1

Technical Background Document

for

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Risk Management Programs

Under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7)

Prepared by:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)

Office of Emergency Management (OEM)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (Mail Code 5104A)

Washington, DC 20460 USA

January 27, 2016

1.0 Introduction

This document presents analyses and discussion to support proposed revisions to certain provisions of the 

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, 

Section 112(r)(7); Proposed rule. The proposed rule contains modifications to the existing Risk 

Management Program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68 (“the RMP rule”) relating to Incident Investigations, 

Compliance Audits, Process Hazard Analyses (safer technology and alternatives analyses), Emergency 

Response, Information Availability, and other provisions. The rationale for the proposed revisions is 

described in the preamble of the proposed rule. This document describes certain analyses supporting 

proposed rule provisions relating to safer technology and alternatives analyses (Section 2), emergency 

response coordination and exercises (Sections 3 and 4), and the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

proposed rule (Section 5).

2.0 Rationale for Limiting Applicability of Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis Provisions

EPA is proposing to limit the applicability of the safer technology and alternatives analysis provisions to 

sources in the paper manufacturing (NAICS 322), petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS 

324), and chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325) sectors. In the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA 

discussed two reasons for this decision. The first was that the Agency believes that most of the facilities 

in these sectors involve relatively complex manufacturing operations that have the greatest range of 

opportunities to identify and implement safer technology and alternatives. The second reason was that 

these sectors are responsible for a relatively higher percentage of reportable accidents1 on a per facility 

basis than facilities in other sectors. Table 1 illustrates accident frequencies on a per-facility basis for

RMP facilities in different industrial groupings, based on accident data reported in the five-year accident 

 1 RMP reportable accidents are those accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, or 

significant property damage on site, or known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering-in-place, property 

damage, or environmental damage (40 CFR 68.42).
2

history of RMP submissions for any accident that occurred between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 

2013.

In the table, industry sectors are represented by groupings related to the primary usage of RMP-regulated 

substances at the facility. A brief description is included for each industry sector, along with the NAICS 

codes included in each sector. Facilities from NAICS code 211 are primarily natural gas processing

facilities. The water supply/wastewater industry sector represents both publicly and privately owned 

drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. The “all other” sector includes other sectors not listed 

separately in the table, such as pool chemical suppliers and utilities which are mostly electric power 

plants and natural gas distribution (but does not include water supply/wastewater treatment facilities).

Table 1 – Accident Frequencies for RMP Facilities by Industrial Grouping, 2004-2013

Industry Sector Number 

of 

Facilities

Number of

10-Year

Accidents

Accident 

Frequency 

per Facility 

(over 10 

years)

Chemical Uses

Petroleum & Coal Products 

Mfg. (NAICS 324)

156 169 1.08 Manufacture, process, store 

(mostly regulated 

flammable substances and 

flammable mixtures)

Paper Manufacturing 

(NAICS 322)

70 46 0.66 Use various chemicals in 

pulp and paper 

manufacturing

Chemical Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325)

1,465 530 0.36 Manufacture, process, store

Food/Beverage Mfg. 

(NAICS 311, 312)

1476 270 0.18 Use mostly ammonia as a 

refrigerant

Other Manufacturing (All 

other NAICS 31-33)

384 53 0.14 Use various chemicals in 

manufacturing process, 

waste treatment

Agricultural Chemical 

Distributors (NAICS 11, 

42491)

3667 156 0.04 Store ammonia for sale; 

some in NAICS 11 use 

ammonia as a refrigerant

Warehouses (NAICS 493) 1056 72 0.07 Use mostly ammonia as a 

refrigerant

Oil/Gas Extraction (NAICS 

211)

741 53 0.07 Intermediate processing 

(mostly regulated 

flammable substances and 

flammable mixtures)

Other Wholesalers (All

other NAICS 423, 424)

302 20 0.07 Use mostly ammonia as a 

refrigerant
3

Chemical/Petroleum 

Wholesalers (NAICS 4246, 

4247)

609 38 0.06 Store chemicals (mostly 

regulated flammable 

substances and flammable 

mixtures for sale)

All Other (NAICS 44, 45, 

48, 54, 56, 61, 72, & 221 

(except 22131, 22132) 

591 35 0.06 Use chemicals for 

wastewater treatment, 

refrigeration, store 

chemicals for sale

Water Supply/ Wastewater 

Treatment (NAICS 22131, 

22132, 924)

2025 75 0.04 Use chlorine and other 

chemicals for treatment

Totals 12,542 1,517

3.0 Emergency Coordination

The proposed rule includes requirements for “responding” stationary sources (i.e., stationary sources 

whose employees will respond to releases of regulated substances) with Program 2 or 3 processes to 

annually coordinate response activities with local authorities and to conduct tabletop and field exercises. 

In order to estimate the cost of these provisions, EPA needed to determine how many stationary sources 

with Program 2 or 3 processes were responding stationary sources.

EPA determined this value by reviewing selected data elements submitted to EPA in facility RMPs. 

RMPs submitted to EPA include regulated facilities’ answers to several questions related to their

emergency response program. These questions appear in section 9 of the RMP submission (Emergency 

Response), and include the following:

9.1 Written emergency response (ER) plan:

a. Is your facility included in the community emergency response plan?

b. Does your facility have its own written emergency response plan?

9.2 Does your facility's ER plan include specific actions to be taken in response to accidental releases of 

regulated substances?

9.3 Does your facility's ER plan include procedures for informing the public and local agencies 

responding to accidental releases?

9.4 Does your facility's ER plan include information on emergency health care?

9.5 Date of most recent review or update of your facility's ER plan:

9.6 Date of the most recent ER training for your facility’s employees:

9.7 Local agency with which your facility's ER plan or response actions are coordinated:

a. Name of agency:

b. Phone number:

9.8 Subject to (select all that apply):
4

a. OSHA Regulations at 29 CFR 1910.38.

b. OSHA Regulations at 29 CFR 1910.120.

c. Clean Water Act Regulations at 40 CFR 112.

d. RCRA Regulations at 40 CFR 264, 265, and 279.52.

e. OPA 90 Regulations at 40 CFR 112, 33 CFR 154, 49 CFR 194, or 30 CFR 254.

f. State EPCRA Rules or Laws.

g. Other.

Instructions contained in section 9 of the RMP*eSubmit system indicate the following: “If your 

employees will respond to releases of regulated substances at your facility, you are subject to Section 

68.95 and must fill out all the data items in this section of the RMP. If your employees do not respond to 

releases of regulated substances at your facility, you need only respond to the first two (9.1 a, and 9.1 b) 

and last three (9.7 a, 9.7 b and 9.8) emergency response data elements.”

Therefore, in identifying responding facilities, EPA searched the database for facilities which answered 

“Yes” to questions 9.1 b, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4, entered a date for questions 9.5 and 9.6, and indicated that they 

were subject to OSHA Regulations at 29 CFR 1910.120 in question 9.8 b, as all of these must be true in 

order for a facility to meet the emergency response program requirements for responding facilities in

section 68.95. 29 CFR 1910.120 contains the safety and health program requirements for workers

involved in hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER).

Table 2 presents the numbers of responding and non-responding facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes 

by complexity of the facility (refineries/chemical manufacturers as complex, all other facilities simple) 

and by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees on site. Table 2 is based on section 9 

responses by currently-registered RMP facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes contained in the RMP 

National Database as of December 2014. According to Table 2, approximately 43% of currentlyregistered RMP facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes met all criteria for responding facilities. The 

remaining 57% of RMP facilities were considered to be non-responding facilities. 

Table 2: Responding and Non-responding Facilities by FTE and Complexity

0-19 FTE

20-99 

FTE

100+ 

FTE

Total

Responding Facilities

Simple 1,640 880 1,466 3,986

Complex (NAICS 324, 325) 141 459 534 1,134

Total 1,781 1,339 2,000 5,120

Non Responding

Simple 4,728 899 731 6,358

Complex (NAICS 324, 325) 141 235 46 422

Total 4,869 1,134 777 6,780

* Note: Table does not include RMP facilities with only P1 processes
5

4.0 Accidents Resulting in Emergency Responder Injuries and Fatalities

In the section V.B of the preamble to the proposed rule (Facility Exercises), EPA notes that accident 

history information obtained from EPA’s RMP national database shows that accidents occurring between 

January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014 resulted in at least 44 responder injuries and 2 additional 

fatalities. Table 3 provides detailed information on these accidents.

Table 3: RMP Facility Accidents with Public Responder Injuries, 2004-2014

RMP Facility Name City State Accident 

Date

NAICS 

Code

Public 

Responder 

Injuries/Deaths

Clarks Grove Fertilizer LLC Clarks

Grove

MN 12/15/2014 42491 1/0

American Industrial Partners -

Tank Farm

Wapakoneta OH 8/26/2014 48422 0/2

Midwest Farmers Coop -

Tecumseh

Tecumseh NE 3/20/2014 42491 1/0

Crop Production Services -

Harrington, WA 320

Harrington WA 9/13/2013 42491 1/0

Ulysses Dealer Fertilizer Plant Ulysses KS 8/31/2013 32531 1/0

Gateway FS, Inc. - Venedy Venedy IL 4/14/2010 42491 2/0

West Central FS, Inc. (Macomb) Macomb IL 9/1/2009 42491 1/0

Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc. 

Fulton Facility

Rochester NY 8/13/2009 311511 2/0

Columbus Chemical Industries, 

Inc.

Columbus WI 5/11/2009 42469 3/0

Calumet Shreveport Lubricants 

and Waxes, LLC

Shreveport LA 10/30/2008 32411 2/0

West Central FS, Inc. (Roseville) Roseville IL 10/13/2008 42491 4/0

Indspec Chemical Corporation Petrolia PA 10/11/2008 32519 3/0

OMNOVA Solutions Inc. -

Calhoun Latex Plant

Calhoun GA 6/12/2008 325212 1/0

Reser's Fine Foods, Inc. - Topeka 

Salad Plant

Topeka KS 12/19/2007 311991 1/0

Agri-Chem, LLC - Herndon, KY Herndon KY 10/29/2007 42491 1/0

Crop Production Services -

Athena, OR 314

Athena OR 10/15/2007 42491 1/0

Frenchman Valley Coop - Sidney Sidney NE 7/11/2007 49313 1/0

Farmers Coop Co. - Mount Ayr 

Branch

Mount Ayr IA 5/12/2007 42491 1/0

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC White Bear 

Lake

MN 8/13/2005 311511 1/0

Lynchburg Regional Wastewater 

Treatment Facility

Lynchburg VA 5/17/2005 22132 3/0
6

Lang Ice Company Chicago IL 4/15/2004 312113 2/0

MFG Chemical, Inc. Dalton GA 4/12/2004 32519 11/0

Total 44/2

5.0 Determining the Population Affected by RMP Worst Case and Alternative Release Vulnerable Zones

In the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule (section 6.6 of RIA), EPA notes that the 

aggregate U.S. population potentially impacted by worst case scenarios is approximately 177 million, and 

the aggregate U.S. population potentially impacted by alternative release scenarios is approximately 40 

million. The methodology for determining the total population residing within all RMP worst-case and 

alternative release scenario vulnerable zones involves extracting the “distance-to-endpoint” for each type 

of scenario for each facility, creating a file for import into the MARPLOT mapping program2 from the 

CAMEO Suite, and using MARPLOT to perform the population calculation.

The RMP MS-Access database was used to perform the initial query and extraction. Since facilities can 

have multiple worst-case and alternative release scenario records, the query is designed to obtain the 

largest distance-to-endpoint for each of the two categories.

The collection of distance-to-endpoints was transformed into circle-type map objects for import into 

MARPLOT. The import file specified each circle in terms of the lower-left and upper-right 

latitude/longitude coordinates of the bounding box of the circle. Using trigonometric functions, EPA

transformed the latitude/longitude of the facility, and the vulnerable zone radius, into the appropriate 

bounding box coordinates, and formatted a text file for import into MARPLOT

After import, the vulnerable zones were inspected, and spot checked for accuracy. Once in MARPLOT, 

the combined vulnerable zone circles formed a selectable map layer covering the geographic area affected 

by vulnerable zones for all RMP facilities in the U.S. The entire layer was selected, and the function “get 

population within selected objects” was performed, with the results showing on the MARPLOT screen. 

This operation was done separately for worst-case and alternative circles. MARPLOT gives both 

population and number of housing units, using Census Block data from the 2010 census. MARPLOT does 

not double count population or housing units within overlapping vulnerable zone circles.

The resulting population and housing unit numbers were as follows:

Worst Case:

176,538,834 population; 

73,391,711 housing units

Alternative Release:

39,854,001 population; 

16,545,992 housing units

 2 MARPLOT (Mapping Application for Response, Planning, and Local Operational Tasks) mapping program. See: 

http://www2.epa.gov/cameo/marplot-software