On August 18, 2022, EPA signed the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) rule, which proposes revisions to the Risk Management Program (RMP) to further protect vulnerable communities from chemical accidents, especially those living near facilities with high accident rates. The proposed rule would strengthen the existing program and includes new safeguards that have not been addressed in prior RMP rules. Some of the proposed requirements include identifying safer technologies and chemical alternatives, more thorough incident investigations, and third-party auditing, all of which should benefit nearby communities. When finalized, the rule is expected to make communities safer by reducing the frequency of chemical releases and their adverse effects.
The purpose of this action is to propose changes to the RMP rule in order to improve safety at facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals. The RMP regulations have been effective in preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the United States. However, EPA believes that revisions could further protect human health and the environment from chemical hazards through the advancement of process safety based on lessons learned. These proposed revisions are a result of a review of the existing RMP regulations and information gathered from the 2021 virtual public listening sessions (hereinafter referred to as the “2021 listening
sessions”).
Natural Hazards – EPA’s proposed approach.
- Natural hazard resources such as databases, checklists, or narrative discussions, as well as commenters’ recommendations for regional versus national, or sector- specific guidance.
- Whether to specify geographic areas most at risk from climate or other natural events by adopting the list of areas exposed to a heightened risk of wildfire,
flooding, storm surge, or coastal flooding and if this approach would simplify implementation.
Power Loss – EPA’s proposed approach.
- To require air pollution control or monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of accidental releases from RMP- regulated processes to have standby or backup power and any potential safety issues associated with it.
Stationary Source Siting – EPA’s proposed approach.
Hazard Evaluation Recommendation Information Availability – EPA’s proposed approach.
- Whether EPA should require declined hazard evaluation recommendations to be included in narrative form, whether the Agency should provide specific categories of recommendations for facilities to choose from when reporting or allowing the owner or operator to post this information online and provide a link to their information within their RMP.
- Methods to provide justification for declining relevant hazard evaluation recommendations, the proposed approach or alternative categories.
Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) – EPA’s proposed approach.
- Industry understanding of the practicability assessment and how this might differ from the findings identified in the PHA.
- Additional benefits provided by the practicability assessment.
- EPA’s definition of the practicability assessment.
- How to determine if a facility is within a 1-mile radius and if EPA should use locational data provided by facilities, or develop a standard definition (e.g., 1 mile
to the facility fenceline or 1 mile to the regulated process location). - Information that should be collected in a STAA clearinghouse.
- The proposed STAA applicability criteria and alternatives.
- Whether EPA should reinstate the 2017 rule provisions requiring STAA for all NAICS 324 and 325 processes.
- Whether the proposal to limit the STAA provisions to NAICS 324 and 325 regulated processes within 1 mile of another NAICS 324 and 325 regulated facility is appropriate or if another distance (e.g., 3 miles) would be appropriate, and the rationale for proposed distance alternatives.
- Other industries for which STAA should be required and how EPA might justify extending these provisions to other industries.
- What other information or consideration EPA can use to assess probability of an accident in other industries without accident history data as well as what specific
chemicals or processes may merit the most focus, and how EPA may require STAA requirements for industries without a history of accidents. - If the Agency should only require the STAA as part of the PHA, without the additional practicability assessment.
- For any cited costs of implementing the STAA as part of the PHA, documentation to support cost estimates.
- For any cited costs of implementing the practicability assessment of the STAA provisions, documentation to support cost estimates.
Root Cause Analysis – EPA’s proposed approach.
- A potential definition of “near miss” that would address difficulties in identifying the variety of incidents that may occur at RMP facilities that could be near misses
that should be investigated. - A universal “near miss” definition, as well as comments on strengths and limitations of the definition provided by NJDEP and how the definition may clarify requirements for incident investigations.
Third Party Compliance Audits – EPA’s proposed approach.
- Proposed independence criteria modified from the 2017 rule.
- Whether the selected auditor should be mutually approved by the owner or operator and employees and their representatives, and if direct participation from
employees and their representative should be required when a third party conducts an audit. - Whether EPA should require declined findings be included in narrative form, or whether the Agency should provide specific categories of findings for facilities to
choose from when reporting.
Employee Participation – EPA’s proposed approach.
- Whether there should be a representative number or percentage of employees and their representatives involved in these recommendations decision teams as well as the development of other process safety elements as outlined in 40 CFR 68.83(b).
- Relevant sources that have provided useful guidance in making risk decisions.
- Whether owners and operators should distribute an annual written or electronic notice to employees that employee participation plans and other RMP information
is readily accessible upon request and provide training for those plans and how to access the information.
Proposed Modifications and Amplifications to Emergency Response Requirements – EPA’s proposed approach.
- Additional information that is useful to share when notifying the public of RMP-accidental releases.
- Impediments to accessing community emergency response plans and potential solutions to having the plans more accessible within the scope of the RMP rule.
Information Availability – EPA’s proposed approach.
- If the 6-mile radius for requesting information is appropriate. For alternative distances, information on the justification for these alternative distances.
- Specific information on the increased likelihood of security threats arising from dissemination of this information.
- Which data elements, or combinations of elements, may pose a security risk if released to the public (provided in Section 10 of the Technical Background
Document). - For each element or combination of elements identified as a potential security risk:
- (1) Specific comments on why the element or combination of elements presents a security risk and (2) documentation or basis for these security claims,
such as expert studies, intelligence assessments, a prior incident, documented security threat, or near miss incident.
- (1) Specific comments on why the element or combination of elements presents a security risk and (2) documentation or basis for these security claims,
Other Areas of Technical Clarification – EPA’s proposed approaches.
- For revisions to “storage incident to transportation” definition, the proposed 48-hour time frame, suggestions for other appropriate time frames, and any safety
concerns that may arise from transportation containers being exempt from the RMP rule when disconnected for less than 48 hours.