Key Takeaways
- PSM (OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.119) protects workers inside the facility. RMP (EPA, 40 CFR Part 68) protects surrounding communities from off-site consequences.
- Both programs are rooted in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Section 112(r)) but are enforced by different federal agencies with different reporting requirements.
- Program 3 RMP facilities must implement all 14 PSM elements as part of their RMP prevention program, effectively merging both requirements.
- PSM requires no external submission. RMP requires submission of a Risk Management Plan to EPA, portions of which are publicly available subject to confidentiality and security restrictions.
- The 2024 SCCAP Rule introduced third-party audit requirements, natural hazard evaluation, enhanced employee participation, and board-level reporting for certain RMP facilities.
- Houston facilities – including petroleum refineries, chemical plants, ammonia refrigeration facilities, and wastewater treatment plants – are among the most commonly dual-regulated in the country.
Two federal regulatory programs apply to facilities handling hazardous chemicals at significant quantities: OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard and the EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP). Both are designed to prevent catastrophic chemical releases and chemical accident prevention at covered facilities. Both apply to Houston’s industrial facilities – including petroleum refineries, chemical plants, ammonia refrigeration facilities, and propane storage facilities. And both have caused compliance headaches for plant managers who assume one program covers what the other requires.
They don’t.
This guide explains the key differences between PSM and RMP, when each applies, and what Houston facilities need to know when they are subject to both. It also addresses the 2024 RMP Amendments – commonly referred to as the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) Rule – which introduced significant new requirements for RMP-regulated facilities.
Two Overlapping Federal Requirements, One Facility
OSHA’s Process Safety Management standard and EPA’s Risk Management Program were developed by different federal agencies with different missions. OSHA – the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Labor – administers PSM with a focus on protecting workers inside the facility. The EPA – the Environmental Protection Agency – administers RMP with a focus on protecting surrounding communities from the consequences of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals.
EPA’s RMP rule implements Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. OSHA’s PSM standard is enforced under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, although the two programs were developed to address overlapping chemical-accident risks. Executive Order 13650, issued after the 2013 West, Texas ammonium nitrate explosion, further directed federal agencies including OSHA, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and others to work together to improve chemical facility safety and security.
Both programs target many of the same chemicals and regulated facilities, but they differ in scope, covered chemicals, reporting obligations, and enforcement. A facility can be subject to PSM only, RMP only, or both simultaneously – and the compliance obligations in each scenario are different.
OSHA PSM (29 CFR 1910.119): What It Covers
The 14 PSM elements are not a menu. They are an integrated system. OSHA’s Process Safety Management standard, codified at 29 CFR 1910.119, applies to covered processes involving listed highly hazardous chemicals at or above their threshold quantities, as well as certain flammable gases and liquids, subject to the standard’s scope and exemptions.. The standard also covers flammable liquids and gases in quantities of 10,000 pounds or more on-site. Common examples in the Houston area include anhydrous ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and flammable hydrocarbons handled at petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and wastewater treatment plants.
PSM’s focus is the protection of workers inside the facility. It requires facilities to implement documented management practices across 14 elements – all oriented toward the management systems needed to prevent releases and protect employees.
The 14 PSM Elements
- Process Safety Information – documentation of chemical hazards, technology, and equipment
- Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) / Process Hazard Analyses – structured hazard evaluations of each covered process
- Operating Procedures
- Training
- Contractors
- Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR)
- Mechanical Integrity
- Hot Work Permits
- Management of Change (MOC)
- Incident Investigation – including root cause analysis for process safety incidents
- Emergency Planning and Response
- Compliance Audits – required every three years; must follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP)
- Trade Secrets
- Employee Participation – workers must be involved in process hazard analyses and other PSM elements
Key PSM characteristics:
- Serious or willful violations can trigger OSHA’s National Emphasis Program for PSM Covered Facilities
- Administered and enforced by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), U.S. Department of Labor
- Focused on worker protection and internal process safety management systems
- Requires no external reporting – compliance is verified through OSHA inspections, not plan submission
- Violations result in OSHA citations and civil penalties
EPA RMP (40 CFR Part 68): What It Covers
The EPA’s Risk Management Program – codified at 40 CFR Part 68 – requires facilities that use regulated substances above threshold quantities to develop and submit a Risk Management Plan to the EPA. As of 2023, there are approximately 140 RMP-regulated substances, with threshold quantities that sometimes differ from PSM thresholds. Regulated substances include anhydrous ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other hazardous substances commonly found at RMP facilities such as petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and ammonia refrigeration facilities.
RMP’s focus is the protection of surrounding communities from the consequences of accidental chemical releases. Its requirements center on hazard assessment – specifically offsite consequence analysis (OCA) modeling to determine how far release consequences could reach – along with prevention programs and emergency response coordination with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs).
RMP Program Tiers
- Program 1: Lowest hazard. Worst-case release scenario consequence modeling must show that impacts are entirely within the facility boundary. No accidental releases in the last five years.
- Program 2: Moderate hazard. Requires a simplified prevention program and emergency response coordination.
- Program 3: Highest hazard. Applies to facilities with more than 10 employees that handle regulated substances above thresholds and are not eligible for Program 1. Requires a full prevention program equivalent to OSHA’s PSM standard.
Key RMP characteristics:
- The 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) Rule – the most significant update to EPA’s RMP rule since 1996 – added third-party audits, enhanced emergency response requirements, and new provisions for facilities in environmental justice areas
- Administered and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Focused on community consequence modeling and external emergency coordination
- Requires submission of a Risk Management Plan to EPA’s RMP*eSubmit system – this plan is publicly accessible
- Violations result in EPA civil penalties, which can be substantial
Side-by-Side Comparison: PSM vs RMP
| Feature | OSHA PSM | EPA RMP |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Agency | OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) – U.S. Department of Labor | EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) |
| Regulation | 29 CFR 1910.119 | 40 CFR Part 68 |
| Primary Goal | Worker protection – internal process safety | Community protection – off-site consequence analysis |
| Covered Chemicals | 137 highly hazardous chemicals + flammables 10,000 lbs or more | ~140 regulated substances (partially overlapping with PSM list; includes anhydrous ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and others) |
| Coverage Trigger | Threshold quantity of listed highly hazardous chemical | Threshold quantity of regulated substance |
| Program Tiers | No tiers – one standard applies to all covered facilities | Program 1, 2, or 3 based on hazard level and employee count |
| External Reporting | No – compliance verified through OSHA inspections | Yes – Risk Management Plan submitted to EPA RMP*eSubmit (public record) |
| Plan Accessibility | Internal only | Public record (EPA searchable database); accessible to communities and regulators |
| Enforcement | OSHA inspections and citations; U.S. Department of Labor penalties | EPA inspections, civil penalties, and referrals; third-party audits required for some facilities under 2024 SCCAP |
| Key Requirements | 14 PSM elements including Process Safety Information, PHA, MOC, Employee Participation, root cause analysis for incidents | Hazard assessment (offsite consequence analysis), prevention program, emergency response program, LEPC coordination |
| Accident History | Incident investigation records (internal) | Five-year accident history in submitted RMP plan |
| Emergency Coordination | Internal emergency action plan; coordination with local responders | Coordination with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) required |
| Reanalysis Requirement | PHA revalidation every 5 years | RMP update at least every 5 years; resubmit RMPs after significant process changes |
Key Differences in Scope, Reporting, and Enforcement
Scope difference: PSM requires active management systems – documented management practices, training, audits, management of change, and employee participation in hazard evaluations. RMP requires a submitted plan with offsite consequence analysis, a five-year accident history, and evidence of a prevention program. The depth of operational management required under PSM is typically greater than what RMP requires standing alone. However, Program 3 RMP facilities must implement a prevention program that meets PSM requirements, effectively merging the two programs’ scope for the highest-hazard regulated facilities.
Reporting difference: PSM is verified through OSHA inspection – there is nothing to submit. RMP requires a formal plan submission to the EPA that becomes a public document. Much of a facility’s submitted RMP information is available to the public. Access to detailed off-site consequence analysis information is subject to federal security restrictions.
Under the 2024 SCCAP Rule, facilities must also make certain chemical hazard information available to the public and coordinate more actively with Local Emergency Planning Committees.
Enforcement difference: OSHA enforces PSM through on-site inspections, citation issuance, and penalty assessment. The EPA enforces RMP through its own inspection program, civil penalties, and in serious cases, criminal referral. The 2024 SCCAP Rule added a requirement for third-party compliance audits at certain high-hazard RMP facilities – a significant shift toward independent verification of compliance rather than self-reporting alone. Facilities in environmental justice areas and those with prior accidental releases may face enhanced third-party audit requirements.
When a Houston Facility Must Comply With Both
A facility is subject to both PSM and RMP when it meets the coverage threshold for both programs. This is extremely common in Houston’s petrochemical sector, particularly at petroleum refineries, chemical plants, ammonia refrigeration facilities, and wastewater treatment plants handling highly hazardous chemicals above threshold quantities.
Under RMP, a Program 3 facility is one that:
- Has more than 10 full-time employees
- Is not eligible for Program 1 (worst-case offsite consequence analysis shows impacts that could extend beyond the facility boundary)
- Uses regulated substances above threshold quantities
Program 3 facilities must implement a prevention program that meets the requirements of OSHA’s PSM standard – meaning, in practice, PSM compliance is the mechanism for satisfying the RMP prevention program requirement for Program 3 facilities.
This means a Program 3 facility subject to both PSM and RMP must implement all 14 PSM elements – not because PSM applies twice, but because the RMP prevention program requirement for Program 3 specifically references PSM compliance as the standard. This includes requirements for process hazard analyses, management of change, employee participation, root cause analysis following incidents, and management practices consistent with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).
The 2024 SCCAP Rule: What Changed for Dual-Regulated Facilities
The 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Rule – also referred to as the 2024 SCCAP Rule or EPA’s updated RMP rule – introduced several changes that directly affect facilities subject to both PSM and RMP:
Board-level reporting: For some categories of facilities, incident and near-miss data must be reported at the executive or board level as part of improved management practices.
Third-party audits: Program 3 facilities that experienced an accidental release within the previous five years, or that are located in environmental justice areas, are required to engage a third-party auditor with relevant technical expertise. This is a new requirement with no equivalent under PSM.
Enhanced employee participation: The 2024 SCCAP Rule strengthened requirements for employee participation in process hazard analyses and incident investigations, aligning more closely with PSM’s existing employee participation element.
Stop-work authority: Employees must be informed of their right to stop work for process safety reasons – a provision that is new under RMP and reinforces PSM’s employee participation requirements.
Natural hazards: Facilities must now evaluate natural hazards (including flooding, high winds, and seismic activity) as part of their hazard reviews and process hazard analyses. This is particularly relevant for Texas Gulf Coast facilities subject to hurricane exposure.
Common Dual-Compliance Gaps in Texas
Texas has a high concentration of facilities subject to both PSM and RMP – including petroleum refineries, chemical plants, ammonia refrigeration facilities, propane storage facilities, and wastewater treatment plants. The following gaps appear most frequently in dual-regulated facilities:
RMP plan not updated after process changes. Facilities that have implemented Management of Change (MOC) processes under PSM sometimes fail to update their submitted RMP plan to reflect process modifications that affect the offsite consequence analysis. When inventory, equipment, or process conditions change, facilities must resubmit RMPs to reflect those changes. Under the 2024 SCCAP Rule, the obligation to keep the plan current is more strictly enforced.
Worst-case scenario modeling outdated. RMP requires worst-case release scenario analysis and offsite consequence analysis (OCA) modeling. As inventory levels, processes, or equipment change, the consequence modeling may no longer reflect actual risk – but the plan goes unrevised. Outdated OCA modeling creates both a compliance gap and a community risk.
Five-year accident history not synchronized. RMP requires a five-year accident history in the submitted plan, including corrective action taken. Facilities sometimes fail to update this after reportable incidents, or include incidents in OSHA records without ensuring they are captured in the RMP plan. Root cause analysis findings from PSM incident investigations should feed directly into RMP accident history updates.
Emergency coordination not maintained. Both PSM and RMP require coordination with local emergency responders and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). In practice, this coordination often lapses after the initial plan submission – contacts change, facilities change, and the coordination falls out of date. The 2024 SCCAP Rule’s enhanced emergency preparedness requirements make active LEPC coordination an ongoing obligation, not a one-time event.
Third-party audit obligations not identified. The 2024 SCCAP Rule’s third-party audit requirement is new for many facilities. Program 3 RMP facilities that have experienced a reportable accidental release, or that are located in environmental justice areas, must commission independent third-party compliance audits. Facilities that have not evaluated whether they trigger this requirement risk non-compliance.
Program 3 facilities treating PSM and RMP as separate programs. Program 3 RMP facilities must meet PSM requirements as part of their RMP prevention program. Facilities that manage PSM internally and RMP externally without integrating the two often create documentation gaps – process hazard analyses, management of change records, employee participation documentation, and root cause analyses that exist under PSM must also be reflected in the RMP plan’s prevention program.
Natural hazards not addressed in PHAs. The 2024 SCCAP Rule requires facilities to address natural hazards – including flooding, high winds, and seismic activity – in hazard evaluations. Many Texas Gulf Coast facilities have not updated their process hazard analyses to incorporate natural hazard scenarios, despite significant exposure to hurricane events.
Get a Free PSM/RMP Compliance Review
Aggie Safety provides PSM and RMP consulting services for Houston and Greater Texas industrial facilities – including initial gap assessments, process hazard analysis facilitation, RMP plan development and update, LEPC coordination support, third-party compliance audit preparation, and integrated PSM/RMP compliance program management.
For facilities navigating dual compliance under both 29 CFR 1910.119 and 40 CFR Part 68 – particularly in light of the 2024 SCCAP Rule updates – understanding exactly where PSM and RMP requirements overlap, and where they don’t, is the starting point for an efficient compliance program.
Call 713-613-2830 to schedule a free PSM/RMP compliance review with Aggie Safety’s technical team.
Process Safety Management Consulting →
Last Updated: 2026 | PSM requirements: OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119. RMP requirements: EPA 40 CFR Part 68, as updated by the 2024 RMP Amendments. Applicability and coverage thresholds should be verified against current regulatory text and applicable chemical lists.
