Proposed Changes to the Risk Management Program: Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention

Regulatory Intent and Direction

On February 24, 2026 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would revise elements of the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) amendments to the Risk Management Program (RMP). The proposal reflects a shift toward a more targeted, performance-based framework intended to reduce regulatory burden while maintaining chemical accident prevention objectives. U.S. EPA stated that certain prior provisions may have imposed broad obligations without sufficient evidence of proportional safety benefits. The proposed revisions emphasize reducing unnecessary compliance burdens, aligning more closely with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements, and targeting enhanced requirements toward higher-risk facilities. Several impactful changes are discussed in this article.

Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis

The proposal would narrow the applicability of Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) requirements introduced in the 2024 amendments. Rather than imposing broad sector-wide mandates, U.S. EPA proposes focusing requirements on all new Program 3 processes regardless of industry sector. U.S. EPA cites declining accident trends at RMP facilities as part of its rationale for reconsidering universal STAA mandates, suggesting that a more discretionary, risk-based approach may better balance safety objectives with operational flexibility.

Third-Party Compliance Audits

U.S. EPA is co-proposing two options related to third-party audits. Option A would fully rescind the third-party audit requirement. Option B would retain the requirement but limit it to facilities that experience two RMP-reportable accidents within a five-year period, include reporting elements, and sunset the requirement after ten years. The agency seeks to create clearer, risk-based triggers for enhanced oversight rather than maintaining broad, universal mandates. U.S. EPA is also proposing changes related to auditor independence and rescission of the mandatory board reporting requirement.

Monitoring Equipment Backup Power and Documentation

The proposal would rescind requirements for standby or backup power for certain monitoring systems and associated documentation provisions. U.S. EPA indicates that these requirements may create operational challenges during emergency recovery and may not provide sufficient incremental safety benefits to justify the associated compliance burden.

Information Availability and Security

The proposal would revise certain public information disclosure requirements introduced in the 2024 amendments. U.S. EPA seeks to balance community right-to-know objectives with facility security concerns by modifying how hazard information is accessed and shared while maintaining controlled access to core RMP data systems. U.S. EPA is proposing to take on the burden of providing limited site-specific information through the RMP Public Data Tool.

Employee Participation

The proposal would rescind several employee participation provisions added under the 2024 amendments. Specifically, U.S. EPA proposes eliminating expanded requirements that would have mandated broader employee consultation, documentation of participation processes, stop work authority for Program 3 processes, and formalized mechanisms for incorporating employee input into hazard reviews and prevention program elements. U.S. EPA indicates that existing PSM requirements and longstanding RMP provisions already provide sufficient employee involvement safeguards. The agency’s position is that the additional SCCAP requirements may have created administrative burden without demonstrable safety improvements. If finalized, facilities would see a return to the more established participation framework, reducing documentation and procedural expansion obligations.

Consideration of Natural Hazards in Hazard Reviews

The proposal would also revise enhanced requirements related to natural hazard evaluations. The 2024 amendments expanded expectations for facilities to explicitly consider natural hazards such as extreme weather, flooding, wildfires, and other climate-related events within hazard reviews and process hazard analyses. U.S. EPA now proposes scaling back certain prescriptive elements of these provisions, emphasizing flexibility in how facilities assess and address site-specific natural hazards. While consideration of natural hazards would remain an important component of hazard evaluation, the proposed revisions would reduce detailed documentation and procedural mandates that were added in 2024.

Declined Recommendations Requirements

Under the 2024 amendments, facilities were required to formally document and justify any declined recommendations arising from incident investigations, compliance audits, or hazard reviews, including maintaining specific records explaining the technical or economic basis for rejection. The current proposal would rescind or narrow these expanded documentation requirements. U.S. EPA suggests that existing corrective action and recordkeeping provisions already provide sufficient accountability, and that the additional declined-recommendation documentation obligations may have imposed unnecessary administrative complexity. If adopted, this change would streamline post-review documentation practices while maintaining core corrective action responsibilities.

Administrative Impacts

If finalized, the proposal would rescind the three-year retention of hot work permits after completion of hot work operations; provide clarification that facility owners or operators should coordinate with local emergency responders to ensure that, during a release, all necessary information is available to notify the community of the incident; remove the requirement to document the partnership of the owner or operator and the emergency response agency with respect to a community notification system and instead only require a facility to document: (1) the type of community notification system in place; and (2) whether the local responder or the owner or operator will send the notification to the community.

Economic and Compliance Impacts

U.S. EPA estimates substantial cost savings associated with the proposed revisions, particularly from narrowing STAA applicability, modifying audit requirements, and reducing documentation obligations. Industry-wide annualized savings are projected to be significant (over $200 million), including measurable benefits for small entities and public sector facilities. U.S. EPA characterizes these savings as allowing facilities to redirect resources toward higher-value safety investments.

Updated Compliance Dates

U.S. EPA is also proposing to revise compliance timelines associated with the 2024 amendments. Several provisions that were scheduled for near-term implementation would either be delayed, removed, or restructured depending on the outcome of the rulemaking. The compliance dates for the 2024 SCCAP rule provisions for root cause analysis, employee participation, and emergency response at 40 CFR 68.10(g)(3), (5), and (6) would remain as is, May 10, 2027, because all or some portion of each provision is proposed to be retained. Facilities should closely monitor final rule publication to confirm which deadlines remain operative and whether interim compliance actions are necessary.

Practical Implications for Regulated Facilities

Public Comment Period: Comments on the proposed changes must be received on or before April 10, 2026.

If finalized, facilities may experience reduced universal compliance mandates, more targeted audit triggers, simplified documentation requirements, and greater regulatory alignment with OSHA standards. The proposed changes balance public access to information with site security concerns. Organizations should monitor the rulemaking process, evaluate how current compliance strategies intersect with proposed changes, consider submitting comments where appropriate, and continue maintaining robust process safety and risk management systems regardless of regulatory adjustments.

ALL4 supports facilities subject to U.S. EPA’s RMP and OSHA’s PSM requirements with practical, compliance-focused solutions. Our team assists with applicability determinations, hazard reviews and process hazard analysis, program development and implementation, compliance audits, RMP submittals, and program gap assessments.

As regulatory requirements evolve, ALL4 helps facilities interpret rule changes, assess program impacts, and implement effective, streamlined compliance strategies while maintaining strong process safety performance.

If you have any questions or would like support in providing comments to U.S. EPA in response to this proposed rule, please reach out to Christine Silverman at csilverman@all4inc.com.