1

OKLAHOMA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION

October 29,, 2014 Electronically Submitted – via regulations.gov

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: 

Comments on Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management 

Programs Under the Clean air Act, Section 112(r)(7) Request for Information

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328

Dear EPA;

As Chair of the Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission 

(OHMERC), which is the State Emergency Response Commission, I am submitting 

comments on behalf of the OHMERC and the state’s 77 Local Emergency Planning 

Committees (LEPCs). The OHMERC supports the comments submitted by the National 

Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO). We wish to make 

additional comments specifically to those areas of the notice which relate to SERCS and 

LEPCs. The bulk of our comments will be directed toward D. Additional Items for which 

EPA Requests Information.

The OHMERC would like to make one comment on C. Items in OSHA’S RFI Relevant to 

EPA’s RMP Regulation, (7) Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability. 

Given the intent of the RMP rule to prevent, plan for and respond to chemical accidents 

with the potential for off-site consequences, the OHMERC believes that it would meet 

the spirit of the law for OSHA to change its policy so that only facilities selling small 

containers, packages or allotments to the general public would qualify for the retail 

facilities exemption. We understand this would result in nearly all bulk agricultural 

chemical distributing facilities becoming subject to Program 3 unless Program 1 

eligibility requirements were met. In most rural, farming communities in Oklahoma, the 

largest amounts of hazardous chemicals stored in the area are found at these bulk 

agricultural chemical distribution facilities. As such, the greatest potential risk of a 

chemical accident affecting the community is posed by such facilities. By regulating 
2

these facilities under Program 3, the LEPCs will have access to chemical information 

which will give them tools to better protect citizens in the event of an accident. 

In the same spirit, other major sources of potential risk to communities are the water and 

wastewater treatment plants storing and using gaseous chlorine. It does not make sense 

to OHMERC that some of these facilities would be regulated under Program 3 but not 

others based solely on whether or not the facility is located in a Federally-delegated 

OSHA program. Surely the risk from plants with gaseous Chlorine does not change 

based on OSHA state delegation. The information for planning and response to a 

Chlorine spill should be available to LEPCS in all states. The examples of bulk 

agricultural chemical distribution facilities and water/wastewater plants utilizing Chlorine 

in non-OSHA delegated states support the elimination of Program 2. This should insure 

that critical information needed to prepare for and respond to chemical accidents is 

provided to LEPCs while simplifying rule compliance.

The remainder of the OHMERC’s comments are addressed to Section D of the notice. 

We believe it is critically important that RMP facilities coordinate with local emergency

planning and response agencies. Unfortunately, in Oklahoma there is little evidence that 

this is actually occurring. RMP regulated facilities check the box indicating they have 

coordinated with their LEPC, but the vast majority do not attend LEPC meetings, do not 

share their emergency response plans with LEPCs and do not exercise their plans with 

LEPCs. The result is that most LEPCs are not even aware of RMP facilities in their 

counties much less prepared to coordinate with those facilities in the event of an accident. 

EPA should strengthen the requirements for coordination with LEPCs for RMP regulated 

facilities. One suggestion the OHMERC received from the Custer County LEPC is to 

require the signature of the LEPC chair, or county emergency manager in the event an 

LEPC is not viable, on the RMP submission to EPA. Additionally, RMP facilities should 

present evidence to EPA of attendance at LEPC meetings, or evidence that an LEPC is 

not functional. This could be in the form of attaching a scanned copy of LEPC 

attendance records to an RMP submission. Attendance should be required annually as 

should a report of a facility’s annual exercise of their emergency response plan. RMP 

facilities should be required to exercise or drill with the LEPC, or local fire department in 

the event the LEPC is not functional, at least once every five years. This information, 

along with supporting evidence, should be reported to EPA in the facility’s RMP.

In a similar vein, RMP facilities are required to indicate if they have their own emergency

response capabilities or if they rely upon public emergency first responders. Over 50% 

of RMP facilities check the box indicating that they are non-responding facilities. As 

EPA notes, and OHMERC concurs based on our experience, there is little or no evidence 

that planning and coordination with local responders is actually occurring. If a facility 

identifies as a non-responding facility, the facility should be required to provide evidence 

of coordination with local first responders and proof that those local responders can 

provide, at a minimum, appropriate defensive actions to protect the public and the 

environment in case of an accident. If local first responders cannot perform these actions, 

in small communities with all volunteer fire departments it is quite likely that equipment 

for such responses does not exist even if training does, then facilities should be required 
3

to provide such response through either contracting for response capabilities or through 

Memorandum of Understanding with larger departments having such capabilities. In the 

event an RMP facility cannot provide evidence of response capabilities through their own 

resources, public response entities or private contractors, those facilities should be 

required to publish notification annually to residents within the worst case scenario zone 

that in the event of an accident at the facility, residents will need to be prepared to take 

actions to protect themselves and their families. Facilities should not be permitted to 

introduce a chemical accident risk to a community for which no viable accident response 

is available without informing the public.

OHMERC does believe that disclosure of RMP information to the public will promote 

regulatory compliance and improve community understanding of chemical risks. A good 

example of the effectiveness of public disclosure of chemical information can be seen in 

the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program. Under TRI, companies meeting certain 

criteria are required to annually report to the public the amounts of releases, transfers, 

treatment and recycling of covered chemicals. In Oklahoma the total amount of TRI

releases to air dropped from 35 million pounds in 1988, the first year of reporting, to 19 

million pounds in 2012 even though the number of reported chemicals doubled and 

reporting industry sectors were added over those years. The impetus for this decrease in 

emissions was simply that information was made available to the public and pressure 

from the public, not the regulatory agencies, encouraged facilities to investigate and 

implement procedures to reduce emissions. OHMERC believes that accident prevention, 

planning and response measures may be significantly improved if facilities know that the 

public may ask questions about the safety of their family and homes in the event of an 

accident. We would encourage EPA to require posting of chemical information including 

an RMP summary along with Tier2 information on a company website at a minimum. 

Given the electronic nature of RMP reporting, for states using electronic reporting of 

Tier2 information such as Oklahoma, RMPs could be directly attached to a Tier2 report. 

In Oklahoma Tier2 reports are collected electronically and delivered electronically to 

every LEPC and local Fire Department. This information resides in the Computer Aided 

Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) software. If RMP information were 

included in CAMEO then LEPCs would have ready access to information while updating 

emergency response plans and first responders would have immediate access to the 

facility emergency response plan while enroute to an accident. In comments to 

Presidential Executive Order 13650, OHMERC has expressed the importance of 

providing Tier2 data electronically to LEPCs and first responders. If EPA required that 

RMP data also be provided with the Tier2 data, that would enhance planning and 

response activities at the local level. It is probably not necessary to provide the entire 

RMP, but certainly the facility emergency response plan and accident history along with 

consequence analysis should be given to LEPCs. 

Given that facilities are regulated under RMP based upon the possibility of off-site 

consequences of a chemical release and that such a release would affect the general 

population not only workers, OHMERC believes it is appropriate to use toxicity values 

that reflect affects to that general population. The AEGL-2 would be an appropriate 
4

toxicity value. Exposure times of 10 minutes and 1 hour would represent most release 

scenarios. It is unlikely that the catastrophic release of an entire tank would occur over 

four or eight hours. Releases during those time frames would more likely be due to a 

smaller leak or breach which would give time to responders to evacuate or shelter-inplace the general public so that exposures would be less under those scenarios.

Finally, EPA should consider requiring RMP facilities to indicate on their submission if 

they have or have not filed a Tier2 form. As of 2014, EPA has required facilities to 

indicate on their Tier2 form if they file an RMP. The initial audit of Oklahoma’s 2014 

Tier2 reports indicate that half the RMP facilities listed in EPA’s database did not show 

up in the Tier2 database. Oklahoma is currently contacting those facilities to determine 

why they did not file a Tier2 report. It would be helpful to compare RMP and Tier2 

reports if RMP data contained an indication of Tier2 reporting.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this RMP information request. The RMP 

rule directly affects LPECs in Oklahoma. We believe there are some changes to the rule 

that would help communities better prepare to respond to chemical accidents at facilities 

regulated under the RMP rule.

Montressa Elder

Chair, Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Commission