“I have so much paperwork. I’m afraid my paperwork has paperwork.” — Gabrielle Zevin
One of the key differences between OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard and the EPA’s Risk Management Planning (RMP) rule is the RMP rule’s requirement to submit documentation to the EPA. OSHA has no similar requirement for submission. If OSHA wants information about process hazards at a facility (or as the EPA insists on calling it, a stationary source), they have to ask for it.
The requirement for submission of a risk management plan is so central to the EPA’s regulation that it is commonly known as the RMP rule, rather than the CAPP rule, despite the regulation’s official name: “Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions.”
Occasionally, the question comes up in regard to how many risk management plans must be submitted, and within those plans, how many release scenarios must be included.
Stationary Sources vs. Processes
Before tackling the question of “how many?” it is important to distinguish between stationary sources and processes.
A stationary source is a collection of “buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance emitting stationary activities.” There are qualifiers, though.
- They must belong to the same industrial group
- They must be located on one or more contiguous properties
- They must be under the control of the same person (or persons under common control)
A process includes any “use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or on-site movement” of regulated substances. The regulators have expanded this already expansive definition of process (yes, storage is a process) to stipulate that
- Any group of vessels that are interconnected are a process
- Separate vessels that are located such that a regulated substance could be involved in a potential release are considered a single process.
This distinction is important because a single stationary source could be home to more than one process. On the other hand, it is hard to conceive of a single process that could be sited on more than one stationary source.
How Many Risk Management Plans
The EPA is pretty clear about this. Over and over, the EPA insists on a single registration and single risk management plan, regardless of how many processes are on the site.
- The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this part shall submit a single RMP…The RMP shall include a registration that reflects all covered processes. (40 CFR 68.12(a) )
- “The owner or operator shall submit a single RMP that includes the information required…for all covered processes.” (40 CFR 68.150(a) )
- “The owner or operator shall complete a single registration form and include it in the RMP. The form shall cover all regulated substances in covered processes.” (40 CFR 68.160(a) )
So, it’s important to understand what a “stationary source” is.
Belong to the Same Industrial Group
When the EPA says, “the same industrial group,” it doesn’t mean operations owned by the same corporate conglomerate. It means operations with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that start with the same three digits. Interestingly, the EPA lists ten NAICS codes that trigger Program 3 compliance when a stationary source is covered by RMP (40 CFR 68.10(l)(1):
- 32211 Pulp mills
- 32411 Petroleum refineries
- 32511 Petrochemical manufacturing
- 325181 Alkalis and chlorine manufacturing
- 325188 All other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing
- 325192 Cyclic crude and intermediate manufacturing
- 325199 All other basic organic chemical manufacturing
- 325211 Plastics material and resin manufacturing
- 325311 Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing
- 32532 Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing
The last eight are all in the same industrial group, 325, Chemical Manufacturing. The first two each stand alone; industrial group 322 is paper manufacturing and industrial group 324 is petroleum and coal products manufacturing.
One or More Contiguous Properties
Contiguous properties are adjacent. It is easy to appreciate that two properties that share a fenceline are contiguous. The EPA also considers two properties that are directly across the street from each other, or across a railroad from each other, as contiguous. On the other hand, two properties that are only connected by a right-of-way—a railroad, a highway, a pipeline—are not contiguous.
If a facility with several processes, all in NAICS 325, sat on four adjacent parcels of land, all in a row, the EPA would consider that a single stationary source. If the owner then sold the third parcel and the processes on it to a different company, the EPA would then consider that three separate stationary sources: the first two parcels would remain a single stationary source, the third parcel (now under new ownership) would be a single stationary source, and the fourth parcel (now no longer contiguous) would be a single stationary source. The owner would need to update the RMP for the first two parcels because of the change, and submit a new registration and RMP for the fourth parcel. Additionally, the new owners of the third parcel would need to submit their own registration and RMP.
Under the Control of the Same Person
When it talks about “under the control of the same person,” the EPA means corporate control, not site management. Consider two contiguous facilities, each producing chemicals and in NAICS 325. They are owned and operated by different divisions of the same corporate entity, each with their own site managers. Those site managers and their divisions would eventually report to the same person. It would be a single station stationary source, requiring a single RMP and registration.
Now consider a process embedded within a chemical complex, but owned and operated by a company different from the company that owns and operates the rest of the complex. It would be a separate stationary source by virtue of being under separate corporate control.
How Many Release Scenarios
The RMP regulation talks about worst-case scenarios and alternative scenarios. The conditions for worst-case scenarios are extremely unlikely, but are defined by the EPA. This is how the EPA assures that every submission is on a common basis. The alternative scenarios are far more likely, and allow for engineering judgment, which can vary from one plan to the next.
The number of release scenarios to include in an RMP depends on the number of processes at the stationary source.
For each Program 1 process, the RMP must include one worst-case scenario.
For each Program 2 or Program 3 process, the RMP must include one worst-case scenario to represent all regulated toxics in the process, and one worst-case scenario to represent all regulated flammables in the process.
As for alternative scenarios, RMPs do not need to include them for Program 1 processes. For Program 2 or Program 3 processes, however, there must be at least one alternative scenario for each regulated toxic substance and at least one alternative scenario to represent all regulated flammables in that process.
Do We Need Another RMP?
It would be nice to be able to say that determining the number of RMPs that we need to submit, and how many release scenarios that they need to contain, is straightforward. But it seems as though few things with the EPA are straightforward, which is why questions come up. We hope this has been helpful. When one of us discovers that a separate RMP is required, the only way to fix it is to get the RMP submitted, with the necessary registration. Then we need to make sure that they include all of the information required by the EPA.
