## U. S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 2175 K Street,

### NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037-1809 Phone 202-261-7600 

### Fax202-261-7650 WWW.~ hemsafety .gov Gerald V. Poje, Ph.D. Irv Rosenthal, Ph.D. Board Member 

### Carolyn 

### W. Merritt Board Member Andrea Kidd Taylor, Dr. P.H. John S. Bresland Board Member Board Member Chairman

September 8,2003

- 

## _- - 

### US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, 

### NW Room B 108, 

### Mail Code 6 1 02T Washirigton, D.C. 20460 Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044 _-I- EPA West (Air Docket)

i1 

# gep\2m

--

_x *-- = Re: Comments on Proposed Amendment of40 C.F.R. Part 68

Dear Sir or Madam: In the pages that follow, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) hereby provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the following comments onthe EPA's proposed amendmentof40 C.F.R. Part 68, 

### as announced 

### in the Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 147, on July 3 1,2003. Where the CSB 

### has commented, the comments are written in a manner intended to track the proposed changes as they were presented in the July 3 

### 1st Federal Register notice. Changesto RMP SubmissionRequirements Pro-msal 

### 1 --Five-Year Accident History: "EPAproposes that facilities who have an accidentthat meets the criteria for the five year accident history be required to update and re-submit their 

### RMP within 

### six months ofthe date ofthe accident." Comment: The CSB supportsthis proposal. Five-year accident data has significant value for all facets of chemical accident prevention and preparedness. The proposed change would allow for better and faster analysis of accident incidence and frequency data trends. Broad consensus also appearedto have been reached on the value ofthis proposal during the November 14,200droundtable meeting on how to improve the measurement of accidental chemical process releases, co-sponsored by the CSB, EPA, and OSHA. Pro-posal2--Emrcrencv Contact Information: "EPAproposes to require that fkcilities correct their emergency contact information within one month of a change 

### in the information."CSB Commentsto EPA Notice ofProposed Rulemaking September 8, 2003 40 C.FX Part 68

Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. While this proposal has never been the subject of a direct CSB recommendation,it certainly follows 

### fiom the CSB's experience that emergencyresponse capabilities can almost alwaysbe improved. This proposal has good, practical value for emergencyresponse coordination. New Data Elements Proposal 1--Emergency Contacts E-Mail Address: "EPAproposes to add a mandatory data elementto the 

### RMP for sources to providethe e-mail address (ifany) for the emergency contact. I' Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. Again, this is a commop-senseproposal relying on modern technology to enhance emergency response, coordination, and overall communications with no additional costs. Proposal 2--Reason for SubseauentRMP Submissions: "EPA is proposing to add a mandatory data elementto the 

### RMP for sourcesto identify the purpose of submissions that revise or otherwise affect their previously filed 

### RMPs." Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. This general type ofrequirement would enable all users of

### RMP data to understand and track informationin the system for trends, while posing little in the way of additional costs to registered parties. However, although in general agreement with the proposal and the articulated rationale, the CSB notes that EPA's contention that de-registration "wouldprovide some indication 

### ofthe extent to which inherently safer or alternate technologies are being used" is not necessarily true. For example, analysis of 5-year cycles ofTCPA reporting in New Jersey indicates that de-registering can be attributed to many reasons other than inherently safer technologies. Proposal 3--Contractor Information: "EPA 

### is proposing to add a mandatory data element in the 

### RMP for sources

### that use a contractor to help prepare their 

### RMPs to 

### so indicate.'' Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. Revisions to 

### RMP Submit Format (UncontrolledRunaway Reactions) Proposal: "EPAis proposing to expandthe list ofpossible causes of accidental releases to the reporting of sources' five-year accident history 

### so an owner or operator can indicate whether an accident involved 

### an uncontrolled/runawayreaction." Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. Stemming 

### from Recommendation 2001-01- H-R4 contained in the CSB's December 2002 report entitled "Improving Reactive Hazard Management,'' the CSB made the following recommendationto the EPA "Modifythe accident reporting requirements in RMP*Info to defie and record reactive incidents. Consider adding the term 'reactive incident' to the four existing 'release events' in EPA's current 5-year accident reporting requirements (Gas Release, Liquid SpillEvaporation, Fire, and Explosion). Structure this information collection to allow EPA and its stakeholdersto identifl and focus resources on industry sectorsCSB CommenfstoEPANotice ofProposedRulemaking SeDtember8. 2003 40 C.F. R Part 68 that experienced the incidents; chemicals and processes involved; and impact on the public, the workforce, and the environment." As noted by EPA, this new element would provide sources with an additional choice to more accurately report accidents that involveduncontrolled or runaway reactions--an important category of information. This new information would provide a better understanding of the types of accidents occurring at regulated sources. However, the CSB notes that despite better typology ofincidents as this changeproposes, significant catastrophic incidents causedby extremely hazardous mixturesunder extremely hazardous process conditions will continue to go unreported

### in the RMP*Info system because of current listing deficiencies. For example, the Morton incident in 1998 involving ortho-nitrochorobenne, 2-ethylhexylamineand Automate Yellow #96 Dye would not be required to be reported because the chemicals are not covered. 

### E. Other Issues Proposalkdlection of OSHA OccupationalInjury and Illness Data in Coniunction with the 

### RMP Filing Required Under 112(r) ofthe CAA: "Under 29 

### C.F.R. Part 1904,the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

### (OSHA) requires employersto maintain logs of employeereportable injury and illness statistics (011) for every calendar year. 

## .. These records are of special interest to EPA (1) Total Incidence Rate, (2) Workdays Lost to Injuries, and (3) Illness and Workdays under Restricted Duties. EPA is considering whether 

### future 

### RMP submissions shouldbe required to include data for these three records, aggregatedfor [the] five most recent calendar years." Comment: The CSB supports this proposal.



### Sincerelv. T

Carolyn W. Merritt