Current Requirements
Impact of Potential Regulation Changes to RMP and PSM Lowell Randel, Global Cold Chain Alliance
EPA’s Risk Management Program
EPA RMP Actions to Date • July 2014 – Request for Information • November 2015 – SBAR Panel convened • December 2015 – Proposed Rule sent to OMB for Regulatory Review • February 2016 – Small Business Panel Report completed • February 2016 – Public meeting • March 14, 2016 Proposed Rule published • May 13, 2016 – Comment period ended
Overview of Proposed Revisions P1
P2
P3
Third-party audits (applies to the next scheduled audit after an accident) *
√
√
Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with accidents/near misses) *
√
√
Safer Alternatives Analysis (applies to a subset of P3 in certain NAICS codes) *
√
Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements with Local Responders
√
√
Emergency Response Exercises *
√
√
√
√
Information Sharing *
√
Note: The RFI included 19 areas for potential changes. EPA is only pursuing these 6 areas. * New Proposed Requirement
Third-Party Compliance Audits • Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must perform compliance audits every three years. • Issue to Address: EPA concerned that self-auditing may be insufficient lead to biased audit results. • Proposed Change: require facilities to conduct a third-party audit in lieu of a compliance audit following an RMP reportable accident.* • The scope of the third-party audit shall be the same as the compliance audit • Completed within 12 months of an RMP reportable accident or within 3 years of completion of the previous compliance audit, whichever is sooner.
Auditor Qualifications • Knowledgeable with the requirements of the RMP Prevention program requirements • Experienced with the facility type and processes being audited and the applicable recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) • Trained or certified in proper auditing techniques • Be a licensed Professional Engineer (PE), or include a licensed PE on the audit team.
8
Auditor Independence • Receive no financial benefit from the outcome of the audit, apart from payment for the auditing services • Cannot have provided services or consulting for the owner or operator within the last 3 years • Cannot provide other business or consulting services to the owner or operator for at least 3 years after audit • Ensure all personnel involved in the audit sign and date a conflict of interest statement • Audit personnel cannot accept future employment with the owner or operator of the facility for 3 years after audit
9
Third-Party Compliance Audits • Concerns: • Insufficient cost/benefit analysis • Independence criteria very restrictive • PE qualification too narrow • May lead to shortage of qualified non-associated auditors
Incident Investigations & Root Cause Analysis • Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must conduct incident investigations following an incident that resulted in or could have resulted in a catastrophic release. • Issue to Address: EPA believes requiring a root cause analysis may help prevent future accidents and ensure compliance. • Proposed Change: • Revise definition of “catastrophic release” • Require root cause analysis for all incident investigations, including “near misses” • Complete within 12 months • Produce an investigation report
Safer Alternatives Analysis • Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must develop a PHA to identify, evaluate, and control process. • Issue to Address: Facilities are not required to consider safer technologies and alternatives as a part of the process. • Proposed Change: Analyze potential safer technologies and alternatives and their feasibility as a part of the PHA. (Owner would not be required to implement any prescribed technology.) • Note: This provision would only apply to NAICS codes 322 (pulp and paper), 324 (petroleum refineries), and 325 (chemical manufacturers)
Local Coordination • Current Requirements: Facilities must develop an emergency response program • Issue to Address: EPA is concerned that some RMP facilities have not adequately coordinated with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and local emergency responders. • Proposed Changes: • Coordinate annually with the LEPC/emergency responders and ensure response capabilities exist. • Document coordination and allow LEPC/responders to request facility prepare emergency response program
Emergency Response Exercises • Current Requirements: Currently no RMP requirement to exercise emergency response programs/plans. • Issue to Address: EPA believes requiring exercises will improve emergency response and reduce accident consequences. • Proposed Changes: • Require “responding” and “non-responding” facilities to have annual notification exercise. • Require “responding” facilities to conduct field exercise every 5 years and tabletop exercise in interim years and invite local responders to participate. • Document all exercises.
Information Sharing • Current Requirements: Facility RMP information must be made available to the public and LEPC/first responders. • Issue to Address: EPA wants to make this information more accessible and “user friendly”. • Proposed Changes:
• Upon request, provide summaries of relevant facility information to LEPCs and responders. • Providing existing public information in an easy format. • Hold a public meeting within 30 days of a reportable accident.
Proposed Compliance Dates (Based on effective date of Final Rule)
• 1 year: Emergency response coordination activities • 3 years: Owner or operator of a non-responding stationary source to develop an emergency response program in accordance with § 68.95 following an LEPC or equivalent’s written request to do so • 4 years: Comply with new provisions, unless otherwise stated • 5 years: Correct or resubmit RMPs to reflect new and revised data elements.
Next Steps in Rulemaking Process • May 13, 2016: Public Comment Period ended • IIAR lead coalition to provide comments
• Final rule – as early as summer 2016, but before end of 2016 calendar year
OSHA’s Process Safety Management
OSHA PSM Actions to Date • November 2013 – Request for Information • June 2015 – Guidance on RAGAGEP, Retail Exemption and Chemical Concentrations • June 2015 – SBREFA Panel process initiated • June 2016 – SBREFA Panel officially convened
Potential PSM Revisions
• Atmospheric Storage Tanks • Oil and Gas-Well Drilling, Servicing, and Production • Chemical Reactivity • Safer Technology and Alternatives • Additions to Appendix A Chemicals • Dismantling/Disposal of Explosives • Define/Updating RAGAGEP
Potential PSM Revisions
• Mechanical Integrity • Employee Participation • Emergency Planning • Third-party Audits • Stop Work Authority • Root Cause Analysis • Other Management System Components • Additional Modifications
Safer Technology and Alternatives • Current: No requirement of analysis of safer technology and alternatives under PSM • Issue: Safer technology and alternatives analysis may identify safer solutions to current risks that currently are being missed • Option: Requiring employers to use the hierarchy of controls in considering safer alternatives and technology when identified hazards result in an employer-specified level of risk.
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Update RAGAGEP • Current: There is no requirement that employers update RAGAGEP to reflect revisions made since the employer initially adopted it. • Issue: RAGAGEP can change over time and firms may not be implementing current best practices • Option: Require periodic review of current RAGAGEP and implementation of updates
Mechanical Integrity • Current: Mechanical Integrity element, 1910.119(j), applies only to six explicit categories of equipment • Issue: Other types of equipment that do not fall in these six categories also have hazards that should can be addressed by the Mechanical Integrity requirements • Option: Expand 1910.119(j) to include all equipment deemed “critical”
Additions to employee participation plan • Current: Employee consultation required under 1910.119(c) for:
• Written plan for employee participation • Consult with employees on PHA and other aspects of the PSM program • Provide employees access to PHA
• Issue: Further employee participation mechanisms may enhance safety • Option: Implement a regular system of employee input and management, non-management, and contract employee dialogue
Emergency Planning • Current: Employers must establish and implement an Emergency Action Plan • Issue: PSM has no requirement for employers to coordinate with local emergency response authorities • Option: Requiring emergency planning to foster coordination with local response, including: • annual meetings with local responders • emergency drills • evaluation of local emergency response capabilities
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Third-party Audits • Current: Audit every 3 years by persons knowledgeable in covered process • Issue: Audits done by independent third parties may be more effective • Option: Require audits to be done by independent third parties
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Stop Work Authority • Current: No requirement for employees to have Stop Work Authority • Issue: No procedures and authority for operators to shutdown processes in imminent risk situations • Option: Implement an SWA program
Root Cause Analysis • Current: Incident Investigation must include: “factors that contributed to the incident” • Issue: Root cause analysis can identify systemic safety problems that need to be addressed • Option: Requirement of a root cause analysis as part of any incident investigation
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Process Hazard Analysis Management Sign-Off • Current: No requirement for affirmative management statement that PHA has adequately addressed all hazards found during the analysis • Issue: Management sign-off can increase thoroughness of organizational review of the PHA • Option: If management decides not to implement or make modifications based on PHA team findings, to document that the hazards identified in the PHA are adequately addressed
Written PSM Management System • Current: Various pieces of a PSM system must be documented in different PSM elements • Issue: No required coordination of all written documentation into a single system, causing difficulties of updates/access to all relevant items of information • Option: Require employers to develop and implement a written PSM Management system which would include written procedures for all elements specified in the standard, along with a records retention policy.
Evaluation and Corrective Action of PSM Program • Current: No requirement to periodically update the PSM program based on management systems and inputs such as employee suggestions, incident investigation findings, audit findings, etc… • Issue: Monitoring and revision of management systems and inputs may improve effectiveness in preventing incidents. • Option: A requirement that employers develop a system of periodic review and revision based on required inputs.
Additional Modifications • Current: Existing standard • Issue: Several existing OSHA interpretations of the PSM standard could be more easily followed if in the standard itself • Option: Add clarifications, including
• Clarify that Process Safety Information must be continuously updated as changes are made • Clarify that all deficiencies found in Mechanical Integrity must be addressed • Clarify Management of Change, 1910.119(l), includes organizational changes • Clarify covered Appendix A chemical concentrations • Clarify Retail Exemption
Next Steps • Completion of the SBREFA Panel process in summer 2016 • Proposed Rule – timing uncertain
DISCUSSION / Q&A
EPA’s Risk Management Program
EPA RMP Actions to Date • July 2014 – Request for Information • November 2015 – SBAR Panel convened • December 2015 – Proposed Rule sent to OMB for Regulatory Review • February 2016 – Small Business Panel Report completed • February 2016 – Public meeting • March 14, 2016 Proposed Rule published • May 13, 2016 – Comment period ended
Overview of Proposed Revisions P1
P2
P3
Third-party audits (applies to the next scheduled audit after an accident) *
√
√
Incident Root Cause Analysis (only for facilities with accidents/near misses) *
√
√
Safer Alternatives Analysis (applies to a subset of P3 in certain NAICS codes) *
√
Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements with Local Responders
√
√
Emergency Response Exercises *
√
√
√
√
Information Sharing *
√
Note: The RFI included 19 areas for potential changes. EPA is only pursuing these 6 areas. * New Proposed Requirement
Third-Party Compliance Audits • Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must perform compliance audits every three years. • Issue to Address: EPA concerned that self-auditing may be insufficient lead to biased audit results. • Proposed Change: require facilities to conduct a third-party audit in lieu of a compliance audit following an RMP reportable accident.* • The scope of the third-party audit shall be the same as the compliance audit • Completed within 12 months of an RMP reportable accident or within 3 years of completion of the previous compliance audit, whichever is sooner.
Auditor Qualifications • Knowledgeable with the requirements of the RMP Prevention program requirements • Experienced with the facility type and processes being audited and the applicable recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) • Trained or certified in proper auditing techniques • Be a licensed Professional Engineer (PE), or include a licensed PE on the audit team.
8
Auditor Independence • Receive no financial benefit from the outcome of the audit, apart from payment for the auditing services • Cannot have provided services or consulting for the owner or operator within the last 3 years • Cannot provide other business or consulting services to the owner or operator for at least 3 years after audit • Ensure all personnel involved in the audit sign and date a conflict of interest statement • Audit personnel cannot accept future employment with the owner or operator of the facility for 3 years after audit
9
Third-Party Compliance Audits • Concerns: • Insufficient cost/benefit analysis • Independence criteria very restrictive • PE qualification too narrow • May lead to shortage of qualified non-associated auditors
Incident Investigations & Root Cause Analysis • Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must conduct incident investigations following an incident that resulted in or could have resulted in a catastrophic release. • Issue to Address: EPA believes requiring a root cause analysis may help prevent future accidents and ensure compliance. • Proposed Change: • Revise definition of “catastrophic release” • Require root cause analysis for all incident investigations, including “near misses” • Complete within 12 months • Produce an investigation report
Safer Alternatives Analysis • Current Requirements: Facility owners/operators must develop a PHA to identify, evaluate, and control process. • Issue to Address: Facilities are not required to consider safer technologies and alternatives as a part of the process. • Proposed Change: Analyze potential safer technologies and alternatives and their feasibility as a part of the PHA. (Owner would not be required to implement any prescribed technology.) • Note: This provision would only apply to NAICS codes 322 (pulp and paper), 324 (petroleum refineries), and 325 (chemical manufacturers)
Local Coordination • Current Requirements: Facilities must develop an emergency response program • Issue to Address: EPA is concerned that some RMP facilities have not adequately coordinated with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and local emergency responders. • Proposed Changes: • Coordinate annually with the LEPC/emergency responders and ensure response capabilities exist. • Document coordination and allow LEPC/responders to request facility prepare emergency response program
Emergency Response Exercises • Current Requirements: Currently no RMP requirement to exercise emergency response programs/plans. • Issue to Address: EPA believes requiring exercises will improve emergency response and reduce accident consequences. • Proposed Changes: • Require “responding” and “non-responding” facilities to have annual notification exercise. • Require “responding” facilities to conduct field exercise every 5 years and tabletop exercise in interim years and invite local responders to participate. • Document all exercises.
Information Sharing • Current Requirements: Facility RMP information must be made available to the public and LEPC/first responders. • Issue to Address: EPA wants to make this information more accessible and “user friendly”. • Proposed Changes:
• Upon request, provide summaries of relevant facility information to LEPCs and responders. • Providing existing public information in an easy format. • Hold a public meeting within 30 days of a reportable accident.
Proposed Compliance Dates (Based on effective date of Final Rule)
• 1 year: Emergency response coordination activities • 3 years: Owner or operator of a non-responding stationary source to develop an emergency response program in accordance with § 68.95 following an LEPC or equivalent’s written request to do so • 4 years: Comply with new provisions, unless otherwise stated • 5 years: Correct or resubmit RMPs to reflect new and revised data elements.
Next Steps in Rulemaking Process • May 13, 2016: Public Comment Period ended • IIAR lead coalition to provide comments
• Final rule – as early as summer 2016, but before end of 2016 calendar year
OSHA’s Process Safety Management
OSHA PSM Actions to Date • November 2013 – Request for Information • June 2015 – Guidance on RAGAGEP, Retail Exemption and Chemical Concentrations • June 2015 – SBREFA Panel process initiated • June 2016 – SBREFA Panel officially convened
Potential PSM Revisions
• Atmospheric Storage Tanks • Oil and Gas-Well Drilling, Servicing, and Production • Chemical Reactivity • Safer Technology and Alternatives • Additions to Appendix A Chemicals • Dismantling/Disposal of Explosives • Define/Updating RAGAGEP
Potential PSM Revisions
• Mechanical Integrity • Employee Participation • Emergency Planning • Third-party Audits • Stop Work Authority • Root Cause Analysis • Other Management System Components • Additional Modifications
Safer Technology and Alternatives • Current: No requirement of analysis of safer technology and alternatives under PSM • Issue: Safer technology and alternatives analysis may identify safer solutions to current risks that currently are being missed • Option: Requiring employers to use the hierarchy of controls in considering safer alternatives and technology when identified hazards result in an employer-specified level of risk.
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Update RAGAGEP • Current: There is no requirement that employers update RAGAGEP to reflect revisions made since the employer initially adopted it. • Issue: RAGAGEP can change over time and firms may not be implementing current best practices • Option: Require periodic review of current RAGAGEP and implementation of updates
Mechanical Integrity • Current: Mechanical Integrity element, 1910.119(j), applies only to six explicit categories of equipment • Issue: Other types of equipment that do not fall in these six categories also have hazards that should can be addressed by the Mechanical Integrity requirements • Option: Expand 1910.119(j) to include all equipment deemed “critical”
Additions to employee participation plan • Current: Employee consultation required under 1910.119(c) for:
• Written plan for employee participation • Consult with employees on PHA and other aspects of the PSM program • Provide employees access to PHA
• Issue: Further employee participation mechanisms may enhance safety • Option: Implement a regular system of employee input and management, non-management, and contract employee dialogue
Emergency Planning • Current: Employers must establish and implement an Emergency Action Plan • Issue: PSM has no requirement for employers to coordinate with local emergency response authorities • Option: Requiring emergency planning to foster coordination with local response, including: • annual meetings with local responders • emergency drills • evaluation of local emergency response capabilities
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Third-party Audits • Current: Audit every 3 years by persons knowledgeable in covered process • Issue: Audits done by independent third parties may be more effective • Option: Require audits to be done by independent third parties
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Stop Work Authority • Current: No requirement for employees to have Stop Work Authority • Issue: No procedures and authority for operators to shutdown processes in imminent risk situations • Option: Implement an SWA program
Root Cause Analysis • Current: Incident Investigation must include: “factors that contributed to the incident” • Issue: Root cause analysis can identify systemic safety problems that need to be addressed • Option: Requirement of a root cause analysis as part of any incident investigation
Note: Also covered in RMP Proposed Rule
Process Hazard Analysis Management Sign-Off • Current: No requirement for affirmative management statement that PHA has adequately addressed all hazards found during the analysis • Issue: Management sign-off can increase thoroughness of organizational review of the PHA • Option: If management decides not to implement or make modifications based on PHA team findings, to document that the hazards identified in the PHA are adequately addressed
Written PSM Management System • Current: Various pieces of a PSM system must be documented in different PSM elements • Issue: No required coordination of all written documentation into a single system, causing difficulties of updates/access to all relevant items of information • Option: Require employers to develop and implement a written PSM Management system which would include written procedures for all elements specified in the standard, along with a records retention policy.
Evaluation and Corrective Action of PSM Program • Current: No requirement to periodically update the PSM program based on management systems and inputs such as employee suggestions, incident investigation findings, audit findings, etc… • Issue: Monitoring and revision of management systems and inputs may improve effectiveness in preventing incidents. • Option: A requirement that employers develop a system of periodic review and revision based on required inputs.
Additional Modifications • Current: Existing standard • Issue: Several existing OSHA interpretations of the PSM standard could be more easily followed if in the standard itself • Option: Add clarifications, including
• Clarify that Process Safety Information must be continuously updated as changes are made • Clarify that all deficiencies found in Mechanical Integrity must be addressed • Clarify Management of Change, 1910.119(l), includes organizational changes • Clarify covered Appendix A chemical concentrations • Clarify Retail Exemption
Next Steps • Completion of the SBREFA Panel process in summer 2016 • Proposed Rule – timing uncertain
DISCUSSION / Q&A
