U. S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

2175 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037-1809 

Phone 202-261-7600 Fax 202-261-7650 

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 

1200 Pennsylvania 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 of 40 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 on the EPA's proposed amendment of 40 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 1 st Federal Register notice. 

Changes to RMP Submission Requirements 

Pro-msal 1 --Five-Year Accident History: "EPA proposes that facilities who have an 

accident that meets the criteria for the five year accident history be required to update and 

re-submit their RMP within six months of the date of the accident." 

Comment: The CSB supports this 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 appeared to have been reached on the value of this proposal 

during the November 14,200d roundtable 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: "EPA proposes to require that fkcilities 

correct their emergency contact information within one month of a change in the 

information." 
CSB Comments to EPA Notice of Proposed 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 emergency response capabilities can almost always be improved. This proposal has 

good, practical value for emergency response coordination. 

New Data Elements 

Proposal 1--Emergency Contacts E-Mail Address: "EPA proposes to add a mandatory 

data element to the RMP for sources to provide the e-mail address (ifany) for the 

emergency contact. I' 

Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. Again, this is a commop-sense proposal 

relying on modern technology to enhance emergency response, coordination, and overall 

communications with no additional costs. 

Proposal 2--Reason for Subseauent RMP Submissions: "EPA is proposing to add a 

mandatory data element to the RMP for sources to identify the purpose of submissions 

that revise or otherwise affect their previously filed RMPs." 

Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. This general type of requirement would 

enable all users of RMP data to understand and track information in 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 "would provide some indication of the extent to 

which inherently safer or alternate technologies are being used" is not necessarily true. 

For example, analysis of 5-year cycles of TCPA 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: "EPA is proposing to expand the list of possible 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/runaway reaction." 

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 recommendation to the EPA 

"Modify the 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 stakeholders to identifl and focus resources on industry sectors 
CSB Commenfs to EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

SeDtember 8. 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 involved uncontrolled 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 of incidents as this change proposes, 

significant catastrophic incidents caused by extremely hazardous mixtures under 

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-ethylhexylamine and Automate Yellow #96 Dye 

would not be required to be reported because the chemicals are not covered. 

E. Other Issues 

Proposalkdlection of OSHA Occupational Injury and Illness Data in Coniunction with 

the RMP Filing Required Under 112(r) of the CAA: "Under 29 C.F.R. Part 1904, the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to maintain 

logs of employee reportable 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 should be required to include data for these 

three records, aggregated for [the] five most recent calendar years." 

Comment: The CSB supports this proposal. 

S incerelv. T 

Carolyn W. Merritt