### 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 a gency 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 accidents 1 . Recent reports have shown that 134 million Americans live in the vicinity of 3,400 facilities that use or store hazardous chemicals 2

. At least o ne in th ree 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, African

American, 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 co nsider 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 t he 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.pdf2

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 E mergencies
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 publi c 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 an d local partners and enhancing f

ederal 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 age ncy 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 dissemina tion 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 acces s 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.

B etter 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/wh ats

- new/whos

- in

- danger

- report 5 http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/cente r

- for

- science

- and

- democracy/branscomb

forum

- sept

- 2012

- summary.pdf3

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 emer gency. 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 mi nimizing 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, s cientists, 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 sho uld 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 pr ovide valuable information about potential hazards and the steps needed to prevent future events.‖ Thorough investigation and documentation of all incidents, including near

- miss and potentially

consequential accidents, the steps taken to respond to them
, a ssessment 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 im portant 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 owne rs 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, Pu blic Disclosure of Information t o 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 info rmation 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