~ J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY ONE CAPITAL CENTER 999 MAIN STREET SUITE 1300 P.O. BOX 27 BOISE. IDAHO 83707 (208) 336-2110 FAX (208) 389-7515

CORPORATE HEADQU4RTERS

October 29, 2014
Submitted electronically to: http://www.regulations.gov
Paper copy submitted to: OSWER Docket 

### EPA Docket Center Mail Code 2822-1T, 

### Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Attention Docket ID lVo. EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-0328

RE: EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-0328

Stafiernent ®f Interest 

### The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to Executive Order 13650, has requested comments (see Federal Register, Voi. 79 (147) p.44604) related to potential revisions to its Risk IVianagement Program (RMP) regulations and related programs. The J.R. Simplot Company (Simplot) is a privately held agribusiness 

### corporation based in Boise, Idaho. The corporation is engaged in a number of businesses including food processing, farming, fertilizer manufacturing, beef cattle feedlots, mining, ranching and other enterprises related to agriculture. Simplot has operations throughout the United States and the Worid; the majority of the operations in the United States are located in the upper Nlidwest and the West. We have a number of facilities that are subject to EPA RIVIP requirements (described below), and as such, as a company, have considerable experience with process safety management, environmental health and safety risks. Any changes in the EPA RMProgram requirements may have a significant effect on our operations.
J.R. Simplot Company Operations: Frozen Food Processing (NAICS 311411) 

### Six facilities with anhydrous ammonia inventories ranging from 35,000 pounds to 80,000 pounds; beginning operations vary from —1960 to 2013; —2100 Employees
Fertilizer Manufacturing (NAiCS 32531) 

### Four facilities that manufacture various fertilizer products; anhydrous ammonia inventories ranges from 330,000 pounds to 940,000 pounds; 98% nitric acid 

### inventory of 200,000 pounds; butane inventory of 250,000 pounds; facilities either began operation or were purchased by J. R. Simplot beginning in —1944;-800 employees

Storage Terminal (NA9CS 4246) Receiving, storage and shipping of anhydrous ammonia; inventory capacity 50,000 tons; purchased by J. R. Simplot in 2001; —24 employees Agricultural Retail (NAICS 4249) Twenty eight locations with onsite storage; nine sites with no onsite storage but these nine locations handie rail cars of anhydrous ammonia; beginning operai:ions in —1944; —400 employee.

C. ITEMS IN OSHA'S RFI RELEVANT TO EPA'S RMP REGULATION

1. Update the list of Regulated Substances

a. Adding Other Toxic or Flammable Substances

What chemicals, if any, should EPA add to the RIVIP list of regulated toxic and flammable substances? Please provide references to the acute toxicity studies, sources of flammability information or summary results of such studies, information showing that the chemical meets the listing criteria or examples of incidents related to the hazards associated with the chemicals.

RESPONSE J. R. Simplot Company has no further chemicals that EPA should add to the list of regulated toxic and flammable substances.

b. Adding High anc]/or Low Explosives

Should EPA reconsider listing explosives on the RIViP list? What are the safety gaps in current regulations and practice (e.g., EPCRA, other federal programs, state programs, and industry efforts) that can best be filled by expansion of the RNiP? Are there other approaches for filling any such safety gaps? What type of explosive materials should be covered and why? How many facilities manufacture, store or use explosives and what are the typical quantities stored on-site by type of facility or industry? What TQs should be established, and what should be the basis for the TQs? If EPA were to list explosives and establish a TQ at 5000 pounds (the same TQ that was established for explosives in the 1994 list rule), how many facilities would exceed that TQ and potentially be regulated?

### RESPONSE

J. R. Simplot Company is not aware of any safety gaps in the current regulations and practice (e.g. EPCRA, other federal programs, state programs and industry efforts). The J. R. Simplot Company believes there are adequate regulations related to explosives.

iii. Should the RIVIP regulation apply to manufacturers of explosives, end users, and/or explosive recyciers?



### RESPONSE The J.R. Simplot Company believes A.TF, OSHA and local authorities have adequate oversight and there is no benefit for the RNiP regulation to be expanded.

iv. If the RMP regulation is amended to cover explosives, should EPA consider establishing requirements for safe separation distances between explosive materials and public receptors similar to those required by ATF and OSHA (see section II.®.4 of this RFI for additional discussion of stationary source location requirements)? What other requirements should EPA consider? Which if any of these requirements could have prevented or minimized the impacts of specific historical accidents?

M707l

~ lC`T ~ The J. R. Simplot Company believes ATF, OSHA and local authorities have adequate oversight and no additional regulations are necessary.

vi. As an alternative to expanding the scope of the RMP, would expanded use of EPCRA information (such as better integration of information on explosive hazards into iocal ernergency plans) and other governmentai and industry programs (including voluntary programs) be able to address safety gaps? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach relative to expansion of the RN1P?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes adequate information and regulations exist and there is no reason to expand EPA. regulations.

### c. Adding Ammonium Nitrate

Are there safety gaps in the current regulations for AN that could be addressed using regulations under CAA section 112(r)? Should EPA regulate AN under CAA section 112(r) authority to improve chemical safety practices at facilities handling AN? What types of AN and AN facilities should be subject to the RNIP reguiations to prevent chemical accidents involving AN that could have adverse effects, such as blast overpressure, on the public, environment and off-site property? Should EPA consider safety regulations to cover the storage and handling of AN fertilizer only and continue to rely on ATF regulations and OSHA standards to cover AN in explosives and biasting agents? What role should vofuntary industry programs (such as the one undertaken by IIVIE for high explosives) have in a decision on whether safety gaps exist that warrant reguiation under the RMP? Please discuss the economic impacts associated with the potentia( regulation of AN under CAA section 112(r), including any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA should consider.

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes ATF and OSHA are the appropriate agencies to be responsible for regulations related to AN and that it is not necessary for EPA to expand CAA section 112(r) to include AN.

Should EPA amend the RMP requirements to address the hazard posed by AN? If so, what specific requirements would be appropriate for AN? Alternatively, should EPA use its regulatory authority under CAA 112(r)(7)(A) to require more tailored safety steps for facilities handling AN and list AN at a high threshold to better focus these requirements on fewer holders of large quantities that pose the greatest risk? What would be the benefits of regulating AN under the R1VIP regulations as opposed to only maintaining the current SDS and hazardous chemical inventory reporting already required under EPCRA?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes ATF and OSHA are the appropriate agencies to be responsible for regulations related to AN and that it is not necessary for EPA to expand CAA section 112(r) to include AN.

iii. If EPA were to regulate AN under 40 CFR part 68, what quantity of AN poses a sufficient hazard to be covered? What would be the basis for establishing this TO?

4

### RESPONSEE

The J. R. Simplot Company believes 

### ATF and 

### OSHA are the appropriate agencies to be responsible for regulations related to 

### AN and that it is not necessary for 

### EPA to expand 

### CAA section 112(r) to include AN.

d.Adding Reactive Substances and Reactiwity Hazards
What are the best criteria to use in classifying reactive hazards? How do you identify a reactive chemical or a reactive mixture?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe that 

### EPA has been provided the authority to identify "categories of hazards" such as "reactivity". Consequently the J. R. Simplot Company does not believe that 

### EPAs has authority to create a specii

- ic "lis

- t" of chemicals under section 112 (r) that would extend to the creation of brcad criteria for "reactivity" or "functional groups".

Should 

### EPA add reactive chemicals to the list of RfVIP-covered chemicais in 40 CFR 68.130? If so, which chemicals? What criteria should 

### EPA consider using to establish TQs for reactive chemicals? Should 

### EPA add only specific chemicals, or groups o

- f chemicals defined by particular chemical characteristics?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe that 

### EPA has been provided the authority to identify "categories of hazards" such as "reactivity". Consequently the J. R. Simplot Company does not believe that 

### EPA has authority to create a specific "list" of chemicals under section 112 (r) that would extend to the creation of broad criteria for "reactivity" or "functional groups".

vi. Does your facility follow 

### NFPA 400 for reactive hazards? If so, please describe the economic impacts associated with following 

### NFPA 400 (e.g., cost of additional equipment, cost of additional training, benefits of quality management, special circumstances involving small entities, etc.). Is following 

### NFPA 400 an effective way of protecting human health and the environment from reactive hazards? Please explain.



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company is of the understanding that at this time 

### OSHA is considering adopting 

### NFPA 400; further the J. R. Simplot Company does not believe there is any need to 

### EPA to take action on this subject.e. Ad_ding Other Cateqories of Substances

Should EPA consider adding organic peroxides, oxidizers, combustible dusts, flammable solids, or other additional types of chemicals to the RMP list? Are there any particuiar chemicals belonging to these or other classes which present a high hazard that could cause adverse effects beyond a facility's fence line in the event of an accidental release?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes, with respect to "combustible dusts" that OSHA has devefoped detailed publications, and a compliance directive which provicies industry guidance materials addressing dusts within industry. (OSHA has issued these in advance of actually defining "combustib9e dust"). Consequently adding "combustible dusts" to RMP-based regulations would be repetitious and is not necessary.

iii. If EPA were to add combustible dusts to the lists of covered chemicals, are there categories of dusts, such as agricultural dusts (e.g., grain dust, pesticide dust, etc.), that shouid be excluded? What factors, such as existing handling practices, accident history, and potential risk to surrounding communities should EPA consider in evafuating potentiaE exclusions?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes, with respect to `combustible dusts" testing criteria is adequately defined and as stated above it is not necessary for EPA to include within RMP requirements for "combustible dust". The J. R. Simplot Company uses for guidance in managing combustible ,dust NFPA (e.g., NFPA 70E, 9VFPA 61, IVFPA 654, NFPA 780)

f. Removing Certain Substances from the List or Raisinq their Threshold Quantity iv. Are there other listed substances that should have a higher TQ? If so, which ones, what are the appropriate TQs, and why?

0

### RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot believes EPA should adopt the OSHA PSM Appendix A 1910.119 listing of substances as well as TQ. The J. R. Simplot Company believes the current TQs included in the OSHA PSM Appendix A 1910.119 are adequate to protect human health and the environment.

g.Lovvering the Thresholc! Qaantity for Substances Currently on the List
Are the current TQs protective of human health and the environment, or are there certain substances for which the TQ is too high? If so, which substances? For such substances, what TQ should EPA establish and what would it be based on?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes the current TQs are adequate to protect human health and the environment. The J. R. Simplot believes EPA should adopt the OSHA PSM Appendix A 1910.119 listing of substances as well as TQ. The J. R. Simplot Company believes the current TQs included in the OSHA PSM Appendix A 1910.119 are adequate to protect human health and the environment and has no evidence that a lower TQ would have provided additional protection on human health and the environment.

ii. What would be the economic impacts of any lowering of the TQ which might be warranted? Are there any special circumstances involving srnall entities that EP.A should consider with respect to lowering of a TQ?



### RESPORISE The J. R. Simplot Company believes a lower TQ could have a significant economic impact; regardless of the TQ, small entities still need to meet the General Duty of EPA's RMP for listed substances.

2.Adclitional Risk IVlanagement Program Elements
a. Does your facility follow any management-system elements not required under Part 68 for RMP-regulated operations? If so, please describe the additional management-system elements, the safety benefits, any economic impacts associated with following the elements, and any special circumstances involving small entities.RESPONSE

March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company facilities have a number of management systems that are not specifically required under PSM. These management systems include pro-active systems that drive the identification and correction of at-risk behaviors and conditions; a formally developed safety philosophy to drive safety culture; companywide communications that include internal safety alerts, which includes best practices, as well as reguiatory alerts. Companywide communications are used to ensure all facilities have current information related to best practices, identified hazards and regu9atory activities.
PSM is an element of our safety management system; our safety management system is not an element of PSM. The J. R. Simplot Company safety management system encompasses ali of our processes, not just those processes covered under PSM. Every company culture is different in the manner in which they address safety management, but the safety management system must include leading indicators for accident prevention.

The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe there is a need for additional program elements.

b. Would expanding the scope of the RMP regulation to require additional management-system elements, or expanding the scope of existing RMP management-system elements, improve the protection of human health and the environment? Should EPA require safety culture assessments, job safety analyses, or any of the other new management system elements described above? If so, please describe the elements, the safety benefits, any economic impacts associated with expanding the scope of the RMP regulation in this way, and any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA should consider. VVould current staff at a facility be able to implement these additional elements or would new staff need to be hired?

RESPONSE March 2014 J. R. Simalot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe expanding the scope of the PSM standard to include additional management-system elements or expanding the scope of existing PSIVI management-system elements will prevent worker injuries and fatalities. The existing elements are believed to be adequate if strictly adhered to; additional regulations will not increase compliance.

### The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that additional management system

elements such as safety culture assessments, job safety analyses or other new management system elements would improve the protection of human health and the environment; additionally small entities would, in most cases be required to add staff to implement additional management system efements. J.R. Simplot believes system elements should be managed by OSHA not EPA.

c. In systems using managernent and metrics, how do facilities develop useful leading indicators? Do you track the frequency of events such as process upsets, accidental releases, and "near miss" incidents? Does tracking such events ailow managers and empioyees to make changes that prevent accidental releases? What other metrics and indicators do you use, and how do they help prevent releases?

RESPONSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments 

### : The J. R. Simplot Company would suggest enhancement of the near-miss reporting requirements could help the development of leading indicators; however a new element would not be necessary to capture near-misses as near-miss incidents should be included in the incidents captured in the Incident Investigation element. The current PSfVI standard requires employee participation in all elements, which includes sharing of information; the J. R. Simpfot Company would view sharing leading indicators as part of the existing employee participation eEement of PSM.
The J. R. Simpiot Company does follow up on process upsets, accidental releases and near miss incidents; full review of these events allow for determination of root cause(s) and relevant corrective actions to be implemented.

d. Would requiring RMP facilities to conduct periodic safety culture assessments meaningfu[ly strengthen the safety culture incentives that already exist, such as avoidance of deaths, injuries, property and environmentaE damage, production loss, community impacts, damage to company reputation, etc., that may result from accidents?

RE"SPOIVSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company believes a requirement for RMP facilities to conduct periodic safety culture assessments would not meaningfully strengthen existing programs at a facility. It is also the belief of the J. R. Simplot Company that this would be an extremefy difficult requirement for EPA to audit compliance since such a requirement is subjective in nature. The J. R. Simplot Company also believes that this would be an overreach; it is within EPAs scope to regulateenvironmental impacts however not to prescribe methods by which a facility

manages the safety culture. .

e. Would expansion of the RMP employee participation provision to include requirements such as the SEMS II stop-work authority, or other efforts to involve employees in all management-system elements, enhance protection of human health and the environment?

I:

~ Y;Z

~ l► ~1~`l~ March 2014 J. R. Simqlot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company believes it would be beneficial to include in the employee participation element provisions such as stop-work authority since stop-work authority is a fundamental part of a safety system.

The J. R. Simplot Company believes stop-work authority should fall under OSHA regulations.

Are there any other management-system elements in the existing RMP regufation that EPA should expand or clarify (e.g., a new requirement that facifities perform a roo`.-cause ana[ysis for incidents under § 68.81, clarify PHA and hazard review requirements, require more frequent PHA and hazard review updates, strengthen contractor requirements, or require pre-startup reviews prior to all process startups)? If so, please describe the additional requirements, the safety benefits, any economic impacts associated with expanding the RMP regulation in this way, and any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA should ccnsider.

RESPOIVSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company does believe a requirement that employers perform root-cause analysis for incidents under Sec. 1910.119(m) would be beneficial. Identifying the root-cause is the only true way to identify appropriate corrective actions and prevent recurrence. It would be beneficial if, within the PSM standard, OSHA provided a clear definition for what a root-cause would encompass.

g. Are there any data or information on accidents, near misses, or other safety-related incidents that the facility could have prevented by following management-system elements not currently required under the RMP regulation?

10RESPOPJSE

The J. R. Simpiot Company is not aware of any data or information on accidents, near rnisses or other safety-related incidents that could have been prevented by following management-system elements not currentiy required.

h. What would be the paperwork burden associated with the revisions to managementsystem elements discussed above? What special skills or training vvould employeesneed to implement these elements, including associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements? What would be the costs of additional reporting and recordkeeping i

- equirements, including costs for worker training and any required data managernent system upgrades?

RESPOPJSE The J. R. Simpfot Company believes there could be a paperwork burden associated with the revisions to management-system elements as discussed.

3. Define and Require Evaluation of Updates to Applicable Recognizer9 and Generally A ccepted Good Enqineerinq Practices
a. What does your facility use as a definition for 

### RAGAGEP? Would adding a definition for 

### RAGAGEP to the RMP rule improve understanding of 

### RMP requirements and prevent accidental releases? If so, what specific definition for 

### RAGAGEP should 

### EPA add to the 

### RMP rule? What would be the economic impacts of adding such a definition?

RESPONSE March 2014 J. R. Simolot 

### OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. 

### R. Simplot Company uses consensus codes and standards as well as manufacturer recommendations relevant to the specific industry and equipment as a definition for 

### RAGAGEP (e.g. IIAR for ammonia refrigeration)

The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that adding a definition for 

### RAGAGEP will improve the understanding of PSM requirements and prevent worker injuries and fatalities. However we would suggest that OSHA consider adopting a definition similar to that of Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Guideline for fVlechanical Integrity Systems: 

### "RAGAGEP are the basis for engineering, operation, or maintenance activities and are themselves based on established codes, standards, published technical reports or recommendation

11practices or similar docurnents. RAGAGEPs detail generally approved ways to perform specific engineering, inspecfiion or mechanical integrity activities, such as fabricating a vessel, inspecting a storage tank or servicing a relief valve."
The J. R. Simplot Company recognizes the PSM standard covers a large range of industries and there are many standards that cover different industries. Listing all RAGAGEPs that are required for all types of industries and requiring different industries to cletermine which apply can create confusion as to the specific application. The J. R. Simplot Company beiieves it may be helpful if OSHA were to deveiop an appendix to the PSM standard listing the potentiai codes and sstandards that could be used to develop a facility RAGAGEP program. Small entities would likely not have the resources to adequately determine which are relevant codes and standards for their specific operation wNch would put these srnali entities in a position to seek outside consultation to make such determinations, creating an economic impact the scale of which is currently unknown.

The J. R. Simplot Company believes OSHA should be the regulatory agency to manage any RAGAGEP requirements.

b. From what sources (e.g., codes, standards, published technical reports, guidelines, etc.) does your facility select applicable RAGAGEP for operations covered under the PSM standard?

RESPONSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Com The J. R. Simplot Company uses the following sources to selectapplicable RAGAGEP for operations covered under PSM (not an allinclusive list): ® American National Standards Institute • International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration • American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and A¢r Conditioning Engineers ® National Fire Protection Association • International Fire Code • Uniform Fire Code • Manufacturer Recommendations

c. Does your facility evaluate updates to its selected RAGAGEP? If so, how does your facility monitor any updates, and how often do you evaluate them?

12RESPOIV SE

March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company uses third party auditors, group memberships and subscriptions to monitor updates to selected RAGAGEPs.

d. Please provide any data or information on accidents, near misses, or other safetyrelated incidents involving failure to evaluate and/or implement updates to applicable RAGAGEP for RMP-covered processes. Wouid requiring employers to evaluate and/or implement updates to applicable RAGAGEP prevent such accidental releases?

RESPOnJSE The J. R. Simplot Company is not aware of any data or information on accidents, near misses or other safety-related incidents that could have been prevented by having in pface a requirement to update RAGAGEPs for RMP covered processes.

e. Should owners or operators covered by the applicable provisions of the RMP regulation be required to evaluate updates to applicable RAGAGEP? Should owners and operators be required to comply with new RAGAGEP requirements ?hat occur after the owner or operator's initial compliance with the appficable provision of the RMP regulation? How would such updates or new requirements be identified? What would be an appropriate time period in which to conduct this evaluation and/or to comphy with updated RAGAGEP? What would be the economic impacts of this 

### change?

RESPON'SE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company would consider an evaluation time period of five years for updates to RAGAGEPs. Update revalidation could be incorporated into the Management of Change standard and/or the Mechanical lntegrity Standard. By incorporating this into the Management of Change standard facilities would be requirecl to evaluate updates to codes and standards as part of any changes being made. Incorporation of an update revalidation process into the Mechanical Integrity Standard woufd ensure Inspection, Testing and Preventative Maintenance procedures in place were utilizing information f

~ :om the most current consensus standard recommendations.

13

### f. Would a requirement to evaluate updates to applicable RAGAGEP be more

appropriate in another paragraph of the RMP rule? For example, should such a requirement become part of the Process Hazard Analysis revaiidation requirements at § 68.67(f), or the management of change requirements at § 68.75? How would EPA incorporate such a requirement for Program 2 processes?

RESPONSE


### The J. R. Simplot Company utilizes the ASMARK on-line maintenance and manufacturer specification plan to maintain Program 2 equipment.

4. Extend Mechanical Integrity Requirements to Cover Any Safety-Critical Equipment



### a. Should EPA amend the mechanical integrity provisions oi - the RMP rule to explicitly cover all safety critical process equipment? If so, what type(s) of equipment? Did you identify safety-criticai equipment not explicitly covered under § 68.73? If so, how did your facility determine that the equipment was safety-critical, and does your facility treat the equipment as if it were RMP-covered for safety or other reasons? Did you identify the equipment as safety-critical through an RMP process hazard analysis?

RESPONSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: 

### The J. R. Simplot Company facilities include cr tical safety equipment identified through the Process Hazard Analysis. This equipment is treated as PSM covered equipment to include Inspection, Testing and Preventative Maintenance as recognized to be appropriate either by consensus standards or manufacturer recommendations. The J. R. Simplot Company can see no reason for EPA to amend the mechanical integrity provisions of the RMP rule to explicitly cover all safety critical process equipment.

b. Please provide any data or information on accidental releases, near misses, or other safety-reiated incidents related to the mechanical integrity of safety-critical equipment not explicitly covered under § 68.73.

RESPONSE

14The J. R. Simplot Company is not aware of any data or information on accidents,

near misses or other safety-related incidents related to mechanical integrity of safety-critical equipment not explicitly covered under § 68.73.

c. Would expanding the scope of § 68.73 to explicitly cover the integrity of all equipment critical to process safety make it more likely to prevent accidental releases?

RESPOIVSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company takes the stand that if equipment is listed, within the PHA, as being used as a safeguard that equipment has been identified as critical safety equipment and therefore must be maintained per consensus standards or manufacturer recommendations.

The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that expanding the scope of § 68.73 to explicitly cover specific equipment would make it more likely to prevent accidental releases.

d. Should EPA add additional requirements to the mechanical integrity provisions, or clarify ary existing provisions? For example, should the Agency require that certain types of covered facilities install emergency shutdown systems, such as redundant power supplies, emergency flares, vents, or scrubbers, etc., in order to prevent accidental releases resulting from uncontrolled emergency shutdowns?

RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe EPA should add additional requirement to the mechanical integrity provisions such as emergency shutdown systems, emergency flares, etc. The examples provided by EPA are covered by design engineering standards. Safety systems are also covered during Process Hazard Analysis, a process that would reveal if additional safety / emergency equipment should be included.

e. Are there any other provisions of this section that should be enhanced or clarified? Does labeling § 68.73 as "Mechanical Integrity" cause owners and operators to disregard or neglect the maintenance, functionality, or integrity of process components that would not typically be considered "mechanical" components, such as electrical and computer systems?

15

### RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe labeling § 68.73 as "Mechanical Integrity" causes owners and operators to disregard or neglect the maintenance, functionality or integrity of process components that are not topically considered "mechanical" components such as electrical and computer systems. It is aiso worth noting that these components and their functionality are considered during the Process Hazard Analysis.

What would be the economic impacts of revising the mechanical integrity provisions as discussed above? Are there any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA should consider with respect to revising the mechanical integrity provisions of the RMP?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company is of the opinion that for small entities making changes as discussed above could be extensive and not improve the safety to employees, the general pubfic or the environment.

5. Reguire Owners and Operators to Manage Organizational Chanqes
a. What do you consider to be an organizational change within the context of process safety management practices? For example, would you consider the following, or similar, changes to be organizationai changes: reducing the number of operators in a shift; changing from 5-day to 7-day operations; changing from 8-hour to 12-hour operator shifts; replacing a unit manager; reducing the facility operations or maintenance budget; relocating a technical group to a remote corporate location; changing a supervisory or compensation structure; or hiring contractors to do work formerly performed by empioyees of the regulated facility? Are there other examples of organizational changes that may be relevant to safety management practices?



### RESPONSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company would consider reduction in staffing level, changing from 8-hour to 12-hour operator shifts and the assignment of a new process manager under the Management of Change standard.

The J. R. Simplot Company believes that based on the diversity of size, structure and functions within the company it would not be beneficiaf for a regulation to define how organizational changes are managed. Currently within the RMProgram there is a requirement to assign responsibilities for the RMProgram.

[to

### This requirement, aiready in the regulation, would seem to be adequate rather

than adding an additional requirement.

b. If your facility has estabBished and implemented written procedures for management of organizational changes, please describe any economic impacts associated with the procedures. Please note any implementation challenges that may be associated with requiring that such procedures be developed and followed.

RESPONSE Nlarch 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: 

### The J. R. Simplot Company financial impacts include the time (resources) to make appropriate reviews under the M0C, changes to processes to accommodate staffing level or shift changes including associated training, and training costs for new process manager(s).

c. Would clarifying § 68.75 with an explicit requirement that employers manage organizational changes prevent accidental releases? What would be the economic impact of such a clarification? Are there any special circumstances involving small entities that 1=PA should consider with respect to this option?

RESPOIVSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSV! RFI Comments: 

### The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that an explicit requirement for employers to manage organizational changes would prevent worker injuries or fatalities. The J. R. Simplot Company believes it would be beneficial for OSHA to clarify that organizational changes must be handled under MOC. Small facilities will go through the same process to make changes however the effort will be relative related to time and size. A small facility may have some additional training costs when a process manager is changed as they may not have the internal training resources.

d. Please describe any organizational changes made in your facility that have had the potential to affect process operations. Were management-of-change procedures followed before making the changes?

RESPONSE 

### March 2014 J. R. Simalot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company facilities have some procedures that are written to be completed twice per shift meaning the change from an 8-hour

17

### shift to 12-hours shifts would reduce the frequency; evaluation of each procedure that is shift specific must be completed to ensure adequate timeframes are being maintained. Management of change procedures were, in some cases, completed before the change and in other cases after the change. Clarification in the standard as to expectation for organizational changes may have eliminated confusion and prevented the shift change from being implemented prior to initiating the change through the MOC process.

e. What do you consider to be the best safety practices concerning management of organizational change?

RESPO/V'SE 

### March 2014 J. R. Simalot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company contends the best safety practices concerning management of organizational change include those that affect staffing levels, shift lengths, changes to persons responsible for the various PSM elements, overall PSM and include effective training.
The J. R. Simplot Company believes OSHA should be the regulatory agency to manage best safety practices concerning management of organizational change.

f. Please provide any data or information on accidents, near misses, or other safetyrelated ir:cidents invoBving the failure to manage organizational change. Wou9d following management-of-change procedures under § 68.75 have prevented these incidents?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company is not aware of any data or information on accidents, near misses or other safety-related incidents involving failure to manage organizational change not explicitly covered under § 68.73.

6.Require Third-Party Compliance Audits 

### a. Does your facility use a third-party for conducting compliance audits under § 68.58 and § 68.79 for safety or other reasons? What was the basis for that decision? How has it affected the overall safety record of your facility?

RESPOIVSE

18March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company has utilized third party auditors. Utilization of third party auditors was primarily done to determine the effectiveness of the second party audits, which is the normal process. A member from our second party audit team observed the actions of the third party auditors. It was determined that the quality of the third party audits was no different that the quality of the normally completed second party audits.

b. Please provide any data or information on accidents, near misses, or other safetyrelated incidents that could have been prevented by conducting more effective compliance audits for operations covered under § 68.58 and § 68.79. What were the deficiencies in those audits? Were the audits in question conducted by in-house staff or a third party?

RESPOIV SE The J. R. Simplot Company has no data or information related to safety incidents that could have been prevented by conduction compliance audits differently.

c. Would revising § 68.58 and § 68.79 to require owners and operators of RMPregulated facilities to use a third-party for compliance audits help prevent accidental releases? What would be the economic impacts of revising § 68.58 and § 68.79 in this way (e.g., typical consultant fees, additional work hours required, special circumstances involving small entities, etc.)?

RESPOIVSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: Based on our extensive experience auditing PSM covered facilities, the J. R. Simplot Company does not think requiring companies to use third party auditors would prevent worker injuries. There would be economic impacts associated with a requirement for third party audits; the actual economic impact is difficult to determine at this time, but we have received two quotes for third party compliance audits; one was for $36.000 and the other was $40,000. These quotes were for our larger facilities, of which we have eleven. We operate thirty-seven smaller, less complex facilities and would anticipate a cost of approximately $20,000 per compliance audit for each of these facilities. Consequently, if all Simplot facilities described in Response 1 had to have a 3ra-party audit, based on received quotes we could anticipate a cost of approximately $1,158,000.00 (11 facilities at $38,000 and 37 facilities at $20,000).

19The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that the use of a third-party auditor

would assure a higher quality or more consistent audit process.

d. Should EPA revise § 68.58 and § 68.79 to require owners and operators to use compliance auditors (internal or third-party) with certain minimum credentials or certifications? If so, what minimum credentials or certifications should the Agency req u i re?

RESPOIVSE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company would agree that OSHA could require employers to use compliance auditors with a certain specific skill set to be determined appropriate for the type of faciiity for which the audit is being performed. It would be difficult to determine specific minimum credentials or certifications that would be relevant for the large variety of PSM covered facilities. Small businesses would potentially incur additional costs to ensure an appropriate skill set was established for internal auditors. If utilizing third party auditors, the burden would be the cost of outside consultants (auditors).

e. How should owners/operators of RMP-regulated facilities address the findings of the third-party auditor? Should EPA amend the RMP rule to require owners/operators to document how they addressed each of the findings of the third-party auditor? Should a timeframe for addressing those findings be included in the RMP regulation? Should EPA include a procedure for how an owner/operator may appeal the findings of the third-party auditor?

RESPOIV SE March 2014 J. R. Simplot OSHA PSM RFI Comments: The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that requiring deficiencies to be completed within specific timeframes would prevent worker injuries and fatalities. It would seem reasonable that for audit identified program deficiencies (e.g. operating procedures, hot work, contractor safety, etc.) a 6 month time frame could be required for completion. Correcting audit identified deficiencies that require engineering and equipment acquisition may take longer than 6 months.

Should EPA require facilities that have incidents or near misses to conduct a full compliance audit under § 68.58 or § 68.79, as appropriate? Would such a requirement create a perverse incentive to underreport incidents or near misses?

20

### RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that a requirement to complete a full compliance audit under § 68.58 or § 68.79 following an incident or near miss would prevent employee injuries, off site incidents or damage to the environment. Further the J. R. Simplot Company has no reason to believe such a requirement would present an incentive to underreport incidents or near misses.

g. During compliance inspections at multiple-process sources, EPA inspectors have noted that some owners or operators have audited only a subset of covered processes at the source. Should EPA clarify § 68.58 and § 68.79 to explicitly indicate that all covered processes must receive a full compliance audit at least every three years?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company audits the programs which cover any (all) process sources at least every three years as required.

Does the identity of the auditor (e.g., in-house, contractor, professionally-certified, party licensed by EPA) affect the credibility of the audit for potentially impacted communities?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes that the requirement within the PSM Standard which requires compliance audits to be completed by one person knowledge in the process is adequate.

7. Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability
a. Do you currently operate a facility with Program 

### 2 covered processes? Please indicate what type of Program 

### 2 process your facility operates. Do you implement accident prevention measures that go beyond RMP Program 

### 2 for this process? If so, why? What additional prevention elements do you use? Do you believe Program 

### 2 requirements are necessary for the safe operation of this process? Do you have any Program 

### 2 processes that may be adequately managed under Program 1? Please explain the basis for your views.

21RESPOIVSE



### The J. R. Simplot Company operates Program Level 2 Anhydrous Ammonia processes; as with many of our program we believed that there are elements that go beyond minimum compliance. Good practices are not the practices that need regulated; more regulation is not the answer. The answer is consistent enforcement of the current regulation. Under the current RMP rules there are few facilities that could meet the Program Level 1

d. If OSHA restricts its retail exemption to facilities seiling regulated substances in small containers, should EPA eliminate RMP Program level 2 entirely or alternatively, modify Program 2 prevention elements or otherwise change the eligibility criteria for Program 2? If so, why?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company has witnessed the retail interpretation and definitions change over the years, to the point now that it is not clear to anyone what the term retail means. Retail trade is not limited by container size but by how it is bought and sold; this has been convoluted over time to make a regulatory application fit where other options would work better. Program Level 2 elements are a good fit for those facilities to which they apply, which are no-PSM operations with potential off-site consequences.

e. Would eliminating Program level 2 simplify rule compliance for the regulated universe and improve human and environmental health and safety, or does the current three-tiered prevention program framework under the RMP provide an appropriate level of protection?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe that eliminating Program level 2 would simplify rule compliance for the regulated universe and improve human and environmental health and safety. The J. R. Simplot Company believes the current three-tiered prevention program under the RMP provide an appropriate level of protection.

What would be the economic impacts of modifying or eliminating Program level 2? Are there any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA should consider with respect to modifying or eliminating Program 2?

22RESP0IVSE



### The J. R. Simplot Company believes that the economic impacts of modifying or eliminating Program Level 2 would be high, it is not possibie to determine how high. Small facilities would likely experience the greatest impact yet it is our opinicn this change would not improve human and environmental health and safety.

D. ADDITIOIVAL ITEMS FOR VVHICH EPA REQUESTS INFORMATIOfV

1.Safer Technology and Alternatives Anaiysis 

### a. Shouid EPA require a safer alternatives options analysis either as a new prevention program element, as part of the existing PHA/Hazard Review element, or as a separate new requirement under CAA section 112(r)?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe EPA should require a safer alternative option analysis either as a new program element or as part of the existing PHA/Hazard Review element. The process of PHA/ Hazard Review already takes into consideration if there are safer alternatives that a facility should take.

If RfVIP facilities are required to perform safer alternative options analyses and implementation plans, should EPA require that the analyses and/or implementation plans be submitted to the Agency? Should EPA have any role in approving such analyses or plans? In lieu of an approval, can EPA promote safer alternatives through reporting and the dissemination of information on potentially applicable practices?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe EPA should be put in a position to approve analysis and plans. It is not EPA's role or within their authority to determine how a facility meets requirement of the rule.

2. Emergency Drills to Test a Source's Emerqency Response Pro_yram or Plan



### b. What should be the scope of an exercise/drill program? Should the exercise/drill program include internal (emergency response, notifications, and evacuation) and external elements (invo!ving community and federal and state responders, as

23appropriate)? What elements should be exercised as part of the drill/exercise

program? For example, shoufd the program include communications, coordination, logistics, and evacuations/accounting for personnel, etc? What response scenarios should be considered for the exercise/drill program?

f:

~ C`77OUT1C`M The J. R. Simplot Company believes if exercises / drills are required they should be managed under OSHA's regulation 29 CFR 1910.120 (p)(8)(iv)(C). If EPA were to create a regulation which requires additional drills or emergency exercises there is the potential for such requirements to be burdensome to not only facilities but aiso first responders. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for EPA to develop response scenarios that wouid be applicable to the variety types of facilities that are covered under EPA's RMP rule.

c. How frequen

- tly should drills/exercises be performed?

RESP0NSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes frequency of exercises / drilis should be managed under OSHA's regulation 29 CFR 1910.120 (p)(8)(iv)(C). It woufd be difficult, if not impossible for EPA to develop a frequency for exercises and drills that vvould be appropriate to the variety types of facilities that are covered under EPA's RMP rule.

d. Who should be involved in the exercise program? How should the management team be engaged as part of the drills/exercises? How should contractors be included in the exercise/drill planning and when conducting exercises/drills? Who should be the designated official responsible for coordinating the exercises and drills conducted at the RNIP facility? How should other federal, state and local agencies be included in the exercise/drilf program?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes those to be involved in a drill should be identified by a facility emergency action or emergency response plan as defined by OSHA. The facility written plan would identify responders (on-site or off-site) as well as agencies that would potential{y be involved. We do not believe EPA needs to add an additional requirement related to drills and / or exercises.

e. Should all RMP facilities be required to participate in some type of exercise/drill program or only those who are required to develop an emergency response program? Shouid Program 1 facilities (and Program 2/Program 3 facilities that do

24not respond to accidental reieases with their own employees) be required to conduct

external exercises with community responders and test notification procedures? Should Program 2 and Program 3 facilities whose employees respond to accidental releases conduct both internal and external exercises?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes these requirements are already addressed by OSHA once a facility is identified to have either an emergency action or emergency response plan.

What would be the economic impacts and paperwork burden of requiring an exercise/drill program for all or a subset of RiVIP facilities? Would such a requirement substantially improve preparedness for deafing with emergency situations? Are there any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA should consider with respect to an exercise/drill program?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company beiieves economic impacts and paperwork burdens would vary depending on the size of the facility. The J. R. Simplot Company has no evidence that such requirements would improve preparedness for deal with emergency situations.

3.Automated ®etection and Monitorinq for Releases of Regulated Substances

a. Shouid facilities be required to install monitoring equipment or sensors to detect releases of RNIP regulated substances, or the conditions that could lead to such a release? Should the systems provide for continuous detection and monitoring? How should any such requirements be crafted to provide appropriate site-specific flexibility?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simp@ot Company believes the installation of monitoring equipment or sensors to detect the releases of RIVIP regulated substances or conditions that could lead to such a release are identified during the design phase as well as during OSHA's PSM PHA and / or IVianagement of Change. We do not believe an additional EPA requirement would bring value and an additional requirement could be burdensome to facilities.

25

### c. Should an automated mechanism to notify, alert and warn the local responders and

surrounding public of an incident be considered as part of any detection and monitoring system requirement? If so, how should the potential for false alarms be addressed within such a requirement?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. 

### Simplot Company believes a decision to automatically notify, alert and warn local responders and surrounding public should be a decisions better made by facilities working with local responders rather and mandated by regulation.

e. How would a requirement for appropriate detection thresholds be best established for activating alarms and/or alerts?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. 

### Simplot Company believes the installation of monitoring equipment or sensors to detect the releases of RMP regulated substances or conditions that could lead to such a release are identified during the design phase as well as during OSHA's 

### PSM PHA 

### and / or Management of Change. We do not believe an additional EPA 

### requirement would bring value and could be burdensome to facilities.

g. What involvement should LEPCs 

### and SERCs 

### have in the development of the emergency response plan, particularly with respecct to what actions are to be taken in the event of an incident where and alarm/alert is activated?

RESPONSE



### The J. R. 

### Simplot Company believes the current process to provide LEPC and SERCs 

### with emergency plans along with site visits by response agencies is sufficient and no additional involvement by LEPC 

### and SERCs would 

### be necessary.

h. How frequently should monitoring equipment or sensors to detect releases of RMP regulated substances be tested? How should these tests be documented? How long should records of such tests be maintained? Should' automated monitoring records for periods of normal operations be maintained, so that past records may serve as an aid in determining what may have gone wrong prior to an accident (e.g., a gradual increase in emissions)? Should EPA 

### specify requirements in this area, or are these aspects of program implementation best left to

- the facility?
?0

### RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot Company believes testing of monitoring equipment or sensors to detect the release of an RNIP regulated substance should be determined by industry standards and manufactures recommendations. Detecting and alarming equipment testing documentation should be rnanaged by OSHA's PSM Mechanical Integrity elernent; J. R. Simplot does not believe it is necessary for EPA to specify requirements in this area.

Leak detection and repair programs are common under the CAA's routine emission programs. Can these programs be integrated with the accidental release prevention program to reduce accidental releases and to simplify requirements for stationary sources subject to both the RIVIP and these other prograrns? Are there jurisdictional issues that prevent integration?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes EPA should continue to utifize OSHA's PSNi Mechanical Integrity element and IVlaintenance Program elements required under RMP Program Level 2.

4. Additional Stationary Source Location Requirements

a. Would additional specifics on stationary source siting and occupancy siting under the RMP minimize the impacts of chemical accidents to local communities? How should RMP stationary source siting requirements relate to OSHA PSfVi and other industry standards?



### RESPONS,E The J. R. Simplot Company beiieves stationary source siting and occupancy siting should be regulated under OSHA's PSM regufation. If EPA were to impose additional rules or rules inconsistent with OSHA's PSN7 regulation there could be adverse impacts to existing facilities. OSHA's facility siting is determined by risk and likelihood based on the environment in which they are located.

b. What guidance shouid EPA consider in the development of stationary source siting requirements?



### RESPONSF The J. R. Simplot Company believes stationary source siting and occupancy siting should be regulated under OSHA's PSNi reguiation. OSHA's facility siting

27

### is determined by risk and likelihood based on the environment in which they are

located.

c. What information should EPA consider in the development of stationary source buffer or setback zones for different risks? How should EPA address siting when limyted space is available?

RESPONSE 

### As stated above, the J. R. Simplot Company believes stationary source siting and occupancy siting should be regulated under OSHA's PSM regulation. OSHA's facility siting is determined by risk and likelihood based on the environment in which they are located.

d. What administrative processes and controls should be incorporated into stationary source siting requirements?

RESPOIVSE 

### As stated above, the J. R. Simplot Company believes stationary source siting and occupancy siting should be regulated under OSHA's PSNI regulation. OSHA's facility siting is determined by risk and likelihood based on the environment in which they are located.

e. What safety and process devices, instruments and controls should be incorporated into stationary source siting requirements?

RESPOIVSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company believes safety and process devices, instruments and controls are part of the process design and are already considered when utilizing OSHA's PSfVI regulation for facility siting and establishing safeguards.

f. What criteria are appropriate for siting of occupancies (such as offices, control rooms, cafeterias, etc.) near an RMP-regulated process?

RESPOIVSE 

### As stated above, the J. R. Simplot Company believes appropriate for siting ofoccupancies (such as offices, control rooms, cafeterias, etc.) near an RMPregulated process should be regulated under OSHA's PSM regulation. OSHA's

R-i

### facility siting is determined by risk and likelihood based on the environment in

which they are located.

g. How often should stationary source siting be evaluated for effectiveness? What criteria should be used?



### RESPONSE As stated above, the J. R. Simplot Company believes stationary source siting should be regulated under OSHA's PSM regulation. OSHA's facility siting is determined by risk and likelihood based on the environment in which they are located. This activity is done during the initial PHA, PHA revalidation as well as when changes are made under the OSHA PSM element Management of Change.

h. What documentation should be required for evaluating stationary source siting determinations?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes document requirements as stated in OSHA's PSM are appropriate for evaluating stationary source siting.

Is it appropriate to reflect the environmental burden of the surrounding community in siting criteria for either new facilities or expansions within an existing site? Is it appropriate to consider chronic burdens or only burdens associated with accidental releases?



### RESPONSE
The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe it is appropriate to refiect the environmental burden of the surrounding community in siting criteria for either new facilities or expansions within an existing sites under EPA's RMP rule; nor is it appropriate to consider chronic burdens but to consider only burdens that could reasonably be associated with an accidental release.

k. If EPA mandated siting criteria, how should EPA account for local zoning codes when establishing such criteria? Would setting federal requirements overstep into the normal state and local zoning process, or would it act as a supplemental measure ensuring minimal safety standards across the country?

ce

### RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot Company believes if EPA were to mandate siting criteria this would be an overstep into the normal state and local zoning process.

5. Compliance with Emerqency Response Program Reguirements in Coordination with Local Responders
a. Do you own or operate an RMP-regulated facility that refies on public authorities to respond to accidental releases of regulated substances at the faciiity? What steps do you take to ensure that pubiic responders are prepared to properiy respond to accidental refeases at your facility? Should EPA clarify what steps RMP facilities should take in order to properly coordinate their emergency response pian with the community emergency response plan?



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company owns and operates RMP-regulated facilities with local emergency response capabilities and coordinate with local emergency responders as part of EPCRA, RMP and OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard ("HAZWOPER") requirements. These coordination between faciiity personal and local responders is appropriate to reinforce awareness of the hazards during an emergency. Changes that would duplicate such existing coordination requirements through a redundant coordination requirement would not increase worker safety.

6. Incident Investigation and i4ccident History Reguirements
a. Are the RMP incident investigation requirements too narrowly focused? Would identifying a broader range of incidents requiring investigation (e.g., near misses) help prevent additional accidental reieases? Please provide specific exampies where possible. EPA requests information on alternative definitions or incident classifications that could be included within the rule's incident investigation requirements.



### RESPONSE The J. R. Simpiot Company has no data or information related to safety incidents that could have been prevented by expanding the incident investigation requirements as currentiy required by RMP. Changes to EPAs RMP Investigation requirements may create contradictory and or dupiicative requirements that industry must meet.

Ell

### b. Are there any data or information on process upsets, near misses or other incidents

that were not required to be investigated, but where an investigation and resulting changes in management systems might prevent accidental releases?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company has no data or information related to process upsets, near misses or other incidents that were not required to be investigated and where an investigation may have prevented accidental releases; as stated OSHA's PSM investigation element requirement covers all incidents for the covered process(es).

c. Does your faci[ity routinely investigate incidents not required to be investigated under part 68? If so, please describe the types of incidents investigated, and the effects these investigations have had on facility operations.

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company routinely investigates incidents not required to be investigated under part 68; these incident investigation may include near misses and process upsets, corrective actions as identified necessary implemented.

d. Would a specific time frame for incident investigations to be completed benefit overall safety? What should be the basis for establishing an appropriate timeframe requirement for an incident investigation to be completed? What are the challenges and limitations to completing an incident investigation within a specified timeframe?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe it is possible to set a specific time frame for incident investigation to be completed as all incidents are unique in nature and require different resources. There is the potential for quality of incident investigations to be compromised if an arbitrary mandatory date for completion is assigned.

e. Are there benefits from requiring that investigations must be performed even in cases where the owner/operator elects to decommission the process involved, where the process is destroyed in the incident, or where a facility determines there were no actual or potential off-site consequences? Would such a requirement provide a disincentive to decommission potentially risky processes?

31

### RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe there is benefit from specifically requiring investigations to be performed even in cases where the owner/operator elects to decommission the process involved, where the process is destroyed inthe incident or where the facility determines there were no actual or potential offsite consequences. OSHA's PSM standard for incident investigation does not exclude incidents as described above, consequently there is already a regulatory requirement for incident investigations to be completed.

f. Would a modification of the definition of "catastrophic release" assist in addressing the concerns regarding the appropriate scope of incidents that require investigation?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe a modification in the definition of "catastrophic release" is necessary or would there would be any value added in such a change. As mentioned several times EPA's RMP regulation is not the only agency that governs over covered process incidents. There is no value in creating regulations that are redundant of what already exists within OSHA's PSIVI standard.

g. Would a modification of the accident history reporting requirements to reflect a broader range of incidents being investigated assist in disseminating lessons learned across industry?

f:Yl

~ lu`IA The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe a modification of the accident history reporting requirement to reflect a broader range of incidents being investigated would assist in disseminating lesson learned across industry. There is no evidence that increasing existing regulatory burdens and reporting requirements will aid in sharing know(edge across industries. There are already a number of trade organizations as well as the CSB and OSHA that coordinate efforts with industry.

h. Should EPA require facilities that have incidents or near misses to conduct a full compliance audit under § 68.58 and § 68.79?

RESPOIV SE The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe there is any value in requiring a facility that has an incident or near miss to conduct a full compliance audit under § 68.58 and § 68.79. Changing the audit cycle to be triggered by occurrences of

32incidents or near misses would create an unrealistic compliance burden. The

OSFiA PSM standard required incident investigation for incidents and near misses and the investigation completed can identify deficiencies in the program as well as necessary corrections.

7.Worst Case Release Scenario Quantity Reguirements for Processes Involving Numerous Small Vessels Stored Together

a. Should EPA revise § 68.25(b) to require the owner or operator of any regulated process involving numerous small containers stored together to consider as the worst case release quantity the sum of the quantity of aBl containers in the process, or a subset of such containers, or the containers within one storage area of the process?

RESPO(VSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes the current threshold determination is appropriate. The quantity of small containers is something that can very significantly; thus can lead to facilities over reporting and diluting the usefulness of the regulations.

b. Would revising the worst case scenario quantity determination requirement in this manner better represent the true worst case scenario for such processes?

RESPONSP The J. R. Simplot Company believes the worst case scenario is already a very poor estimate; adding rnore uncertainty only makes it less usefuf.

e. If EPA were to revise § 68.25(b) to take into account numerous smald vessels being stored together, what types/kinds of vessels should be covered? Should there be any limits on the size of containers subject to the aggregation requirement? What would such limits be based on? Similarly, should there be a specific distance between vessels established in order to consider them as grouped together for purposes of worst case scenario calculations? What would that distance be based on?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simp9ot Company does not believe these should be covered.

33Should EPA revise § 68.25 to require the owner or operator of a regulated process

to consider the potential for worst case release scenarios to invofve adjacent facilities or other nearby facilities that are interconnected through pipelines? Would this change raise any confidentiality or security issues? How would EPA adjust its worst case scenario modeling requirements to account for such a change?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simpfot Company does not believe that it is appropriate to involved adjacent facilities or other nearby facilities that are interconnected through pipelines. A facility can only report on what is under their control.

8. Public Disclosure of Information to Promote Regulatory Compliance and Improve Community Understanding of Chemical Risks

a. Should EPA amend the RMP regulation to require RMP-regulated facilities to post chemical hazard-related information on their websites (if they have one) such as RMP chemical names, chemical quantities, executive summaries, links to LEPCs, community emergency plans, Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for hazardous chemicals present on site, EPCRA Tier 2 reports, release notification reports, accident history and cause and other similar information? What requirements should be considered for facilities that do not have a website?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes that it is a security threat to post chemical identity, quantities or other related information on websites that are made available to anyone other than emergency response personnel. Our ASMARK methodology for conducting Site Vulnerability Assessments considers advertisement or inclusion of this type of site specific information via accessible website a "security liability".

10.Program 3 NAICS Codes Based on RMP Accident History Data
a. Should industry sectors represented in RMP data as those with the most accidental releases be used to update and replace the existing set of Program 3 NAICS codes with a new set?

34

### RESPONSE

The J. R. Simplot Company believes this woufd be miss-using the NAICS; program determination should be based individual facility performance.

b. How cari the RMP accident history data best be used to update the current list of NAICS codes that trigger Program 3 requirements? Should the agency take into account the number of sources in each sector, or the severity of reported accidents, or other factors, in selecting updated Program 3 NAICS codes? Is the methodology used to develop the SIC/ NAICS code list applicable to the RMP accident history database?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes NAICS should not be used to update the current NAICS codes that trigger Program 3 requirements. The determination should be performance based, not sector based.

c. Would limiting the data analysis or the selection of NAICS codes to only those industry sectors represented in the RMP data provide a comp[ete and accurate picture of high risk industry sectors?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes does not believe limiting the data anafysis or the section of NAICS codes to only those industry sectors represented in the RMP data provide a complete and accurate picture of high risk industry sectors.

d. Should an analysis of the RMP data be combined with an analysis of other current accident history databases to inform any revisions/updates? If so, what other databases should be used? Fiow much weight should be given to the RMP data set in comparison to other sources?

Y107 RC~ The J. R. Simplot Company is not aware of what other accident history databases to which EPA is referencing, beyond the NRC database; consequently it is not possible for us to provide an informed response.

e. Should the original NAICS codes continue to be included? Would not including the NAICS oodes historically identified under Program 3 cause increase risks to those industry sectors by having them no longer subject to the more stringent measures? .

35RESP0111SE

The J. R. Simplot Company does not believe it is necessary to continue to include NAICS codes; we do not believe there will be an increased risk if NAICS codes are eliminated.

f. Should an analysis of accident history data be limited to a specific time frame?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes analysis of history data should be limited to a specific time frame because processes are dynamic as well as the management of the process; data should be limited to a specific time frame. Currently OSHA's PSM standard limits incident history to five years.

g. Would it cause confusion within the regulated community to change the list of NAICS codes for which Program 3 is required?

RESPON'SE The J. R. Simplot Company is of the opinion that confusion would be caused within the regulated community if the NAICS list for Program 3 was changed.

h. What would be the economic impacts of modifying the list of NAICS codes for which Program 3 is required? Are there any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA should consider with respect to modifying the list of covered NAICS codes?

RESPONSE The J. R. Simplot Company be9ieves there wou9d most definiteiy be impacts caused from confusion and the increased burden imposed on small entities to comply with OSHA's PSM Standard, Program Level 3.

3611.The "Safety Case" Regulatory Model

RESPOnJSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company supports concerns raised in June 2014 by NIOSH that there is not adequate scientific basis that attested the Safety Case Regulatory Model was more effective that what is currently being done.
"However, three months later NIOSH Director of Education and Information Paul Schulte asked OSHA to remove his agency's comments from the public record, "based on a re-evaluation of the scientific evidentiary foundation" for the original comments.

Schulte said concerns from stakeholders about the earfier comments prompted a reevaluation of the issue, after which NIOSH determined there was a lack of an evidentiary basis for the safety case."'

'source: http://www.ishn.com/articles/98983-98983-niosh-withdraws-support-forsafetNi-case-a p p roa ch-to-ch em i ca I-faci I ity-safety

12. Streamlininq RMP Reguirements



### a. Are there steps that EPA could take to simplify the process of determining whether the RMP rule applies to particular facilities? Are there other potential revisions to the rule that would make it easier for regulated entities to comply with its provisions?

RESPONSE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company is of the opinion that the current process in deterrnining applicability of RMP rufe is adequate. We do not believe it is appropriate to change the applicability utilizing NAICS codes.

b. Are there steps that EPA could take to simplify the RMP submission process? For example, are there advances in electronic reporting or information technology that EPA could use in order to ma4ce RMP submissions easier?

RESP0IV SE 

### The J. R. Simplot Company the registration if functional, however we do find the process of registering in the CDX with the Certifying Official to be somewhat cumbersome.

37c. Shoufd EPA require that RMP submissions be certified by a senior corporate officiaE,

such as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operations Officer, or the equivalent to ensure corporate-wide awareness and accountability in the RMP submission?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes the appropriate certification process is appropriate as it currently is; with the individual responsible for the facility.

d. Is the three-tiered program level structure of the RMP regulation appropriate, or should EPA consider simplifying the rule to make only two program tiers, or only a singfe prevention program applicable to al9 facilities?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes the current three tier system is appropriate; this system was adopted with great consideration identifying it was essential to incorporate this flexibility mechanism into EPA's final reguEations. A one size fits aIV approach to the RMP regulations would likely impose unreasonable costs on the regulated community, to include small facilities. The tiers were originally se[eccted by EPA to include flexibility in the accident prevention and EPA should not undo this original intent.

e. Are the accident prevention program elements clearly defined? Should EPA further clarify any of the existing elements?

.73C97O7

~ 1C`N The J. R. Simplot Company believes the accident program elements for each program level are clearly defined and there is no need for EPA to further clar+fy any existing elements.

mAre the regulatory terms and definitions contained in section 68.3 suffic9ently clear?

Are there additional terms that EPA should define in this section?

RESPOIVSE The J. R. Simplot Company believes the regu9atory terms and definitions are clear and adequate. We see no reason to include additional terms defined in this section.

Sincerely,

,

- -- ~ Alan L. Prouty Vice President, Sustainability & Regulatory Affairs

O'7