1. Presented at May 2, 2016 CAP Meeting Proposed Changes to EPA’s Risk Management Program May 2, 2016 Bayer Group 4:3 Template January 2016Page 1

2. Background

3. Proposed Changes to RMP Rule Background Proposed rule change is in response to Executive Order 13650 on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security Improve operational coordination with state and local partners Enhance Federal agency coordination and information sharing Modernize policies, regulations and standards, and Work with stakeholders to identify best practices The goal of the proposed amendments to the current RMP regulation Reduce the likelihood of accidental releases at chemical facilities, improve emergency response activities when those releases occur, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated facilities. Rule proposed on Monday, March 14 (81 FR 13638) Comments due May 13, 2016 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725) Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 3

4. Proposed Changes to RMP Rule Notable Dates Aug 1, 2013EO 13650 issued Dec 9, 2013OSHA PSM RFI issued Jan 3, 2014EO Work Group issues options Mar 10, 2014Original PSM RFI comment deadline Mar 31, 2014EO WG and PSM RFI comment deadline May 29, 2014EO WG sends report to White House Jun 6, 2014WH releases EO WG report Jul 24, 2014EPA release RMP RFI Jul 31, 2014RMP RFI published in Fed. Reg. Aug 14, 2014DHS CFATS RFI Oct 29, 2014RMP RFI comment deadline Jun 6, 2015OSHA SBREFA deadline commitment Fall 2015EPA conducts SBAR Mar 14, 2016EPA FR published RMP rule changes Mar 29, 2016Public hearing on proposed rule May 13, 2016RMP comment deadline First Quarter 2016OSHA begins PSM SBREFA ???EPA publishes final RMP rule Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 4 Acronyms EOExecutive Order OSHAOccupational Safety and Health Administration PSMProcess Safety Management RFIRequest for Information WGWork Group WHWhite House RMPRisk Management Program Fed. Reg.Federal Register DHSDepartment of Homeland Security CFATSChemical Facility Anti- Terrorism Standards SBREFASmall Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SBARSmall Business Advocacy Review FRFederal Register

5. Proposed Changes to RMP Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis 12,542 RMP facilities 1,466 regulated chemical manufacturing facilities In the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed revisions, EPA estimates a total annual cost of $300,000 for regulated facilities to become familiar with the rule. That equates to $23.92 for each facility. Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 5 ** Evaluation of 10 years of incident data in the five-year accident history database

6. Proposed Changes

7. Proposed Changes to RMP Rule What Are the Proposed Changes Accident Prevention Program Incident investigations Third-party compliance audits Conduct safer technology and alternatives analysis during process hazard analyses Emergency Response Provisions Coordinate with local emergency response agencies Conduct notification exercises (annually) Conduct a full field exercise (every 5 years) and table-top exercises annually Availability of Information Make available to the public certain basic information Provide the LEPC with summary information Hold a public meeting after an RMP reportable accident Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 7

8. Proposed Changes to RMP Incident Investigations Third-Party Compliance Audits Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) and Inherently Safer Technology (IST) Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel March 2016 Accident Prevention Provisions Page 8

9. Incident Investigations Proposed Changes Investigations must include root cause analysis; not just identify “contributing factors” Root causes must be determined using a “recognized method” Investigations must be completed within a 12-month time period, unless… Revised definition of “catastrophic release”; no definition of “near miss” Basis or Reason for Change If you only identify “factors that contributed to the incident” you may miss identifying the underlying, system-related reasons why an incident occurred EPA provides examples of incident investigations where root causes of similar prior incidents at the same company or facility were not analyzed and determined Questions/Issues/Concerns Is the problem with the investigation method or the conduct of the investigation? Rather than impose additional requirements to all facilities, maybe EPA should better educate sources and enforce existing regulations What are “recognized methods”? Catastrophic release definition potentially expands the scope of incident investigations Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 9

10. Third-Party Compliance Audits Proposed Changes Facilities must contract with an independent, third-party to perform a compliance audit after a reportable release or if agency determines past audits were inadequate Scope: The owner or operator shall certify… “for each covered process”… Basis or Reason for Changes EPA cites poor compliance audits as a contributing factor to the severity of past chemical accidents. Third-party audits required in several enforcement settlements Questions/Issues/Concerns Availability and expertise of third-party auditors meeting the independence criteria The “for each covered process” provision is unnecessary and overly burdensome Would outreach and enforcement of existing requirements be better than new requirements? If third-party audits are so good, why limit to only after an accident? What criteria can the agency use to determine that past audits were inadequate? Requirement for a P.E. on the team doesn’t ensure better quality or a more ethical audit Lose the benefits (knowledge sharing) associated with using second-party auditors Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 10

11. STAA and IST Proposed Changes Facilities in the Paper, Petroleum, and Chemical sectors must conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) in the process hazard analysis (PHA). In addition, the feasibility of any inherently safer technology (IST) identified in the STAA must be determined; however, there is no mandate to implement IST. Basis or Reason for Changes Voluntary and non-voluntary implementation of IST is becoming more common A work group showed there was broad support of the benefits of safer alternatives Research had identified numerous examples of recommendations from incidents that include risk reduction from the hierarchy of controls. Questions/Issues/Concerns What’s the point of considering STAA and/or IST if not required to implement? Why limit to just the three NAICS sectors (Paper, Petroleum, and Chemical)? If process risks are adequately addressed, there is no need for further analysis EPA’s cost estimate of $20,600 per facility is significantly underestimated for larger facilities Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 11

12. Proposed Changes to RMP Coordination with Local Emergency Response Agencies Conduct Emergency Response Exercises (Notification, Field, Table-Top) Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel March 2016 Emergency Response Enhancements Page 12

13. Coordination with Local Emergency Response Agencies Proposed Changes Coordinate with the local emergency response agencies at least once a year Required to comply with emergency response program requirements If it is determined during the coordination that local responding agencies do not have capability to adequately respond Emergency response plans must be reviewed and updated at least annually Basis or Reason for Changes Instances of poor coordination between RMP facilities and local planners and responders States and locals have indicated that some RMP facilities do not adequately engage in meaningful coordination Questions/Issues/Concerns Frustration on the part of some facilities because some LEPCs are not active or do not have sufficient resources to fully implement EPCRA requirements. Should the LEPC be required to justify a request for a facility to develop an emergency response plan? Is annual coordination the appropriate frequency? Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 13

14. Emergency Response Exercises Proposed Changes Facilities must conduct an annual notification exercise. Must conduct an emergency response field exercise at least once every five years and within one year of an reportable accidental release. Must conduct a table-top exercise annually except in years when a field exercise is completed. Basis or Reason for Changes Poor emergency response planning and execution by RMP facilities has increased the severity of accidents. Requiring exercises is likely to improve emergency response. Questions/Issues/Concerns Current rule already requires training for emergency response. Enforce existing rule. The requirement to document and submit summaries of exercises is burdensome and does nothing to improve safety Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 14

15. Proposed Changes to RMP Provide LEPC with Summaries Related to Various Facility Activities Make Certain Basic Information Available to the Public Public Meetings Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel March 2016 Enhanced Availability of Information Page 15

16. Public Disclosure to LEPCs Proposed Changes Upon request by the LEPC Make the RMP accessible to local emergency responders and the LEPC Provide summaries of specific chemical hazard information to the LEPC or local emergency response officials Information on regulated substances ● Accident history information Compliance audit reports ● Incident investigation reports Inherently safer technologies ● Exercises Basis or Reason for Changes Poor communication between facility personnel and first responders has been shown to contribute to the severity of chemical accidents. Information helps responders understand the potential risks at the facility Questions/Issues/Concerns Concerns over security of vulnerable information Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 16

17. Public Availability of Information Proposed Changes Distribute certain chemical hazard information for all regulated processes to the public in an easily accessible manner Names of regulated substances ● SDSs for all regulated substances Facility’s accident history ● Information about emergency response (ER) Information about ER exercises ● LEPC contact information Basis or Reason for Changes Poor communication between facility personnel and communities has been shown to contribute to the severity of chemical accidents. Information encourages the public to prepare for an emergency Questions/Issues/Concerns Concerns over security of vulnerable information Not enough information Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 17

18. Public Meetings Proposed Changes Hold a public meeting within 30 days after an accident meeting the five-year accident history criteria. Information to be provided during the public meeting includes: When the accident occurred ● Nature of the accident Initiating and contributing factors ● Chemicals involved; quantities released Weather conditions ● On-site and offsite impacts Emergency response notifications ● Changes implemented since event Also cover information required to be made publicly available (see previous slide) Basis or Reason for Changes Poor communication between facility personnel and communities has been shown to contribute to the severity of chemical accidents. Opportunity to engage the public Questions/Issues/Concerns Likely that the investigation will not be complete before the public meeting is held Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel May 2016Page 18

19. Proposed Changes to RMP Changes to the List of Hazardous Substances Requirements for Location of Stationary Sources Requirements for Emergency Shutdown Systems Bayer Kansas City - Community Advisory Panel March 2016 Items Not Addressed in Proposed Rule Page 19

20. Thank you! Bayer Group 4:3 Template January 2016Page 20