The proposed STAA requirements focus on the concept of “inherently safer technology or design” for the covered processes under the RMP. This concept is holistic when conducting a hazard review or process hazard analysis for a covered process(es). EPA is proposing that covered processes consider: (1) minimizing the use of RMP‑regulated substances; (2) considering substitute substances that are less hazardous; (3) simplifying the covered process(es) to prevent an accidental release or its resulting impacts. It is important to note that the proposed STAA requirements would specifically apply to the “Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing” industries (North American Industrial Classification System [NAICS] Code 324) and the “Chemical Manufacturing” industries (NAICS Code 325) located within one mile of another RMP-regulated facility that also has a process classified under NAICS Code 324 or 325. In addition, RMP-regulated hydrofluoric acid (HF) alkylation processes located at “Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing” facilities classified under NAICS Code 324 are also subject to STAA requirements regardless of proximity to another NAICS 324- or 325-regulated facility. If a covered process is subject to the STAA requirements but determines that some or all recommendations for the deployment of safer technologies and alternatives are not feasible, then the facility owner must provide detailed written justification in the Risk Management Plan regarding why these measures will not be implemented and include this information in the Risk Management Plan that is submitted to the EPA per 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart G (§68.150-185).
Be Prepared to Meet New Requirements and Compliance Timelines
Changes to the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations are anticipated to become final in August of this year. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR Part 68–known as the “Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention” – will establish new accident prevention requirements and institute new information sources for communities surrounding. The proposed changes were released in August 2022 and final public comment was collected until October 31, 2022. Regulated companies should study the rule’s key provisions and timelines to ensure their impacted facilities remain compliant as the new requirements are set to go into effect.
Key Provisions of the Proposed Rule
EPA’s proposed amendments focus on incorporating or enhancing changes to the following RMP provisions:
The proposed rule strengthens the explicit demonstration of proper facility siting for covered process(es) within the facility boundaries. The facility siting requirements must be considered by facility management as part of a Prevention Program 2 covered process hazard review or a Prevention Program 3 process hazard analysis. The facility siting analysis would consider risk factors associated with the placement of a covered process(es), the associated equipment and the buildings within the facility. It would also consider the hazards posed by nearby facilities and the potential accidental release impacts and consequences to the nearby public and environmental receptors. In addition, the reviews must also include natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) and power loss as part of the analysis. If the results of the facility siting hazard evaluation and natural hazards/ power loss analysis results in recommendations that are not implemented by facility management, justification must be provided in the Risk Management Plan that is submitted to the EPA per 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart G (§68.150-185).
The proposed rule will require a root cause analysis for each incident that resulted in on-site deaths; injuries or significant property damage; or known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage or environmental damage. The root cause analysis must be performed for the covered process(es) using a recognized method (i.e., failure mode and effects analysis, fault tree analysis, 5 Whys [cause & effect], etc.) and completed within 12 months of the qualifying incident.
The proposed rule expands and specifies the actions associated with employee participation requirements. The facility management of a covered process is required to consult with employees and their representatives on addressing, correcting, resolving, documenting and implementing recommendations for the specific findings associated with hazard reviews, process hazard analyses, compliance audits and incident investigations. In addition, the facility management team must develop and implement a process to allow employees and their representatives to refuse to do a task, and to anonymously report unaddressed hazards that could lead to a catastrophic release, unreported RMP-reportable accidents or any other noncompliance event.
The proposed rule requires that responding facilities add greater detail to their plans and that non-responding RMP facilities work with the communities to ensure the development and implementation of detailed plans. The plans must include appropriate mechanisms to notify emergency responders when there is a need for a response, including providing timely data and information detailing the current understanding and best estimates of the nature of the release. In addition, non-responding RMP facilities must develop, implement and maintain procedures (typically working with emergency responders) for informing the public and the appropriate Federal, State and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases of RMP-regulated substances and ensure that a community notification system is in place to warn the public. The proposed rule will specify all RMP facilities must assure the plan includes covered chemical transportation routes, identification of local facilities that contribute to, or are subject to additional risk (hospitals, natural gas facilities, etc.), appropriate procedures for them and emergency medical personal to respond to releases and designation of a facility and community emergency coordinator to develop the aspects of an emergency response plan including response equipment available, evacuation plans, and training programs for responders and medical personnel and exercises.
The proposed rule requires that responding RMP facilities must conduct a field exercise at least once every 10 years unless the appropriate Federal, State and local emergency response agencies agree in writing that such frequency is impractical. If deemed impractical, the responding RMP facility must consult with emergency response officials to establish an alternate appropriate frequency for field exercises. The facility management must document each field and tabletop exercise by preparing an evaluation report within 90 days of the event. The written evaluation report must include a description of the exercise scenario(s), names and organizations of each participant, an evaluation of the exercise results (including lessons learned, recommendations for improvement or revisions to the emergency response exercise and emergency response programs) and a schedule to promptly address, document and resolve these recommendations.
The proposed rule requires that a third-party conduct a compliance audit if an RMP-regulated facility has two RMP-reportable accidents within five years, or one RMP-reportable accident within five years by a facility with a Prevention Program 3 covered process under NAICS code 324 or 325 within one mile of another RMP-regulated facility that also has a process classified under NAICS code 324 or 325. Further, the proposed rule requires an RMP-regulated facility to provide justification in the Risk Management Plan when third-party compliance audit recommendations are not implemented by the facility management. The third-party audit reports and schedule for implementation must be submitted to organizations audit committee of the Board of Directors.
The proposed rule has emphasized that the process (not just the equipment) be designed and maintained in compliance with RAGAGEP and document that compliance determination. The Program 3 PHAs must address any gaps between codes, standards and practices to which the process was designed and the most current versions.
Any member of the public residing within six miles of the facility requesting particular information must be provide that information in their requested language within 45 days. Information includes names of regulated substances, their Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), accident history information and specified details of the emergency response program (facility is responding or non-responding, name and phone of local coordinating response organizations, procedures for informing about a release, exercise schedules and LEPC Contact Information).
Be Prepared Before the Proposed Rules are Finalized
An RMP-regulated facility should identify which of these new provisions will apply and/or could apply if specific conditions occur and align these new provisions with the associated compliance timeline. Performing this important step early in the process will help the regulated facility plan, budget and execute the required activities before the due dates provided in the final rule. This point is especially important for facilities that may have not performed the detailed facility siting evaluation as envisioned by both EPA and OSHA. Evaluating and implementing the recommendations from the detailed facility siting evaluation may require significant time to perform at a given location noting the number of covered processes at a given RMP-regulated facility. Furthermore, facilities are interested in having more time to determine and plan which recommendations they will be implementing and which recommendations they will decline to implement and the associated justification.
Compliance Requirements and Timelines
The proposed rule has established timelines for applicable covered processes and RMP-regulated facilities to come into compliance:
- Reaffirm and/or expand on the explicit facility siting requirements (as part of the Stationary Source Siting Evaluation) for the initial or at least every five (5) year cycle of the hazard review (Prevention Program 2) or the process hazard analysis (Prevention Program 3) conducted for the RMP-regulated facility regarding all covered processes.
- EPA is emphasizing that the existing Stationary Source Siting Evaluation must be inclusive of the placement of processes, equipment, buildings and hazards posed by proximate facilities, and accidental release consequences posed by proximity to the public and public receptors. This requirement becomes applicable immediately upon promulgation of the rule.
- Understand the codes, standards and practices to which your covered processes were designed and how that may differ from the current RAGAGEP.
Within three (3) years of the effective date of the final rule:
- As applicable, implement the third-party audit provisions.
- As applicable, implement incident investigation root cause analysis provisions.
- Implement the safer technology and alternatives analysis provisions for only the “Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing” industries NAICS Code 324 and the “Chemical Manufacturing” industries NAICS Code 325 located within one mile of another RMP-regulated facility that also has a process classified under NAICS Code 324 or 325. Also, the STAA requirements if promulgated will apply to RMP-regulated hydrofluoric acid alkylation processes classified under NAICS Code 324 regardless of the distance to an RMP-regulated facility under NAICS Code 324 or 325.
- Implement the employee participation provisions.
- Implement the emergency response provisions.
- Implement the availability of information provisions.
- By March 15, 2027, or within 10 years of the date of an emergency response field exercise conducted between March 15, 2017, and August 31, 2022, conduct an emergency response field exercise.
Within four (4) years of the effective date of the final rule, comply with the Risk Management Plan provisions of Subpart G of 40 CFR Part 68. EPA will require that the Risk Management Plan include additional specific information related to Registration (§68.160) requirements and the Prevention Program requirements (§68.170 – Prevention Program 2 and §68.175 – Prevention Program 3, as applicable).
- Under the Registration (§68.160) requirements, EPA will require that the RMP-regulated facility include in the Risk Management Plan the method of communication and location of the notification that chemical hazard information is available to the public residing within six miles of the stationary source.
- Under the Prevention Program 2 (§68.170) requirements, EPA will require the RMP-regulated facility management to conduct process hazard reviews associated with natural hazards, power losses, and facility siting hazard evaluations. Also, EPA will require the RMP-regulated facility management who declined to implement any recommendations associated with natural hazards, power losses and facility siting hazard evaluations to justify why these recommendations were not being incorporated into the facility’s program.
- For the Prevention Program 3 (§68.175) requirements, EPA will require the RMP-regulated facility management to conduct process hazard analyses associated with natural hazards, power losses and facility siting hazard evaluations. Also, EPA will require the RMP-regulated facility management who declined to implement any recommendations associated with natural hazards, power losses and facility siting hazard evaluations to justify why these recommendations were not being incorporated into the facility’s program. In addition, Prevention Program 3 facilities will also be required to implement “recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices” into their process hazard analyses in order to identify any gaps between practices related to the facility’s design, maintenance, and operation and the most current version of the RAGAGEP. Recommendations that have been declined associated with any 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 must be justified why these recommendations were not being incorporated into the facility’s program.
TRC Can Help
TRC has compliance specialists and chemical engineers who can help prepare your RMP-regulated facility to conform to and comply with the requirements and obligations associated with this proposed rule change once it is finalized. We can assist with:
- Regulatory review of the changes and how they impact your existing RMP Program
- Evaluating the existing RMP Program and identifying what new requirements will need to be incorporated by the specified deadlines
- Assist with establishing specific scopes of work and related budget to address and implement the new requirements
- Performing Hazard Reviews and Process Hazard Analysis to incorporate natural hazards, power losses and facility siting evaluations for covered processes
- Conducting root cause analysis of accidents and incidents that led to on-site and off-site deaths, impacts, damage and injuries
For more information, contact our experts below.
Sharing Our Perspectives
Our practitioners share their insights and perspectives on the trends and challenges shaping the market.
Changes to EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) Regulations Are Coming
April 14, 2023
Changes to the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations were signed into a final rule on February 27, 2024, by EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan.
EPA Finds Trichloroethylene Presents Unreasonable Risk in Final Risk Evaluation
April 6, 2023
On Jan 9, 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) to reflect a new risk determination for trichloroethylene (TCE).
Routinely Evaluating the Health & Effectiveness of Integrated Systems to Manage EHS/ESG Risks – Part I
March 1, 2023
Once established, an EHS/ESG management system must be routinely evaluated to ensure it remains effective to identify and control risks, as well as accommodate and adjust for changes that occur to/within the organization.
QA and Chemistry Services
February 23, 2023
TRC offers many QA and Chemistry services including data usability assessments, limited and full data validation reports, quality assurance project plan preparation, selection of appropriate analytical methodologies and laboratory audits.
PFAS Fate and Transport: Conceptual Site Models
February 23, 2023
The conceptual site model describes site-specific sources, release and transport mechanisms, exposure media, exposure points, exposure pathways and routes and potential human and/or ecological receptor populations.
EPA Publishes Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15
February 14, 2023
The EPA announced updated effluent limitations guidelines under Plan 15, focusing on the evaluation and rulemaking process for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) discharges.
PFAS: Remedial Approaches
February 8, 2023
Remediating Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from the soil and water requires effective techniques and innovative technologies. TRC’s experts are well versed in several remediation strategies intended to remove PFAS and prevent re-exposure.
Proactive Enforcement is Key in the EPA FY2022-2026 Strategy
October 19, 2022
A core element of the EPA FY2022-2026 Strategic Plan focuses on environmental compliance.
Optimizing EHS/ESG Information Management and Reporting Systems by Leveraging Innovative Digital Technology Solutions
August 10, 2022
A single, integrated enterprise wide EHS/ESG IMS can significantly improve performance and communicate progress towards organizational requirements and goals.
Integrating Sustainability, Digital Connectivity and Design Optimization in Wastewater Treatment Systems
June 20, 2022
Some organizations rarely think about water and wastewater treatment, until there is a problem. American industry depends on the ability to treat wastewater discharges while complying with regulatory standards and addressing emerging contaminants. If wastewater treatment fails, our environment is negatively impacted, and companies are exposed to shutdowns, delays and fines.
Support an Integrated EHS/ESG Management System
June 10, 2022
While a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is a common method for identifying environmental liabilities during transactional due diligence, the ASTM International standard for Phase I ESAs (E1527-13, with proposed E1527-21 awaiting adoption) omits regulatory compliance from its scope. For properties containing operations that may be applicable to environmental compliance regulations, performing a limited environmental regulatory review can identify potential deficiencies with the environmental management of the facility. A limited environmental compliance review typically evaluates the presence of material findings that may exist in a facility’s management of its environmental compliance requirements. Material findings are defined as a condition of non-compliance that could necessitate expenditures, not including attorney fees or regulatory agency penalties, in excess of a specified dollar amount or materiality threshold. The materiality threshold is based on the client’s risk tolerance and is often in the range of $50,000. However, this amount is arbitrary and can be revised as appropriate. Non-material deficiencies, those identified below the materiality threshold, would still require action but are within the client’s risk tolerance.
TRC Companies Pledges to Achieve Net Zero GHG Emissions by 2040
April 26, 2022
TRC Companies, a digitally powered and environmentally focused global professional services firm, announced its commitment to achieve Net Zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across its full value chain by 2040, aligning with the most ambitious aim of the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 °C.
How to Use an Integrated Approach To Manage EHS and ESG Risks
April 20, 2022
WINDSOR, Conn. – TRC Companies, a digitally powered and environmentally focused global professional services firm, announced its commitment to achieve Net Zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across its full value chain by 2040, aligning with the most ambitious aim of the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 °C. To drive accountability and progress, we also commit to the following 2030 targets: 50.6% reduction in company-wide Scope 1 and 2 emissions (offices and fleet vehicles) from 2019 levels. 25% reduction in company-wide Scope 3 emissions (business travel, employee commuting, and purchased goods) from 2021 levels. “As a climate solutions leader, TRC recognizes the urgent need to address climate change and its adverse effects on our planet,” says Christopher Vincze, Chairman and CEO of TRC. “We must lead the way in establishing sustainable business practices and support our clients in efforts to reduce their impact on the environment as well.” TRC has been setting and achieving goals to reduce GHG emissions since 2015. We have developed a transition plan to accelerate our progress that includes the following focus areas: Enhance energy management Expand renewable energy procurement Optimize fleet, including use of lower-emitting fuels and electrification Optimize business travel to ensure a reduced carbon footprint Prioritize sustainable procurement practices “These targets are ambitious but achievable,” says Karen Lutz, VP Corporate ESG/Sustainability. “TRC is committed to working with our clients to tackle climate challenges while aligning with climate science and achieving absolute reductions through our full carbon footprint.
SEC Releases New Proposed Rules Requiring Public Companies to Disclose Climate Risks
April 12, 2022
On March 21, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued its proposed rules for The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors which would require public companies in the U.S. to disclose information in their annual financial reports.
EPA Issues Information Collection Request for Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Operators
March 17, 2022
EPA issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) to develop new emission standards for inclusion in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
EPA Lifts Stay of Standards for New Lean Premix and Diffusion Flame Gas-fired Combustion Turbines
March 14, 2022
The EPA Administration signed a notice to finalize amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Stationary Combustion Turbines
PFOA & PFOS As CERCLA Hazardous Substances: What Does This Mean and How Can You Be Prepared?
February 17, 2022
A plan to designate two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA was recently submitted by the EPA.
OSHA’s National Emphasis Program on Heat-Related Illness and Injuries
November 3, 2021
On September 20, 2021 in an OSHA National News Release, OSHA published a memorandum establishing an enforcement initiative that is designed to prevent and protect employees from heat-related illnesses and death. This initiative, which develops a National Emphasis Program (NEP) on heat inspections, is an expansion of an already existing Regional Emphasis Program (REP) in OSHA’s Region VI, which covers Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
NJDEP Implements New Jersey Environmental Justice Law Through Administrative Order
October 5, 2021
On September 22, 2021, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Commissioner announced the issuance of Administrative Order (AO) No. 2021-25 to implement New Jersey’s Environmental Justice (EJ) Law. This order is effective immediately, and applicants seeking to site new major source facilities, renew major source permits or expand existing facilities with major source permits (e.g., Title V air permits) in overburdened communities are affected. There are more than 4.5 million people that live within 331 municipalities that are overburdened communities in the state of New Jersey.
OSHA’s Call for Comments on Mechanical Power Press Standard Changes
September 30, 2021
OSHA has recently published a call for comment regarding mechanical power presses. The reason behind OSHA’s request is that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standard for mechanical power presses has been updated numerous times since the implementation of OSHA’s standard.
OSHA Returns to In-Person Inspections As COVID-19 Restrictions Lift
August 4, 2021
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) to assure employers provide safe and healthful work conditions free of recognized hazards and by setting and enforcing standards and providing training, outreach, education and technical assistance. OSHA has recently announced the return to in-person inspections as COVID-19 restrictions begin to lift.
Managing EHS & ESG Risks Through Integrated Systems Today and Beyond
July 22, 2021
It has been more than 50 years since the development and establishment of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) which were formed to protect our environment and workplaces across the United States. Significant laws, policies and regulations followed to establish the “regulatory programs” that all applicable businesses and entities must address and meet to ensure these compliance-driven legislative programs would create a foundation to protect our society.
