TOXICS USE REDUCTION INSTITUTE

University of Massachusetts Lowell

600 Suffolk Street

Wannalancit Mills, MA 01854

(978) 934-3275 fax: (978) 934-3050

www.turi.org

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-0328

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: 

Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act

October 27, 2014

We are pleased to offer comments on potential revisions to the Risk Management Program and 

related regulations. Our comments are provided in the context of our 25 years’ experience with 

Toxics Use Reduction planning in Massachusetts. 

Background: Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA)

TURA, which has been in effect since 1990, requires large-quantity chemical users to report 

annually on their use of toxic chemicals, pay an annual fee, and conduct toxics use reduction 

planning every two years. The program is implemented collaboratively by the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection, the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance and 

Technology, and the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute (the Institute). Together, the 

three agencies provide a range of services, including training, grants, and technical assistance, to 

help companies reduce their use of toxic chemicals. 

These services, combined with mandatory reporting and planning, have produced dramatic 

results. Over the first ten years of the program, from 1990 to 2000, Massachusetts companies 

subject to TURA reduced toxic chemical use by 40% and on-site releases by 90%. Over the next 

twelve years, from 2000 to 2012, Massachusetts companies have continued to make 

improvements, reducing toxic chemical use by 23% and on-site releases by 73%. These figures 

are production-adjusted, meaning that they represent true improvements in the efficiency with 

which companies use toxic chemicals per unit of product. 

The TURA program works from a number of core principlesi:

 Focus on use. The TURA program focuses on identifying the reasons why chemicals are 

used and wastes are generated. The focus is on protecting human and environmental 

health by reducing or eliminating the use of toxics wherever possible. 

 Focus on hazard. TURA focuses on reducing or eliminating toxic or hazardous 

chemicals. There is no requirement to prove that exposure will occur, or to calculate risk, 

in order to take action to eliminate or reduce a hazard. 

 Protection of workers, consumers, and the environment. TURA’s mandate is not only to 

prevent ambient environmental exposures resulting from industrial emissions, but also to 

take worker and consumer exposures into account.
 Avoiding risk shifting. TURA is intended to avoid risk shifting among environmental 

media or among groups of people. 

General observations

Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) planning requirements have produced excellent results in 

Massachusetts, yielding significant reductions in the use of toxic chemicals at industrial 

facilities, as well as economic benefits for Massachusetts businesses. The elements of TUR 

planning may serve as a useful model for EPA in designing a possible approach to assessing 

alternatives to highly hazardous chemicals under RMP.

The safer alternatives options analysis contemplated under the possible RMP revision is similar 

to the process known as TUR planning, which large quantity toxics users are required to conduct 

every two years under TURA.

Many resources are available to help EPA develop the specifics of a regulation of this kind, and 

to help companies complete successful analyses of the alternatives available to them. These 

include resources developed with the TURA program and other state-level pollution prevention 

programs, as well as specialized resources for hazard assessment and comparison of alternatives

that have been refined in recent years at both the state and the federal level. 

D. 1. a. Should EPA require a safer alternatives options analysis either as a new prevention 

program element, as part of the existing PHA/Hazard Review element, or as a separate new 

requirement under CAA section 112(r)?

The experience of the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) program since 1990 is that requiring 

companies to conduct planning to identify and assess safer options every two years produces 

measurable results in terms of toxics use reduction (TUR), improved worker health and safety, 

improved environmental performance and cost savings. Requiring businesses to conduct 

planning has led them to identify opportunities for improvement that they might not otherwise 

have identified. 

TURA does not require businesses to implement options they have identified in their plans. This 

feature of TURA, while providing a number of benefits, also limits TURA’s impact in the 

absence of additional drivers for change. Not all businesses choose to implement TUR options, 

even if those options are feasible. In some cases, external drivers help to overcome barriers to 

change. European regulatory restrictions, customer restricted substances lists, and other external 

factors have provided additional motivation for Massachusetts companies to implement TUR 

options. 

Comprehensive and informed regulatory review of planning provides additional impetus for 

companies to conduct planning in good faith. Regulatory review also encourages companies to 

be more thorough in their evaluation of options.

D. 1. b. How should safer alternatives be defined if it were to be a requirement under CAA 

section 112(r) regulations? What specifically should a safer alternatives analysis require 
and how would this differ from what is already required under other provisions of the 

RMP?

Because of the work that state agencies, NGOs, and leading companies have already completed 

regarding principles and procedures for alternatives assessment, there are ample resources from 

which EPA can draw in creating RMP requirements as well as resources for regulated 

businesses. 

It may be useful to draw upon some elements of the definition of Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) 

under TURA. This definition is as follows: 

“Toxics use reduction,” in-plant changes in production processes or raw materials that 

reduce, avoid, or eliminate the use of toxic or hazardous substances or generation of 

hazardous byproducts per unit of product, so as to reduce risks to the health of workers, 

consumers, or the environment, without shifting risks between workers, consumers, or 

parts of the environment. Toxics use reduction shall be achieved through any of the 

following techniques: 

1. Input substitution, which refers to replacing a toxic or hazardous substance or raw 

material used in a production unit with a non-toxic or less toxic substance; 

2. Product reformulation, which refers to substituting for an existing end-product an endproduct which is non-toxic or less toxic upon use, release or disposal; 

3. Production unit redesign or modification, which refers to developing and using 

production units of a different design than those currently used; 

4. Production unit modernization, which refers to upgrading or replacing existing 

production unit equipment and methods with other equipment and methods based on the 

same production unit; 

5. Improved operation and maintenance of production unit equipment and methods which 

refers to modifying or adding to existing equipment or methods including, but not limited 

to, such techniques as improved housekeeping practices, system adjustments, product and 

process inspections, or production unit control equipment or methods; or 

6. Recycling, reuse, or extended use of toxics by using equipment or methods which 

become an integral part of the production unit of concern, including but not limited to 

filtration and other closed loop methods. 

However, toxics use reduction shall not include or in any way be inferred to promote or 

require incineration, transfer from one medium of release or discharge to other media, 

off-site or out-of-production unit waste recycling, or methods of end-of-pipe treatment of 

toxics as waste. 

Some considerations related to the above definition include the following: 
 The definition of TUR explicitly includes “workers, consumers, and the environment.” 

For purposes of the RMP, this could be revised to include workers, members of the 

public, and the environment.

 The definition explicitly excludes risk shifting. 

 The definition includes specific techniques that may be used to achieve TUR. 

One recent publication to which Institute staff contributed defines a safer alternative as: “An 

option, including the option of not continuing an activity, that is healthier for humans and the 

environment than the existing means of meeting that need. For example, safer alternatives to a 

particular chemical may include a chemical substitute or a re-design that eliminates the need for 

any chemical addition.”ii This language could potentially be used in combination with some of 

the more specific points included in the TUR definition above. 

In developing a definition, it may also be useful to draw upon the principles outlined in the 

Commons Principles for Alternatives Assessment, a document developed by a group of 

organizations and institutions including the Toxics Use Reduction Institute. The Commons 

Principles define alternatives assessment as: “a process for identifying, comparing and selecting 

safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those in materials, processes or 

technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability.”iii It enumerates 

six key principles: 

 Reduce hazard 

 Minimize exposure

 Use best available information

 Require disclosure and transparency

 Resolve trade-offs; and 

 Take action to eliminate or substitute potentially hazardous chemicals. 

These six principles could be useful components in the development of a more detailed 

definition.iv

Other comments:

 For purposes of alternatives assessments conducted at the Toxics Use Reduction Institute,

every alternatives assessment must include three broad sections: an environmental health 

and safety hazard assessment; a technical feasibility assessment; and an economic 

feasibility assessment. Options that are rejected based on the hazard assessment do not 

need to be considered from a technical or economic feasibility perspective. 

o The Institute’s guidelines have been developed for the purposes of alternatives 

assessments conducted by a government agency. Alternatives assessments 

developed by companies under a regulatory requirement are likely to be 

somewhat different. 

 The Institute worked with partner agencies across the country to develop a guidance 

document that outlines principles and procedures for alternatives assessment. This 

resource should be useful to EPA in designing the components of a safer alternatives 

options assessment under the RMP update: Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2), 
Alternatives Assessment Guide Version 1.0 (December 2013). Available at 

http://theic2.org/article/download-pdf/file_name/IC2_AA_Guide_Version_1.0.pdf. 

o Among other points, the guide outlines a sequential process in which options are 

screened first based on hazard, then based on performance, and finally, to the 

extent that more than one option emerges, the remaining options are ranked in 

relation to one another based on cost, availability, and (if relevant) exposure 

considerations. 

o The guide also provides a detailed description of modules that can be used at each 

stage of analysis. For example, the Hazard Module includes an initial screen plus 

three levels of evaluation, with a higher level of detail and verification at each 

level. Resources that can be used within this module include EPA’s Design for the 

Environment Program Hazard Traits; GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals; and the 

Quick Chemical Assessment Tool (QCAT), developed by the Washington 

Department of Ecology. 

 Another excellent resource is that provided by OSHA in its web-based resource, 

“Transitioning to Safer Chemicals: A Toolkit for Employers and Workers 

(https://www.osha.gov/dsg/safer_chemicals/basics.html). In this resource, OSHA defines 

a safer alternative in the occupational health context as “an option that is less hazardous 

for workers than the existing means of meeting that need. Sometimes, this means 

choosing the option of not continuing an activity altogether; this also may include using 

chemical substitutes or product or process redesigns that completely eliminate the need 

for specific hazardous chemicals.”

D.1.c. How should industries determine if a safer alternative exists for their particular 

process? What safer alternative chemicals are available for the listed RMP chemicals and 

for ammonium nitrate?

Industries can determine if a safer alternative exists for their particular process by examining a

number of questions, including:

 Do other businesses or actors in the same industry sector already use a safer alternative? 

This should include an examination of businesses and other relevant actors both within 

and outside the US. 

 Is there existing research that demonstrates or investigates the viability of safer 

alternatives? 

 Is the process or functional use of a chemical similar to another process for which safer 

alternatives have been identified? 

A variety of detailed resources have been developed to help industries answer these questions. 

These include resources developed by the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2); the 

Substitutions Portal (Subsport); the Pharos Database; and the ASETSdefense database 

(http://www.asetsdefense.org/), among others. Businesses, NGOs, and government agencies are 

continually expanding and improving these resources. 

Under TURA, businesses are expected to make a good faith effort to identify and evaluate 

potential safer alternatives. Companies pay fees when filing with the Massachusetts TURA 

program, and these fees help support research, identification and evaluation of safer alternatives, 

as well as written and web-based materials, workshops, and demonstrations that make that 
information available to other chemical users. All of these resources help businesses to identify 

and assess safer alternatives. 

EPA may also find it useful to examine the TURA program’s policy analyses for Higher Hazard 

Substance designations. (A Higher Hazard Substance designation lowers the threshold for 

reporting and planning to 1,000 lb/year for TURA-covered sectors.) These documents review 

existing information on chemicals of high concern, note the ways in which businesses subject to 

TURA have already reduced or eliminated their use of these chemicals, and outline potential 

opportunities for further progress in TUR. Policy analyses developed as background for HHS 

designations can be found at 

http://www.turi.org/TURI_Publications/Toxics_Use_Reduction_Policy_Analysis/Higher_Hazard

_Substances_Policy_Analyses. Most recently, regulations have been proposed to designate the 

following chemicals as Higher Hazard Substances: hydrogen fluoride, cyanide compounds, 

toluene diisocyanate, dimethylformamide, and n-propyl bromide. If these regulations are 

promulgated in 2014, these designations will be effective as of January 1, 2015. 

D. 1. d. What should facilities consider when determining if such technologies, when 

identified, are effective, available, and economically justified for their particular process or 

facility? Can the RMP national database, Lessons Learned Information System or other 

federal databases be structured to promote the exchange of information both within 

industry and with other stakeholders on potentially safer technologies?

Under TURA, businesses develop an economic analysis for financially feasible options, to help 

them determine whether a toxics use reduction option is economically feasible. Since TURA 

does not require businesses to implement TUR options, the results of the economic analysis are 

simply for internal decision-making use within the business. Nonetheless, the requirement to 

conduct this analysis helps to ensure that businesses make more informed decisions than might 

be the case otherwise.

Under the original statute, there was also a requirement to calculate a “cost of toxics.” In this 

calculation, the business documented the total cost of using any listed toxic chemical used above 

the TURA threshold. The value of this approach is that it requires a business to explicitly 

identify all the costs associated with the incumbent technology, including costs of hazardous 

waste disposal, personal protective equipment for workers, liability insurance, and others. 

D. 1. e. If EPA were to require facilities to undertake an evaluation of the potential to 

incorporate safer alternatives, what minimum criteria should this evaluation be required to 

meet? How would the evaluation determine if a particular alternative is feasible, cost 

effective and results in less risk? What requirements or incentives, if any, should there be 

for implementation of identified safer alternatives? How should any such requirements be 

structured and enforced?

Minimum criteria. Under TURA, a Toxics Use Reduction plan is required to include a number of 

components. These are described in detail in the TURA regulations (available at 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/toxics/regulations/toxics-and-hazards-regulationsand-standards.html). Briefly, some components of TURA planning requirements that may be 

relevant for the RMP update include the following:
 Statement of management policy related to toxics use reduction

 Statement of the scope of the plan

 Process flow diagram for each production unit, including information on amounts of 

toxic chemicals used in each production unit

 Cost of the use of each toxic chemical

 Procedures used to identify TUR options (including the environmental health and safety 

assessment of those options)

 Description of TUR options

 Technical evaluation of TUR options 

 Economic evaluation of TUR options

Additional detail is available for each component of the planning requirements. For example, in 

analyzing the economic aspects of the incumbent technology and safer alternatives, companies 

are directed to consider elements including indirect and direct labor and materials costs; purchase 

or manufacturing cost of the toxic chemical and alternatives; capital and equipment costs;

storage, accumulation, treatment, disposal, and handling costs associated with toxics and

byproducts; costs associated with activities required to comply with local, state, or federal laws 

or regulations; worker health or safety costs, including protective equipment and effects of 

possible accidents; insurance; liability; community good will; and product sales lost to 

competing non-toxic products.

Plans must be developed using good engineering practices and standard accounting practices, 

and must be completed in good faith. 

Plans must be certified by a TUR Planner, including a statement that the planner believes the 

plan has been prepared in good faith, with a reasonable effort to identify and evaluate TUR 

options. (See additional information about TUR Planners, below.) Plans must also be signed by 

the senior management official of the facility, indicating that the information included is accurate 

and complete, among other points. 

What requirements or incentives, if any, should there be for implementation of identified safer 

alternatives? 

Based on the TURA program’s experience, some leading companies switch voluntarily to safer 

alternatives once they have evaluated them and found them to be technically and economically 

viable. Other companies do not make these changes unless they are required to do so and/or have 

positive incentives for change. In Massachusetts, the TURA planning requirements have been a 

good complement to other regulatory drivers. For example, Massachusetts manufacturers of 

electronic products were motivated to eliminate lead and other toxic chemicals by the Restriction 

on Hazardous Substances directive in Europe, and the planning process ensured they were well 

prepared to make these changes in a timely fashion. Another example is federal requirements 

related to use of perchloroethylene in dry cleaning facilities co-located with residences.

One further note we can offer based on experience in the TURA program is that there are 

benefits to requiring an economic analysis even if that analysis is used strictly for internal 

decision-making purposes. In the experience of the TURA program, there are often advocates for 

TUR within each industrial facility. The process of developing a TUR plan, including an 
economic analysis, helps these internal advocates to make the case to senior management that 

environmental health and safety improvements are viable and potentially even profitable. 

Other state-level models that may be of interest include the alternatives assessment requirements 

under California’s Safer Consumer Products Regulation and under Maine’s Toxic Chemicals in 

Children’s Products law. 

Role of planners. A key element of TURA’s success is the role of Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) 

Planners. Under TURA, companies are required to have their plans signed by a certified Toxics 

Use Reduction (TUR) Planner. 

TUR Planners are individuals who receive training and certification from the state, and are 

responsible for reviewing and signing TUR plans. TUR Planners may be employees of a 

regulated company, or may be independent consultants working with more than one company. 

TUR Planners play an essential role in reviewing plans and ensuring that they continue to be of 

high quality over time. TUR planners take a 48-hour class, must pass an exam, and have regular 

continuing education requirements, in order to ensure that they are well informed and up to date 

on new developments related to toxics use reduction. 

D.1.f. Should EPA require facilities to use a safer alternatives evaluation method such as 

the CCPS Inherently Safer Technology Checklist?

A number of useful safer alternatives evaluation methods are available. The CCPS Inherently 

Safer Technology Checklist includes some useful elements, which could be expanded upon. 

Additional areas that are not covered in depth include potential savings associated with reducing 

hazard and potential liabilities associated with the hazard. 

It is worth noting that businesses that use chemicals to make products may have different needs 

from businesses that manufacture or process chemicals, so guidance should be evaluated with 

both these types of businesses in mind. 

The TURA program is careful to make clear distinctions between options which are true hazard 

reduction (reduction or elimination of the toxic chemical) and options which merely contain or 

control risk. One of the core principles of TURA is that reducing or eliminating a toxic chemical 

hazard is the preferred way to reduce risk, as compared with risk control and mitigation 

strategies, which may contain but do not eliminate inherent hazards. 

As noted above, the TURA program focuses on hazard rather than exposure/risk. Exposure 

information can be a basis for additional concern about a substance, but not for overlooking 

hazard. 

In the Commons Principles for Alternatives Assessment, the first principle is to “reduce hazard 

by replacing a chemical of concern with a less hazardous alternative. This approach provides an 

effective means to reduce risk associated with a product or process if the potential for exposure 

remains the same or lower. Consider reformulation to avoid use of the chemical of concern 

altogether.”
Methods for safer alternatives evaluation are reviewed in the Institute’s 2005 publication, 

“Alternatives Assessment for Toxics Use Reduction: A Survey of Methods and Tools” (available 

at 

http://www.turi.org/TURI_Publications/TURI_Methods_Policy_Reports/Alternatives_Assessme

nt_for_Toxics_Use_Reduction_A_Survey_of_Methods_and_Tools._2005). A more up-to-date 

overview is forthcoming in the OECD alternatives assessment toolbox. The IC2 publication, 

Alternatives Assessment Guide Version 1.0, is also a useful source of information on methods. 

D.1.g. How should EPA and facilities address the risk tradeoffs that could result when 

changing a process to incorporate safer alternatives?

Risk tradeoffs, which are a necessary part of planning, should be distinguished from risk shifting, 

which implies simply that a risk is being shifted from one area or medium to another (e.g. from 

the general public to workers, or vice versa). Risk tradeoffs occur in all aspects of industrial 

planning, and can be addressed through transparency at each stage of planning. 

Within a TUR plan, businesses use expert judgment and consider their specific circumstances in 

examining potential trade-offs. Having a trained planner involved in the process helps to ensure 

good decision making. 

The guidance that the TURA program provides to businesses includes the following: If the 

assessment process does not identify an alternative that is an improvement for all pertinent 

hazard, technical and cost considerations, transparency about the process that is used in either 

selecting a substitute or choosing not to do so becomes even more critical. When implementing a 

substitution, care should be taken to minimize negative impacts of identified key trade-offs.

A core principle of TURA is continuous improvement. Businesses are required to revisit their 

toxics use reduction plans every two years because new options may emerge that were not 

identified before, or options that were rejected as technically infeasible may have become 

feasible in the intervening time period. Under TURA, businesses adopt the best possible option 

available at the time, but also continue to examine options going forward. 

California’s Safer Consumer Products Regulation requires businesses to explain how they have 

made choices among alternative chemicals.v

D. 1. h. Should EPA consider requirements similar to those used by the State of New Jersey 

or Contra Costa County, California, and if so, why? What have been the benefits of such 

programs in risk reduction or process safety for the facilities covered under these 

requirements? What have been the limitations or drawbacks of these programs?

An evaluation of these approaches is beyond the scope of the Institute’s comments. However, we 

observe the following:

 In reviewing these resources, it may be useful to make clearer distinctions between 

prevention options and control options. Under TURA, hazard prevention options are 

always considered to be the preferred approach, compared with options to mitigate or 

control risks. 
 California has proposed regulations that would go beyond the current requirements of 

Contra Costa County; in particular, the proposed regulations include greater enforcement 

authority. 

D. 1. i. If EPA were to develop regulatory requirements for safer alternatives, which 

facilities should be subject to those requirements? Should all RMP facilities be subject to 

such requirements, or only “high risk” facilities, such as refineries and large chemical 

plants? How would “high risk” be defined? Are there particular processes or chemicals 

that should be targeted or prioritized for implementation of such requirements?

In the Institute’s experience, all facilities can benefit from the toxics use reduction planning 

process and from a careful assessment of their options for reducing or eliminating hazards. This 

benefit is not limited to the highest risk facilities. 

D. 1. l. If RMP facilities are required to perform safer alternative options analyses and 

implementation plans, should EPA require that the analyses and/or implementation plans 

be submitted to the Agency? Should EPA have any role in approving such analyses or 

plans? In lieu of an approval, can EPA promote safer alternatives through reporting and 

the dissemination of information on potentially applicable practices?

Under TURA, companies are required to keep a copy of their toxics use reduction plan available 

onsite, and must submit a brief summary of that plan to MassDEP. MassDEP inspectors are able 

to review the plans on-site as part of an inspection. 

For the most part, the TURA program relies on TUR planners for quality assurance. There are 

many advantages to this approach, but one limitation is that MassDEP does not regularly have 

the opportunity to review all the plans together. This limits the ability of the program to track 

patterns, and opportunities, at a level of detail beyond what is available from the plan summaries. 

The TURA program employs a variety of approaches to promote safer alternatives through 

dissemination of information on potentially applicable practices. This includes peer mentoring 

work groups and demonstration events, among other activities. Businesses have reported that this 

assistance is useful to them. 

D.1.n. What would be the economic impacts of requiring facilities to analyze safer 

alternative options? Are there any special circumstances involving small entities that EPA 

should consider?

In some cases, safer alternatives analyses will lead to economic savings. 

 The TURA program creates a variety of benefits for small and large businesses in 

Massachusetts. Among other benefits, TURA program services help companies to 

identify opportunities to reduce operating costs, improve efficiency and expand markets 

(e.g. through competitive positioning in European markets). These benefits for individual 

companies are detailed in the TURA program’s many company-specific case studies. 

 Company representatives have indicated that they have significantly improved production 

efficiencies as a result of the TURA program. 

 The most recent survey of TURA filers found that 51% experienced improved worker 

health and safety; 41% achieved financial savings; 33% achieved improved compliance 
with other state or federal regulations; 29% achieved improvements in production 

efficiency; and 21% achieved improved product marketing, all as a result of the TUR 

planning and implementation process. 

Under TURA, small businesses report significant benefits from the planning process. Providing 

technical and/or financial assistance to these businesses can help to ensure they achieve the 

maximum benefit from the process. 

 

i

Summarized from Toxics Use Reduction Institute, “Decision Making Under TURA: Process Overview and 

Reference Guide.” Methods and Policy Report No. 28, published 2010, updated May 2014. 

ii From Tickner, J. and Eliason, P. Alternatives Assessment for Chemicals: From Problem-Evaluation to SolutionsAssessment and Implementation: A background paper created for the March 31–April 1, 2011 Interagency 

Discussion on Alternatives Assessment, EPA Potomac Yards Conference Facility, Crystal City, VA. March 24, 

2011

iii Lowell Center for Sustainable Production et al. The Commons Principles for Alternatives Assessment (includes 

consensus definition of alternatives assessment). 2013 October.

http://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Research/Alternatives_Assessment/Commons_Principles_for_Alternatives_Assessm

ent

iv

 Lowell Center for Sustainable Production et al. The Commons Principles for Alternatives Assessment (includes 

consensus definition of alternatives assessment). 2013 October.

http://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Research/Alternatives_Assessment/Commons_Principles_for_Alternatives_Assessm

ent

v California Code of Regulations. Division 4.5. Title 22. Chapter 55. Safer Consumer Products. Article 5. 

Alternatives Analysis. Section 69505.7 Alternatives Analysis Reports.