EPA’s Proposed Changes: Rescind Incident Investigation, Third-Party Audit, Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA), and Other Prevention Program Amendments (May 2018)

In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added three major provisions to the accident prevention program of Subparts C (for Program 2 processes)
and D (for Program 3 processes). These included:

1. A requirement in § 68.60 and § 68.81 for all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes to conduct a root cause analysis using a recognized method as part of an incident investigation of a catastrophic release or an incident that could have reasonably resulted in a catastrophic release (i.e., a near-miss).
2. Requirements in § 68.58 and § 68.79 for regulated facilities with Program 2 or Program 3 processes to contract with an independent thirdparty, or assemble an audit team led by an independent third-party, to perform a compliance audit after the facility has an RMP reportable accident or when an implementing agency requires a third party audit due to conditions at the stationary source that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance, or when a previous third party audit failed to meet the specified competency or independence criteria.  Requirements were established in new § 68.59 and § 68.80 for third-party auditor competency, independence, and responsibilities and for third-party audit reports and audit findings response reports.
3. A requirement in § 68.67(c)(8) for facilities with Program 3 regulated processes in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 322 (paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing), and 325 (chemical manufacturing) to conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) as part of their process hazard analysis (PHA). This required the owner or operator to address safer technology and alternative risk management measures applicable to eliminating or reducing risk from process hazards; to consider, in the following order or preference, inherently safer technologies, passive measures, active measures and procedural measures while using any combination of risk management measures to achieve the desired risk reduction; and to evaluate the practicability of any inherently safer technologies and designs considered.

The RMP Amendments rule also made several other minor changes to the Subparts C and D prevention program requirements. These included the following:

1. § 68.48 Safety information— changed requirement in subparagraph (a)(1) to maintain Safety Data Sheets (SDS) in lieu of Material Safety Data Sheets.
2. § 68.50 Hazard review — added language to existing subparagraph (a)(2) to require hazard reviews to include findings from incident investigations when identifying opportunities for equipment malfunctions or human errors that could cause an accidental release.
3. §§ 68.54 and 68.71 Training — changed description of employee(s) “operating a process” to “involved in operating a process” in § 68.54
   paragraphs (a) and (b), and changed “operators” to “employees involved in operating a process” in § 68.54 (d). EPA also added paragraph (e) in § 68.54 and paragraph (d) in § 68.71 to make employee training requirements also apply to supervisors responsible for directing process operations (under § 68.54) and supervisors with process operational responsibilities (under § 68.71).
4. §§ 68.58 and 68.79 Compliance audits — changes to paragraph (a) for Program 2 and Program 3 provisions added language to clarify that the owner or operator must evaluate compliance with each covered process every three years.
5. §§ 68.60 and 68.81 Incident investigation — made the following changes:
   1. Revised paragraph (a) in both sections by adding clarifying text ‘‘(i.e., a near miss)’’ to describe an incident that could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release;
   2. revised paragraph (a) in both sections to require investigation when an incident resulting in catastrophic releases also results in the affected process being decommissioned or destroyed;
   3. added paragraph (c) to § 68.60 to require for Program 2 processes, incident investigation teams to be established and consist of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident;
   4. redesignated paragraphs (c) through (f) in § 68.60 as paragraphs (d) through (g);
   5. revised redesignated paragraph (d) in § 68.60 and paragraph (d) in § 68.81 to require an incident investigation report to be prepared and completed within 12 months of the incident, unless the implementing agency approves, in writing, an extension of time, and added paragraph (g) in § 68.60 to require investigation reports to be retained for five years; and
   6. in § 68.60 replaced the word “summary” in redesignated paragraph (d) with “report.”
6. The following changes were made in both paragraph (d) of § 68.81 and  edesignated paragraph (d) of § 68.60 to specify additional required contents of the investigation report:
   1. revised paragraph (d)(1) to include time and location of the incident;
   2. revised paragraph (d)(3) to require that description of incident be in chronological order, with all relevant facts provided;
   3. redesignated and revised paragraph (d)(4) into paragraph (d)(7) to require that the factors that contributed to the incident include the initiating event, direct and indirect contributing;
   4. added new paragraph (d)(4) to require the name and amount of the regulated substance involved in the release (e.g. fire, explosion, toxic gas loss of containment) or near miss and the duration of the event;
   5. added new paragraph (d)(5) to require the consequences, if any, of the incident including, but not limited to: injuries, fatalities, the number of people evacuated, the number of people sheltered in place, and the impact on the environment;
   6. added new paragraph (d)(6) to require the emergency response actions taken; and
   7. redesignated and revised paragraph (d)(5) of § 68.81 and paragraph (c)(5) of § 68.60 into paragraphs (d)(8) of both sections to require that the investigation recommendations have a schedule for being addressed.
7. § 68.65 Process safety information — change to paragraph (a) required the owner or operator to keep process safety information up-to-date;
8. change to Note to paragraph (b) revised the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS).”
9. § 68.67 Process hazard analysis — change to subparagraph (c)(2) added requirement for PHA to address the findings from all incident investigations required under § 68.81, as well as any other potential failure scenarios.
10. § 68.3 Definitions — added definitions for terms active measures, inherently safer technology or design, passive measures, practicability, and procedural measures related to amendments to requirements in § 68.67. 
    1. Added definition of root cause related to amendments to requirements in § 68.60 and § 68.81.
    2. Added definition for term third-party audit related to amendments to requirements in § 68.58 and added § 68.59.

EPA now proposes to rescind ALL OF THE ABOVE CHANGES, with the exception of the two (2) changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to ‘‘Safety Data Sheets (SDS)’’ in §§ 68.48 and 68.65. This includes deleting the words “for each covered process” from the compliance audit provisions in § 68.58 and § 68.79, which apply to RMP Program 2 and Program 3, respectively.

EPA proposes to rescind the requirements to report the following data elements in the risk management plan:

1. in § 68.170 (i), whether the most recent compliance audit was a thirdparty audit, pursuant to §§ 68.58 and 68.59;
2. in § 68.175 (k), whether the most recent compliance audit was a thirdparty audit, pursuant to §§ 68.79 and 68.80; and
3. in § 68.175 (e)(7), inherently safer technology or design measures implemented since the last PHA, if any, and the technology category (substitution, minimization, simplification and/or moderation).

In § 68.175(e), EPA proposes to rescind the Amendments rule’s deletion of the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the PHA for program 3 facilities. Adding back this requirement would revert reporting of the PHA information in the risk management plan to what is currently required by the existing in-effect rule. This would also be consistent with the similar § 68.170 (e) requirement for Program 2 facilities to report the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the hazard review, a requirement that was not deleted in the Amendments rule.

EPA also proposes to rescind the requirement in § 68.190 (c), that prior to deregistration, the owner or operator shall meet applicable reporting and incident investigation requirements in accordance with §§ 68.42, 68.60 and/or 68.81.

Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the above changes, except for the following:

1. Requirement in § 68.50(a)(2) for the hazard review to include findings from incident investigations;
2. Retain the term ‘‘report(s)’’ in place of the word ‘‘summary(ies)’’ in § 68.60;
3. Requirement in § 68.60 for Program 2 processes to establish an incident investigation team consisting of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with experience to investigate an incident;
4. Requirements in §§ 68.54 and 68.71 for training requirements to apply to supervisors responsible for process operations and minor wording changes involving the description of employees operating a process in § 68.54; and,
5. Retain the two changes that would revise the term ‘‘Material Safety Data Sheets’’ to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65.

 

In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added several new provisions to § 68.210—Availability of information to the public. These included:

1. A requirement for the owner or operator to provide, upon request by any member of the public, specified chemical hazard information for all regulated processes, as applicable, including:
   1. Names of regulated substances held in a process,
   2. SDSs for all regulated substances located at the facility,
   3. Accident history information required to be reported under § 68.42,
   4. Emergency response program information, including whether or not the source responds to releases of regulated substances, name and phone number of local emergency response organizations, and procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases,
   5. A list of scheduled exercises required under § 68.96 (i.e., new emergency exercise provisions of the RMP Amendments rule), and;
   6. Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) contact information;
2. A requirement for the owner or operator to provide ongoing notification on a company website, social media platforms, or through other publicly accessible means that the above information is available to the public upon request, along with the information elements that may be requested and instructions for how to request the information, as well as information on where members of the public may access information on community preparedness, including shelter-in-place and evacuation procedures;
3. A requirement for the owner or operator to provide the requested chemical hazard information within 45 days of receiving a request from any member of the public, and;
4. A requirement to hold a public meeting to provide accident information required under § 68.42 as well as other relevant chemical hazard information, no later than 90 days after any accident subject to reporting under § 68.42.

Additionally, the RMP Amendments rule added provisions to § 68.210 to address classified information and confidential business information (CBI) claims for information required to be provided to the public, and made a minor change to the existing paragraph (a) RMP availability, to add a reference to 40 CFR part 1400 for controlling public access to RMPs.

EPA now proposes for security reasons to rescind the requirements for providing to the public upon request, chemical hazard information and access to community emergency preparedness information in § 68.210 (b) through (d), as well as rescind the requirement to
provide the “other chemical hazard information such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section” at public meetings required under § 68.210(e).

Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the information elements in § 68.210 (b) through (d), as well as rescind the requirement to provide the “other chemical hazard information such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section” at public meetings required under § 68.210(e), except for the requirement in § 68.210(b)(5) for the owner or operator to provide a list of scheduled exercises required under § 68.96.

EPA will retain the requirement in § 68.210(e) for owner/operator of a stationary source to hold a public meeting to provide accident information required under § 68.42 no later than 90 days after any accident subject to reporting under § 68.42, but clarifying that the information to be provided is the data listed in § 68.42(b). This data would be provided for only the most recent accident, and not for previous accidents covered by the 5-year accident history requirement of § 68.42(a).

EPA will retain the change to paragraph (a) “RMP availability” which added availability under 40 CFR part 1400 (addresses restrictions on disclosing RMP offsite consequence analysis under the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRRA).20 The provisions for classified information in § 68.210(f) will also be retained but are separately proposed to be incorporated into the emergency response coordination section of the rule. EPA proposes to delete the provision for CBI in § 68.210(g), because the only remaining provision for public information availability in this section (other than the provision for RMP availability) is the requirement to provide at a public meeting, the information required in the source’s five-year accident history, which § 68.151(b)(3) prohibits the owner or operator from claiming as CBI.

EPA proposes to rescind the requirements in § 68.160(b)(21) to report in the risk management plan, the method of communication and location of the notification that hazard information is available to the public, pursuant to § 68.210(c). EPA requests public comment on the Agency’s proposal to rescind and modify the public information availability requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the alternatives described above.

 

Modify Local Coordination Amendments

In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA required owners or operators of “responding” and “non-responding” stationary sources to perform emergency response coordination activities required under new § 68.93. These activities included coordinating response needs at least annually with local emergency planning and response organizations, as well as documenting these coordination activities.

The RMP Amendments rule required coordination to include providing to the local emergency planning and response organizations the stationary source’s emergency response plan if one exists, emergency action plan, updated emergency contact information, and any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning. For responding stationary sources, coordination must also include consulting with local emergency response officials to establish appropriate schedules and plans for field and tabletop exercises required under § 68.96(b). Owners or operators of responding and nonresponding sources are required to request an opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning committee (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss these materials.

EPA now proposes to modify the local coordination amendments by deleting the phrase in § 68.93(b), “…and any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning.” Alternatively, EPA proposes to change this phrase to read: “other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan.” Under both alternatives, EPA also proposes to incorporate appropriate classified information and CBI protections to regulated substance and stationary source information required to be provided under § 68.93.

EPA is retaining the requirement in § 68.95(a)(1)(i) for responding facilities to update their facility emergency response plans to include appropriate changes based on information obtained from coordination activities, emergency response exercises, incident investigations or other information. In addition, EPA will retain the requirement in § 68.95(4) that emergency response plan notification procedures must inform appropriate Federal and state emergency response agencies, as well as local agencies and the public.

EPA proposes to retain language in § 68.93(b) referring to field and tabletop exercise schedules and plans with a proposal to retain some form of field and tabletop exercise requirement.  Alternatively, in conjunction with an alternative proposal to rescind field and tabletop exercise requirements (see “Modify exercise amendments” below), the Agency also proposes to rescind this language.

EPA is proposing no other changes to the local coordination requirements of the RMP Amendments rule. Under either alternative proposed above, the following provisions would remain unchanged: The provisions of paragraph (b) requiring coordination to include providing to the local emergency planning and response organizations the stationary source’s emergency response plan if one exists, emergency action plan, and updated emergency contact information, as well as the requirement for the owner or operator to request an opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning committee (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss these materials. For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13671–74 (proposed RMP Amendments rule), March 14, 2016, 82 FR 4653–58 (final RMP Amendments rule), January 13, 2017. EPA requests public comment on the Agency’s proposal to modify the local coordination requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the alternatives described above.

 

Modify Exercise Amendments

In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added a new section entitled § 68.96 Emergency response exercises. This section contained several new
provisions, including:

• Notification exercises: At least once each calendar year, the owner or operator of a stationary source with any Program 2 or Program 3 process must conduct an exercise of the stationary source’s emergency response notification mechanisms. Owners or operators of responding stationary sources are allowed to perform the notification exercise as part of the tabletop and field exercises required in new § 68.96(b). The owner/operator must maintain a written record of each notification exercise conducted over the last five years.
• Emergency response exercise program: The owner or operator of a responding stationary source must develop and implement an exercise
  program for its emergency response program.  Exercises must involve facility emergency response personnel and, as appropriate, emergency response contractors.
  • The emergency response exercise program must include field and tabletop exercises involving the simulated accidental release of a regulated substance.
  • Under the RMP Amendments rule, the owner or operator is required to consult with local emergency response officials to establish an appropriate frequency for exercises, but at a minimum, the owner or operator must hold a tabletop exercise at least once every three years, and a field exercise at least once every ten years.
  • Field exercises must include tests of procedures to notify the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies about an accidental release; tests of procedures and measures for emergency response actions including evacuations and medical treatment; tests of communications systems; mobilization of facility emergency response personnel, including contractors, as appropriate; coordination with local emergency responders; emergency response equipment deployment; and any other action identified in the emergency response program, as appropriate.
  • Tabletop exercises must include discussions of procedures to notify the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies; procedures and measures for emergency response including evacuations and medical treatment; identification of facility emergency response personnel and/or contractors and their responsibilities; coordination with local emergency responders;
    procedures for emergency response equipment deployment; and any other action identified in the emergency response plan, as appropriate.
  • For both field and tabletop exercises, the RMP Amendments rule requires the owner or operator to prepare an evaluation report within 90 days of each exercise. The report must include a description of the exercise scenario, names and organizations of each participant, an evaluation of the exercise results including lessons learned, recommendations for improvement or revisions to the emergency response exercise program and emergency response program, and a schedule to promptly address and resolve recommendations.

The RMP Amendments rule also contains a provision for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements, which allows the owner or operator to satisfy the requirement to conduct notification, field and/or tabletop exercises through exercises conducted to meet other Federal, state or local exercise requirements, or by responding to an actual accidental release.

EPA is now proposing to modify the exercise program provisions of § 68.96(b), as requested by state and local response officials, by removing the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises and establishing more flexible scope and documentation provisions for both field and tabletop exercises. Under this proposal, EPA would retain the final RMP Amendments rule requirement for the owner or operator to attempt to consult with local response officials to establish appropriate frequencies and plans for field and tabletop exercises. The minimum frequency for tabletop exercises would remain at three years. However, there would be no minimum frequency specified for field exercises in order to reduce burden on regulated facilities and local responders as explained in rationale section IV. D. 5. Costs of Field and Tabletop Exercises.

Documentation of both types of exercises would still be required, but the items specified for inclusion in exercises and exercise evaluation reports under the RMP Amendments rule would be recommended, and not required. The content of exercise evaluation reports would be left to the reasonable judgement of stationary source owners or operators and local emergency response officials. As described in the RMP Amendments rule, if local emergency response officials declined the owner or operator’s request for consultation on and/or participation in exercises, the owner or operator would be allowed to unilaterally establish appropriate frequencies and plans for the exercises (provided that the frequency for tabletop exercises does not exceed three years), and conduct exercises without the participation of local emergency response officials. Likewise, if local emergency response officials and the facility owner or operator cannot agree on the appropriate frequency and plan for an exercise, owners and operators must still ensure that exercises occur and should establish plans to execute the exercises on their own. The RMP Amendments rule does not require local responders to participate in any of these activities, nor would this proposal. This proposal would not alter the notification exercise requirement of § 68.96(a) or the provision for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements of § 68.96(c). EPA proposes to correct an error in § 68.96(b)(2)(i) related to the frequency of tabletop exercises by proposing to replace the phrase “shall conduct a field exercise every three years” with “shall conduct a tabletop exercise every three years.” For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13674–76 (proposed RMP Amendments rule), March 16, 2016 and 82 FR 4659–67 (final RMP Amendments rule), January 13, 2017. In summary, EPA found that exercising an emergency response plan is critical to ensure that response personnel understand their roles, that local emergency responders are familiar with the hazards at the facility, and that the emergency response plan is appropriate and up-todate.

Exercises also ensure that personnel are properly trained and lessons learned from exercises can be  used to identify future training needs. Poor emergency response procedures during some recent accidents have highlighted the need for facilities to conduct periodic emergency response exercises. Other EPA and federal agency programs and some state and local regulations require emergency response exercises. Alternatively, EPA is considering whether to fully rescind the field and tabletop exercise provisions of § 68.96(b). Under this alternative proposal, EPA would retain the notification exercise provision of  68.96(a), but revise it and § 68.93(b) to remove any reference to tabletop and field exercises, while also modifying the provision in § 68.96(c) for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements so that it applies only to notification exercises.

EPA is also considering another alternative—to remove the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises, but retain all remaining provisions of the RMP Amendments rule regarding field and tabletop exercises, including the RMP Amendments rule requirements forexercise scope and documentation.  EPA requests public comment on the Agency’s proposal to modify the exercise requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the alternatives described above.

 

Revise Emergency Response Contacts Provided in RMP

EPA proposes to modify the emergency response contact information required to be provided in a facility’s RMP. In § 68.180(a)(1) of the Amendments rule, EPA required the owner or operator to provide the name, organizational affiliation, phone number, and email address of local emergency planning and response organizations with which the stationary source last coordinated emergency response efforts. EPA now proposes to modify this requirement to read: “Name, phone number, and email address of local emergency planning and response organizations…”

 

Revise Compliance Dates

In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA required compliance with the new provisions as follows:

• Required compliance with emergency response coordination activities by March 14, 2018;
• Required compliance with the emergency response program requirements of § 68.95 within three years of when the owner or operator
  initially determines that the stationary source is subject to those requirements;
• Required compliance with other major provisions (i.e., third-party compliance audits, root cause analyses and other added requirements to incident investigations, STAA, emergency response exercises, and information availability provisions), unless otherwise stated, by March 15, 2021; and;
• Required the owner or operator to correct or resubmit their RMP to reflect new and revised data elements promulgated in the RMP Amendments rule by March 14, 2022.

EPA did not specify compliance dates for the other minor changes to the Subpart C and D prevention program requirements. Therefore, under the RMP Amendments rule, compliance with these provisions was required on the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule. EPA now proposes to extend compliance dates as follows:

• For emergency response coordination activities, EPA proposes to require compliance by one year after the effective date of a final rule.
• For emergency response exercises, EPA proposes to require owners and operators to have exercise plans and schedules meeting the requirements of § 68.96 in place by four years after the effective date of a final rule.EPA also proposes to require owners and operators to have completed their first notification drill by five years after the effective date of a final rule, and to have completed their first tabletop exercise by 7 years after the effective date of a final rule. Under this proposal, there would be no specific compliance date specified for field exercises, because field exercises would be conducted according to a schedule developed by the owner or operator in consultation with local emergency responders.
• For corrections or resubmissions of RMPs to reflect reporting on new and revised data elements (public meeting information and emergency response program and exercises), EPA proposes to require compliance by five years after the effective date of a final rule.
• For third-party audits, STAA, root cause analyses and other new provisions of the RMP Amendments rule for incident investigations and chemical hazard information availability and notice of availability of information, as well as other minor changes to the Subpart C and D prevention program requirements (except for the two changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65), EPA is proposing to rescind these provisions. However, if a final rule does not rescind theseprovisions, EPA proposes to require compliance with any of these provisions that are not rescinded, by four years after the effective date of a final rule.
• For the public meeting requirement in § 68.210(b), EPA proposes to require compliance by two years after the effective date of a final rule.
• EPA is retaining the requirement to comply with the emergency response program requirements of § 68.95 within three years of when the owner or operator initially determines that the stationary source is subject to those requirements.

For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13686–91 proposed RMP Amendments rule), March 14, 2016 and 82 FR 4675–80 (final RMP Amendments rule), January 13, 2017. In summary, EPA found that one year was sufficient to arrange and document coordination activities, three years was needed to comply with emergency response program requirements, four years was necessary to comply with exercise provisions, and five years was necessary to update risk management plans.

Three years to develop an emergency response program is necessary for facility owners and operators to understand the requirements, arrange for emergency response resources and train personnel to respond to an accidental release. Compliance with emergency coordination requirements could require up to one year because some facilities who have not been regularly coordinating will need time to get familiar with the new requirements, while having some flexibility in scheduling and preparing for coordination meetings with local emergency response organizations whose resources and time for coordination may be limited. A shorter timeframe may be difficult to comply with, especially for RMP sources whose local emergency organization has many RMP sources in their jurisdiction who are trying to schedule coordination meetings with local responders at the same time.

For the emergency exercises, EPA is proposing a four year compliance time for developing exercise plans and schedules, an additional year for conducting the first notification exercise, and an additional three years for conducting the first tabletop exercise, because EPA believes that additional time is necessary for sources to understand the new requirements for notification, field and tabletop exercises, train facility personnel on how to plan and conduct these exercises, coordinate with local responders to plan and schedule exercises, and carry out the exercises.

Additional time will also provide owners and operators with flexibility to plan, schedule, and conduct exercises in a manner which is least burdensome for facilities and local response agencies. Also, EPA plans to publish guidance for emergency response exercises and once these materials are complete, owners and operators will need time to familiarize themselves with the materials and use them to plan and develop their exercises. If local emergency response organizations are to be able to participate in the field and tabletop exercises, sufficient time is needed to accommodate any time or resource limitations local responders might have not only for participating in exercises, but for helping to plan them.  For the public meeting requirement in § 68.210(b), EPA proposes to require compliance by two years after the effective date of a final rule. The RMP Amendments rule allows four years for compliance for the public meeting which was consistent with the compliance date for other information to be required to the public by § 68.210.

However, EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to provide to the public the chemical hazard information in § 68.210 (b), the notice of availability of information in § 68.210(c) and the timeframe for providing information 68.210(d) as well proposing to remove the requirement to provide the chemical hazard information in § 68.210 (b) at the public meeting. The stationary source would be required to provide the chemical accident data elements specified in § 68.42, data which should already be familiar to the source because this information is currently required to be reported in their risk management plan. Thus, two years should be enough time for facilities to be prepared to provide the required information at a public meeting after an RMP reportable  accident. EPA seeks comment on whether a sooner compliance date is more appropriate.

With regard to the five-year compliance date for updating RMPs with newly-required information, EPA is proposing this time frame because EPA will need time to revise its RMP submission guidance for any provisions finalized and also to revise its risk management plan submission system, RMP*eSubmit, to include additional data elements. Sources will not be able to update risk management plans until the revised RMP*eSubmit system is ready. Also, once the software is ready, some additional time is needed to allow sources to update their risk management plans while preventing potential problems with thousands of sources submitting updated risk management plans on the same day.