PT Notes
EPA RMP Rule 2024 Amendments - Process Safety Information and Availability of Hazard Evaluation Information
PT Notes is a series of topical technical notes on process safety provided periodically by Primatech for your benefit. Please feel free to provide feedback.
Under the Program 2 Prevention Program, Safety Information must now be documented, and under the Program 3 Prevention Program, Process Safety Information is now required to be kept up to date, and the owner or operator must now both ensure and document that the process is designed and maintained in compliance with RAGAGEP.
Under the requirements for Risk Management Plans, Program 2 and 3 sources must provide:
Recommendations declined from natural hazard, power loss, and siting hazard evaluations and justifications.
Additionally, Program 3 sources must provide:
Recommendations declined from safety gaps between codes, standards, or practices to which the process was designed and constructed and the most current version of applicable codes, standards, or practices.
Program 3 Process Hazard Analysis is now required to address:
Any gaps in safety between the codes, standards, or practices to which the process was designed and constructed and the most current version of applicable codes, standards, or practices.
Furthermore, declined recommendations and justifications must be included under the Availability of Information to the Public.
EPA believes that the provision to make hazard evaluation recommendation information available will enable the public to ensure facilities have conducted appropriate evaluations to address potential hazards that can affect communities near the fenceline of facilities.
EPA is not requiring facilities to implement recommendations from natural hazard, power loss, and siting hazard evaluations, as long as facilities list in their risk management plans the recommendations that were not implemented and the justifications for those decisions.
EPA believes the requirements relating to declined recommendations are important to help the public understand how facilities address the hazards that may affect their community to keep the risk at or below an ‘‘acceptable level,’’ which includes adherence to RAGAGEP, and the reasonable judgments and efforts of compliance programs aimed at preventing or mitigating accidental releases. EPA believes that when local citizens have adequate information and knowledge about the risks associated with facility hazards, facility owners and operators may be motivated to further improve their safety performance in response to community oversight. At a minimum, EPA expects that better community understanding of identified hazards and remedies not implemented will promote better community emergency planning.
EPA believes that the flexibility permitted in hazards evaluations by allowing facility owners and operators to choose which recommendations will be implemented is the best approach for exercising reasonable judgement to determine what risk reduction measures work best for their particular chemical use, process, or facility. However, EPA views choosing to leave hazards unaddressed out of fear of public scrutiny as not exercising reasonable judgement, particularly when it may leave the process more vulnerable to accidental releases.
EPA notes that OSHA’s 1994 Compliance Directive specified four grounds for justifiably rejecting PHA recommendations:
- The PHA upon which a recommendation is based contains material factual errors.
- The recommendation is not necessary to protect the health of employees or contractors.
- An alternative measure would provide a sufficient level of protection.
- The recommendation is infeasible.
EPA believes that requiring owners and operators to choose one of four preselected categories makes it easier for owners and operators to understand and comply with their duties and is thus finalizing this component in the rule.
EPA is not requiring narrative explanations to be reported as there is concern that such explanations may be greatly inconsistent as they would require large amounts of technically challenging and varying information to be comparably condensed.
EPA believes that four pre-selected categories ensures a balanced approach to providing beneficial data to the public, as well as a straightforward method of reporting for facility owners and operators.
While EPA is not adding the categories to the regulatory text, EPA plans to revise its online RMP submission system, RMP*eSubmit, to include the categories, similar to the those in OSHA’s 1994 Compliance Directive. Therefore, sources will be able to update their RMPs with the information once the additional data field is incorporated into the system, and in accordance with applicable compliance dates. EPA also plans to update the RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual to provide guidance for entering declined recommendations and applying these categories to them. The changes will be made to the submission system prior to the compliance date.
If you would like further information, please click here.
To comment on this PT Note, click here.
You may be interested in:
Disclaimer: This PT Note provides Primatech’s interpretation of regulatory requirements. The actual regulatory requirements can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/rmp
