PT Notes
EPA RMP Rule 2024 Amendments - STAA Requirements
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.
The amended rule requires that Program 3 Process Hazard Analysis address STAA, which involves the application of the hierarchy of controls for process safeguards.
The amended rule provides definitions of some key terms used in STAA:
Inherently safer technology or design (IST / ISD) means risk management measures that minimize the use of regulated substances, substitute less hazardous substances, moderate the use of regulated substances, or simplify covered processes in order to make accidental releases less likely, or the impacts of such releases less severe.
Active measures mean risk management measures or engineering controls that rely on mechanical or other energy input to detect and respond to process deviations. Examples of active measures include alarms, safety instrumented systems, and detection hardware, such as hydrocarbon sensors.
Passive measures mean risk management measures that use design features that reduce either the frequency or consequence of the hazard without human, mechanical, or other energy input. Examples of passive measures include pressure vessel designs, dikes, berms, and blast walls.
Procedural measures mean risk management measures such as policies, operating procedures, training, administrative controls, and emergency response actions to prevent or minimize incidents.
Practicability means the capability of being successfully accomplished within a reasonable time, accounting for environmental, legal, social, technological, and economic factors. Environmental factors would include consideration of potential transferred risks for new risk reduction measures.
The amended RMP rule requires that the Program 3 Process Hazard Analysis address:
Safer technology and alternative risk management measures applicable to eliminating or reducing risk from process hazards for the following covered processes and shall meet all of the following requirements:
For covered processes in NAICS codes 324 (petroleum refining) and 325 (chemical manufacturing):
The owner or operator shall consider and document, in the following order of preference: inherently safer technology or design, passive measures, active measures, and procedural measures.
A combination of risk management measures may be used to achieve the desired risk reduction.
The STAA shall be performed by a team that includes members with expertise in the process being evaluated, including at least one member who works in the process. The team members shall be documented.
In principle, the STAA eliminates or minimizes the opportunities for a chemical release because identification and implementation of ‘‘safer’’ technologies and alternatives, should result in a hazard or risk reduction for a particular RMP chemical or process.
EPA believes that high RMP accident frequency among NAICS 324 and 325 processes, as shown by recent data, is reasonable justification for requiring RMP owners and operators to evaluate safer technologies and alternatives to help prevent accidental releases.
EPA notes that sources involved in complex manufacturing operations have the greatest range of opportunities to identify and implement safer technologies, particularly in the area of inherent safety, because these sources generally produce, transform, and consume large quantities of regulated substances under sometimes extreme process conditions and using a wide range of complex technologies. Therefore, such sources can often consider the full range of inherent safety options, including minimization, substitution, moderation, and simplification, as well as passive, active, and procedural measures. Furthermore, EPA notes that RMP facilities in the selected sectors have been responsible for a relatively large number of accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage and have significantly higher accidents rates as compared to other sectors.
While EPA is not requiring all Program 3 sources, or all sources in industry sectors where feasible safer technology alternatives have been identified, to perform a STAA, EPA encourages such sources to consider performing a STAA, and to determine practicability of IST or ISD considered, even if they are not subject to the STAA provisions of the amended RMP rule.
EPA expects guidance for this provision, and the data resulting from the STAA Technology Transfer described in a separate PT Note, will be useful for all facilities to adopt to identify potential IST/ISD and safeguards.
EPA notes that the existing RMP rule provides several incentives to encourage the use of STAA and the adoption of safer technologies, including having applicability based on a chemical threshold, allowing a source to take credit for passive mitigation in calculating its worst-case scenario and both passive and active controls when calculating its alternative scenarios.
Consistent with EPA’s general approach to the RMP regulations, EPA allows flexibility for owners and operators to adopt various methods to meet performance standards, with more specific, demanding standards for sources that pose a greater likelihood of an accidental release and have greater complexity, and for sources that pose a greater risk to nearby communities.
There are additional requirements for covered processes in
- NAICS codes 324 and 325, located within 1 mile of another stationary source having a covered process in NAICS code 324 or 325.
- NAICS code 324 with hydrofluoric acid alkylation covered processes.
- NAICS codes 324 and 325 that have had one accident that meets the accident history reporting requirements of the RMP rule since the most recent process hazard analysis.
For these covered processes:
The owner or operator shall determine and document the practicability of the inherently safer technologies and designs considered. The owner or operator shall include in documentation any methods used to determine practicability.
For any inherently safer technologies and designs implemented, the owner or operator shall document and submit to EPA a description of the technology implemented.
The owner or operator shall implement at least one passive measure at the stationary source, or an inherently safer technology or design, or a combination of active and procedural measures equivalent to or greater than the risk reduction of a passive measure, resulting from the STAA.
If no passive measures are identified or all are not practicable, and no inherently safer technology or design is implemented, then the owner or operator shall implement at least one active measure. If no active measures are identified or all are not practicable, the owner or operator shall implement at least one procedural measure.
For passive and active measures not implemented, the owner or operator shall document sufficient evidence to demonstrate to the implementing agency’s satisfaction that implementing the measures is not practicable and the reasons for this conclusion. A claim that implementation is not practicable shall not be based solely on evidence of reduced profits or increased costs.
EPA states that refineries and chemical manufacturers have sector accident rates that are higher than the general rates for RMP-covered facilities, and, therefore, close co-location of sources in NAICS codes 324 and 325 further increases the risk to the public that may be potentially exposed to a release from multiple sources. In these sectors, the worst-case scenarios of 80 percent of sources extend at least 1 mile. Therefore, the communities surrounding these sources will typically face multiple threats and EPA believes it is appropriate to increase the stringency and transparency of the requirement for such sources.
EPA notes that HF is an extremely toxic chemical. The STAA requirements for HF alkylation processes at petroleum refineries are primarily due to recent incidents where HF was nearly released when there were explosions, fires, and other releases that could have triggered releases of HF.
EPA states that while API Recommended Practice 751, Safe Operation of Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation Units, offers industry guidance to help safely manage HF alkylation processes and their hazards, those process hazards still exist. EPA also states that there are recognized potentially safer chemical alternatives available for HF alkylation that have been successfully implemented by refineries, such as sulfuric acid alkylation, ionic liquid alkylation, or solid acid catalyst alkylation. These alternatives eliminate the hazards of HF. With several known alternatives and with the recent incident history, EPA believes the process of HF alkylation merits a rule-based prevention approach rather than only selective oversight.
EPA views systems and measures that are effective in preventing accidents to be preferable to those which are intended to minimize the consequences of a release. Measures that entirely eliminate the presence of potential hazards through substitution of less harmful substances or by minimizing the quantity of an extremely hazardous substance present at any one time, as opposed to those which merely provide additional containment, are the most preferred.
Further PT Notes will address EPA’s views on STAA Performance, STAA Practicability assessment, STAA Safeguard Implementation, and STAA Technology Transfer.
If you would like further information, please click here.
To comment on this PT Note, click here.
You may be interested in:
Disclaimer: This PT Note provides Primatech’s interpretation of regulatory requirements. The actual regulatory requirements can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/rmp
