P. 3 r —- -f . , • 'TT '

Ris k Managemen

tPla n Rule : Summar

y an d Respons e t

o Comment

s

Ma y 24 , 199 6C I TABL E O F CONTENT S P. 4

Introductio n i 1 . Comment s o

n Tierin g A . Adoption 1- 1 B . Criteri a1-3 4 C . Requirement s fo

r eac h Tie r 1-6 4 D . Othe

r 1-11 0 E . Eligibilit

y fo r Progra m1 1-11 7 F . Eligibilit

y fo r Program s 2 an

d 3 1-14 0 2 . Comment s o

n Definition s 2- 1 3 . Comment s o

n Significan

t Accidenta

l Releas e A . Overall Definition o f Accidenta l Releas e 3- 1 B . Inclusio n o

f Environmenta

l Impact s 3-1 2 C . Endpoin

t Criteri a3-2 4 D . Inclusio n o

f Sheltering i

n Plac e an d Evacuatio n 3-2 8 E . Additiona

l Comments 3-2 9 F . Alternativ e Definition s 3-3 0 4 . Comment s o

n Worst-Cas e Releas e A . Credibl e Releas e Scenari o 4- 1 B . Mitigatio n System s 4-11 9 C . Consideratio n o

f Environmenta

l Damag e 4-14 0 D . Weathe

r Condition s 4-14 2 E . Othe

r 4-15 3 5 . Comment s o

n Offsit e Consequenc e Analysi s A . Numbe

r o f Scenario s 5- 1 B . Defaul

t Criteri afo

r Modeling (Endpoints ) 5-2 7 C . Guidanc e 5-5 5 D . Consideratio n o

f Environmenta

l Impact s ..... . v 5-10 6 E . Miscellaneou s 5-14 1 6 . Comment s o

n Ris k Managemen

t Pla n A . Summar

y v s Full Repor

t 6-1 ' B . Content s o

f RM P 6-1 6 C . Availabilit

y o f the RM P 6-5 4 D . Availabilit

y t o the Publi c 6-6 9 E . Miscellaneou s 6-8 9 7 . Comment s o

n Managemen

t Syste m7- 1P. 5

8 . 9 .

10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . Comment s o

n Proces s Safet

y Information j 8- 1 Comment s o

n Proces s Hazar

d Analysi s A . Coordinatio n wit

h OSH A 9- 1 B . Technique s j 9-1 0 C . Requirement s o

f § 68.240 ) | 9-1 4 D . Othe

r Comment s , 9-2 1 Comment s o

n Standar d Operating Procedure s . 10- 1 Comment s o

n Trainin g ' 11- 1 Comment s o

n Maintenanc e Comment s o

n Pre-Startu

p Revie w . . . Comment s o

n Managemen

t o f Chang e Comment s o

n Complianc e Audit s Comment s o

n Inciden t Investigatio n 12- 1 13- 1 14- 1 15- 1

A . Type s o

f Accident s 1 16- 1 B . Repor

t 16- 7 C . Othe

r ' 16-1 1 17 . Comment s o

n Acciden t Histor y A . B . C . Type s o

f Release s t

o Cove r Type s o f Releas e Dat

at o Include 17- 1 17- 6 Othe r 17- 8 18 . Comment s o

n Emergency Respons e Progra m A . B . C . D . Drill s 18- 1 Redundanc y wit

h Othe r Federa l Rule s 18- 5 Relationship t

o HAZWOPE

R Othe r 19 . Comment s o

n Registratio n A . Timin g B . Data C . Us e o

f Othe r Form s D . Othe

r 18-2 7 18-3 1
19- 1 19- 9 19-1 8 19-2 4 20 . Comment s o

n Model RMP s 20- 1P. 6

21 . Comments o

n Audit s A . Agenc

y Procedure s 21- 1 B . Facilit

y Respons e 21-1 7 C . Othe

r Issue s 21-2 3 D . Third-Part

y Audit s 21-2 8 22 . Comments o

n OSH A PS M Overla

p A . Overla

p i n RM P an d PS M Rule s 22- 1 B . Enforcemen

t /

22-3 1 C . OSH

A PS M Provision s Omitted fro mth e RMP Rule 22-3 8 D . Othe

r Issue s 22-47 23 . Comment s o

n Publi c Participatio n 23- 1 24 . Comment s o

n Trade Secret s 24- 1 25 . Comment s o

n Altemativ e Technology Analysi s 25- 1 26 . Comment s o

n Coverag e b

y Othe r Regulation s A . Federa

l Program s 26- 1 B . Stat

e an d Loca l Program s 26-5 3 C . Voluntar

y Program s 26-7 7 27 . Comment s o

n Specifi c Industrie s A . Oil an

d Ga s Industr

y 27- 1 B . Propane and Agricultura l Chemica l Retailer s 27-3 1 C . Othe

r Industrie s 27-4 9 28 . Comment s o

n Stat e Implementation A . _Stat

e Agency 28- 1 B . Loca

l Agency a s Implementing Agenc y 28-1 5 C . Othe

r Progra mDelegation an

d Implementatio n Issue s 28-2 1 D . Interactio n betwee

n CA A Section 112(r

) an d Titl e V Progra

m28-3 9 29 . Comment s o

n Stat e an d Loca l Burde n 29- 1 30 . Comment s o

n Cost s 30- 1 31 . Comment s o

n Recordkeeping 31- 1 32 . Comment s o

n Genera l Dut y Claus e 32- 1 33 . Comment s o

n Othe r Issue s . „ 33- 134 . Comment s Beyon d th e Scop e o f the Notic e 34- 1 35 . Comment s o

n Acciden t Reporting 35- 1 Exhibit s Exhibit 1 : Comment s b

y Issue Categor

y iii Exhibit 2 : Lis t o f Acronym s v Attachment

s Attachmen t 1 : Alphabetica

l Lis t o f Commenters Attachmen t 2 : List o f Commenter s b

y Commente

r Numbe rP. 8

INTRODUCTIO N I n the Clea n Ai r Act Amendments o

f 1990 , signed int

o la w o n Novembe

r 15 , 1990 , Congres s amended sectio n 11 2 an

d added paragrap

h (r ) fo r the prevention o

f chemica l accidents . Th

e inten t o f sectio n 112(r

) i s t o preven t chemica l accidenta

l release s t

o the ai r an d mitigat e the consequence s o

f suc h release s b

y focusin g prevention measure s o

n chemical s tha

t pos e the greates t

risk t o the publi c an d the environment . Section 112(r)(3 ) o f the Clea n Ai r Act , a s amended , require s the U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc

y (EPA ) t o promulgat

e alis t o f a t leas t 10 0 substance s ("regulate d substances" ) tha

t ar e known to cause , o

r ma y b e reasonabl

y expecte d to cause , death , injury , o r seriou s advers e effects to huma

n healt h o r the environmen

t i f accidentally released . Thi s section require s EP A t o se t threshol d quantitie s fo

r eac h liste d substance . Thi s lis t o f regulate d substance s serve s to defin e the stationar

y source s tha

t will b e subjec

t t o acciden t prevention regulation s mandated b y section 112(r)(7) . EP

A promulgate d it s lis t

o f substance s o

n Januar y 31 , 199 4 (5 9 F R 4478 ) ("List

Rule") . Petitioner s an

d othe r members o

f the regulate d communit

y raise d anumbe

r o f issue s following EPA' s promulgatio n o

f th e Lis t Rule . I n respons e t

o thes e concems , EP

A i s proposin g the following modification s t o Lis t

Rule : delistin g explosives ; exempting fro mthreshol d determinatio n regulate d flammabl e substance s i

n gasoline an

d i n naturall y occurring hydrocarbo n mixmre s prio r t o initia l processing ; clarifying the provisio n fo r tiireshold determinatio n o

f flammable substance s i

n mixture s t

o exemp t mixture s tha

t d o no t hav e aNationa

l Fir e Protectio n Associatio n (NFPA) flammabilit y hazar d ratin g o f 4 ; modifyin

g th e definition o

f stationar y sourc e t o clarif y the exemption o

f transportatio n an

d storag e inciden

t to transportatio n an

d t o clarif y tha t naturall y occurrin g hydrocarbon reservoir s ar e no t stationar y source s o

r part s o f stationar y sources ; an

d clarifying tha

t the chemica

l acciden t preventio n provision s do no t

appl y to source s located o

n the Oute r Continenta

l Shel f ("OC S sources") . EP

A proposed thes e amendment s o n April 15 , 199 6 (6 1 F

R 16598) . A

t the sam e tim e (6 1 F R 16605) , EP

A proposed ashort-ter

msta y o f effectivenes s s o tha

t source s tha

t EP A ha s proposed no t

b e subject

t o par t 6 8 would no t

b e subject

to par t 6 8 unti l EP

A ha s determined whethe

r to procee d wit

h th e proposed Lis t

Rul e amendments . Sectio n 112(r)(7 ) mandate s tha t EP A promulgat

e regulation s an

d develo p guidanc e to prevent , detect , an d respon d t

o accidenta

l releases . Stationar

y source s covere d b

y thes e regulation s mus t develop an

d implemen

t arisk managemen

t progra mtha t include s ahazar

d assessment , apreventio n program , an

d a n emergency respons e program . Information abou t th e risk managemen

t progra mmus t b e documente d i

n aris k managemen

t pla n (RMP ) tha t mus t b e registere d wit

h EPA , submitte d to stat

e an d loca l authorities , an

d mad e availabl e to th e public . O n Octobe r 20 , 1993 , EP

A publishe d aNotic e . o f Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM ) fo r the section 112(r)(7 ) regulation s (5 8 F R 54190) . Followin g publicatio n o

f th e proposed mle , EP

A held fou

r publi c hearing s an

d receive d 75 7 writte n comment s i

n the docket

(A-91-73) . Becaus e o

f thes e comments , EP

A issued asupplementa

l notic e o f propose d rulemaking (SNPRM) o n Marc h 13 , 199 5 (6 0 F

R 13526) , an

d se t the perio d of submission fo

r thi s SNPR

M a t 60 days . I

n th e SNPRM , EP

A requeste d comment s on : approache s fo r settin g differen

t requirement s fo

r source s tha

t pos e differen

t level s o f hazar d (tiering) ; worst-cas e release s an

d othe r hazar d assessmen

t issues ; acciden

t information reporting ; publi c participation ; inherently safe

r approaches ; an

d implementation an

d integratio n o

f sectio n 112(r

) wit h stat e programs , particularly stat

e air permittin g programs . EP

A held apubli c hearin g o

n Marc h 31 , 1995 , i

n Washington , DC , an

d receive d a

n additiona

l 28 3 writte

n comments . I n total , EP

A receive d 122

0 letters , includin g 180 relevan t comment s transferre d fromth e Lis t Rul e docke

t (A-91-74) . Refe

r to Attachmen

t 1 fo r alis t o f the commenter s i

n alphabetica

l orde r an dP. 9

n Attachmen t

2 for alis t o f th e commenter s arrange d b y commente r number . Th e commenter s represente d 9 2 chemica l manufacturers , 8 1 othe r chemica l users , 11 1 petroleu mindustr y companies , 17 4 industr

y trad e associations , 4 0 othe r trad e associations , 5 8 agricultura l suppl y retailers , 10 2 propan e retailers , 13 2 explosive s users , 2 9 wate r treatmen t

facilities , 2 6 utilities , 6 6 stat e agencies , 6 3 loca l governments , 8 othe r Federa l agencies , 5 2 academic s an d consultants , 6 1 environmenta l groups , 6 labo r unions , an d 3 1 privat e citizens . Th e remainin g 8 8 letter s wer e request s for extension s o f

th e commen t period , interi mo r

duplicat e set s o f

comments , o r

ha d bee n sen t

t o th e incorrec t

docket ; thes e letter s ar e distinguishe d b y a n asteris k i n th e appendices . A s indicate d i

n th e tabl e below , EP A assigne d consecutiv e number s t o th e letter s receive d b y th e docket . Eac h lette r

wa s reviewe d t o identif y distinc t issue s o f concer n ("comments" ) raise d b y th e commenter ; th e comment s wer e numbere d sequentiall y throughou t eac h letter . A tota l o f approximatel y 880 0 individua l comment s wer e identifie d b y EP A i n th e 122 0 letters . Thi s documen t cite s specifi c comment s i n th e forma

t commente r number-commen tnumber . That is , 233-1 0 represent s th e tent

h commen t

identifie d i

n th e lette r

fro mcommente r

233 . Assigne d Lette r

Numbe r 001-73 6 753-94 2 943-94 7 1001-101 6 2001-226 6 2301-231 6 Docket/Notic e A-91-73/RM P Rul e NPR M A-91-74/Lis t

Rul e NPRM A-91-73/RM P Rul e NPR M A-91-73/RM P Rul e NPR M A-91-73/RM P Rul e SNPR M A-91-73/RM P Rul e SNPR M Statu s

lat e letter s lat e letter s Numbe r o f Letter s 73 6 18 0 5 1 6 267 l 1 6 Thi s documen t

present s summarie s o f

th e comment s receive d o n th e NPR M an d SNPR M an d EPA' s response s t o thes e comments , organize d b y th e issu e raise d i

n th e comment . EP A classifie d th e individua l comment s int o 3 5 issu e categories ; man y o f thes e categorie s wer e furthe r divide d int o a numbe r o f sub-categorie s (e.g. , Chapte r 1 : Tiering) . Th e categorie s an d sub-categorie s ar e identifie d i n th e Tabl e o f

Content s o f

thi s document . Eac h chapte r i s individuall y numbered ; th e entir e documen t i s 175 3 pages . Exhibi t

1 identifie s th e numbe r

o f comment s identifie d i

n eac h issu e categor y fromth e NPR M an d th e SNPRM . Fo r categorie s an d sub-categorie s wher e EP A substantiall y revise d aparticula r provision , th e comment s (an d EPA' s responses ) receive d on th e NPR M an d th e Lis t Rul e hav e bee n segregate d fro m thos e receive d o n th e SNPRM . Th e issu e categorie s an d sub-categorie s themselve s ar e sub-divide d int o section s (marke d wit h bol d tex t

i n th e document ) t o segregat e comment s o n th e sam e them e (e.g. , suppor t for th e definitio n o f

worst-cas e release) . Heading s i n italic s ar e furthe r

sub-division s an d ofte n distinguis h commenter s wh o wer e i n genera l agreement , bu t wit h differin g reason s (e.g. , we support this approach as protective ofthe environment fro mwe support

this approach as cost-effective).

Th e 125t h an d 126t h letter s receive d i

n thi s categor

y wer e assigned numbers 2125 aan d 2125b .P.1 0

•

•

• ii i Exhibi t1 : Comment

s b y Issu e Categor

y Issu e Categor

y 1 . Tierin g 2 . Definition s 3 . Significan

t Accidenta

l Releas e 4 . Worst-Cas e Releas e 5 . Offsit e Consequenc e Analysi s 6 . Ris k Managemen

t Pla n 7 . Managemen

t Syste m 8 . Proces s Safet

y Information 9 . Proces s Hazar

d Analysi s 10 . Standar

d Operating Procedure s 11 . Trainin g 12 . Maintenanc e 13 . Pre-Startu

p Revie w 14 . Managemen

t o f Chang e 15 . Complianc e Audit s 16 . Inciden

t Investigatio n 17 . Acciden

t Histor y 18 . Emergency Respons e Progra m 19 . Registratio n 20 . Mode l RMP s 21 . Audit s 22 . OSH A PS M Overla

p 23 . Publi c Participatio n 24 . Trad e Secret s 25 . Altemativ e Technology Analysi s 26 . Coverag e b

y Othe r Regulation s 27 . Specific Industrie s NPR M Comment

s 29 5 2 5 18 3 63 0 73 5 61 0 26 3 3 23 5 4 1 6 7 10 6 3 3 4 4 39 13 0 98 18 4 23 8 68 20 0 38 0 7 3 3 8 86 40 9 48 9 " T T" r

SNPR M Comment

s 62 9 2 7 37 7 37 8 7 5 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 7 8 1 11 4 11 4 1 10 5 29 2 0 > iI V p.1 1

Issu e Categor y 28 . Stat e Implementatio n 29 . Stat e an d Loca l Burde n 30 . Cost s 31 . Recordkeepin g 32 . Genera l Duty Claus e 33 . Othe r

Issue s 34 . Beyon d th e Scop e o f th e Notic e 35 . Acciden t

Reportin g NPR M Comment s 6 8 6 8 22 4 3 4 1 7 22 4 24 4 0 SNPR M Comment s 23 2 14 4 6 1 0 2 9 4 5 8 8T T "

Exhibi t2 : Lis to f

Acronym s A A AAE C ACGI H AEG L AH M AICh E AIH A AIR S ALOH A ANS I AP A AP A AQ D AQR V ARCHI E ARI P ARP P ASHRA E ASM E AST M AT C AT D BAC T BAT F BL M BT U CA A CAA A CA D CAME O CA S CB I CCP S Administerin g Agency , acomplianc e agenc y unde r California' s Ris k

Managemen t

an d Preventio n Progra m An y Advers e Effec t

Concentratio n America n Conferenc e o f Governmenta l Industria l Hygienist s Acut e Exposur e Guidelin e Levels , emergenc y exposur e level s fo r th e genera l publi c unde r developmen t

b y EP A Acutel y Hazardou s Material , achemica l regulate d unde r California' s Ris k

Managemen t an d Preventio n Progra m America n Institut e o f

Chemica l Engineer s America n Industria l Hygien e Associatio n Aerometri c Informatio n Retrieva l System , a n EP A databas e Area l Location s o f

Hazardou s Atmospheres , a n ai r dispersio n modelin g syste m develope d b y NOA A America n Nationa l Standard s Institut e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t America n Plannin g Associatio n Ai r Qualit y Distric t Ai r Qualit y Relate d Value s Automate d Resourc e fo r Chemica l Hazar d Inciden t Evaluation , asoftwar e program develope d b y FEMA , DOT , an d EP A Accidenta l Releas e Informatio n Program , areleas e dat acollectio n effor t b y EP A Accidenta l Releas e Preventio n Progra m America n Societ y o f

Heating , Refrigeration , an d Air-Conditionin g Engineer s America n Societ y o f

Mechanica l Engineer s America n Societ y fo r

Testin g an d Material s Acut e Toxicit y Concentration , define d b y Ne w Jerse y fo r it s Toxi c Catastroph e Preventio n Ac t America n Tabl e o f

Distances , atabl e tha t

set s saf e separatio n distance s betwee n location s o f

explosive s an d th e publi c an d betwee n explosive s magazines ; include d i n BAT F regulation s fo r

explosive s Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y Burea u o f

Alcohol , Tobacco , an d Firearm s o f th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Justic e Bureau o f

Lan d Managemen t

o f th e U.S . Departmen t

o f th e Interio r Britis h Therma l Uni t Clea n Ai r Ac t Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f

199 0 Computer-Aide d Desig n Computer-Aide d Managemen t o f Emergenc y Operations , a n emergenc y managemen t softwar e progra mdevelope d b y EP A an d NOA A Chemica l Abstract s Service ; th e CA S numbe r i s auniqu e numbe r

fo r chemica l identificatio n Confidentia l Busines s Informatio n AlChE' s Cente r

fo r Chemica l Proces s Safet yP.1 3

v i CHEI , CEEL-PEA K CE I CEPP O CERCL A CF C CFR CI A CIMA H CS E CSHI B CS I CS I CW A DDES B DEGADI S DO D DO E DO I DO T E& P E.O . EA E C E C EEG L EH A EH S EI A EI S EP A EPCR A ERN S ERP G FEM A FR FT E GR I HAC S Communit y Emergenc y Exposur e Levels , ceilin g exposur e level s fo r th e public ; guideline s for

thei r developmen t

wer e publishe d b y NAS , bu t n o level s wer e develope d aCEE L representin g amaximu mconcentratio n applicabl e t o ashort exposur e tim e Chemica l Exposur e Inde x develope d b y Do w U.S . EPA' s Chemica l Emergenc y Preparednes s an d Preventio n Offic e Comprehensiv e Environmental Response , Compensation , an d Liabilit y Ac t o f 198 0 (Superfund ) Chlorofluorocarbo n Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s U.S . Centra l Intelligenc e Agenc y Contro l o f

Industria l Majo r

Acciden t Hazards , acciden t

preventio n regulation s i n U K Chemica l Safet

y Engineer s Chemica l Safet

y an d Hazar d Investigatio n Board , afederal investigator y bod y authorize d unde r

th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t Chemica l Substance s Inventor y Complianc e Samplin g Inspectio n (CWA ) Clea n Wate r

Ac t aDO D explosive s standar d boar d Dens e Ga s Dispersion , aprogra mdevelope d b y th e U.S . Coas t

Guar d t o predic t contaminan t

movemen t

o f heavier-than-ai r

gase s U.S . Departmen t

o f Defens e U.S . Departmen t

o f Energ y U.S . Departmen t

o f th e Interio r U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n oi l an d ga s exploratio n an d productio n Executiv e Orde r Environmental Assessmen t (NEPA ) Emergenc y Coordinato r Europea n Communit y (Europea n Union ) Emergenc y Exposur e Guidanc e Level , develope d b y NR C a s aleve l acceptabl e for performanc e o f

specifi c task s b y military personne l unde r durin g emergenc y conditions , usuall y for

on e hou r Enhance d Hazard s Analysi s a n Extremel y Hazardou s Substanc e regulate d unde r EPCR A sectio n 30 2 Economi c Impac t

Analysi s Environmental Impac t

Statemen t U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Emergenc y Plannin g an d Communit y Right-to-Kno w Ac t o f 198 6 Emergenc y Respons e Notificatio n System , adatabas e o f informatio n on accidenta l release s o f

hazardou s chemical s Emergenc y Respons e Plannin g Guidelines , develope d b y AIH A Federa l Emergenc y Managemen t Agenc y Federa l Registe r Full-Tim e Equivalent , amean s o f approximatin g th e numbe r o f employee s a

t asourc e tha t include s part-tim e employee s Ga s Researc h Institut e Hazar d Assessmen t

Communicatio n Syste m(NRC )1 • • ! • - 1

•

•

-

• HAZCO

M HAZMA T HAZO P HAZWOPE

R H G HGSYSTE

M HMT A HRGV S IC R ICR C IDL H IDP G INPUF F IRI S ISE E k W L C L C LEP C LF L LGFST F LN G LOAE L LO C LP LP G MAC T MF L MIDAS MHIDAS MM S MOC MO U MPC A MP L MSD S MSH A ~ ' ' ' ~ r^ -rj?.<**"-.<? .'•- -.,.- ^—-°-mrr* ; '"^p " ~ - ' -.,••, ,

vi i OSH A Hazar d Communication Standar

d (2 9 CF R 1910.1200 ) hazardou s materia

l Hazar d an d Operabilit

y Study , aforma

l techniqu e fo

r evaluatin g hazard s OSH A Hazardou s Wast

e Operation s an

d Emergency Respons e Standar d (2 9 CF R 1910.120) mercur y Modeling syste

mdevelope d b

y the Industr

y Cooperativ e HF Mitigation/Assessmen t Progra mt o simulat e th e consequence s o

f hydroge n fluorid e (HF ) release s an

d asses s the effectivenes s o

f mitigatio n system s Hazardou s Material s Transportatio n Ac t Healt h Ris k Guidanc e Value s Information Collectio n Reques t Increase d Cance

r Risk Concentratio n Immediatel

y Dangerou s to Lif

e an d Health , concentration s develope d b y NIOS H fo

r respirator selectio n Industria l Disaste r Preventio n Grou

p (Delaware ) aGaussia n Puf f Dispersio n Model Integrate d Ris k

Information Syste

mdeveloped b

y EP A fo r healt h risk assessmen

t information Internationa

l Societ y o f Explosive s Engineer s Kilowat t Letha l Concentration ; LC 5 0 i s the concentratio n letha l to 5 0 percen

t o f tes t animals , LC L 0 i s the lowes t

concentratio n reporte d to have caused deat h i n tes t animal s Liqui d Chromatograph

y Loca l Emergency Plannin g Committe e Lowe r Flammabilit

y Limit , th e lowes t

concentratio n o

f aflammable vapo

r o r gas/ai r mixtur e tha t wil l ignit e an d bu m Liquified Gaseou s Fuel s Spill s Tes t Forc e Liquified Natura

l Gas Lowes t Observed Advers e Effec

t Leve l Leve l o f Concern , th e concentratio n o f a n EH S i n air abov e which ther

e ma y b e seriou s irreversibl e healt

h effects o

r deat h a s aresult

o f asingl e exposur

e fo r a relatively shor

t perio d o f time Liquified Petroleu

m Liquified Petroleu

mGa s Maximu mAchievabl e Contro l Technology Maximu mForeseeabl e Los s ga s dispersio n modellin g system Majo r Hazar d Inciden t DataService , aworld-wid e databan k o f ha2ardou s materia

l incident s tha

t resulte d i n or ha d th e potentia

l t o caus e offsit

e impact s Mineral s Managemen

t Servic e o f the U.S . Departmen

t o f the Interior Managemen

t o f Chang e Memorandu

mo f Understandin g MinnesotaPollutio n Contro l Ac t Maximu mProbabl e Los s Materia l Safet y Dat aSheet , acompilatio n o

f information require d fo

r hazardou s chemical s unde

r the OSH A Hazar d Communication Standar

d Min e Safet y an d Healt h Ac t P.1 4 T i

; 

### i 

## i

t 

### i i > 

# 1 i

iP.1 5

v m MSH A th e U.S . Departmen t o f Labor' s Min e Safet

y an d Healt

h Administratio n M W Molecula r Weigh t NAAQ S Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standar d unde r

sectio n 10 9 o f

th e CA A NA S Nationa l Academy o f Science s NEP A Nationa l Environmenta l Polic y Ac t o f 196 9 NESHA P Nationa l Emission s Standard s for Hazardou s Ai r

Pollutant s (CAA ) NFP A Nationa l Fir e Protectio n Associatio n NIOS H Nationa l Institut e o f Occupationa l Safet

y an d Healt

h N J DEP E Ne w Jerse y Departmen t o f Environmental Protectio n an d Energ y NOA A th e U.S . Departmen t o f Commerce' s Nationa l Oceanographi c an d Atmospheri c Administratio n NOAE L N o Observe d Advers e Effec t Leve l NPDE S Nationa l Pollutan t Discharg e Eliminatio n Syste m(CWA ) NP R Nationa l Petroleu mReserv e NPR M Notic e o f Propose d Rulemakin g NR C Nationa l Respons e Cente r NR T Nationa l Respons e Tea m NS A Nationa l Security Agenc y NSP S Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d OAQP S th e U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency' s Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin g an d Standard s OC A Offsit e Consequenc e Analysi s OC S Oute r

Continenta l Shel f OEC D Organizatio n fo r Economi c Cooperatio n and Developmen t OE S Californi aOffic e o f Emergenc y Service s OM B Offic e o f Managemen t

an d Budge t OP A Oi l Pollutio n Ac t o f 199 0 OP S Offic e o f Pipelin e Safet

y o f th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n OS C On-Scen e Coordinato r - th e pre-designate d local , State , o r Federa l officieal responsibl e fo r th e coordinatio n o f

ahazardou s material s respons e actio n OSH A Occupationa l Safet y an d Health Administratio n o f th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Labo r OSMR E Offic e o f Surfac e Mining , Reclamation , an d Enforcemen t o f th e U.S . Departmen t

o f th e Interio r P&L D Pipin g an d Instrumentatio n Diagra m PE L Permissibl e Exposur e Limit , enforceabl e occupationa l exposur e limit s fo r airborn e contaminant s establishe d b y OSH A PH A Proces s Hazar d Analysi s PHAS T Proces s Hazar d Analysi s Softwar e Tool , asyste mfor modelin g accidenta l release s PL C Potentiall y Life-Threatenin g Concentratio n POT W Publicl y Owne d Treatmen t Work s pp mpart s pe r millio n PR A Probabilisti c Ris k Assessmen t PRE P Nationa l Preparednes s fo r Respons e Exercis e Progra m PS D Preventio n o f Significan t

Deterioratio n PS I Proces s Safet y Informatio n ps i pound s pe r squar e inc h PS M OSH A Proces s Safet y Managemen t

Standar d (2 9 CFR 1910.119 ) QR A Quantitativ e Ris k Assessmen tP.1 6

' RCR A RE L RI A RM P RMP P R Q RR T RSP A SAFE R SAFE R SAR A SCB A SC I SER C SH I SI C 

### i SLA B SMCRA SNPR M SO P SPC C SPEG L SP R S Q STE L TCP A TIGE R TL V TN O TN T > ir / i x Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Ac t Recommende d Exposur e Limi t develope d b y NIOS H fo r hazardou s substance s o r J condition s i n th e workplac e < Regulator y Impac t

Analysi s ! Ris k Managemen t

Plan j Ris k Managemen t

Preventio n Program , th e Californi aacciden t preventio n progra m, Reportabl e Quantity , th e chemical-specifi c quantit y tha t trigger s reportin g unde r [ CERCL A o r

EPCR A sectio n 30 4 • Regiona l Respons e Team , th e regiona l federal plannin g an d respons e entity create d ( unde r th e Nationa l Contingency Pla n \ Researc h an d Specia l Program s Administratio n o f th e U.S . Departmen t

o f < Transportatio n Streamline d Approac h fo r Environmenta l Restoratio n j Compute r syste mdevelope d b y DuPon t fo r real-tim e modelin g o f

accidenta l release s Superfun d Amendment s an d Reauthorizatio n Ac t o f 198 6 (Titl e II I o f

SAR A i s als o j know n a s th e Emergenc y Plannin g an d Community Right-to-Kno w Act ) j Self-Containe d Breathin g Apparatu s Sensitiv e Compartmen t

Informatio n j Stat e Emergenc y Respons e Commissio n i Substanc e Hazar d Index , th e equilibriu mvapo r concentratio n o f

asubstanc e divide d b y ' aconcentratio n base d o n toxicit y o f th e substance ; use d b y Ne w Jerse y an d t o identif y toxi c substance s fo r

regulatio n j Standar d Industria l Classification , afour-digi t cod e tha t

classifie s publi c an d privat e activitie s A dens e ga s mode l develope d b y Lawrenc e Livermor e Nationa l Laborator y Surfac e Minin g Contro l an d Reclamatio n Ac t o f 197 7 Supplementa l Notic e o f

Propose d Rulemakin g Standar d Operatin g Procedur e Spil l Prevention , Control , an d Countermeasure s plan , apla n coverin g th e release s o f hazardou s substance s a s define d unde r authority o f

th e Clea n Wate r

Ac t Short-ter mPubli c Emergenc y Guidanc e Leve l (NRC) , asuitabl e concentratio n fo r unpredicted , single , short-ter memergenc y exposur e o f th e genera l publi c Strategi c Petroleu mReserv e Sufficien t Quantit y unde r

Delaware' s Regulatio n fo r th e Managemen t

o f Extremel y Hazardou s Substances ; define d a s th e quantit y tha t woul d creat e apotentiall y letha l concentratio n a

t th e facility boundar y if

release d ove r

aperio d o f

on e hou r Short-ter mExposur e Limit , usuall y a15-minut e TW A workplac e exposur e level ; STEL s adopte d b y OSH A ar e enforceabl e limits ; NIOS H an d ACGI H publis h recommende d STEL s th e Ne w Jerse y Toxi c Catastroph e Preventio n Act , whic h create d th e state' s acciden t preventio n program Topologicall y Integrate d Geographi c Encodin g an d Referencing , atyp e o f electroni c file containin g U.S . Censu s dat a Threshold Limi t

Value , airborn e concentration s publishe d b y ACGI H representin g level s t o whic h al l worker s may b e expose d repeatedl y withou t advers e effect s Bureau fo r

Industria l Safet

y o f th e Netherland s Trinitrotoluen eP.1 7

TO A Technolog y Option s Analysis , a n approac h t o acciden t

preventio n tha

t attempt s t o reduc e th e hazard , rathe r tha n th e risk TP Q Threshold Plannin g Quantity , aquantity establishe d fo r eac h EH S liste d unde r

EPCR A sectio n 30 2 T Q Threshol d Quantity , aquantity specifie d fo r eac h regulate d substanc e unde r sectio n 112(r) o f th e Clean Ai r

Ac t TR I Toxi c Chemica l Releas e Inventory , th e annua l emission s inventory require d unde r

EPCR A sectio n 31 3 TSC A Toxi c Substance s Contro l Ac t TSCREE N A mode l for screenin g toxi c ai r

pollutant s develope d for EP A t o assis t

stat e an d local agencie s i

n analyzin g toxi c emission s an d dispersio n TSD F Transportation , Storage , an d Disposa l Facilit y TW A Time-Weighte d Averag e US C Unite d State s Cod e USC G Unite d State s Coas t Guar d USG S Unite d State s Geologica l Surve y US T Underground Storag e Tan k VO C Volatil e Organi c Compoun d VP P Voluntar y Protectio n Progra m V Z Vulnerabl e Zone , th e estimate d are atha t may b e subjec t

t o concentration s o f

an airborn e hazardou s substanc e a t level s tha t

coul d caus e specifie d effect s o f concer n WEE L Workplac e Environmental Exposur e Leve l (AIHA) , airborn e chemica l exposur e limit s

t o whic h i

t i s believe d al l employee s coul d b e expose d repeatedl y withou t advers e health effect s WHAZA N Worl d Ban k Hazar d Analysis , aserie s o f compute r

program s for

performin g rapi d estimate s o f

hazardou s consequence s o f accidenta l release sP.3 1

3 . SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTAL RELEAS E O f the 11 4 commenter s wh

o submitte d comment s o

n the definition o

f significan t accidenta l release , onl

y fou r supported EPA' s propose d definition . Man y raise d objection s t

o the definition a s proposed o

n th e ground s tha

t i t exceeded th e inten

t o f Congres s an

d statator y authority , bot

h b y no t limiting coverag e t

o catastrophi c ai

r release s an

d b y includin g environmenta

l damage . Man

y commenter s sough

t mor e specifi c description s o

f term s use d withi

n the definition . Som

e commenter s objecte d to th e inclusio n o

f evacuatio n an

d sheltering-in-plac e a s criteria . Man y commenters suggested alternativ e definitions . A . OVERAL

L DEFINITIO N O

F ACCIDENTAL RELEAS E Commenter

s suppor tth e definitio n fo r th e following reasons :

• Evacuations , injuries , an d environmenta

l damag e ar

e deplorabl e an

d shoul d b e avoided . A broa d definition o

f acciden t i s mor e protectiv e o

f the public . (154-3 , 158-2 , 1011-3 )

• The definition largel y conform s t

o existin g industr

y practice . Som

e furthe r definition o f "potential " would b e useful . (489-7 )

• The definitio n fo

r significan t accidenta l releas e should b e base d o n thes e considerations : seriou s an d significan

t advers e huma

n healt h effects (death s o

r multipl e hospitalizations ) t o th e publi c resultin g fro

mexposur

e t o a n accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the air , significan

t advers e impact

a t apubli c gathering plac e suc h a s aresidenc e or

plac e o f business , an

d advers e environmenta

l impact onl y within the context

o f acut e advers e impact

to the healt

h an d safet y o f persons . Equall

y important , the definition fo r significan t accidenta l releas e should b e base

d o n thes e considerations : inconvenienc e to the public , includin g precautionar y evacuations , impact t o othe r industria l stationar y sources , impact

to road s an

d othe r transportatio n route s tha t ma y b e traverse d b

y the publi c fro

mtim e t o time , an d environmenta

l impact s tha

t d o no t result i n significant , advers e impac t t o th e healt h an d safet y o f persons . (2171-4 )

• For

clarification , adefinition should b e provide d fo r "publi c or

environmenta

l receptor o f concern. " Thi s seem s to indicat e uia t ther e ar e element s o

f th e publi c an

d the environmen

t i n whic h EP A i s not concerned ; w

e d o not believ e thi s i s conec t

o r appropriate . (2197-5 ) Agenc y Respons e Althoug h som e commenter s endorse d EPA' s definition o f significan t accidenta l release , EP

A decided tha

t asingl e genera

l definition wa s inappropriat e fo r all affecte d section s o

f the rale. I

n som e cases , suc h as acciden

t history , the covere d accident s ca n b e dictate d b

y impacts ; i

n othe r cases , suc h as the offsit

e consequenc e analysis , toxi c concentrations , overpressures , o r hea t radiatio n abov e the endpoint s ca

n b e use d to define the release s tha t nee d to b e considered . Consequently , EP A ha s decided to drop th e genera l definitio n an

d defin e the type s o

f release s tha

t should b e covered fo

r eac h requirement . T o suppor

t thes e individua

l requirements , EP

A ha s adde d definition s o

f the term s "environmenta

l receptor, " "injury, " "medica l treatment, " "publi c receptor " an d "environmenta

l receptor " an d adopted (wit

h statutorily necessar

y modifications ) the OSH

A definition o

f catastrophi c release .3-2

EP A believe s i

t i s necessar

y t o limit publi c an d [environmenta

l receptor s to thos e tha

t ca n b e specificall y identified . Publi c receptor i s limited t

o residences , institutions , commercia l or industria l buildings , park s o

r recreationa

l area s inhabite d o

r occupied b

y the public . The unlimite d definition th e commente r i s seekin g woul

d mak e i t almos t impossibl e !fo

r an y proces s t

o qualif y fo r Progra m1 , n o matte r ho w remot e the sit e was fro mthe publi c becaus e apubli c roa d woul d probabl y b e nea r th e site . Environmenta

l receptor s ar

e define d a s stat e an d nationa l parks , forests , an

d monuments ; officiall

y designate d wildlif

e refuges , preserves , sanctaaries , o r areas ; an d federa l wildernes s areas . EP

A limite d the area s t o thos e tha

t ca n b e easil y identified o

n USG S maps . EP

A note s tha

t fo r the purpos e o

f th e five-yea r acciden t history , reportabl e environmenta l damag e i s not

limite d t o environmenta

l receptors . ! Commenter

s oppos e th e definitio n for th e following reasons : The definition should

cover only releases with catastrophic potential

• Congres s intende d the scop e o f the regulation s t

o preven t catastrophi c chemica

l accidents ; the propose d rul e covers accident s tha t ar e fa r les s tha n catastrophic . (76

- 16 , 89-2 , 314-8 , 388-1 , 392-1 , 413-2 , 425-3 , 443-11 , 464-2 , 565-2 , 565-7 , 565-14 , 667-5 , 700-1 )

• B y potentially applyin g the proposed RM P regulatio n t

o non-catastrophi c releases , EP A goe s beyond th e statut

e an d make s the rul e to o broad . I n s o doing , EP

A ha s expande d the conten

t o f th e rale, whic

h will dilut

e the overall effort, significantl y increas e the cos t

o f the regulation , an

d provid e fe w i f an y safet y benefits . (392-1 ) Congres s onl

y intende d tha

t the RM P rul e cove

r "worst-case " scenarios . EPA , b y addin g the definition o

f "significan

t accidenta l release, " expand s the rule' s scop e beyond th e inten t o f Congres s becaus e the proposed provisio n require s plannin g fo r an y offsit e injury , regardles s o

f th e severity , an

d fo r advers e effects t

o huma n healt h or the environment , regardless o f the degre e o

f severity . (499-11 , 499-20 , 499-25 ) Th e propose d rale goe s beyond the requirement s necessar y t o addres s seriou s accidenta l release s tha

t coul d impact

the j communit

y b y defining "significan

t accidenta l release " t o include les s tha

n catastrophic

^ incidents . (685-2 ) EP A should focu s the lis t

o f regulate d substance s an

d it s subsequen

t proposa l fo r ris k managemen

t pla n (RMP) regulation s o

n the preventio n o

f catastrophi c releases . Th

e legislativ e histor

y clearly indicate s Congress ' inten t to direc t th e nation' s resource s t o addres s the preventio n o

f catastrophi c accidents . Fo r example , U.S . Senat

e bil l No . 816 , aprecursor

t o the 199 0 Clea

n Ai r Ac t Amendments , was describe d a s abil l ".. . t o contro l the releas e o

f toxi c air pollutants , t

o reduc e th e threa

t o f catastrophi c chemica

l accidents... " Furthermore , Senato r Durenberge

r introduce d S . 81 6 o

n April 18 , 1989 , usin g the following language , "itih e purpos e o

f thi s bill i s t

o preven t chemica l accident s lik

e uia t whic h occune d a

t Bhopa l an d requir e preparatio n t o mitigat

e the effect s o f thos e accident s tha

t d o occur. " Representatives , H . 2585 , was titled , " A Pollutants , to Reduc e the Threa t o f Catastrophi c Accidents... " A companion bil l i

n the U.S . Hous e o

f Bil l to Contro l the Releas e o f Toxi c Ai rP.3 3

3- 3 EP A clearl y acknowledge s i n th e Preambl e t o th e propose d lis t tha t th e focu s o f sectio n 112(r ) i s th e preventio n o f catastrophic releases , " .. . th e developmen t o f th e lis t unde r CA A Sectio n 112(r) , whic h focuse s o n th e preventio n o f catastrophic accidenta l releases. " 5 8 F R 5105 . I n addition , OSH A support s thi s appropriat e focu s in thei r companio n workplac e standard , Proces s Safet y Managemen t

o f Highl y Hazardou s Chemical s (PSM) , th e purpos e o f whic h i s ".. . preventin g o r minimizin g th e consequence s o f

catastrophic releases... " 2 9 CF R 1910.119 . CM A support s EPA' s continue d focu s o f thei r acciden t preventio n regulator y initiative s o n catastrophi c releases . Thi s focu s wil l hel p ensur e tha t th e nation' s resource s ar e devote d t o th e potentia l problem s tha t pos e th e greates t

risk t o th e public . (884-5 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s wit

h commenter s tha t

th e CA A intende d t o cove r onl y catastrophi c releases . Th e hazar d assessmen t

requiremen t

(sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I) ) cite s "estimat e o f potentia l releas e quantities. " Th e Conferenc e Repor t state s th e hazar d assessmen t shal l includ e arang e o f release s includin g wors t

case . Th e CA A define s accidenta l releas e broadl y an d limit s th e impact s onl y whe n i t set s th e criteri afo r

selectin g substance s fo r th e list ; th e definition , however , i s no t limite d t o liste d substances . I n CA A sectio n 112(r)(3) , th e Ac t state s that

substance s shal l b e liste d if the y caus e o r may b e reasonabl y anticipate d t o caus e death , injury , o r seriou s advers e effect s t o huma n healt h o r th e environment . EP A base d it s listin g o n th e potentia l t o caus e thes e effect s offsite . T o defin e distances , th e offsite consequenc e analysi s use s toxi c an d flammable endpoint s tha t reflec t th e potentia l t o caus e sever e effect s fro macut e exposures . EP A decide d tha t

asingl e definitio n o f

significan t

accidenta l releas e wa s inappropriat e fo r al l affecte d section s o f

th e rale. I n som e cases , suc h a s acciden t history , th e covere d accident s ca n b e dictate d b y impacts ; i n othe r cases , suc h a s th e offsite consequenc e analysis , toxi c concentrations , overpressures , o r

hea t radiatio n abov e th e endpoint s can b e use d t o defin e th e release s tha t nee d t o b e considered . Consequently , EP A ha s decide d t o dro p th e definitio n an d defin e th e type s o f release s tha t shoul d b e covere d fo r

eac h requirement . T o support thes e individua l requirements , EP A ha s adde d definition s o f

th e term s "environmenta l receptor, " "injury, " "medica l treatment, " an d "publi c receptor " an d adopte d (with statutoril y necessar y modifications ) th e OSH A definitio n o f catastrophi c release . EP A note s tha t

th e meanin g o f

"catastrophic " i s no t

clear . OSH A define d acatastrophic releas e a s on e tha t

ha s th e potentia l t o caus e seriou s danger , no t a s on e tha t

cause d specifi c effects . EP A di d no t

attemp t t o defin e th e ter mfurthe r becaus e th e Agenc y doe s no t believ e i t

i s usefu l t o engag e i n adebat e about , fo r example , ho w man y injurie s o f certai n type s nee d t o occu r befor e an acciden t woul d b e considere d o r whethe r acertai n numbe r

o f lesse r injurie s woul d b e th e equivalen t o f asingl e seriou s injury . I n an y event , industry ha s applie d th e concep t i n implementin g OSHA' s PS M standard , an d th e termapparentl y i s commonl y understood . The definition should

be limited

to air releases

• Th e rale shoul d cove r onl y release s t o ambien t air ; othe r

regulation s addres s release s t o wate r an d soil . (76-17 , 86-10 , 117-6 , 119-8 , 289-2 , 382-40 , 392-1 , 393-1 , 408-21 , 470-1 , 565-14 , 671-1 )P.3 4

3- 4

• CA A sectio n 112(r ) define s a

n accidenta l releas e a s th e unanticipate d emissio n o f a regulate d substanc e o r

othe r extremel y hazardou s substanc e int o th e ambien t ai r froma stationar y source . Therefore , th e definitio n shoul d reflec t th e Act' s inten t

an d specif

y tha t accidenta l release s ar e t o th e ambien t air , no t wate r o r groun d contamination . (687-4 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agrees . Th e definitio n o f accidenta l release , a s provide d i n CA A sectio n 112(r)(3) , alread y limit s th e release s o f concern t o release s t o th e ambien t air . EP A notes , however , tha t ai r release s coul d caus e contaminatio n o f wate r o r groun d (e.g. , depositio n o n crops) . The definition should

cover acute impacts only

• Othe r

regulation s ar e alread y i n plac e t o addres s th e les s acut e incident s includin g ai r toxic s regulation s unde r

CA A sectio n 11 2 (d) , (0 , (h) , an d (k) . B y applyin g th e propose d RM P regulatio n t o thes e chroni c incidents . EP A misread s th e statut e an d makes th e rul e to o broa d an d duplicative . I n doin g so , EP A ha s expande d th e conten t o f th e rule , whic h wil l dilut e th e overal l effort , significantl y increas e th e cos t o f th e regulation , an d provid e few i f an y safet y benefits . (32-2 , 393-1 , 565-14 , 667-5 , 671-1 , 700-1 )

• Th e definitio n doe s no t sa y whethe r

it applie s onl y t o acut e effects . Th e commente r assume s tha t

th e rul e i s no t

mean t t o appl y t o ver

y mino r effects , suc h a s transien t nasa l irritation , o r

t o effect s tha

t woul d occu r

onl y i n extremel y rar e case s wher e a perso n ha s ahypersensitivity . I t i s no t tha t thes e injurie s d o no t

matter , bu t

rathe r tha t ameaningfu l plannin g proces s ha s t o dra w th e lin e somewhere . Ye t thi s definitio n doe s no t dra w tha t line . Whe n th e definitio n speak s o f "advers e effects " t o th e environment , th e meanin g i s eve n les s clear . Th e definitio n shoul d b e limite d t o substantia l acut e human injury . (117-6 , 382-42 )

• I f EP A limit s th e definition' s scop e t o incident s wit h potentia l acut e effect s a s th e la w intended , facilitie s can bes t us e thei r investmen t

i n personne l and equipmen t t o reduc e th e numbe r

an d severity o f

incidents , thereb y providin g a n incentiv e fo r

continuou s improvement . (119-8 )

• A s EP A ha s acknowledged , sectio n 112(r)(7 ) i s no t intende d t o cove r

long-ter m release s o f

hazardou s substance s wher e potentia l publi c healt h effect s ar e similar

t o thos e associate d wit

h "chronic " exposure s ove r lon g period s o f

time , no r

i s sectio n 112(r>(7 ) intende d t o cove r "routine " release s o f

eve n larg e volume s tha t d o no t presen t th e potentia l fo r

potentiall y catastrophi c offsite impact s t o publi c health o r th e environmen t

fro m"short-ter mexposures. " (5 9 FR 4481-4482 ; Januar y 31 , 1994. ) Othe r provision s o f

sectio n 112 , a s wel l a s othe r section s o f

th e CAA , addres s th e potentia l impact s o f

suc h release s t o ambien t air . (413-2 )

• T o establis h tierin g criteria , G E urge s EP A t o modif y it s definitio n o f

"significan t accidenta l release " t o reflec t th e origina l congressiona l inten t o f addressin g seriou s releases , an d t o exclud e evacuatio n an d shelte r i n plac e events . EPA' s regulator yP.3 5

3- 5 definition stray s fro

mthe statator

y languag e o

f "seriou s advers e effects. " EP A ha s droppe d the wor

d "serious " i

n it s proposed criteria , wit

h th e effec t tha t afacilit y experiencin g les s significan t release s ma

y b e precluded fro

mTie r 1 statu s o r b e require d to unnecessaril

y compl y wit h amor e stringen t tier . W e propos e tha

t significan t accidenta l releas e should b e modifie d t o mea n "an y accidenta

l releas e o f a regulate d substanc e tha

t ha s caused o

r ha d the potentia

l t o caus e seriou s offsit

e consequence s t

o huma n healt h suc h a s deat h o r hospitalization. " (2162-13 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A decide d tha

t asingle definition o

f significan t accidenta l releas e wa s inappropriat

e fo r all affecte d section s o

f the rale. I

n som e cases , suc

h a s acciden

t history , th e covered accident s ca n b e dictate d b y impacts ; i

n othe r cases , suc h a s the offsit

e consequenc e analysis , toxi c concentrations , overpressures , o

r hea t radiatio n above th e endpoint s ca n b e used t

o defin e th e release s tha

t need to b e considered . Consequently , EP A ha s decided t

o drop th e definition an

d defin e the type s o

f release s tha

t shoul d b e covered fo

r eac h requirement . T o suppor

t thes e individua

l requirements , EP

A ha s added definition s o

f the term s "environmenta

l receptor, " "injury, " "medica l treatment, " an

d "publi c receptor " an d adopted (wit

h statutorily necessar

y modifications ) the OSH

A definition o

f catastrophi c release . Th e final rale doe s not

(no r di d the propose d rale) addres s long-ter meffect s fro

mchroni c exposure s or

an y impact s fro

mnon-accidenta

l releases . The fina

l rul e define s injur

y t o mea n an y effec t to ahuma

n being tha

t result s fro mdirec t exposur e t o toxi c concentrations , radian t heat , or overpressure s fro

maccidenta

l release s or

fro mthe direc t

consequence s o

f avapo r clou d explosio n fro ma n accidenta

l releas e an

d tha t require s medica

l treatmen t o r hospitalization . Fo r

th e mos t part , the minor , transien

t effects cited b

y the commente

r wil l no t mee t thes e criteria . EP A ha s no t define d "advers e effec

t t o the environment " directly . Fo r the offsit e consequenc e analysi s an

d acciden t investigation , the sourc e nee d onl y conside r whethe r on e o f the liste d environmenta

l receptor s coul d b e exposed . EP A recognize s tha

t attempting t

o defin e th e natur

e an d exten t o f potentia l impact s t

o th e environmen

t woul d impos e asubstantia

l burde n an d may , i n mos t cases , not b e feasibl e becaus e o

f the lac k o f datao n environmenta

l impacts . Fo r

acciden t histories , the owne r or operator mus t repor t o n an y know n environmenta

l effects , bu

t i s no t require d to carr

y ou t research to find or

otherwis e detail thes e effects . For Progra m1 eligibility , environmenta l damag e fro ma n acciden t release ma

y mak e aproces s ineligibl e fo

r Progra m1 , i f the damag e require d restoratio n or

response activit

y a t a n environmenta

l receptor . EP

A believe s tha

t onl y significan

t environmenta

l damag e will lea

d t o suc h activities . EP

A ha s no t included evacuatio n an

d shelterin g i

n plac e a s criteri afo

r release s tha

t woul d disqualif y aproces s fro

mProgra m1 , but release s tha

t result i n suc h action s mus t

b e reported i

n the five-year

acciden t history . I n regar d to Progra

m1 eligibility , the final rale restrict s thi s tie r t o source s tha

t ca n demonstrat

e tha t ther e ar e n o publi c receptor s within the distanc e t o a n endpoin t fro mtheir worst-cas e release . Theoretically , i

t should not

b e possibl e fo

r suc h asourc e t

o hav e ha d a n accidenta

l releas e tha t affecte d suc h receptors . Adverse health impacts must be defined

• EP

A need s to carefull

y defin e wha t i s mean t b y a n advers e effec

t to huma n health . Doe s EP A intend to mandat

e tha t zero-ris k b e the measur

e o f acceptabl e risk ? O r

IO" 6P.3 6

3- 6 a s i s currentl y th e practice ? O r IO" 4 o r eve n IO" 3 , whic h may b e mor e reasonabl e a s a practica l measur e o f

publi c healt

h outcomes ? A goo d definitio n o f acceptabl e risk, an d b y extensio n advers e healt h effect , i s critica l becaus e th e result s o f an y risk assessmen t

performe d unde r

thi s propose d rul e wil l b e mad e public . Companie s wil l b e force d t o defen d acceptabl e risk level s an d significan t

releases ; a

t aminimum , EPA mus t provid e pruden t

guidanc e tha t

companie s ca

n us e i n apractica l manner . (28-1 ) Comparison s o f

potentia l healt

h impact s fro

mdifferen t

facilitie s ar e mad e nearl y impossibl e i

f consisten t

definition s o f

thos e impact s (i.e. , th e translatio n o f predicte d concentration s int o significan t advers e healt

h effects ) d o no t

exist . (43-17 ) Advers e can b e broadl y interpreted . EPA shoul d offe r som e guidanc e t

o assis t compliance . (177-7 ) Advers e impact s shoul d b e limite d t o major/significan t conditions . (328-16 ) EP A doe s no t

defin e what

constitute s "advers e effects, " and , therefore , an y impac t o f an y kind , regardles s o f

degre e o f

harm , coul d potentiall y trigge r al l th e requirement s o f ne w Par t 68 . I s arelease' s contributio n t o aci d rai n a"significan t accidenta l release" ? Wha t abou t a n accidenta l releas e tha

t discolor s som e leave s on afe w tree s amil e away ? Wha

t i f th e releas e mad e someon e nervou s bu t di d no t otherwis e caus e physica l injuries ? Thes e ar e no t rhetorica l questions , an d the y wil l inevitabl y aris e and foste r protracte d dispute s i

f th e definitio n i s finalize d a s proposed . Therefore , th e Agenc y shoul d revis e th e propose d definitio n t o ad d th e followin g language : "death , physica l injury , o r

othe r seriou s advers e effects. " Addin g thi s ne w languag e t o th e definitio n o

f "significan t

accidenta l release " woul d provid e mor e objectiv e criteri at o determin e whethe r

asignifican t

releas e ha s occurred . (372-5 ) EP A shoul d conside r

th e offsit e consequence s t o sensitiv e population s i n it s determinatio n o f

th e ter m"significan t

accidenta l release. " (461-13 ) Th e wor d "serious " shoul d b e adde d t o th e phras e "advers e effects. " (524-3 ) Th e definitio n o f

"significan t

accidenta l release " i s to o vague . Wha t constitute s advers e effect s t o human healt h o r th e environmen t

need s t o b e mor e clearl y defined . Otherwis e temporary , non-threatenin g condition s migh t nee d t o b e addresse d unnecessarily . Fo r

instance , exposur e t o alo w concentratio n o f aga s fo r abrie f perio d coul d caus e eye s t o wate r for acoupl e o

f minutes . Peelin g onion s ha s th e sam e effect . Exposur e t o th e sam e ga s coul d caus e th e leave s on atre e t o turn yellow , bu t th e sam e thin g happen s i n autumn . A s asuggestion , advers e effect s t o human healt h coul d includ e exposure s whic h requir e medica l aid . includin g overnigh t hospitalizatio n fo r observation . (695-3 ) Advers e effect s suffere d b y firs t responder s shoul d b e considered . (702-5 ) EP A shoul d provid e adefinitio n o r criteri afo r

wha t constitute s a

n advers e effect . (946-8 )3- 7

Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h commenter s tha

t the languag e use d i

n the proposed definition o f significan t accidenta l releas e wa

s to o vague . EP

A ha s delete d th e definition an d replaced i

t wit h mor e specific requirement s fo

r the type s o

f release s that-nee d to b e considere d unde r differen t sections . The final rale define s injur

y t o mea n an y effec t t o ahuma n bein g tha

t result s fromdirec t

exposur e to toxi c concentrations , radian

t heat , or overpressure s fro

maccidenta

l release s or

fro mthe direc t

consequence s o f avapo r cloud explosio n fro

ma n accidenta

l releas e an

d tha t require s medica

l treatmen t o r hospitalization . Th

e minor , transien

t effects cite d b

y the commente

r wil l no t mee t thes e criteria . EP

A ha s adopte d adefinition o

f medica l treatmen t use d b y OSH A i n reporting occupationa

l illnes s an

d injuries . Thi s definition doe s not limi t injurie s t o thos e requirin g hospitalization , whic h the Agenc

y believe s i s to o stringen

t arequirement . A releas e tha t lead s peopl e t

o see k medica l treatmen t ma y hav e the potentia

l to caus e seriou s impacts , especially amon g vulnerabl e populations . EP A ha s no t define d "advers e effec

t t o th e environment " directly . Fo r the offsit e consequenc e analysi s an

d acciden t investigation , the sourc e nee d onl y conside r whethe r on e o f the liste d environmenta

l receptor s coul d b e exposed . EP A recognize s tha

t attempting t

o defin e th e natur

e an d exten t o f potentia l impact s t

o the environmen

t woul d impos e asubstantia

l burde n an d ma y no t b e feasible , i n mos t cases , becaus e o

f the lack o f datao n environmenta

l impacts . For

acciden t histories , th e owne r o r operator mus t repor t o n an y know n environmenta

l effects , bu

t i s not require d t o carr y ou t research t o find or otherwis e detai l thes e effects . O f the example s cited b

y th e commenter , a contributio n t

o aci d rai n woul d no t b e considere d a s environmenta l damage ; discolorin g or

defoliation o f leave s migh

t b e considere d i

f the impac t

was widesprea

d enoug h t o b e reported . EP

A notes , however , tha

t th e rale impose s n o requirement s o n source s fo

r suc h accident s beyond inclusio n i n th e five-year acciden t history . Fo r

Progra m1 eligibility , environmenta l damag e fro

ma n acciden t releas e ma y mak e aproces s ineligibl e fo

r Progra m1 , i f the damag e require d restoratio n or respons e activit

y a t a n environmenta

l receptor . EP

A believe s tha

t onl y significan

t environmenta

l damag e will lea

d t o suc h activities . EP A ha s no t defined effects base d o

n thei r probability . EP

A recognize s tha

t defining the likelihoo d o

f aspecifi c impac t

occurrin g i s no t

feasibl e i n mos t case s becaus e man

y factor s beyond th e quantit y an d duratio n o

f areleas e affec

t the chanc e tha

t i t wil l impact human s o r the environment . For the offsit e consequenc e analysis , EP A i s defining the distanc e o f concer n based o n th e distanc e t

o specified endpoints , whic

h ar e associate d wit

h potentia l effects , using conservativ e assumption s o n othe r factors , suc

h as win d spee d an d stability , fo

r worst-cas e analyses . Th

e endpoint s do no t

impl y tha t specific impact s will occur , bu t tha t thes e impact s ar

e possibl e whe

n peopl e ar

e expose d to thes e toxi c concentrations , overpressures , or hea t radiation . Th e endpoint s tha

t hav e bee n selecte d ar

e based , to the exten

t possible , o

n effects to th e genera l public , whos e member s ar e not traine d i n protectiv e action , d

o not hav e protectiv e equipment , an d ma y b e mor e vulnerabl e tha

n workin g adults , suc

h a s first responders . Responde

r injuries , hwoever , trigge

r inclusio n o

f areleas e i

n the five-year

acciden t history . Injury must

be defined

• EP

A should defin

e the numbe

r an d severit y o f injurie s tha

t trigge r the definition . (32

- 2 , 76-16 , 388-1 , 526-5 )P.3 8

3- 8

• Onl y significan t

injurie s shoul d b e covered . (77-1 , 117-6 . 328-16 , 382-142 )

• Withou t

amor e specifi c definitio n o f "injury, " alarg e numbe r o f release s may b e categorize d a s "significan t accidenta l releases. " Th e commente r recommend s tha

t for clarit y injur

y shoul d b e furthe r

define d t o eliminat e an

y doub t tha t mino r injuries , o r thos e no t requirin g medica l attention , ar e no t t o b e considere d a s a

n "injury " for

th e purpos e o f

definin g offsite consequence . Thi s poin t i s importan t

becaus e unde r

th e hazar d assessmen t

th e propose d rul e require s analysi s o f "othe r mor e likel y significan t accidenta l releases " withou t guidanc e on wha

t woul d b e considere d a

n adequat e numbe r o f scenario s t o b e analyzed . With th e term s no t defined , th e numbe r

o f potentiall y significan t

scenario s coul d b e infinite . (361-3 , 701-3 , 701-5 )

• "Injury " i s vagu e an d need s t o b e defined . (295-7 )

• Injurie s suffere d b y firs t responder s shoul d b e considered . (702-5 )

• EP A shoul d provid e adefinitio n o r criteri afo

r wha t constitute s a

n advers e effect . (946-8 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s tha t

injur y shoul d b e define d and has , therefore , adde d adefinition . Th e fina l rul e define s injur

y t o mea n an y effec t

t o ahuman bein g tha

t result s fro mdirec t

exposur e t o toxi c concentrations , radian t

heat , o r overpressure s fro maccidenta l release s o r fro mth e direc t

consequence s o f avapo r clou d explosio n fro ma n accidenta l releas e an d tha t require s medica l treatmen t o r hospitalization . EP A ha s adopte d adefinitio n o f medica l treatmen t

use d b y OSH A i

n reportin g occupationa l illnes s an d injuries . Thi s definitio n doe s no t limi t injurie s t o thos e requirin g hospitalization , whic h th e Agenc y believe s i s to o stringen t arequirement . A releas e tha t lead s peopl e t o see k medica l treatmen t

ma y hav e th e potentia l t

o caus e seriou s impacts , especially amon g vulnerabl e populations . EP A disagree s wit h th e commente r

tha t injurie s shoul d b e limite d b y th e numbe r tha t occur . A singl e seriou s injur y t o th e publi c indicate s th e potentia l fo r greater harm , an d th e accidenta l releas e tha t cause d th e injur

y shoul d b e covere d b y thi s rule . Th e endpoint s tha

t hav e bee n selecte d ar e based , t o th e exten t possible , o n effect s t o th e genera l public , whos e member s ar e no t traine d i n protectiv e action , d o no t hav e protectiv e equipment , an d ma y b e mor e vulnerabl e than workin g adults , suc h a s firs t responders . Responde r

injuries , hwoever , trigge r

inclusio n o f

areleas e i

n th e five-yea

r acciden t history . Thresholds should

define covered

releases

• Th e rul e shoul d b e limite d t o release s tha t ar e greate r

tha n th e threshol d quantity . Thi s wil l distinguis h betwee n minima l unplanne d release s o f regulate d substance s (suc h a s a n explosive s misfire ) tha t i s unlikel y t o caus e an

y offsite injurie s o r

damage , bu t migh t b e s o interprete d i n th e EPA' s "wors t cas e scenario " approach . Misfire s o f previousl y undetonate d materia l d o occasionall y occu r a t mines , an d suc h incident s ar e regulate d b y MSH A and hav e reportin g requirement s unde r th e Min e Act . However , ther e i s n o nee d t o requir e min e operator s t o report thes e a s accidenta l release s t o EP A3- 9 a s well , becaus e th e environmenta l impac t i s n o differen t

fro mwha t

occur s in a planne d detonatio n o f

explosive s a

t mine s o r quarries . (110-5 )

• Th e definitio n o f significan t

accidenta l release s a s propose d b y EP A fo r determinin g th e nee d fo r

a n acciden t

investigatio n i s muc h to o broad . I t woul d b e mor e appropriat e t o limi t

"significan t

accidenta l releases " t o thos e release s tha t ar e i n exces s o f th e reportabl e quantit y a s define d in th e Communit y Right-to-Kno w regulations . (689-4 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s with th e commen t tha t covere d release s shoul d b e define d b y releas e quantity . EP A note s tha t

man y reportabl e quantitie s ar e base d o n effect s othe r tha n acut e effects ; man y o f th e quantitie s are low , base d o n othe r effects , and , i n som e cases , may no t caus e acut e effects . Usin g th e threshol d quantit y als o i s no t appropriate . Release s o f smalle r quantities , i n som e cases , ma y caus e offsit e impacts ; i n othe r

cases , large r

release s ma

y resul t in n o impact s becaus e mitigatio n technologie s confine d th e releas e t o th e sit e o r becaus e o f

weathe r condition s an d lac k

o f receptor s o f

concern . EP A believe s i t

i s bette r t o defin e th e accident s that nee d t o b e include d i n th e five-year acciden t histor y b y th e actaa l impacts . Thi s approac h wil l limi t th e reportin g t o release s o f concern, rathe r

tha n coverin g mino r

release s tha t

ha d n o effect s an d may no t hav e migrate d offsite becaus e o f respons e an d mitigatio n efforts . Th e acciden t investigatio n requiremen t i s limite d t o release s tha t cause d o r

ha d th e potentia l t o caus e aseriou s dange r t o publi c health o r

th e environment . Dependin g o n location , thes e release s ma

y includ e quantitie s abov e o r belo w th e thresholds . Finally , th e worst-cas e releas e scenari o i s define d a s th e releas e o f th e larges t

quantit y o f

aregulate d substanc e i n avesse l o r pipe . I f asourc e ca n demonstrat e tha t

th e distanc e t o di e endpoin t unde r worst-cas e condition s i s les s tha n th e distanc e t o an y publi c receptor , th e proces s may b e eligibl e fo r Progra m1 . Potential to cause should

be defined

or deleted

• Th e definitio n o f "significan t

accidenta l release " a t

§68. 3 need s mor e clarificatio n regardin g potentia l offsit e consequences . Th e phras e "wit h potentia l fo r

offsit e consequences " i s redundan t a s cunentl y containe d in §68.15(f) . Ho w wil l thi s potentia l b e determined ? (172-9 )

• Ther e i s n o mentio n i n th e legislativ e histor y o r sectio n 112(r ) o f

th e Ac t tha t refer s t o th e phras e "o r

th e potentia l t o cause. ' Thi s requiremen t fa r exceed s th e statutor y authorit y o f

sectio n 112(r) . Thi s phras e shoul d b e delete d fro mth e definition . (177-7 )

• Th e definitio n o f "significan t

accidenta l release " shoul d no t b e change d t o includ e nea r misses . Suc h situation s d o no t constitut e release s covere d b y th e Clea n Ai r Act . (374

- 21 ) Th e definitio n largel y conform s t o existin g industry practice . Som e furthe r definitio n o f "potential " woul d b e useful . (489-7 ) Usin g th e wor d "potential " i n thi s definitio n i s to o broa d an d easil y misunderstood . EP A shoul d modif

y thi s definitio n t o eithe r omi t us e o f thi s ter mentirel y o r

replac e i t with th e ter m"likel y potential" . Fo r example , doe s EP A conside r areleas e o f

aliqui d3-1 0 i fro matan k int o adike d are aapotentia

l releas e eve

n thoug h al l the materia

l was contained ? Or , i s aleak

y valv e (wher

e onl y asmal l amoun t i s actuall y released) considered asignifican

t release , becaus e i

f th e lea k wa s no t detecte d fo

r alon g tim e i t ma y b e significant ? Unde

r thi s definition , virtuall

y an y releas e woul

d hav e the "potential " fo

r causin g asignifican

t release . (573-2 )

• Th

e concept o f "potential " mus t

b e evaluate d i

n the mind s o

f the first respons e personne l a s the y ar e the one s wh

o mus t determine th

e natur e o f the respons e an

d whethe r step s t o protec t the publi c ar

e necessary . (702-5 )

• Th

e phras e "potentia

l to cause " ma

y b e to o vague t

o b e use d fo

r quantitativ e evaluations , becaus e eve

n the smalles t

releas e ma

y have a"potential " t

o caus e death , injur y o r advers e effect . Eve

n abes t gues s ma y not b e sufficien

t t o mak e the evaluations . Therefore , i t

i s suggested tha

t th e phrase , "potentia

l to cause " b e eliminated fro

mth e definitio n o

f "significan

t accidenta l release. " (1005-3 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A ha s deleted the definitio n o f significan t accidenta l releas e and , therefore , ha s delete d the phras e "potentia

l t o cause " an

d adopte d OSHA' s languag e "reasonabl y hav e resulte d in " i

n the acciden t investigatio n section s (§ § 68.6 0 an d 68.81 ) t o describ e th e kin

d o f inciden t tha t a n owne r o r operator must investigate . EP

A suggest s tha

t the result s o

f the PH A o r hazar d review will hel

p source s identif

y the kind s o

f release s tha

t could reasonably result

i n acatastrophi c release . I

n man y cases , aleak

y valv e ma

y no t reasonably result

i n aseriou s release ; i

n som e cases , however , alea

k ma y b e caused b

y factor s suc

h a s conosio n or

hig h pressur e tha t could lea d t o alarge-scal e failure . Th e hazar d evaluation s should assis t source s i n definin g whic h smal l release s pos e significan

t risks. I n othe r requirements , the potentiall y affecte d population s ar

e defined as being withi

n th e distanc e t o a n endpoint . The dispersio n modeling tha t produce s the distanc e to th e endpoin t i n effec t define s the potentia

l t o cause . The offsit

e consequenc e analysi s results ar e intende d to creat

e a dialogu e betwee

n the sourc e an

d th e communit

y an d hel p determine plannin g needs . The y ar e not time , respons e personne l an d sourc e staf

f wil l protectiv e actions . intende d t o provide directio n durin g aresponse . A t tha t b e abl e t o consult t o determin e appropriat

e respons e an

d EP A disagree s wit

h the commente

r wh o state d tha

t th e CA A doe s no t

mention potentia

l releases . Th

e hazar d assessmen

t requiremen

t i n CA A sectio n 112(r)(7)(b)(ii)(I ) state s tha t source s mus t analyz e potentia

l effects o f accidenta l releases . Becaus e seriou s accidenta l release s ar

e relatively rar e events , thes e analyses , o

f necessity , dea

l wit h potentia l releases . I

n addition , EP

A note s tha

t th e acciden t histor y cover s onl

y accident s tha

t ha d specific effects . Th

e acciden t investigatio n languag e wa s adopte d fromth

e OSH A PS M standard , whic

h cover s release s tha

t ma y reasonably result

i n seriou s danger . EP

A believe s i

t i s importan

t to maintain therefore , ha s retaine d OSHA' s language . consistenc y wit h the PS M standar

d and , Other Accident s involvin g on-sit e death s an

d injurie s should b e covered ; withou t them , th e five-year acciden t histor y will b e missing crucia

l information . (49-1 )P.4 1

3-1 1 The determinatio n o

f wh o make s the decisio n o

f whe n a n accidenta

l releas e i s a significan t accidenta l releas e i s no t

clear . I t appears EP

A wil l allo w the facilit

y t o d o this . W e disapprov e o

f thi s method . Facilitie s wil l alway s tr y to minimiz e their release s b y definin g the mou t o f regulator y control . W

e believ e EPA' s definition need s to ver

y clearl y tell wha t amount s ar

e considere d significan

t fo r eac h chemical , keepin g i n min d worst-cas e weathe

r an d othe r scenarios . Otherwis e yo

u hav e the regulate d communit

y definin g wha t i s significant . (128-3 ) The risk managemen

t pla n should addres s onl

y "significant " accidenta

l releases , rathe

r tha n all release s an

d nea r misses . B y specifying "significant " releases , EP A reinforce s tha t the focu s o

f thi s standar

d i s proces s safety , no

t merel y unplanne d emissions . Moreover , b

y specifyin

g the potentia

l significan

t releases , LEPC s wil

l b e able t o focu s o n the information necessar

y t o effectivel

y allocat e resource s fo

r emergency planning . (382-122 ) Accident s tha

t d o not caus e on-sit

e injurie s an

d hav e n o offsit

e impac t should not

b e covered . (538-1 ) I n ligh t o f the change s propose d i

n th e notice , SOCM

A recommend s tha

t EP A updat e th e definition o

f significan t accidenta l release . Th

e definition i s no t

consisten t wit h the preambl e discussio n unde

r Sectio n C . Acciden

t Information Reporting , whic h refer s t o accidenta l release s whic

h result i n "death , injury , evacuation , propert y damage , o

r offsit e environmenta

l impacts. " SOCM

A prefer s the latte

r languag e o

f the re-propose d rale a s i t i s mor e definitiv e an

d les s subjective . Becaus e the five-year histor y o f significan t accidenta l release s i s a

n essentia l determinan

t o f whethe r afacilit y could b e subject t o aTie r I RMP , i t i s ver y importan

t tha t asignifican

t accidenta l releas e b e unambiguousl

y defined . I

f the determinatio n wer

e to b e based o

n estimations , whic

h migh t vary , o f whethe r the potentia

l t o caus e a n advers e effec

t migh t hav e take n place , anothe r are ao f controvers y coul d b e introduce d int o the applicatio n o

f the rale. (2012-5 , 2109-5 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h the commente

r wh o state s tha

t th e definition o

f significan t accidenta l releas e neede d mor

e precision . EP

A decided tha

t asingl e definition was inappropriat e fo r al l affecte d section s o f the rule . I

n som e cases , suc

h a s acciden

t history , the covere d accident s ca n b e dictate d b

y impacts ; i n othe r cases , suc h a s the offsit

e consequenc e analysis , toxi c concentrations , overpressures , or hea t radiatio n abov e the endpoint s ca n b e use d t

o defin e the release s tha

t need t o b e considered . Consequently , EP

A ha s decided t

o drop the definition an

d defin e di e type s o

f release s tha

t should b e covere d fo r eac h requirement . EP

A believe s tha

t thi s approach wil

l provide sources , an

d othe r intereste d parties , wit

h aclea r definition i

n eac h cas e o f th e type s o

f accident s tha

t mus t b e considere d unde r the specific elements . T

o suppor t thes e individua

l requirements , EP

A ha s added definition s o

f the term s "environmenta

l receptor, " "injury, " "medica l treatment, " an

d "publi c receptor " an

d adopted (wit h statutorily necessar

y modifications ) the OSH

A definition o

f "catastrophi c release." EP A ha s liste d information o

n on-sit e death s an

d injurie s i

n the criteri afo

r including a

n acciden t i n the five-year

acciden t history . Suc

h information i s relevan

t becaus e i t ma y reflect safet y practice s a

t the source . EP

A ha s not included on-sit

e injurie s o

r death s i n othe r requirement s becaus eP.4 2

3-1 2 , the focu s o

f thi s rul e i s to protec t

publi c healt

h an d the i environment . Consequently , on-sit e injurie s an d death s ar

e not include d i

n th e criteri afo

r the acciden

t recor d tha t i s use d t o determine Progra

m1 eligibility . Progra

m1 provide s reasonabl e requirement s fo r processe s fro

mwhic h aworst-cas e releas e coul d no t affec t publi c receptors . I

f no additiona

l preventio n step s ar

e needed to protec t

thes e receptors , i

t woul d b e unreasonabl e t

o impos e the mor

e stringen t requirement s o

f Program s 2 o

r 3 o n thes e processes . OSH

A regulation s should b e sufficien t t o protec t worke r healt h an d safety . EP

A will , however , requir

e submission o

f information i

n the release s tha

t hav e ha d seriou s on-sit

e impacts . five-year acciden t histor y o n an y accidenta

l B . INCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT S Thre e commenter s supporte d the inclusio n o f environmenta

l impact s i

n definin g significan

t accidenta l releases ; 5 9 commenter s opposed coverin g environmenta l impacts . Thos e opposing th e inclusio n o

f environmenta

l impact s cite d anumbe

r o f reasons , including Congressiona l intent , statutor

y language , th e burde

n an d lac k o f benefits , th e inadequac y o f existing datat

o conduct analysi s o

f environmenta

l impacts , an

d coverag e b

y othe r rales. A languag e wa s to o vagu e an d suggeste d alternative s t

o c numbe

r o f commenter s state d tha

t the rale arif y an d nano w th

e scop e o f the rale. Commenter

s suppor tth e inclusio n o

f environmenta

l impact s for th e following reason s The mor e restrictiv e languag e propose d actaa l sever e accident s i

n whic h n o on e b y Ne w Jerse y an d CM A woul d exempt man y wa s killed . Evacuations , injuries , an d environmenta

l damag e ar

e deplorabl e ari

d should b e avoided . A broa d definitio n o

f acciden t i s mor e protectiv e o

f the public . (154-3 , 158-2

) Opponent s o

f thi s definition do not

tak e int o accoun t the fires tha

t could star

t outside thei r plan t sit e an d bu mnativ e grassland , brash , o r fores t ecosystem s becaus e o

f a n explosio n or

othe r release . Air

pollutio n (e.g. , acid rain ) ca n travel long o

r shor t dis

(213-6 ) tance s an d kil l vegetatio n an

d wildlif e Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s tha

t environmenta

l impact s o

f accidenta l release s need t

o b e considered . However , EP

A decide d tha

t asingl e definitio n o

f significan t accidenta l releas e wa s inappropriat

e fo r all affected section s o

f the rule . Consequently , EP A ha s decide d t

o drop the definition an

d defin e the type s o f release s tha

t shoul d b e covere d fo

r eac h requirement . Fo

r acciden t histories , owne

r or operator mus t repor t o n an y know n environmenta

l effects , bu

t i s not require d to carr

y out researc h t o find o r otherwis e detai l thes e effects . Fires , suc h as thos e cite d b

y one commente

r an d exposur e t o toxic s fro ma n accidenta

l releas e tha

t kill s wildlif

e o r vegetation , woul

d hav e to b e reported i

n th e acciden t history . Fo r

Progra m1 eligibility , environmenta l damag e fro

ma n acciden t releas e ma

y mak e aproces s ineligibl e fo

r Progra m1 , i f the damag e require d restoratio n o r respons e activit

y a t a n environmenta

l receptor . EP

A believe s tha

t onl y significan

t environmenta

l damag e wil

l lea d t o suc h activities . EP

A believe s tha

t thi s approac

h i s consisten

t wit h the statator

y mandate .3-1 3 Commenter s oppos e th e inclusio n o f environmenta l impact s fo r th e followin g reasons : EPA has exceeded

the intent

of Congress to focus on accidents affecting public health and safety

• Congress ' inten t

wa s fo r th e RM P regulatio n t o focu s o n th e preventio n an d mitigatio n o f catastrophi c release s tha t coul d impac t

publi c healt

h an d safety . Base d on th e legislativ e histor y o f

th e CAAA , i t

i s clear tha t Congress intende d fo r

release s t o th e environmen t

t o b e addresse d withi n that context , i.e. , onl y t o th e exten t tha t the y coul d caus e seriou s huma n health effects . Congress ' inten t t o focu s on publi c health an d safet y wa s mad e ver

y clea r i n sectio n 112(r)(4 ) wher e i t direct s EP A t o conside r thre e factor s i n listin g regulate d substances . (48-2 , 76-16 , 90-2 , 124-1 , 313-2 , 371-5 , 382

- 41 , 382-141 , 390-30 , 392-1 , 393-1 , 396,1 , 425-2 , 437-2 , 464-2 , 470-1 , 509-6 , 545-7 , 565-16 , 629-4 , 667-5 , 671-3 , 674-6 , 685-2 , 693-1 , 2020-17 , 2068-24 , 2252-3 )

• Nowher e i n CA A sectio n 112(r) hav e w e bee n abl e t o find an y referenc e t o th e assessmen t

o f th e environmenta l factor s specifie d in § 68.1 5 o f th e RM P proposal . (48

- 2 , 90-2 , 124-1 , 565-16 , 671-3 , 693-1 )

• Th e thre e criteri at o b e use d t o selec t chemical s fo r

th e listin g o f

regulate d substance s d o no t includ e environmenta l impact . Environmenta l impac t i s no t mentione d whe n describin g ho w t o se t

thresholds . (117-5 , 123-2 , 371-5 , 382-54 , 388-2 , 392-1 , 423-2 , 512-5 , 557-13 )

• Congres s clearl y directe d EP A no t t o addres s environmenta l effect s in th e RM P rule . I n fact , i n sectio n 112(a ) o f th e statate , "Definitions" , Congress specificall y exclude d th e definitio n o f

"Advers e Environmenta l Effect " fo r purpose s o f

sectio n 112(r) . (371

- 5 , 545-7 )

• Th e firs t

mentio n ofth e environmen t occur s i n sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(i) . Th e Ac t say s tha t "th e regulation s shal l includ e procedure s an d measure s fo r emergenc y respons e afte r a n accidenta l releas e o f

aregulate d substanc e i n orde r t o protec t

huma n health an d th e environment. " Thi s i s th e onl y referenc e t o th e environmen t i n paragrap h (B)(i) , an d clearl y refer s onl y t o post-releas e emergenc y respons e activities . Next , in sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(ii) , Congres s specified , i n relevan t part , tha t

th e pla n mus t provid e apromp t

emergenc y respons e t o an y suc h release s i n orde r t o protec t huma n healt h an d th e environment . Thus , th e statut e i s consisten t i n identifyin g environmenta l harm s a s atopi c whic h thi s rale mus t addres s onl y i n th e contex t o f emergenc y response . Th e hazar d assessment s shoul d includ e adeterminatio n o f downwin d effects , "includin g potentia l exposure s t o affecte d populations. " Thus , Congres s wa s referrin g t o people . Paragrap h (B)(ii)(III ) onc e agai n refer s t o th e environment , i n describin g " arespons e progra mprovidin g fo r

specifi c action s t o b e take n i n respons e t o a n accidenta l release. " Thus , ther e i s tota l consistenc y in placin g environmenta l effect s exclusivel y i n3-1 4 the "emergenc

y response " arena . Ther

e i s no furthe

r mention o

f the environmen

t anywher e els e i n sectio n 112(r)(7 ) o

f the Act . (382-54 , 382-141 , 557-13 ) The requiremen

t t o determin e whethe

r the environmen

t ha s bee n adversely affecte

d i n a"significan

t accidenta l release " i s undul

y harsh becaus e the environmen t ca n mea n everythin g i

n the sunoundings . The Senat e Committee Repor

t indicate d tha

t the ter m accidenta l releas e mean s ".. . caus e or ma y caus e immediat

e (or near-term) death , seriou s injur

y o r substantia l propert y damage. " (387-3 ) The legislativ e histor

y o f CA A sectio n 12(r

) support s th e conclusio n tha t injur y t o huma n health , o

r damag e t o the environmen

t tha t result s i n suc h injury , i s th e primar

y concern . I

n th e Repor t o f th e Committe e o

n Environmen

t an d Publi c Work s accompanying S . 1630 , on e o f the legislativ e vehicle s fo

r CA A section 112(r) , the Committee stated tha

t the accidenta

l releas e provision "addresse s substance s which , whe n release d int

o the air i n significan

t quantities , may , even i

n period s o

f limite d exposure , caus e deat

h o r illness . " S . Rep . No . 228 , 101st Cong. , 1s t Sess. , 205-20 6 (1989) . Ever

y releas e cite d b

y Congres s i

n the legislativ e histor

y (an d EP A i n the preambl e t

o the propose d rale) focuse s o n the numbe

r o f peopl e kille d or

injured a s a result o f the release . I

n conjunction wit

h the accidenta

l releas e program , Congres s did not discus s environmenta

l damag e unles s tha

t damag e threatene d huma

n healt h an d safety . See , e.g. , Repor

t o f the Committee o

n Energ y an d Commerce , H.R . Rep . No . 490 , 101s t Cong. , 2 d Sess. , pt . 1 , a

t 154-15 7 (1990) . (423-2 , 425-2 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s wit

h the propositio n expresse d b y thes e commenters , becaus e the Agenc y finds n o ambiguit

y i n section 112(r

) tha t require s resor

t t o extra-legislativ e source s t o discer n whethe r Congres s mean

t to addres s environmenta

l impact s i

n the accidenta

l releas e preventio n program . I n sectio n 112(r)(l) , Congres s unambiguousl y state s tha

t "th e objectiv e ofth e regulation s an d program s authorize d unde

r thi s provision " i s t

o prevent the accidenta

l releas e o f an y 112(r)-liste d (o

r othe r extremely hazardou s substance ) an d t o minimiz e th e consequence s o f an y accidenta

l releas e o f thes e categorie s o

f substances . I

n section 112(r)(3) , Congres s state s wit h equa l clarit y tha t th e substance s o

f concer n fo r sectio n 112(r

) regulation s ar

e thos e tha

t "ar e know n t o caus e or ma y reasonably b e anticipate d t

o caus e death , injury , or

seriou s advers e effects on human health and the environment." (Emphasi s added. ) Section 112(r ) i s clea r o n it s face a s a

n expression o

f Congressiona

l inten t t o protec t bot h huma n healt h an d the environmen

t fro mdangerou s accidenta

l release s to air . Sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(i ) an

d (ii ) mentio n effec

t o n the environmen

t i n conjunction wit

h emergenc y response , but

the onl y tim e thes e paragraph s mention protectio n o f huma n healt h i s als o i n conjunction wit

h emergency response . Congres s did not 'inten d t o limi t concer n abou t either impac t to emergenc y respons e procedures ; Congres s ma y not hav e mentioned eithe

r impac t i n relatio n t

o preventio n step s becaus e the ac t o f preventin g a

n acciden t eliminate s the impact . Whe n accident s occur , huma

n healt h an d the environmen

t need protection . B y mentioning bot h impact s i

n thi s context , Congres s was stressin g it s concer n fo r the environmen

t a s wel l a s huma n health . I

n addition , EP A note s tha

t emergency action s i

n respons e t

o areleas e t

o air ar e o f limite d effectivenes s i

n addressin g the environment . Wher e peopl e ca

n b e evacuate d o

r sheltered , th e environmen t cannot . Consequently , preventio n i s critica l to environmenta

l protection . I

n addition , section 112(r)(9 ) provide s authorit

y fo r EP A t o tak e emergenc y action whe

n a n actua l o r threatene d accidenta

l releas e o fP.4 5

3-1 5 aregulated substanc e ma

y caus e imminen

t an d substantia

l endangermen

t t o huma n health , welfare , o

r the environment . Clearly , section 112(r)(9 ) allow s EP A t o tak e action t o prevent , a s opposed t

o simpl y respond to , accidenta

l release s t

o protec t the environment . Give

n tha t section 112(r)(7 ) i s intended t o preven t situation s tha

t could lea d t o emergenc

y order s unde

r section 112(r)(9) , i

t i s logica l to conclud e tha t Congres s mean

t EP A to develo

p regulation s tha

t woul d preven t accidenta l release s tha t could caus e environmenta l damage . EP A doe s not

agre e tha t Congress' s decision t

o mak e the genera

l 112(a ) definition s applicabl e t o section 112(r

) mean s tha

t Congres s ha s preclude d EP A fro mconsiderin g advers e environmenta l impact s i n creating the 112(r

) regulator y program . Indeed , the Agenc y believe s tha

t areasonabl e interpretatio n o

f Congress' s action i s tha

t i t wanted t o avoi d applying anano w 112(a ) definition o

f environmenta

l impacts t

o the section 112(r

) rales. EP A disagree s tha

t impact s o n th e environmen

t nee d onl y b e considere d i

f the y coul d resul

t i n huma n injury . I

t i s highly unlikel

y tha t an y releas e t o ambien t ai r could damag e the environmen t i n a wa y tha t woul d the n lea d t o huma n injurie s except

i n thos e case s wher

e the effects ar

e fro m overpressure s o

r fires, wher

e the presenc e o

f a n environmenta

l recepto r i s inelevan t

to th e har mt o humans . I f aperso n i s injure d b y afir e o r explosion fro

masource , the location o

f th e person i s no

t relevant . Fo r

ai r toxics , the likel

y environmenta

l damag e would b e destractio n o f wildlif e o r plan t life , neithe r o f whic h wil l lea d t o huma n healt h impact s unde

r all but the mos t unusua l circumstances , suc

h as depositio n o

n crop s tha

t ar e not subsequentl

y remove d fro mthe foo d chain . T o accept

the commenters ' definition woul d b e t o eliminat e an y consideratio n o

f the environment . Tha

t was no t the inten t o f Congress . EP A recognize s the accident s tha t bot h i t an d Congres s cited resulte d i n huma n death s an

d injuries . Seriou s accident s ar e relativel y rar e events ; accident s wit

h seriou s environmenta

l impact s ar

e eve n rare r give n the location o

f mos t industria l facilities . Nonetheless , EP A believe s i

t i s importan

t t o conside r the possibilit

y o f suc h impacts . EP

A note s tha

t processe s will not

b e denied Progra

m1 statu s i f the onl y receptors o

f concer n ar e environmenta

l unles s the proces s ha s ha d areleas e tha

t resulte d i n respons e o r restoratio n activitie s a

t a n environmenta

l receptor . The lis t

o f suc h receptor s i s limited . The focus of

the rule should

be public health and

safety

• Emergency planner s dea l wit h people , no

t vegetatio n o

r fish. I t i s no t tha t environmenta

l effects ar

e unimportant , bu

t i n time s o f emergency , we dea

l wit h peopl e first. Thus , arequiremen

t to conside

r environmenta

l effects woul

d plac e a n undu e burde n o n facilitie s wit

h littl e or no benefi t t o acommunity' s healt

h an d safety . (382

- 41 , 382-141 )

• An

y inclusio n o

f environmenta

l impacts , othe

r tha n thos e tha

t would caus e direc t huma n injury , would creat

e a n insupportabl e burde

n i n th e rale an

d diminis h th e rule' s effectiveness . (382-54 , 119-1 , 313-2 , 390-36 , 392-1 , 423-2 , 532-9 , 565-16 ) Th e definitio n o

f significan t accidenta l releas e should not

include environmenta

l impact s an

d othe r en d point s tha

t ar e no t within the purview o

f publi c safet

y plannin g an d emergency response ; the definition withi n the rale should b e focused o n publi c safety . (437-2 , 627-4 )3-1 6 EPA' s propose d definition o f significan t accidenta l releas e i s muc

h to o broa d an d exceed s the inten

t o f Congress . Th

e definition should no

t includ e environmenta

l impact s an

d othe r endpoint s not

relate d to publi c safet

y an d emergency respons e purposes . Th

e CM A definition i s specific an

d bette r focuse s o n the impact

o n publi c healt h an d safety , whic

h i s the inten

t o f th e Act . (437-2 )

• The definition o

f significan t accidenta l releas e should b e limite d t o acut e exposure s an d effects o

n huma n health . (462-10 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s tha

t rale should focu s solel

y o n publi c healt

h an d safety . The CA

A clearly require s tha

t the regulation s addres s bot h publi c healt

h an d the environment . Th

e focu s o f the rul e i s preventio n o

f accident s tha

t coul d hav e offsit

e impacts . Althoug

h EP A believe s tha

t impact s o n the environmen

t ar e important , the Agenc

y recognize s the difficult

y o f predictin g the potentia

l impact s o

n environmenta

l receptors . EP

A has , therefore , limite d the criteri afo r Progra m1 eligibilit

y to impact s o n publi c receptors . Source s will b e require d t o lis t the distanc e to a

n endpoin t fo r aworst-cas e release , bu

t the will no t disqualif y aproces s fro

mProgra m1 . presenc e o

f environmenta

l receptor s withi

n th e presenc e o f thos e receptor s withi

n the distanc e T o limi t th e burde n o n sources , EP

A ha s not require d source s t

o analyz e potentia

l environmenta

l impacts ; unde

r the rale, source s mus t

not e the presenc e o

f environmenta

l receptor s whe n the y repor t o n their offsit e consequenc e analyses . Fo r acciden t histories , source s mus t

repor t o n an y known environmenta

l effects , bu

t ar e no t require d to carr

y ou t research t o fin d o r otherwis e detai l thes e effects . EP

A believe s tha

t thi s approach provide s natura l resourc e agencie s wit

h information the y ma y nee d t o identif y potentia l environmenta

l problem s withou

t burdening sources . Other regulations cover

environmental

impacts

• Othe

r regulation s alread

y addres s the les s acut

e incidents , includin g ai

r toxic s regulation s unde

r sectio n 11 2 (d) , (f) , (h) , an d (k) . B y applyin g the proposed RMP regulatio n to thes e chroni c incidents , EP A misread s the statate an

d make s the rale to o broa d an d duplicative . I

n doin g so , EP

A ha s expanded the conten t o f the rale, whic

h will dilut e the overall effort , significantl y increas e the cos t

o f the regulation , an

d provide fe w i f an y safet y benefits . (32-2, 1 382-54 ) Th e inclusio n o

f environmenta

l effect s unrelate d t o publi c healt

h effects i s a

n unauthorize d trespas s o

n th e domai

n o f othe r environmenta

l statutes , i s duplicativ e o

f othe r EP A regulations , i s no t

supporte d b

y Executiv e Orde

r 12866 , an

d i s a n unwanante d burden . Suc

h arequiremen

t will b e ver

y costly , an

d thes e cost s hav e not bee n adequately considere d i

n the Regulator

y Impact Analysis . It s retentio n will diver t resource s fro

mconcern s tha

t hav e adirec t

bearing o n communit

y safety , health , an

d emergenc y preparedness . (544-1 ) i The propose d rale als o reache s to include fa r les s tha n catastrophi c environmenta l effects suc h a s "soil , groundwater , o

r drinkin g wate

r contamination , fish kills , an d vegetatio n damage " an

d consideratio n o

f "sensitiv e ecosystems , migratio n routes , vulnerabl e natura

l areas , an d critica l habitat s fo

r threatene d o

r endangere d species" .'TT" '

3-1 7 Event s suc

h a s thes e ar

e managed unde

r avariet y of othe r rales an d regulations . (388

- 2 , 393-1 , 532-9 , 674-6 )

• EP

A should eliminat

e unenforceabl e languag e an d diversion s fro

mthe cor e purpos e o

f thi s regulation , the preventio n o f huma n injury . I

t i s har d t o imagine a

n accidenta

l releas e t o the ai r tha t woul d pos e aserious , long-ter

mthrea t to the environment , bu

t no t threaten huma

n healt h or safety . I n an y event , ther

e ar e adequat e sanction s an

d preventio n program s unde

r othe r laws : CERCLA , EPCRA , an d th e Clea n Wate r Act . (2315-4 ) Agenc y Respons e The commenter s hav e misunderstoo d EPA' s rale. The rale doe s no t appl y to chroni c incidents , but

i s limite d t

o accidenta

l release s o

f listed substances . EP

A disagree s wit

h the commente

r wh o state s tha

t th e rul e trespasse s o

n the domain o

f othe r environmenta

l statutes . The CA

A specificall y mandate s tha

t section 112(r

) rales o n accidenta

l release s conside

r impact s o n the environment . I n th e final rul e EP

A ha s eliminate d the lis t

o f environmenta

l impacts . T o limit

th e burde n o n sources , EP

A ha s no t require d source s t

o analyz e potentia

l environmenta

l impacts ; unde

r the rule , source s mus t

not e th e presenc e o

f environmenta

l receptor s whe

n the y repor t o n their offsit e consequenc e analyses . Fo

r acciden t histories , source s mus t

repor t o n an y know n environmenta

l effect s (o r effect s abou t whic h asourc e should reasonably have known) , bu t ar e no t require d t o carr y ou t research t o find o r otherwis e detai l thes e effects . EP A believe s tha

t thi s approach provide s natura l resourc e agencie s wit

h information the

y ma y need t o identif y potentia l environmenta

l problem s withou t burdenin g sources . Commenter

s sugges tchanges t

o and clarification s o

f environmenta

l impac tlanguage :

• EP

A should limi

t environmenta

l impact s t

o "seriou s advers e effects t o the environmen

t tha t coul d lea d to suc h deat h or hospitalizations. " (32-2 )

• Section s o

f th e rale tha

t refer t o "advers e effect s to huma n healt h an d the environment " an

d "environmenta

l damage " ar

e no t wel l defined . The preambl e i s not consisten t a s to the degre e o

f protectio n sought : Section III.C . define s "significan t release " a s one tha

t could caus e "advers e effects to huma n healt h o r the environment" , wherea s Section ELD . o

f th e preambl e refer s t

o asignifican

t releas e a s one tha

t could caus e "serious advers e effects... " (emphasi s added) . Th e differenc e betwee

n thes e tw o definition s i s not

trivial . (43-17 )

• Inclusio n o

f provision s suc

h a s thos e liste d i

n § 68.15(e ) an

d (f) , addressin g significantl y les s tha n catastrophi c environmenta l event s (fis

h kills , vegetatio n damage , etc.) , i s inappropriate . (58-6 )

• Th

e term s "environmenta

l damage " an

d "advers e effects " t

o the environmen

t ar e neve r defined , permittin g endles s interpretations , includin g somethin g a s insignifican

t an d minor a s temporar

y vegetatio n damag e o

r insec t kills . Section 112(r)(7 ) wa s intended t o cove r onl y significan

t or ineversibl e environmenta

l damage . (375-16 , 670-5 )3-1 8 Executiv e Orde

r No . 1286 6 require s agencie s t o draf t regulation s "wit

h th e goa l o f minimizin g the potentia

l fo r uncertaint y an d litigatio n arisin g fro

msuc h uncertainty. " Accordingly , EP

A must defin e "environmenta

l damage " t

o promot e predictabilit

y i n the regulation s an

d i n awa y tha t i s consisten

t wit h th e purpos e o

f section 112(r)(7) . EP A should defin

e "environmenta

l damage " as includin g onl y "significant " and/or "ineyersible " environmenta l damage , an

d specif y example s o

f th e type s o

f damag e tha

t migh t constitut e "significant " and/or

"irreversible " damage . (375-16 ) EP A should defin

e wha t i s mean t b y th e seriou s advers e environmenta l effects t o b e considered . The breadt

h o f environmenta

l impact consideration s ca

n significantl

y influenc e the directio n an

d complexit

y o f the hazard s assessment s tha t industr y must provide . Th

e ancillar y cost s fo r thi s protectio n should b e weighed carefull y a s facilitie s ar

e considerin g worst-cas e scenarios , i.e. , thos e whic h could theoretically occur , bu t whos e probabilit

y o f occunenc e i s remote . Environmenta l consideration s without acut e huma n impact should b e weighe

d differentl

y tha n thos e whic

h caus e acut e huma n impacts . I

f EP A doe s not

addres s thi s issue , smal

l businesse s ma

y b e forced t o spen d extensiv e an

d preciou s resources fo

r theoretica l protectio n o

f the environmen

t fro mimprobabl e accidenta

l releases . Thes e resource s migh t otherwis e hav e bee n applied t

o the preventio n o

f acut e huma n impact s or

t o the protectio n o

f th e environmen

t fro mknow n o r mor e likel y chemica l discharge s or

emissions . I n th e final rale, EP

A shoul d specify , b

y definition , wha

t comprise s "seriou s advers e impact s t o the environment " an

d describ e a

n illustrativ e methodology fo r assessin g the valu e o f environmenta

l impact s i

n aworst-cas e releas e scenari o vis-a-vi s huma n impacts . I

t i s the expectatio n tha

t the huma n impact alway s reflect s the "wors t case. " (380-8 ) Th e cunen t definition i s to o general , contradictor y an d subject to interpretation . Unde

r the cunen t

definition , areleas e tha

t ha s h o potentia

l fo r harming humans , bu t

tha t deposit s aminima

l amoun t o f aregulate d substanc e offsit e ca n b e considere d a significan t accidenta l release . It

ca n b e argued tha

t thi s minima

l amoun t wil l hav e advers e effect

s o n the environmen

t becaus e th e ter

m"adverse " ha s no t

bee n explicitly defined . T o defen

d thi s position , industr

y would b e burdene d wit

h performing comprehensiv e environmenta l impac t studie s fo r al l regulate d substance s a s they ma y adversel y affec t all flor aan d faunasunoundin g the facility . (390-30 ) Sectio n 112(a)(7 ) provide s th e definition fo r the ter m"advers e environmenta

l effect. " Thi s definition should b e incorporate d into th e risk managemen

t rales, bu t i s not . Thi s additiona l definition i s extremely importan t becaus e i t evidence s a

n intentio n b

y Congres s tha

t di e ter m"advers e environmenta

l effect " no

t b e simpl y anegativ e effect . Rather , unde

r the term s o

f thi s section , i t

i s mean t to attach onl

y to thos e effect s tha

t ar e widesprea

d an d result i n significan

t degradation . The propose d rales fai l t o tak e thi s concep t

int o accoun t a t all . (394-1 ) !

I Al l reference s t

o environmenta

l effects should b e confined to § 68.45 , o n emergenc y response . However , i

f EP A reject s thi s positio n an

d keep s an

y othe r reference s t

o environmenta

l effects , i t i s vitally importan

t tha t the following concept s b e clearly state d i n the rale: IP.4 9

3-1 9 1 . Owners an

d operator s ar

e require d onl

y t o conside r readil y availabl e information . The y ar e no t require d to conduct

exhaustiv e test s o

f direc t toxic effects an

d effects o n behavior fo r ever y regulate d substanc e o

n ever y specie s o

f plan t and anima

l life . 2 . I n evaluatin g an

d assessing environmenta

l effects , owners an

d operator s ma

y us e genera l qualitativ e term s withou

t having t o quantif y the numbers o

r identif y the specie s tha t migh t b e affected . Fo

r example , we woul

d no t have t o sa y ho w man y blade s o f gras s migh

t wither , or defin e whic h specie s o

f tree s woul

d b e mor e sensitive . Instead , i t woul d b e sufficien

t t o not e tha t amajo r releas e o f achemica

l "coul d har m vegetation " or

"coul d caus e afish kill, " i

n additio n t

o th e impact

o n humans . 3 . I f areleas e scenari o woul

d not caus e huma

n death , o r injur y requirin g hospitalization , i

t i s not a"significan

t accidenta l release " —

regardles s o

f an y potentia l environmenta

l effects . Thus , environmenta l har mwoul d rise t o th e level o

f a "significan t accidenta l release " onl

y i f the environmenta

l consequence s woul

d lea d t o huma n deat h o r hospitalizatio n fro

macut e exposure . Thi s approac

h will allow owner s an d operator s to focu s thei

r efforts o n preventin g release s tha

t would affec

t humans . 4 . I n comparin g hazard s an

d release s unde

r thi s rale, owners an

d operator s shall assum e tha t an y huma n death , o r an y huma n injur y requiring hospitalization , i s amor e sever e offsit e consequenc e tha

n an y environmenta

l effect . I f thes e principle s ar

e clearl y stated , w

e ma y b e able t

o minimiz e unnecessar

y burden s an d maintai n the appropriat

e focu s of thi s rale. People mus t

b e paramount , an

d protectin g huma

n healt h mus t b e the undisputed , unquestionable priorit y o f thi s rule . (382-55 ) Th e RM P rale should focu s onl

y o n release s tha

t hav e potentiall

y catastrophi c impact s o n the environment , e.g. , larg e fish kill s o r sever e vegetation damage . (413-5 ) Som e facet s o f the regulation s nee d mor

e specificity . Fo

r example , the definitio n o

f "environmenta

l damage " shoul

d b e limite d to tha

t whic h i s significan

t an d ineversible . (471-5,478-6 ) The agency should limit

the substance s t

o b e evaluated t

o onl y thos e wit

h recognize d aquati c an d tenestrial dataavailabl e fo r makin g reasonabl e determination s o f damag e tha t could b e expected . (537-8 ) W e agree wit

h EP A tha t less-than-catastrophi c accidenta l releases , includin g thos e whic h caus e soi l contamination , vegetatio n damage, , an d propert y damage , etc. , ar

e event s tha t industr y mus t (an d does ) act

t o preven t an d mitigat e i n meetin g othe

r regulator y requirements . However , we have seriou s concern s tha t EPA , i n "casting to o broa d anet " i n thi s regulation , will dilut e an d misdirec t

th e overall effor

t tha t mus t b e mounted b y industry , EPA , an

d othe r agencie s i

n meetin g thes e ne w regulator

y requirements . (565-16 )P.5 0

3-2 0 EP A should defin

e "environmenta

l damage " a s includin g onl y "significant " or "ineversible " damag e an

d specif y whic h type s o f damag e constitut

e "significant " o

r "ineversible " damage . (623-6 ) | Th e commente

r woul d welcom e EPA' s expertis e i

n defining objectiv e standard s fo r advers e environmenta

l an d huma n healt h effects t o assur e unifor mimplementatio n an

d t o avoid time-consuming controvers y ove r th e adequacy o

f analysis . Similarly , th e amoun t o f information require d t

o "detail environmenta

l damage " an

d t o identif y all "affecte d populations " i s potentiall y burdensome . Again , EP A should specif

y th e leve l o f detail expecte d i

n thi s analysis . (701-4 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A decided tha

t asingl e definition o

f significan t accidenta l releas e wa

s inappropriat

e fo r al l affecte d section s o

f the rule . I

n som e cases , suc

h as acciden

t history , th e covered accident s ca n b e dictate d b y impacts ; i

n othe r cases , suc h a s the offsit

e consequenc e analysis , toxi c concentrations , overpressures , o

r hea t radiatio n abov e the endpoint s ca n b e used t

o defin e th e release s tha

t need to b e considered . Consequently , EP A ha s decide d t

o drop the definition an

d defin e the type s o

f release s tha

t shoul d b e covere d fo

r eac h requirement . T o suppor

t thes e individua

l requirements , EP

A ha s adde d definition s o

f the term s "environmenta

l receptor, " "injury, " "medica l treatment, " an

d "publi c receptor " an d adopted (wit

h statutorily necessar

y modifications ) the OSH

A definition o

f catastrophi c release . EP A ha s no t defined "advers e effec

t t o the environment " directly . Fo r the offsit e consequenc e analysi s an

d acciden t investigation , the sourc e nee d onl y conside r whethe r one o f the liste d environmenta

l receptor s coul d b e exposed . EP A recognize s tha

t attemptin g t

o defin e th e natur

e an d extent o f potentia l impact s t

o the environmen

t woul d impos e asubstantia

l burde n an d may , i n mos t cases , no t b e feasible becaus e o

f the lac k o f dat ao n environmenta

l impacts . Sources , therefore , ar e no t require d t o asses s potentia

l impacts . Fo

r acciden t histories , the

y mus t repor t o n an y know n environmenta

l effects (o

f effects abou

t whic h asourc e should reasonabl y hav e known) , but

ar e no t require d to carr

y ou t research t o fin d or otherwis e deta

i fro mdeposit s o

f arelease d substanc e ar

e unlikel y t o b e thes e effects . Potentia l long-ter mdamag e reporte d becaus e th e damag e would b e speculative , not

actaal . For

Progra m1 eligibility , onl

y a n accidenta

l releas e fro

maproces s tha

t result s i n environmenta

l damag e tha

t require d restoration o

r respons e activit

y a t a n environmenta

l recepto r woul d mak

e aproces s ineligibl e fo

r tha t tier . EP A believe s tha

t onl y significan

t environmenta

l damag e will lea

d t o suc h activities . Unde

r none o f thes e requirement s ar

e source s require d to mak

e judgment s abou

t the relativ e importanc e o

f environmenta

l impact s versu s huma

n impacts . Althoug h EP A ha s delete d th e lis t

o f environmenta

l impacts , i

t continue s to believ e tha

t i f an y o f thes e occune d a s aresult

o f a n accidenta

l releas e t o the ambien

t ai r (the release s o

f concer n fo r thi s rule) , the y should b e note d i

n the acciden

t history . Th

e sourc e i s not

require d t o conduc t researc h to determin e i

f an y damag e occuned , asses s the level o f damag e o f whic h i t i s aware , o

r presen t other information o

n thes e impacts , bu

t simpl y ha s t o chec k of f dia t environmenta

l damag e occuned . EP A disagree s tha

t the CA A limit s section 112(r

) consideratio n t o ineversibl e damage . I n the context o f th e environment , determinin g tha t aparticula

r impac t i s ineversibl e woul

d b e ver y difficul t becaus e ove

r time the environmen

t will restor

e itself to som e degree . I

f EP A wer e t o interpret ineversibl e fo

r environmenta

l impact s i

n the sam e wa y ineversibl e i s applie d t

o humans , an

y deat h o f a n anima l woul d b e considere d ineversible . EP A ha s establishe d onl

y on e standar

d fo r assessin g th eP.5 1

3-2 1 leve l o f damag e tha t

affect s eligibility : unde r Progra m1 , processe s mus t no t hav e ha d areleas e tha t require d respons e o r

restoratio n activity at

a n environmenta l receptor . EP A believe s that thi s standar d i s clear an d wil l no t

creat e abasi s fo r

disagreements , a s attempt s t o defin e "significant " o r "ineversible " might . I n regar d t o th e commen t that source s woul d b e compelle d t o undertak e action s t o protec t th e environment , EP A ha s no t require d source s t o tak e an y specifi c action s t o addres s potentia l impacts , huma n o r environmental , that

ma y resul t fro maworst-cas e release . Source s shoul d conside r no t onl y th e potentia l impacts , bu t als o th e likelihoo d tha t

suc h arelease woul d occu r befor e takin g action s t o preven t it . I n man y cases , mitigatio n system s wil l alread y b e in plac e t o reduc e th e potentia l severit y o f th e impacts . EP A disagree s that

impact s o n th e environmen t nee d onl y b e considere d i f the y coul d resul t

i n huma n injury . I t

i s unlikel y tha t

an y releas e t o ambien t

ai r coul d damag e th e environmen t in awa y tha t woul d the n lea d t o human injurie s excep t i n thos e case s wher e th e effect s ar e fro moverpressure s o r fires , wher e th e presence o f a n environmenta l recepto r i s inelevan t

t o th e har mt o human . If a perso n i s injure d b y afire o r explosio n fro masource , th e locatio n o f th e perso n i s no t

relevant . Fo r ai r toxics , th e likel y environmenta l damag e woul d b e destractio n o f wildlif e o r plan t life , neithe r

o f whic h wil l lea d t o huma n healt h impact s unde r

al l bu t th e mos t unusua l circumstance s (e.g. , depositio n o n crop s tha t

ar e no t the n remove d fro mth e foo d chain) . T o accep t th e commenter s definitio n woul d b e t o eliminat e an y consideratio n o f th e environment . Tha t

wa s no t th e inten t

o f Congress . Sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(i ) an d (ii ) mention effec t o n th e environmen t

in conjunctio n wit

h emergenc y response , bu t th e onl y tim e thes e paragraph s mentio n protectio n o f human healt

h i s als o in conjunctio n wit

h emergenc y response . Congres s di d no t inten d t o limi t

concer n abou t

eithe r impac t t o emergenc y respons e procedures ; Congress may no t hav e mentione d eithe r

impac t in relatio n t o preventio n step s becaus e th e ac t o f preventin g a

n acciden t

eliminate s th e impact . Whe n accident s occur , huma n health an d th e environmen t nee d protection . B y mentionin g both impact s i n thi s context , Congress wa s stressin g it s concer n fo r th e environmen t

a s wel l a s huma n healt

h in preventin g accident s a s wel l a s respondin g t o them . EP A note s tha t emergenc y action s i n respons e t o areleas e t o ai r ar e o f limite d effectivenes s i n addressin g th e environment . Wher e peopl e ca n b e evacuate d o r sheltered , th e environmen t cannot . Consequently , preventio n i s critica l t o environmenta l protection . I n addition , sectio n 112(r)(9 ) provide s authorit y fo r EP A t o tak e emergenc y actio n whe n an actaa l o r threatene d accidenta l release o f aregulate d substanc e may caus e imminen t an d substantia l endangermen t

t o huma n health , welfare , o r th e environment . Clearly , sectio n 112(r)(9 ) allow s EP A t o tak e actio n t o prevent , a s oppose d t o simpl y respon d to , accidenta l release s t o protec t th e environment . Give n tha t

sectio n 112(r)(7 ) i s intende d t o preven t sitaation s tha t

coul d lea d t o emergenc y order s unde r sectio n 112(r)(9) , i t

i s logica l t o conclud e tha t Congres s mean t

EP A t o develo p regulation s tha t woul d preven t accidenta l release s tha t

coul d caus e environmenta l damage . EP A ha s no t

adopte d di e definitio n o f advers e environmenta l impact s fro mCA A sectio n 112(a ) becaus e sectio n 112(a ) specificall y state s tha t thos e definition s d o no t appl y t o sectio n 112(r) . Th e sectio n 112(a ) definitio n i s mor e appropriat e fo r th e routin e an d continuou s emission s covere d b y th e res t o f sectio n 11 2 tha n i t

i s fo r accidenta l releases wher e th e kin d o f damag e tha t

ca n b e expecte d i s likel y t o b e limite d i n area . EP A disagree s tha t

th e environmenta l impact s o f substance s b e limite d t o thos e substance s fo r whic h dat aar e available . A s discusse d above , EP A i s no t requirin g source s t o asses s th e damage . Fo r3-2 2

the offsit e consequenc e analysis , source s need onl y not e the presenc e o

f environmenta

l receptors ; the

y ar e no t require d t

o mak e determination s abou

t th e damage s tha

t migh t occur . EP

A ha s not adopte d endpoint s fo

r environmenta

l effect s fo r tw o reasons . First , fe

w dataar e availabl e o

n environmenta

l impacts . Second , developin g ecotoxicit y endpoint s i s comple

x becaus e the impact s o

n variou s receptor s mus t

b e considered ; aleve

l tha t migh t b e acutel y toxi c t o insect s migh

t hav e lesse

r effects o n bird s an d none o n large r mammals . Consequently , EP A ha s not require d source s t o asses s potentia l environmenta

l damage . Source s ar

e require d onl

y t o identif y potentia l environmenta

l receptor s withi

n th e distanc e t

o aspecified endpoin

t an d to repor t o n environmenta

l damag e fro

maccidenta

l release s whe n the y ar e awar e o f the damage . EP

A recognize s tha

t the toxi c endpoint s ar

e no t relate d t o ecologica l impacts , bu

t i s usin g the

mto identif

y a n are atha t ma y hav e suc

h effects . I

n general , toxicit y i s relate d t

o bod y weight . Althoug

h som e mammal s ar

e heavie r tha n human s and , therefore , ma y b e les s vulnerabl e t

o specific concentrations , man y thes e concentration s tha

n human s would be . animal s an d plant s ma

y b e mor e sensitiv e t

o Commenter

s stat e tha tth e knowledge doe s no

texis tt o asses s all environmenta l impact s liste d i n th e rule :

• N o on e ha s a n encyclopedi c knowledg e jo f th e environmenta

l effects o f all the regulate d substances . Wit

h s o man y potentia l endpoint s to loo

k at , suc h a s amultitude o f possibl e acut

e an d chroni c harm s t

o aquati c life , plants , birds , an d all specie s o

f mammals , ther

e i s stil l alot

tha t will nee d t o b e learned befor

e we ca n predic t environmenta

l harm s the wa

y we ca n estimat e potentia l har mt o people . Ye

t the propose d rale eve

n goe s farthe

r tha n this , requirin g a

n evaluatio n o

f behaviora l effects suc h a s change s i

n migratio n routes . I

n general , the scienc e jus t

i s not here . For

an y give n substance , ther

e ma y b e n o dat at

o determine direc t

toxicit y t o monarc h butterflie s o

r mallar d ducks , le

t alone effects o

n thei r flight paths . To o broa

d a definition woul

d als o introduc e problem s o f comparison suc

h a s decidin g whethe

r a risk t o spanow s i s mor

e importan

t tha t arisk t o catfish , an

d whethe r the deat h o f fifty tree s i s mor

e seriou s tha

n hospitalizatio n o

f tw o people . Thos e ar

e decision s tha

t n o on e ca n make . W

e do no t hav e encyclopedi c knowledg e o f the locatio n o

f ever y specie s o f plan t an d anima l fo r mile s i n Ial l directions . For

example , suppos e tha

t a particula r substanc e wa s foun

d t o damag e Kentuck

y bluegras s bu

t not Bermud agrass . T o prepar e ahazar d assessmen

t tha t include d environmenta

l impacts , i

t appear s tha

t w e woul d hav e to examine everyone' s lawn ! Wors e yet , i f anyone reseeded , we would need amechanis mto find ou t abou t that . Th e sam e woul d b e tru e fo

r anyone plantin g o r cuttin g dow

n tree s around their

houses . Thi s burde

n woul d b e beyond ou

r ability . (117-5,382-141 ) I I • Ther

e ar e tw o potentially significan t difficultie s wit

h thi s requirement . The first i s tha t the methodology to perfor

msuc h environmenta

l effects studies , i

n man y cases , i s stil l i n the developmen

t stage . The second i s dia

t clea r criteri ato evaluat

e environmenta

l effects (i.e. , whic

h ecosystem s ar

e included , wha

t degre e o f risk should b e considered , wha t emergency respons e an

d mitigatio n action i s justified , etc. ) ar e no t provide d i

n thi s regulation . (470-1 , 627-4 ) I3-2 3

Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h the commenter s an

d ha s no t require d tha

t source s asses s th

e environmenta

l impacts . For

th e ,offsit e consequenc e analysi s an

d acciden t investigation , the sourc e nee d onl y conside r whethe r one o f the liste d environmenta

l receptor s could b e exposed . EP A recognize s tha

t attemptin g t

o defin e the natur

e an d exten t o f potentia l impact s to the environmenta l woul d impos e a substantia l burde n an d may , i n most cases , not b e feasible becaus e o

f the lac k o f dat ao n environmenta

l impacts . Sources , therefore , ar e not require d to asses s potentia l impacts . For

acciden t histories , the

y mus t repor t o n an y know n environmenta

l effects , bu

t ar e not require d t o carr y ou t research t o find o r otherwis e detai l thes e effects . Fo r Progra m1 eligibility , environmenta l damag e fro ma n acciden t releas e ma

y mak e aproces s ineligibl e fo

r Progra m1 , i f the damag e require d restoratio n or

respons e activit

y a t a n environmenta

l receptor . EP

A believe s tha

t onl y significan

t environmenta

l damag e will lea

d t o suc h activities . Commenter

s provid e th e following additiona l comments :

• EP

A should emphasiz e the need t o protec t huma n healt h an d preven t well-establishe d environmenta

l risks first. Expenditure s t o protec t agains t speculativ e environmenta

l risks shoul d b e avoided . (22-16 )

• Requirin g assessmen t o f potentia l environmenta

l impact woul d no t onl y b e extremel

y difficult , bu

t i t woul d no t provide significan

t additiona l insigh t int o preventio n programs . Thes e additiona l requirement s woul

d plac e a n undu e burde

n o n facilitie s i

n term s o f difficult y an d expens e wit

h littl e o r no benefi t t o acommunity' s healt

h an d safety . (117-5 , 382-41 , 382-141 , 693-1 )

• Environmenta

l an d huma n protectio n mus t

b e considere d i

n th e sam e context , wher

e protectio n o

f huma n healt h an d safet y will , i n mos t cases , adequatel

y addres s tha

t o f th e environmen

t as well . (543-8 )

• The propose d hazar d analysi s approach woul

d requir e stationar y source s to perfor

ma Nationa l Environmenta

l Protectio n Act-typ e analysi s o f offsit e environmenta

l effects , includin g impact s o

n "sensitiv e ecosystems, " "migration routes, " "vulnerabl e natura l areas, " an d "critica l habitat s fo

r threatene d or

endangere d species. " Suc h a n analysi s would hav e n o nexus,.however , t o an y potentia l publi c healt

h effects cause d b

y a n accidenta l release , an

d thus , i s not

authorize d b

y th e statate . Moreover , suc

h a n analysi s would impos e extraordinar y burdens , wit

h littl e conespondin g benefit . (557

- 13 , 558-12 , 390-30 ) Agenc y Respons e Source s ar e not require d t o tak e an y specific action s t

o addres s potentia

l impacts , huma

n o r environmental , tha

t ma y result fro maworst-cas e release . Source s should conside r not onl y the potentia l impacts , but

als o the likelihoo d tha

t suc h areleas e would occu

r befor e taking action s t

o preven t it . I n man y cases , mitigatio n system s will alread y b e i n plac e to reduc e the potentia l severit y o f the impacts .3-2 4 i

EP A ha s not require d tha

t source s asses s the environmenta l impacts . For

the offsit e consequenc e analysi s an

d acciden t investigation , the sourc e need onl y conside r whethe r one o f th e liste d environmenta

l receptor s could b e exposed . EP A recognize s tha

t attemptin g t

o defin e the natur

e an d exten t o f potentia l impact s t

o th e environmenta

l would impos e asubstantia l burde n an d may , i n mos t cases , not b e feasible becaus e o

f the lac k o f datao n environmenta

l impacts . Sources , therefore , ar e not require d to asses s potentia l impacts . Fo

r acciden t histories , the

y mus t repor t o n an y known environmenta

l effects , bu

t ar e not require d to carr

y ou t research t

o find o r otherwis e detai l thes e effects . Fo

r Progra m1 eligibility , the environmenta l damag e tha

t woul d mak e aproces s ineligibl e fo

r th e tier i s limite d t

o damag e tha

t require d restoratio n o

r respons e activit

y a t a n environmenta

l receptor . EP A believe s tha

t onl y significan

t environmenta

l damag e wil

l lea d t o suc h activities . EP A disagree s tha

t impact s o n th e environmen

t need onl y b e considere d i

f the y coul d result

i n huma n injury . It

i s highl y unlikely tha

t an y releas e t o ambien t air coul d damag e the environmen

t i n a wa y tha t woul d the n lea d t o huma n injurie s excep t

i n thos e case s wher

e the effect s ar

e fro m overpressure s o

r fires , wher

e the presenc e o

f a n environmenta

l recepto r i s inelevan t

t o th e har mto humans . I

f aperso n i s injured b

y afire o r explosion fro

masource , th

e locatio n o

f the person i s no t relevant . Fo

r air toxics , the likel

y environmenta

l damag e woul

d b e destractio n o

f wildlif e o r plan t life , neither o f whic h will lea d to huma n healt h impact s unde

r al l bu t the most unusua l circumstances . T o accep t the commenter s interpretatio n would b e t o eliminat e an y consideratio n ofth e environment . Tha t wa s no t the inten t o f Congress . C . ENDPOINT CRITERI A A numbe r o f commenter s believe d EPA' s propose d definition o f significan t accidenta l releas e wa s to o broad ; severa

l suggeste d specific endpoint s EP A coul d us e t

o limi t th e definition , includin g Communit y Emergency Exposur

e Level s (CEELs ) develope d b y the Nationa

l Academ y o f Science s and Emergency Respons e Planning Guideline s (ERPGs ) develope d b y th e America n Industria

l Hygiene Association . One commente r maintaine d tha

t asignifican

t accidenta l releas e involvin g explosives , a s indicate d b

y exposur e o f the publi c t

o adefine d blas t overpressur

e level , i s no t

possibl e becaus e o

f existin g regulation s an

d industr y practices . |

i Commenter

s recommend th e followin g endpointcriteri a t o define significantaccidenta l release s fo r toxi c substances : National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) Community Emergency Exposure Levels (CEELs)

• EP

A shoul d provid

e guidanc e o

n toxicologica

l endpoint s fo

r evaluatio n o

f the impac t o f asignifican

t accidenta l releas e o n the public , addressing chemical-specifi c toxicologica

l endpoint s i

n term s o f hazard , potency , an

d exposur e duration . The rale should establis h procedure s fo r developin g critica

l inhalation exposur

e level s tha

t incorporat e bot h chemica l concentration] an

d exposur e duratio n information . EP A should incorporat

e b y referenc e amodified version o f th e CEEL s develope d b

y the Nationa l Research Counci l a s wel

l a s th e Guidelines for

Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances. Without suc h guidanc e o

n toxicologica

l endpoints , seriou s inconsistencie s i n the determinatio n o

f impac t o n communitie s will result . (43-1 6 & 18) |3-2 5

• CEEL s (specificall

y CEEL-3 ) ar

e appropriat

e endpoint s becaus e the

y ar e chemical

specific ceilin g exposur

e value s fo

r the publi c applicabl e t

o emergency exposure s o

f foreseeabl e magnitad

e an d duration . The

y ar e scientificall

y rigorous, incorporat

e the lates t technica l information , an

d addres s explicitly eac

h o f the fou r factor s essentia

l fo r suc h exposur e levels , i.e. , the populatio n potentially exposed ; the degre e an d patter n o f exposure ; the nature , severity , an d reversibilit

y o f the anticipate d effects ; an d th e proportio n o

f thos e exposed who ar

e subjec t t o toxi c effects . Becaus e ther e ar e thre e CEEL s fo r eac h substance , awid

e rang e o f huma n response s t

o toxi c substance s ar

e take n into consideration . The developmen t proces s i s explicit , subject t o review b

y a committe e o

f experts , an

d availabl e fo

r publi c revie

w an d comment . CEEL s ar

e designe d to protec t

communit

y populations , including sensitiv e populations , fro mrar e chemica l exposures . (43-18 )

• CEEL s ar

e applicabl e fo

r exposur e duration s o

f 1 t o 8 hours ; however , accidenta l catastrophi c release s ar

e typically characterize d b

y pea k exposur e concentration s tha

t ma y las t n o mor e tha n five minutes . EP

A i s considerin g the five-minute pea k concentratio n scenari o fo

r modeling the worst-cas e release . I f the CEE L valu e i s assumed to conespon d t

o a n "instantaneous " exposure , the n th e hazar d assessmen

t will b e overly conservative . Therefore , EP A shoul d ad d a n additiona

l valu e o f CEEL

PEA K tha t addresse s five-minute exposures . EP A an d other s shoul d jointl y sponsor research t o collec t the necessar

y dat afo r developing thes e limits . (43-18 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A plan s to adop t

the Acut e Exposur e Guideline Level s (AEGLs) , a s the CEEL s hav e bee n renamed , whe

n the y ar e available . EP

A agree s tha

t thes e levels , whic

h wil l b e develope d fo

r accidenta l releas e exposures , wil

l b e th e mos t appropriat

e endpoints . A

t present , however , th e proces s o f developin g the AEGL s ha s jus t begun . Becaus e source s need t o mak e decision s abou

t Progra m level s an d begi n the offsit

e consequenc e analysis , EP A ha d t o adop t availabl e toxi c endpoint s to defin e distances . EP

A selecte d ERPG-2s , wher e available , an

d the level s o

f concer n EP A develope d fo

r th e Technical Guidance for

Hazards Analysis, bot

h o f whic h hav e bee

n widel y used b y the respons e community . Whe

n the AEGL s ar

e developed , EP

A will propos e their

adoption a s endpoint s fo

r thi s rale an d solicit publi c commen

t abou t their appropriateness . American Industrial

Hygiene Association (AIHA) Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs)

• Th

e definitio n o

f significan t accidenta l releas e should b e limite d to substantia l acut e huma n injur y based o n ERPGs . (117-6 )

• EP

A shoul d defin

e significan

t accidenta l releas e a s areleas e tha

t coul d caus e deat

h o r seriou s injur

y requirin g hospitalization . ERPG s could b e used to determine whethe r a n accidenta l releas e was significant . I f modeling apotentia

l releas e indicate d tha

t th e highes t concentratio n t

o whic h th e publi c would b e exposed was les s tha n th e ERPG-2 , the n tha t releas e woul

d not b e asignifican

t accidenta l releas e wit

h respec t to acut e toxicity . I f the concentratio n wa s highe r tha n th e ERPG-2 , i t

woul d b e asignifican

t accidenta l release . (382-6 8 & 70 )3-2 6

• EP

A should not

incorporat

e the ERPGs

l into th e law , bu

t shoul d indicat e tha t ERPG s ar e amon g the criteri aEP

A woul d accept . (382-6 8 & 70 )

i Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h the commenter s that , a

t thi s time , the ERPG s ar

e appropriat

e toxi c endpoints . Th e rale specifie s toxi c endpoint s based o n ERPG- 2 fo

r all substance s tha

t hav e ERPG- 2 values . Thes e endpoint s will b e used t o determin e "distanc e t

o a n endpoint " fo

r worst-cas e an

d alternativ e releas e scenario s unde

r th e offsit e consequenc e analysis' . EP A decided tha

t i t wa s importan t t o incorporat e specifi c endpoint s i

n th e rul e to ensur

e tha t dispersio n modelin g conducte d b y source s woul d have aconsisten

t basi s an d coul d b e compared among sources . Withou t specified endpoints , source s woul

d hav e bee

n abl e t o selec t a n endpoin t tha t produce d aparticula

r result . Becaus e the distanc e t o the endpoin

t i s used t o determin e Progra

m1 the sam e endpoint . Withou

t suc h consistency , sources ' eligibility , i t i s essentia

l tha t ever y sourc e us e decision s o

n their Progra m1 statu s woul

d b e ope n t o challeng e based o

n disagreement s ove

r the endpoin

t selected . The Agency ha s delete d the definition o f significan t accidenta l releas e and , instead , describe s the type s o

f releases tha

t should b e covere d fo

r eac h requirement . Other levels

• Th e definitio n o

f significan t accidenta l releas e should include astandar d fo r calculation s (e.g. , th e STEL) . (477-7 , 669-8 ) EP A should defin

e the leve l o f concer n IDLH) . (627-3 ) fo r significan t accidenta l release s (e.g. , 1/1 0

• Th e definition o

f significan t accidenta l releas e i s to o broa

d an d vague ; EP

A shoul d provide criteri afo

r determinin g whic

h consequence s of

areleas e constitut

e "advers e effects. " EP

A shoul d establish , fo

r eac h regulate d substance , a

n "actio n guide" ; i.e. , a

n offsit e concentratio n a

t whic h advers e effect s would b e expecte d to occur . (467-1 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s tha

t specifi c endpoint s ar

e needed an

d ha s adopted the

mi n Appendix A t o th e rule . The endpoint s ar

e based o n ERPG-2 , whe

n available ; fo

r substance s withou

t ERPG- 2 values , th e endpoint s ar

e thos e use d i

n the Technical

Guidance for\Hazards Analysis, whic h wer e base d o n l/10t h th e IDL H o r toxicit y data . The Agency ha s delete d the definition o f significan t accidenta l releas e and , instead , describe s the type s o

f release s tha

t should b e covere d fo

r eac h requirement . Other comments on toxics \ i • I n a n accidenta

l release , acut

e toxicit y shoul d b e the focu s o

f immediat e concern . Othe r possibl e healt

h effects , suc

h a s chronic , teratogenic , an d mutageni c impact s upo

n th e population , belon g i

n aseparat

e stud y (e.g. , restrictiv e zonin

g aroun d industria

l facilities) . (460-5 )' [ "T T '"""' , ' , '^7'* 1 '- fW,t '-l"#^-WT^?^*i'( r "TT^ " •--*• * ' " y '[' "

3-2 7

• Th e definition o

f significan t accidenta l releas e should b e limite d t o acut e exposures . Including advers e effects to huma n healt h i n the definition i s to o broa d (e.g. , criteri a pollutants ' concentration s exceeding Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s wil

l caus e advers e effects to huma n health) . (462-10 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A has delete d the definition o f significan t accidenta l release . Th

e toxi c endpoint s specifie

d i n th e rale ar e relate d t o acut e healt h effects ; ERPG-2 s ar

e define d a s the concentratio n belw o whic h almos t all people could b e expose d fo r on e hou r withou t ineversibl e o

r othe r seriou s healt

h effect s o r symptom s tha

t woul d impai r their abilit y to tak e protectiv e actions . Commenter

s recommen

d th e followin g endpoin

tcriteri a t

o defin e significan

taccidenta

l releases fo r flammable substances :

• Fo r explosions , EP

A should us e apea

k overpressur

e o f 1. 6 psi g t

o defin e asignifican

t accidenta l releas e tha

t could caus e deat

h o r seriou s injur

y requiring hospitalization . Thi s overpressur

e leve l ca n brea k window s an

d ma y caus e partia

l demolition o

f houses ; seriou s injur

y ma y occu r fro mflyin g glas s an d fallin g debris . (382-6 8 & 70)

• T o defin

e situation s wher

e seriou s injur

y ma y b e anticipate d fro

mfires, EP

A shoul d us e the following : > Fo r poo l fires an

d je t fires, radiatio n hea

t flu x o f 5 kilowatt s pe

r squar e mete r (the threshol d o

f second-degree bur

n based o n a90-secon

d exposure) ; > For

fireballs , radiation hea

t flu x o f 4 kilowatt s pe

r squar e mete r (the threshol d o f second-degre e burn) ; an

d > Fo r flash fires, one-half

o f the lowe r flammabilit

y limi t (estimat e o f the flame an d hea t radiatio n envelop e tha

t could seriousl

y impact publi c safet

y an d health) . (382-6 8 & 70 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A has adopted 1 ps i a s the overpressur e endpoint . For

fires, EP A has specifie

d 5 kw/ m, whic h represent s the threshol d fo r secon d degre e burn s fro

ma40-second exposure . EP A di d not selec t adifferen t leve l fo r fireball s becaus e th e exposur e tim e fromsuc

h event s i s ver

y short , whic

h woul d indicat e tha t i f adifferen t level wer e used , i t should b e higher . Fo

r vapo r clou d fires, EP

A has specified the lowe

r flammability limi

t (LFL) . EP

A considere d the commenter' s suggestion , but decide d tha

t i t wa s to o conservative . Dispersio n modeling alread y include s anumbe

r o f conservativ e assumption s i

n analyzing the distanc e to the LFL . The modeling assume s tha t th e cloud will dispers e to the maximu

mdistance , whe

n i t coul d ignit

e muc h sooner .P.5 8

3-2 8 Commente r make s th e followin g commen to n endpoin tcriteri a t o defin e significan t accidenta l release s fo r explosives :

• I n an accidenta l explosio n o f Divisio n 1. 1 explosives , n o inhabite d buildin g o r membe r o f th e publi c wil l eve r

b e expose d t o 3 ps i becaus e o f th e effectiv e regulatio n o f othe r agencie s an d long-standin g industr y practice s regardin g sitin g o f storag e an d manufacturin g buildings . Any exposure s tha t occu r wil l take plac e a

t considerably lowe r blas t overpressures , wit

h n o significan t

ris k o f har mt o th e publi c o r

t o property . (23-6 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A ha s no t

adopte d a

n endpoin t

for explosive s becaus e th e Agenc y i s proposin g t o delis t explosive s fro m§ 68.130 . Consequently , th e concern s o f th e commente r

hav e bee n addressed . D . INCLUSIO N O F SHELTERIN G I N PLAC E AN D EVACUATION S Commenter s suppor to r oppos e inclusio n o f shelterin g in place :

• Th e phras e "or

t o caus e th e publi c t o shelter-in-plac e o r b e evacuate d t o avoi d suc h consequences, " shoul d b e remove d for th e followin g reasons : (1 ) th e definitio n o f "significan t

accidenta l release " can b e improve d b y definin g th e releas e i n term s o f

th e seriou s harmtha t

migh t occur , rathe r

than th e protectiv e measure s take n i n th e even t o f arelease ; (2 ) shelterin g i n plac e can b e aconservative , protectiv e practic e tha t shoul d no t

b e discourage d b y EP A makin g it acriterio n fo

r scope/applicatio n o f

thi s regulation ; (3 ) it

i s unnecessary , becaus e an y "significan t

accidenta l release " a s define d abov e alread y include s an y even t tha t woul d ".. . caus e th e publi c t o shelter-in-plac e o r b e evacuate d t o avoi d suc h consequences. " (76-17 , 115-2 , 371-26 , 371-172 , 470-1 . 565-15 , 2162-13)

• Thi s i s aprocedur e [shelterin g i n place ] tha

t i s no t alway s recognize d b y emergenc y respons e personnel . (87-7 )

• Th e agenc y ha s gon e to o fa r b y includin g "shelte r

i n place " event s an d "evacuation " event s withi n th e definition . Bot h provision s shoul d b e deleted . (374-21 , 425-1 )

• I f th e rul e say s tha t

ever y tim e w e recommen d shelterin g i n place , tha t

makes th e releas e "significant, " ther e wil l b e adisincentiv e for companie s t o mak e th e recommendation . Thi s coul d ver y wel l resul t

i n a n increas e i

n th e risk t o th e public . W e fee l tha t

th e inclusio n i

n th e definitio n o f

"th e potentia l t o caus e acut e offsit e consequences " adequatel y capture s EPA' s inten t whe n the y include d shelterin g i n place . (382-42 )

• EP A shoul d revise , o r eve n delete , tha t

par t o f th e definitio n whic h include s event s tha t hav e "th e potentia l t o caus e .. . th e publi c t o shelter-in-plac e o r b e evacuate d t o avoi d suc h consequences. " Thi s wordin g coul d b e subjec t t o amyria d o f

conflicting interpretations . Fo r

example , th e word "public " i s ambiguous . Thi s coul d includ e one , ten , o r hundred s o f

people . I

n addition , merel y advisin g peopl e t o remai n of f th eP.5 9

3-2 9 street s i n the are ao

f asit e could qualif

y a s causin g peopl e t

o "shelter-in-place " whe

n i t migh t b e simpl y amatte r o f convenienc e t

o authorities . Also , evacuatio n t o "avoid suc h consequences " coul d b e applied to an y potentia l consequence s rangin g fro m seriou s advers e healt

h effects t o mino r physica l initation . (413-2 )

• The EP

A definition o

f significan t releas e i s one tha

t ha s potentia

l to caus e off-sit

e consequence s suc

h a s death , injury , o

r advers e huma

n healt h effects , or

caus e the publi c t o shelte r i n place . The proposed definition i s to o broa d an d goe s beyon

d the inten t o f Congres s i

n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments . Subjective description s suc h a s "shelte r i n place " mus t

b e deleted . (511-15 )

• Sheltering i

n plac e i s amethod undertake n t o preven t advers e consequence s suc h a s huma n death , ineversibl e healt

h effects , o

r hospitalizatio n and , therefore , shoul d b e considere d t

o b e amitigatio n strategy fo r reactin g t o asignifican

t accidenta l release . It s inclusio n i

n thi s definition ma

y resul t i n facilitie s being mor

e hesitant t o recommen d shelterin g i

n plac e followin

g arelease . The inclusio n o f thi s ter mi n the definition ma

y hav e th e effec

t o f penalizing afacilit

y fo r actin g i n aproactiv e manner . (674-7 ) Agenc y Respons e Althoug h EP A recognize s th e importanc e o f shelterin g i

n place , EP

A decide d to delet

e publi c evacuation s o r

shelterings-in-plac e a s criteri afo r Progra m1 eligibility , bu

t to retain i

t a s atrigge

r fo r inclusio n o

f areleas e i

n the five-year

acciden t history . EP

A i s concerne d tha

t inclusio n o

f thes e criteri ai n Progra m1 eligibilit

y ma y creat e apervers e incentiv e not

t o repor t release s an

d i t ma y encourag e source s an

d loca l emergency official s t

o tak e mor e chance s durin g a

n even t whe n ther e ma y b e potentia

l exposure s tha

t d o not rise to the endpoin

t specified i

n thi s rale bu

t woul d otherwis e b e worth y o f precautionar

y action s b

y the sourc e o

r b y loca l officials . I

f the evacuatio n or

sheltering take s plac e becaus e o

f aconcer n fo r publi c exposur

e to a n endpoin t a s specifie

d i n thi s rale, the

n publi c receptor s necessaril

y woul d b e unde r the worst cas e distanc e an

d the proces s would not

b e eligibl e fo r Progra m1 unde r the criteri ao

f the rale. Owners o

r operator s o

f processe s tha

t mee t Progra m1 eligilibilit

y requirement s ar

e require d t

o repor t afive-year

acciden t histor y fo r tha t process . I f loca l emergency planners , first responder s o

r the publi c hav e concern s abou t processe s i

n Progra m1 becaus e o f apas t evacuatio n o

r sheltering-in-plac e event , the n mechanism s unde

r EPCR A coul d b e use d to gathe

r mor e information fro

mthe sourc e abou

t it s preventio n progra

m(such a s EPCR

A section s 302(b)(2 ) [designation o f afacilit y i f i t doe s not alread y handl e extremel

y hazardou s substance s liste d unde

r sectio n 302 ] an

d 303(d)(3 ) [provision o

f information to the emergency plannin g committee] ) an

d involv e the sourc e i

n emergenc

y planning . Source s an

d loca l first responder s shoul d b e discussin g evacuatio n an d sheltering-in-plac e criteri aan d decision s as par

t o f emergenc y respons e planning . Shelterin g i

n plac e cover s action s take n t o protec t peopl e fro

mexposur

e to th e substance ; i

t doe s not include action s take

n simpl y to clea r arout e fo r respons e equipment . E . COMMENTER

S PROVID

E TH E FOLLOWIN

G ADDITIONAL COMMENTS O n pag e 5419 4 o

f thi s regulatio n EP

A doe s no t

include the ful

l definitio n o

f significan t releas e whe

n i t talk s abou

t the worst-cas e scenario . Th e par t tha t says , "O rP.6 0

3-3 0 t o caus e th e publi c t

o shelte r i n plac e o r

b e evacuate d t

o avoi d suc h consequences " wa s omitted . I s EPA doin g thi s s o tha t fewe r significan t

release s wil l b e looke d a t regardin g worst-cas e scenari o informatio n an d a s abasi s for developin g suc h scenarios ? (128-4 )

• EP A shoul d us e wit h car e th e ter

m"accidenta l release. " Ther e i s n o suc h thin g a s a n "accidental " release . I

n ever y instanc e a

n unintende d releas e o f

chemical s i s afailur e o f th e mechanisms i

n plac e t o preven t

th e release . (147-9 ) Agenc y Respons e EPA ha s delete d th e definitio n o f significan t

accidenta l release . Th e worst-cas e scenari o i s define d i n § 68.25 . Th e rul e define s th e worst-cas e releas e i n term s o f

th e distanc e t o aspecifie d endpoint , no t

i n term s o f

potentia l impacts , whic h woul d b e har d t o predict . EP A understand s th e argumen t tha t al l accident s can b e prevented , bu t th e statut e use s th e phras e "accidenta l release, " an d th e Agenc y mus t b e consisten t

wit h th e statutory language . F . ALTERNATIV E DEFINITION S Commenter s propos e th e followin g alternativ e definitions :

• Any accidenta l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t o th e ambien t ai r tha t ha s cause d o r coul d b e expecte d t o caus e acut e offsite consequence s suc h a s deaths , multipl e hospitalizations , o r

release s t o th e environmen t tha t coul d lea d t o suc h death s o r hospitalizations . (32-2 , 48-6 , 90-6 , 129-5 , 143-2 )

• Significan t

accidenta l releas e mean s a n unanticipate d emissio n o f aregulate d substanc e int o th e ambien t

ai r fromastationary sourc e whic h coul d produc e asignifican t likelihoo d tha t

person s expose d offsite ma y suffe r acut e healt

h effect s resultin g i

n significan t

injur y o r death . (77-1 )

• "Significan t

accidenta l release " mean s an y accidenta l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t o th e ambien t

ai r tha t ha s cause d o r

coul d b e expecte d t o caus e acut e offsit e consequence s suc h a s death , multipl e hospitalizations , o r seriou s advers e effect s t o th e environmen t

tha t coul d lea d t o suc h death s o r hospitalizations . (76-16 , 115-2 , 137-5 , 313-2 , 314-8 . 388-2 , 390-30 , 392-1 , 396-1 , 424-2 , 509-6 , 510-4 , 667-5 , 671-1 )

• Significan t

accidenta l releas e means an y accidenta l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e abov e th e threshol d quantit y tha t ha s cause d o r

ha s th e potentia l t o caus e offsite consequence s suc h a s death , injury , o r advers e effect s t o huma n healt h o r th e environmen t

o r t o caus e th e publi c t o shelter-in-plac e o r b e evacuate d t o avoi d suc h consequences . (110-5 )

• Any accidenta l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t o th e ambien t air tha t ha s cause d o r ha s th e potentia l t

o caus e acut e offsite impac t suc h a s huma

n death , o r

seriou s injur

y o f atyp e requirin g peopl e t o b e hospitalized . (117-7 , 627-4 )P.6 1

3-3 1 An y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the ambien

t air tha t ha s caused o

r could b e expecte d to caus e acut e offsit e consequence s suc

h a s deaths , hospitalizations , o r advers e healt

h effect s t o th e publi c o r environmen

t tha t coul d lea d t o suc h healt h effects . (123-2 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e wher e ther e i s areasonabl e belief

tha t the releas e ha s caused or

ha s threatene d t

o caus e offsit e consequence s suc

h a s death , injur

y requiring medica

l attention , o

r advers e effects to huma

n healt h o r the environmen

t o r t o caus e the publi c to shelter-in-plac e o r b e evacuate d t o avoi d suc

h consequences . (295-7 ) An y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the ambien

t air tha t ha s caused o

r could b e expecte d t

o caus e acut

e offsit e consequence s suc

h a s huma n deaths , multiple hospitalizations , o

r release s t o th e environmen

t tha t could lea d t o suc h death s o r hospitalizations . (371-5 , 371-25 , 371-171 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the ambien

t air tha t ha s cause d o

r ha s the potentia

l t o caus e huma

n death , o r seriou s injury , o f atyp e requirin g peopl e to b e hospitalized , due t o acut e exposure . (382-42 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the ambien

t ai r that : (a ) I s show n t o impac t area s regularl

y occupied b

y the genera

l publi c suc

h a s schools , residences , businesses , o

r publi c recreatio n areas , and ; (b ) Ha s cause d o

r coul d reasonabl

y b e expecte d t

o caus e acut

e offsit e huma n healt h consequence s suc

h a s death , multipl e hospitalizations , o r seriou s advers e effects t

o th e environmen

t tha t coul d lea d to suc h death s o r hospitalizations . (393-1 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the ambien

t air tha t ha s cause d o

r could reasonabl

y b e expecte d t

o caus e acut

e offsit e consequences , suc

h a s death , multipl e hospitalizations , or seriou s advers e effects t

o huma n healt h o r the environmen

t tha t coul d lea d t o suc h death s o r hospitalizations . (425-3 , 443-11 , 526-5 , 565-14 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e tha t ha s cause d o

r ha s th e potentia

l t o caus e offsit

e consequence s suc

h as death , injury , o r to caus e the publi c shelte

r i n plac e o r b e evacuated to avoi d suc h consequences . (438-15 ) A n accidenta

l releas e o f aregulated substanc e t

o the ambien

t ai r tha t ha s caused , o

r could b e expecte d t

o cause , advers e acut

e healt h consequence s offsite , suc h a s death , injur y requirin g hospitalization , or seriou s advers e effects to th e environmen t tha t could lea d directly to suc

h death s o r injuries . (446-8 , 667-5 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s a

n unanticipate d emissio n o f aregulate d substanc e int o th e ambien

t ai r fro mastationar

y sourc e whic

h coul d produc e asignifican t3-3 2 ' likelihoo d tha

t person s expose d off-sit

e jma y suffe r acut e healt h effects resultin g i

n significan t injur y o r death . (464-2 ) j Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the ambien

t air tha t ha s caused o

r could , b e expected t

o caus e advers e acut

e healt h consequence s offsite , suc

h a s huma n death , ineversibl e healt

h effects , multipl e hospitalizations , o

r seriou s advers e effect

s t o th e environmen

t tha t coul d provide a direc t pathwa y t o suc h consequences . (470-1 , 629-4) ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e tha t ha s caused o

r ha s the potentia

l t o caus e offsit

e consequence s suc

h a s death , injury , o r advers e affects to huma

n healt h o r the environmen

t o r t o caus e the publi c t

o shelter

in-plac e or

t o b e evacuated t

o avoi d suc

h consequences . (495-3 ) A release o

f aregulate d substanc e into th e ambien t ai r tha t ma y caus e advers e acut

e healt h effect s o r seriou s advers e effects t

o the environment . (511-15 ) A significan

t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e t o the ambien

t air tha t has cause d o

r coul d reasonabl

y b e expecte d t

o caus e acut

e offsit e consequences , suc

h a s deat h o r multipl e hospitalizations , o r seriou s advers e effects to the environmen

t tha t could lea d t o acut e offsit e consequences , suc

h a s death s o r hospitalizations . (545-7 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s areleas e o f aregulate d substanc e t

o the ambien

t ai r tha t cause s o r ha s the potentia

l t o caus e acut

e offsit e impact , suc

h a s deat h o r injury/advers e effects t

o huma n healt h sufficien t t o requir e medica l treatmen t a s define d b y the OSH

A 20 0 Log . (693- 1 j i An y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e tha

t ha s caused or

ha s th e potentia

l t o caus e offsit

e consequence s suc

h a s death , injury , o

r advers e effect s t

o huma n healt h suc h a s woul d b e expecte d i

f the IDL H concentration s wer

e exceede d a

t the fenceline . (693-19 ) An y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e tha

t ha s cause d o r

ha s th e potentia

l t o cause , fro mthe reasonabl e perspectiv e o f first respons e personnel , on-sit e consequence s suc

h a s death , injur

y o r advers e effects t

o th e healt h o f person s respondin g to the release , o r offsit e consequence s suc

h as death , injury , o

r advers e effects to huma

n healt h or the environmen

t o r to caus e the publi c to shelte r i n plac e or b e evacuate d to avoid suc

h consequences . (702-5 ) Significan t accidenta l releas e mean s an

y accidenta

l releas e o f aregulate d substanc e to the ambien

t air tha t ha s cause d or

ha s the potentia

l t o caus e offsit

e consequences , suc

h a s death , injury , o

r acut e advers e effects to huma

n healt h tha t coul d lea d to deat h o r injury . (707-9 ) 'P.6 3

3-3 3 Agenc y Respons e EP A decide d tha

t asingl e definition o

f significan t accidenta l releas e wa

s inappropriat

e fo r al l affecte d section s o

f the rale. I

n som e cases , suc

h a s acciden

t history , th

e covered accident s ca

n b e dictate d b y impacts ; i

n othe r cases , suc h a s the offsit

e consequenc e analysis , toxi c concentrations , overpressures , o

r hea t radiatio n abov e the endpoint s ca n b e used to defin

e the release s tha

t nee d t o b e considered . Consequently , EP A ha s decided t

o drop the definition an

d defin e the type s o

f release s tha

t should b e covere d fo

r eac h requirement . T o suppor

t thes e individua

l requirements , EP

A ha s adde

d definition s o

f the terms , "environmenta

l receptor, " "injury, " "medica l treatment, " an

d "publi c receptor " an d adopted (wit

h statutorily necessar

y modifications ) th e OSH

A definition o

f catastrophi c release . EP A ha s not define d effects based o

n thei r probability . EP

A recognize s tha

t defining the likelihoo d o

f aspecific impac t

occurring i s not

feasibl e i n most case s becaus e man

y factor s beyon

d the quantit y an d duratio n o

f areleas e affec

t the chanc e tha

t i t wil l impac t human s o r the environment . For the offsit e consequenc e analysis , EP A i s definin

g th e distanc e o

f concer n based o n the distanc e t

o specified endpoints , whic

h ar e associate d wit

h potentia l effects , usin g conservativ e assumption s o n othe r factors , suc

h a s win d speed an

d stability , fo

r worst-cas e analyses . Th

e endpoint s do not

impl y tha t specific impact s will occur , jus t tha t the y ar e possibl e whe

n peopl e ar

e exposed to thes e toxi c concentrations , overpressures , o r hea t radiation . Th e final rul e define s "injury " to mea n an y effec t t o ahuma n bein g tha t result s fro

mdirec t exposur e t o toxi c concentrations , radian t heat , o r overpressure s fro

maccidenta

l release s o

r fro mthe direc t consequence s o

f avapo r cloud explosio n fro

ma n accidenta

l releas e an

d tha t require s medica

l treatmen t o r hospitalization . EP

A ha s adopted adefinition o f medica l treatmen t use d b y OSH A i n reportin g occupationa

l illnes s an

d injurie s a s one commente r recommended . Thi s definition doe s not limit injurie s t o ineversibl e effects or

thos e requirin g hospitalization , whic h th e Agenc y believe s woul

d b e to o stringen

t arequirement . A releas e tha t lead s peopl e t

o see k medica l treatmen t ma y hav e the potentia l t o caus e seriou s impacts , especiall y amon g vulnerabl e populations . EP A disagree s wit

h th e commente r tha t injurie s should b e limite d b y the numbe

r tha t occur . A single seriou s injur y t o the publi c indicate s the potentia l fo r greate r harm , an d the accidenta

l releas e tha

t caused th e injur

y should b e covere d b

y thi s rale. Althoug h EP A i s concerne d abou

t injurie s t o first responders , th

e rul e i s not

directe d towar

d thes e injurie s becaus e the

y ar e addresse d b

y OSH A rales o n worke r safety . Th

e endpoint s tha

t have bee n selected ar

e based , to th e exten

t possible , o

n effects t o the genera

l public , whos e member s ar e not traine d i n protectiv e action , d

o not hav e protectiv e equipment , an d ma y b e mor e vulnerabl e tha

n working adults . EP A di d no t defin e covere d accidenta

l release s base d o

n concentratio n a

t the fenceline . For acciden t reporting , definin

g covere d release s b

y concentratio n a

t the fencelin

e would b e difficul

t fo r source s t o implement . Mos t

source s covered b

y thi s rul e ar

e unlikely t

o hav e monitorin g equipmen

t a t th e fenceline . Th

e onl y wa y i n whic h the y coul d determine potentia l concentration a

t the fenceline woul d b e to do dispersio n modeling . Eve n i f thi s approach wer

e economicall

y reasonable , whic

h EP A believe s i t i s not , mos t

dispersio n model s do no t

predic t concentration s a

t les s tha n 10 0 meter s fro

m th e releas e point . Man

y smalle r source s will hav e considerabl y les s distanc e tha

n thi s t o their fenceline . For

th e offsit e consequenc e analysis , source s will us e specifi c endpoint s an d the distanc e to thos e endpoints . For

othe r requirements , release s ar

e covere d i

f they cause

d (o r i n the cas e o

f acciden t investigation , ha

d the potentia

l to cause ) certai n impacts .•T*f» T T" i •

16 . INCIDEN

T INVESTIGATIO

N Man y commenter s agree d tha

t significan t release s should b e investigated , whil e othe r commenter s argued tha

t investigatin g onl

y significan

t release s was no

t adequate . Numerou s commenter s argued tha

t nea r misse s should b e investigated , but man y othe r commenter s oppose d their inclusio n i

n thi s requirement . Othe

r commenter s discusse d the requirement s fo r th e acciden t investigatio n report s an

d th e requiremen

t fo r awritte n acciden

t investigatio n plan . A . Type

s o f Accident s t o Investigat

e Commenter

s agree tha

tsignificantrelease s shoul d b e investigated :

• A s EP

A proposes , acciden

t investigatio n shoul d occu r afte r eac h significan

t accidenta l release . (451-24 )

• Investigation s hel

p brin g realit

y t o the plannin g proces s an d result in improved plan s an d agreater

leve l o f acciden t prevention . (702-11 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A ha s changed th e rul e languag e regardin g inciden t investigatio n to b e consisten t wit h OSHA' s PS M standard . Th e ne w languag e reads , "Th

e owne r or operato r shall investigat

e eac h inciden t whic h resulte d in , or

coul d reasonably hav e resulte d i n acatastrophi c release. " Unde r EPA' s definition , catastrophi c releas e mean s amajo r uncontrolle d emission , fire, or explosion , involvin g on

e or mor e regulate d substance s tha t present s imminen

t an d substantia

l endangermen

t to publi c healt

h an d th e environment . The ter m"significan

t accidenta l release " ha s been dropped . EP A agree s tha

t inciden t investigatio n improve s the plannin g an d acciden t preventio n process , an d believe s tha

t th e ne w requirement s ensur

e tha t incident s tha

t resulte d in , o r

could hav e been expected reasonabl

y to result

in acatastrophi c releas e will b e investigate d an d correctiv e actio n taken i n atimel y manner . Commenter

s argue tha

tonl y certai n types of

release s shoul d b e investigated :

• Onl

y significan

t release s should b e investigated ; there i s no statutor y authorit y fo r an y othe r investigations . Requirin g an y othe r investigation s coul d subject industr y to awid e rang e o f litigation . (177-5 , 394-11 , 511-16 )

• Investigation s shoul d onl y b e mandator

y fo r release s i

n exces s o f the reportabl e quantit y a s define

d in th e communit

y right-to-kno w regulations . (319-10 )

• In th e interes t

o f econom y an d feasibility , EP

A shoul d requir

e onl y tha t significan

t accidenta l release s b e investigated . (375-17,381-19,382-113 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A i s mandated b y the CA A to promulgat

e reasonabl e regulation s fo r preventio n an

d detectio n o

f accidenta l release s an

d response s to suc

h releases . The Agenc

y ha s include d requirement s fo

r acciden t investigation s i

n it s regulatio n becaus e suc h investigation s ca

n provid e usefu l information abou

t hazard s an

d the step s needed t

o preven t a n accidenta

l release . EP

A i s requirin g investigatio n onl y o f catastrophi c or

potentially catastrophi c release s becaus e th e Agency16- 2

believe s thes e will provid e the mos t usefu l information* , an

d thi s requiremen

t will not b e undul y burdensom

e to the regulate d community . T o b e consisten t wit h OSHA' s PS M standard , EP A ha s changed th e rul e languag e to read , "th e owne r o r operato r shall investigat

e eac h inciden t which resulte d in , or

could reasonably hav e resulte d in acatastrophi c release. " Th e ter m"significan

t accidenta l release " ha s been dropped . EP A i s not requirin g tha

t acciden t investigatio n report s b e mad e public ; therefore , EP

A doe s not

believ e acciden

t investigation s ar

e likely to lea

d to litigation . ' EP A ha s not require d investigatio n o

f releases ; abov e th e reportabl e quantit y (RQ) . The R Q i s areportin g trigger ; i t i s not intended t

o indicat e the potentia

l fo r offsit e impact . Fo r

CA A 112(r ) regulate d substance s als o regulate d unde r CERCLA , RQ s ar

e lower , usually muc

h lower , tha n th e threshol d quantitie s unde r CA A sectio n 112(r) , an

d releas e o

f a n R Q woul d likely not b e catastrophic . I

n addition , EP

A doe s not

believ e tha

t areleas e o

f an y specifi c quantit

y o f a regulate d substanc e ca

n b e use d a s a

n indicator

o f potentia l fo r acatastrophi c impact

becaus e o

f th e man y site-specifi c factor s involved . A s noted , th e -owne r or operato r shal l investigat

e eac h inciden t tha t resulte d in , o r

coul d reasonably hav e resulte d in acatastrophi c release . Commenter

s argu e tha

tinvestigatin g only significantrelease s i s inadequate :

• Th e owne

r o r operato r shoul d investigat

e all accidenta

l releases . I

f onl y significan

t release s ar

e reported , the valu e o

f reportin g accident s become s les s importan t fo r publi c safety . Th e purpos e o f reportin g shoul d b e to assis t in preventin g accident s befor e the y occur . Reportin g all accident s would allo w EP A t o se e i f pattern s develop tha

t coul d sugges t

the potentia

l fo r mor e seriou s releases . (461-8 )

• EP

A an d industr y will hav e adifficul

t tim e agreein g o

n .whic h incidents , beyond thos e tha t result i n catastrophi c effects , requir e investigation . A systemo f inciden t report s shoul d b e establishe d as par t o f the preventio n program . Inciden t report s shoul d b e filed wit

h managemen

t fo r an y abnorma

l occurrence s o r

observation s as par t o f th e norma

l operation s a

t afacility . Onc e asimpl e systemo f inciden t report s i s established , i

t become s muc

h easie r to expan d the investigatio n fo

r all accident s becaus e the tool s an d skill s ar e ingrained . (664-43 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A ha s adopte d OSH

A PS M languag e o n inciden t investigatio n to ensur

e consistenc y between th e tw o rule . Th e Agency believe s tha t requirin g investigatio n o f incident s which resulte d in , or

coul d reasonably hav e resulte d in acatastrophi c releas e will satisf y EPA' s objective s o

f investigatin g incident s to gathe r informatio n abou

t the hazard s an

d th e step s needed t o prevent accidenta

l release s whil e not

undul y burdenin g facilitie s b

y requirin g investigatio n o f all incidents . EP

A believe s i

t would b e undul

y burdensom

e t o requir

e investigatio n o

f all accidenta

l releases . Ther

e ar e n o inciden

t reportin g requirement s unde r thi s rule . Commenter

s argu e tha

tnear misse s shoul d b e investigated :

• Investigation s o

f nea r misse s shoul d b e require d becaus e they are aprove n ris k reductio n managemen

t too l tha t provide s importan

t informatio n fo

r correctin g^?^W®£W*~ r FT^*'-"

• 16- 3 problem s tha

t migh t otherwis e lea

d t o significan

t accidenta l releases . (4-1 , 8-6 , 87

- 36 , 147-7 , 154-11,494-17,498-24 , 537-17 , 587-4 , 669-20 , 1011-11 )

• No

t includin g nea

r misse s in the investigatio n woul d weake n the effectivenes s o

f th e program . (128-11 ) Nea r misse s shoul d b e investigated . (128-26 , 218-15 , 363-34,451-26 , 566-48,606

- 10,663-12,664-42 )

• Nea

r misse s shoul d b e investigated , but the report s shoul d not

b e mad e public . (321-5 )

• Nea

r misse s shoul d b e investigate d to preserv e consistenc y wit h OSH A requirements . (390-10 )

• Becaus e th e definitio n o f significan t accidenta l releas e include s the phras e "o r ha s th e potentia

l to cause, " nea

r misse s mus t

t o b e investigated . (392-21 )

• Nea

r misse s shoul d b e investigate d usin g amor e streamline d procedur

e tha n tha t adopte d fo

r significan t releases . (482-18 , 533-33 ) Agenc y Respons e Unde r th e requiremen

t to investigat

e eac h inciden t whic h resulte d in , or

could reasonably hav e resulte d in acatastrophi c release , owner s o r operator s will nee

d t o investigat

e thos e incident s tha

t creat e or reasonably could hav e create d imminen t an d substantia

l dange r to publi c healt h an d th e environmen

t offsit e ha d th e situatio n been differen t (e.g.,unfavorabl e weathe r conditions) . Thi s requiremen t i s consisten

t wit h OSH A requirements . EP

A als o encourages , but doe s not require , owner s o r

operator s t

o examine closel

y an d appropriately investigat

e incident s tha t wer e prevente d fro

moccurrin g or

fro mhavin g acatastrophi c releas e fo r reason s othe

r tha t proces s desig n controls . Suc h incident s could b e considere d near-misse s regardles s o f whethe r there wa s areleas e an

d should b e examined to determin e wh y the y occurre d an

d whethe r actio n ca n an d shoul d b e taken to preven t recurrence . I

f a n owne r or operato r determine s tha

t a situatio n require s investigation , then tha t investigatio n shoul d follo w th e procedure s describe d i n th e rule . Commenter

s oppos e mandator

y investigation s of

near misses :

• Investigation s o

f nea r misse s shoul d not

b e require d becaus e the

y ar e impossibl e to adequatel y identify . (30-7,486-8,531-3,623-7,679-8,680-17,946-7 )

• Investigation s shoul d onl y b e require d fo

r actua l releases ; requirin g othe

r investigation s will diver

t attentio n awa

y fro mthe Congressiona

l goa l o f ensurin g tha t industria l facilitie s dea

l wit h rea l releases . (374-30 , 556-13 )

• Investigation s o

f nea r misse s shoul d not

b e require d becaus e OSH A alread y require s their

investigation . (54-9 , 371-173 , 383-8 )16-4

• Investigation s o

f nea r misse s would b e burdensom e an d serv e no rea

l puipose . (319-10,531-3,689-5 )

• Encouragin g th e investigatio n o f nea r misse s i s sufficient . Becaus e thes e investigation s are beyond the scop e o f th e congressiona

l mandat e an d enforcemen

t o f amandator

y provisio n would b e nearl y impossible , the investigatio n o f nea r misse s shoul d no t

b e mandatory . (357-!l7 , 412-17,413-16,453-21 , 687-9 )

• Investigation s of

nea r misse s shoul d no

t b e required . (471-6 , 478-7 , 570-18 ) Agenc y Respons e The rang e o

f incident s tha

t reasonably could hav e resulte d in acatastrophi c releas e i s ver y broad an d cannot b e specificall

y defined . EP

A decided to leav e i

t up to the discretio n o

f th e owne r o r operato r to .determine whethe

r a n inciden t could reasonably hav e resulte d in a catastrophi c releas e an

d to investigat

e suc h incidents . ! Investigatio n o f suc h incident s i s a

n important ; par

t o f goo d preventio n practice s an d will hel p to ensur

e tha t facilitie s ar

e dealin g wit

h an d reducin g unnecessar

y risks . EP

A believe s tha

t investigatio n o

f incident s tha

t reasonably could hav e resulte d i

n acatastrophi c releas e will no t overly burde n facilities . EP A decide d to adopt OSHA' s requirement s an

d interpretation s fo

r incident ) investigation , an

d complianc e wit

h EPA' s RM P rul e shoul d not

impos e additiona

l requirement s o n source s tha t ar e alread y i n complianc e wit h OSHA' s PS M rule . EP A doe s no

t agre e tha

t investigatio n o

f near-misse s i s beyond th e scop e o f the Congressiona

l mandate . EP

A was require d unde

r th e CA A to promulgat

e reasonabl e regulation s to preven t an d detec t accidenta l release s an

d respond to suc

h releases . Thus , EP A ha s authorit

y to requir

e investigatio n o

f accidenta l release s becaus e o

f the valuabl e informatio n thes e investigation s ca n provid e fo

r preventio n an

d mitigatio n o

f futur e releases . Commenter

s propos e additiona

l triggers fo r requirin g a n investigation :

• Investigation s shoul d b e require d i f release s caus e worke

r death s or

injuries , regardles s o

f th e potentia

l fo r offsit e consequences . Ris k

managemen

t plannin g will b e seriousl y compromise d i f thi s provisio n goe s uncorrected . (25-9 , 363-34 )

• Release s wit

h onl y onsit e consequence s shoul d b e include d in th e significan t release s tha

t require investigation . (290-6 , 566-48 )

• Acciden

t investigation s shoul d b e require d o f facilitie s wheneve

r first respons e agencie s ar

e calle d to respond or

whe n automati c acciden

t preventio n system s ar

e triggered . (702-12 ) ' Agenc y Respons e EP A i s require d b y the CA

A to promulgat

e regulation s to prevent

accidenta

l release s o

f regulate d substance s an

d to reduc e the severit

y o f release s tha

t d o occur . EPA' s mandat e i s to protec t publi c healt

h an d th e environment , whil e OSH A i s require d to protec t

worke r healt h an d safety . EPA' s definitio n of catastrophi c releas e include s event s tha t present imminen t an d substantia l dange r to publi c healt

h an d the environment , whil e OSHA' s definitio n include s event s tha t present seriou s dange

r to employee s i

n the workplace . EP

A believe s thi s distinctio n i s•r r 16- 5 appropriat e an d i s no t requirin g investigatio n o f accident s wit

h the potentia

l to hav e onl

y on-sit e effects an d to affec t only worker s rather

tha n publi c healt

h an d the environment . Suc

h accident s would b e unde

r OSHA' s jurisdiction . EP A doe s not

believ e tha

t i t i s necessar

y to requir

e facilitie s to investigat

e ever y inciden t wher e first respons e agencie s respon d o r whe n acciden t preventio n system s are triggered . Source s implemen t acciden t preventio n system s to preven t a n incident , an

d EP A doe s no t

believ e i t i s necessar y to burde n source s b y requirin g tha t the y investigat

e incident s tha

t wer e prevente d b y proces s desig n controls . EP A als o doe s not

wan t to provid e adisincentiv e fo r callin g first respons e agencie s fo

r ai d a s aprecautionar

y measure . EP

A ha s lef t i t up t o th e discretio n of

th e owne r or operator to determin e whethe

r a n inciden t coul d reasonably hav e resulte d i n a catastrophi c releas e an

d to investigat

e suc h incidents . Commenter

s make additiona

l comment

s abouttype s of

accident s t o investigate :

• The word s "potentia l to cause " offsit

e consequences , an

d "advers e effect

s to huma

n health " bot

h leav e to o muc

h u p to the judgemen

t o f th e investigator . A mor

e precis e definitio n of

thes e term s i s needed . (8-14 )

• EP

A exclude d nea

r misse s fro

minvestigations , bu

t require d tha

t al l significan

t accidenta l release s ("potentia

l to cause" ) b e investigate d —thi s i s somewha t confusin g wordin g which migh

t lea d on e t o believ e tha

t nea r misse s are in fac

t include d i f there i s an

y release . I

f thi s i s EPA' s intent , then th e definitio n shoul d b e mad e les s vague . (55-1,7 )

• EP

A need s t o defin

e how i t i s determine d tha

t "incident s tha

t ha d th e potentia

l fo r offsit e consequences " ar

e chosen . Withou

t definition , industr

y will minimiz e thes e events , leadin g to inadequat e reporting . (128-9 )

• Th e ter

m"nea r miss " need s definition . A possibl e definitio n i s tha t nea r misse s are release s of

aregulate d substanc e to the ambien t air tha t di d not excee d th e releas e quantity/rate tha

t would hav e caused asignifican t accidenta l release , due t

o non routin e huma

n intervention . (693-2 )

• The definitio n o

f significan t accidenta l releas e shoul d b e revise d to mea n a n accidenta l releas e o

f aregulate d substanc e tha t ha s caused or

ha s th e potentia

l to caus e (fro mth e reasonabl e perspectiv e o f first respons e personnel ) onsit e consequence s such a s death , injury , o r advers e effects t o th e healt h of person s respondin g to th e release . (702-5 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A changed th e inciden

t investigatio n requirement s to b e consisten t wit h OSHA' s PS M standard , droppin g the term s "potentia l to cause, " "advers e effect s to huma

n health, " an

d "significan t accidenta l release. " The inciden

t investigatio n requirement s in the final rul e ar e adopte d directly fro

mth e OSH

A PS M standard . The owne r or operato r mus t investigat e each inciden t which resulte d in , or

could reasonabl

y hav e resulte d in acatastrophi c releas e o f a regulate d substance . EP

A ha s define

d acatastrophi c releas e a s amajo r uncontrolle d emission ,P.7 0

16- 6 fire, o r explosion , involvin g one or mor e regulate d substance s tha t present s imminen

t an d substantia l endangermen

t to publi c healt

h an d the environment . The rul e languag e ensure s tha t owner s o r operator s will investigat

e eac h inciden t that ! ha d offsit e consequence s resultin g in imminen t an d substantia

l dange r to publi c healt

h an d th e environment . Owner s o r operator s will als o investigat

e thos e incident s tha

t reasonabl y coul d hav e resulte d i

n offsit e consequence s resultin g i n imminen

t an d substantia

l dange r to public ; healt

h an d the environmen

t ha d the situatio n bee

n differen t (e.g.,unfavorabl e weathe r conditions) . EP

A als o encourage s owner s o r operator s to examine closely an d appropriately investigat

e incident s tha

t wer e prevente d fro

m occurrin g o r

fro mhavin g catastrophi c result s fo r reason s othe

r tha n proces s desig n controls . Suc h incident s coul d b e considere d near-misse s regardles s o f whethe r there wa s areleas e an

d shoul d b e examined to determin e wh y the y occurre d an

d whethe r actio n ca

n an d shoul d b e taken to preven t recurrence . I

f a n owne r o r operato r determine s tha

t asituatio n require s investigation , then tha t investigatio n shoul d follow th e procedure s describe d in the rule . OSHA' s PS M standar

d i s concerne d wit

h investigatin g incident s wit h onsite consequence s such adeat

h or injur y to workers . EPA' s RM P rul e i s concerne d wit

h the consequence s to publi c healt h an d the environment . EP

A doe s no

t hav e the (authorit

y to requir

e investigatio n o

f incident s tha

t coul d hav e consequence s suc h a s death, [ injury , o r

advers e effects to the healt h o f person s respondin g to th e release . Finally , thi s requiremen

t doe s no t includ e reportin g o

f releases . The final rul e doe s not requir e acciden t reportin g beyond the five-year acciden t history , which ha s differen t reportin g triggers . 'P.7 1 "Tr "

16-7 B . Acciden

tInvestigatio n Report

s Commente

r agrees wit

h th e proposed recipient

s o f acciden tinvestigatio n repor

t information :

• Onl

y employee s whos e jo b task s ar e relevan t to th e releas e should b e given th e information in th e acciden t investigatio n reports . (382-112 ) Agenc y Respons e Th e final rul e state s th e repor t shoul d b e reviewe d wit

h personnel whos e jo b task s are affecte d b y the finding s o

f th e inciden

t investigation , includin g contrac t employees . However , thi s doe s no t preven t . asourc e owne

r o r operato r fro mreviewin g the repor

t wit h personnel a

t th e sourc e tha t ar e no t directly affecte

d b y the investigatio n findings . Commenter

s propos e additiona

l recipient

s fo r acciden

tinvestigatio n repor

tinformation :

• Th

e acciden t investigatio n sectio n could b e improve d b y requirin g ashare d databas e o

f informatio n abou

t significan

t accidenta l release s to improv e industria l experience . (4-4 , 482-18 , 553-32 )

• Al l o f th e worker s a

t the relevan

t facilit y shoul d ge

t to lear n abou t th e acciden

t investigatio n findings . (128-27 )

• The recipient s o

f th e RM P shoul d receiv e acop

y o f the acciden

t investigatio n report . Becaus e thi s rul e doe s not appea r to require submissio n o

f the acciden

t investigatio n repor

t to anyone , aparagrap h listin g th e Board , the appropriat e SERC , an d the affecte

d LEPC would b e a

n appropriat

e addition . (669-51 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s tha

t personne l affecte

d b y the inciden

t an d b y change s resultin g fro mthe investigatio n shoul d receiv e informatio n abou t th e inciden

t investigatio n an

d i s requirin g tha

t inciden t investigatio n findings b e reviewe d wit h personnel , includin g contrac t personnel , whos e jo b task s ar e affecte d b y th e findings . However , i t ma y not b e necessar

y to shar e tha t informatio n wit h personnel a

t asourc e wh

o ar e not involved i

n th e proces s wher

e the inciden

t occurre d o r affecte d b y an y change s resultin g fro

mth e acciden

t investigation . Although the Agenc y agree s tha t all worker s could benefi

t fro mth e share d knowledg e an d encourage s sourc e owner s an d operator s to trai n an

d educat e their employee s abou

t change s a

t the source , the Agenc

y believe s tha t i t i s unnecessar

y to burde n facilitie s b y requirin g the mto review inciden

t investigatio n finding s wit

h unaffecte

d personnel . Informatio n abou

t accident s tha

t resulte d in deaths , injuries , o r significan t propert y damag e o n site , or known offsit

e deaths , injuries , evacuations , shelterin g in place , propert y damage , o r

environmenta

l damag e mus t

b e include d i n th e five-year acciden t histor y require d fo

r the RMP . Incident s subject to the acciden

t investigatio n requirement s should b e include d i f they16- 8

mee t thes e criteria . Th e five-year acciden t histor y dat ain the RMP s will constitut e ashare d databas e o

f publicly availabl e informatio n abou t accidenta l releases . EP A i s not requirin g submissio n o

f inciden t investigatio n reports . EP A recognize s the public' s interes t

regardin g thi s information , however , EP A mus t conside r th e sensitivit

y of thes e data . The Agenc

y believe s sensitiv e informatio n shoul d remain on-sit e an d availabl e to EP

A an d th e implementing agency fo r review an

d auditin g purposes . Becaus e th e purpos e o f th e investigation s i s to assis t

th e sourc e in identifying an d addressin g problems , i

t i s importan

t tha t th e sourc e do a s thoroug h arevie w a s possible , without concer n fo r th e us e tha

t migh t b e mad e o f th e informatio n b y others . I f thes e report s wer

e mad e public , i t i s likely tha

t man y source s woul d no t include an

y informatio n tha

t coul d b e use d agains t

the sourc e and , therefore , migh t produc e report s tha

t wer e o f littl e us e t o anyone . ' Commente r .agrees wit

h th e respons e t o findings requirements :

• The requiremen

t to addres s an

d resoly e th e finding s o

f th e acciden

t investigatio n repor t i s appropriate . Industr

y shoul d no

t b e require d t o automaticall y implemen

t th e finding s an

d recommendation s ofth e acciden t investigatio n report . (382-111 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A acknowledge s th e commenter' s support . ; Owner s an d operator s mus t

establis h a systemto addres s an

d resolv e th e acciden

t investigatio n repor

t finding s an

d recommendation s an

d documen t resolution s an

d correctiv e actions . Commenter

s argu e thatth e respons e t o findings shoul d b e expanded :

• The acciden

t investigatio n sectio n could b e improve d b y requirin g furthe r assessmen t o f correctiv e actio n effectivenes s to improv e program s rathe r tha n allowin g the

mto becom

e stagnant . (4f3 , 482-18 )

• Follow-u

p report s o n aschedule d basi s shoul d b e require d to ensur e implementatio n o

f correctiv e action s withi n specified time frames . (87-35 , 566-52 )

• Procedure s fo

r implementing investigatio n repor t recommendation s shoul d include : (1 ) managemen

t revie w o

f acciden t report s tha

t result s in evaluatio n o

f recommendation s of

action s o r

alternative s associate d wit h preventin g acciden

t recurrence ; (2 ) alistin g o f responsibl e personnel ; (3 ) establishmen t o f atimetable ; (4 ) method s to ensur

e tha t the recommendation s are implemented , such a s th e us e o f statu s report s in accordanc e wit h se t schedules ; (5 ) evaluatio n o f th e need fo

r employee retrainin g o r

reassignmen

t base d o n employe e errors ; an d (6 ) accident

repor t review a s par

t o f operato r an d maintenanc e trainin g t

o ensur e proper communicatio n o

f lesson s learne d to facilit

y personnel . (566-49 ) Agenc y Respons e I n th e final rule , EP

A state s that , "the owne

r or operato r shal l establis h asystemt o promptl y addres s an

d resolv e th e inciden

t repor t finding s an

d recommendations . Resolution s an d" ^r^-o-.y^K,' XTWT- 1

16- 9 correctiv e action s shall b e documented. " EP A believe s tha

t there ma y b e situation s wher

e i t i s no t necessar y or appropriat

e to implemen

t al l o f the repor t recommendations ; however , i t i s necessar y t o documen

t the resolutio n o

f the repor t finding s an

d recommendation s to ensur e tha t they hav e been adequatel

y considered . EP A i s requirin g inciden

t investigatio n report s to b e retaine d fo r five years , bu

t doe s not require furthe

r assessmen

t onc e th e repor

t recommendation s hav e bee n reviewe d an d resolution s documented . EP

A expect s owner s or

operator s to tak

e necessar y step s to ensur

e tha t th e inciden t doe s not recu r an d believe s tha

t the final rul e will accomplis h tha t goal . EP

A i s not specifying aspecifi c timefram e fo r revie w an

d implementatio n of

repor t recommendation s an

d resolutions , although i

t i s contemplate d tha

t ther e will not b e unnecessar

y dela y betwee n initiatio n an d completio n o

f the inciden

t investigation . Regarding employee training , the final rul e state s that , "Th e repor t shall b e reviewed wit

h all affecte d personnel whos e jo b task s ar e relevan t to th e inciden

t finding s includin g contrac t employee s wher

e applicable. " Thi s shoul d ensur e tha t owner s an

d operator s communicat

e wit h affecte d employee s abou

t the inciden

t an d change s a

t th e facilit

y due t o correctiv e actio n taken . Unde r the Managemen

t o f Chang e provisio n o

f the final rule , owner s or

operator s mus t communicat

e an d retrai n personne l whos e jo b task s ar e affecte d whe n an y change s ar

e mad e t o proces s chemicals , technology , equipment , an d procedures , o r

change s are mad

e tha t affec t a covere d process . Commente

r argues tha

tadditiona

l dat a shoul d b e include d i n th e reports :

• ' Th e writte n acciden t investigatio n pla

n shoul d include : (1 ) the identificatio n b y titl e or positio n o

f personne l responsibl e fo

r investigatin g th e acciden

t an d reportin g th

q investigatio n findings , an d (2 ) th e schedule s fo

r initiatin g acciden

t investigations , ke

y milestones , an

d projecte d completio n dates . (566-49 )

• The followin

g shoul d b e require d in th e acciden t investigatio n reports : (1 ) tim e an d locatio n o

f th e accidenta

l release ; (2 ) identity , amount , an d duratio n o

f the release ; (3 ) equipment , materials , procedures , an d personne l involved ; (4 ) determinatio n a s t o whethe r th e accidenta

l releas e wa s cause d b y huma n error , a procedura l inadequacy , or

equipmen t failure ; (5 ) detaile d descriptio n o f the accidenta l releas e in chronologica

l order givin g all acciden

t facts ; an d (6 ) th e consequence s o

f th e acciden

t includin g th e numbe

r o f evacuees , injured , an

d fatalitie s an

d the impact

o n the community . (566-51 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s tha

t inciden t investigatio n report s shoul d includ e all importan

t informatio n abou t a n incident . I

n the final rul e EP

A i s requirin g tha

t th e repor

t contain , a

t aminimum , th e dat e o f the incident , the dat

e the investigatio n began , adescriptio n o f th e incident , factor s tha

t contribute d to the incident , an d an y recommendation s resultin g fro mthe incident . EP

A expect s inciden t investigatio n report s to detai l all importan t information , bu t

i s leaving i

t to the discretio n o f th e owne r o r operato r t o determin e th e specifi c detail s tha t shoul d b e include d i n th e repor t base d o n the characteristic s o f th e incident . Also , EP

A expect s inciden

t investigation s to b e complete d in atimel

y manner , but

doe s not believ e i t i s necessar

y to requir

e th e owne

r orP.7 4

16-1 0 operato r t o documen

t the investigation' s schedule . The purpos e o f conductin g a

n inciden t investigatio n i s to determin e ho w an d wh y a n inciden t | occurre d an

d to recommen

d an d implemen

t correctiv e actio n to preven t recurrenc e o

f th e incident . EP

A believe s tha

t thi s goa l will b e achieve d b

y th e final rule .P.7 5

16-1 1 C . Othe

r Acciden tInvestigatio n Issues Commenter

s oppos e a written acciden tinvestigatio n plan :

• Becaus e requirin g awritten pla n fo r acciden t investigation s impose s significan t documen t burden s an

d i s inconsisten

t wit h OSHA' s PS M standard , the requiremen

t mus t b e deleted . (382-85 , 423-17 )

• Requirin g awritte n acciden t investigatio n pla

n i s inconsisten

t wit h OSHA' s PSM . (449-12 , 545-15 )

• EP

A shoul d eliminat

e the requiremen

t t o prepar e awritte n pla

n fo r acciden t investigation s becaus e i

t i s no t importan t to stat e wh o shoul d investigat

e an d ho w man y peopl e shoul d investigate . (482-18 )

• Th e requirement s fo r a n acciden t investigatio n pla

n should b e deleted . (659-5 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A i s not requirin g the owne

r or operator to establis h an

d implemen

t writte n procedure s to investigat

e incidents . T o b e consisten t wit h OSHA , EP

A ha s adopted th e OSH

A PS M standar d inciden t investigatio n requirement s i n the final rule . Commenter

s agre e wit

h th e requiremen

tt o identif

y th e roo tcaus e of th e accident :

• The requiremen

t to identif

y the roo t

cause(s ) o

f a n acciden t i s necessary . (87-35 )

• The requiremen

t t o identif y roo t cause s o f incident s i s a

n improvemen

t ove r the OSH A PS M standard . (180-11 )

• Requirin g identificatio n o f the roo t caus e o f the acciden

t i s beneficial . EP

A shoul d requir

e roo t caus e identificatio n o

f all event s in accidenta

l releases , which will significantl

y reduc e the probabilit

y an d the consequence s o

f futur e releases . (482-18 , 553-31 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A ha s adopte d OSHA' s PS M standar d acciden t investigatio n requirements . I n the final rule , EP A droppe d th e ter

m"root cause " fo r consistenc y wit

h OSHA . The inciden

t investigatio n tea mi s require d to identif

y th e factor s tha

t contribute d to the incident . Knowledg e o f thes e factor s shoul d provid e informatio n neede d to understan d ho

w an d wh y a n inciden t occurred .16-1 2

Commenter

s oppos e th e emphasis place d o n identifying th e rootcaus e o f th e accident :

• The preambl e to the propose d rul e shoul d not impl y tha t roo t caus e analysi s i s mor e importan

t tha n understandin g the event s tha t le d to a n accident . However , i t shoul d highligh

t the nee d to full y understan d the sequenc e o f events , the barrier s in plac e tha

t failed , an

d th e roo t cause s o f th e faile d barriers . (4-2 )

• Th e requiremen

t t o identif

y the factor s tha

t contribute d to th e release , includin g th e initiatin g even

t an d the roo t caus e tha

t ma y hav e increase d the likelihoo d o f th e initiatin g event , i s burdensom e an d inconsisten

t wit h OSHA' s PS M standar

d and , therefore , mus t

b e deleted . (423-17 )

• Th e ter

m"root cause " i s subjectiv e an

d inconsisten

t wit h th e OSH

A PS M standar

d and , therefore , shoul d b e changed . (425-44 )

• Th e ter

m"root cause " ha s avariet

y o f meaning s in industr

y an d shoul d b e replace d b y th e ter m"contributin g factors. " Furthermore , th e us e ofth e ter m"root cause " coul d hav e the effec

t o f creatin g o r

increasin g unwarrante d civi l an d crimina l liabilit y fo r th e owners . (447-18 )

• EP

A shoul d adopt

the languag e in the OSH A PS M regulatio n requirin g employer s to investigat

e "the factor s tha

t contribute d to the incident. " (449-12 , 545-16 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h the commenters . EP

A ha s adopte d OSHA' s PS M standar d acciden t investigatio n requirements . I n the final rule , EP

A droppe d the ter

m"roo t cause. " The inciden

t investigatio n tea

mi s require d to identif

y the factor s tha

t contribute d to th e incident . Th e acciden t investigatio n report s d o no t need to b e mad

e public , an

d EP A doe s not

believ e question s o f liabilit y ar e likely to arise . Commenter

s expres s concer

n ove r conflict

s wit h existin g regulations :

• Acciden

t investigation s ar

e alread y require d b

y OSHA . Definition s fo

r accident , near-miss , etc. , shoul d b e th e sam e a s thos e establishe d b y OSH A to simplif

y complianc e an

d reduc e duplicatio n ofeffort . (78-13 )

• Becaus e § 68.4 0 serve s n o purpos e an d i s ove r an d abov e th e correspondin g OSH A requirement , i

t shoul d b e deleted . (438-27 )

• I f implemented a s proposed , thi s provisio n would put EP A in th e positio n o

f supplantin g acciden

t investigatio n an

d futur e preventio n effort s administere d b y other federal , state , an

d loca l agencies , o r

o f supervisin g an

d directin g wha

t thos e agencie s do , and , possibly in issuin g rule s tha t will eithe r duplicat e or conflict wit h th e existin g rule s o

f thes e othe

r agencies . (499-49 )

• Simila

r criteri at o the present

OSH A standar d shoul d b e use d a s criteri afo r require d investigatio n o

f accidenta l releases . (541-2 )16-1 3

Agenc y Respons e EP A ha s adopted OSHA' s PS M standar d acciden t investigatio n requirement s i n the final rule . A sourc e tha

t i s i n complianc e wit

h OSHA' s PS M standar

d acciden t investigatio n requirement s will als o b e i n complianc e wit

h EPA' s acciden

t investigatio n requirements . Bot h EP A an d OSH A ar e responsibl e fo

r workin g to preven

t accidenta l release s an

d to reduc e the consequence s o

f an y accidenta

l release s tha

t do occur . Consistenc y between the RM P rul e an d th e PS M standar

d ensure s tha

t bot h agencie s will b e able to mee t their statutor y requirement s whil e placin g aminimu

mburde n o n source s complying wit h the rules . EP

A doe s not

believ e thes e requirement s will supplan t other acciden t investigatio n or

preventio n efforts b

y othe r agencies . EP

A als o note s tha

t i f state s ar e grante d delegatio n o

f thi s rule , the

y ar e fre e to includ e acciden t investigatio n requirement s tha t ar e mor e stringen t tha n EPA's . Commenter

s mak e additiona

l comment

s on acciden

tinvestigations :

• Th e publi c mus t

b e reminde d tha

t thes e rule s ar

e not mean t to creat e document s tha t ca n then b e use d fo

r purpose s o

f litigation . Rather , th e rule s ar e being propose d an

d implemented fo

r purpose s o

f preventin g an

d minimizin g th e consequence s o

f accidenta l release s an

d t o encourag e a

n aggressiv e approach to safet y managemen

t an d enhancement . (394-21 )

• A definitio n fo

r roo t caus e i s needed , suc

h a s "th e mos t basi c caus e tha

t ca n reasonably b e identified. " Should EP A choos e not

to include adefinition , the word s roo t

caus e shoul d b e deleted . (671-31 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s tha

t the puipos e o

f th e rul e i s to preven

t accidenta l release s an

d lessen th e consequence s o

f thos e release s tha

t do occur . EP

A i s no t requirin g submissio n o

f th e inciden

t investigatio n reports . Thes e report s may , however , b e subjec t to discover

y proceeding s i

f litigatio n i s filed. EP

A ha s delete d referenc e t o "root cause " i n th e final rule .P.7 817 . ACCIDENT HISTOR Y A . TYPE S O

F RELEASES TO COVE R Eigh t commenter s argued fo

r the inclusio n o

f nea r misse s i n the acciden

t histories , whil e other s argued fo

r the exclusio n o

f all nea r misses . Man

y commenter s argued tha

t onl y accidenta

l release s wit

h actaa l consequence s should b e included i n the acciden

t history , not

release s wit

h the potentia l fo r offsit e consequences . Severa

l commenter s argued fo

r the reportabl e accidenta

l release s t

o b e tied to covere d processe s an d thresholds . A numbe

r o f commenter s discusse d the inclusio n o f accidenta l release s wit

h on-sit e consequence s only ; man

y wer e i n favo r o f thi s inclusion , bu

t som e commenter s disagreed . A numbe r o f commenter s argued tha

t acciden t historie s should onl

y includ e significan t releases . Finally , severa

l commenter s wrot

e request s fo

r clarificatio n i

n the requirement s o

f th e acciden

t histories . Commenter

s agree tha

tnea r misse s shoul d b e include d i n .acciden thistories :

• Nea

r mis s incident s should b e reporte d i n the acciden

t histories . (93-5 , 94-3 , 128-20 , 140-2)

• Nea

r misse s shoul

d b e include d i

n acciden t historie s a s the

y provid e information critica l t o preventin g accidenta

l release s i

n the futare . (147-7 , 564-7 )

• Nea

r misse s shoul

d b e include d i

n acciden t historie s t

o provide information o

n problem s tha

t nee d t o b e addressed . However , detaile d reportin g o n nea r misse s should not b e require d t

o reduc e the amoun

t o f wor k fo r industry . (500-10 )

• I f EP A use s acciden

t historie s a s acriterio n fo

r selectin g facilit

y RMP s fo

r a n audi t nea r misse s should b e included . (692-1 ) Agenc y Respons e A t thi s time , EP

A ha s decide d not

to requir e nea r misse s i n the acciden

t history . EP

A believe s tha t identifying an

d documenting information regardin g nea r misse s woul

d b e difficul

t an d tha t requirin g their

reportin g woul

d b e mor e burdensom

e tha n beneficial . Mos t

o f the databeing collecte d o n accident s (e.g. , releas e quantity , durations , consequences ) woul d not b e applicabl e t

o nea r misse s and , therefore , their

inclusion woul

d ad d limite d information . I

n addition , EP

A ha s limite d the acciden t histor y to accident s tha

t resulte d i n deaths , injuries , o

r significan t propert y damag e on-site , o

r know n offsit e deaths , injuries , evacuations , shelterin g i n place , propert

y damage , o

r environmenta

l damage . Identifying nea

r misse s tha

t coul d hav e resulte d i

n suc h impact s woul

d b e problemati c an

d would creat

e considerabl e uncertaint

y abou t the appropriatenes s o

f decision s t

o include o

r exclude . Commenter

s oppos e th e inclusio n o

f nea r misse s i n accidenthistories :

• The reporting o

f nea r misse s place s aburde

n o n industr y tha t i s disproportionat

e to an y gain s fo r the environmen

t and , therefore , should no

t b e require d i

n the acciden t histories . (382-66 ) Nea r misse s should no

t b e include d i

n acciden t historie s becaus e the statutor y basi s fo r thi s requiremen

t addresse s actaa

l release s only . (394-7 , 511-8 )17-2

• Nea

r misse s should not

b e include d i

n acciden t histories . (502-18 , 570-21 )

• Nea

r misse s shoul

d not b e include d i

n acciden t historie s becaus e i

t i s impossibl e fo

r th e owne r o r operator o f afacilit y t o identif y al l nea r misses . (505-11 )

• Nea

r misse s should not

b e include d i

n acciden t historie s becaus e i

t i s impossibl e t

o ' documen

t nea r misse s i n th e detai l require d fo

r actaa l releases . (537-6 )

• The ter

m"nea r miss " i s to o subjective , forcing operator s t o repor t al l abnorma l incident s i n acciden t reports . Becaus e thi s woul d plac e undu e burde

n o n industry , nea

r misse s should not

b e include d i

n acciden t reports . (697-4 ) Agenc y Respons e The Agency agree s wit

h the commenter s tha

t nea r mis s incident s ar

e difficul t t o identif y an d document ; decision s would ofte n b e subjective . Inclusio n o f nea r misse s would prov e mor

e burdensom

e tha n beneficial . The Agenc

y disagrees , however , tha

t i t lack s the authorit

y t o requir e th e inclusio n o

f nea r mis s incidents . Th

e Agenc y propose d the inclusio n o f nea r misse s i n respons e t

o the Clea n Ai r Act sectio n 112(r)(B)(ii)(I) , whic h authorize s the Administrato r t o promulgat

e requirement s regardin g ahazar

d assessment , whic

h should asses s th e potentia l effect s o f a n accidenta

l releas e o f an y regulate d substance . Despit e it s authority , however , a

t thi s tim e the Agenc

y ha s decide d not

t o requir e nea r misse s i n th e final rul e based o

n the abov e rationale . Commenter

s argue agains tthe inclusio n o f release s wit

h potentia

l fo r offsit

e consequence s i n accidentreports :

• The reportin g o

f release s wit

h the potentia

l fo r offsit e consequence s place s aburde n o n industr y tha t i s disproportionat

e to an y gain s mad

e fo r the environmen

t and , therefore , shoul d not b e require d i

n th e acciden

t histories . (382-66 )

• Release s wit

h potentia l fo r offsit e consequence s should no

t b e include d i

n acciden t historie s becaus e the statutor y basi s fo r the requiremen

t addresse s actua

l release s only . (394-7,511-8 )

• Release s wit

h potentia l fo r offsit e consequence s should not b e require d i

n acciden t histories . (502-21 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h the commenter s tha

t reportin g o

f release s wit

h th e potentia

l fo r offsit e consequence s would prov e mor e burdensom

e tha n beneficial . EP

A disagrees , however , tha

t i t lack s the authorit

y to requir

e their inclusion . EP

A propose d Ith

e inclusio n o

f release s wit

h potentia l fo r offsit e consequence s i

n respons e to the Clea

n Ai r Act sectio n 112(r)(B)(ii)(I) , whic h authorize s th e Administrator

to promulgat

e requirement s regardin g ahazar d assessment , which shoul d asses s the potentia l effects o f a n accidenta

l releas e o f an y regulate d substance . A

t thi s time , however , EP

A ha s decide d not

to requir e release s wit

h potentia l fo r offsit e consequence s an

d ha s clarifie d the fina

l rale text b y specifying tha

t onl y accident s fro

mcovere d processe s tha

t resulte d i n deaths , injuries , or17-3

significan t propert y damag e on-site , o

r know n offsit e deaths , injuries , evacuations , shelterin g i n place , propert y damage , o

r environmenta

l damag e wil

l b e included . Severa l commenter

s argue tha

treleases required i n accidentreport s b e tie d t

o a covered proces s an

d threshol d quantities :

• Acciden

t historie s should onl

y b e develope d fo

r regulate d substance s held a t the stationar y sourc e abov e threshol d levels . (21-7 , 110-9 , 382-60 , 526-6 , 569-13 )

• Onl

y accidenta

l release s involving chemical s exceedin g threshol d quantitie s in a proces s covere d b

y the risk managemen

t regulation s should b e included i n acciden t histories . (494-13 )

• Onl

y accidenta

l release s involved i

n aproces s covere d unde

r thi s progra

mshould b e include d i n acciden t histories . (557-20 , 558-18 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h commenter s tha

t i t should limit

acciden t histor y requirement s t

o accidenta

l release s o f regulate d substance s fro

mcovered processes . The text i n the final rale clearly state s thi s limitation . Commenter

s argue thatacciden

trelease s having onl

y on-sit e consequences b e include d i n accidentreports :

• Accidenta

l release s tha

t hav e onl y on-sit e consequence s should b e included i n acciden t historie s becaus e the

y provid e invaluabl e information fo r risk management . (49-1 , 147-7 , 358-3 , 564-7 , 736-4 )

• Accidenta

l release s tha

t hav e onl y on-sit e consequence s should b e included i n acciden t histories . (93-5 , 94-3 , 140-2 , 307-1 , 309-2 , 311-2 , 359-3 , 452-11 , 613-7 , 947-2 )

• All release s tha

t har mworker s hav e undeniabl e offsit e consequence s an

d should , therefore , b e included i n acciden t histories . (330-9 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h commenter s tha

t accidenta l release s having onl

y on-sit e consequence s provide valuabl e information abou

t the safet y o f the process . Thus , the Agenc y specificall

y require s inclusio n o f accidenta l release s tha

t resulte d i n deaths , injuries , or

significan t propert y damag e on-sit

e i n th e final rale. Tw o commenter

s oppos e th e inclusio n o

f accidenta

l release s having onl

y on-sit e consequences :

• Ther

e i s n o statutor

y authorit y to includ

e accidenta

l release s having onl

y on-sit e consequence s i

n acciden t histories . (557-19 , 558-17 )P.8 2

17- 4 Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s wit

h th e commenter s tha

t i t lack s th e authorit

y to include accidenta

l release s havin g onl y on-sit e consequences . Clea

n Ai r Ac t section 112(r)(B)(ii)(I ) authorize s the Administrator to promulgat

e requirement s regardin g ahazar d assessmen

t whic h should asses s the potentia l effects o f a n accidenta

l releas e o f an y regulate d substance . The Agenc y believe s accidenta

l release s fro

m covere d processe s whic

h resulte d i

n deaths , injuries , o

r significan t propert y damag e on-site , involv e failure s o f sufficien t magnitud e tha t the y hav e the potentia

l t o affec t offsit e areas . Thes e accident s need t o b e documented an

d addresse d t

o preven t furthe r accidents . Commenter

s agree tha

taccidenthistorie s shoul d only includ e significantreleases :

• Recording onl

y significan

t release s limit s information collecte d t o tha t whic h i s relevan t an d wil l bes t facilitat e the searc

h fo r commo n factor s involved i

n catastrophi c releases . (382-66 , 438-16 , 509-18 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s tha

t i t should limit

information collecte d t

o significan

t an d relevan t incidents . Becaus e EP

A receive d numerou s comment s opposing the propose d definition o f "significan

t accidenta l release, " however , the Agenc y ha s droppe d the definition fro mth e final rale. T o clarif y the requirement s fo

r acciden t histor y an d limit the information collecte d t o tha t whic h i s relevant , the Agenc y ha s specified tha

t onl y accidenta

l release s fro

mi covered processe s tha

t resulte d i n deaths , injuries , or

significan t propert y damag e on-site , or

known offsit

e deaths , injuries , evacuations , shelterin g i

n place , propert

y damage , o

r environmenta

l damag e will b e required . i Commenter

s argue tha

tmor e clarificatio n i s needed fo r th e accidenthistor y requirements :

• Minimu

mcharacteristic s fo

r reportin g areleas e a s "significant " should b e developed . (128-20 )

• EP

A need s to defin

e how t o determine i

f incident s ha

d the potentia

l fo r offsit e consequences , or

industr y will ignor

e importan

t incidents . (128-9 )

• The ter

m"release s wit

h potentia l fo r offsit e consequences " need s clarification . (382-59 , 462-7 )

• The requiremen

t t o develop a

n acciden t releas e histor

y doe s no t stat e tha t th e repor t should appl

y solel y t o the facility ; to requir

e afacilit y to hav e ahistor

y o f worldwid e release s o f the regulate d substance s used a t tha t facilit y i s a n undu e burden . (408-17 )

• The ter

m"significant " need s clarification , s o tha t source s kno w wha

t t o include i n acciden t histories . (482-12 , 553-22 )r , r „ r

17- 5 Agenc y Respons e The Agenc

y agree s wit

h commenter s tha

t it s proposed acciden

t histor y provision wa

s to o vague an d subject t o avariet y o f interpretations . Based o

n the comment s received , EP A revise d the provisio n an

d removed "significan

t accidenta l release, " an

d "release s wit

h potentia l fo r offsit e consequences " fro

mthe text . The final rul e focuse s the requirement s fo r acciden t histor y t o release s tha t resulte d i n deaths , injuries , or

significan t propert y damag e on-site , o

r know n offsit e deaths , injuries , evacuations , sheltering i n place , propert

y damage , o

r environmenta

l damage . I

n the propose d an d final rale, EP

A specifie s tha

t the acciden

t histor y provision applie s t

o release s a

t the stationar

y source . Th

e fina l rale goe s furthe

r t o stat e tha t onl y accidenta

l release s fro

mcovered processe s tha

t result i n the specifie

d consequence s mus t

b e included i

n the acciden

t histories . The require d data element s ar

e liste d i n the final rul e t

o clarif y wha t information i s require d an d t o reliev e the burden .17- 6



### B . TYPE S O F RELEAS E DAT AT O INCLUD E Severa l commenter s argued tha

t mor e datashould b e included i n acciden t histories , whil e other s argue d tha

t the datareporte d should b e limited . Two commenter

s argu e tha tmor e dat a shoul d b e included in accidenthistories :

i • Mor

e specific s abou

t the accidenta

l release s should b e require d i n acciden t histories , includin g abrief

descriptio n o

f the accident , the cause(s) , an d the mitigatin g step s taken t o preven

t furthe r accidents . (87-21 )

• Detail s abou

t the caus e an

d conectiv e measure s take n should b e included i

n acciden t histories . (569-15 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h the commenter s tha

t descriptior

i o f the release(s ) (i.e. , date , time , chemical(s ) released) , cause s (i.e. , initiatin g even t an d contributin g factors) , an

d mitigatin g step s (i.e. , operationa l o r proces s change s tha

t resulte d fro

mthe release ) should b e included i n acciden t histories . The Agency require s sourc e owner s or operator s t

o repor t thes e element s i

n the RMP . i Commenter

s argu e tha

tles s dat a shoul d b e include d i n accidenthistories : Environmental

data should

not be recorded:

• Gatherin g information o n environmental ; effects should no t b e required , becaus e the focu s o f thi s rale i s t

o protec t people . (382-61 )

• I t i s not reasonabl e to expec t

asmal l facilit y t o reconstruc t

information o

n vegetatio n damage s fo

r a n inciden t tha t occune d 5 year s ago . (695-11 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s wit

h the commente

r tha t gatherin g information o

n environmenta

l effects should b e exclude d becaus e the rale focuse s o n protectio n o

f people . CA

A sectio n 112(r)(3 ) charge s EP A t o selec t substance s tha

t coul d impact

huma n healt h an d the environment , clearly indicatin g tha t Congres s considere d bot

h impact s o

f concern . Whe

n accident s occur , huma

n healt h an d the environmen

t need protection . Thus , the Agenc y require s owner s o

r operator s t

o documen

t know n offsit e impacts , whic

h include s environmenta

l damage . The Agency ha s provide d grea t flexibilit y t o sourc e owner s or operator s b

y no t requirin g the

mt o conduc t research o

n the subject ; instea

d EP A require s tha

t impacts , o f whic h the y ar e aware , o r should reasonabl

y hav e bee

n aware , b e reported . The rale doe s no t requir e source s t

o specif y particula

r environmenta

l damag e o

r t o evaluat e the exten

t o r severit y o f th e damage . Source s ar

e require d onl

y to chec k tha t environmenta

l damage s occuned . Environmenta l damage s include an

y know n advers e environmenta

l impact s (e.g. , anima

l kill s or contamination , defoliation) . Thi s information ma y b e based o

n medi areports , claim s filed, or publi c agency information . Further , EP

A i s no t requirin g sourc e owner s o r operator s to verif

y th e accurac y o

f publi c or medi areports .""IT "

17- 7 Other data should

not be included: Gatherin g detaile d information o n pas t release s should no

t b e require d becaus e i

t i s burdensom

e an d has no environmenta

l benefit s —th e damag e ha s alread y bee n done . (382-61 ) Nea r misse s shoul

d b e recorde d i

n descriptiv e categories ; the y should not

b e a s detaile d a s actua

l release s i

n acciden t histories . (500-10 ) Agenc y Respons e The Agency disagree s wit

h the commente

r tha t i t should no t requir e information o

n pas t release s becaus e th e damag e ha s bee n done an d n o environmenta

l benefit s woul

d b e gained . The purpos e o f the acciden

t histor y i s t o develo p arecor d o f information regardin g seriou s accidenta l release s fo r the stationar

y sourc e t o preven t furthe r accident s fro

moccurring . Section 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I ) o

f the CA A require s the Administrator promulgat

e regulation s tha

t include a previou s releas e histor

y o f the pas t 5 years . EP A ha s assesse d the comment s regardin g nea r misse s an d ha s removed the requiremen t fro m the acciden

t histor y provision . Th

e fina l rale specifie s the dataelement s owner s o r operator s mus t includ e an d target s information requirement s t o release s tha

t resulte d i n deaths , injuries , o

r significan t propert y damag e on-site , o

r know n offsit e deaths , injuries , evacuations , shelterin g i n place , propert

y damage , or

environmenta

l damage .P.8 6

17-8 C . OTHE

RCOMMENT S RELATE D T O ACCIDENT HISTORIE S A numbe r o f commenter s discusse d the issu e o f five-year acciden t histories ; man

y fel t five year s was to o strict , whil e other s fel t tha t 5 year s was no

t sufficient . Severa

l commenter s argued tha

t environmenta

l impact s shoul d b e eliminate d fro macciden t histories . Man

y commenter s argue d tha

t acciden t historie s should b e availabl e on-lin e throug h electroni c filing. Severa l commenter s wrot

e about the relationship to othe

r existin g requirements . Commenter

s discus s th e requiremen

tt o kee p accidenthistorie s fo r th e pas t5 years : Commenters feel

that the five-year

requirement

is too strict:

• Provision s should b e mad e fo r facilitie s tha

t hav e eithe

r stopped o r jus t bega n to us e aregulate d substanc e o r process . Five-yea

r acciden t histories , i

n thes e cases , would b e inelevan t

an d burdensome . (34-12 , 679-6 )

• Th e five-yea

r requiremen

t should b e chariged t

o thre e year s a s thi s i s easie r fo r facilitie s an

d reflect s mor

e accurately abusiness' s cunen t operatin g condition . - (38-4 )

• The five-year

requiremen

t should includ

e provision s fo

r facilitie s tha

t ceas e regulate d operation s or

clos e dow

n entirely . (412-14 , 413-11 )

• Th e five-year

requiremen

t should onl

y appl y t o ongoing operations . (556-10 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A maintain s it s five-year

accidenta l releas e histor

y requirement , whic

h i s the timefram

e Congres s mandated i

n sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I ) o f the CAA . The Agenc

y require s acciden

t historie s fo r regulate d substance s i

n covere d processe s i

n the RM P o n the complianc e date . Thus , eve n i f thes e substance s ar

e decommissione d the da

y afte r compliance , the Agenc

y still require s afive-year acciden t history . Processe s not

covere d o

n the complianc e dat

e ar e not included i

n the acciden

t history . Clearly , i f acovere d proces s ha s bee n i n operatio n tha

t ha s containe d aregulate d substanc e abov e th e threshol d quantit

y fo r les s tha n 5 year s onl

y the perio d b

f operatio n wit

h th e regulate d substanc e woul d b e included . Commenters feel

that the five-year

requirement

is too lenient:

• An

y seriou s accident s tha

t occune d i

n the pas t te n year s should b e include d i n acciden t historie s becaus e operation s an d equipmen

t ma y chang e slowl

y ove r time . (250-8 , 655-13 )

• Catastrophi c accident s beyon d the previou s five-year

perio d should b e include d i n th e acciden

t histories . (569-16 )17-9

Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s wit

h th e commenter s tha t

accident s in th e pas t

te n year s o r

beyon d th e five-year perio d shoul d b e include d in acciden t histories . Althoug h th e Agenc y acknowledge s tha t seriou s accident s occu r

relativel y infrequently , th e Agenc y believe s tha t extendin g th e tim e perio d beyon d 5 year s woul d yiel d littl e benefit . Congres s specifie s afive-year histor y fo r

previou s accidenta l release s o f regulate d substance s i n sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I ) ofth e CAA . Commenter s oppos e th e inclusio n o f environmenta l impact s i n acciden thistories :

• Unles s directl y affectin g publi c safety , environmenta l impact s shoul d b e exclude d fro macciden t

historie s becaus e thei r

inclusio n trespasse s o n th e domai n o f othe r statutes , i s duplicativ e o f othe r EP A regulations , i s no t

supporte d b y Executiv e Orde r 12866 , an d i s a

n unwanante d burden . (137-4 )

• Onl y catastrophi c environmenta l event s shoul d b e include d i n acciden t histories . (187-1 )

• I t i s beyon d th e scop e o f

Congress ' inten t

t o includ e environmenta l effect s othe r tha n ai r pollution . Soil , groundwater , o r drinkin g wate r

contamination , fish kills , an d vegetatio n damag e shoul d no t b e include d i n acciden t

histories . (446-15 )

• Dat ao n soil , groundwater , o r drinkin g wate r

contaminatio n shoul d no t b e include d fo r gaseou s substances . (477-15 )

• Reference s t o environmenta l impact s i n th e propose d acciden t history provisio n shoul d b e eliminated . (557-21 , 558-19 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s wit

h th e commente r

tha t environmenta l impact s shoul d b e exclude d fro m acciden t histories . CA A sectio n 112(r)(5 ) link s th e threshol d quantit y calculation s t o impact s o n huma n health , bu t

i n sectio n 112(r)(3 ) th e Ac t charge s EP A t o selec t

substance s tha t

coul d impac t huma n health an d th e environment , clearl y indicatin g tha t Congres s considere d both impact s o f concern . Sectio n 112(r)(7)(B)(i ) an d (ii ) mentio n effec t o n th e environmen t

in conjunctio n wit

h emergenc y response , bu t th e onl y tim e thes e paragraph s mentio n protectio n o f human health i s als o i n conjunctio n wit

h emergenc y response . Congres s di d no t inten d t o limi t

concer n abou t

eithe r impac t t o emergenc y respons e procedures ; Congres s may no t hav e mentione d eithe r

impac t i n relatio n t o preventio n step s becaus e th e ac t o f preventin g a

n acciden t

eliminate s th e impact . Whe n accident s occur , huma n health an d th e environmen t nee d protection . B y mentionin g both impact s i n thi s context , Congres s wa s stressin g it s concer n fo r th e environmen t

a s wel l a s huma n health . I n addition , sectio n 112(r)(9 ) provide s authorit y fo r EP A t o tak e emergenc y actio n whe n a n actua l o r

threatene d accidenta l releas e o f

aregulate d substanc e may caus e imminen t an d substantia l endangermen t t o huma n health , welfare , o r th e environment . Clearly , sectio n 112(r)(9 ) allow s EP A t o tak e actio n t o prevent , a s oppose d t o simpl y respon d to , accidenta l release s t o protec t th e environment . Give n tha t sectio n 112(r)(7 ) i s intende d t o preven t sitaation s tha t

coul d lea d t o emergenc y order s unde r sectio n 112(r)(9) , i t

i s logica l t o conclud e tha t Congress mean t

EP A t o develo p regulation s tha t woul d preven t accidenta l release s tha t

coul d caus e environmenta l damage .17-1 0

A s state d i

n the NPRM , EP

A acknowledge s tha

t man y release s wit

h environmenta

l impact s will alread y b e reporte d t

o Federa l o r stat e government s under

CERCL A an d EPCRA . Th

e overla p o f thes e rales doe s no

t indicat e trespassin g o

n eac h others ' domain s bu

t instea d indicate s tha

t littl e additiona l burde n will b e impose

d o n owner s o

r operator s o

f stationar y source s alread

y maintainin g record s (Se e 5 8 F

R 54195. ) I n section 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I ) ofth e CAA , Congres s require s the Administrator promulgat

e regulation s includin g afive-year histor y fo r previou s accidenta

l release s o

f regulate d substances . Sectio n 112(r)(3 ) ofth e CA A indicate s Congress ' inten t ;t o include environmenta

l impact s i n preventin g accidenta

l releases. Th e Agenc

y disagree s tha

t i t should requir

e onl y catastrophi c environmenta

l event s i n acciden t histories . Limitin g the [impact s t o catastrophi c event s pose s the dange r o f failing t o captur e importan

t preventio n information gained fro maccidenta

l release s tha

t resulte d i n environmenta

l damage . Further , the Agenc y disagree s wit

h the commen

t tha t i t i s beyon d th e scop e o

f Congress ' inten

t to includ e environmenta

l effects othe

r tha n air pollution . I

n CA A sectio n 112(r)(3) , Congres s clearly indicate s tha t substance s posin g risks t

o huma n healt h o r the environment , not

jus t ai r pollution , b e listed . Althoug h onl y release s t

o air ar e covered , thes e release s ma y result i n othe r environmenta

l damag e eithe

r fro mdirec t exposur e (dea d animals , defoliation ) o

r fro mdepositio n (fis

h kills , contamination) . I

n the final rule , EP

A doe s not

requir e specific datao

n soil , groundwater , or

drinkin g wate

r contamination . The Agenc y wil l requir e owner s o

r operator s repor t tha t the y know o f offsit e environmenta

l damage . iThus , an

y environmenta

l damag e know

n t o th e sourc e (e.g. , dea

d birds , defoliation) , not

limite d t o environmenta

l receptors , mus t

b e considered . Detail s o f th e typ e an

d exten t o f damag e ar

e no t required . The Agenc

y ha s give n sourc e owner s or operator s grea

t flexibilit y b y not requirin g research o

r investigatio n o

n the subject

bu t instea d simpl y requirin g impacts , o

f whic h the y ar e aware , b e reported. ! Further , EP A doe s not

requir e sourc e owner s or operator s verif

y the accurac y o

f publi c or medi areports . Becaus e Congres s intende d the rale t o includ e environmenta

l impact s an

d becaus e o

f their importanc e i

n managing risk, the Agency maintain s reference s t o environmenta

l impact s i

n th e final rule. Commenter

s argue tha

taccidenthistorie s shoul d b e availabl e electronically :

• A summar

y o f acciden t historie s should h e availabl e on-lin e through EP A or the Chemica l Safet y an d Hazar d Investigatio n Board . (452-10 )

• Becaus e the purpos e o f acciden t historie s i s not

onl y t o provide the facilit

y wit h insigh t int o it s ow n operation , bu

t als o to allo w industr

y an d EP A t o categoriz e an d analyz e thes e datato identif y an d facilitat e industry-wide safet

y improvements , acciden t historie s should b e availabl e on-line . (680-13 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A agree s wit

h the commenter s tha

t acciden t historie s should b e availabl e electronically an d ha s decide d to wor

k toward s electroni c submissio n o f RMPs . Th e Agenc

y will mak

e RMPs , whic

h include acciden

t histories , availabl e electronically an d believe s electroni c submission t o acentra l poin t will facilitat

e acces s t o information an

d i s consisten

t wit h the goa l o f standardizin g RMPs . The Agency furthe

r note s tha t the Chemica

l Safet y an d Hazar d Investigatio n Boar

d ha s not bee n constituted .P.8 9

17-1 1 Severa l commenter

s argue tha

tth e rul e overlap s wit

h othe r existin g requirements :

• The requiremen

t fo r a n accidenta

l releas e histor

y separat e fro mthe PH A doe s no t carr y ou t the inten t o f "th e Congressiona

l mandate . T o mee

t it s statutor

y obligation , EP A woul d requir e size , concentration , an

d duratio n fo

r thos e incident s wit

h the potentia l fo r offsit e impact documented i

n the PHA . (76-10 )

• Becaus e severa

l mining industr

y regulation s requir

e accident s t

o b e reported , the rale's acciden t reporting requiremen

t should b e integrate d wit

h existin g mining regulations . (412-15 )

• Thi s i s unnecessar

y an d duplicativ e paperwor

k a s all facilitie s subject

to the Oil Pollutio n Ac

t o f 199 0 mus t

alread y develop suc

h ahistory . (499-27 )

• Proposed requirement s t o maintain acciden

t historie s i s duplicativ e o

f CERCL A requirements , makin

g the propose d requiremen t undul y burdensome . (531-13 , 592-5 )

• Thi s i s aduplicatio n o f CERCL A requirements . A

t th e least , facilitie s should hav e th e optio n o f noting i n the pla n othe r submission s tha

t mee t thi s requirement . (537-6 )

• B y requirin g developmen t o f ahazar d analysi s fo

r potentia l accidenta

l release s separat

e fro mthe parallel OSH

A PS M effort , additiona

l burde n i s added t

o the facilitie s wit

h n o significan

t benefit . Therefore , tw o separat e document s should not

b e prepared . (565-38 , 571-51 ) Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s wit

h the commente

r tha t separatin g the accidenta

l releas e histor

y fro mthe PH A fail s t o carr

y ou t Congress ' intent . Section 112(r)(B)(ii)(I ) o f the CA A discusse s requirement s fo r a five-year acciden t histor y wit h the hazar

d assessment . T o maintain consistenc y wit h OSHA' s PS M an d to facilitat

e industr y complianc e wit

h the risk managemen

t progra mrule , EP

A addresse s offsit

e consequence s i

n the hazar

d assessment , not

i n the PHA . The risk

managemen

t progra mrul e i n total , whic h include s hazar

d assessment , preventio n progra melements , an

d emergency response , carrie s ou t Congress ' intent . EP

A doe s requir

e datao n siz e an d duratio n i

n acciden t histories . Althoug

h the Agency ha s dropped the requiremen t tha t th e concentratio n o

f the release d substanc e b e reported , concentratio n i s addresse d b y assumin g 10

0 percen t concentratio n a

t th e poin t o f release , excep t

fo r substance s i

n solution , wher

e the concentratio n a

t the poin t o f releas e i s assumed t

o b e th e percentag e of the solutio n a s held o

r processed . EP A acknowledge s tha

t man y existin g regulation s requir e acciden t reporting . Man

y o f thes e reports , however , ar

e specificall

y fo r emergency notification an d d o not provide detail s o

n causes , impacts , an

d response s t

o thes e incidents . Becaus e thes e report s ar e usually documente d a

t the tim e th e inciden

t occurs , the

y ar e ofte n incomplete , potentially inaccurate , an d fai l t o provid e the information EP

A seek s i n the acciden

t histor y requirement . A s state d i n the NPRM , EP

A believe s tha

t fo r release s o

f toxi c substances , mos t

o f the release s tha

t mee t the criteri aar

e alread y reporte d t

o Federa l o r stat e government s unde

r CERCL A ari d EPCRA . Th

e overla p o f thes e rales doe s no

t allo w exemptio n fro

msubmission fo

r the risk managemen

t progra mrale. Dat

afro msimila r documents ,17-1 2

however , ma

y b e transfene d to satisf

y the acciden

t histor y requirements . The Agency believe s overla p will not creat e additiona

l burden , bu

t instea d indicate s tha

t littl e additiona

l burde n will b e imposed o

n source s alread

y maintainin g record s (Se e 5 8 F R 54195. ) Unde r sectio n 311(j ) o

f the Clea n Wate r Ac t (CWA ) a s amended b

y OP A 90 , EP A note s tha

t federa l agencie s wit

h authorit y fo r respons e plannin g (includin g EPA ) hav e issued rales fo

r tan k vessel s an d certai n on-shor

e facilitie s t

o develop respons e plan s fo r accidenta l release s o

f oil . EP A ha s not issue d respons e plannin g requirement s fo r CW A hazardou s substances . I n an y event , CW

A hazardou s substance s subject to 3 1 l(j ) respons e pla

n requirement s generally d o no t substantially overla p wit h the lis t o f regulate d substance s subject t o the risk managemen

t progra mrale. EP

A note s tha t sectio n 31 1 (j ) o

f the Clea n Wate r Act , a s amended h y OP

A 90 , doe s not

requir e sourc e owner s an d operator s to documen

t afive-year

acciden t history . Congres s require s EPA' s risk managemen

t progra mrul e to include element s i n it s regulatio n tha t ar e no t mandate d fo

r OSHA . The hazar

d assessmen

t provision , whic

h include s acciden

t history , i s separat e fro mthe preventio n progra

melements , whic

h parallel OSHA' s PSM . Acciden t histor y addresse s offsit

e an d environmenta

l impact s - elements ! no

t addresse d i

n the preventio n program . Becaus e Congres s require s the inclusio n o f thes e impact s an

d becaus e o

f their importanc e t

o th e rale, EP A maintain s th e requiremen t fo r separat e documentatio n fo

r the hazar d assessment . Measure s take n b y source s t

o compl y wit h OSH A PS M fo r an y process ! tha

t mee t OSHA' s PS M standard , however , ar e sufficien t to compl y wit h the preventio n progra

mrequirements . Commenter

s discus s miscellaneou s issues :

• Acciden

t historie s should b e company-specific , no t site-specific . (155-5 )

• Although the rale, appropriately , doe s not requir e owner s o

r operator s to investigat

e ever y allege d effect, the Agenc y should ! revis e the rale t

o indicat e tha t keepin g a recor d o f a n allege d consequenc e doe s hot constitut e a n admission . Th

e rale should allo w owners o

r operator s to include or

i exclud e unsubstantiate d allegations . Th e rale shoul d b e limited t

o consequence s an

d othe r information o

f whic h the facilit

y become s aware . Facilitie s ofte

n lac k the expertis e necessar

y to validate ; eac

h consequenc e an

d not all allege d consequence s ar e immediatel

y brough t t o th e attentio n o

f the facility . (382-62 )

• Recipient s o

f the RM P shoul d receiv e acop

y o f the acciden

t investigatio n report . (477-24 )

• Th e requiremen

t fo r afive-year

histor y o f accident s should b e inserte d i n proces s safet y information provisions . (664-27 )

• EP

A should modif

y it s languag e t

o specif y tha t the releas e histor

y b e base d o

n the pas t 5 years . (674-10 ) Th e requiremen

t fo r a n acciden t histor y to b e prepare d a s par

t o f the ris k managemen

t progra mprovide s valuabl e information . (702-2 )P.9 1 ifFv^m^^sn- ». *m •<

« .<"»?«• * - 'T' l " "

17-1 3 Agenc y Respons e EP A disagree s with th e commente r tha t acciden t historie s shoul d b e company-specifi c an d maintain s it s site-specifi c focus . Becaus e th e impact s o f accident s ar e generall y site-specific , involvin g result s suc h a s deaths , injuries , an d propert y damage , informatio n regardin g th e relationshi p betwee n accident s t o site s i s mor e pertinent . Th e electronicall y availabl e RMP s wil l mak e i t possibl e fo r peopl e t o compil e compan y historie s usin g RMP s fro mcompan y sites . EP A agree s wit

h th e commente r

tha t sourc e owner s o r

operator s shoul d no t

b e require d t o investigat e allege d effects . EP A require s owner s o r operator s repor t

damage s o f

whic h the y ar e aware , i n th e final rale. Th e Agenc y doe s no t requir e researc h o n thi s subject . Further , th e Agenc y doe s no t requir e owner s o r

operator s t o verif

y th e accurac y o f

publi c o r

medi areports . Th e Agenc y ha s n o authorit y t o stat e wha t

constitute s a

n admissio n in privat e tort lawsuits . EP A disagree s with th e commente r tha t recipient s o f

th e RM P shoul d receiv e acop y o f th e acciden t investigatio n report . Althoug h EP A an d th e implementin g agenc y wil l hav e acces s t o acciden t investigatio n reports , the y wil l no t b e require d i n th e RMP . EP A doe s requir e sourc e owner s o r operator s t o includ e informatio n regardin g acciden t historie s i n th e RMP . Thus , acciden t histor y informatio n wil l b e publicl y availabl e information . Th e Agenc y disagree s wit h th e commente r

tha t acciden t historie s shoul d b e inserte d in proces s safet y informatio n provisions . Acciden t historie s dea l wit

h event s in th e pas t

an d offsit e an d environmenta l damage , wher e a s proces s safet y informatio n pertain s t o condition s i n thei r cunen t state . Further , t o maintai n consistenc y wit h OSHA' s PSM , EP A ha s decide d t o kee p thes e provision s separate . EP A believe s th e languag e in th e NPR M clearl y indicate d tha t releas e historie s b e base d o n th e pas t 5 years . "Th e owne r

o r operator shal l prepar e afive-yea

r history o f

significan t

accidenta l release s an d release s wit h potentia l fo r

offsite consequence s fo r eac h regulate d substanc e handle d a t th e source. " (Se e 5 8 F R 54214. ) T o clarif y it s requirements , th e Agenc y modifie d th e tex t in th e final rale. Th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e that th e languag e use d indicates , clearly , tha t acciden t historie s b e base d o n th e 5 year s immediatel y prio r t o RM P submission . EP A agree s wit

h th e commente r

that acciden t historie s provid e valuable information . Th e Agenc y maintain s th e requiremen t an d include s it s documentatio n in th e RMPs .