From: Cogliano, Gerain

Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 1:19 PM

To: 'Jones, Danielle' <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Jutras, Nathaniel <Jutras.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Farber, Glenn <Farber.Glenn@epa.gov>

Subject: Response to Interagency Comments on RMP rule

NATTSPO comments OK MERC EO 12866 EO 12866

Attachments:

EO12866_RMP

Modernization 2050

0679.pdf comments 0641.pdf Interagency Comme Interagency Comme

Hi Danielle,

The following RMP-related files are attached:

• The two interagency comment documents with responses included following each

comment;

• A copy of RFI comments submitted by NASTTPO and the OK SERC in response to

Interagency Comments #71 and #106; and

• A redline copy of the preamble and reg text with interagency comments and responses

inserted in the margins.

EPA’s OGC weighed in on select issues (OSHA feasibility vs. practicability comment and the

attorney-client privilege comment) and also gave us some minor edits to clarify the revised LEPC

disclosure provision.

We are working on revising the RIA to remove the five-year requirement for periodic public

meetings and only require them after an RMP reportable accident. Most of the costs have been

updated, but we are now revising the analysis on impacts to small entities and this will take a few

additional days to complete. We expect to have a revised version of the RIA by the end of this

week. We will likely need to revise the RFA section of the preamble to reflect RIA revisions, once

complete.

Additionally, we will incorporate revisions to the preamble/reg. text to reflect Federal Register

format edits while the interagency reviewers review these responses.

Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions on these responses.

Thanks!

Gerain Cogliano

OLEM's Regulatory Steering Committee Representative

Policy and Regulatory Management Team Leader

Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff (PARMS)

Office of Program Management (OPM)

Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)

EPA West Room 4130

Phone Number: 202-566-1929

Fax Number: 202-566-1934

Mail Code: 5103T

cogliano.gerain@epa.gov
Attachment: OK MERC COMMENTS 0641
Attachment: OK MERC COMMENTS 0641

OKLAHOMAHAZARDOUSMATERIALS

EMERGENCYRESPONSECOMMISSION

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
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
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
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