PT Notes

EPA RMP Rule 2024 Amendments - Availability of Information to the Public

PT Notes is a series of topical technical notes on process safety provided periodically by Primatech for your benefit. Please feel free to provide feedback.

EPA has added the following requirements for the availability of information to the public:

Chemical hazard information. The owner or operator of a stationary source shall provide, upon request by any member of the public residing, working, or spending significant time within 6 miles of the fenceline of a stationary source, the following chemical hazard information for all regulated processes:

(1) Regulated substances information. Names of regulated substances held in a process,

(2) Safety Data Sheets. SDSs for all regulated substances located at the facility,

(3) Accident history information. Provide the five-year accident history information,

(4) Emergency response program. The following summary information concerning the stationary source’s compliance with applicability and the emergency response provisions of the RMP rule, as applicable:

(i) Whether the stationary source is a responding stationary source or a nonresponding stationary source

(ii) Name and phone number of local emergency response organizations with which the owner or operator last coordinated emergency response efforts, and

(iii) For stationary sources subject to the requirements for an emergency response program, procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases,

(5) Exercises. A list of scheduled exercises, excluding dates, required under the RMP rule occurring within one year from the date of request,

(6) LEPC contact information. Include LEPC name, phone number, and web address as available, and

(7) Declined recommendations and justifications. Include declined recommendations and justifications required for natural hazard, power loss, and siting hazard evaluations for Program 2 and Program 3 processes and additionally declined recommendations from safety gaps between codes, standards, or practices for Program 3 processes.

Languages. The information shall be made available in English or in at least any two other commonly spoken languages by the population potentially affected, as requested.

Notification of availability of information. The owner or operator shall provide ongoing notification on a company website, social media platforms, or through other publicly accessible means that:

(1) Required information is available to the public residing, working, or spending significant time within 6 miles of the stationary source upon request. The notification shall:

(i) Specify the information elements identified that can be requested; and

(ii) Provide instructions for how to request the information including verification of presence within 6-miles (e.g., email, mailing address, and/or telephone or website request); and

(2) Identify where to access information on community preparedness, if available, including shelter-in-place and evacuation procedures.

Timeframe to provide requested information. The owner or operator shall provide the requested information within 45 days of receiving a request.

Recordkeeping. The owner or operator shall maintain a record of the members of the public requesting chemical hazard information for five years.

EPA Comments on the Requirement to Make Information Available to the Public

EPA believes that providing chemical hazard information to the general public will allow people who live or work near a regulated facility to improve their awareness of risks to the community and to be prepared to protect themselves in the event of an accidental release, and that the public’s ability to participate in emergency planning and readiness is enhanced by being better informed about accident history, types of chemicals present, and how to interact with the stationary source.

EPA notes that it has been selective in identifying what information a source must make available; for example, EPA has not required the facility to provide an entire RMP to the public.

EPA believes that every RMP regulated source presents some level of risk, as each regulated source stores and manages toxic or flammable substances which may be accidentally released. EPA states that having the source provide information directly to the public within the confines of the final rule promotes accident prevention and response by facilitating public participation at the local level.

EPA expects a more informed and involved public, as a result of the final rule, to have less fear of the unknown.

EPA Comments on Translation Requirements

The final rule requires that language translations be offered in at least two other major languages in the community. EPA expects owners and operators to use the most recent Census Language Use data, or other recent authoritative information, to determine the two major languages spoken in a comparable size designation to the six-mile or worst-case release scenario distance radius of their facility. EPA believes this will provide the vast majority of the surrounding community with the information requested and account for language barriers while minimizing burden to facilities.

EPA notes that requiring translation in up to two of the major non-English languages of the community reflects a balance of the right-to-know purposes of the Clean Air Act with the time and financial burden of providing such translations.

EPA believes community involvement is integral to a well-functioning accident prevention program, and the translation requirement promotes accomplishing this objective.

EPA Comments on Notification Requirements

EPA notes that the information availability requirements are most impactful if the public is aware of the availability of the information.

EPA believes the 6-mile radius restriction for being able to request information from facilities to be reasonable, as 90 percent of all toxic worst-case distances to endpoints are within six miles or less, and almost all flammable worst-case distances are less than 1 mile.

EPA notes that the 6-mile radius allows people in most areas potentially impacted by a worst-case scenario to have access to information while also providing a limit on widespread access to nationwide assembly of data. EPA states that the 6-mile radius limitation also seeks to limit the potential security risk of allowing anonymous confidential access to this information to the entire public. EPA believes the approach strikes a balance between security concerns and the interests of people spending significant time near facilities who could benefit from the information, including personal preparedness in the event of an accident, knowledge of potential risks and safety conditions where one lives, and more informed participation in community emergency and safety planning. EPA also notes that the provisions do not limit or violate FOIA rights of the public to obtain Government-held records.

EPA clarifies that the 6-mile radius is from the fenceline of the facility. EPA expects that in most cases, six miles from the fenceline is the appropriate definition, as opposed to six miles from process locations or any other location at the facility, because this consistent approach captures the wide variations of facility size, process locations and any process movement within the facility. It is also simpler to verify for the public and oversight agencies and does not require revealing the precise location of the place in the process from which a release could occur, which may raise security concerns.

EPA interprets “residing” as occupying a dwelling (owning or renting), working as having paid employment, and spending significant time as frequently using services, volunteering, visiting with family or friends, etc.

EPA is requiring sources to provide instructions for how to request the information, which should include the necessary verification components for the public within a 6-mile radius of the facility. EPA notes that nothing in the rule requires a facility to accept a mere P.O. Box address as evidence of residence, employment, or presence within the 6- mile radius.

EPA believes the amended RMP rule leaves substantial flexibility for facilities to design a process for obtaining verification and keeping records of those making requests that allows for facilities to have a suitable, minimally burdensome process for themselves and the community.

EPA believes that the final rule allows for a straightforward process that does not hinder the right of the public to access the information, allows facilities to be aware who has their information, and permits oversight by implementing agencies. However, as this is a performance-based provision, as are most other components of the RMP rule, EPA recognizes that there is not a one-size fits all approach that works best for notifying the public that this information is available and verifying presence within a 6-mile radius.

EPA expects facility owners and operators to notify the public that information is available in a variety of ways, such as using free or low-cost internet platforms, and social media tools that are designed for sharing information with the public. EPA also expects verification of the population within the 6-mile radius to be carried out through many methods, such as asking a member of the public to provide a utility bill for verification of residence, pay stub for verification of employment, or specific documentation to verify significant time spent within the 6-mile radius. EPA encourages the facility owner or operator to coordinate information distribution and verification requirements with the LEPC or local emergency response officials to determine the best way to reach public stakeholders.

EPA notes that the owner or operator shall document the method and the location of the notification in the RMP.

EPA Comments on the 45-Day Disclosure Timeline

EPA believes the 45-day timeline appropriately balances the burden imposed on facilities to keep chemical hazard information updated and the need to provide the public with timely access to this information.

EPA encourages facilities to update their chemical hazard information as needed to ensure that accurate information can be made available to the requester within the required timeframe.

EPA Comments on Data Elements to be Released to the Public

EPA is including declined recommendations from new provisions in the rule to be included in the required information to be available because EPA believes including this information in the RMP will ultimately enable the public to ensure facilities have conducted appropriate evaluations to address potential hazards that can affect communities near facility fencelines. EPA believes that when local citizens have adequate information and knowledge about facility hazards, facility owners and operators may be motivated to further improve their safety in response to community pressure and oversight.

EPA acknowledges and shares concerns pertaining to the protection of CBI information, but EPA believes that it has addressed these concerns by providing the same CBI protections for the public information availability provisions that exist in the rule for information contained in the RMP.

EPA notes that, as provided in the rule, an owner or operator of a stationary source may not claim five-year accident history information as CBI. EPA also notes that as provided in the rule, an owner or operator of a stationary source asserting that a chemical name is CBI shall provide a generic category or class name as a substitute.

EPA notes that If an owner or operator has already claimed CBI for a portion of the RMP, then that claim still applies for the disclosure elements in the information availability provisions of the rule. EPA states that the owner or operator should provide a sanitized version as described in the RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual.

EPA Comments on Security Concerns

EPA acknowledges the security concerns posed by making information available to the public and is committed to ensuring a balance between making information available to the public while also safeguarding that information.

EPA states that only information that could improve community awareness of risks should be made available to the public.

EPA worked closely with Federal partners, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to develop information availability requirements that strike a balance between security concerns and the need for sharing chemical hazard information with the public.

EPA believes that the final rule is consistent with existing requirements to secure sensitive information. EPA also believes the current approach to notify the public that information is available upon request strikes an appropriate balance between various concerns, including information availability, community right-to-know, minimizing the facility disclosure burden, and minimizing information security risks.

EPA also believes the information disclosures required by the final rule are fully consistent with applicable statutes and regulatory programs.

EPA notes that the information the final rule requires facilities to disclose largely draws on information otherwise in the public domain and simplifies the public’s access to it.

If you would like further information, please click here.

To comment on this PT Note, click here.

Primatech

PT Notes

EPA RMP Rule 2024 Amendments - Availability of Information to the Public

newsiconLatest News