Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0044-0089
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-04-08T04:00Z

Accidental
Release
Prevention
Requirements:
Risk
Management
Program
Requirements
Under
Clean
Air
Act
Section
112(
r)(
7);
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
Submission
Schedule
and
Data
Requirements
Summary
and
Response
to
Comments
March
22,
2004
This
page
intentionally
left
blank
I.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
II.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Changes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
A.
Changes
to
Reporting
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
1.
Five­
Year
Accident
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
1.
Support
Accident
History
Proposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.
Opposition
to
Accident
History
Proposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
Clarifications
to
Accident
History
Proposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
4.
Additional
Comments
on
Accident
History
Proposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
5.
Recommendations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
2.
Emergency
Contact
Information
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
1.
Support
for
Emergency
Contact
Information
Proposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
2.
Opposition
to
Emergency
Contact
Information
Proposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
3.
Recommendations
and
Additional
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
B.
Changes
to
the
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
1.
Support
for
Removing
Data
from
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
2.
Opposition
to
Removing
Data
from
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
3.
Clarifications
and
Suggestions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
C.
New
Data
Elements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
1.
Emergency
Contacts
E­
Mail
Address
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
1.
Support
for
Emergency
Contact
E­
Mail
Address
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
2.
Opposition
to
Emergency
Contact
E­
Mail
Address
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
3.
Clarifications
and
Suggestions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
2.
Reasons
for
Subsequent
RMP
Revisions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
1.
Support
for
Purpose
of
Submissions
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
2.
Opposition
to
Purpose
of
Submissions
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
3.
Recommendations
and
Additional
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
3.
Contractor
Information
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
1.
Support
for
Contractor
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.
Opposition
to
Contractor
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
3.
Other
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
4.
Requests
for
Clarification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
5.
Recommendations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
D.
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
1.
Support
for
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
2.
Opposition
to
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
3.
Clarifications
and
Suggestions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
III.
Collection
of
OSHA
Occupational
Injury
and
Illness
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
1.
Support
for
Collection
of
OSHA
OII
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
2.
Opposition
to
Collection
of
OSHA
OII
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
3.
Clarification
and
Suggestions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
IV.
Other
Issues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
Appendix
­
List
of
Commenters
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
4
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Response
II.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Changes
A.
Changes
to
Reporting
Schedule
1.
Five­
Year
Accident
History
EPA
is
considering
a
proposal
that
facilities
who
have
an
accident
that
meets
the
criteria
for
the
five­
year
accident
history
be
required
to
update
and
re­
submit
their
RMP
within
6
months
of
the
date
of
the
accident.
Thirteen
commenters
indicated
they
would
support
such
a
proposal,
and
forty
three
commenters
indicated
they
would
oppose
such
a
proposal.

1.
Support
Accident
History
Proposal:
Modifying
the
Schedule
for
Updating
and
Re­
Submitting
an
RMP
Within
6
Months
of
the
Date
of
an
Accident
Commenters
support
modifying
the
schedule
for
updating
and
re­
submitting
an
RMP
for
the
following
reasons:

°
The
proposal
will
not
pose
a
burden
to
the
regulated
community;
°
Timely
submissions
of
RMPs
would
be
beneficial;
°
The
proposal
will
assist
federal,
state,
local
responders
deal
with
accidents/
incidents;
and
°
Favor
using
a
relative
date
as
opposed
to
a
fixed
date.

The
Proposal
Will
Not
Pose
a
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
°
This
would
not
be
an
undue
hardship
as
facilities
strive
to
achieve
accident
free
operations
of
RMP
covered
processes.
[
11­
1;
12­
1]

°
The
proposal
would
impose
little
or
no
burden
on
affected
sources,
and
would
assist
in
the
implementation
of
the
risk
management
program
and
provide
valuable
information
to
federal,
state,
and
local
authorities
in
an
emergency.
[
60­
1]

°
The
proposal
is
reasonable
and
non­
burdensome
to
facilities
that
must
comply.
[
86­
1]

Timely
Submissions
of
RMPs
Would
Be
Beneficial
°
Sources
complying
with
RMP
requirements
should
maintain
an
up­
to­
date
RMP
at
the
facility
including
and
updated
five­
year
accident
history
instead
of
waiting
until
the
fiveyear
resubmittal
requirement.
[
11­
2;
12­
3]

°
Sources
should
maintain
an
up­
to­
date
RMP
at
the
facility
including
an
updated
five­
year
accident
history
instead
of
waiting
until
the
five­
year
resubmittal
requirement.
[
11­
3]

°
The
resubmittal
of
the
RMP
within
6
months
of
an
incident
will
allow
industry
to
take
advantage
of
lessons
learned
and
encourage
information
transfer
throughout
the
industry
which
is
truly
the
intent
of
the
Risk
Management
Program.
[
11­
2;
12­
2;
58­
2;
58­
3]
5
°
Timely
submissions
of
reportable
accidents
would
provide
implementing
agencies
greater
opportunity
to
provide
technical
assistance
to
facilities
assisting
in
mitigating
accidental
releases
and
their
impacts.
[
45­
2]

°
Frequent
updates
in
accident
histories
would
benefit
EPA
and
implementing
agencies,
allowing
the
agency
to
validate
the
information
and
conduct
better­
informed
assessments
of
RMPs
and
on­
site
verifications.
[
57­
3]

°
Updated
information
trends
and
rates
of
accident
occurrences
would
be
more
apparent,
allowing
problems
to
be
addressed
as
needed.
[
57­
4]

°
Requiring
full
resubmission
of
the
RMP
following
an
accident
would
force
facilities
to
consider
the
sufficiency
of
its
protective
measures.
The
proposed
change
would
ensure
that
problems
identified
from
accidents
are
solved
in
a
timely
manner,
rather
than
allowing
them
to
languish
for
years
after
the
accident.
[
57­
5]

°
The
information
will
help
to
identify
trends
and
provide
information
to
facilities
to
prevent
similar
incidents.
[
86­
3]

The
Proposal
Will
Assist
Federal,
State,
Local
Responders
Deal
with
Accidents/
incidents
°
Five­
year
accident
data
has
significant
value
for
all
facets
of
the
chemical
accident
prevention
and
preparedness.
The
change
would
allow
for
better
and
faster
analysis
of
accident
incidence
and
frequency
data
trends.
Broad
consensus
was
appeared
to
have
been
reached
on
the
value
of
this
proposal
during
the
November
14,
2000
roundtable
meeting
on
how
to
improve
the
measurement
of
accidental
chemical
process
releases,
co­
sponsored
by
CSB,
EPA
and
OSHA.
[
62­
1]

°
Accident
history
is
very
important
to
emergency
planners,
responders
and
the
public.
As
these
types
of
accidents
are
the
most
serious
and
they
reflect
potential
failures
in
the
facility's
prevention
program,
it
is
very
important
the
facility
revise
its
practices
and
that
the
community
become
aware
of
these
changes.
Updating
the
RMP
is
the
best
way
to
assure
that
this
reevaluation
occurs
and
the
information
is
appropriately
shared.
[
15­
2;
15­
1]

°
Five­
year
accident
history
is
relevant
and
pertinent
not
only
to
the
facility
but
also
to
local
first
responders
and
emergency
planners
and
should
be
updated
in
a
more
timely
fashion
than
the
current
5­
year
updates
to
RMPs.
[
45­
1]

°
The
change
will
help
improve
public
information
about
serious
chemical
spills
and
emergencies.
[
52­
1]

$
Stakeholders
could
see
several
positive
benefits
as
a
result
this
change.
Information
regarding
recent
chemical
accidents
would
permit
proper
scrutiny
of
the
accident,
including
the
type
of
prevention
measures
in
place
and
what
kind
of
response
occurred.
If
6
the
public
were
empowered
with
current
information,
they
could
work
with
the
facility
to
improve
weaknesses.
Local
responders
could
better
understand
accidents
and
improve
response
procedures.
Achieving
these
benefits
would
require
EPA
to
post
the
material
online
so
it
is
easily
accessible.
[
57­
1;
57­
2]

°
Commenter
strongly
support
the
concept
underlying
EPA's
proposal
to
modify
the
risk
management
program
reporting
obligation
to
require
subject
facilities
to
update
and
resubmit
their
RMP
within
6
months
of
an
accidental
release
that
has
true
significance.
[
8­
10;
8­
12]
This
would
be
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
the
Responsible
Care
Process
Safety
Code.
[
8­
12;
8­
13]

°
This
proposed
change
would
assist
auditors
in
prioritizing
inspections
based
on
RMP
reportable
accidents.
[
23­
1]

2.
Opposition
to
Accident
History
Proposal
Forty
three
commenters
are
opposed
to
EPA's
proposal
that
facilities
who
have
an
accident
meeting
the
criteria
for
the
five­
year
accident
history
be
required
to
update
and
re­
submit
their
RMP
within
6
months
of
the
date
of
the
accident.
Commenters
opposed
modifying
the
schedule
for
updating
and
re­
submitting
an
RMP
for
the
following
reasons:

°
The
proposal
is
unnecessary
and
will
place
a
significant
and
substantial
burden
on
the
regulated
community;
°
The
six­
month
time
frame
is
an
unreasonable
amount
of
time
to
resubmit
an
RMP;
°
Facilities
should
not
have
to
resubmit
a
full
RMP
after
every
accident/
incident;
°
RMP
facilities
are
currently
required
to
report
off­
site
releases;
°
The
agency
has
vastly
underestimated
the
cost
for
resubmitting
an
RMP;
°
Fixed
date
is
not
a
viable
option;
°
Not
all
accidents/
incidents
meet
reportable
criteria;
and
°
Reporting
of
releases
of
all
chemicals
from
a
covered
facility
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
regulation.

The
Proposal
Is
Unnecessary
and
Will
Place
a
Significant
and
Substantial
Burden
on
the
Regulated
Community
°
This
requirement
will
impose
a
substantial
burden
on
the
reporting
facility.
[
10­
1;
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
1]

°
Larger
utilities
will
see
the
changes
as
an
enhancement;
however
the
majority
of
smaller
water
utilities
without
full­
time
or
part­
time
RMP
technical
and
administrative
staff
support
will
find
the
proposed
rule
changes
an
additional
administrative
burden.
[
22­
1]

°
The
proposed
requirement
is
not
necessary
and
serves
no
other
purpose
than
creating
additional
paperwork
at
the
source
and
at
the
reporting
agency.
[
25­
1]

°
In
addition
to
the
requirement
most
facilities
conduct
internal
audits
on
an
annual
basis,
which
covers
any
changes
in
the
RMP
information.
[
25­
4]
7
°
While
it
is
true
that
facilities
that
would
be
required
to
submit
a
new
RMP
Plan
after
a
chemical
accident
would
not
have
to
re­
submit
again
for
another
5
years,
these
facilities
would
still
incur
the
burden
of
submitting
a
new
RMP
Plan
within
a
shorter
timeframe
than
5
years.
The
Wharton
School
at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
found
that
the
time
spent
putting
the
data
together
for
RMP
submittals
in
1999
ranged
from
"
200
hours
for
some
small
companies
to
nearly
3,000
hours
for
some
large
facilities."
For
facilities
whose
only
accident
experience
may
have
been
onsite
injuries
and/
or
onsite
property
damage,
this
requirement
to
submit
a
new
RMP
Plan
after
such
an
accident
would
be
a
significant
burden
given
that
any
new
information
contained
within
the
submission
would
not
likely
impact
the
public.
[
32­
4]

°
Burden
imposed
by
any
annual
reporting
of
accidents
would
be
significant
given
the
questionable
benefits.
[
32­
5;
71­
1;
79­
1]

°
With
the
expanding
use
of
the
internet
and
the
national
broadcast
new
media
industry,
emergency
responders,
and
other
stakeholders
have
almost
instant
knowledge
of
release/
incident
and
within
a
few
days
after
the
release/
incident
have
full
details
that
will
benefit
all
stakeholders
in
preventing
a
future
release/
incident.
[
25­
2]

°
It
may
not
be
necessary
to
mandate
changes
to
an
RMP
following
a
release.
[
14­
3]
Observations
taken
and
practices
and
procedures
followed
will
be
used
as
tools
to
provide
greater
protection
and
prevention
for
any
future
accidents.
[
14­
4]

°
There
are
other
less
burdensome
methods
to
collect
RMP
accident
information;
therefore,
the
method
proposed
by
the
agency
is
not
in
accord
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
12]

°
The
requirement
to
categorically
update
and
resubmit
to
EPA
the
entire
RMP
due
to
any
accidental
chemical
release
from
a
covered
process
that
meets
reportable
criteria
is
needlessly
burdensome
to
plant
operators,
and
will
result
in
many
costly
RMPs
being
resubmitted
due
to
insignificant
accidents.
[
49­
3;
50­
15;
51­
1]
Many
minor
accidents
are
due
to
operator
error
and
will
not
trigger
any
operational
or
process
changes
at
the
plant.
[
49­
3;
51­
2]

°
We
support
the
concept
of
providing
timely
accidental
release
information
to
the
EPA,
and
agree
that
such
limited
information
disclosures
would
be
beneficial
and
the
proper
analysis
of
such
information
could
be
used
to
improve
prevention
programs.
However,
as
it
is
written,
this
requirement
would
place
a
significant
administrative
burden
on
the
regulated
sites
without
achieving
any
commensurate
benefit
of
improved
accidental
release
programs.
[
70­
5;
70­
6;
70­
7;
70­
18;
70­
19]

°
The
proposed
change
appears
to
be
reasonable;
however,
the
effort
required
duplicates
other
reporting
requirements,
adds
an
unnecessary
burden
on
the
regulated
community,
and
takes
effort
away
from
resolving
the
true
causes
of
incidents.
[
72­
13;
77­
2]
The
facility
should
focus
its
efforts
on
resolving
the
key
findings
from
an
accident
investigation
and
determining
the
root
causes
of
the
incident;
rather
than
updating
their
RMP
transmittal.
8
[
72­
14]

°
EPA
has
failed
to
show
how
this
increase
in
reporting
is
necessary
improvement
to
the
existing
regulations.
[
76­
1]
The
requirement
draws
resources
away
from
the
effort
to
investigate
and
take
corrective
action.
[
76­
2]
Similar
to
72­
14
The
Six­
Month
Time
Frame
Is
an
Unreasonable
Amount
of
Time
to
Resubmit
an
RMP
°
A
thorough
investigation
and
root
cause
analysis
of
an
accident
can
take
up
to
a
year
or
more
to
complete.
Permitting
a
year
for
submitting
of
an
updated
plan
allows
a
more
comprehensive
plan
to
be
prepared.
[
9­
2]

°
Requiring
submittal
of
a
plan
within
6
months
would
likely
allow
for
only
about
5
months
of
investigation
and
analysis
before
revisions
of
the
Risk
Management
Plan
is
begun.
[
9­
3]

°
Revisions
to
the
RMP
within
6
months
of
an
accidental
release
is
unnecessary.
[
14­
1]
Any
and
all
actions
will
be
taken
to
minimize
accidental
releases
to
the
surrounding
community.
[
14­
2]

°
Updating
the
entire
RMP
plan
within
6
months
of
a
major
accident
could
be
problematic,
particularly
if
the
plant
was
partially
demolished.
It
could
take
considerably
longer
than
6
months
to
rebuild
the
plant.
[
20­
2]
Also,
the
facility
must
perform
a
Process
Hazards
Analysis
and
a
thorough
accident
investigation
before
the
process
starts
up.
[
20­
3]

°
Commenter
questions
why
it
is
necessary
to
rush
a
complete
refiling
of
the
RMP
within
6
months,
when
5­
year
time
frame
is
statistically
insignificant
as
EPA
has
indicated
(
at
61
FR
31678).
[
20­
5]

°
Incidents
could
occur
for
which
6
months
would
not
be
sufficient
time
to
adequately
complete
and
resubmit
the
revised
RMP.
[
34­
2]
More
than
6
months
may
be
necessary
for
an
incident
that
requires
extensive
forensic,
deconstruction,
reengineering,
and
reconstruction
work.
[
34­
3]
This
would
be
an
unnecessary
and
inefficient
effort
given
the
investigation
report
requirements
already
existing.
[
34­
4;
71­
2;
71­
3;
71­
4;
71­
5]

°
A
floating
deadline
of
6
months
after
an
incident
makes
it
difficult
for
personnel
to
integrate
the
regulatory
updates
into
a
management
system.
[
44­
5]

°
The
proposal
does
not
allow
adequate
time
for
the
source
to
do
a
thorough
and
worthwhile
investigation
of
the
accident.
[
48­
1]

°
Updating
or
correcting
the
source's
accident
prevention
program
will
also
require
more
than
6
months
to
be
done
properly.
[
48­
2]
The
6­
month
time
limit
may
not
permit
proper
in
depth
investigation
to
determine
the
real
causes
and
details
of
the
accident.
[
48­
3]

°
We
request
that
the
EPA
allow
one
year
from
the
date
of
the
accident
to
update
and
resubmit
their
RMPs
for
accidents
that
meet
the
five­
year
history
reporting
criteria.
[
48­
4;
72­
15]
9
°
Resubmittal
of
RMP
data
within
6
months
adds
little
towards
improving
the
reporting
of
accidental
releases,
and
would
simply
represent
a
redundant
and
punitive
reporting
requirement.
[
50­
25;
50­
28]

°
A
thorough
investigation
of
a
major
accident
may
take
longer
than
6
months.
The
proposed
revision
provides
no
means
for
a
source
to
request
an
extension
to
complete
the
investigation.
A
source
with
a
permit
(
issued
under
40
CFR
§
70
or
§
71)
with
risk
management
program
conditions
could
be
forced
either
to
be
in
noncompliance
with
their
permit
or
expedite
an
investigation
to
meet
the
6­
month
deadline.
If
the
goal
is
to
allow
the
accident
investigation
to
influence
improved
safety
recommendations
then
a
source
should
not
be
forced
to
consider
potential
permit
noncompliance
(
with
potential
enforcement
action)
or
less
than
a
thorough
accident
investigation.
[
59­
1]

°
The
shortened
timeframe
will
place
an
additional
significant
workload
on
the
affected
facilities
during
a
period
when
they
are
already
devoting
significant
time
to
accident
investigations.[
65­
1;
65­
2]

°
Updates
are
more
beneficial
to
the
facility
and
agencies
when
a
review
of
the
incident
with
well
established
facts
has
been
completed
 
a
process
often
taking
more
than
6
months.
[
76­
3]

°
Submission
of
a
certified
RMP
plan
could
in
itself
represent
a
potential
non­
compliance
if
physical
or
procedural
improvements
are
not
finished
and
completely
implemented
prior
to
certification
and
submission
of
the
RMP
plan.
[
79­
1]

°
The
focus
of
changes
to
the
Rule
should
be
to
ensure
that
action
items
identified
to
help
prevent
releases
should
be
encouraged
to
be
carried
out.
[
43­
2]
A
requirement
to
resubmit
the
entire
RMP
after
a
release
will
take
away
from
the
time
the
facility
should
be
spending
on
correcting
problems
that
led
to
the
release.
[
43­
3]

Facilities
Should
Not
Have
to
Resubmit
a
Full
RMP
after
Every
Accident/
incident
°
Requiring
a
full
submittal
will
actually
make
it
more
difficult
for
reviewers
to
identify
and
evaluate
the
relevant
changes
to
the
RMP
that
address
the
reportable
accident.
[
10­
2;
49­
5]

°
Updating
the
entire
RMP
is
a
very
resource­
intensive
and
time­
consuming
process.
The
fixed
five­
year
update
cycle
for
the
entire
RMP
should
be
retained
to
allow
facilities
to
plan
for
this
effort.
[
19­
3]

°
Updating
the
entire
RMP
plan
within
6
months
of
a
major
accident
could
be
a
real
problem,
particularly
if
the
plan
was
partially
demolished.
It
could
take
substantially
greater
time
to
rebuild
the
plant.
[
20­
2]

°
We
do
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
require
facilities
to
resubmit
and
recertify
their
entire
RMP
after
an
accident
or
incident.
[
27­
1;
39­
2;
58­
1]
Such
an
activity
requires
a
major
expense
with
insignificant
benefit.
[
27­
2;
50­
15;
58­
9;
58­
10;
79­
1]
10
°
If
there
is
an
improvement
identified
for
the
RMP,
a
suitable
amendment
will
be
filed
with
the
Agency.
To
resubmit
and
recertify
the
whole
of
the
RMP
as
a
result
of
any
RMP
event
is
overly
burdensome
and
unnecessary.
[
27­
4;
28­
1;
28­
2;
39­
1]

°
Updating
,
resubmission,
and
recertification
of
the
entire
RMP
to
the
agency
after
the
incident
is
not
value
adding
in
terms
of
benefits
or
information
gained
since
the
updating
process
can
be
lengthy
and
complicated,
particularly
on
a
large
site
with
multiple
covered
processes.
[
39­
3;
70­
12]

°
Updating
can
take
several
weeks
or
months
to
accomplish
at
a
large
site
and
we
do
not
believe
that
the
plan
updating
would
deliver
further
risk
reduction
benefits
by
itself,
or
reveal
any
useful
new
information
at
the
Agency
level
in
terms
of
prevention
or
identifying
broad
trends.
[
39­
4]

°
Updating
and
resubmission
of
the
full
plan
following
an
incident
does
not
provide
any
new
information
or
in
relevant
to
the
Agency's
objective
to
improve
the
incident
timeliness
and
collection
of
trends
and
key
learnings.
[
39­
5]

°
The
proposed
change,
while
in
some
cases
of
major
process
failures
may
be
appropriate,
seems
excessive
in
cases
involving
minor
releases
and
non­
recordable
injuries
as
defined
by
OSHA.
[
41­
1]
An
alternative
would
be
to
require
entities
to
submit
new
accident
data
within
6
months
of
the
accident
as
an
update
or
correction
in
lieu
of
complete
revision.
[
41­
2]

°
A
complete
resubmittal
of
the
RMP
following
an
accident
does
not
add
value
to
the
safety
performance
of
a
stationary
source.
[
44­
1;
44­
2]
The
stationary
source
needs
to
apply
resources
toward
investigating
the
incident
and
correcting
the
causes
rather
than
document
updates.
[
44­
3]
EPA
should
consider
developing
communication
avenues
with
the
local
agencies
to
allow
stationary
sources
to
concentrate
on
their
investigations.
[
44­
4]

°
Full
resubmission
of
a
facility's
RMP
to
collect
updated
accident
information
is
a
considerable
task
and
an
unnecessary
burden
on
the
covered
industry.
[
45­
5;
49­
1]
Many
minor
accidents
are
due
to
operator
error
and
will
not
trigger
any
operation
changes
at
the
plant.
[
49­
4]
If
using
existing
accident
data
is
not
feasible,
EPA
should
consider
developing
a
component
of
RMP
Submit
to
allow
industry
to
update
only
the
five­
year
accident
history
portion
of
its
RMP.
[
45­
6]

°
A
full
resubmission
and
recertification
involves
review
of
all
elements
of
the
plan,
including
remodeling
of
off­
site
consequences
so
they
will
be
accurate
for
this
new
date.
The
remodeling
is
unnecessary
and
often
unrelated
to
a
particular
accident,
and
requiring
this
across
the
board
is
unnecessary.
[
50­
17;
58­
8]
Commenter
would
support
this
provision
if
it
were
directly
tied
to
a
finding
that
the
worst
case
analyses
and
modeling
were
found
to
not
be
protective
or
inaccurate
but
this
does
not
appear
to
be
the
case.
[
50­
18]

°
The
decision
to
resubmit
a
full
RMP,
regardless
of
whether
an
accidental
release
that
triggers
the
five­
year
accident
history
reporting
criteria
should
be
left
to
the
best
professional
judgement
of
the
signatory
of
the
RMP
and
the
company.
[
50­
27;
50­
30]
11
°
Although
we
do
not
oppose
the
6
month
timeframe,
we
believe
that
this
information
can
be
reported
to
EPA
in
an
expeditious,
effective,
and
useful
manner
without
requiring
facilities
to
fully
update,
resubmit,
and
recertify
their
entire
RMP
[
66­
1]
Revision
and
resubmission
of
the
RMP
is
a
significant
undertaking
in
terms
of
time,
effort,
and
expense
involving
among
other
things,
offsite
consequences
modeling
and
comprehensive
management
and
legal
review.
[
66­
2]
The
RMP
may
not
be
the
primary
mechanism
used
by
facilities
to
address
accident
prevention
and
investigation.
[
66­
3]

°
Updating
all
the
data
elements
in
a
Risk
Management
Plan
will
not
reflect
changes
at
this
detail
level.
[
70­
10]
Resubmitting
the
facility
RMP
to
the
EPA
will
not
provide
the
facility
or
EPA
with
any
helpful
insight
or
provide
any
means
to
prevent
the
accident
from
reoccurring.
[
70­
11]

°
We
oppose
the
proposal;
however,
if
EPA
insists
on
requiring
owners
and
operators
to
report
accidents
within
6
months,
then
they
should
be
reported
as
"
corrections"
to
the
fiveyear
accident
history.
Any
process
modifications
resulting
from
the
incident
investigation
and
casual
analysis
which
require
an
updated
process
hazard
analysis
would
trigger
full
RMP
plan
updates
according
to
the
existing
guidelines.

°
EPA
has
not
made
a
substantial
case
in
either
statistical
or
scientific
terms
for
the
need
for
such
data
and
has
provided
no
basis
on
how
the
Agency
intends
to
use
such
data.
[
50­
29]
We
would
accept
the
calendar
year
reporting
cycle
as
long
as
our
companies
were
only
required
to
report
those
sections
that
have
changed.
[
50­
30]

°
It
is
entirely
possible
to
provide
EPA
the
accident
data
it
seeks
in
this
rulemaking
without
requiring
facilities
to
conduct
a
full
RMP
resubmittal.
[
66­
4]

RMP
Facilities
Are
Currently
Required
to
Report
Off­
site
Releases
°
RMP
facilities
are
already
required
to
report
off­
site
releases
to
their
LEPC,
state,
and
federal
RMP
points
of
contact.
[
22­
2;
22­
3;
70­
8;
58­
4]

°
The
current
RMP
element
Incident
Investigation
40
CFR
68.81
and
68.60
should
uncover
any
deficiencies
related
to
the
incident
in
the
accident
prevention
and
preparedness
program.
[
25­
5]

°
Any
significant
incident
will
trigger
the
incident
investigation
requirements
of
Section
68.81
of
the
RMP
regulations.
This
is
in
reality
the
most
important
part
of
the
process
to
eliminate
chemical
accidents
and
improve
the
safety
performance
of
a
facility.
[
67­
8]
°
Facilities
are
already
required
to
conduct
an
investigation
to
take
appropriate
actions
based
on
the
results
of
that
analysis.
[
27­
3]

°
Under
the
current
RMP
Rule,
facilities
are
required
to
investigate
accidents
promptly
(
within
48
hours)
and
take
prompt
corrective
action
to
resolve
investigation
findings
and
recommendations
to
improve
a
facility's
accident
prevention
program.
[
32­
1]

°
EPA
makes
no
mention
of
the
already
existing
incident
investigation
requirements
in
12
section
68.81.
[
37­
1]
These
requirements
specify
that
an
incident
investigation
be
initiated
"
as
promptly
as
possible
but
no
later
that
48
hours
following
the
incident",
and
that
a
report
be
prepared
of
the
investigation
...
Incident
investigation
reports
are
to
be
retained
for
5
years.
[
37­
2]
Clearly
the
existing
regulations
already
require
facilities
to
act
promptly
in
investigating
an
incident
and
taking
corrective
actions.
[
37­
3]
All
accidents,
chemical
related
or
otherwise
are
actively
investigated,
causes
identified
and
actions
taken.
[
37­
6]
Therefore,
we
do
not
see
the
need
for
the
proposed
change.
[
37­
4]

°
In
cases
where
a
release
occurred
and
accidents
were
involved,
the
RMP
rule
already
required
entities
to
conduct
and
document
an
Incident
Investigation
(
40
CFR
68.60).
Included
in
this
investigation
are
documentation
or
corrective
action
(
68.60
(
d)).
[
41­
3]

°
Accidental
releases
must
be
reported
to
the
National
Response
Center
and
state
and
local
authorities
almost
immediately
upon
occurring.
Follow­
up
reporting
is
typically
required
within
a
matter
of
days.
Significant
accidents
require
a
facility
to
put
together
an
investigative
team
within
48
hours
under
PSM
regulations.
[
50­
24;
67­
7;
72­
1;
72­
1;
76­
4;
76­
5]

°
EPA
and
interested
stakeholders
currently
have
reported
data
under
EPCRA,
CERCLA
and
other
statutes
containing
accidental
release
requirements
with
which
to
make
determination
on
changes
in
the
rate
of
accidents.
[
50­
26;
70­
13;
71­
6;
71­
7;
71­
8;
71­
9;
71­
10]

°
Whether
or
not
a
complete
(
or
even
partial)
RMP
update
is
warranted
is
highly
dependent
on
specifics
of
the
facility
and
incident.
[
55­
2]
If
such
updates
are
warranted,
they
would
already
be
triggered
by
existing
provisions
in
the
rule.
[
55­
3]
If
EPA
intent
is
to
receive
more
timely
information
about
accidents
in
order
to
track
national
incident
rates,
we
would
suggest
that
Accident
History
updates
be
provided
for
as
a
separate
data
element
without
a
mandatory
update
requirement.
[
55­
4]

°
Updating
all
of
the
data
elements
in
the
RMP
for
a
large
facility
is
a
very
costly
and
time
consuming
exercise
that
adds
very
little
or
no
value
to
the
accident
prevention
mechanism
at
an
industrial
facility.
[
67­
2;
67­
1;
68­
6]
The
best
way
to
address
significant
incidents
is
through
the
formal
accident
investigation
process
not
only
required
by
EPA's
existing
RMP
regulations
,
but
also
by
OSHA's
Process
Safety
Management
Standard.
The
corrective
actions
identified
may
require
an
update
of
the
risk
management
plan
in
certain
situations,
but
not
as
a
matter
of
course.
[
67­
3;
67­
4;
88­
3]

°
There
are
already
numerous
incident
reporting
requirements
in
place
at
the
federal,
state
and
local
level.
[
67­
5]
These
existing
reporting
requirements
provide
relevant
information
on
significant
events
to
government
agencies,
and
such
data
are
routinely
available
to
the
public
and
other
industrial
facilities.
[
67­
6;
71­
11;
71­
12;
71­
13]

°
Risk
management
plans
do
not
serve
exclusively
as
the
facilities
accident
prevention
planned
and
safety
management
system.
[
50­
12]
The
plan
submitted
reflects
the
existence
of
the
required
elements
and
the
analyses
used
to
support
the
accident
prevention
and
emergency
response
plans.
[
50­
13;
50­
14;
58­
4;
58­
5]
13
°
The
RMP
does
not
describe
in
detail
the
day­
to­
day
management
tools,
such
as
explicit
safety
and
accident
prevention
procedures,
emergency
response
procedures
or
management
of
change
logs.
[
58­
6]
It
is
these
more
specific
documents
and
tools
that
are
regularly
updated
to
reflect
current
operating
conditions
procedures,
and
lessons
learned
from
incident
investigation.
[
57­
7]
These
management
tools
are
not
submitted
to
EPA
or
other
regulatory
authority
since
they
are
internal
facility
process
safety
management
tools.
[
58­
7]

The
Agency
Has
Underestimated
the
Cost
for
Resubmitting
an
RMP
°
The
agency
has
vastly
underestimated
the
cost
of
a
submission,
which
would
require
review
of
all
of
the
elements
of
the
RMP.
[
37­
5;
72­
2]

°
RMPs
are
detailed
and
lengthy
documents
prepared
by
numerous
qualified
individuals
at
great
expense
and
time
commitment
and
reviewed
by
operational,
managerial
and
legal
staff.
[
40­
1;
68­
8]
This
is
a
burdensome
requirement.
[
40­
2;
56­
1;
68­
4;
68­
5]

°
The
agency
has
proposed
a
very
cumbersome
and
costly
method
to
correct
the
deficiencies
in
the
rule.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
4;
47­
2;
47­
3]
There
is
a
much
better
way
to
correct
the
deficiency
and
still
allow
the
agency
to
collect
the
data
it
desires.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
5]

°
The
resubmission
requirements
proposed
...
are
inaccurately
characterized
and
do
not
reflect
the
cost
to
businesses
or
the
time
involved
in
preparing
an
RMP
for
resubmission.
[
50­
11]

°
EPA
should
consider
the
cost
impact
on
agricultural
retail
facilities
that
make
up
a
significant
percentage
of
the
regulated
RMP
facilities.
[
50­
16]

Not
All
Accidents/
Incidents
Meet
Reportable
Criteria
°
The
triggers
and
responses
are
unnecessary
and
inflexible.
[
50­
19
]
Any
"
accidental
release
from
a
covered
process
in
the
past
5
years
that
resulted
in
deaths,
injuries,
or
significant
property
damage
on
site,
or
known
offsite
deaths
injuries,
evacuations,,
sheltering
in
place,
property
damage,
or
environmental
damage"
would
trigger
a
resubmittal
of
an
RMP.
[
50­
20]
EPA
also
states
that
it
"...
believes
this
proposed
requirement
would
help
spur
significant
improvements
in
the
accident
prevention
and
reporting
programs
of
sources
at
which
reportable
releases
occur.
[
50­
21;
50­
22;
68­
3]
Accidents
can
be
caused
by
failures
in
a
source's
accident
prevention
program."
While
we
concur
with
this
statement,
accidents
can
be
the
result
of
many
variables,
not
all
of
which
involve
a
company's
accident
prevention
program
and
the
majority
would
not
require
recreating
an
RMP
package.
An
accidental
release
that
resulted
in
"
significant
property
damage"
can
simply
be
a
release
that
happened
around
expensive
equipment
but
in
no
way
was
significant
in
terms
of
being
dangerous
to
workers,
community
members
or
the
environment.
Similarly,
evacuations
or
shelter­
in­
place
decisions
may
be
made
as
a
precautionary
measure
by
either
the
facility
or
some
local
emergency
response
entity
while
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
actual
release
is
defined.
In
these
cases,
the
inflexibility
of
the
defined
triggers
would
result
in
a
company
expending
time
and
resources
on
resubmitting
the
RMP
rather
than
determining
the
root
cause
of
the
release.
[
50­
21;
50­
22]
14
°
Accidental
releases
would
not
typically
trigger
a
Process
Hazard
Analysis
(
PHA)
and
not
all
accidental
releases
that
trigger
five­
year
reporting
requirement
automatically
trigger
a
PHA.
[
50­
23]

°
More
frequent
updates
will
help
EPA
track
trends
in
a
more
timely
manner;
however,
the
value
of
this
type
of
data
is
questionable.
Few
incidents
occur
that
trigger
reporting.
[
68­
11]
Incidents
requiring
reporting
are
often
minor
in
nature.
[
68­
12]
More
injuries
have
occurred
from
catastrophic
failures/
explosions/
events
from
non­
RMP
regulated
processes
than
RMP
processes.
An
explosion
in
a
nitrogen
system
injured
two
employees.
A
dust
explosion
in
a
non­
RMP
process
did
not
cause
any
injuries
but
did
cause
extensive
property
damage.
EPA
should
focus
its
efforts
on
these
areas­­
reactive
and
dust
explosion
situations.
Industry
is
currently
focusing
its
programs
on
the
regulated
chemicals.
EPA
needs
to
expand
these
programs
to
reactive/
dust
explosion
type
situations.
[
68­
13;
68­
14]

Reporting
of
Releases
of
All
Chemicals,
Rather
than
only
Regulated
Chemicals/
Substances,
from
a
Covered
Facility
Is
Outside
the
Scope
of
the
Regulation
°
In
regard
to
other
accident
data
beyond
those
involving
regulated
substances
in
covered
processes,
the
commenter
opposes
the
collection
of
data
for
the
purposes
of
speculation.
[
30­
4]

°
Reporting
incidents
that
involve
releases
of
chemicals
not
covered
in
the
existing
regulation
is
not
appropriate
or
within
the
scope
of
the
standard.
[
39­
31;
70­
21]
this
may
also
dilute
the
focus
and
attention
on
highly
toxic
or
flammable
covered
substances.
[
39­
32]
The
agency
did
not
adequately
explain
the
basis
for
this
proposed
change.
[
39­
33]

°
The
proposed
change
would
require
the
reporting
of
releases
from
a
covered
process
involving
any
chemical
and
meeting
the
other
reporting
criteria.
We
strongly
oppose
this
change.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
13]
The
current
RMP
rule
makes
no
reference
to
the
reporting
of
"
any
chemical"
in
a
covered
process.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
14]
Furthermore,
the
EPA
General
Guidance
Document
for
Risk
Management
Programs
states
the
following
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
15;
68­
1]:

The
five­
year
accident
history
covers
only
certain
releases:

The
releases
must
be
from
a
covered
process
and
involve
a
regulated
substance
held
above
its
threshold
quantity
in
the
process.

The
releases
must
have
caused
  ..

While
the
wording
in
the
regulation
itself
(
68.42(
a))
is
not
as
explicit
as
the
guidance
document,
the
following
language
is
appropriate
and
should
be
substituted
for
the
language
in
40
CFR
68.190
(
8)
proposed
by
EPA:

(
8)
Within
6
months
of
the
date
of
an
RMP
reportable
accident,
as
defined
in
68.42(
a),
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
stationary
source
will
provide
the
data
as
listed
in
68.42(
b).[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
15]
15
°
EPA
should
clarify
that
he
subject
RMP
accident
reporting
requirement
applies
to
accidental
releases
of
regulated
substances
from
covered
processes
and
not
to
"
any
accidental
chemical
releases"
The
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
and
resultant
RMP
regulation
were
intended
to
focus
on
regulated
substances,
not
to
just
any
chemical.
[
51­
6]

°
If
the
submittal
of
a
Section
68.42
(
b)
accident
report
is
changed
to
require
only
a
corrected
RMP
with
the
updated
Five
Year
Accident
History
data
elements
within
6
months
of
accidental
release
of
a
regulated
substance,
and
the
proposed
Section
68.190
(
8)
is
dropped,
then
the
rest
of
the
required
regulatory
machinery
is
already
in
place,
and
further
revisions
of
the
RMP
regulation
are
unnecessary
to
achieve
the
EPA's
goal
of
more
prompt
improvement
of
accident
prevention.
Section
68.42
(
b)(
10)
requires
that
the
accident
report
include
any
operational
or
process
changes
resulting
from
investigation
of
the
release.
Section
68.190
(
b)(
5),
(
6),
and
(
7)
require
submittal
of
an
updated
RMP
within
6
months
due
to
a
revised
Process
Hazard
Assessment
(
PHA),
Offsite
Consequence
Assessment
(
OCA),
or
changed
Program
level
for
significant
accidents
that
led
to
any
of
those
changes.
[
51­
17;
51­
18]

°
We
are
concerned
that
the
proposed
Section
68.190(
8)
modifies
the
reporting
criteria
established
for
this
program
by
Section
68.42(
a)
and
existing
EPA
guidance
published
on
the
agency's
CEPPO
website.
EPA
should
eliminate
the
overly
broad
reference
to
"
any
chemical"
in
this
section
and
clarify
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
that
this
rule
revision
is
not
intended
to
modify
the
current
program
reporting
criteria.
[
55­
5]

°
EPA
has
provided
no
explanation
as
to
why
it
has
inserted
the
words
"
any
chemical"
and
the
commenter
strongly
opposes
the
inclusion
of
this
phrase
in
final
regulatory
language.
Since
the
intent
of
the
language
is
to
update
the
RMP
after
the
occurrence
of
an
accident
that
meets
the
criteria
of
68.42(
a),
the
final
regulatory
language
should
be
consistent
with
those
criteria
and
should
read
as
follows:
[
58­
38]

(
8)
Within
6
months
of
the
date
of
Accidental
release
of
a
regulated
toxic
substance
from
a
covered
process...

°
EPA
should
not
attempt
to
change
the
intent
of
the
risk
management
program
as
provided
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
112(
r).

"
The
Five­
year
accident
history
element
for
the
RMP
(
40
CFR
68.42)
requires
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
stationary
source
to
record
information
in
their
RMP
on
all
accidental
releases
from
covered
processes
in
the
past
five
years
that
resulted
in
deaths,
injuries,
evacuations,
sheltering
in
place,
property
damage,
or
environmental
damage.
This
requirement
includes
the
release
of
any
chemical
from
a
covered
process,
not
just
the
release
of
a
regulated
substance
from
that
covered
process."

This
statement
is
clearly
inappropriate
and
contrary
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
current
RMP
regulations.
Section
112(
r)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
states:
"
It
shall
be
the
objective
of
the
regulations
and
programs
authorized
under
this
subsection
to
prevent
the
accidental
release
and
to
minimize
the
consequences
of
any
such
release
of
any
substance
listed
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
3)
or
any
other
extremely
hazardous
substance."
16
$
The
Clean
Air
Act
charges
EPA
with
establishing
the
list
of
"
extremely
hazardous
substances."
Further,
in
Chapter
3:
"
Five­
Year
Accident
History,"
of
EPA's
RMP
Guidance
Document,
dated
January
22,
1999,
are
the
following
statements:

"
The
release
must
be
from
a
covered
process
and
involve
a
regulated
substance
held
above
its
threshold
quantity
in
the
process."

"
If
non­
regulated
substances
were
also
released
and
contributed
to
the
impacts,
you
may
want
to
list
them
as
well,
but
you
are
not
required
to
do
so."
[
67­
10;
67­
11]

°
The
EPA
wording
in
the
July
31,
2003
discussion
conflicts
with
previous
guidance
and
should
be
revised
to
reflect
the
wording
in
the
EPA
Guidance
Document.
[
68­
2]

°
EPA's
proposal
that
includes
the
term
"
any
chemical"
expands
beyond
the
scope
of
the
RMP
list
of
highly
hazardous
chemicals
on
which
the
RMP
rule
is
based.
We
propose
that
in
the
alternative,
the
rule
language
be
changed
to
"
any
regulated
chemical"
or
"
any
regulated
substance".[
40­
4]

Other
Objections
$
EPA
has
had
sufficient
opportunity
over
the
past
4
plus
years
to
review,
analyze
and
take
regulatory
action
to
improve
chemical
accident
prevention
based
on
some
1,250
reported
chemical
accidents
reported
in
the
June
1999
RMP
Plan
submissions.
To
date,
EPA
has
not
taken
any
meaningful
regulatory
action
based
on
this
5­
year
accident
history.
Annual
reviews
of
chemical
accidents
are
no
more
likely
to
generate
any
meaningful
agency
action
than
the
current
5­
year
accident
history
generated.
[
32­
2]

°
The
completeness
and
accuracy
of
the
reporting
would
be
the
same
whether
a
facility
has
to
report
the
event
within
6
months,
or
within
5
years
of
the
accident
as
the
reporting
would
be
based
on
the
same
documentation.
The
documentation
required
for
the
chemical
accident
would
be
fully
developed
within
the
first
few
days
or
weeks
of
the
chemical
accident.
[
32­
3]

3.
Clarifications
to
Accident
History
Proposal
°
The
wording
of
the
proposed
change
to
subpart
68.190(
b),
concerning
review
and
update
of
the
RMP
is
triggered
by
an
accidental
release
is
not
sufficiently
clear.
[
30­
1]
It
seems
as
though
EPA
seeks
more
timely
information
on
the
accidents
themselves
as
well
as
any
revisions
to
the
prevention
program
as
a
result
of
the
accident
investigation.
This
should
not
necessarily
require
a
revision
of
the
entire
RMP.
It
should
be
a
correction
for
only
those
portions
of
the
prevention
program
affected
through
the
accident.
[
30­
2]
Please
clarify
that
the
entire
RMP
does
not
have
to
be
updated,
rather
the
accident
history
and
applicable
program
review
dates
should
be
corrected
only.
[
30­
3]

4.
Additional
Comments
on
Accident
History
Proposal
°
Although
we
agree
with
the
proposal,
the
criteria
for
triggering
this
requirement
should
be
clarified
to
appropriately
focus
on
major
accidents.
[
8­
1;
8­
2;
8­
11;
8­
14]
Although
the
17
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
states
that
EPA's
intent
is
to
trigger
RMP
re­
submission
upon
the
occurrence
of
a
"
significant
accident,"
68
Fed.
Reg.
45124,
the
proposed
rule
would
encompass
far
more.
[
8­
15;
68­
7]
The
definition
of
an
RMP
reportable
accident
could
potentially
include
relatively
accidents
(
i.
e.
a
minor
OSHA
recordable
injury
resulting
from
contact
with
an
RMP
chemical),
updating
and
resubmitting
the
RMPs
may
be
required
with
unreasonable
frequency.
[
8­
16]
Updating
of
RMPs
when
there
is
not
an
actual
need
to
do
so
involves
time
and
effort
that
could
be
better
spent
on
prevention,
rather
than
paperwork.
[
8­
17]
This
unnecessary
paperwork
burden
would
be
particularly
onerous
for
small
businesses.
[
8­
18]

°
The
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
indicates
that
an
update
requirement
would
help
keep
government
agencies,
the
public,
and
other
industrial
facilities
informed
of
significant
events.
We
contend
that
every
appropriate
agency
receives
adequate
notice
of
release
incidents
under
multiple
existing
reporting
requirements
driven
by
other
regulations.
[
19­
4]

°
The
proposed
rule's
preamble
implies
that
EPA
is
under
the
impression
that
the
RMP
serves
as
a
facility's
accident
prevention
program,
and
that
updating
the
entire
RMP
will
help
to
reduce
future
accidental
releases.
That
is
not
the
case.
[
19­
5]
Rather,
accident
prevention
is
facilitated
by
process
safety
management
efforts,
and
any
facility
that
experiences
a
reportable
accidental
release
should
be
allowed
to
focus
its
corrective
action
on
process
safety
management
programs
rather
than
diverting
its
attention
to
an
RMP
update.
[
19­
6]
The
primary
purpose
of
the
RMP
is
to
communicate
information
to
the
surrounding
community.
Updating
the
five­
year
accident
log
would
accomplish
this
goal.
[
19­
7]

°
Commenter
requests
a
current
interpretation
of
EPA's
original
comments
at
61
FR
31678.
The
discussion
implies
that
it
is
important
to
have
accident
history
by
SIC
code
basis.
The
question
then
becomes
where
is
EPA's
compilation
of
accident
data
by
SIC
code
and
are
there
any
conclusions?
[
20­
4]
It
would
be
greatly
appreciated
if
the
EPA
published
the
data
it
had
to
date.
If
5
years
is
statistically
insignificant,
why
is
it
necessary
to
rush
a
complete
refiling
in
6
months?
[
20­
5]

$
It
is
not
clear
that
the
benefits
claimed
by
EPA
for
this
change
will
occur.
[
74­
4]
The
accident
data
in
the
existing
RMP
database
are
not
especially
useful
or
valuable.
[
72­
5;
72­
4]
The
data
currently
collected
do
not
identify
a
"
root
cause"
making
it
difficult
to
assess
measures
that
might
have
mitigated
the
most
serious
incidents.
[
72­
6]
There
is
a
small
number
of
minor
accidental
releases
for
refrigeration
processes
­
most
are
at
the
RQ
of
100
lbs
that
is
mandated
by
EPCRA,
but
they
are
being
reported
as
RMP
accidents
only
because
a
single
RMP
reporting
criteria
was
triggered.
[
72­
7]

°
The
large
amount
of
marginal
and
extraneous
ammonia
refrigeration
"
accident"
data
in
the
current
RMP
database
will
not
be
corrected
by
more
frequent
reporting.
[
72­
8;
72­
11;
72­
12]
The
poor
quality
of
these
data
leads
to
erroneous
conclusions
by
EPA,
industry
and
other
stakeholders.
[
72­
9]

°
EPA
should
take
steps
to
assure
that
only
data
on
accidents
that
are
required
to
be
reported
per
the
RMP
rule
is
accepted,
to
assure
that
only
high
quality
data
on
the
most
significant
incidents
are
entered
into
the
database.
[
72­
10]
18
$
There
could
be
two
potential
unintended
consequences
of
the
proposal
requiring
the
entire
RMP
to
be
updated
within
6
months
of
an
accident
meeting
the
5­
year
accident
history
criteria:
[
70­
14]

°
Large
sites
with
multiple
covered
processes
could
choose
to
subdivide
the
site
into
smaller
units
in
order
to
reduce
the
burden
of
resubmitting
their
entire
risk
management
plan.
[
70­
15]
°
Some
companies
could
potentially
choose
to
use
the
flexibility
that
exists
in
the
5­
year
accident
history
criteria
to
exclude
certain
accidents
that
they
might
otherwise
have
been
reported
in
order
to
avoid
resubmission
requirements.
This
could
result
in
fewer
accidents
being
reported
than
might
be
otherwise
because
of
the
burden
associated
with
the
resubmission
of
the
entire
risk
management
plan.
[
70­
16]

Fixed
Date
Is
Not
a
Viable
Option
°
We
agree
with
a
facility
updating
its
RMP
within
6
months
of
the
accident
as
opposed
to
updating
the
RMP
on
a
fixed
date.
Providing
facilities
6
months
to
update
their
RMPs
should
afford
facilities
sufficient
time
to
file
an
amended
RMP
that
adequately
describes
the
five­
year
history.
[
21­
3;
21­
1;
70­
17]

°
EPA
recognizes
that
the
fixed
date
alternative
could
result
in
a
facility
having
very
little
time
to
amend
its
RMP
following
an
accident,
depending
on
when
during
the
year
the
accident
occurs.
[
21­
2]

°
Setting
one
annual
date
for
resubmitting
a
RMP
for
those
facilities
which
experience
reportable
releases
is
not
an
effective
way
of
updating
the
RMP.
[
45­
7]

°
Fixed
date
is
not
a
viable
option.
[
72­
15]
This
would
force
facilities
that
experience
major
accidents
shortly
before
the
resubmission
date
to
hastily
revise
their
plans
to
meet
an
arbitrary
deadline.
[
88­
4]

°
Fixed
date
is
not
a
practical
option
for
the
regulated
community.
[
36­
3]

°
The
commenter
concurs
with
EPA's
decision
not
to
propose
this
option
and
do
not
view
it
as
a
workable
alternative
for
the
reasons
EPA
set
forth.
[
65­
4]

5.
Recommendations
°
EPA
should
follow
the
OSHA
standard
for
reporting
significant
accidents.
OSHA
regulations
require
reporting
within
8
hours
of
a
work­
related
incident
involving
a
fatality
or
hospitalization
of
three
or
more
employees.
29
CFR
1904.39.
A
similar
standard
for
triggering
the
RMP
update
requirements
would
ensure
that
there
is
an
actual
need
for
the
RMP
to
be
revisited.
[
8­
19;
88­
1;
88­
2]

°
Commenter
suggests
EPA
provide
access
to
outdated
information
that
has
been
changed
on
a
resubmission
to
give
context
to
the
change
and
allow
better
analysis
of
improvements
made.
[
57­
34]
19
°
Increase
the
6­
month
interval
proposed
for
a
facility
to
update
and
resubmit
its
Risk
Management
Plan
to
a
one­
year
interval.
[
9­
1]

°
A
more
focused
and
efficient
approach
would
be
to
require
submittal
of
a
RMP
revision
that
addresses
the
reportable
accident.
The
5­
year
clock
for
routine
resubmittal
could
then
be
left
intact.
[
10­
3]

°
As
an
alternative
to
a
complete
revision
of
the
RMP,
we
generally
support
an
accident
fact
sheet
detailing
the
incident,
facts
learned,
and
adjustment
made
to
existing
procedures
and
practices
that
could
be
attached
as
an
addendum
to
the
previously
submitted
RMP.
This
accident
fact
sheets
would
be
incorporated
officially
upon
renewal.
[
14­
5]

°
Commenter
supports
a
requirement
to
update
and
re­
submit
the
facility's
five­
year
accident
log
along
with
applicable
information
specifically
related
to
the
process
that
experienced
the
reportable
release.
[
19­
2;
19­
1]

°
A
more
flexible
approach
would
be
to
update
the
5
year
accident
history
and
update
the
RMP
plan
within
30
days
of
operation
of
a
damaged
facility.
[
20­
3]

°
Within
6
months
of
an
RMP
reportable
incident
the
facility
should
report
the
incident
to
EPA
and
document
that
the
accident
has
been
investigated
and
that
findings
from
the
investigation
have
been
or
are
being
acted
upon.
This
reporting
is
much
more
efficient
and
will
achieve
the
goal
of
improving
the
RMP
without
having
to
resubmit
and
recertify
the
RMP.
[
28­
3]

°
Should
EPA
determine
that
its
proposed
provision
for
resubmittal
of
five­
year
history
reports
within
6
months
is
necessary,
we
recommend
that
when
an
RMP
revision
cannot
be
made
within
initial
time
frame,
the
facility
is
allowed
to
notify
EPA
of
the
delay,
the
course
of
action
being
pursued
and
the
schedule
for
its
completion.
This
notification
could
be
part
of
the
incident
investigation
report.
[
34­
5]

°
A
basic
proposal
to
submit
incident
summaries
annually
or
within
6
months
should
suffice
without
creating
a
burden
on
covered
sites.
[
39­
6]

°
Commenter
asks
EPA
to
consider
a
more
specific
and
efficient
report,
or
sharing
of
information
with
other
agencies
that
are
currently
required
to
be
informed,
that
would
satisfy
EPA's
need
for
information
about
accidents,
but
would
not
require
redundant
efforts
regarding
the
entire
plan.
[
40­
2]

°
If
EPA
desires
the
accident
history
updates
for
informational
purposes,
we
suggest
that
EPA
consider
the
following:

"
A
stationary
source
shall
submit
an
update
to
section
6
no
later
than
June
30
of
each
calendar
year
for
any
accident
that
meets
the
criteria
for
listing
in
the
fiveyear
accident
history.
No
update
is
required
if
no
such
incidents
occur."
[
44­
6]

This
language
would
allow
for
the
6­
month
window
for
completion
of
any
incidents
20
occurring
late
in
the
calendar
year
as
well
as
establishing
a
set
date
for
submittal.
It
would
also
minimize
the
distraction
from
correcting
the
incident
causes
while
providing
EPA
with
the
desired
information.
[
44­
7]

°
Commenter
proposes
that
the
agency
modify
the
rule
to
require
all
RMP
accidents
to
be
reported
to
the
agency
within
6
months
of
the
accident.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
6]
We
would
support
a
requirement
that
all
RMP
reports
regarding
accidents
that
have
occurred
subsequent
to
the
last
update
of
the
facility's
RMP
be
submitted
to
the
agency
not
later
than
one
year
after
this
rule
is
finalized.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
7;
65­
3]
The
data
to
be
submitted
would
be
in
accord
with
the
current
requirements
along
with
any
changes
the
agency
implements
in
conjunction
with
this
proposed
rulemaking.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
8]
The
facility
would
not
be
required
to
update
its
RMP
plan
unless
triggered
as
currently
provided
under
the
rule
per
40
CFR
68.190.
Whenever
the
facility
updates
its
RMP,
it
would
continue
to
include
the
five­
year
accident
history.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
9]
By
implementing
these
changes
EPA
would
be
able
to
compile
complete
RMP
accident
information
in
a
very
efficient
manner
and
keep
it
up­
to­
date
as
it
apparently
desires.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
10]
EPA
would
have
a
complete
accident
history
one
year
after
the
rule
is
finalized.
Implementing
the
procedures
as
proposed
in
the
Federal
Register
would
not
allow
the
RMP
to
be
up­
to­
date
until
5
years
after
the
rule
is
finalized.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
11]

°
A
year
is
more
appropriate
amount
of
time
for
the
source
to
conduct
a
complete
investigation
and
update
the
RMP.
The
one­
year
update
timeframe
will
still
allow
EPA
and
interested
stakeholders
to
identify
if
the
rate
of
accidents
is
increasing
or
decreasing.
The
more
thorough
information
that
can
be
provided
of
the
accident
within
one
year
will
facilitate
more
effective
prevention
measures
that
could
be
shared
so
that
other
sources
may
avoid
similar
accidents.
[
48­
5]

°
Commenter
proposes
the
timeframe
be
extended
to
one
year.
This
would
permit
a
more
thorough
review
of
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
accident
and
would
allow
better
updating
of
the
Plan,
taking
into
account
the
circumstances
leading
up
to
the
accident.

°
A
more
focused
and
efficient
approach
[
to
the
five­
year
history
proposal]
would
be
to
require
submittal
of
a
Section
68.42
(
b)
ten­
element
accident
report,
rather
than
a
full
RMP
resubmittal,
that
addresses
the
reportable
accident
within
6
months
of
the
date
of
the
accident,
which
would
still
fully
enable
the
Agency
to
better
monitor
current
trends
in
accident
causes.
[
49­
1;
49­
6;
51­
3;
51­
4]
The
entire
RMP
would
only
be
updated
and
resubmitted
if
justified
by
the
extent
of
the
process
modifications
made
due
to
corrective
actions
taken
as
a
result
of
the
RMP
accident.
[
51­
5]

°
Commenter
agrees
with
EPA
that
timely
reporting
of
accident
information
would
enable
the
tracking
of
trends
in
RMP
accidents
and
their
root
causes.
Commenter
supports
the
development
and
maintenance
of
separate
database
for
RMP­
reportable
accidents,
which
would
be
updated
by
facility
submission
of
accident
data
on
an
RMP
reportable
accident
within
6
months
of
the
incident
using
the
"
corrected"
RMP
submission
type.
Such
a
separate
database
would
provide
timely,
comprehensive,
easily
accessible
accident
data,
with
all
relevant
details
of
the
accident,
its
cause(
s)
and
corrective
measures
taken
to
prevent
recurrence.
The
facility
would
update
only
the
5­
Year
Accident
History
data
elements
and
would
not
be
required
to
update
and
resubmit
the
whole
RMP,
unless
this
is
21
justified
by
the
extent
of
process
changes
required
with
mitigation
measures
for
the
new
accident.
[
56­
2;
77­
1,
77­
3;
77­
4;
77­
5;
77­
6;
77­
7;
77­
8]

°
Rather
than
resubmit
and
recertify
the
entire
RMP,
we
would
recommend
that
within
6
months
of
an
RMP
reportable
incident
the
facility
report
the
incident
to
EPA
and
certify
that
the
facility
has
met
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
68.60.
Commenter
would
not
support
the
submittal
of
the
actual
investigation
reports.
The
investigation
report
would,
however,
be
retained
by
the
facility
for
5
years,
per
the
current
requirements.
[
58­
11;
58­
12]

°
Commenter
recommends
the
revision
include
a
provision
for
an
extension
to
the
6­
month
deadline
to
provide
time
to
complete
an
investigation
and
resubmittal
of
the
five­
year
accident
history.
[
59­
2]

°
Commenter
recommends
that
EPA
promulgate
a
requirement
that
within
6
months
a
facility
confirm
to
EPA
in
writing
that:
(
i)
an
accident
has
occurred;
(
ii)
the
accident
is/
was
the
subject
of
an
internal
investigation;
(
iii)
the
findings
of
the
investigation
have
been
or
will
be
addressed
and;
(
iv)
that
any
changes
made
to
the
RMP
as
a
result
of
that
investigation
will
be
reflected
in
the
five­
year
submission.
[
66­
5]

$
Instead
of
requiring
resubmittal
and
recertification
of
the
entire
RMP
within
6
months
of
the
date
of
a
chemical
accident
covered
by
CAA
Section
112(
r)
and
40
CFR
Part
68,
commenter
suggests
that
a
brief
report
incorporating
the
information
required
for
the
fiveyear
accident
history,
should
be
submitted
to
EPA
within
6
months
of
the
date
of
a
covered
chemical
accident.
[
67­
9]

°
EPA
should
require
only
an
annual
update
(
by
June
20
or
another
date
suitable
to
EPA)
for
facilities
experiencing
an
accident
requiring
listing
on
the
five­
year
accident
history.
Facilities
not
having
an
incident
would
update
their
plans
on
the
five­
year
cycle
(
unless
otherwise
required
to
update
for
administrative
changes).
[
68­
9;
68­
10]

°
Instead
of
the
proposed
approaches
involving
the
submission
of
a
revised
RMP,
this
reporting
could
best
be
accomplished
by
requiring
the
submission
of
accident
data
from
all
RMP
covered
sites
by
April
1st
of
each
year
for
any
accident
which
happened
during
the
previous
calendar
year
that
meets
the
criteria
for
reporting
in
the
RMP
5­
year
accident
history.
[
70­
20]

°
Commenter
expressed
confusion
over
the
term
"
significant
property
damage"
used
at
40
CFR
68.42
to
define
what
accident
releases
must
be
included
in
the
five­
year
accident
history.
According
to
the
commenter,
what
constitutes
significant
property
damage
has
always
been
a
source
of
confusion,
and
examples
of
different
values
used
in
the
OSHAEPA
MOU
and
the
ACC
responsible
care
program
are
cited.
[
20­
9;
20­
9a]
A
specific
issue
identified
is
confusion
over
which
correction
measures
for
dollar
value
adjustment
for
inflation
are
accepted
by
EPA.
A
chemical
plant
cost
annual
index
published
in
Chemical
Engineering
magazine
could
be
used
for
inflation
adjustment
for
damage,
and
it
would
be
helpful
for
EPA
to
publish
this
number
as
not
all
industries
have
easy
access
to
this
number.
[
20­
9;
20­
10]
Commenter
indicates
that
some
EPA
discussion
of
what
different
values
for
inflation
adjustment
that
are
used
would
be
beneficial.
[
20­
9;
20­
9a;
20­
10]
22
°
Commenter
indicates
that
it
would
be
helpful
if
EPA
explicitly
discusses
in
the
final
Federal
Register
notice
whether
all
facilities
would
be
required
to
file
on
the
June
21,
2004,
anniversary
date
(
regardless
of
whether
a
facility
has
resubmitted
for
other
reasons
well
after
the
original
filing
date).
Commenter
also
suggests
that
EPA
update
the
general
guidance
document
to
address
this
point.
[
20­
26;
20­
27]

°
Commenter
recommends
changing
the
filing
date
from
June
21,
2004,
to
July
1,
2004.
Commenter
indicates
that
the
current
date
is
an
"
odd
date"
and
that
the
proposed
date
would
be
easier
to
remember.
[
20­
27]

°
EPA
needs
to
exhaust
all
possible
means
to
share
existing
incident
reporting
information
with
the
implementing
agencies
before
proposing
additional
reporting
requirements
on
industry.
[
45­
3]
Sharing
this
existing
information
with
implementing
agencies
is
a
more
timely
way
for
them
to
access
information
regarding
recent
releases
at
a
RMP
facility.
[
45­
4]

AGENCY
RESPONSE
EPA
has
considered
the
comments
and
further
studied
existing
requirements
for
accident
reporting
and
follow­
up.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
more
timely
reporting
of
significant
accidents
in
RMPs
is
worthwhile.
Although
there
are
a
number
of
other
federal,
state
and
local
requirements
for
accident
reporting,
the
data
collected
for
accident
reporting
in
RMPs
are
uniquely
useful
and
accessible.
RMP
accident
history
reporting
provides
more
than
basic
information
about
an
accident;
it
also
covers
the
cause
of
the
release
and
measures
taken
to
reduce
the
risk
or
consequences
of
a
reoccurrence.
The
data
consequently
help
in
understanding
the
reason(
s)
for
a
release
and
safety
measures
that
have
been
taken
in
response.
Moreover,
the
RMP
accident
histories
are
available
by
law
to
federal,
state
and
local
officials
and
the
public,
including
other
chemical
sources.

EPA
believes
significant
benefits
will
accrue
as
accident
histories
are
reported
on
a
more
timely
basis,
as
lessons
learned
are
more
promptly
shared
and
acted
upon
to
prevent
similar
occurrences.
Implementing
agencies
will
be
able
to
better
identify
the
need
for
technical
assistance,
and
more
timely
accident
information
will
help
in
identifying
trends
and
providing
timely
outreach
to
prevent
similar
incidents.
More
timely
reporting
was
also
recommended
by
the
CSB.
Those
recommendations
were
particularly
aimed
at
improving
our
understanding
of
the
frequency,
nature,
and
causes
of
reactive
chemical
incidents,
and
ultimately
to
promote
safer
management
of
reactive
chemicals.
EPA
believes
more
timely
reporting
of
accident
history
information
will
allow
the
Agency,
other
government
agencies,
members
of
the
public,
and
other
interested
parties
to
better
understand
and
prevent
chemical
accidents,
including
those
resulting
from
reactive
chemicals.

While
EPA
is
establishing
a
requirement
for
more
timely
reporting
of
significant
accidents,
it
is
not
adopting
the
proposed
requirement
that
RMPs
be
fully
updated
and
resubmitted
within
six
months
of
an
accident.
The
Agency
understands
the
concern
that
a
full
update
of
an
RMP
may
not
be
possible
within
six
months
of
an
accident,
as
a
thorough
investigation
of
a
major
accident,
implementation
of
any
new
safety
measures
and
updating
of
the
entire
RMP
could
take
longer,
particularly
for
larger
sources.
EPA
also
agrees
with
the
comments
that
existing
requirements
for
incident
investigations
already
accomplish
the
Agency's
primary
purpose
in
proposing
a
full
update
and
re­
submission
requirement
 
assurance
that
lessons
learned
are
applied.
EPA
further
recognizes
that
updating
an
RMP
in
full
may
make
little
sense
where
an
accident
involves
only
one
process
at
sources
with
other,
different
processes.
The
Agency
has
23
accordingly
decided
not
to
require
a
full
update
and
re­
submission
of
an
RMP
following
an
accident.

At
the
same
time,
EPA
is
requiring
that
information
about
reportable
accidents
be
added
to
RMPs
within
six
months
of
the
accident
(
unless
an
RMP
update
is
required
sooner).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
facilities
will
be
more
likely
to
recall
and
report
accurate
accident
history
information
if
that
information
is
recorded
within
six
months
of
an
accident.
Under
the
previous
reporting
requirement
facilities
were
asked
to
include
in
their
RMPs
detailed
information
about
an
accident
that
occurred
as
long
as
five
years
ago.
While
some
comments
expressed
concern
that
accident
investigations
and
implementation
of
corrective
actions
could
take
longer
than
six
months
in
some
cases,
the
existing
accident
history
data
elements
take
into
account
that
a
source
may
not
have
complete
information
at
the
time
a
report
is
made.
Section
68.42(
b)
of
the
RMP
rule
requires
information
about
weather
conditions,
offsite
impacts,
initiating
event
and
contributing
factors
"
if
known"
and
only
an
"
estimate"
of
the
quantity
of
chemical
released.
To
the
extent
complete
information
about
these
matters
is
not
available
six
months
after
a
reportable
accident
occurs
(
or
by
the
time
an
RMP
update
is
due,
if
earlier),
the
source
need
only
provide
the
information
it
does
have.
When
the
source
is
next
required
to
update
and
resubmit
its
entire
RMP,
it
can
and
must
provide
any
additional
or
more
accurate
information
at
that
time.

The
Agency
recognizes
that
section
68.42(
b)(
11)
as
originally
drafted
required
a
source
to
report
"
operational
or
process
changes
that
resulted
from
investigation
of
the
release,"
and
that
a
source
may
not
have
made
all
such
changes
by
the
time
it
must
submit
information
about
the
accident.
EPA
is
thus
revising
that
data
element
to
require
reporting
of
only
those
changes
the
source
has
made
by
the
time
it
submits
the
accident
information
as
part
of
accident
reporting
or
an
RMP
update.
EPA
recognizes
that
providing
a
longer
time
frame
for
accident
reporting
would
make
it
more
likely
that
complete
information
would
always
be
available
at
the
time
a
report
is
made.
But
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
collect
accident
information
as
soon
as
reasonably
practicable,
even
if
that
information
is
not
always
complete,
in
view
of
the
benefit
such
information
may
provide
to
other
entities
that
could
learn
from
the
accident.
A
sixmonth
deadline
for
reporting
accident
information
is
a
reasonable
compromise
between
the
time
facilities
generally
need
to
investigate
and
learn
from
an
accident
and
the
public
interest
in
obtaining
accident
information
quickly.
Sources
that
make
additional
accident­
related
changes
after
submitting
accident
information
can
and
must
report
on
those
changes
when
the
their
next
scheduled
RMP
update
is
submitted.

Relatedly,
the
Agency
is
requiring
that
the
addition
of
new
accident
history
information
to
an
RMP
be
accompanied
with
corrections
to
two
other
RMP
data
elements:
the
date
of
the
source's
most
recent
incident
investigation
and
the
expected
date
of
completion
of
any
changes
resulting
from
the
investigation
(
sections
68.170(
j)
and
68.175(
l)).
As
noted
above,
a
number
of
comments
pointed
out
that
requiring
a
full
update
and
re­
submission
of
an
RMP
was
not
necessary
to
ensuring
that
lessons
learned
from
an
accident
were
applied,
given
the
existing
requirement
that
sources
investigate
and
learn
from
any
incident
that
"
resulted
in
or
could
reasonably
have
resulted
in
a
catastrophic
release."
EPA
agrees
with
this
comment
and
its
premise
 
that
accidents
subject
to
the
reporting
requirement
of
the
RMP
rule
trigger
the
incident
investigation
requirements
of
the
rule.
As
described
above,
those
requirements
ensure
that
significant
incidents
are
thoroughly
investigated
and
documented,
and
any
lessons
learned
identified
and
applied.
EPA
therefore
expects
that
a
source
experiencing
a
reportable
accident
will
follow­
up
with
an
incident
investigation
that
may
in
turn
lead
to
changes
that
address
the
cause
or
consequences
of
the
accident.
Six
months
following
the
accident,
the
source
should
be
able
to
provide
accident
history
information
as
well
as
the
date
of
its
incident
investigation
and
the
expected
date
of
completion
of
any
changes.
A
source
need
not
be
sure
of
when
changes
will
be
complete
or
even
if
particular
changes
will
ultimately
be
made
to
provide
a
reasonable
"
expected"
date
for
completion
of
"
any"
changes.
24
The
Agency
also
agrees
with
the
comment
that
an
incident
investigation
may
well
trigger
existing
requirements
for
an
update
and
re­
submission
of
the
RMP
under
section
68.190
of
the
rule,
and
that
this
would
then
be
the
appropriate
route
for
a
facility
update
in
the
aftermath
of
an
accidental
release.
Other
avenues
or
types
of
reporting
that
were
suggested
(
i.
e.,
8­
hour
reporting,
accident
reports,
accident
fact
sheets,
separate
accident
databases,
attachments
to
current
RMPs)
where
all
focused
on
avoiding
a
full
RMP
update
and
re­
submission.
The
Agency
believes
that
by
not
requiring
a
full
update
and
instead
requiring
only
submission
of
new
accident
information,
it
has
addressed
the
concern
behind
those
suggestions.

The
Agency
also
agrees
with
the
comments
preferring
a
specified
time
frame
(
such
as
six
months)
following
an
accident
over
a
fixed
date
for
sources
to
submit
new
accident
information.
A
fixed
calendar
date
could
result
in
sources
being
required
to
submit
information
shortly
after
an
accidental
release,
before
they
have
had
time
to
investigate
or
make
any
changes
in
response
to
the
accident.
That
approach
would
not
be
advantageous
either
for
the
sources
or
for
those
interested
in
the
accident
data.

The
Agency
acknowledges
the
concerns
raised
about
the
preamble
statement
that
accident
history
reporting
is
required
for
significant
releases
from
covered
processes
for
all
extremely
hazardous
chemicals,
not
just
chemicals
listed
under
CAA
section
112(
r).
EPA
notes
that
the
relevant
regulatory
language
can
be
interpreted
to
reach
accidents
involving
extremely
hazardous
substances
in
addition
to
those
listed.
Section
68.42
of
the
RMP
rule
requires
reporting
of
"
accidental
releases"
meeting
certain
criteria,
and
section
112(
r)(
2)(
A)
of
the
CAA
and
section
68.3
of
the
rule
define
an
"
accidental
release"
as
a
release
of
a
substance
regulated
under
CAA
section
112(
r)
"
or
any
other
extremely
hazardous
substance."
The
Agency
recognizes,
however,
that
its
"
General
Guidance"
for
meeting
RMP
rule
requirements
has
specified
that
reportable
accidents
are
those
involving
regulated
substances.
Interpreting
the
rule
to
require
reporting
of
all
releases
of
extremely
hazardous
substances
from
covered
process
would
allow
the
Agency
and
others
to
look
at
trends
with
respect
to
chemicals,
and
provide
information
that
could
be
useful
in
amending
the
list
of
regulated
substances.
An
example
of
how
broader
reporting
could
be
useful
was
highlighted
by
a
comment
that
concerned
catastrophic
reactive/
dust
explosion
accidents,
not
currently
covered
by
the
RMP
rule
because
the
involved
substances
are
not
listed.
However,
in
light
of
the
guidance
provided
previously
and
in
order
to
avoid
confusion,
the
Agency
agrees
it
is
best
to
retain
for
now
the
current
interpretation
for
reporting
only
accidents
involving
regulated
substances.
EPA,
however,
may
revisit
this
issue
in
a
future
rulemaking.

This
final
rule
establishes
a
new
schedule
for
any
source
experiencing
a
reportable
accident
to
include
in
its
RMP
information
for
all
the
elements
of
the
five­
year
accident
history
as
set
forth
in
section
68.42
of
the
RMP
rule,
as
well
as
the
date
of
an
incident
investigation
and
the
expected
date
of
completion
of
any
changes
triggered
by
an
incident
investigation
as
required
by
sections
68.170(
l)
and
68.175(
l)
of
the
RMP
rule.
Because
the
Agency
is
no
longer
requiring
a
full
update
and
re­
submission
of
the
RMP,
these
requirements
should
not
significantly
change
the
associated
burden.
If
a
source
had
a
reportable
accident,
it
would
need
to
revise
those
elements
of
its
RMP
within
six
months;
the
source
would
not
need
to
update
its
entire
RMP
unless
the
accident
led
to
a
change
triggering
the
existing
update
requirement.
25
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Response
II.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Changes
A.
Changes
to
Reporting
Schedule
2.
Emergency
Contact
Information
EPA
is
considering
a
proposal
to
require
that
facilities
correct
their
emergency
contact
information
within
one
month
of
a
change
in
information.
Seventeen
commenters
indicated
they
would
support
such
a
proposal,
and
twelve
commenters
indicated
they
oppose
such
a
proposal.

1.
Support
for
Emergency
Contact
Information
Proposal:
Requiring
Facilities
to
Correct
Emergency
Contact
Information
Within
One
Month
of
a
Change
in
Information
Commenters
support
requiring
facilities
to
correct
emergency
contact
information
within
one
month
of
a
change
in
information
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Emergency
contact
information
should
be
kept
current
to
ensure
timely
response
in
the
event
of
an
accidental
release.
[
8­
44;
36­
4]

°
Such
a
change
would
be
considered
a
correction
and
would
not
require
a
complete
updating
and
resubmission
of
the
Risk
Management
Plan.
[
9­
4]

°
Emergency
contact
information
is
critical
to
emergency
planning
and
response.
Absent
current
emergency
information
response
is
less
efficient
and
any
delay
in
access
to
current
facility
information
can
have
catastrophic
impacts
on
first
responders.
[
15­
3]

°
Emergency
contact
information
should
be
updated
prior
to
the
five­
year
resubmit
date.
[
23­
2]

°
The
current
RMP
element
for
Compliance
Audits
requires
the
RMP
program
to
be
audited
every
3
years
and
part
of
the
audit
is
reviewing
the
accident
prevention
program
including
emergency
contact
information.
[
25­
3]

°
This
proposal
should
be
expanded
to
include
additional
information
including:
last
safety
inspection;
owner/
operator
and
contact
information;
corporate
parent;
covered
process;
and
name
and
title
of
person
responsible
for
RMP
submissions.
[
26­
1;
52­
3;
57­
7]
All
of
this
should
be
updated
within
one
month
of
changes.
[
26­
2]

°
This
does
not
pose
a
significant
burden
on
reporting
facilities
[
26­
3;
49­
7;
49­
8]
in
terms
of
information
collection
or
paperwork
 
this
is
information
that
is
easily
obtained
and
updated
 
and
would
improve
EPA
and
the
public's
understanding
and
use
of
the
RMP
information.
[
26­
3]

°
Access
to
current
and
correct
emergency
contact
information
for
RMP
facilities
would
be
useful
to
implementing
agencies,
as
well
as
state
and
local
responders.
[
45­
8]
We
encourage
EPA
to
provide
on­
site
facility
personnel
with
an
easily
accessible
method
to
update
this
information
using
a
password
protected
system
on
the
internet.
[
45­
9]
This
will
26
encourage
and
expedite
industry
participation
in
transmission
of
this
information
without
adding
a
reporting
burden
on
industry.
[
45­
10]

°
We
support
this
change
provided
the
agency
makes
clear
that
only
the
new
emergency
contact
information
needs
to
be
provided.
[
46­
1;
46­
2;
47­
16]

°
The
need
for
rapid
communication
is
now
heightened
due
to
homeland
security
efforts.
[
51­
9]

°
It
is
important
to
keep
important
information
updated.
[
52­
2;
57­
29]
EPA
should
require
covered
facilities
to
keep
basic
registration
information
reasonably
current.
[
52­
4]

°
Information
is
extremely
valuable
in
the
event
of
an
emergency.
Out
of
date
contact
information
would
restrict
the
work
of
first
responders
in
the
face
of
an
accident.
Emergency
contact
information
is
exceedingly
important
in
safeguarding
the
surrounding
community.
[
57­
6]

°
Proposal
has
good
practical
value
for
emergency
response
coordination.
[
62­
2]

°
This
is
a
reasonable
request
due
to
the
nature
of
the
information
and
applicability
of
RMP
contact
information
for
emergency
response
and
possible
homeland
security
efforts.
[
56­
3]
This
may
impose
minor
burden
on
utility
to
submit
RMP
correction
document.
[
77­
9]

°
The
lack
of
name,
title,
address,
and
telephone
number
and
e­
mail
address
in
the
past
5
years
of
enforcing
RMP
rules
especially
for
newly
regulated
sources,
has
been
a
serious
impediment
to
timely
enforcement.
[
83­
4]

2.
Opposition
to
Emergency
Contact
Information
Proposal
Commenters
Oppose
Requiring
Facilities
to
Correct
Emergency
Contact
Information
Within
One
Month
of
a
Change
in
Information
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Facilities
should
be
required
to
correct
their
emergency
contact
information
within
one
week
of
its
change.
[
2­
3]

°
Submission
of
revisions
to
contact
information
is
unnecessary.
[
14­
12;
14­
13]
A
resubmittal
would
require
additional
review,
filing,
document
management
responsibilities
that
are
unnecessary.[
14­
14]

°
We
support
timely
updating
of
contact
information,
but
request
that
the
proposed
timeframe
be
extended
to
90­
days.
[
19­
8;
58­
14;
58­
15]
It
can
often
take
longer
than
30
days
to
assign
new
staff
to
vacancies.
In
the
interim
EPA
has
a
number
of
other
ways
to
contact
the
reporting
facility
since
the
RMP
contains
telephone
numbers
for
the
individual
emergency
contact
as
well
as
24­
hour
and
public
contacts.
[
19­
9]

°
Frequent
changes
in
RMP
contact
information
can
be
minimized
using
current
EPA
submit
guidance
to
list
only
the
responsible
emergency
contact
position
versus
individual
name.
Phone
numbers
provided
should
be
established
24
hours
a
day,
7
days
a
week
and
the
27
phones
should
always
manned.
[
22­
4]

°
Extending
the
timeframe
[
90
days]
would
ease
the
regulatory
burden,
facilitate
management
planning
and
not
be
inconsistent
with
the
objectives
of
the
accidental
release
prevention
program.
[
24­
7]

°
One
month
timeline
is
too
immediate.
[
27­
5]
Since
there
are
several
other
contacts
listed
within
the
RMP,
in
addition
to
the
designated
emergency
contact,
EPA
will
have
other
persons
to
contact
in
an
emergency.
It
is
not
realistic
to
expect
such
information
could
be
updated
as
quickly
as
EPA
is
proposing.
[
27­
6]

°
Proposed
timeframe
is
too
short.
[
37­
10]
Vacancies
often
cannot
be
filled
within
this
short
period
of
time.
[
37­
11]
Alternate
contacts
are
already
available
under
RMP
requirements
in
the
case
of
an
emergency.
[
37­
13;
50­
43;
58­
16]

°
Proposal
is
unduly
burdensome
and
would
subject
facilities
to
possible
non­
compliance
with
every
personnel
change.
[
38­
5;
38­
10]
The
facility
contact
person
can
actually
change
routinely
based
on
employee
turnovers,
promotions,
and
relocations.
[
38­
6]
The
administrative
burden
and
potential
liability
of
the
current
proposal
outweighs
the
benefits.
[
38­
7]

°
The
Agency
should
not
require
a
resubmission
or
correction
to
add
an
initial
e­
mail
address
to
currently
submitted
plans
or
to
update
an
e­
mail
address
when
one
is
already
provided.
The
update
should
occur
at
the
next
plan
submission.
[
50­
42]
The
plan
already
contains
the
emergency
contact
telephone
number
and
in
the
event
of
an
emergency,
it
is
likely
that
the
Agency
and
others
would
communicate
with
the
emergency
contact
via
telephone
and
not
e­
mail.
[
50­
44]

°
This
requirement
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome
and
could
result
in
problems.
It
would
be
very
easy
for
facility
personnel
to
simply
forget
to
submit
this
information.
[
65­
5]

°
This
is
duplicate
reporting
of
information
that
is
already
being
provided
by
the
regulated
community
to
another
agency.
[
72­
16;
72­
17]

°
Correcting
emergency
contact
information
in
one
month
is
unreasonable
and
the
need
to
correct
the
information
could
occur
quite
frequently.
[
72­
18;
72­
19]

3.
Recommendations
and
Additional
Comments
Change/
Extend
Time
for
Resubmittal
°
Commenter
recommends
that
the
timeframe
be
extended
from
30
days
to
45
days,
to
give
smaller
facilities
a
window
for
reporting
slightly
greater
than
monthly
internal
reporting
cycles
often
used
by
companies.
[
8­
8;
8­
45;
8­
43;
67­
24]

°
Commenter
generally
supports
this
proposal
[
39­
7]
but
requests
the
time
be
extended
to
60
days
to
enable
adequate
Management
of
Change
 
Personnel
activities
when
the
emergency
28
contact
role
and
information
changes.
[
39­
8]
If
a
component
of
this
change
also
involves
homeland
security,
the
Agency
should
recognize
that
the
site
emergency
contact
may
not
be
the
correct
or
only
person
to
contact
for
site
security
related
matters.
[
39­
9]

°
Have
a
30­
day
correction
requirement
if
the
contact
number
changes,
and
the
personnel
changes
left
to
the
regular
review
and
resubmission
schedule.[
71­
14]

°
Commenter
proposes
the
revision
of
contact
information
in
the
on­
site
version
of
the
RMP
within
one
month
and
correct
contact
information
with
the
EPA
re­
submittal
within
6
months
of
the
changes.
[
11­
4;
12­
4;
58­
13;
65­
6]
This
will
be
consistent
with
other
updates
of
RMP
information.
[
11­
5;
12­
5]
Consistency
with
update
information
will
allow
covered
sources
to
ensure
compliance
without
different
update
schedules.
[
11­
6;
12­
6]

°
This
information
should
be
updated
at
the
same
time
as
any
reportable
releases
under
the
proposed
rule
(
within
6
months)
or
at
the
same
time
as
revisions
for
PHA
or
hazard
review
or
off­
site
consequence
analysis
or
on
some
specified
date
annually.
[
38­
8]
In
the
alternative
EPA
could
request
a
corporate
contact
for
those
companies
managing
more
than
one
facility
or
a
position
title
at
individual
facilities.
[
38­
9]

°
If
there
is
a
justifiable
need
we
would
propose
a
6­
month
time
period
be
allowed
as
consistent
with
other
requirements.
[
72­
22]

°
A
reasonable
time
period
should
be
allotted
for
making
necessary
changes.
[
14­
15]
In
lieu
of
removal
of
this
requirement
burden,
we
support
a
90­
day
requirement
to
provide
supplemental
information
or
corrections
to
the
contact
information
contained
within
the
RMP.
[
14­
16;
66­
6]

°
Facilities
should
have
up
to
90
days
to
correct
emergency
contact
information
instead
of
the
proposed
30­
day
time
limit.
[
24­
2;
28­
4;
28­
5;
37­
12]

°
Commenter
maintains
that
30
days
is
not
enough
time
to
resubmit
the
RMP,
noting
that
the
company
may
have
an
internal
review
requirement
that
would
require
more
time.
Commenter
suggests
that
60
to
90
days
would
be
adequate.
[
20­
22;
20­
23]

Other
Recommendations
°
Including
RMP
information
in
EPA's
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
would
also
improve
data
quality
(
but
is
no
substitute
for
a
requirement
that
covered
facilities
keep
their
information
up
to
date).
EPA's
error
correction
process
allows
interested
persons
to
submit
notices
of
potential
errors
to
EPA,
and
ensures
that
the
agency
responds
to
such
notices.
However,
RMP
information
is
not
currently
included
in
the
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process.
As
a
result,
there
is
no
standard
means
of
getting
errors
corrected.
For
example,
the
Blue
Plains
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
in
Washington,
DC,
had
not
deregistered
from
the
RMP
program
over
one
and
a
half
years
after
eliminating
chlorine
gas
from
its
operations.
To
address
such
data
quality
problems,
EPA
should
extend
its
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
to
include
RMP
information.[
52­
5;
52­
6;
52­
7;
57­
8;
57­
32]
29
°
The
resubmission
requirements
for
a
change
in
contact
person
should
be
a
simple
process.
[
20­
1]

°
Submittal
of
updated
contact
information
should
not
pose
a
burden
to
reporting
facilities.
[
10­
4]

°
The
process
to
submit
contact
information
should
have
some
element
of
security
in
changing
the
contact.
[
20­
1]

°
Sources
with
a
permit
issued
under
40
CFR
§
70
or
§
71
which
have
risk
management
program
conditions
and
compliance
certification
requirements
will
be
subject
to
permit
enforcement
action
if
there
is
a
short
delay
in
submitting
the
emergency
contact
information.
Enforcement
of
this
provision
should
be
limited
to
40
CFR
68
and
not
include
permits
issued
under
40
CFR
§
70
or
§
71.
[
59­
3;
59­
12]

°
Change
the
proposed
wording
to:
"
The
owner
operator
of
a
stationary
source
shall
submit
a
correction
to
the
RMP
for
any
change
in
the
person
at
the
source
with
overall
responsibility
for
risk
management
program
elements
and
implementation
or
the
emergency
contact
information
required
by
Sec.
68.160(
b)(
5)
and
(
6)
within
one
month
of
the
change."
[
83­
3]

°
Change
the
proposed
wording
to:
"
EPA
proposes
to
substitute
naming
the
Emergency
Contact
Person
with
naming
the
Facility
Contact
Position
(
Job
Title)."
The
corresponding
emergency
phone
number
would
be
provided.
Facilities
would
be
required
to
correct
their
emergency
contact
information
within
a
reasonable
time
of
a
permanent
change
as
a
correction.
A
correction
would
not
require
a
complete
updating
and
resubmission
of
the
RMP
plan
and
a
signed
certification
statement.
[
79­
2]

°
Recommends
that
corporate
directed
facilities
be
allowed
to
submit
a
single
corporate
email
address
for
each
of
the
facilities
covered
under
the
RMP.
[
50­
44]

°
Commenter
encourages
EPA
to
consider
allowing
facilities
to
use
only
the
position,
title,
or
job
classification
(
rather
than
a
named
person)
as
the
emergency
contact
as
this
would
be
less
likely
to
change
at
a
facility.
[
32­
6]
This
would
reduce
the
frequency
at
which
plans
must
be
updated.
[
32­
7]

°
Multiple
telephone
numbers
and
e­
mail
addresses
should
be
allowed.
Commenter
maintains
that
if
all
multiple
telephone
numbers
and
e­
mail
addresses
are
no
longer
valid,
then
a
minor
resubmission
would
be
done.
[
20­
21]

°
If
EPA
believes
it
is
vital
to
collect
this
information
on
a
more
timely
basis
then
it
should
provide
a
separate
procedure
to
correct
this
information
without
requiring
additional
information
or
certifications.
[
72­
20]
EPA
should
allow
corrections
via
a
secure
web
site,
by
e­
mail,
or
a
simple
form
containing
only
the
facility
ID
and
new
emergency
contact
information.
[
72­
21]

Other
comments
30
°
There
is
a
problem
with
EPA
communicating
with
regulated
facilities.
[
20­
20]

°
It
may
be
unrealistic
for
smaller
businesses
to
update
their
plan
within
one
month
due
to
the
fact
that
ownership
of
these
type
of
facilities
changes
frequently.
[
23­
2]

AGENCY
RESPONSE
The
Agency
agrees
with
comments
that
RMP
emergency
contact
information
is
important
to
emergency
planning
and
response
efforts
at
the
federal,
state
and
local
levels,
particularly
for
facilitating
the
work
of
first
responders
and
safeguarding
the
community.
It
is
therefore
important
that
the
information
be
kept
as
up­
to­
date
as
possible.

The
Agency
appreciates
that,
currently,
even
small
corrections
of
RMPs
require
sources
to
send
EPA
a
diskette
containing
the
entire
RMP
(
with
the
corrected
information)
and
a
certification
letter
attesting
to
the
accuracy
of
the
corrected
information.
To
ease
the
burden
of
making
such
changes,
including
changes
to
emergency
contact
information,
EPA
is
working
to
make
available
a
secure
means
for
making
administrative
corrections
over
the
Internet.
Sources
that
need
to
make
such
corrections
will
be
allowed
secured
access
to
non­
sensitive
pieces
of
RMP
information,
including
much
of
the
information
in
the
registration
part
of
the
RMP
(
section
1).

As
this
electronic
system
for
making
corrections
to
emergency
contact
information
is
made
available,
the
time
and
resources
needed
to
make
a
correction
should
not
be
significant.
Although
timely
updates
to
all
basic
registration
information
would
be
beneficial
as
well,
the
need
for
updates
is
most
urgent
in
the
case
of
emergency
contact
information.
EPA
encourages
sources
to
update
all
of
the
information
in
their
RMPs
as
changes
are
made,
but
the
Agency
does
not
want
to
add
unduly
to
the
reporting
burden
of
the
program.
Sources'
efforts
are
best
focused
on
maintaining
the
accuracy
of
key
information
in
their
RMPs,
so
EPA
is
not
adding
other
data
elements
to
the
requirement
to
correct
emergency
contact
information.

The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
some
emergency
contact
information,
including
the
name
of
the
emergency
contact
person,
need
not
be
reported
at
all.
The
Agency
believes
that
action
at
the
local
level
is
most
important
in
preparing
for,
preventing,
and
responding
to
accidents,
and
that
the
name
of
the
emergency
contact
person,
as
opposed
to
the
name
of
the
position
or
more
general
corporate
information,
is
a
key
piece
of
information
for
such
local
efforts.
Common
sense
suggests
that
it
is
easier
to
reach
a
named
individual
than
an
unknown
person
filling
a
particular
position.
Unless
whoever
answers
the
phone
or
email
at
a
source
knows
who
fills
the
emergency
contact
position,
it
could
take
several
more
phone
calls
to
reach
the
emergency
contact
person
himself.
In
the
event
of
an
accidental
release
or
other
emergency,
the
extra
time
required
to
reach
the
emergency
contact
person
could
be
costly.
EPA
is
thus
retaining
the
requirement
that
sources
supply
the
name
of
the
emergency
contact
person
and
is
requiring
the
correction
of
that
name
within
one
month
of
a
change.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
personnel
changes
may
sometimes
take
longer
than
a
month,
but
in
that
event
it
expects
the
source
to
have
assigned
the
responsibility
to
someone
in
the
interim.
Given
the
electronic
means
of
correcting
such
information
expected
to
be
available,
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
require
facilities
to
keep
this
information
relatively
current,
even
if
that
means
supplying
the
name
of
an
interim
emergency
contact
person
until
a
permanent
person
is
in
place.

Even
with
a
requirement
to
correct
emergency
contact
information
within
one
month
of
a
change,
that
still
leaves
RMP
emergency
contact
information
potentially
outdated
for
as
much
as
a
month.
EPA
is
31
concerned
that
the
24­
hour
emergency
phone
number
provided
in
the
RMP
is
a
key
element
of
emergency
contact
information
that
should
be
corrected
as
soon
as
possible
after
it
changes.
The
Agency
strongly
encourages
sources
to
ensure
that
their
24­
hour
emergency
number
continues
to
reach
someone
able
to
address
emergencies
even
after
an
emergency
contact
person
leaves
that
position.
Ideally,
the
24­
hour
emergency
number
would
remain
the
same
indefinitely,
regardless
of
who
fills
the
emergency
contact
position
or
any
other
position
at
the
facility.

This
final
rule
establishes
a
new
requirement
to
correct
the
emergency
contact
information
within
one
month
of
a
change
in
the
information.
The
Agency
expects
that
while
changes
are
ongoing
at
the
facility,
the
basic
phone
number
information
provided
should
continue
to
be
available,
routed
as
appropriate,
so
that
facilities
always
have
a
current
24­
hours­
a­
day,
7­
days­
a­
week
means
for
emergency
contact.
32
B.
Changes
to
the
Executive
Summary
EPA
proposes
removing
the
requirement
for
sources
to
briefly
describe
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis
(
i.
e.,
worst­
case
accidental
release
scenario(
s)
and
the
alternative
accidental
release
scenario
within
the
executive
summary
of
the
RMP.
Forty
commenters
support
removing
this
requirement,
several
noting
national
and
facility
security
concerns.
Several
commenters
opine
that
the
information
is
too
sensitive
to
be
easily
accessible
to
the
public.
Four
commenters
oppose
this
proposal
as
written,
noting
the
importance
of
keeping
the
information
as
publicly
accessible
as
possible.
Eight
commenters
presented
recommendations,
requested
clarification,
or
had
other
comments
about
the
proposed
changes.

1.
Support
for
Removing
Data
from
Summary:
Removing
the
requirement
for
descriptions
of
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis
and
the
alternative
accidental
release
scenario
within
the
executive
summary
of
the
RMP
Commenters
support
removing
the
requirement
for
descriptions
of
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis
and
the
alternative
accidental
release
scenario
within
the
executive
summary
of
the
RMP
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Commenters
support
this
revision
as
proposed.
[
19­
10;
21­
4;
25­
6;
28­
6;
29­
1;
34­
1;
38­
1;
38­
3;
38­
30;
39­
10;
43­
1;
44­
8;
45­
11;
47­
17;
48­
6
;
49­
8;
51­
10;
58­
17
66­
7;
67­
18;
67­
19;
71­
26;
77­
10;
79­
3;
86­
2;
88­
5]

°
Commenter
supports
the
removal
of
OCA
data
in
the
interest
of
national
security.
[
8­
3;
8­
20;
8­
21;
70­
1;
70­
2]

°
Removal
of
the
OCA
summary
from
the
RMP
Executive
Summary
is
appropriate
for
facility/
source
security
reasons.
[
10­
5;
25­
6;
38­
2]

°
The
executive
summary
data
is
accessible
to
the
public
via
the
internet
from
numerous
data
sources.
If
the
OCA
data
is
required
to
be
in
the
executive
summary
information,
it
has
the
potential
of
remaining
publicly
available
without
sanctions
or
clearances
necessary
for
site
security
requirements.
[
11­
7]

°
This
initiative
is
warranted
in
light
of
Homeland
Security
concerns
and
is
consistent
with
prior
restrictions
on
public
access
to
OCA
information
promulgated
in
the
August
2000
EPNDOJ
regulations.
[
16­
1]

°
Commenter
does
not
oppose
the
elimination
of
graphics
files,
noting
that
if
EPA
and
DHS
do
not
use
them,
then
there
is
not
need
to
include
them
in
the
RMP.
[
20­
10]
Commenter
understands
that
EPA
has
only
enforced
the
RMP
regulations
to
the
extent
of
whether
a
facility
has
one
as
opposed
to
the
details
of
the
plan
or
EPA
actually
using
the
plans.
First
responders
may
have
a
use
for
graphics
files.
[
20­
10a]

°
Given
the
heightened
security
measures
that
have
been
put
in
place
in
the
United
States
in
the
aftermath
of
the
9/
11
attacks,
it
seems
prudent
to
limit
the
availability
of
OCA
information
to
the
RMP
itself,
which
is
available
to
the
public
only
on
a
restricted
access
basis.
[
21­
5]
33
°
The
Executive
Summary
may
not
be
the
most
appropriate
section
for
sensitive
OCA
data.
[
23­
3]
However,
as
an
implementing
agency
that
reviews
these
plans,
having
a
summary
of
this
information
is
beneficial
when
attempting
to
recreate
the
worst
case
and
alternative
release
scenarios
prior
to
the
inspection.
[
23­
4]

°
The
nature
of
information
in
an
off­
site
consequence
analysis
is
of
a
sensitive
nature
and
should
therefore
be
removed
from
the
executive
summary
and
not
be
included
in
the
information
that
is
freely
available
to
the
public.
[
36­
5]

°
The
focus
of
changes
to
the
Rule
should
be
to
ensure
that
action
items
identified
to
help
prevent
releases
should
be
encouraged
to
be
carried
out.
[
43­
2]
The
commenter
concludes
that
a
requirement
to
resubmit
the
entire
RMP
after
a
release
will
take
away
from
the
time
the
facility
should
be
spending
on
correcting
problems
that
led
to
the
release.
[
43­
3]

°
The
OSC
analysis
is
already
available
to
EPA
in
other
sections
of
the
RMP
Plan
and
available
to
the
public
by
appropriately
restricted
access
under
40
CFR
1400.
Therefore,
it
is
unnecessary
to
reiterate
this
information
in
the
executive
summary,
which
subjects
facilities
to
potential
liability.
[
38­
4]

°
The
OCA
is
too
sensitive
to
make
public.
[
41­
4]

°
Commenter
supports
this
approach,
and
still
has
concerns
about
making
the
executive
summary
readily
available
via
the
internet
to
potential
terrorist
organization.
[
42­
16;
42­
17]

°
Although
removing
the
worst
case
and
alternative
release
potential
scenarios
from
the
summary
makes
it
more
difficult
to
assess
potential
targets,
the
remaining
information
related
to
the
source,
chemicals
handled
and
emergency
response
plan,
still
provides
information
that
would
allow
potential
target
prioritization.
[
42­
18]
Even
with
the
proposed
changes,
commenter
still
opposes
internet
distribution
of
the
executive
summary.
[
42­
19]

°
Commenter
commends
EPA
for
implementing
regulations
restricting
access
to
and
dissemination
of
OCA
data.
Easy
access
to
OCA
information
would
be
helpful
to
someone
seeking
to
cause
such
a
release
because
it
would
provide
"
one­
stop
shopping"
for
refined
targeting
information,
allowing
terrorists
to
select
potential
targets
from
among
the
15,000
facilities
that
have
submitted
OCA
information."
(
65
FR
at
24,837).
[
50­
34;
50­
35]

°
OCA
information
should
not
be
posted
on
the
Internet,
nor
should
such
information
be
available
for
mechanical
reproduction
or
removal.
The
data
of
greatest
concern
involve
general
accounts
of
triggering
releases
and
subsequent
consequences.
[
50­
38]

°
Consistent
with
post­
911
homeland
security
concerns,
this
information
should
not
be
included
information
that
is
available
to
the
public
without
restriction.
[
51­
10;
56­
4]

°
EPA
has
correctly
determined
that
this
sensitive
information
must
be
safeguarded
against
potential
abuse.
[
55­
1]
34
°
This
revision
will
allow
the
public
access
to
the
offsite
consequence
analysis
information
in
a
controlled
fashion
but
still
address
law
enforcement
agencies'
concerns
that
terrorist
could
use
the
information.[
59­
4]

°
This
proposal
would
not
deprive
emergency
authorities
of
valuable
information
as
they
would
be
able
to
obtain
needed
information
regarding
off­
site
consequences
of
a
release
from
the
full
RMP
and
would
have
no
impact
on
the
public,
as
public
access
to
specified
section
of
the
RMP
detailing
off­
site
consequences
of
releases
is
currently
restricted.
[
60­
4]

°
A
number
of
facilities
have
included
essentially
all
of
their
sensitive
OCA
information
in
the
executive
summary,
which
clearly
defeats
the
intended
purpose
of
limiting
access
to
potentially
sensitive
information
that
could
be
used
for
purposes
of
domestic
terrorism,
etc.
This
is
an
important
and
needed
change.
[
72­
23;
72­
24]

°
It
is
appropriate
to
remove
the
requirement
that
facilities
discuss
their
off­
site
consequences
in
the
RMP
executive
summary.
[
15­
5]
However,
EPA
should
make
the
new
executive
summaries
available
on
the
internet
for
community
right­
to­
how
reasons.
We
agree
that
CSISSFRRA
would
allow
EPA
to
post
these
revised
executive
summaries
on
the
Internet.
[
15­
6]
The
burden
on
LEPCs
and
emergency
planners
to
respond
to
community
right­
to­
know
requests
and
needs
will
be
greatly
reduced
if
the
public
can
have
Internet
access
to
executive
summaries.
[
15­
7]
The
greatest
burden
in
responding
to
requests
is
simple
identification
of
facilities
rather
than
technical
data.
[
15­
8]

°
Internet
access
to
executive
summaries,
after
the
proposed
change,
presents
no
security
risk
to
the
facilities
as
it
contains
no
data
beyond
that
typically
available
via
the
phone
book
or
community
directories.
[
15­
9]
This
simple
step
would
greatly
enhance
public
access
to
information
and
provide
greater
credibility
to
local
emergency
planning
efforts.
[
15­
10]
With
Internet
access
to
a
federal
database,
local
agencies
will
not
be
questioned
to
the
extent
they
are
now
regarding
whether
they
have
identified
important
facilities
in
the
community.
The
public
can
be
referred
to
the
federal
database.
[
15­
11]

2.
Opposition
to
Removing
Data
from
Summary
°
EPA's
proposal
to
remove
the
requirement
for
sources
to
include
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis
within
the
executive
summary
of
the
RMP
is
unnecessary.
[
26­
4;
52­
8]

°
If
changes
are
suggested
to
enable
EPA
to
put
non­
sensitive
portions
of
the
RMP
on
the
Internet,
then
the
agency
can
do
so
now
without
changing
the
executive
summary
requirements.
The
agency
could
post
redacted
versions
on
their
website
today,
without
new
rules.
[
26­
4]

°
Including
worst
case
scenarios
in
the
executive
summary
allows
the
only
real
opportunity
to
provide
explanation
and
reasoning
into
why
the
RMP
was
proposed
and
the
way
it
was
proposed.
It
allows
for
general
information
and
explanation
that
may
get
lost
over
the
years
when
determining
the
reasons
the
affected
industry
and
EPA
agreed
to
provisions
contained
within
the
RMP.
[
14­
17;
14­
18]
Scenarios
can
be
thoroughly
discussed
beyond
35
the
modeling
and
number
crunching
that
is
typically
included.
[
14­
19]

°
Commenter
supports
a
rule
making
option
that
will
allow
the
affected
installation
to
discuss
the
various
scenarios
that
went
into
making
the
determination
of
potential
release
impacts
and
other
decisions
regarding
the
site
specific
RMP.
[
14­
20;
14­
41]

°
EPA
believes
that
this
change
will
help
the
agency
put
non­
sensitive
portions
of
the
RMP
back
on
the
Internet.
However,
nothing
prevents
the
agency
from
doing
so
now.
EPA
must
in
any
case
respect
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended
by
the
Chemical
Safety
Information,
Site
Security
and
Fuels
Regulatory
Relief
Act,
which
allows
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
RMP
facility
to
make
off­
site
consequence
analysis
information
relating
to
that
stationary
source
available
to
the
public
without
restriction
in
submitted
information
(
Clean
Air
Act,
112(
r)(
7)(
H)(
v)(
III)).
EPA
is
in
turn
required
to
maintain
and
make
publicly
available
a
list
of
such
facilities
(
112(
r)(
7)(
H)(
v)(
IV)).
[
52­
9]

°
Commenter
strongly
disagrees
with
this
proposed
change.
It
is
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
discourage
information
submission
useful
in
promoting
and
improving
safety
at
thousands
of
RMP
facilities
around
the
country.
[
57­
10a]
CSISSFRRA
prohibits
online
posting
of
OCAs,
only
allowing
for
individual
reading
room
access
once
a
month
for
10
facilities'
OCAs.
However,
the
RMP
rule
still
required
an
OCA
summary
in
the
executive
summary
and
CSISSFRRA
Sec.
3(
a)(
III)
specifically
exempted
the
executive
summaries
from
restriction.
[
57­
10b]

°
EPA
does
not
support
its
reason
for
removing
this
information
with
any
evidence
or
further
explanation
of
precisely
what
about
these
brief
descriptions
is
overly
sensitive.
[
57­
10b]

°
Congress
recognized
the
benefit
of
providing
some
worst­
case
scenario
information
and
specifically
exempted
the
executive
summaries
from
the
definition
of
restricted
OCA
data.
If
EPA
intends
to
oppose
Congress'
approach,
it
should
certainly
provide
greater
justification
then
a
single
statement
of
opinion.
[
57­
10d]

°
EPA's
claim
that
the
executive
summaries
are
publicly
available
without
restriction
is
incorrect.
Since
removing
the
RMP
data
from
its
website,
EPA
has
restricted
releasing
the
executive
summaries
including
denying
a
request
for
the
information
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act.
[
57­
10e]

°
The
OCA
portions
of
RMP
should
be
more
publicly
available
but
Congress
restricted
the
information.
However,
the
OCA
information
in
executive
summaries
does
not
provide
data
detailed
enough
to
be
deemed
"
sensitive."
Instead
of
inappropriately
shielding
OCA
descriptions,
the
agency
should
propose
a
modified
description
of
the
OCA
information,
ensuring
it
is
not
overly
detailed
or
revealing,
for
inclusion
in
the
executive
summaries.
[
57­
10f]

°
The
lack
of
clarity
regarding
public
access
to
the
executive
summaries
is
a
concern.
If
EPA
continues
withholding
RMP
data
from
the
Internet,
then
this
portion
of
the
rule
makes
little
sense.
Currently,
any
individual
accessing
executive
summaries
from
reading
rooms
can
access
the
full
OCA
at
the
same
time,
in
which
case
restricting
the
information
in
summaries
is
meaningless.
[
57­
10g]
36
°
EPA
should
abandon
efforts
to
omit
OCA
information
from
the
executive
summaries
and
instead
focus
on
modifying
the
description
of
OCA
information
that
should
be
included
in
the
executive
summaries.
[
57­
30]

°
Commenter
find
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
the
executive
summary
troubling.
[
57­
37]
Endeavoring
to
eliminate
OCA
information
from
the
executive
summaries
will
not
solve
any
issues
of
security
and
will
reduce
the
usefulness
of
the
RMP
data.
As
no
law
restricts
this
information
EPA
should
not
discourage
its
submission.
EPA
should
focus
its
efforts
to
incorporate
this
information
in
a
way
that
alleviates
security
concerns.[
57­
38]

3.
Clarification
and
Suggestions
°
Commenter
continues
to
support
making
OCA
information
and
accidental
release
scenario(
s)
available
to
emergency
responders.
Emergency
responders
should
have
all
relevant
information
at
their
disposal
so
that
they
can
most
effectively
plan
for
and
respond
to
emergency
incidents.
[
8­
22]

°
EPA
fails
to
mention
in
Federal
Register
notice
that
by
eliminating
the
offsite
consequence
information
from
the
RMP,
the
RMP
data
could
be
made
publically
available.
[
20­
11]
Commenter
indicates
that
eliminating
consequence
information
and
graphics
files
from
the
publically
available
RMP
documents
for
purposes
of
making
the
information
publically
available
would
be
beneficial
provided
that
it
does
not
compromise
DHS's
efforts
to
prevent
terrorism.
Providing
only
a
list
with
names
and
addresses
would
be
helpful.
[
20­
13;
20­
14]

°
Commenter
questions
how
a
Right­
to­
Know
web
site
listing
RMP
facilities
(
without
offsite
consequence
information)
has
access
to
RMP
information
considering
that
EPA
does
not
publish
them
for
general
public
information.
[
20­
11;
20­
12]

°
Commenter
recommends
requiring
the
summary
in
a
different
format.
For
example,
additional
elements
could
be
included
in
the
OCA
sections
of
the
RMP
(
see
comments
on
the
revisions
to
the
RMP
Submit
format)
or
a
mandatory
separate
field
can
be
included
in
the
RMP
for
a
summary
of
these
scenarios.
[
23­
5]

°
Commenter
strongly
encourages
EPA
to
continue
to
have
restricted
public
access
to
the
full
document.
[
48­
7]

°
Commenter
supports
this
revision
in
that
facilities
should
have
the
option
to
discuss
their
worst­
case
scenario
as
appropriate
to
their
situation.
[
76­
4]

°
Offsite
consequences
analysis
(
OCA)
should
be
treated
as
security
sensitive
information
and
it
should
be
protected
under
FOIA.
To
help
manage
the
protection
of
this
information,
owners
and
operators
should
still
be
required
to
generate
the
OCA,
but
it
should
not
be
submitted
with
the
RMP.
Owners
and
operators
would
make
the
OCA
available
for
onsite
review,
but
not
submitted
as
part
of
the
plan.
This
approach
is
similar
to
that
used
in
USCG
security
plans.
[
79­
3]
37
°
Commenter
notes
concerns
about
the
theft
of
ammonia
to
produce
methamphetamine.
[
50­
36]
By
providing
even
limited
information
on
the
Internet
or
making
it
available
through
readings
rooms,
those
intent
on
terrorism
or
producing
methamphetamine
may
use
the
information
to
target
ammonia
production
and
storage
facilities
to
procure
ammonia.
[
50­
37]

°
Existing
EPA
submit
guidance
does
not
require
sensitive
offsite
information
to
be
included
(
i.
e.
size
of
vulnerability
zone
and
population
affected)
in
the
Executive
Summary,
only
the
finding
that
offsite
receptors
will
be
impacted
during
a
worst
case
release.
[
22­
5]

°
If
EPA
does
adopt
the
proposed
change,
the
publicly
available
executive
summary
should
still
indicate
that
the
source
has
completed
an
off­
site
consequence
analysis,
and
that
it
is
available
to
the
public
with
the
full
RMP
at
the
reading
rooms
maintained
for
public
access.
[
52­
10]

Use
of
modeling
in
scenarios
°
Commenter
recommends
that
EPA
address
modeling
improvements
as
part
of
the
requirements
for
conducting
offsite
consequence
analysis.
[
20­
33;
20­
34]
Noting
a
change
in
the
"
social
emphasis"
from
accident
scenarios
to
terrorist
scenarios,
the
commenter
discusses
how
facilities
that
currently
use
EPA's
Lookup
Tables
and
LandView
for
worst
case
scenarios
may
be
justified
in
using
modeling
to
perform
more
accurate
analyses.
[
20­
33;
20­
34]

°
Commenter
notes
how
the
original
1996
offsite
consequence
guidance
documents
employs
a
procedure
for
calculating
impacted
populations
that,
while
tedious,
offers
better
accuracy.
[
20­
34]
Noting
the
shift
in
focus
of
RMPs
from
public
involvement
for
reduced
distances
to
helping
DHS,
commenter
believes
that
EPA
could
assist
industry
to
model
items
more
accurately.
[
20­
36;
20­
37]

°
Commenter
notes
the
following
improvements
in
modeling
since
1999,
and
suggests
that
some
discussion
of
these
points
by
EPA
would
be
beneficial
:

(
1)
The
American
Institute
of
Chemical
Engineers
Center
for
Chemical
Process
Safety
provides
an
approach
for
considering
surface
roughness,
an
area
that
the
RMP
regulations
do
not
provide
a
rigorous
procedure;
[
20­
39]

(
2)
Prices
on
computational
fluid
dynamics
models
have
dropped
in
price
and
use
of
CFD
models
needs
a
statement
of
acceptability
from
EPA;
[
20­
40]

(
3)
EPA
has
been
developing
models
for
complex
terrain,
notably
the
AERMOD
and
CALPUF
models,
and
EPA
should
make
a
statement
about
their
use
in
CEPPO
applications
(
including
a
discussion
of
using
CALPUF
at
distances
less
than
50
kilometers);
[
20­
41]

(
4)
Some
explanation
of
a
cryptic
note
about
averaging
times
provided
on
page
D­
9,
Appendix
D
of
the
Risk
Management
Program
for
Offsite
Consequence
Analysis
would
be
beneficial;[
20­
42]
and

(
5)
EPA
should
document
several
points
with
respect
to
the
use
of
LandView
circles
to
calculate
worst
case
scenarios,
particularly
scenarios
with
different
plume
velocities
(
e.
g.,
there
might
be
a
more
accurate
impact
of
an
alternate
case
scenario
if
the
plume
could
be
modeled
or
assumed
to
be
15
degrees
either
side
of
38
the
centerline
in
the
most
populated
direction).
[
20­
43]

AGENCY
RESPONSE
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
the
requirement
for
briefly
describing
OCA
in
executive
summaries
should
be
removed
in
the
face
of
ongoing
concerns
about
the
potential
misuse
of
such
information
by
terrorists,
particularly
if
the
information
can
be
easily
and
anonymously
accessed.
Although
many
sources'
RMP
executive
summaries
have
provided
only
brief
descriptions
of
their
OCA,
other
sources
have
provided
extensive
details
that
contain
more
sensitive
information
as
part
of
their
summaries.
Removing
this
requirement
will
not
affect
the
controlled
public
access
currently
available
to
OCA
information
under
the
CSISSFRRA
regulations.
Sources
must
continue
to
provide
details
of
their
OCA
in
Sections
2
through
5
of
the
RMP,
and
the
public
will
continue
to
have
the
access
to
OCA
information
afforded
by
the
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
1400.
The
Agency
also
agrees
with
the
comment
that
removing
OCA
data
from
executive
summaries
would
reduce
or
eliminate
any
risk
that
Internet
posting
of
executive
summaries
might
pose.

The
Agency
agrees
that
OCA
information
provides
a
context
for
each
RMP
submission
by
providing
a
rough
estimate
of
the
risk
the
facility
could
pose
to
the
community
in
the
event
of
an
accidental
release.
But
EPA
disagrees
that
this
information
would
be
lost
over
the
years
if
it
is
removed
from
executive
summaries.
Complete
OCA
results
are
reported
in
Sections
2
through
5
of
facilities'
RMPs,
and
the
Agency
maintains
a
database
including
all
RMPs
submitted
since
1999
(
except
for
RMPs
submitted
and
then
withdrawn
by
facilities
that
were
never
subject
to
the
program).
As
noted
above,
the
public
will
continue
to
have
access
to
OCA
information
in
RMPs
in
the
manner
provided
by
the
CSISSFRRA
regulations.

The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
executive
summaries
are
not
available
to
the
public.
CSISSFRRA
and
its
implementing
regulations
impose
restrictions
on
Sections
2
through
5
of
the
RMP
only,
and
expressly
exclude
executive
summaries
from
the
portions
of
RMPs
that
can
be
restricted.
CSISSFRRA
was
enacted
several
years
after
EPA
issued
the
RMP
regulations
requiring
a
brief
description
of
OCA
in
executive
summaries,
so
Congress
was
presumably
aware
that
executive
summaries
would
contain
some
OCA
data
when
it
excluded
executive
summaries
from
the
information
that
CSISSFRRA
regulations
could
restrict.
At
the
same
time,
EPA
disagrees
that
Congress'
decision
to
exclude
executive
summaries
from
coverage
by
CSISSFRRA
precludes
EPA
from
removing
the
regulatory
requirement
to
include
a
brief
description
of
OCA
in
executive
summaries.
Congress'
exclusion
of
executive
summaries
from
CSISSFRRA
restrictions
does
not
amount
to
a
congressional
directive
for
EPA
to
continue
requiring
OCA
descriptions
in
executive
summaries.
CSISSFRRA
was
enacted
prior
to
the
September
11,
2001
terrorist
attacks,
which
heightened
concerns
about
the
potential
misuse
of
detailed
OCA
data
found
in
some
executive
summaries.
The
Departments
of
Justice
and
Homeland
Security
have
advised
against
the
continued
inclusion
of
OCA
data
in
executive
summaries,
and
EPA
agrees
that
recent
events
make
it
imperative
to
remove
the
requirement
for
including
this
information.

One
comment
suggested
that
instead
of
removing
the
requirement
altogether,
EPA
provide
guidance
on
how
to
briefly
describe
OCA
in
executive
summaries
without
including
sensitive
information.
EPA
agrees
that
such
guidance
could
help,
but
believes
that
removing
the
requirement
altogether
will
be
more
effective
in
removing
sensitive
information
from
the
summaries.
Any
guidance
EPA
could
issue
would
not
necessarily
come
to
the
attention
of,
or
be
followed
by,
every
RMP
facility,
thus
risking
the
continued
inclusion
of
OCA
data
in
executive
summaries.
Another
comment
suggested
including
a
summary
of
OCA
results
in
the
restricted
OCA
sections
of
the
RMP,
but
EPA
believes
little
would
be
39
accomplished
by
including
a
summary
there.
The
OCA
sections
of
the
RMP
are
designed
to
be
easily
understood
and
reviewed,
so
providing
a
summary
within
those
sections
would
serve
little
purpose.
EPA
intended
executive
summaries
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
entire
RMP,
including
the
OCA
sections.
Since
EPA
has
judged
OCA
descriptions
in
executive
summaries
to
be
unwise,
there
is
no
point
in
including
a
summary
of
OCA
results
in
any
other
part
of
the
RMP.

At
the
same
time,
EPA
is
not
forbidding
sources
from
including
OCA
data
in
executive
summaries,
as
some
comments
suggested.
Section
3
of
CSISSFRRA
allows
sources
to
share
their
OCA
information
with
the
public,
and
EPA
believes
a
prohibition
against
including
any
OCA
data
in
executive
summaries
would
not
be
consistent
with
this
provision.
The
First
Amendment
of
the
U.
S.
Constitution
also
restricts
the
ability
of
the
federal
government
to
control
the
speech
of
private
entities.
The
Agency
expects,
however,
that
in
view
of
the
concerns
cited,
sources
will
be
judicious
in
including
any
OCA
data
in
their
executive
summaries.

The
Agency
agrees
with
comments
that
the
OCA
information
should
continue
to
be
made
readily
available
to
covered
persons,
an
important
group
of
which
are
state
and
local
emergency
responders.
This
information
will
continue
to
assist
in
developing
effective
plans
for
accident
prevention
and
emergency
response.
The
Agency
continues
to
work
closely
with
the
Department
of
Justice
and
with
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
to
ensure
the
best
balance
between
providing
public
information
and
protecting
national
security.
Nonetheless,
this
final
rule
removes
the
requirement
for
sources
to
briefly
describe
the
OCA
conducted
for
their
facilities
in
the
executive
summary
of
the
RMP.

The
Agency
appreciates
comments
submitted
pertaining
modeling
approaches
and
tools.
Modeling
specifics
are
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
notice;
the
Agency
will
review
and
consider
this
information
when
reviewing
guidance
materials
and
tools.
40
C.
New
Data
Elements
1.
Emergency
Contacts
E­
Mail
Address
The
RMP
rule
currently
requires
facilities
to
provide
the
name,
title,
telephone
number,
and
a
24­
hour
telephone
number
of
an
emergency
contact
person.
Under
the
current
rule,
an
e­
mail
address
may
optionally
be
provided
for
the
source
or
parent
company.
To
facilitate
quick
and
direct
communication
of
hazard
information,
EPA
is
proposing
to
add
a
mandatory
data
element
to
the
RMP
for
sources
to
provide
the
e­
mail
address
(
if
any)
for
the
emergency
contact.

1.
Support
for
Emergency
Contact
E­
Mail
Address
Data:
Adding
a
Mandatory
Data
Element
Twenty
two
commenters
support
adding
mandatory
data
element
for
emergency
contact
email
addresses.
[
15­
12,
19­
11,
23­
6,
28­
7,
29­
1,
36­
6,
39­
11,
42­
11,
60­
2,
66­
8]
A
number
of
commenters
noted
that
this
requirement
would
not
pose
undue
burden
on
reporting
facilities.
[
10­
6,
49­
9,
60­
2]

The
following
reasons
were
cited
for
support:

°
Proposed
changes
will
enhance
communication
between
Agency
and
reporting
facilities.
[
10­
6,
49­
9]

°
Changes
would
improve
the
RMP
reporting.
[
57­
11]

°
Enacting
the
proposed
changes
will
likely
increase
pre­
emergency
coordination
and
training
with
first
responders.
[
22­
6]

°
It
would
be
useful
for
emergency
planners
to
have
the
capability
to
communicate
via
e­
mail
with
facilities
to
both
provide
information
as
well
as
address
questions
regarding
the
facility.
[
15­
14]

°
The
commenter
believes
it
is
reasonable
for
its
facilities
to
provide
an
e­
mail
address
of
an
emergency
contact
to
receive
periodic
updates
and
necessary
information
to
covered
sources
regarding
site
security,
investigation
lessons
learned
and
other
pertinent
information.
[
11­
8]

°
Commenter
notes
that
the
changes
make
a
lot
of
sense
and
are
right
on
target
with
utilizing
the
speed
and
accuracy
that
is
possible
with
e­
communications.
[
25­
7]

°
The
commenter
strongly
supports
capitalizing
upon
technology
to
improve
the
process
and
reduce
burden.
[
57­
12]

°
The
commenter
believes
that
this
requirement
would
assist
in
efficient
implementation
of
the
risk
management
program.
[
60­
2]

°
This
is
a
common­
sense
proposal
relying
on
modern
technology
to
enhance
emergency
response,
coordination,
and
overall
communications
with
no
additional
costs.
[
62­
3]
41
°
Commenter
notes
access
to
the
name,
title,
address,
telephone
number
and
e­
mail
address
of
the
person
at
the
source
with
overall
risk
management
program
responsibility
will
be
helpful
to
agencies.
The
lack
of
that
information
in
the
past
5
years
of
enforcing
the
RMP
rules,
especially
for
newly
regulated
sources,
has
been
a
serious
impediment
to
timely
enforcement.
[
83­
4]

°
The
addition
of
this
data
element
is
valuable
for
dissemination
of
hazard/
security
notifications
that
are
not
time­
critical.
[
77­
11,
56­
5]

°
Commenter
does
not
object
to
adding
the
e­
mail
address
of
the
emergency
contact
to
the
mandatory
data
elements
requirements.
Under
the
assumption
that
this
will
facilitate
timely
dissemination
of
information
from
the
agency,
the
commenter
has
no
objection.
[
70­
3]

°
The
addition
of
the
e­
mail
address
for
the
emergency
contact
would
be
useful
to
emergency
responders.
[
43­
4]
Emergency
planning
information
must
be
made
available
to
firefighters
and
others
preparing
homeland
security
plans.
[
43­
5]

°
Commenter
understands
the
need
for
good
contact
information
so
EPA
and
other
emergency
agencies
can
contact
facilities
quickly.
[
42­
1]
E­
mail
is
an
excellent
tool
for
distributing
information
to
a
large
audience
quickly
and
would
be
an
efficient
means
to
accomplish
communication.
[
42­
2]

2.
Opposition
to
Emergency
Contact
E­
Mail
Address
Data
Ten
commenters
opposed
adding
mandatory
data
element
for
emergency
contact
e­
mail
addresses.
[
38­
17,
79­
4,
8­
4;
8­
23,
8­
24]

The
reasons
for
opposition
include:

E­
mail
is
Not
Accessible
By
All
°
Facilities
may
have
only
a
company
e­
mail
address
as
well,
meaning
messages
must
be
re­
routed
to
the
appropriate
individual
creating
a
delay
in
communication.
[
38­
14;
51­
11]

°
Emergency
contacts
at
smaller
facilities
may
not
have
e­
mail
access.
[
51­
11]

°
The
requirement
to
submit
an
e­
mail
address
for
the
facility
RMP
contact
person
should
not
be
a
mandatory
requirement,
as
many
covered
facilities
do
not
have
email
addresses.
[
38­
15;
45­
1;
79­
42]

°
As
recognized
by
EPA,
many
agricultural
retail
facilities
that
may
be
subject
to
the
RMP
may
not
have
e­
mail
capability,
let
alone
a
computer
(
68
Fed.
Reg.
at
45,128).
As
such,
the
regulations
should
not
require
e­
mail
capability
for
facilities
subject
to
the
RMP.
[
50­
39;
71­
16]
42
°
Some
facilities
such
as
small
agricultural
retailers
or
fertilizer
warehouses,
may
not
have
a
computer
and
e­
mail
access.
[
71­
16]

E­
mail
Not
a
Reliable
Means
of
Communication
°
Often
in
manufacturing
settings,
e­
mail
is
only
checked
periodically.
[
38­
13]

°
If
there
is
an
electrical
failure
or
a
computer
systems
malfunction
e­
mail
can
not
be
retrieved
and
may
be
lost
forever.
[
38­
14]

°
Computer
technology
and
operating
systems
change
and
are
updated
frequently
often
changing
the
e­
mail
addresses.
[
38­
16]

°
E­
mail
is
an
inefficient
process
for
crucial
communication.
Entire
transmittals
or
attachments
to
transmittals
may
be
blocked
by
computer
system
security
"
firewalls."
Some
Owners
and
Operators
are
sensitive
to
opening
e­
mail
from
external
sources
due
to
the
significant
potential
of
virus­
laden
transmittals.
Some
confront
a
daily
deluge
of
e­
mail
that
may
result
in
deletion
of
what
may
be
perceived
as
unimportant
mail.
[
79­
4]

°
EPA
should
not
depend
on
e­
mail
as
a
reliable
method
of
communication.
[
71­
17]

°
The
commenter
is
uncomfortable
with
reliance
on
e­
mail
as
a
mechanism
"
to
allow
the
Agency
to
quickly
and
directly
communicate
hazard
information."
During
an
emergency
situation
 
imminent
hurricane,
emergency
at
the
facility
or
in
the
area
 
EPA
cannot
rely
on
facility
employees
monitoring
e­
mail.
A
much
more
reliable
means
for
conveying
emergency
information
is
through
phone
lines
that
are
manned
24
hours
a
day,
7
days
a
week.
The
recent
northeast
blackout
as
well
as
Internet
viruses
and
worms
have
demonstrated
vulnerabilities
of
our
current
electronic
communications
system.
[
58­
19]

°
EPA
should
not
rely
on
e­
mail
to
communicate
information.
E­
mail
is
appropriate
for
routine
information,
but
possible
power
outages
during
a
storm
require
emergency
information
to
be
communicated
via
telephone.
[
37­
14;
37­
15]

Difficult
to
Keep
Current
°
Specific
individuals
need
not
be
specified
for
emergency
contacts,
when
EPA
will
always
have
the
requisite
contact
information
for
the
facilities
regardless
of
personnel
changes.
[
38­
11]
The
commenter
disagrees
with
EPA's
assumption
that
having
an
e­
mail
address
for
the
emergency
contact
would
allow
the
Agency
to
quickly
and
directly
communicate
hazard
information.
[
38­
12]

°
Since
most
e­
mail
addresses
are
person
specific,
it
will
be
very
difficult
to
maintain
an
e­
mail
database
that
is
current.
[
71­
15]
43
°
This
field
will
be
onerous
for
EPA
to
maintain
as
an
updated
distribution
list,
and
a
cumbersome
update
for
facilities
to
maintain.
[
44­
9]
E­
mail
addresses
change
often.
[
44­
10]

EPA
Not
Appropriate
Authority/
Role
of
Department
of
Homeland
Security
(
DHS)

°
The
commenter
agrees
that
e­
mail
is
an
effective
means
for
distributing
essential
information.
The
commenter
supports
EPA's
initiative
to
quickly
and
directly
communicate
hazard
information
to
the
regulated
community.
[
8­
25]
However,
the
commenter
does
not
believe
that
EPA
should
be
the
responsible
agency
for
communicating
with
the
chemical
industry
on
matters
related
to
chemical
site
security.
EPA
does
not
have
the
required
expertise.
The
Department
of
Homeland
Security
should
have
the
responsibility.
[
8­
26,
8­
27,
8­
28]

°
E­
mail
is
an
appropriate
(
and
in
many
cases
preferred)
mechanism
for
communicating
routine
RMP
information.
The
commenter
questions,
however,
the
value
of
such
a
mechanism
for
dissemination
of
security
information
(
other
than
information
that
can
be
freely
and
publicly
shared).
[
58­
21]
The
commenter
is
working
with
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
to
develop
reliable
mechanisms
for
communicating
time­
sensitive
and
actionable
intelligence,
especially
information
that
might
need
to
be
sent
through
secured
lines
rather
than
an
open
e­
mail
system.
Other
critical
infrastructure
sectors
have
similar
communications
established
with
DHS.
[
58­
23]
EPA
may
have
good
reason
for
establishing
emergency
communications
mechanisms
with
water
and
wastewater
treatment
facilities
(
RMP
or
not)
since
EPA
has
responsibility
for
security
of
those
sectors.
DHS,
however,
is
responsible
for
security
for
the
nation's
other
critical
infrastructure
sectors.
[
58­
24]

°
This
has
already
been
set
up
with
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
Why
is
there
a
need
to
have
duplicative
reporting
systems?
[
72­
25]

3.
Clarifications
and
Suggestions
Commenters
suggest
proposed
changes
to
the
RMP
and
provide
suggestions
on
implementation
of
the
proposed
Rule:

A
Single
Emergency
Contact
is
Not
Appropriate
for
E­
mail
Communication
°
EPA
should
encourage
sources
to
report
a
non­
emergency
e­
mail
address,
to
prevent
non­
emergency
e­
mail
from
gravitating
to
the
emergency
contact.
[
52­
11;
57­
33]
°
The
emergency
contact
is
not
the
appropriate
person
at
a
stationary
source
to
be
receiving
information
from
the
EPA.
Other
facility
personnel
are
more
appropriate
to
receive
this
information.
[
44­
11]

°
Requiring
an
e­
mail
contact
should
not
be
limited
to
the
emergency
contact.
Requiring
a
non­
emergency
contact
e­
mail
for
RMP
might
encourage
increased
interactions
between
federal
agencies
and
a
facility
with
potential
for
improving
44
understanding
between
both
groups.
If
an
e­
mail
address
is
publicly
available,
concerned
citizens
could
send
messages
with
questions
or
concerns
during
nonbusiness
hours.
Properly
used,
this
data
element
would
promote
participation
and
information
sharing.
[
57­
13]

°
With
respect
to
chemical
facilities,
RMP
contacts
may
or
may
not
be
the
appropriate
facility
contact
for
security
information.
Following
the
events
of
9/
11/
2001,
representatives
of
the
chemical
infrastructure
collaborated
with
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation
to
create
the
Chemical
Sector
Information
Sharing
and
Analysis
Center
(
ISAC)
to
allow
rapid
two­
way
communications
of
security
information.
The
Chemical
ISAC
allows
immediate
communications
throughout
the
chemical
infrastructure,
not
just
with
facilities
that
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
RMP.
[
58­
22]

°
The
commenter
strongly
cautions
the
agency
against
the
use
of
e­
mail
as
a
means
to
officially
contact
the
facility.
[
47­
19]

°
The
commenter
suggests
that
corporate­
directed
facilities
be
allowed
to
submit
a
single
corporate
e­
mail
address
for
each
of
the
facilities
covered
under
the
RMP.
[
50­
44]

°
Examples
provided
in
Section
II.
C.
a
of
the
proposed
rule
are
critical
issues
that
require
corrective
actions
related
to
process
review
and
procedural
changes.
[
42­
6]
This
type
of
information
is
more
correctly
handled
by
the
position
identified
as
responsible
for
RMP
implementation
rather
than
the
emergency
contact.
[
42­
7]
The
emergency
contact
should
be
used
to
coordinate
with
emergency
responders
in
the
event
of
an
incident.
The
24­
hour
telephone
number
provides
a
more
reliable
means
of
contact
than
e­
mail
for
emergency
responders.
[
42­
8]

°
The
present
rule
requires
the
emergency
contact
to
be
a
single
named
individual.
Because
facilities
often
run
around
the
clock,
the
emergency
contact
may
not
be
available
during
the
majority
of
the
facility's
operating
hours.
By
allowing
facilities
to
identify
a
position
that
is
manned
around
the
clock,
rather
than
an
individual,
emergency
responders
would
have
immediate
access
to
the
emergency
contact
with
first
hand
knowledge
of
the
emergency
event.
[
42­
9]
It
is
not
uncommon
for
individual
responsibilities
to
change
as
an
organization
adjusts
to
changing
needs
or
personnel
movements.
[
42­
10]

°
Commenter
agrees
with
EPA
mandating
an
e­
mail
address
be
included
in
the
RMP
plan
but
allow
facilities
to
choose
if
the
e­
mail
address
is
for
a
specific
person
or
a
general
facility
address.
[
42­
11]
If
the
facility
chooses
to
provide
an
e­
mail
address
for
a
specific
person,
that
person
should
not
be
the
emergency
contact
but
rather
the
person
responsible
for
implementation.
[
42­
12]
EPA
should
also
allow
the
facility
to
name
a
position
present
at
the
facility
as
a
24­
hour
emergency
contact
rather
than
an
individual.
[
42­
13]
45
Do
Not
Use
E­
mail
Exclusively,
Especially
During
Emergency
Situations
°
The
commenter
urges
the
EPA
to
refrain
from
over­
reliance
on
electronic
mail
as
a
method
of
contact,
especially
during
emergency
situations.
[
19­
11,
39­
12]

°
The
commenter
does
not
oppose
EPA's
proposal,
however,
the
Agency
is
urged
not
to
rely
solely
on
e­
mail
as
the
mechanism
for
communicating
with
RMP
sources.
[
28­
7,
58­
18]

°
The
commenter
questions
when
the
Agency
plans
to
use
e­
mail
as
a
communication
tool
and
in
what
circumstances.
[
27­
7]
While
e­
mail
is
widely
used,
delays
in
routing
messages
and
scanning
for
potential
viruses
often
delay
delivery,
and
therefore
it
does
not
represent
a
technology
that
replaces
telephone
communication
during
an
emergency.
[
27­
8]
Contacting
facilities
via
the
24­
hour
telephone
number
listed
in
the
RMP
is
a
much
more
reliable
means
of
communication.
[
19­
12]
E­
mail
can
be
easily
misdirected
or
fail
to
be
delivered
in
a
timely
fashion
since
it
is
sent
to
a
single
individual
that
may
or
may
not
be
available
to
receive
it.
[
19­
13]

°
E­
mail
by
itself
may
not
be
effective
if
the
person
is
on
vacation,
at
training,
or
traveling
on
other
business.
[
39­
13]

°
E­
mail
is
not
an
effective
means
of
communication
during
actual
emergency
events,
including
power
outages.
[
39­
14]

°
Due
to
the
possibility
of
Internet
hackers,
the
commenter
recommends
that
mail,
fax,
and/
or
phone
remain
the
primary
methods
of
communication
with
emergency
contact
personnel.
[
51­
11]

°
Commenter
supports
the
requirement
to
supply
an
e­
mail
address
for
the
facility
contact.
However,
EPA
should
not
rely
solely
on
e­
mail
for
communication
with
the
regulated
community.
For
a
number
of
reasons,
the
contact
person
may
not
receive
or
respond
to
an
e­
mail
message.
Telephone
and
other
communication
tools
should
remain
a
viable
option.
[
67­
25]

°
The
Agency
should
not
depend
on
e­
mail
to
communicate
with
emergency
contacts.
Various
circumstances,
including
computer
viruses,
system
malfunctions,
travel
commitments,
and
e­
mail
filtering
protocols,
may
prevent
or
delay
messages
from
the
Agency
from
reaching
the
emergency
contact.
Therefore,
any
critical
and
time­
sensitive
communications
from
the
Agency
to
emergency
contacts
should
utilize
more
traditional
communication
methods.
[
88­
6]

°
The
Agency
should
not
rely
on
the
Internet
as
the
primary
means
by
which
such
information
is
transferred,
or
where
timely
notification
is
important.
[
77­
11]
The
Agency
should
use
the
phone
contact
information
and/
or
U.
S.
mail
address
as
the
primary
means
of
sharing
critical
information
and
use
e­
mail
as
a
supplement
to
that
method.
[
77­
12,
56­
5]
46
°
The
commenter
does
not
believe
that
EPA
should
rely
upon
the
e­
mail
address
as
the
sole
or
principal
means
of
contact
for
a
facility
during
an
actual
emergency.
[
66­
9]
Uncertainties
regarding
electronic
delivery
of
information
(
electronic
firewall,
power
failures,
computer
viruses,
security
breaches,
etc.)
often
render
email
communication
less
reliable
and/
or
secure
than
established
telephonic
communication.
[
66­
10]
The
commenter
recommends
that
EPA
use
e­
mail
notification
for
delivery
of
information
in
non­
emergency
situations
and
in
situations
where
sensitive
or
secure
information
is
being
conveyed.
[
66­
11]

°
The
plan
already
contains
the
emergency
contact
telephone
number
and,
in
the
event
of
an
emergency,
it
is
likely
that
the
Agency
and
others
would
communicate
with
the
emergency
contact
via
telephone
and
not
by
e­
mail.[
50­
43]

°
E­
mail
has
the
limitation
that
the
information
may
be
sent
but
must
be
accessed
before
the
communication
is
completed.
[
42­
3]
E­
mail
is
not
setup
in
most
corporations
to
be
used
as
the
means
of
emergency
contact
information.
Most
email
recipients
only
access
e­
mail
accounts
during
normal
working
hours.
[
42­
4]
Information
that
requires
immediate
action
should
not
rely
on
e­
mail.
The
24­
hour
emergency
telephone
number
at
facilities,
designed
for
24­
hour
and
365­
day
service,
provides
a
more
reliable
means
of
emergency
communication.
[
42­
5]

E­
mail
Should
be
Provided
on
a
Voluntary
Basis
°
EPA
could
request
the
emergency
contact
e­
mail
address
or
facility/
corporate
email
address
on
a
voluntary
basis.
Facilities
submitting
RMP
Plans
should
be
able
to
identify
what
method
of
communication
works
best
for
receiving
hazard
information
from
EPA.
[
38­
18]

°
Reporting
facilities
with
e­
mail
addresses
may
want
to
continue
to
voluntarily
provide
an
e­
mail
contact.
EPA
should
consider
maintaining
its
current
approach
of
optionally
requesting
phone
numbers
and
e­
mail
addresses
of
contacts
directly
responsible
for
company
and
stationary
source
security.
In
this
manner,
hazard
information
provided
by
the
EPA
may
be
more
effectively
and
professionally
analyzed
for
application
to
all
stationary
sources
and
company
assets.
[
79­
4]

°
Commenter
recommends
that
EPA
make
this
an
optional
data
element.
[
71­
18]

Updating
E­
mail
Addresses
°
To
assist
industry
with
keeping
this
type
of
information
current,
the
commenter
recommends
that
EPA
develop
an
easily
accessible
electronic
method
for
facilities
to
update
this
information
using
a
password
protected
system
on
the
internet,
rather
than
submitting
a
correction
to
update
the
RMP
when
an
e­
mail
address
changes.[
45­
13]

°
Even
with
the
implementation
of
a
30­
day
change
in
emergency
contact
information,
e­
mail
lists
can
be
out
of
date
for
up
to
several
months
depending
on
how
diligent
the
agency
is
in
updating
its
database.
[
47­
20]
47
°
Due
to
the
difficulty
in
keeping
the
e­
mail
information
up
to
date,
the
commenter
suggests
that
EPA
develop
a
distribution
list
of
the
local
agencies
and
direct
the
local
agencies
to
distribute
this
information
to
the
stationary
sources.
[
44­
12]

°
The
commenter
believes
that,
in
the
case
of
updating
the
risk
management
plan,
the
Agency
should
not
require
a
resubmission
or
correction
to
add
an
initial
e­
mail
address
to
currently
submitted
plans
or
to
update
an
e­
mail
address
when
one
is
already
provided.
Rather,
such
an
update
should
occur
at
the
next
plan
submission
(
whether
as
part
of
the
periodic
resubmission
or
based
on
a
triggering
event).
[
50­
42]

°
EPA
should
provide
for
simple
on­
line
submittal
of
changes
to
identified
contact
positions.
[
42­
14]
With
these
changes,
the
concerns
of
EPA
would
be
addressed
and
the
flow
of
critical
information
will
be
improved
with
fewer
burdens
on
the
affected
facilities
and
EPA.
[
42­
15]

Suggested
Editorial
Changes
°
Revise
current
68.160(
b)(
5)
from
"
The
name
and
title
of
the
person
or
position
with
overall
responsibility
for
RMP
elements
and
implementation."
to
1.
The
name,
and
title,
address,
phone
number
and
e­
mail
address
of
the
person
at
the
source
or
position
with
overall
responsibility
for
RMP
risk
management
program
elements
and
implementation.
[
83­
1]

Commenter
requests
clarification
if
EPA
implements
change:

°
If
the
intent
is
to
use
e­
mail
to
communicate
clarifications
of
the
RMP,
then
the
email
address
of
the
person
who
prepared
the
RMP
is
a
more
appropriate
contact.
[
27­
9]
°
While
not
opposed
to
this
addition,
the
commenter
believes
that
the
agency
must
explain
in
detail
how
it
intends
to
use
such
e­
mail
lists
and
what
safeguards
it
will
employ
to
prevent
use
by
parties
within
EPA
or
outside
the
agency
for
purposes
unrelated
to
the
RMP.
[
47­
18]
°
EPA
needs
to
explain
in
detail
how
and
when
it
intends
to
use
e­
mail
as
a
way
of
communicating
with
emergency
contacts
and
what
type
of
information
it
envisions
communicating
in
this
fashion.
[
58­
20]

E­
mail
Addresses
Should
be
Managed
Appropriately:

°
E­
mail
addresses
are
also
subject
to
abuse
if
not
managed
properly,
can
become
the
source
of
"
junk
mail,"
and
it
is
difficult
to
verify
the
source
of
an
e­
mail
if
the
generator
is
not
genuine
or
attempting
to
manipulate
the
system.
[
39­
15]

°
Unlike
other
communications
methods,
e­
mail
addresses
are
subject
to
spamming
at
virtually
no
cost
to
the
sender,
subjecting
addressees
to
become
recipients
of
large
volumes
of
spam.
[
47­
23]
48
°
The
commenter
recognizes
the
sensitive
nature
of
some
of
the
information
contained
in
the
Plan
and
supports
keeping
it
off
of
the
Internet.
[
43­
5;
43­
6;
43­
7]

Cautions
°
Other
communication
methods
such
as
the
mail
or
phone
are
readily
forwarded
to
the
proper
party
in
the
event
of
a
change
in
the
emergency
contact.
However,
in
most
cases,
e­
mails
can
not
be
readily
or
reliably
forwarded.
[
47­
21]

°
E­
mails
are
more
prone
to
be
lost
in
the
transmission
process
or
go
unread
or
be
inadvertently
deleted
by
the
intended
recipient.
[
47­
22]

°
EPA
should
safeguard
such
e­
mail
addresses
to
deter
inappropriate
use,
which
might
dictate
an
e­
mail
address
change
and
hence
another
RMP
update.[
31­
4]

Other
°
The
commenter
is
concerned
that
delays
in
submittal
of
a
correct
e­
mail
address
within
a
month
of
a
change
could
be
enforceable
noncompliance
under
40
CFR
§
70
or
§
71
permits.
Enforcement
of
this
provision
should
be
limited
to
40
CFR
§
68.
[
59­
5]

°
Include
other
basic
RMP
data
in
the
requirements
for
timely
correction
that
is
proposed
for
emergency
contact
information.
[
57­
31]

°
EPA's
proposed
provision
to
address
this
issue
does
not
require
the
purchase
of
a
computer
and
e­
mail
capability
and
we
encourage
the
Agency
to
ensure,
if
this
provision
is
retained
in
the
final
rule,
that
this
exclusion
is
in
place.
[
50­
41]

°
Should
also
consider
requiring
information
on
last
RMP
related
joint
training
exercise
with
first
responders.
[
22­
6]

AGENCY
RESPONSE
The
Agency
believes
that
access
to
emergency
contact
e­
mail
information
will
provide
an
advantage
to
the
regulated
community,
implementing
agencies,
and
emergency
planners
and
responders
alike.
Improved
communications,
and
a
variety
of
avenues
to
facilitate
them,
will
allow
for
improved
exchange
of
critical
emergency
planning
and
accident
prevention
and
hazard
information
of
benefit
to
all.
E­
mail
is
an
excellent
tool
for
distributing
information
to
a
large
audience
quickly.
Although
keeping
email
address
information
up­
to­
date
will
require
some
effort
from
all
parties
involved,
the
benefits
of
having
that
information
will
outweigh
the
effort.
The
Agency
agrees
with
comments
that
e­
mail
should
not
be
the
only
vehicle
that
the
Agency
relies
upon,
particularly
in
cases
of
emergencies.
However,
it
is
certainly
one
of
the
most
immediate
and
common
means
of
communications
used
today,
and
will
serve
as
an
important
component
for
information
dissemination,
along
with
mail
and
telephone
communications.
Since
not
every
source
has
e­
mail,
the
Agency
is
requiring
only
those
sources
with
existing
e­
mails
to
submit
this
information.
It
is
not
the
intent
of
this
requirement
to
allow
for
unnecessary
use
of
the
e­
mail
address.
To
guard
against
the
use
of
the
address
for
distribution
of
spam
or
junk
mail,
the
Agency
does
not
plan
to
issue
a
list
of
facilities'
e­
mails.
49
The
Agency
agrees
that
e­
mail
to
a
single
emergency
contact
may
not
be
appropriate
for
all
communications;
other
forms
of
communications,
such
as
mail,
phone,
or
through
trade
groups,
will
continue
to
be
used
by
the
Agency
and
other
implementing
agencies.
The
current
RMP
rule
also
requires
the
e­
mail
address
for
the
source
or
parent
company.
This
address,
in
conjunction
with
the
emergency
contact
e­
mail
address
and
the
optional
RMP
responsible
person
e­
mail
address,
will
provide
additional
means
to
quickly
contact
RMP
facilities.
In
response
to
suggestions
that
EPA
obtain
the
e­
mail
address
for
the
person
responsible
for
the
source's
RMP
as
a
better
choice
for
receiving
e­
mailed
information,
the
Agency
will
provide
a
field
in
RMP
Submit
for
facilities
that
have
such
an
e­
mail
address
to
provide
that
information
at
their
option.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
requires
that
RMP
facilities
provide
the
e­
mail
address
for
the
facility
emergency
contact,
and
that
this
information
is
corrected
within
one
month
of
a
change.
The
e­
mail
address
for
the
person
responsible
for
the
facility
RMP
will
be
an
optional
field
in
RMP
Submit.
As
with
the
other
emergency
contact
information
correction
requirements,
the
Agency
intends
to
implement
a
system
that
would
allow
facilities
to
correct
this
and
other
administrative
information
via
a
secure
web
site,
and
is
working
to
implement
such
a
system
as
soon
as
practicable.
50
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Response
II.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Changes
C.
New
Data
Elements
2.
Reasons
for
Subsequent
RMP
Revisions
EPA
is
considering
a
proposal
to
add
a
mandatory
data
element
to
the
RMP
for
sources
to
identify
the
purpose
of
submissions
that
revise
or
otherwise
affect
their
previously
filed
RMPs.
Twenty­
five
commenters
indicated
they
would
support
such
a
proposal,
and
four
commenters
indicated
they
would
oppose
such
a
proposal.

1.
Support
for
Purpose
of
Submission
Data:
Mandatory
Data
Element
to
the
RMP
for
Sources
to
Identify
the
Purpose
of
Submissions
That
Revise
or
Otherwise
Affect
Their
Previously
Filed
RMPs
Commenters
support
adding
a
mandatory
data
element
to
the
RMP
for
sources
to
identify
the
purpose
of
submissions
that
revise
or
otherwise
affect
their
previously
filed
RMPs
provided
the
following
reasons:

°
Support
the
proposal
as
written
[
39­
16;
58­
25;
59­
6;
66­
12;
67­
27;
79­
5]

°
New
homeland
security
concerns
warrant
reevaluation
of
the
submission
format
for
the
risk
management
plans.
[
6­
1;
6­
2]

°
Will
improve
the
RMP
reporting.
[
57­
11]

°
This
will
be
a
beneficial
change.
[
19­
14;
28­
8;
45­
14]

°
This
is
a
potentially
useful
clarification
of
the
rule
and
procedures.
[
72­
26]

°
Adding
this
data
element
would
streamline
the
submission
process,
thereby
increasing
the
efficiency
of
the
process
and
simplifying
the
process
to
de­
register
a
regulated
source.
[
8­
29;
71­
19]
EPA
should
develop
a
standard
form
that
highlights
the
nature
of
this
change
to
facilitate
this
process.
[
8­
30]

°
This
proposal
would
not
impose
an
undue
burden
on
facilities.
[
10­
6;
32­
16;
60­
2;
49­
9]
It
will
facilitate
the
Agency's
review
of
revised
RMP
submittals,
and
is
consistent
with
the
earlier
recommendation
to
allow
revised
RMP
submittal
(
as
opposed
to
complete
resubmittals)
in
response
to
reportable
accidents.
[
10­
6]

°
It
would
be
useful
to
be
able
to
quickly
determine
what
has
changed
as
RMPs
are
submitted.
[
15­
13]

°
The
proposed
change
would
help
to
identify
the
reason
for
submitted
RMP
changes.
[
22­
7]

°
The
proposed
change
would
help
to
identify
RMP
cost
to
water
utility
industry.
[
22­
8]
51
°
Identification
of
the
change
in
an
RMP
should
be
added.
[
23­
7]
New
RMPs
should
require
a
date
as
to
when
the
process
had
an
RMP
regulated
substance
over
the
threshold
to
assist
implementing
agencies
in
determining
when
the
facility
was
actually
subject
to
the
RMP
program.
[
23­
8]

°
This
proposal
will
help
eliminate
confusion.
[
25­
8]

°
Commenter
supports
the
change
provided
the
agency
implements
as
described
in
the
proposed
rule,
including
a
pop­
up
menu
of
typical
reasons
for
subsequent
submittals
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
such
a
requirement.
[
47­
24]

°
The
proposal
will
enhance
communication
efforts
between
the
Agency
and
RMP
facilities.
[
49­
9]

°
The
proposal
will
expedite
the
review
and
evaluation
of
the
RMP
program
document
by
both
EPA
and
state
and
local
implementing
agencies.
[
51­
12]

°
Changing
the
term
"
revised
registration"
to
"
deregistration"
is
a
helpful
change.
[
52­
21;
70­
24]

°
Menu
options
are
essential
for
data
entry
to
ensure
consistency
and
ease
of
use.
[
56­
6;
77­
13]

°
This
requirement
would
enable
all
users
of
RMP
data
to
understand
and
track
information
in
the
system
for
trends
while
posing
little
in
the
way
of
additional
costs
to
registered
parties.
[
62­
4]

2.
Opposition
to
Purpose
of
Submissions
Data
Two
commenters
oppose
EPA's
proposal
to
add
a
mandatory
data
element
to
the
RMP
for
sources
to
identify
the
purpose
of
submissions
that
revise
or
otherwise
affect
their
previously
filed
RMPs.

Commenters
oppose
adding
a
mandatory
data
element
to
the
RMP
for
sources
to
identify
the
purpose
of
submissions
that
revise
or
otherwise
affect
their
previously
filed
RMPs
provided
the
following
reasons:

°
The
proposal
falls
short
of
explaining
how
it
will
enable
EPA
to
know
if
facilities
had
adopted
"
inherently
safer
or
alternative
technologies."
[
26­
5]
The
proposal
fails
to
distinguish
between
facilities
that
actually
reduce
hazards
and
facilities
that
merely
recalculate
vulnerabilities
using
different
methodologies.
[
26­
6;
52­
12;
52­
13]
The
public
and
EPA
need
more
specific
information
about
the
changes.
[
26­
7]
A
facility
that
resubmits
because
an
off­
site
consequence
analysis
has
changed
could
easily
use
a
checklist
to
indicate
whether
it:
°
Recalculated
vulnerability
zones
using
different
dispersion
estimating
techniques
or
assumptions.
°
Adopted
inherently
safer
technologies,
including:
52

Using
a
safer
chemical
(
chemical
substitution);

Using
smaller
quantities
of
a
chemical
(
chemical
minimization);

Using
less
hazardous
conditions
(
chemical
moderation);

Simplifying
processes
(
improving
error
tolerance).

Such
reporting
will
enable
EPA
to
obtain
important
information
on
changes
occurring
in
the
industry
and
provide
insight
into
chemical
usage
and
process
safety
management.
[
26­
8;
52­
15]
Such
information
could
inform
EPA,
industry,
and
the
public
about
facilities
that
de­
register
as
well
as
facilities
that
re­
submit
but
do
not
de­
register.
[
26­
9;
52­
16]
This
reporting
is
only
slightly
more
detailed
than
EPA
proposes.
[
26­
10]
Companies
could
have
sufficient
understanding
as
a
result
of
the
RMP
process
to
easily
provide
such
information.
[
26­
11;
52­
17]

°
The
proposal
is
insufficient
as
proposed
to
meet
EPA's
stated
interest
in
tracking
changes
such
as
the
use
of
inherently
safer
technologies.
[
52­
12]

3.
Recommendations
and
Additional
Comments
°
Although
commenter
supports
the
proposal,
commenter
notes
that
EPA's
contention
that
de­
registration
"
would
provide
some
indication
of
the
extent
to
which
inherently
safer
or
alternate
technologies
are
being
used"
is
not
necessarily
true.
[
62­
5]

°
It
appears
from
the
discussion
that
EPA
may
intend
to
use
this
information
to
pressure
entire
industries
to
take
action
that
other
members
of
the
industry
have
taken
to
limit
inventories
or
chemicals.
[
72­
26]

°
Commenter
recommends
the
Agency
use
a
pull
down
menu
with
specific
reasons
for
deregistration
to
assist
industry,
but
provide
a
comment
box
for
further
explanation.
[
45­
15]
this
information
would
assist
implementing
agencies
by
reducing
the
amount
of
time
spent
researching
whether
a
facility
should
have
deregistered
or
submitted
a
correction
or
a
revision.
This
information
will
also
be
useful
to
provide
technical
assistance
to
facilities
potential
subject
to
other
hazardous
materials
regulations.
[
45­
16]

°
EPA
should
provide
people
the
option
of
seeing
previous
submissions
for
a
given
facility
upon
making
a
single
request.
[
52­
18]
Currently
only
the
most
recently
filed
RMP
is
available
but
a
facility
may
have
made
several
submissions.
Without
such
comparison
people
will
not
be
able
to
assess
the
impact
of
changes
at
the
facility.
[
52­
19;
57­
14]

°
EPA
should
ensure
that
the
RMP
registration
tracking
system
indicates
which
section
of
the
RMP
source
has
corrected
or
changed.
[
52­
20]

°
Access
should
be
provided
to
outdated
information
in
order
to
provide
some
context
for
the
new
submission
and
explanation.
The
ability
to
compare
outdated
and
new
information
would
be
a
useful
tool
for
identifying
industry
trends
and
interpreting
modifications.
[
57­
14]
53
AGENCY
RESPONSE
The
Agency
has
decided
to
adopt
the
proposed
data
element
because
it
will
result
in
expedited
review
and
evaluation
of
submitted
RMP
data,
as
well
as
better
understanding
and
tracking
of
industry
trends
in
the
area
of
accident
prevention
and
process
safety,
at
very
little
cost
to
RMP
sources.
Certainly
sources
submitting
a
change
to
their
RMP
know
the
reason
for
the
change;
the
new
data
element
only
requires
them
to
specify
that
reason
so
implementing
agencies
need
not
review
all
the
changes
themselves
to
infer
the
reason.
EPA
also
plans
to
develop
a
pop­
up
menu
listing
the
typical
reasons
for
RMP
changes
(
e.
g.,
new
submission;
correction
of
the
emergency
contact
or
facility
ownership
data
elements;
update
triggered
by
revised
process
hazards
analysis;
de­
registration
as
a
result
of
no
longer
using
regulated
substances
at
all
or
above
threshold
quantities)
so
that
sources
can
easily
indicate
the
reason
for
their
change.
To
the
extent
the
pop­
up
menu
does
not
include
a
source's
particular
reason
for
a
change,
the
source
need
only
briefly
state
the
reason
for
the
change.
In
developing
the
pop­
up
menu,
EPA
plans
to
incorporate
some
of
the
specific
suggested
elements
to
better
reflect
the
reasons
behind
RMP
submissions
and
changes.
In
addition,
EPA
is
changing
the
term
revised
registration
to
de­
registration
as
comments
agreed
that
this
would
be
a
useful
clarification.

Although
the
Agency
believes
information
about
the
reasons
for
changes
will
help
identify
and
track
industry
trends,
it
does
not
intend
to
pressure
industries
to
adopt
particular
changes.
Facilities
are
in
the
best
position
to
assess
their
hazards
and
how
to
address
them.
The
Agency
may
choose
to
provide
industry
with
analyses
of
the
data
so
that
it
can
be
taken
into
account
as
individual
facilities
determine
their
best
approach
to
process
safety.
54
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Response
II.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Changes
C.
New
Data
Elements
3.
Contractor
Information
EPA
is
considering
a
proposal
to
add
a
mandatory
data
element
in
the
RMP
for
sources
that
use
a
contractor
to
help
prepare
their
RMPs
to
so
indicate.
Twelve
commenters
indicated
they
would
support
such
a
proposal,
and
sixteen
commenters
indicated
they
would
oppose
such
a
proposal.

1.
Support
for
Contractor
Data:
Add
a
Mandatory
Data
Element
in
the
RMP
for
Sources
that
Use
a
Contractor
to
Help
Prepare
Their
RMP
Commenters
support
add
a
mandatory
data
element
in
the
RMP
for
sources
that
use
a
contractor
to
help
prepare
their
RMP
to
so
indicate
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Supports
as
written
[
66­
13;
52;
70­
4]

°
When
a
contractor
gives
his
name
and
phone
number
on
any
documents
submitted,
he
must
also
give
his
address
and
some
information
about
his
corporation
or
personal
history
to
show
that
he
is
a
stable
businessman,
and
not
a
fly
by
night
operator
or
with
criminal
or
terrorist
connections.
[
2­
4]

°
Will
improve
the
RMP
reporting.
[
57­
11]

°
The
proposed
data
element
would
not
pose
an
undue
burden
on
the
reporting
facility.
This
will
enhance
communication
between
the
Agency
and
reporting
facilities.
[
10­
6]

°
Requiring
identification
of
contractor
is
a
reasonable,
initial
effort.
[
15­
14]

°
Provides
additional
release
information
to
database
and
may
help
to
identify
industry
wide
root
causes.
[
22­
9]

°
Many
contractors
complete
RMPs
and
supply
the
information
to
the
facility
without
fully
explaining
the
program.
Many
times
the
facility
is
not
provided
with
all
of
the
required
information.
Having
this
information
would
assist
auditors
in
prioritizing
inspections.
[
23­
9]

°
This
will
help
structure
accountability
for
contractors
used
to
develop
and
maintain
source
RMPs.
[
25­
9;
57­
17]

°
The
proposal
will
make
the
environmental
contractors
more
acceptable
for
the
quality
and
accuracy
of
their
work.
[
51­
13]

°
EPA
could
monitor
contractor
usage
and
follow­
up
with
individuals.
[
57­
15]
Contractor
information
would
facilitate
communication
with
the
proper
submitter
so
that
repeated
errors
from
contractors
could
be
identified
and
fixed.
[
57­
16]
55
2.
Opposition
to
Contractor
Data
Commenters
oppose
adding
a
mandatory
data
element
in
the
RMP
for
sources
that
use
a
contractor
to
help
prepare
their
RMP
for
the
following
reasons:

Sixteen
commenters
oppose
EPA's
proposal
to
add
a
mandatory
data
element
in
the
RMP
for
sources
that
use
a
contractor
to
help
prepare
their
RMPs.
Commenters
oppose
this
proposal
for
the
following
reasons:

EPA
Should
Contact
the
Facility
with
Errors
°
As
a
matter
of
public
policy
it
is
not
appropriate
for
a
regulatory
agency
to
assess
and
advertise
the
agency's
judgement
of
specific
technical
consultants.
[
19­
15;
19­
16]

°
Any
inaccuracies
should
be
directed
to
the
facility
and
not
the
contractor.
[
39­
18;
47­
25;
47­
26;
67­
22;
71­
22]
It
is
the
owner/
operators
role
to
correct
inaccuracies
and
if
the
contractor
is
at
fault,
to
consider
setting
an
expectation
to
improve
or
switch
to
another
contractor.
[
39­
19;
47­
28]
The
Agency
should
not
inject
itself
between
a
client
and
consultant
provider
in
terms
of
the
quality
of
service.
[
39­
20]

°
Although
we
do
not
have
strong
opposition
to
the
proposal,
[
67­
20]
facilities
are
responsible
for
the
content
of
their
RMPs
whether
the
program
is
developed
"
in­
house"
or
using
a
contractor.
[
67­
21]

°
The
owner/
operator
is
ultimately
responsible
for
all
information
submitted
and
reported
to
EPA.
To
add
such
a
requirement
would
be
contrary
to
the
appropriate
agency
practice
of
contacting
owners
and
operators
concerning
regulatory
compliance
issues.
Once
contacted
the
owner
or
operator
can
then
involve
the
RMP
contractor
where
appropriate
to
address
the
specific
agency
concern.
Authorization
by
rule
for
the
EPA
to
directly
contact
a
contractor
could
potentially
result
in
a
circumvention
of
due
process
and
as
such
is
inappropriate
to
include
this
provision
in
the
revised
rule.
[
79­
6]

°
Although
the
commenter
does
not
object
to
identifying
a
corporation
that
helped
prepare
the
RMPs
we
believe
identifying
an
individual
at
a
corporation
would
be
problematic.
[
31­
2;
31­
12]
Commenter
recommends
that
EPA
alert
RMP
facilities
of
any
common
errors
they
find
during
RMP
audits,
regardless
of
who
helped
prepare
the
RMPs.
[
31­
3]
If
a
facility
used
a
contractor
to
prepare
its
RMP,
the
contract
agreement
is
between
the
facility
and
the
contractor,
and
it
would
be
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
contact
the
contractor
directly
without
first
consulting
with
the
affected
facility.
There
is
certainly
no
guarantee
that
a
contractor,
once
informed
of
his
errors,
would
contact
all
of
his
clients
to
tell
them
they
received
a
poor
product.
In
addition
to
the
risk
that
the
facility
would
be
unaware
of
any
deficiencies
in
its
RMPs,
any
further
work
performed
by
the
contractor
to
correct
the
RMP
plan
could
create
unintended
contractual
obligations
for
the
facility
(
additional
costs).
[
31­
13;
31­
14;
31­
15]
56
$
A
facility
is
supposed
to
be
familiar
with
the
contents
of
its
RMP
and
is
ultimately
responsible
for
RMP
content
and
implementation.
While
it
may
be
appropriate
for
EPA
to
inform
corporations
of
systemic
errors,
it
is
more
important
that
EPA
alert
RMP
facilities
that
used
these
corporations
or,
better
yet,
alert
all
RMP
facilities
of
common
errors
found
in
RMPs.
Of
course,
corporations
could
protest
if
EPA
notified
their
clients
that
these
corporations
routinely
provide
inadequate
RMP
services.
Certainly
any
error
found
in
a
specific
RMP
should
be
brought
to
the
attention
of
the
facility,
not
the
contractor.
If
a
facility
found
that
the
error
was
made
in
its
RMP,
it
could
fix
the
problem
itself,
ask
the
contractor
to
fix
it,
or
find
a
more
competent
contractor
to
fix
it.
[
31­
16;
31­
17;
31­
18]

Other
Opposing
Comments
°
The
change
is
unduly
burdensome
and
unnecessary.
[
8­
34]
The
proposal
fails
to
support
such
an
across
the
board
requirement.
[
8­
31]
It
would
be
less
burdensome
for
EPA
to
address
any
issues
[
regarding
systematic
errors]
directly
with
the
consultant
in
question
rather
than
the
cumbersome
process
of
identifying
and
conferring
with
each
facility
that
may
have
used
the
consultant.
[
8­
32]

°
If
EPA
has
concerns
with
how
an
RMP
is
developed,
they
could
be
handled
directly
with
the
facility
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
[
8­
33]

°
Whenever
a
regulatory
agency
has
questions
about
a
report
submitted
by
the
facility
it
should
first
contact
staff
from
that
reporting
facility.
The
reporting
facility
will
determine
if
the
contractor
may
work
directly
with
the
regulatory
agency.
[
19­
17]

°
Although
we
do
not
envision
significant
burden,
[
27­
10]
we
question
the
usefulness
of
this
information
to
address
EPA's
perceived
concern
that
"
sources
whose
RMPs
are
largely
prepared
by
contractors
[
are]
not
sufficiently
familiar
with
the
contents
of
their
RMPs.
[
27­
11;
28­
9;
39­
17;
58­
26]

°
Weeding
out
those
contractors
who
provide
an
inferior
product
seems
to
be
an
inappropriate
use
of
the
Agency's
resources.
[
28­
10;
28­
11;
58­
27;
58­
28]

°
It
is
difficult
to
ascertain
to
what
extent
a
contractor
has
assisted
with
or
developed
a
facilities
RMP.
Without
a
very
detailed
description
of
how
the
contractor
participated
in
the
development
of
the
RMP
this
information
would
not
be
useful
to
an
implementing
agency.
[
45­
17;
67­
23]

°
If
EPA
identifies
systematic
errors
it
may
be
more
appropriate
to
develop
technical
guidance
or
advisories
to
ensure
that
all
stakeholders
are
informed
of
the
error.
[
56­
7;
77­
16]

°
The
information
provides
little
benefit
to
the
overall
goal
of
the
risk
management
program.
[
59­
7]
The
source
is
ultimately
responsible
for
compliance.
[
59­
8]

°
The
goal
of
several
of
the
proposed
revisions
is
to
address
the
problems
of
information
changing
but
not
being
revised
in
the
RMP
so
that
it
can
effectively
be
used
by
state
and
federal
agencies;
however
EPA
proposes
to
duplicate
this
problem
with
this
provision.
57
With
mergers,
contractors,
business
failures,
change
to
phone
numbers
due
to
contractor
relocations,
etc.
this
information
could
quickly
become
obsolete
before
a
resubmission
to
the
RMP
was
required.
[
59­
9]
°
It
is
unclear
what
value
this
really
provides
toward
the
purpose
of
the
risk
management
program.
[
71­
20;
76­
7]
Since
it
is
the
responsibility
for
submitting
correct
RMP
plan
an
implementation
of
the
CAA
requirements
for
RMP
is
with
the
owner/
operator
what
is
the
point
interfacing
directly
with
a
contractor?
[
71­
21]
EPA
needs
to
note
that
some
sources
may
have
agreements
with
contractors
that
prohibit
the
contractors
from
having
direct
discussions
with
agencies
without
prior
approval.
[
71­
23]

°
Unless
EPA
intends
to
parse
some
measure
of
responsibility
to
contractors
for
systematic
errors
notes
in
the
proposed
rule
we
do
not
support
this
addition.
[
76­
8]

°
The
justification
that
the
contractors
name
be
included
to
identify
systematic
errors
is
questionable.
[
77­
15]

°
There
could
be
potential
problems
with
this
provision
if
contractors
are
directly
contacted
about
facility­
specific
plans.
[
34­
6]

3.
Other
Comments
°
It
is
possible
that
more
than
one
contractor
will
have
been
involved
in
development
of
a
single
RMP.
Different
contractors
may
have
supported
different
program
requirements.
This
would
make
it
difficult
for
a
facility
to
identify
"
the"
contractor.
It
is
also
possible
that
a
contractor
may
have
provided
only
limited
support
in
the
RMP
development.
A
facility
may
believe
that
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
identify
this
contractor
in
their
RMP.
[
31­
19;
31­
20;
31­
21]

°
Corporate
personnel
turnover
and
corporate
acquisitions
will
limit
EPA's
ability
to
correlate
systemic
errors
to
individuals
and
corporations.
In
addition,
the
individual
or
company
who
helped
update
an
RMP
may
be
different
from
the
individual
or
company
who
helped
prepared
the
original
RMP,
thus
eliminating
the
link
to
a
specific
individual
associated
with
any
systemic
errors.
Over
time
there
could
be
multiple
corporate
names
and
individuals
involved
with
an
RMP.
Identifying
each
of
these
contractors
in
the
RMP
could
cause
confusion.
Given
the
potential
confusion
in
completing
this
data
element,
we
recommend
that
it
be
an
option,
not
a
requirement.
[
31­
22;
31­
23;
31­
24;
31­
25]

$
Commenter
prefers
this
information
not
be
readily
available
to
the
public.[
32­
8]
The
choice
of
contractors
is
a
private
not
public
matter
and
could
be
considered
a
competitive
advantage.
Making
this
information
available
only
to
EPA
or
its
contractors
only
would
be
an
acceptable
compromise.
[
32­
9]

$
Commenter
expressed
concerns
with
confidentiality
agreements
between
contractors
and
clients.
During
work
on
a
client's
RMP,
a
contractor
will
obtain
and
review
detailed
information
about
the
facility,
its
proprietary
equipment,
processes,
and
products,
its
management
and
operating
structure,
and
other
information
necessary
to
understand
the
fundamental
operation
of
a
facility.
Much
of
this
background
information
would
be
58
undeclared
confidential
business
information
(
CBI).
EPA­
initiated
direct
discussions
with
contractors
could
result
in
disclosure
of
this
information
without
appropriate
CBI
safeguards.
Many
contractors
have
RMP
work
experience
at
numerous
facilities
within
an
industry,
and
have
formed
opinions
about
the
facilities,
manufacturing
processes,
equipment
brands,
and
management
systems
at
these
facilities.
It
is
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
discuss
a
particular
facility
with
a
consultant
without
that
facility's
knowledge
and
consent.
EPA
should
initiate
all
inquiries
about
a
facility
and
its
plan
with
the
facility.
Then
the
facility
can
direct
its
contractor
to
discuss
the
issue
with
EPA,
and
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
any
discussions.
If
EPA
proceeds
with
this
requirement,
it
should
include
additional
language
that
places
limits
on
the
types
of
information
contractors
can
be
obligated
to
discuss
with
EPA,
and
provisions
to
assure
the
facility
is
notified
of
the
details
of
any
discussion
between
contractors
and
EPA.
[
34­
7
to
34­
12]

°
It
appears
that
EPA
is
intending
to
collect
this
information
primarily
to
aid
in
it's
enforcement
measures.
[
72­
27]

°
The
proposed
changes
are
needed
to
deal
with
the
reality
of
turnover
of
contractor
firm
staff.
[
83­
5]

4.
Requests
for
Clarification
°
Is
EPA
going
to
publish
a
list
of
acceptable
contractors
for
RMP
preparation?
[
44­
13]
Mere
submission
of
this
information
out
of
context
might
mislead
EPA
in
the
role
played
by
any
identified
contractor.
[
44­
14]
EPA
should
explore
in
a
separate
rule
development
exactly
what
problem
it
is
trying
to
solve
with
such
a
revision.
[
44­
15]

5.
Recommendations
°
The
commenter
would
like
to
see
a
requirement
that
the
contractors
actually
sign
the
RMP
submittal
so
there
is
no
doubt
that
they
are
taking
responsibility
for
their
work.
[
15­
15]

°
EPA
could
establish
an
e­
mail
listserv
to
alert
facilities
of
common
errors
they
are
finding
when
auditing
RMPs.
Addresses
included
in
future
RMPs
could
be
automatically
added
to
this
listserv.
This
simple
effort
may
eliminate
the
need
for
adding
a
contractor
data
element.
[
31­
26;
31­
27;
31­
29]
Revise
the
proposed
language
as
follows:
"(
b)(
14)
the
name,
the
mailing
address,
and
the
telephone
number
of
any
contractor
who
corporation
that
helped
prepare
the
RMP;
(
optional)"[
31­
28]

$
The
commenter
recommends
that
additional
agency
outreach
and
free
training,
tools
and
seminars
be
available
to
technical
contractors
rather
than
try
to
solve
the
problem
by
regulatory
control.
[
39­
21;
47­
27;
56­
7;
77­
17]

°
This
proposed
data
element
should
be
eliminated.
[
71­
24]

°
The
commenter
recommends
a
simple
check
box
be
used
when
a
contractor
was
used
to
develop
the
RMP.
[
77­
14]
59
°
Revise
proposed
68.160(
b)(
14)
from
"
The
name,
mailing
address
and
the
telephone
number
of
any
contractor
who
helped
prepare
the
RMP."
to
"
the
name,
mailing
address
and
the
telephone
number
of
any
contractor
and
contractor
staff
person
who
helped
prepare
the
RMP."
[
83­
2]

°
In
addition
EPA
should
require
sources
to
indicate
for
the
same
reasons
whether
their
RMP
was
prepared
in
a
corporate
parent
office.
[
52­
22]

AGENCY
RESPONSE
The
Agency
agrees
that
adding
the
contractor
information
data
element
will
provide
valuable
information
to
implementing
agencies
in
identifying
possible
systemic
errors
without
imposing
significant
burden
on
the
reporting
facility.
The
Agency
also
agrees
with
the
comments
that
the
facility
owner
or
operator
is
ultimately
responsible
for
the
RMP,
whether
or
not
it
has
been
prepared
by
a
contractor.
However,
implementing
agencies
have
seen
cases
where
contractors
have
been
used
to
develop
RMPs
where
no
accident
prevention
program
actually
existed
at
the
facility,
or
was
not
understood
by
personnel
responsible
for
its
implementation.
Implementing
agencies
have
also
seen
systemic
errors
in
RMP
submissions
that
can
be
linked
to
the
same
contractor.
EPA
believes
it
is
important
to
require
this
piece
of
information
to
facilitate
the
review
of
RMPs
by
the
implementing
agencies,
as
well
as
to
provide
another
measure
of
accountability
on
the
part
of
the
facility.
The
Agency
is
therefore
adopting
its
proposal
to
require
sources
that
use
a
contractor
prepare
their
RMP
to
provide
the
name,
address
and
phone
number
of
that
contractor.
EPA
recognizes
that
some
sources
utilize
contract
services
to
assist
in
developing
portions
of
their
risk
management
program,
such
as
the
process
hazards
analysis.
The
requirement
to
supply
contractor
information
does
not
apply
to
such
services;
it
applies
only
to
contractors
that
prepare
RMP
submissions.

Contractor
information
will
be
used
by
implementing
agencies
to
conduct
further
outreach
and
compliance
assistance
efforts.
To
the
extent
EPA
identifies
systemic
errors
or
other
problems
potentially
associated
with
a
contractor,
the
Agency
plans
to
contact
the
affected
sources
to
alert
them
to
the
problem.
EPA
may
also
contact
the
contractor
to
discuss
systemic
problems
and
how
to
correct
them;
such
discussions
would
focus
not
on
particular
RMP
facilities
but
on
the
contractor's
understanding
and
implementation
of
RMP
requirements
generally.
The
Agency
would
not
enforce
RMP
requirements
against
a
contractor,
since
those
requirements
apply
only
to
owners
and
operators
of
covered
sources.
Also,
EPA
has
no
intention
of
listing
or
rating
contractors
in
any
way.
The
Agency
considered
the
suggestion
of
making
contractor
information
an
optional
element,
but
it
believes
that
a
mandatory
requirement
will
ensure
the
availability
of
useful
information
for
program
implementation,
data
quality,
outreach
and
compliance
assistance.
60
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Response
II.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Changes
D.
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
A
total
of
16
commenters
indicated
support
for
expanding
the
list
of
possible
causes
of
accidental
releases
to
the
reporting
of
sources'
five­
year
accident
history
so
an
owner
or
operator
can
indicate
whether
an
accident
involved
an
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction.
Twenty
three
commenters
supported
expanding
the
list
of
possible
causes
but
recommended
EPA
use
a
term
other
than
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction.
Two
commenters
opposed
the
proposed
change.

1.
Support
for
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
Data
Commenters
support
inclusion
of
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
as
a
data
element
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Commenter
supports
change.
[
47­
29;
51­
14;
59­
10;
60­
3;
62­
6;
70­
25;
71­
25;
77­
18]

°
Commenter
does
not
oppose
change.
[
19­
18;
28­
12;
39­
22;
66­
14;
67­
26
;
23­
10;
29­
1]

Enhance
understanding
of
accidents
or
allow
detailed
analysis
°
Proposed
revision
will
enhance
EPA's
understanding
of
reportable
accidents
and
will
not
impose
an
increased
burden
on
reporting
facilities.
[
10­
7;
49­
10]

°
Proposed
change
would
provide
a
better
understanding
by
those
who
review
accident
data
of
the
types
of
accidents
occurring
at
regulated
sources.
[
32­
15;
36­
7]

°
The
proposed
change
allows
facilities
to
more
accurately
characterize
an
accident
and
will
allow
for
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
accident
data.
[
45­
18;
45­
19].

°
This
new
element
would
provide
sources
with
an
additional
choice
to
more
accurately
report
accidents
that
involved
uncontrolled
or
runaway
reactions­­
an
important
category
of
information.
This
new
information
would
provide
a
better
understanding
of
the
types
of
accidents
occurring
at
regulated
sources.
[
62­
7]

°
Concerned
parties
would
better
understand
a
facility's
accidents
and
can
address
prevention
and
response
plans
in
a
more
informed
way.
[
57­
18]

Other
°
Not
enough
attention
is
being
given
to
reactive
chemical
hazards.
Additional
data
collection,
while
not
in
the
least
burdensome
as
the
accident
is
already
being
reported,
is
an
important
step
towards
accident
prevention.
[
15­
16]

°
The
proposal
will
lead
to
more
accurate
reporting
of
the
causes
of
accidental
releases
and
allow
for
better
implementation
of
the
risk
management
plan.
[
60­
3]
61
°
Even
a
small
amount
of
hazardous
material
can
reach
high
temperatures
very
rapidly.
[
51­
14]

°
The
change
will
help
improve
public
information
about
reactive
chemical
hazards.
[
52­
23]

°
The
proposed
change
will
cause
no
additional
burden
on
the
Agency
in
terms
of
oversight
of
affected
sources.
[
60­
3]

2.
Opposition
to
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
Data
Commenters
oppose
inclusion
of
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
as
a
data
element
for
the
following
reasons:

°
The
need
to
add
to
the
list
of
causes
of
accidental
releases
"
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction"
is
totally
out­
of­
line
and
is
not
consistent
with
the
current
list.
[
25­
10]
The
current
list
is
adequate.
Some
possible
new
causes
could
be
"
lift
truck
ran
into,"
"
person
stepped
on,"
"
person
accidentally
opened
wrong
valve,"
"
backhoe
dug
up."
The
Chemical
Safety
Board
is
making
recommendations
based
on
lack
of
experience
and
lack
of
practical
knowledge.
[
25­
11]

°
The
definition
of
"
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction"
could
be
subjectively
interpreted
leading
to
inconsistent
reporting
from
various
operators
and,
therefore,
result
in
irrelevant
data.
[
79­
7]

°
An
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction
is
a
cause
and
not
a
type
of
release.
An
accidental
release
may
be
the
result
of
multiple
causes.
Identifying
a
release
as
uncontrolled
or
runaway
may
in
itself
lead
to
an
improper
conclusion
of
a
cause.
[
79­
7]

3.
Clarification
and
Suggestions
Commenters
had
the
following
suggestions
and
comments
on
inclusion
of
Uncontrolled/
Runaway
Reactions
as
a
data
element:

Definition
of
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction
°
Commenter
strongly
supports
the
effort
to
collect
additional
data
on
uncontrolled
reactions,
however
each
regulatory
source
may
define
an
"
uncontrolled
or
runaway
reaction"
differently.
[
8­
36,
8­
37]
EPA
should
provide
a
definition
so
reporting
is
only
triggered
by
a
major
even
.
[
8­
6;
8­
35;
8­
37]
This
will
also
ensure
consistent
application,
allowing
submitted
information
to
be
collated
and
assessed
in
a
meaningful
fashion.
[
8­
38]

°
EPA
should
fully
define
the
term
"
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction."
There
are
many
instances
where
a
reactive
chemistry
incident
may
not
generally
be
considered
a
"
runaway"
reaction.
[
58­
29]

Other
categories
for
inclusion
°
EPA
should
significantly
expand
this
list
even
further
with
other
causes
or
more
detailed
subcategories
of
causes.
EPA
should
solicit
from
industry
and
other
experts
any
additional
62
causes
and
if
there
is
a
need
for
other
data
fields
and
details
related
to
accidents.
Enhanced
clarity
is
always
valuable
in
understanding
the
RMP
data.
[
57­
19]
°
Commenter
questions
whether
this
is
the
only
category
of
incident
that
is
worth
capturing
in
this
fashion.
[
28­
12;
58­
31]

Change
term
to
reactive
incident,
process
upset,
reactive
chemistry
incident
°
Commenter
opposes
use
of
the
term
as
written
and
suggests
the
terms
"
reactive
incident"
or
"
process
upset."
[
38­
19;
38­
22;
38­
24]

°
The
US
Chemical
Safety
and
Hazard
Investigation
Board's
recommendation's
to
include
a
characterization
of
reactive
incidents
as
uncontrolled
and/
or
runaway
implies
a
lack
of
reasonable
control
at
facilities
and
is
generally
misleading
to
stakeholders
about
the
true
nature
of
these
events.[
38­
20;
38­
21]
EPA
gives
no
reason
for
renaming
these
incidents
using
the
alarming
terminology
of
uncontrolled/
runaway
reactions.
Should
EPA
add
reactive
incidents
to
the
list
of
accidental
release
causes,
it
should
appropriately
list
such
as
"
reactive
incident."
[
38­
23]
In
the
alternative,
commenter
recommends
using
"
process
upset,"
which
EPA
itself
uses
in
the
Proposed
Rule's
preamble,
explaining
the
need
for
this
new
reporting
element.
[
38­
24]

°
EPA
may
also
want
to
consider
using
the
term
"
reactive
chemistry
incident"
in
lieu
of
"
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction."
[
58­
30]

Other
recommendations/
comments
°
Commenter
recommends
that
the
term
be
added
to
the
drop­
down
menu.
If
a
more
labor
intensive
method
is
envisioned
to
enact
the
change,
support
for
the
change
will
be
reconsidered.
[
45­
20]

°
Despite
better
typology
of
incidents
as
this
change
proposes,
significant
catastrophic
incidents
caused
by
extremely
hazardous
mixtures
under
extremely
hazardous
process
conditions
will
continue
to
go
unreported
in
the
RMP*
Info
system
because
of
current
listing
deficiencies.
For
example,
the
Morton
incident
in
1998
involving
orthonitrochorobenne
2­
ethylhexylamine
and
Automate
Yellow
#
96
Dye
would
not
be
required
to
be
reported
because
the
chemicals
are
not
covered.
[
62­
8]

AGENCY
RESPONSE
Overall,
the
comments
confirm
EPA's
view
that
adding
a
new
term
for
uncontrolled
reactions
will
provide
sources
with
an
additional
choice
to
more
accurately
report
information
about
accidents
and
that
this
new
information
will
provide
a
better
understanding
of
the
types
of
accidents
occurring
at
regulated
sources.
This
information
will
help
the
Agency
identify
incidents
involving
reactive
chemicals
and
offer
insights
on
how
best
to
address
that
hazard
category.

The
Agency
disagrees
with
comments
that
the
new
term
is
inconsistent
with
the
current
ones
(
gas
release,
liquid
spill/
evaporation,
fire,
and
explosion),
but
does
acknowledge
that
more
than
one
term
may
describe
a
particular
incident.
In
an
effort
to
capture
more
specific
accident
cause
information,
the
Agency
will
modify
RMP*
Submit
to
allow
sources
reporting
accident
information
to
select
more
than
one
of
the
categories
from
the
list
of
accident
causes.
63
The
Agency
recognizes
the
concern
that
the
term
uncontrolled/
runaway
reaction
may
perhaps
be
open
to
subjective
interpretations.
In
response
to
this
comment,
the
Agency
will
include
a
help
function
for
this
menu,
with
examples
of
the
types
of
incidents
that
the
Agency
expects
to
be
reported
as
uncontrolled/
runaway
chemical
reactions.
This
revision
to
the
RMP
Submit
format
will
provide
the
opportunity
to
gather
more
data
on
reactive
incidents,
in
that
way
informing
any
future
actions
the
Agency
may
take.
64
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
­
October
17,
2003
Page
64
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Response
III.
Collection
of
OSHA
Occupational
Injury
and
Illness
Data
EPA
is
considering
whether
future
RMP
submissions
should
be
required
to
include
data
for
three
employee
occupational
injury
and
illness
(
OII)
records
required
by
OSHA:
(
1)
Total
Incident
Rate;
(
2)
Workdays
Lost
to
Injuries;
and
(
3)
Illness
and
Workdays
under
Restricted
Duties.
Four
commenters
indicated
that
they
would
support
such
a
proposal,
and
forty
eight
commenters
indicated
that
they
would
oppose
such
a
proposal.

1.
Support
for
Collection
of
OSHA
OII
Data:
Collection
with
the
RMP
Filing
Required
Under
CAA
Section
112
(
r)

Commenters
support
collection
of
OSHA
OII
data
with
the
RMP
Filing
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Commenter
supports
EPA's
position.
[
62­
9]

°
Commenter
supports
exploring
the
possibility
of
collecting
supplementary
OSHA
data
with
RMP
submissions
[
57­
29]

°
The
proposed
changes
would
enable
EPA
to
use
the
information
to
"
better
understand
accident
risks
and
to
gauge
the
trends
with
respect
to
risk
and
accident
prevention
across
various
industry
sectors."
OSHA
already
requires
that
injury
and
illness
logs
be
kept
for
employees..
The
ability
to
link
employee
illness
with
risks
at
the
facility
can
lead
to
better
prevention
programs
as
well
as
providing
data
on
safety
standards.
[
57­
20]

$
EPA
understands
that
this
requirement
would
represent
additional
work
for
a
facility,
but
notes
that
because
the
data
is
already
required
under
OSHA,
it
would
not
be
a
significant
burden.
[
57­
21]

$
If
EPA
were
to
collect
the
data
on
its
own,
it
would
take
the
agency
a
substantial
amount
of
time
coordinating
with
facilities
and
other
agencies.
[
57­
21a]
This
kind
of
requirement
would
promote
safety
for
both
facility
workers
and
the
surrounding
community.
The
commenter
encourages
EPA
to
further
develop
this
option
and
propose
such
a
change
before
June
2004,
which
is
the
five­
year
resubmission
requirement
for
most
RMP
facilities.
[
57­
22]

°
Commenter
strongly
supports
proposal,
as
reporting
OII
data
as
part
of
accident
reports
imposes
a
trivial
additional
burden.
[
15­
17;
15­
18]
The
data
is
already
collected
and
maintained
by
RMP
facilities
and
the
value
of
data
analysis
using
RMP
data
would
substantially
benefit
the
analysis
for
a
variety
of
RMP
users.
[
15­
18]

°
Submitting
OSHA
injury/
illness
information
resulting
from
any
applicable
process
covered
under
the
RMP
will
be
beneficial.
The
information
will
help
identify
trends
and
provide
information
to
facilities
to
prevent
similar
incidents.
[
86­
3]
65
2.
Opposition
to
Collection
of
OSHA
OII
Data
Forty
eight
commenters
opposed
the
collection
of
OSHA
occupational
injury
and
illness
data
in
conjunction
with
the
RMP
filing
required
under
112(
r)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
addition,
several
commenters
opposed
the
changes
and
questioned
EPA's
need
for
and
use
of
the
data.
The
reasons
for
opposition
include:

°
Information
could
be
misrepresented
or
misunderstood.
°
OII
reportable
injuries
are
not
related
to
RMP
processes
and
the
data
would
be
of
limited
use
to
EPA;
°
Information
may
not
accurately
reflect
risks
at
a
facility
and
will
not
aid
in
identifying
safety
trends
or
in
statistical
analyses;
and
°
Misrepresentations
in
the
original
OSHA
300
Illness
and
Injury
log
data
would
be
result
in
errors
when
applied
to
EPA
risk
factors.
°
Collection
of
OSHA
data
does
not
fall
within
EPA's
jurisdiction,
charter,
or
authority
under
CAA
Section
112(
r).
°
Implementing
the
proposed
changes
would
be
time­
consuming
or
impose
an
undue
burden
on
facilities.
°
OII
data
is
already
reported
to
the
Federal
government
and
available
to
EPA.
°
OII
data
is
already
included
in
the
RMP
and
other
sources
and
available
to
EPA.
°
Submitting
data
elements
that
military
facilities
and
other
Federal
agencies
are
not
required
to
maintain
under
OSHA
would
be
difficult
to
effectively
implement.
°
OSHA
OII
data
may
not
be
readily
available
for
all
facilities.
°
incorporating
the
proposed
changes
would
shift
focus
away
from
addressing
safety
issues
and
improving
security
of
hazardous
materials.

Commenters
opposed
EPA
collection
of
OII
data
°
Commenter
opposes
adding
OII
data
elements
to
RMP.
[
8­
46;
8­
47;
33­
1;
39­
23;
44­
18;
24­
1;
24­
2;
56­
8;
58­
32;
67­
12;
88­
7;
29­
2;
47­
30;
46­
1;
46­
2;
51­
15]

°
There
is
insufficient
justification
under
the
accidental
release
program
to
submit
data
to
EPA
concerning
work
related
injuries
that
may
have
absolutely
nothing
to
do
with
chemical
handling.
[
30­
5]

°
Commenter
does
not
support
adding
OSHA
OII
data
to
RMP
reporting
requirements.
[
27­
12;
42­
21;
45­
23;
55­
6;
72­
28;
79­
8;
38­
25;
49­
11;
49­
14]

°
It
is
not
appropriate
for
EPA
to
make
the
OSHA
worker
incidence
and
injury
recordkeeping
requirement
in
Title
29
of
the
CFR
as
an
enforceable
reporting
requirement
under
EPA's
CAA
regulations.
[
31­
1]
Commenter
recommends
that
EPA
not
require
facilities
to
include
OSHA
worker
incidence
and
injury
reporting
information
in
their
RMPs.
[
31­
11]

°
EPA
should
reconsider
collecting
OSHA
injury
and
illness
data
as
part
of
RMP.
[
32­
10]
66
°
Although
the
commenter
generally
understands
the
need
for
up­
to­
date
emergency
information,
[
36­
1]
including
OSHA
data
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
RMP
and
is
neither
practical
nor
appropriate.
[
36­
2;
36­
8]

°
Commenter
recommends
EPA
not
adopt
the
requirement.
[
37­
9]

°
Commenter
questions
EPA's
need
for
OII
information.
[
21­
6]

°
EPA
is
urged
to
not
promulgate
a
final
rule
requiring
the
submission
of
OSHA
injury
and
illness
data.
[
50­
10;
71­
35].

OII
Information
could
be
misrepresented
or
misunderstood:

°
Information
will
be
used
or
portrayed
in
a
negative
light
just
by
the
misunderstanding
or
misrepresentations
of
the
data
in
a
RMP
file.
[
14­
9]

°
Information
could
potentially
lead
to
incomplete
and/
or
inaccurate
observations
and
conclusions.
[
66­
16].

°
The
inclusion
of
this
data
with
RMP
information
could
lead
readers
to
draw
inappropriate
connections
between
chemical
handling
and
workplace
injuries.
[
67­
14]

Misrepresentations
in
the
original
OSHA
300
Illness
and
Injury
log
data
would
be
result
in
errors
when
applied
to
EPA
risk
factors:

°
Much
attention
has
been
focused
on
the
misuse
of
the
West
Virginia
workers
compensation
system,
codified
in
Chapter
23
of
the
W.
Va.
Code.
Excessive
claim
filings,
due
in
large
part
to
job­
force
realignments,
layoffs
and
plant
closings
lead
many
workers
to
utilize
the
State's
workers
compensation
program
for
supplemental
income.
Most
of
the
numerous
cases
that
are
classified
as
compensable
under
the
State's
workers
compensation
system
are
also
entered
on
the
employer's
OSHA
300
Injury
and
Illness
log.
[
75­
6a]
Utilizing
the
data
entered
on
the
OSHA
300
log
to
obtain
an
objective
analysis
and
statistical
relationship
for
environmental
releases
from
a
RMP
covered
processes
can
mislead
and
misrepresent
actual
risk
factors.
[
75­
7]
Because
of
the
possible
Misapplication
of
OSHA
data
to
EPA's
risk
management
program
assessments
and
tremendous
number
of
frivolous
workers
compensation
claims
being
filed,
commenter
objects
to
the
proposed
change.
[
75­
8]

OII
reportable
injuries
are
not
related
to
RMP
processes
and
the
data
would
be
of
limited
use
to
EPA:

°
OSHA's
record
keeping
rules
are
of
an
extremely
broad
nature,
and
essentially
require
any
work
related
injury
or
illness
be
recorded,
covering
any
injury
requiring
`
medical
treatment
beyond
first
aid'.
[
4­
1;
4­
2]
Compiling
the
very
broad,
and
inclusive
OII
data
and
submitting
it
to
EPA
will
serve
no
useful
purpose.
[
4­
3;
4­
5]
EPA
will
have
no
way
of
determining
whether
any
of
the
aggregated
numbers
of
injuries
and
illnesses
reported
to
EPA
relate
to
the
kinds
of
incidents
of
concern
to
the
RMP
program.
[
4­
3]
The
bulk
of
the
OII
data
will
shed
no
light
whether
the
reported
injuries
derive
from
accidental
releases
or
67
from
incidents
and
accidents
unrelated
to
releases,
(
e.
g.,
a
fall
in
the
parking
lot
or
strained
back
from
lifting
heavy
boxes.
[
4­
4;
31­
5]
The
submitted
information
will
be
essentially
meaningless
and
EPA
should
reconsider
requiring
OII
data
as
part
of
a
RMP
submission.
[
4­
5;
4­
6]

°
It
is
unclear
why
EPA
would
want
to
know
about
injuries
to
employees
that
are
not
related
to
the
covered
process,
such
as
a
back
strain
or
injuries
related
to
slipping
tools.
[
5­
1;
5­
3]

°
OII
data
will
not
generate
meaningful
information
to
the
RMP
program
as
only
a
minuscule
portion
of
reportable
workplace
injuries
and
illness
relate
to
chemical
releases.
[
8­
48]

°
EPA
would
not
be
able
to
correlate
OSHA
injury
and
illness
data
with
RMP
chemical
releases.
[
29­
6]
Most
industrial
injuries
are
due
to
slips,
trips
and
falls,
not
exposure
to
RMP
chemical
releases.
[
29­
7;
58­
33]
These
data
would
be
meaningless
to
EPA
unless
the
submitter
provided
additional
data
to
indicate
the
nature
of
each
injury.
[
29­
7]
This
would
greatly
increase
the
burden
of
preparing
the
RMP
report.
[
29­
7;
see
also
section
V
of
this
document]

°
It
will
be
difficult
for
EPA
to
show
any
meaningful
associations
between
OSHA
injury
and
illness
rates
and
RMP
chemical
accident
history;
these
two
rating
systems
measure
different
endpoints,
which
may
not
be
associated
with
each
other.
[
32­
14]

°
The
majority
of
OII
reportables
are
unrelated
to
chemical
accidents.
[
37­
8;
58­
33;
66­
15]

°
Injury
and
illness
rates
at
a
facility
do
not
have
any
relationship
or
specific
correlation
to
RMP
covered
processes
or
accident
history.
[
39­
24]
Most
issues
impacting
total
recordable
rates
involve
ergonomic
conditions,
slips,
trips
and
falls,
hand
lacerations,
and
automobile
work
related
accidents,
which
have
no
relation
to
RMP
listed
chemicals.
[
39­
25;
58­
33]
Very
few
injuries
related
to
the
RMP
covered
processes
as
the
source
have
occurred,
and
if
and
when
a
covered
process
is
the
source,
this
is
already
covered
under
the
incident
investigation
element
in
terms
of
reporting.
[
39­
26]
Understanding
trends
associated
with
recordable
injuries
and
illnesses
can
be
very
complicated
in
terms
of
prevention
and
causality,
all
of
which
have
little
or
no
relevance
or
involvement
associated
with
the
RMP
rule.
[
39­
27]

°
OSHA
data
covers
all
accidents
and
illnesses
not
just
those
related
or
located
near
the
covered
chemical
process.
[
42­
23;
45­
22;
55­
6]
The
2001
BLS
summary
indicates
that
34%
of
the
occupational
injuries
resulting
in
days
away
from
work
are
musculoskeletal
injuries.
Injuries
such
as
a
twisted
ankle
incurred
while
stepping
off
a
forklift
have
no
cause
and
effect
to
a
potential
chemical
accident.
[
42­
23a]
Attempting
to
assign
a
relationship
could
be
misleading
and
result
in
time
focused
on
RMP
rather
than
fixing
its
employee
safety
issue.
[
42­
24]

°
Most
OSHA
data
does
not
relate
to
the
RMP.
[
44­
16;
45­
22]
The
OSHA
OII
data
includes
injuries
to
workers
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
uncontrolled
releases.
[
31­
5;
44­
17;
76­
9]
For
example,
if
there
were
many
injuries
in
the
warehouse
shipping
operations
or
68
vehicle
accidents
of
a
covered
facility,
that
could
result
in
a
high
OSHA
rate
that
would
not
reflect
anything
about
the
status
of
the
facilities
RMP
program.
[
44­
17a]

°
OSHA
OII
data
cover
a
broad
range
of
potential
injuries
and
illnesses
unrelated
to
Section
112(
r).
The
data
will
not
advance
RMP
program
goals,
nor
will
they
help
EPA
assess
facility
performance
of
RMP
requirements.
[
55­
6]

°
The
OSHA
records
that
the
EPA
is
requesting
would
contain
large
amounts
of
information
concerning
health
and
safety
issues
(
i.
e.
slips,
trips,
and
falls
for
an
entire
facility)
that
in
no
way
may
impact
or
are
part
of
the
regulated
processes.
[
59­
11]

°
Most
injuries
occur
in
the
material
handling
process
(
not
RMP
regulated).
The
most
frequent
injuries
are
sprains,
strains,
pinched
fingers,
etc.
from
handling
containers
and
other
packaging.
[
68­
16]

°
A
large
release/
accident
at
a
facility
can
result
in
injury
and
illness.
However,
since
injuries
and
illnesses
at
a
chemical
facility
can
be
caused
by
a
large
number
of
factors
(
lack
of
hearing
conservation,
ergonomic
issues,
slips
and
falls,
cuts,
etc.)
it
is
not
clear
how
general
injury
and
illness
data
can
be
an
indicator
of
chemical
process
safety.
[
71­
33]

°
OSHA
illness
and
injury
data
may
not
be
related
to
the
regulated
process.
For
example,
among
regulated
food
processing
facilities,
the
majority
of
OSHA
injuries
and
illnesses
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
regulated
ammonia
refrigeration
process.
A
recent
study
of
Swedish
workplace
injury
data
concluded
that
the
majority
of
worker
accidents
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
chemical
or
refrigerant
used
in
a
refrigeration
process;
most
of
the
lost
time
injuries
related
to
conventional
workplace
accidents
such
as
falls,
rotating
machinery,
flying
objects,
etc.
[
72­
29]

°
The
focus
of
the
RMP
five­
year
accident
history
is
to
examine
the
environmental
risks
associated
with
regulated
substances
from
a
process
area
covered
by
the
RMP.
See
61
Fed.
Reg.
31667.
[
75­
1]
A
large
majority
of
they
types
of
illnesses
and
injuries
recorded
on
the
OSHA
300
log
are
probably
not
related
to
RMP
listed
substances
or
covered
processes.
[
75­
2]

°
Recorded
injuries
and
illnesses
may
not
be
the
result
of
chemical
releases,
but
due
to
other
types
of
incidents
in
the
workplace.
[
88­
8]

°
Most
OIIR
reportables
are
not
related
to
the
process
safety
purpose
of
the
RMP.
[
58­
33]

Information
may
not
accurately
reflect
risks
at
a
facility
and
will
not
aid
in
identifying
safety
trends
or
in
statistical
analyses:

°
The
proposed
change
will
not
provide
useful
information
in
determining
risks
associated
with
subject
facility.
[
17­
1]
The
OII
information
covers
the
entire
facility,
not
just
those
injuries
and
illnesses
associated
with
processes
covered
under
the
RMP
[
17­
2;
88­
8].
For
example,
EPA
would
associated
lost
work
days
resulting
from
an
injury
incurred
while
moving
boxes
to
the
process
covered
by
the
RMP.
[
17­
3]
Although
the
facility
may
not
have
injuries
or
illnesses
associated
with
the
covered
process
the
facility
could
be
identified
69
as
a
higher
risk
facility
due
to
injuries
and
illnesses
not
associated
with
the
RMP.
[
17­
3]
This
will
hide
the
true
high­
risk
facilities
by
increased
the
number
of
high­
risk
facilities.
[
17­
4]
EPA
would
be
able
to
determine
the
high­
risk
facilities
by
the
proposed
requirement
of
updating
RMPs
6
months
after
the
occurrence
of
an
accidental
release
that
meets
the
criteria.
This
will
provide
information
faster
than
reviewing
safety
statistics
at
least
every
5
years.
[
17­
7]

°
OSHA
OII
information
is
reported
on
a
facility­
wide
basis,
however,
at
many
RMP
covered
facilities
the
RMP
covered
process
area
makes
up
only
a
very
small
fraction
of
the
overall
site
and
employees
who
work
there.
[
39­
28]
Attempting
to
correlate
facility
wide
recordable
rates
with
localized
RMP
covered
process
information
is
highly
variable
and
not
recommended.
[
39­
29]
While
collecting
this
type
of
facility
wide
data
for
all
covered
sites
may
present
interesting
research
and
development
opportunities
for
academia
in
terms
of
correlating
RMP
incident
histories
with
other
potential
measures
of
plant
safety,
we
do
not
believe
inclusion
of
such
as
a
regulatory
requirement
in
the
RMP
regulations
is
appropriate
and
presents
an
additional
unnecessary
burden
on
sites
already
covered
by
RMP.
[
39­
30]

°
Commenter
disagrees
that
generally
requiring
such
information
will
enhance
the
overall
effectiveness
of
the
accidental
release
prevention
program
or
help
establish
a
causal
link
to
RMP­
related
issues.
[
24­
3]

°
Use
of
OSHA
safety
data
to
evaluate
the
risks
associated
with
a
chemical
process
will
be
biased
and
misleading.
[
42­
20]
EPA
will
obtain
data
only
from
facilities
that
have
an
RMP
and
not
necessarily
across
an
entire
industry
sector.
As
a
result,
a
facility
with
a
very
good
safety
program
compared
to
the
entire
industry
sector
may
have
a
slightly
less
effective
program
than
other
RMP
facilities
in
that
sector.
This
facility
could
be
improperly
rated
as
a
high
risk
for
a
chemical
accident
since
only
RMP
facilities
will
report
data.
[
42­
22]

°
The
potential
for
a
cause
and
effect
relationship
between
the
potential
risk
of
a
chemical
release
at
a
small
portion
of
an
operation
and
data
summarizing
the
employee
safety
of
an
entire
facility
is
minimal
at
best.
[
42­
24a]

°
Submission
of
this
information
could
draw
unfair
attention
to
facilities
required
to
report
under
the
RMP
rule
versus
non­
reporting
industries,
which
in
many
cases
have
injury
rates
that
are
much
higher.
[
67­
15]

°
OII
data
do
not
cover
the
employees
of
contractors,
who
constitute
widely
varying
portions
of
the
total
workforce
at
different
facilities.
Therefore,
any
conclusions
that
may
be
drawn
from
analyzing
the
OII
data
that
the
Agency
proposes
collecting
may
not
correlate
with
accident
prevention
trends
at
RMP­
covered
facilities.
[
88­
9]

°
By
aggregating
the
statistics,
safety
tends
can
not
be
identified
with
the
RMP
submittal.
[
17­
5]
A
facility
that
has
been
reducing
lost
time
injuries
will
be
identical
to
a
facility
with
increasing
lost
time
injuries
if
the
aggregated
lost
time
injuries
are
equal.
EPA
indicated
in
the
preamble
[
to
the
proposed
Rule]
that
there
might
not
be
any
relationship
between
accident
releases
and
safety
levels.
[
17­
6]
70
°
EPA's
proffered
reason
linking
OSHA
data
to
accidental
releases
"
and
a
variety
of
other
elements
driving
chemical
industry
preparedness
and
prevention
activities"
does
not
withstand
closer
scrutiny.
68
Fed.
Reg.
at
45,129.
[
50­
4;
71­
30]
OSHA's
injury
and
illness
recordkeeping
provisions
do
not
require
employers
to
identify
whether
a
reportable
injury
or
illness
resulted
from
an
accidental
release
of
an
RMP
regulated
substance
in
a
process
subject
to
the
rule.
Thus,
without
such
a
link
between
the
reported
injury
or
illness
and
a
release,
there
is
no
way
that
EPA
is
able
to
perform
"
an
objective
analysis
of
any
statistical
relationship
between
levels
of
reported
injuries
and
illnesses,
accidental
releases
and
a
variety
of
other
elements
driving
chemical
industry
preparedness
and
prevention
activities."
[
50­
5;
71­
31]
68
Fed.
Reg.
at
45,129.
Commenter
is
unsure
how
this
information
may
be
of
use
to
the
Agency.
[
50­
5]

°
EPA
cannot
require
data
that
will
be
used
to
link
injury
and
illness
data
with
indicators
on
health
and
safety
at
chemical
facilities
without
also
offering
the
model
or
algorithm
to
be
used
to
correlate
the
two.
[
50­
6]
If
EPA
does
intend
to
use
data
and
some
statistical
analyses
to
understand
the
factors
that
underlie
chemical
process
safety
B
i.
e.,
ultimately
use
the
model/
algorithm
to
target
sectors
or
processes
for
further
regulation
B
then
the
model
to
be
used
must
be
formally
offered
for
public
comment.
[
50­
7]
It
is
impossible
for
the
regulated
community
to
provide
meaningful
discussion
on
data
elements
for
EPA
without
understanding
the
intended
purpose.
Therefore,
even
if
it
is
determined
that
EPA
can
require
submission
of
OSHA
occupational
injury
and
illness
data,
the
Agency
should
remand
this
section
of
the
rulemaking
until
such
time
as
it
can
establish
a
docket
with
the
model
or
algorithm
to
be
used
and
all
supporting
scientific
data
used
to
develop
it.
[
50­
8]
The
federal
and
EPA
data
quality
regulations
require
that
such
models
be
appropriately
peer
reviewed
and
cannot
be
solely
internal
EPA
tools.[
50­
9]

$
Vast
majority
of
OII
data
collected
by
facilities
is
unrelated
to
accidental
or
incidental
chemical
exposures,
the
information
would
be
of
little
or
no
use
to
EPA
in
deriving
statistical
correlations.
[
66­
15]
A
review
of
aggregated
OII
data
alone
would
not
provide
EPA
with
the
type
of
information
necessary
to
perform
the
proposed
trend
analysis
and
could
potentially
lead
to
incomplete
and/
or
inaccurate
observations
and
conclusions.
[
66­
16]

°
If
EPA
collects
data
only
on
a
site­
wide
basis,
injuries
in
non­
RMP
regulated
processes
could
cause
EPA
to
interpret
a
high
incident
rate
as
being
caused
by
RMP
processes
when
in
fact
all
of
the
injuries
occurred
in
non­
RMP
processes.
[
68­
17]

°
EPA's
objective
to
facilitate
analysis
of
trends
in
the
US
chemical
industry
on
accidental
releases
and
the
relationship
of
these,
if
any,
to
facility
safety
levels
is
flawed.
[
38­
26]
Merely
comparing
the
two
on
a
statistical
basis
is
arbitrary
and
discounts
a
host
of
mitigating
factors
between
risk
analysis,
actual
exposure
and
illness.
[
38­
27]

°
Reviewing
the
number
of
reportables
under
OSHA
will
not
yield
the
information
EPA
seeks
to
allow
an
analysis
of
trends
in
the
US
chemical
industry
on
accidental
releases
and
the
relationship
of
these,
if
any,
to
facility
safety
levels.
[
40­
3;
58­
35]
71
°
If
an
injury
is
recorded
on
the
OSHA
300
log
after
an
office
worker
slips
causing
an
ankle
strain,
there
is
a
very
low
probability
of
a
statistical
relationship
when
comparing
this
type
of
office
injury
to
a
potential
catastrophic
environmental
release
in
a
chemical
process.
This
injury
did
not
result
from
direct
exposure
to
toxic
concentrations,
radiant
heat
or
over­
pressurized
processes
that
may
cause
an
accidental
chemical
release.
This
is
one
of
multiple
potential
examples
where
there
is
no
clear
correlation
between
RMP
incidents
and
OSHA
injury
and
illness
data.
[
75­
3]
EPA's
proposal
to
derive
a
statistical
relationship
between
levels
of
reportable
injuries
and
illnesses
and
accidental
releases
is
a
good
attempt;
however,
in
order
to
obtain
a
strict
statistical
correlation,
the
data
input
must
be
free
of
conflicting
variables.
[
75­
4]

°
It
is
not
uncommon
for
a
company
to
report
even
the
most
minor
injury
on
the
OSHA
300
log
in
order
to
avoid
scrutiny
from
OSHA.
Some
companies
will
often
"
over­
report"
as
a
precaution
to
alleviate
line­
by­
line
reviews
of
all
entries
on
the
OSHA
log.
Therefore,
the
data
entered
on
the
OSHA
log
may
have
an
incorrect
statistical
relationship
to
RMP
incidents,
and
possibly
provide
invalid
data
to
the
public
on
environmental
risks
with
respect
to
the
RMP.
[
75­
5]

°
In
many
instances,
drawing
assumptions
from
on­
the­
job
injury
claims
can
mislead
and
misrepresent
actual
environmental
onsite
and
offsite
risk
factors.
[
75­
6]

°
RMP
regulations
are
designed
to
regulate
offsite
impact
of
accidental
releases.
Injury
rates
are
a
function
of
on­
site
safety
(
stewarded
by
OSHA
regulations)
with
many
statistics
related
to
causes
other
than
chemical
reactions.
[
79­
8]

°
While
a
facility's
OSHA
Occupational
Injury
and
Illness
Data
should
correlate
well
with
the
RMP
onsite
employee
injuries
(
as
these
would
be
OSHA
recordable
injuries),
the
OSHA
data
would
not
easily
correlate
with
onsite
injuries
to
contractors
(
as
contractors
keep
separate
OSHA
logs),
offsite
injuries,
offsite
environmental
damage,
evacuations,
or
onsite
or
offsite
property
damage,
which
are
all
major
criteria
used
in
determining
whether
or
not
an
accident
is
considered
an
RMP
accident.
[
32­
13]
As
an
example
of
this
problem,
Wharton
School
researchers
found
that
the
NAICS
code
with
the
greatest
number
of
reported
accidents
was
32411,
or
Petroleum
Refineries
(
192
accidents).
The
group's
OSHA
accident
rates
(
from
BLS
data)
for
the
same
time
period
(
1994­
1999)
are
some
of
the
lowest
injury
and
illness
rates
among
the
manufacturing
sector.
(
Paul
R.
Kleindorfer,
et.
al.,
Accident
Epidemiology
and
the
U.
S.
Chemical
Industry:
Preliminary
Results
from
RMP*
Info.
Working
Paper
00­
01­
15.
The
Wharton
School
at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
(
March
6,
2000).
[
32­
13a]

Collection
of
OSHA
data
does
not
fall
within
EPA's
jurisdiction,
charter,
or
authority
under
CAA
Section
112(
r).
Specifically:

°
This
far
exceeds
EPA's
charter.
[
5­
2]

°
The
proposed
change
exceeds
EPA
authority
under
Section
112(
r)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
[
8­
9;
8­
49].
72
°
It
is
not
clear
how
the
collection
of
OSHA
OII
information
is
consistent
with
the
purposes
of
CAA
Section
112(
r)(
7):
(
1)
Purpose
and
General
Duty
 
It
shall
be
the
objective
of
the
regulations
and
problems
authorized
under
this
subsection
to
prevent
the
accidental
release
and
to
minimize
the
consequences
of
any
such
release
of
any
hazardous
substances
listed
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
3)
or
any
other
extremely
hazardous
substance.
[
71­
28]

°
Authority
under
section
112(
r)
is
limited
to
imposing
reporting
requirements
relating
to
regulated
chemicals
subject
to
the
RMP
program,
Section
112(
7)(
A).
EPA
does
not
have
authority
to
require
submission
of
facility­
wide
injury
and
illness
data
unrelated
to
such
chemicals.
[
8­
49]

°
EPA
should
not
expand
its
jurisdiction
to
intrude
upon
an
OSHA
regulatory
program.
[
8­
50]
Compelling
submission
of
data
required
to
be
maintained,
but
explicitly
determined
to
be
outside
the
scope
of
a
submission
requirement
would
in
effect
overturn
the
other
agency's
rulemaking
action.
[
8­
51]

°
Section
112(
r)(
7)(
D)
provides
that
EPA
is
to
consult
with
other
agencies,
including
OSHA,
to
obtain
assistance
respecting
the
RMP
program.
[
8­
52]
Rather
than
burdening
the
regulated
community
with
a
new
requirement,
EPA
should
follow
the
established
process.
[
8­
52]

°
Proposed
changes
are
outside
the
scope
of
112(
r)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
since
the
vast
majority
of
safety
incidents
captured
in
OSHA
data
are
unrelated
to
accidental
releases.
[
19­
19]
While
reporting
this
information
will
add
little
burden
to
reporting
facilities,
commenter
objects
to
the
proposal
under
the
principle
that
agencies
must
adhere
to
the
bounds
of
statutory
authority.
[
19­
20]

°
It
is
unclear
how
EPA
has
jurisdiction
over
this
type
of
information
or
how
it
is
even
relevant
to
EPA's
mission
of
off­
site
consequences.
[
20­
6]
The
legal
basis
for
this
should
be
explained
in
the
final
Federal
Register
notice.
How
the
worker
accident
and
injury
records
correlate
to
offsite
injuries
and
accidents
should
be
published.
[
20­
6;
20­
7]

°
It
is
difficult
to
see
how
there
could
be
any
significant
connection
between
a
facility's
occupational
safety
record
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
Section
112(
r)'
s
goal.
[
21­
7]
Without
more
explanation
of
the
theory
behind
a
possible
relationship
between
reporting
OII
information
and
the
accidental
release
policy
goals,
it
is
not
appropriate
to
require
facilities
to
report
the
information.
[
21­
8]

°
Providing
such
data
to
EPA
is
not
required
under
the
CAA
or
OSHA
(
see
29
CFR
1904.70).
[
24­
4]

°
OSHA
is
the
appropriate
government
body
to
work
with
employers
regarding
the
tracking
of
occupational
illnesses
or
injuries.
[
27­
13;
similarly
56­
8]
73
°
Determination
of
trends
between
levels
of
reported
injuries
and
illness
or
analyses
of
accidental
releases
based
on
OSHA
data
is
the
responsibility
of
OSHA
and
beyond
EPA's
mission.
[
36­
9]

°
Such
information
is
out
of
the
regulatory
scope
of
EPA.
[
44­
19;
47­
31;
46­
1;
46­
2]

°
EPA
does
not
have
the
authority
to
include
such
information.
[
44­
19;
47­
31;
46­
1;
46­
2
50­
2;
56­
8;
71­
27;
71­
28;
71­
29;
72­
29;
77­
19]

°
Collection
of
such
data
is
the
purview
of
OSHA.
[
56­
8;
77­
19]

°
Submission
of
OSHA
injury
and
illness
data
in
a
facility's
risk
management
plan
is
not
authorized
by
the
Clean
Air
Act.
OSHA
injury
and
illness
data
is
not
mentioned
anywhere
in
CAA
Section
112(
r)(
7)(
B)(
ii).
[
50­
2a;
71­
29]
Given
the
specificity
of
Congress'
drafting
of
CAA
Section
112(
r),
if
Congress
wanted
EPA
to
collect
OSHA
data
as
part
of
the
RMP
it
would
have
stated
so.
[
50­
3]

°
The
review
and
subsequent
regulatory
follow­
up
of
injury
and
illness
data
is
a
responsibility
that
was
given
to
OSHA
and
not
the
EPA.
If
a
correlation
of
worker
injury/
illness
data
with
accidental
release
is
justified,
OSHA
could
revise
their
Process
Safety
Management
Regulations
(
29
CFR
§
1910.119),
which
were
also
required
by
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments.
[
59­
11]

°
These
data
would
include
statistics
not
related
to
injuries
or
illnesses
from
chemical
releases
and,
therefore,
such
information
is
outside
of
the
scope
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
[
67­
16]

°
OSHA
OII
data
includes
injuries
unrelated
to
uncontrolled
releases,
placing
this
information
outside
the
regulatory
scope
of
EPA.
[
76­
9]

°
Commenter
opposes
the
changes
on
statutory
grounds.
[
50­
1]

Implementing
the
proposed
changes
would
be
time­
consuming
or
impose
an
undue
burden
on
facilities:

°
Creates
additional
reporting
burden.
[
72­
28;
25­
12]

°
This
creates
undue
burden
and
waste
excessive
amounts
of
paper
for
both
the
industry
and
EPA.
[
5­
2]

°
Proposed
changes
would
burden
the
regulated
community
with
a
new
requirement.
[
8­
52]

°
Proposed
changes
in
the
RMP
submittal
could
substantially
increase
the
burden
on
reporting
facilities
in
preparing
future
RMPs,
particularly
for
larger
and
more
complex
facilities.
[
10­
8;
49­
12]

°
While
providing
the
OII
information
would
not
be
a
significant
burden
on
facilities,
it
would
take
time
to
aggregate
the
data
over
a
5­
year
period.
[
21­
7]
74
°
The
proposed
data
collection
requirement
is
another
regulatory
burden
on
employers
with
little
safety
and
health
benefit.
[
24­
6]

°
Individuals
that
compile
RMP
data
would
not
be
familiar
with
OSHA
data
and
would
require
assistance
in
collecting
the
data.
The
burden
to
collect
this
data
could
be
significant.
[
32­
10;
32­
11]

°
Reporting
the
data
to
another
agency
will
require
more
time
and
expense
than
realized.
[
33­
2]

°
Requiring
utilities
to
provide
this
information
to
EPA
is
an
additional
burden
that
they
should
not
be
required
to
bear,
especially
when
OSHA
has
the
data
available.
[
36­
10]

°
Including
OSHA
OII
data
presents
an
additional
unnecessary
burden
on
sites
already
covered
by
RMP.
[
39­
30]

°
The
burden
on
the
industry
is
of
no
value.
[
37­
9;
40­
3]

°
Collection
of
OSHA
data
would
pose
significant
additional
burdens
for
some
industry
sectors
as
not
all
facilities
covered
under
RMP
are
required
to
maintain
and
report
this
data.
[
45­
21]

°
To
require
an
additional
report
of
data
already
managed
under
the
jurisdiction
of
another
agency
is
an
unreasonable
requirement
without
demonstrated
need
or
benefit.
[
55­
6]

°
OIIR
incidents
are
more
appropriately
through
OSHA
and
other
employee
safety
programs.
Including
such
incidents
in
RMP
programs
is
simply
redundant
with
no
appreciative
benefit
to
facilities
or
process
safety.
It
would,
however,
create
another
reporting
burden
on
industry
with
no
clear
compensating
value
to
process
safety.
[
58­
36]

°
Proposal
is
unnecessarily
burdensome,
duplicative,
and
of
negligible
value
[
66­
15;
66­
17]

°
Any
change
in
recordkeeping
would
cause
an
additional
burden
on
sites
to
keep
separate
RMP
and
non­
RMP
records.
[
68­
18]

°
The
proposed
changes
would
require
duplicative
work
and
cause
a
burden
to
facilities
with
no
benefit.
[
70­
26]

°
Collection
of
this
information
is
duplicative
with
other
requirements
and
unnecessary.
[
76­
9]

°
Requiring
RMP­
covered
facilities
to
modify
OSHA
OII
data
to
remove
externalities
would
be
very
cumbersome
and
time­
consuming.
[
88­
10;
see
88­
7
through
88­
9
for
discussion
of
`
externalities']

°
The
proposed
requirement
that
RMP
facilities
collect
and
report
OSHA
occupational
and
illness
data
would
simply
be
duplicative.
[
49­
2]
75
OII
data
is
already
reported
to
the
Federal
government
and
available
to
EPA:

°
As
the
injury
and
illness
data
are
already
reported
to
the
Federal
government
through
OSHA,
including
the
data
in
RMP
submittal
would
be
duplicative
and
should
be
discouraged.
[
10­
8;
38­
32;
49­
12;
70­
26]
Commenter
recommends
EPA
and
OSHA
share
the
information
as
necessary.
[
49­
13]

°
The
RMP
is
a
specific
regulatory
requirement.
[
14­
6]
OSHA
has
its
own
programs
and
procedures
and
requirements
associated
with
employee
safety
requirements.
[
14­
7]
These
programs
have
gone
through
great
links
between
themselves
to
create
separate
government
bureaucracies,
of
which
the
regulated
community
is
already
a
part.
[
14­
8]

°
EPA
and
OSHA
should
consider
a
dual
approach
that
is
beneficial
to
both
agencies
and
the
regulated
community;
otherwise
commenter
does
not
support
submitting
OSHA
data
for
an
EPA
regulatory
requirement.
[
14­
11]

°
Commenter
asks
why
it
is
necessary
for
EPA
to
collect
this
information
if
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
collects
data
from
a
representative
sample
of
industries
[
20­
7]

°
With
any
release,
there
is
a
requirement
to
notify
the
National
Response
Center
and
to
provide
a
follow­
up
report.
Is
it
possible
to
use
this
report
for
EPA's
purposes
such
as
monitoring
off­
site
consequences?
[
20­
8]

°
If
EPA
finds
a
need
for
OII
records
for
a
facility,
EPA
ought
to
acquire
these
through
the
OSHA
process
already
in
place
to
obtain
such
records.
[
27­
14]

°
Chemical
Process
Safety
Management
(
PSM)
of
Highly
Hazardous
Chemicals
Program,
OSHA
has
promulgated
requirements
for
preventing
or
minimizing
the
consequences
of
catastrophic
releases
of
toxic,
reactive,
flammable,
or
explosive
chemicals.
In
paragraph
(
m)
of
the
standard,
OSHA
requires
employers
to
investigate
each
incident
that
results
in,
or
could
reasonably
have
resulted
in
a
catastrophic
release
of
highly
hazardous
chemicals
in
the
workplace.
Employers
must
complete
a
report
at
the
conclusion
of
each
investigation
that
includes
the
establishment
of
a
system
to
promptly
address
and
resolve
the
incident
report
findings
including
contract
employees
where
applicable
(
see
paragraph
(
m)(
5)).
This
investigative
information
should
address
EPA's
concerns
regarding
factors
that
underlie
chemical
process
safety.
[
29­
8]
This
information
is
already
gathered
and
analyzed
by
industry
under
OSHA's
PSM
program,
therefore
additional
OSHA
data
supplied
with
RMP
submittal
is
unnecessary
and
would
be
irrelevant.
[
29­
8;
29­
9]

°
Information
is
already
reported
to
OSHA.
[
33­
1;
38­
27;
38­
32;
44­
20;
67­
13;
67­
17;
70­
26;
72­
29;
76­
9]

°
OSHA
has
the
data
available.
[
36­
10;
44­
20]

°
Facilities
should
not
have
to
undertake
the
additional
burden
of
duplicative
reporting
when
the
government
already
has
the
data.
[
38­
28;
38­
32]
This
frustrates
the
purpose
and
goals
of
the
Government
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
and
is
completely
contrary
to
other
efforts
76
currently
underway
within
EPA
to
reduce
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
on
industry
from
regulations.
[
38­
29;
see
also
section
V
of
this
document]

°
Information
is
publically
available
and
EPA
can
access
it
at
any
time.
[
44­
20;
44­
21;
76­
9]

°
For
facilities
currently
reporting
to
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
reporting
such
information
to
EPA
would
be
redundant
and
an
additional
burden
if
the
same
format
could
not
be
used.
[
45­
22]

°
It
is
the
responsibility
of
OSHA
to
address
worker
safety
issues.
[
47­
31;
46­
1;
46­
2]

°
If
EPA
or
other
researchers
are
interested
in
evaluating
OIIR
data,
it
is
available
directly
from
the
Department
of
Labor.
[
58­
37]

°
Information
is
already
available
from
other
governmental
sources
and
EPA
should
obtain
any
relevant
OII
data
directly
from
OSHA.
[
66­
18;
70­
26;
76­
9;
79­
8]

°
Information
is
already
in
the
public
domain
by
virtue
of
being
reported
to
OSHA
and
corresponding
state
agencies.
[
67­
17;
76­
9]

°
EPA
could
better
collect
OSHA
Injury
data
under
a
different
reporting
program
or
through
the
Department
of
Labor.
[
68­
18]

°
Industry
should
not
be
required
to
report
multiple
times
the
information
that
is
already
available
to
the
agency.
[
71­
34]

°
Such
data
is
already
available
by
industry
sector.
EPA
can
work
with
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
to
generate
the
needed
information.
[
71­
35]

°
The
information
is
already
collected
by
OSHA
but
company
specific
information
is
kept
confidential.
[
72­
28]

°
Although
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
records
do
not
represent
a
complete
data
set,
these
data
should
provide
representative
information.
[
79­
8]

°
Note
to
EPA:
SRA
believes
comment
25­
12
refers
to
Section
III
of
the
proposed
Rule,
but
the
commenter
is
unclear.
EPA
does
not
need
this
information,
the
data
is
readily
given
to
OSHA.
Is
EPA
going
to
start
collecting
data
for
OSHA?
The
data
are
of
no
concern
to
EPA.
Let
OSHA
do
their
job.
[
25­
12]

OII
data
is
already
included
in
the
RMP
and
other
sources
and
available
to
EPA:

°
The
accident
history
section
of
the
RMP
data
elements
is
the
best
place
for
this
information
to
be
reviewed.
The
accident
history
section
already
contains
information
on
injuries
and
deaths
from
facilities
with
releases
reportable
in
this
section.
[
11­
9]
77
°
Covered
sources
are
already
required
to
maintain
accident
and
illness
injury
logs.
Revising
the
data
elements
to
include
this
information
will
be
adequate
for
EPA
to
get
all
necessary
information
on
types
of
injuries
and
how
they
occurred.
[
11­
11]
Access
of
any
further
information
would
otherwise
be
easily
accessible
at
facilities
during
inspections,
audits,
and/
or
special
request.
[
]
°
Such
information
is
available
through
other
OSHA
data
collection
initiatives.
[
24­
5]

°
The
5­
year
accident
history
section
of
the
RMP
already
requires
facilities
to
identify
all
offsite
and
onsite
impacts
associated
with
each
accidental
release.
[
31­
5]

°
The
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
established
EPA's
RMP
regulation
for
the
protection
of
receptors
beyond
a
facility's
fence­
line,
while
OSHA's
Process
Safety
Management
(
PSM)
Standard
covers
the
protection
of
its
onsite
operations
and
staff
personnel.
These
onsite
accident
data
records
are
already
required
to
be
maintained
in
the
source
files
for
review
by
OSHA
inspectors.
[
51­
15]

Submitting
data
elements
that
military
facilities
and
other
Federal
agencies
are
not
required
to
maintain
would
be
difficult
to
effectively
implement:

°
Military
facilities
do
not
maintain
the
data
elements
specified
in
29
CFR
part
1904
because
they
are
subject
instead
to
separate
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
in
29
CFR
part
1960.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
part
1960
applies
only
to
civilian
injuries
and
illnesses,
as
part
1960
defines
the
term
"
employee"
to
exclude
members
of
the
Armed
Forces.
[
31­
6]

°
Even
if
military
facilities
were
subject
to
29
CFR
part
1904,
they
would
find
it
difficult
to
obtain
facility­
wide
data.
Unlike
private
industry,
our
facilities
may
have
multiple
safety
offices
associated
with
the
various
major
commands
and
tenant
activities
that
are
located
on
an
installation.
[
31­
7]
Each
safety
office
maintains
the
data
required
by
29
CFR
part
1960
and
reports
information
up
their
respective
and
separate
chains
of
command.
[
31­
8]
For
example,
at
Naval
Base
Ventura
County
in
Port
Hueneme,
California,
the
Naval
Facilities
Engineering
Service
Center
(
NFESC)
has
a
safety
officer
who
collects
and
maintains
the
worker
injury
and
illness
reporting
forms
required
by
29
CFR
part
1960.
The
NFESC
safety
officer
reports
this
information
to
NFESC's
major
command
(
Naval
Facilities
Engineering
Command)
in
Washington
DC.
The
Naval
Surface
Warfare
Center,
also
located
at
Port
Hueneme,
has
its
own
safety
officer,
who
reports
29
CFR
part
1960
information
to
its
major
command
(
Naval
Sea
Systems
Command)
in
Washington
DC.
There
are
several
other
safety
officers
at
Port
Hueneme.
[
31­
8a]
It
would
be
a
significant
effort
for
the
person
preparing
an
RMP
to
track
down
and
consolidate
all
of
the
injury
and
illness
information
for
a
single
military
installation.
[
31­
9]

Information
may
not
be
readily
available:

°
Public
utilities
in
some
states
are
not
required
by
OSHA
to
maintain
this
information.
[
22­
10]
78
°
Each
facility
keeps
OII
records
on
a
site­
wide
basis;
they
are
not
broken
down
by
chemical
or
process.
[
68­
14a,
68­
18;
similarly
39­
28]

°
Many
sources
are
not
regulated
and
don't
track
this
information,
while
others
are
required
to
maintain
an
OSHA
log,
but
are
not
required
and
don't
track
incident
rates.
[
71­
34]

°
Total
Incident
Rate
is
not
required
by
OSHA
[
in]
29
CFR
Part
1904.
[
29­
3;
29­
4]
The
total
incident
rate
does
not
appear
on
any
of
the
three
forms
required
by
OSHA
for
recordkeeping,
OSHA
Form
301,
Injury
and
Illness
Incident
Report;
OSHA
Form
300,
Log
of
Work­
Related
Injuries
and
Illnesses;
and
OSHA
Form
300
A,
Summary
of
Work
 
Related
Injury
and
Illness.
[
29­
4b]
Total
incident
rate
can
be
calculated
from
data
on
Form
300A,
but
the
calculation
is
not
required
by
OSHA.
[
29­
5]

Incorporating
the
proposed
changes
would
shift
focus
away
from
addressing
safety
issues
and
improving
security
of
hazardous
materials
°
Businesses
are
strapped
with
many
increasing
and
additional
costs
following
September
11,
2001.
Energy
and
time
should
be
directed
toward
improving
handling
and
securing
hazardous
materials.
[
33­
3]

°
Attempting
to
assign
a
relationship
between
OSHA
data
and
routine
musculoskeletal
injuries
could
be
misleading
and
result
in
time
focused
on
RMP
rather
than
fixing
employee
safety
issues.
[
42­
24]

°
Incorporation
of
OIIR
data
could
shift
the
focus
away
from
process
safety
 
process
safety
accident
prevention
and
emergency
response
preparedness
by
trying
to
redirect
resources
to
address
non­
process
related
incidents.
[
58­
34]

Commenters
question
EPA's
need
for
and
use
of
the
data:

°
It
remains
unclear
how
this
data,
unless
screened
for
pertinent
chemical
accident
related
information
an
provided
to
the
delegated
agencies
in
such
a
format
would
be
of
use
in
implementing
RMP.
[
45­
23]

°
EPA
has
inadequately
explained
how
such
information
would
be
useful
to
it
in
the
investigation
of
past
RMP
accidents
and
in
the
prevention
of
future
ones.
[
47­
30;
46­
1;
46­
2]

°
The
proposed
rule
provides
no
explanation
of
EPA's
use
of
these
data
and
their
practical
utility
in
supporting
the
intent
of
RMPs
to
protect
sensitive
receptors
beyond
the
facility
perimeters.
[
56­
8;
77­
19]

°
There
would
be
no
way
to
segregate
the
small
amount
of
relevant
data
from
the
majority
of
irrelevant
data.
[
8­
48]

°
OSHA
5­
year
aggregate
lost
time
accident
information
provides
no
additional
benefit
to
the
RMP
documentation.
[
14­
5;
14­
6]
79
°
No
added
benefit
is
seen
for
EPA
to
spend
time
examining
loss
time
accident
report
information.
[
14­
7]

°
The
benefit
and
usefulness
of
collecting
such
information
to
improve
chemical
accident
prevention
would
be
highly
questionable.
[
32­
10;
32­
12]

°
EPA
has
not
thought
out
how
OII
data
could
be
useful
for
analyses.
[
37­
7]
Imposing
such
a
reporting
burden
on
industry
has
no
realistic
value.
[
37­
9]
°
It
is
not
clear
how
OII
can
be
used
as
indicators
of
safety
at
chemical
facility
in
regards
to
the
purpose
of
RMP
as
EPA
claims.
[
71­
32]

Commenter
stated
other
objections
to
including
OII
data
in
the
RMP
°
Including
data
elements
that
are
at
best
tangential
to
RMPs
is
counterproductive.
There
must
be
better
methods
of
studying
work
place
incidents
[
than]
the
method
proposed.
[
28­
13]

°
It
is
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
make
a
worker
incidence
and
injury
recordkeeping
requirement
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
an
enforceable
reporting
requirement
in
40
CFR
part
68.
It
would
be
more
appropriate
to
make
these
voluntary
(
optional)
RMP
data
elements.
[
31­
10]

°
Proposal
is
burdensome,
duplicative,
and
of
negligible
value
[
66­
15]

°
Information
is
not
germane
to
the
RMP.
[
22­
10]

3.
Clarifications
and
Suggestions
Commenters
suggest
proposed
changes
to
the
RMP
and
provide
suggestions
on
implementation
the
proposed
Rule:

°
Commenter
proposed
an
addition
of
a
summary
box
to
the
accident
history
section
of
the
data
elements
and
how
the
accidents
occurred
instead
of
the
additional
summary
requirement.
[
11­
10]

°
Commenter
proposes
the
removal
of
PSM
or
RMP
provisions
that
seem
to
overlap.
[
14­
10]

°
OSHA
uses
BLS
information
analyze
on­
site
safety
to
effectively
manage
its
regulations
and
strategies.
EPA
should
consider
the
same
approach.
[
79­
8]

Commenter
requests
clarification
if
EPA
implements
change:

°
Commenter
questions
the
additional
value
derived
in
improving
RMP
by
requiring
submission
of
OSHA
occupational
injury
and
illness
statistics
with
future
RMP
submissions.
[
16­
2]
However,
if
EPA
proceeds
with
the
proposal,
commenter
recommends
clarifying
that
only
illnesses
and
injuries
occurring
as
result
of
accidental
chemical
releases
80
should
be
included
in
these
data
submissions.
The
discussion
in
Section
III
of
the
Preamble
is
unclear
in
that
regard.
[
16­
3]

°
If
the
OSHA
data
are
to
be
meaningful,
EPA
should
require
that
the
data
be
separated
out
such
that
injuries
occurring
in
RMP
regulated
processes
are
separated
from
non­
RMP
processes.
[
68­
15]

AGENCY
RESPONSE
The
Agency
recognizes
the
multiple
issues
that
are
associated
with
the
collection
of
OSHA
injury
and
illness
data
in
conjunction
with
the
RMP
and
appreciates
the
very
detailed
comments
received.
As
this
was
not
a
proposed
element,
the
Agency
will
reserve
judgement
on
whether
and
how
to
gather
additional
data,
and
will
consider
all
comments
if
at
a
later
time,
it
decides
to
propose
additional
RMP
data
elements
for
such
information.
81
IV.
Other
Issues
Three
commenters
noted
public
involvement
and
communications
concerns.
Of
these,
two
commenters
provided
suggestions
on
improving
information
sharing
and
public
access
of
records.
In
Section
IV.
B
of
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
provided
an
analysis
of
the
information
collection
requirements
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
USC
3501
et
seq.
Four
commenters
questioned
EPA's
analysis
of
the
paperwork
burden
required
to
implement
the
proposed
changes.
One
commenter
questioned
an
issue
raised
in
the
September
10,
2003
CEPPO
Newsletter.
One
commenter
questioned
including
worst
case
scenario
information
in
the
RMP
Submit
software.
One
commenter
suggested
a
timeline
for
implementing
the
proposed
changes.
Another
commenter
suggested
a
deadline
for
full
accident
reports.
One
questioned
resubmission
requirements
triggered
by
PHAs.
One
commenter
requested
EPA
provide
a
list
of
Regional
RMP
contact
information.
A
numbering
change
for
the
final
Rule
was
suggested
by
a
commenter.

Commenters
submitted
comments
on
other
issues
as
follows.

Public
involvement
and
communications
°
It
is
highly
irregular
and
discriminatory
that
there
is
no
consideration
of
the
general
public
as
being
affected
by
these
regulations.
The
general
public
should
be
highly
notified
so
they
can
comment.
[
2­
1]

°
EPA
should
develop
a
system
to
share
statistical
information
and
lessons
learned
from
accidents
via
its
website.
[
8­
5;
8­
7;
8­
40]
Establishing
a
web
page
to
distribute
information
would
be
extremely
valuable
to
the
regulated
community.
[
8­
41]
EPA
might
consider
providing
a
Q&
A
document
that
would
answer
questions
about
what
would
meet
the
criteria
to
revise
an
RMP
plan.
Sample
scenarios
would
be
useful
to
demonstrate
what
would
trigger
a
revision.
[
8­
42]

°
Critical
to
the
public's
use
of
the
RMP
data
is
being
able
to
access
previously­
submitted
RMPs.
Currently,
only
the
most
recently
filed
RMP
is
available
which
makes
it
impossible
to
know
whether
changes
have
been
made
to
reduce
the
potential
impacts
of
the
facility.
[
26­
12]
Being
able
to
determine
the
impact
of
potential
changes
is
especially
important
with
the
next
round
of
updates
dues
in
June
2004.
[
26­
13]
EPA
should
ensure
that
the
public
has
ready
access
to
prior
RMPs
to
assess
whether
facilities
are
making
sufficient
progress
in
reducing
hazards.
[
26­
14]

Paperwork
Reduction
Act
°
The
total
annual
burden
estimated
by
EPA
amounts
to
approximately
2
¼
hours
per
year
at
an
average
cost
of
about
$
30
per
hour.
Senior
environmental,
regulatory
and
management
personnel
are
usually
the
individuals
responsible
for
RMP
compliance
in
most
companies,
and
their
fully
loaded
overhead
costs
will
range
from
$
50­
100
per
hour.
RMP
consultants
charge
from
$
75­
100
per
hour,
or
more.
The
total
time
required
to
comply
with
the
changes
is
like1y
to
be
3­
5
times
that
estimated
by
EPA.
Total
annual
burden
will
more
realistically
exceed
$
5
million
per
year.
[
72­
30]

$
EPA
has
grossly
underestimated
both
the
time
and
cost
in
its
analysis
of
burden
on
industry
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
changes.
EPA
should
conduct
a
more
thorough
82
investigation
and
analysis
before
promulgating
any
changes.
In
determining
the
cost
to
familiarize,
update,
and
submit
a
plan
EPA
underestimates
the
cost
at
about
$
30.00
per
hour
($
992,400/
33,943).
[
79­
9]

$
Requiring
submitters
to
duplicate
reporting
efforts
between
agencies
frustrates
the
purpose
and
goals
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
and
is
contrary
to
EPA's
efforts
to
reduce
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burdens
on
industry.
[
38­
29]

$
Technical
and
law
review,
staff
meetings,
and
management
reviews
in
familiarization
and
commenting
on
the
proposed
regulations
average
a
total
of
about
2.0
hours
per
facility.
However,
updating
the
RMP
Plan
requires
a
thorough
review
of
facility
records
to
confirm
accidental
release
information,
engineering
and
technical
reviews
of
facility
chemical
volumes
and
weights,
analysis
and
verification
of
OCA
data
using
RMP*
Comp
or
other
modeling
method,
other
facility
specific
facility
information
and
RMP
data
element
information.
Alone,
these
reviews
could
range
from
30
to
50
hours
per
facility.
RMP*
Submit
data
entry
report
preparation
and
Law
review
and
Certification
Signature
Review
could
ultimately
take
about
4.0
hours
per
facility.
Cost
of
implementing
change
of
emergency
contact
information
without
a
requirement
to
decertify
the
remainder
of
the
plan
would
take
about
2.0
hours
per
facility.
The
cost
to
update
an
RMP
Plan
is
more
realistically
in
the
$
70.00
to
$
100.00
per
hour
range.
[
79­
9]

Description
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
EPA
No.
of
Facilities
Cost
Familiarization
2.0
$
85.00
1,150
(
Releases
Updates)
$
195,500
Review/
Analysis
of
Facility
Information
40.0
$
85.00
1,150
(
Releases
Updates)
$
3,910,000
RMP*
Submit
Preparation/
Review/
Signatur
e
4.0
$
85.00
1,150
(
Releases
Updates)
$
391,000
Change
of
Emergency
Contact
(
1
per
year)
2.0
$
85.00
14,930
(
Total
Facilities)
$
2,538,100
Total
Per
Year
34.0
$
85.00
­­­
$
7,034,600
[
79­
9]

September
10,
2003
CEPPO
Newsletter
°
The
September
10,
2003
CEPPO
Newsletter
raised
a
very
important
issue
linked
to
but
not
addressed
in
the
proposed
rule,
specifically:
Please
note
that
RMPs
submitted
before
amendments
are
finalized
and
effective
in
early
2004
may
need
to
be
resubmitted
to
ensure
compliance
with
any
new
data
requirements.
(
Emphasis
added
by
commenter)
[
58­
39]
83
If
EPA
intends
to
require
facilities
that
submit
RMPs
before
any
amendments
are
finalized
and
effective,
to
re­
submit
these
RMPs,
EPA
must
propose
and
take
comment
on
such
a
policy
position
through
the
rulemaking
process,
not
through
a
newsletter
which
may
or
may
not
reach
all
members
of
the
RMP
universe.
[
58­
39]
Commenter
strongly
opposes
such
an
EPA
proposal.
Not
only
does
this
add
to
the
significant
cost
and
resource
burden
associated
with
the
re­
submittal
and
re­
certification
of
the
RMP;
it
also
exceeds
EPA's
statutory
authority.
The
RMP
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
do
not
allow
EPA
to
promulgate
regulations
to
apply
retroactively.
Any
RMP
submitted
prior
to
the
effectiveness
of
any
amendments
should
be
continue
to
be
governed
by
the
regulations
in
place
at
the
time
the
RMP
was
submitted.[
58­
40]

Re­
submission
Requirements
Triggered
by
PHAs
°
Commenter
requests
that
EPA
address
in
more
detail
about
when
to
resubmit
the
RMP
following
a
Process
Hazards
Analysis
(
PHA).
The
wording
in
the
regulation
is
somewhat
vague
on
this
point
and
gives
the
impressions
that
whenever
a
PHA
is
done,
it
may
be
necessary
to
resubmit.
Commenter
notes
that
there
are
situations
in
which
a
facility
will
perform
a
PHA
that
does
not
result
in
an
inventory
change
or
change
in
an
offsite
consequence
distance
(
e.
g.,
incident
evaluation,
classification
of
instruments
for
Safety
Instrumented
Systems
purposes,
establishing
maintenance
priorities,
developing
facility
siting
scenarios,
and
identifying
emergency
shutdown
systems
and
controls
consistent
with
ISA
publication
91.00.01).
[
20­
15]
Some
change
management
approaches
may
utilize
a
scaled
down
HAZOP
or
checklist,
which
could
be
construed
as
a
PHA
and
would
require
filing
the
RMP
for
a
relatively
minor
change.
Commenter
does
not
believe
that
it
is
EPA's
intent
to
submit
the
RMP
for
every
MOC.
[
20­
16]

°
Commenter
requests
that
EPA
document
that
the
Security
and
Vulnerability
Analyses
required
by
the
ACC
code
and
others
is
not
an
item
that
triggers
resubmission
of
the
RMP.
[
20­
17]
Commenter
suggests
that
the
best
approach
would
be
to
resubmit
if
there
is
a
change
in
the
RMP
information
as
defined
by
RMP
Submit,
and
minimize
the
involvement
of
the
PHA.
[
20­
18]

°
Commenter
favors
a
regular
five­
year
resubmission
plus
a
rebuilding
major
modification
and
inventory
criteria
as
opposed
to
vague
PHA
criterion.
[
20­
15]

Other
comments
°
The
worst
case
and
alternative
release
scenario
sections
in
the
RMP
Submit
software
should
require
more
information
so
that
auditors
can
recreate
the
calculations.
[
23­
13]
At
a
minimum,
dimensions
for
dikes
and
buildings
for
passive
mitigation
should
be
included,
as
well
as
release
rates
for
the
flammable
scenarios.
[
23­
14]
This
information
is
already
required
to
be
maintained
at
the
facility
and
would
not
pose
more
burden
on
the
facility
but
would
greatly
assist
RMP
auditors.
[
23­
15]

°
The
RMP
Submit
format
should
also
include
in
Section
1.17
for
process(
es)
to
clarify
that
this
is
to
represent
the
maximum
inventory
of
the
regulated
substance
at
any
one
time
in
the
process.
[
23­
11]
The
Emergency
Response
Section
of
the
software
should
explain
the
regulations
in
more
detail.
Many
facilities
are
under
the
impression
that
they
should
check
84
"
yes"
for
all
sections
since
most
have
an
emergency
response
plan
(
versus
an
emergency
response
program).
[
23­
12]

°
EPA
is
strongly
encouraged
to
consider
waiting
to
make
these
changes
to
the
RMP
Rule
until
after
the
June
2004
RMP
submissions,
as
this
will
give
EPA
the
opportunity
to
review
accident
history
data
for
a
full
10
year
period
to
better
understand
what
truly
is
needed
to
improve
the
chemical
accident
prevention
programs.
[
32­
17]

°
A
full
accident
report
should
be
submitted
within
2
days
or
a
fine
of
$
50,000
shall
result.
[
2­
2]

°
Section
68.190(
e)(
3)
reads:
"
De­
registrations
(
revised
registrations)
under
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section"
needs
to
be
changed
to
"
under
paragraph
(
d)"
since
the
proposed
amendment
paragraph
(
c)
will
be
predesignated
paragraph
(
d).
[
3­
1]

°
EPA
needs
to
make
significant
modifications
to
its
proposed
rule
prior
to
promulgation.
The
agency
needs
to
better
analyze
the
deficiencies
in
the
current
rule
and
make
only
those
changes
that
would
enhance
the
rule.
[
47­
32]

°
EPA
seems
to
anticipate
industry's
objections
to
changes
in
the
submissions
and
downplays
any
additional
burden
the
alterations
would
place
on
submitters.
Facilities
would
have
to
resubmit
a
new
RMP
after
an
accident
which
does
require
more
time;
however,
EPA
makes
a
strong
point
that
as
long
as
no
additional
accidents
occur,
a
resubmission
is
not
required
for
5
years.
The
commenter
believes
that
although
a
slight
increase
in
work
might
occur
after
and
accident,
the
safety
benefits
of
accurate
reporting
should
outweigh
this
additional
work.
[
57­
9;
57­
10]

$
EPA
leaves
many
questions
unanswered
by
not
discussing
the
availability
of
RMP
information
to
interested
parties
in
the
proposed
rule.
[
57­
23]
EPA
removed
RMPs
from
its
website
shortly
after
9/
11,
leaving
RTK
NET,
as
the
sole
provider
of
online
public
access
to
RMP
information
B
only
executive
summaries.
Information
is
available
in
EPA
reading
rooms
but
this
access
has
been
inconsistent
and
poses
barriers
to
people
who
live
far
from
reading
rooms
or
work
during
normal
business
hours.
[
57­
24;
57­
39;
57­
40;
57­
41]

$
The
value
of
many
of
the
EPA
proposed
changes
diminishes
if
easy
public
access
is
not
available.
[
57­
25]
EPA
is
obligated
by
law
to
provide
RMP
information
to
the
public.
[
57­
26]
Amounts
of
chemicals
lowered
in
many
cases
and
some
facilities
switched
to
safer
chemicals.
There
are
clear
benefits
from
unrestricted
public
access.
However
without
online
access
the
RMP
fails
as
a
tool
for
the
public
to
increase
its
awareness
about
vulnerabilities
and
take
measures
to
correct
them.
[
57­
27]
The
commenter
suggests
that
EPA
immediately
report
the
RMP
information.
[
57­
28]

$
EPA
should
solicit
additional
accident
cause
options
or
subcategories
of
current
options.
[
57­
35]

$
EPA
should
address
the
reduced
and
restricted
public
access
to
RMP
information
that
continues
regardless
of
EPA's
legal
obligations.
[
57­
36]
85
°
Commenter
requests
that
EPA
update
and
reissue
the
General
Guidance
Document
with
examples
showing
what
caliber
of
changes
and
PHA's
require
resubmitting
the
RMP.
Commenter
cites
following
reasons
for
filing
RMPs:
(
1)
rebuilding
or
modification
of
25
percent
of
a
unit
even
if
end
point
distance
is
not
changed;
(
2)
change
of
owner
or
operator.
The
change
of
owner
or
operator
constitutes
a
minor
change
that
EPA
is
proposing.
[
20­
18;
20­
19]

Contact
Information
°
Commenter
suggests
that
EPA
list
and
provide
contact
information
for
EPA
Regional
RMP
contacts
on
their
respective
web
sites,
noting
difficulties
in
finding
appropriate
EPA
RMP
staff
in
the
Regions.
Commenter
also
suggests
that
searches
on
EPA
websites
provide
a
description
of
the
person
responsible
or
how
to
contact
the
appropriate
person.
[
20­
24;
20­
25]

Note
to
EPA:
Letter
54
appears
to
be
a
letter
from
Monroe
County
Board
of
Commissioners
to
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
and
does
not
pertain
to
the
proposed
Rule.
A
summary
of
the
letter
follows.

°
On
July
21,
2003,
Monroe
County
Commissioners
were
in
attendance
of
a
public
hearing
held
by
the
MDEQ
in
the
Village
of
Dundee
concerning
the
burning
of
alternative
fuels
at
the
Holcim
Cement
Plant
in
Dundee
Township.
Neither
your
office
nor
Holcim
has
developed
a
comprehensive
emergency
plan
that
addresses
responding
to
an
accidental
emissions
release
or
potential
emergency
caused
by
the
use
of
alternative
fuels.
°
During
the
hearing,
Commissioner
Zorn
offered
the
assistance
of
the
Monroe
County
Emergency
Management
Division
as
they
have
the
expertise
to
develop
such
plans
and
to
date;
the
MDEQ
nor
Holcim
has
contacted
our
staff.
According
to
the
Federal
Register
dated
July
31,
2003,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
proposing
to
modify
the
risk
management
planning
regulations
mandating
under
the
accidental
release
prevention
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
require
owners
and
operators
of
stationary
sources
to
submit
risk
management
plans
to
be
made
available
to
federal,
state
and
local
emergency
planning
and
response
agencies
and
to
the
public
through
a
central
location.
°
The
Monroe
County
Board
of
Commissioners
hereby
requests
to
go
on
record
urging
the
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
to
request
that
an
emergency
plan
be
developed
that
will
reflect
the
responsibilities
of
the
company,
state,
township
and
county
before
any
permit
is
approved
that
would
allow
the
use
and
burning
of
alternative
fuels.

AGENCY
RESPONSE
The
Agency
agrees
that
it
is
extremely
important
to
provide
public
access
to
this
process,
as
well
as
to
RMP
data.
Publication
of
this
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
provides
all
stakeholders,
including
the
public,
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
regulatory
process.

RMPs,
except
for
the
OCA
portions
(
sections
2
through
5),
continue
to
be
available
to
the
public
upon
request
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA).
The
OCA
sections
are
available
to
the
public
in
government
reading
rooms
as
provided
under
the
CSISSFRRA
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
1400.
The
public
may
obtain
access
to
both
new
and
old
RMPs
so
long
as
the
RMPs
remain
government
records
86
subject
to
FOIA.
Members
of
the
public
may
thus
compare
new
and
old
RMPs
to
determine
whether
and
what
changes
have
occurred
at
a
facility.
EPA
has
yet
to
decide
to
what
extent
RMPs
(
without
the
OCA
sections)
may
be
returned
to
the
Agency's
website.
EPA
continues
to
confer
with
federal
law
enforcement
and
security
agencies
about
this
matter.

EPA
reviewed
the
comments
regarding
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
estimated
burdens
and
recognizes
the
range
of
burdens
that
may
be
associated
with
an
update
and
re­
submission
of
an
RMP,
particularly
for
large
facilities.
However,
the
Agency
decided
not
to
require
facilities
to
update
and
resubmit
their
RMPs
following
a
reportable
accident;
facilities
will
only
have
to
add
information
about
such
accidents
to
their
accident
histories.
The
estimated
projections
by
the
commenters
were
for
the
update
and
re­
submission
requirement
and
are
thus
too
high
for
the
final
reporting
requirement.
The
Agency
used
more
conservative
cost
estimates
that
reflect
the
lower
burden
of
the
reporting
requirement
ultimately
established.

EPA
shared
some
commenters'
concern
that
facilities
that
submitted
their
initial
RMP
prior
to
June
21,
1999,
might
be
required
to
submit
an
updated
RMP
prior
to
the
rule's
promulgation
and
then
a
correction
of
that
updated
RMP
once
the
rule
had
taken
effect.
As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
the
Agency
is
clarifying
that
its
regulations
require
RMPs
initially
due
on
June
21,
1999
to
be
updated
by
June
21,
2004,
not
before.
For
those
early
filers
that
submitted
their
RMPs
before
the
initial
deadline
of
June
21,
1999,
and
that
received
EPA
correspondence
indicating
an
earlier
due
date
for
their
update,
that
earlier
date
does
not
reflect
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
five­
year
update
provision.
EPA
anticipates
that
the
vast
majority
of
RMPs
initially
submitted
by
June
21,
1999
will
be
updated
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
on
or
close
to
June
21,
2004.
EPA
has
therefore
selected
June
21,
2004
as
the
start
date
for
complying
with
the
new
reporting
requirements
established
by
today's
rule.
Accordingly,
as
of
June
21,
2004,
all
current
RMPs
on
file
with
EPA
must
include
the
new
emergency
contact,
contractor,
and
RMP
submission
type
information
required
by
today's
rule.
RMP
updates
submitted
prior
to
June
21,
2004
without
this
information
will
have
to
be
corrected
to
include
this
information
by
June
21,
2004.
RMPs
not
being
updated
by
June
21,
2004
will
also
have
to
be
corrected
to
include
this
information
by
the
June
21,
2004
deadline.
EPA
plans
to
have
in
place
an
Internet­
based
system
for
adding
this
information
that
should
reduce
the
burden
of
having
to
supply
the
information
separate
from
any
RMP
update.
The
June
21,
2004
start
date
also
applies
to
the
new
requirement
to
include
in
RMP
accident
histories
information
about
reportable
accidents
within
six
months
of
the
accident.
In
other
words,
the
accident
reporting
requirements
of
today's
rule
apply
only
to
accidents
that
occur
on
or
after
June
21,
2004.

The
Agency
is
currently
assessing
the
concerns
raised
by
comments
regarding
the
update
and
resubmissions
triggers,
particularly
for
the
Process
Hazards
Analysis
(
PHA)
criteria,
and
will
work
with
stakeholders
to
clarify
them
though
revised
guidance.

The
Agency
encourages
the
use
of
EPA's
website
as
a
source
of
information,
particularly
contact
information.
The
Agency
endeavors
to
keep
such
information
current
and
easily
accessible
for
all
stakeholders
to
use.
87
Appendix
LIST
OF
COMMENTERS
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0001
Accidental
Release
Prevention
Requirements:
Risk
Management
Program
Requirements
Under
Clean
Air
Act
Section
112(
r)(
7);
Amendments
to
the
Submission
Schedule
and
Data
Requirements.
40
CFR
Part
68.
July
31,
2003.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0002
B.
Sachau,
Citizen
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0003
South
Carolina
Department
of
Health
and
Environmental
Control.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0004
Chris
Korleski,
Legal
Department
Honda
America,
MFG,
Inc.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0005
Keith
Frick,
ERS
Manager
UAP
Richter.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0006
David
J.
Kolaz,
Chief
Bureau
of
Air,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
attached
specific
comments
not
included
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0007
Angela
Deconti,
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA).
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0008
Angela
Deconti,
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)
(
attachment
to
#
7).
10
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0009
Robert
J.
Barkanic,
Manager,
Environmental
Management,
PPL
Services,
Corp.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0010
John
C.
Farnan,
General
Superintendant,
Association
of
Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0011
Michael
Chapman,
RMP
Specialist,
Tyson
Foods.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0012
Michael
Chapman,
RMP
Specialist,
Tyson
Foods.
1
page.
(
Duplicate)
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0013
Daniel
Hedrick,
Environmental
Specialist
II,
Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0014
Daniel
Hedrick,
Environmental
Specialist
II,
Associated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.
4
pages.
(
e­
mail
­
comments
are
in
#
14)
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0015
Timothy
Gablehouse,
Chair,
Jefferson
County
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committee.
3
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0064
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0016
Mark
Steinberg,
Air
Quality
Manager,
SC
Johnson
and
Son,
Inc.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0017
Robert
Ribbing,
Environmental
Manager,
Fleischmann's.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0018
Rob
Gronewold,
Corporate
Environmental
Affairs,
Tesoro
Petroleum
Corporation.
1
page.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0081
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0019
Daniel
Riley,
Vice
President,
Governmental
Affairs,
Tesoro
Petroleum
Corporation.
4
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0020
Robert
Hofstra,
PE
(
Texas).
7
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0021
James
T.
McIntyre,
McIntyre
Law
Firm.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0022
Homer
Emery,
Senior
Environmental
Scientist,
San
Antonio
Water
Systems.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0023
Ohio
Environmental
Protections
Agency.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0024
Thomas
O'Connor,
Director
of
Technical
Service,
National
Grain
and
Feed
Association.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0025
Greg
Clements.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0026
Carol
Andres,
Environmental
Defense.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0027
Ted
Steichen,
American
Petroleum
Institute.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0028
Croplife
America.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0029
Susan
Prior,
CleanHarbors.
2
pages.
88
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0030
Howard
H.
Wines
III,
CalARP
Issue
Coordinator,
California
Cupa
Forum.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0031
Donald
R.
Schregardus,
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
of
the
Navy
(
Environment),
Department
of
the
Navy;
Clean
Air
Services
Steering
Committee,
representing
Depts
of
Navy,
Air
Force,
Army,
and
other
DoD
components
and
agencies.
6
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0032
R.
M.
Johnson,
Director,
Health
and
Safety,
International
Paper.
5
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0033
Dave
Jenkins,
UAP
Midwest.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0034
Stephen
E.
Woock,
Federal
Regulatory
Affairs
Manager,
Weyerhauser.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0035
Diane
VanDe
Hei,
Executive
Director,
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0036
Diane
VanDe
Hei,
Executive
Director,
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies.
Attachment
to
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0035.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0037
John
L.
Festa,
Ph.
D.,
Senior
Scientist,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0038
Alison
Keane,
Counsel,
Government
Affairs,
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0039
David
E.
Cummings,
Manager,
DuPont
Global
Process
Safety
Program.
6
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0063
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0040
Nancy
D.
Stephens,
CAE,
Executive
Director,
Florida
Minerals
and
Chemistry
Council.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0041
Cheryl
Tinsley,
indepmo.
org.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0042
James
T.
Van
Horn,
Manager
Environmental
Engineering,
Smurfit­
Stone
Container
Corporation.
5
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0043
Dwayne
Mundy,
Director
of
Public
Safety
and
Regulatory
Compliance,
North
Central
Florida
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committee.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0044
Dennis
Bolt,
Bay
Area
Coordinator,
Western
States
Petroleum
Association.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0045
Colleen
Castille,
Secretary,
Florida
Department
of
Community
Affairs.
4
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0046
Tim
Williams,
Managing
Director,
Government
and
Public
Affairs,
Water
Environment
Federation.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0047
Kathleen
A.
Shaver,
The
Chlorine
Institute.
5
pages.
Attachment
to
0046.
(
Attachment
is
a
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0074)
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0048
William
Brant,
P.
E.,
Director,
Miami­
Dade
Water
and
Sewer
Department.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0049
Adam
Krantz,
Managing
Director,
Government
and
Public
Affairs,
Association
of
Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies.
3
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0078
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0050
William
C.
Herz,
Director
of
Scientific
Programs,
The
Fertilizer
Institute.
6
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0051
Raymond
C.
Miller,
Southern
California
Alliance
of
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works.
4
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0069
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0052
Paul
Orum,
Working
Group
on
Community
Right­
to­
Know.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0053
Paul
Orum,
Working
Group
on
Community
Right­
to­
Know.
Attachment
to
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0052.
4
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0054
V.
Lehr
Roe,
Chairman,
Monroe
County
Board
of
Commissioners.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0055
Philip
Cavanaugh,
ChevronTexaco.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0056
Dan
Smith,
Director
of
Regulatory
Affairs,
Association
of
California
Water
Agencies.
3
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0073
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0057
Sean
Moulton,
Senior
Policy
Analyst,
OMB
Watch.
8
pages.
89
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0058
Dorothy
Kellogg,
American
Chemistry
Council.
6
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0059
Eldon
Lindt,
Manager
Air
and
Water,
XCEL
Energy,
Environmental
Services.
3
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0080
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0060
David
J.
Kolaz,
Chief,
Bureau
of
Air,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0061
David
J.
Kolaz,
Chief,
Bureau
of
Air,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Attachment
to
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0061.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0062
Carolyn
Merritt,
US
Chemical
Safety
and
Hazard
Investigation
Board.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0063
David
E.
Cummings,
Manager,
Dupont
Global
Process
Safety
Program.
6
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0039
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0064
Timothy
Gablehouse,
Chair,
Jefferson
County
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committee.
3
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0015
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0065
Walter
W.
Carey,
Director,
Environmental
Operations,
Reguatory/
Policy,
Nestle.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0066
Susan
Flanegan,
Counsel,
Environment,
Safety
&
Health,
Institute
for
Makers
of
Explosives.
4
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0067
Norbert
Dee,
PhD,
Director,
Environment
&
Safety,
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association.
4
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0068
Danny
M.
Henderson,
Manager,
Regulatory
Issues,
Arch
Chemicals.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0069
Raymond
C.
Miller,
Southern
California
Alliance
of
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works.
4
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0051
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0070
Mark
Spencer,
Manager,
North
American
Health
and
Safety
Regulatory
Affairs
and
George
King,
Process
Safety
Associate,
Dow
Chemical
Company.
6
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0071
Alan
Prouty,
Director,
Environmental
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
on
behalf
of
J.
R.
Simplot
Company.
8
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0072
M.
Kent
Anderson,
International
Institute
of
Ammonia
Refrigeration.
4
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0073
Dan
Smith,
Director
of
Regulatory
Affairs,
Association
of
California
Water
Agencies.
3
Pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0056
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0074
Kathleen
Shaver,
The
Chlorine
Institute.
5
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0075
Cindi
Lester,
Safety
&
Health
Team
Leader,
West
Virginia
Manufacturers
Association.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0076
Matthew
Hodges,
Manager,
Regulatory
Affairs,
Valero
Energy
Corporation.
2
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0077
Thomas
Curtis,
Deputy
Executive
Director,
American
Water
Works
Association.
4
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0078
Adam
Krantz,
Managing
Director,
Government
and
Public
Affairs,
Association
of
Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies.
4
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0049
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0079
K.
D.
Houston,
Supervisor
operations
Integrity
­
Emergency
Response,
ExxonMobil
Production.
9
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0080
Eldon
Lindt,
Manager
Air
and
Water,
Excel
Energy.
5
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0059
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0081
Daniel
Riley,
Vice
President,
Government
Affairs,
Tesoro
Petroleum
Corporation.
4
page.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0018
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0082
Paul
Baldauf,
chief,
Bureau
of
Release
Prevention,
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection.
3
pages.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0083
Attachment
to
0082
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0084
Attachment
to
0082/
0083
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0085
Attachment
to
0082/
0083
90
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0086
Barton
A.
Forsyth,
P.
E.,
Assistant
General
Manager,
Jordan
Valley
Water
Conservancy
District.
1
page.
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0087
William
Brant,
Director,
Miami­
Dade
Water
and
Sewer
Department.
2
pages.
Duplicate
of
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0048
OAR­
2003­
0044­
0088
Daniel
Hannewald,
Senior
Environmental
Engineer,
Johnson
Polymer,
LLC.
3
pages.