PT Notes
EPA RMP Rule 2024 Amendments - Employee Participation
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.
EPA is adding requirements for both Program 2 and Program 3 processes relating to developing an employee participation plan and a process to allow employee reporting of unaddressed hazards and other noncompliances, together with additional requirements for Program 3 processes relating to consultation with employees and stop work authority.
Here are the Employee Participation requirements that apply to Program 2 and Program 3 processes:
The owner or operator shall develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation requirements required by the amended RMP rule.
(1) An annual written or electronic notice shall be distributed to employees and their representatives indicating that the plan is readily available to view, and how to access the information.
(2) Training shall be provided as often as necessary to ensure employees and their representatives, and management involved in the process, are informed of the details of the plan.
The owner or operator shall develop and implement a process to allow employees and their representatives to report to either or both the owner or operator and EPA unaddressed hazards that could lead to a catastrophic release, accidents covered by the five-year accident history but not reported as corrections to the Risk Management Plan for new accident history information, and any other noncompliance.
The employee and their representatives may choose to report either anonymously or with attribution.
When a report is made to the owner or operator, a record of the report shall be maintained for three years.
The owner or operator shall provide to employees and their representatives access to hazard reviews and to all other information required to be developed..
EPA believes that workers can play an important role in promoting process safety through reporting noncompliance. EPA also believes that reporting areas of non-compliance to the owner or operator allows employers to become aware of areas of concern and/or opportunities to improve process safety.
EPA does not expect to see a one-size fits-all plan developed by sources for reporting areas of non-compliance. Some RMP facilities are less complex, operating with a handful of employees, while other RMP facilities have very complex processes that involve hundreds of employees. The employee participation provisions allow facility owners and operators the flexibility to exercise reasonable judgement in determining how to best engage their employees and make them aware of their facility’s efforts to apply the RMP rule to process operations. EPA notes that in the absence of a specific performance standard, such as RAGAGEP, or a specific direction, the RMP rule relies on the reasonable judgments and efforts of regulated entities in designing compliance programs that are aimed at preventing or mitigating accidental releases.
EPA’s intent is that the process developed to report noncompliance must detail how to report to the owner or operator and/or EPA. EPA states it is understandable that in some instances employees will feel more comfortable reporting to one or the other entity (or both), but the details provided in the plan should provide clear instructions for how to report to both entities. EPA notes that anonymity is decided by the reporter.
EPA expects that validating reports will not impose a heavy burden on the owner or operator as they should already be familiar with their level of compliance with the rule through regular compliance monitoring activities, such as triennial compliance audits.
EPA is not prescribing details of how a facility needs to follow up with the report. However, the owner or operator is required to at least maintain a record of the report. EPA believes it is in the owner’s or operator’s best interest for the necessary follow-up to address employees’ process safety concerns and/or areas where the owner or operator may have fallen short on compliance with the RMP rule.
When an employer is engaged first and does not resolve an issue, EPA expects that the next step for reporting noncompliance will be to report to EPA. Reporting areas of non-compliance to EPA will allow the Agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to determine the validity of the report received through appropriate levels of follow-up, investigation, and enforcement, if necessary.
EPA is concerned that some sources may provide RMP-related information to their employees without providing details or explanations of the information. EPA believes that workers without required information and training may be unaware of their opportunities and authorities to participate in hazard prevention, and that the lack of worker understanding will inevitably lead to less participation. Therefore, to ensure that employees are regularly reminded that RMP information is available to them, owners and operators of all Program 2 and Program 3 processes are required to provide an annual written or electronic notice to employees indicating that RMP information is available.
EPA also believes that management, employees, and their representatives involved in the process could benefit from training on employee participation plans to ensure these facility stakeholders are aware of the information included in the plans or otherwise available. EPA notes that a more thorough understanding through the training may help reduce unvalidated noncompliance reports. Ultimately EPA expects training on employee participation plans will help employees identify, and owners and operators correct, issues that may prevent and mitigate accidents.
Additionally, for Program 3 processes:
The owner or operator shall consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazard analyses and on the development of the other elements of process safety management.
The owner or operator shall consult with employees knowledgeable in the process and their representatives on addressing, correcting, resolving, documenting, and implementing recommendations and findings of process hazard analyses, compliance audits, and incident investigations.
The owner or operator shall provide the following authorities to employees knowledgeable in the process and their representatives:
(1) Recommend to the operator in charge of a unit that an operation or process be partially or completely shut down, in accordance with procedures established under the Operating Procedures section of the rule, based on the potential for a catastrophic release; and
(2) Allow a qualified operator in charge of a unit to partially or completely shut down an operation or process, in accordance with procedures established under the Operating Procedures section of the rule, based on the potential for a catastrophic release.
EPA believes that involving directly affected employees and their representatives in recommendation discussions and decisions will help ensure that the most effective recommendations for reducing hazards and mitigating risks to employees and the public are given the proper consideration.
EPA also believes that it is important to ensure facility employees have authorities to manage unsafe work as they are one of the last lines of defense to protect human health and the environment from a catastrophic release.
EPA notes that the stop work provision is intended only to include in the written employee participation plan the stop work authorities already established by provisions under the Operating Procedures section of the rule. The provision is not intended to create new authorities or require additional components to those already developed.
EPA believes each facility’s individual operating procedures and approach to correcting equipment deficiencies give owners and operators the flexibility to design a stop work authority for their process operations that remains adaptable to the procedures already in place.
EPA states that because of the significant disruption to process operations that can occur when stop work authority is exercised, the authorities to do so are applicable only to employees who are knowledgeable in the process.
If you would like further information, please click here.
To comment on this PT Note, click here.
You may be interested in:
Process Safety Training Courses
Disclaimer: This PT Note provides Primatech’s interpretation of regulatory requirements. The actual regulatory requirements can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/rmp
