View Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2017, a final rule to amend the Risk Management Program regulations under the Clean Air Act. Prior to the rule becoming effective, EPA received three petitions for reconsideration that raised concerns with provisions of the final rule. EPA subsequently delayed the effective date of the final rule via notice and comment rulemaking to February 19, 2019, in order to conduct a reconsideration proceeding. On May 30, 2018, EPA published proposed changes to the final rule to address specific issues to be reconsidered and other issues that the Agency believes warrant additional public comment.

Statement of Need:

On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule (82 FR 4594) amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under section 112(r) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs, including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the underlying rules. Prior to the rule taking effect, EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the rule under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), two from industry groups and one from a group of states. Under that provision, the Administrator is to commence a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator responded to the first of the reconsideration petitions received by announcing the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments. As explained in that letter, having considered the objections raised in the petition, the Administrator determined that the criteria for reconsideration have been met for at least one of the objections. This proposal addresses the issues raised in all three petitions for reconsideration, as well as other issues that EPA believes warrant reconsideration.

Summary of the Legal Basis:

The Agency's procedures in this rulemaking are controlled by CAA section 307(d). The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). Each of the portions of the Risk Management Program rule we propose to modify in this document are based on section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). EPA's authority for convening a reconsideration proceeding for certain issues is found under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) or 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B).

Alternatives:

EPA's primary proposal would rescind almost all the requirements added under the RMP Amendments rule to the accident prevention provisions program of subparts C (for program 2 processes) and D (for program 3 processes), and associated definitions, as well as the Amendments rule requirements in subpart H for providing to the public, upon request, chemical hazard information and access to community emergency preparedness information. The proposal would also modify the amendments rule provisions in subpart E for local emergency response coordination and emergency exercises, as well as the provisions in subpart H for public meetings after accidents. EPA has also requested public comment on various alternatives, including retaining certain minor changes made to the subparts C and D prevention programs relating to hazard reviews, incident investigations, training, and others, as well as alternatives to the proposed changes to the local coordination and emergency exercise provisions.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:

In total, EPA estimates annualized cost savings of $87.9 million at a 3% discount rate and $88.4 million at a 7% discount rate. Most of the annual cost savings under the proposed rule are due to the repeal of the STAA provision (annual savings of $70 million), followed by third-party audits (annual savings of $9.8 million), rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7 million), information availability (annual savings of $3.1 million), and root-cause incident investigation (annual savings of $1.8 million). The RMP Amendments Rule produced a variety of non-monetized benefits from prevention and mitigation of future RMP and non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at RMP facilities, and easier access to facility chemical hazard information. The proposed Reconsideration rule would largely retain the revised local emergency coordination and exercise provisions of the 2017 Amendments final rule, which convey mitigation benefits. The proposed rescission of the prevention program requirements (i.e., third-party audits, incident investigation, STAA), may result in a reduction of these benefits. The proposed rescission of the chemical hazard information availability provision may result in a reduction of the information sharing benefit, although the public meeting, emergency coordination and exercise provisions would still convey a portion of this qualitative benefit. However, the proposed rulemaking would convey the benefit of improved chemical site security, by modifying previously open-ended information sharing provisions of the Amendments rule that might have resulted in an increased risk of terrorism against regulated sources.

Risks:

The chemical accident prevention provisions of Clean Air Act section 112(r) and 40 CFR part 68 address the acute risks to human health and the environment associated with the accidental release of highly toxic and flammable chemicals. Approximately 12,500 U.S. facilities are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 68, and much of the U.S. population resides in a community containing one or more such facilities. EPA believes that the existing part 68 provisions have been successful in reducing the frequency and severity of accidental chemical releases from covered facilities. The RMP Amendments Rule produced a variety of benefits from prevention and mitigation of future RMP and non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at RMP facilities, and easier access to facility chemical hazard information and accident history. The proposed rule would largely retain the revised local emergency coordination and exercise provisions of the 2017 Amendments final rule, which convey mitigation benefits. If a chemical accident or major catastrophe occurs, mitigating its impacts benefits society by reducing the number of fatalities and injuries, reducing the magnitude of property damage and lost productivity both on-site and off-site, and reducing the extent of public evacuations, sheltering, and expenditure of emergency response resources. These retained provisions along with public meetings also produce benefits by improving the information going to emergency planners, responders, and the public. The proposed reconsideration of the prevention program requirements, as well as certain information disclosure provisions in the RMP Amendments Rule may result in a reduction in prevention and information benefits, relative to the baseline post-2017 Amendments rule. However, as noted above, there may be an increase in security benefits by limiting information sharing, which might result in an increased risk of terrorism against regulated facilities.