1

Teleconference Meeting between EPA and American Chemistry Council (ACC) to discuss 

RMP accident data used in RMP Proposed Rule

April 7, 2016 10:00 am to 10:40 am EDT

Participants:

ACC: Bill Erny, Martha Moore, Carol Haase, Amy Manz

EPA, Office of Emergency Management, Washington, DC: Jim Belke, Patricia Gioffre, 

Kathy Franklin, Beth Bosecker

ACC: Why did EPA use the period 2004-2013 for accident analysis in the RMP proposed rule 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)? 

EPA: This was explained in the RIA: EPA was looking for a long enough period to reflect 

several RMP cycles because some of the data is reported in time cycles. Analysis for the rule 

started in mid-2015 so much of the 2015 accident data was not available. Also there is a time lag 

for accident data to show up although accidents are supposed to be reported within 6 months. 

EPA has found that many submitters wait until the next 5-year reporting cycle to include new 

accidents. We knew the 2014 accident data would probably not be complete, so this year was 

not included. EPA also added to the docket a CD that has the full non-OCA (off-site 

consequence analysis) RMP database file that can be used with database software such as 

Microsoft Access, if people want more information than what was provided in the Excel 

spreadsheet containing the ten-year accident data. The CD will have all accidents reported up to 

the time in March 2016 when the RMP data was downloaded onto the CD.

ACC: The Excel spreadsheet is missing some data such as chemical names and quantities. Can 

that be obtained from the RMP full data CD?

EPA: Yes.

ACC: ACC finds the RMP accident data compilation in the Excel spreadsheet very useful and 

plans other analysis using it. Does EPA have any other plans to make this data more available? 

EPA: EPA has no plans to make it more available. A few years ago, EPA had explored the 

possibility of making the RMP data more easily accessible to the public, but received feedback 

from some stakeholders about potential security concerns. Currently, state and local officials 

that meet the definition of covered persons can get access to the data via the EPA central data 

exchange. The general public may access the data in Federal Reading rooms and via FOIA 

requests (non-OCA version). 

ACC: ACC may want to re-engage EPA on this issue in the future.

ACC: Is there any quality assurance done for the RMP data?

EPA: The data is entered by the facility electronically and the RMP eSubmit software contains 

basic validation process that prevent some errors. For example, the latitude/longitude of the 
2

facility must be within the bounds of the county, letters cannot be entered where a numerical 

answer is required, if the OCA changes by more than a factor of 2, the user gets a warning 

message, etc. The software has various validation messages and warnings that can be triggered 

by erroneous or suspect data entries. Other than these validation processes, which all occur as the 

facility enters the data, EPA does not alter the data. However, if some questionable data is later 

found during an EPA review, EPA has the Regional staff follow up with the facility about those

data, and correct or resubmit the data as needed.

ACC: Can the companies update the RMP data?

EPA: Yes, the submitter and certifier can partially amend or completely resubmit the RMP data.

ACC: There are about 2291 accidents in the Excel spreadsheet, but the RIA uses only a subset 

of 1517. How did EPA get the 1517 number?

EPA: Some accident were reported with no impacts (death, injuries, property, off-site impacts). 

EPA used only the accident data with reported impacts (those are required to be reported) and 

view the others as voluntary submissions. It could be that some of those voluntary submissions 

could be valid (may have been accidents with impacts, but impacts not reported), but EPA 

decided to be conservative and omit them for purposes of analysis for the rule. You can total the 

number of accidents in the Excel spreadsheet with zeros reported in all the impact fields to see 

how many of those exist. 

ACC: We just totaled them and it looks like 774 have neither on-site nor off-site impacts.

ACC: Is there a way to gauge the severity of the accidents?

EPA: No. There is no severity data element, but one can look at hospitalizations vs. medical 

treatment for the off-site impacts. The on-site injuries have no such differentiation. The 

property damage estimates can be evaluated by the dollar value reported.

ACC: One accident, the Chevron refinery incident, shows 14,000 hospitalized. Is that correct?

EPA: That accident statistic is considered to be an outlier. This accident involved a large smoke 

plume and many people reported to the hospital complaining of respiratory problems from 

smoke inhalation. Most were looked at and released. This particular accident and its impact is 

mentioned in the RIA.

ACC: Does the full-data CD show the number of processes?

EPA: Yes, every section of the Risk Management Plan is available on the CD except the 

sensitive data from the Off-site Consequence Analysis. Each process has its own ID number.

ACC: Has EPA done any analysis based on number of processes?

EPA: Yes, for some provisions in the proposed rule, we have estimates costs based on number 

of processes. For example, for the Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) was 

costed out based on number of processes for industry sectors. Also the number of processes was 
3

considered for general categorization when estimating cost of third party audits, such as the 

complex industry sector was assumed to have an average of four processes.

ACC: Did the analysis for the RIA use on-site damages reported?

EPA: Yes, that information was probably aggregated nationwide by industry sector in the RIA 

and also probably used in the small business cost chapter- would need to check the RIA to be 

sure. The property damage data was also used in the benefits chapter of the RIA to look at the 

range of costs for possible benefits from the rule.

ACC: Has root cause analysis been done for the accidents?

EPA: There is nothing in the RMP database currently for root causes. If an accident occurs, this 

is a trigger for an EPA inspection and EPA may take a hard look at the circumstances of the 

accident, but would not necessarily do a root cause analysis or as rigorous investigation as the 

Chemical Safety Board would undertake.

ACC: In the Technical Background Document in the docket, how are the incident rates 

calculated?

EPA: The calculation was simply the number of accidents divided by number of facilities in a 

particular industry sector and this was viewed as the propensity for occurrence of accidents 

within that industry. Data was displayed in order of accident frequency which shows a clear 

demarcation of accident frequency between various industries. EPA also looked at the 

complexity of each industry when deciding to apply the STAA provisions because we considered 

that more complex industries would be more likely to have greater opportunities to implement 

STAA measures. The RIA looked at various alternatives, including requiring implementation of 

STAA and costs could be considerable with some alternative approaches.

EPA: The RMP eSubmit User Manual is available on our website. It explains the meaning and 

intention of each RMP data element and might help you better interpret the RMP data on the CD.