.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 3901 NW 115th Avenue 

Miami, FL 33178 

305-888-2623 office 

305-885-4671 fax 

3901 NW 115 Avenue

Miami, Florida 33178

305-888-2623 

9501 Rangeline Road

Ft. Pierce, Florida 34987

772-464-6195 

30 Neil Gunn Drive 

Ellisville, MS 39437 

601-477-2550 

5215 W. Tyson Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33611

813-832-4868 

8350 NW 93rd Street

Miami, Florida 33166

305-888-2623 

204 SCM Road 

Brunswick, GA 31525

912-267-9470 

1405 Possum Hollow Road

Ranger, GA 30734 

706-334-7377 

7160 Phillips Highway

Jacksonville, FL 32256 

904-438-4976 

October 29, 2014 Via Electronic Submission 

OSWER Docket 

EPA Docket Center, Mail Code 2822–1T 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

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

Section 112(r)(7); Request for information. 

Docket ID No.: EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328 

To the Docket: 

Allied Universal Corporation is pleased to respond to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Request for 

Information (RFI), Docket No., EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328 published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2014 at 79 

Fed. Reg. 44604 – 44633. 

Allied Universal Corporation, herein after “Allied”, has packaged, manufactured and distributed hazardous and 

non-hazardous chemicals for the sanitation of water, food, industrial and medical equipment throughout the 

southeastern and central United States as well as the Caribbean and central South America for sixty years. Allied 

has several packaging, manufacturing and distribution facilities throughout the southeastern United States. Allied 

is a member of the Chlorine Institute and the National Association of Chemical Distributors. Under the 

Responsible Distribution Program implemented company-wide, Allied is committed to protecting human health 

and the environment as well as fostering the proper, safe and secure handling and transporting of our products. 

Allied supports the goal of EPA’s RMP regulations which includes reducing chemical risk at the local level by 

providing information to help local fire, police, and emergency response personnel along with providing 

information to the members of the public to help in understanding the chemical operations taking place in their 

community. However, it is unclear within the breadth of the RFI document which requests comments on at least 

nineteen topics with a multitude of associated options how the potential modifications will enhance chemical 

facility safety. 

Allied believes that compliance with the existing RMP standard is effective in reducing chemical risk at chemical 

facilities and that the process safety standards in the United States are strong and effective. As a member of the 

Chlorine Institute and National Association of Chemical Distributors, process safety and compliance with regulatory 

requirements is taken very seriously. Unfortunately, the examples of chemical facility safety concerns articulated by 
October 29th, 2014 Allied Universal Corporation 

Page 2 Comments Docket No. EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328

those speaking to this issue have actually been examples of facilities not complying with existing regulations (outlier 

facilities). There is no identified lack of or gap in existing requirements, the lack or gap in compliance is a result of 

facilities either ignoring current existing regulations or not understanding them. Allied believes that developing 

additional regulations does not address the problem of outlier operations that are either unfamiliar or unwilling to 

comply with the significant and comprehensive chemical safety standards that are presently in place. We believe that 

resources could be better utilized through more awareness and training efforts as well as more routine outreach and, in 

some cases, enforcement efforts in all States. Looking at the number of citations that have been issued, it is 

concerning to see many similar citations across all facilities in the same subject area. The trend may indicate a failure 

to understand the requirements, and warrant an outreach intervention to correct. Establishing additional regulatory 

requirements will not solve this problem. 

Harmonization of the PSM and RMP Standard

Additionally, Allied is concerned with the timeline presented by EPA in its RMP revision process. Executive Order 

(EO) 13650 was specifically created to encourage agency coordination and improve the exchange and sharing of 

information. There is an EO 13650 Action Plan “requirement” that EPA and OSHA “harmonize” their regulations. 

However, EPA has committed, in the EO Working Group Action Plan, to releasing a proposal for the revised RMP in 

one year and finalizing the rule within two years. OSHA is on a seven-year rulemaking timeline for their PSM 

regulation while EPA is on a two-year track. Given the approach of both the EPA and OSHA, agency coordination 

will be challenging which could significantly impact the regulated community. 

As a small business with five facilities that must comply with the EPA and OSHA standard, we strongly urge both 

agencies to work as closely together as possible to coordinate both of their review and rulemaking activities so that 

the regulated community will be able to effectively execute a strong, stable and consistent, chemical safety program 

which is the goal for all RMP stakeholders. 

Updating the List of Regulated Substances - Adding Reactive Substances and Reactivity Hazards

To respond to EPA’s specific question of listing chemicals based on the hazards of their reaction byproducts, Allied 

does not believe this is a feasible approach. It is virtually impossible for national listing decisions to take into account 

process-and site-specific factors, which can vary widely due to the lack of a strong risk assessment methodology to 

screen reactive hazards. The number of chemicals that can experience adverse reactions with others, or with water or 

air, is very large, and the possible combinations of these materials makes trying to designate which chemicals 

represent reactive hazards and which do not is a task and one which should not be taken without identifying a valid 

and consistent methodology to identify threshold hazard quantities or concentrations. Additionally, reactivity hazards 

are already addressed throughout OSHA’s PSM Standard. It is specifically required as part of the process safety 

information element. It is also used as input to process hazard analyses, pre-startup safety reviews, operating 

procedure development, pressure relief and flare system design, mechanical integrity programs, and management of 

change. Finally it is utilized in developing training and contractor programs, conducting incident investigations and 

planning for emergencies. We believe the creation of a list does not in any way solve the problem the Agency is 

attempting to address here and in many respects may introduce other unintended consequences (i.e. facilities may 

think that if something is not on the list, there is no hazard or risk). 

TQs and Off-site Consequence Analysis Endpoints for Regulated Substances Based on Acute Exposure Guideline 

Level Toxicity Values

In the RFI, EPA is considering the recalculation of RMP reporting thresholds and toxic endpoints for off-site 

consequence analyses (OCA) based on the use of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs), which are developed 
October 29th, 2014 Allied Universal Corporation 

Page 3 Comments Docket No. EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328

by the National Advisory Committee (NAC) for AEGLs for Hazardous Substances. Allied strongly disagrees with 

EPA’s assertion that this method better reflects the potential for adverse effects of an accidental release upon a 

community. 

The current TQs are based on the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) value developed by the National 

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). IDLH guidelines are acute exposure guidelines. Since the 

establishment of the IDLH values in the 1970s, NIOSH has continued to review available scientific data to improve 

the protocol used to derive acute exposure guidelines, in addition to the chemical-specific IDLH values. The IDLH 

methodology reflects the modern principles and understanding in the fields of risk assessment, toxicology, and 

occupational health and provides the scientific rationale for the derivation of IDLH values based on contemporary risk 

assessment practices. Accordingly, IDLH values are based on health effects considerations determined through a 

critical assessment of the toxicology and human health effects data. This approach ensures that the IDLH values 

reflect an airborne concentration of a substance that represents a high-risk situation that may endanger workers’ lives 

or health. AEGLs on the other hand are intended to be guideline levels used during rare events or single once-in-alifetime exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals [NAS 2001]. The threshold 

exposure limits are designed to protect the general population, including the elderly, children or other potentially 

sensitive groups. However, unlike the IDLH guidelines the AEGLs approach applies a considerable amount of 

uncertainty factors and time extrapolations. The lack of a systematic review of the current AEGLs and the use of 

uncertainty factors is not a reasonable approach to setting RMP OCA endpoints. Given the use of the OCA for 

community response planning and given there is a finite amount of available resources, it would be prudent to 

continue to utilize the IDLH values which are based on health effects considerations determined through a critical 

assessment of the toxicology and human health effects data. 

Expanded Incident Investigation/Accident History

Under the existing PSM and RMP requirements regulated facilities are required to investigate incidents that resulted 

in, or “could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic release of a hazardous chemical.” However, EPA is now 

considering an additional requirement to have facilities report near misses in addition to reporting their five-year 

history of accidents from covered processes resulting in death, injury or significant property damage. EPA is also 

asking whether companies should be required to conduct a root cause investigation, complete their investigations by 

certain deadlines and share information with the public about incidents and near misses. 

Allied supports the use of root cause investigations where it is clear that an incident could have could reasonably have 

resulted in a catastrophic release as is required per the existing PSM Standard and RMP regulation. However, the 

term “near miss incident” is difficult to define across the board at a national level because what might be considered a 

near miss incident at one location may not be a near miss at another location due to the specifics of the operation. 

Further, EPA has not provided any examples of facility incidents that we are aware of where the current incident 

investigation procedures were either inadequate or contributed to a chemical safety incident. 

Third Party Compliance Audits

Audits are an integral part of a strong process safety program. Implementing the current RMP requirement, Allied has 

conducted many RMP audits over the years using audit forms established by the Agency, State of Florida and 

Chlorine Institute. However, we are unaware of any data that demonstrate or even strongly suggest that a third-party 

audit would provide the highest degree of audit objectivity or are more effective overall than any other form of audit, 

including the current one being implemented. We believe that the mandated use of third-party auditors would be 

overly burdensome and unjustified given the lack of reliable data in this area. We also believe there would be 
October 29th, 2014 Allied Universal Corporation 

Page 4 Comments Docket No. EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328

significant short comings as far as who is qualified to audit, their knowledge of our chemical and its processes and 

Allied being afforded the discretion to choose the audit method best suited to our unique operations. We have 

received offers from third parties to audit our current RMP program, and it is always amazing when the proposal 

states a timeline of a couple of days (when our internal audit team takes many weeks). We also believe company-led 

audits can be far more effective in actually addressing issues uncovered during an audit, due to the company auditor‘s 

intimate knowledge of the organization and how it functions. 

Define and Require Evaluations of Updates to RAGAGEP

Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEPs) are engineering, operation, or

maintenance activities based on established codes, standards, published technical reports or recommended practices or 

a similar document. RAGAGEPs detail generally approved ways to perform specific engineering, inspection or 

mechanical integrity activities, such as fabricating a vessel, inspecting a storage tank, or servicing a relief valve. 

RAGAGEP also recognizes that there is not one way to solve a given problem that provides similar levels of risk 

reduction for a diverse set of chemical processes. 

Allied currently utilizes consensus guidance to our specific situation in each individual workplace. This would not be 

possible under the proposal here. It will also removes our technical experts and professionals from their current ability 

to analyze the specific conditions and concerns at a facility to decide what is recognized and generally accepted good 

engineering practices as it is they who are the most familiar with the ongoing operations at that workplace. 

Given OSHA currently recognizes RAGAGEP in their regulations, Allied believes the Agency working with OSHA 

to define for RAGAGEP could be useful to help owners better understand requirements under the standard. A 

definition for RAGAGEP could also assist OSHA inspectors in understanding the correct standards that are applicable 

to a given type of facility. However, the definition of RAGAGEP should not take away the ability of a facility to 

identify which RAGAGEP is most appropriate to their operations. 

Emergency Planning, Drills and Coordination with Local Emergency Response Authorities

A few decades after the passage the Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act, this proposal is surprising. 

Again, Allied feels this is currently adequately addressed not only under many of the Agency’s regulations, but 

OHSA’s 29 CFR 1910.38 and DHS’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS) program. Prior to adding 

an additional facility regulatory requirement, DHS, EPA and OSHA should instead look to how it can best coordinate 

and harmonize the already established emergency response planning information and requirements that exists within 

other regulatory agencies. All Agencies should survey the various State Emergency Response Programs, 

understanding why some are successful and some are not (in an effort to make this program successfully everywhere). 

Having facilities in different States, States vary greatly and not all programs are created equal. And in even in the 

more successful States, rural areas still struggle with this. 

Mechanical Integrity of Any Safety-Critical Equipment

Allied believes that the existing six categories currently listed in Paragraph (j) of the existing OSHA PSM standard 

sufficiently cover safety critical equipment involved in the handling of highly hazardous chemicals. And EPA has not 

provided any reasoning or examples in the RFI to explain how the existing standard is not adequately addressing 

safety critical equipment or how chemical safety would be improved by the options presented by EPA in the RFI. 

Again, Allied can not understand why this is being proposed as we felt the current standard already regulates this area. 
October 29th, 2014 Allied Universal Corporation 

Page 5 Comments Docket No. EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328

Promoting Inherently Safety Technology (IST)

In its original RMP rulemaking EPA acknowledged that it did not believe that an IST requirement would produce 

additional benefits beyond those existing under the general program structure. EPA acknowledged that assessment of 

inherently safer design alternatives has the greatest benefit in the development of new processes. Industry generally 

examines new process alternatives to avoid the addition of more costly administrative or engineering controls in order 

to mitigate a design that may be more hazardous in nature. Although some existing processes may be misconceived as 

being inherently less safe than other processes, EPA believed these processes could be safely operated through 

management and control of the hazards without spending resources searching for unavailable or unaffordable new 

process technologies. 

No circumstances have changed to alter the above approach to IST. Inherently safer approaches or safer alternatives 

have been and will continue to be considered by facilities as a matter of course. Chemical facilities consider IST in 

preparing Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs) that are required for both the PSM and RMP standards. As EPA has 

acknowledged previously, PHA teams regularly suggest viable, effective (and inherently safer) alternatives for risk 

reduction which may include features such as inventory reduction, material substitution and process control changes. 

These changes are made as opportunities arise, without regulation or adoption of completely new and unproven 

process technologies. 

Because there is no accepted methodology for objectively measuring whether certain process parameters are 

inherently safer than other it is not possible to determine whether certain particular measures are “inherently safer” 

than others. Analyzing process changes requires considerable judgment by facility personnel teams with expertise in 

process safety, operations, health, environmental issues and security because the benefits of potential risk reduction 

measures must be balanced against a host of other factors such as employee safety, public safety, environmental 

impact and ongoing operation and maintenance costs. 

Consequently, it is still the facility operator who is in the best position to have a comprehensive picture of what may 

or may not be feasible and how the facility environment will be impacted by process changes. Companies must be 

permitted to continue to use all risk management tools and options at their disposal, and the consideration of available 

options must be placed in the context of the complexities of their unique operating environments. Because of these 

complexities, regulating the use of safer alternatives is not practicable. No one regulatory program addresses the 

holistic safety and security environment of a given facility. 

Safety Case

A safety case regime requires companies to adopt a systematic hazard management framework. This means they must 

identify all major hazards and develop plans for how these hazards will be managed. In particular, they must identify 

the controls that will be put in place to deal with the identified hazards, and the measures that will be taken to ensure 

that controls continue to function as intended. This part of the safety case framework is already in place for many 

hazardous industries in the US. For instance for all our processes, this is our OSHA PSM and EPA RMP programs. 

While at first look the Safety Case may have appeal, there are many complexities in the implementation of them that 

could have unintended consequences or difficulties or cost, and which have not been evaluated much like the concerns 

with Inherently Safer Technology. Developing a safety case requires significant resources, not simply mapping the 

existing RMP document to a new format, for both the regulated community and the regulatory agencies at a time 

when resources are being pulled in many directions. For such a system to work, all facility operators and all 

regulators would need extensive knowledge about and would need to constantly keep current on the latest safety 
October 29th, 2014 Allied Universal Corporation 

Page 6 Comments Docket No. EPA–HQ–OEM–2014–0328

measures and trends. It is doubtful small to midsize facilities with a couple operators will be able to satisfy these 

requirements. And it is even more doubtful that outliers, who are not complying with the current regulations, would 

satisfy these requirements. This would be a monumental task, particularly for regulators, as best practices vary 

depending on the segment of the extremely diverse industries that handle and store chemicals. All this while there has 

not been a strong demonstration of how a “safety case” regime will result in a higher level of safety in actual 

operations over a fully functioning and properly managed safety and environment management system other than it is 

used in a few other countries. 

Conclusion

As stated in the beginning of our comments Allied believes that compliance with the existing RMP standard already 

in place is effective in reducing chemical risk at chemical facilities. And compliance with already existing regulations 

is more likely to contribute to the reduction of process hazards and chemical incidents than the promulgation of 

additional requirements for facilities. We recommend that resources should be utilized in awareness and training 

efforts as well as enforcement activities where necessary rather than by making changes to the existing regulatory 

system. 

Additionally, Allied is concerned with the timeline presented by EPA in its RMP revision process. Allied 

recommends that EPA and OSHA work closely together to coordinate both their review and rulemaking activities so 

that the regulated community will be able to effectively utilize existing resources while building a strong, stable and 

consistent, chemical safety program which is the goal for all RMP stakeholders. 

Allied respectfully requests that EPA take into careful consideration the points provided in this correspondence prior 

to moving forward with any changes to the RMP standard. The Institute stands ready to assist EPA in any manner 

during its deliberations in this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Palmer 

Chief Executive Officer 

Allied Universal Corporation 

Phone: 305-888-2623, extension 0109 

Fax: 305-885-2671 

E-Mail: JimP@AlliedUniversal.com 

cc: Robin E. Bolte, Regulatory Affairs Manager