The Nickel Report

For the fourth time in the last ten years, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to modify its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations. EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposed modifications on March 10, 2026, and is accepting written public comment on the proposal through April 10, 2026.

The stated purpose of the proposed changes is to reduce regulatory burdens, avoid duplicative requirements, eliminate unnecessary burdens placed on facilities where there is not specific data supporting the efficacy of current RMP requirements to reduce accidental releases, and bolster economic growth. The proposal, if finalized, would largely rescind or modify new RMP requirements that were established under the previous administration in 2024 (the “2024 RMP Amendments”).

The RMP program was originally established in 1996 under Clean Air Act section 112(r), as a performance-based regulatory program intended to prevent accidental releases of regulated substances from facilities that have such substances in a process over threshold quantities.

The following key areas of the current RMP regulations are subject to modification under the proposal:

• Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) and Inherently Safer Technology and Design (IST/ISD): EPA proposes to remove the requirements added in the 2024 RMP Amendments for regulated facilities with Program 3^[1] processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325 to conduct a STAA evaluation and, for a subset of facilities, a practicability assessment for IST/ISD and to implement at least one practicable passive measure or similarly protective combination of active or procedural measure(s) resulting from the assessment. EPA proposes to replace these provisions with a new requirement that an initial STAA evaluation be conducted for all new Program 3 processes, regardless of facility NAICS code. “New” processes would include those designed and added to both existing RMP facilities and newly operating facilities. In support of this change, EPA cites its long-held view that STAAs are best conducted during the design of new processes.
• Information Availability and RMP Public Data Tool: EPA proposes to rescind the public information availability provisions in the 2024 RMP Amendments that required facilities to provide chemical hazard information to members of the public upon request and to codify instead a list of information that EPA will share through the RMP Public Data Tool. EPA also proposes to modify the RMP Public Data Tool by removing the map display and restricting the search function to county or facility name, among other changes. According to EPA, these changes will appropriately balance the competing objectives of facilitating public access to information about nearby facilities and maintaining facility security. EPA is also proposing to provide public access to non- offsite consequence analysis (OCA) RMP information through the RMP Public Data Tool.

• Third-Party Compliance Audits: EPA co-proposes two alternative options related to third-party audits:

1. Rescind all of the third-party audit provisions added to the RMP regulations by the 2024 RMP Amendments. EPA notes, however, its ongoing use of third-party compliance audits as part of enforcement agreements.
2. Modify the relevant 2024 RMP Amendment provisions to target Program 2 and 3 facilities with two RMP-reportable accidents in a five-year period. EPA also proposes under this option to sunset third-party audit requirements ten years after the initial compliance date of the third-party audit provisions and to modify certain requirements related to auditor independence and Board of Directors reporting.

• Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP) Gap Analysis: EPA is proposing to rescind the 2024 RMP Rule Amendment provisions requiring Program 3 PHAs to include an analysis of the most recently promulgated RAGAGEP to identify any safety gaps between practices related to the facility’s design, maintenance, and operation and the most current version of RAGAGEP, and to document declined recommendations related to any identified gaps. In doing so, EPA continues to emphasize that facilities “are required” to evaluate and address hazards, or gaps in safety, identified via changes to codes and standards pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.48 and 68.65. Nonetheless, EPA proposes to rescind the 2024 rule’s codification of the requirement into a stand-alone section of the PHA.
• Employee Participation: EPA proposes to rescind a number of the key employee participation program enhancements added to the RMP regulations via the 2024 RMP Amendments, including:
  • The requirements for facilities with Program 2 and/or 3 processes to:
    • Provide training on their employee participation plan; and
    • Develop a process for employees to report to the owner or operator and/or EPA unaddressed hazards, accidents, and other noncompliance either anonymously or with attribution, and retain a record of the report for three years.

• • The requirements for Program 3 facilities to:
    • Consult with employees on addressing recommendations and findings from PHAs, compliance audits, and incident investigations; and
    • Provide employees knowledgeable in the process the authority to (1) recommend that the operator in charge of a unit partially or completely shut down, and (2) allow a qualified operator in charge of a unit to partially or completely shut down a unit, in accordance with operating procedures established in 40 C.F.R. 68.69(a) based on the potential for a catastrophic release.

In addition to these key proposals, EPA proposes to modify or rescind other 2024 RMP Amendment provisions, including those related to:

• Community and emergency responder notification and related documentation requirements;
• PHA elements related to stationary source siting, natural hazards, and power loss evaluations;
• Requirements to have emergency backup power for monitoring equipment;
• Requirements related to documenting and reporting justifications for declining hazard analysis and PHA recommendations from natural hazards, power loss, siting, and RAGAGEP gap analyses; and
• Three-year retention period for hot work permits.

Companies with RMP obligations—such as chemical manufacturing facilities, refineries, and facilities with ammonia refrigeration processes, among others—should review compliance documentation to ensure it is consistent with the revised rule and is being appropriately implemented. Hunton attorneys regularly advise clients on compliance with the RMP regulations, including how to account for the rapidly changing regulatory landscape in program implementation.

[1] Requirements under the RMP regulations depend on which “Program” a covered process falls under:

• Program 1 – Minimal requirements; includes processes that have not had an accidental release with specified offsite consequences in the five years before submission of the source’s RMP, have no public receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals) within the toxic or flammable endpoints for a worst-case release scenario, and are located in facilities that have coordinated emergency response procedures with local emergency planning and response organizations. See 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(j).
• Program 2 – Requires a hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program, but requirements are more streamlined than requirements for Program 3; includes any process not covered under Programs 1 or 3.
• Program 3 – Most extensive requirements; includes processes not eligible for Program 1 classification that are in specified industry sectors or are covered by the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard. See 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(l).