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. EP**  **A**

**– HQ** 

**– OEM** 

**– 2014** 

**– 0328**  Dear EPA;
As Chair of the Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission (OHMERC), which is the St ate Emergency Response Commission, Iam submitting comments on behalf of the OHMERC and the state’s 77 L ocal Emergency Planning Committees (L EPCs). The OHMERC supports the comments submitted by the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO). We wish to make additional comments specificall y 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 m ake 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 cons equences, 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 under s tand this woul d 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 che micals 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

regulating2

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 solel y on whether or not the facility is located in a Federall y
- delegated OSHA program. Surel y 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 f acilities 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 L EPCs 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. Unfortunatel y, in Oklaho ma 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 L EPCs 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 f or coordination with L EPCs for RMP regulated facilities. One suggestion the OHMERC received from the Custer County L EPC is to require the signature of the LEPC chair, or count y 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 cop y of LEPC attendance records to an RMP submission. Attendan ce 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 L EPC, or local fire department in the event the LEPC is not functional, at least once every five y ears. 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 r el y 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 coordinati on with local responders is actuall y 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 fo r such responses does not exist even if training does, then facilities should be required3

to provide such response through either contracting for response capabilities or through Memorandum of Understanding with larger departments having such capabilities. Inthe 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 annuall y 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, treatm ent and recy cling of covered chemicals. In Oklahoma the total amount of TRI releases to air dropped from 35 million pounds in 1988, the first y ear of reporting, to 19 million pounds in 2012 even though the number of reported chemicals doubled and reportin g 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 imp lement 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 safet y 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 directl y attached to a Tier2 report. In Oklahoma Tier2 reports are collected electronically and delivered electronically to every L EPC and local Fire Department. This information resides in the Comput er Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) software. If RMP information were included in CAMEO then L EPCs would have ready access to information while updating emergency

response plans and first responders would have immediate access to the facil ity 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 p rovided with the Tier2 data, that would enhance planning and response activities at the local level. It is probabl y not necessary to provide the entire RMP, but certainly

the facility

emergency

response plan and accident history along with consequence ana ly sis 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 a ppropriate to use toxicity values that reflect affects to that general population. The AEGL

- 2 would be an appropriate4

toxicity value. Exposure times of 10 minutes and 1 hour would represent most release scenarios. It is unlikel y that the catastrophic re lease of an entire tank would occur over four or eight hours. Releases during those time frames would more likel y be due to a smaller leak or breach which would give time to responders to evacuate or shelter

- in

place the general public so that exposures w ould 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 re port. It would be helpful to compare RMP and Tier2 reports if RMP data contained an indication of Tier2 reporting.
Thank y ou for the opportunity to comment on this RMP information request. The RMP rule directl y affects LP ECs in Oklahoma. We believe ther e 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