PT Notes
EPA RMP Rule 2024 Amendments - Areas of Technical Clarification / Enforcement Issues
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.
Process Safety Information (PSI)
EPA is amending the PSI requirements for Program 3 processes to clarify that the requirement to keep PSI up to date explicitly applies to Program 3 processes as follows, in the italicized text:
The owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by this part and shall keep process safety information up to date. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process.
EPA notes that for processes subject to Program 3 requirements, the current PSI requirements do not explicitly address updating PSI. Instead, that subject is addressed in several other parts of the Program 3 requirements, including the management of change requirements, the pre-startup review requirements, and the requirement to document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. EPA views the amendment as simply clarifying the PSI requirements in order to make the regulation more consistent throughout.
EPA is also harmonizing Program 2 and Program 3 Requirements for compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) so that the requirements for compliance with RAGAGEP are identical for both programs.
EPA is amending the Safety Information requirements for Program 2 processes as follows, in the italicized text:
The owner or operator shall ensure and document that the process is designed and maintained in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
EPA is amending the PSI requirements for Program 3 processes as follows, in the italicized text:
The owner or operator shall ensure and document that the process is designed and maintained in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
EPA has found that the distinction between ‘‘ensure’’ for Program 2 processes and ‘‘document’’ for Program 3 processes creates confusion, and requiring facilities to ‘‘document’’ compliance, rather than merely ‘‘ensure’’ compliance, removes this ambiguity.
At this time, EPA is not expanding the scope of RMP applicability of RAGAGEP beyond Program 2 and 3 processes. EPA does, however, encourage all facilities to use RAGAGEP as it reflects well known industry practices and lessons learned shown to improve process safety and prevent accidents.
EPA is also removing from the rule, the sentence:
Compliance with Federal or State regulations that address industry-specific safe design or with industry-specific design codes and standards may be used to demonstrate compliance with (RAGAGEP).
EPA believes that doing so will clarify the requirements and address a concern that Federal or State regulations may lag behind current RAGAGEP.
EPA notes there is a difference when updated codes augment existing regulations versus when they conflict. To the extent they conflict, existing regulations reign over new RAGAGEP. However, if a facility can comply with existing regulations and new RAGAGEP, then there is an obligation to comply with both. EPA believes this amendment will help resolve confusion when more current RAGAGEP identify potential shortcomings in a facility’s process.
Hot Work Permit
Currently, the RMP rule requires the retention of hot work permits only until completion of the hot work operations. EPA is amending the retention period as follows:
The permit shall be retained for three years after the completion of the hot work operations.
EPA believes that adding a requirement to retain hot work permits after the completion of operations will help ensure prevention and compliance to the greatest extent practicable and contribute to further safety.
EPA notes that under the existing RMP rule, it can be difficult for implementing agencies, and the owner or operator, through the compliance audit provisions to determine if the facility has been conducting hot work in compliance with the hot work requirements of the rule, unless the facility is conducting hot work at the time of the inspection or audit and has hot work permits on file. Adding the requirement to retain hot work permits after the completion of operations addresses this issue.
EPA is finalizing a three-year retention period of hot work permits in order to lessen the burden for facilities conducting hot work often, and to align the requirement with the three-year audit period under the RMP rule.
Retail Facility Definition
EPA is amending the definition to clarify that “income” is for a one-year period:
Retail facility means a stationary source at which more than one-half of the annual income (in the previous calendar or fiscal year) is obtained from direct sales to end users or at which more than one-half of the fuel sold, by volume, is sold through a cylinder exchange program.
EPA notes that the period of sales to end users is unclear in the current definition as it lacks a definite time frame in which to calculate whether more than one-half of the facility’s direct sales are to end users. Specifying a definite period of time eliminates this uncertainty and allows owners and operators to determine more accurately whether regulated substances in a process are subject to the RMP provisions. Also, it may reduce the amount of sales documentation that the owner or operator of a regulated facility must provide to establish its status as a retail facility.
EPA believes that the option of selecting either fiscal year or calendar year provides flexibility in using records in the form that may already exist at facilities, and facilitate the income calculation for those companies whose fiscal year may not coincide with the calendar year.
RAGAGEP Gap Analysis
EPA has added a requirement for Program 3 process hazard analysis. The PHA shall 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.
EPA has added a requirement for the Program 3 RMP for declined PHA recommendations. The owner or operator shall 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.
EPA notes that RAGAGEP includes the facility’s design, maintenance, and operation.
EPA states that the RAGAGEP gap analysis is already expected under existing requirements for process safety information for Program 3 processes. EPA notes this amendment simply clarifies when facilities must, at minimum, conduct or review previous analyses when determining their compliance with the process safety information requirements. EPA also notes that enforcement actions have been taken against facilities for not complying with this provision.
EPA expects owners and operators to regularly review new and updated RAGAGEP applicable to their industry to determine where safety gaps exist within their current process. EPA states that if an updated document explicitly provides that new clauses or requirements are retroactive, those updates are relevant to determining whether the owner or operator’s practice continues to conform to RAGAGEP per the RMP rule.
Where RAGAGEP are updated to be more protective, but are not explicitly retroactive, per the RMP rule, EPA states that the owner or operator should thoroughly evaluate how their process could still be considered safe amid new industry knowledge. EPA believes that simply indicating that a process incident has yet to occur is an inappropriate evaluation for choosing not to adhere to updated RAGAGEP, especially considering changes to RAGAGEP may result from industry accidents, industry operating experience, and improved understanding of existing and newly recognized hazards.
EPA notes that oftentimes it will be difficult for the owner or operator to document that equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner when there is extensive industry knowledge that indicates aspects of older process operations are no longer safe.
EPA believes that PHA teams should include staff who are aware of industry design standards. The PHA team requirement in the rule specifies that the PHA shall be performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations, and EPA expects an expert to be one that has knowledge of current industry standards.
EPA expects that industry trade associations are likely to ease the burden on facilities to identify new or modified RAGAGEP by identifying which of their current RAGAGEP should be broadly applied to the industry, regardless of when the process was designed.
EPA states that the RMP regulations cannot permanently lock into place obsolete or out-of-date RAGAGEP because it is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Clean Air Act.
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
