PT Notes
Amendments to EPA's RMP Rule - Emergency Response
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.
EPA has proposed several amendments relating to its RMP rule. This PT Note addresses additional regulatory requirements for emergency response. EPA is specifically proposing for facilities with Program 2 and 3 processes:
-
Adding a requirement for non-responding facilities to develop and implement, as necessary, procedures 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 within the area threatened by a release. These notification procedures must be available to the public living in close proximity to RMP facilities, upon request.
Adding a requirement for responding facilities to assure that a community notification system is in place to warn the public within the area threatened by a release.
Explicitly stating in the RMP regulatory text the required provisions of the community response plan for both responding and non-responding facilities.
Requiring owners and operators to provide necessary entities with initial RMP accidental release information during releases of regulated substances in order to ensure that information is available to the public and the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies.
Requiring owners and operators to input in an open text field in the risk management plan specific information on their process area detectors and perimeter monitoring technologies and models in use to detect RMP-regulated substances.
Requiring facilities that are subject to the RMP rule's emergency response program requirements to conduct field exercises involving a simulated accidental release of a regulated substance, at a minimum, once every 10 years, unless the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies agree in writing that such frequency is impractical. In such cases, the owner or operator must consult with emergency response officials to establish an alternative appropriate frequency for field exercises.
Requiring that the current recommended field and tabletop exercise evaluation report components be mandatory rather than recommended.
Further details are provided below.
The emergency response provisions of the RMP rule apply to facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes. These provisions require owners or operators to coordinate with local response authorities. The rule also requires the owner or operator to prepare and implement an emergency response program to address how the owner or operator of the facility will respond to accidental releases to protect public health and the environment, unless the stationary source is a ''non-responding'' facility, that is, it has been included in the community emergency response plan developed under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) for sources with regulated toxic substances, or it has coordinated response actions with the local fire department for sources with only regulated flammable substances and without regulated toxic substances.
Non-responding facilities rely on local responders to respond to accidental releases and are not required to develop an emergency response program. However, such owners or operators must also ensure that appropriate notification mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders when there is a need for a response and must perform annual emergency response coordination and notification activities.
An RMP-regulated facility must indicate in its risk management plan whether it is a non-responding facility and identify the plans and procedures in place should an accidental release occur.
A review of the RMP database by EPA showed that approximately 47 percent of RMP facilities claim to be non-responding facilities. However, during facility inspections, EPA has often found that facilities either are not included in the community emergency plan or have not properly coordinated response actions with local authorities. EPA notes that state and local response officials have echoed this concern.
EPA believes that new emergency response requirements added in the 2017 amendments rule and the 2019 reconsideration rule offer opportunities to address some of these concerns, such as coordination meetings with local responders and notification, tabletop, and field exercises. In particular, EPA believes the annual emergency response coordination meetings and notification exercises will provide a wide range of useful outcomes, including information sharing and evaluation of the effectiveness of notification, evacuation, and sheltering systems and procedures. The annual coordination requirement is expected to help make continual improvements to emergency response systems and procedures, as appropriate.
Nevertheless, in reviewing opportunities to continually improve the effectiveness of emergency responses for RMP accidents, EPA reviewed additional data from the RMP database and considered comments from listening sessions and concluded that more can be done to improve emergency responses, particularly in the field of timely notification of releases to the public and detection of those releases.
Notification of Accidental Releases to the Surrounding Community and Local Emergency Response Agencies
Communities surrounding RMP facilities need information to appropriately prepare for and respond to potential emergencies related to the facilities. EPA notes that, while only local response authorities can officially call for evacuations or shelter-in-place responses, the fundamental obligation to inform the public about whether a release has occurred, and about the magnitude of the release, falls upon the facility owner or operator, as they will have the best information available.
EPA has determined that approximately 39 percent (a total of 962) of reported RMP accidents from 2004 to 2020 had offsite impacts and that no offsite responders were notified for 19 percent (a total of 192) of those accidents. Furthermore, 19 percent (a total of 36) of the facilities with accidents in which no offsite responders were notified self-identified as non-responders and relied on local responders to handle the release and public communication efforts.
EPA emphasizes that in these 36 incidents there was no notification by the facilities to the entities they had designated would respond to incidents per the submitted risk management plans. Moreover, only 10 of the 192 investigations of accidents in which no offsite responders were notified indicated that there was a revised emergency response plan because of the accident. EPA believes these data suggest that there is a disconnect between the roles of regulated facilities and local responders, particularly when there are offsite impacts or the threat of such impacts.
Responding facilities also had problems notifying the public of releases, even though they are required to develop procedures for informing the public and the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies. Eighty-one percent (a total of 156) of responding facilities did not notify local responders when there were offsite impacts despite responding facilities being required to promptly provide local emergency response officials with information necessary for developing and implementing the community emergency response plan. EPA observes that when local responders are not notified, they cannot implement the community response plan that communities rely on for their safety. These data suggest to EPA that current compliance with the RMP rule's existing public notification provision can be ineffective and that notifications can improve.
CSB highlighted emergency response concerns in a 2018 safety digest, Emergency Planning and Response - The Importance of Preparation, Training and Communication. CSB provided examples of incidents that highlight the importance of an effective emergency response to prevent injuries and fatalities from chemical accidents and provided lessons learned from accident investigations wherein there was ineffective emergency response training, planning, and communication between companies, emergency responders, and the community.
Current widely accepted industry guidance indicates that timely notification is necessary during hazardous chemical release events and that relying only on emergency responders, particularly those with inadequate resources, may not be enough to protect the public. EPA notes that industry guidance documents outline the importance of having a coordinated effort to ensure public notification of accidental releases. And that they encourage facility owners and operators to be accountable in their role for providing accurate information to the necessary authorities to ensure appropriate data are shared with the people who are affected by the release.
EPA is proposing to amend the RMP rule by adding a requirement for non-responding facilities to develop and implement, as necessary, procedures 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 within the area threatened by a release.
EPA believes that expanding the record keeping and implementation aspect of this provision to non-responding facilities would help ensure that all facilities subject to the rule’s Emergency Response requirements have documented knowledge of the public notification process that would occur when there is an accidental release at the facility.
EPA believes the proposed amendment would also help clarify the facility's role in the implementation of the notification process by requiring the owner or operator to provide the information needed to initiate a public release notification. EPA expects that this proposed provision, in combination with existing requirements for annual emergency coordination meetings and notification exercises, would enhance coordinated notification to the public and improve documented accountability for the notification process. EPA is also proposing that these notification procedures be available from the facility upon request by the public living in close proximity to RMP facilities (approximately within 6 miles), to help ensure that members of the public are aware of the steps the facility has taken to notify them when a release occurs.
EPA is also proposing to amend current requirements in the RMP rule that require responding facilities to have procedures for informing the public and the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases to add a requirement to assure that a community notification system is in place to warn the public within the area threatened by a release.
EPA believes that facilities can be expected to ensure that a community notification system is available because the Federal Emergency Management Agency has established the Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) for community notification. This system provides authenticated emergency and life-saving information to the public through mobile phones using wireless emergency alerts. It also provides alerts to radio and television via the Emergency Alert System and on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Weather Radio.
EPA believes that the presence in all 50 states of State and/or local IPAWS alerting authorities with the designated authority to alert and warn the public when there is an impending natural or human-made disaster, threat, or dangerous or missing person provides the necessary infrastructure for facilities to ensure that a community notification system is operational within any impact zones of releases that occur from their facility.
EPA expects local responding authorities to notify the community as authorized through IPAWS. In the RMP General Guidance, EPA states that although a non-responding facility is not responsible for developing emergency response capabilities, it is responsible for ensuring effective emergency response to any releases at the facility. If local public responders are not capable of providing such response, EPA guidance urges facilities to take steps to ensure that effective response is available. Therefore, EPA expects facilities to work with the local responders to ensure that, during a release, all necessary resources are in place for a community notification system to function and operate as expected.
Non-responding and responding facilities are currently required to be coordinated with the community emergency response plan developed under EPCRA. The plan is prepared by LEPCs / TEPCs to evaluate the need for resources necessary to develop, implement, and exercise the emergency plan. EPA wants to ensure RMP-regulated facilities understand how their facility's processes could impact the larger community emergency response plan, and the facility's role in coordination on the required plan provisions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to explicitly state the required provisions of the community response plan in the RMP regulatory text for both responding and non-responding facilities. EPA would expect the facility to discuss the community plan with appropriate LEPC officials as part of the facility's coordination activities.
EPA states that the community emergency response plan should include the following components:
- Identification of facilities within the emergency planning district.
- Identification of routes likely to be used for the transportation of substances on the list of extremely hazardous substances.
- Identification of additional facilities contributing or subjected to additional risk due to their proximity to facilities, such as hospitals or natural gas facilities.
- Methods and procedures to be followed by facility owners and operators and local emergency and medical personnel to respond to any release of extremely hazardous substances.
- Designation of a community emergency coordinator and facility emergency coordinators, who shall make determinations necessary to implement the plan.
- Procedures providing reliable, effective, and timely notification by the facility emergency coordinators and the community emergency coordinator to persons designated in the emergency plan, and to the public, that a release has occurred.
- Methods for determining the occurrence of a release, and the area or population likely to be affected by such release.
- Description of emergency equipment and facilities in the community and at each facility in the community, and an identification of the persons responsible for such equipment and facilities.
- Evacuation plans, including provisions for a precautionary evacuation and alternative traffic routes.
- Training programs, including schedules for training of local emergency response and medical personnel.
- Methods and schedules for exercising the emergency plan.
EPA is also proposing to require both non-responding and responding facilities to provide necessary entities with initial RMP accidental release information during releases of regulated substances in order to ensure that information is available to the public and the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies. Specifically, EPA is proposing that whichever method is used to detect accidental releases, the facility must ensure that the public is promptly notified by the method outlined in the facility's emergency response plan in coordination with local responders. Facilities should do this by providing appropriate, timely data and information to local responders, and detailing the current understanding and best estimates of the nature of the release. This should include the regulated substance released, estimated time the release began, estimated quantity already released and potential quantity to be released, and potential consequences of the release to human health and the environment.
EPA believes that providing data and information pertaining to releases will help ensure timely decisions about notification of those releases, particularly those with offsite impacts. EPA expects that the requirement to provide this information will help ensure that local responders have sufficient information to make the best decision on whether community notification is appropriate. Through this proposed provision, along with the recently promulgated requirements for annual coordination meetings and notification exercises, EPA expects that emergency response efforts and communications will be discussed, practiced, and refined. EPA believes its proposed amendments will provide a greater level of comfort and overall safety to communities surrounding RMP facilities
Release Detection
The existing emergency response regulations in the RMP rule allow facility owners or operators to develop mechanisms to detect releases and notify local authorities and the public of releases at their facility, either directly or through local authorities.
Currently, RMP facilities are required to collect information and evaluate how they will detect releases at their facility. Facilities with Program 2 processes are required in their hazard review to identify any steps used or needed to detect or monitor releases. Facilities with Program 3 processes are required to identify detection systems when compiling their process safety information and address appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases in their PHA.
RMP facilities with Program 2 and 3 processes are also required to report in their risk management plans the monitoring and detection systems in use for their regulated processes. When reporting in their risk management plans, owners and operators can select up to four categories that apply to how releases are detected from their processes: ''process area detectors'', ''perimeter monitors'', ''none'', or ''other monitoring / detection system in use''. When process area detectors or perimeter monitors are selected, no further information is collected. To better understand electronic detection methodologies available and in use among RMP facilities, EPA is proposing to require owners and operators to input, in an open text field in the risk management plan, specific information on their process area detectors and perimeter monitoring technologies and models in use to detect RMP-regulated substances.
Due to the numerous RMP-regulated substances, and different technologies and methods available of accurately detecting those substances, EPA expects facilities to identify the most effective method of detecting releases of their specific substances, from their specific process operations, based on RAGAGEP.
Field Exercises
EPA is concerned that some facilities may use the flexibility in the current RMP rule to never hold field exercises with local responders or to hold them so infrequently that the owner or operator's response to an accidental release would be ineffective. EPA wants to ensure all facilities conduct regular field exercises if they have the resources and capabilities to do so.
EPA also wants to ensure that facilities are accountable to the communities in which they are located. EPA believes that one way to do this is to make sure that communities have mechanisms to evaluate the resources and capabilities needed to assist in a response to an accidental release and that they can perform field exercises involving actual emergency response functions to simulated release events.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the RMP rule to require all facilities with Program 2 and Program 3 processes and subject to the rule’s emergency response program requirements conduct field exercises involving a simulated accidental release of a regulated substance, at a minimum, once every 10 years, unless the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies agree in writing that such frequency is impractical. In the case that emergency response agencies so agree, the owner or operator must consult with emergency response officials to establish an alternative appropriate frequency for field exercises.
EPA is cognizant of the resources (e.g. staff, experts, funds) that field exercises demand, particularly in small rural communities and those with multiple RMP facilities. However, EPA maintains that exercising emergency response plans within a reasonable, frequent time frame is vital to ensuring that emergency response programs will work well in the event of an accidental release.
EPA expects assigning this frequency to the provision, but providing for relief in specific circumstances, will work for all organizations and communities to prepare for or further assess the ability to respond to accidental releases. EPA also expects that the frequency of field exercises and any justification for not being able to conduct them on a 10-year schedule will be discussed through annual coordination meetings.
EPA believes the proposed amendment will help ensure the safety of communities by more frequently confirming that local responders are prepared for an accidental release.
EPA is also proposing to require that the current recommended field and tabletop exercise evaluation report components be mandatory rather than recommended. EPA contends that making these exercise report components mandatory will help not only to eliminate confusion about what is required when evaluating an actual or simulated response, but also provide consistency on elements that are crucial to the exercise improvement planning process.
EPA is soliciting comments on the proposed amendments and has posed questions regarding them.
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
