Proposal to modify some aspects of the Risk Management Plan / Chemical Accident Prevention requirements, especially for emergency response training

1. Risk Management
What’s Going?
What’s Staying? Andrew D. Shroads, QEP
614.887.7227 • ashroads@scainc.com
PO Box 1276
Westerville, OH 43086
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, SC&A is not
responsible for any errors or omissions. This information is not a substitute for professional
environmental consulting services. If legal services are required, consult with legal counsel.

2. What is the Risk Management Program?
Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions – 40 CFR, Part 68
A risk management plan (RMP) is required for sites that store more
than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance
• Toxic materials – §68.130, Table 1
• Flammable materials – §68.130, Table 3
Three program levels of RMP requirements. Each RMP contains:
• Hazards Assessment
• Offsite Consequence Analysis
• 5-year Accident History
• Emergency Response & Accidental Release Prevention Policies
• Operating, Training, and Maintenance Procedures
• Incident Investigation
2

3. What changes were made?
January 13, 2017: RMP Amendments – Final Rule
• Clarify catastrophic release definition
• Expand incident investigations to include root cause
analysis
• Expand process hazard analysis (PHA) to include ALL
incident investigations (i.e. from similar processes)
• Require incident investigation completion within 12 months
• Require safer technology / alternatives feasibility analysis
• Require third-party compliance audits submitted to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
• Annual coordination with local emergency responders
• Require emergency response exercises and reports
• Publicly available information and meetings
3

4. Ignore theAmendments
• After the change in administration, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) extended the compliance date of
the January 13, 2017 amendments until February 19, 2019
◦ Delay allowed EPA to hold reconsideration hearings on
January 13, 2017 amendments, as rule is not effective
• EPA prepared a proposed rule modifying some of the
January 13, 2017 amendments
◦ Proposed rule issued May 30, 2018
4

5. Reconsideration – What’s Going
May 30, 2018: RMP Reconsideration – Proposed Rule
Removed:
• Catastrophic release definition
• Incident Investigations:
◦ Root cause analysis
◦ Investigative team composition
◦ Completion within 12 months
• Process hazard analysis (PHA) to include ALL incident
investigations (i.e. from similar processes)
• Safer technology / alternatives feasibility analysis
• Supervisor training requirements
• Third Party Audits
• Publicly available information
5

6. Reconsideration – What’s Staying
May 30, 2018: RMP Reconsideration – Proposed Rule
Retained:
• Classified and confidential business information definitions
• Coordination with local emergency responders
◦ Annual testing of emergency response notifications
◦ Field exercises with local emergency responders
◦ Tabletop exercises with local emergency responders
• Public meeting following accidents
• Disclosure to EPA of emergency response exercises and
public meetings
6

7. Going Forward
• This action by EPA maintains a divergence between the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Process Safety Management (PSM) program and the
EPA RMP program
◦ EPA will now have different, additional requirements
than the OSHA PSM program
◦ EPA & OSHA will coordinate to incorporate rescinded
amendments into both the PSM & RMP programs
• California and Washington State are incorporating the
more stringent amendments into state PSM programs
7

8. Comments on Proposed Rule
Since the reconsideration is only a proposed rule, you can
submit comments to EPA:
• https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-05-
30/pdf/2018-11059.pdf
• 83 FR 24850, Wednesday, May 30, 2018
• Docket: EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725
8

9. Difference between must and should
• Although EPA is removing RMP requirements, does that
mean that you should not include them in your RMP?
◦ Should process supervisors be trained?
◦ Should incidents at similar operations be used when
reviewing process hazards analysis?
◦ Should incident investigations include a root cause
analysis?
• RMPs are developed using codes and standards, using
generally accepted good engineering practices
◦ Cite various codes and standards to support practices
included in RMP
◦ Is your RMP a document that satisfies the regulations,
or does it document your public protection program?
9