Primatech

Here are comments on key aspects of the amended rule:

Hazard Evaluation of Natural Hazards

EPA has made explicit that the Program 2 Hazard Review and the Program 3 Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) must address natural hazards. This is not a new requirement but it will likely lead to a natural hazards risk assessment performed separately from the Hazard Review or PHA but in parallel with them.

Power loss

The most significant of the new power loss requirements is the requirement to ensure that monitoring equipment associated with the prevention and detection of accidental releases has standby or backup power to provide continuous operation.

The value of backup power is clear, not only for monitoring equipment but also for other safety-critical powered equipment.

Stationary Source Siting

Stationary source siting is already addressed under the current RMP rule. However, it is possible that regulated sources may not have addressed the specific requirement in the amended rule to consider proximate stationary sources wherein the siting of processes and equipment within a stationary source can impact the surrounding community not only through the proximity of an accidental release to offsite receptors adjacent to the facility boundary but also through increasing the likelihood of a secondary knock-on release or domino effect by compromising nearby processes.

Nearby processes can include those of neighboring facilities so that companies may need to share information in order to be able to to meet this requirement.

Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)

PHA for companies in covered sectors must now apply the hierarchy of controls (HOC) when considering measures to reduce risk. In particular, inherently safer technology or design (IST / ISD) measures must be considered. Some companies already apply the HOC but the consideration of IST / ISD measures will be new to some companies.

The additional requirements for sources with processes located within 1 mile of another stationary source having a covered process, sources with hydrofluoric acid alkylation processes, and sources that have had one RMP accident since the most recent PHA are more substantial. The required practicability assessment should be straightforward but requirements to install specific types of protective measures are significant.

Root Cause Analysis (RCA)

Many companies already perform RCA as part of their incident investigations and it is good practice to do so. Compliance with RCA requirements should be straightforward.

Third-Party Compliance Auditing

The amended rule does not change the requirement for RMP facilities to regularly conduct RMP compliance audits, but rather adds that, in specific situations, those audits must be performed by a third party or a team led by a third party, pursuant to the requirements specified in the amended rule.

The third-party audit provision in the amended rule is intended to provide an objective auditing process in circumstances where that may not be the case, for example, when an RMP accident has occurred.

Many companies already use third-party auditors. However, under the amended rule, facility owners or operators must ensure that third-party auditors meet qualification criteria defined in the rule, perform audits in the way specified in the rule, and meet their responsibilities as defined in the rule. Essentially, companies will need to screen third-party auditors and oversee their work.

Owners or operators must address audit findings per the requirements and schedule specified in the rule, and promptly address deficiencies. Compliance should be straightforward.

Audit certification by a senior corporate officer and submission of audit documents to the Board of Directors are notable new requirements.

Employee Participation

There are new requirements for reporting by employees of unaddressed hazards and other noncompliances, and consultation with employees on PHA, other process safety elements, and findings and recommendations from PHAs, compliance audits, and incident investigations. Also, there is a provision for a stop-work authority.

The reporting of unaddressed hazards and other noncompliances involves administrative tasks to prepare a plan and process, notify and train employees, and respond to reports by employees. Similarly, consultation with employees involves mostly administrative tasks.

Arguably, the stop-work provision is the most significant requirement for employee participation. Companies will need to update their operating procedures to comply with the requirements and provide training on the updated procedures to employees.

Emergency Response

Requirements for procedures and systems to notify the public within the area potentially threatened by an accidental release and modifications to emergency response plans will require some effort to develop and implement as will modifications to the requirements for emergency response exercises.

Availability of Information to the Public

The requirement to make chemical hazard information available to the public mostly involves administrative activities, although the need to translate information into other languages will require additional effort.

It remains to be seen how the public will react to the available information, particularly declined recommendations from various process safety studies.

Areas of Technical Clarification / Enforcement Issues

Arguably, the most significant new requirement is to perform a RAGAGEP gap analysis as part of PHA. It carries over into the RMP submission which must identify declined recommendations from the analysis. The analysis will require knowledge and expertise in RAGAGEP for covered processes and take some time.

Risk Management Plan

Compliance with the new requirements is an administrative task. However, it is notable that information must now being provided to EPA on declined recommendations from natural hazard, power loss, and siting hazard evaluations, declined findings from third-party compliance audits, and declined recommendations from RAGAGEP gap analysis. It remains to be seen how this information may be used.

Also, information must be provided on inherently safer technology or design measures implemented since the last PHA. EPA’s intent is to analyze the information and compile and make available information on IST / ISD measures to the process industries as part of a technology transfer effort to help them identify safer alternatives, and, presumably, promote the use of IST / ISD measures.