Pinanski Hall, Room 301 Joel 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	112r	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;	1999
Office	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	section	112(r)	

regulations?	What	 specifically	 should	 a	 safer	 alternatives	 analysis	 require	 and	how	would	this	 differ	

from	what	is	already	required	under	other	provisions	of	the	RMP?

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	safer	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 Industrial 

Development, Massachusetts Institute 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	chemicals	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	information	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	explicitly	identify	all	

the	 costs	 associated	 with	 the	 incumbent	 technology,	 including	 costs	 of	 hazardous	 waste	 disposal,	 personal	

protective	equipment	for	workers,	liability	insurance,	and	others.		

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	

alternatives,	 what	 minimum	 criteria	 should	 this	 evaluation	 be	 required	 to	 meet?	 How	 would	 the	

evaluation	determine	if	a	particular	alternative	is	feasible,	cost	effective	and	results	in	less	risk?	What	

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

How	should	any	such	requirements	be	structured	and	enforced?

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	 in	

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	develop	regulatory	requirements	for	safer	alternatives,	which	facilities	should	be	

subject	to	those	requirements?	Should	all	RMP	facilities	be	subject	to	such	requirements,	or	only	“high	

risk”	facilities,	such	as	refineries	and	large	chemical	plants?	How	would	“high	risk”	be	defined?	Are	there	

particular	 processes	 or	 chemicals	that	 should	 be	targeted	 or	 prioritized	 for	 implementation	 of	 such	

requirements?

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	or	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	Chemistry
the	 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.