The explosion that rocked Chevron's Richmond refinery in 2012 sent a toxic cloud across the San Francisco Bay Area, hospitalizing 15,000 residents and forever changing how California views chemical safety. That event, along with other industrial incidents, has made the Golden State the most stringent jurisdiction in the nation for Process Safety Management (PSM) and Risk Management Programs (RMPs).
While federal regulations provide the baseline for chemical safety (i.e., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s [OSHA] PSM standard and the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) RMP Final Rule, several states have decided that a baseline commitment to chemical safety just isn't enough. California leads this regulatory renaissance, but it's not alone in recognizing that one-size-fits-all federal standards may not adequately protect communities with dense industrial corridors and vulnerable populations.
California’s regulatory revolution
The Process Safety Management (PSM) Unit is responsible for inspecting refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable materials. However, in California, PSM Units go beyond federal requirements, implementing what industry insiders call “PSM on steroids.” The state's enhanced requirements, codified in Labor Code sections 7850-7873, mandate additional layers of protection, specifically for petroleum refineries. Petroleum refineries must submit to the PSM Unit every September 15 a full schedule of planned turnarounds for all affected units for the upcoming calendar year. This level of expectation around operational transparency is currently absent at the federal level.
California also operates the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program, which incorporates federal RMP requirements with added state-specific elements that reflect the unique industrial footprint on the West Coast. The program recognizes that California's concentration of refineries, chemical plants, and dense population centers requires a higher level of caution.
Why states exceed federal standards
The motivation for enhanced state requirements stems from several factors that federal regulations may not fully address, including the following:
· Geographic vulnerability: States like California have concentrated industrial corridors adjacent to major metropolitan areas. The Los Angeles basin alone houses millions of residents within the potential impact zones of major chemical facilities. Federal regulations, designed for national applicability, may not account for such extreme population density scenarios.
· Industrial density: California's refinery row in the Bay Area and the petrochemical complexes of the Gulf Coast create cumulative risks that exceed what individual facility assessments might reveal. State programs can mandate regional coordination and enhanced emergency planning that federal programs do not require.
· Historical context: Major industrial incidents often drive regulatory evolution. California's enhanced PSM requirements emerged directly from investigations into refinery incidents, including the 2012 Chevron Richmond explosion and the 2019 Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery explosion that affected neighboring New Jersey communities.
· Environmental justice: Many chemical facilities are located in communities with vulnerable populations. State programs can mandate enhanced community notification, emergency planning, and risk communication.
Compliance advantage for the West Coast, compliance challenges elsewhere
On March 11, 2024, the EPA's Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Rule (the SCCAP Rule) was published in the Federal Register. When this happened, organizations operating regulated facilities on the West Coast that were subject to stricter California requirements were only required to make relatively minor tweaks to their existing programs to align with the new federal expectations. Facilities in other states faced the difficult challenge of assessing current compliance programs to identify and fill new compliance gaps.
This compliance challenge is particularly difficult for multi-state companies that must navigate different regulatory frameworks. For example, a chemical manufacturer with facilities in Texas, Massachusetts, and California must understand that operations in California may face significantly different requirements, including:
· Broader RMP applicability due to a longer list of chemicals and several threshold quantities (TQs) lower than the federal TQ.
· Enhanced process hazard analyses with input from the authorizing agency on both the selection of methodology to be used and the establishment of timetables for completing PHA action items (must be completed within two and a half years of the study).
· Enhanced oversight of compliance audit and incident investigation results management, including input from the unified program agency or authorizing agency on timelines for addressing audit findings and/or completing incident corrective actions (up to one and a half years after the audit was conducted or two years after the date of an incident).
· Expanded employee participation in safety programs through Injury and Illness Prevention Programs.
· More comprehensive emergency response training of employees focused on relevant elements of the incident command system.
A new model for industrial safety
California's approach may represent the future of industrial safety regulation in the United States. As climate change intensifies the consequences of industrial incidents and population centers continue to grow around existing chemical facilities, other states are examining whether federal minimums provide their constituents with adequate protection.
The recent updates to federal RMP requirements through the SCCAP Rule incorporated some elements that California pioneered, suggesting that state innovation can influence federal policy. This bottom-up regulatory shift represents a perspective where states serve as incubators for policy innovation.
For organizations operating in jurisdictions with enhanced requirements, moving forward requires proactive engagement with state regulatory agencies, investment in robust management systems that exceed federal minimums, and recognition that community protection extends beyond federal regulatory compliance.
Implications
Many of the state’s stricter regulations like California's Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act), California's Senate Bill 553 on Workplace Violence Prevention, and California’s Clean Air Act provide enhanced protections for workers, communities, and the environment. Facilities may want to consider adhering to the Golden State's more stringent standards to be better positioned for regulatory compliance across all jurisdictions in addition to boosting corporate brand/reputation and overall sustainability.
What California requires today, other states may require tomorrow.
