1. Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

2. Existing regulatory framework The Risk Management Program is one of several programs that address chemical facility safety and security: ◦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 ◦Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS)-DHS security requirements ◦ATF requirements for explosives ◦State/local requirements (e.g., NJ, Contra Costa County, CA regulations) 22

3. Risk Management Program rule ◦Promulgated in 1996 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments ◦Applies to all stationary sources with processes that contain more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance (approx. 12,500 sources) ◦Includes a wide variety of industry sectors, including: refining, chemical manufacturing, energy production, ammonia refrigeration, water treatment, bulk storage, chemical distribution, agricultural retail, and chemical warehouses 3

4. Applicability 4

5. Final List of Regulated Substances 140 substances (63 flammable, 77 toxic) 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. EPA RMP Exemptions Mixtures < 1% concentration (flammable and toxic) Gasoline used as fuel for internal combustion engines Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to processing “Articles” Activities in laboratories Flammable substances used as fuel or held for retail sale Specified uses ◦As structural component of stationary source ◦For routine janitorial maintenance ◦As foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items ◦In process water, non-contact cooling water, compressed air, or air used for combustion Outer continental shelf sources Anhydrous ammonia held by farmers for use as nutrient Transportation 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. Colorado by Program Level P1: 34 P2: 69 P3: 77 13

14. RMP Requirements ◦Requires the source to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) ◦Addresses elements aimed at preventing accidental releases and reducing the severity of releases that occur ◦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 14

15. Program levels PROGRAM 1 642 Facilities PROGRAM 2 1,272 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 *Analysis reflects OSHA change to PSM retail exemption issued July 2015 15 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 PROGRAM 3 10,628 Facilities* Processes that would not affect the public in the event of a worst- case release & no accidents with offsite consequences in the last five years ◦Small quantities of flammables, less volatile toxics ◦Limited accident prevention including hazard assessment and emergency response requirements

16. Program level comparison PROGRAM 1PROGRAM 2PROGRAM 3  Worst case analysis  5-year accident history  Document management system  Worst case analysis  5-year accident history  Document management system  Worst case analysis  5-year accident history  Document management system Prevention Program Certify no additional prevention steps needed  Safety information  Hazard review  Operating procedures  Training  Maintenance  Incident investigation  Compliance audit  Process safety information  Process hazard analysis (PHA)  Operating procedures  Training  Maintenance  Incident investigation  Compliance audit  Management of change  Pre-startup review  Contractors  Employee participation  Hot work permits Emergency Response Program Coordinate with local responders Develop plan/program and coordinate with local responders 16

17. PSM v. RMP Not the same! Different listed chemicals, concentrations, thresholds Some RMP elements not included in PSM – Management System, 5 year accident history Use different terminology 17

18. PSM Exemptions – NOT RMP Non-fuel substances sold at retail facilities Flammable liquids stored in atmospheric storage tanks Normally unoccupied remote facilities 18

19. Program Levels Wrong program level determination Management system: fail to document names of people or positions and define the lines of authority Program Level 1: ◦Proper documentation not maintained for worst-case release scenarios ◦Claim to be P1 but do not meet criteria 19

20. 5 Year Accident History Requirements (all Program Levels) The release must be from a covered process and involve a regulated substance held above its threshold quantity in the process. The release must have caused at least one of the following: ◦On-site deaths, injuries, or significant property damage OR ◦Known offsite deaths, injuries, property damage, environmental damage, evacuations, or sheltering in place 20

21. 5 Year Accident History Failure to report ◦Incidents requiring more than first aid ◦Offsite Data ◦Do not know accurate number of people sheltered in place or evacuated ◦Do not have numbers for property or environmental damage ◦Triggers that require RMP reporting ◦Consequences onsite and offsite ◦Accidents with amounts below CERCLA/EPCRA RQs 21

22. Offsite Consequence Analysis Estimate “distance to endpoint” for hypothetical worst case and alternative chemical release Identify public and environmental receptors P1: one worst case for each P1 process P2 &3: ◦1 worst case for ALL toxics ◦1 worst case for ALL flammables ◦Additional worst case for another process if different receptors ◦At least 1 alternative release for each toxic ◦At least 2 alternative release for ALL flammables 22

23. OCA Wrong release quantity or inconsistency between release quantity & endpoint distance Wrong chemical chosen for worst-case scenario Gross mismatch between process & release quantity 23

24. Safety Information (P2) 24

25. Prevention Program P2: Safety Information No or outdated SDS No documentation on max inventory, upper/low limits Obsolete equipment or design with no plans to change or documentation to show still safe Safety information not updated when change occurred 25

26. Process Safety Information (P3) 26

27. Prevention Program P3:Process Safety Information No documentation showing equipment designed to old costs/standards is still safe (68.65(c)(3)) Did not evaluate consequences of deviation PSI incomplete, not current, or inaccurate ◦Safe Operating Control Limits not specified ◦P&IDs ◦Title block missing date ◦No “checked” or “approved by” signature ◦Inaccuracies noted during walk through 27

28. Hazard Review (P2) 28

29. Process Hazard Analysis (P3) 29

30. Hazard Review/PHA P2 ◦Do not look beyond industry check list Have not looked at industry standard since facility was designed/built P3 ◦PHA findings not resolved, documented, or tracked ◦Safety information not up to date so PHA not started on time ◦Stationary source siting not addressed ◦Miss 5 year update or not retained for the life of the process 30

31. Operating Procedures (P2) 31

32. Operating Procedures (P3) 32

33. Operating Procedures Not maintaining temporary operating procedures Did not assign responsibility for emergency shutdown Did not include operating limits & consequences of deviations Relying solely on existing industry or manufacturer’s operating procedures No start up after emergency shut down procedure 33

34. Operating Procedures 2 Do not have all required written procedures Operators not able to access procedures Did not certify operating procedures annually (P3) Operating procedures not current 34

35. Training Must train new operators on the operating procedures and cover health and safety hazards, emergency operations, and safe work practices Refresher every three years (consult with employees re: frequency) Required to determine that each operator has received and understood the training Keep a record for each employee with the date of the training and the method used to verify that the employee understood the training. 35

36. Maintenance (P2) 36

37. Mechanical Integrity (P3) 37

38. Management of Change (P3) 38

39. Management of Change (P3) Not performed on changed process or equipment (was not “in kind”) PSI not updated SOP not updated Mechanical integrity procedures not updated MOC done after change completed MOC signed off but actual changes not done 39

40. Pre-Startup Review (P3) 40

41. Pre-Startup Safety Review (P3) Not done, even though PSI information changed Not done prior to introduction of regulated substance Construction documents not used as basis of pre-startup review PSSR has sign offs but not reflected in actual operations (training, SOPs) 41

42. Employee Participation 42

43. Hot Work Permits 43

44. Contractors 44

45. Employee Participation/Hot Work Permit/Contractors (P3) Employee Participation ◦No written employee participation program ◦Written program not followed Hot Work Permit ◦Permit not fully completed ◦Fire protection requirements not implemented prior to hot work Contractors ◦Contractor safety performance & programs not evaluated ◦Safe work practices not followed 45

46. Incident Investigations (P2/3) 46

47. Incident Investigations “Near misses” not investigated Unresolved or undocumented findings/recommendations Unreported incidents in 5-year accident history Reports never finished due to liability Not getting to “root cause” Attorney does incident investigation, then claims attorney/client privilege 47

48. Compliance Audit Conduct an audit of the process to evaluate compliance with the prevention program requirements at least once every three years. At least one person involved in the audit must be knowledgeable about the process. Develop a report of the findings and document appropriate responses to each finding and document that deficiencies have been addressed. The two most recent audit reports must be kept on-site. 48

49. Compliance Audit Issues Not completed at least every 3 years, if at all Does not review all RMP prevention program requirements No certifier or left blank Does not identify person responsible for addressing findings/recommendation, time/schedule, or what actions to be taken Resolutions/corrective actions not documented Perpetually in process 49

50. More Compliance Audit Did not “promptly” address recommendations Did not address previous PHA and/or compliance audit recommendations; same finding from previous audit Missing documentation (MOC, PSSR, incident investigations) Did not identify overdue inspections, testing, or equipment replacement per applicable code, standard, or RAGAGEP Using PSM audit (not same!!) 50

51. Emergency Response Program Non-responding: coordinate with LEPC or FD as appropriate. Responding: Need Emergency Response Program ◦Maintain an emergency response plan (maintained at the facility) that includes: ◦Procedures for informing the public and emergency response agencies about releases, ◦Documentation of proper first aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat human exposures, and ◦Procedures and measures for emergency response. ◦Procedures for using, inspecting, testing, and maintaining your emergency response equipment; ◦Training for all employees in relevant procedures; and ◦Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the facility and ensure that employees are informed of changes. 51

52. Emergency Response Wrong phone numbers Long chain of phone calls to be made – not “immediately” Don’t know where plan or SDSs are, what to do to report a major release Say respond when don’t have the capability No first aid information for RMP chemicals Outdated Use Fire Department; did not coordinate 52

53. Risk Management Modernization Rule OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

54. Background On August 1, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security following several catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States.(EO) 13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security ◦Focus is to reduce risks associated with hazardous chemicals to owners and operators, workers, and communities by enhancing the safety and security of chemical facilities. 54

55. More Background The keys areas of emphasis under the EO are: ◦Strengthening community planning and preparedness, ◦Enhancing federal operational coordination, ◦Improving data management, and ◦Modernizing policies and regulations. ◦EPA issued a request for information (RFI) on July 31, 2014, and ◦Convened a Small Business Advocacy Review panel on November 4, 2015. Comments closed May 13, 2016 55

56. Overview of Proposed Revisions P1P2P3 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√√√ 56

57. Additional resources RMP rule webpage: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed-changes-risk- management-program-rmp-rulehttp://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed-changes-risk- management-program-rmp-rule EO activities under EO 13650: http://www.epa.gov/rmp/executive- order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-securityhttp://www.epa.gov/rmp/executive- order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security A copy of EO 13650 is available at: https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html. https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html A copy of the Report to the President: Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security–A Shared Commitment is available at https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html. https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html A copy of the EPA RFI is available at https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-18037. https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-18037 57

58. Anhydrous Ammonia OSHA Retail Exemption Change – On Hold! OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

59. EPA RMP Exemptions Mixtures < 1% concentration (flammable and toxic) Gasoline used as fuel for internal combustion engines Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to processing “Articles” Activities in laboratories Flammable substances used as fuel or held for retail sale Specified uses ◦As structural component of stationary source ◦For routine janitorial maintenance ◦As foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items ◦In process water, non-contact cooling water, compressed air, or air used for combustion Outer continental shelf sources Anhydrous ammonia held by farmers for use as nutrient Transportation 59 NO RETAIL EXEMPTION FOR TOXIC CHEMICALS

60. 60

61. Program Level 2 v. Program Level 3: Offsite Consequence Analysis & Management System 61 Same!

62. Program Level 2 v. Program Level 3: Prevention Program 62

63. Program Level 2 v. Program Level 3: Emergency Response Program 63 Same!

64. Tools WISER, CAMEO 64

65. WISER: wiser.nlm.nih.gov Wireless Information System for Emergency Responders ◦Substance Identification Support ◦Physical characteristics ◦Human health info ◦Contaminant and suppressant guidance Standalone app or with internet 65

66. 66

67. 67

68. 68

69. CAMEO CAMEO Chemicals CAMEOfm Database Mapping Applications for Response, Planning, and Local Operational Tasks – (MARPLOT) Areal Locations Of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) 69

70. CAMEO for Responders/Planning Quickly identify chemical properties, response procedures, and PPE with CAMEO Chemicals Don’t need internet Import GIS Shapefiles into MARPLOT Develop mock scenarios of potential releases and predict worse case releases Develop emergency response plans using models of threat zones associated with a release(s) of hazardous chemicals Plot sensitive populations, county-specific attributes, potential contamination sources 70

71. Download: http://www.epa.gov/cameo http://www.epa.gov/cameo 71

72. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 72

73. CAMEO Chemicals - Desktop, Online, Mobile OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 73

74. 74

75. CAMEOfm 75

76. 76

77. MARPLOT: Mapping Applications for Response, Planning, and Local Operational Tasks 77

78. 78

79. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 79

80. ALOHA: Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres 80

81. 81

82. 82

83. 83

84. 84

85. 85

86. 86

87. Questions? Rebecca Broussard broussard.rebecca@epa.gov 303-312-6568 broussard.rebecca@epa.gov 87