accidents

Proposed Revisions require P3 facilities in NAICS codes 322 (pulp and paper), 324 (petroleum refineries), and 325 (chemical manufacturers) to:

◦ As part of PHA, analyze potential safer technologies and alternatives and the feasibility of implementation of any inherently safer technologies considered.

◦ Owner would not be required to implement any prescribed technology.


Local Coordination

23

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)

Issue 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.

Proposed revisions require facilities to: (Applies to all P2 and P3)◦ Coordinate annually with the LEPC/emergency responders and ensure

response capabilities exist.◦ Document coordination and allow LEPC/responders to request facility

prepare emergency response program


24

RMP Responder/Non-responder*Category (% small business)

Responder Non-responder% Non-

responderP2 P3 P2 P3

Refineries (17%) 1 128 2 12 10%Chemical Manufacturing (37%) 28 977 36 372 29%Food/Beverage Manufacturing (25%) 4 958 7 504 35%Pulp and Paper (7%) 1 61 0 7 10%Other Manufacturing (47%) 55 143 18 106 39%Agricultural Distributors (43%) 0 580 0 3077 84%Chemical/petroleum wholesale (27%) 0 374 0 215 37%Other wholesale (33%) 0 89 0 208 70%Warehouses (26%) 0 557 0 429 44%Water / POTW (49%) 150 483 795 581 68%Oil & gas production (28%) 11 238 30 152 42%Other (38%) 61 216 73 161 46%Totals 311 4804 961 5824 57%



Emergency Response Exercises

25

Current Requirements: Currently there is no RMP requirement for facilities to exercise their emergency response program or plan.

Issue to Address: Incidents at RMP facilities often indicate poor emergency response planning and execution. Requiring exercises is likely to improve emergency response by facilities and community responders and reduce the consequences of an accident on the community.

Proposed Revisions: Require facilities to test their emergency response program through notification, tabletop, and/or field exercises (Applies to all P2 and P3)

◦ Require “responding” and “non-responding” facilities to have annual notification exercise.

◦ Require “responding” facilities to conduct field exercise every 5 years and tabletop exercise in interim years and invite local responders to participate.

◦ Document all exercises.


Information Sharing

26

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: Accessing and understanding the information in the plans can be challenging. Need to find a better way to make emergency response information easier to comprehend and ensure greater transparency w/o compromising security.

Proposed revisions add new disclosure elements: (Applies to all facilities)◦ LEPCs and responders: Summaries of chemical hazard information; including

incident investigation reports (with root cause findings); drill/exercise reports; compliance audits; accident history; and summary of the inherently safer technologies implemented or planned to be implemented.

◦ General public: Providing existing public information in an easy format. ◦ Public meetings: Occur once every five years and within 30 days of a reportable

accident.


27

Some Issues to Consider Will there will be sufficient availability of independent third parties to conduct compliance audits?

How to define a “near miss” that will require an incident investigation and root cause analysis?

What is the proper scope of safer technologies and alternatives analyses and feasibility studies?

What will be the impact of improved coordination with local responders, and how will this affect the universe of responding and non-responding RMP-subject facilities?

What is the proper frequency and scope of exercises?

What types of information are appropriate to share to improve emergency coordination with local responders and help fence-line communities understand the risks of accidents at neighboring RMP facilities?



Type of Cost Estimated Compliance Cost1 Notes

Third-party Compliance Audits $18,000 to $48,000 Applies to facilities with P2 and P3 processes after an RMP reportable accident.

Incident Investigation Root Cause Analysis

$1,000 to $5,000 Applies to facilities with P2 and P3 processes only after an RMP reportable accident or a near miss.

Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis

$21,000 to $49,000 per process

Applies to facilities in select NAICS codes with P3 processes. Occurs once every 5 years.

Coordination with local responders $300 to $400 Applies to P2 and P3 facilities. Occurs annually.

New Responder Costs (estimated costs that may apply if a current non-responding facility becomes a responding facility as a result of local coordination activities)

Develop Plan $2,000 to $8,000Initial year costs. New responders will also be subject to exercises costs below.

Train employees $11,000 to $65,000Purchase equipment $50,000 to $60,000

Emergency Response Exercises (P2 and P3)Notification drills $100 to $200 Applies to both responders and non-responders. Occurs

annually.

Tabletop exercises $5,000 to $24,000Applies to responding facilities. Tabletop exercises occur annually except on the year of a field exercises which occurs once every five years.

Field exercises $8,000 to $66,000

Information Sharing (All RMP facilities)LEPC/local responders $4,000 to $10,000 These ranges represent the combined costs for all required

reports. Costs will vary on an annual basis based on which reports must be submitted.

Public $100 to $1,400 Update annually.Public meetings $1,000 to $4,000 Occurs once every 5 years and after a reportable accident.

1 Compliance cost ranges are based on number of processes at the facility and/or number of employees.

Preliminary Estimated Unit Costs (in actual $)*

* Sources for estimate include technical literature, public comments, other similar programs, RMP database, and EPA labor models

28

Questions?


30

Additional InformationON CHEMICAL SAFETY AND SECURITY REGULATIONS AND THE RMP PROGRAM


31

31

Program level 3 NAICS codes*

32211 Pulp mills

32411 Petroleum refineries

32511 Petrochemical manufacturing

325181 Alkali & chlorine manufacturing

325188 All other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing

325192 Cyclic crude & intermediate manufacturing

325199 All other basic organic chemical manufacturing

325211 Plastics material & resin manufacturing

325311 Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing

32532 Pesticide & other agricultural chemical manufacturing * based on 2002 NAICS listing


32

Additional RMP requirements

There are additional RMP requirements not contained in PSM, including: ◦ Management system

◦ Applies to Program 2 and 3 processes◦ Assign a qualified person or position to be responsible for development,

implementation, and integration of risk management program elements◦ Hazard assessment

◦ Offsite consequence analysis: Hypothetical worst-case and alternative release scenarios

◦ Five year accident history: Document accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, significant property damage, environmental damage, evacuations or sheltering-in-place

◦ Prepare and submit RMP to EPA◦ RMP must be updated at least every 5 years or when specified changes occur


CAA Section 112(r)(3) – Listing Criteria

◦ List at least 100 substances known to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the environment if accidentally released

◦ Required EPA to use, but not be limited by, EPCRA EHS list, with appropriate modifications

◦ 16 specific substances mandated by statute◦ Listing criteria

◦ Severity of acute adverse health effects◦ Likelihood of accidental releases◦ Potential magnitude of human exposure

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSEOFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT34

Substances Mandated for Listing by CAA

◦ Chlorine◦ Anhydrous ammonia◦ Methyl chloride◦ Ethylene oxide◦ Vinyl chloride◦ Methyl isocyanate◦ Hydrogen cyanide◦ Ammonia

◦ Hydrogen sulfide◦ Toluene diisocyanate◦ Phosgene◦ Bromine◦ Anhydrous hydrogen chloride◦ Hydrogen fluoride◦ Anhydrous sulfur dioxide◦ Sulfur trioxide


Final List of Regulated Substances

◦ 77 toxic & 63 flammable substances listed based on:◦ Toxicity:

◦ Inhalation LC50 ≤ 50 mg/L air◦ Dermal LD50 ≤ 50 mg/kg body weight◦ Oral LD50 ≤ 25 mg/kg body weight

◦ Ambient physical state:◦ Gas◦ Liquid with vapor pressure > 10 mm Hg

◦ Flammability: NFPA 4 flammability (Flash point < 73oF, Boiling point < 100oF)

◦ Production volume & accident history


36

PSM Retail Exemption*◦ On July 22, 2015, OSHA issued a revised interpretation to the PSM

retail exemption at 29 CFR 1910.119(a)(2)(i). ◦ The revised interpretation states that only facilities in NAICS codes

44 and 45, the retail trade, are eligible for the retail exemption.◦ When this revision goes into effect, most of the RMP program level

2 facilities (mostly agricultural chemical distributors) will be subject to OSHA PSM and will move from Program level 2 to Program level 3.


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

37

DHS CFATS regulations Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS) was authorized in Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, published at 6 CFR Part 27 and includes the following requirements:

◦ Chemicals of Interest (COI) list with over 300 chemicals◦ Most COI derived from existing chemical lists:

◦ EPA RMP list◦ DOT Hazardous Materials

◦ Poisonous by Inhalation◦ Explosives

◦ Department of Commerce Chemical Weapons Convention list◦ Screening Threshold Quantities (STQs) based on release, theft, sabotage

◦ Facilities with COI > STQ must submit Top Screen to DHS◦ Facilities designated by DHS as high-risk must:

◦ Complete security vulnerability assessment (SVA)◦ Prepare & implement site security plan (SSP) addressing 18 risk-based performance

standards (RBPS – listed on slide 39).


38

CFATS RBPS1. Restrict Area Perimeter

2. Secure Site Assets

3. Screen & Control Access

4. Deter, Detect & Delay

5. Shipping, Receipt & Storage

6. Theft & Diversion

7. Sabotage

8. Cyber

9. Response

10. Monitoring

11. Training

12. Personnel Surety

13. Elevated Threats

14. Specific Threats, Vulnerabilities or Risks

15. Reporting of Significant Security Incidents

16. Significant Security Incidents & Suspicious Activities

17. Officials & Organization

18. Records


Risk Management Modernization Rule SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PRE-PANEL OUTREACH MEETING WITH...

Documents

Transcript of Risk Management Modernization Rule SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PRE-PANEL OUTREACH MEETING WITH...