Pinanski Hall, Room 301Joel Tickner, Sc

.D
. 205 Riverside Street Associate Professor Lowell, Massachusetts 01854 Department of Community Health & tel: 978.934.2981 Sustainability fax. 978.934.3012 e-mail: Joel_Tickner@uml.edu College of Health Sciences

October	29,	2014 **Docket	ID:	EPA -** **HQ -** **OEM -** **2014 -** **0328 Accidental	Release	Prevention	Requirements:**  **Risk	Management	Programs	under	the	Clean	Air	Act** I am pleased to offer	comments on potential revisions to the Risk Management Program and related regulations. My comments are provided in the context of 20 years of experience in science and policy of safer chemicals and processes and underscored by decades of experience with Toxics Use Reduction planning in Massachusetts and substitution planning in industry generally. In the mid

-1990s, I worked closely with EPA and other agencies on facility	planning	options	to	be	integrated	in	to	the	Clean	Air	Act	Section	1 12r	Risk	Management	Plan	Rule. I	offer	these	general	observations:

 EPA	has	the	opportunity,	tools,	authority,	and	responsibility	to	more	effectively	advance	primary prevention	for	chemical	accidents	and	to integrate	its	chemical	safety	initiatives	across	agency programs.		Twenty	years	ago,	with	the	Pollution	Prevention	Act	vision	of	source	reduction	as	a	key priority,	we	worked	to	build	strong	bridges	between	chemical	accident	prevention	and	safer chemistry	around	the	concept	of	alternatives	assessment (also	referred	to	as	Technology	Options Analysis). 1 The	need	for	this	integration	still	exists,	whether	the	goal	is	to	prevent	acute	accident hazards	or	chronic	health	hazards.
 Experience	with	the	Massachusetts	Toxics	Use	Reduction	program (and	a	similar pollution prevention	program	in	New	Jersey) has	shown	that	when	alternatives	assessment/facility	planning processes	are	required

– including	considering	why	and	how	the	chemical	is	being	used,	examining alternatives	and	their	health,	safety	and	environmental	trade

-offs,	and	considering	the	costs	of using	toxic	materials

– there	is	a	greater	likelihood	that alternatives	will seriously	considered	and adopted. Planning	requirements, combined	with	technical	and	research	support	to	overcome technical	barriers	substitution	and	process	change	address	two	key requirements	for innovation: willingness	and	capacity to	change.2
 In	the	last	5

-10	years	there	has	been	a	significant	growth	in	alternatives	assessment	methods	and frameworks	(and	tools	like	the	green	screen)

- including	one	published	two	weeks	ago	by	the National	Academy	of	Sciences.		This	work	demonstrates	that	consistent	with	the	Pollution Prevention	Act,	Principles	of	Green	Chemistry (for	which	inherently	safer	process	design	is	a	key principle) and	Industrial	Hygiene	Hierarchy	of	Controls,	the	most	effective	way	to	address	chemical hazards	is	through	substitution	and	design	change.		EPA’s	Office	of	Chemical	Safety	and	Pollution Prevention	has	significant	experience	in	alternatives	assessment	practice	that	could	be	used	by	the

1 See Tickner,	Joel	and	Ken	Geiser.		2004.	The	Precautionary	Principle

– Stimulus	for	Solutions	and	Alternatives

-based	Environmental	Policy. Environmental Impact	Assessment	Reviews. 24:	801

-824 2 Ashford	N.	An	innovation

-based	strategy	for	a	sustainable	environment.	Innovation

-oriented	environmental	regulation: theoretical	approach	and	empirical	analysis	Potsdam	(Germany):	European	Commission	Joint	Research Centre;	1999Office	of	Solid	Waste	and	Emergency	Response. While	many	of	the	tools	that	have	been	developed

in	recent	years	relate	to	chemicals	of	concern	in	products	and	chronic	health	hazards,	the	thought process	and	evaluative	processes	behind	alternatives	assessment	are	easily	adaptable	to	think	of chemical	process	safety	hazards.		In	the	end,	chemicals	are	chemicals,	whether	they	are	used	in	a process	or	product,	whether	they	can	increase	the	risk	of	explosions	or	cancer.
 At	the	core	of	the	alternatives	assessment	approach	is	the	concept	of	Functional Substitution. Focusing	on	the	chemical	function	in	a	process	(production,	water	treatment,	etc) and	the	technical requirements	for	that	function,	rather	than	controlling	the	hazards	of	or	replacing	a	particular chemical	of	concern,	opens	up	a broader	range of	options	to	substitute	the	function	(including considering	the	necessity	of	that	function	in	a	process), such	as substitute	chemicals,	process changes,	or	modifications (for	example	to	the	form	of	the	chemical	or	lower	pressure	and	heat) that reduce	or	eliminate	the	hazard,	or	complete	changes	in	how	the	“service”	of	the	chemical	is provided	(for	example	alternative	disinfection	technologies)

. These	broader	considerations	are important	as	drop	in	substitutes	to	replace	a	particular	chemical	of	concern	often carry	similar	risks as	the chemical	of	concern,	as	chemists	and	process	designers	will inevitably attempt	to	find structurally	similar,	functional	substitutes	that	achieve	the	same	functionality	(eg	reactivity) if	they are	unable	to	use	a	specific	chemical.		Once	a broader	range	of	options	is	identified alternatives assessment	processes	help	ensure	“informed substitution,”	defined	by	EPA	as	the	considered transition	from	a	chemical	of	concern	to	safer	alternatives. For	those	chemical	functions	for	which safer,	cost

-effective	alternatives	may	not	currently	exist,	EPA	should	support	applied	green chemistry	research	and	development (through	research	grants,	in

-house	research,	and	green chemistry	challenge	programs) to	develop	those	safer	alternatives.
 EPA	can	help	advance	the	marketplace	for	safer	chemistries	and	process	designs	by	providing information	on	and	recognizing	those	safer	alternatives.		The	Agency	has	successfully	done	this for safer	formulation	ingredients through	its Safer	Chemical	Ingredient	List, which	includes	a	criteria and	a	process	for	recognizing	safer	alternatives for	specific chemical functions.
 Extensive	experience	in	chemical	substitution	and	environmental	innovation	demonstrates	that alternatives	assessment	planning	and	technical	support	may not provide	sufficient incentive to force	safer	technology	adoption	(particularly	for	laggard	firms	and facilities),	especially	if	the existing	chemical	of	concern	is	cost

-effective,	high	performing,	has	minimal	regulation,	and	there may	be	short	to	medium	term	increased	costs	to	implementation	of	alternatives.		For	this	reason, requiring	substitution (with	means	to	ensure	that	the	alternatives	are	safer	without	specifying	what alternative	should	be	adopted),	when	functional,	cost

-effective	alternatives	have	been demonstrated,	is	an	important	compliment	to	alternatives	assessment	planning	requirements. For example,	for the	small	number	of	chemicals	that	constitute	a	major	portion	of	the	chemical	accident risk,	there	are	well	established	alternatives	for	which	the	Agency	could	be	using	both	its	regulatory and	discretionary	powers	to immediately effect	a transition	to	safer	alternatives	(both	process	and chemical	technologies)

.Specific	comments	responding	to	particular	sections	of	the	Request	for	Information	are	attached.

Please	let	me know	if	you	have	any	questions. Sincerely,

Joel	A. Tickner,	ScD**Specific	Comments**

**D. 1.**  **a. Should**  **EPA require**  **a safer**  **alternatives options**  **analysis either**  **as a**  **new prevention**  **program element,**  **as part**  **of the**  **existing PHA/Hazard**  **Review element,**  **or as**  **a separate**  **new requirement**  **under CAA	section	112(r)?**  As early as 1994, a coalition of academics, advocates, and trade unions have recommended such planning requirements as part of the Risk Management Plan implementation. In fact, EPA	commissioned research by MIT that recognized the importance of such an approach.3 The experience of the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) program since 1990 is that requiring companies to conduct planning to identify and assess safer options every two years produces measurable results in terms of toxics use reduction (TUR), improved worker health and safety,	improved	environmental	performance	and	cost	savings.	Requiring	businesses	to	conduct	planning	has	led them to identify opportunities for improvement that they might not otherwise have identified. Comprehensive and informed regulatory review of planning provides additional impetus for companies to conduct planning in good	faith.	Regulatory	review	also	encourages	companies	to	be	more	thorough	in	their	evaluation	of	options

. Importantly, there are important pollution prevention benefits that can be obtained when alternatives assessment requirements for chemicals covered under the RMP are integrated into a broader safer chemicals assessment approach in the firm. There is no reason why evaluation of alternatives for chemicals that pose accident risks should be done separately from those that pose acute or chronic health hazards when used in processes or products. Alternatives assessment processes underscore pollution prevention, chemical substitution	and	chemical	accident	prevention	planning	and	synergies	between	the	these	are	possible	through	an integrated	safer	chemicals	management	approach. While planning requirements are an important first step requiring careful consideration of how and why a chemical is used and the range of alternatives that might exist to achieve the chemical function, TURA does not require	businesses	to	implement	options	they	have	identified	in	their	plans. This	can	limit	the	effectiveness	of	the program, particularly when the costs to a particular firm may not be recoverable in benefits in a short enough timeframe. Not	all	businesses	choose to	implement	TUR	options,	even	if	those	options	are	feasible.	In	some	cases, external drivers help to overcome barriers to change. Requiring substitution

– for example Europe’s restriction on chemicals of concern in electronic products

– provides an important incentive to overcome cost or performance hurdles as this levels the playing field for all facilities that use a particular chemical of concern (no one firm has greater costs due to being a first adoptor). For example, firms in Massachusetts had explored options to eliminate lead in solder in electronic components for years, had conducted alternatives assessment and	had	not	made	the	transition	due	to	cost	and	performance	issues	associated	with	alternatives.		European	bans on lead in electronic products forced the electronics industry to work together to identify pre-competitive functional	alternatives	that	became	implemented within	a	short	period	of	time. **D. 1.**  **b. How**  **should safer**  **alternatives be	defined**  **if it**  **were	to be**  **a requirement**  **under CAA**  **secti on**  **112(r) regulations?**  **What specifically**  **should a**  **safer alternatives**  **analysis require**  **and how**  **would this**  **differ from	what	is	already	required	under	other	provisions	of	the	RMP?**  Significant efforts have been undertaken to define safer alternatives in an academic, agency, and multi

-sectoral perspectives. EPA should draw on this work. Clear definitions of what a safer alternative includes and does not include is critical. For example, risk mitigation and control (which may manage catastrophic risks but not eliminate their possibility) should not be acceptable in the definition of a saf er alternative, much as incineration and waste disposal are not acceptable in the definition of pollution prevention. For example, the definition of green chemistry involves reduction in the	intrinsic hazards of chemicals throughout their lifecycles. EPA defines
3 Ashford N, Gobbell J, Lachman J, Matthiesen M, Minzer A, Stone R. The encouragement of technological change for preventing chemical accidents: moving firms from secondary prevention and mitigation to primary prevention. Cambridge (MA): Center for Technology, Policy, and I ndustrial Development, Massachusetts I nstitute of Technology; 1993, July.green chemistry as: “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the generation of

hazardous substances.” Inherent to this definition is the notion that inherently safer chemicals require less controls and less encapsulation as they are less likely to cause harm if they are released into the environment. This is consistent with the notion of inherently safer technologies. Trevor Kletz’, the father of Inherent Safety, used the analogy of lions (which require lots of safety systems to allow people to view them but sometimes escape)	and	lambs	to	distinguish	inherently	or	intrinsically	safer	technologies	or	substances. All	of	the	definitions	noted	below	have	the	following	elements:
 Primary	prevention

– hazard	reduction	at source
 Avoid	risk	shifting
 Continuous	improvement Some	key	definitions	that	should	inform	the	definition	of	safer	alternatives	include:

 EPA’s	definition	of	a	safer	chemical	as	part	of	the	Design	for	Environment	Program: A	chemical that,	due	to	its inherent	chemical	and	physical	properties,	exhibits	a	lower	propensity	to	persist	in the	environment,	accumulate	in	organisms	and	induce	adverse	effects	in	toxicological	studies.4
 Anastas	and	Warner’s	definition	of	green	chemistry
 The	MA	Toxics	Use	Reduction	Act	definition	of	toxics	use	reduction
 The	Pollution	Prevention	Act	definition	of	pollution	prevention
 The	industrial	hygiene	hierarchy	of	controls
 The	Commons	Principles definition 5
 The	Interstate	Clearinghouse	on	Chemicals	Alternatives	Assessment	Guide6
 National	Academy	of	Sciences	Framework	on	Design and	Evaluation of	Chemical	Alternatives.
 OSHA	in	its Transitioning	to	Safer	Chemicals:	A	Toolkit	for	Employers	and	Workers	website7 In addition to definitions, a number of principles have been developed to guide alternatives assessment processes and safer alternatives. These are documented in the National Academy of Sciences Framework on Design and Evaluation of Chemical Alternatives, the Commons Principles and a recent OECD Meta Review on alternatives	assessment.8 **D.1.c. How**  **should industries**  **determine if**  **a safer**  **alternative exists**  **for their**  **particular process?**  **What safer	alternative	chemicals	are	available	for	the	listed	RMP	chemica** **ls	and	for	ammonium	nitrate?** Industries should complete a thorough alternatives assessment to determine if a safer alternative exists, identify a range of options and determine their viability for a particular process. A number of processes for alternatives assessment	are	reviewed	in	the	OECD	Meta

-Review , the	National	Academy	of	Sciences	Framework	on	Design	and Evaluation of Chemical Alternatives, and the OSHA Toolkit

. These have a number of similar steps, including: Problem scoping and characterization; options identification and screening; options evaluation; options selection;	and	options	adoption	and	evaluation. In	conducting	such	assessments,	industries should ask a	number of	questions,	including:

4 From Tickner, J. and Eliason, P. Alternatives Assessment for Chemicals: From Problem

-Evaluation to Solutions

-Assessment and Implementation: A background	paper	created	for	the	March	31

–April	1,	2011	Interagency	Discussion	on	Alternatives	Assessment,	EPA	Potomac	Yards	Conference	Facility,	Crystal City,	VA.	March	24,	2011 5 Lowell	Center	for	Sustainable	Production	et	al.	The	Commons	Principles	for	Alternatives	Assessment	(includes	consensus	definition	of	alternatives assessment).	2013	October. http://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Research/Alternatives_Assessment/Commons_Principles_for_Alternatives_Assessmen 6 http://theic2.org/article/download

-pdf/file_name/IC2_AA_Guide_Version_1.0.pdf 7 https://www.osha.gov/dsg/safer_chemicals/basics.html 8 http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/JM/MONO(2013)24&docLanguage=En Do	other	businesses	or	actors	in	the	same	industry	sector	already	use	a	safer	alternative?	This

should	include	an	examination	of	businesses	and	other	relevant	actors	both	within	and	outside	the US.
 Is	there	existing	research	that	demonstrates	or	investigates	the	viability	of	safer	alternatives?
 Is	the	process	or	functional	use	of	a	chemical	similar	to	another	process	for	which	safer alternatives	have	been	identified? A variety of detailed resources have been developed to help industries answer these questions. These include resources developed by the Interstate Chemicals	Clearinghouse (IC2); the	Substitutions Portal (Subsport.eu); the Pharos	Database;	and	the	ASETSdefense	database	(http://www.asetsdefense.org/), among	others. It is important to have processes to review the quality of such assessments, either through public notice and comment, stakeholder involvement requirements, regulatory or agency review mechanisms, or third party review	and	certification. Additionally,	technical	support	may be	needed	to	assist	firms	and	facilities that	may	not have	resources	to	adequately	conduct	assessments,	identify	alternatives,	or	need	support	in	adoption. **D. 1.**  **d. What**  **should facilities**  **consider when**  **determining if**  **such technologies,**  **when identified,**  **are effective,**  **available, and**  **economically justified**  **for their**  **particular process**  **or facility?**  **Can the**  **RMP national**  **database, Lessons**  **Learned Information**  **System or**  **other federal**  **databases be**  **structured to**  **promote the**  **exchange of**  **informatio n**  **both within**  **industry and**  **with other**  **stakeholders on**  **potentially safer	technologies?**  Adoption in similar firms or facilities in a particular sector is an important starting point to demonstrating economic	and	performance	viability. Collecting	such	case studies	and	information	on	successful	adoption	of	safer chemicals and technologies is very important. Such information can support adoption and provide evidence of viability	of	alternatives.		It	is	important	in	evaluating	alternatives	that	firms	consider the	“cost	of	toxics”

– in	other words the liability, permitting costs,	insurance	costs,	worker	health costs, disposal costs,	etc. of using a particular hazardous	chemicals	in	a	process.		The	value	of	this	approach	is	that	it	requires	a	business	to	explicit ly	identify	all the costs associated with the incumbent technology, including costs of hazardous waste disposal, personal protective	equipment	for	workers,	liability	insurance,	and	others. Requiring detailed economic analyses of alternatives in the alternatives assessment planning process is important, but it should not be the basis for EPA’s decision

-making about whether to require adoption of the alternative. Ideally, that decision would be separate from the internal analysis at the firm level

– to reduce the incentive	to	skew	the	analysis	against	the	change.	To	the	extent	that	the	economic	analyses	are	used	in	regulatory decision

-making, there will be a greater incentive for businesses to create an analysis that supports the status quo technology. Rather broad data on adoptability (not cost to a particular firm) should be used in the decision to	require	adoption	of	alternatives.		Broader	adoption	will	often	bring	down	the	original	costs	of	a	technology	and analysts	have	found	that	costs	of	compliance	with	environmental	regulations	are	often	overstated. Databases such as the RMP database and others from the chemical substitution real, such as the SUBSPORT database and the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse databases could also serve as repositories for information on safer technologies. In the end, inherent safety is about chemical substitution and the processes and information for evaluating	substitutes for chemicals of concern – whether in processes or products, posing acute or chronic hazards

– are similar. As such, databases on both chemical safety and chemical substitution could be used	as	repositories	for	information	on	safer	chemicals.**D. 1.**  **e. If**  **EPA were**  **to require**  **facilities to**  **undertake an**  **evaluation of**  **the potential**  **to incorporate**  **safer**

**a lternatives,**  **what minimum**  **criteria should**  **this evaluation**  **be required**  **to meet?**  **How would**  **the evaluation**  **determine if**  **a particular**  **alternative is**  **feasible, cost**  **effective and**  **results in**  **less risk?**  **What requirements**  **or incentives,**  **if any,**  **should there**  **be for**  **implementation of**  **identified safer**  **alternatives? How	should	any	such	requirements	be	structured	and	enforced?**  Most alternatives assessment frameworks (described by the National Academy of Sciences and OECD) contain a series of steps that firms or agencies should undertake to identify and evaluate alternatives for reduced hazards, cost, and performance. For many firms, economic and performance assessment may not be necessary because such assessments may have been performed already by others (e.g, the technology is already in use by other similar firms or facilities). Some frameworks, such as the Interstate Clearinghouse on Chemicals Guide and the NAS	Framework	have	minimum	steps	that	must	be	completed	for	an	alternatives	assessment,	including:		scoping and problem	formulation,	hazard	(and	in	the	case	of	the	NAS	framework	comparative	exposure)	assessment,	and lifecycle thinking. Others, such as the OSHA toolkit, place a significant emphasis on implementation and pilot testing of alternatives. The NAS Framework represents an evolutionary framework that builds on several existing	frameworks	and	could	be	a	starting	point	for	EPA	to	adapt	to	chemical accident	prevention	planning. Certain alternatives assessment planning statutes, such as the California Safer Consumer Products Regulations and the Maine Child Safe Products Act, along with REACH and several European occupational health statutes, provide authority for government agencies to require adoption of safer feasible alternatives when they exist.9 Even some older policies, such as the Significant New Alternatives Program under the Clean Air Act require review of and adoption of safer alternatives to ozone depleting substances. Evidence indicates that providing incentives	and	support	to	overcome	barriers to	adoption	of	safer	alternatives	will	significantly	enhance	adoption. However,	this	may	not	be	sufficient	to	incentivize	laggards	to	adopt	safer	technologies.		Hence,	requiring	adoption may	be	the	only	way	to	ensure	risk	reduction	goals	are	met. **D.1.f. Should**  **EPA require**  **facilities to**  **use a**  **safer alternatives**  **evaluation method**  **such as**  **the CCPS**  **Inherently	Safer	Technology	Checklist?** As noted, a number of useful safer alternatives frameworks and tools

. The CCPS Inherently Safer Technology Checklist includes some useful elements

. However, it does not constitute the various elements of an alternatives assessment process. It only includes the options identification step and not the evaluation steps that are necessary to	understand whether and	how the alternative would	significantly reduce	hazards above and beyond the existing technology. Additional areas that are not covered in depth include potential savings associated with reducing hazard and potential liabilities associated with the hazard. It is worth noting that businesses that use chemicals to make products may have different needs from businesses that manufacture and process chemicals or	those	that	store	chemicals, so	guidance	should	be	developed	and	evaluated with	both	these	types	of	businesses in	mind. It is also important that any policy clearly distinctions between options which are true hazard reduction (reduction or elimination of the toxic chemical

– eg reducing the possibility of a catastrophic incident ) and options	which	merely	contain	or	control	risk (reducing	the	probability	of	a	catastrophic	incident).	One	of	the	core principles	of alternatives	assessment,	green	chemistry,	and	inherently	safer	design is	that	reducing	or	eliminating a toxic chemical hazard at source is the preferred way to reduce risk, as compared with risk control and mitigation strategies, which may contain but do not eliminate inherent hazards. Hazard reduction rather than exposure control or mitigation should be a first consideration in alternatives assessment processes. In those cases	where	chemical	substitution	is	not	possible,	options	such	as	changing	process	conditions	(pressure	or	heat) or	chemical	state	(liquid)	can	significantly	should	be	considered.

9 See Tickner, Joel, et al. Alternatives Assessment in Regulatory Policy: History and Future Directions.” In Hester, RE and RM Harrison eds, Issues i n Environmental Science and Technology, 36, Chemical Alternatives Assessments

. London: Royal Society of Chemistry for a description of requirements to adopt alternatives	in	policy**D.1.g. How**  **should	EPA	and	facilities	address	the	risk	tradeoffs	that	could	result	when	changing	a	process**

**to	incorporate	safer	alternatives?** A central premise of thoughtful planning is to avoid unintended consequences of uninformed substitutions and guide the transition to safer chemicals and processes.10 A thoughtful alternatives assessment process should identify how alternatives may shift risks (for example an accident to a chronic health hazard). The fact that an alternative	may	present	risk	trade

-offs	should	is	not	necessarily	sufficient	rationale	to	discount	an	alternative	but may	indicate	that	the	alternative	is	only	viable	after	specific	mitigation	methods	are	instituted.		In	cases	where	all alternatives	present	important	risk	trade

-offs,	it	may	be	necessary	to	identify	interim	options	that	reduce	hazards while focusing on research	and development in green chemistry to develop	clearly superior	options. In all	cases, transparency in the alternatives assessment process	is important	so that EPA	and other	stakeholders	can review assumptions and methods used in the assessment. Further, an important step in any alternatives assessment is implementation and evaluation to ensure that new, unexpected hazards do not present themselves at the adoption	phase.		In	this	sense,	alternatives	assessment	should	be	viewed	as	an	iterative,	continuous	improvement process. Regular reassessment of alternatives assessments is important to incorporate evolving knowledge about	hazards	and	alternatives. **D. 1.**  **i. If**  **EPA were**  **to dev** **elop regulatory**  **requirements for**  **safer alternatives,**  **which facilities**  **should be**  **subject to**  **those requirements?**  **Should all**  **RMP facilities**  **be subject**  **to such**  **requirements, or**  **only “high**  **risk”	facilities,	such	as	refineries	and	large	chemical	plants?	How	woul d	“high	risk”	be	defined?	Are	there**  **particular processes**  **or chemicals**  **that should**  **be targeted**  **or prioritized**  **for implementation**  **of such**  **requirements?** All facilities can benefit from alternatives assessment planning processes and from a careful assessment of their options for reducing or eliminating hazards. This benefit is not limited to the highest risk facilities. While requirements to adopt alternatives may be focused on the highest risk facilities, chemicals, and functions, all facilities using hazardous substances should be required to evaluate alternatives. The detail required for such evaluations	may vary depending on the	size of the companies. However, experience	shows that smaller facilities using multiple hazardous chemicals may pose equal accident risks as larger facilities storing larger quantities of chemicals (though the impacted area may be smaller) and that such smaller facilities may lack knowledge about safe	chemicals	management.		In	these	cases,	alternatives	assessment	planning	and	requiring	adoption	(when	safe chemicals management infrastructure is lacking) may be even more important. In the end, quantity of chemicals stored, size, and facility risk level should not dictate whether alternatives assessment planning should be required. **D. 1.**  **l. If**  **RMP facilities**  **are required**  **to perform**  **safer alternative**  **options analyses**  **and implementation**  **plans, should**  **EPA require**  **that the**  **analyses and/or**  **implementation plans**  **be submitted**  **to the**  **Agency? Should**  **EPA have**  **any role**  **in approving**  **such analyses**  **o r**  **plans? In**  **lieu of**  **an approval,**  **can EPA**  **promote safer**  **alternatives through**  **reporting and**  **the dissemination**  **of information**  **on potentially**  **applicable practices?**  Transparency is a critical element of alternatives assessment processes. To ensure that communities, workers, the Agency and others have an adequate ability to question assumptions, options, and choices made in the alternatives assessment, it is important that the analyses be submitted to the agency. The agency can then undertake completeness	reviews,	audits,	and	inspections	to	help	ensure	the	integrity	of	analysis	and	plans.		While approval of such analyses may not be necessary, at a minimum the Agency can evaluate whether minimum elements are completed. A process of certified third party or internal to firm planners who have training in completing alternatives assessments (as is the case in Massachusetts) may be provide an alternative to Agency approval. Reporting and dissemination of information on safer alternatives

– based on understandings gained from the alternatives assessments
– should supplement the EPA review process to ensure maximum impact of

10 Tickner,	Joel,	et	al. Alternatives	Assessment	in	Regulatory	Policy:		History	and	Future	Directions.”	In	Hester,	RE	and	RM	Harrison	eds, Issues	in	Environmental Science	and	Technology,	36,	Chemical	Alternatives	Assessments.		London:		Royal	Society	of	Chemistrythe planning process. For example the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction program employs a variety of

approaches to promote safer alternatives through dissemination of information on potentially applicable practices. This includes peer mentoring work groups and demonstration events, among other activities. Businesses	have	reported	that	this	assistance	is	useful	to	them.