Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-0328

October 20, 2014

The Honorable Gina McCarthy

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of the Administrator

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the 

Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7); Rule Modernization Under Executive Order 13650; 

Request for Information

Dear Administrator McCarthy, 

We welcome the opportunity to provide comments on the EPA Risk Management Program 

(RMP). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments give the EPA authority to issue regulations 

and implement programs intended to prevent chemical releases and minimize consequences if 

a release occurs. Yet, this authority has never been fully enacted, and few updates have been 

made in the last 24 years. As directed by Executive Order (EO) 13650: Improving Chemical 

Facility Safety and Security, revisions to the EPA’s RMP should help the agency modernize 

chemical plant safety and security policies; the need for improvement is evident. 

In recent decades, there have been around 30,000 documented incidents per year at American 

chemical facilities, with more than a 1,000 deaths per year in these accidents1. Recent reports 

have shown that 134 million Americans live in the vicinity of 3,400 facilities that use or store 

hazardous chemicals2. At least one in three children in this country goes to school within 

areas described by industry as ―vulnerable.‖3 While these risks are wide-reaching, the 

families that live in the most vulnerable zones are disproportionately poor, AfricanAmerican, or Latino. Beyond these statistics, recent chemical catastrophes—in West, Texas; 

Elk River in Charleston, West Virginia; and Richmond, California—have headlined the news 

and demonstrated just how devastating being unprepared can be.

We believe it is crucial that the EPA’s RMP consider the following:

Safer Chemicals 

It is imperative that chemical facilities be required to evaluate, document, and use safer 

chemicals and processes wherever possible to reduce the risk to the public, plant workers, 

and emergency responders. For many industries, safer and cost-effective alternatives already 

exist; however, in the absence of regulation, companies lack the incentive to make the 

 

1

http://www.rtknet.org/db/erns

2

http://comingcleaninc.org/whats-new/whos-in-danger-report

3

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/files/kids-in-danger-zones-report.pdf
2

switch.4 And while improving the safety of these facilities in the first place is of upmost 

importance, it is also clear that we must be prepared to respond to accidents when they arise.

Access to Information during Accidents and Emergencies

Lack of access to government information, especially during emergency situations, has had 

significant negative consequences for both the environment and human health. This was 

demonstrated by the chemical spill in West Virginia’s Elk River last January, when the EPA 

took over a week to publicly comment on the spill. Emergency response was confused and 

inadequate, leaving citizens ill-equipped to protect their health. Scientific information from 

government sources plays a crucial role in our public health and safety. In times of crises, 

access to scientists and information to understand the risks chemicals pose is paramount. 

The EO includes objectives of improving operational coordination with state and local 

partners and enhancing federal agency coordination and information sharing. Recognizing the 

importance of these issues, the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned 

Scientists hosted a forum in September of 2012 to discuss the topic of ―Improving Citizen 

Access to Government Scientific Information‖ and a second forum in October 2013, ―Sandy, 

One Year Later: Looking to the Future,‖ to discuss lessons learned from emergency 

communication in the wake of Superstorm Sandy with civil society leaders, journalists, 

scientists, and agency administrators. The 2012 forum working group developed the 

following recommendations for federal agencies on crisis information management that we 

believe would benefit EPA’s RMP.5

 Institute a crisis matrix that establishes priorities for the dissemination of 

information. The highest priority should be giving the public plain-language 

information about how to prepare for and react to a crisis.

 Ask your chief technology officer to work with agencies to develop systems for using 

social media to inform the public about developing crises.

 Disclose information about the health and public safety impacts of a crisis as you 

receive it, making clear that the facts may change as the science becomes more 

conclusive.

 Invite scientists outside government to help with risk assessments and publicly 

disclose and make available for public comment as much of this information as 

possible.

 Take steps to respond in a timely manner to media requests for information and 

interviews, and make every effort to grant the media access to experts and 

government officials with the greatest firsthand knowledge or expertise about the 

crisis.

Considering such steps while evaluating changes to improve the RMP will ensure that the 

EPA is best able to serve the public in times of crisis. 

Better Chemical Disclosure in Emergencies

With respect to Section D-5, Compliance with Emergency Response Program Requirements 

in Coordination with Local Responders: current gaps in regulation and enforcement allow 

chemical facilities to abdicate responsibility for emergency response preparedness to local 

authorities without ensuring that local authorities have the information and capacity to 

 

4

http://comingcleaninc.org/whats-new/whos-in-danger-report

5

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/center-for-science-and-democracy/branscombforum-sept-2012-summary.pdf
3

respond. This is unacceptable. Facility owners and operators should be responsible for 

ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to handle an emergency. Facilities should 

comply with the emergency response program requirements to have plans, equipment, and 

employees trained to respond to an emergency unless the local authorities actively agree and 

have the means to provide full coverage in case of an emergency. In all cases, facility owners 

and operators should be fully communicating with local authorities on the development of 

community emergency response plans that include chemical facilities.

Effective and immediate emergency response is critical for minimizing the impact of an 

accident. In the event of an accident, reliable, public, and timely disclosure of chemical 

substances—including the identity, quantity, and known health and environmental effects—

would provide health officials, first responders, scientists, and citizens with vital information. 

Emergency responders and medical professionals need to know what chemicals their patients 

may have been exposed to – and their potential harmful effects -- in order to treat them.

Public health and safety should be prioritized over confidential business information.

Comprehensive Investigation and Reporting

As noted in the RFI’s Section D-6, Incident Investigation and Accident History 

Requirements, ―incident investigations and accident history reporting can provide valuable 

information about potential hazards and the steps needed to prevent future events.‖ Thorough 

investigation and documentation of all incidents, including near-miss and potentiallyconsequential accidents, the steps taken to respond to them, assessment of what went wrong 

and why, and how to prevent and reduce the effects of future events and disasters is needed. 

Comprehensive reporting and investigation of all incidents, not just those resulting in death, 

injury, or significant damage, is an important step in understanding risks, improving best 

practices, and preparing for adequate emergency response and should be required . 

Public Access to Compliance Information

Public access to information is key to enabling communities to hold facility owners and 

operators accountable for reducing risks as much as possible, and for being prepared should 

an accident occur. As discussed in the RFI Section D-8, Public Disclosure of Information to 

Promote Regulatory Compliance and Improve Community Understanding of Chemical Risks, 

there have been major changes in the ways information can be communicated since the rules 

were last updated, including advances in social media and web capabilities. Taking advantage 

of these new channels to provide the public with information will help ensure safe, healthy 

communities. 

In summary, we strongly recommend that disaster prevention, transparency, disclosure, and 

access to information be central to the revised RMP. The EPA must take appropriate steps to 

protect communities from risks posed by chemical facilities and ensure that the Agency can 

respond effectively when accidents occur. 

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Science and Democracy

Union of Concerned Scientists