1 Meeting between USEPA/ OEM staff and American Forest and Paper Association ( AFPA )

On the R isk Management Program Proposed Rule March 22, 2016 Teleconference meeting at 3 pm

Attendees : Jim Belke, USEPA/O ffice of Land and Emergency Management/Office of Emergency Management Kathy Franklin, USEPA/ Office of Land and Emergency Management/Office of Emergency Management Steward Holm, AFPA , Chief Scientist Linda Ts ang, AFPA , Attorney Tim Hunt, AFPA , Senior Director, Air Quality Programs
Discussion Topics :
AFPA had questions about the c riteria used to select industries subject to the safer technology and alternatives analysis ( STAA ) provisions . EPA explained that industries covered were based on complexity of operations with opportunities to implement inherentl y safer technology ( IST ) and based on accident rate (accidents/facility)

. AFPA asked if EPA had a ny definition of complex , as it related to complex facilities as described in rationale for STAA coverage. EPA answered no. AFPA said that s imple and complex facilities were terms also used in conjunction with cost data on facilities subject to emergency response provisions, but paper industry does not seem to be included in this analysis as a complex facilities. EPA explained that f or cost estimates, different iation could have been made at various levels, for example, gas processors and paper manufacturing could have been included as complex in the cost estimates. Accident rate was a factor that drove coverage of NAICS code 322

- pulp and paper, for STAA provis ions.

AFPA wondered i f the STAA coverage determination was driven by use of particular chemicals. EPA explained that no, this was not only factor, IST includes other risk reduction actions besides chemical substitution.

AFPA wondered why accident rates fo r particular industries in the technical background document were based on number of facilities, instead of something else, such as man

- hours. AFPA said the paper facilities have between 350

- 1600 employees per facility. EPA explained that one could use va rious metrics to normalize accident data. The Wharton School has done a study looking at accident rates using quantities of chemicals above the threshold as a basis for comparison. AFPA requested this information . EPA agree d and on March 22, 2016 sent the following study by email to Stewart Holm:2 Elliott, M.R., Kleindorfer, P.R., and Lowe, R.A. October 2003. The Role of Hazardous and Regulatory Practice in the Accidental Release of Chemicals at U.S. Industrial Facilities. Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 883

- 896. This study is a lso available at http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/downloads/archive/arch312.pdf EPA will make the document available in the rulemaking docket EPA

- HQ

- OEM

- 2015

- 0725.

AFPA also noted that their industry had very few off

- site impacts. The y cited only 1 worker death, 59 onsite injuries and only 2 off

- site injuries. They believe this is much less than other industries based on looking a t the RMP accident spreadsheet data . Also they note very little accident property damage for their industry . They cited higher off

- site impact s for other industries, such as 14,000 people impacted off

- site. EPA explained that most of the 14,000 off

site medically treated were from one refinery accident where thousands of people went to the hospital due to effects from smoke inhalation (this part icular incident was pointed out in the Regulatory Impact Analysis) and this data was considered an outlier . Property damage is more common among the facilities, such as refineries, that use flammable substances.

AFPA wanted to know why EPA had not decided to take any action on ammonium nitrate, which was the substance involved in the West Texas fertilizer plant accident. EPA explained that OSHA and DHS
, who have regulations covering AN fertilizer, are in the process of reviewing their regulations for poss ible changes and EPA wanted to wait for any decisions from their review before making any decisions regarding AN.

AFPA w anted more detailed information on the RMP data for their industr y , and particularly for the accidents cited in the RMP 10

- year accident data in the currently available spreadsheet. EPA explained that the RMP data, which does not include the sensitive, restricted

- access off

- site consequence analysis data, is publicly available via FOIA, as a large size file in a database for mat. Both AFPA and EPA discussed the time it might take to obtain this data via FOIA as problematic because public comments on the rule are due on or before May 13, 2016. EPA said it would investigate getting this data to AFPA directly without having them request it by FOIA and would follow up on this issue. On March 24, 2016, EPA delivered to AFPA a DVD containing the Risk Management Plan (RMP) National Database
, Non

- Offsite Consequence Analysis (non

- OCA) Version
, files in .mdb format

. EPA will also make copies of this disk available in the public rulemaking docket EPA

- HQ

- OEM

- 2015

- 0725.