United States Office of Solid Waste EPA 550-B-99-005
Environmental Protection and
Agency Emergency Response vwvw.epa.gov/emergencies
RISK MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FOR
CHEMICAL
DISTRIBUTORS
(40 PART CFR 68)
Office of Emergency Management
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
This document provides guidance to help owners and operators of stationary sources to
determine if their processes are subject to regulation under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act
and 40 CFR part 68 and to comply with regulations. This document does not substitute for
EPA's regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding
requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular
situation based upon circumstances. The guidance does not represent final agency action, and
EPA may change it in the future, as appropriate.
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 GENERAL APPLICABILITY
1.1 . Introduction , 1-1
1.2 General Provisions 1-3
1.3 Regulated Substances and Thresholds 1-5
1.4 What is a Process 1-5
1.5 Threshold Quantity in a Process 1-9
1.6 Stationary Source 1-14
1.7 When Must You Comply . . 1-15
1.8 Varying Inventories and Predictive Filing , 1-17
CHAPTER 2 APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAM LEVELS
2,1 What Are Program'Levels " 2-1
2.2 Program 1 , 2-3
2.3 - Quick Rules for Determining Program 1 Eligibility 2-8
2.4 Programs , 2-11
2.5 Program 2 2-12
2.6 Dealing with Program Levels ' 2-14
2.7 Summary of Program Requirements 2-16
CHAPTER 3 FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY
3.1 What Accidents Must Be Reported 3-1
3.2 What Data Must Be Provided 3-1
3.3 Other Accident Reporting Requirements » 3-9
CHAPTER 4 OFFSCTE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
4.1 Worst-Case Release Scenarios 4-3
4.2 Alternative Scenarios , 4-17
4.3 Buildings ' ' 4-30
4.4 Estimating Offsite Receptors , 4-31
4.5 Documentation - 4-34
Appendix 4A Technical Background for Chapter 4 ' 4-37
CHAPTERS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
\
5.1 General Information (§ 68.15) , 5-1
5.2 How to Meet the Management System Requirements • 5-
-------
CHAPTER 6 PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 2)
6.1 About the Program 2 Prevention Program 6-1
6.2 Safety Information (§ 68.48) 6-2
6.3 Hazard Review (§68.50) 6-9
6.4 Operating Procedures (§68.52) 6-14
6.5 Training (§68.54) 6-17
6.6 Maintenance (§ 68.56) 6-19
6.7 Compliance Audits (§ 68.58) 6-2
6.8 Incident Investigation (§ 68.60) 6-24
6.9 Conclusion , 6-27
Appendix 6A Comparison of RDP and Program 2 Prevention Elements 6-28
CHAPTER? PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 3)
7.1 Prevention Program 3 and OSHA PSM 7-1
7.2 Process Safety Information (§ 68.65) 7-3
7.3 Process Hazard Analysis (§ 68.67) 7-6
7.4 Operating Procedures (§ 68.69) 7-
7.5 Training (§68.71) 7-10
7.6 Mechanical Integrity (§68.73) 7-10
7.7 Management of Change (§68.75) 7-11
7.8 Pre-Startup Review (§ 68.77) 7-12
7.9 Compliance Audits (§68.79) 7-13
7.10 Incident Investigation (§68.81) 7-13
7.11 Employee Participation (§ 68.83) 7-14
7.12 Hot Work Permits (§68.85) ' 7-15
7.13 Contractors (§ 68.87) 7-15
Appendix 7-A PHA Techniques 7-1
CHAPTERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE
/
8.1 Non-Responding Sources (§ 68.90(b)) 8-1
8.2 Elements of an Emergency Response Program (§68.95) 8-2
8.3 Developing an Emergency Response Program 8-6
8.4 Integration of .Existing Program 8-9
8,5 Am I Already in Compliance 8-9
8.6 Coordination with Local Emergency Planning Committees 8-12
Appendix 8A Comparison of Emergency Response Program and RDP 8-15
CHAPTER 9 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN (Part 68, Subpart G)
9.1 Elements of the RMP 9-1
9.2 RMP Submission 9-2
9.3 Issues Pertaining to Submission of and Access to Confidential Business Information and Trade
Secrets 9-3
-------
Ill
i
9.4 Resubmission and Updates ' 9-3
CHAPTER 10 IMPLEMENTATION
10.1 Implementing Agency ' 10-
10.2 Reviews/Audits/Inspections (§68.220) " 10-2
10.3 Relationship with Title V Permit Programs 10-4
10.4 Penalties for Non-Compliance .' " 10-4
CHAPTER 11 COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC
11.1 Basic Rules of Risk Communication 11-1
11.2 Sample Questions for Communicating with the Public 11-4
11.3 Communication Activities and Techniques 11-13
11.4 For More Information 11-19
APPENDICES
i
APPENDIX A PART 68 ' *
APPENDIX B RESERVED
APPENDIX C EPA REGIONAL CONTACTS
APPENDIX D OSHA CONTACTS
APPENDIX E TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
APPENDIX F OSHA GUIDANCE ON PSM
-------
JV
LIST OF BOXES AND EXHIBITS
IN RMP GUIDANCE
LIST OF EXHIBITS
CHAPTER 1
Exhibit 1-1
Exhibit 1-2
Exhibit 1-3
CHAPTER 2
Exhibit 2-1
Exhibit 2-2
Exhibit 2-3
Exhibit 2-4
CHARTERS
Exhibit 3-1
CHAPTER 4
Exhibit 4-1
Exhibit 4-2
Exhibit 4-3
Exhibit 4-4
Exhibit 4-5a
Exhibit 4-5b
Exhibit 4-6
Exhibit 4-7a
Exhibit 4-7b
Exhibit 4-8a
Exhibit 4-8b
Exlif bit 4-9a
Exhibit 4-9b
Exhibit 4-10
Evaluate Facility to Identify Covered Processes
Process
Stationary Source
Evaluate Program Levels for Covered Processes
Program Level Criteria
Develop Risk Management Program and RMP
Comparison of Program Requirements
Atmospheric Stability Classes
Information Gathered from NACD Survey — Toxic Substances
Information Gathered from NACD Survey — Flammable Substances
Required Parameters for Modeling
Worst-Case Scenario—Constants Al and A2 for Toxic Gases
Values of LFA, LFB, DF, and Vapor Pressure for Toxic Liquids
Values of LFA, LFB, DF, and Vapor Pressure for Aqueous Solutions
Temperature Correction Factors for Liquids Evaporating from Pools at Temperatures
between 25°C and 50°C (77°F and 122°F)
Worst-Case Scenario—Constants Bl and B2 for Toxic Liquids and Aqueous Solutions,
10-Minute Release
Worst-Case Scenario—Constants B1 and B2 for Toxic Liquids 60-Minute Release
Alternative Case Scenario—Constants Dl and D2 for Toxic Gases 10-Minute Release
Alternative Case Scenario—Constants Dl and D2 for Toxic Gases 60-Minute Release
Alternative Case Scenario—Constants Cl and C2 for Toxic Liquids and Aqueous
Solutions, 10-Minute Release
Alternative Case Scenario—Constants Cl and C2 for Toxic Liquids 60-Minute Release
Distance to LFL for Flammable Substances
CHAPTERS
Exhibit 5-1
CHAPTER 6
Exhibit 6-1
Exhibit 6-2
Exhibit 6-3
Sample Management Documentation
Summary of Program 2 Prevention Program
Safety Information Requirements
Codes and Standards
-------
Exhibit 6-4 Sample Safety Information Sheet
Exhibit 6-5 Hazard Review Requirements
Exhibit 6-6 Sample Checklist
Exhibit 6-7 Operating Procedures Requirements
Exhibit 6-8 Training Chart
Exhibit 6-9 Maintenance Guidelines
Exhibit 6-10 Sample Audit Checklist for Safety Information and Hazard Review
Exhibit 6-11 Incident Investigation Requirements
Exhibit 6-12 Sample Incident Investigation Format
CHAPTER 7
Exhibit 7-1 Comparable EPA and OSHA Terms
Exhibit 7-2 Summary of Program 3 Prevention Program
Exhibit 7-3 Process Safety Information Requirements '
Exhibit 7-4 Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
Exhibit 7-5 Operating Procedures Requirements
Exhibit 7-6 Mechanical Integrity Chart
Exhibit 7-7 Management of Change Requirements
Exhibit 7-8 Pre-startup Review Requirements
Exhibit 7-9 Incident Investigation Requirements
Exhibit 7-10 Employee Participation Requirements
Exhibit 7-11 Hot Work Permits Requirements
Exhibit 7-12 Contractors Chart
Exhibit 7A-1 Applicability of PHA Techniques
Exhibit 7A-2 Time and Staffing for PHA Techniques
CHAPTER 8
Exhibit 8-1 Federal Guidance on Emergency Planning and Response
Exhibit 8-2 Federal Emergency Planning Regulations
CHAPTER 9
Exhibit 9-1 RMP Updates
CHAPTER 11
Exhibit 11-1 Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication
LIST OF BOXES
INTRODUCTION
State Programs
What Is a Local Emergency Planning Committee?
If You Are New to Regulations
CHAPTER I
-------
vi
(Js and As: Stationary Source
Aggregation of Substances
Qs and As: Threshold Determinations
Qs and As: Threshold Determinations
Q and A: Stationary Source
Qs and As: Compliance Dates
CHAPTER2
Q and A: Process and Program Level
Qs and As: Public Receptors
Q and A: Determining Distances
Q and A: Environmental Receptors
Qs and As: Accident History
Qs and As: NAICS Codes
Q and A: OSHA
CHAPTERS
Q and A: Property Damage
Qs and As: Accident History
CHAPTER 4
RMP*Comp
How to Obtain Census Data and Landview
How to Obtain USGS Maps
CHAPTER?
Qs and As: Implementation and Program Level
Qs and As: Process Safety Information
Qs and As: Offsite Consequences
CHAPTERS
What Is a Response
What Is a Local Emergency Planning Committee?
How Does the Emergency Response Program Apply
Planning for Flammable Substances
CHAPTER 9
Q and A: Revising a PHA
CHAPTER 10
Qs and As: Delegation
Qs and As: Audits
-------
Vll
CHAPTER 11
What Does Your Worst-case Release Distance Mean?
What Does It Mean That We Could Be Exposed If We Live/Work/Shop/Go to School X Miles Away?
If There Is an Accident, Will Everyone Within That Distance Be Hurt? What about Property Damage?
How Sure Are You of Your Distances?
What Are You Doing to Prevent Releases?
What Are You Doing to Prepare for Releases?
Why Are Your Distances Different from the Distances in the EPA Lookup Tables?
How Likely Are the Worst-case and Alternative Release Scenarios?
Is the Worst-case Release You Reported Really the Worst Accident You Can Have?
What about the Accident at the [Name of Similar Facility] That Happened Last Month?
What Actions Have You Taken to Involve the Community in Your Accident Prevention and Emergency
Planning Efforts?
Can We See the Documentation You Keep on Site?
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
IltA
-------
IX
TABLE OF POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers
regarding entities likely to be regulated under 40 CFRpart 68. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this
rule and covered by this document. Other types of entities not listed in this table
could also be affected. To determine whether your facility is covered by the risk
management program rules in part 68, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria discussed in Chapter 1 of this guidance and in 40 CFR
68.10, which is available in Appendix A of this document. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular entity, call the EPCRA/CAA
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (TDD: (800) 553-7672)(see Appendix E, Technical
Assistance, for other sources of information and Appendix C for EPA Regional
and State contacts).
Category
Chemical distributors
NAICS
Codes
42269
SIC
Codes-
5169
Examples of Potentially Regulated
Entities
Chemical wholesalers
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL APPLICABILITY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to help you determine if you are subject to Part 68, the
risk management program rule. Part 68 covers you if you are:
4- The owner or operator of a stationary source
* -
4- That has more than a threshold quantity
4- Of a regulated substance
4- In a process.
The goal of this chapter is to make it easy for you to identify processes that are
covered by this rule so you can focus on them.
This chapter walks you through the key decision points (rather than the definition
items above), starting with those provisions that may tell you that you are not subject
to the rule. We first outline the general applicability provisions and the few
exemptions and exclusions, then discuss which chemicals are "regulated substances."
If you do not have a "regulated substance" at your site, you are not covered by this
rule. The exemptions may exclude you from the rule or simply exclude certain
activities from consideration. (Throughout this document, when we say "rule" we
mean the regulations in part 68.)
We then describe what is considered a "process," which is critical because you are
subject to the rule only if you have more than a threshold quantity in a process. The
chapter next describes how to determine whether you have more than a threshold
quantity.
Finally, we discuss how you define your overall stationary source and when you must
comply. These questions are important once you have decided that you are covered.
For most facilities covered by this rule, the stationary source is basically all covered
processes at your site. If your facility is part of a site with other divisions of your
company or other companies, the discussion of stationary source will help you
understand what you are responsible for in your compliance and reporting. Exhibit
1-1 presents the decision process for determining applicability.
January 27, 1999
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
EVALUATE FACILITY TO IDENTIFY COVERED PROCESSES
Is your facility
a stationary
source?
Do you have
any regulated
substances?
STOP!
You are not covered
by the rule.
Define your
processes
Do you nave any
regulated substances
above a threshold quantity
in a process?
You are subject
to the rule.
Assign Program levels to
covered processes
(see Exhibit 2-1)
-------
Chapter 1
1-3, General Applicability
1.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS
The CAA applies this rale to any person who owns or operates a stationary source.
"Person" is defined to include
"An individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, political
subdivision of a state, and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United
States and any officer, agency, or employee thereof."
t
The rule, therefore, applies to all levels of government as well as private businesses.
CAA section 1 12(r)(2)(c) defines "stationary sources" as:
"Any buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance emitting stationary
activities
4- Which belong to the same industrial group,
4- Which are located on one or more contiguous properties,
4- Which are under the control of the same person (or persons under common
control), and
4- From which an accidental release may occur."
EPA has added some language in the rule to clarify issues related to transportation
(see below).
/
FARMS
The rule has only one exemption: for ammonia when held by a farmer for use on a
farm. This exemption applies to ammonia only when used as a fertilizer by a farmer.
It does not apply to agricultural suppliers or the fertilizer manufacturer. It does not
apply to farm cooperatives or to groups of farmers who buy, use, and sell ammonia.
TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES
The rule applies only to stationary sources. Pipelines covered by DOT or under a state
natural gas or hazardous liquid program for which the state has in effect a certification
to DOT under 49 U.S.C. 6010.5 are not covered. Piping at your source, however, is
covered. '
Transportation containers used for storage not incident to transportation and
transportation containers connected to equipment at a stationary source are considered
part of the stationary source. Transportation containers that have been unhooked from
the motive power that delivered them to the site (e.g., truck or locomotive) and left on
your site for short-term or long-term storage are part of your stationary source. For
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter I
General Applicability 1-4
QS&AS
STATIONARY SOURCE
Q, What does "same industrial group" mean?
A. Operations at a site that belong to the same three-digit North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code (which has replaced the old two-digit SIC codes) belong to the "same industrial
group. In addition, where one or more operations at the site serve primarily as support facilities for the
main operation at the site, the supporting operations are part of the "same industrial group" as the main
operation.
Q. What does "contiguous property" mean?
A. Property that is adjoining. Public rights-of-way (e.g., railroads, highways) do not prevent property
from being considered contiguous. Property connected only by rights-of-way are not considered
contiguous (e.g., two plants with a connecting pipeline).
Q. What does "control of the same person" mean?
A. Control of the same person refers to corporate control, not site management. If two divisions of a
corporation operate at the same site, even if each operation is managed separately, they will count as
one source provided the other criteria are met because they are under control of the same company.
example, if you have railcars on a private siding that you use as storage tanks until you
are ready to hook them to your process, these railcars should be considered to be part
of your source. If a tank truck is being unloaded and the motive power is still
attached, the truck and its contents are considered to be in transportation and not
covered by the rule. You should count only the substances in the piping or hosing as
well as quantity unloaded. Some issues related to transportation are still under
discussion with DOT,
RELATIONSHIP TO OSH A PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT STANDARD
EXEMPTIONS
The OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (29 CFR 1910.119) exempts
substances used solely as a fuel if such substances are not part of a process containing
another regulated substance and flammable liquids stored in atmospheric storage
tanks. The OSHA exemptions do not apply or extend to EPA's Risk Management
Program Rule. Your processes are not exempt from the Risk Management Program
simply because they qualify for one of the OSHA exemptions. EPA's rule covers
substances used as fuel and substances stored in atmospheric storage tanks.
Januaty27,1999
-------
Chapter 1
1-5 ' • General Applicability
1.3 REGULATED SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLDS
The list of substances regulated under § 68.130 is in Appendix A. Check the list
carefully. If you do not have any of these substances (either as pure substances or in
mixtures above 1 percent concentration) or do not have them above their listed
threshold quantities, you do not need to read any further.
'The list includes 77 chemicals that were listed because they are acutely toxic; they can
cause serious health effects or death from short-term exposures. The list also covers
63 flammable gases and highly volatile flammable liquids. The flammable chemicals
have the potential to form vapor clouds and explode or burn if released. The rule also
covers flammable mixtures that include any of the listed flammables if the mixture
meets the criteria for the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) 4 rating.
\
1.4 WHAT IS A PROCESS
The concept of "process" is key to whether you are subject to this rule. Process is
defined as:
"Any activity involving a regulated substance, including any use, storage,
manufacturing, handling or on-site movement of such substances or any combination
of these activities. For the purposes of this definition, any group of vessels that are
interconnected, or separate vessels that are located such that a regulated substance
could be involved in a potential release shall be considered a single process."
"Vessel" means a reactor,- tank, drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, boiler, pipe, hose, or
other container.
The definition of process is identical to the definition of process under the OSHA
PSM standard. It is important in determining whether you have a threshold quantity
of a regulated substance and what the level of requirements you must meet if the
process is covered.
r ,
What does this mean to you?
' 4- If you store a regulated substance in a single vessel in quantities above the
threshold quantity, you are covered.
4- If you have interconnected vessels that altogether hold more than a threshold
quantity, you are covered. The connections need not be permanent. If two or
more vessels are connected occasionally, they are considered a single process
for the purposes of determining whether a threshold quantity is present.
4- If you have multiple unc'onnected vessels, containing the same substance, you
will have to determine whether they need to be considered together.,.
January 27. 1999
-------
Chapter 1
General Applicability 1-6
SINGLE VESSELS
If you have only a single vessel with regulated substances, you need not worry about
the other possibilities for defining a process and can skip to the section 1.5. For the
purposes of defining a threshold quantity, you need only consider the quantity in this
vessel.
INTERCONNECTED VESSELS
In general, if you have two or more vessels that contain a regulated substance and are
connected through piping or hoses for the transfer of the regulated substance, you
must consider the total quantity in all the connected vessels and piping when
determining if you have a threshold quantity in a process. If the vessels are connected
for transfer of the substance using hoses that are then removed, you still have to
consider the contents of the vessels as one process, because if one vessel were to
rupture while the hose was attached or the hose were to break during the transfer, you
could lose the total quantity in both tanks. Therefore, you must count the quantities in
both tanks and in any connecting piping or hoses. You cannot consider the presence
of automatic shutoff valves or other devices that can limit flow, because these are
assumed to fail for the purpose of determining the total quantity in a process.
In cases where vessels are connected over great distances, such as in a large refinery
or multi-unit chemical plant, determining whether the vessels constitute a single
process for purposes of the RMP rule may be more complicated. In the preamble to
the rule, EPA clearly stated its intent to be consistent with OSHA's interpretation of
"process" as that term is used in OSHA's PSM rule. Therefore, if your facility is
subject to the PSM rale, the limits of your process(es) for purposes of OSHA PSM
will be the limits of your process(es) for purposes of RMP (except in cases involving
atmospheric storage tanks, which are exempt from PSM but not RMP). If your facility
is not covered by OSHA PSM and is complicated from an engineering perspective,
you should consider contacting your implementing agency for advice on determining
process boundaries. EPA intends to promulgate further guidance on this issue.
i
CO-LOCATION
The third possibility you must consider is whether you have separate vessels that
contain the same regulated substance that are located such that they could be involved
in a single release. If so, you must add together the total quantity in all such vessels
to determine if you have more than a threshold quantity. This possibility will be
particularly important if you store a regulated substance in cylinders or barrels or other
containers in a warehouse or outside in a rack. In some cases, you may have two
vessels or systems that are in the same building or room. For each of these cases, you
should ask yourself:
4- Would a release from one of the containers lead to a release from the other?
For example, if a cylinder of propane were to rupture and burn, would the fire
spread to other propane cylinders?
Jamuiy 27,1999
-------
Chapter 1
1-7 General Applicability
4- Would an event external to the containers, such as a fire or explosion, have
the potential to release the regulated substance from multiple containers?
You must determine whether there is a credible scenario that could lead to a release of
a threshold quantity. ; '
• For flammables, you should consider the distance between vessels. If a fire could
spread from one vessel to others or an explosion could rupture multiple vessels, you
must count all of them. For toxics, ,a release from a single vessel will not normally
lead to a release from others unless the vessel fails catastrophically and explodes,
sending metal fragments into other vessels. Co-located vessels containing toxic
substances, however, may well be involved in a release caused by a fire or explosion
that occurs from another source. The definition of process is predicated on the
assumption that explosion will take place. In addition, a collapse of storage racks
could lead to multiple vessels breaking open.
If the vessels are separated by fire walls or barricades that will contain the blast waves
from explosions of the substances, you will not need to count the separated vessels,
but you would count any that are in the same room.
You may not dismiss the possibility of a fire spreading based on an assumption that
the fire department will be able to prevent any spread. You should ask yourself how
far the fire would spread if the worst happens — the fire department is slow to arrive,
the water supply fails, or the fire department decides it is safer to let the fire burn itself
out. If you have vessels that, when taken together, could release more than a threshold
quantity in such worst-case circumstances, you should count them as a single process.
PROCESSES WITH MULTIPLE CHEMICALS
When you are determining whether you have a covered process, you should not limit
your consideration to units that have the same regulated substance. A covered process
includes any units that hold more than a threshold quantity of regulated substances
and that are interconnected or co-located. Therefore, if you have four storage or
reactor vessels holding four different regulated substances above their individual
thresholds and they are located close enough to be involved in a single event, they are
considered a single process. One implication of this approach is that if you have two
vessels, each containing slightly less than a threshold quantity of the same regulated
substance and located a considerable distance apart, and you have other storage or
process vessels in between with other regulated substances above their thresholds, the
vessels with the first substance may be part of the process involving the other vessels
and other regulated substances, based on co-location.
Exhibit 1-2 provides illustrations of what may be defined as a process.
January 27, 1999
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2: PROCESS
Schematic Representation
Description
Interpretation
Q
1 vessel
1 regulated substance above TQ
1 process
r
2 or more connected vessels
same regulated substance
above TQ
1 process
2 or more connected vessels
different regulated substances
each above TQ
1 process
pipeline feeding multiple vessels
total above TQ
1 process
2 or more vessels co-located
same substance
total above TQ
1 process
2 or more vessels co-located
different su bstances
each above TQ
1 process
2 vessels, located so they won't be
involved in a single release
same or different substances
each above TQ
2 processes
2 locations with regulated substances
each above TQ
1 or 2 processes
depending on distance
Flammable
1 series of interconnected vessels
same or different substances above TQs
plus a co-located storage vessel '
containing flammables
1 process
-------
Chapter 1
1-9 General Applicability
DIFFERENCES WITH OSHA
OSHA aggregates different flammable-liquids across vessels in making threshold
determinations; OSHA also aggregates different flammable gases (but does not
aggregate flammable liquids with flammable gases); EPA aggregates neither.
Therefore, if you have three co-located or connected reactor vessels each ^containing
5,000 pounds of a different flammable liquid, OSHA considers that you have 15,000
pounds of flammable liquids and are covered by the PSM standard. Under EPA's
rule, you would not have a covered process because you do not meet the threshold
quantity for any one of the three substances. OSHA, like EPA, does not aggregate
quantities for toxics as a class (i.e., each toxic substance must meet its own threshold
quantity).
WAREHOUSES AS A SINGLE PROCESS
Because warehouses usually consist of one large storage area, even if subdivided, and
because you are likely to have the same prevention practices for the entire warehouse,
you should generally consider the warehouse building a single process. If you store
chemicals outside the warehouse, they may be considered a separate process. The
issue you will have to decide is whether you have more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance to determine whether your warehouse building is a covered
process. Co-location, discussed above, will probably be the key issue in determining
whether your warehouse is a covered process and, if so, which chemicals must be
included in your risk management program,
1.5 THRESHOLD QUANTITY IN A PROCESS
The threshold quantity for each regulated substance is listed in Appendix A. You.
should determine whether the maximum quantity of each substance in a process is
greater than the threshold quantity listed. If it is, you must comply with this rule for
that process. Even if you are not covered by this rule, you may still be subject to
reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
Act(EPCRA).
QUANTITY IN A VESSEL
To determine if you have the threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a vessel
involved in a single process, you need to'consider the maximum quantity in that vessel
at any one time. You do not need to consider the vessel's maximum capacity if you
never fill it to that level. Base your decision on the actual maximum quantity that you
may have in the vessel. Your maximum quantity may be more than your normal
operating maximum quantity; for example, if you may use a vessel for emergency
'' storage, the maximum quantity should be based on the quantity that might be stored.
"At any one time" means you need to consider the largest quantity that you ever have
in the vessel. If you fill a tank with 50,000 pounds and immediately begin using the
substance and depleting the contents, your maximum is 50,000 pounds.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 1
General Applicability 1-10
AGGREGATION OF SUBSTANCES
A toxic substance is never aggregated with a different toxic substance to determine whether a threshold
quantity is present. If your process consists of co-located vessels with different toxic substances, you
must determine whether each substance exceeds its threshold quantity.
A flammable substance in one vessel is never aggregated with a different flammable substance in
another vessel to determine whether a threshold quantity is present. However, if a flammable mixture
meets the criteria for NFPA-4 and contains different regulated flammables, it is the mixture, not the
individual substances, that is considered in determining if a threshold quantity is present.
If you fill the vessel four times a year, your maximum is still 50,000 pounds.
Throughput is not considered because the rale is concerned about the maximum
quantity you could release in a single event.
QUANTITY IN A PIPELINE
The maximum quantity in a pipeline will generally be the capacity of the pipeline
(volume). In most cases, pipeline quantity will be calculated and added to the
interconnected vessels.
INTERCONNECTED/CO-LOCATED VESSELS
If your process consists of two or more interconnected vessels, you must determine the
maximum quantity for each vessel and the connecting pipes or hoses. The maximum
for each individual vessel and pipe is added together to determine the maximum for
the process.
If you have determined that you must consider co-located containers as one process,
you must determine the maximum quantity for each container and sum the quantities
of all such containers.
QUANTITY OF A SUBSTANCE IN A MIXTURE
Toxics WITH LISTED CONCENTRATION
Four toxic substances have listed concentrations in the rule: hydrochloric acid — 37
percent or greater; hydrofluoric acid — 50 percent or greater; nitric acid — 80 percent
or greater; and ammonia — 20 percent or greater.
+ If you have these substances in solution and then" concentration is less that the
listed concentration, you do not need to consider them at all.
1999
-------
1-11
Chapter 1
General Applicability
Qs and As
• THRESHOLD DETERMINATION,
Q. How far apart do containers have to be to be considered different processes?
i
A, There is no hard and fast rule for how great this distance should be before you do not need to
consider the vessels as part of one process. Two containers at opposite ends of a large warehouse
room might have to be considered as one process if the entire warehouse or room could be engulfed in
a fire. Two containers separated by the same distance out of doors might be far enough apart that a
fire affecting one would be unlikely to spread to the other. You may want to consult with your local
fire department. You should then use your best professional judgment. Ask yourself how much of the
regulated substance could be released if the worst happens (you have a major fire, an explosion, a
natural disaster).
Q. If I have more than 10,000 pounds of several different flammable liquids stored in the same area,
but no single one is above the threshold quantity, am I covered?
A. No. You must have more than a threshold quantity (10,000 pounds for flammables) of a regulated
substance, or more than a threshold quantity of an NFPA-4 flammable mixture containing a regulated
substance. Different regulated flammables in separate vessels are not aggregated. Note that this is
different from OSHA's approach under OSHA PSM, where flammable liquids are aggregated.
4- If you have one of these four above their listed concentration, you must
determine the weight of the substance in the solution and use that to calculate
the quantity present. If that quantity is greater than the threshold, the process
is covered. For example, aqueous ammonia is covered at concentrations
above 20 percent, with a threshold quantity of 20,000 pounds. If the solution
is 25 percent ammonia, you would need 80,000 pounds of the solution to meet
the threshold quantity; if the solution is 44 percent ammonia, you would need
45,455 pounds to meet the threshold quantity (quantity of mixture x
percentage of regulated substance = quantity of regulated substance). r
Note that in a revision to part 68, EPA changed the concentration for hydrochloric
acid to 37 percent or greater (see Appendix A).
Toxics WITHOUT A LISTED CONCENTRATION
For toxics without a listed concentration, if the concentration is less than one percent
you need not consider the quantity in your threshold determination. If the
concentration in a mixture is above one percent, you must calculate the weight of the
regulated substance in the mixture and use that weight to determine whether a
threshold quantity is present. However, if you can measure or estimate (and
document) that the partial pressure of the regulated substance in the mixture is less
than 10 mm Hg, you do not need to consider the mixture. Note that the partial
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 1
General Applicability 1-12
pressure rule does not apply to toluene diisocyanate (2-4,2-6, or mixed isomers) or
oleum.
EPA treats toxic mixtures differently from OSHA. Under the OSHA PSM standard,
the entire weight of the mixture is counted toward the threshold quantity; under part
68, only the weight of the toxic substance is counted.
FLAMMABLES
Flammable mixtures are subject to the rule only if there is a regulated substance in the
mixture above one percent and the entire mixture meets the NFPA-4 criteria. If the
mixture meets both of these criteria, you must use the weight of the entire mixture (not
just the listed substance) to determine if you exceed the threshold quantity. The
NFPA-4 definition is as follows:
-,, '
"Materials that will rapidly or completely vaporize at atmospheric pressure and normal
ambient temperature or that are readily dispersed in air, and mat will burn readily.
This degree usually includes:
FLAMMABLE GASES
Flammable cryogenic materials
Any liquid or.gaseous material that is liquid while under pressure and has a flash point
below 73 F(22.8 Q and a boiling point below 100 F(37.8 C) (i.e., Class 1A
flammable liquids)
Materials that will spontaneously ignite when exposed to air."
You do not need to consider gasoline, when in distribution or related storage for use
as fuel for internal combustion engines when you determine the applicability of the
rule.
EXCLUSIONS
The rale has a number of exclusions that allow you to ignore certain sources that
contain a regulated substance when you determine whether a threshold quantity is
present. Note that these same exclusions apply to EPCRA section 313; you may be
familiar with them if you comply with that provision.
ARTICLES (68.115(e)(4))
You do not need to include in your threshold calculations any manufactured item (as
defined under 29 CFR 1910.1200(b)) that:
4- Is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture,
+ Has end use functions dependent in whole or in part upon the shape or design
Januajy 27,1999
-------
Chapter 1
1-13 General Applicability
during end use, and
4- Does not release or otherwise result in exposure to a regulated substance
under normal conditions of processing and use.
Qs and As
THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS
Q. I have a mixture containing 9,000 pounds of butane and 1,001 pounds of water in a process. The
mixture meets the criteria for a National Fire Protection Association flammability rating of 4 (NFPA
4). Is this process covered under the RMP regulations?
A. Yes. The entire weight of a mixture containing a regulated flammable substance must be counted
for threshold determination if the mixture itself meets the NFPA 4 criteria.
Q. I store consumer products in my warehouse, including hair spray and lighters. Do I need to
consider the propane and butane in these products or are they considered articles?
A. You must consider them hi determining if a threshold quantity is present. They are not articles
because the propane or butane is released during normal use. *
USES (68.115(B)(5))
You also do not need to include regulated substances in your calculation when in use
for the following purposes:
4 Use as a structural component of the stationary source;
4- Use of products for routine janitorial maintenance;
4- Use by employees of foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items
containing the regulated substances; and
4- Use of regulated substances present in process water or non-contact cooling
water as drawn from the environment or municipal sources, or use of
regulated substances present in air used either as compressed air or as part of
combustion.
ACTIVITIES IN LABORATORIES (68.115(B)(6))
If a regulated substance is manufactured, processed, or used in a laboratory at a
stationary source under the supervision of a technically qualified individual (as
defined by § 720.3 (ee) of 40 CFR), the quantity of the substance need not be
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 1
General Applicability 1-14
considered in determining whether a threshold quantity is present. This exclusion
does not extend to:
4- Specialty chemical production;
+ Manufacture, processing, or use of substances in pilot plant scale operations;
and
4- Activities conducted outside the laboratory.
This exclusion is unlikely to apply to chemical distributors.
1.6 STATIONARY SOURCE
The rule applies to "stationary sources" and each stationary source with one or more
covered processes must file an RMP that includes all covered processes.
SIMPLE SOURCES
For most facilities covered by this rule, determining what constitutes a "stationary
source" is simple. If you own or lease a property, your processes are contained within
the property boundary, and no other companies operate on the property, then your
stationary source is defined by the property boundary and covers any process within
the boundaries that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance. You
must comply with the rule and file a single RMP for all covered processes.
MULTIPLE OPERATIONS OWNED BY A SINGLE COMPANY
' If the property is owned or leased by your company, but several separate operating
divisions of the company have processes at the site, the divisions' processes may be
considered a single stationary source because they are controlled by a single company.
Two factors will determine if the processes are to be considered a single source: Are
the processes located on one or more contiguous properties? Are all of the operations
in the same industrial group?
If your company does have multiple operations that are on the same property and are
in the same industrial group, each operating division may develop its prevention
program separately for its covered processes, but you must file a single RMP for all
covered processes at the site. You should note that this is different from the
requirements for filing under CAA Title V and EPCRA section 313 (the annual toxic
release inventory), where each division could file separately if your company chose to
do so.
OTHER SOURCES
There are situations where two or more separate companies occupy the same site. The
simplest of these cases is if multiple companies lease land at a site (e.g., an industrial
park). Each company that has covered processes must file an RMP that includes
Jimiaiy27,1999
-------
Chapter 1
1-15 General Applicability
information on its own covered processes at the site. You are responsible for filing an
RMP for any operations that you own or operate.
Another possibility is that one company owns the land and operates there while
leasing part of the site to a second company. If both companies have covered
processes, each is considered a separate stationary source and mast file separate RMPs
even if they have contractual relationships, such as supplying product to each other or
sharing emergency response functions.
If you and another company jointly own a site, but have separate operations at the site,
you each must file separate RMPs for your covered processes. Ownership of the land
is not relevant; a stationary source consists of covered processes located on the same
property and controlled by a single owner,
JOINT VENTURES
.1
You and another company may jointly own covered processes. In this case, the legal
entity you have established to operate these processes should file the RMP. If you
consider this entity a subsidiary, you should be listed as the parent company in the
RMP.
MULTIPLE LOCATIONS
If you have multiple operations in the same area, but they are not on physically
connected land, you must consider them separate stationary sources and file separate
RMPs for each, even if the sites are connected by pipelines that move chemicals
among the sites. Remember, the rule applies to covered processes at a single location.
Exhibit 1-3 provides examples of stationary source decisions.
1.7 WHEN MUST YOU COMPLY
Prior to June 21, 1999, if you determine that you have a covered process, you must
comply with the requirements of part 68 no later than June 21, 1999. This means that
if you have the process now or start it on June 1, 1999, you must be in compliance
with the rule on June 21, 1999. By that time you must have developed and
implemented all of the elements of the rule that apply to each of your covered
processes, and you must submit an RMP to EPA in a form and manner that EPA will
specify prior to that time. If the first time you have a covered process is after June 21,
1999, or you bring a new process on line after that date, you must comply with part 68
no later than the date on which you first have a more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance in a process.
January 27, 1999
-------
EXHIBIT 1-3: STATIONARY SOURCE
Schematic Representation
Description
Interpretation
ABC Chemicals
General Chemicals Division
ABC Chemicals
Plastics Division
same owner
same industrial group
ABC Chemicals
Agricultural Chemicals Division
1 stationary source
1 BMP
A8C Chemicals
ABC Chemicals
two owners
XYZ Gases
2 stationary sources
2 RMPs
1 ABC
1 XYZ
ABC Chemicals
ABC Refinery
two owners
three industrial groups
XYZ Gases
3 stationary sources
1 ABC Chemicals
1 ABC Refinery
1 XYZ Gases
ABC Chemicals
two owners
ABC-MNO Joint-Venture
2 stationary sources
2 RMPs
same owner
same industrial group
contiguous property
1 stationary source
1 BMP
Building owned by Brown Properties
Farm Chemicals Inc.
Brown Property offices
[I
n
i
Cht
smic
i I ' '
als
n
n
n
•
1
[?if
two owners
Pet Supply Storage
(no regulated substances)
2 stationary sources
2 RMPs
1 ABC Chemicals
1 Farm Chemicals
-------
Chapter 1
1-17 General Applicability
Q&A
STATIONARY SOURCE
Q. If I lease space in another building and store regulated substances there, must I file a separate RMP
for them?
A. Yes, if the other building is a separate stationary source (i.e., it is not contiguous to the property
where your other processes are) you must file a separate RMP.
1.8 VARYING INVENTORIES AND PREDICTIVE FILING
As a chemical distributor, the main problem you are likely to face as you determine
whether you are covered by this rule is that your inventory changes frequently. There
may be periods when you have no regulated substances and other periods when you
have several. Determining your applicability under this rule on a day-to-day basis
may be difficult, and in some cases, impossible. One way to deal with this difficulty
is to use predictive filing.
Predictive filing is an option that allows you to submit an RMP that includes regulated
substances that may not be held at the facility at the time of submission. This option
is intended to assist facilities such as chemical warehouses, chemical distributors, and
batch processors whose operations involve highly variable types and quantities of
regulated substances, but who are able to forecast their inventory with some degree of
accuracy. Under § 68.190, you are required to update and re-submit your RMP no
later than the date on which a new regulated substance is first present in a covered
process above a threshold quantity. By using predictive filing, you will not be i
required to update and re-submit your RMP when you receive a new regulated
substance, if that substance was included in your latest RMP submission (as long as
'you receive it in a quantity that does not trigger a revised offsite consequence analysis
as provided in § 68.36).
To use predictive filing, review your inventories over the past several years and talk
with your main customers to determine, to the extent possible, the kinds of materials
they are planning to buy from you. If at some point during a year you normally
receive enough vessels (drums, barrels, cylinders) to exceed a threshold quantity of a
particular substance, list it on your registration in June 1999 even if you do not have it
on the day you submit. If it appears, over time, that your customers will not be buying
the substance again, you can deregister it later. In the short run, you will be safer ,
listing too many substances, than too few, because this approach will limit the need to
, resubmit your RMP every time your inventory changes.
If you have flammable mixtures, you may want to register them as a class rather than .
listing each covered flammable substance. This approach will assure that you ,are in
compliance with the registration requirements while limiting the effort you need to
make to identify the specific substances.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 1
General Applicability 1-18
If you use predictive filing, you must implement your Risk Management Program and
prepare your RMP exactly as you would if you actually held all of the substances
included in the RMP. This means that you must meet all rale requirements for each
regulated substance for which you file, whether or not that substance is actually held
on site at the tune you" submit your RMP, Depending on the substances for which you
file, this may require you to perform additional worst-case and alternative-case
scenarios and to implement additional prevention program elements. If you use this
option, you must still update and resubmit your RMP if you receive a regulated
substance that was not included in your latest RMP. This approach will not
completely eliminate the need to update your RMP, but should limit the frequency of
updates. If you use this option, you must still comply with the other update
requirements stated in § 68.190. RMPs must be updated when you:
4- Add a new regulated substance above its threshold (i.e., one not already
reported in your latest predictive RMP submission);
4- Add a new covered process;
4- Have the program level of the process change (see Chapter 2);
4- Make a major change that requires a revised PHA or hazard review (see
Chapters 6 and 7); or
4- Make a change that changes the distance to endpoint for a worst-case release
by a factor of two or more.
Listing all the regulated substances you think you are likely to handle will mean more
work initially (primarily more alternative release scenarios), but will limit the need for
updates. As a rule of thumb, you will need to increase or decrease the quantity of a
chemical in the single largest vessel by a factor of five or more to change the distance
to an endpoint by a factor of two.
Predictive filing will work best when you simply store chemicals. If you repackage
chemicals, you will need to complete prevention program information for each
repackaging process. If you can predict which regulated substances you will
repackage and can establish your prevention program, you can file predictively for that
process. If, however, you have listed a regulated substance in your RMP based on
expected storage, but you subsequently begin to repackage as well as store the
chemical, you will need to update the RMP to reflect the new process.
Januaiy27. 1999
-------
1-19
Chapter 1
General Applicability
Qs&As
COMPLIANCE DATES
Q. What happens if I bring a new covered process on line (e.g., install a second storage tarik) after
June 21,1999?
A. For new covered process after the initial compliance date, you must be in compliance on the date
you first have a regulated substance above the threshold quantity in that process. There is no grace
period. You must develop and implement all the applicable rule elements before you start operating
the new process. , .
Q. What if EPA lists a new substance?
A. You will have three years from the date on which the new listing is effective to come into
compliance for any process that is covered because EPA has listed a new substance.
Q. I store 1 -ton cylinders of chlorine. If I normally have 20 cylinders located together on site and
register that quantity, do I need to update my RMP if I increase the number of cylinders to 200? How
does this affect my worst-case scenario?
A. You do not necessarily need to update the RMP simply to reflect the higher quantity of chlorine.
In this case, because you have not changed the size of your single largest vessel, your worst-case
release scenario will not change. You will update the quantity information on your next scheduled
update.
Q. I have stored 1-ton cylinders of chlorine. Because of customer demand, I have started
repackaging and have a tank with 40,000 pounds of chlorine. Do I need to update the RMP?
A. Yes, for two reasons. First, if the tank is a new process, you must update your RMP immediately if
it is part of an existing process, you must update within 6 months. Second, the 40,000-pound tank
may result in the distance to endpoint for your worst-case release increasing by more than a factor of
two. If this is the case, you will need to update that change as well.
January 27, 1999
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CHAPTER 2: APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAM LEVELS
2.1 WHAT ARE PROGRAM LEVELS?
Once you have decided that you have one or more processes subject to this rule (see
Chapter 1), you need to identify vyhat actions you must take to comply. The rule
imposes different requirements on processes based on the potential for public impacts
and the level of effort needed to prevent accidents. EPA has set three levels of
requirements that apply to covered processes:
Program 1: Processes with no public receptors within the distance to the
endpoint from a worst-case release and with no accidents with specific offsite ,
consequences within the past five years are eligible for Program 1, which
imposes minimal requirements on the process.
Program 2: Processes not eligible for Program 1 or subject to Program 3 are
placed in Program 2, which imposes a streamlined prevention program.
Program 3: Processes not eligible for Program 1 and either subject to
OSHA's PSM standard under federal or state OSHA programs or in ten
specified North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes are
placed in Program 3, which imposes the OSHA PSM program as the
prevention program.
If you can qualify a process for Program 1, it is in your best interests to do so, even if
the process is already subject to OSHA PSM. For Program 1 processes, the
implementing agency will inspect and enforce only on compliance with the minimal
Program 1 requirements. If you assign a process to Program 2 or 3 when it might
qualify for Program 1» the implementing agency will inspect or enforce for compliance
with all the requirements of the higher program levels. If, however, you are already in
compliance with the prevention elements of Program 2 or Program 3, you may want to
use the RMP to inform the community of your prevention efforts.
See Exhibit 2-1 for a diagram of the decision rules on Program level.
^ KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER
%
In determining program levels for your process(es), keep in mind the following:
(1) The program levels apply to individual processes and generally indicate
the risk management measures necessary to comply with this regulation for
the process, not the facility as a whole. The eligibility of one process for a
program level does not influence the eligibility of other covered processes for
other program levels.
* / '
(2) Any process can be eligible for Program 1, even if it is subject to OSHA
PSM or is in one of the NAICS codes.
January 27, 1999
-------
EXHIBIT 2-1
EVALUATE PROGRAM LEVELS FOR COVERED PROCESSES
Are public receptors
within the distance to
the endpoint for a
worst-case release?
Is me process
subject to the OSHA
PSM Standard?
Is the process
classified in one of the
listed NAiCS codes?
Have offsite
impacts occurred due
to a release of a
regulated substance
from the process?
No-*
Process
Subject to
Program
Level 2
Process
Eligible for
Program
Level 1
Process
Subject to
Program
Level 3
-------
Chapter 2
2-3 Applicability of Program Levels
(3) Program 2 is the default program level. There are no "standard criteria"
for Program 2, Any process that does not meet the eligibility criteria for
either Programs 1 or 3 is subject to the requirements for Program 2.
*
(4) Only one Program level can apply to a process. If a process consists of
multiple production or operating units or storage vessels, the highest Program
level that applies to any segment of the process applies to all parts.
Q&A
PROCESS AND PROGRAM LEVEL
Q. My process, includes two interconnected units, as well as several storage vessels and a warehouse
that are co-located. Several sections of the process could qualify for Program 1. Can I divide my
process into sections for the purpose of assigning Program levels?
A. No, you cannot subdivide a process for this purpose. The highest Program level that applies to any
section of the process is the Program level for the whole process. If the entire process is not eligible
for Program 1, then the entire process must be assigned to Program 2 or Program 3.
2.2 PROGRAM 1
WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS?
Your process is eligible for Program 1 if:
(1) There are no public receptors within a distance to an endpoint from a
worst-case release; -
(2) The process has had no release of a regulated substance in the past five years
where exposure to the substance, its reaction products, overpressures
generated by explosion involving the substance, or radiant heat from a fire
involving the substance resulted in offsite deaths, injuries, or response or
restoration activities for exposure of an environmental receptor; and
(3) You have coordinated your emergency response activities with the local
responders. (This requirement applies to any covered process, regardless of
program level.)
WHAT Is A PUBLIC RECEPTOR?
/
The rule defines public as "any person who is not an employee or contractor of the
stationary source." Consequently, employees of other facilities that may share your
site are considered members of the public even if they share the same physical
location. Being "the public," however, is not the same as being a public receptor.
January 27.1999
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels 2-4
Public receptors include offsite residences, institutions (e.g., schools and hospitals),
industrial, commercial, and office buildings, parks, or recreational areas inhabited or
occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the stationary source.
Offsite means areas beyond your property boundary and "areas within the property
boundary to which the public has routine and unrestricted access during or outside of
business hours."
For most facilities, the meaning of the definition of public receptor is straightforward.
If you restrict access to your property at all times, public receptors are any occupied
buildings or public gathering areas beyond your boundaries. Access restrictions
include precautions such as a fully fenced site, security guards on duty at a reception
area, or ID badges necessary to gain entry.
If you have unrestricted sections of your site that are predictably used by the public
(e.g., ball fields or picnic areas), then these sections would also be considered public
receptors. Neighboring businesses, whether commercial or industrial, are considered
public receptors, as are residences, institutions such as hospitals, schools, prisons,
marinas and airport terminals, public and private parking lots, golf courses, transit
stations, and toll booth plazas for roads and bridges. The ability of others to restrict
access to an area does not change its status as a public receptor.
Not all areas offsite are public receptors. Public roads and bridges are not considered
public receptors. For other areas, you need to make a reasonable determination as to
whether the public is likely to inhabit or occupy an offsite area. For example, a
facility located in a remote mountainous area surrounded by unimproved forest might
reasonably determine that the surrounding land is not a public receptor, even if it is
infrequently traversed by hunters or fishermen. If a remote facility borders a park or
wilderness area, the parts of the park, such as the campground, picnic area, or hiking
trails that are likely to be occupied by the public, even if only seasonally, would be
considered public receptors. Farm land may or may not be a public receptor. If farm
workers are usually present, the farm land is a public receptor. If, however, the farm
or ranch land is rarely occupied by workers, it may not be a public receptor. If you are
in doubt about whether to consider certain areas around your facility as public
receptors, you should consult with local emergency planning officials, local or state
authorities, the land owners, and your implementing agency for guidance on whether
such areas should be considered as public receptors.
WHAT is A DISTANCE TO AN ENDPOINT FROM A WORST-CASE RELEASE?
The rule establishes "endpoints" for each substance and defines a worst-case release
scenario (see Chapter 4 or the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance for more
information). You will have to define a worst-case release (usually the loss of the
total contents of your largest vessel) and either use EPA's guidance or conduct
modeling on your own to determine the distance to the endpoint. Beyond that point,
the effects on people are not considered to be severe enough to merit the need for
additional action under this rule.
January 27.1999
-------
2-5
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels
QS&AS
PUBLIC RECEPTORS
* *
Q. My processes are fenced, but my offices and parking lot for customers are not restricted. What is
considered offsite?
A. The unrestricted areas would be considered potential public receptors.
Q. What is considered a recreational area?
A. Recreational areas would include most bodies of waters (oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams)
because they are used for fishing, swimming, or boating. Areas that are predictably used by hunters,
fishermen, bird watchers, children, bike riders, or hikers would be considered recreational areas. Areas
where there are places for public to gather (e.g., ball fields, picnic tables, jungle gyms, hiking paths,
campsites) would be considered recreational areas. Even if an area is only used during certain parts of
the year for recreation, it would still be considered a recreational area. EPA recognizes that some
judgment is involved in determining whether an area should be considered a public receptor. You are
responsible for making a reasonable judgment. If you have doubts about whether an area can be
legitimately excluded from consideration as a public receptor, EPA encourages you to consult with
local officials and the community to reach an agreement on an area's status; your local emergency
planning committee (LEPC) can help you with these consultations. If your facility is surrounded by
undeveloped land, you may also want to consult with the land owner.
Q. Does public receptor cover only buildings on a property or the entire property? If the owner of the
land next to my site restricts access to the land, is it still a public receptor?
A. Public receptors are not limited to buildings. For example, if there are houses near your property,
both the houses and their yards are considered public receptors because it is likely the people will be
present in both at times and would be in more danger if they were outside when a release occurred. If
the owner of a neighboring property restricts access to the land, the question you will need to consider
is whether that land is generally unoccupied. If your site abuts farm land where farm workers are
generally present, it is considered a public receptor. If the land is undeveloped or rarely has anyone on
it, but you are uncertain about whether to consider it a public receptor, you should talk with the
landowner and the community to reach an agreement on its status. Because it is the landowner and
members of the local community who are likely to be affected by your decision, you should involve
them in the decision is you have doubts.
To define the area of potential impact from the worst-case release, draw a circle on a
map, using the process as the center and the distance to the endpoint as the radius. If
there are any public receptors within that area, your process is not eligible for Program
1.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels 2-6
Q and A
Determining Distances
Q. Our distance to the endpoint for the worst-case release is 0.3 miles. The nearest public receptor is
0.32 miles away. What tools are available to document that the public receptor is beyond the distance
to the endpoint so we can qualify for Program 1 ?
A. The results of any air dispersion model (from EPA's guidance documents or other models) are not
precise predictions. They represent an estimate, but the actual distances to the endpoint could be
closer to or farther from the point of release. If your distance to the endpoint and distance to a public
receptor are so close that you cannot document, using a USGS map, that the two points are different, it
would be advisable to comply with the higher Program level. (The most detailed maps available from
the US Geological Survey (scale of 1:24,000) are not accurate enough to map these distances and
document that these two points (which are about 100 feet apart) differ. Civilian GPS systems
generally have a margin of error of 100 meters (about 0.05 miles).)
ACCIDENT HISTORY
To be eligible for Program-1, no release of the regulated substance from the process
can have resulted in offsite deaths, injuries, or response or restoration activities at an
environmental receptor during the five years prior to submission of your RMP. A
release of the regulated substance from another process has no bearing on whether the
first process is eligible for Program 1.
WHAT is AN INJURY?
An injury is defined as "any effect on a human that results from direct exposure to
toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressures from accidental releases or from
the direct consequences of a vapor cloud explosion (such as flying glass, debris, and
other projectiles) from an accidental release." The effect must "require medical
treatment or hospitalization." This definition is taken from the OSHA regulations for
the keeping of the employee injury and illness logs and should be familiar to most
employers. Medical treatment is further defined as treatment, other that first aid,
administered by a physician or registered professional personnel under standing orders
from a physician. The definition of medical treatment will likely capture most
instances of hospitalization. However, if someone goes to the hospital following
direct exposure to a release and is kept overnight for observation (even if no specific
injury or illness is found), that would qualify as hospitalization.
WHAT is AN ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTOR?
The environmental receptors you need to consider are limited to natural areas such as
national or state parks, forests, or monuments; officially designated wildlife
sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal wilderness areas. All of these
areas can be identified on local U.S. Geological Survey maps.
Januiiy27.1999
-------
Chapter 2
2-7 Applicability of Program Levels
WHAT ARE RESTORATION AND RESPONSE ACTIVITIES?
The type of restoration and response activity conducted to address the impact of an
accidental release will depend on the type of release (volatilized spill, vapor cloud,
fire, or explosion), but may include such activities as:
4- Collection and disposal of dead animals and contaminated plant life;
4- Collection, treatment, and disposal of soil;
4- Shutoff of drinking water;
4- Replacement of damaged vegetation; or
4- Isolation of a natural area due to contamination associated with an accidental
release.
If an impact occurs, such damaged vegetation, and no steps are taken to replace the
vegetation, the process remains eligible for Program 1.,
Q&A
ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS
Q. Do environmental receptors include areas that are not Federal Class I areas under the CAA?
* ,
A. Yes. The list of environmental receptors in Part 68 is not related to the Federal Class I areas under
CAA section 162, Under Part 68, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas are not limited by
size criteria. In addition, other areas are covered; for example, national forests and state parks,
monuments, and forests are environmental receptors.
DOCUMENTING PROGRAM 1 ELIGIBILITY
As part of your risk management program, you must keep records of your compliance
with this requirement. For each Program 1 process, your records should include the
following:
4- The worst-case release scenario, which shall include a description of the
vessel or pipeline and substance selected as worst case, assumptions and
parameters used, and the rationale for selection.
4- Assumptions shall include use of any administrative controls and any.passive
mitigation that were assumed to limit the quantity that could be released;
4- Documentation of estimated quantity released, release rate, and duration of
release;
4- The methodology used to determine distance to endpoints;
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels 2-8
4- Data used to determine that no public receptor would be affected;
4- Information on your coordination with public responders.
2.3 QUICK RULES FOR DETERMINING PROGRAM 1 ELIGIBILITY
You generally will not be able to predict with certainty that the worst-case analysis for
a particular process will be eligible for Program 1. Processes containing certain
substances, however, may be more likely than others to be eligible for Program 1, and
processes containing certain other substances may be very unlikely to be eligible for
Program 1 because of the toxicity and physical properties of the substances. The
information presented below may be useful in helping you to decide whether to carry
out analyses of processes to determine Program 1 eligibility (accident history criteria
must be met separately).
TOXIC (aASES
, If you have a process containing more than a threshold quantity of any regulated toxic
gas that is not liquefied by refrigeration alone (i.e., you hold it as a gas or liquefied
under pressure), the distance to the endpoint estimated using EPA's required
worst-case assumptions is unlikely to be less than the distance to public receptors,
unless your site is very remote; these distances will generally be several miles. In
some cases, however, toxic gases in processes in enclosed areas may be eligible for
Program 1.
4
REFRIGERATED Toxic GASES
If you haye a process containing anhydrous ammonia liquefied by refrigeration alone,
and your worst-case release would take place into a diked area, the chances are good
that the process may be eligible for Program 1, unless there are public receptors very
close to the process. Even if you have many times the threshold quantity of ammonia,
it probably will be worth your while to carry out the consequence analysis to see
whether the process may be eligible for Program 1.
If you have a process containing ethylene oxide, anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, or .
methyl chloride liquefied by refrigeration alone, and the release would take place in a
diked area, the process may be eligible for Program 1, depending on the size of the
diked area, the quantity of the regulated substance, and the location of public
receptors.
The worst-case analysis for a process containing chlorine liquefied by refrigeration is
unlikely to show eligibility for Program 1, unless your site is extremely remote from
the public or the release would occur within an enclosure.
January 27.1999
-------
2-9
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels
Qs&As
ACCIDENT HISTORY
Q. What is the relationship between the accident history for Program 1 and the five-year accident
history? If my process is eligible for Program 1, do I still need to do a five-year accident history.
A. Although both cover the previous five years, the accidental release criteria for Program 1 and the
general accident history for the source are different.
+ The five-year accident history is an information collection requirement that is designed to
provide data on all serious accidents from a covered process involving a regulated substance held
above the threshold quantity.
i
+ In contrast, the Program 1 criteria focus on whether the process in question has the potential to
experience a release of the regulated substance that results in harm to the public based on past
events. Onsite effects, sheltering-in-place, and evacuations are not relevant Therefore, it is
possible that a process eligible for Program 1 may still have experienced a release that mu$t be
reported in the accident history for the source.
Q. A process with more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance had an accident with
offsite consequences three years ago. After the accident, we altered the process to reduce the
quantity stored on site. Now the worst-case release scenario indicates that there are no public
receptors within the distance to an., endpoint. Can this process qualify for Program 1 ?
A. No, the process cannot qualify for Program 1 until five years have passed since any accident
with the specified consequences.
Q. A process involving a regulated substance had an accidental release with offsite consequences
two years ago. The process has been shutdown. Do I have to report anyway?
A. No. The release does not have to be included in your accident history. Your risk management
plan only needs to address processes that have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance on the date you file your RMP.
Toxic LIQUIDS
The distance to the endpoint from the worst-case analysis for toxic liquids kept under
ambient conditions may be smaller than the distance to public receptors in a number
of cases. If public receptors are not found very close to the process (within Yz mile),
such processes may be eligible for Program 1. Small acreage facilities in highly
developed areas are unlikely to meet this criterion; it will be more relevant to remotely
located facilities or processes found near the center of large acreage sites. Substances
that are potential candidates to be in processes that are eligible for Program 1 are
noted below. Generally, processes that contain toxic liquids at elevated temperatures,
including the toxic liquids listed below, would be less likely to be eligible for Program
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels 2-10
1 than those at ambient temperature, and processes in diked areas are more likely to be
eligible for Program 1 than those in undiked areas.
For processes containing toluene diisocyanate (including toluene 2,4-diisocyanate,
toluene 2,6-diisocyanate, and unspecified isomers) or ethylene diamine, the analysis of
a spill of more than a threshold quantity into an undiked area under ambient
conditions is likely to demonstrate eligibility for Program 1. If the area of the spill is
diked, processes containing very large quantities of these substances may be eligible
for Program 1. In addition, processes containing the following toxic liquids under
ambient conditions are likely to be eligible for Program 1 if a spill would take place in
a diked area and public receptors are not close to the process:
4- Chloroform
4- Cyclohexylamine
4- Hydrazine
4- Isobutyronitrile
4- Isopropyl chloroformate
4- Oleum
4- Propylene oxide
4- Titanium tetrachloride
4- Vinyl acetate monomer
WATER SOLUTIONS opToxrc SUBSTANCES
The list of regulated substances includes several common water solutions of toxic
substances. Processes containing such solutions at ambient temperatures may be
eligible for Program 1 (depending in some cases on the concentration of the solution),
if spills would be contained in diked areas and public receptors are not located close to
the process (within Vz mile). As noted above, small acreage facilities in developed
areas are highly unlikely to meet this criterion; it will be more relevant to remotely
located facilities or processes found near the center of large acreage sites.
Processes containing the following water solutions may be eligible for Program 1,
assuming diked areas that would contain the spill and ambient temperatures:
4- Ammonia in solution
4- Formaldehyde (commercial concentrations)
4- Hydrofluoric acid (concentration 50 to 70 percent)
4- Nitric acid (commercial concentrations)
FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
Many processes containing regulated flammable substances are likely to be eligible for
Program 1, unless there are public receptors within a very short distance. If you have
a process containing up to about 20,000 pounds (twice the threshold quantity) of a
regulated flammable substance (other than hydrogen), your process is likely to be
eligible for Program 1 if you have no public receptors within about 400 yards (1,200
feet) of the process. If you have up to 100,000 pounds in a process (ten times the
Jtmwy27.1999
-------
Chapter 2
2-11 Applicability of Program Levels
threshold quantity), the process may be eligible for Program 1 if there are no public
receptors within about 700 yards (2,000 feet). In general, it would be worthwhile to
conduct a worst-case analysis for any processes containing flammables to determine
Program 1 eligibility, unless you have public receptors very close to the process. You
must be able to demonstrate, through your worst-case analysis, that every process you
claim is Program 1 meets the criteria.
2.4 PROGRAM 3
Any covered process that is not eligible for Program 1 and meets one of the two
criteria specified below is covered by Program 3 requirements. Program 3 sets risk
management measures, including compliance with the OSHA PSM Standard, for an
. eligible covered process.
WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM 3?
Your process qualifies for Program 3 if:
4- Your process does not meet the eligibility requirements for Program 1, and
4- Either
(a) Your process is subject to OSHA PSM (federal or state); or
(b) Your process is in one of ten NAICS codes specified by EPA.
WHAT Is THE OSHA PSM STANDARD?
The OSHA Process Safety Management standard (codified at 29 CFR 1910.119) is a
formal set of procedures in thirteen management areas designed to protect worker
health and safety from accidental releases. As with EPA's rule, they apply to a range
{ of facilities that have more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process.
All processes subject to this rule and the OSHA PSM standard (federal or state) and
not eligible for Program 1 are assigned to Program 3 because the Program 3
prevention program is identical to the elements of the PSM standard. If you are
already complying with OSHA PSM for a process, you probably will need to take few,
if any, additional steps and develop little, if any, additional documentation to meet the
requirements of the Program 3 prevention elements (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of
differences between Program 3 prevention and OSHA PSM). EPA placed all covered
OSHA PSM processes in Program 3 to eliminate the possibility of imposing
overlapping, inconsistent requirements on the same process.
Processes covered by OSHA PSM may include equipment, activities, and regulated
substances, particularly flammables used as fuels, that in other circumstances are
exempted under the OSHA PSM standard.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels 2-12
WHAT ARE THE TEN NAICS CODES?
The ten NAICS codes are pulp mills, certain chemical manufacturers, and petroleum
refineries. They do not apply to chemical distributors. If you have a process in
Program 3, it will be because it is subject to OSHA PSM.
2.5 PROGRAM 2
Program 2 is considered a default program level because any covered process that is
not eligible for Program 1 and Program 3 requirements is, by default, covered by
Program 2 requirements. Program 2 sets risk management measures, including a
streamlined accident prevention program, for an eligible covered process. Your
processes) are likely to be in Program 2 if:
4- You are a retailer and do not perform any chemical processing activities, such
as a propane retailer.
4 You use propane (or other flammable) as a fuel for heating, such as an
industrial user of propane.
4- You are a publicly owned facility in a state that does not have a delegated
OSHA program.
4- You use the regulated acids in solution, and your activities do not fall into one
of the ten specified NAICS codes.
4- You store regulated liquid flammable substances in atmospheric storage tanks.
WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM 2?
Your process is eligible for Program 2 if:
4- Your process does not meet the eligibility requirements for Program 1;
4- Your process is not subject to OSHA PSM (federal or state); and
4- Your process is not categorized in the ten NAICS codes.
i
When determining what program level is appropriate for your covered process, keep
in mind that if it does not meet the Program 1 criteria, if it is not covered by OSHA
PSM, and it is not in the NAICS codes, the process automatically is subject to
Program 2 requirements.
Exhibit 2-2 provides a summary of the requirements for Program eligibility.
January 27,1999
-------
2-13
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels
EXHIBIT 2-2
PROGRAM LEVEL CRITERIA
Program 1
Program 2
Program 3
No accidents in the previous five
years that resulted in any offsite:
Death , '
Injury
Response or restoration
activities at an
environmental receptor
The process is not eligible for
Program 1 or subject to Program 3.
Process is not eligible for Program
1.
No public receptors in worst-case
circle.
Process is subject to OSHA PSM.
Emergency response coordinated
with local responders.
Process is classified in NAICS code
32211 (pulp mills)
32411 (petroleum refineries) 32511
(petrochemical manufacturers)
325181 (chlor-alkali
manufacturers)
325188 (all other inorganic
chemicals manufacturers) 325192
(other cyclic crude and intermediate
manufacturers) 325199 (all other
basic organic chemical
manufacturers)
325211 (plastics and resins
manufacturers)
325311 (nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturers)
32532 (pesticide and other
agricultural chemicals
manufacturers)
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels 2-14
Qs&As
NAICS CODES
Q. Does the NAICS code apply to the facility or the process?
A. NAICS codes are assigned to each process. If all you do is distribute or repackage chemicals, you
will have a single code for the facility that will apply to each process. If, however, you mix chemicals,
for example, to create a fertilizer mix, that process would have a different code.
Q. Chemical distributors were in SIC code 5169. Is there a different code under the new system?
A. Yes, the NAICS code for chemical distributors is 42269.
2.6 DEALING WITH PROGRAM LEVELS
WHAT IF I HAVE MULTIPLE PROGRAM LEVELS?
If you have more than one covered process, you may be dealing with multiple program
levels in your risk management program.
If your facility has multiple processes subject to different program requirements, you
will need to treat each group of processes in the same program level (and potentially
each process) separately from the other processes and program level requirements.
Nevertheless, you must submit a single RMP for all covered processes. At the same
time, if you prefer, you may choose to adopt the most stringent applicable program
level requirements for all covered processes:
For example, you have three covered processes: one eligible for Program 1 and two
subject to Program 3. You may find it administratively easier to follow the Program 3
requirements for all three covered processes. Remember that this is only an option;
we expect that most sources will comply with the set of program level requirements
for which each process is eligible.
Q&A
OSHA
Q. If my state administers the OSHA program under a formal delegation from the federal OSHA, does
that mean that my processes subject to OSHA PSM under state rules are in Program 3?
A, Yes (as long as the process does not qualify for Program 1). Any process for which a facility is
complying with PSM, under federal or state rules, is considered to be in Program 3.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 2
2-15 Applicability of Program Levels
CAN THE PROGRAM LEVEL FOR A PROCESS CHANGE?
If a covered process meets the requirements for a new program level, you must
re-evaluate the requirements for the process. If you are switching to another program
level, this change must be reflected in an updated RMP that must be submitted within
six months of the change that altered the program level for the covered process. If the
process no longer qualifies as a covered process (e.g., as a result of a change in the
quantity of the regulated substance in the process), then you will need to "deregister"
the process. Typical examples of switching program levels include:
MOVING UP
Program 1 to Program 2 or 3. You have a covered process subject to Program 1
requirements. A new development results in public receptors being located within the
distance to the endpoint for a worst-case release. The process is no longer eligible for
Program 1 and must be evaluated to determine whether Program 2 or Program 3
applies. You must submit a revised RMP within six months of the program level
change, indicating and documenting that your process is now in compliance with the
new program level requirements.
, Not Covered to Program 1,2 or 3. You have a process that was not covered by this
rule, but, due to an expansion in production, the amount of regulated substance now
exceeds the threshold quantity. You must determine which Program level applies and
come into compliance with the rule by June 21,1999, or after that time, by the time
you exceed the threshold quantity.
Program 2 to Program 3. You have a process that involves a regulated substance
above the threshold that is not in one of the ten NAICS codes or been subject to
OSHAPSM. However, due to one of the following OSHA.regulatory changes, the
process is now subject to the OSHA PSM standard:
+ OSHA's exemption applicable to your process has been eliminated, or
4- The regulated substance has been added to OSHA's list of highly hazardous
substances.
\
Therefore, the process is now subject to Program 3 requirements and you must submit
a feyised RMP to EPA within six months, indicating and documenting that your
process is now in compliance with the Program 3 requirements.
SWITCHING DOWN
Program 2 or 3 to Program 1. You have a covered process subject to Program 2 or
3 requirements that experienced an accidental release of a regulated substance with
offsite impacts four years ago. Subsequent process changes have made such an event
unlikely (as demonstrated by the worst-case release analysis). One year after you
submit your RMP, the applicability of the accident has now expired and the process is
eligible for Program 1. If you elect to qualify the process for Program 1, you must
submit a revised RMP within six months of the program level change, indicating and
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels 2-16
documenting that the process is now in compliance with the new program level
requirements.
Program 1,2, or 3 to Not Covered. You have a covered process that is subject to
part 68 requirements, but, due to a reduction in production, the amount of regulated
substance no longer exceeds the threshold. Therefore, the process is no longer a
covered process. You must submit a revised RMP within six months indicating that
your process is no longer subject to any program level requirements.
2.7 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Regardless of the program levels you assign to your processes, you must complete a
five-year accident history for each process (see Chapter 3) and submit an RMP that
covers all processes (see Chapter 9). Exhibit 2-3 diagrams the requirements in general
and Exhibit 2-4 lists them in more detail.
PROGRAM 1
For each Program 1 process, you must conduct and document a worst-case release
analysis. You must coordinate your emergency response activities with local
responders and sign the Program 1 certification as part of your RMP submission.
PROGRAMS 2 AND 3
For all Program 2 and 3 processes, you must conduct and document at least one
worst-case release analysis to cover all toxics and one to cover all fiammables. You
must also conduct one alternative release scenario analysis for each toxic and one for
all fiammables. See Chapter 4 or the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance
for specific requirements. You must coordinate your emergency response activities
with local responders and, if you use your own employees to respond to releases, you
must develop and implement an emergency response program. See Chapter 8 for
more details.
For each Program 2 process, you must implement all of the elements of the Program 2
prevention program: safety information, hazard review, operating procedures, training,
maintenance, compliance audits, and incident investigations. See Chapter 6 for more
details.
For each Program 3 process, you must implement all of the elements of the Program 3
prevention program: process safety information, process hazard analysis, standard
operating procedures, training, mechanical integrity, compliance audits, incident
investigations, management of change, pre-startup reviews, contractors, employee
participation, and hot work permits. See Chapter 7 for more details.
Januay 27, 1999
-------
EXHIBIT 2-3
DEVELOP RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND RMP
Program Level 1
Process
Program Level 2
Process
Program Level 3
Process
Conduct and document
worst-case release
analysis
Conduct and document
worst-case release
analysis
Conduct and document
alternative release
analysis
Prepare Five-Year
Accident History
Prepare Five-Year
Accident History
Implement
Management System
Implement Program
Level 2 Prevention
Program
Implement Program
Level 3 Prevention
Program
Implement Emergency
Response Program
(if applicable)
Coordinate with Local Responders
Prepare and Submit One Risk Management Plan for all Covered Processes
-------
Chapter 2
Applicability of Program Levels
2-18
EXHIBIT 2-4
COMPARISON OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Program 1
Worst-case analysis
5-year accident history
Program 2
Worst-case analysis
Alternative releases
5-year accident history ,
Document management system
Program 3
Worst-case analysis
Alternative releases
5-year accident history
Document management system
Prevention Program
Certify no additional prevention
steps needed
Safety Information
Hazard Review
Operating Procedures
Training
Maintenance
Incident Investigation
Compliance Audit
Process Safety Information
Process Hazard Analysis.
Operating Procedures
Training
Mechanical Integrity
Incident Investigation
Compliance Audit
Management of Change
Pre-Startup Review
Contractors
Employee Participation
Hot Work Permits
Emergency Response Program
Coordinate with local
responders
Develop plan and program and
coordinate with local responders
Develop plan and program and
coordinate with local responders
Submit One Risk Management Plan for AH Covered Processes
January 27,1999
-------
CHAPTER 3; FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY
The five-year accident history involves an examination of the effects of any accidental
releases of one or more of the regulated substances from a covered process in the five
years prior to the submission of a Risk Management Plan (RMP), A five-year
accident history must be completed for each covered process, including the processes
in Program 1, and all accidental releases meeting specified criteria must be reported in
the RMP for the process.
Note that a Program 1 process may have had an accidental release that must be
included in the five-year accident history, even though the release does not disqualify
the process from Program 1. The accident history criteria that make a process
ineligible for Program 1 (certain offsite impacts) do not include other types of effects
that require inclusion of a release in the five-year accident history (on-site impacts and
more inclusive offsite impacts). For example, an accidental release may have led to
worker injuries, but no other effects. This release would not bar the process from
Program 1 (because the injuries were not offsite), but would need to be reported in the
five-year accident history. Similarly, a release may have resulted in damage to foliage
offsite (environmental damage), triggering reporting, but because the foliage was not
part of an environmental receptor (e.g., national park or forest) it would not make the
process ineligible for Program 1.
3.1 WHAT ACCIDENTS MUST BE REPORTED?
The five-year accident history covers only certain releases:
4- The release must be from a covered process and involve a regulated substance
held above its threshold quantity in the process.
4- The release must have caused at least one of the following:
i / '
' > On-site deaths, injuries, or'Significant property damage (§68.42(a));
or
> Known offsite deaths, injuries, property damage, environmental
damage, evacuations, orvsheltering in place (§68.42(a)).
If you have had a release of a regulated substance from a process where the regulated
substance is held below its threshold quantity, you do not need to report that release
even if the release caused one of the listed impacts or if the process is covered for
some other substance. You may choose to report the release in the five-year accident
history, but you are not required to do so.
3.2 WHAT DATA MUST BE PROVIDED?
The following information should be included in your accident history for every
reported release. The descriptions below correspond to the RMP*Submit system
being developed and to data element instructions for the system:
January 25, 1999
-------
Chapters
Five-Year Accident History 3-2
Date. Indicate the date on which the accidental release began.
Time. Indicate the time the release began.
Release duration. Indicate the approximate length of time of the release in minutes.
Chemical(s). Indicate the regulated substance(s) released. Use the name of the
substance as listed in § 68.130 rather than a synonym (e.g., propane rather than LPG).
If the release was of a flammable mixture, list the primary regulated substances in the
mixture if feasible; if the contents of the mixture are uncertain, list it as a flammable
mixture. 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.
Quantity released. Estimate the amount of each substance released in pounds. The
amount should be estimated to two significant digits, or as close to that as possible.
For example, if you estimate that the release was between 850 and 900 pounds,
provide a best guess. We realize that you may not know precise quantities. For
flammable mixtures, you may report the quantity of the mixture, rather than that of the
individual regulated substances.
Release event. Indicate which of the following release events best describes your
accident. Check all mat apply:
4- Gas Release. A gas release is a release of the substance as a gas (rather than
vaporized from a liquid). If you hold a gas liquefied under refrigeration,
report the release as a liquid spill.
4- Liquid Spill/Evaporation. A liquid spill/evaporation is a release of the
substance in a liquid state with subsequent vaporization.
4 Fire. A fire is combustion producing light, flames, and heat.
4- Explosion. An explosion is a rapid chemical reaction with the production of
noise, heat, and violent expansion of gases.
Release source. Indicate all that apply.
4- Storage Vessel. A storage vessel is a container for storing or holding gas or
liquid. Storage vessels include transportation containers being used for
on-site storage.
4- Piping. Piping refers to a system of tubular structures or pipes used to carry a
fluid or gas.
4- Process Vessel. A process vessel is a container in which substances under
certain conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure) participate in a process (e.g.,
substances are manufactured, blended to form a mixture, reacted to convert
them into some other final product or form, or heated to purify).
January 25,1999
-------
Chapter 3
3-3 Five-Year Accident History
•*• Transfer Hose. A transfer hose is a tubular structure used to connect, often
temporarily, two or more vessels.
4- Valve. A valve is a device used to regulate the flow in piping systems or
machinery. Relief valves and rupture disks open to release pressure in
vessels.
4- Pump. A pump is a device that raises, transfers, or compresses fluids or that,
attenuates gases by suction or pressure or both.
, •Ą Joint. The surface at which two or more mechanical components are united.
4- Other. Specify other source of the release.
Weather conditions at time of event (if known). This information is important to
those concerned with assessing and modeling the effects of accidents. Reliable
information from those involved in the incident or from ail on-site weather station is
ideal. However, this rule does not require your facility to have a weather station. If
you do not have an onsite weather station, use information from your local weather
station, airport, or other source of metebrological data. Historical wind speed and
' temperature data (but not stability data) can be obtained from the National Climatic
Data Center (NCDd) at (828) 271-4800; NCDC staff can also provide information on
the nearest weather station. To the extent possible, complete the following:
4- Wind Speed and Direction. Wind speed is an estimate of how fast the wind is
traveling. Indicate the speed in miles per hour. Wind direction is the
direction from which the wind comes. For example, avwind that blows from
east to west would be described as having an eastern wind direction. You may
describe wind direction as a standard compass reading such as "Northeast" or
"South-southwest."
/ t
You may also describe wind direction in 'degrees—with North as zero degrees
and East as 90 degrees. Thus, northeast would represent 45 degrees and
south-southwest would represent 202.5 degrees. Abbreviations for the wind
direction such as ME (for northeast) and SSW (for south-southwest) are also
acceptable. , «
4- Temperature. The ambient temperature at the scene of the accident in degrees
Fahrenheit. If you did not keep a record, you can use the high (for daytime
releases) or low (for nighttime releases) for the day of the release. Local
papers publish these data.
4 Stability Class. Depending on the amount of incoming solar radiation as well
as other factors, the atmosphere may be more or less turbulent at any given
time. Meteorologists have defined six atmospheric stability classes, each
representing a different degree of turbulence in the atmosphere. When
moderate to strong incoming solar radiation heats air near the ground, causing
it to rise and generating large eddies, the atmosphere is considered unstable,
January 25,1999
-------
Chapters
give-Year AccidentHistory 3-4
or relatively turbulent. Unstable conditions are associated with stability
classes A and B. When solar radiation is relatively weak, air near the surface
has less of a tendency to rise and less turbulence develops. In this case, the ,
atmosphere is considered stable or less turbulent with weak winds. The
stability class is E or F. Stability classes D and C represent conditions of
neutral stability or moderate turbulence respectively. Neutral conditions are
associated with relatively strong wind speeds and moderate solar radiation.
The neutral category D should be used, regardless of wind speed, for overcast
conditions day or night, and for any conditions during the hour preceding or
following the night (one hour before sunset to one hour after dawn). Exhibit
3-1 presents the stability classes associated with wind speeds, time of day, and
cloud cover.
4 Precipitation Present. Precipitation may take the form of hail, mist, rain,
sleet, or snow. Indicate "yes" or "no" based on whether there was any
precipitation at the time of the accident.
4 Unknown. If you have no record for some or all of the weather data, indicate
"unknown" for any missing item. We realize that you may not have weather
data for accidents that occurred in the past. You should, however, collect
these data for any future accidents.
On-site impacts. Complete the following about on-site effects.
4 Deaths. Indicate the number of on-site deaths that are attributed to the
accident or mitigation activities. On-site deaths means the number of
employees, contract employees, offsite responders, or others (e.g., visitors)
who were killed by direct exposure to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or
overpressures from accidental releases or from indirect consequences of a
vapor cloud explosion from an accidental release (e.g., flying glass, debris,
other projectiles). You should list employee/contractor, offsite responder, and
other on-site deaths separately.
%
4 Injuries. An injury is any effect that results either from direct exposure to
toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressures from accidental releases or
fr,om indirect consequences of a vapor cloud explosion (e.g., flying glass,
debris, other projectiles) from an accidental release and that requires medical
treatment or hospitalization. You should list injuries to employees and
contractors, offsite responders, and others separately.
January 25.3999
-------
3-5
Chapter 3
Five-Year Accident History
EXHIBIT 3-1
ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASSES
. SDlJPA^EWllW'SPEE^l-
'; AElO^METERSiABcM;9!
i- . * 'fi -5 »• • • :- - ":. r '""'•'
•^ , ; '••: GRS»PND \ * % /t
KO * "v i-~ "N. L i *"/. ^ »
Meters per
second
<2
2-3
3-5
5-6
>6
Miles per
hour
<4.5
4.5-7
7-11
11-13
>13
-4 > ^I^^Y^fi,^- %*-* 74,
, , _ "3L J4 .-gf -, ^JbJLca jK , 4* % >*•**• S" •* " - "", '~
;:.-4tf *ŁrŁ*-\t-wŁ*'*s- %fi- « J:
, v v ; ^ 3j« J- • -r^'fl/ y,*^ » V^-^A >jw *^' », i- " s *" i
^ ^4- > 1,-™ **'^- --w^ .*> ^ i^-4 "^ C'^C-' ;/*m *f ^4^ ,
*, 'Si.Jr ,^ J,*-' ' *&XfV's «iS- '^I
f * - > . , - 5 ",^ -,'- - '1 '•• f: -•' ', ' i i*» - •>
Incoming Solar Radiation
Strong*
A
A-B
B
C
C
Moderate
A-B
B
B-C
C-D
D
Slight**
B
C
C
D
D
.' ^%^%;if,,"|
%/:f *m <'. *-v i^t*;?| in
51 ^ iT ^ ^ -^'^y * -*,t 5- ***"? *^' ^""^--
Thinly
Overcast
or > 4/8
low clou
E
D
D
D
<3/8
Cloud
F
E
D
D
f Night refers to one hour before sunset to one hour after dawn.
* Sun high in the sky with no clouds.
** Sun low in the sky with no clouds.
Medical treatment means treatment, other than first aid, administered by a
physician or registered professional personnel under standing orders from a
physician.
Your OSHA occupational injury and illness log (200 Log) will help complete
these items for employees.
4" Property Damage. Estimate the value of the equipment or business structures
(for your business alone) that were damaged by the accident or mitigation
activities. Record the value in American dollars. Insurance claims may
provide this information. Do not include any losses that you may have
incurred as a result of business interruption.
Known offsite impacts. These are impacts that you know or could reasonably be
expected to know of (e.g., from media reports or from reports to your facility) that
occurred as a result of the accidental release. You are not required to conduct an
additional investigation to determine offsite impacts.
January 25, 1999
-------
Chapters
Five-Year Accident History 3-6
Q&A
PROPERTY DAMAGE
Q. What level of offsite property damage triggers reporting?
A. Any level of known offsite property damage triggers inclusion of the accident in the five-year
accident history. You are not required to conduct a survey to determine if such damage occurred, but if
you know, or could reasonably be expected to know (e.g., because of reporting in the newspapers), that
damage occurred, you must include the accident.
Deaths. Indicate the number of offsite deaths that are attributable to the
accident or mitigation activities. Offsite deaths means the number of people
offsite who were killed by direct exposure to toxic concentrations, radiant
heat, or overpressures from accidental releases or from indirect consequences
of a vapor cloud explosion from an accidental release (e.g., flying glass,
debris, other projectiles).
Injuries. Indicate the number of injuries among people offsite. Injury means
any effect that results either from direct exposure to toxic concentrations,
radiant heat, or overpressures from accidental releases or from indirect
consequences of a vapor cloud explosion from an accidental release (e.g.,
flying glass, debris, other projectiles) and that requires medical treatment or
hospitalization,
Evacuated. Estimate the number of people offsite who were evacuated to
reduce exposure that might have resulted from the accident. A total count of
the number of people evacuated is preferable to the number of houses
evacuated. People who were ordered to move simply to improve access to the
site for emergency vehicles are not considered to have been evacuated.
Sheltered. Estimate the number of people offsite who were sheltered-in-plaee
during the accident. Sheltering-in-place occurs when community members
are ordered to remain inside their residence or place of work until the
emergency is over to reduce exposure to the effects of the accidental release.
Usually these orders are communicated by an emergency broadcast or similar
method of mass notification by response agencies.
Environmental Damage. Indicate whether any environmental damage
occurred and specify the type. The damage to be reported is not limited to
environmental receptors listed in the rule. Any damage to the environment
(e.g., dead or injured animals, defoliation, water contamination) should be
identified. You are not, however, required to conduct surveys to determine
whether such impact occurred. Types of environmental damage include:
> Fish or animal kills.
Janumy 25.1999
-------
Chapter 3
3-7 Five-Year Accident History
> Lawn, shrub, or crop damage minor defoliation.
> Lawn, shrub, or crop damage major defoliation,
> Water contamination.
> Other (specify).
Initiating event. Indicate the initiating event that was the immediate cause of the
accident, if known. If you conducted an investigation of the release, you should have
identified the initiating event.
4- Equipment Failure. A device or piece of equipment failed or did not function
as designed. For example, the vessel wall corroded or cracked.
4- Human Error. An operator performed a task improperly, either by failing to
take the necessary steps or by taking the wrong steps.
4- Weather Conditions. Weather conditions, such as lightning, hail, ice storms,
tornados, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, or high winds, caused the accident.
4 Unknown.
Contributing factors. These are factors that contributed to the accident, but were not
the initiating event. If you conducted an investigation of the release, you may have
identified factors that led to the initiating event or contributed tothe severity of the
release. Indicate all that apply.
4 Equipment Failure. A device or piece of equipment failed to function as
designed, thereby allowing a substance leading to or worsening the accidental
release.
4 Human error. An operator performed an operation improperly or made a
mistake lead to or worsened the accident.
4 Improper Procedures. The procedure did not reflect the proper method of
operation, the procedure omitted steps that affected the accident, or the
-procedure was written in a manner that allowed for misinterpretation of the
instructions.
4 Overpressurization. The process was operated at pressures exceeding the
design working pressure.
4 Upset Condition. Incorrect process conditions (e.g., increased temperature or
pressure) contributed to the release.
January 25, 1999
-------
Chapters
FSve-Year Accident History 3-8
•4- By-pass Condition, A failure occurred in a pipe, channel, or valve that diverts
fluid flow from the main pathway when design process or storage conditions
are exceeded (e.g., overpressure). By-pass conditions may be designed to
release the substance to restore acceptable process or storage conditions and
prevent more severe consequences (e.g., explosion).
4- Maintenance Activity/Inactivity. A failure occurred because of maintenance
activity or inactivity. For example, the storage racks remained unpainted for
so long that corrosion caused the metal to fail.
4- Process Design. A failure resulted from an inherent flaw in the design of the
process (e.g., pressure needed to make product exceeds the design pressure of
the vessel).
4- Unsuitable Equipment. The equipment used was incorrect for the process.
For example, the forklift was too large for the corridors.
4- Unusual Weather Conditions. Weather conditions, such'as lightning, hail, ice
storms, tornados, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, or high winds contributed to
the accident.
4- Management Error. A failure occurred because management did not exercise
its managerial-control to prevent the accident from occurring. This is usually
used to describe faulty procedures, inadequate training, inadequate oversight,
or failure to follow existing administrative procedures.
Whether of&ite responders were notified. If known, indicate whether response
agencies ^e.g., police, fire, medical services) were contacted.
Changes introduced as a result of the accident. Indicate any measures that you
have taken at the facility to prevent recurrence of the accident. Indicate all that apply.
4- Improved/ Upgraded Equipment. A device or piece of equipment that did not
function as designed was repaired or replaced.
•4- Revised Maintenance. Maintenance procedures were clarified or changed to
ensure appropriate and timely maintenance including inspection and testing
(e.g., increasing the frequency of inspection or adding a testing method).
4- Revised Training. Training programs were clarified or changed to ensure that
employees and contract employees are aware of and are practicing correct
safety and administrative procedures.
4- Revised Operating Procedures. Operating procedures were clarified or
changed to ensure that employees and contract employees are trained on
appropriate operating procedures.
January 25,1999
-------
Chapter 3
3-9 Five-Year Accident History
4 New Process Controls. New process designs and controls were installed to
correct problems and prevent recurrence of an accidental release,
• 4 New Mitigation Systems. New mitigation systems were initiated to limit the
severity of accidental releases.
4- Revised Emergency Response Plan. The emergency response plan was
revised.
4 Changed Process. Process was altered to reduce the risk (e.g.,'process
chemistry was changed).
4- Reduced Inventory. Inventory was reduced at the facility to reduce the
potential release quantities and the magnitude of the hazard.
4- Other.
4- None. No changes initiated at facility as a result of the accident (e.g., because
none were necessary or technically feasible). There may be some accidents
that could not have been prevented because they were caused by events that
are too rare to merit additional steps. For example, if a tornado hit your
facility and you are located in an area where tornados are very rare, it may not
be reasonable to design a "tornado proof process even if it is technically
feasible.
3.3 OTHER ACCIDENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
You should already have much of the data required for the five-year accident history
because of the reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPCRA, and OSHA (e.g.,
log of occupational injuries and illnesses). This information should minimize the
effort necessary to complete the accident history.
At the same time, some of the information originally ^reported to response agencies
may have been inaccurate because it was reported during the release when a full
assessment was not possible. It is imperative that you include the most accurate,
up-to-date information possible in the five-year accident history. This information
may not always match the original estimates from the initial reporting of the accident's
effects.
CERCLA Section 103(a) requires you to immediately notify the National Response
Center if your facility releases a hazardous substance to the environment in greater
than a reportable quantity (see 40 CFR part 302). Toxic substances regulated under
part 68 are also CERCLA hazardous substances, but most of the flammable
substances regulated under part 68 are not subject to CERCLA reporting. Notice.
required under CERCLA includes the following information:
4 The chemical name or identity of any substance involved in the release
January 25, 1999
-------
Chapter 3
Five-Year Accident History 3-10
4- An indication of whether the substance is on the list referred to in Section
302(a)
4- An estimate of the quantity of substance that was released into the
environment
4- The time and duration of the release
4- The medium or media into which the release occurred.
Releases reported to the National Response Center are collected into a database, the
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS). ERNS data are available on
EPA's web site: http://www.epa.gov.
EPCRA Section 304 requires facilities to report to the community emergency
coordinator of the appropriate local emergency planning committee (LEPC) and state
emergency response commission (SERC) releases of extremely hazardous substances
to the environment in excess of reportable quantities (as set forth in 40 CFR part 302).
All toxic substances regulated under part 68 are subject to EPCRA reporting;
flammables regulated under part 68 are generally not subject to EPCRA reporting.
The report required by EPCRA is to include:
4- Chemical name or identity of all substances involved in the accident
4- An estimate of the quantity of substances released to the environment
4- The time and duration of the release.
The owner or operator is also required to release a Follow-up Emergency Notice as
soon as possible after a release which requires notification. This notice should update
the previously released information and include additional information regarding
actions taken to respond to the release, any known or anticipated acute or chronic
health risks associated with the release, and where appropriate, advice regarding
medical attention necessary for exposed individuals.
OSHA's log of occupational injuries and illnesses. OSHA No. 200, is used for
recording and classifying recordable occupational injuries and illnesses, and for noting
the extent and outcome of each case. The log shows when the occupational injury or
illness occurred, to whom, what the injured or ill person's regular job was at the time
of the injury or illness exposure, the department in which the person was employed,
the kind of injury or illness, how much time was lost, and whether the case resulted in
a fatality, etc. The following are the sections of the illness/ injury log that are useful in
completing the accident history.
Descriptive section of the log:
4- Column B: date of work accident which resulted in injury
January 25,1999
-------
Chapter 3
3-11 Five-Year Accident History
4- Column C: name of injured person
4- Column Ft description of nature of injury or illness
*
Injury portion of thejog:
4- Column 1: date of death is entered if an occupational injury results in a
fatality
4- Column 6: an injury occurred, but did not result in lost workdays
Illness poriion of the log:
4- Column 7: for occupational illnesses, an entry is placed in one of the columns
7a-7g, depending upon which column is applicable.
PART 68 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
An incident investigation is a requirement of the rule (§68.60 and 68.81). These
requirements are virtually identical to the requirements under OSHA PSM. For
.accidents involving processes categorized in Program 2 or Program 3, you must
investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a
catastrophic release of a regulated substance. A report, which includes the following
information, should be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation: •
4- Date of incident
4- Date investigation began
4- Description of the incident
4- Factors that contributed to the incident
*--,
4- Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
Because the incident investigation report must be retained for five years, you will have
a record for completing the five-year accident history for updates of the RMP.
January 25,1999
-------
Chapter 3
Five-Year Accident History 3-12
Qs&As
ACCIDENT HISTORY
Q. When does the five-year period to be reported in the accident history begin?
A. The five-year accident history must include all accidental releases from covered processes meeting
the specified criteria that occurred in five years preceding the date the RMP for the processes was
submitted. For example, if an RMP is submitted on June 1, 1999, the five-year accident history must
cover the period between June 1,1994 and June 1, 1999.
Q. If a facility has recently changed ownership, is the new facility owner required to include accidents
which occurred prior to the transfer of ownership in the accident history portion of the RMP submitted
for the facility?
A. Yes, accidents involving covered processes that occurred prior to the transfer of ownership should
be included in the five-year accident history. You may want to explain that the ownership has changed
in your Executive Summary.
Q. If I have a large on-site incident, but no offsite impact, would I have to report it in the five-year
accident history?
A. It would depend on whether you have onsite deaths, injuries, or significant property damage. You
could have a large accident without any of these consequences (e.g., a large spill that was contained);
this type of release would not have to be included in the five-year accident history.
Q. I had a release where several people were treated at the hospital and released; they attributed their
symptoms to exposure. We do not believe that their symptoms were in fact the result of exposure to
the released substance. Do we have to report these as offsite impacts?
A. Yes, you should report them in your five-year accident history. You may want to use the executive
summary to state that you do not believe that the impacts can be legitimately attributed to the release
and explain why.
January 25.1999
-------
CHAPTER 4: OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
You are required to conduct an offsite consequence analysis to provide information to
the government and the public 'about the potential consequences of an accidental
chemical release at your facility. The offsite consequence analysis (OCA) consists of
two elements:
+ A worst-case release scenario and
4- Alternative release scenarios.
i
To simplify the analysis and ensure a common basis for comparisons, EPA has
defined the worst-case scenario as the release of the largest quantity of a regulated
substance from a single vessel or process line failure that results in the greatest
distance to an endpoint. In broad terms, the distance to the endpoint is the distance a
toxic vapor cloud, heat from a fire, or blast waves from an explosion will travel before
dissipating to the point that serious injuries from short-term exposures are no longer
likely..
This chapter gives guidance on how to perform the OCA for regulated substances that
are typically found at chemical distribution facilities.
Section 68.130 lists 77 toxic substances and 63 flammable substances that are subject
to regulation. The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) conducted
an informal poll of its members to determine which regulated chemicals might be on-
site in quantities above the threshold. The results of the survey are shown on Exhibits
4-1 and 4-2. This guidance focuses on the substances identified in these exhibits. For
substances that are not currently included in this guidance, consult and use the EPA's
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance (OCAG) or other models or methods.
To estimate consequence distance, this guidance provides a sequence of equations
based on the references tables of distances in the OCAG (see Appendix 4A for the
derivation of these equations. You may use the OCAG reference tables to estimate
distances, if you prefer.
RMP*Comp™
To assist those using this guidance, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and EPA have developed a software program, RMP*Comp™, that performs the calculations
described in this document. This software can be downloaded from the NOAA Internet website at
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/chemaids/rmp/rmp.html.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
4-2
EXHIBIT 4-1
INFORMATION GATHERED BY NACD SURVEY - TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Chemical Name
Allyl alcohol
Anhydrous ammonia
Aqueous ammonia
Bromine
Carbon disulfide
Chlorine
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Ethylene oxide
Formaldehyde (37%f
Hydrazine - pure
Aqueous hydrochloric
acid (> 30%:38%)
Hydrofluoric acid
(70%)
Methyl chloride
Methyl isocyanate
Nitric acid (80%)
Phosgene
Phosphorus oxychloride
Phosphorus trichloride
Propylene oxide
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur trioxide
Toluene 2,4-
di isocyanate
Toluene 2,6-
diisocyanate*
Typical
Amount
on Site (Ib)*
Not specified
20,000 - 180,000
10,000 - 180,000
10,000 - 35,000
20,000 - 120,000
20,000 - 330,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
10,000 - 200,000
15,000 - 55,000
15,000-55,000
15,000-330,000
1,000-100,000
20,000 - 25,000
10,000-45,000
20,000
2,000+
5,000 - 25,000
20,000
10,000 - 200,000
10,000-400,000
10,000 - 170,000
10,000 - 45,000
10,000-115,000
Liquid
or
Gas
Toxic liquid
Toxic gas
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic gas
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic gas
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic gas
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic gas
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic gas
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic liquid
Toxic
Endpoint
(mg/L)
0.036
0.14
0.14
0.0065
0.16
0.0087
0.49
0.16
0.076
0.49
0.09
0.012
0.011
0.03
0.016
0.82
0.0012
0.026
0.00081
0.003
0.028
0.59
0.0078
0.01
0.007
0.007
Vapor
Pressure
@25°e
26.1 mmHg
145 psia
332 mm Hg
212 mmHg
359 mm Hg
1 13 psia
196 mmHg
10.1 mmHg
16.5 mm Hg
12.2 mm Hg
25.4 psia
Concentration
Dependent
14.4 mm Hg
Concentration
Dependent
Concentration
Dependent
83.2 psia
457 mm Hg
10 mmHg
27.4 psia
35.8 mm Hg
120 mmHg
533 mm Hg
58 psia
263 mm Hg
0.013 mmHg
0.05 mm Hg
Liquid
Density
(Ib/ft?)
52.2
43.8
55.1
189
77.7
101
91.8
54.1
73.9
56.1
89.81
68.9
63.1
73.9
77.7
83.34
58.3
91.8
79.9
104.5
97.8
51.4
94.7
117
75.8
75.8
"Range provided if there was more than one respondent and they provided different estimates
"The vapor pressure of formaldehyde in a 37% solution is less than 10 mm Hg. It is, therefore, not covered by th
regulation.
Toluene diisocyanate is also available as a mixture of 2,4- and 2,6-diisocyanate.
January27. 1999
-------
4-3
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-2
INFORMATION GATHERED BY NACD SURVEY - FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
Chemical Name
Acetaldehyde
Dimethylamine
Ethyl ether
Isopropyl chloride
Isopropylarnine
Methane
Propane
Trimethylamine
Typical
Amount
on Site Ob)
Not specified
2,500
10,000-40,000
5,000
5,000
Not specified
Not specified
10,000-115,000
Liquid
or
Gas
Flammable gas
Flammable gas
Flammable Equid
Flammable liquid
Flammable liquid
Flammable gas
Flammable gas
Flammable gas
Lower
Flammable
Limit (mg/L)
72
52
57
90
48
33
36
48
Vapor
Pressure
@25°C
21 psia
102 psia
440mmHg
325 mm Hg
248mmHg
1,0^0 psia
138 psia
3 1.9 psia
Liquid
Density
Ob/ft3)
49
42
43.9
53.1
42.7
28
37
41
The methodology and data presented here are optional. You are not required to
use this guidance. You may use publicly available or proprietary air dispersion
models to do your offsite consequence analysis, subject to certain conditioos. If you
choose to use other models, you should review the rule and Chapter 4 of the General
Guidance for Risk Management Programs, which outline required conditions for use
of other models.
Some of the results obtained using the methods in this document may be conservative
(i.e., they may overestimate the distance to endpoints). Complex models that can
account for many site-specific factors may give less conservative estimates of offsite
consequences than the simple methods used in this guidance. This is particularly true
for alternative scenarios, for which EPA has not specified many assumptions.
However, complex models may be expensive and require considerable expertise to
use; this guidance is designed to be simple and straightforward. You will need to
consider the'se tradeoffs in deciding how' to carry out your required consequence
analyses.
This chapter discusses worst-case scenarios and presents methods for determining the
worst-case distance to the endpoint for substances listed in Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2
(section 4.1), followed by discussions and methods for alternative scenarios for these
substances (section 4.2). Section 4.3 briefly discusses methods for estimating the
mitigating effects of buildings. The remaining sections provide guidance on defining
offsite impacts (section 4.4) and documentation (section 4.5).
4.1 WORST-CASE RELEASE SCENARIOS
This section provides guidance on how to analyze worst-case scenarios. Information
is provided on the general requirements of the regulations, followed by sections on
toxic gases, toxic liquids, and flammable substances, focusing on those substances
likely to be found at chemical distribution facilities. Exhibit 4-3 presents the
parameters that must be used in worst-case and alternative release .scenarios.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
OfTsite Consequence Analysis
4-4
EXHIBIT 4-3
REQUIRED PARAMETERS FOR MODELING (40 CFR 68.22)
WORST CASE ,
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Endpoints (§68.22(a))
Toxic endpoints are listed in part 68 Appendix A.
For flammable substances, endpoint is overpressure of 1
pound per square inch (psi) for vapor cloud explosions.
Toxic endpoints are listed in part 68 Appendix A.
For flammable substances, endpoint is:
-^-Overpressure of 1 psi for vapor cloud explosions
4-Radiant heat level of 5 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) for
40 seconds for heat from fires (or equivalent dose)
+Lower flammability limit (LFL) as specified in NFPA
documents or other generally recognized sources for vapor cloud
fires.
Wind speed/stability (§68J2(b))
This guidance assumes 1.5 meters per second and F
stability. For other models, use wind speed of 1.5
meters per second and F stability class unless you can
demonstrate that local meteorological data applicable to
the site show a higher minimum wind speed or less
stable atmosphere at all times during the previous three
years. If you can so demonstrate, these miaimums may
be used for site-specific modeling.
This guidance assumes wind speed of 3 meters per second and D
stability. For other models, you may use typical meteorological
conditions for your site.
Ambient temperature/humidity (§6S.22(c))
This guidance assumes 25°C (77°F) and 50 percent
humidity. For other models for toxic substances, you
must use the highest daily maximum temperature and
average humidity for the site during the past three years.
This guidance assumes 25°C and 50 percent humidity. For other
models, you may use average temperature/humidity data gathered
at the site or at a local meteorological station.
Height of release (§68.22(d))
For toxic substances, you must assume a ground level
release.
This guidance assumes a ground-level release. For other models,
release height may be determined by the release scenario.
Surface roughness (§68.22(e))
Use urban (obstructed terrain) or niral (flat terrain)
topography, as appropriate.
Use urban (obstructed terrain) or rural (flat terrain) topography, a
appropriate.
Dense or neutrally buoyant gases (§68.22(f))
Tables or models used for dispersion of regulated toxic
substances must appropriately account for gas density.
Tables or models used for dispersion must appropriately account
for gas density.
Temperature of released substance (§68.22(g))
You must consider liquids (other than gases liquefied by
refrigeration) to be released at the highest daily
maximum temperature, from data for the previous three
years, or at process temperature, whichever is higher.
Assume gases liquefied by refrigeration at atmospheric
pressure to be released at their boiling points.
Substances may be considered to be released at a process or
ambient temperature that is appropriate for the scenario.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
4-5 Offsite Consequence Analysis
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR Toxic SUBSTANCES
The following information is required for worst-case release analysis of toxic
substances:
4- The worst-case release quantity Q (Ib) is the greater of the following:
> For substances in vessels, the greatest amount held in a single vessel,
taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum
quantity; or
> For substances in pipes, the greatest amount in a pipe, taking into
account administrative controls Łhat limit the maximum quantity.
An example of an administrative control is a procedure that limits the total
amount of a substance that you can have in a vessel. For example, you should
have procedures for vessels containing anhydrous ammonia liquefied under
pressure, limiting the volume of ammonia to 85% of the volume of the vessel,
because ammonia has a large coefficient of volumetric expansion.
For vessels, you need only consider the largest amount in the vessel,
regardless of interconnections with pipes and other vessels. Similarly, if the
largest quantity is contained in a pipe, you need not add the quantity in vessels
at the end of the pipelines. You may be able to think of scenarios in which a
1 quantity greater than Q as defined above can be released, but EPA does not
require you to model such scenarios as worst-case (you may want to consider
modeling them as alternative scenarios).
4- Weather conditions. The rule allows anyone who conducts his or her OCA
based oh this guidance to use specific default weather conditions for wind
speed, stability class, average temperature, and humidity.
+ • Temperature of released substance. Liquids other than gases liquefied by
refrigeration should be considered to be released at the highest daily
maximum temperature, based on local data for the previous three years, or at
process temperature, whichever is the higher. Gases liquefied by refrigeration
alone (e.g., refrigerated chlorine or ammonia) should be considered to be
released at their atmospheric boiling points. You can obtain weather data from
local weather stations. You can also obtain temperature and wind speed data
from the National Climatic Data Center at (828)'271-4800.
4- For the worst-case scenario, the release must be assumed to take place at
ground level.
4- Toxic endpoints for toxic substances commonly found at chemical distribution
facilities are listed in Exhibit 4-1. These endpoints are specified in 40 CFR
Part 68, Appendix A. The endpoints are intended to correspond to maximum
airborne concentrations below which it is believed that nearly all individuals
, can be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing
i>
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-6
irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an
individual's ability to take protective action.
Rural vs. urban sites. The regulations require you to take account of whether
your site is rural or urban. To decide whether the site is rural or urban, the
rule offers the following: "Urban means that there are many obstacles in the
immediate area; obstacles include buildings or trees. Rural means that there
are no buildings in the immediate area and the terrain is generally flat or
unobstructed." Some areas outside of cities may still be considered urban if
they are forested.
The distinction between urban and rural sites is important because the
atmosphere at urban sites is generally more turbulent than at rural sites,
causing more rapid dilution of the cloud as it travels downwind. Therefore,
for ground-level releases, predicted distances to toxic endpoints are always
smaller at urban sites than at rural sites.
Gas density. The regulations require you to use tables or models that
appropriately account for gas density. This guidance provides methods that
are based on modeling carried out for dense and neutrally buoyant gases or
vapors (i.e., for gases that are denser-than-air or for gases that have the same
density as air, respectively), as appropriate.
Mitigation. You are only allowed to take account of passive mitigation
systems, not active ones. Passive mitigation systems could include:
> Diked areas that confine a liquid pool and reduce the surface area
available for evaporation
> Buildings, provided that the building can be shown to withstand the
events that caused the release (see Section 4.3 for more information)
Active mitigation systems include:
> Automatically closing or remotely operated valves
> Sprays and deluge systems
* Relief valves
> Check valves
t> Excess flow valves
> Scrubbers
The predicted frequency of occurrence of the worst-case scenario is not an
allowable consideration. You are not required to determine a possible cause
of the failure of the vessel.
Toxic GASES
For toxic gases, the worst-case scenario is release of the contents of the largest vessel
or pipeline over 10 minutes. For toxic gases listed in Exhibit 4-1, distance to which
Jimmy 27,1999
-------
4-7
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
the cloud will travel before falling below the toxic endpoint can be estimated from the
following equation:
= A1(QR)A2
(1)
where D (mi) is the distance to which the vapor cloud travels before its concentration
falls below the toxic endpoint, QR (Ib/min) is the release rate, or the total quantity
released divided by 10, and Al and A2 are constants with values that depend upon the
particular chemical and whether the site is urban or rural. The derivation of Equation
1 is fully explained in Appendix 4A.
Values of Al and A2 for the toxic gases listed in Exhibit 4-1 are given on Exhibit 4-4.
For calculated distances less than 10 mi, round the results up or down to the nearest
tenth of a mile. For distances from 10 to 25 mi, round the results to the nearest mile.
For distances exceeding 25 mi, present the results as 25 mi. For distances less than
0-1 mi, present the results as 0.1 mi.
EXHIBIT 4-4
WORST-CASE SCENARIO—CONSTANTS Al AND A2 FOR TOXIC GASES
(For a 10-minute Duration of Release)
Chemical Name
Anhydrous Ammonia
Chlorine
Ethylene Oxide
Methyl Chloride
Phosgene
Sulfur Dioxide
Rural
Al
0.0607
0.227
0.181
0.0518
1.79
0.165
A2
0.4923
0.4879
0.4311
0.4397
0.4503
0.5562
Urban
Al
0.0443
0.0878
0.0877
0,0270
1.21
0.0726
A2
0.4782
0.5134
0.4775
0.4571
0.4860
0.5419
Example 1. For sulfur dioxide at a rural site, Al = 0.165 and A2 = 0.5562 (see
Exhibit 4-4). For a 20,000-lb release, at 2,000 Ib/min:
D = (0.165)(2,000)
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-8
Toxic LIQUIDS
The worst-case scenario for toxic liquids is a spill of the total quantity in the largest
vessel. The quantity spilled is assumed to spread instantaneously to a depth of one
centimeter in an undiked area or to cover a diked area instantaneously. The distance
to the endpoint is estimated based on evaporation from the pool and downwind
dispersion of the vapor. Two cases are considered here:
4- The pool is unconfmed, in which case it spreads out until it has a depth of one
centimeter, or
4- The pool is limited in area by a dike
RATE OF EVAPORATION - UNDIKED AREA
For an undiked area, the rate of evaporation QR (Ib/min) for a spill at ambient
temperature is given by:
QR=L4xLFAxDFxQS (2)
where QS is the total quantity (Ib) spilled, LFA is the "Liquid Factor Ambient," and
DP is the "density factor." The values of LFA and DF are provided in Exhibits 4-5a
and 4-5b. LFA is calculated for a 25 °C spillage. If you wish, you may apply a
correction factor that takes account of the fact that LFA is proportional to the vapor
pressure. Exhibit 4-6 gives values for a temperature correction factor (TCP) over a
range of temperatures, for toxic liquids. You can correct the LFA for temperatures
above 25 °C as follows:
LFA(T) = TCP x LFA(25 °C) (3)
where: LFA(T) = Corrected Liquid Factor Ambient at temperature T
TCF = Temperature Correction Factor at temperature T, from Exhibit 4-6 (use
the factor given for temperature closest to T)
LFA(25 °C) = LFA at 25 °C, from Exhibit 4-5a or 4-5b
For a liquid in a process in which the temperature of the process exceeds 25 °C, the
release rate to air from an evaporating pool in an undiked area is given by the
following formula:
•"e •
QR=L4xLFBxDFxQS (4)
where LFB is the "Liquid Factor Boiling." Values of LFB are also provided in
Exhibit 4-5a.
You may replace LFB by LFA(T), using Equation 3, where T °C is now the
temperature of the process. LFA(T) will give a less conservative result. You may
January 27.1999
-------
4-9
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-5a
VALUES OF LFA, LFB, DF AND VAPOR PRESSURE FOR TOXIC LIQUIDS
Material
Allyl Alcohol
Bromine
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Hydrazine
Methyl Isocyanate
Phosphorus oxychloride
Phosphorus trichloride
Propylene oxide
Sulfur trioxide
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate
LFA
0.0046
0.073
0.075
0.055
0,0025
0.0040
0.0022
0.0017
0.079
0.012
0.037
0.093
0.057
0.000006
0.000018
LFB
0.11
0.23
0.15
0.19
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.069
0.13
0.20
0.20
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.16
DF
0.58
0.16
0.39
0.33
OJ6
0.42
0.54
0.48
0.52
0.29
0.31
0.59
0.26
0.40
0.40
Vapor Pressure
@25°C
(mm Hg)
26.1
212
359
196
10
17
12
14.4
457
35.8
120
533
263
0.017
0!05
EXHIBIT 4-5b
VALUES OF LFA, DF AND VAPOR PRESSURE FOR AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS
•» If J " 1
Material
Aqueous Ammonia 30% •
Aqueous Ammonia 24%
Aqueous Ammonia 20%
Formaldehyde 37%
Hydrochloric Acid 38%
Hydrochloric Acid 37%
Hydrochloric Acid 36%3
Hydrochloric Acid 34%3
Hydrochloric Acid 30%3
Hydrofluoric Acid 70%
Hydrofluoric Acid 50%
Nitric Acid 90%
Nitric Acid 85%
Nitric Acid 80%
LFA at 25 °C
Wind Speed
1.5 m/s
0.026
0.019
0.015
0.0002
0.010
0.0085
0.0072
0.0048
0.0016
0.011
0.0014
0.0046
0.0032
0.0019
Wind Speed
3,0 m/s
0.019
0.014
0.011
0.0002
0.0070
0,0062
0.0053
0.0037
0.0015 •
0.010
0.0013
0.0040
0.0029 .
0.0018
Vapor Pressure at 25 °C
(minHg)2
Wind Speed
1.5 m/s
332
241
190
1.5
78
67
. 56
38
13
124
16
25
17
10.2
Wind Speed
3.0 m/s
248
- 184
148
1.4
55
48
42
29
12
107
15
22
16
10
fVl^
Dt
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.44
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.39
0.41
0.33
0.33
0.33
1LFB is not tabulated for solutions.
2Vapor pressure averaged over 10 minutes.
'Hydrochloric acid in concentrations below 37% is not regulated.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsjte ConsequenceAnalysis
4-10
EXHIBIT 4-6
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS FOR LIQUIDS EVAPORATING FROM POOLS
AT TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 25°C AND 50° C (77°F AND 122° F)
CAS
Number
107-18-6
7726-95-6
75-15-0
67-66-3
108-91-8
106-89-8
107-15-3
302-01-2
624-83-9
7697-37-2
10025-87-3
7719-12-2
75-56-9
7446-11-9
584-84-9
91-08-7
Chemical Name
Allyl alcohol
Bromine
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
EpicMorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Hydrazine
Methyl
isocyanate
Nitric acid
Phosphorus
oxychloride
Phosphorus
trichloride
Propylene oxide
Sulfur trioxide
Toluene
2,4-diisocyanate
Toluene
2,6-diisocyanate
Boiling
Point
(°C)
97.08
58.75
46.22
61.18
134.50
118.50
36.26
113.50
38.85
83.00
105.50
76.10
•33.90
44.75
251.00
244.85
Temperature Correction Factor (TCF)
30 °C
(86 °F)
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.6
ND
35 "C
(95 °F)
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
LFB
1.7
2.4
ND
40 °C
(104"F)
2.2
1.7
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.1
LFB
2.2
LFB
2.0
1.9
1.8
LFB
LFB
3.6
ND
45 °C
(113°F)
2.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.7
2.7
LFB
2.9
LFB
2.5
2.4
2.1
LFB
LFB
5.3
ND
so <>e
(122° F)
3.6
2.5
LFB
2.5
3.4
3.4
LFB
3.6
LFB
3.1
2.9
2.5
LFB
LFB
7.7
ND
Notes:
'Taken from OCAG, Exhibit B-4
ND: No data available.
LFB: Chemical above boiling point at this temperature; use LFB for analysis.
OCAG did not develop temperature correction factors for aqueous solutions, such as aqueous ammonia.
Jinoaiy 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
4-11 Offsite Consequence Analysis
want to use LFA(T) especially in cases where the liquid is at a temperature
significantly below its boiling point. Assuming the liquid spreads to form a pool 1
centimeter deep, the area A (ft2) of the spill is:
A = DFxQS - (5)
where DF is assumed to be independent of temperature.
Example 2 To calculate the rate of evaporation of an undiked spill of 10,000 Ib of
epichlorohydrin spilled at ambient temperature, use Equation 2 and Exhibit 4-5a:
QR = (1.4)(0.004P)(0.42)( 10,000) = 23.5 Ib/min
' If the spill takes place from a process at a higher temperature than 25
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-12
Example 3 Suppose that 10,000 Ib of cyclohexylamine at ambient temperature spills
into a diked area (Aj) of 4,000 ft2. From Equation 5 and Exhibit 4-4:
A = (0.56)( 10,000) = 5,600 ft2
A,, is the smaller of the two areas, so that, using Equation 6 and Exhibit 4-4a:
QR = 1.4 x 0.0025 x 4,000 = 14 Ib/min
DISTANCE TO Toxic ENDPOINT
For each of the toxic liquids and aqueous solutions listed in Exhibits 4-5a and 4-5b,
the distance to the endpoint can be estimated from the following equation (see
Appendix 4A for the derivation of this equation):
D = B1(QR)B2 (8)
where D (mi) is the distance to which the vapor cloud travels before its concentration
falls below the toxic endpoint, QR (Ib/min) is the rate of evaporation, and Bl and B2
are constants with values that depend upon the particular chemical and whether the
site is urban or rural.
Values of Bl and B2 are given on Exhibit 4-7a for a 10-minute release and on Exhibit
4-7b for a 60-minute release. Bl and B2 values for 10-minute releases should be used
for pools that evaporate in 10 minutes or less, and values for 60-minute releases
should be used for longer evaporation times. For solutions, always use the 10-minute
values.
For distances less than 10 mi, round the results up or down to the nearest tenth of a
mile. For distances from 10 to 25 mi, round the results to the nearest mile. For
distances exceeding 25 mi, present the results as 25 mi. For distances less than 0. 1
mi, present the results as 0. 1 mi.
Example 4, 60-minute release. In Example 3, an evaporation rate of 14 Ib/min was
estimated for a 10,000-lb spill of cyclohexylamine. At this rate of evaporation, the
pool would take 10,000/14, or more than 700 minutes, to evaporate. Therefore, you
would use Bl and B2 for a 60-minute release to estimate the distance to the endpoint.
From Exhibit 4-7b, for a rural site, B 1 = 0. 143 and B2 = 0.5440. For the 14 Ib/min
release rate predicted m Example 3,
D = (Q.143)(14)05440 = 0.6 mi at a rural site
For an urban site, B 1 = 0.0844 and B2 = 0.5789, so that:
D = (Q.0844)(14)05789 = 0.39 mi ~ 0.4 mi.
J*nuMy27,1999
-------
4-13
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-7a
WORST-CASE SCENARIO—CONSTANTS Bl & B2 FOR TOXIC LIQUIDS
AND AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS, 10-MWUTE RELEASE
Chemical Name
Allyl Alcohol
Aqueous Ammonia
Bromine
Carbon Bisulfide
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrofluoric Acid
Methyl Isocyanate
Nitric Acid
Phosphorus Oxychloride .
Phosphorus Trichloride
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate
Rural
Bl
0.233
0.0667
0.550
0.181 '
0.0703
0.181
0.212
0.0703
0.271
0.284
0.233 ,
0.232
1.49
0.326
0.809
0.233
0.0703
0.475
0.362
0.362
B2
0.4871
0.4617
0.4704
0.4311
0.4326
0.4311
0.4320,
0.4326
0.5389
0.5389
0.4871
0.5389
0.4572 '
0.4782
0.4638
0.4871
0.4326
0.4696
0.5389
0.5389
Urban
Bl
0.162
0.0221
0.377
0.0877
0.0274
0.0877
0.108
0.0274
0.140
0.147
0.162
0.121
1.04
0.220
0.563
0.162
0.0274
0.3.19
0.184
0.184
B2
0.4806
0.4712
0.4807
0.4775
0.4916
0.4775
0.4747
0.4916
0.5072
0.5072
0.4806
0.5072
0.4820
0.4835
0.4804
0.4806
0.4916
0.4829
0.5072
0.5072
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
4-14
EXHIBIT 4-7b
WORST-CASE SCENARIO—CONSTANTS Bl & B2 FOR TOXIC LIQUIDS1
60-MINUTE RELEASE
Chemical Name
Allyl Alcohol
Bromine
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
Epiehlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Hydrazine
Methyl Isocyanate
Phosphorus Oxychloride
Phosphorus Trichloride
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate
Toluene ^,6-diisocyanate
Rural
Bl
0.266
0.693
0.143
0.0473
0.143
0.174
0.0473
0.220
2.25
1.12
0.266
0.0473
0.576
0.302
0.302
B2
0.5715 '
0.5505
0.5540
0.5665
0.5540
0.5468
0.5665
0.6951
0.5320
0.5315
0.5715
0.5665
0.5540
0.6951
0.6951
Urban
Bl
0.169
0.456
0.0844
0.0249
0.0844
0.105
0.0249
0.107
1.55
0.744
0.169
0.249
0.381
0.142
0.142
B2
0.5894
0.5808
0.5789
0.5936
0.5789
0.5769
0.5936
0.6317
0.5531
0.5618
0.5894
0.5936
0.5724
0.6317
0.6317
Footnotes:
'Aqueous solutions are omitted from this table. The evaporation rates from aqueous solutions are averaged over the
first ten minutes, so the 60-minute release table is not applicable.
Januaiy27. J999
-------
4-15
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
RELEASE OF TOXIC GASES LIQUEFIED BY REFRIGERATION
If a material such as chlorine or ammonia is handled as a refrigerated liquid and spills
onto an undiked area, spreading to a depth of 1 cm or less, the regulation requires that
the owner or operator assume that it is released as a gas in 10 minutes. That is, it is
modeled in the same way as a worst-case release scenario from a vessel in which the
material is a liquid under pressure, as for the toxic gases listed in Exhibit 4-3.
If the material is confined in a diked area, forming a pool more than 1 cm deep, then
you can assume the liquid is at its boiling point and use Equation 7, for a spill into a
diked area, to estimate the rate of evaporation from the pool. The LFB (Liquid Factor
Boiling) is listed below for toxic gases.
Toxic Gas
Anhydrous Ammonia
Chlorine
Ethylene Oxide
Methyl Chloride
Phosgene
Sulfur Dioxide
LFB
0.073
0.19
0.12
0.14
0.20
0.16
Use of Equation 7 is a simple approach; however, other methods are available to
estimate the release rate for refrigerated liquefied gases. Appendix 4A provides an
equation (Equation A-2) for estimating the evaporation rate that takes into account a
number of additional factors, including the thermal conductivity and diffusivity of the
surface under the pool, the temperature of the ground and the pool, and the heat of
vaporization of the spilled substance. You are free to use this more complex equation
(or other methods), instead of Equation 7, to estimate the evaporation rate.
Example 5 Refrigerated chlorine is spilled into a diked area with Ad = 400 ft2. The
LFB of chlorine is 0.19. Using Equation 7,
QR = 1.4 x 0.19 x 400 = 106 Ib/min
Appendix 4A provides an estimate of the evaporation rate for this example using the
more complex equation discussed above (see Example A-l in the appendix).
MIXTURES CONTAINING Toxic LIQUIDS
Mixtures containing regulated toxic substances do not have to be considered if the
concentration of the regulated substance in the mixture is below one percent by
weight, or if you can demonstrate that the partial vapor pressure of the regulated
substance in the mixture is below 10 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). In case of a
spill of a liquid mixture containing a regulated toxic substance with partial vapor
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-16
pressure of 10 mm Hg or higher, you should carry out a worst-case analysis. The
information provided by NACD in Exhibit 4-1 does not include any mixtures of toxic
liquids; therefore, mixtures are not considered in this guidance. If you do have
mixtures that would be covered by the RMP rule, you should refer to the OCAG or
use other models or methods.
FLAMMABLE GASES AND LIQUIDS
For regulated flammable substances, the regulation requires that the distance D (mi) to
the 1 psi overpressure endpoint should be calculated for a vapor cloud explosion of
the greatest quantity in a vessel or pipeline. A simple method of obtaining an
1 approximate answer is to use the TNT equivalency method, which states that:
D = 0.0037(Q x H/Hrar)10 (9)
where Q (Ib) is the quantity of flammable material released, H is the heat of
combustion of the flammable substance and H.-^ is the heat of combustion of
trinitrotoluene (TNT). As required by the rule, the yield factor is 10% (i.e, 10% of the
released quantity participates in the explosion) when the TNT equivalency model is
used, and this assumption is incorporated into the constant 0.0037. (This equation is
valid for both volatile flammable liquids and flammable gases.) Equation 9 can be
rewritten as:
D = X (Q)IB (10)
where "k = 0.0037 x (H/H^r)"3
The values of A for the flammable substances listed in Exhibit 4-2 are given below:
A
Acetaldehyde * 0.0065
Dimethylarnine 0.0073
Ethyl ether ' 0.0072
Isopropyl chloride 0.0064
Isopropylamine 0.0073
Methane 0.0082
Propane 0.0080
Trimethylamine 0.0074
f
\
Example 5 If 10,000 Ib of propane explodes:
D = 0.008 (10,000)1/3 = 0.17 mi
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
4-17 .. ._ Offsite Consequence Analysis
4.2 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
i GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The requirements that differ from those for the worst-case scenarios are as follows:
4- You can take into account active as well as passive mitigation systems, as
long as these systems are expected to withstand the causes of the accident.
4- The alternative scenario should reach an endpoint offsite. unless no such
scenario exists.
4- If you are doing your own modeling, you should use "typical meteorological
conditions for the stationary source." You may obtain these data from local
weather stations. You can obtain wind speed and temperature data from the
National Climatic Data Center at (828) 271-4800. This guidance uses an
"average" weather condition of wind speed 3 m/s and D stability class with an
ambient temperature of 25 °C.
4- The release is not necessarily restricted to ground level. It can be elevated, if
appropriate.
4- The number of alternative scenarios you are required to develop is as follows:
> At least one scenario for each regulated toxic substance held in
Program 2 and Program 3 processes
t» At least one scenario to represent all flammables held in Program 2
and Program 3 processes
CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
Your alternative scenario for a covered process must be one that is more likely to
occur than the worst-case scenario and that reaches an endpoint offsite, unless no such
scenario exists. You do not need to demonstrate greater likelihood of occurrence or
carry out any analysis of probability of occurrence; you only need to use reasonable
judgement and knowledge of the process. If, using a combination of reasonable
assumptions, modeling of a release of a regulated substance from a process shows that
the relevant endpoint is not reached offsite, you can use the modeling results to
demonstrate that a scenario does not exist for the process that will give an endpoint
offsite. You must report an alternative scenario, however.
Release scenarios you should consider include, but are not limited to, the following,
where applicable:
4- Transfer hose releases due to splits or sudden hose uncoupling;
4- Releases from piping failures at flanges, joints, welds, valves and valve seats,
and drains or bleeds;
Januaiy 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-18
4- Releases from pumps or vessels due to cracks, seal failure, or drain, bleed, or
plug failure;
4- Vessel overfilling and spill, or overpressurization and venting through relief
valves or rupture disks; and
4- Shipping container mishandling and breakage or puncturing leading to a spill.
For alternative release scenarios, you may consider active mitigation systems, such as
interlocks, shutdown systems, pressure relieving devices, flares, emergency isolation
systems, and fire water and deluge systems, as well as passive mitigation systems.
Mitigation systems considered must be capable of withstanding the event that triggers
the release while remaining functional.
You must consider your five-year accident history and failure scenarios identified in
your hazard review or process hazards analysis in selecting alternative release
scenarios for regulated toxic or flammable substances (e.g., you might choose an
actual event from your accident history as the basis of your scenario). You may also
consult your trade organization (NACD). You may consider any other reasonable
scenarios.
The alternative scenarios you choose to analyze should be scenarios that you consider
" possible at your site. Although EPA requires no explanation of your choice of
scenario, you should choose a scenario that you think you can explain to emergency
responders and the public as a reasonable alternative to the worst-case scenario. For
example, you could pick a scenario based on an actual event, or you could choose a
scenario that you worry about, because circumstances at your site might make it a
possibility. If you believe that there is no reasonable scenario that could lead to offsite
consequences, you may use a scenario that has no offsite impacts for your alternative
analysis. You should be prepared to explain your choice of such a scenario to the
public, should questions arise.
Toxic GASES - ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
CHOICE OF SCENARIO
For the six toxic gases considered in this guidance (anhydrous ammonia, chlorine,
ethylene oxide, methyl chloride, phosgene and sulfur dioxide), it is possible to
envisage liquid, vapor, or two-phase releases. Methods are presented below for
estimation of the release rate for liquid and vapor releases of gases liquefied under
pressure. See Appendix 4A a method for two-phase releases.
RATE OF RELEASE - GASES LIQUEFIED UNDER PRESSURE
For the current guidance, the conservative case is considered of a liquid release that,
upon release to the external atmosphere, flashes to a mixture of fine liquid droplets
and vapor such that the whole release remains airborne; To estimate the release rate,
the following equation can be used (see Appendix 4A for more information on this
equation):
Januwy 27,1999
-------
N Chapter 4
4-19 Offsite Consequence Analysis
QRL = 4,630 x a x (Pl)* x (P/> (11)
where: QR|_ = Liquid release rate (Ib/min)
a = Area of hole (ft2)
pL = Liquid density (lb/ft3), listed in Exhibit 4-1
Pg = Tank gauge pressure (psig) (can be estimated from the
equilibrium vapor pressure given in Exhibit 4-1 by
subtracting 14.7 from the vapor pressure in psia)
The liquid release rate is assumed to be the release rate to air.
Example 6 Liquid chlorine at 25 °C is released through a 1/4-inch hole (a = 0.00034
ft2) in the liquid space of the tank. The density of chlorine is 101 lb/ft3; the pressure in
the vessel is 103 psig. The liquid release rate, calculated from Equation 11, is:
QRL = 4,630 x 0.0034 x (lOlf x (W3f = 160 Ib/min
The release rate to air, QR, is assumed to be the same as the liquid release rate, 160
Ib/min. This is the initial rate of release. It may decline with time or the opening may
become uncovered and vapor may escape instead of liquid. Therefore, using the
initial rate of release, and assuming that the release continues until the vessel is empty
is conservative.
RATE OF RELEASE - VAPOR RELEASE FROM PRESSURIZED TANK
If you have a gas leak from a tank (e.g., from a hole in the vapor space of the tank),
you may use the following simplified equation to estimate a release rate-based on hole t
size, tank pressure and the properties of the gas. This equation applies to choked
flow, or maximum gas flow rate. Choked flow generally would be expected for gases
under pressure.
QR = ah x pa x GF/(Tt-*-273f (12)
I
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
ah = Hole or puncture area (square inches)
pa = Tank pressure (pounds per square inch absolute [psia])
T, = Tank temperature (°C); the addition of 273 converts °C to K (Kelvin)
GF = Gas Factor, incorporating discharge coefficient, ratio of specific heats,
molecular weight and conversion factors
For the toxic gases on Tables 4-1 and 4-2, the values of GF and pa are as follows:
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-20
Gas
Anhydrous Ammonia
Chlorine
Ethylene Oxide
Methyl Chloride
Phosgene
Sulfur Dioxide
p^psia)
145
113
25.4
83.2
27.4
58
GF
14
29
22
24
33
27
Example 7. You have a tank that contains chlorine liquefied under pressure at 25 °C
(298 K). There is a rupture of a 1-inch pipe in the vapor space, so that a = Tt(%)2 =
0,786 in2. From Equation 12 and the above table:
QR = (0.786)(113)(29)/(298)05 = 149 Ib/min
DISTANCE TO Toxic ENDPOINT FOR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS - Toxic GASES
The distance to the endpoint for toxic gases can be calculated from the following
equation:
D = D1(QR)D2 (13)
i *
where D (mi) is the distance to which the vapor cloud travels before its concentration
falls below the toxic endpoint, QR (Ib/min) is the rate of release, and Dl and D2 are
constants with values that depend upon the particular chemical and whether the site is
urban or rural.
Values of Dl and D2 are given on Exhibits 4-8a and 4-8b for 10-minute and 60-
minute releases, respectively.
For distances less than 10 mi, round the results up or down to the nearest tenth of a
mile. For distances from 10 to 25 mi, round the results to the nearest mile. For
distances exceeding 25 mi, present the results as 25 mi. For distances less than 0.1
mi, present the results as 0.1 mi.
Example 8,10-minute release. For sulfur dioxide at a rural site, Dl = 0.047 and D2
= 0.4961. For a 160-lb/min release rate:
D = (0.047)(160)0496i = 0.58 mi ~ 0.6 mi
For an urban site, Dl = 0.025 and D2 = 0.4407, so that:
D = (0.025)(160)04407 « 0.23 mi - 0.2 mi
.1999
-------
4-21
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-8a
ALTERNATIVE CASE SCENARIO—CONSTANTS Dl AND D2 FOR TOXIC GASES
10-MINUTE RELEASE
Chemical Name
Anhydrous Ammonia
Chlorine
Ethylene Oxide
Methyl Chloride
Phosgene
Sulfur Dioxide
Rural
Dl
0.0222
0.0530
0.0289
0.0105
0.441
0.0470
D2
0.4780
0.4647
0.5445
0.5381
0.5407
0.4961
Urban
Dl
0.0131
0.0260
0.0241
0.0103
0.340
0.025
D2
0.4164
0.4263
0.5383
0.5043
0.5518
0.4407
EXHIBIT 4-8b
ALTERNATIVE CASE SCENARIO—CONSTANTS Dl AND D2 FOR TOXIC GASES
60-MNUTE RELEASE
Chemical Name
Anhydrous Ammonia1
Chlorine1
Ethylene Oxide
Methyl Chloride
Phosgene
Sulfur Dioxide1
Rural
Dl
0.0222
0.0530
0.0203
0.00680 ,
0.360
0.0470
D2
0.4780
0.4647
0.6085
0.5971
0.6232
0.4961
Urban
Dl
0.0130
0.0260
0.0144
0.00480
0.298
0.0250
D2
0.4164
0.4263
0,6214
0.5958
0.6250
0.4407
Footnotes:
'For anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, and sulfur dioxide, the 10-minute and 60-minute scenarios have the same
predictions for the distance to the toxic endpoints. The reasons for this approximation are explained in the Backup
Document, Backup Information for the Hazards Assessments in the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance,
the Guidance for Wastewater Treatment Facilities and the Guidance for Ammonia Refrigeration - Anhydrous
Ammonia, Aqueous Ammonia, Chlorine and Sulfur Dioxide. This document is available from EPA.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis ' 4-22
Toxic LIQUIDS - ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
For an undiked area, the rate of evaporation QR (Ib/rnin) for a spill at ambient
temperature in typical weather conditions is given by:
t i '
QR = 2.4 x LFA x DF x QS (14)
, j
For a spill from a process operating at a temperature exceeding 25 °C, the equation is:
= 2.4xLFBxDFxQS (15)
where LFA, LFB, and DF are given in Exhibits 4-4a and 4-4b. You are free to
replace LFA in Equation 14 or LFB in Equation 15 by LFA(T) from Equation 3 to
. correct for your vapor pressure at temperature T CC. Equation 5 remains unchanged
for the area of the spill, i.e., A = DF x QS,
To fully address alternative scenario spills of toxic liquids, the following possibilities
are discussed below:
/
PI Rapid, undiked spill, pool spreads out to a depth of 1 cm
P2 Spillage of prolonged duration, undiked, pool spreads out until rate of
evaporation equals rate of spillage
P3 Rapid spill into a diked area
P4 Prolonged spill into a diked area
PI: UNDIKED AREA, SPILL OF SHORT DURATION
Estimate the total quantity spilled, QS (Ib). Use Equation 14 or 15 with LFA, LFB,
and DF from Exhibits 4-4a and 4-4b.
Example 9. For carbon disulfide, with a spill of 500 Ib at 25 °C:
QR = 2.4x 0.075 x 0.39 x 500 = 35 Ib/min
The duration of evaporation is predicted to be 500/35 ~ 14 min > 10 min.
P2: UNDIKED AREA, RATE OF SPILL EQUALS RATE OF EVAPORATION
For this case, it is first necessary to calculate the rate of spillage of the toxic liquid.
The rate of release of a liquid through a hole in a tank under atmospheric pressure can
be calculated from the following equation (see Appendix 4A for the derivation of this
equation):
QRL = 385 x pL x a x (h)14 (16)
where: pL = the density of the liquid in the vessel (lb/ft3)
a = the area of the hole (ft2) - for example, the area of a hole of diameter 1 in
is 0.0055 ft2
h = the static head (ft)
, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
4-23 Offsite Consequence Analysis
Note that this is the formula for the release of a pure liquid and would apply to a'
breach in the wall of a vessel or to the rupture of a very short pipe. For long pipes,
there is a pressure drop between the vessel and the hole.
Example 10. Suppose that 38% aqueous hydrochloric acid is kept under atmospheric
pressure in a vessel with a static head of 10 ft. A leak develops at the bottom of the
vessel with a diameter of 1/4 in, so that a =ir(d/2)2 = K(l/8)2/144 = 0.00034 ft2, where
the factor 1/144 converts from in2 to ft2. The initial rate of release of the liquid, QRD
using Equation 16 with pL = 73.9 Ib/ft3 (from Exhibit 4-1), is given by:
QRL = 385 x 73.9 x 0.00034 x (10)14 = 30.6 Ib/min
If the tank contains (say) 20,000 Ib, the duration of release would be 20,000/30.6 min
~ 11 hr. Furthermore, the rate of release would decline as the static head decreases, so
the actual duration of release would be considerably greater than 11 hr, if not stopped
sooner by emergency actions. This can certainly be regarded as a prolonged release.
Therefore, in this case, the rate of evaporation would conservatively stabilize at a
value equal to the rate of release, 30.6 Ib/min, If you wish to develop a more
sophisticated model that takes account of this decrease in the static head, you are free
to do so. •
P3: DIKED AREA, SPILL OF SHORT DURATION
For a spillage of a toxic liquid into a diked area Ad at ambient temperature, the rate of
evaporation QR is given by:
QR = 2^4 x LFA x A,, . (17)
For a spillage from a process at a temperature above 25 °C,
QR = 2.4 x LFB x A,, (18)
Again, you are at liberty to replace LFA in Equation 17 or LFB in Equation 18 by the
vapor pressure corrected quantity LFA(T) from Equation 3.
Use Equations 17 or 18 as follows: if a quantity QS Ib is rapidly spilled, calculate the
area A of an undiked spillage from Equation 5, using DF from Exhibit 4-5a or 4-5b.
Compare this with the diked area and select the smaller of the two. Then substitute
that area into Equation 17 or Equation 18, using LFA or LFB from Exhibits 4-5a or 4-
5b, to calculate the rate of evaporation.
Example 11. There is a sudden spill of 500 Ib of phosphorus oxychloride at 35 °C
into a.diked area Ad of 400 ft2. From Equation 5 and Exhibit 4-5a, the area of a pool 1
cm deep would be:
A = (0.29)(500) = 145 ft2
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-24
A is smaller than Ad. Therefore, from Equation 18 and Exhibit 4-5a, the rate of
evaporation is:
QR = 2.4 x 0.20 x 145 = 69.6 Ib/min
The duration of release in this case would be 500/69.6 ~ 7 min < 10 min.
P4: PROLONGED SPILL INTO A DIKED AREA
t '
For a liquid spill from a hole in a tank under ambient pressure, calculate the rate of
spillage QRL from Equation 16—see the example given above of 30.6 Ib/min for 38%
aqueous hydrochloric acid. Assume that the temperature is ambient. Then calculate
the equilibrium area Ae from:
Ae = QRL/(2.4xLFA) (19)
which is obtained from Equation 17 by equating the rate of spillage to the rate of
evaporation.
If Ae is smaller than Ad! then the rate of evaporation QR = QRL. If AB is larger than
A
-------
Chapter 4
4-25 Offsite Consequence Analysis
For distances less than 10 mi, round the results up or down to the nearest tenth of a
mile. For distances from 10 to 25 mi, round the results to the nearest mile. For
distances exceeding 25 mi, present the results as 25 mi. For distances less than 0,1
mi, present the results as 0.1 mi.
Example 13a, 10-mimite release. For 38% aqueous hydrogen chloride at a rural site,
Cl = 0.0495 and C2 = 0,5342. For the 19.2 Ib/min release rate predicted above:
D = (0.0495)(19.2)05342 = 0.24 mi ~ 0.2 mi at a rural site
For an urban site, Cl = 0.0313 and C2 = 0.5008, so that:
* D = (0.0313)(19.2)05008 = 0.14mi~0.1mi.
Example 13b, 60-minute release. Assume a release of 40 Ib/min allyl alcohol at a
rural site, for which Cl = 0.0188 and C2 = 0.6736. The distance to the endpoint is:
D = (0.0188)(40)0'6736 = 0.23 mi ~ 0.2 mi.
For an urban site, Cl = 0.0111 and C2 = 0.6210, so that:
D = (0.0111)(40)06210 = 0.11 mi ~ 0.1 mi.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
4-26
EXHIBIT 4-9a
ALTERNATIVE CASE SCENARIO—CONSTANTS Cl AND C2 FOR TOXIC LIQUIDS
AND AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS, 10-MINUTE RELEASE
Chemical Name
AHyl Alcohol
Aqueous Ammonia
Bromine
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrofluoric Acid
Methyl Isocyanate
Nitric Acid
Phosphorus Oxychloride
Phosphorus Trichloride
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate
Rural
Cl
0.0449
0.0200
0.117
0.0289
0.0132
0.0202
0.0301
0.0111
0.0807
0.0845
0.0495
0.0692
0.367
0.0534
0.182
0.0547
0.0132
0.110
0.108
0.108
C2
0.5342
0.5174
0.5475
0.5445
0.5364
0.5342
0.5342
0.5342
0.5342
0.5342
0.5342
0.5342
0.5397
0.5342
0.5462
0.5339
0.5364
0.5267
0.5342
0.5342
Urban
Cl
0.0285
0.0107
0.0871
0.0241
0.0150
0.0135
0.0196
0.00772
0.0495
0.0517
0.0313
0.0428
0.272
0.0335
0.138
0.0400
0.0150
0.0739
0.0648
0.0648
C2
0.5008
0.4748
0.5568
0.5383
0.4898
0.5008
0.5008
0.5008
0.5008
0.5008
0.5008
0.5008
0.5529
0.5008
0.5521
0.5498
0.4898
0.5604 -
0.5008
0.5008
Jinuaty27,1999
-------
4-27
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-9b
ALTERNATIVE CASE SCENARIO—CONSTANTS Cl AND C2 FOR TOXIC LIQUIDS1
60-MINUTE RELEASE
Chemical Name
Allyl Alcohol
Bromine
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Hydrazine
Methyl Isocyanate
Phosphorus Oxychloride
Phosphorus Trichloride
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate
Rural
Cl
0.0188
0.0905
0.0203
0,00840
0.00687
0.0113
0.00320
0.0417
0.297
0.141
0.0381
0.00840
0.0797
0.0566
0.0566
C2
0:6736
0.6164
,0.6085
0,6006
0.6736
0.6736
0.6736
0.6736
0.6157
0.6217
0.6069
0.6006
0.6099
0.6736
0.6736
Urban
Cl
0.0111
0.0695
0.0144
0.00590
0.00437
0.00694
0.00218
0.0230
0.238
0.111
0.0283
0.00590
0.0591
0.0305
0.0305
C2
0.6210
0.6263
6.6214
0.6034
0.6210
0.6210
0.6210,
0.6210
0.6288
0.6289
0.6133
0.6034
0.6227
0.6210
0.6210
'Aqueous solutions are omitted from tnis table. In the OCAG, the evaporation rates from aqueous solutions are
averaged over the first ten minutes, so the 60-minute release table is not applicable.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-28
SCENARIOS - FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
The potential alternative scenarios for flammable substances include:
4- Vapor cloud fires (flash fires) that may result from dispersion of a flammable
vapor cloud and subsequent ignition. Such a fire could flash back and
present a severe heat radiation hazard to anyone in the vicinity. The endpoint
distance for such a fire is the predicted distance to which the vapor cloud
travels before falling below its lower flammable limit (LFL).
4- A pool fire - in the event of such a fire, the endpoint distance is that at which
radiant heat could cause second degree bums over a period of 40 s.
4- A boiling liquid, expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), leading to a fireball
that may produce intense heat, may occur if a vessel containing material such
as propane ruptures as a result of exposure to a fire. The radiant heat from
such an event is generally considered to be the principal hazard, but in
addition, portions of the vessel can be thrown a considerable distance and
there are shock waves generated by the explosive rupture of the vessel.
4- A vapor cloud explosion, such as that considered for the worst-case, but
presumably containing a smaller amount of flammable material.
4- A jet fire from the puncture of a vessel containing a flammable material under
pressure.
ESTI&JATION OF RELEASE RATE
You can estimate release rates for flammable gases and liquids using the same
methods described for toxic gases and liquids. See the equations and discussion in the
previous sections. .
To use Equation 11 for liquid releases of gases liquefied under pressure, you can find
the liquid density in Exhibit 4-2. The equilibrium vapor pressure (absolute) for these
gases liquefied under their vapor pressure is listed below in psia. To estimate the
gauge pressure in the tank in psig, for equation 11, subtract 14.7 from the pressure in
psia.
If you use Equation 12 for vapor releases from a pressurized tank, the values of GF
and pa for the flammable gases on Table 4-2 are as follows:
Gas B.,(psia) GF
Acetaldehyde 21 22
Dimethylamine 102 22
Methane ' 1,080 14
Propane 138 22
Trimethylamine 31.9 25
January 27,1999
-------
4-29
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
ESTIMATION OF DISTANCE TO LFL
For the maximum distance for a vapor cloud fire, you estimate the distance to the
LFL, that is, the distance to which the cloud propagates before diluting below the
lower flammable limit, and assume the vapor cloud then ignites. Exhibit 4-10 below
gives distances to the LFL for ranges of release rates for the flammable substances
listed in Exhibit 4-2.
EXHIBIT 4-10
DISTANCE TO LFL FOR FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
Chemical Name
Acetaldehyde
Dimethylamine
Ethyl ether
Isopropyl chloride
Isopropylamine
Methane
Propane
Trimethylamine
Rural
Release Rate
ab/min)
0 - 5,000
7,500-10,000
0 - 3,000
4,000 - 10,000
0 - 4,000
5,000 - 10,000
0 - 7,500
10,000
0 - 3,000
4,000 - 10,000
0 - 2,000
2,000 - 7,300
7,300 - 17,500
0-1,500
2,500 - 10,000
0 - 3,000
4,000 - 10,000
.Distance
(mi)
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
Urban
Release Rate
(Ib/min
0 - 10,000
0 - 10,000
0 - 10,000
0 - 10,000
0 - 10,000
0 - 5,000
5,000 - 23,000
0 - <1 0,000
10,000
0 - 10,000
Distance
(mi)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
VAPOR CLOUD EXPLOSIONS
You can use Equation 10 to estimate the distance to the endpoint for the explosion of
a known quantity of the flammable substances that are listed in Exhibit 4-2. You are
not required to use a yield factor of 10% for alternative scenario vapor cloud -
explosions. For example, you could use a yield factor of 3%, which is considered
representative of more likely events, based on data from past vapor cloud explosions.
For a yield factor of 3%, multiply the distance you calculate from Equation 10 by
0.67.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-30
Example 14. Example 5 was a worst-case vapor cloud explosion of 10,000 pounds of
propane. The calculated distance to the 1 psi overpressure endpoint was 0.17 mi.
You can also use a vapor cloud explosion of 10,000 pounds of propane as an
alternative scenario, but you can use a smaller yield factor. Assuming a yield factor of
3%, the distance to the endpoint would be 0.17 x 0.67 = 0.1 mile.
POOL FIRES
For pool fires involving spills of flammable liquids, Equation 21 below gives an
estimate of the distance d (ft) from a pool fire at which people could potentially
receive a second-degree burn after 40 seconds:
d = PFF(Ad)05 (21)
where PFF is the "Pool Fire Factor" and Ad (ft2) is the area of the pool. For the
flammable liquids on Exhibit 4-2, the PFFs are as follows:
Flammable Liquid PFF
Ethyl Ether 4.3
Isopropylamine 4.1
Isopropylchloride 3.1
Example 15. Ethyl ether spills into a diked area of 100 ft2 and burns. From
Equation 21, d = 4.3(100)05 = 43 ft (0.008 mi).
4.3 BUILDINGS
In chemical distribution facilities, some chemical operations may take place indoors,
, and the building may provide mitigation for releases. Unless your containers of
regulated substances are delivered directly into the building (i.e., they are not
unloaded outdoors and moved inside later), you should not consider buildings in your
worst-case scenario, because there will be some time when the vessels are outdoors. If
your containers are delivered indoors or if your largest vessel is indoors, you may want
to analyze the mitigating effects of the building when you do your worst-case analysis.
You may also want to consider buildings as mitigation systems for alternative
scenarios. However, the buildings at chemical distribution facilities vary over a wide
range in their strength of construction, the surface area of ventilation outlets and their
purpose. At one end of the spectrum, there are strong, leaktight buildings that are
designed to contain accidentally released vapors. Some of them contain scrubbers that
activate upon release of certain hazardous materials and would ensure that any release
to the external atmosphere would be very small indeed. At the other end of the
spectrum, there may be a building that is intended to do no more than keep the rain
off.
Januaiy 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
4-31 Offsite Consequence Analysis
If you have a building that is expected to contain or mitigate a release, you are entitled
to explain that the worst-case scenario is extremely unlikely and that the building will
ensure that there will be no or minimal offsite consequences.
For toxic liquids, EPA has provided simple building release rate reduction factors for
indoor releases of 10% for worst-case scenarios and 5% for alternative scenarios (i.e.,
the predicted rate of release is 10% or 5% of that for the same accident if it should
occur outdoors). The factors are applicable to releases in a fully enclosed, non-airtight
space that is directly adjacent to the outside air. They do not apply to a space that has
doors or windows that could be open during a release. (See Appendix D of the
OCAG for more discussion of the mitigation factors.)
For toxic gases, the EPA's reduction factor is 55%, for both worst-case and alternative
scenarios. It is applicable to releases in the same type of enclosure as the factors for
liquids. (See Appendix D of the OCAG for more discussion.)
Example 16. Example 4 considers a worst-case release of 14 Ib/min of
cyclohexylamine over 60 minutes that travels ~ 0.6 mi to a toxic endpoint at a rural
site and ~ 03 mi at an urban site. Using the building mitigation factor of 0.1 cited
~ above, the new release rate is 1.4 Ib/min. In worst-case weather conditions, and using
Equation 8 and Exhibit 4-7b, the predicted distance to the toxic endpoint is reduced
from ~ 0.6 mi to 0.18 mi ~ 0.2 mi at a rural site and from ~ 0.4 mi to 0.1 mi at an
urban site. You could present this mitigated worst-case scenario as an alternative
scenario with a mitigation factor of 0.05, in which case the mitigated rate of release is
0.7 Ib/min The predicted distances to the toxic endpoint, using Equation 20 and
Exhibit 4-9, are < 0.1 mi at a rural site and < 0.1 mi at an urban site.
The consequences of explosions inside buildings are extremely dependent upon the
nature of the congestion in the building. Simple guidance is not readily available.
However, if you keep flammable material in a building, there should be explosion
venting per NFPA requkements. This should prevent excessive buildup of pressure
inside the building and should ensure that pressure waves are vented in directions
favorable to mitigation.
4.4 ESTIMATING OFFSITE RECEPTORS
The rule requires that you estimate in the RMP residential populations within the
circle defined by the endpoint for your worst-case and alternative release scenarios
(i.e., the center of the circle is the point of release and the radius is the distance to the
endpoint). In addition, you must report in the RMP whether certain types of public
receptors and environmental receptors are within the circles.
RESIDENTIAL POPULATIONS
To estimate residential populations, you may use the most recent Census data or any
other source of data that you believe is more accurate. You are not required to update
Census data or conduct any surveys to develop your estimates. Census data aire
available in public libraries and in the LandView system, which is available on
CD-ROM (see box below). The rule requires that you estimate populations to two
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-32
significant digits. For example, if there are 1,260 people within the circle, you may
report' 1,300 people. If the number of people is between 10 and 100, estimate to the
nearest 10, If the number of people is less than 10, provide the actual number.
Census data are presented by Census tract. If your circle covers only a portion of the
tract, you should develop an estimate for that portion. The easiest way to do this is to
determine the population density per square mile (total population of the Census tract
divided by the number of square miles in the tract) and apply that density figure to the
number of square miles within your circle. Because there is likely to be considerable
variation in actual densities within a Census tract, this number will be approximate.
The rule, however, does not require you to correct the number.
OTHER PUBLIC RECEPTORS
Other public receptors must be noted in the RMP (see the discussion of public
receptors in Chapter 2). If there are any schools, residences, hospitals, prisons, public
recreational areas or arenas, or commercial or industrial areas within the circle, you
must report that. You are not required to develop a list of all public receptors; you
must simply check off that one or more such areas is within the circle. Most receptors
can be identified from local street maps.
ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS
Environmental receptors are defined as natural areas such as national or state parks,
forests, or monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or
areas; and Federal wilderness areas. Only environmental receptors that can be
identified on local U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps (see box below) need to be
considered. You are not required to locate each of these specifically. You are only
required to check off in the RMP which specific types of areas are within the circle. If
any part of one of these receptors is within your circle, you must note that in the RMP.
i
Important: The rale does not require you to assess the likelihood, type, or severity of
potential impacts on either public or environmental receptors. Identifying them as
within the circle simply indicates that they could be adversely affected by the release.
Besides the results you are required to report in the RMP, you may want to consider
submitting to EPA or providing your local community with a map showing the
distances to the endpoint. Figure 4-1 is one suggested example of how the
consequences of worst-case and alternative scenarios might be presented. It is a
simplified map that shows the radius to which the vapor cloud might extend, given the
worst-case release in worst-case weather conditions (the owner or operator should use
a real map of the area surrounding the site). Organizations that have already begun to
prepare Risk Management Programs and Plans have used this form of presentation
(for example, in the Kanawha Valley or hi Tampa Bay).
January 27,1999
-------
4-33
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
How TO OBTAIN CENSUS DATA AND LANDVIEW®
Census data can be found in publications of the Bureau of the Census, available in public libraries,
including County and City Data Book.
LandView ®III is a desktop mapping system that includes database extracts from EPA, the Bureau of
the Census, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of
Transportation, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These databases are presented in a
geographic context on maps that show jurisdictional boundaries, detailed networks of roads, rivers,
and railroads, census block group and tract polygons, schools, hospitals, churches, cemeteries, airports,
dams, and other landmark features.
CD-ROM for IBM-compatible PCS
CD-TGR95-LV3-KIT $99 per disc (by region) or $549 for .11 disc set
U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
P.O. Box 277943
Atlanta, GA 30384-7943
Phone: 301-457-4100 (Customer Services — orders)
Fax: (888) 249-7295 (toll-free)
Fax: (301) 457-3842 (local)
Phone: (301) 457-1128 (Geography Staff — content)
http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/geo/www/tiger/
i
Further information on LandView and other sources of Census data is available at the Bureau of the
Census web site at www.census.gov.
Januaiy'27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis
4-34
How TO OBTAIN USGS MAPS
The production of digital cartographic data and graphic maps comprises the largest component of the
USGS National Mapping Program. The USGS's most familiar product is the 1:24,000-scale
Topographic Quadrangle Map. This is the primary scale of data produced, and depicts greater detail
for a smaller area than intermediate-scale (1:50,000 and 1:100,000) and small-scale (1:250,000,
1:2,000,000 or smaller) products, which show selectively less .detail for larger areas.
U.S. Geological Survey
508 National Center
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston,VA 20192
www.mapping.usgs.gov/
To order USGS maps by fax, select, print, and complete one of the online forms and fax to
303-202-4693. A list of commercial dealers also is available at
%vww.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/usirnage/dealers.html/. For more information or ordering assistance, call
1 -800-HELP-MAP, or write:
USGS Information Services
Box 25286
Denver, CO 80225
For additional information, contact any USGS Earth Science Information Center or call
1-800-USA-MAPS.
4.5 DOCUMENTATION
You need to maintain onsite the following records on the offsite consequence
analyses:
l
4- For the worst-case scenario, a description of the vessel or pipeline selected as
worst-case, assumptions and parameters used and the rationale for selection;
assumptions include use of any administrative controls and any passive
mitigation systems that you assumed to limit the quantity that could be
released.
4- . For alternative release scenarios, a description of the scenarios identified,
assumptions and parameters used and the rationale for the selection of specific
scenarios; assumptions include use of any administrative controls and any
mitigation that were assumed to limit the quantity that could be released.
Documentation includes the effect of the controls and mitigation on the
release quantity and rate. Section 4-3 can be referenced here if you use any of
the "canned" scenarios described there.
~\
Other data that you should provide includes:
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
4-35 Offsite Consequence Analysis
' Documentation of estimated quantity released, release rate and duration of
release.
Methodology used to determine distance to endpoints (it will be sufficient to
reference this guidance).
Data used to identify potentially affected population and environmental
receptors.
January 27, 1999
-------
Figure 4-1 Simplified Presentation of Worst-Case
and Alternative Scenario on a Local Map
Radius for
Alternative
Scenario
Radius for
Worst-case Scenario
-------
Chapter 4
4-37 Offsite Consequence Analysis
APPENDIX 4A
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND FOR CHAPTER 4
METHODS AND EQUATIONS FROM WPA'SRMP OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
GUIDANCE (OCAG)
Data for Analysis
The chemical data presented in the text for the worst-case and alternative scenario analysis are
from the tables of data in the OCAG. Appendix B of the OCAG provides information on regulated toxic
substances. Data for toxic gases are found in Exhibit B-l of Appendix B, data for toxic liquids are in
Exhibit B-2, data for common water solutions of toxic substances are in Exhibit B-3, and temperature
correction factors are in Exhibit B-4. Appendix C provides information on regulated flammable
substances. Heats of combustion for flammable substances are in Exhibit C-l, additional data for
flammable gases can be found in Exhibit C-2, and Exhibit C-3 provides additional data for flammable
liquids.
Methods of Analysis from OCAG !
Toxic Substances. The method for estimating the release rate from an evaporating pool is from
the OCAG. This method and the derivation of the factors used are discussed in Appendix D, Section D.2
of the OCAG. Equations 2 and 4 in the text, for the worst-case evaporation rate, are the same as Equations
3-3 and 3-4 from the OCAG. Equations 14 and 15, for alternative scenario evaporation rates, are the same
as Equations 7-9 and 7-10 from the OCAG.
Equation 3 in the text is based on the following equation. At a temperature T °C:
LFA(T) = LFA(25 °C) VPfD • (298). ' (A-1)
VP(25) (273+T)
where VP(T) is the vapor pressure at T °C. The Temperature Correction Factor (TCP) is (VP(T)/VP(25) x
(298/(273+T) in the above equation. See Appendix D, Section D.2, of the OCAG for the derivation of the
TCP.
!
Appendix B, Section B.2, of the OCAG provides methods to estimate release rates for releases
involving mixtures of tpxic liquids (not addressed in the text of Chapter 4).
Appendix D, Sections D.I.2 and D.2.4 of the OCAG discuss the building mitigation factors cited
in the text.
Flammable Substances. Equation 9 of Chapter 4, for the worst-case analysis of flammable
substances, is the same as Equation C-2 in the OCAG, with the yield factor (0.1.) incorporated into the
constant.
Distances to the LFL for flammable substances given in Exhibit 4-10 are from Reference Tables
26, 27,28, and 29 of the OCAG.
Equation 21 in the text is the same as Equation 11-1 in the OCAG.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 4
OffsjteConsequence Analysis 4-38
ADDITIONAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Alternate Method for Estimation of Release Rate for TOKIC Gases Liquefied by
Refrigeration
You may consider a number of additional factors when you estimate the rate of release of a
refrigerated liquid from a pool. If the material is confined in a dike of area Ad ft2, then the rate of
evaporation per unit area is given by
Q0 = 12.27 k, CT, - T)/((Kit)° 5H,) ' (A-2)
where k^ = thermal conductivity of the material on which the pool lies (W/m/K)
Tg = temperature of the ground (K)
T = temperature of the liquid pool (the atmospheric boiling point of the released material)
(K)
-------
i Chapter
4-39 Offsite Consequence Analysis
where:
c = a constant (typical value 0.8")
pL = the density of the liquid in the vessel (lb/ft3)
a = the area of the orifice (ft2 - for example, the area of a hole of diameter 1 " is 0.0055 ft2)
pg = the gauge pressure in the vessel (psig)
g = the acceleration due to gravity (32 ft/s2)
h = the static head (ft)
To derive Equation 11, for liquid releases of gases liquefied under pressure, it was assumed that
the effect of the static head would be negligible compared to the effect of the pressure in the vessel, and the
1 89gh term was dropped from Equation A-5.
To derive Equation 16, for liquid releases from atmospheric tanks, the gauge pressure in the vessel
would be zero, so the 88 Ip/Pt term was dropped from Equation A-5.
Two-Phase Releases of Gases Liquefied Under Pressure
For long pipes (L/dh » 1), where L is the length of the pipe between the reservoir of liquefied gas
and the atmosphere, there can be flashing in the discharge pipe and a two-phase mixture emerges to the
atmosphere. In this case, the rate of release in Ib/min is given by:
R = 9,490(a)(F)(hL)/[v,g([T + 460]CpI)>A] (A-6)
- where
a = area of orifice (ft2)
F = a fiictional loss factor that is dimensionless and takes on a value of 1 for L/dh~ 0, 0.85 for L/dh
~ 50, 0.75 for L/4 ~ 100, 0.65 L/4, ~ 200 and 0.55 for L/4 ~ 400
h, = the latent heat of vaporization (Btu/lb)
v,g = the difference in specific volume between the gas and liquid (lb/ft3)
T = the reservoir temperature (°F)
Cp, = the liquid heat capacity (Btu/lb/T)
Example A-2. Assume a rupture in a !4-in pipe leading from a chlorine vessel. For chlorine, hLis 124
Btu/lb, vlg = 0.68 lb/ft3 and Cpl = 0.222 Btu/lb/0F. The area a is 0.00137 ft2. Assume L/4 ~ 50 (L ~ 2 ft),
so that F ~ 0.85 and that the temperature is 77 °F (25 °C), Equation A-5 gives:
R = (9,490)(0,00137)(0.85)(124)/((0.68)[(537)(0,222)f) - 185 Ib/min
DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS 1, 8, 13 AND 20 IN CHAPTER 4
To derive the equations in this chapter, the reference tables from the OCAG were fitted by straight
lines on a log-log plot, having the general equation
This value of c has been chosen to be consistent with the OCAG. Note that c depends upon nozzle shape
and Reynold number. Graphical presentations on how to determine c for various types of orifices can be found in
fluid mechanics textbooks and handbooks (e.g., Perry, R.H., D.W. Green and J.O. Maloney, Ed., 1984: Perry's
Chemical Engineers Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company). However, the value of c used above will generally
be sufficiently accurate in light of the uncertainties that exist in atmospheric dispersion models.
January 27. 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-40
D = a(R)b (1)
where D is the distance (mi) to the toxic endpoint and R is the rate of release (Ib/min). a and b are
parameters that depend upon the specific substance (in particular, upon the toxic endpoint), the weather
condition (worst-case or alternative), whether the site is rural or urban, and whether the assumed duration
of cloud passage Is !0 min or 60 min. In Chapter 4, generic a and b are actually Al and A2 (toxic gases,
Worst-case), Bl and B2 (toxic liquids, worst-case), Cl and C2 (toxic liquids, alternative scenarios), and Dl
and D2 (toxic gases', alternative scenarios), respectively. You should not expect these equations to
reproduce the OCAG reference tables exactly because these equations are only best fits to the data in the
OCAG, not perfect fits.
The derivation of the equations in Chapter 4, including the log-log plots used to derive the
parameters for estimating distances, is presented in detail in a background document, available from EPA.
i
Validity of Equations
f i
Equations 1,8, 13, and 20 in Chapter 4 are valid for 0.1 < D < 25 mi. This is because there is a
lack of experimental data to justify their extrapolation below or above this range.
•>
Chlorine, Sulfur Dioxide and Ammonia
For most chemicals, the values of Al, A2, Bl, B2, Cl, C2, Dl and D2 have been derived from the
generic reference tables of distances in the OCAG, which were developed based on the modeling described
in Appendix D of the OCAG, The exceptions are anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, sulfur dioxide and
aqueous ammonia. The values of Al, A2, Dl and D2 for anhydrous ammonia are derived from the
guidance given in the Model Risk Management Program and Plan for Ammonia Refrigeration, The
values of the constants for chlorine, sulfur dioxide and aqueous ammonia are derived from the Model Risk
Management Program and Plan for Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
The OCAG was developed to give conservative guidance that can be applied to all 77 toxic
substances listed in 40 CFR § 68.130. However, EPA has also developed guidance specific to particular
Industries, such as ammonia refrigeration and wastewater treatment facilities. In developing this guidance,
it was possible to devote resources to dispersion modeling that is tailored to the chemical in question and to
remove some of the conservatism that was deliberately incorporated into the OCAG. That is why
anhydrous and aqueous ammonia, and chlorine and sulfur dioxide, have been singled out for special
treatment and have their own reference tables in OCAG.
For details on how the values of the constants were derived for aqueous ammonia, anhydrous *
ammonia, sulfur dioxide and chlorine, consult Backup Information for the Hazard Assessments in the RMP
Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance, the Guidance for Waste-water Treatment Facilities and the
Guidance for Ammonia Refrigeration - Anhydrous Ammonia, Aqueous Ammonia, Chorine and Sulfur
Dioxide, available from EPA.
CONSERVATISMS AND MODELING CONSIDERATIONS
j
The consequences of an accidental release depend on the conditions of the release and the
conditions at the site at the time of the release. This guidance provides the above-described equations for
distances, based on tables in the OCAG, for estimation of worst-case and alternative scenario consequence
distances. Distance estimates based on these tables are not intended to be accurate predictions of the
Jtnuajy27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
4-41 Offsite Consequence Analysis
distances that might be reached in the event of an accidental release. For this guidance, worst-case
distances are based on modeling results assuming the worst-case conditions required by the rule. To derive
the alternative scenario distances, less conservative assumptions were used for modeling; these
assumptions were chosen to represent more likely conditions than the worst-case assumptions. In an actual
accidental release, the conditions may be very different. Users of this guidance should remember that the
results derived from the methods presented here are rough estimates of potential consequence distances.
Other models may give very different results; the same model also may give different results with different
assumptions about release conditions.
As noted above, the equation distances in this guidance provide results to a maximum distance of
25 miles. EPA recognizes that modeling results at such large distances are highly uncertain, ,No
experimental data or data from accidents are available at large distances to compare to modeling results.
Most data are reported for distances well under 10 miles. Modeling uncertainties are likely to increase as
distances increase because conditions (e.g., atmospheric stability, wind speed, surface roughness) are not
likely to remain constant over long distances. Thus, at large distances (e.g., greater than about 6 to 10
miles), the modeling results should'not be given much weight as estimates of consequence distances. EPA
believes, however, that the results, even at large distances, can provide useful information for comparison
purposes. For example, Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and local agencies can use
relative differences in distance results to aid in establishing priorities among facilities in a community for
addressing chemical accident prevention and preparedness. However, EPA strongly urges communities
and industry not to rely on large distances to the toxic endpoint in emergency planning and response
activities. Emergency planning should not be based on worst-case results or on large distance results from
the alternative scenario analysis.
OTHER APPROACHES
General Guidance on Modeling
If you decide to perform your own modeling, there are two major items mat are, not trivial. These are:
a. Correct characterization of the source term (e.g., rate of release, temperature, density, momentum,
aerosol content, etc.)
b. Choice of a suitable dispersion model
It is not possible to cover in detail all of the issues that need to be addressed, although there are
sources of useful advice. The quadrennial conferences on vapor cloud dispersion modeling that are
organized by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) are a good source of information on the latest
developments in source term and dispersion modeling (CCPS, 1987,1991,1995). There are also CCPS
Guidebooks, such as "Guidelines for Use of Vapor Cloud Dispersion Models - Second Edition'*.
EPA has also published useful guidance. There is one document that looks carefully at the
definition of source terms (USEPA, 1993). The EPA has also performed an evaluation of dense gas
dispersion models (USEPA, 1991). Another review of available models has been given by Hanna et al.
(1991). Finally, Appendix A of OCAG contains a list of useful references.
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX 4A
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS, 1987). "Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Vapor Cloud Modeling," Boston, MA; American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 4
Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-42
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS, 1991). "International Conference and Workshop on Modeling
and Mitigating the Consequences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials," New Orleans, LA;
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY.
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS, 1995). "International Conference and Workshop on Modeling
and Mitigating the Consequences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials," New Orleans, LA;
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY.
Hanna, S.R., D.G. Strimatis and Joseph C. Chang (1991). "Uncertainties in Hazardous Model Gas
Predictions," in CCPS (1991), pp. 345-368.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1991). "Evaluation of Dense Gas Simulation
Models," EPA-450/R-89-108, Research Triangle Park, NC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1993). "Contingency Analysis for Superfund
Sites and Other Industrial Sources," EPA-454/R-93-001, Research Trianjgle Park, NC.
January 27,1999
-------
CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
5.1 GENERAL INFORMATION (§68.15)
If you have at least one Program 2 or Program 3 process (see Chapter 2 for guidance'
on determining the Program levels of your processes), the management system
provision in § 68.15 requires you to:
4- Develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk
management program elements;
, 4- Designate a qualified person or position with the overall responsibility for the
development, implementation, and integration of the risk management
program elements; and
4- Document the names of people or positions and define the lines of authority
through an organizational chart or other similar document, if you assign
responsibility for implementing individual requirements of the risk
management program to people or positions other than the person or position
with overall responsibility for the risk management program.
ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROVISION
Management commitment to process safety is a critical element of your facility's risk
management program. Management commitment should not end when the last word
of the risk management plan is composed. For process safety to be a constant priority,
your facility must remain committed to every element of the risk management
program. ,
This rale takes an integrated approach to managing risks. Each element must be
implemented on an ongoing, daily basis and become a part of the way you operate.
Therefore, your commitment and oversight should be continuous.
By satisfying the requirements of this provision, you are ensuring that:
4- The risk management program elements are integrated and implemented on an
ongoing basis; and
4- All groups within a source understand the lines of responsibility and
communication.
5.2 HOW TO MEET THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
We understand that the sources covered by this rule are diverse and that you are in the
best position to decide how to appropriately implement and incorporate the risk
management program elements at your facility; therefore, we sought to maximize your
flexibility in complying with this program.
January 27, ,1999
-------
Chapter 5
Management System
5-2
Most chemical distributors have relatively few employees at any one site. Your
management system, therefore, will probably be simple. To begin, you may identify
either the qualified person or position with overall responsibility for implementing the
risk management program elements at your facility. It may make sense and be
practical to identify the name of the qualified person, rather than the position.
Recognize that the only element of your management system that you must report in
the RMP is the name of the qualified person or position with overall responsibility.
Further, changes to this data element in your RMP do not require that you update your
RMP.
* k
Identification of a qualified individual or position with overall responsibility
may be all you need to do if the person or position named directly oversees the
employees operating and maintaining the processes. You must define the lines of
authority with an organizational chart or similar document only if you choose to assign
responsibility for specific elements of the risk management program to persons or
positions other than the person with overall responsibility. For a facility with few
employees, it is likely that you will meet the requirements of this provision by
ideptifying the one person or position with the overall responsibility of implementing
the risk management program elements. If this is the case, you need not develop an
organizational chart. For this reason, this chapter does not provide an example
organizational chart for a small facility.
Even if you meet the requirements of this section by naming a single person or
position, it is important to recognize that the person or position assigned the
responsibility of overseeing implementation must have the ability and resources to
ensure that your facility and employees carry out the risk management program,
particularly the prevention elements, on an continuing basis. Key to the effectiveness
of the rule is integrated management of the program elements.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME AS A MEDIUM OR LARGE FACILITY?
As a medium or large facility you may have more managerial turnover than smaller
sites. For this reason, it may make more sense at your facility to identify a position,
rather than the name of the specific person, with overall responsibility for the risk
management program elements. Remember that the only element of your
management system that you must report in the RMP is the name of the qualified
person or position with overall responsibility. Also note that changes to this data
element in your RMP do not require you to update your RMP.
Lines of Authority
As a relatively large or complex facility, you will likely choose to identify several
people or positions to supervise the implementation of the various elements of the
program; therefore, you must define the lines of authority through an organizational
chart or similar document. Further, we expect that most facilities your size already
have an interest in formalizing internal communication and have likely developed and
maintained some type of documentation defining positions and responsibilities. Any
internal documents you currently have should be the starting point for defining the
lines of authority at your facility. You may find that you can simply use or update
current documents to satisfy this part of the management system provision. Exhibit
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 5
5-3 Management System
5-1 provides a sample of another type of documentation you may use in addition to or
as a replacement for an organization chart.
Defining the lines of authority and roles arid responsibilities of staff that oversee the
risk management program elements will help to:
4- Ensure effective communication about process changes between divisions;
4- Clarify the roles and responsibilities related to process safety issues at your
facility;
i
4- Avoid problems or conflicts among the various people responsible for
implementing elements of the risk management program;
4- Avoid confusion and allow those responsible for implementation to work
together as a team; and
4- Ensure that the program elements are integrated into an ongoing approach to
identifying hazards and managing risks.
Remember that all of the positions you identify in your documentation will report their
progress to the person with overall responsibility for the program. However, nothing
in the risk management program rule prohibits you from satisfying the management
provision by assigning process safety committees with management responsibility,
provided that an organizational .chart or similar document identifies the names or
positions and lines of authority.
A number of industry guidelines include suggestions for management practices. The
National Association of Chemical Distributors has a code of management practices,
the Responsible Distribution Process. The Warehouse Assessment Protocol
published by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the International
Warehouse Logistics Association includes a management systems assessment.
January 27,1999
-------
Cimpier5
Management System
5-4
EXHIBIT 54
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTATION
Position
Primary Responsibility
Changes
Responsibility re; Changes
Operations Manager
Developing OPs
Oversight of operation
On-the-job training
On-the-job competency testing
Process Safety Information
Selecting participants for PHAs,
incident investigations
Develop management of change and
pre-startup procedures
New Equipment
New Process Parameters
New Procedures
Change in Process Utilization
Inform head of training
Inform head of maintenance
Inform lead for PHAs
Inform hazmal team as needed
Inform contractors
Training Supervisor
Develop, track, oversee operator
training program
Track competency testing
Set up and track operator refresher
training
Set up training for maintenance
Work with contractors
New Equipment
New Process Parameters
New Procedures
Change in Process Utilization
New Regulatory Requirements
Revise training and refresher training
courses
Revise maintenance courses, as
needed
Inform other leads of need for
additional training
Maintenance Supervisor
Develop maintenance schedules
Oversee and document maintenance
Revise schedules as needed
New Equipment
New Process Parameters
New Procedures
Change in Process Utilization
Inform operations manager of
potential problem areas
Inform training supervisor of any
training revisions
Inform contractors
Revise schedules
Hazmat Team Chief
Develop and exercise ER plan
Train responders
Test and maintain ER equipment
Coordinate with public responders
Select participants in accident
investigations
New Equipment
New Process Parameters
New Procedures"
Change in Process Utilization
New Regulatory Requirements
Revise the ER plan as needed
Inform operations manager of
problems created by changes
Work with training supervisor to
revise training of team and others
January 27,1999
-------
I, f
5-5
Chapter 5
Management System
EXHIBIT 5-1
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTATION
Position
Primary Responsibility
Changes
Responsibility re; Changes
Health and Safety Officer
Oversee implementation of RMP
Develop accident investigation
procedures
Oversee compliance audits
Develop employee participation
plans
Conduct contractor evaluations
Track regulations
New Equipment
New Process Parameters
New Procedures
Change in Process Utilization
New Regulatory Requirements
Inform all leads of new requirements
and assign responsibilities
Ensure that everyone is informed of
changes and that changes are
incorporated in programs as needed
January 27,1999
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
6661 '
-------
CHAPTER 6: PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 2 )
6.1 ABOUT THE PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION PROGRAM
If your processes are ineligible for Program 1 and you have substances above the
threshold that are not covered by OSHA's PSM standard, you have Program 2
processes. If you have storage tanks and repackaging operations, the prevention
program will likely be somewhat different for each covered process because the
hazards and equipment may be different and, therefore, the training and procedures
will differ.
For the warehouse part of your operation, the prevention program is likely to be
essentially the same for all covered substances. Procedures for moving and stacking
containers, operating forklifts and other equipment, and segregating substances will
generally be common to all substances stored. If you start storing a new class of
hazardous substances you may have to address that, but once you have, your
procedures and safety information will mainly be the same. Because of this common
' approach to accident prevention, you will probably want to treat your storage
operations in the building as one process. You should address any differences in the
hazard review and safety information, but you should develop a single accident
prevention program that includes storage of all covered substances within a building.
If you have more than one building at your facility, you may need to develop separate
prevention programs for each building with regulated substances above the threshold.
Procedures that are common across buildings need not be duplicated.
The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) has adopted a code of
management practices, The Responsible Distribution Process (RDP). Many of the
elements are similar to those required under Program 2. NACD has prepared a table •
comparing" the elements of Program 2 with those of RDP, which is included as an
appendix to this chapter. If you are in compliance with the NACD code, you will
probably already have taken most of steps needed for Program 2 compliance. You are
responsible for evaluating your RDP activities and determining whether they meet the
requirements of part 68. If your RDP activities satisfy certain requirements of the
rule, you will not need to take additional steps to meet those requirements. A
comparison of RDF and the risk management program is included hi Appendix A to
this chapter.
In addition, the Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA), in coordination with
the International Warehouse Logistics Association (IWLA), has developed a
Warehouse Assessment Protocol. The Protocol includes some items that are not
covered by the rule (e.g., package labeling), but many of the checklists will be useful
in developing your accident prevention program for your warehouse operations.
Reviewing and adapting applicable parts of the Protocol to your specific operations
can save you time while helping you identify issues of concern.
There are seven elements in the Program 2 prevention program, which is Subpart C of
part 68. Exhibit 6-1 sets out each of the seven elements and corresponding section
numbers.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-2
EXHIBIT 6-1
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION PROGRAM
Number
§ 68.48
§ 68.50
§ 68.52
§ 68.54
§ 68.56
§ 68.58
§ 68.60
Section Title
Safety Information
Hazard Review
Operating Procedures
Training
Maintenance
Compliance Audits
Incident Investigation
You must integrate these seven elements into a risk management program that you and
your staff implement on a daily basis. Understanding and managing risks must
become part of the way you operate. Doing so will provide benefits beyond accident
prevention as well. Preventive maintenance and routine inspections will lessen the
number of equipment failures and down time.
6.2 SAFETY INFORMATION (§ 68.48)
The purpose of this requirement is for you to understand the equipment and chemicals
you have, know what limits they place on your operations, and adopt accepted
standards and codes where they apply. Having up-to-date information about your
process is the foundation of an effective prevention program. Many elements
(especially the hazard review) depend on the accuracy and thoroughness of the
information this element requires you to provide.
WHAT Do I NEED To Do?
You must compile and maintain safety information related to the regulated substances
and process equipment for each Program 2 process. You probably have much of this
information already, because you would have developed it to comply with OSHA or
other rules. EPA has limited the information to what is likely to apply to the processes
covered under the Program 2 program. Exhibit 6-2 gives a brief summary of the
safety information requirements for Program 2.
January 27,1999
-------
6-3
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
EXHIBIT 6-2
SAFETY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
You must compile and
maintain this safety
information; ,
•Material Safety Data
Sheets
•Maximum intended
inventory
•Safe upper and lower
parameters
•Equipment specifications
•Codes & standards used to
design, build, and operate the
process
You must ensure:
•That the process is designed in
compliance with recognized
codes and standards
You must update the safety
information if:
•There is a major change at
your business that makes the
safety information inaccurate
How Do I START?
MSDSs. You are required to maintain Material Safety Data Sheets urfder the OSHA
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200). If you do not have an
MSDS for a regulated substance, you should contact your customer or the
manufacturer for a copy. Because the rule states that you must have an MSDS that
meets OSHA requirements you may want to review the MSDS to ensure that it is, in
fact, complete. Besides the chemical name, the MSDS must have" physical and
chemical characteristics (e.g., flash point, vapor pressureX the physical hazards (e.g.,
flammability, reactivity), the health hazards, the routes of entry, exposure limits (e.g.,
the OSHA permissible exposure level), precautions for safe handling, generally
applicable control measures, and emergency and first aid procedures. (See 29 CFR
1910.1200(g) for the complete set of requirements for an MSDS.)
MSDSs also are available from a number of websites. The University of .California,
San Diego Chemistry and Biochemistry Department maintains some MSDSs on its
website: http://www-ehs.ucsd.edu/msds.htm. This site also links to other pages with
MSDSs, including Vermont Safety and Information Resources on the Internet,
http://siri.org. On-line databases also provide MSDSs. EPA has not verified the
accuracy or completeness of MSDSs on any of these sites nor does it endorse any
particular version of an MSDS.
Maximum Inventory. You must document the maximum intended inventory of any
vessel that contains a regulated subject in part of a covered process. This requirement,
when applied to your warehouses, means that you must document the sizes of vessels
that you store. Your suppliers can provide information on the capacity of the drums,
barrels, cylinders, etc., they deliver to you. You may also want to consider
documenting the maximum storage capacity of areas where you store regulated
substances.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-4
For tanks, the maximum capacity can usually be found from "Ul A"'certificates for
vessels. The U1A certificates on all vessels constructed under the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code are kept on file by the National Board. The nominal nameplate
capacity can also be found on the permanently attached nameplate for your storage
tank. The nameplate will also have the National Board Number for your vessel, which
the key to retrieving your Ul A form from the Board. These names may be located on
one of the hemispherical heads, the manway, or the manway cover. The nominal
capacity will usually be the water capacity, and you may want to convert it to pounds.
If you use transportation containers (railcars or tank trucks) as storage vessels, you can
obtain the capacity from the required DOT nameplate, identification plate, or
specification plate or from the owner of the containers.
You may want to check with NACD or me standards group that develops standards
for particular processes (e.g., chlorine distribution) to determine if there are any
limitations on inventories. For example, codes may limit the size of individual
flammable storage areas to less than 40,000 square feet. Codes or standards may set
stack height limits. For tanks, standards may limit the extent of filling; for example,
NFPA-58, the LPG gas code, limits the maximum liquid volume for filling to a
specified percentage (e.g., 88 percent at 60 °F for propane of commercial density).
These standards will limit your maximum inventories.
Storage and Process Limits. You must document the safe upper and lower.
temperatures and pressures, process flows, and compositions. The last three items will
generally not be applicable to warehouses, but will apply to repackagers.
Every substance you store or use will have limits on temperature, which will be
determined by both the properties of the substance and the vessels. If you do not
know these limits, you should contact the substance manufacturer or your trade
association. They will be able to provide the data you need. It is important that you
know these limits so you can avoid situations where these limits may be violated.
Many people are aware of the dangers of exposing their vessels to high temperatures,
but extreme low temperatures also may pose hazards you should know about.
If you are moving substances through pipes or hoses, you need to define safe
temperatures and pressures; again, these limits will be determined by both the
substance and the piping. For example, the substance may tolerate high pressures, but
the pipes may have structural limits. To operate safely, you must have this
information. The pipe manufacturer will be able to provide these data.
If you are reacting chemicals, you need to understand whether the reaction will be
compromised if you vary the temperature or pressure. Again, it is important to define
both the upper and lower limits. Reactions may become unstable outside of their
limits and compromise safety. Check with the substance manufacturer for information
on this subject if you are uncertain about the limits.
Process flows and compositions will apply to you if you transfer substances through
piping or hoses and if you mix the substance. It is important in these cases that you
Irnmvy 27.1999
-------
Chapter 6
6-5 Prevention Program (Program 2)
understand the safe limits. The pipe or hose vendors will be able to provide you with
the maximum flow rates that their products are designed to handle. You must also be
aware of any hazards that could be created if your processes are contaminated; for
example, if your substance or equipment could be contaminated by water, you must
know whether that creates different hazards, such as corrosion.
For most Program 2 processes, mixing will not be an issue, but if you are mixing
substances, you should understand what will happen if the composition varies. If you
are uncertain about the effects of changing composition and do not have a chemist or
chemical engineer on your staff, the substance manufacturer should be able to help.
Equipment Specifications. You must document any equipment you use to store,
repackage, or move regulated substances. Equipment specifications will usually
include information on the materials of construction, actual design, and tolerances.
The vendor should be able to provide this information; you may have the
specifications in your files from the time of purchase. You are not expected to develop
engineering drawings of your equipment to meet this requirement. For warehouses,
this requirement will apply mainly to forklifts and other equipment used to lift or
move drums, barrels, pallets, etc., as well as storage racks. It is important that you
understand the limitations on this equipment so that it can be operated and used
properly.
The actual containers for the regulated substances will probably be designed to meet
DOT specifications. You need only ensure that containers you store meet DOT
specifications; you do not need to maintain copies of the DOT specifications unless
you package regulated substances at your warehouse. DOT specifications are
generally found in 49 CFR part 178.
If you repackage, you are likely to have more equipment on which you must maintain
documentation. For example, you will need to document the specifications for all of
the following that apply to your covered processes: bulk storage tanks, piping,
pressure relief valves, emergency shutoff valves, temperature, pressure, and level
gauges, valves, pumps, compressors, hoses, wet air scrubber systems, flame ionization
systems, condensation or distillation systems, and carbon adsorption systems. You
may want to file vendor specification information in a single location to make it easy
to find and update.
Codes and Standards. You must document the codes and standards you used to
design and build your facility and that you follow to operate. These codes will include
the electrical and building codes that you must comply with under state laws. Besides
the construction of the building, in storage areas, you should consider racks that you
use for storage, sprinkler systems, heating and ventilation systems, and any other
equipment or design features that affect the safety of your storage. Bulk storage
containers are also subject to codes, such as ASME pressure vessel codes. Exhibit 6-3
lists some codes that may be relevant to your operation.
Note that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes may have been
adopted as state or local codes. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-6
an umbrella, standards-setting organization, which imposes a specific process for
gaining approval of standards and codes. ANSI codes may include codes and
standards also issued by other organizations.
The CMA Warehouse Assessment Protocol has a section on loss prevention (section 4
of the protocol) that can help you identify areas of concern on design.
EXHIBIT 6-3
CODES AND STANDARDS
Organization
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
National Rre Protection Association (NFPA)
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
Subject/Codes
Piping, Electrical, Power wiring, Instrumentation,
Lighting, Product storage and handling, Insulation and
flreproofing, Painting and coating, Ventilation, Noise
and Vibration, Fire protection equipment, Safety
equipment, Pumps, Compressors, Motors,
Refrigeration equipment, Pneumatic conveying
Fire pumps, Flammable liquid code, Plant equipment
and layout, Electrical system design, Shutdown
systems, Venting requirements, Gas turbines and
engines, Storage tanks
Inspection and testing, Noise and vibration, Materials
of construction, Piping materials and systems,
Instrumentation
How Do I DOCUMENT ALL THIS?
EPA does not expect you to develop piles of papers to document your safety
information. Your MSDS(s) are usually three or four pages long. You only have to
keep them on file, as you already do for OSHA. Equipment specifications are usually
on a few sheets or a booklet provided by the vendor; you need only keep these up-to-
date and on file. You can probably document the other information on a one or more
sheets that simply list each of the required items and any codes or standards that apply.
See Exhibit 6-4 for a sample. Maintain that sheet in a file and update it whenever any
item changes or new equipment is added.
The equipment specifications and list of standards and codes will probably meet the
final requirement, that you ensure that your process is designed in compliance with
recognized and generally good engineering practices. If you have any doubt that you
are meeting this requirement, you should contact your trade association to determine if
there are practices or standards that you are not aware of that may be useful in your
operation.
January 27,1999
-------
6-7
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
EXHIBIT 6-4
SAMPLE SAFETY INFORMATION SHEET
ITEM
CURRENT DATA/LIMITS
MSDS
Nitric Acid
Chorine
Ammonia
Acryionitrile
Formaldehyde
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrofluoric Acid '
Ethylene oxide
Acrolein
Flammable mixtures
Date of last update:
1994
1996 ,
1995
1997
1994
1997
1995
1996
1999
5 mixtures (1998, 1997,1999)
Maximum Intended Inventory (warehouse)
Largest Vessel: 55 gallon drums"
Maximum storage in any section 1,000 drums
Maximum area storage for flammables 30,000 square feet.
Aerosol (flammable) storage less than 100 cubic feet
Maximum Intended Inventory
Tank (chlorine)
Tank (ammonia)
60,000 gallons (nominal water capacity)
40,000 gallons (nominal water capacity)
Temperature (warehouse)
Temperature (chlorine tank)
Temperature (ammonia tank)
Upper:
Lower:
Upper:
Lower:
Upper.
Lower:
Pressure (chlorine tank)
Pressure (ammonia tank)
Upper:
Lower: .
Upper:
Lower:
Flow rate (chlorine)
Flow rate (ammonia)
Loading:
Unloading:
Loading:
Unloading:
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-8
ITEM
Equipment Specifications
Fork lifts
Sprinkler system
Wet system
Foam system
Back system
Storage racks
Exhaust fans
Fire extinguishers
Alarm system
Safety relief valves
RV1
RV2
RV3
RV4
Excess flow valve
EFV1
EFV2
EFV3
EFV4
Emergency shutoff valve
ESV1
ESV2
Pump 1
Pump 2
Compressor 1
Compressor 2
Tank level indicator 1
Tank level indicator 2
Tank pressure indicator 1
Tank pressure indicator 2
Tank temperature indicator 1
Tank temperature indicator 2
Codes and Standards
Building construction
Floor
Interior walls
Ceiling
Fire doors
Electrical
Sprinkler system
*
Ventilation system
Piping design
Tanks
CURRENT DATA/LIMITS
Specifications on file:
On file (last update, 1992)
Construction drawings and specifications
Construction drawings and specifications
Construction drawings and specifications
Manufacturer's specifications (1985)
Manufacturer's specifications (1993)
Manufacturer's specifications (1995)
Manufacturer's specifications (1985)
Each relieves at
Replaced 9/96
Replaced 4/97
Replaced 5/94 •
Replaced 2/99
3", closes at 225 GPM with 100 PSIG inlet
2", closes at
3", closes at
2", closes at
1 1/4", closes at
2", closes at
Manufacturer's specifications (1995)
Manufacturer's specifications (1992)
Manufacturer's specifications (1995)
Manufacturer's specifications (1997)
Manufacturer's specifications (1994)
Manufacturer's specifications (1996)
Manufacturer's specifications (1998)
Manufacturer's specifications (1996)
Manufacturer's specifications (1993)
Manufacturer's specifications (1994)
State building and fire code
State electrical code -
State building code; NFPA
State building code »
ASME
ASME (ID number)
Jinuary 27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
ITEM
Racks
Stack heights, separations
CURRENT DATA/LIMITS
After you have documented your safety information, you should double check it to be
sure that the files you have reflect the equipment you are currently using. It is
important to keep this information up to date. Whenever you replace equipment, be
sure that you put the new equipment specifications in the file and consider whether
any of your other prevention elements need to be reviewed to reflect the new
equipment.
6.3 HAZARD REVIEW (§ 68.50)
The hazard review will help you determine whether you're meeting applicable codes
and standards, identify and evaluate the types of potential failures, .and focus your
emergency response planning efforts.
WHAT Do I NEED TO DO?
The hazard review is key to understanding your operation and continuing to operate
safely. You must identify and review specific hazards and safeguards of your
Program 2 processes. Exhibit 6-5 summarizes things you must do for a hazard review.
How Do 1 START?
There are three possible approaches to conducting a hazard review; which you use will
depend on your particular situation.
* \
Processes designed to industry-specific codes. If all or part of your facility and its
operation wa's designed and built to comply with a federal or state standard for that
operation or an industry-specific design code, your hazard review will be relatively
simple. The standard-setting organization has already conducted a hazard review,
identified the hazards, and designed the equipment and operating requirements to
minimize the risks. You can use the code or standard as a checklist. The purpose of
your review is to ensure that your equipment still meets the code and is being operated
in appropriate ways.
Industry checklist, CMA's Warehouse Assessment Protocol, particularly the
Warehouse Assessment (as opposed to the Management Systems Assessment), can
provide the basis for a hazard review checklist for your storage operations. CMA and
IWLA have already identified what your general hazards are and what types of
equipment and procedures you should be using. Your job is to use the checklist to
decide if you meet the requirements and, if you do not, whether you should. In some
cases, your individual circumstances may make a checklist item unnecessary. You
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-10
EXHIBIT 6-5
HAZARD REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Conduct a review &
identify...
Use a guide for
conducting the
review.
Document results &
resolve problems.
Update your hazard
review.
•The hazards
associated with the
Program 2 process &
regulated substances.
•Opportunities for
equipment malfunction
or human error that
could cause a release.
•Safeguards that will
control the hazards or
prevent the malfunction
or error.
•Steps to detect or
monitor releases.
•You may use any
checklist (such as you
might in a model risk
management program)
to conduct the review.
•For a process
designed to industry
standards like NFPA-
58 or Federal /state
design rules, check the
equipment to make sure
that it's fabricated,
installed, and operated
properly.
•Your hazard review
must be documented
and you must show that
you have addressed
problems.
•You must update
your review at least
once every five years or
whenever there is a
major change in the
process.
•You must resolve
problems identified in
the new review before
you startup the changed
process.
should tailor this checklist to add chemical-specific concerns. For example, if you
handle a wide range of chemicals across hazard classes, you will want to be sure that
these materials are segregated properly. If you have an operating engineer on staff, he
or she may be able to conduct the review. If you do not have any technical staff, your
vendor or trade association may be able to help you. If you seek outside help,
however, work with them closely so that you understand what they find.
Develop your own checklist. If you do not choose to use the CMA protocol or
industry standards, you will have to conduct your own hazard review. As discussed in
the requirements section, the review must identify:
, i
+ The hazards of the substance and process;
4- Possible equipment failures or human errors that could lead to a release;
4- Safeguards used to prevent failures or errors; and
4- Steps needed to detect or monitor releases.
You will probably be able to define the hazards of the substances themselves using the
MSDSs, which list the hazardous properties of substances. However, the hazards of
the process (as opposed to substance or the equipment) must also be defined. If you
repackage or mix chemicals, or if you fail to segregate hazard classes, you will
probably need to define process hazards. Your safety information should help here.
The next step may be to conduct a simplified What If analysis where you ask for each
piece of equipment and procedure, "What if this fails?" and "What if the operator fails
J«nuary27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
6-11 Prevention Program (Program 2)
to do this?" Most industry standards and codes have already considered these
questions and developed responses, in terms of design and operating practices. If you
are doing this on your own, the important thing to remember is that you should not
assume that something will not happen without a sound technical basis for that
assumption. Ask why something could not happen and whether the safeguards that
you think protect the equipment or operator are really adequate. In many cases, they
may be adequate, but it is useful to ask, to force yourself to examine your own
assumptions.
From this exercise, you should develop a checklist of items that you need to check.
For example, you may have decided that your storage racks can hold a certain weight.
The checklist would then include an item to check procedures to be sure that they
reflect this limit You may have identified puncturing drums with a forklift as the
most likely operator error. Your checklist might then include both a check of
operating procedures mat address proper practices, plus a check of the width of
corridors separating racks or pallets to ensure that forklift operators have enough space
to maneuver. If you have listed mixing tank pump failure as a possible problem, the
checklist might then include the following items to check: pump maintenance plans,
tank high-level alarms, overflow tanks. You would also want to ask what effect a
power outage would have on the pump. You may want to consider the particular
procedures that have to be followed for safe operation of the equipment and ask what
will happen if an operator omits a step or does them out of order. Do your procedures
address these possible problems? Will failure of the pump affect the safe operating
limits you have documented in your safety information?
When you finish the checklist, it is useful to show it to your operators. They are
familiar with the equipment and may be able to point out other areas of concern. A
review with your vendors or trade association may also help; their wider knowledge of
the industry may give them ideas about failures you may not have experienced or
considered.
CAUTION
Whichever approach you use, remember, you should consider external events as well
as internal failures. If you are in an area subject to earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, or
heavy snow you should examine whether your warehouse would survive these natural
events without releasing the substance. You should consider the potential impacts of
lightning strikes and power failures (e.g., if you lost heating in midwinter would that
create dangerous situations?). These considerations may not be part of standard
checklists. If you use these standards, you may have to modify them to address these
site-specific concerns. Never use someone else's checklist blindly. You must be sure
that it addresses all of your potential problems.
DOCUMENTING THE REVIEW
You should maintain a copy of the checklist you used. The easiest way to document
findings is to enter them into the checklist after each item. This approach will give
you a simple, concise way of keeping track of findings and recommendations. Exhibit
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-12
6-6 provides a sample of part of a checklist. You may also want to create a separate
document of recommendations that require implementation or other resolution. EPA
does not require that you implement every recommendation. It is up to you to decide
which recommendations are necessary and feasible. You may decide that other steps
are as effective as the recommended actions or that the risk is too low to merit the
expense. You must, however, document your decision on each recommendation.
UPDATES
You must update the review every five years or whenever a major change occurs. If
you repackage chemicals, you are more likely to have changes than if you only store
substances. For example, if you install new equipment or begin repackaging a
substance you had previously only stored, you will need to revise your hazard review
or conduct a new review. For the warehouse part of your operations, major changes
will probably be limited. If you start storing a new substance, particularly if it is in a
hazard class you have not handled before, you would want to consider whether the
new type of hazard requires any additional actions (e.g., different type of fire
suppression system, new segregation patterns). In most cases, adding new regulated
substances in a hazard class you already handle (flammable liquids, acids) will not be
considered a major change. Even if the changes prove to be minor and do not require
an update, you should examine the process carefully before starting. You will operate
more safely if you take the time to evaluate the hazards before proceeding.
i i
WHERE CAN I LOOK FOR MORE INFORMATION?
Although the reports below target the chemical industry, you may find useful
information in them:
4- Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd Ed. with Worked
examples, Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers.
4- Evaluating Process Safety in the Chemical Industry, Chemical Manufacturers ,
Association.
4- Handling and Storage: Warehouse Assessment Protocol, Chemical
Manufacturers Association.
In addition, the following apply to specific storage and handling:
4- 29 CFR 1910.111, OSHA's standard for the storage and handling of
anhydrous ammonia.
January 27,1999
-------
6-13
• Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
EXHIBIT 6-6
SAMPLE CHECKLIST1
Storage and Handling
Are chemicals segregated from foods/consumer
goods?
Are chemicals segregated by hazard class?
Are damaged containers marked and segregated?
Are product temperature specifications followed?
Are there floor markings to indicate storage spaces,
aisles, staging areas, and routes?
Are produqts stacked properly to height
specifications in accordance with fire regulations?
Are there indications of exceeding height
requirements, such as crashed boxes?
Are aisle distances between stacking racks
appropriate for safe access with mechanical
handling equipment?
Is aisle distance maintained for safe access for fire
fighting?
Is there at least one meter between the top of the
stack and sprinkler heads?
Are products stored outside of the pathway of
forced air conditioning and heating units?
Are products stored in areas other than on the
floor?
Is there a designated area for drums or intermediate
bulk containers stored outside?
Are empty pallets stored in accordance with fire
regulations?
Are container labels visible?
Yes
No
i
Comments
.
f
•
•
^
1 Adapted from the CMA Warehouse Assessment Protocol, 1996
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-14
4- ANSI K61.1, ANSI standards for the storage and handling of anhydrous
ammonia
4- 29 CFR 1910.106, OSHA's standard for flammable gases.
4- 29 CFR 1910.101, OSHA's standard for compressed gases.
4- Compressed Gas Association (various publications on the safe storage and
handling of compressed gases).
^
6,4 OPERATING PROCEDURES (§ 68,52)
Written operating procedures describe what tasks a process operator must perform, set
safe process operating parameters that must be maintained, and set safety precautions
for operations and maintenance activities. These procedures are the guide for telling
your employees how to work safely everyday, giving everyone a quick source of
information that can prevent or mitigate the effects of an accident, and providing
workers and management with a standard against which to assess performance.
WHAT Do I NEED TO Do?
*
You must prepare written operating procedures that give workers clear instruction for
safely conducting activities involving a covered process. You may use standardized
procedures developed by industry groups as the basis for your operating procedures,
i but be sure to check that these standard procedures are appropriate for your activities.
If necessary, you must update your Program 2 operating procedures whenever there is
a major change and before you startup the changed process. Exhibit 6-7 briefly
summarizes what your operating procedures must address.
EXHIBIT 6-7
OPERATING PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS
Steps for each operating phase
•Initial startup
•Normal operations
•Temporary operations
•Emergency shutdown
•Emergency operations
•Normal shutdown
•Startup following a normal or emergency shutdown or
a major change
Operating limits
•Consequences of deviating
•Steps to avoid, correct deviations
Your operating procedures must be:
4- Appropriate for your equipment and operations;
4- Complete; and
4- Written in language that is easily understood by your operators.
The procedures do not have to be long. If you have simple equipment that requires a
few basic steps, that is all you have to cover.
Jsnuaiy27.1999
-------
Chapter 6
6-15 Prevention Program (Program 2)
WHERE TO START
\ *
If you already have written procedures, you may not have to do anything more.
Review the procedures. If you are satisfied that they meet the criteria listed above,
you are finished. You may want to check them against any recommended procedures
provided by equipment manufacturers, trade associations, or standard setting
organizations, but you are not required to do so. You are responsible for ensuring that
the procedures explain how to operate your equipment and store chemicals safely.
If you do not have written procedures, you may want to check with equipment
manufacturers, trade associations, or standard setting organizations. They may have
recommended practices and procedures that you can adapt. Do not accept anyone
else's procedures without checking to be sure that they are appropriate for your
particular equipment and uses and are written in language that your operators will
understand. You may also want to review any requirements imposed under state or
1 federal rules. For example, if you are subject to federal rales for loading and
unloading of hazardous materials, those rules may dictate some procedures. Copies of
these rules may be sufficient for those operations.
WHAT Do THESE PROCEDURES MEAN?
The rule lists eight procedures. "Not all of them will be applicable to you if you only
store substances. The following is a brief description to help you decide whether you
need to develop procedures for each item. If a particular element does not apply, do
not spend any time on it. We do not expect you to create a document that is
meaningless to you. You should spend your time on items that will be useful to you.
Initial Startup. This item will probably only apply to you if you repackage or mix
chemicals. If you handle the chemicals, as opposed to containers, this item covers all
the steps you need to take before you start a process for the first time. You should
include all the steps needed to check out equipment as well as the steps needed to start
the process itself.
Normal Operations. These procedures should cover your basic operations. These
are your core procedures that you expect your operators to follow on a daily basis to
ran your warehouse safely. For a warehouse, these would include the following:
4- Segregation and storage procedures
+ Useofforklifts
4- Loading and unloading
4- Examination for damage and labeling
4- Stock cpntrols
4- Site security
4 Bracing and stacking
4 Hot work
4 Handling damaged containers
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program(Program 2) 6-16
For repackaging operations, normal operations would also include unloading into
storage tanks and repackaging into smaller containers.
1
Some of these operations are covered by federal or state rules (e.g,, loading and
unloading may be covered by US DOT; hot work is covered by OSHA). Your
procedures should represent compliance with any applicable rales.
Temporary Operations. These operations are short-term; they will usually occur
either when your regular process is down or when additional capacity is needed for a
limited period. The procedures should cover the steps you need to take to ensure that
these operations will function safely. The procedures will generally cover pre-startup
checks and determinations (e.g., will the material be segregated properly). The actual
operating procedures for running the temporary process will be written as the
operation is put into place.
You may need to consider procedures to ensure that if a new substance or product is
brought into the warehouse for temporary storage, the necessary steps are taken before
that storage to ensure that it is safe (e.g., barrels are not stacked too high, or located
with incompatible substances).
Emergency Shutdowns and Operations. These procedures generally will apply
only if you repackage regulated substances. If you do, these procedures cover the
steps you need to take if you must shutdown your process quickly. These procedures
may be brief because shutting a process down may be no different in an emergency
than in ordinary circumstances; you may simply shut off the flow or stop any
unloading or loading.
Normal Shutdown. These procedures probably will apply only if you repackage.
Startup following a normal or emergency shutdown or a major change These
procedures will be similar to those for initial startup. Startup procedures following
normal shutdown may include fewer equipment checks because you may not need to
check equipment on a frequent basis. You should include all the steps your workers
should take to ensure that the process can operate safely. These procedures may not
apply to warehouses in most instances.
Consequences of Deviations. Your operating procedures should tell the workers
what will happen if something starts to go wrong and should be consistent with the
safety information you develop. For example, if a rack appears to be sagging inward,
the operator must know (1) whether this poses a problem that must be addressed and
(2) what steps to take to correct the problem or otherwise respond to it. If the pressure
in your storage tanks rises, your operator must know at what point higher pressure
poses a hazard and the steps to take to address the problem. You should include this '
information in each of the other procedures (startup, normal operations, shutdowns),
rather than as separate documents.
If you have substances with a distinctive odor, color, or other characteristic mat
operators will be able to sense, you should include in your procedures information
, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
6-17 Prevention Program (Program 2)
about what to do if they notice leaks. Frequently, people are the most sensitive leak
detectors. Take advantage of their abilities to catch leaks before they become serious.
Equipment Inspections. You should include steps for routine inspection of
equipment by operators as part of your other procedures. These inspections cover the
items that operators should look for on a daily basis to be sure that the equipment is
running safely (e.g., vibration checks). These inspections are not the same as those
detailed checks that maintenance workers will perform, but rather are the "eyeball,"
"sound," and "feel" tests that experienced operators do often without realizing it.
Your operators, your vendors, and your trade association can help you define the
things that should trigger concern: How much vibration is normal? What does a
smoothly running motor sound like?
CMA PROTOCOL
The CMA Warehouse Assessment Protocol provides a checklist of operational
practices in its Management Systems Assessment. You may want to review this list;
some of the items on the list are not specifically covered by the rule (e.g., traffic office
procedures), but may be important to efficient running of your warehouse. For
warehouses, more than for many other businesses covered by this rule, the total
operation of the business is relevant to safety. Although many of the substances you
handle will not be subject to this rule, you are likely to use the same procedures that
you use for covered substances for the other chemicals you store.
UPDATING PROCEDURES
You must update your procedures whenever you change your process in a way that
alters the steps needed to operate safely. If you add new equipment, you will need to
expand your procedures or develop a separate set to cover the new items.
WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTS Do I HAVE TO I
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-18
WHAT Do I NEED'TO Do?
b t „
You must train all new workers in your operating procedures developed under the
previous element; if any of your more experienced workers need training on these
procedures, you should also train them. Any time the procedures are revised, you
must train everyone using the new procedures. At least once every three years, you
should provide refresher training on the operating procedures even if they have not
changed. The training must cover all parts of the operating procedures, including
information on the consequences of deviations and steps needed to address deviations.
For current workers, you may certify in writing that the employees have the "required
knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out the duties and responsibilities as
provided in the operating procedures." This "grandfather clause" means that you do
not need to conduct additional training for employees who are employed prior to June
21, 1999, and who have the appropriate knowledge and skills to operate covered
processes safely, in accordance with the operating procedures. This certification
should be kept in your files; you do not need to submit it to EPA.
(
You are not required to provide a specific amount of training or type of training. You
should develop a training approach that works for you. If you are a small facility, one-
on-one training and on-the-job training may work best. Larger facilities may want to
provide classroom training or video courses developed by vendors or trade
associations before moving staff on to supervised work. You may have senior
( operators present the training or use trainers provided by vendors or other outside
1 sources. The form and the length of the training will depend on your resources and
your processes. If you can teach someone the basics in two hours and move them on
to supervised work, that is all right. The important thing is that your workers
understand how to operate safely and can carry out their tasks properly. We are
interested in the results of the training, not the details of how you achieve them. Find
a system that works for you. Exhibit 6-8 lists things that you may find useful in
developing your training program.
How DOES THIS TRAINING FIT WITH OTHER REQUIRED TRAINING?
You are required by OSHA to provide training under the hazard communication
, standard; this training covers the hazards of the chemicals and steps to take to prevent
exposures. DOT has required training for loading and unloading of hazardous
materials. Some of that training will cover items in your operating procedures. You
do not need to repeat that training to meet EPA's requirements. You may want to
integrate the training programs, but you do not have to do so.
January 27,1999
-------
6-19
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
EXHIBIT 6-8
TRAINING CHART
•Who needs training?
Clearly identify the employees who need to be trained and the subjects to be
covered.
•What are the
objectives?
Specify learning objectives, and write them in clear, measurable terms before
training begins. Remember that training must address the process operating
procedures.
•How will you meet the
training objectives?
Tailor the specific training modules or segments to the training objectives.
Enhance learning by including hands-on training like using simulators whenever
appropriate. Make the training environment as much like the working environmer
as you can, consistent with safety. Allow your employees to practice their skills
and demonstrate what they know.
•Is your training
program working?
Evaluate your training program periodically to see if your employees have the
skills and know the routines required under your operating procedures. Make sure
that language or presentation are not barriers to learning. Decide how you will
measure your employees's competence.
•How will your program
work for new hires and
refresher training?
Make sure all workers - including maintenance and contract employees - receive
initial and refresher training. If you make changes to process chemicals,
equipment, or technology, make sure that involved workers understand the change
and the effects on their jobs.
WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION Do I NEED TO KEEP?
You are not required to maintain documentation of your training program. You may,
however, want to keep an attendance log for any formal training courses and refresher
training to ensure that everyone who needs to be trained is trained. Such logs will
help you when you do a compliance audit; without such logs you will have to rely on
your memory and the memory of your operators. Again, you are not required to keep
them for this rale.
6.6 MAINTENANCE (§ 68.56}
You have several elements you must satisfy: you must develop maintenance
procedures, train your workers in these procedures, and carry out inspections and tests
on your equipment; if you use a contractor for maintenance, you must ensure that the
contractors are able to follow your procedures. Maintenance procedures should cover
routine maintenance, inspection, and testing. For storage operations, maintenance will
apply primarily to equipment used to move storage containers (lifts, conveyors,
ladders, dock equipment). If you repackage regulated substances, your tanks, hoses,
and pumps will be covered.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-20
WHAT Do I NEED TO Do?
You must prepare and implement procedures for maintaining the mechanical integrity
of process equipment, and train your workers in the maintenance procedures. You
may use procedures or instructions from equipment vendors, in Federal or state
regulations, or in industry codes as the basis of your maintenance program. You
should develop a schedule for inspecting and testing your equipment based on
manufacturers* recommendations or your own experience. Exhibit 6-9 briefly
summarized the elements of a maintenance program that would satisfy EPA's rule,
EXHIBIT 6-9
MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
Written procedures
•You may use someone
else's procedures as
the basis for your
program. If you
choose to develop your
own, you must write
them down.
Training
•Train process maintenance
employees in process hazard
and how to avoid or correct an
unsafe condition.
•Make sure mis training covers
the procedures applicable to
safe job performance.
Inspection & testing
•Inspect & test process
equipment.
•Use recognized and generally
accepted good engineering
practices.
•Follow a schedule that matches
the manufacturer's
recommendations or that prior
operating experience indicates is
necessary.
b
How Do I START?
Your first steps will probably be to determine whether you already meet all these
requirements. If you review your existing written procedures and determine that they
, are appropriate, you do not need to revise or rewrite them. If your workers are already
trained in the procedures and carry them out, you may not need to do anything else.
If you do not have written procedures, you will need to develop them. Your
equipment vendors may be able to provide procedures and maintenance schedules.
Using these as the basis of your program is acceptable. Your trade association may
also be able to help you with industry-specific checklists. If there are existing
standards, your trade association can provide you with the references. Copies of these
may form the basis for your maintenance program. If there are federal or state
regulations that require certain maintenance, you should use these as well.
You need to determine if procedures provided by vendors, manufacturers, trade
associations, or others are appropriate for your operation. If you are operating in a
standard way (e.g., using your equipment in the way it was designed for), you may
assume that these other procedures will work for you. If you are using equipment for
purposes other than those for which it was designed, you need to decide whether your
use changes the kind of maintenance or frequency of inspection and testing.
J«nuaiy27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
6-21 Prevention Program (Program 2)
TRAINING
Once you have written procedures, you must ensure that your maintenance workers
are trained in the procedures and in the hazards of the process. As with the training
discussed in the previous section, how you provide this training is up to you. We
believe that you are in the best position to decide how to train your workers. Vendors
may provide the training or videos; you may already provide training on hazards and
how to avoid or correct them as part of Hazard Communication Standard training.
You do not need to repeat this training to comply with this rale.
If you hire contractors to do your maintenance, you must ensure that they are trained
to carry out the procedures. You can do this by providing training or by developing
agreements with the contractor that gives you the assurance that only trained workers
will sent .to your site. In some cases, you may be able to rely on licenses (e.g.,
electricians).
INSPECTION AND TESTING
You must establish a schedule for inspection and testing equipment associated with
covered processes. You may obtain recommendations from manufacturers, vendors,
or trade associations. You should, however, use your own experience as a basis for
examining any schedules you obtain from others. Many things may affect whether a
schedule is appropriate. The manufacturer may assume a certain rate of use. If your
use (e.g., the hours per day a forklift is operated) varies considerably, the variations
may affect the wear on the equipment. Extreme weather conditions may also impact
wear on equipment.
Talk with your operators as you prepare or adopt these procedures and schedules. If
their experience indicates that equipment fails more frequently than the manufacturer
expects, you should adjust the inspection schedule to reflect that experience. Your
trade association may also be able to provide advice on these issues.
WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION MUST I KEEP?
You must keep your written procedures and schedules as well as any agreements you
have with contractors. You are not required to keep training logs or maintenance logs
to comply with this rule. You may, however, want to maintain such logs for your own
use. Without some record, you will have to rely on workers' memories about when
something was last checked. As workers leave or change jobs at your company, it can
be difficult to keep track of when inspections and tests were done. Maintaining a
record of when something was last done or is scheduled to be done next can help keep
your program working smoothly.
6.7 COMPLIANCE AUDITS (§ 68.58)
Any risk management program should be reviewed periodically to ensure that
employees and contractors are implementing it properly. A compliance audit is a way
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-22
for you to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of your risk management program.
An audit reviews each of the prevention program elements lo ensure that they are up-
to-date and are being implemented and will help you identify problem areas and take
corrective actions. As a result, you'll be running a safer operation.
WHAT Do I NEED TO Do?
At least every three years, you must certify that you have evaluated compliance with
EPA's requirements for the prevention program for each covered process. At least
one person on your audit team must be knowledgeable about the process. You must
develop a report of your findings, determine and document an appropriate response to
each finding, and document that you have corrected any deficiency.
The purpose of the compliance audit is to ensure that you are continuing to implement
the risk management program as required. Remember, the risk management program
is an on-going process; it is not a set of documents that you develop and put on a shelf
in case the government inspects your site. To be in compliance (and gain the benefits)
procedures must be followed on a daily basis; documents must be kept up to date.
The audit will check these items and provide you with items that need to be improved.
i
You must check each of the items in prevention program. Because you have simple
procedures, the audit should not take a long time. You may want to use the CMA
protocol warehouse assessment protocol as the basis of your audit of your storage
operations. The NACD Responsible Distribution Process implementation guide may
be a useful starting part of an audit checklist as well; the guide covers more activities
than are covered by part 68, as does the CMA protocol. You may tailor the audit to
cover only requirements of part 68, or you may decide to expand the audit to cover the
full range of your activities.
Once you have the checklist, you, your chief operator, or some other person who is
knowledgeable about your process, singly or as a team, should walk through the
facility and check on each of the items, writing down comments and
recommendations. You may want to talk with employees to determine if they have
been trained and are familiar with the procedures.
You must respond to each of the findings and document what actions, if any, you take
to address problems. You should take steps to correct any deficiencies you find.
i ~
t
You may choose to have the audit conducted by a qualified outside party. For
example, you may have someone from another part of your company do the audit or
hire an expert in warehousing. If you do either of these, you should have someone
work with the person, both to understand the findings and answer questions.
Remember, this is an audit of compliance with the prevention program of this rule.
You may choose to expand the scope to cover your compliance with other parts of the
rule and the overall safety of your operation, but you are not required to do so.
January 27,1959
-------
6-23
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION MUST I KEEP?
You must keep a written record of the findings and actions for five years. You may
also want to keep a record of who conducted the audit, but you are not required to do
this. Exhibit 6-10 provides a sample format for documenting the audit and subsequent
actions.
EXHIBIT 6-10
SAMPLE AUDIT CHECKLIST
FOR SAFETY INFORMATION AND HAZARD REVIEWS
V ;- 'J^^^Vf^Eiemeni*'*-* ^W^rdiAf
Safety Information
MSDSs updated?
Maximum intended inventory determined?
Determined
Safe upper and lower temperature?
Segregation of incompatible substances
Equipment specifications
Forklifts
Fire suppression systems
Ventilation system
Tanks
Pumps
Compressors
Hazard Review
Are incompatible materials appropriately
segregated?
Is the fire suppression system appropriate for
materials stored?
Are stack heights in accordance with industry
standards and codes?
Has equipment been inspected to determine if
it is .operated according to industry standards
and codes?
Are the results of the inspections documented?
Have inspections been conducted after every
major change?
:""| ftkCtfofflCComplettefeData-' "-,-,
-
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-24
6.8 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION (§ 68.60)
i
Incidents can provide valuable information about site hazards and the steps you need
to take to prevent accidental releases. Often, the immediate cause of an incident is the
result of a series of other problems that need to be addressed to prevent recurrences.
For example, an operator's mistake may be the result of poor training. Equipment
failure may result from improper maintenance or misuse. Without a thorough
investigation, you may miss the opportunity to identify and solve these problems.
WHAT Do I NEED TO Do?
You must investigate each incident that resulted in, or could have resulted in a
"catastrophic release of a regulated substance." A catastrophic release is one that
presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the
environment. The easiest way to understand imminent and substantial endangerment
is to consider whether the release could have exposed the public to levels that exceed
the toxic or flammable endpoints. If a release had that potential, even if no such
exposure occurred (because of favorable weather conditions or because the adjoining
facilities were unoccupied at the time), you should investigate. Most warehouse
accidents will not meet mis criterion; minor spills of toxic substances that are
contained within the warehouse building are unlikely to represent a potential
catastrophic release. Minor fires, however, may if the fire had the potential to spread
and release toxic substances. Spills of toxic regulated substances outside may pose a
threat to the public and should be investigated. Exhibit 6-11 briefly summarizes the
steps you must take for investigating incidents.
How Do I START?
You should start with a simple set of procedures that you will use to begin an
investigation. You may want to assign someone to be responsible for compiling the
initial incident data and putting together the investigation team. If you have a small
facility, your "team" may be one person who works with the local responders, if they
were involved.
EXHIBIT 6-11
INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS
•Initiate an investigation promptly.
Begin investigating no later than 48 hours
following the incident.
•Summarize the investigation in a report.
Among other things, this report will include the
factors contributing to the incident Remember
that identifying the root cause may be more
important than identifying the initiating event.
Remember, also, that the purpose of the report is
to help management take corrective action.
January 27,1999
-------
6-25
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
•Address the team's findings and
recommendations.
•Review the report with your staff and
contractors.
•Retain the report.
Establish a system to address the incident report
findings and recommendations and document
resolutions and corrective actions.
You must share the report - its findings and
recommendations - with affected workers whose
job tasks are relevant to the incident.
Keep incident investigation summaries for five
years.
The purpose of the investigation is to find out what went wrong and why, so you can
prevent it from happening again. Do not stop at the obvious failure or "initiating
event" (e.g.» the hose was clogged, the operator forgot to check the connection); try to
determine why the failure occurred. In many cases, the underlying cause will be what
matters (e.g., the operator did not check the connection because the operating
procedures and training did not include this step). If the accident occurred because of
operator error, you should determine if the operator made the mistake because he or
she had been trained in the wrong procedures or because design flaws made mistakes
likely. If you write off the accident as operator error alone you miss the chance to take
the steps needed to prevent such errors the next time. Similarly, if equipment fails,
you should try to decide whether it had been used or maintained improperly.
, Remember, your goals are to prevent accidents, not to blame someone, and correct any
problems in your prevention program. In this way, you can prevent recurrences.
In many cases, an investigation will not take long. If you have a complex facility, if
equipment has been severely damaged, or the workers seriously hurt, an investigation
may take several days. You should talk with the operators who were in the area at the
time and check records on maintenance (another reason for keeping logs). If
equipment has failed in an unusual way, you may need to talk to the manufacturer and
your trade association to determine if similar equipment has suffered similar failures.
You must develop a summary of the accident and its causes and make
recommendations to prevent recurrences. You must address each recommendation
and document the resolution and any actions taken. Finally, you must review the
findings with operators affected by the findings.
WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION MUST I KEEP?
You must maintain the summary of the accident, recommendations, and actions. A
sample format is shown in Exhibit 6-12 that combines all of these in a single form.
Note that the form also includes accident data that you will need for the five-year
accident history. These data are not necessarily part of the incident investigation
report, but including them will create a record you can use later to create the accident
history.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-26
EXHIBIT 6-12
SAMPLE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT
Hydrofluoric Acid Release
Date: May 15, 1998; 3 pm
Duration: 2 hours
Description:
Findings
The forklift controls stuck.
Operator and other workers left
the scene to protect themselves.
It took 15 minutes for the
hazmat staff to suit up and begin
responding.
Inadequate quantities of
neutralizer were available.
Supply had not been replenished
after several minor spills.
Substance: Hydrofluoric acid
(70%)
Weather: 82° F, 8 mph winds
Quantity: 1800 pounds
A forklift punctured two 55-gallon drams of HF and severely
damaged two other drums on the pallet, which then split open as
they fell off the loading dock. Five workers and two local
responders were treated for exposure. Neighboring facilities were
notified to shelter in place.
Recommendations
Institute more frequent
inspections and tests of the
forklifts.
Conduct exercises quarterly for
hazmat staff. Conduct refresher
training for other staff on
evacuation and notification
procedures.
Check and replenish supply
monthly or after each use.
Actions
Changed inspection and testing
intervals; revised procedures;
conducted training on new
procedures
Exercise schedule established.
Refresher training provided;
safety meetings added and held
on a monthly basis to review
safety issues
Routine checks added to work
order schedule.
6.9 CONCLUSION
Many of you will need to do little that's new to comply with the Program 2 prevention
program, because you already are complying with many program elements through
other Federal rales, state requirements, and RDP. And if you've voluntarily
implemented OSHA's PSM standard for your Program 2 process, you'll meet the
lesser Program 2 prevention program requirements. No matter what choices you make
in complying with the Program 2 prevention program, keep these things in mind:
+ Integrate the elements of your prevention program. For Program 2 owners
and operators, a major change in any single element of your program should
lead to a review of other elements to identify any effect caused by the change.
4 Make accident prevention an institution at your site. Like the entire risk
management program, a prevention program is more than a collection of
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
6-27 Prevention Program (Program 2)
written documents. It is a way to make safe operations and accident
prevention the way you do business everyday. H
Check your operations on a continuing basis and ask if you can improve them
to make them safer as well as more efficient.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
6-28
APPENDIX 6A
COMPARISON OF RDP AND PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION ELEMENTS
EPA's Risk Management Program
Program 2 Prevention
Safety Information
Document & maintain MSDSs. •
Document & maintain maximum invenlory.
Document & maintain storage and process limits.
Document & maintain equipment specifications.
Document & maintain codes & standards used to design, build,
& operate the process.
Ensure process is designed in compliance with recognized
codes & standards.
Update safety information if there is a major change at your
business that makes the safety information inaccurate.
Hazard Review
Conduct a review & identify hazards associated with Program 2
process, opportunities for errors resulting in a release,
safeguards, and steps to detect or monitor releases.
Use a guide for conducting the review.
Document results & resolve problems.
Update your hazard review.
Operating Procedures
NACD's Responsible Distribution Process*1
Matching RDP Components
Product Stewardship (Section F)
Handling & Storage (Section A,E,G)
Product Stewardship
Section F. A process to encourage re-sellers to communicate to their customers the
principles and goals of the Responsible Distribution Process™.
Procedures should be established to obtain information (i.e. MSDS, product
specifications, safety information)
Handling & Storage
Section A: Procedures for ensuring that containers are appropriatefor the chemical
being shipped, comply with regulatory requirements, and are free from leaks and visible
defects.
Section E. A process for selecting owned and contracted facilities and sites for
chemical storage or handling that emphasizes safety, fitness, and includes reviews.
Section G. Facility design, construction, maintenance, inspection, and ecurity
practices that promote facility integrity, consistent with recognized codes and '
regulations.
Risk Management
Section A. Senior management commitment, through policy, communications, and
resources, to ongoing improvements in chemical distribution safety.
Section B. Regular review with manufacturers of the hazards of materials, the
likelihood of accidents or releases, the potentials for human and environmental
exposure from release of the materials, and the route and methods of transport.
Section C. Identification and implementation of risk reduction measures.
Job Procedures & Training
January 27, 1999
-------
6-29
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
Prepare written operating procedures that give workers clear
instructions for safely conducting activities involving a covered
process.
Procedures must be appropriate for your equipment and
operations, complete, and written in language easily understood
by your operators.
Training
Must train all new workers in your developed operating
procedures.
If procedures are revised, you must train all workers using the
new piocedures.
Training must cover all parts of the operating procedures,
including information on the consequences of deviations and
steps needed to address deviations.
Training as required by OSHA, under the hazard
communication standard, and DOT for loading and unloading
hazardous materials,
Maintenance
Section A. Identification of the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each job.
Section B, Establishment of procedures and work practices for safe operating and
maintenance activities.
Job Procedures & Training (Section C)
Compliance Review & Training (Section C)
Handling & Storage (Section C)
Job Procedures & Training
Section C. Training for all personnel, including outside contract personnel, as
appropriate, to reach and maintain proficiency in safe work practices and the skill and
knowledge necessary to perform Iheir job, including confirmationof job competence.
Compliance Review & Trainins
Section C. Training for all employees in the implementation of applicable regulations,
as well as member company's specific requirements.
Handling & Storage
Section C, Procedures for loading and unloading chemicals at the member company's
facilities that result in protection of personnel, a reduction of emissions to the
environment, and ensure that chemicals are loaded and unloaded into and out of proper
storage facilities.
Handling & Storage (Section G)
Job Procedures & Training (Section B & C)
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 6
Prevenlion Program (Program 2)
6-30
Develop maintenance procedures (for storage operations,
applies to equipment used to move storage containers; for
repackaging, applies to tanks, hoses, & pumps).
Train workers in these procedures.
Carry out inspections and test on your equipment.
Ensure that contractors are able to follow your procedures.
Handling & Storage
Section G. Facility design, construction, maintenance, inspection, aii security
practices that promote facility integrity, consistent with recognized codes and
regulations.
Job Procedure$_& Training
Section B. Establishment of procedures and work practices for safe operatin|pnd
maintenance activities.
Section C. Training for all personnel, including outside contract personnel as
appropriate, to reach and maintain proficiency in safe work practices and the skill and.
knowledge necessary to perform their job, includingconfirmation of Job competence.
Compliance Audits
Adjunct Policies; Internal Audits Policy,
Corrective & Preventive Action Policy
At least every three years, you must certify that you have
evaluated compliance with EPA's requirements for the
prevention program for each covered process.
At least one person on your audit team must be knowledgeable
about the process.
You must develop a report of your findings, determine and
document an appropriate response to each finding, and
document that you have corrected any deficiency.
Internal Audits Policy
Member companies must establish documented procedures for regularly-scheduled
internal audits to verify the implementation of policies and procedures supportig the
RDP Code of Management Practice. The audits will be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the policies and procedures. Internal audits shal be done on a yearly
basis beginning with successful completion of the Interim Verification Process.
Audits should be recorded and results brought to the attention of apppriate
management personnel who must take timely corrective or preventive action.Annual
audit results should be retained until the next Third-party On-Site Verificaton is
completed.
Corrective & Preventive Action Policy
Member companies shall establish a Corrective and Preventive Action system for RDP-
related issues. This system should permit the identification and communication of
inadequacies or improvements in each member company's implementation of RDP.
Member companies shall establish and maintain procedures for implementing corrective
action and preventive actions arising from internal and external audits or other sources.
Any corrective or preventive action taken to resolve the cause or RDP implementation
inadequacy shall be appropriate, as determined by member company management, to
the magnitude of the cause or inadequacy and commensurate with the risk involved.
January 27,1999
-------
-6-31
Chapter 6
Prevention Program (Program 2)
Incident Investigation
Emergency Response .& Public Preparedness
You must investigate each incident that resulted in, or could
have resulted in a "catastrophic release of a regulated
substance."
You must develop a summary of the accident and its causes and
make recommendations to prevent recurrences.
You must address each recommendation and document the
resolution and any actions taken.
You must review the findings with operators affected by the
findings.
Section A. A process for responding to, reporting on, and investigating chemical
distribution incidents and releases involving the member company's chemials, and
implementation of appropriate preventive measures developed from the investigative
process.
Section B. A system of internal investigation, reporting, appropriate corrective ation,
and follow-up for each incident that results or could have resulted in a fire, explosion,
or accidental chemical release.
DISCLAIMER
This Side-By-Side Comparison (side-by-side) was prepared by the staff of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NAGD). Every attempt was made to make the
information contained herein as accuiate and up-to-date as possible. Neither the NACD, nor any of its employees, contractors^ubeontractors, or their employees makes any
warranty, expressed 01 implied, or assumes any legal liability for the contents of this side-by-side, nor assumes any liabilityfor the use of this side-by-side by any party, nor assumes
any liability for the results conveyed by the use of this side-by-side by any party to a third party.
January 27,1999
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CHAPTER 7: PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 3)
Many of you will need to do little that is new to comply with the Program 3
prevention program, because you already have the OSHA PSM program in place.
Whether you're building on the PSM standard or creating a new program, keep these
things in mind.
4- EPA and OSHA have different legal authority — EPA for offsite
consequences, OSHA for on-site consequences. If you are already complying
with the PSM standard, your process hazard analysis (PHA) team may have to
assess new hazards that could affect the public or the environment offsite.
Protection measures that are suitable for workers (e.g., venting releases to the
outdoors) may be the very kind of thing that imperils the public.
4- Integrate the elements of your prevention program. You must ensure that a
change in any single element of your program leads to a review of other
elements to identify any effect caused by the change.
4- Most importantly, make accident prevention an institution at your site. Like
the entire risk management program, a prevention program is more than a
collection of written documents. It is a way to make safe operations and
accident prevention the way you do business everyday.
7.1 PROGRAM 3 PREVENTION PROGRAM AND OSHA PSM
The Program 3 prevention program includes the requirements of the OSHA PSM
standard. Whenever we could, EPA used OSHA's language verbatim. However,
there were a few terms that EPA had to change to reflect the differences between its
authority and OSHA's. For example, OSHA regulates to protect workers; EPA's
responsibility is to protect public health and safety and the environment Therefore,
an "owner or operator" subject to EPA's rule must investigate catastrophic releases
"that present(s) (an) imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the
environment," but an OSHA "employer" would focus its concerns on the workplace.
1 To clarify these distinctions, we deleted specific references to workplace impacts and
"safety and health" contained in OSHA's PSM standards. We also used different
schedule dates and references where appropriate. Exhibit 7-1 compares terms in
EPA's rule with their counterparts in the OSHA PSM standard.
EXHIBIT 7-1
COMPARABLE EPA AND OSHA TERMS
;OSHA "EERM -%^-.;''|;F *
"
Highly hazardous substance •
Employer
Facility
Standard
:^ r
Regulated substance
Owner or operator
Stationary source
Rule or part
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-2
There are twelve elements in the Program 3 prevention program. Each element
corresponds with a section of subpart D of part 68. Exhibit 7-2 sets out each of the
twelve elements, the corresponding section numbers, and OSHA references. Two
OSHA elements are not included. Emergency response is dealt with separately in part
68; the OSHA trade secrets requirement (provision of trade secret information to
employees) is beyond EPA's statutory authority.
EXHIBIT 7-2
SUMMAEY OF PROGRAM 3 PREVENTION PROGRAM
(40 CFR PART 68, SUBPART D)
SECTION
§ 68.65
§ 68.67
§ 68.69
§ 68.71
§ 68.73
§ 68.75
§ 68.77
§ 68.79
§68.81
§ 68.83
§ 68.85
§ 68.87
TITLE
Process Safety Information
Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
Operating Procedures
Training
Mechanical Integrity
Management of Change
Pre-Startup Review
Compliance Audits
Incident Investigation
Employee Participation
Hot Work Permit
Contractors
OSHA PSM REFERENCE
PSM standard! 1910.1 19(d).
PSM standard § 1910.1 19(e).
PSM standard! 1910.1 19(f).
PSM standard! 1910.1 19(g).
PSM standard ! 1 9 10. 1 1 9(j).
PSM standard! 1910.119(1).
PSM standard § 1910.119(1).
PSM standard § 1910.1 19(o).
PSM standard § 1910.1 19(m)
PSM standard § 1910.119(c).
PSM standard! 1910.1 19(k).
PSM standard §1910.11 9(h).
OSHA provided guidance on PSM in non-mandatory appendix C to the standard.
OSHA has reprinted this appendix as PSM Guidelines for Compliance (OSHA 3133).
The OSHA guidance is reproduced, reordered to track part 68, in Appendix F. The
remainder of this chapter briefly outlines the major requirements and provides a
discussion of any differences between EPA and OSHA. In some cases, further
guidance is provided on the meaning of specific terms. For more detailed guidance,
you should refer to the OSHA guidance in Appendix F.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
7-3 Prevention Program (Program 3)
QS &AS
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM LEVEL
Q. My process is a series of storage vessels, connected by piping, with a few co-located tanks of other
substances. Do I have to implement one prevention program to cover all aspects of the process even if
different operators and different hazards are involved in various parts of the process?
A. You should implement the program in the way that makes sense to you. For a process such as
yours, you may need to divide the process into sections (e.g., storage units) for the PHA and
compliance audits, to keep the analyses manageable. Operating and maintenance procedures (and the
training in these procedures) should be developed for operating units; combining procedures for
different types of units into a single document may make them harder to use; training operators in
procedures they do not need would waste time and perhaps confuse operators. You may want to collect
and store process safety information by individual units to make it easier to use. Other parts of the
program (contractors, employee participation, procedures for pre-startup, management of change, and
hot work) are likely to be common to all parts of the process,
Q. I have a tank with more than 10,000 pounds of propane. I use the propane to heat the offices, but
not as a fuel for my covered process, so it is not subject to OSHA PSM and would be Program 2 for
EPA. The tank, however, is close to equipment that has chlorine above the applicable threshold and is
subject to OSHA PSM and Program 3. Is the tank considered part of the process? Does this affect the
program level?
A. If a fire or explosion in the propane tank could cause a release of chlorine or other regulated
substances or interfere with mitigation of such a release, the tank is considered part of a single process
and consequently is subject to both OSHA PSM and Program 3.
7.2 PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION (§ 68.65)
Exhibit 7-3 briefly summarizes the process safety information requirements.
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
Diagrams. You may find it useful to consult Appendix B of OSHA's PSM final rule,
computer software programs that do P&IDs, or other diagrams.
Guidance and Reports. Various engineering societies issue technical reports relating
to process design. Other sources you may find useful include:
4- Guidelines for Process Safety Documentation, Center for Chemical Process
Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1995.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-4
| EXHIBIT 7-3
PEOCESS SAFETY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
For chemicals, you must
complete information on:
•Toxicity
•Permissible exposure limits
•Physical data
•Reactivity
•Corrosivity
•Thermal & chemical stability
•Hazardous effects of
inadvertent mixing of
materials that could
foreseea&ly occur
For process technology, you
must provide:
•A block flow diagram or
simplified process flow
diagram
•Information on process
chemistry
•Maximum intended inventory
of the EPA-regulated chemical
•Safe upper & lower limits for
such items as temperature,
pressure, flows, or
composition
•An evaluation of the
consequences of deviation
For equipment in the
process, you must include
information on:
•Materials of construction
•Piping & instrument diagrams
(P&IDs)
•Electrical classification
•Relief system design & design
basis
•Ventilation system design
•Design codes & standards
employed
•Safety systems
•Material and energy balances
for processes built after June
21,1999
Emergency Relief System Design Using DIERS Technology, American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1992.
• t
Emergency Relief Systems for Runaway Chemical Reactions and Storage
Vessels: A Summary of Multiphase Flow Methods, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, 1986.
Guidelines for Pressure Relief and Emergency Handling Systems, Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
1998.
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes I, II, and III, Frank P.
Lees, Butterworths: London 1996.
J»UMiy27. I9S9
-------
Chapter 7
7-5 " Prevention Program (Program 3)
QS & AS
PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION
Q. What does "materials of construction" apply to and how do I find this infonmation?
A. You must document the {materials of construction for all process equipment in a covered process.
For example, you need to know the materials of construction for process vessels, storage vessels,
piping, hoses, valves, and flanges. Equipment specifications should provide this information.
Q. What does "electrical classification" mean?
A. Equipment and wiring for locations where fire and explosion hazards may exist must meet
requirements based on the hazards. Each room, section, or area must be considered separately.
Equipment should be marked to show Class, Group, and operating temperature or temperature range.
You must determine the appropriate classification for each area and ensure that the equipment used is
suitable for that classification. The equipment covered includes transformers, capacitors, motors,
instruments, relays, wiring, switches, fuses, generators, lighting, alarms, remote controls,
communication, and grounding. Electrical classification will be included in equipment specifications.
Q. What does "relief system design basis" mean?
A. Relief systems include, but are not limited to, relief valves, relief headers, relief drums, and rupture
disks. Design basis means documenting how the loads and sizes of the relief system, as well as inlet
and outlet sizes, were determined. This includes a description of overpressure scenarios considered,
the scenario that creates the largest load to be relieved, the assumptions used, and if the device meets a
certain code. Relief devices on pressure vessels must conform to ASME codes. Industry codes (e.g.,
API RP 520) also provide guidance on scenarios that should be considered and on equations for sizing
of devices. Scenarios you may need to consider include fire, blocked flow, control valve failure,
overheating, power outage, tube rupture, and cooling water failure. For two-phase flow, you should
review AIChE publications from the Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS).
Q. What do I have to do for material and energy balances?
« f
A. For new processes, you must document both material and energy inputs and outputs of a process.
For example, you would document the quantity of a regulated substance added to the process, the
quantity consumed during the process, and the quantity that remains in the output. This requirement
will not generally apply to storage processes.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter?
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-6
7.3 PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS (§ 68.67)
Exhibit 7-4 provides a summary of the requirements for process hazard analyses
(PHAs).
EXHIBIT 7-4
PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS REQmREMENTS
The PHA must cover::
•Hazards of the process
•Identification of previous,
potentially catastrophic
incidents
•Engineering and
administrative controls
applicable to the hazards
•Consequence of failure of
controls
•Siting
•Human factors
•Qualitative evaluation of
health and safety impacts of
control failure
Techniques must be one or
more of;
•What If
•Checklist
•WhatmChecklist
•Hazard and Operability Study
(HAZOP)
•Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis (FMEA)
•Fault Tree Analysis
•Appropriate equivalent
methodology
Other requirements:
•Analysis must be done by a
team, one member of which
has experience in the process,
one member of which is
knowledgeable in the PHA
technique
•A system must be developed
for addressing the team's
recommendations and
documenting resolution and
corrective actions taken
•The PHA must be updated at
least once every five years
•PHAs and documentation of
actions must be kept for th
life of the process
EPA/OSHA DIFFERENCES
You can use a PHA conducted under the OSHA PSM standard as your initial process
hazard analysis. All OSHA PHAs must have been completed by May 1997.
Therefore, the only "new" PHAs will be for non-OSHA Program 3 processes. If the
process is subject to OSHA PSM, you can update and revalidate your PHA on
OSHA's schedule.
Offsite impacts. You should consider offsite impacts when you conduct a PHA
under EPA's rule (except for an initial PHA where are using the PHA conducted for
OSHA PSM). If you are in the Program 3 prevention program because you must
comply with the PSM standard, you may not have fully considered offsite
consequence because the focus of PSM is worker protection. Practically speaking,
however, there should be few instances where the scenarios considered for OSHA fail
to address offsite impacts. A well-done PHA should identify all failure scenarios that
could lead to significant exposure of workers, the public, or the environment. The
•; only issue that may require further consideration for part 68 processes is whether any
protection measures that were adequate for worker safety are inadequate for public
and environmental safety.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
7-7 Prevention Program (Program 3)
Consider two circumstances — one where OSHA's PSM standard and EPA's risk
management program rule lead to the same result, and another where protecting
workers could mean endangering the public and the environment. For flammables,
any scenario that could affect the public almost certainly would have the potential to
affect workers; measures taken to protect your employees likely will protect the public
and the environment. For toxics under PSM, however, you may plan to address a loss
of containment by venting toxic vapors to the outside air. In each circumstance, a
PHA should define how the loss of containment could occur. However, for EPA, the
PHA team should reassess venting as an appropriate mitigation measure.
Updating and revalidating your PHA. For EPA, you must complete the initial
PHA for each Program 3 process not later than June 21,1999, and update it at least
once every five years. You may complete an initial PHA before that date. You may
use an OSHA PHA as your initial PHA, and update and revalidate it every five years
on the OSHA schedule. A PHA completed after August 19, 1996 (the effective date
of part 68) should consider offsite impacts.
REJECTING TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
You may not always agree with your PHA team's recommendations and may wish to
reject a recommendation. OSHA's compliance directive CPL 2-2.45A-revised states
that you may decline a team recommendation if you can document one of the
following: (1) the analysis upon which the recommendation is based contains factual
errors; (2) the recommendation is not necessary to protect the health of employees or
contractors; (3) an alternative measure would provide a sufficient level of protection;
or (4) the recommendation is infeasible. For part 68, you should also consider
1 whether recommendations are not necessary to protect public health and the
environment.
UPDATING YOUR PHA
You should update or revalidate your PHA whenever there is a new hazard or risk
created by changes to your process. Such changes might include introducing a new
process, process equipment, or regulated substance; altering process chemistry that
results in any change to safe operating limits; or other alteration that introduces a new
hazard. You might, for example, introduce a new hazard if you installed a gas
pipeline next to a storage tank containing a regulated substance. Other candidates
could be making changes in process constituents that increase the possibility of
runaway reactions or polymerization. EPA recommends that you consider
revalidating your PHA whenever adjoining processes create a hazard. Remember that
you have a general duty to prevent accidents and ensure safety at your source, which
may require you to take steps beyond those specified in the risk management program
rule.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter?
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-8
QS & AS
OFFSITE CONSEQUENCES
Q. What does EPA mean by "consider offsite consequences"? Do we have to do an environmental
impact assessment (EIA)?
A. EPA does not expect you to do an EIA. Potential consequences to the public and the environment
are already analyzed in the offsite consequence analysis. In the PHA, EPA only expects you to identify
any failure scenarios that could lead to public exposures and to examine whether your strategies are
adequate to reduce the risk of such exposures.
Q. If I need to revise a PHA to consider offsite consequences, when do I have to do that?
A. In general, for a PHA completed to meet the requirements of OSHA PSM, you should revise the
PHA to consider offsite consequences when you update that PHA. Any PHA for a covered process
completed or updated for OSHA PSM after August 19,1996, when part 68 was effective, should
examine offsite consequences. For example, if you completed an initial PHA for OSHA PSM in May
1993, OSHA requires that you update that PHA by May 1998. In that update, you should consider
offsite consequences. If you complete your initial PHA for OSHA in May 1995, you must update it by
May 2000; PHAs conducted for part 68 must include consideration of offsite consequences at that
time.
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
Appendix 7-A of this chapter provides a summary of each of the techniques, a
description of the types of processes for which they may be appropriate, and estimates
about the time and staff required for each.
1 ' i: i i
Part 68 and OSHA PSM require that whichever technique or techniques you use, you
must have at least one person on the PHA team who is trained in the use of the
technique. Training on such techniques is available from a number of professional
organizations as well as private companies. You may have staff members who are
capable of providing this training as well. Many trade associations publish detailed
guidance on methods for conducting a process hazard analysis. You might find the
following documents useful.
4- Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd Ed, with Worked
examples, Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers 1992.
J«nuaiy27,1999
-------
7-9
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
Evaluating Process Safety in the Chemical Industry, Chemical Manufacturers
Association.
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes I, II, and HI. Frank P.
Lees, Butterworths: London 1996..
Management of Process Hazards (RP 750), American Petroleum Institute.
i
Risk-Based Decision Making (Publication 16288), American Petroleum
Institute.
7.4 OPERATING PROCEDURES (§ 68.69)
Exhibit 7-5 summarizes what your operating procedures must address. Operating
procedures must be readily accessible to workers who operate or maintain the process.
You most review operating procedures as often as necessary to assure that they reflect
current practices and any changes to the process or facility. You must certify annually
that the operating procedures are current and accurate,
EXHIBIT 7-5
OPERATING PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS
Steps for each
operating phase
•Initial startup
•Normal operations
•Temporary operations
•Emergency shutdown
•Emergency operations
• Normal shutdown
•Startup following a
turnaround or emergency
shutdown
•Lockout/tagout
•Confined space entry
•Opening process
equipment or piping
•Entrance into the facility
Operating limits
•Consequences of
deviations
•Steps to avoid,
correct deviations
Safety & health
considerations
•Chemical properties & hazards
•Precautions for preventing
chemical exposure
•Control measures for exposure
•QC for raw materials and
chemical inventory
•Special or unique hazards
Safety
systems &
their
functions
•Address
whatever is
applicable
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
Chapter 7 of this document provides descriptions of each operating phase and when
these phases may not apply to certain operations.
+ Guidelines for Process Safety Fundamentals for General Plant Operations,
Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American'Institute of Chemical
Engineers 1995.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-10
4- Guidelines for Safe Process Operations and Maintenance, Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
1995.
4- Guidelines for Writing Effective Operating and Maintenance Procedures,
Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 1996.
7.5 TRAINING (§ 68.71)
You are required to train new operators on the operating procedures and cover health
and safety hazards, emergency operations, and safe work practices applicable to the
employee's tasks. For workers involved in operating the process before June 21, 1999,
you may certify in writing that they are competent to operate the process safely, in
accordance with the operating procedures. At least every three years you must
provide refresher training (you must consult with employees involved in operating the
process to determine the appropriate frequency). Finally, you are required to
determine that each operator has received and understood the training and keep a
record for each employee with the date of the training and the method used to verify
that the employee understood the training.
WHERE to Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
4- Guidelines for Process Safety Fundamentals for General Plant Operations,
Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 1995.
4- Guidelines for Technical Planning for On-Site Emergencies, Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
1995.
4- Federally Mandated Training and Information (Publication 12000),
American Petroleum Institute.
7.6 MECHANICAL INTEGRITY (§ 68.73)
You must have a mechanical integrity program for pressure vessels and storage tanks,
piping systems, relief and vent systems and devices, emergency shutdown systems,
controls, and pumps. Exhibit 7-6 briefly summarizes the other requirements for your
mechanical integrity program.
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
Guidance and Reports. Other sources of guidance and reports you may find useful
include:
January 27,1W9
-------
7-11
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
Guidelines for Process Equipment Reliability Data with Data Tables, Center
for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
1989.
EXHIBIT 7-6
MECHANICAL INTEGRITY CHART
Written
procedures
•Establish &
implement
written
procedures to
maintain the
integrity of
process
equipment.
Training
•Train process
maintenance
employees in an
overview of the
process and its
hazards.
•Make sure this '
training covers
the procedures
applicable to
safe job
performance.
Inspection &
testing
•Inspect & test
process equipment.
•Use recognized and
generally accepted
good engineering
practices.
•Follow a schedule
that matches the
manufacturer's
recommendations or
more frequently if
prior operating
experience indicates
is necessary.
•Document each
inspection & test
with: Date,
inspector name,
equipment identifier, -
test or inspection
performed, results.
Equipment
deficiencies
•Correct
equipment
deficiencies
before further
use of process
equipment or
whenever
necessary to
ensure safety.
Quality
assurance
•Establish a QA
program for new
construction &
equipment, newly
installed
equipment,
maintenance
materials, and
spare parts & -
equipment
Guidelines for Process Safety Documentation, Center for Chemical Process
Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1995.
Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair,
and Alteration (API 510), American Petroleum Institute.
Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction (Std 653), American
Petroleum Institute.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-12
7,7 MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE (§ 68.75)
Exhibits 7-7 briefly summarizes EPA's MOC requirements.
EXHIBIT 7-7
MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE REQUIREMENTS
MOC procedures
must address:
•Technical basis for
the change
•Impact on safety
and health
•Modifications to
operating procedures
•Necessary time
period for the change
• Authorization
requirements for
proposed change
Employees
affected by the
change must:
•Be informed of the
change before
startup
•Trained in the
change before
startup
r
Update process safety
information if:
•A change covered by
MOC procedures results
in a change in any PSI
required under EPA's rule
(see § 67,65)
Update operating
procedures if:
•A change covered
by MOC procedures
results in a change
in any operating
procedure required
under EPA's rule
(see § 67.69)
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
Management of Change in Chemical Plants: Learning from Case Histories,
Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 1993.
Plant Guidelines for Technical Management of Chemical Process Safety,
Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 1992.
Management of Process Hazards (RP 750), American Petroleum Institute.
7.8 PRE-STARTUP REVIEW (§ 68.77)
You must conduct your pre-startup safety review for new stationary sources or
modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough to require a
change in safety information under the management of change element. You must
JiH»oa»y2?.1999
-------
7-13
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
conduct your pre-startup review before you introduce a regulated substance to a
process, and you must address the items listed in Exhibit 7-8.
EXHIBIT 7-8
PRE-STARTUP REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Design Specifications
•Confirm that new or
modified construction
and equipment meet
design specifications.
Adequate Procedures
•Ensure that
procedures for safety,
operating, maintenance,
and emergencies are
adequate and in place.
PEL4/MOG
Perform a PHA and
resolve or implement any
recommendations for new
process. Meet
management of change
requirements for modified
process.
Training
•Confirm that each
employee involved
in the process has
been trained
completely.
7.9 COMPLIANCE AUDITS (§ 68.79)
You must conduct an audit of the process to evaluate compliance with the prevention
program requirements at least once every three years. At least one person involved in
the audit must be knowledgeable in the process. You must develop a report of the
findings and document appropriate responses to each finding and document that
deficiencies have been addressed. The two most recent audit reports must be kept on-
site.
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
+ Guidelines for Auditing Process Safety Management Systems, Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
1993.
7.10 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION (§ 68.81)
Exhibit 7-9 briefly summarizes the steps you must take for investigating incidents.
You must investigate each incident which resulted in, or could have resulted in, a
"catastrophic release of a regulated substance." A catastrophic release is one that
"presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the
environment." Although the rule requires you to investigate only those incidents
which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release, EPA
encourages you to investigate all accidental releases. Investigating minor accidents or
near misses can help you identify problems that could result in major releases if left
unaddressed.
Januaiy 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-14
EXHIBIT 7-9.
INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS
•Initiate an investigation
promptly.
Begin investigating no later than 48 hours following the incident.
•Establish a knowledgeable
investigation team.
Establish an investigation team to gather the facts, analyze the
event, and develop the how and why of what went wrong. At
least one team member must have knowledge of the process
involved. Consider adding other workers in the process area
where the incident occurred. Their knowledge will be significant
and should give you the fullest insight into the incident.
•Summarize the investigation in a
report.
Among other things, the report must identify me factors
contributing to the incident. Remember that identifying the root
cause may be more important than identifying the initiating
event. The report must also include any recommendations for
corrective actions. Remember that the purpose of the report is to
help management take corrective action.
•Address the team's findings and
recommendations.
Establish a system to address promptly and resolve the incident
report findings and recommendations; document resolutions and
corrective actions.
•Review the report with your staff
and contractors.
You must share the report - its findings and recommendations
with affected workers whose job tasks are relevant to the
incident.
•Retain the report.
Keep incident investigation reports for five years.
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, Center for Chemical
Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1992.
Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (NFPA 921), National Fire
Protection Association.
7.1 1 EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION (§ 68.83)
Exhibit 7-10 briefly summarizes what you must do,
January 27.1999
-------
7-15
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
EXHIBIT 7-10
EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
•Write a plan.
•Consult with
employees.
•Provide access to
information.
Develop a written plan of action regarding how you will implement
employee participation.
Consult your employees and their representatives regarding conducting and
developing PHAs and other elements of process safety management in the
risk management program rule.
Ensure that your employees and their representatives have access to PHAs
and all other information required to be developed under the rule.
7.12 HOT WORK PERMITS (§ 68.85)
Exhibit 7-11 briefly summarizes how to meet the hot work permit requirement.
EXHIBIT 7-11
HOT WORK PERMITS REQUIREMENTS
•Issue a hot work permit.
•Implement fire prevention and
protection. ^
•Indicate the appropriate dates.
•Identify the work.
•Maintain the permit on file.
You must issue this permit for hot work conducted on or near a
covered process.
You must ensure that the fire prevention and protection
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) are implemented before the
hot work begins. The permit must document this.
The permit should indicate the dates authorized for hot work.
The permit must identify the object on which hot work is to be
performed.
You must keep the permit on file until workers have completed the
hot work operations.
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
4- Standard for Fire Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding Processes
(NFPA 518), National Fire Protection Association.
+ Standard for Welding, Cutting and Brazing, 29 CFR 1910 Subpart Q.
7.13 CONTRACTORS (§ 68.87)
Exhibit 7-12 summarizes both yours and the contractors' responsibilities where
contractors perform maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty
work on or adjacent to a covered process.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-16
EXHIBIT 7-12
CONTRACTORS CHART
You must..
•Check safety performance When selecting a
contractor, you must obtain and evaluate
information regarding the safety performance of
the contractor.
•Provide safety and hazards information.
You must inform the contractor of potential
fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards; and of
your emergency response activities as they
relate to the contractor's work and the process.
•Ensure safe practices. You must ensure that
you have safe work practices to control the
entrance, presence, and exit of contract
employees in covered process areas.
•Verify that the contractor acts responsibly.
You must verify that the contractor is fulfilling
its responsibilities.
Your contractor must...
•Ensure training for its employees. The
contractor must train its employees to ensure
that they perform their jobs safely and in
accordance with your source's safety
procedures.
•Ensure its employees know process hazards
and applicable emergency actions. The
contractor must assure that contract employees
are aware of hazards and emergency procedures
relating to the employees' work.
•Document training. The contractor must
prepare a record documenting and verifying
adequate employee training.
•Ensure its employees are following your
safety procedures.
•Inform you of hazards. The contractor must
tell you of any unique hazards presented by its
work or of any hazards it finds during
performance.
EPA/OSHA DIFFERENCES
EPA has no authority to require that you maintain an occupational injury and illness
log for contract employees. Be aware, however, that OSHA does have this authority,
and that the PSM standard does set this requirement. (See 29 CFR
1910.119(h)(2)(vi)).
WHERE To Go FOR MORE INFORMATION
I I ii V J I
+ Contractor and Client Relations to Assure Process Safety, Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
1996,
' 4- APJ/CMA Managers Guide to Implementing a Contractor Safety Program
(RP 222 J), American Petroleum Institute.
+ Improving Owner and Contractor Safety Performance (RP 2220), American
Petroleum Institute.
January 27.1999
-------
Chapter 7
7-17 Prevention Program (Program 3)
APPENDIX 7-A
PHA TECHNIQUES
This appendix provides descriptions of each of the PHA techniques listed in the OSHA PSM
standard and § 68.67. These descriptions include information on what each technique is, which types of
processes they may be apprppriate for, what their limitations are, and what level of effort is typically
associated with each. This information is based on Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd
Ed., published by AIChE/CCPS. If you are interested in more detailed discussion and worked examples,
you should refer to the AIChE/CCPS volume.
Neither the information below nor the full AIChE/CCPS volume will provide you with enough
information to conduct a PHA. The rule requires that your PHA team include at least one person trained in
the technique you use. Training in PHA techniques is available from a number of organizations. If you
must conduct multiple PHAs, you are likely to need to update your PHAs frequently, or you have a
complex process that will take several weeks to analyze, you may want to consider training one or more of
your employees. If you have a single process that is unlikely to change more than once every five years,
you may find it more cost-effective to hire a trained PHA leader.
i
DESCRIPTIONS OF TECHNIQUES
CHECKLISTS
Checklists are primarily used for processes that are covered by standards, codes, and industry
practices — for example, storage tanks designed to ASME standards, ammonia handling covered by
OSHA (29 CFR 1910.111), propane facilities subject to NFPA-58. Checklists are easy to use and can help
familiarize new staff with the process equipment. AIChE/CCPS states that checklists are a highly
cost-effective way to identify customarily recognized hazards. Checklists are dependent on the experience
,of the people who develop them; if the checklist is not complete, the analysis may not identify hazardous
situations.
Checklists are created by taking the applicable standards and practices and using them to generate
a list of questions that seek to identify any differences or deficiencies. If a checklist for a process does not
exist, an experienced person must develop one based on standards^ practices, and facility or equipment
experience. A completed checklist usually provides "yes," "no," "not applicable," and "need more
information" answers to each item. A checklist analysis involves touring the process area and comparing
equipment to the list.
AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system a checklist will take 2 to 4 hours to
prepare, 4 to 8 hours to evaluate the process, and 4 to 8 hours to document the results. For larger or more
complex processes, a checklist will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 3 to 5 days to evaluate, and 2 to 4 days to
document.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-18
WHAT-tF
A What-If Is a brainstorming approach in which a group of people familiar with the process ask
questions about possible deviations or failures. These questions may be framed as What-If, as in "What if
the pump fails?" or may be expressions of more general concern, as in "I worry about contamination during
unloading," A scribe or recorder takes down all of the questions on flip charts or a computer. The
questions are then divided into specific areas of investigation, usually related to consequences of interest.
Each area is then addressed by one or more team members.
What-If analyses are intended to identify hazards, hazardous situations, or accident scenarios. The
team of experienced people identifies accident scenarios, consequences, and existing safeguards, then
suggest possible risk reduction alternatives. The method can be used to examine deviations from design,
construction, modification, or operating intent. It requires a basic understanding of the process and an
ability to combine possible deviations from design intent with outcomes. AIChE describes this as a
powerful procedure if the staff are experienced; "otherwise, the results are likely to be incomplete."
i i i •
A What-If usually reviews the entire process, from the introduction of the chemicals to the end.
The analysis may focus on particular consequences of concern. AIChE provides the following example of
a What-If question: "What if the raw material is the wrong concentration?" The team would then try to
d<5termin^ how the process would respond: "If the concentration of acid were doubled, the reaction could
riot be controlled and a rapid exotherm would result." The team might then recommend steps to prevent
feeding wrong concentrations or to stop the feed if the reaction could not be controlled.
A What-If of simple systems can be done by one or two people; a more complex process requires a
larger team and longer meetings. MChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system a What-If
analysis will take 4 to 8 hours to prepare, 1 to 3 days to evaluate the process, and 1 to 2 days to document
the results. For larger or more complex processes, a What-If will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 4 to 7 days to
evaluate, and 4 to 7 days to document.
WHAT-IF/CHECKLIST
A What-If/Checklist combines the creative, brainstorming aspects of the What-If with the
systematic approach of the Checklist. The combination of techniques can compensate for the weaknesses
of each. The What-If part of the process can help the team identify hazards and accident scenarios that are
beyond the experience of the team members. The checklist provides a more detailed systematic approach
that can fill in gaps in the brainstorming process. The technique is generally used to identify the most
common hazards that exist in a process. AIChE states that it is often the first PHA conducted on a process,
with subsequent analyses using more detailed approaches.
The purpose of a What-If/Checklist is to identify hazards and the general types of accidents that
could occur, evaluate qualitatively the effects of the effects, and determine whether safeguards are
adequate. Usually the What-If brainstorming precedes the use of the checklist, although the order can be
reversed.
1 i '
The technique usually is performed by a team experienced in the design, operation, and
maintenance of the process. The number of people required depends on the complexity of the process.
AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system a What-If/Checklist analysis will take 6 to 12
hours to prepare, 6 to 12 hours to evaluate the process, and 4 to 8 hours to document the results. For larger
Jimmy 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
7-19 Prevention Program (Program 3)
or more complex processes, a What-If/Checklist will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 4 to 7 days to evaluate,
and 1 to 3 weeks to document.
HAZOP
The Hazard ^nd Operability Analysis (HAZOP) was originally developed to identify both hazards
and operability problems at chemical process plants, particularly for processes using technologies with
which the plant was |not familiar. The technique has been found to be useful for existing processes as well.
A HAZOP requires ^n interdisciplinary team and an experienced team leader.
I
The purpose of a HAZOP is to review a process or operation systematically to identify whether
process deviations could lead to undesirable consequences. AIChE states that the technique can be used
for continuous or batch processes and1 can be adapted to evaluate written procedures. It can be used at any
stage in the life of a process.
HAZOPs usually require a series of meetings in which, using process drawings, the team
systematically evaluates the impact of deviations. The team leader uses a fixed set of guide words and
applies them to process parameters at each point in the process. Guide words include "No," "More,"
"Less," "Part of," "A^ well as," Reverse," and "Other than." Process parameters considered include flow,
pressure, temperature, level,1 composition, pH, frequency, and voltage. As the team applies the guide
words to each process step, they record the deviation, with its causes, consequences, safeguards, and
actions needed, or thfe need for more information to evaluate the deviation.
HAZOPs require more resources than simpler techniques. AIChE states that a simple process or a
review with a narrovsl scope may be done by as few as three or four people, if they have the technical skills
and experience. A large or complex process usually requires a team of five to seven people. AIChE/CCPS
estimates that for a sijnall or simple system a HAZOP analysis will take 8 to 12 hours to prepare, 1 to 3
days to evaluate the process, and 2 to 6 days to document the results. For larger or more complex
processes, a HAZOP;will take 2 to 4 days to prepare, 1 to 3 weeks to evaluate, and 2 to 6 weeks to
document. '
i
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (FMEA)
A Failure Mq>de and Effects Analysis (FMEA) evaluates the ways in which equipment fails and
the system's response, to the failure. The focus of the FMEA is on single equipment failures and system
failures. An FMEA usually generates recommendations for increasing equipment reliability. FMEA does
not examine human e;rrors directly, but will consider the impact on equipment of human error. AIChE
states that FMEA is "pot efficient for identifying an exhaustive list of combinations of equipment failures
that lead to accidents.1"
An FMEA produces a qualitative, systematic list of equipment, failure modes, and effects. The
analysis can easily bej updated for design or systems changes. The FMEA usually produces a table that, for
each item of equipment, includes a description, a list of failure modes, the effects of each failure,
safeguards that exist, |and actions recommended to address the failure. For example, for pump operating
normal, the failure modes would include fails to stop when required, stops when required to run, seal leaks
or raptures, and pump case leaks or ruptures. The effects would detail both the immediate effect and the
impact on other equipment. Generally, when analyzing impacts, analysts assume that existing safeguards
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-20
do not work, AIChE states that "more optimistic assumptions may be satisfactory as long as all equipment
failure modes are analyzed on the same basis."
a i i
An FMEA requires an equipment list or P&ID, knowledge of the equipment, knowledge of the
system, and responses to equipment failure. AIChE states that on average, an hour is sufficient to analyze
two to four pieces of equipment. AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system an FMEA will
take 2 to 6 hours to prepare, 1 to 3 days to evaluate the process, and 1 to 3 days to document the results.
For larger or more complex processes, an EMEA will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 1 to 3 weeks to evaluate,
and 2 to 4 weeks to document.
FAULT TREE ANALYSIS (FTA)
A Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is a deductive technique that focuses on a particular accident or main
system failure and provides a method for determining causes of the event. The fault tree is a graphic that
displays the combinations of equipment failures and human errors that can result in the accident. The FTA
starts with the accident and identifies the immediate causes. Each immediate cause is examined to
determine its causes unjil the basic causes of each are identified. AIChE states that the strength of FTA is
its ability to identify combinations of basic equipment and human failures that can lead to an accident,
allowing the analyst to focus preventive measures on significant basic causes.
AIChE states that FTA is well suited for analyses of highly redundant systems. For systems
vulnerable to single failures that can lead to accidents, FMEA or HAZOP are better techniques to use.
FTA is often used when another technique has identified an accident that requires more detailed analysis.
The FTA looks at component failures (malfunctions that require that the component be repaired) and faults
(malfunctions that will remedy themselves once the conditions change). Failures and faults are divided
into three groups: primary failures and faults occur when the equipment is operating in the environment for
which it was intended; secondary failures and faults occur when the system is operating outside of intended
environment; and command faults and failures are malfunctions where the equipment performed as
designed but the system that commanded it malfunctioned.
; a 1 ~- '
An FTA requires a detailed knowledge of how the plant or system works, detailed process
drawings and procedures, and knowledge of component failure modes and effects. AIChE states that
FTAs need well trained and experienced analysts. Although a single analyst can develop a fault tree, input
and review from others is needed
* J
AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system an FTA will take 1 to 3 days to prepare,
3 to 6 days for model construction, 2 to 4 days to evaluate the process, and 3 to 5 days to document the
results. For larger or more complex processes, an FTA will take 4 to 6 days to prepare, 2 to 3 weeks for
model eonstructions? 1 to 4 weeks to evaluate, and 3 to 5 weeks to document.
OTHER t^CHNIQUES
' I
, , The rale allows you to use other techniques if they are functionally equivalent. The AIChE
Guidelines includes descriptions of a number of other techniques including Preliminary Hazard Review,
Cause-Consequence Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, and Human Reliability Analysis. You may also
develop a hybrid technique that combines features of several techniques or apply more than one technique.
January 27,1999
-------
7-21
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
SELECTING A TECHNIQUE
Exhibit 7A-1 is adapted from the AIChE Guidelines and indicates which techniques are
appropriate for particular phases in a process's design and 'operation.
EXHIBIT 7A-1
APPLICABILITY OF PHA TECHNIQUES
Design
Detailed Engineering
Construction/Start-Up
Routine Operation
Modification
Incident Investigation
Decommissioning
Checklist
/
S
/
/
/
/
What-If
/
/
/
S
/
^
/
What-If-
Checklist
/
^
V
s
s
s
HAZOP
/
/
/
/
FMEA
/
/
/
/
FTA
^
^
/
/
Factors in Selecting a Technique
, i
Type of process will affect your selection of a technique. AIChE states that most of the techniques
can be used for any process, but some are better suited for certain processes than others, FMEA efficiently
analyzes the hazards associated with computer and electronic systems; HAZOPs do not work as well with
these. Processes or storage units designed to industry or government standards can be handled with
checklists.
AIChE lists What-If, What-If/Checklist, and HAZOP as better able to handle batch processes than
FTA or FMEA because the latter do not easily deal with the need to evaluate the time-dependent nature of
batch operations.
Analysis of multiple failure situations is best handled by FTA. Single-failure techniques, such as
HAZOP and FMEA, are not normally used to handle these although they can be extended to evaluate a
few simple accident situations involving more than one event,
AIChE states that when a process has operated relatively free of accidents for a long time, the
potential for high consequence events is low, and there have been few changes to invalidate the experience
base, the less exhaustive techniques,-such as a Checklist, can be used. When the opposite is true, the more
rigorous techniques are more appropriate.
A final factor in selecting a technique is time required for various techniques. Exhibit 7A-2
summarizes AIChE's estimates of the time required for various steps. The full team is usually involved in
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 7
Prevention Program (Program 3)
7-22
the evaluation step; for some techniques, only the team leader and scribe are involved in the preparation
and documentation steps.
, , EXHIBIT 7A-2
TIME AND STAFFING FOR PHA TECHNIQUES
Checklist
What-If
What-If
Checklist
HAZOP
FMEA
FTA
Simple/Small System
# Staff
Preparation
Modeling
Evaluation
Documentation
1-2
2-4 h
4-8 h
4-8 h
Large/Complex Process
# Staff
Preparation
Modeling
Evaluation
Documentation
1-2
1-3 d
3-5 d
2-4 d
2-3
4-8 h
1-3 d
1-2 d
2-3
6-12 h
6-12 h
4-8 h
3-4
8-12 h
1-3 d
2-6 d
1-2
2-6 h
1-3 d
1-3 d
2-3
1-3 d
3-6 d
2-4 d
3-5 d
3-5
1-3 d
4-7 d
4-7 d
3-5
1-3 d
4-7 d
1-3 w
5-7
2-4 d
1-3 w
2-6 w
2-4
1-3 d
1-3 w
2-4 w
2-5
4-6 d
2-3 w
1-4 w
3-5 w
h = hours
d = days (8 hours) w = weeks (40 hours)
i >
Jimmy 27,1999
-------
CHAPTER 8: EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM
If you have only Program 1 processes at your facility, you must coordinate your
emergency response activities with local responders. '
If you have at least one Program 2 or Program 3 process at your facility, part 68 may
require you to implement an emergency response program, consisting of an emergency
response plan, emergency response equipment procedures, employee training, and
procedures to ensure the program is up-to-date. This requirement applies if your
employees will respond to some releases involving regulated substances. (See the box
on the next page for more information on What is Response?)
EPA recognizes that, in some cases (particularly for small operations with few
employees), it may not be appropriate for employees to conduct response operations
for releases of regulated substances. For example, it would be inappropriate, and
probably unsafe, for a distributor holding large amounts of ammonia or chlorine with
only one full-time employee to expect that a tank fire could be handled without the
help of the local fire department or other emergency responder. EPA does not intend
to force such facilities to develop emergency response capabilities. At the same time,
you are responsible for ensuring effective emergency response to any releases at your -
facility. If your local public responders are not capable of providing such response,
you must take steps to ensure that effective response is available (e.g., by hiring
response contractors).
8.1 NON-RESPONDING FACILITIES (§ 68.90(b))
EPA has adopted a policy for non-responding facilities similar to that adopted by
OSHA in its Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)
Standard (29 CFR 1910.120), which allows certain facilities to develop an emergency
action plan to ensure employee safety, rather than a full-fledged emergency response
plan. If your employees will not respond to accidental releases of regulated
substances, then you need not comply with the emergency response plan and program
requirements. Instead, you are simply required to coordinate with local response
agencies to ensure that they will be prepared to respond to an emergency at your
facility. (You may want to briefly review the program design issues discussed in
section 8.2 of this chapter prior to making this decision.) This will help to ensure that
your community has a strategy for responding to and mitigating the threat posed by a
release of a regulated substance from your facility. To do so, you must ensure that you
have set up a way to notify emergency responders when there is need for a response.
Coordination with local responders also entails the following steps:
4- If you have a covered process with a regulated toxic, work with the local
emergency planning entity to ensure that the facility is included in the
community emergency response plan prepared under EPCRA regarding a
response to a potential release.
+ • If you have a covered process with a regulated flammable, work with the local
fire department regarding a response to a potential release.
Januaiy 27,1999
-------
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program
8-2
Although you do not need to describe these activities in your risk management plan, to
document your efforts you should keep a record of:
•f- The emergency contact (i.e., name or organization and number) that you will
call for a toxic or flammable release, and
WHAT IS "RESPONSE"?
EPA interprets "response" to be consistent with the definition of response specified under OSHA's
HAZWOPER Standard. OSHA defines emergency response as "a response effort by employees from
outside the immediate release area or by other designated responders... to an occurrence which results,
or is likely to result, in an uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance." The key factor here is that
responders are designated for such tasks by their employer. This definition excludes "responses to
incidental releases of hazardous substances where the substance can be absorbed, neutralized, or
otherwise controlled at the time of release by employees in the immediate release area, or by
maintenance personnel" as well as "responses to releases of hazardous substances where there is no
potential safety or health hazard (i.e., fire, explosion, or chemical exposure)." Thus, if you expect your
'employees to take action to end a small leak (e.g., shutting a valve) or clean up a spill that does not
pose an immediate safety or health hazard, this action could be considered an incidental response and
you would not need to develop an emergency response program if your employees are limited to such
activities.
However, due to the nature of the regulated substances subject to EPA's rule, only the most minor
incidents would be included in this exception. In general, most activities will qualify as a response due
to the immediacy of the dispersion of a toxic plume or spread of a fire, the volatilization of a spill, and
the threat to people on and off site. As a result, if you will have your employees involved in any
substantial way in responding to releases, you will need to develop an emergency response program.
Your emergency response procedures need only apply to "response" actions; other activities will be
described in your maintenance and operating procedures.
•4- The organization that you worked with on response procedures.
i ' t ,
The remainder of this chapter is applicable only to those facilities that will conduct a
more extensive level of response operations. As noted above, you may want to review
the next section before making a decision on whether the facility will take
responsibility for conducting any response activities.
8.2 ELEMENTS OF AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM (§ 68.95)
If you will respond to releases of regulated substances with your own employees, your
emergency response program must consist of the following elements:
4- An emergency response plan (maintained at the facility) that includes:
January 27, 1999
-------
8-3
Chapters
Emergency Response Program
WHAT IS A LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE?
Local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) were formed under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986. The committees are designed to serve as a
community forum for issues relating to preparedness for emergencies involving releases of
hazardous substances in their jurisdictions. They consist of representatives from local government
(including law enforcement and firefighting), local industry, transportation groups, health and
medical organizations, community groups, and the media. LEPCs:
4- Collect information from facilities on hazardous substances that pose a risk to the
community;
4 Develop a contingency plan for the community based on this information; and
4 Make information on hazardous substances available to the general public.
Contact the mayor's office or the county emergency management office for more information on
yourLEPC.
> Procedures for informing the public and emergency response agencies
about releases,
> Documentation of proper first aid and emergency medical treatment
necessary to treat human exposures, and
> Procedures and measures for emergency response.
4 Procedures for using, inspecting, testing, and maintaining your emergency
response equipment;
4 Training for all employees in relevant procedures; and
*
4 Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan
to reflect changes at the facility and ensure that employees are informed of
changes.
, Finally, your plan must be coordinated with the community plan developed under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, also known as
SARA Title HI). In addition, at the request of local emergency planning or response
officials, you must provide any information necessary for developing and
implementing the community plan.
In keeping with the approach outlined in Chapter 6, EPA is not requiring facilities to
document training and maintenance activities. However,' as noted above, facilities
must maintain an on-site emergency response plan as well as emergency response
equipment maintenance and program evaluation procedures.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 8
Emergency^Resgonsg Program 8-4
Although EPA's required elements are essential to any emergency response program,
they are not comprehensive guidelines for creating an adequate response capability.
Rather than establish another set of federal requirements for an emergency response
program, EPA has limited the provisions of its rule to those the CAA mandates. If
you have a regulated substance on site, you are already subject to at least one
emergency response rule: OSHA's emergency action plan requirements (29 CFR
1910.38). Under OSHA HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120) any facility that handles
"hazardous substances" (a broad term that includes all of the CAA regulated
substances and thus applies to all facilities with covered processes) must comply with
either 29 CFR 1910.38(a) or 1910.120(q). If you have a hazmat team, you are subject
to the 29 CFR 1910.120(q) requirements. If you determine that the emergency
response programs you have developed to comply with these other rules satisfy the
elements listed at the beginning of this section, you will not have to do anything
additional to comply with these elements. Additional guidance on making this
decision is provided in section 8.5.
In addition, be careful not to confuse writing a set of emergency response procedures
in apian with developing an emergency response program. An emergency response
plan is only one element of the integrated effort that makes an emergency response
program. Although the plan outlines the actions and equipment necessary to respond
effectively, training, program evaluation, equipment maintenance, and coordination
with local agencies must occur regularly if your plan is to be useful in an emergency:
- The goal of the program is to enable you to respond quickly and effectively to any
emergency. The documents listed in Exhibit 8-1 may be helpful in developing
specific elements of your emergency response program.
Finally, remember that under the General Duty Clause of CAA section 112(r)(l) you
are responsible for ensuring that any release from your processes can be handled
effectively. If you plan to rely on local responders for some or all of the response, you
must determine that those responders have both the equipment and training needed to
do so. If they do not, you must take steps to meet any needs, either by developing
your own response capabilities, developing mutual aid agreements with other
i facilities, hiring response contractors, or providing support to local responders so they
** can acquire equipment or training.
RELATIONSHIP TO HAZWOPER
If you choose to establish and maintain onsite emergency response capabilities, then
you will be subject to the detailed provisions of the OSHA HAZWOPER Standard.
HAZWOPER covers preparing an emergency response plan, employee training,
medical monitoring of employees, recordkeeping, and other issues. Call your state or
federal district OSHA office (see the list in Appendix D) for more information on
complying with the HAZWOPER Standard.
Jinuaiy27.1999
-------
8-5
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program
EXHIBIT 8-1
FEDERAL GUIDANCE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RESPONSE
Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide (NRT-1), National Response Team, March 1987.
Although designed'to assist communities in planning for hazraat incidents, this guide provides useful
information on developing a response plan, including planning teams, plan review, and ongoing
planning efforts,
Criteria for Review of Hazardous Materials Emergency Plans (NRT-1 A), National Response Team,
May 1988. This guide provides criteria for evaluating response plans.
Integrated Contingency Plan, National Response Team, (61 PR 28642, June 5, 1996). This provides
guidance on how to consolidate multiple plans developed to comply with various federal regulations
into a single, functional emergency response plan..
North American Emergency Response Guidebook (NAERG96), U.S. Department of Transportation,
1996. This guidebook lists over 1,000 hazardous materials and provides information on their general
hazards and recommended isolation distances.
Response Information Data Sheets (RIDS), US EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Developed for use with the Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations
(CAMEO) software, these documents outline the properties, hazards, and basic safety and response
practices for thousands of hazardous chemicals.
HOW DOES THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM APPLY?
The requirements for the emergency response program are intended to apply across all covered
processes at a facility. Although certain elements of the program (e.g., how to use specific items of
response equipment) may differ from one process to another, EPA does not intend or expect you to
develop a separate emergency response program for each covered process. With this in mind, you
should realize that your emergency response program will probably apply to your entire facility,
although technically it need only apply to covered processes.
For example, a facility may have two storage tanks, one containing slightly more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance and one with slightly less. The facility is likely to adopt the same
response approach (e.g., procedures, equipment, and training) for releases whether or not the process is
"covered." Similarly, a facility may have two adjacent flammables storage tanks, one containing a
regulated substance above the threshold and the other containing another, unlisted flammable. The
facility is likely to adopt the same approach for releases whether or not the process is "covered."
8.3 DEVELOPING AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM
The development of an emergency response program should be approached
systematically. As described in section 8.2, all facilities complying with these
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program 8-6
emergency response program provisions will already be subject to OSHA
HAZWOPER. As a result, you are likely to fall into one of two groups:
4- You have already met several federal requirements for emergency planning
and are interested in developing an integrated program to minimize
duplication (section 8.4).
4- You have a pre-existing emergency response program (perhaps based on an
internal policy decision) and need to determine what additional activities you
will need to conduct (section 8.5).
If you are complying with RDP, you also will have an emergency response plan to
meet the RDP requirements. A comparison of the part 68 requirements and RDP,
prepared by NACD, is provided in Appendix 8A to this chapter. As with the
prevention program, if the actions you take to comply with RDP meet the
requirements of part 68, no further action will be needed.
STEPS FOR GETTING STARTED
The following steps outline a systematic approach that can serve as the framework for
the program development process in each of these cases. Following these initial steps
will allow you to conduct the rest of the process more efficiently.
Form an emergency response program team. The team should consist of
employees with varying degrees of emergency response responsibilities, as well as
personnel with expertise from each functional area of your facility. You should
consider including persons from the following departments or areas:
4- Maintenance;
4- Operations or line personnel;
4- Upper and line management;
4- Legal;
4- Fire and hazmat response;
4- Environmental, health, and safety affairs;
4- Training;
4- Security;
4- EPCRA section 302 emergency coordinator (if one exists);
4- Public relations; and
4- Personnel.
i
Of course, the membership of the team will need to be more or less extensive
depending on the scope of the emergency response program. A three-member team
may be appropriate for a small facility with a couple of process operators cross-trained
as fire responders, while a facility with its own hazmat team and environmental affairs
department may need a dozen representatives.
Collect relevant facility documents. Members of the development team should
collect and review all of the following:
Jtnuai} 27,1999
-------
3-7'
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program
4- Site plans;
4- Existing emergency response plans and procedures;
4- Submissions to the LEPC under EPCRA sections 302 and 303;
41 Hazard evaluation and release modeling information;
4- Hazard communication and emergency response training;
4- Emergency drill and exercise programs;
4- After-action reports and response critiques; and
4- Mutual aid agreements.
Identify existing programs to coordinate efforts. The team should identify any
related programs from the following sources:
4- Corporate- and industry-sponsored safety, training, and planning efforts; and
4- Federal, state, and local government safety, training, and planning efforts (see
Exhibit 8-2).
EXHIBIT 8-2
FEDERAL EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS
The following is a list of some of the federal emergency planning regulations:
4- EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (SPCC and Facility Response Plan Requirements) -
40 CFR part 112.7(d) and 112.20-.21;
4- EPA's Risk Management Programs Regulation - 40 CFR part 68;
4- OSHA's Emergency Action Plan Regulation - 29 CFR 1910.38(a);
4- OSHA's Process Safety Standard - 29 CFR 1910.119;
4- OSHA's HAZWOPER Regulation - 29 CFR 1910.120;
4- EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Contingency Planning Requirements - 40
CFR part 264, Subpart D, 40 CFR part 265, Subpart D, and 40 CFR 279.52.
4- EPA's Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Requirements - 40 CFR part
' 355. (These planning requirements apply to communities, rather than facilities, but will be
relevant when facilities are coordinating with local planning and response entities).
4- EPA's Storm water Regulations - 40 CFR 122.26.
Facilities may also be subject to state and local planning requirements.
Determine the status of each required program element. Using the information
collected, you should assess whether each required program element (see section 8.2)
is:
4- In place and sufficient to meet the requirements of part 68;
4- In place, but not sufficient to meet the requirements of Part 68; or
4- Not in place.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program
•This examination will shape the nature of your efforts to complete the emergency
response program required under the risk management program. For example, if you
are already in compliance with OSHA's HAZWOPER Standard, you have probably
satisfied most, if not all, of the requirements for an emergency response program.
Section 8.6 explains the intent of each of EPA's requirements to help you determine
whether you are already in compliance.
Take additional actions as necessary.
:• ' I '^ j | • I , * ,
TAILORING YOUR PROGRAM TO YOUR HAZARDS
;' , ' i i .
i r i
If your processes and chemicals pose a variety of hazards, it may be necessary to tailor
some elements of your emergency response program to these specific hazards. Unless
each part of your program element is appropriate to the release scenarios that may
occur, your emergency response program cannot be fully effective. Your program
should include core elements that are appropriate to most of the scenarios,
supplemented with more specific response information for individual scenarios. This
distinction should be reflected in your emergency response plan, which should explain
when to access the general and specific response information. To do this, you will
need to consider the following four steps:
4- Identify and characterize the hazards for each covered process. The process
hazards analysis (see Chapter 7) or hazard review (see Chapter 6), and offsite
consequence analysis (see Chapter 4) should provide this information.
1 i I
4- For each program element, compare the activities involved in responding to
each type of accident scenario and decide if they are different enough to
require separate approaches. For example, response equipment and training
will likely be different for releases of toxic versus flammable gases.
4- For those program elements mat may be chemical- or process-specific,
identify what and how systems and procedures need to be modified. For
example, if existing mitigation systems are inadequate for responding to
certain types of releases, you will need to consider what additional types of
equipment are needed.
4- Consider possible causes of emergencies in developing your emergency
response program. You should consider both the hazards at your facility and
in the surrounding environment In making this determination, you should
consider your susceptibility to:
> Fires, spills, and vapor releases;
o Floods, temperature extremes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and
hurricanes;
*> Loss of utilities, including power failures; and
> Train derailments, bomb threats, and other man-made disasters.
Januaiy27.1999
-------
Chapter 8
8-9 Emergency Response Program
8.4 INTEGRATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
A number of other federal statutes and regulations require emergency response
planning (see Exhibit 8-2). On June 5,1996, the National Response Team (NRT), a
multi-agency group chaired by EPA, published the Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance in the Federal Register (61 FR 28642). This guidance is intended to be used
by facilities to prepare emergency response plans for responding to releases of oil and
hazardous substances. The guidance provides a mechanism for consolidating multiple
plans that you prepared to comply with various regulations into a single, functional
emergency response plan or integrated contingency plan (ICP).
i
The ICP guidance does1 not change existing regulatory requirements; rather, it
provides a format for organizing and presenting material currently required by
regulations. Individual regulations are often more detailed than the ICP guidance. To
ensure full compliance, you will still need to read and comply with all of the federal
regulations that apply. The guidance contains a series of matrices designed to assist
you in consolidating various plans while documenting compliance with these federal
requirements.
The NRT and the agencies responsible for reviewing and approving plans to which
the ICP option applies have agreed that integrated response plans prepared according
to the guidance will be acceptable and the federally preferred method of response
planning. The NRT anticipates that future development of all federal regulations
addressing emergency response-planning will incorporate use of the ICP guidance.
The notice published in the Federal Register explains the intended structure of the
ICP and provides detailed annotation. EPA's EPCRA/RCRA/Superfund Hotline (1-
800-535-0202) can supply you with a copy and answer general questions about the
guidance; for further information and-guidance on complying with specific
regulations, you should contact the appropriate federal agencies.
8.5 HAVE I MET PART 68 REQUIREMENTS?
EPA believes that the creation of multiple response plans to meet slightly different
federal or state standards is counterproductive, diverting resources that could be used
to develop better response capabilities. Therefore, as part of the overall effort to
reduce the imposition of potentially duplicative or redundant federal requirements,
EPA has limited its requirements for the emergency response program to the general
provisions mandated by Congress, as described in section 8.2.
As a result, EPA believes that facilities subject to other federal emergency planning
requirements may have already met the requirements of these regulations. For
example, plans developed to comply with other EPA contingency planning
requirements and the OSHA HAZWOPER rule (29 CFR 1910.120) will likely meet
the requirements for the emergency response plan (and most of the requirements for
the emergency response program). The following discussion presents some general
guidance on what actions you need to take for each of the required elements.
Januarv 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program 8-10
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
If you already have a written plan to comply with another planning regulation, you do
not need to write another plan, but only add to it as necessary to cover the elements
listed below.
i ii
Keep in mind: At a minimum, your plan must describe:
4- Your procedures for informing the public and offsite emergency response
• agencies of a release. This must include the groups and individuals that will
be contacted and why, the means by which they will be contacted, the time
frame for notification, and the information that will be provided.
4- The proper first aid and emergency medical treatment for employees, first
responders, and members of the public who may have been exposed to a
release of a regulated substance. This must include standard safety
precautions for victims (e.g., apply water to exposed skin immediately) as
well as more detailed information for medical professionals. You must also
indicate who is likely to be responsible for providing the appropriate
treatment: an employee, an employee with specialized training, or a medical
professional.
4- Your procedures for emergency response in the event of a release of a
regulated substance. This must include descriptions of the actions to be taken
by employees and other individuals on-site over the entire, course of the
release event:
> Activation of alarm systems and interpretation of signals;
> Safe evacuation, assembly, and return;
> Selection of response strategies and incident command structure;
> Use of response equipment and other release mitigation activities; and
> Post-release equipment and personnel cleanup and decontamination.
PLANNING COORDINATION
! 1 ' '
One of the most important issues in an emergency response program is deciding which
response actions will be assigned to employees and which will be handled by offsite
personnel. As a result, talking to public response organizations will be critical when
you develop your emergency response procedures. Although EPA is not requiring you
to be able to respond to a release alone, you should not simply assume that local
rfesponders will be able to manage an emergency. You must work with them to
determine what they can do, and then expand your own abilities or establish mutual
aid agreements or contracts to handle those situations for which you lack the
appropriate training or equipment.
Januarys?. 1999
-------
Chapter 8
8-11 Emergency Response Program
If you have already coordinated with local response agencies on how to respond to
potential releases of regulated substances and you have ensured an effective response,
you do not need to take any further action.
Keep in mind: Your coordination must involve planning for releases of regulated
substances from all covered processes and must cover:
4- What offsite response assistance you will require for potential release
scenarios, including fire-fighting, security, and notification of the public;
4- How you will request offsite response assistance; and
4- Who will be in charge of the response operation and how will authority be
delegated down the internal and offsite chain of command.
Coordination equivalent to that required for planning for extremely hazardous
substances under EPCRA sections 302-303 will be considered sufficient to meet this
requirement. A more detailed discussion of this element is provided in section 8.6.
EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
If you already have written procedures for using and maintaining your emergency
response equipment, you do not need to write new procedures.
Keep in mind: Your procedures must apply to any emergency equipment relevant to a
response involving a covered process, including all detection and monitoring
equipment, alarms and communications systems, and personal protective equipment
not used as part of normal operations (and thus not subject to the prevention program
requirements related to operating procedures and maintenance). The procedures must
describe:
4- How and when to use the equipment properly;
4 How and when the equipment should receive routine maintenance; and
4- How and when the equipment should be inspected and tested for readiness.
Written procedures comparable to those necessary for process-related equipment
under the OSHA PSM Standard and EPA's Program 2 and 3 Prevention Programs will
be considered sufficient to meet this requirement.
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
y
If you already train your employees in how to respond to (or evacuate from) releases
of regulated substances, then you do not need a new training program.
Keep in mind: Your training must address the actions to take in response to releases
of regulated substances from all covered processes. The training should be based
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program 8-12
directly on the procedures that you have included in your emergency response plan
and must be given to all employees and contractors on site. Individuals should receive
training appropriate to their responsibilities;
4- If they will only need to evacuate, then their training should cover when and
how to evacuate their location.
4- If they may need to activate an alarm system in response to a release event,
. then their training should cover when and how to use the alarm system.
< ? i
4- If they will serve on an emergency response team, men their training should
cover how to use emergency equipment and how the incident command
system works.
Emergency response training conducted in compliance with the OSHA HAZWOPER
Standard and 29 CFR 1910.38 will be considered sufficient to meet this requirement.
RESPONSE PLAN EVALUATION
If you already have a formal practice for regular review and updates of your plan
based on changes at the facility, you do not need to develop additional procedures,
Keep in mind: You must also identify the types of changes to the facility that would
cause the plan to be updated (e.g., a new covered process) and include a method of
communicating any changes to the plan to your employees (e.g., through training).
YOU may want to set up a regular schedule on which you review your entire
emergency response plan and identify any special conditions (e,g., a drill or exercise)
that could result in an interim review.
! ! ! ! '
8.6 COORDINATION WITH LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING ENTITIES (§ 68.95(c))
Once you determine that you have at least one covered process, you should open
communications with local emergency planning and response officials, including your
local emergency planning committee if one exists. Because your LEPC consists of
representatives from many local emergency planning and response agencies, it is
likely to be the best source of information on the critical emergency response issues in
your community. However, in some cases, there may not be an active LEPC in your
community. If so, or if your state has not designated your community as an
emergency planning district under EPCRA, you will likely need to contact local
agencies individually to determine which entities (e.g., fire department, emergency
management agency, police department, civil defense office, public health agency)
have jurisdiction for your facility.
KEY COORDINATION ISSUES
If you have any of the toxic regulated substances above the threshold quantity, you
should have already designated an emergency coordinator to work with the LEPC on
chemical emergency preparedness issues (a requirement for certain facilities regulated
January 27.1999
-------
Chapter 8
8-13 Emergency Response Program
under EPCRA). If you have not (or if your facility has only regulated flammable
substances), you may want to do so at this time. The emergency coordinator should
be the individual most familiar with your emergency response program (e.g., the
person designated as having overall responsibility for this program in your
management system — see Chapter 5).
Involvement in the activities of your LEPC can have a dramatically positive effect on
your emergency response program, as well as on your relationship with the
surrounding community. Your LEPC can provide technical assistance and guidance
on a number of topics, such as conducting response training and exercises, developing
mutual aid agreements, and evaluating public alert systems. The coordination process
will help both the community and the facility prepare for an emergency, reducing
expenditures of time and money, as well as helping eliminate redundant efforts.
(
You should consider providing the LEPC with draft versions of any emergency
response program elements related to local emergency planning efforts. This
submission can initiate a dialogue with the community on potential program
improvements and lead to coordinated training and exercise efforts. In return, your
LEPC can support your emergency response program by providing information from
its own emergency planning efforts, including:
4- Data on wind direction and weather conditions, or access to local
meteorological data, to help you make decisions related to the evacuation of
employees and public alert notification;
4- Lists of emergency response training programs available in the area for
training police, medical, and fire department personnel, to help you identify
what training is already available;
4- Schedules of emergency exercises designed to test the community response
plan to spur coordinated community-facility exercises;
4- Lists of emergency response resources available from both public and private
sources to help you determine whether and how a mutual aid agreement could
support your program; and
4- Details on incident command structure, emergency points of contact,
availability of emergency medical services, and public alert and notification
systems.
Upon completion of your emergency response plan, you should coordinate with the
LEPC, local response organizations, local hospitals, and other response organizations
(e.g., state hazmat team) and offer them a copy of the plan. In some instances, only a
portion of the plan may be of use to individuals or organizations; in such cases, you
should consider making only that portion of the plan available. For instance, it may be
appropriate to send a hospital only the sections of your plan that address emergency
medical procedures and decontamination.
January 27, J999
-------
Chapter 8
Emergency Response Program
8-14
You may also want to provide your LEPC and local response entities with a
description of your emergency response program elements, as well as any important
subsequent amendments or updates, to ensure that the community is aware of the
scope of your facility response efforts prior to an emergency. Although the summary
of your emergency response program will be publicly available as part of your RMP,
this information may not be as up-to-date or as comprehensive. Remember, the LEPC
has been given the authority under EPCRA and Clean Air Act regulations to request
any information necessary for preparing the community response plan.
PLANNING FOR FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
In the case of regulated flammable substances, the fire department with jurisdiction over your facility
may already be conducting fire prevention inspections and pre-planning activities under its own
authority. Your participation in these efforts (as requested) will allow local responders to gather the
information they need and prepare for an emergency. If there is no local fire department, or if there is
only a volunteer fire department in your area, you may need to contact other local response or planning
officials (e.g., police) to determine how you can work with the community.
Jtnuaiy 27,1999
-------
8-15
Chapter 8
Emergency Response
APPENDIX 8A
COMPARISON OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM AND RDP
EPA's Risk Management Program
NACD's Responsible Distribution Process
SM
Emergency Response Plan
Emergency Response and Public Preparedness
NOTE.- If you already have a written plan to comply with
another planning regulation, you do not need to write another
plan.
Plan must describe procedures for informing the public
and offsite emergency response agencies of a release.
Procedures must include the groups and individuals that
will be contacted and why, the means by which they will
be contacted, the time frame for notification, and the
information that will be provided. ,
Section A. A process for responding to, reporting on, and investigating
chemical distribution incidents and releases involving the member company's
chemicals, and implementation of appropriate preventive measures developed
from that investigative process.
Emergency response plans should contain, but may not be limited to the
following elements:
Plan must describe procedures for informing the public
and offsite emergency response agencies of a release.
Procedures must include the groups and individuals that
will be contacted and why, the means by which they will
be contacted, the time frame for notification, and the
information that will be provided.
1, Scope and authority
2. Organization - home phone numbers of key company people,
emergency phone numbers of suppliers
3. Alarms
4. Communications"
5. Control and command centers
The plan must include the proper first aid and emergency
medical treatment for employees, first responders, and
members of the .public who may have been exposed to a
release of a regulated substance. This must include
standard safety precautions for victims as well as more
detailed information for medical professionals. The plan
must also indicate who is likely to be responsible for
providing the appropriate treatment.
6, Plant site evacuation - employee meeting sites
7. Personnel check-off lists
January 27, 1999
-------
ChaplerS
Emergency Response
846
The plan must include procedures for emergency response
in the event of a release of a regulated substance. This
must include descriptions of the actions to be taken by
employees and other individuals on-site over the entire
course of the release event.
Coordination with local response agencies must involve
planning for releases of regulated substances from all
covered processes.
8, Fire-fighting - rescue plan for trapped people
9. Spill response
10. Community evacuation - notify all company personnel in event of
accident
Coordination must cover what offsite response assistance
you will require for potential release scenarios, including
fire-fighting, security, and notification of the public; how
you will request offsite response assistance; and who will
be in charge of the response operation and how will
authority be delegated down the internal and offsite chain
of command.
11. Cessation of operations
12. First aid - location of emergency equipment
13. Emergency transportation
14. Area security,
15, Utilities and public services
16. Mutual aid organizations
17. Outside agencies
18. Public sector and media management
19. Community relations
20. Return to normal operations
21. Regulatory issues
22. Training
23. Drills
24. Audits
25. Regular review and update of the process
26, Regular verification of emergency numbers
Section O. Coordination of the written facility emergency response plan with
the local emergency response team and other facilities. If no community plan
exists, the facility should assist with efforts to create one.
January 27, !999
-------
8-17
Chapter 8
Emergency Response
"
Emergency Response Equipment Procedures
NOTE: If you already have written procedures for •
using and maintaining your emergency response
equipment, you do not need to write new procedures.
i
Procedures must apply to any emergency equipment
relevant to a response involving covered processes,
including all detection and monitoring equipment, alarms
and communications systems, and personal protective
equipment not used as part of normal operations.
Procedures must describe how and when to use the
equipment properly, how and when the equipment
should receive routine maintenance, and how and when
the equipment should be inspected and tested for
readiness.
Employee Training
NOTE; If you already train your employees in how to
respond to (or evacuate from) releases of regulated
substances, as appropriate, then you do not need a new
training program.
Your training must address the actions to take in
response to releases of regulated substances from all
covered processes.
Training must be given to all employees and contractors
on site.
Emergency Response & Public Preparedness
See Section A Above
Emergency Response & Public Preparedness
See Section A Above
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapters
Emergency Response
8-18
Procedures to Ensure the Program Is Up-To-Date
Emergency Response & Public Preparedness
NOTE: If you already have a formal practice for
regular review and updates of your plan based on
changes at the facility, you do not need to develop
additional procedures,
You must identify the types of changes to the facility that
would cause the plan to be updates and include a method
of communicating any changes to the plan to your
employees.
Section E. Annual review, testing, and assessment of the operability of the
member company's written emergency response plan.
Additional RDP Emergency Response & Public Preparedness
Components
Section B. A system of internal investigation, reporting, appropriate
corrective acti'on and follow-up for each incident that results or could have
resulted in a fire, explosion, or accidental chemical release.
Section C. Procedures for making emergency response information
concerning the member company's chemicals available to response agencies.
Section D, Communications with state and local emergency planning and
response organizations on the potential hazards of the member company's
chemicals.
Section F. Facility tours for first responders to promote emergency
preparedness and to provide current knowledge of facility operations.
Section H. Participation in the Local Emergency Planning Committee's
process to develop and periodically test the local emergency response plan.
DISCLAIMER
This Side-By-Side Comparison (side-by-side) was prepared by the staff of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD). Every
attempt was made to make the information contained herein as accurate and up-to-date as possible. Neither the NACD, nor any of its employees,
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability for the contents of this
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 8
8-19 Emergency Response
side-by-side, nor assumes any liability for the use of this side-by-side by any party, nor assumes any liability for the results conveyed by the use of
this side-by-side by any party to a third party.
January 27, 1999
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CHAPTER 9: RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN (PART 68, SUBPART G)
You must submit one risk management plan (RMP) to EPA for all of your covered
processes (§ 68.150). EPA is developing an electronic submission program for your
use. If you cannot submit electronically, you may request a hardship waiver and
submit your RMP on paper. In either case, your RMP is due no later than the latest of
the following dates:
4- June 21,1999;
4- The date on which a regulated substance is first present above a threshold
quantity in a process; or
4- Three years after the date on which a regulated substance is first listed by
EPA.
EPA's automated tool for submitting RMPs, RMP*Submit™, discussed below, is
available from http://www.epa.gov/ceppo and from the EPCRA hotline (see Appendix
E for contact information).
9.1 ELEMENTS OF THE RMP
The length and content of your RMP will vary depending on the number and program
level of the covered processes at your facility. See Chapter 2 for detailed guidance on
how to determine the program levels of each of the covered processes at your facility.
Any facility with one or more covered processes must include in its RMP:
4- An executive summary (§ 68.155); ,
4- The registration for the facility (§ 68.160);
4- The certification statement (§ 68.185);
4- A worst-case scenario for each Program 1 process; at least one worst-case
scenario to cover all Program 2 and 3 processes involving regulated toxic
substances; at least one worst-case scenario to cover all Program 2 and 3
processes involving regulated flammables (§ 68.165(a));
' ' 4- The five-year accident history for each process (§ 68.168); and
4- A summary of the emergency response program for the facility (§ 68.180).
Any facility with at least one covered process in Program 2 or 3 must also include in
its RMP:
4- At least one alternative release scenario for each regulated toxic substance in
Program 2,or 3 processes and at least one alternative release scenario to cover
all regulated flammables in Program 2 or 3 processes (§ 68.165(b));
January 25, 1999
-------
Chapter 9
Risk Management Plan 9-2
4- A summary of the prevention program for each Program 2 process (§ 68,170);
and
4- A summary of the prevention program for each Program 3 process (§ 68.175).
Subpart G of part 68 (see Appendix A) provides more detail on the data required for
each of the elements. The actual RMP form, however, contains more detailed
guidance to make it possible to limit the number of text entries. For example, the rale
requires you to report on the major hazards identified during a PHA or hazard review
and on public receptors affected by worst-case and alternative case scenarios. The
RMP provides a list of options for you to check for these elements. Except for the
executive summary, the RMP consists primarily of yes/no answers, numerical
information (e.g., dates, quantities, distances), and a few text answers (e.g., names,
addresses, chemical identity). Where possible, RMP*Submit™ provides "pick lists"
to help you complete the form. For example, RMP*Submit™ provides a list of
regulated substances and automatically fills in the CAS numbers when you select a
substance.
j
EPA has provided instructions for each of the data elements to be reported in the RMP
with RMP*Submit'rM. The instructions explain each data element and help you
understand what acceptable data are for each. The instructions are posted on EPA's
web site at http://www.epa.gov/ceppo and are available from the EPCRA hotline (see
Appendix E for contact information).
9.2 RMP SUBMISSION
ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
EPA has made RMP*Submit™ available to complete and file your RMP.
RMP*Submit"rM does the following:
4- Provides a user-friendly, PC-based RMP Submission System available on
diskettes and via the Internet;
4- Uses a standards-based, open systems architecture so private companies can
1 create compatible software; and
4- Performs data quality checks, accept limited graphics, and provide on-line
help including defining data elements and providing instructions.
The software runs on Windows 3.1 and above. There will not be a DOS or MAC
version.
RMPs will be submitted to an EPA RMP Record Center on disk.
J«nuaiy25,1999
-------
Chapter 9
Risk Management Plan
HARD COPY SUBMISSION
If you are unable to submit electronically for any reason, just fill out the Electronic
Waiver form available in the RMP*Submit™ manual and send it in with your RMP.
See the RMP*Submit manual for more information on the Electronic Waiver.
9.3 ISSUES PERTAINING TO SUBMISSIONS OF AND ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) AND TRADE SECRETS
WHAT SHOULD I Do ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI)?
Under CAA section 114(c) and 40 CFR part 2, you may claim information included in
your RMP as CBI. To qualify for CBI protection, you must be able to show that the
information meets the substantive criteria set forth in 40 CFR 2.301. These criteria
generally require that the data be commercial or financial, that they not be available to
the public through other means, that you take appropriate steps to prevent disclosure,
and that disclosure of the data would be likely to cause substantial harm to your
competitive position. Review of any CBI claims will be handled as provided for in 40
CFR part 2. However, certain RMP data elements are not claimable as CBI because
they do not convey any business-sensitive information. EPA has developed specific
procedures for submission of CBI claims for RMPs. See the January 6,1999, final
rule at the end of Appendix A for details on the CBI requirements.
9.4 RESUBMISSION AND UPDATES (§ 68.190)
When you are required to update and resubmit your RMP is based on whether and
what changes occur at your facility. Please refer to the Exhibit 9-1 and note that you
are required to update and resubmit your RMP on the earliest of the dates that apply
to your facility:
WHEN DOES THE OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS (OCA) NEED TO BE REVISED?
You'll need to revise your OCA when a change at your facility results in the distance
to an endpoint from a worst-case release rising or falling by at least a factor of two.
For example, if you increase your inventory substantially or install passive mitigation
to limit the potential release rate, you should re-estimate the distance at an endpoint.
If the distance is at least doubled or halved, you must revise the RMP. For most
substances, the quantity that would be released would have to increase (decrease) by
more than a factor of five to double (half) the distance to an endpoint
CAN I FILE PREDICTIVELY?
Predictive filing is an option that allow^ you to submit an RMP that includes regulated
substances that may not be held at the facility at the time of submission. This option
is intended to assist chemical warehouses and other facilities whose operations involve
highly variable types and quantities of regulated substances,
January 25, 1999
-------
Chapter 9
Risk Management Plan
9-4
EXHIBIT 9-1
RMP UPDATES
Change That Occurs at Your Facility
No changes occur
A newly regulated substance is first listed by EPA
A regulated substance is first present above its
threshold quantity in:
a process already covered; or
— a new process.
A change occurs that results in a revised PHA or
hazard review
A change occurs that requires a revised offsite
consequence analysis
A change occurs that alters the Program level that
previously applied to any covered process
A change occurs that makes the facility no longer
subject to the requirements to submit a Risk
Management Plan
Date by Which You Must Update and Submit
your RMP
Within 5 years of initial submission
Within 3 years of the date EPA listed the newly
regulated substance
On or before the date the quantity of the regulated
substance exceeds the threshold in the process.
Within 6 months of the change
Within 6 months of the change
Within 6 months of the change
Submit a revised registration (indicating that the
RMP is no longer required) to EPA within 6
months of the change
but who are able to forecast their inventory with some degree of accuracy. Under
§ 68.190, you are required to update and re-submit your RMP no later than the date on
which a new regulated substance is first present in a covered process above a
threshold quantity. By using predictive filing, you will not be required to update and
re-submit your RMP when you receive a new regulated substance if that substance
was included in your latest RMP submission (as long as you receive it in a quantity
that does not trigger a revised offsite consequence analysis as provided in § 68.36).
If you use predictive filing, you must implement your Risk Management Program and
prepare your RMP exactly as you would if you actually held all of the substances
included in the RMP. This means that you must meet all rule requirements for each
regulated substance for which you file, whether or not that substance is actually held
on site at the time you submit your RMP. Depending on the substances for which you
file, this may require you to perform additional worst-case and alternative-case
scenarios and to implement additional prevention program elements. If you use this
option, you must still update and resubmit your RMP if you receive a regulated
substance that was not included in your latest RMP. You must also continue to
comply with the other update requirements stated in § 68.190. Applying predictive
filing to warehouses is described in more detail in Chapter 1, section 1.8.
January 25,1999
-------
9-5
Chapter 9
Risk Management Plan
How Do I DE-REGISTER?
If your facility is no longer covered by this rule, you must submit a letter to the RMP"
Record Center within six months indicating that your stationary source is no longer
covered. RMP*Submit will create this letter for you.
Q&A
"REVISING" A PHA
Q. The rale states that I have to update my RMP whenever I revise a PHA. What constitutes a
revised PHA? Every time I go through management of change procedures I make a notation in the
PHA file for the process, but would that constitute a revised PHA if the change did not affect the
validity of the PHA?
A. All changes (except replacement in kind) are subject to the management of change of procedures.
When processes undergo minor changes (e,g., minor rerouting of a piping run), information is
typically added to a PHA file to reflect the change, even though the validity of the PHA is not affected
by the modification. These minor changes and the addition of information about the change to the
PHA file are not considered a 'revision' of the PHA under the part 68. Major changes that invalidate' a
PHA, leading you to 'update' or 'revalidate' the PHA so that it accurately reflects the hazards of the
process, are considered a revision of the PHA under part 68.
January 25,1999
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CHAPTER 10: IMPLEMENTATION
10.1 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
The implementing agency is the federal, state, or local agency that is taking the lead
for implementation and enforcement of part 68. The implementing agency will review
RMPs, select some RMPs for audits, and conduct on-site inspections. The
implementing agency should be your primary contact for information and assistance.
WHO Is MY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY?
Under the CAA, EPA will serve as the implementing agency until a stats or local
agency seeks and is granted delegation under CAA section 112(1) and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E. You should check with the EPA Regional Office to determine if your state
has been granted delegation or is in the process of seeking delegation. The Regional
Office will be able to provide contact names at the state or local level. See Appendix
C for addresses and contact information for EPA Regions and state implementing
agencies.
IF THE PROGRAM Is DELEGATED, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
To gain delegation, a state or local agency must demonstrate that it has the authority
and resources to implement and enforce part 68 for all covered processes in the state
or local area. Some states may, however, elect to seek delegation to implement and
enforce the rule for only sources covered by an operating permit program under Title
V of the CAA. When EPA determines that a state or local agency has the required
authority and resources, EPA may delegate the program. If the state's rales differ
• . from part 68 (a state's rules are allowed to differ in certain specified respects, as
discussed below), EPA will adopt, through rulemaking, the state program as a
substitute for part 68 in the state, making the state program federally enforceable. In
most cases, the state will take the lead in implementation and enforcement, but EPA
maintains the ability to enforce part 68 in states in which EPA has delegated part 68.
i Should EPA decide that it is necessary to take an enforcement action in the state, the
action would be based on the state rule that EPA has adopted as a substitute for part
68. Similarly, citizen actions under the CAA would be based on the state rules that
EPA has adopted.
Under 40 CFR 63:90, EPA will not delegate the authority to add or delete substances
from § 68.130. EPA also plans to propose, in revisions to part 63, that authority to
revise Subpart G (relating to RMPs) will not be delegated. With respect to RMPs, you
would continue to be required to file your part 68 RMP, in the form and manner
specified by EPA, to the central location EPA designates. You should check with
your state to determine whether you need to file additional data for state use or submit
amended copies of the RMP with the state to cover state elements or substances.
If your state has been granted delegation, it is important that you contact them to
determine if the state has requirements in addition to those in part 68. State rules
may be more stringent than part 68. This document does not cover state
requirements.
Januaiy 25, 1999
-------
Chapter 10
•i" T
Implementation
10-2
QS&AS
DELEGATION
Q. What states have been granted delegation or are in the process of seeking delegation?
A. Georgia has been granted delegation. The following states have indicated that they are interested
in delegation:
California Delaware Florida Hawaii Louisiana Mississippi
Missouri New Jersey Nevada North Carolina Ohio Rhode Island
South Carolina
Check with your EPA Regional contacts (see Appendix C) for a current list of states granted or seeking
delegation,
Q. In what ways may state rules be more stringent? Does this document provide guidance on state
differences?
A. States may impose more detailed requirements, such as requiring more documentation or more
frequent reporting, specifying hours of training or maintenance schedules, imposing equipment
requirements or call for additional analyses. Some states are likely to cover at least some additional
chemicals and may use lower thresholds. This document does not cover state differences.
Q. Will the general duty clause be delegated?
A. The general duty clause (CAA section 112(r)(l)) is not included in part 68 and, therefore, will not
be delegated. States, however, may adopt their own general duty clause under state law.
10.2 REVIEWS/AUDITS/INSPECTIONS (§ 68.220)
! . !
The implementing agency is required under part 68 to review and conduct audits of
RMPs. Reviews are relatively quick checks of the RMPs to determine whether they
are complete and whether they contain any information that is clearly problematic.
For example, if an RMP for a process containing flammables fails to list fire and
explosion as a hazard in the prevention program, the implementing agency may flag
that as a problem. The RMP data system will perform some of the reviews
automatically by flagging RMPs submitted without necessary data elements
completed.
Facilities may be selected for audits based on any of the following criteria, set out in
§68.220:
4- Accident history of the facility
'4- Accident history of other facilities in the same industry
4- Quantity of regulated substances handled at the site
4- Location of the facility and its proximity to public and environmental
receptors
January 25, 1999
-------
Chapter 10
10-3 Implementation
4- The presence of specific regulated substances
+ The hazards identified in the RMP
+ A plan providing for random, neutral oversight
WHAT ARE AUDITS AND How MANY WILL BE CONDUCTED? ,
Under the CAA and part 68, audits are conducted on the RMP. Audits will generally
be reviews of the RMP to review its adequacy and require revisions when necessary to
ensure compliance with part 68. Audits will help identify whether the underlying risk
management program is being implemented properly. The implementing agency will
look for any inconsistencies in the dates reported for compliance with prevention
program elements. For example, if you report that the date of your last revision of
operating procedures was in June 1998 but your training program was last reviewed or
revised in December 1994, the implementing agency will ask why the training
program was not reviewed to reflect new operating procedures.
The agency will also look at other items that may indicate problems with
implementation. For example, if you are reporting on a distillation column at a
refinery, but used a checklist as your PHA technique, or you fail to list an appropriate
set of process hazards for the process chemicals, the agency may seek further
explanations as to why you reported in the way you did. The implementing agency
may compare your data with that of other facilities in the same industrial sector using
the same chemicals to identify differences that may indicate compliance problems.
If audits indicate potential problems, they may lead to requests for more information
•or to on-site inspections. If the implementing agency determines that problems exist,
it will issue a preliminary determination listing the necessary revisions to the RMP, an
explanation of the reasons for the revisions, and a timetable. Section 68.220 provides
details of the administrative procedures for responding to a preliminary determination.
The number of audits conducted will vary from state to state and from year to year.
Neither the CAA nor part 68 sets a number or percentage of facilities that must be
audited during a year. Implementing agencies will set their own goals, based on their
resources and particular concerns.
WHAT ARE INSPECTIONS?
Inspections are site visits to check on the accuracy of the RMP data and on the
implementation of all part 68 elements. During inspections, the implementing agency
will probably review the documentation for rule elements, such as the PHA reports,
operating procedures, maintenance schedules, process safety information, and
training. Unlike audits, which focus on the RMP but may lead to determinations
concerning needed improvements to the risk management program, inspections will
focus on the underlying nsk management program itself.
Implementing agencies will determine how many inspections they need to conduct.
Audits may lead to inspections or inspections may be done separately. Depending on
the focus of the inspection (all covered processes, a single process, or particular part
January 25,1999
-------
Chapter 10
Implementation 10-4
of the risk management program) and the size of the facility, inspections may take
several hours to several weeks.
, :| ' ! | I )
10.3 RELATIONSHIP WITH TITLE V PERMIT PROGRAMS
'!
Part 68 is an applicable requirement under the CAA. Title V permit program and must
be listed in a Title V air permit. You do not need a Title V air permit solely because
you are subject to part 68. If you are required to apply for a Title V permit because
you are subject to requirements under some other part of the CAA, you must:
i
4- List part 68 as an applicable requirement in your permit
i , I I ' ,
• + Include conditions that require you to either submit a compliance schedule for
meeting the requirements of part 68 by the applicable deadlines or include
compliance with part 68 as part of your certification statement.
!' i i
i i '
You must also provide the permitting agency with any other relevant information it
requests.
k : ' ' ' t
The RMP and supporting documentation are not part of the permit and should not be
- submitted to the permitting authority. The permitting authority is only required to
ensure that you have submitted the RMP and that it is complete. The permitting
authority may delegate this review of the RMP to other agencies.
1 '' *
If you have a Title V permit and it does not address the part 68 requirement, you
: should contact your permitting authority and determine whether your permit needs to
be amended to reflect part 68.
10.4 PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
Penalties for violating the requirements or prohibitions of part 68 are set forth in CAA
section 113. This section provides for both civil and criminal penalties. EPA may
assess civil penalties of not more than $27,500 per day per violation. Any one
convicted of knowingly violating part 68 may also be punished by a fine pursuant to
Title 18 of the U.S. Code or by imprisonment for no more than five years, or both;
anyone convicted of knowingly filing false information may be punished by a fine
pursuant to Title 18 or by imprisonment for no more than two years.
January 25,1999
-------
Chapter 10
10-5 Implementation
Qs&As
AUDITS
Q. If we are a Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) facility under OSHA's VPP program, are we
exempt from audits?
A. You are exempt from audits based on accident history of your industry sector or on random,
neutral oversight. An implementing agency that is basing its auditing strategy on other factors may
include your facility although EPA expects that VPP facilities will generally not be a high priority for
audits unless they have a serious accident.
Q. If we have been audited by a qualified third party, for ISO 14001 certification or for other
propams, are we exempt from audits?
A. No, but you may want to inform your implementing agency that you have gained such certification
and indicate whether the third party reviewed part 68 compliance as part of its audit. The
implementing agency, has the discretion to determine whether you should be audited.
Q. Will we be audited if a member of the public requests an audit of our facility?
A. The implementing agency will have to decide whether to respond to such public requests. EPA's
intention is that part 68 implementation reflect that hazards are primarily a local concern.
January 25,1999
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CHAPTER 11: COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC
Once you have prepared and submitted your RMP, EPA will make it available to the
public. Public availability of the RMP is a requirement under section 114(c) of the
Clean Air Act (the Act provides for protection of trade secrets, and EPA will
accordingly protect any portion of the RMP that contains Confidential Business
Information). Therefore, you can expect that your community will discuss the hazards
and risks associated with your facility as indicated in your RMP. You will necessarily
be part of such discussions. The public and the press are likely to ask you questions
because only you can provide specific answers about your facility and your accident
prevention program. This dialogue is a most important step in preventing chemical
accidents and should be encouraged. You should respond to these questions honestly
and candidly. Refusing to answer, reacting defensively, or attacking the regulation as
unnecessary are likely to make people suspicious and willing to assume the worst. A
basic fact of risk communication is that trust, once lost, is very hard to regain. As a
result, you should prepare as early as possible to begin talking about these issues with
the community, Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), State Emergency
Response Commissions (SERCs), other local and state officials, and other interested
parties.
*
Communication with the public can be an opportunity to develop your relationship
with the community and build a level of trust among you, your neighbors, and the
community at large. By complying with the RMP rale, you are taking a number of
steps to prevent accidents and protect the community. These steps are the individual
elements of your risk management program, A well-designed and properly
implemented risk management program will set the stage for informative and
productive dialogue between you and your community. The purpose of this chapter is
to suggest how this dialogue may occur. In addition, note that some industries have
developed guidance and other materials to assist in this process; contact your trade
association for more information. ,
11.1 BASIC RULES OF RISK COMMUNICATION
Risk communication means establishing and maintaining a dialogue witii the public
about the hazards at your operation and discussing the steps that have been or can be
taken to reduce the risk posed by these hazards. Of particular concern under this rule
are the hazards related to the chemicals you use and what would happen if you had an
accidental release.
Many companies, government agencies, and other entities have confronted the same
issue you may face: how to discuss with the public the risks the community is subject
to. Exhibit 11-1 outlines seven "rules" of risk communication that have been
developed based on many experiences of dealing with the public about risks.
A key message of these "rales" is the importance and legitimacy of public concerns.
People generally are less tolerant of risks they cannot control than those they can. For
example, most people are willing to accept the risks of driving because they have
some control over what happens to them. However, they are generally more
uncomfortable accepting the risks of living near a facility that handles hazardous
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public
11-2
chemicals if they feel that they have no control over whether the facility has an
accident. The Clean Air Act's provision for public availability of RMPs gives public
an opportunity to take part in reducing the risk of chemical accidents that might occur
in their community.
EXHIBIT 11-1
SEVEN CARDINAL RULES OF RISK COMMUNICATION
1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner
2. Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts
3. Listen to the public's specific concerns
4. Be honest, frank, and open
5. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources
6. Meet the needs of* the media
7. Speak clearly and with compassion
HAZARDS VERSUS RISKS
Dialogue in the community will be concerned with both hazards and risks; it is useful
to be clear about the difference between them.
it « "
Hazards are inherent properties that cannot be changed. Chlorine is toxic when
inhaled or ingested; propane is flammable. There is little that you can do with these
chemicals to change their toxicity or flammability. If you.are in an earthquake zone or
an area affected by hurricanes, earthquakes and hurricanes are-hazards. When you
I11 !!l P ! I. < i'1 I I i! J •* < *
conduct your hazard review or process hazards analysis, you will be identifying your
hazards and determining whether the potential exposure to the hazard can be reduced
in any way (e.g., by limiting the quantity of chlorine stored on-site).
Risk is usually evaluated based on several variables, including the likelihood of a
release occurring, the inherent hazards of the chemicals combined with the quantity
released, and the potential impact of the release on the public and the environment.
For example, if a release during loading occurs frequently, but the quantity of
chemical released is typically small and does not generally migrate offsite, the overall
risk to the public is low. If the likelihood of a catastrophic release occurring is
extremely low, but the number of people who could be affected if it occurred is large,
the overall risk may still be low because of the low probability that a release will
occur. On the other hand, if a release occurs relatively frequently and a large number
of people could be affected, the overall risk to the public is high.
Jwnuiy27.1999
-------
Chapter 11
11-3 Communication with the Public
The rule does not require you,to assess risk in a quantitative way because, in most
cases, the data you would need to estimate risk levels (e,g., one in 100 years) are not
available. Even in cases where data such as equipment failure rates are available,
there are large uncertainties in using that data to determine a numerical risk level for
your facility, because your facility is probably not the same as other facilities, and your
situation may be dynamic. Therefore, you may want to assign qualitative values (high,
medium, low) to the risks that you have identified at your facility, but you should be
prepared to explain the terms if you do. For example, if you believe that the
worst-case release is very unlikely to occur, you must give good reasons; you must be
able to provide specific examples of measures that you have taken to prevent such a
release, such as installation of new equipment, careful training of your workers,
rigorous preventive maintenance, etc. You should also be able to show documentation
to support your claim.
WHO WILL ASK QUESTIONS?
Your Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and other facilities can help you
identify individuals in the following groups who may be reviewing RMP data and
asking questions. Interested parties may include:
(1) Persons living near the facility and elsewhere in the community or working at
a neighboring facility
(2) Local officials from-zoning and planning boards, fire and police departments,
health and building code officials, elected officials, and various county and
state officials
(3) Your employees
(4) Special interest groups including environmental organizations, chambers of
commerce, unions, and various civic organizations
(5) Journalists, reporters, and other media representatives
(6) Medical professionals, educators, consultants, neighboring companies and
others with special expertise or interests
In general, people will be concerned about accident risks at your facility, how you
manage the risks, and potential impacts of an accident on health, safety, property,
natural resources, community infrastructure, community image, property values, and
other matters. Those individuals in the public and private sector who are responsible
for dealing with these impacts and the associated risks also will have an interest in
working with you to address these risks.
WHAT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FACILITY is AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC?
Even though the non-confidential information you provide in your RMP is available to
the public, it is likely that people will want additional information. Interested parties
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public 11-4
will know that you retain additional information at your facility (e.g., documentation
of the results of the offsite consequence analysis reported in your RMP) and are
required to make it available to EPA or its implementing agency during inspections or
compliance audits. Therefore, they may request such information. EPA encourages
you to provide public access to this information. If EPA or its implementing agency
were to request this information, it would be available to the public under section
114(c)oftheCAA.
The public may also be interested in other information relevant to risk management at
your facility, such as:
4- Submissions under sections 302,304, 311-312, and 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) reporting on chemical
storage and releases, as well as the community emergency response plan
prepared under EPCRA section 303
4- Other reports on hazardous materials made, used, generated, stored, spilled,
s released and transported, that you submitted to federal, state, and local
agencies
4- Reports on workplace safety and accidents developed under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act that you provide to employees, who may choose to
make the information publicly available, such as medical and exposure
records, chemical data sheets, and training materials
4- Any other information you have provided to public agencies that can be
accessed by members of the public under the federal Freedom of Information
Act and similar state laws (and that may have been made widely available
over the Internet)
i 4- Any published materials on facility safety (either industry- or site-specific),
such as agency reports on facility accidents, safety engineering manuals and
textbooks, and professional journal articles on facility risk management, for
example
11.2 SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC
Smaller businesses may not have the resources or time to develop the types of
outreach programs, described later in this chapter, that many larger chemical
companies have used to handle public questions and community relations. For many
small businesses, communication with the public will usually occur when you are
asked questions about information in your RMP. It is important that you respond to
these questions constructively. Go beyond just answering questions; discuss what you
have done to prevent accidents and work with the community to reduce risks. The
people in your community will be looking to you to provide answers.
To help you establish a productive dialogue with the community, the rest of this
« section presents questions you are likely to be asked and a framework for answering
them. These are elements of the public dialogue that you may anticipate. The person
27,1999
-------
Chapter 11
11-5 Communication with the Public
from your facility designated as responsible for communicating with the public should
review the following and talk to other community organizations to determine which
questions are most likely to be raised and identify other foreseeable issues. Remember
that others in the community, notably LEPCs and other emergency management
organizations are also likely to be asked these and other similar questions. You should
consider the unique features of your facility, your RMP, and your historical
relationship with the community (e.g., prior accidents, breakdowns in the coordination
of emergency response efforts, and management-labor disputes), and work together
with these other organizations to answer these questions for your situation and to
resolve the issues associated with them.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public
11-6
WHAT DOES YOUR WORST-CASE RELEASE DISTANCE MEAN?
The distance is intended to provide an estimate of the maximum possible area that might be affected
under catastrophic conditions. It is intended to ensure that no potential risks to public health are
overlooked, but the distance to an endpoint estimated under worst-case conditions should not be
considered a "public danger zone,"
In most cases, the mathematical models used to analyze the worst-case release scenario as defined in
the rule may overestimate the area that would be impacted by a release. In other cases, the models
may underestimate the area. For distances greater than approximately six miles, the results of toxic
gas dispersion models are especially uncertain, and you should be prepared to discuss such
possibilities in an open, honest manner.
Reasons that modeling may underestimate the distance generally relate to the inability of some
models to account for site-specific factors that might tend to increase the actual endpoint distance.
For example, assume a facility is located in a river valley and handles dense toxic gases such as
chlorine. If a release were to occur, the river valley could channel the toxic cloud much farther than it
might travel if it were to disperse in a location with generally flat terrain. In such cases, the actual
endpoint distance might be longer man that predicted using generic lookup tables.
Reasons that the area may be overestimated include:
» For toxics, the weather conditions (very low wind speed, calm conditions) assumed for a
worst-case release scenario are uncommon and probably would not last as long as the time
the release would take to travel the distance estimated. If weather conditions are different,
the distance would be much shorter.
• For flammables, although explosions can occur, a release of a flammable is more likely to
disperse harmlessly or bum. If an explosion does occur, however, this area could be affected
by the blast; debris from the blast could affect an even broader area.
• In general, some models cannot take into account other site-specific factors that might tend to
disperse the chemicals more quickly and limit the distance.
Note: When estimating worst case release distances, the rule does not allow facilities to take into
account active mitigation systems and practices that could limit the scope of a release. Specific
systems (e.g., monitoring, detection, control, pressure relief, alarms, mitigation) may limit a release or
prevent the failure from occurring. Also, if you are required to analyze alternative release scenarios
(i.e., if your facility is in Program 2 or Program 3), these scenarios are generally more realistic than
the worst case, and you can offer to provide additional information on those scenarios.
January 27,1999
-------
11-7
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public
WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT WE COULD BE EXPOSED IF WE LIVE/WORK/SHOP/GO TO SCHOOL
X MILES AWAY?
(For an accident involving a flammable substance):
The distance means that people who are in that area around the facility could be hurt if the contents of
a tank or other vessel exploded. The blast of the explosion could shatter windows and damage
buildings. Injuries would be the result of the force of the explosion and of flying glass or falling
debris.
(For an accident involving a toxic substance):
The distance is based on a concentration of the chemical that you could be exposed to for an hour
without suffering irreversible health effects or other symptoms that would make it difficult for you to
escape. If you are within that distance, you could be exposed to a greater concentration of the
chemical. If you were exposed to higher levels for an extended period of time (10 minutes, 30
minutes, or longer), you could be seriously hurt. However, that does not mean that you would be.
Remember, for worst case scenarios, the rule requires you to make certain conservative assumptions
with respect to, for example, wind speed and atmospheric stability. If the wind speed is higher than
that used in the modeling, or if the atmosphere is more unstable, a chemical release would be
dispersed more quickly, and the distances would be much smaller and the exposure times would be
shorter. If the question pertains to an alternative release scenario, you probably assumed typical
weather conditions in the modeling. Therefore, the actual impact distance could be shorter or longer,
and you should be prepared to acknowledge this and clearly explain how you chose the conditions for
your release scenario.
In general, the possibility of harm depends on the concentration of the chemical you are exposed to
and the length of time you are exposed.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public
11-8
IF THERE IS AN ACCIDENT, WILL EVERYONE WITHIN THAT DISTANCE BE HURT? WHAT
ABOUT PROPERTY DAMAGE?
In genera], no. For an explosion, everyone within the circle would certainly feel the blast wave since
it would move in all directions at once. However, while some people within the circle could be hurt, it
is unlikely that everyone would be since some people would probably be in less vulnerable locations.
Most injuries would probably be due to the effects of flying glass, falling debris, or impact with
nearby objects.
Two types of chemicals may be modeled -— toxics and flammables. Releases of flammables do not
usually lead to explosions; released flammables are more likely to disperse without igniting. If the
released flammable does ignite, a fire is more likely than an explosion, and fires are usually
concentrated at the facility.
For toxic chemicals, whether someone is hurt by a release depends on many factors. First, the released
chemicals would usually move in the direction of the wind (except for some dense gases, which may
be constrained by terrain features to flow in a different direction). Generally, only people downwind
from the facility would be at risk of exposure if a release occurred, and this is normally only a part of
the population inside the circle. If the wind speed is moderate, the chemicals would disperse quickly,
and people would be exposed to lower levels of the chemical. If the release is stopped quickly, they
might be exposed for a very short period time, which is less likely to cause injury. However, if the
wind speed is low or the release continues for a long time, exposure levels will be higher and more
dangerous. The population at risk would be a larger proportion of the total population inside the
circle. You should be prepared to discuss both possibilities.
Generally, it is the people who are closest to the facility •
face the greatest danger if an accident occurred.
• within a half mile or less — who would
Damage to property and the environment will depend on the type of chemical released. In an
explosion, environmental impacts and property damage may extend beyond the distance at which
injuries could occur. For a vapor release, environmental effects and property damage may occur as a
result of the reactivity or corrosivity of the chemical or toxic contamination.
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 11
11-9 Communication with the Public
How SURE ARE You OF YOUR DISTANCES?
Perhaps the largest single difficulty associated with hazard assessment is that different models and
modeling assumptions will yield somewhat different results. There is no one model or set of
assumptions that will yield "certain" results. Models represent scientists* best efforts to account for all
the variables involved in an accidental release. While all models are generally based on the same
physical principles, dispersion modeling is not an exact science due to the limited opportunity for real-
world validation of results. No model is perfect, and every model represents a somewhat different
analytical approach. As a result, for a given scenario, people can use different consequence models
and obtain predictions of the distance to the toxic endpoint that in some situations might vary by a
factor of ten. Even using the same model, different input assumptions can cause wide variations in the
predictions. It follows that, when you present a single predicted value as your best estimate of the
predicted distance, others will be able to claim that the answer ought to be different, perhaps greater,
perhaps smaller, depending on the assumptions used in modeling and the choice of model itself.
You, therefore, need to recognize that your predicted distance lies within a considerable band of
uncertainty, and to communicate this fact to those who have an interest in your results. A neighboring
facility handling the same covered substances as you do may have come up with a different result for
the same scenario for these reasons.
If you use this guidance document or EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance, you will
be able to address the issue of uncertainty by stating that the results you have generated are
conservative (that is they are likely to overestimate distances). However, if you use other models, you
will have to provide your own assessment of where your specific prediction lies within the plausible
range of uncertainties.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PREVENT RELEASES?
If you have rigorously implemented your risk management program, this question will be your chance,
if you have not already done so, to tell the community about your prevention activities, the safe design
features of your operations, the specific activities that you are performing such as training, operating
procedures, maintenance, etc., and any industry codes or standards you use to operate safely. If you
have installed new equipment or safety systems, upgraded training, or had outside experts review your
site for safety (e.g., insurance inspectors), you could offer to share the results. You may also want to
mention state or federal rules you comply with.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public
11-10
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PREPARE FOR RELEASES?
For such questions, you will need to talk about any coordination that you have done with the local fire
department, LBPC, or mutual aid groups. Such coordination may include activities such as defining
an incident command structure, developing notification protocols, conducting response training and
exercises, developing mutual aid agreements, and evaluating public alert systems. This description is
particularly important if your employees are not designated or trained to respond to releases of
regulated substances.
If your employees will be involved in a response, you should describe your emergency response plan
and the emergency response resources available at the facility (e.g., equipment, personnel), as well as
through response contractors, if appropriate. You also may want to indicate the types of events for
which such resources are applicable. Finally, indicate your schedule for internal emergency response
training and drills and exercises and discuss the results of the latest relevant drill or exercise, including
problems found and actions taken to address them.
WHY ARE YOUR DISTANCES DIFFERENT FROM THE DISTANCES IN THE EPA LOOKUP TABLES? •
If you did your own modeling, this question may come up. You should be ready to explain in a
general way how your model works and why it produces different results. EPA allows using other
models (as long as certain parameters and conditions specified by the rule are met) because it realizes
that EPA lookup table results will not necessarily reflect all site-specific conditions.
In addition, although all models are generally based on the same physical principles, dispersion
modeling is not an exact science due to the limited opportunity for real-world validation of the results.
Thus, the method by which different models combine the basic factors such as wind speed and
atmospheric stability can result in distances that readily vary by a factor of two (e.g., five miles versus
ten miles). The introduction of site-specific factors can produce additional differences.
EPA recognizes that different models will produce differing predictions of the distance to an endpoint,
especially for releases of toxic substances. The Agency has provided a discussion of the uncertainties
associated with the model it has adopted for the OCA Guidance. You need to understand that the
distances produced by another model lie within a band of uncertainty and be able to demonstrate and
communicate this fact to those who are reviewing your results.
January 27,1999
-------
11-11
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public
HOW LIKELY ARE THE WORST-CASE AND ALTERNATIVE RELEASE SCENARIOS?
It is generally not possible to provide accurate numerical estimates of how likely these scenarios are,
EPA has stated that providing such numbers for accident scenarios rarely is feasible because the data
needed (e.g., on rates for equipment failure and human error) are not usually available. Even when
data are available, there are large uncertainties in applying the data because each facility's situation is
unique.
If your worst-case scenario is the loss of a storage tank, the risk of the worst-case scenario is generally
low. Although catastrophic vessel failures have occurred, they are rare events. Combining them with
worst-case weather conditions makes the overall scenario even less likely. This does not mean that
such events cannot or will not happen, however. If your worst-case scenario is the loss of a single 55-
gallon barrel or similar container, the scenario is more likely.
For the alternative scenario, the likelihood of the release is greater and will depend, in part, on the
scenario you chose. If ypu selected a scenario based on your accident history or industry accident
history, you should explain this to the public. You should also discuss' any steps you are taking to
prevent such an accident from recurring.
IS THE WORST-CASE RELEASE YOU REPORTED REALL Y THE WORST ACCIDENT YOU CAN HA VE?
The answer to this question will depend on the type of facility you have and how you handle
chemicals. EPA defined a specific scenario (failure of the singlelargest vessel) to provide a common
basis of comparison among facilities nationwide. So, if you have only one large storage vessel, EPA's
worst case is likely to be the worst event you could have.
On the other hand, if you have a process which involves multiple co-located or interconnected vessels,
it is possible that you could have an accident more severe than EPA's worst-case scenario. If credible
scenarios exist that could be more serious (in terms of quantities released or consequences) than the
EPA worst case scenario, you should be ready to discuss them. For example, if you store chemicals in
small containers such as 55-gallon drams, the EPA-defmed worst-case release scenario may involve a
limited quantity, but a fire or explosion at the facility could release larger quantities if multiple
containers are involved. In this case, you should be ready to frankly discuss such a scenario with the
public. If you take precautions to prevent such scenarios from occurring, you should explain these
precautions also. If an accidental release is more likely to involve multiple drums than a single dram
as a result, for example, of the drums being stored closely together, then you must select such a
scenario as your alternative release scenario so that information on this scenario is available in your
RMP.
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public
11-12
WHA TABOUT THE ACCIDENT A T THE [NAME OF SIMILAR FACILITY] THA T HAPPENED LAST MONTH?
This question highlights an important point: you need to be aware of events in your industry (e.g.,
accidents, new safety measures) for two reasons. First, your performance likely will be compared to
that of your competitors. Second, learning about the circumstances and causes of accidents at other
facilities like yours can help you prevent such accidents from occurring at your facility.
You should be familiar with accidents that happen at facilities similar to yours, and you should have
evaluated whether your facility is at risk for similar accidents. You should take the appropriate
measures to prevent the accident from occurring and be prepared to describe these actions. If your
facility has experienced a similar release in the past, this information may be documented in your
accident history or other publicly available records, depending on the date and nature of the incident,
the quantity released, and other factors. If you have already taken steps specifically designed to
address this type of accident, whether as a result of this accident, a prior accident at your facility, or
other internal decision-making, you should describe these efforts. If, based on your evaluation, you
determine that the accident could not occur at your facility, you should discuss the pertinent
differences between the two facilities and explain why you believe those differences should prevent
the accident from occurring at your facility.
WHAT ACTIONS HAVE YOU TAKEN TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN YOUR ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND
EMERGENCYPLANNINGEFFORTS?
If you have not actively involved the community in accident prevention and emergency planning in the
past, you should acknowledge this as an area where you could improve and start doing so as you
develop your risk management program. First, you may want to begin participating in the LEPC,
SERC, and regional mutual aid organizations if you aren't doing so already. Other opportunities for
community involvement are fire safety coordination activities with the local fire department, joint
training and exercises with local public and private sector response personnel, the establishment of
green fields between the facility and the community, and similar efforts.
When discussing accident prevention and emergency planning with the community, you should
indicate any national programs in which you participate, such as the Chemical Manufacturers
Association's Responsible Care program or Community Awareness and Emergency Response
program or OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program. If fully implemented, these programs can help
improve the safety of the facility and the community. You may have future plans to participate in
areas described previously or have new initiatives associated with the risk management program. Be
sure you ask what else the community would like you to do and explain how you will do it.
J«nuaiy27,1999
-------
Chapter 11
11-13 Communication with the Public
CAN WE SEE THE DOCUMENTATION YOU KEEP ON SITE?
If the requested information is not confidential business information, EPA encourages you to make it
available to the public. Although you are not required to provide this information to the public,
refusing to provide it simply because you are not compelled to is not the best approach. If you decide
not to provide any or most of this material, you should have good reasons for not doing so and be
prepared to explain these reasons to the public. Simply taking a defensive position or referring to the
extent of your legal obligations is likely to threaten the effectiveness of your interaction with the
community. Offer as much information as possible to the public; if particular documents would reveal
proprietary information, try to provide a redacted copy, summary, or some other form that answers the
community's concerns. You may want to work with your LEPC on this issue. You should also be
aware that information that EPA or the implementing agency obtains as part of an inspection or
investigation conducted under section 114 of the Clean Air Act would be available to the public under
section 114(c) of the Act to the extent it does not reveal confidential business information.
11.3 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES AND TECHNIQUES
Although this section is most applicable to larger companies, small businesses may
want to review it and use some of the ideas to expand their communications with the
public. To prepare for effective communication with the community, you should:
(1) Adopt an organizational policy that includes basic risk communication
principles (see exhibit 11-1)
(2) Assign responsibilities and resources to implement the policy
(3) Plan to use "best communication practices"
ADOPT AN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS POLICY
An organizational policy will support communication with the public on your RMP
and make it an integral part of management practices. "Otherwise, breakdowns are
' likely to occur, which could cause mistrust, hostility and conflicts.
A policy helps to establish communication as a normal organizational function and to
present it as an opportunity rather than a burden or threat. The policy can be
incorporated in an organization's policies, an approach taken by many companies who
belong to the Responsible Care program of the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA). These companies have adopted CMA's Codes of Management Practices,
which contain risk communication principles and practices.
Remember that what you communicate is more important than the type of
communication policy or program you use, and what you actually do to maintain a
safe facility is more important than anything you say. Your company's safety and
January 27, 1999
-------
apter 11
Communication with the Public 11-14
prevention steps in your risk management program should serve as the core elements
of any risk communication program.
ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES
A policy is only a paper promise until it is regularly and effectively implemented.
Thus, you should follow up your communication policy by (1) having top
management participate at the outset and at key points throughout the communication
process, and (2) assigning communication responsibilities within your organization
and providing the necessary resources.
Experience has demonstrated that assigning responsibility to knowledgeable
managers, plant engineers, and staff and encouraging participation by employees,
(most of whom are likely to be community residents) is a good communications
practice. Delegating communication functions to outside technical consultants,
attorneys, and public relations specialists has repeatedly failed to impress the
community and even tends to incur mistrust. (However, if you hired a firm with
acknowledged expertise in dispersion modeling, you may want them on hand to help
respond to technical questions.)
Communications staff will need Work time and resources to prepare presentation
materials, hold meetings with interested persons in the community, and do other work
necessary to respond to questions and concerns and maintain ongoing dialogue. A
training program in communication skills and incentives for good performance also
may be advisable.
Organizations have a legitimate interest in preventing disclosure of confidential
business information or statements that inadvertently and unfairly harm the
organization or its employees. Thus, you should assure that your risk communication
staff is instructed on how to deal with situations that pose these problems. This may
mean that you have an internal procedure enabling your staff to bring such situations
to iop management and legal counsel for quick resolution, keeping in mind that
unduly defensive or legalistic responses that result in restricting the amount of
information that is provided can damage or destroy the risk communication process.
Your communication staff may find the following steps helpful in addressing the
priority issues in the communication process:
Prior to RMP Submittal
i
+ Enlist employee support for, and involvement in, the communication process
*
4- Build on work you have done with your LEPC, fire department, and local
officials, and gain their insights
.1 it
4- Incorporate technical expertise, management commitment, and employee
involvement in the risk communication process
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 11
11-15 Communication with the Public
4- Use your RMFs executive summary to begin the dialogue with the
community; be sure you have taken all of the steps you present
4- Taking a community perspective, identify which data elements need to be
clarified, interpreted, or amplified, and which are most likely to raise
, " community concerns; then compile the information needed to respond and
determine the most understandable methods (e.g., use of graphics) for
presenting the information
At Submittal
4- Review the RMP to assure that you are familiar with its data elements and
how they were developed. In particular, review the hazard assessment,
prevention, and response program features, as well as documentation of the
methods, data, and assumptions used, especially if an outside consultant
performed the analyses and developed these materials. You have certified
their accuracy and your spokesperson should know them intimately, as they
reflect your plan
4- Review your performance in implementing the prevention and response
programs and prepare to discuss problems identified and actions taken
4- Review your performance in investigating accidents and prepare to discuss
any corrective actions that followed
Other Steps
4- Identify the most likely concerns about risks identified in the RMP but not
fully addressed, consult with management and safety engineering, and
determine additional measures the organization will take to resolve these
concerns
4- Avoid misrepresentations and minimize the roles of public relations
specialists
4- Identify "best communication practices" (as described in the next section) and
plan how to use them
USE "BEST COMMUNICATION PRACTICES"
Many facilities already have gained considerable experience in communicating with
the public. Lessons from their experiences are described below. However, the value
of these best practices and your credibility will depend on your facility's possession
and ongoing demonstration of certain essential qualities:
4- Top management commitment (e.g., owner and facility manager) to
improving safety
4- Honesty, openness, and concern for the community
January 27, 1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public 11-16
Respect for public concerns and perceptions
\
Commitment to maintaining a dialogue with all sectors of the community, to
learning from this dialogue, and to being prepared to change your practices to
make vour facility more safe
make your facility more safe
4- Commitment to continuous improvement through internal procedures for
evaluating incidents and promoting organizational learning
4- Knowledge of safety issues and safety management methods
4- Good working relationships with the LEPC, fire department, and other local
officials
1
4- Active support for the LEPC and related activities
I ; ,1 K
4- Employee support and commitment
4- Continuation of commitment despite potential public hostility or mistrust
Another note: Because each facility and community involves a unique combination of
factors, the practices used to achieve good risk communication in one case do not
necessarily ensure the same quality result when used in another case. Therefore, while
it is advisable for you to review such experience to identify "best communication
practices," you should carefully evaluate such practices to determine if they can be
adapted to fit your unique circumstances. For example, if your facility is in the middle
of an urban area, you probably will use different approaches than you would use if it
were located in an industrial area far from any residential populations. These
practices are complementary approaches to delivering your risk management message
and responding to the concerns of the community.
With these cautions in mind, a number of "best" practices are outlined below for
consideration. First, you will want to establish formal channels for
information-sharing and communication with stakeholders. The most basic
approaches include:
4- Convene public meetings for discussion and dialogue regarding your risk
management program and RMP and take steps to have the facility owner or
manager and all sectors of the community participate, including minorities
and low-income residents
4- Arrange meetings with local media representatives to facilitate their
understanding of your risk management program and the program summary
presented in your RMP
:, !, ! ' l-
4- Establish a repository of information on safety matters for the LEPC and the
public and, if electronic, provide software for public use. Some organizations
also have provided computer terminals for public use in the community
library or fire department
,1999
-------
, , . Chapter II
11-17 • Communication with the Public
Other, more resource-intensive activities of this type to consider include:
4- Create and convene focus groups (small working groups) to facilitate dialogue
and action on specific concerns, including technical matters, and take steps to
assure that membership in each group reflects a cross section of the
community and includes technically trained persons (e.g., engineers, medical
professionals)
4" Hold seminars on hypothetical release scenarios, prevention and response
programs, applicable standards and industry practices, analytic methods and
models (e.g., on dispersion of airborne releases, health effects of airborne
concentrations), and other matters of special concern or complexity
4- Convene special meetings to foster dialogue and collaborations with the
LEPC and the fire department and to establish a mutual assistance network
with other facility managers in the community or region
4- Establish hot lines for telephone and e-mail communications between
interested parties and your designated risk communication staff and, if
feasible, a web site for posting useful information
In all of these efforts, remember to use plain language and commonly understood
terms; avoid the use of acronyms and technical and legal jargon. In addition,
depending on your audience, keep in mind that the preparation of multilingual
materials may be useful or even necessary.
Secondly, you may want to initiate or expand programs that more directly involve the
community in your operations and safety programs.' Traditional approaches include:
4- Arrange facility tours so that members of the public can view operations and
discuss safety procedures with supervisors and employees
4- Schedule drills and simulations of incidents to demonstrate how prevention
and response programs work, with participation by community responders and
other organizations (e.g., neighboring companies)
4- Conduct a "Safety Street" - a community forum generally sponsored by
several industries in a locality, where your representatives present facility
safety information, explain risks, and respond to public questions (see Section
11.4 for a reference to more information on this program)
4- Periodically reaffirm and demonstrate your commitment to safety in
accordance with and beyond regulatory requirements and present data on your
safety performance, using appropriate benchmarks or measures, in newsletters
and by posting the information at your web site
4- Publicly honor and reward managers and employees who have performed
safety responsibilities in superior fashion and citizens who have made
important contributions to the dialogue on safety
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 11
Communication with the Public 11-18
|f community interest is significant, you may also want to consider the following
activities:
1 s,
4- Invite public participation in monitoring implementation of your risk
management program elements
4- Invite public participation in auditing your performance in safety
responsibilities, such as chemical handling and tracking procedures and
analysis and follow-up on accidents and near misses
4- Organize a committee comprised of representatives from the facility, other
industry, emergency planning and response organizations, and community
groups arid chaired by a community leader to independently evaluate your
safety and communication efforts (e.g., a Community Advisory Panel). You
may also want to finance the committee to pay for an independent engineering
, consultant to assist with technical issues and learn what can be done to
improve safety, and thereby share control with the community
Your communication staff should review these examples, consider designing their
own activities as well as joint efforts with other local organizations, and ultimately
decide with the community on which set of practices are feasible and can best create a
healthy risk communication process in your community. Once these decisions are
made, you may want to integrate the chosen set of practices in an overall
communication program for your facility, transform some into standard procedures,
and monitor and evaluate them for continuous improvement.
OTHER COMMUNICATION OPPORTUNITIES
By complying with the RMP rule and participating in the communications process
vVith the community, you should have developed a comprehensive system for
preventing, mitigating, and responding to chemical accidents at your facility. Why not
share this knowledge with your staff, others you do business with (e.g., customers,
distributors, contractors), and, perhaps through industry groups, others in your
industry? If you transfer this knowledge to others, you can help improve their
chemical safety management capabilities, enhance public safety beyond your
community, and possibly gain economic benefits for your organization.
11.4 FOR MORE INFORMATION
Among the numerous publications on risk communication, the following may be
particularly helpful:
4- Improving Risk Communication, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
1989
4- "Safety Street" and other materials on the Kanawha Valley Demonstration
Program, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA
January 27,1999
-------
Chapter 11
11-19 Communication with the Public
Community Awareness and Emergency Response Code of Management
Practices and various Guidance, Chemical Manufacturers Association,
Arlington, VA
Communicating Risks to the Public, R. Kasperson and P. Stallen, eds.,
Kluwer Publishing Co., 1991
"Challenges in Risk and Safety Communication with the Public," S. Maher,
Risk Management Professionals, Mission Viejo, CA, April 1996
Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practices, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, on the World Wide Web at
atsdrl .atsdr.cdc.gov:8080
Risk Communication about Chemicals in Your Community: A Manual for
Local Officials, US Environmental, Protection Agency, EPA
EPCRA/Superfund/RCRA/CAA Hotline
Risk Communication about Chemicals in Your Community: Facilitator's
Manual and Guide, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
EPCRA/Superfund/RCRA/CAA Hotline
Chemicals, the Press, and the Public: A Journalist's Guide to Reporting on
Chemicals in the Community, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
EPCRA/Superfund/RCRA/CAA Hotline
January 27,1999
-------
Appendix A
40 CFR part 68
-------
Appendix A
40 CFR part 68
-------
PL 67, App. A
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
local agent, any noncompliance pen-
alties owed by the source owner or op-
erator shall be paid to the State or
local agent.
APPENDIX A TO PART 67—TECHNICAL
SUPPORT DOCUMENT
NOTE EPA will make copies of appendix A
available from: Director, Stationary Source
Compliance Division. EN-341. 401 M Street,
SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
154 FR 25Z59, June 20. 1989]
APPENDIX B TO PART 67—INSTRUCTION
' MANUAL
NOTE: EPA will make copies of appendix B
available from: Director. Stationary Source
Compliance Division. EN-341. 401 M Street.
SW., Washington. DC 20460.
154 FR 25259. June 20, 1983J
APPENDIX C TO PART 67—COMPUTER
PROGRAM
NOTE: EPA will make copies of appendix C
available from: Director, Stationary Source
Compliance Division. EN-341. 401 M Street.
SW., Washington. DC 20460.
! I JI
154 FR 25259, June 20, 1383}
PART 68—CHEMICAL ACCIDENT
PREVENTION PROVISIONS
Subpart A—General
Sec.
68J Scope.
68.2 Stayed provisions.
68.3 Definitions.
68,10 Applicability.
68.12 General requirements
68.15 Management.
1 -:
Subpart B—Hazard Assessment
68.20 Applicability.
63,22 OfTsite consequence analysis param-
eters,
68,25 Worst-case release scenario analysis
68.2$ Alternative release scenario analysis.
68.30 Defining offsite impacts—population
68.33 Defining offsite impacts—environ-
ment.
6S.3S Review and update.
68.39 Documentation.
68.42 Five-year accident history.
Subpart C—Program 2 Prevention Program
68.48 Safety information.
68,50 Hazard review.
68,52 Operating procedures.
68.54 Training.
68.56 Maintenance.
68.58 Compliance audits.
68.60 Incident investigation.
Subpart D—Program 3 Prevention Program
68.65 Process safety information.
68.67 Process hazard analysis
68 69 Operating procedures.
68 71 Training.
68 73 Mechanical integrity.
68.75 Management of change.
68 77 Pre-startup review.
68.79 Compliance audits
68.81 Incident investigation.
68.83 Employee participation.
68.85 Hot work permit.
68.87 Contractors.
Subpart E—Emergency Response
68.90 Applicability
68.95 Emergency response program.
Subpart F—Regulated Substances for
Accidental Release Prevention
68.100 Purpose.
68 115 Threshold determination.
68 120 Petition process.
88.125 Exemptions
68.130 List of substances.
Subpart G—Risk Management Plan
68.150 Submission.
68.155 Executive summary.
68.160 Registration.
68 165 Offsite consequence analysis.
68.168 Five-year accident history.
68,170 Prevention program/Program 2.
68.175 Prevention program/Program 3.
68 180 Emergency response program
. 68.185 Certification
68.190 Updates.
Subpart H—Other Requirements
68.200 Recordkeepmg
68.210 Availability of Information to the
public.
68 215 Permit content and air permitting
authority or designated agency require-
ments
68.220 Audits.
APPENDIX A TO PART 68—TABLE OF TOXIC
ENDPOINTS
AUTHORITY 42 U.S.C. 74i2(r), 7601 (a)(i).
7661-7661f.
SOURCE' 59 FR 4493. Jan 31. 1984, unless
otherwise noted
36
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.2
Subpart A—General
§68.1 Scope,
This part sets forth the list of regu-
lated substances and thresholds, the
petition process for-adding or deleting
substances to the list of regulated sub-
stances, the requirements for owners or
operators of stationary sources con-
cerning the prevention of accidental
releases, and the State accidental re-
lease prevention programs approved
under section 112(r). The list of sub-
stances, threshold quantities, and acci-
dent prevention regulations promul-
gated under this part do not limit in
any way the general duty provisions
under section 112(r)(l).
§ 68.2 Stayed provisions.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this part, the effectiveness of
the following provisions is stayed from
March 2, 1994 to December 22, 1997.
(1) In Sec. 68.3, the definition of "sta-
tionary . source," to the extent that
such definition includes naturally oc-
curring hydrocarbon reservoirs or
transportation subject to oversight or
regulation under a state natural gas or
hazardous liquid program for which the
state has in effect a certification to
DOT under 49 U:S.C. 60105;
(2) Section 68.115(b)(2) of this part, to
the extent that such provision requires
an owner or operator to treat as a regu-
lated flammable substance:
- (i) Gasoline, when in distribution or
related storage for use as fuel for inter-
nal combustion engines;
(ii) Naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures prior to entry into a petro-
leum refining process unit or a natural
gas processing plant Naturally occur-
ring hydrocarbon mixtures include any
of the following, condensate, crude^oil,
field gas, and produced water,, each as
defined in paragraph (b) of this section;
(iii) Other mixtures that contain a
regulated flammable substance and
that do not have a National Fire Pro-
tection Association flammabihty haz-
ard rating of 4, the definition of which
is in the NFPA 704, Standard System
for the Identification of the Fire Haz-
ards of Materials, National Fire Pro-
tection Association, Quincy, MA. 1990,
available from the National Fire Pro-
tection Association, 1 Batterymareh
Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101; and
(3) Section 68.130(a).
(b) From March 2, 1994 to December
22, 1997, the following definitions shall
apply to the stayed provisions de-
scribed in paragraph (a) of this section:
Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid
separated from natural gas that con-
denses because of changes in tempera-
ture, pressure, or both, and remains
liquid at standard conditions.
Crude oil means" any naturally occur-
ring, unrefined petroleum liquid.
Field gas means gas extracted from a
production well before the gas enters a
natural gas processing plant.
Natural gas processing plant means
any processing site engaged in the ex-
traction of natural gas liquids from
field gas, fractionation of natural gas
liquids to natural gas products, or
both. A separator, dehydration unit,
heater treater, sweetening unit, com-
pressor, or similar equipment shall not
be considered a "processing site" un-
less such equipment is physically lo-
cated within a natural gas processing
plant (gas plant) site.
Petroleum refining process unit means
a process unit used in an establishment
primarily engaged in petroleum refin-
ing as defined in the Standard Indus-
trial Classification code for petroleum
refining (2911) and used for the follow-
ing: Producing transportation fuels
(such as gasoline, diesel fuels, and jet
fuels), heating fuels (such as kerosene,
fuel gas distillate, and fuel oils), or lu-
bricants; separating petroleum; or sep-
arating, cracking, reacting, or reform-
ing intermediate petroleum streams.
Examples of such units include, but are
not limited to, petroleum based solvent
units, alkylation units, catalytic
hydrotreating. catalytic hydrorefimng,
catalytic hydrocracking, catalytic re-
forming, catalytic cracking, crude dis-
tillation, lube oil processing, hydrogen
production, isomerization, polymeriza-
tion, thermal processes, and blending,
sweetening, and treating processes. Pe-
troleum refining process units include
sulfur plants.
Produced water means water ex-
tracted from the earth from an oil or
natural gas production well, or that is
37
-------
§68.3
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
separated from oil or natural gas after
extraction.
[59 FR 4493, Jan. 31, 1994, as amended at 61
FR 31731, June 20, 199i]
§68.3 Definitions.
Par the purposes of this part:
Accidental release means an unantici-
pated emission of a regulated sub-
stance or other extremely hazardous
substance into the ambient air from a
stationary source.
Act means the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.)
I Administrative controls mean written
procedural mechanisms used for hazard
control.
Administrator means the adminis-
trator of the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
AIChE/CCPS means the American In-
stitute of Chemical Engineers/Center
for Chemical Process Safety,
API means the American Petroleum
Institute.
Article means a manufactured item,
as defined under 29 CFR 1910,1200(b),
that is formed to a specific shape or de-
sign during manufacture, that has end
use functions dependent in whole or in
part upon the shape or design during
end use, and that does not release or
otherwise result in exposure to a regu-
lated substance under normal condi-
tions of processing and use.
ASME means the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers.
CAS means the Chemical Abstracts
Service.
Catastrophic release means a major
uncontrolled emission, fire, or explo-
sion, involving one or more regulated
substances that presents imminent and
substantial endangerment to public
health and the environment.
II Classified information means, "classi-
fied information" as defined in the
Classified Information Procedures Act,
18 U.S.C. App. 3, section l(a) as "any
information or material that has been
determined by the United States Gov-
ernment pursuant to an executive
order, statute, or regulation, to require
protection against unauthorized disclo-
sure for reasons of national security."
Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid
separated from natural gas that con-
denses due to changes in temperature,
pressure, or both, and remains liquid at
standard conditions.
Covered process means a process that
has a regulated substance present in
more than a threshold quantity as de-
termined under §68.115.
Crude oil means any naturally occur-
ring, unrefined petroleum liquid.
Designated agency means the state,
local, or Federal agency designated by
the state under the provisions of
§68.215(d) .
DOT means the United States De-
partment of Transportation.
Environmental receptor means natural
areas such as national or state parks,
forests, or monuments; officially des-
ignated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves,
refuges, or areas; and Federal wilder-
ness areas, that could be exposed at
any time to toxic concentrations, radi-
ant heat, or overpressure greater than
or equal to the endpomts provided in
§68.22(a) , as a result of an accidental
release and that can be identified on
local U. S. Geological Survey maps,
Field gas means gas extracted from a
production well before the gas enters a
natural gas processing plant
Hot work means work involving elec-
tric or gas welding, cutting, brazing, or
similar flame or spark-producing oper-
ations.
Implementing agency means the state
or local agency that obtains delegation
for an accidental release prevention
program under subpart E, 40 CFR part
63. The implementing agency may, but
is not required to, be the state or local
air permitting agency. If no state or
local agency is granted delegation,
EPA will be the implementing agency
for that state.
Injury means any effect on a human
that results either from direct expo-v
sure to toxic concentrations; radiant
heat; or overpressures "from accidental
releases or from the direct con-
sequences of a vapor cloud explosion
(such as flying glass, debris, and other
projectiles) from an accidental release
and that requires medical treatment or
hospitalization.
Major change means introduction of a
new process, process equipment, or reg-
ulated substance, an alteration of proc-
ess chemistry r that results in any
change to safe' operating limits, or
38
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.3
other alteration that introduces a new
hazard.
Mechanical integrity means the proc-
ess of ensuring that process equipment
is fabricated from the proper materials
of construction and is properly in-
stalled, maintained, and replaced to
prevent failures and accidental re-
leases.
Medical treatment means treatment,
other than first aid, administered by a
physician or registered professional
personnel under standing orders from a
physician.
Mitigation or mitigation system means
specific activities, technologies, or
equipment designed or deployed to cap-
ture 6r control substances upon loss of
containment to minimize exposure of
the public or the environment. Passive
mitigation means equipment, devices.
or technologies that function without
human, mechanical, or other energy
input. Active mitigation means equip-
ment, devices, or technologies that
need human, mechanical, or other en-
"ergy input to function
NFPA means the National Fire Pro-
tection Association
Natural gas processing plant (gas plant)
means any processing site engaged in
the extraction of natural gas liquids
from field gas, fractionation of mixed
natural gas liquids to natural gas prod-
ucts, or both, classified as North Amer-
ican Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) code 211112 (previously Stand-
ard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
1321).
Offsite means areas beyond the prop-
erty boundary of the stationary source,
and areas within the property bound-
ary to which the public has routine and
unrestricted access during or outside
business hours.
OSHA means the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.
Owner or operator means any person
who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises a stationary source
Petroleum refining process unit means
a process unit used in an establishment
primarily engaged in petroleum refin-
ing as defined'm NAICS code 32411 for
petroleum refining (formerly SIC code
2911) and used for the following. Pro-
ducing transportation fuels (such as
gasoline, diesel fuels, and jet fuels),
heating fuels -(such as kerosene, fuel
gas distillate, and fuel oils), or lubri-
cants; Separating petroleum; or Sepa-
rating, cracking, reacting, or reform-
ing intermediate petroleum streams.
Examples of such units include, but are
not limited to, petroleum based solvent
units, alkylation units, catalytic
hydrotreating, catalytic hydrorefining,
catalytic hydrocracking,. catalytic re-
forming, catalytic cracking, crude dis-
tillation, lube oil processing, hydrogen
production, isomerization, polymeriza-
tion, thermal processes, and blending,
sweetening, and treating processes. Pe-
troleum refining process units include
sulfur plants.
Population means the public.
Process means any activity involving
a regulated substance including any
use, storage, manufacturing, handling,
or on-site movement of such sub-
stances, or combination of these activi-
ties. For the purposes of this defini-
tion, any group of vessels that are
interconnected, or separate vessels
that are located such that a regulated
substance could be involved in a poten-
tial release, shall be considered a sin-
gle process.
Produced water means water ex-
tracted from the earth from an oil or
natural gas production well, or that is
separated from oil or natural gas after
extraction.
Public means any person except em-
ployees or contractors at the station-
ary source.
Public receptor means offsite resi-
dences, institutions (e g., schools, hos-
pitals), industrial, commercial, and of-
fice buildings, parks, or recreational
areas inhabited or occupied by the pub-
lic at any time without restriction by
the stationary source where members
of the public could be exposed to toxic
concentrations, radiant heat, or over-
pressure, as a result of an accidental
release.
Regulated substance is any substance
listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) of
the Clean Air Act as amended, in
§68.130.
Replacement in kind means a replace-
ment that satisfies the design speci-
fications
RMP means the risk management
plan required under, subpart G of this
part.
39
-------
§68.10
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
SfC means Standard Industrial Clas-
sification.
Stationary source means any build-
ings, structures, equipment, installa-
tions, or substance emitting stationary
activities which belong to the same in-
dustrial group, which are located on
one or more contiguous properties,
which are under the control of the
same person (or persons under common
control), and from which an accidental
release may occur. The term station-
ary source does not apply to transpor-
tation, including storage incident to
transportation, of any regulated sub-
stance or any other extremely hazard-
ous substance under the provisions of
this part. A stationary source includes
transportation containers used for
storage not incident to transportation
and transportation containers con-
nected to equipment at a stationary
source for loading or unloading. Trans-
portation includes, but is not limited
to, transportation subject to oversight
or regulation under 49 CFR parts 192,
193, or 195, or a state natural gas or
hazardous liquid program for which the
State has in effect a certification to
DOT under 49 U.S.t, section 60105. A
stationary source does not include nat-
urally occurring hydrocarbon res-
ervoirs. Properties shall not be consid-
ered contiguous solely because of a
railroad or pipeline right-of-way.
Threshold quantity means the quan-
tity specified for regulated substances
pursuant to section 112{r)(5) of the
Clean Air Act as amended, listed in
§68.130 and determined to be present at
a stationary source as specified in
§68.115 of this part.
Typical meteorological conditions
meansi the temperature, wind speed,
cloud cover, and atmospheric stability
class, prevailing at the site based on
data gathered at or near the site or
from a local meteorological station.
Vessel means any reactor, tank,
drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle,
boiler, pipe, hose, or other container
Worst-case release means the release
of the largest quantity of a regulated
substance from a vessel or process line
failure that results in the greatest dis-
tance to an endpoint defined in
§68.22(;a).
J59 FR 4493, Jan. 31. 1934, as amended at 61
FR 31717. June 20,1S9B; 63 FR 644, Jan 6, 1998)
§68.10 Applicability.
(a) An owner or operator of a station-
ary source that has more than a
threshold quantity of a regulated sub-
stance in a process, as determined
under §68.115, shall comply with the re-
quirements of this part no later than
the latest of the following dates:
(1) June 21, 1999;
(2) Three years after the date on
which a regulated substance is first
listed under §68.130; or
(3) The date on which a regulated
substance is first present above a
threshold quantity in a process.
(b) Program 1 eligibility require-
ments. A covered process is eligible for
Program 1 requirements as provided in
§68,12(b) if it meets all of the following
requirements:
(1) For the five years prior to the
submission of an RMP, the process has
not had an accidental release of a regu-
lated substance where exposure to the
substance, its reaction products, over-
pressure generated by an explosion in-
volving the substance, or radiant heat
generated by a fire involving the sub-
stance led to any of the following off-
site:
(i) Death;
(ii) Injury; or
(iii) Response or restoration activi-
ties for an exposure of an environ-
mental receptor;
(2) The distance to a toxic or flam-
mable endpoint for a worst-case release
assessment conducted under Subpart B
and §68,25 is less than the distance to
any public receptor, as defined in
§68.30; and
(3) Emergency response procedures
have been coordinated between the sta-
tionary source and local emergency
planning and response organizations.
(c) Program 2 eligibility require-
ments. A covered process is subject to
Program 2 requirements if it does not
meet the eligibility requirements of ei-
ther paragraph (b) or paragraph (d) of
this section.
(d) Program 3 eligibility require-
ments. A covered process is subject to
Program 3 if the process does not meet
the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section, and if either of the follow-
ing conditions is met:
40
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.12
, (1) The process is in SIC code 2611,
2812, 2819, 2821, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2879, or
2911; or
(2) The process is subject to the
OSHA process safety management
standard, 29 CFR 1910.119.
(e) If at any time a covered process
no longer meets the eligibility criteria
of its Program level, the owner or oper-
ator shall comply with the require-
ments of the new Program level that
applies to the process and update the
RMP as provided in §68.190
(!) The provisions of this part shall
not apply to an Outer Continental
Shelf ("OCS") source, as defined in 40
CFR 55.2.
[61 FR 31717, June ZO. 1996, as amended at 63
FR 645. Jan. 6. 19981
§68.12 General requirements.
(a) General requirements. The owner
or operator of a stationary source sub-
ject to this part shall submit a single
RMP, as provided in §§68.150 to 68.185.
The RMP shall include a registration
that reflects all covered processes.
(b) Program 1 requirements. In addi-
tion to meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator of a stationary source with
a process eligible for Program 1, as pro-
vided in §68.10(b), shall:
(1) Analyze the worst-case release
scenario for the process (es), as provided
in §68.25; document that the nearest
public receptor is beyond the distance
to a toxic or flammable endpoint de-
fined in §68.22(a); and submit in.the
RMP the worst-case release scenario as
provided in §68.165;
(2) Complete the five-year accident
history for the process as provided in
§68.42 of this part and submit" it in the
RMP as provided in §68.168;
(3) Ensure that response actions have
been coordinated with local emergency
planning and response agencies; and
(4) Certify in the RMP the following.
""Based on the criteria in 40 CFR 68.10,
the distance to the specified endpoint
"for the worst-case accidental release
scenario for the following process(es) is
less than the distance to the nearest
public receptor: [list process (es)]. With-
in the past five years, the process(es)
has (have) had no accidental release
that caused offsite impacts provided in
the risk management program rule (40
CFR 68.10(b)(l)). No additional meas-
ures are necessary to prevent offsite
impacts from accidental releases. In
the event of fire, explosion, or a release
of a regulated substance from the proc-
ess(es), entry within the distance to
the specified endpoints may pose a dan-
ger to public emergency responders.
Therefore, public • emergency respond-
ers should not enter this area except as
arranged with the emergency contact
indicated in the RMP, The undersigned
certifies that, to the best of my knowl-
edge, information, and belief, formed
after reasonable inquiry, the informa-
tion submitted is true, accurate, and ,
complete. [Signature, title, date
signed]."
(c) Program 2 requirements. In addi-
tion to meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator of a stationary source with
a process subject to Program 2, as pro-
vided in §68.10(c), shaE:
(1) Develop and implement a manage-
'ment system as provided in §68.15,
(2) Conduct a hazard assessment as
provided in §§68.20 through 68.42;
(3) Implement the Program 2 preven-
tion steps provided in §§68.48 through
68.60 or implement the Program 3 pre-
vention steps provided in §§68.65
through 68.87;
(4) Develop and implement an emer-
gency response program as provided in
§§68.90 to 68.95; and
(5) Submit as part of the RMP the
data on prevention program elements
for Program 2 processes as provided in
§68.170.
(d) Program 3 requirements In addi-
tion to meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator of a stationary source with
a process subject to Program 3, as pro-
vided in §68.10(d) shall:
(1) Develop and implement a manage-
ment system as provided in §68.15;
(2) Conduct a hazard assessment as
provided in §§68.20 through 68.42;
(3) Implement the prevention re-
quirements of §§68.65 through 68.87;
(4) Develop and implement an emer-
gency response program as provided in
§§68.90 to 68.95 of this part; and
(5) Submit as part of the RMP the
data on prevention program elements
41
-------
§68.15
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
for Program 3 processes as provided in
§68,175.
[61 FR 31718. June 20. 1936]
§68.15 Management.
(a) The owner or operator of a sta-
tionary source with processes subject
to Program 2 or Program 3 shall de-
velop a management system to oversee
the implementation of the risk man-
agement program elements.
(b) The owner or operator shall as-
sign a qualified person or position that
has the overall responsibility for the
development, implementation, and in-
tegration of the risk management pro-
gram elements.
(c) When responsibility for imple-
menting individual requirements of
this part is assigned to persons other
than the person identified under para-
graph (b) of this section, the names or
positions of these people shall be docu-
mented and the lines of authority de-
fined through an organization chart or
similar document. .
II 'III . I'1 I • i i' '
151 FR 31718. June 20. 1995]
i n ,
Subpart B — Hazard Assessment
. .SOURCE: 61 FR 31718, June 20, 1996. unless
otherwise noted.
§68.20 Applicability.
The owner or operator of a station-
ary source subject to this part shall
prepare a worst-case release scenario
analysis as provided in §68.25 of this
part and complete the five-year acci-
dent history as provided in §68.42. The
owner or operator of a Program 2 and 3
process must comply with all sections
in this subpart for these processes.
§68.22 Offsite consequence analysis
parameters.
(a) Endpoints. For analyses of offsite
consequences, the following endpoints
shall be used:
(1) Toxics. The toxic endpoints pro-
vided in appendix A of this part.
(2) Flammables. The endpoints for
flarnmables vary according to the sce-
narios studied:
(i) Explosion. An overpressure of 1
psi.
(ii) Radiant heat/exposure time. A ra-
diant heat of 5 kw/m3 for 40 seconds.
(iii) Lower flammability limit. A
lower flammability limit as provided in
NFPA documents or other generally
recognized sources.
(b) Wind speed/atmospheric stability
class. For the worst-case release analy-
sis, the owner or operator shall use a
wind speed of 1.5 meters per second and
F atmospheric stability class. If the
owner or operator can demonstrate
that local meteorological data applica-
ble to the stationary source show a
higher minimum wind speed or less sta-
ble atmosphere at all times during the
previous three years, these minimums
may be used. For analysis of alter-
native scenarios, the owner or operator
may use the typical meteorological
conditions for the stationary source.
(c) Ambient temperature/humidity.
For worst-case release analysis of a
regulated toxic substance, the owner or
operator shall use the highest daily
maximum temperature in the previous
three years and average humidity for
the site, based on temperature/humid-
ity data gathered at the stationary
source or at a local meteorological sta-
tion: an owner or operator using the
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis
Guidance may use 2S°C and 50 percent
humidity as values for these variables.
For analysis of alternative scenarios,
the owner or operator may use typical
temperature/humidity data gathered at
the stationary source or at a local me-
teorological station.
(d) Height of release. The worst-case
release of a regulated toxic substance
shall be analyzed assuming a ground
level (0 feet) release. For an alternative
scenario analysis of a regulated toxic
substance, release height may be deter-
mined by the release scenario.
(e) Surface roughness. The owner or
operator shall use either urban or rural
topography, as appropriate. Urban
means that there are many obstacles in
the immediate area; obstacles include
buildings or trees. Rural means there
are no buildings in the immediate area
and the terrain is generally flat and
unobstructed.
(f) Dense or neutrally buoyant gases.
The owner or operator shall ensure
that tables or models used for disper-
sion analysis of regulated toxic sub-
stances appropriately account for gas
density.
42
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.25
(g) Temperature of released sub-
stance. For worst case, liquids other
than gases liquified by refrigeration
only shall be considered to be released
at the highest daily maximum tem-
perature, based on data for the pre-
vious three years appropriate for the
stationary source, or at process tem-
perature, whichever is higher. For al-
ternative scenarios, substances may be
considered to be released at a process
or ambient temperature that is appro-
priate for the scenario.
§68.25 Worst-case release scenario
analysis.,
(a) The owner or operator shall ana-
lyze and report in the RMP:
(1) For Program 1 processes, one
worst-case release scenario for each
Program 1 process;
(2) For Program 2 and 3 processes:
(i) One -worst-case release scenario
that is estimated to create the greatest
distance in any direction to an end-
point provided in appendix A of this
part resulting from an accidental re-
lease of regulated toxic substances
from covered processes under worst-
case conditions defined'in §68.22;
(ii) One worst-case release scenario
that is estimated to create the greatest
distance in any direction to an end-
point defined in §68.Z2(a) resulting from
an accidental release of regulated flam-
mable substances from covered proc-
esses under worst-case conditions de-
fined in §68.22; and
(iii) Additional worst-case release
scenarios for a hazard class if a worst-
case release from another covered proc-
ess at the stationary source potentially
affects public receptors different from
those potentially affected by the worst-
case release scenario developed under
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(b) Determination of worst-case release
quantity The worst-case release quan-
tity shall be the greater of the follow-
ing:
(1) For substances in a vessel, the
greatest amount held in a single vessel,
taking into , account administrative
controls that limit the maximum quan-
tity; or
(2) For substances in pipes, the great-
est amount in a pipe, taking into ac-
count administrative controls that
. limit the maximum quantity.
(c) Worst-case release scenario—toxic
gases. (1) For regulated toxic sub-
stances that are normally gases at am-
bient temperature and handled as a gas
or as a liquid under pressure, the owner
or operator shall assume that the
quantity in the vessel or pipe, as deter-
mined under paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion, is released as a gas over 10 min-
utes. The release rate shall be assumed
to be the total quantity divided by 10
unless passive mitigation systems are
In place.
(2) For gases handled as refrigerated
liquids at ambient pressure:
(i) If the released substance is not
contained by passive mitigation sys-
tems or if the contained pool would
have a depth of 1 cm or less, the owner
or operator shall assume that the sub-
stance is released as a gas in 10 min-
utes;
(ii) If the released substance is con-
tained by passive mitigation systems
in a pool with a depth greater than 1
cm, the owner or operator may assume
that the quantity in the vessel or pipe,
as determined under paragraph (b) of
this section, is spilled instantaneously
to form a liquid pool. The volatiliza-
tion rate (release rate) shall be cal-
culated at the boiling point of the sub-
stance and at the conditions specified
in paragraph (d) of this section,
(d) Worst-case 'release scenario—toxic
liquids. (1) For regulated toxic sub-
stances that are normally liquids at
ambient temperature, the owner or op-
erator shall assume that the quantity
in the vessel or pipe, as determined
under paragraph (b) of this section, is
spilled instantaneously to form a liquid
pool.
(i) The surface area of the pool shall
be determined by assuming that the
liquid spreads to 1 centimeter deep un-
less passive mitigation systems are in
place that serve to contain the spill
and limit the surface area. Where pas-
sive mitigation is in place, the surface
area of the contained liquid shall be
used to calculate the volatilization
rate.
(ii) If the release would occur onto a
surface that is not paved or smooth,
the owner or operator may take into
43
-------
§63.28
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
account the actual surface characteris-
tics:"" '
(2) The volatilization rate shall ac-
count for the highest daily maximum
temperature occurring in the past
three years, the temperature of the
siiibstance in the vessel, and the con-
centration of the substance if the liq-
uid" spilled is a mixture or solution.
(3) The rate of release to air shall be
determined from the volatilization rate
of the liquid pool. The owner or opera-
tor may use the methodology in the
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis
Guidance or any other publicly avail-
able techniques that account for the
modeling conditions and are recognized
by industry as applicable as part of
current practices. Proprietary models
that account for the modeling condi-
tions may be used provided the owner
or operator allows the implementing
agency access to the model and de-
scribes model features and differences
from publicly available models to local
emergency planners upon request.
(e) Worst-case release scenario—
flammables. The owner or operator shall
assume' that the quantity of the sub-
stance, as determined under paragraph
(b) of1 this section, vaporizes resulting
in a vapor cloud explosion. A yield fac-
tor of 10 percent of the available en-
ergy released in the explosion shall be
used to determine the distance to the
explosion endpoint if the model used is
based on TNT-equivalent methods.
(f) Parameters to be applied. The owner
or operator shall use the parameters
defined in §68.22 to determine distance
to the endpoints. The owner or opera-
tor may use the methodology provided
in the RMP Offsite Consequence Analy-
sis Guidance or any commercially or
publicly available air dispersion model-
ing techniques, provided the techniques
account for the modeling conditions
and are recognized by industry as ap-
plicable as part of current practices.
Proprietary models that account for
the modeling conditions may be used
provided the owner or operator allows
the implementing agency access to the
model and describes model features and
differences from publicly available
models to local emergency planners
upon request.
(g) Consideration of passive mitigation
Passive mitigation systems may be
considered for the analysis of worst
case provided that the mitigation sys-
tejm is capable of withstanding the re-
lease event triggering the scenario and
would still function as intended.
(h) Factors in selecting a worst-case sce-
nario. Notwithstanding the provisions
of paragraph (b) of this section, the
owner or operator shall select as the
worst case for flammable regulated
substances or the worst case for regu-
lated toxic substances, a scenario based
on the following factors if such a sce-
nario would result in a greater distance
to an endpoint defined in §68.22 (a) be-
yond the stationary source boundary
than the scenario provided under para-
graph (b) of this section:
(1) Smaller quantities handled at
higher process temperature or pres-
sure; and
(2) Proximity to the boundary of the
stationary source.
§68.28 Alternative release scenario
analysis.
(a) The number of scenarios. The
owner or operator .shall identify and
analyze at least one alternative release
scenario for each regulated toxic sub-
stance held in a covered process(es) and
at least one alternative release sce-
nario to represent all flammable sub-
stances held in covered processes.
(b) Scenarios to consider. (1) For each
scenario required under paragraph (a)
of this section, the owner or operator
shall select a scenario:
(i) That is more likely to occur than
the worst-case release scenario under
§68.25; and
(ii) That will reach an endpoint off-
site, unless no such scenario exists.
(2) Release scenarios considered
should include, but are not limited to,
the following, where applicable:
(i) Transfer hose releases due to
splits or sudden hose uncoupling;
(ii) Process piping releases from fail-
ures at flanges, joints, welds, valves
and valve seals, and drains or bleeds;
(iii) Process vessel or pump releases
due to cracks, seal failure, or drain,
bleed, or plug failure;
(iv) Vessel overfilling and spill, or
overpressurization and venting through
relief valves or rupture disks; and
44
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.39
(v) Shipping container mishandling
and breakage or puncturing leading to
a spill
(c) Parameters to be applied The
owner or operator shall use the appro-
priate parameters defined in §68 22 to
determine distance to the endpoints.
The owner or operator may use either
the methodology provided in the RMP
Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance
or any commercially or publicly avail-
able air dispersion modeling tech-
niques, provided the techniques ac-
count for the specified modeling condi-
tions and are recognized by industry as
applicable as part of current practices.
Proprietary models that account for
the modeling conditions may be used
provided the owner or operator allows
the implementing agency access to the
model and describes model features and
differences from publicly available
models to local emergency planners
upon request,
(d) Consideration of mitigation. Ac-
tive and passive mitigation systems
may be considered provided they are
capable of withstanding the event that
triggered the release and would still be
functional
(e) Factors in selecting scenarios.
The owner or operator shall consider
the following in selecting alternative
release scenarios:
(1) The five-year accident history
provided in §68.42; and
(2) Failure scenarios identified under
§68.50 or §68.67.
§68.30 Defining offsite impacts—popu-
lation.
(a) The owner or operator shall esti-
mate in the RMP the population within
a circle with its center at the point of
the release and a radius determined by
the distance to the endpoint defined in
§68.22(a).
(b) Population to be defined. Popu-
lation shall include residential popu-
lation. The presence of institutions
(schools, hospitals, prisons), parks and
recreational areas, and major commer-
cial, office, and industrial buildings
shall be noted in the RMP.
(c) Data sources acceptable. The owner
or operator may use the most recent
Census data, or other updated informa-
tion, to estimate the population poten-
tially affected.
(d) Level of accuracy. Population shall
be estimated to two significant digits.
§68.33 Defining offsite impacts—envi-
ronment.
(a) The owner or operator shall list in
the RMP environmental receptors
within a circle with its center at the
point of the release and a radius deter-
mined by the distance to the endpoint
defined in §68.22(a) of this part.
(b) Data sources acceptable. The
owner or operator may rely on infor-
mation provided on local U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey maps or on any data source
containing U.S.G.S. data to identify
environmental receptors.
68.36 Review and update.
(a) The owner or operator shall re-
view and update the offsite con-
sequence analyses at least once every
five years.
(b) If changes in processes, quantities
stored or handled, or any other aspect
of the stationary source might reason-
ably be expected to increase or de-
crease the distance to the endpoint by
a factor of two or more, the owner or
operator shall complete a revised anal-
ysis within six months of the change
and submit a revised risk management
plan as provided in §68.190.
§6&39 Documentation.
The owner or operator shall maintain
the following records on the offsite
consequence analyses;
(a) For worst-case scenarios, a de-
scription of the vessel or pipeline and
substance selected as worst case, as-
sumptions and parameters used, and
the rationale for selection; assump-
tions shall include use of any adminis-
trative controls and any passive miti-
gation that were assumed to limit the
quantity that could be released. Docu-
mentation shall include the antici-
pated effect of the controls and mitiga-
tion on the release quantity and rate.
(b) For alternative release scenarios,
a description of the scenarios identi-
fied, assumptions and parameters used,
and the rationale for the selection of
specific scenarios; assumptions shall
include use of any administrative con-
trols and any mitigation that were as-
sumed to limit the quantity that could
45
-------
§68.42
40 CFR Ch, I (7-1-98 Edition)
be released. Documentation shall in-
clude the effect of the controls and
mitigation on the release quantity and
rate.
(c) Documentation of estimated
quantity released, release rate, and du-
ration of release.
(d) Methodology used to determine
distance to endpoints.
(e) Data used to estimate population
and environmental receptors poten-
tially affected.
S 68.42 Five-year accident history.
(a) The owner or operator shall in-
clude in the five-year accident history
all accidental releases from covered
processes that resulted in deaths, inju-
ries, or significant property damage on
site, or known offsite deaths, injuries,
evacuations, sheltering in place, prop-
erty "damage, or environmental dam-
age.
(b) Data required. For each accidental
release included, the owner or operator
shall report the following information:
(1) Date, time, and approximate dura-
tion of the release;
(2) Chemical (s) released;
(3) Estimated quantity released in
pounds;
(4) The type of release event and its
source;
(5) Weather conditions, if known;
(6) On-site impacts;
(7) Known offsite impacts;
(8) Initiating event and contributing
factors if known;
[l^jj) Whether offsite responders were
notified if known; and
(10J* Operational or process changes
that resulted from investigation of the
release.
(c) Level of accuracy. Numerical esti-
mates may be provided to two signifi-
cant digits.
Subpart C— Program 2 Prevention
Program
SOURCE: 6! FR 31721. June 20, 1996. unless
otherwise noted.
§ 68.48 Safety information.
(a) The owner or operator shall com-
pile and maintain the following up-to-
date safety information related to the
regulated substances, processes, and
equipment:
(1) Material Safety Data Sheets that
meet the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.1200(g);
(2) Maximum intended inventory of
equipment in which the regulated sub-
stances are stored or processed;
(3) Safe upper and lower tempera-
tures, pressures, flows, and composi-
tions;
(4) Equipment specifications, and
(5) Codes and standards used to de-
sign, build, and operate the process.
(b) The owner or operator shall en-
sure that the process is designed in
compliance with recognized and gen-
erally accepted good engineering prac-
tices. Compliance with Federal or state
regulations that address industry-spe-
cific safe design or with industry-spe-
cific design codes and standards may be
used to demonstrate compliance with
this paragraph.
(c) The owner or operator shall up-
date the safety information if a major
change occurs that makes the informa-
tion inaccurate.
§68.50 Hazard review.
(a) The owner or operator shall con-
duct a review of the hazards associated
with the regulated substances, process,
and procedures. The review shall iden-
tify the following:
(1) The hazards associated with the
process and regulated substances;
(2) Opportunities for equipment mal-
functions or human errors that could
cause an accidental release,
(3) The safeguards used or needed to
control the hazards or prevent equip-
ment malfunction or human error; and
(4) Any steps used or needed to detect
or monitor releases.
(b) The owner or operator may use
checklists developed by persons or or-
ganizations knowledgeable about the
process and equipment as a guide to
conducting the review. For processes
designed to meet industry standards or
Federal or state design rules, the haz-
ard review shall, by inspecting all
equipment, determine whether the
process is designed, fabricated, and op-
erated in accordance with the applica-
ble standards or rules.
46
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68,56
(c) The owner or operator shall docu-
ment the results of the review and en-
sure that problems identified are re-
solved in a timely manner
(d) The review shall be updated at
least once every five years. The owner
or operator shall also conduct reviews
whenever a major change in the proc-
ess occurs; all issues identified in the
review shall be resolved before startup
of the changed process.
§ 68.52 Operating procedures.
(a) The owner or operator shall pre-
pare written operating procedures that
provide clear instructions or steps for
safely conducting activities associated
with each covered process consistent
with the safety information for that
process. Operating procedures or in-
structions provided by equipment man-
ufacturers or developed by persons or
organizations knowledgeable about the
process and equipment may be used as
a basis for a stationary source's operat-
ing procedures.
(b) The procedures shall address the
following;
(1) Initial startup;
(2) Normal operations;
(3) Temporary operations;
(4) Emergency shutdown and oper-
ations;
(5) Normal shutdown;
(6) Startup following a normal or
emergency shutdown or a major change
that requires a hazard review,
(7) Consequences of deviations and
steps required to correct or avoid devi-
ations; and
(8) Equipment inspections.
(c) The owner or operator shall en-
sure that the operating procedures are
updated, if necessary, whenever a
major change occurs and prior to start-
up of the changed process.
§68.54 Training.
(a) The owner or operator shall en-
sure that each employee presently op-
erating a process, and each employee
newly assigned to a covered process
have been trained or tested competent
in the operating procedures provided in
§68.52 that pertain to their duties. For
those employees already operating a
process on June 21, 1999, the owner or
operator may certify in writing that
the employee has the required knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities to safely
carry out the duties and responsibil-
ities as provided in the operating pro-
cedures.
(b) Refresher training. Refresher
training shall be provided at least
every three years, and more often if
necessary, to each employee operating
a process to ensure that the employee
understands and adheres to the current
operating procedures of the process.
The owner or operator, in consultation
with the employees operating the proc-
ess, shall determine the appropriate
frequency of refresher training.
(c) The owner or operator may use
training conducted under Federal or
state regulations or under industry-
specific standards or codes or training
conducted by covered process equip-
ment vendors to demonstrate compli-
ance with this section to the extent
that the training meets the require-
ments of this section.
(d) The owner or operator shall en-
sure that operators are trained in any
updated or new procedures prior to
startup of a process after a major
change.
§ 68.56 Maintenance.
(a) The owner or operator shall pre-
pare and implement procedures to
maintain the on-going mechanical in-
tegrity of the process equipment. The
owner or operator may use procedures
or instructions provided by covered
process equipment vendors or proce-
dures in Federal or state regulations or
industry codes as the basis for station-
ary source maintenance procedures
(b) The owner or operator shall train
or cause to be trained each employee
involved in maintaining the on-going
mechanical integrity of the process. To
ensure that the employee can perform
the job tasks in a safe manner, each
such employee shall be trained in the
hazards of the process, in how to avoid
or correct unsafe conditions, and in the
procedures applicable to the employ-
ee's job tasks
(c) Any maintenance contractor shall
ensure that each contract maintenance
employee is trained to perform the
maintenance procedures developed
under paragraph (a) of this section.
47
-------
§63.58
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
i (d) The owner or operator shall per-
form or cause to be performed inspec-
tions and tests on process equipment.
Inspection and testing procedures shall
follow recognized and generally accept-
ed good engineering practices. The fre-
quency of inspections and tests of proc-
ess equipment shall be consistent with
applicable manufacturers' rec-
ommendations, industry standards or
codes, good engineering practices, and
prior operating experience.
it I «
§68.58 Compliance audits.
(a) The owner or operator shall cer-
tify that they have evaluated compli-
ance with the provisions of this sub-
part at least every three years to ver-
ify that the procedures and practices
developed under the rule are adequate
and are being followed.
I (b) The compliance audit shall be
conducted by at least one person
knowledgeable in the process.
(c) The owner or operator shall de-
velop a report of the audit findings.
(d) The owner or operator shall
promptly determine and document an
appropriate response to each of the
findings of the compliance audit and
document that deficiencies have been
f. 1 ill W IgJ I" ! . ' '
corrected.
(e) The owner or operator shall retain
the two (2) most recent compliance
audit reports. This requirement does
not apply to any compliance audit re-
port that is more than five years old.
§ 68.60 Incident investigation.
, (a) The owner or operator shall inves-
tigate each incident which resulted in,
or could reasonably have resulted in a
•catastrophic release.
(b) An incident investigation shall be
initiated as promptly as possible, but
not later than 48 hours following the
incident.
(c) A summary shall be prepared at
the conclusion of ^the investigation
which includes at a minimum:
(1) Date of incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to
the incident; and,
(5) Any recommendations resulting
from the investigation.
(d) The owner or operator shall
promptly address and resolve the inves-
tigation findings and recommenda-
tions. Resolutions and corrective ac-
tions shall be documented.
(e) The findings shall be reviewed
with all affected personnel whose job
tasks are affected by the findings,
(f) Investigation summaries shall be
retained for five years,
Subpart D—Program 3 Prevention
Program
SOURCE- 61 FR 31722, June 20, 1996, unless
otherwise noted
§ 68.65 Process safety information.
(a) In accordance with the schedule
set forth in §68.67, the owner or opera-
tor shall complete a compilation of
written process safety information be-
fore conducting any process hazard
analysis required by the rule. The com-
pilation of written process safety infor-
mation is to enable the owner or opera-
tor and the employees involved in oper-
ating the process to identify and under-
stand the hazards posed by those proc-
esses involving regulated substances.
This process safety information shall
include information pertaining to the
hazards of the regulated substances
used or produced by the process, infor-
mation pertaining to the technology of
the process, and information pertain-
ing to the equipment in the process.
(b) Information pertaining to the
hazards of the regulated substances in
the process. This information shall
consist of at least the following:
(1) Toxicity information;
(E) Permissible exposure limits;
(3) Physical data;
(4) Reactivity data:
(5) Corrosivity data;
(6) Thermal and chemical stability
data; and
(?) Hazardous effects of inadvertent
mixing of different materials that
could foreseeably occur.
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (b). Material Safety
Data Sheets meeting the requirements of 29
CFR 1910 12QO(g) may be used to comply with
this requirement to the extent they contain
the information required by this subpara-
graph
(c) Information pertaining to the
technology of the process.
48
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.67
(1) Information concerning the tech-
nology of the process shall include at
least the following.
(i) A block flow diagram or simplified
process flow diagram;
(ii) Process chemistry;
(iii) Maximum intended inventory;
(iv) Safe upper and lower limits for
such items as temperatures, pressures,
flows or compositions; and,
(v) An evaluation of the consequences
of deviations.
(2) Where the original technical in-
formation no longer exists, such infor-
mation may be developed in conjunc-
tion with the process hazard analysis
in sufficient detail to support the anal-
ysis.
(d) Information pertaining to the
equipment in the process,
(1) Information pertaining to the
equipment in the process shall include:
(i) Materials of construction;
(ii) Piping and instrument diagrams
(P&ID's);
(iii) Electrical classification;
(iv) Relief system design and design
basis;
(v) Ventilation system design;
(vi) Design codes and standards em-
ployed;
(vii) Material and energy balances for
processes built after June 21. 1999; and
(viii) Safety systems (e.g. interlocks,
detection or suppression systems)
(2) The owner or operator shall docu-
ment that equipment complies with
recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices.
(3) For existing equipment designed
and constructed in accordance with
codes, standards, or practices that are
no longer in general use, the owner or
operator shall determine and document
that the equipment is designed, main-
tained, inspected, tested, and operating
in a safe manner.
§68.67 Process hazard analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shall per-
form an initial process hazard analysis
(hazard evaluation) on processes cov-
ered by this part. The process hazard
analysis shall be appropriate to the
complexity of the process and shall
identify, evaluate, and control the haz-
ards involved in the process. The owner
or operator shall determine and docu-
ment the priority order for conducting
process hazard analyses based on a ra-
tionale which includes such consider-
ations as extent of the process hazards,
number of potentially affected employ-
ees, age of the process, and operating
history of the process. The process haz-
ard analysis shall be conducted as soon
as possible, but not later than June 21,
1S99. Process hazards analyses com-
pleted to comply with 29 CFR
1910.119(e) are acceptable as initial
process hazards analyses. These process"
hazard analyses shall be updated and
revalidated, based on their completion
date.
(b) The owner or operator shall use
one or more of the following meth-
odologies that are appropriate to deter-
mine and evaluate the hazards of the
process being analyzed.
(1) What-If:
(2) Checklist;
(3) What-IffChecklist;
(4) Hazard and Operability Study
(HAZOP);
(5) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
(FMEA);
(6) Fault Tree Analysis; or
(7) An appropriate equivalent meth-
odology.
(c) The process hazard analysis shall
address:
(1) The hazards of the process;
(2) The identification of any previous
incident which had a likely potential
for catastrophic consequences.
(3) Engineering and administrative
controls applicable to the hazards and
their interrelationships such as appro-
priate application of detection meth-
odologies to provide early warning of
releases. (Acceptable detection meth-
ods might include process monitoring
and control instrumentation with
alarms, and detection hardware such as
hydrocarbon sensors.);
(4) Consequences of failure of engi-
neering and administrative controls;
(5) Stationary source siting;
(6) Human factors; and
(7) A qualitative evaluation of a
range of the possible safety and health
effects of failure of controls.
(d) The process hazard analysis shall
be performed by a team with expertise
in engineering and process operations,
and the team shall include at least one
employee who has experience and
knowledge specific to the process being
49
-------
§68.69
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
evaluated. Also, one member of the
team must be knowledgeable in the
specific process hazard analysis meth-
odology being used.
(e) The owner or operator shall estab-
Jish a system to promptly address the
team's findings and recommendations;
asjsure that the recommendations are
rfesolved in a timely manner and that
trie resolution is documented; docu-
ment what actions are to be taken;
complete actions as soon as possible;
develop a written schedule of when
these actions are to be completed; com-
municate the actions to operating,
maintenance and other employees
whose work assignments are in the
process and who may be affected by the
recommendations or actions.
(f) At least every five (5) years after
the completion of the initial process
|iazard analysis, the process hazard
analysis shall be updated and revali-
dated by a team meeting the require-
ments in paragraph (d) of this section,
to. assure that the process hazard anal-
ysis is consistent with the current
process. Updated and revalidated proc-
ess hazard analyses completed to com-
ply with 29 CFR 1910.119 (e) are accept-
able to meet the requirements of this
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.73
of the process and in the operating pro-
cedures as specified in §68.69. The
training shall include emphasis on the
specific safety and health hazards,
emergency operations including shut-
down, and safe work practices applica-
ble to the employee's job tasks.
(2) In lieu of initial training for those
employees already involved in operat-
ing a process on June 21. 1999 an owner
or operator may certify in writing that
the employee has the required knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities to safely
carry out the duties and responsibil-
ities as specified in the operating pro-
cedures.
(b) Refresher training. Refresher train-
ing shall be provided at least every
three years, and more often if nec-
essary, to each employee involved in
operating a process to assure that the
employee understands and adheres to
the current operating procedures of the'
process. The owner or operator, in con-
sultation with the employees involved
in operating the process, shall deter-
mine the appropriate frequency of re-
fresher training.
(c) Training documentation. The owner
or operator shall ascertain that each
employee involved in operating a proc-
ess has received and understood the
training required by this paragraph.
The owner or operator shall prepare a
record which contains the identity of
the employee, the date of training, and
the means used to verify that the em-
ployee understood the training.
§68.73 Mechanical integrity.
(a) Application. Paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section apply to the
following process equipment:
(1) Pressure vessels and storage
tanks;
(2) Piping systems (including piping
components such as valves);
(3) Relief and vent systems and de-
vices;
(4) Emergency shutdown systems;
(5) Controls (including monitoring
devices and sensors, alarms, and inter-
locks) and,
(6) Pumps.
(b) Written procedures The owner or
operator shall establish and implement
written procedures to maintain the on-
going integrity of process equipment.
(c) Training for process maintenance
activities. The owner or operator shall
train each employee involved in main-
taining the on-going integrity of proc-
ess equipment in an overview of that
process and its hazards and in the pro-
cedures applicable to the employee's
job tasks to assure that the employee
can perform the job tasks in a safe
manner.
(d) Inspection and testing. (1) Inspec-
tions and tests shall be performed on
process equipment.
(2) Inspection and testing procedures
shall follow recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices.
(3) The frequency of inspections and
tests of process equipment shall be con-
sistent with applicable manufacturers*
recommendations and good engineering
practices, and more frequently if deter-
mined to be necessary by prior operat-
ing experience.
(4) The owner or operator shall docu-
ment each inspection and test that has
been performed on process equipment
The documentation shall identify the
date of the inspection or test, the name
of the person who performed the in-
spection or test, the serial number "or
other identifier of the equipment on
which the inspection or test was per-
formed, a description of the inspection
or test performed, and the results of
the inspection or test.
(e) Equipment deficiencies. The owner
or operator shall correct deficiencies in
equipment that are outside acceptable
limits (defined by the process safety in-
formation in §68.65) beforje further use
or in a safe and timely manner when
necessary means are taken to assure
safe operation.
(f) Quality assurance. (1) In the con-
struction of new plants and equipment,
the owner or operator shall assure that
equipment as it is fabricated is suit-
able .for the process application for
which they will be used.
(2) Appropriate checks and inspec-
tions shall be" performed to assure that
equipment is installed properly and
consistent with design specifications
and the manufacturer's instructions.
(3) The owner or operator shall as-
sure that maintenance materials, spare
parts and equipment are suitable for
the process application for which they
will be used.
51
-------
§68.75
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
§ 68.75 Management of change.
(a) The owner or operator shall estab-
Jish and implement written procedures
to manage changes (except for "re-
placements in kind") to process chemi-
c'als, technology, equipment, and proce-
dures; and, changes to stationary
sources that affect a covered process.
(b) The procedures shall assure that
the following considerations are ad-
dressed prior to any change:
(1) The technical basis for the pro-
posed change;
(2) Impact of change on safety and
health;
(3) Modifications to operating proce-
dures;
(4) Necessary time period for the
change; and,
(5) Authorization requirements for
the proposed change,
(c) Employees involved in operating a
process and maintenance and contract
employees whose job tasks will be af-
fected by a change in the process shall
be informed of, and trained in, the
change prior to start-up of the process
or affected part of the process,
(dj If a change covered by this para-
graph results in a change in the process
safety information required by §68.65 of
this part, such information shall be up-
dated accordingly.
(e) If a change covered by this para-
graph results in a change in the operat-
ing procedures or practices required by
§68.69, such procedures or practices
shall be updated accordingly.
§ 68.77 Pre-startup review.
(a) The owner or operator shall per-
form a pre-startup safety review for
new stationary sources and for modi-
fied stationary sources when the modi-
fication is significant enough to re-
quire a change in the process safety in-
formation.
(b) The pre-startup safety review
shall confirm that prior to the intro-
duction of regulated substances to a
process:
(1) Construction and equipment is in
accordance with design specifications;
(2) Safety, operating, maintenance,
and emergency procedures are in place
and are adequate*.
(3) For new stationary sources, a
process hazard analysis has been per-
formed and recommendations have
been resolved or implemented before
startup; and modified stationary
sources meet the requirements con-
tained in management of change,
§68.75.
(4) Training of each' employee in-
volved in operating a process has been
completed.
§ 68.79 Compliance audits.
(a) The owner or operator shall cer-
tify that they have evaluated compli-
ance with the provisions of this section
at least every three years to verify
that the procedures and practices de-
veloped under the standard are ade-
quate and are being followed.
(b) The compliance audit shall be
conducted by at least one person
knowledgeable in the process.
(e) A report of the findings of the
audit shall be developed.
(d) The owner or operator shall
promptly determine and document an
appropriate response to each of the
findings of the compliance audit, and
document that deficiencies have been
corrected.
(e) The owner or operator shall retain
the two (2) most recent compliance
audit reports.
§ 68.81 Incident investigation.
(a) The owner or operator shall inves-
tigate each incident which resulted in,
or could reasonably have resulted in a
catastrophic release of a regulated sub-
stance.
(b) An incident investigation shall be
initiated as promptly as possible, but
not later than 48 hours following the
incident.
(c) An incident investigation team
shall be established and consist of at
least one person knowledgeable in the
process involved, including a contract
employee if the incident involved work
of the contractor, and other persons
with appropriate knowledge and experi-
ence to thoroughly investigate and
analyze the incident.
(d) A report shall be prepared at the
conclusion of the investigation which
includes at a minimum:
(1) Date of incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident:
(4) The factors that contributed to
the incident; and.
52
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.87
(5) Any recommendations resulting
from the investigation.
(e) The owner or operator shall estab-
lish a system to promptly address and
resolve the incident report findings and
recommendations. Resolutions and cor-
rective actions shall be documented.
(f) The report shall be reviewed with
all affected personnel whose job tasks
are relevant to the incident findings in-
cluding contract employees where ap-
plicable.
(g) Incident investigation reports
shall be retained for five years.
§68.83 Employee participation.
(a) The,owner or operator shall de-
velop a written plan of action regard-
ing the implementation of the em-
ployee participation required by this
section.
(b) The owner or operator shall con-
sult with employees and their rep-
resentatives on the conduct and devel-
opment of process hazards analyses and
on the development of the other ele-
ments of process safety management in
this rule.
(c) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide to employees and their representa-
tives access to process hazard analyses
and to all other information required
to be developed under this rule.
§ 68.85 Hot work permit.
(a) The owner or operator shall issue
a hot work permit for hot work oper-
ations conducted on or near a covered
process.
(b) The permit shall document that
the fire prevention and protection re-
quirements in 29 CFR I910.252(a) have
been implemented prior to beginning
the hot work operations; it shall indi-
cate the date(s) authorized for hot
work; and identify the object on which
hot work is to be performed. The per-
mit shall be kept on file until comple-
tion of the hot work operations.
§ 68.87 Contractors.
(a) Application. This section applies
to contractors performing maintenance
or repair, turnaround, major renova-
tion, or specialty work on or adjacent
to a covered process It does not apply
to contractors providing incidental
services which do not influence process
safety, such as janitorial work, food
and drink services, laundry, delivery or
other supply services.
(b) Owner or operator responsibilities.
(1) The owner or operator, when select-
ing a contractor, shall obtain and
evaluate information regarding the
contract owner or operator's safety
performance and programs.
(2) The owner or operator shall in-
form contract owner or operator of the
known potential fire, explosion, or
toxic release hazards related to the
contractor's work and the process.
(3) The owner or operator shall ex-
plain to the contract owner or operator
the applicable provisions of subpart E
of this part.
(4) The owner or operator shall de-
velop and implement safe work prac-
tices consistent with §68.69(d), to con-
trol the entrance, presence, and exit of
the contract owner or operator and
contract employees in covered process
areas.
(5) The owner or operator shall peri-
odically evaluate the performance of
the contract owner or operator in ful-
filling their obligations as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Contract owner or operator respon-
sibilities. (1) The contract owner or op-
erator shall assure that each contract
employee is trained in the work prac-
tices necessary to safely perform Ms/
her job.
(2) The contract owner or operator
shall assure that each contract em-
ployee is instructed in the known po-
tential fire, explosion, or toxic release
hazards related to his/her, job and the
process, and the applicable provisions
of the emergency action plan
(3) The contract owner or operator
shall document that each contract em-
ployee has received and understood the
training required by this section The
contract owner or operator shall pre-
pare a record which contains the iden-
tity of the contract employee, the date
of training, and the means used to ver-
ify that the employee understood the
training.
(4) The contract owner or operator
shall assure that each contract em-
ployee follows the safety rules of the
stationary source including the safe
work practices required by §68 69 (d).
(5) The contract owner or operator,
shall advise the owner or operator of
53
-------
§68.90
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
unique hazards presented by the
contract owner or operator's work, or
of any hazards found by the contract
owner or operator's work.
Subpart E—Emergency Response
I * '
SOURCE: 61 FR 31725. June 20, 199B, unless
otherwise noted.
§68.90 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, the owner or opera-
tor of a stationary source with Pro-
gram 2 and Program 3 processes shall
comply with the requirements of §68.95.
(b) The owner or operator of station-
ary source whose employees will not
respond to accidental releases of regu-
lated substances need not comply with
S 68.95 of this part provided that they
meet the following:
(l) For stationary sources with any
regulated toxic substance held in a
process above the threshold quantity,
the stationary source is included in the
community emergency response plan
developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003;
(2) For stationary sources with only
regulated flammable substances held in
a process above the threshold quantity,
the owner or operator has coordinated
response actions with the local fire de-
partment; and
C3) Appropriate mechanisms are in
place to notify emergency responders
when there is a need for a response.
§ 68.95 Emergency response program.
(a) The owner or operator shall de-
velop and implement an emergency re-
sponse program for the purpose of pro-
tecting public health and the environ-
ment. Such program shall include the
following elements:
(1) An emergency response plan,
which shall be maintained at the sta-
tionary source and contain at least the
following elements:
(i) Procedures for informing the pub-
lic and local emergency response agen-
cies about accidental releases;
(ii) Documentation of proper first-aid
and emergency medical treatment nec-
essary to treat accidental human expo-
sures; and
(iii) Procedures and measures for
emergency response after an accidental
release of a regulated substance,
(2) Procedures for the use of emer-
gency response equipment and for its
inspection, testing, and maintenance;
(3) Training for all employees in rel-
evant procedures; and
(4) Procedures to review and update,
as appropriate, the emergency response
plan to reflect changes at the station-
ary source and ensure that employees
are informed of changes.
(b) A written plan that complies with
other Federal contingency plan regula-
tions or is consistent with the ap-
proach in the National Response
Team's Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance ("One Plan") and that,
among other matters, includes the ele-
ments provided in paragraph (a) of this
section, shall satisfy the requirements
of this section if the owner or operator
also complies with paragraph (c) of this
section,
(c) The emergency response plan de-
veloped under paragraph (a)(l) of this
section shall be coordinated with the
community emergency response plan
developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003, Upon
request of the local emergency plan-
ning committee or emergency response
officials, the owner or operator shall
promptly provide to the local emer-
gency response officials information
necessary for developing and imple-
menting the community emergency re-
sponse plan.
Subpart Ą—Regulated Substances
for Accidental Release Prevention
SOURCE. 59 FR 4493, Jan, 31, 1994, unless
otherwise noted. Redesignated at 61 FR 31717,
June 20. 1996
§68.100 Purpose.
This subpart designates substances
to be listed under section 112(r)(3), (4),
and (5) of the Clean Air Act, as amend-
ed, identifies their threshold quan-
tities, and establishes the requirements
for petitioning to add or delete sub-
stances from the list.
§68,115 Threshold determination.
(a) A threshold quantity of a regu-
lated substance listed in §68.130 is
54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.115
present at a stationary source if the
total quantity of the regulated sub-
stance contained in a process exceeds
the threshold.
(b) For the purposes of determining
whether more than a threshold quan-
tity of a regulated substance is present
at the stationary source, the following
exemptions apply;
(1) Concentrations of a regulated toxic
substance in B mixture. If a regulated
substance is present in a mixture and
the concentration of the substance is
below one percent by weight of the
mixture, the amount of the substance
in the mixture need not be considered
when determining whether more than a
threshold quantity is present at the
stationary source. Except for oleum,
toluene E,4-diisocyanate, toluene 2,6-
diisocyanate, and toluene diisocyanate
(unspecified isomer), if the concentra-
tion of the regulated substance in the
mixture is one percent or greater by
weight, but the owner or operator can
demonstrate that the partial pressure
of the regulated substance in the mix-
ture (solution) under handling or stor-
age conditions in any portion of the
process is less than 10 millimeters of
mercury (mm Hg), the amount of the
substance in the mixture in that por-
tion of the process need not be consid-
ered when determining whether more
than a threshold quantity is present at
the stationary source. The owner or op-
erator shall document this partial pres-
sure measurement or estimate
(2) Concentrations of a regulated flam-
mable substance in a mixture, (i) General
provision. If a regulated substance is
present in a mixture and the con-
centration ' of the substance is below
one percent by weight of the mixture,
the mixture need not be considered
when determining whether more than a
threshold quantity of the regulated
substance is present at the stationary
source. Except as provided in para-
graph (b) (2) (li) and (iii) of this section,
if the concentration of the substance is
one percent or greater by weight of the
mixture, then, for purposes of deter--
mining whether a threshold quantity is
present at the stationary source, the
entire weight of the mixture shall be
treated as the regulated substance un-
less the owner or operator can dem-
onstrate that the mixture itself does
not have a National Fire Protection
Association flammability hazard rat-
ing of 4. The demonstration shall be in
accordance with the definition of flam-
mability hazard rating 4 in the NFPA
'704, Standard System for the Identi-
fication of the Hazards of Materials for
Emergency Response, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA,
1996. Available from the National Fire
Protection Association, 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-
9101. This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be inspected at the Environmental
Protection Agency Air Docket (6102),
Attn: Docket No. A-96-O8, Waterside
Mall, 401 M, St. SW.. Washington DC;
or at the Office of Federal Register at
800 North Capitol St., NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC, Boiling point and
flash point shall be defined and deter-
mined in accordance with NFPA 30,
Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code, National Fire Protection Asso-
ciation, Quincy, MA, 1996. Available
from the National Fire Protection As-
sociation, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quin-
cy, MA 02269-9101. This incorporation
by reference was approved by the Di-
rector of the Federal Register in ac-
cordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be inspected at the
Environmental Protection Agency Air
Docket (6102), Attn: Docket No. A-96-
O8, Waterside Mall, 401 M. St. SW.,
Washington DC; or at the Office of Fed-
eral Register at 800 North Capitol St.,
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. The
owner or operator shall document the
National Fire Protection Association
flammability hazard rating.
(ii) Gasoline. Regulated substances in
gasoline, when in distribution or relat-
ed storage for use as fuel for internal
combustion engines, need not be con-
sidered when determining whether
more than a threshold quantity is
present at a stationary source.
(iii} Naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures. Prior to entry into a natural
gas processing plant or a petroleum re-
fining process unit, regulated sub-
stances in naturally occurring hydro-
carbon mixtures need not be considered
when determining whether more than a
55
-------
§68.120
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
threshold quantity is present at a sta-
tionary source. Naturally occurring
hydrocarbon mixtures include any
combination of the following: conden-
sate, crude oil. field gas, and produced
water, each as defined in §68.3 of this
part.
' (3) Articles. Regulated substances con-
tained in articles need not be consid-
ered when determining whether more
than a threshold quantity is present at
the stationary source.
11 (4J t&es. Regulated substances, when
in use for the following purposes, need
not be included in determining whether
more than a threshold quantity is
present at the stationary source:
(i) Use as a structural component of
the stationary source;
(il) Use of products for routine jani-
torial maintenance;
(iii) Use by employees of foods, drugs,
cosmetics, or other personal items con-
taining the regulated substance; and
(iv) Use of regulated substances
present in process water or non-contact
cooling water as drawn from the envi-
ronment or municipal sources, or use
of regulated substances present in air
used either as compressed air or as part
of combustion.
(5) Activities in laboratories. If a regu-
lated substance is manufactured, proc-
essed, or used in a laboratory at a sta-
tionary source under the supervision of
a technically qualified individual as de-
fined in §720.3 (ee) of this chapter, the
quantity of the substance need not be
considered in determining whether a
threshold quantity is present. This ex-
emption does not apply to:
(I) Specialty chemical production;
(ii) Manufacture, processing, or use
of substances in pilot plant scale oper-
ations; and
(iii) Activities conducted outside the
laboratory.
(59 FR 4493, Jan. 31, 1994,'Redesignaeed at 61
FR 31717, June 20, 1996, as amended at 63 FR
S«, Jan, 6, 19S8]
§68.120 Petition process.
(a) Any person may petition the Ad-
ministrator to modify, by addition or
deletion, the list of regulated sub-
stances identified in §68.130. Based on
the information presented by the peti-
tioner, the Administrator may grant or
deny a petition.
(b) A substance may be added to the
list if, in the case of an accidental re-
lease, it is known to cause or may be
reasonably anticipated to cause death,
injury, or serious adverse effects to
human health or the environment.
(c) A substance may be deleted from
the list if adequate data on the health
and environmental effects of the sub-
stance are available to determine that
the substance, in the case of an acci-
dental release, is not known to cause
and may not be reasonably anticipated
to cause death, injury, or serious ad-
verse effects to human health or the
environment
(d) No substance for which a national
primary ambient air quality standard
has been established shall be added to
the list. No substance ^regulated under
title VI of the Clean Air Act, as amend-
ed, shall be added to the list.
(e) The burden of proof is on the peti-
tioner to demonstrate that the criteria
for addition and deletion are met. A pe-
tition will be denied if this demonstra-
tion is not made.
(f) The Administrator will not accept
additional petitions on the same sub-
stance following publication of a final
notice of the decision to grant or deny
a petition, unless new data becomes
available that could significantly af-
fect the basis for the decision.
(g) Petitions to modify the list of
regulated substances must contain the
following:
(1) Name and address of the peti-
tioner and a brief description of the or-
ganization (s) that the petitioner rep-
resents, if applicable;
(2) Name, address, and telephone
number of a contact person for the pe-
tition;
(3) Common chemical name(s), com-
mon synonym (s), Chemical Abstracts
Service number, and chemical formula
and structure;
(4) Action requested (add or delete a
substance);
(5) Rationale supporting the petition-
er's position; that is, how the sub-
stance meets the criteria for addition
and deletion. A short summary of the
rationale must be submitted along
with a more detailed narrative; and
56
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.130
(6) Supporting data, that is, the peti-
tion must include sufficient informa-
tion to scientifically support the re-
quest to modify the list. Such informa-
tion shall include:
(i) A list of all support documents;
(ii) Documentation of literature
searches conducted, including, but not
limited to, identification of the data-
base(s) searched, the search strategy,
dates covered, and printed results;
(iii) Effects data (animal, human, and
environmental test data) indicating
the potential for death, injury, or seri-
ous adverse human and environmental
impacts from acute exposure following
an accidental release; printed copies of
the data sources, in English, should be
provided; and
„ (iv) Exposure data or previous acci-
dent history data, indicating the po-
tential for serious adverse human
health or environmental effects from
an accidental release. These data may
include, but are not limited to, phys-
ical and chemical properties of the sub-
stance, such as vapor pressure; model-
ing results, including data and assump-
tions used and model documentation;
and historical accident data, citing
data sources.
(h) Within 18 months of receipt of a
petition, the Administrator shall pub-
lish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice
either denying the petition or granting
the petition and proposing a listing.
§68.125 Exemptions.
Agricultural nutrients. Ammonia used
as an agricultural nutrient, when held
by farmers, is exempt from all provi-
sions of this part.
§ 68.130 List of substances.
(a) Regulated toxic and flammable
substances under section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act are the substances listed
in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. Threshold quan-
tities for listed toxic and flammable
substances are specified in the tables.
(b) The basis for placing toxic and
flammable substances on the list of
regulated substances are explained in
the notes to the list.
TABLE 1 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED
Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUAN-
TITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
• [Alphabetical Order-—77 Substances]
Chemical name
Acrolein [2-
Propenal]
Aeryloratnle {2-
PropenenitnleJ
Aerylyl chionde [2-
Propenoyl chio-
nde]
AByl alcohol [2-
Propen-1-ol]
Allylamme [2-
Propen-l-arnme]
Ammonia {anhy-
drous)
Ammonia {cone
20% or greater)
Araenous tn-
chionde
Aretne . „,.,... . ..
Boron trichloride
[Borane,
Jnchbro-j
Boron trifluonde
{Borane,
tnfluoro-].
Boron tnftuonde
compound with
methyl ether
(1-1) [Boron,
tnfluoro [oxybis
[rnetanej-, T-4-
Bromine
Carbon disuliide .
Chtonne
Chlonne dioxide
[Chtonne oxide
(CI02)]
Chloroform [Meth-
ane, tnehloro-]
CWoromethyl
ether [Methane,
oxybis[chtoro-J.
ChtoromethyJ
methyl ether
[Methane,
chloromettioxy-]
Crotonaldehyde
{2-Butenal]
Crotonaldehyde,
If)- [2-Butenal,
Cyanogen chio-
nde.
Cyclohexylamine
[Cyelofiexanam-
ine]
Diborane
Dirnethyldrchloros-
ilane [Silane,
dchlorodimeth-
yl-]
1,1-
Dimethylhydras-
ine [Hydrazine,
1,1-dvmethyl-]
CAS No
107-02-8
107-13-1
814-68-6
107-18-61
107-11-9
76S4-41-7
7684-41-7
7784-34-1
7784-42-1
10294-34-5
7637-07-2
353-42-4
7726-85-6
75-15-0
7782-50-5
10049-04-4
67-6S-3
V
542-88-1
107-30-2
4170-30-3
123-73-9
506-77-4
108-91-8
19287-45-7
75-78-S
57-14-7
Threshold
quantity
(tos)
5,000
20,000
5,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
15,000
1,000
5,000
5,000
15,000
10.000
20,000
2,500
1,000
20,000
1,000
5,000
20,000.
20,000
10.000
15,000
2,500
5,000
15,000
Basts for
listing
b
b
b
b
b
a, b
a, b
b
b
,b
,
b
b
a,b
b
a, b
c
b
b
b
b
b
C i
b
b
b
6
57
-------
§68.130
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
TABLE 1 TO §68.130,—LJST OF REGULATED
Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUAN-
TITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVEN-'
"DON—Continued
[Alphabetical Order—77 Substances]
TABLE 1 TO § 68.130,—LIST OF REGULATED
Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUAN-
TITIES FOB ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVEN-
TION—Continued
[Alphabetical Order—77 Substances]
Chemical name
EptcWarot-.ydm
'ytxkwe.
BftyfeMdiarnine
(1,2-
Bhanediaimne]-
Elhyteneirrtine
(ftdndfm].
Elhylene oxide
[Oxirane],
Formaldehyde
(sofeiBon)
Pursn ......u.^u^u.
ttydrazlne .
Hydrochloric acid
(cone 37% or
gioalei).
Hydrocyanic aod
Hydrogen ehlond«
(anhydrous)
[Hydrochloric
MM].
Hydrogen fiuorxfe/
HydmRuoric
acid (cone 50%
or greater)
[Hydrofluoric
acid]
Hydroaen sefe-
oWe.
Hydrogea sylflds
Iron,
penttsarbonyt"
[t
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.130
TABLE 1 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED
Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUAN-
TITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVEN-
TION—Continued
[Alphabetical Order—77 Substances]
TABLE 1 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED
Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUAN-
TITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL' RELEASE PREVEN-
TION—Continued
[Alphabetical Order—77 Substances]
Chemical name
Titanium tetra-
chlonde [Tita-
nium chlonde
(Tid4) (T-4H
Toluene 2,4-
dnsocyanate
[Benzene, 2,4-
diisocyanato-1-
raethyl-]'.
Toluene 2,6-
dusocyanate
[Benzene, 1,3-
diisocyanato-2-
methyl-] t
Toluene
diisocyanate
(unspecified
isomer) [Ben-
zene, 1 ,3-
dusccyanatome*
CAS No
7550-^5-0
S84-84-9
91-08-7
28471-62-S
Threshold
quantity
(taj
2.500
10,000
10,000
10,000
Basis for
listing
b
a '
a
a
Chemical name
Tnmethytchlorosil-
ane [Silane,
ohiarotnmelhyl-]
Vinyl acetate
monomer [Ace-
tic acid etiienyl
ester]
CAS No
75-77-4
108-05-4
Threshold
quantity
(Its)
10.000
15.000
Basts for
listing
b
b
1 The mixture exemption in §68115(b)(1) does not apply to
the substance >
NOTE Basis for Listing
a Mandated for listing by Congress
b On EHS list, vapor pressure 10 BimHg or greater.
e Toxic gas
d Toxioty of hydrogen chlonde, potential to release hydro-
gen chlonde, and histoiy of accidents
e Toxioty of sulfur tnroade and sulfunc acid, potential to
release sulfw tnoxtde, and history of accidents
TABLE 2 TO §68.130—LIST OF REGULATED Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR
ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
[CAS Number Order—77 Substances]
CAS No
50-00-0
57—14— 7
60-34-4 _
67-66-3
74-87-3 .„ „
74—90—8
74_93_1
75-15-0 ...-
75_2t— g
75-44—5
75-55-8
75-5S-9
75-74-1
75-77-4
75-78-5 .. i
76-79-6
78-83-0
79-21-0 - ..
7&-22-1
91-OS-7
106-89-8
107-02-8
107-11-9 .
107—12-0
107-13-1
107-15-3
107-18-6 .
107—30—2
10S-O5-4
108-23-6
108-91-8
109-61-5 -. .,
110-00-9
1 1 Q 89 1
123-73-9
Chemical name
Formaldehyde (solution) —
Methyl hydrazine [Hydrazine, methyl-] _ . .
Chlorofomi [Methane, tnehloro-] ... — .. . . .
Methyl chloride [Methane chloro-] .. , . .. ... ..
Tetramethyllead [Plurnbane, tetramethyl-] .. .
Tnmethyichlorosilane [Silane, chlorotnrnethyl-J
Dimethylclichlorosilane [Silane, dichlorodrmethyl-] . ... .
Methyltnchlorosilane [Silane, tnchloromethyl-] ..... . ...
Isobutyranitnle [Propanenrtnle, 2-methyl-] . . .
Toluene 2,6-dnsoeyanate [Benzene, l,3-diisocysnato-2-methyl-]' . .. .
^jichlorohydnn [Oxirane, (chlaromethyl)-] .... . . , .....
Allytamme [2-Propen-1-amine] ...
Acrylonitnle [2-Propenenitnte]
Ethy!enediamrne[1,2-Ettanediamine]
Ally! alcohol p-Propen-1-ol]
Isopropyl chloroformate [Carboncchlondic scad, 1-methylethyI ester]
Cyclohexylamine [Cyclonexanamme] , ... —
Propyl chloroformate [Carbonochlondic and, propylesief] . .
Furan _. „ ....
Crotonaldehyde. (E)- |2-ButenaI, (E)-] . ,
Threshold
quantity
Cos)
15,000
15,000
15.000
20,000
10000
2500
10,000
20,000
10 000
500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
20.000
10,000
5000
10,000
20,000
6,000
10,000
10000
20,000
20,000
15,000
5,000
15000
15.000
15,000
15,000
5,000
15,000
20,000
Basis lor
listing
b
b
b
b
a
a, B
b
b
a, b
a b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
59
-------
§68.130
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
TABLE 2 TO § 68.1 so.—LIST OF RESULATED TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR
ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION—Continued
[CAS Number Order—77 Substances)
;i H, :i
CAS No.
s« : i Hit.* i ; MiNi li ; 1 1 ^ 1 9
Mm Hiliiw IIIHI p i f II 11
126-86-7 .
151-60-4 ,.„,.
302-01-2 . ,.
353-42-4 _.,
606-77-4 _.
508-14-8 _.
542-«i-1 ._-, ...
S*iMt4-9
584-84-9 __.,_.„...„.
594-42-3 „„,„„„..„..
624-83-9 ._.___..
S^4-6S-« .„__
4170-30-3
7446-09-5
7446-J1-9
7550-45-0
7637-4J7-2
7647-01-0 _..„._„„„
7647-01-0
7684-39-3
7664-41-7
7664-41-7
7897-37-2
7719-12-2 _„___,„
7726-95-6 ~.™.._...
7782-41-4
7782-50-S"__,. . ...
7783-06-4
7783-07-S ..... .„,.„,..
77&3-60-0 .~..,.™.™
7784-34-1
7784-42-1 .__. .._
7803-51-2 ._. „ _.
80^4-95-7
10025-87-3 ..._„_._..
10049-Q4-4 _. _
1O1 02-43-9 „
10294-34-5
13463-39-3 _
13463-40-6 „
19287-45-7 „ _.
26471-62-S ....
Chemical name
MeHiaorytonitnle 12-Propenenitnle, 2-melhyl-] „ . . _
Ethyteneimme tAziridme] ... . . . .
Hydrazin© *........,... ... . . ..... . . . ......... .. .. . . ....
Boron tnfruonde compound with methyl ether (1:1) [Boron,
tnHuoro{oxybts[rn2tlwei-, T-4-
Tetfamtromethaiie [Methane, tetranitro-] *
GNoromethyl elher p^ethane, o>^Qis{eh!orQ-) ....
Toluene 2,4-dSsoeyanate [Benzene, 2,4-diisoeyanato-1-mettiyI-J
Perchtorometriylmercaptan (Metnanesulfenyl chtonde, tnchloro-j
Melhyl isocyanala fulethane, isocyanato-J „ .„
CrotonaMehyde [2-SutenalJ . _ _..._ ..., — .
Sullur tnoxide ..,„...« „...«..... ..™.™.. ... .
Titanium tetrachtorWe [Titanium chlonde (TiCW) (T-4)-] _ .
Boron tnRuoride [Borane, trrfluoro-] ™ -
Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid (cone 50% or greater) [Hydrofluoric acid]
Ammonia (anhydrous) - , . . ..
Ammonia (cone 20% or greater)
Nitnc sad (cone 80% or greater) „
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous trichloride] - . . ..~... -
Bromine ..» .... ... .... „,.,..... , , . .»...>. ........ .
Hydrogen sulfide . ......... . . - ...- « .. .. ...»
Hydrogen selenide ,.„
Sulfur telraltuande [Sulfur fluoride (SF4), (T-4)-] „
Oleum (Fuming Sulfunc acid) [Suifunc acid, mixture vMh sulfur tnoxtde? . .
Phosphorus oxychlonde fPhospNoryl chlonde] . . ,M,«
NltrSe oxide [Nitrogen axtde (NO)) . .....
Nfctel carbony! _ „.. . ... . _
Iron, penlacartxjnyl- [Iron cartsonyl (Fe(COW, (TB-S-II)-) ~ .
Toluene dusocyanate (unspecified isomer) [Benzene, 1,3-diisocyanatcmethyt-
1)'
Threshold
quantity
(Its)
10,000
10,000
1S.OOO
15,000
10,000
10,000
1,000
20000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
10.000
2,500
5,000
15,000
5,000
1,000
10,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
1 000
2,500
10,000
500
2,500
15000
1,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
1,000
10,000
5000
1,000
2,500
2,500
10,000
Basis for
listing
b
t>
b
b
c
b
b
b
a
b
a, b
b
b
a b
a, b
b
b
d
a, b
a, b
a,b
b
b
a. b
b
a, b
a, b
b
b
b
b
t>
e
b
it'
b
b
b
b
a
1 Tho mixture exemption in §68 11S(b)(1) does not apply to the substance
tore Basis tor Ushng:
a Mandated for listing by Congress
B On EHS (st, vapor pressure 10 mmHg or greater.
c Toxic gas
d Toxkatjr of hydrogen chJonde, potential to release hydrogen chlonde, and history of accidents.
e Toxjoty of sulfur troxldo and sulfunc acid, potential to release sulfur tnoxide, and history of accidents
TABLE 3 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES
FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
[Alphabetical Order—63 Substances]
Chemical name
Acstaldehyde '. _.. _
Acetylene JEthyne] ,«... „...,,....... „.. ,...„ ...
SromotrlfluorethyJene [Esnene, brornotnfluoro-] .. . . .,.,.,.,.
1 ,3*But*d»ene ......... . .... „.
Butane ™.™ „..«.. .. ... . .............. . .
1-Butsne . „ , , „ . .
2-Butcne ».«,..»»....«. ..... . .... .....
Sutenc ..«, ... „ . „ ........ ........ .... „„ . „ .
CAS No.
75-07-0
74-86-2
598-73-2
1Q6-9&-0
106-97-8
10&-98-9
107-01-7
2S1 67-67-3
Threshold
quantity
dbs)7
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Basis for
listing
g
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
60
-------
Environmental Protectibn Agency
§68.130
TABLE 3 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES
FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION—Continued
[Alphabetical Order—63 Substances)
Chemical name
2-Butene-as ... _ _ ...
Chlorine monoxide [Chlonne oxide] ...... _ ,
1-Chloropropy!ene [1-Propene, 1-chtoro-j
Cyanogen pftanedinrtnte]
DicMorosilane [Silane, dichloro] —
Diflooraelhane [Ethane, 1,1-difluoro-J .. .. ..
Dirnethytemtne fMethanamrne, N-methyl-} .. . . ... ™~. . ..
2,2-Dimethylpropane [Propane. 2,2-dimathyI-] .
Ethane
Ethyl acetylene fl-Butyne] ...,„. ,. .. . . . . ...»
Ethytemme [ithanarnirte]
Elhylene [Ethene] , . , .„ _.„ .„
Ethyl ether [E&sne, 1,1'-oxyfois*] . . . ..,.,..,..,...,»,.
Ethyl rnercaptan [Ethanethiol] _ ,( _
Ethyl nitnt© [Nitrous lacsd, ethyl ester] .„.., ........a.....*..., „..,, .... . „*, , . .
Isoprene [1 ,3-Butadmene, 2-rnethyi-] ..... . . ... . . . ..
Isoprapylamine [2-Propanamine} „.. , . . .
Isopropyl chlonde [Propane, 2-ehloro-] ....... „ . . . .... „
Metiane .. . .
2-Methyl-i-butene » _ ... . _.
Methyl ether [Methane, oxybis-] ............ .
Methyl formate [Formic acid, methyl ester] . . . . .
2-Methylpropene [1-Propene, 2-methyl-] . .
1,3-Penteclinene . ..
Pentane ..„,.. . . .. .... ^ .
1-Perrtene . . .
2-Pentene, (E)- «. .*
2-Pentene, (Z)- ..
Prapadiene [1^-Propadiene] _ _
Propyiene [1-Propene] - - — .. .... . ..... ..
Propyne [1-Prapyne] _ .
Tetrafluoroethylene [Ethene, tetraflyoro-J . . „
Tetramethylsilane [Silane, tetramethyl-] ....
Tnfluorochloroethylene [Ethene, chlorotn!luoro-j .. ...
Tnraethylamine [Methanamine, N,N-dimethyl-] . . , . . „
Vinyl chlonde [Ethene, chloro-] . . ..
Vinyl ethyl ether [Ethene, ethoxy-] „ _ .
Vinyl fluoride [6thene( fluoro-] „ . . . ,
Vinyhdene eMonde [Ethene, 1,1-dKhtero-J . .
Vinyhdene fluoride [Ethene, 1,1-difluaro-J , »
Vinyl methyl ether [Ethene, methoxy-] . . . ~
CAS No
530-18-1
§24-64-6
463-58-1
7791-21-1
557-98-2
' 590-21-6
460-18-5
75-13-4
4109-96-0
75-37-6
124-40-3
463-82-1
74-84-0
107-00-6
73-04-7
75-00-3
74-85-1
60-29-7
75-08-1
1D9-9S-S
1333-T4-O
7S-28-S
7&J-78-4
78-79-5
75-31-0
75-29-6
74_a2_8
74-88-5
563-45-1
563-46-2
115-10-6
107-31-3
115-11-7
504-60-9
109-66-0
109-67-1
646-04-8
627-20-3
463— !9-0
74-98-6
11S-07-1
74-99-7
7803-62-5
116-14-3
75-76-3
10025-78-2
79-38-9
75-50-3
689-97-t
75-01-4
109-92-2
75-02-5
75-35-4
75-38-7
107-25-5
Threshold
quantity
(Ibs)
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10.000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Basis for
listing
f
f
f
f
9
9
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
9
9
t
1
f
s
g
g
g
f
f
f
g
f
9
f
f
9
g
g
g
f
t
f
f
f
f
g
a
t
t
i
a.f
g
f
g
t
t
Note' Basis for Listing:
a Mandated for listing by Congress
f Flammable gas
g Volatile flammable liquid
61
-------
§68.130
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
TABLE 4 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES
* ! FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
JCAS Nuniber Order—63 Substances]
i: I : I ! I
CAS No.
80-29-7 .„ „.
74-82-8 .„,«., ,
74-04-0
74-85-1
74-86-2 ....™.,-.,....,..
74-89-5 „„„ „.
74-95-0
74-90-7 „„„ „_„._.
75-OQ-3 _.
75-01-4
7S-02-5 , ..
7S-04-? __,„.._ „.
7S-07-0 ,-.~~,
75-OS-1 „„,„..„. .
75_ig~4 „„,.„,,..«... „.
75-28-S
75-29-6 „„„„ _
75-31-0 ..... .„.. ...
75-3S-4 „-__„_..»,.
7EK37-6 .«-«..„.«.....*»
7S™3^-7 .>— ..»,....*
7S-SQ-3
75-76-3
78-78-4 __...
78-79*5
79-38-9 -___.. .
106-97-8 ,, — —
106-98-9
196-99-0
107-00-6 ,
i07-Q1-7 „._,„,„,.,.-..
107-2S-S ..._...„«
|07-31-3 ..,._...„„
10S-W-4) -
109-67-1 .. .
109-92-2 ...„,.„.._„_„
109-95-5 -..,.
115-O7-1 .._ _™
115-10-6
115-H-7
116-14-a
124-40-3
480-1 9-5 _.„.
463-49-0 „, .
463-S8-1 .... ...
463-82-1
504-60-9
SS7-98-2 „
§63-45-1 „..„,
563-46-2 .. - .
590-1 8—1
590-21-6 _. ™™..™
598-73^
S24-64-6 _.,.,„
627-20-3
646-04-8 _~ -..-
889-97-4 » ,_„
1333-74-0
4109-36-0
77S1-21-1
7803-62-5
10025-78-2 _
2S167-67-3
ChQmtcai name
Eth^ ether [Ethane, t,l'»oxybls-] ,.
Ethane
Ethytena [Ethene] ,.
Acelyfene [Ethyne] «... . .. . t - . , ..™...
Melhylamine [MettiansmineJ - , . . ...
Efiiyl ^tlorkie {Ethane, chtaro-j .. „., .... ...
Vinyl chksnde [Ethene, cbloro-J ...- —
Vinyl ftoonds [Eftene, fkioro-] ,
Elhytamine plhanarninej ..„ _.. .
Ae^akiehyde ™. .. ...
Ethyl metcaptan plhanetaol] „
Isoprapyl chtontls (Propane, 2-chIoro-l
VinylMene dilortcle [Eftene, 1,1-diohloro-] _
Qliuoroethane EEf»ne, 1,1-difluofo-] -.....« „,.„... . _
Vinylidene ftuonde ptherte, 1,t-drflaoro-l ,. — *. ..~ . ,«
Tnmethylajnme (Methanamtne, N, N-dimetftyl-} . .. ...,.._„ . .
Tetramethylsilane [Silane, tetramethyl-]
Isopentane [Butane, 2-methyl-] „ , ._ ... .
Trrfluorochfafoeihytene [Bhene, ctiiorotnBuoro-]
Btit3fl€ „.....«.««..«.. . «..«........«.. »..•.• . ... ......... ... .
1-Bulene ,.......^™. . ...
Ethyl acetylene [1-ButyneJ .„._... —
2-Butena .. «.. .. ........ .......
Vinyl methyl ether {Ethene, methoxy-]
Vinyl ethyl ether [Ethene, elhoxy-]
Ethyl nftrjte [Nitrous acid, ethyl ester] -. . «...
Propytene [1-Propene] „ — _ „
2-Methylpropene [1 -Propene, 2-methy!-] ... .,...,..„.,„.,.. .
Cyanogen (EthanetTmitnle) „ „
Cartoon oxysulflde [Cajbon oxide suMiele (COS)] —
2,2-Dimethylpropane [Propane, 2,2-dimethyI*] . „.,..„ .....
3-Melhyl-l-butene „ _ _ .
2-Methyl-l-t3u'ene ^..-.. ..... ^
1-Chloropropyisne [1-Propene, 1-chloro-J .. _.
2-Bulene-trans [2-Butene, (E)3
2-Penlene, (EJ- .. „..
Vinyl acetylene [l-Buten-3-yne]
Hydrogen - - » ~
Chlorine monoxide [CNonne o»
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.165
Subpart G—Risk Management
Plan
SOURCE. 61 FR 31726. June 20, 1996, unless
otherwise noted.
§68.150 Submission.
(a) The owner or operator shall sub-
mit a single RMP that includes the in-
formation required by §§68.155 through
68.185 for all covered processes. The
RMP shall be submitted in a method
and format to a central point as speci-
fied by EPA prior to June 21. 1999.
(b) The owner or operator shall sub-
mit the first RMP no later than the
latest of the following dates:
(1) June 21, 1999;
(2) Three years after the date on
which a regulated substance is first
listed under §68.130; or
(3) The date on which a regulated
substance is first present above a
threshold quantity in a process.
(c) Subsequent submissions of RMPs
shall be in accordance with §68.190,
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of
§§68.1S5 to 68.190, the RMP shall ex-
clude classified information Subject to
appropriate procedures to protect such
information from public disclosure,
classified data or information excluded
from the RMP may be made available
in a classified annex to the RMP for re-
view by Federal and state representa-
tives who have received the appro-
priate security clearances.
§68.155 Executive summary.
The owner or operator shall provide
in the RMP an executive summary that
includes a brief description of the fol-
lowing elements:
(a) The accidental releas_e prevention
and emergency response policies at the
stationary source;
(b) The stationary source and regu-
lated substances handled;
(c) The worst-case release scenario(s)
and the alternative release scenario (s),
including administrative controls and
mitigation measures to limit the dis-
tances for each reported scenario;
(d) The general, accidental release
prevention program and chemical-spe-
cific prevention steps;
(e) The five-year accident history;
(f) The emergency response program;
and
(g) Planned changes to improve safe-
ty.
§68,160 Registration.
(a) The owner or operator shall com-
plete a single registration form and in-
clude it in the RMP. The form shall
cover all regulated substances handled
in covered processes.
(b) The registration shall include the
following data:
(1) Stationary source name, street,
city, county, state, zip code, latitude,
and longitude;
(2) The stationary source Dun and
Bradstreet number;
(3) Name and Dun and Bradstreet
number of the corporate parent com-
pany;
(4) The name, telephone number, and
mailing address of the owner or opera-
tor;
(5) The name and title of the person
or position with overall responsibility
for RMP elements and implementation;
(6) The name, title, telephone num-
ber, and 24-hour telephone number of
the emergency contact,
(7) For each covered process, the
name and CAS number of each regu-
lated substance held above the thresh-
old quantity in the process, the maxi-
mum quantity of each regulated sub-
stance or mixture in the process (in
pounds) to two significant digits, the
SIC code, and the Program level of the
process;
(8) The stationary source EPA identi-
fier;
(9) The number of full-time employ-
ees at the stationary source;
(10) Whether the stationary source is
subject to 29 CFR 1910.119;
(11) Whether the stationary source is
subject to 40 CFR part 355;
(12) Whether the stationary source
has a CAA Title V operating permit;
and
(13) The date of the last safety in-
spection of the stationary source by a
Federal, state, or local government
agency and the identity of the inspect-
ing entity.
§68.165 Off site consequence analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shall sub-
mit in the RMP information.
63
-------
§68.168
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
(I) One worst-case release scenario
for each Program I process; and
(2) For Program 2 and 3 processes,
one worst-case release scenario to rep-
resent all regulated toxic substances
held above the threshold quantity and
one worst-case release scenario to rep-
resent all regulated flammable sub-
stances held above the threshold quan-
tity. If additional worst-case scenarios
for toxics or flammables are required
by §68.25 (a) (2) (iii), the owner or opera-
tor shall submit the same information
on the additional scenario(s). The
owner or operator of Program 2 and 3
processes shall also submit information
on one alternative release scenario for
each regulated toxic substance held
above the threshold quantity and one
alternative release scenario to rep-
resent all regulated flammable sub-
stances held above the threshold quan-
tity.
(b) The owner or operator shall sub-
mit the following data:
(1) Chemical name;
(2) Physical state (toxics only);
, (3) Basis of results (give model name
if used);
(4) Scenario (explosion, fire, toxic gas
release, or liquid spill and vaporiza-
tion);
(5) Quantity released in pounds;
(6) Release rate;
I Release duration;
Wind speed and atmospheric sta-
bility class (toxics only);
(9) Topography (toxics only);
(10) Distance to endpoint;
(11) Public and environmental recep-
tors within the distance;
(12) Passive mitigation considered;
and
(13) Active mitigation considered (al-
ternative releases only);
Iii: II ill I1 I J
§68.168 Five-year accident history.
The owner or operator shall submit
in the RMP the information provided
In §68.42(b) on each accident covered by
§68.42(a).
Hi I I
§68.170 Prevention program/Program
2,
i i
(a) For each Program 2 process, the
owner or operator shall provide in the
RMP the information indicated in
paragraphs (b) through (k) of this sec-
tion. If the same information applies to
more than one covered process, the
owner or operator may provide the in-
formation only once, but shall indicate
to which processes the information ap-
plies.
(b) The SIC code for the process.
(c) The name(s) of the chemical(s)
covered.
(d) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of the safety informa-
tion and a list of Federal or state regu-
lations or industry-specific design
codes and standards used to dem-
onstrate compliance with the safety in-
formation requirement.
(e) The date of completion of the
most recent hazard review or update.
(1) The expected date of completion
of any changes resulting from the haz-
ard review;
(2) Major hazards identified;
(3) Process controls in use;
(4) Mitigation systems in use;
(5) Monitoring and detection systems
in use; and
(6) Changes since the last hazard re-
view.
(f) The date of the most recent review
or revision of operating procedures.
(g) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of training programs;
(I) The type of training provided—
classroom, classroom plus on the job,
on the job; and
(2) The type of competency testing
used.
(h) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of maintenance proce-
dures and the date of the most recent
equipment inspection or test and the
equipment inspected or tested.
(i) The date of the most recent com-
pliance audit and the expected date of'
completion of any changes resulting
from the compliance audit.
0) The date of the most recent inci-
dent investigation and the expected
date of completion of any changes re-
sulting from the investigation-
(k) The date pf the most recent
change that triggered a review or revi-
sion of safety information, the hazard
review, operating or maintenance pro-
cedures, or training.
64
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.190
§68.175 Prevention program/Program
3.
(a) For each Program 3 process, the
owner or operator shall provide the in-
formation indicated in paragraphs (b)
through (p) of this section. If the same
information applies to more than one
covered process, the owner or operator
may provide the information only
once, but shall indicate to which proc-
esses the information applies,
(b) The SIC code for the process.
(c) The name(s) of the substance(s)
covered.
(d) The date on which the safety in-
formation was last reviewed or revised.
(e) The date of completion of the
most recent PHA or update and the
technique used.
(1) The expected date of completion
of any changes resulting from the PHA;
(2) Major hazards identified;
(3) Process controls In use;
(4) Mitigation systems in use;
(5) Monitoring and detection systems
in use; and
(6) Changes since the last PHA.
(f) The.date of the most recent review
or revision of operating procedures.
(g) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of training programs;
(1) The type of training provided—
classroom, classroom plus on the job,
on thejob; and
(2) The type of competency testing
used.
(h) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of maintenance proce-
dures and the date of the most recent
equipment inspection or test and the
equipment inspected or tested.
(1) The date of the most recent
change that triggered management of
change procedures and the date of the
most recent review or revision of man-
agement of change procedures.
(j) The date of the most recent pre-
startup review.
(k) The date of the most recent com-
pliance audit and the expected date of
completion of any changes resulting
from the compliance audit;
(1) The date of the most recent inci-
dent investigation and the expected
date of completion of any changes re-
sulting from the investigation;
(m) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of employee participa-
tion plans;
(n) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of hot work permit
procedures;
(o) The date of the most recent re-
view or revision of contractor safety
procedures; and
(p) The date of the most recent eval-
uation of contractor safety perform-
ance.
§ 68.180 Emergency response program.
(a) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide in the RMP the following informa-.
tion:
(1) Do you have a written emergency
response plan?
(2) Does the plan include specific ac-
tions to be taken in response to an ac-
cidental releases of a regulated sub-
stance7
(3) Does the plan include procedures
for informing the public and local
agencies responsible for responding to
accidental releases?
(4) Does the plan include information
on emergency health care?
(5) The date of the 'most recent re-
view or update of the emergency re-
sponse plan;
(6) The date of the most recent emer-
gency response training for employees.
(b) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide the name and telephone number of
the local agency with which the plan is
coordinated.
(c) The owner or operator shall list
other Federal or state emergency plan
requirements to which the stationary
source is subject
§68.185 Certification.
(a) For Program 1 processes, the
owner or operator shall submit in the
RMP the certification statement pro-
vided in §68.12(b}(4).
(b) For all other covered processes,
the owner or operator shall submit in
the RMP a single certification that, to
the best of the signer's knowledge, in-
formation, and belief formed after rea-
sonable inquiry, the information sub-
mitted is true, accurate, and complete.
§88.190 Updates.
(a) The owner or operator shall re-
view and update the RMP as specified
in paragraph (b) of this section and
submit it in a method and format to a
65
-------
§68.200
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
central point specified by EPA prior to
June, 21.1999.
(b) The owner or operator of a sta-
tionary source shall revise and update
the RMP submitted under §68.150 as
follows:
(1) Within five years of its initial sub-
mission or most recent update required
by paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of
this section, whichever is later.
(2) No later than three years after a
newly regulated substance is first list-
ed by EPA;
ffl No later than the date on which a
new regulated substance is first
present in an already covered process
above a threshold quantity;
(4) No later than the date on which a
regulated substance is first present
above a threshold quantity in a new
process;
(5) Within six months of a change
that requires a revised PHA or hazard
review;
(6) Within six months of a change
that requires a revised offsite con-
sequence analysis as provided in §68.36;
and
(?) Within six months of a change
that alters the Program level that ap-
plied to any covered process.
(c) If a stationary source is no longer
subject to this part, the owner or oper-
ator shall submit a revised registration
to EPA within six months indicating
that the stationary source is no longer
covered.
Subpart H—Other Requirements
SOURCE: 61 FR 31728, June 20, 1896, unless
otherwise noted.
i
§63.200 Recordkeeping.
The owner or operator shall maintain
records supporting the implementation
of this part for five years unless other-
wise provided in subpart D of this part.
t ^
168.210 Availability of information to
the public.
(a) The RMP required under subpart
G of this part shall be available to the
public under 42 U.S.C. 7414(c).
(b) The disclosure of classified infor-
mation by the Department of Defense
or other Federal agencies or contrac-
tors of such agencies shall be con-
trolled by applicable laws, regulations,
or executive orders concerning the re-
lease of classified information.
§68.215 Permit content and air per-
mitting authority or designated
agency requirements.
(a) These requirements apply to any
stationary source subject to this part
68 and parts 70 or 71 of this chapter.
The 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 permit for
the stationary source shall contain:
(1) A statement listing this part as
an applicable requirement;
(2) Conditions that require the source
owner or operator to submit:
(i) A compliance schedule for meet-
ing the requirements of this part by
the date provided in §68.10(a) or;
(ii) As part of the compliance certifi-
cation submitted under 40 CFR
70.6(c)(5), a certification statement
that the source is in compliance with
all requirements of this part, including
the registration and submission of the
RMP.
(b) The owner or operator shall sub-
mit any additional relevant informa-
tion requested by the air permitting
authority or designate'd agency.
(c) For 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 per-
mits issued prior to the deadline for
registering and submitting the RMP
and which do not contain permit condi-
tions described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator or air
permitting authority shall initiate per-
mit revision or reopening according to
the procedures of 40 CFR 70.7 or 71.7 to
incorporate the terms and conditions
consistent with paragraph (a) of this
section.
(d) The state, may delegate the au-
thority to implement and enforce the
requirements of paragraph (e) of this
section to a state or local agency or
agencies other than the air permitting
authority. An up-to-date copy of any
delegation instrument shall be main-
tained by the air permitting authority.
The state may enter a written agree-
ment with the Administrator under
which EPA will implement and enforce
the requirements of paragraph (e) of
this section.
(e) The air permitting authority or
the agency designated by delegation or
agreement under paragraph (d) of this
section shall, at a minimum:
66
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§68.220
(1) Verify that the source owner or
operator has registered and submitted
an RMP or a revised <• plan when re-
quired by this part;
(2) Verify that the source owner or
operator has submitted a source cer-
tification or in its absence has submit-
ted a compliance schedule consistent
with paragraph (a) (2) of this section;
"" (3) For some or all of the sources sub-
ject to this section, use one or more
mechanisms such as, but not limited
to, a completeness check, source au-
dits, record reviews, or facility inspec-
tions to ensure that permitted sources
are in compliance with the require-
ments of this part; and
(4) Initiate enforcement action based
on paragraphs (e)(l) and (e)(2) of this
section as appropriate.
§68.220 Audits,
(a) In addition to inspections for the
purpose of regulatory development and
enforcement of the Act, the imple-
menting agency shall periodically
audit RMPs submitted under subpart G
of this part to review the adequacy of
such RMPs and require revisions of
RMPs when necessary to ensure com-
pliance with subpart G of this part.
(b) The implementing agency shall
select stationary sources for audits
based on any of the following criteria:
(1) Accident history of the stationary
source;
(2) Accident history of other station-
ary sources in the same industry,
(3) Quantity of regulated substances
present at the stationary source;
(4) Location of the stationary source
and its proximity to the public and en-
vironmental receptors;
(5) The presence of specific regulated
substances;
(6) The hazards identified in the
RMP; and
(7) A plan providing for neutral, ran-
dom oversight
(c) Exemption from audits A station-
ary source with a Star or Merit rank-
ing under OSHA's voluntary protection
program shall be exempt from audits
under paragraph (b) (2) and (b) (7) of this
section.
(d) The implementing agency shall
have access to the stationary source,
supporting documentation, and any
area where an accidental release could
occur. (
(e) Based on the audit, the imple-
menting agency may issue the owner
or operator of a stationary source a
written preliminary determination of
necessary revisions to the stationary
source's RMP to ensure that the RMP
meets the criteria of subpart G of this
part. The preliminary determination
shall include an explanation for the
basis for the revisions, reflecting indus-
try standards and guidelines (such as
AIChE/CCPS guidelines and ASME and
API standards) to the extent that such
standards and guidelines are applica-
ble, and shall include a timetable for
their implementation.
(f) Written response to a preliminary de-
termination. (1) The owner or operator
shall respond in writing to a prelimi-
nary determination made in accord-
ance with paragraph (e) of this section.
The response shall state the owner or
operator will implement the revisions
contained in the preliminary deter-
mination in accordance with the time-
table included in the preliminary de-
termination or shall state that the '
i owner or operator rejects the revisions
in whole or in part. For each rejected
revision, the owner or operator shall
explain the basis for rejecting such re-
vision. Such explanation may include
substitute revisions
(2) The written response under para-
graph (f)(l) of this section shall be re-
ceived by the implementing agency
within 90 days of the issue of the pre-
liminary determination or a shorter
period of time as the implementing
agency specifies in the preliminary de-
termination as necessary to protect
public health and the environment.
Prior to the written response being due
and upon written request from the
owner or operator, the implementing
agency may provide in writing addi-
tional time for the response to be re-
ceived.
(g) After providing the owner or oper-
ator an opportunity to respond under
paragraph (f) of this section, the imple-
menting agency may issue the owner
or operator a written final determina-
tion of necessary revisions to the sta-
tionary source's RMP. The final deter-
mination may adopt or modify the re-
visions contained in the preliminary
67
-------
§68.220
determination under paragraph (e) of
this section or may adopt or modify
the substitute revisions provided in the
response under paragraph (f) of this
section. A final determination that
adopts a revision rejected by the owner
or operator shall include an expla-
nation of the basis for the revision. A
final determination that fails to adopt
a substitute revision provided under
paragraph (f) of this section shall in-
clude an explanation of the basis for
finding such substitute revision unrea-
sonable.
th) Thirty days after completion of
the actions detailed in the implemen-
tation schedule set in the final deter-
mination under paragraph (g) of this
section, the owner or operator shall be
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-98 Edition)
in violation of subpart G of this part
and this section unless the owner or
operator revises the RMP prepared
under subpart G of this part as required
by the final determination, and sub-
mits the revised RMP as required
under §68.150.
(i) The public shall have access to the
preliminary determinations, responses,
and final determinations under this
section in a manner consistent with
§68.210.
Q) Nothing in this section shall pre-
clude, limit, or interfere in any way
with the authority of EPA or the state
to exercise its enforcement, investiga-
tory, and information gathering au-
thorities concerning this part under
the Act.
68
-------
APPENDIX A TO PART 68—TABLE OF Toxic EKDPOINTS
[As debited In §88 22 of this part]
O>
to
CAS No
107-02-8 . ,. ,
107-13-1
814-88-6 .... ,
107-18-6
107-11-9
7IB4-41-7 ..„
7664-41-7 . ...
7784-34-1 ,
7784-42-1
10294-34-5
7637-07-2 ....
353-42-4 ....
7726-9S-6 .
7S-15-0
7782-50-5 «
10049-04—4
67_66_3
542-88-1 . . ....
107-30-2 . .
4170-30-3 ' , ,„.,
123—73-9
506-77-4
108-91-8
1 9287-45-7
75_7g_5
57-14-7 ... ....
106-89-8
107-15-3 , . .
!S1-56~4
75-21-8 . ,
7782-41—4 . .... . ...
50-00-0
1 10-00-9
302-01-2
7647-01-0 , .
74-90-8
7647-01-0 .... .. ..
7664-39-3 .,
7783-07-3
7783-06^1
13463-40-6
78-82-0
108-23-6 , .
128-98-7 ....
1 Chemical name
Acrotem [2-Propenai] .. . . ..- . . .
Acrylonitnle {2-PropenemInteJ ...... . , „ ... .
Acrylyl chloride [2-Propenoy! ehloncte] . ... . . ...
Ally! alcohol [2-Propen-1 -olj . ... .... . .
Allylamme [a-PropBn-1-amine] ... . •. .. . . .
Ammonia (anhydrous) .
Ammonia (eono 20% or greater) ,,.„,„, ...... .
ArsenoXis trichloride .... ... ... . .
Boron Inchlonds [Borane, tnchloro-J . ..... , .. , . . ,. ., "*
Boron tnlluonde [Borano", tnlluoro-J . . „ ( ,. . „ .... ..
Boron tnlluoride compound with methyl ether; (1:1) [Boron, Influoro[(»ybls[melhan9])-, T-4 .
Bromine ... ...... ,. , ,„,„,.., ..... ... . , , .
Carbon disulfide ... . . . ... . . ... ....
Chlorine ..... . . . . . .. '. . ~ , ,
Chlorine dioxide (Chlorine oxide (CIQ2)] . ...... , . . ....
Chloroform (Methane, Inchloro-J . . , . . . . ..
Chtoromelhyl ether (Methane, oxybis[chloro-] . „ . , .
Chlorornothyl methyl ether (Methane, ehtoromethoxy-j . , ... .. ~ .
Crotonaldehyde [2-Butenal] , .. , , . , ,
Crotonaldehyde (EJ- [2-Butenaf (Ł)•] ., ... . ,
Cyclohexylamine [CydohexanammeJ ... .... . , ..... ..... . .......
Dimethyldichlorosifane [Silane, dichloradimelhyl-j .......
1,1-OimelriylhydrazmB [Hydrazlne, 1,1 -dimethyl-) .... ...
Epichlorahydnn JOxirane, (chloromelhyl)-] . . .. .. . . " ... ,±.
Glhylenediamine [1 ,2-Ethanedtemjne] ....,.,.,. ,..,...,
Ethylenamine [AzindmeJ . . ...
Fluorine .... . .... ........ ..... . ......... . . . .
Formaldehyde (solution) ...... . , ,
Hydrazine .. ..... . . .,„ . . . . .... . ... ,
Hydrochloric acid (cone 37% or greater) . , »
Hydrocyanic acid . _ . .„ ', , ....
Hydrogen chloride (anhydrous) [Hydrochloric acid)
Hydrogen Iluonde/Hydrotluonc acid (cone 60% or greater) [Hydrofluoric acid] .
Hydrogen selenide ... .. .......... > .. ., . . -
Hydrogen sulhde ... , . ... .... . , ..
Iron, pentaoarbonyl- [Iron carfconyl (Fe(CO)5), (TB-5-11!-) ....
Isobutyromlrile [Propanemtnle 2-methyl-J
Isopropyl chloroformate [Carbonochlonde acsd, 1«methylethyl ester]
Meltiaerylonittfe (2-Propenenltnle, 2-msthyI-]
Toxic end-
point (mg/L)
00011
0076
00008D
0036
00032
014
014
0010
00019
0010
0028
0.023
Q306S
016
03087
00028
049
000025
00018
0029
0029
0030
ote
00011
0026
0012
0076
049
0018
0090
00039
0012
00012
0011
0030
0011
0030
U016
00008S
0042
000044
014
010
00027
0)
DO
TJ
•O
-------
APPENDIX A TO PAHT 68—TABIE,OFTOXIC ENDPOSNTS—Continued
[At detect In §63.22 of I his pert]
CAS Mo.
74-87-3 .,..„,...
78-22-1 .._„_.,...._. .......
80-34-4 . „., ......,„,......._,..
824-83-9 „ _
74-93-1 „ M ,„„. _ _„.„„, ,.,,, _
S66-64~a „. . , .„
75-79-6 ....„...„
13463-39-3 . _ „..,_., ,_.
7697-37 2 ...
10102-43-i , „
8014-95-7 . . ,,.... .. . ..... ... ,..,.
79-21-0 „ _
594-42-3 „ . .... „...,.
75-44-5 „, t ......
7803-S1-2 ... .
10025-87-3 .
7719-12-2
110-89-4 ,„,„
107-12-0 .„...., , „ , .„
109-61-5 , ...
76-55-8
75-5S-9 „ „
7446-09-5 . .
7783-60-0 .
7446-1 1-9 ...
75-74-1 „
509-14-8 , .
7750-45-0
584-84-9 ,
91-^8—7
26471-62-5 .... . . ..
70-77—4 , ., . ... „ „ ,
108-05-4 . . .
Chtntal nnma
Melhyl ehlorfde [Methane, ehJoro] ... ... . ..*•-.-. . - ~~,...,,.... .-,. , .. . ....... ..„.
Methyl mercsptan [Melhanoihtol] .. .. ... .. .. ...» ,. . .......... «,... «....«....»... «»™ ~.~. ». ... . .«....,. ... .. ....
Nllrlo oxide [Nilrajcn oxldo (NO)] „ „.,... . „ ,..„, „ „„.„..», , „..., ._.
Olsum (Fuming Sulfunc tcld) [SuHunc add, mixture with sullur tnoxldsj .... . .. « . .M . .„ ... ....
PefaeGlIc acid [Elhsneperoxois sdd] . „ , , . s ........ ,..,.„.,»..,. . ... . , »..,, . .„..»., „ ... ... «
PerchlofOfnsthylmeFGspjan [Meiftanesullenyl cti!onde, lnchtofo*J w». .,,.,........».« ...»..,...„ „ , ,
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous inehionde] ... „ . . . ... .
Pipendino - « .. .. .... ..... ,
Proploniinls [Propsnenllnte] ... ....... , . . . ,..,..,.,.. ,..„ .. ., ., .... . ....
Propyl chloroforrnate [Carbonochlondic acid, propyleslsr] »...,. , ......... . . ...
Propylene oxide [Oxirane, melhyl-] - , . . . . , . ...... .„,. .... .. ., .. ..
Sulfur dioxide (anhydrous) . . .... ., , „ ., ... , , . . . . .„ „ .„.,„. ,„ .... ... . ..
Sulfur letrafluoade [Sulfur fluoride (SF4) (T-4)-] M,«. .... . ... .. .. .. . .... .... , .
Tetfamethyllead [Plumbane, teframethy!-] . .. ..... ...... . ..a.. ...
Titanium telrachlonde [Trtanlum chloride (TiG!4) (T-4J-] .. ... ... .. .........
Toluene 2,4 dusocyanate [Benzene, 2,4 dilsocyanato-1-methyl-J ,. .... . .. ...... ... ... ..... . , . ,.
Vinyl acetate monomer [Acetic add elhenyl ester) ....... , . . „ . ,
Toxic and-
point {mg/L)
082
00018
00094
00012
• 0049
003S
0018
000067
0028
0031
0010
00045
00076
000081
03035
00030
0028
0022
00037
0010
012
059
00078
00092
0010
00040
00040
0020
00070
Q0079
00070
0050
026
?
at
TJ
>
.Ł>.
o
O
•n
73
n
[61 FR 31729, June 20. 1986, as amended at 62 FR 45132. Aug 25, 1997]
00
I
o
-------
Wednesday
January 6, 1999
= =
== s
f i =
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 68
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements; Risk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section
112(r)(7), Amendments; Final Rule
-------
964 _ Federal JRegister/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4o CFft Part 68
|FRL-6214-9]
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements; Risk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section
112(r)(7); Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTON; Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action modifies the
chemical accident prevention rule
codified in 40 CFR Part 68. The
chemical accident prevention rule
requires owners and operators of
stationary sources subject to the rule to
lubmiit a risk management plan (RMP)
byJune 21, 1999, to a central location
specified by EPA. In this action, EPA is
amending the rule to: add four
mandatory and five optional RMP data
elements, establish specific procedures
for protecting confidential business
information when submitting RMPs,
adopt the government's use of a new
industry classification system, and make
technical corrections and clarifications
to Part 68. However, as stated in the
proposed rule for these amendments,
this action does not address issues
concerning public access to offsite
consequence analysis data in the RMP.
DATES: The rule is effective February 5,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Supporting material used in
developing the proposed rule and final
rule is contained in Docket A-98-08.
The docket is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday (except government holidays) at
Room 1500, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Sicy
Jacob or John Ferris, Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office, Environmental
Protection Agency (5104), 401 M Street
SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-
7249 or (202) 260-4043, respectively; or
the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Hotline at
800-424-9346 (in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, (703) 412-9810). You
may wish to visit the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office (CEPPO) Internet site,
at www.epa.gov/ceppo,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this
action are those stationary sources that
have more than a threshold quantity of
a regulated substance in a process.
Regulated categories and entities
include:
Category
Examples of regulated entities
Chemical Manufacturers
Ratrojeum
Other Manufacturing
Agriculture
Public Sources ,..,
tallies., ,„..
Other „..,........, ....
Federal Sources
Basic chemical manufacturing, petrochemicals, resins, agricultural chemicals, Pharmaceuticals,
paints, cleaning compounds.
Refineries.
Paper, electronics, semiconductors, fabricated metals, industrial machinery, food processors.
Agricultural retailers.
Drinking water and waste water treatment systems.
Electric utilities.
Propane retailers and users, cold storage, warehousing, and wholesalers.
Military and energy installations.
This table is not meant to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers to indicate those entities
likely to be regulated by this action. The
(able lists entities EPA is aware of that
could potentially be regulated by this
action. Other entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To
determine whether a stationary source is
regulated by this action, carefully
examine the provisions associated with
the list of substances and thresholds
under §68.130 and the applicability
criteria under §68.10. If you have
questions regarding applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the
hotline or persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
!, Introduction and Background
" A. Statutory Authority
i B, Background
fl. Summary of the Final Rule
IB. Discussion of Issues
A.yAJCS Codes
B, RMP Data Elements
C. Prevention Program Reporting
D. Confidential Business Information
E, Other Issues
F. Technical Corrections
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of the
Final Rule
V. Judicial Review
VI. Administrative Requirements-
A Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Executive Order 12875
D. Executive Order 13045
E. Executive Order 13084
F. Regulatory Flexibility
C Paperwork Reduction
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
These amendments are being
promulgated under sections 112(r) and
301(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601(a)(l)).
B, Background
The 1990 CAA Amendments added
section 112(r) to provide for the
prevention and mitigation of accidental
chemical releases. Section 112(r)
mandates that EPA promulgate a list of
"regulated substances," with threshold
quantities. Processes at stationary
sources that contain a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance are
subject to accidental release prevention
regulations promulgated under CAA
section 112(r)(7). EPA promulgated the
list of regulated substances on January
31. 1994 (59 FR4478) (the "List Rule")
and the accidental release prevention
regulations creating the risk
management program requirements on
June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668) (the "RMP
Rule"). Together, these two rules are
codified as 40 CFR Part 68. EPA
amended the List Rule on August 25,
1997 (62 FR 45132), to change the listed
concentration of hydrochloric acid. On
January 6, 1998 (63 FR 640), EPA
amended the List Rule to delist Division
1.1 explosives (classified by DOT), to
clarify certain provisions related to
regulated flammable substances and to
clarify the transportation exemption.
Part 68 requires that sources with
more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance in a process
develop and implement a risk
management program that includes a
five-year accident history, offsite
consequence analyses, a prevention
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
965
program, and an emergency response
program. In Part 68, processes are
divided Into three categories (Programs
I through 3). Processes that have no
potential impact on the public in the
case of accidental releases have minimal
requirements (Program 1). Processes in
Programs 2 and 3 have additional
requirements based on the potential for
offsite consequences associated with the
worst-case accidental release and their
accident history. Program 3 is also
triggered if the processes are subject to
OSHA's Process Safety Management
(PSM) Standard. By June 21, 1999,
sources must submit to a location
designated by EPA, a risk management
plan (RMP) that summarizes their
implementation of the risk management
program.
When EPA promulgated the risk
management program regulations, it
stated that it intended to work toward
electronic submission of RMPs. The
Accident Prevention Subcommittee of
the CAA Advisory Committee convened
an Electronic Submission Workgroup to
examine technical and practical issues
associated with creating a national
electronic repository for RMPs. Based
on workgroup recommendations, EPA is
in the process of developing two
systems, a user-friendly PC-based
submission system (RMP*Submit) and a
database of RMPs (RMP*mfo).
The Electronic Submission
Workgroup also recommended that EPA
add some mandatory and optional data
elements to the RMP and asked EPA to
clarify how confidential business
information (CBI) submitted in the RMP
•would be handled. Based on these
recommendations and requests for
clarifications, EPA proposed
amendments to Part 68 on April 17,
1998 (63 FR 19216). These amendments
proposed to replace the use of Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
with the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes,
add four mandatory data elements to the
RMP, add five optional data elements to
the RMP, establish specific "
requirements for submission of
information claimed CBI, and make
technical corrections and clarifications
to the rule. EPA received 47 written
comments on the proposed rule.
Today's rule reflects EPA's
consideration of all comments; major
issues raised by commenters and EPA's
responses are discussed in Section III of
this preamble, A summary of all
comments submitted and EPA's
responses can be found In a document
entitled, Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements, Risk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section
112(r) (7); Amendments: Summary and
Response to Comments, in the Docket
(see ADDRESSES).
'II. Summary of the Final Rule
NAICS Codes
On January 1, 1997, the U.S.
Government, in cooperation with the
governments of Canada and Mexico,
adopted a new industry classification
system, the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS), to
replace the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes (April 9, 1997,
62 FR 17288). The applicability of some
Part 68 requirements (i e.. Program 3
prevention requirements) is determined,
in part, by SIC codes, and Part 68 also
requires the reporting of SIC codes in
the RMP. Therefore, EPA is revising Part
68 to replace all references to "SIC
code" with "NAICS code." In addition,
EPA is replacing, as proposed, the nine
SIC codes subject to Program 3
prevention program requirements with
ten NAICS codes, as follows:
NAICS Sector
32211 Pulp mills
32411 Petroleum refineries
32511 Petrochemical manufacturing
325181 Alkalies and chlorine
325188 All other inorganic chemical
manufacturing
325192 'Other cyclic crude and intermediate
manufacturing
325199 All other basic organic chemical
manufacturing
325211 Plastics and resins
325311 Nitrogen fertilizer
32532 Pesticide and other agricultural
chemicals
NAICS codes are either five or six digits,
depending on the degree to which the
sector is subdivided.
RMP Data Elements
As proposed, EPA is adding four new
data elements to the RMP. latitude/
longitude method and description, CAA
Title V permit number, percentage
weight of a toxic substance in a liquid
mixture, and NAICS code for each
process that had an accidental release
reported in the five-year accident
history. EPA is also adding five optional
data elements: local emergency
planning committee (LEPC) name,
source or parent company e-mail
address, source homepage address,
phone number at the source for public
inquiries, and status under OSHA's
Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
Prevention Program Reporting
EPA is not revising Sections 68.170
and 68 175 as proposed. Prevention
program reporting, therefore, will not be
changed to require a prevention
program for each portion of a process for
which a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
or hazard review was conducted.
Instead, EPA plans to create functions
within RMP*Submit to provide
stationary sources with a flexible way of
explaining the scope and content of
each prevention program they
implement at their facility.
Confidential Business Information
EPA is clarifying how confidential
business information (CBI) submitted in '
the RMP will be handled. EPA has
determined that the information
required by certain RMP data elements
does not meet the criteria for CBI and
therefore may not be claimed as such.
The Agency is also requiring submission
of substantiation at the time a CBI claim
is filed.
Finally, EPA is promulgating several
of the technical corrections and
clarifications, as proposed in the
Federal Register, April 17, 1998 {63 FR
19216)
HI. Discussion of Issues
EPA received 47 comments on the
proposed rule. The commenters
included chemical manufacturers,
petroleum refineries, environmental
groups, trade associations, a state
agency, and members of the public. The
major issues raised by commenters are
addressed briefly below The Agency's
complete response to comments
received on this rulemaking is available
in the docket (see ADDRESSES). The
document is titled Accidental Release
Prevention Requirements, Risk
Management Programs Under Clean Air
Act Section 112(r)(7); Amendments:
Summary and Response to Comments.
A. NAICS Codes
Two commenters asked that sources
be given the option to use either SIC
codes or NAICS codes, or both, in their
initial RMP because the NAICS system
is new and may not be familiar to
sources EPA disagrees with this
suggestion EPA intends to provide
several outreach mechanisms to assist
sources in identifying their new NAICS
code. RMP*Submit will provide a "pick
list" that will make it easier for sources
to find the appropriate code. Also,
selected NAICS codes are included in
the General Guidance for Risk
Management Programs (July 1998) and
in the industry-specific guidance
documents that EPA is developing. EPA
will also utilize the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Hotline
at 800-424-9346 (or 703-412-9810) and
its web site at www.epa.gov/ceppo/, to
assist sources in determining the
source's NAICS codes. EPA also notes
that the Internal Revenue Service is
planning to require businesses to •
-------
966
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
provide NAlCS-based activity codes on
their 1998 tax returns, so many sources
will have become familiar with their
NAICS codes by the June 1999 RMP
deadline,
EPA believes it is necessary and
appropriate to change from SIC codes to
NAICS codes at this time. EPA
recognizes that hlAICS codes were
developed for statistical purposes by the
CJffice of Management and Budget
0MB). In the notice of April 9, 1997 (62
FR 17288) OMB stated that the "[u]se of
NAICS for nonstatistical purposes (e.g..
administrative, regulatory, or taxation)
will be determined by the agency or
agencies that have chosen to use the SIC
for nonstatistical purposes." EPA has
determined that NAICS is appropriate in
|hjs rule, for several reasons. First, the
reason the Sic codes were replaced by
NAICS codes is because the SIC codes
ho longer accurately represent today's
Industries.. The SIC codes will become
njiore'obsolete oye;r tjme because OMB
will no longer be supporting the SIC
codes; therefore, no new or modified
SIC codes will be developed to reflect
future changes In industries. Second, as
trie SIC codes become obsolete, most
users of SIC codes will likely change to
NAICS codes over time, so future data
sharing and consistency will be
enhanced by use of NAICS codes in the
RMP program. Third, through this
rulemaking process, EPA has analyzed
specific conversions of SIC codes to
NAICS codes for the RMP program and
Was} able to identify NAICS codes that
were applicable to fulfilling the
purposes of this rule. Finally, because
the RMP reporting requirement is new,
it is reasonable to begin the program
with NAICS codes now rather than
converting to them later.
1 Three commenters expressed support
for the ten NAICS codes that EPA
proposed to use in place of the nine SIC
codes referenced in section 68.10(d) (1)
of Pan 68 and one commenter partially
objected. Section 68.10(d)(l) provides
that processes in the referenced codes
are subject to Program 3 requirements (if
riot eligible for Program 1). One
commenter objected to EPA's proposal
to replace the SIC code for pulp and
paper mills with only the NAICS code
for pulp mills that do not also produce
paper or paperboard. The commenter
bsked EP^, ip reexamine the accident
history of paper and paperboard mills.
As discussed In the preamble of the
proposed" rule. EPA reviewed the
accident history data prior to proposing
the new NAICS codes. Neither facilities
that classify themselves as paper mills
(NAICS Code 322121) nor paperboard
mjlls (NAICS code 32213) met the
accident history criteria that EPA used
to select industrial sectors for Program
3.
EPA notes that a pulp process at a
paper or a paperboard mill may still be
subject to Program 3 as long as the
process contains more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance and is
not eligible for Program 1. Section
68,10(d)(l) uses industrial codes to
classify processes, not facilities as a
whole. Since section 68,10(d)(l) will
continue to list the code for pulp mills,
pulpmaking processes will continue to
be subject to Program 3. In addition,
under section 68.10(d)(2), paper
processes will be in Program 3 (unless
eligible for Program 1) if they are subject
to OSHA's Process Safety Management
(PSM) standard. Most pulp and paper
processes are, in fact, subject to this
standard.
One commenter objected to assigning
NAICS codes to a process rather than
the source as a whole. EPA first notes
that the requirement to assign a SIC
code to a process was adopted in the
original RMP rulemaking two years ago.
Today's rule does not change that
requirement except to substitute NAICS
for SIC codes. In any event, EPA is
today modifying Part 68 to clarify that
sources provide the NAICS code that
"most closely corresponds to the
process." EPA believes that assigning an
industry code to a process will help
implementing agencies and the public
understand what the covered process
does; using the code makes it possible
to provide this information without
requiring a detailed explanation from
the source. In addition, the primary
NAICS code for a source as a whole may
not reflect the activity of the covered
process.
B. RMP Data Elements
EPA proposed to add. as optional
RMP data elements: local emergency
planning committee (LEPC), source (or
parent company) E-mail address, source
homepage address, phone number at the
source for public inquiries, and OSHA
Voluntary Protection Program (VPP)
status. EPA also proposed to add, as
mandatory data elements: method and
description of latitude/longitude. Title
V permit number, percent weight of a
toxic substance in a liquid mixture, and
NAICS code (only in the five-year
accident history section).
Commenters generally supported the
new optional data elements. One
commenter requested that the optional
elements be made mandatory. EPA
disagrees with this comment While the
elements are useful, many sources
covered by this rule will not have e-mail
addresses or home pages. The RMP will
provide both addresses and phone
numbers so that the public will have
methods to reach the source. EPA has
learned that in some areas there are no
functioning LEPCs, therefore, at this
time, EPA will not add this as a
mandatory data element. However, in
most cases, the LEPC for an area can be
determined by contacting the local
government or the State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC) for which
the area is located. Therefore, reporting
these data elements will remain
optional at this time.
One commenter supported adding the
listing of local emergency planning
committee in the RMP data elements as
an optional data element. The
commenter stated that, although it is an
optional data element, this listing will
enhance the ability of local responders
and emergency planners to adequately
prepare and train for emergency events.
Of the data elements that were
proposed to be mandatory, one
commenter objected to the addition of
latitude/longitude method and
description. The commenter stated that
it was not clear in the proposal why the
method and description information is
needed. EPA is seeking latitude/
longitude method and description ta
accordance with its Locational Data
Policy. Several EPA regulations require
sources to provide their latitude and
longitude, so that EPA can more readily
locate facilities and communicate data
between Agency offices. Sharing of data
between EPA offices reduces
duplication of information. Latitude/
longitude method and description
provides information needed by EPA
offices, and other users of the data, to
rectify discrepancies that may appear in
the latitude and longitude information
provided by the source under various
EPA requirements Documentation of
the method by which the latitude and
longitude are determined and a
description of the location point
referenced by the latitude and longitude
(e.g., administration building) will
permit data users to evaluate the
accuracy of those coordinates, thus
addressing EPA data sharing and
integration objectives
EPA believes this information will
also facilitate EPA-State coordination of
environmental programs, including the
chemical accident prevention rule. The
State/EPA Data Management Program is
a successful multi-year initiative linking
State environmental regulatory agencies
and EPA in cooperative action The
Program's goals include improvements
in data quality and data integration
based on location identification.
Therefore, as proposed, the latitude/
longitude method and description will
be added to the existing RMP data
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
967
elements. RMP*Submit will provide a
list of methods and descriptions from
which sources may choose.
EPA also proposed to require that
sources report the percentage weight
(weight percent) of a toxic substance in
a mixture in the offsite consequence
analysis (OCA) and the accident history
sections of the RMP. This information is
necessary for users of RMP data to
understand how- worst case and
alternative release scenarios have been
modeled. EPA has decided to require
reporting of the weight percent of toxic
substance in a liquid mixture because
this information is necessary to
understand the volatilization rate,
which determines the downwind
dispersion distance of the substance.
The volatilization rate is affected by the
vapor pressure of the substance in the
mixture. For example, a spill of 70
percent hydrofluoric acid (HF) will
volatilize more quickly than a spill of
the same quantity of HF in a 50 percent
solution; consequently, over a 10-
minute period, the 70 percent solution
will travel further. Reviewers of the
RMP data, including local emergency
planning committees, need to know the
weight percent to be able to evaluate the
results reported in the offsite
consequence analysis and the impacts
reported in the accident history.
Without knowing the weight percent of
the substance in the mixture, users of
the data may compare scenarios or
incidents that appear to involve the
same chemical in the same physical
state, but in fact involve the same
chemical held in a different physical
state.
One commenter stated that for gas
mixtures, percentage by volume (or
volume percent) should be required to
be reported rather than weight percent.
In this final rule, EPA does not require
reporting of the weight percent (or
volume percent) of a regulated
substance in a gas mixture. If a source
handles regulated substances in a
gaseous mixture (e.g., chlorine with ,
hydrogen chloride), the quantity of a
particular regulated substance in the
mixture is what is reported in the RMP,
since that is what would be released
into the air. Its percentage weight in the
mixture is irrelevant.
Another commenter objected to this
data element, claiming that it could
result in reverse engineering and create
a competitive disadvantage. EPA does
not believe that this requirement would
. create a competitive disadvantage, since
similar information is available to the
public under Emergency Planning'and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
of 1986. Even so, if it were to have such
an effect, sources can claim this element
as CBI if it can meet the criteria for CBI
claims in 40 CFR Part 2. Another
commenter stated that the public would
be concerned if the percentages did not
add to 100, in the event that the source
handles both regulated and non-
regulated substances. EPA believes that
because a source must model only one
substance in a release scenario, the
source need not report the percentages
of the other substances in the mixture.
Therefore, it is expected that the weight
percent for mixtures would not always
add up to 100, because the mixture ,
could contain non-regulated substances,
A third commenter suggested that
requiring sources to report percentage
weight of a toxic substance in a liquid
mixture would create confusion with
the reporting of mixtures containing
flammable regulated substances.
In the January 6, 1998 rule (63 FR
640), EPA clarified that flammable
regulated substances in mixtures are
only covered by the RMP rule if the
entire mixture meets the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) criteria
of 4, thus the entire mixture becomes
the regulated substance. As a result, the
percentage of flammables in a mixture is
not relevant under the rule and the
requirement to report the percentage
weight will only apply to toxic
substances in a liquid mixture.
Finally, in the Federal Register notice
of June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31688), EPA
clarified the relationship between the
risk management program and the air
permit program under Title V of the
CAA for sources subject to both
requirements. Under section
502(b)(5)(A), permitting authorities
must have the authority to assure
compliance by all covered sources with
each applicable CAA standard,
regulation or requirement, including the
regulations implementing section
112(r)(7). Requiring sources covered by
Title V and section 112(r) to provide
their Title V permit number will help
Title V permitting authorities assure
that each source is complying with the
RMP rule.
In summary, with the exception of
adding the phrase "that most closely
corresponds to the process" in sections
68 42(b)(4). 68 160(b)(7), 68.170(b),'and
68.175(b), EPA has decided to finalize
the optional and mandatory data
elements as they were proposed.
C. Prevention Program Reporting
The final RMP rule,, issued June 20,
1996 (61 FR 31668), requires sources to
report their prevention program for each
"process " Because the applicable
definition of "process" is broad,
multiple production and storage units
might be a single, complex "process "
However, the Agency realizes that some
elements of a source's prevention
program for a process may not be
applicable to every portion of the
process. In such a situation, reporting ,
prevention program information for the
process as a whole could be misleading
without an explanation of which
prevention program element applies to
which part of the process. In order to get
more specific information on which
prevention program practices apply to
different production and storage units
within a process, EPA proposed to
revise the rule to require prevention
program reporting for each part of the
process for which a separate process
hazard analysis (PHA) or hazard review
was conducted. EPA further proposed
deleting the second sentence from both
sections 68.170(a) and 68 175(a), which
presently states that, "[i]f the same
information applies to more than one
covered process, the owner or operator
may provide the information only once,
but shall indicate to which process the
information applies."
A number of industry commenters
objected to the proposed revisions as
wrongly assuming that a one-to-one
relationship exists between a prevention
program and a PHA The commenters
asserted that EPA's proposed revision
did not reflect how facilities conduct
PHAs or implement prevention
measures and would cause significant
duplicate reporting, creating
unnecessary extra work for facility
personnel. One commenter explained
that depending on a source's
circumstances, it might conduct a PHA
for each production line, including all
of its different units, or it might conduct
a PHA for each common element of its
different production lines. Accordingly,
the commenters claimed that EPA's
proposal to require the owner/operator
to submit separate prevention program
information for every portion of a
process covered by a PHA would result
in multiple submissions of much of the
same material, and would add no value
to process safety or accidental release
prevention. Commenters also opposed
the deletion of the second sentence in
sections 68.170(a) and 68.175(a). One
commenter noted that many of the
elements of the prevention program will
not only be common to a process, but
will be common to an entire stationary
source. Thus commenters argued that
EPA's proposals would result in
redundant submittals and place an
unjustified burden on the regulated
community.
EPA acknowledges that PHAs do not
necessarily determine the scope of
prevention program measures,
Moreover, EPA agrees that duplicative
-------
968
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
reporting should be reduced as much as
possible. At the same time, EPA,
Implementing agencies, and other users
of RMP data need to have Information
tJiat is detailed enough to understand
dje hazards posed by, and the safety
practices used for, particular parts of
processes and equipment, EPA
recognizes that some aspects of
prevention programs are likely to be
Implemented facility-wide, rather than
on a process or unit basis, whereas other
aspects may apply to a particular
process or only to particular units
within a process. For example, most
sources are likely to develop an
csmployee participation plan and a
system for hot work permits facility-
wide, rather than on a process or unit
basis, For sources having processes that
Include several units (e.g., multiple
reactors or purification systems), the
hazards, process controls, and
mitigation systems may vary among the
Individual units. For example, one may
have a deluge fire control system while
another may have a runaway reaction
quench system.
EPA has concluded that its proposed
changes to prevention program
reporting would not lead sources to
prepare RMPs that accurately and
efficiently communicate the hazards
posed by different aspects of covered
processes and the safety practices used
to address those hazards. The Agency
now believes that no rule changes are
necessary to ensure that RMPs convey
that information. The current rule
already requires prevention program
reporting, and the issue has been how
to efficiently convey that information in
sufficient detail. EPA believes that its
electronic program for submitting RMPs
can be designed to provide for sufficient
specificity in prevention program
reporting without requiring duplicative
reporting. In particular, the Agency
plans to create a comment/text field in
RMP*Submil for specifying which parts
of a prevention program apply to which
portions of a particular process. For
example, if a deluge system only applies
to a certain part of the overall process,
the source would indicate in the
comment/text screen the portions of the
process to which the deluge system
applies,
I To reduce the burden of reporting,
EPA also plans to create a function in
RMP*Submit which will allow a source
to automatically copy prevention
program data previously entered for one
process to fill blank fields in another
process's prevention program. The
source could then edit any of the data
elements that are different. For example,
•where the prevention programs for two
processes are identical (e.g., two
identical storage tanks that are
considered separate processes), the
source could copy the data entered for
one to fill in the blank field for the
other. If some of the data elements vary
between the prevention programs, the
source will be able to autofill and
change only those items that vary
among processes or units.
Although the autofill option will
minimize the burden of reporting
common data elements for those sources
filing electronically, EPA has decided
not to delete the sentence, in both
sections 68.170(a) and 68.175(a), which
states, "[i]f the same information applies
to more than one covered process, the
owner or operator may provide the
information only once, but shall
indicate to which processes the
information applies ", as proposed.
D, Confidential Business Information
(CBI)
I, Background
A central element of the chemical
accident prevention program as
established by the Clean Air Act and
implemented by Part 68 is providing
state and local governments and the
public with information about the risk
of chemical accidents in their
communities and what stationary
sources are doing to prevent such
accidents. As explained in the preamble
to the final RMP rule (61 FR 31668, June
20, 1996), every covered stationary
source is required to develop and
implement a risk management program
and provide information about that
program in its RMP. Under CAA section
112 (r) (7) (B) (iii), a source's RMP must be
registered with EPA and also submitted
to the Federal Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board ("the
Board"), the state in which the source
is located, and any local entity
responsible for emergency response or
planning. That section also provides
that RMPs "shall be available to the
public under section 114(c)" of the
CAA. Section 114(c) gives the public
access to information obtained under
the Clean Air Act except for information
(other than emission data) that would
divulge trade secrets.
As noted previously, in the final RMP
rule EPA announced its plan to develop
a centralized system for submitting
electronic versions of RMPs that would
reduce the paperwork burden on both
industry and receiving agencies and
provide ready public access to RMP
data. Under the system, a covered
source would submit its RMP on
computer diskette, which would be
entered into a central database that all
interested parties could access
electronically. The system would thus
make it possible for a single RMP
submission to reach all interested
parties, including those identified in
section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) »
An important assumption underlying
the*Agency's central submission plan
was that RMPs would rarely, if ever,
contain confidential business
information (CBI). Following
publication of the final rule, concerns
were raised that at least some of the
information required to be reported in
RMPs could be CBI in the case of
particular sources. While the June 20,
1996 rule provided for protection of CBI
under section 114(c) (see section
68.210(a)), EPA was asked to address
how CBI would be protected in the
context of the electronic programs being
developed for RMP submission and
public access.
In the April 17, 1998 proposal to
revise the RMP rule, EPA made several
proposals concerning protection of CBI.
It first reviewed the information
requirements for RMPs (sections
68.155-185) and proposed to find that
certain required data elements would
not entail divulging information that
could meet the test for CBI set forth in
the Agency's comprehensive CBI
regulations at 40 CFR Part 2.2
Information provided in response to
those requirements could not be
claimed CBI. EPA also requested
comment on whether some information
that might be claimed as CBI (e.g.,
worst-case release rate or duration)
would be "emission data" and (thus
publicly available under section 114(c)
even if CBI.
EPA administers a variety of statutes
pertaining to the protection of the
environment, each with its own data
collection requirements and
requirements for disclosure of
information to the public. In the
implementation of these statutes, the
Agency collects emission, chemical,
process, waste stream, financial, and
other data from facilities in many, if not
most, sectors of American business.
Companies may consider some of this
information vital to their competitive
1 It is important to note that, as discussed in
Section III E of this preamble, this rule does not
address issues concerning public access to offsite
consequence analysis data in the RMP,
2 Information is CBI if (1) the business has
asserted a claim which has not expired, been
waived, or been withdrawn, (2) the business has
shown that it has taken and will continue to take
reasonable steps to protect the information from
disclosure, (3) the information is not and has not
been reasonably obtainable by the public (other
than governmental bodies) by use of legitimate
means; (4) no statute requires disclosure of the
information, and (5) disclosure of the information
is likely to cause substantial harm to the business'
competitive position 40 CFR section 2.208
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
989
position, and claim it as confidential
business information (CBI).
In the course of implementing
statutes, the Agency may have a need to
communicate some or all of the
information it collects to the public as
the basis for a rulemaking, to its
contractors, or in response to requests
pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). Information found to be CBI
is exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
To manage both CBI claims and FOIA
requests, EPA has promulgated in 40
CFR Part 2, Subpart B a set of
procedures for reviewing CBI claims,
releasing information found not to be
CBI, and where authorized, disclosing
CBI. Subpart B lists the criteria that
information must meet in order to be
considered CBI, as well as the special
handling requirements the Agency must
follow when disclosing CBI to
authorized representatives.
For RMP requirements that might
entail divulging CBI, EPA proposed that
a source be required to substantiate a
CBI claim to EPA at the time that it
makes the claim. Under EPA's Part 2
regulations, a source claiming CBI
generally is required to substantiate the
claim only when EPA needs to make the
information public as part of some
proceeding (e.g., a rulemaking) or EPA
receives a request from the public (e.g.,
under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)) for the information. In view of
the public information function of RMPs
and the interest already expressed by
members of the public in them, EPA
proposed "up-front substantiation" of
CBI claims to ensure that information
not meeting CBI criteria would be made
available to the public as soon as
possible This approach of requiring up-
front substantiation is the same as that
used for trade secret claims filed under
the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
of 1986.3
3 Section 302 of EPCRA (codified in 40 CFR Part
355) requires any facility having more than a
threshold planning quantity of an extremely
hazardous substance (EHS) to notify its state
emergency response commission (SERC) and local
emergency planning committee (LEPC) that the
facility is subject to emergency planning The vast
majority of toxic substances listed in 40 CFR
Section 68 130 were taken from the EHS list
Section 303 of EPCRA requires LEPCs to prepare an
emergency response plan for the community that is
under their jurisdiction Section 303 of EPCRA also
requires that facilities subject to section 302 shall
provide any information required by their LEPC
necessary for developing and implementing the
emergency plan Section 304 of EPCRA requires an
immediate notification of a release of an EHS or
Hazardous Substances listed in 40 CFS Section
302 4 above a reparable quantity to state and local
entities Section 304 also requires a written follow-
up which includes among other things, the
chemical name, quantity released and any known
or anticipated health risks associated with the
In addition, EPA proposed that any
source claiming CBI submit two
versions of its RMP: (1) a redacted
("sanitized"), electronic version, which
would become part of RMP*Info, and (2)
an unsanitized (unredacted) paper copy
of the RMP (see proposed section
68,151{c)). The electronic database of
RMPs would contain only the redacted
version unless and until EPA ruled
against all or part of the source's CBI
claim, in keeping with the Part 2
procedures. In this way, the public
would have access only to the non-CBI
elements of sources' RMPs. EPA further
stated that state and local agencies
could receive the unredacted RMPs by
requesting them from EPA under the
Part 2 regulations. Those regulations
authorize EPA to provide CBI to an
agency having implementation
responsibilities under the CAA if the
agency either demonstrates that it has
the authority under state or local law to
compel such information directly from
the source or that it will "provide
adequate protection to the interests of
affected businesses" (40 CFR
2.30 l(h) (3))
The following sections of this
preamble summarize and respond to the
comments EPA received on the CBI-
related aspects of its proposal. At the
outset, however, EPA wants to
emphasize that it does not anticipate
many CBI claims being made in
connection with RMPs. The Agency
developed the RMP data elements with
the issue of CBI in mind. It sought to
define data elements that would provide
basic information about a source's risk
management program without requiring
it to reveal CBI. To have done otherwise
would have risked creating RMPs that
were largely unavailable to the public
EPA continues to believe that the
required RMP data elements will rarely
require that a business divulge CBI. The
Agency will carefully monitor the CBI
claims made. If it appears that the
number of claims being made is
jeopardizing the public information
release. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA (codified
in 40 CFR Part 370) require facilities that are subject
to OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS).
to provide information to its SERC, LEPC and local
fire department This information includes the
hazards posed by its chemicals, and inventory
information, including average daily amount.
maximum quantity and general location Section
313 of EPCRA (codified in 40 CFR Part 372}
requires certain facilities that are in specific
industries (including chemical manufacturers) and
that manufacture, process, or otherwise use a toxic
chemical above specified threshold amounts to
report, among other things, the annual quantity of ,
the toxic chemical entering each environmental
medium Most facilities covered by CAA 112(r) are
covered by one or more of these sections of EPCRA
Section 322 of EPCRA (codified in Part 330) allows
facilities to claim only the chemical identity as
trade secret
objective of the chemical accident
prevention program, EPA will consider
ways of revising RMPs, including
further rulemakings or revising the
underlying program, to ensure that
important health and safety information
is available to the public.
2. RMP Data Elements Found Not: CBI
Fifteen commenters representing
environmental groups and members of
the public opposed allowing some or all
RMP data to be claimed as CB! in light
of the public's interest in the
information RMPs will provide. A
number of commenters urged, EPA not
to allow the following RMP data
elements (and supporting documents) to
be claimed as CBI:
« Mitigation measures considered by
the firm in its offsite consequence
analysis,
• Major process hazards identified by
the firm,
« Process controls in use,
• Mitigation systems in use,
• Monitoring and detection systems
in use, and
» Changes since the last hazard
review.
In addition, one commenter
contended that even chemical identity >
and quantity should be ineligible for
CBI protection, since the requirement to
submit an RMP only applies to facilities
using a few well-known, extremely
hazardous chemicals, and the public's
right to know should always outweigh
a company's claim to CBI.
Along the same lines, a number of
commenters urged EPA to develop a
"corporate sunshine rule" that would
allow confidentiality concerns to be
overridden if the protected information
is needed by the public and experts to
understand and assess safety issues.
Another commenter recommended that
a business claiming a chemical's
identity as CBI should be required to
provide the generic name of the
chemical and information about its
adverse health effects so the public can
determine the potential risks
One commenter argued that some of
the RMP data that EPA suggested could
reveal CBI, (e.g , release rate), were not
"emission data," because the worst case
scenario data are theoretical estimates,
and do not represent any real emissions,
past or present.
Representatives of the chemical and
petroleum industries disagreed with ,
EPA's proposal to list the data elements
that EPA believed could not reveal CBI
in any case. These commenters asserted
that EPA could not anticipate all the
ways in which information required by
a data element might reveal CBI, and
accordingly urged the Agency to make
-------
970
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
case-by-case determinations on CBI
claims, They also contended that
"emission data" under section 114(c)
does not extend to data on possible, as
opposed to actual, emissions, and thus
that RMP information concerning
potential accidental releases would not
qualify as "emission data," which must
be made available to the public.
As pointed out above, an important
purpose of the chemical accident
prevention program required by section
112(r) is to Inform the public of the risk
of accidents in their communities and
jthe methods sources are employing to
jr«sc|uce such risks. EPA therefore
believes that as'niuch RMP data as
possible should be available to the
public as soon as possible. However,
section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) requires that
RMPs be made "ayaOable to the public
under section 1 1
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No, 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
971
the data in the RMP is for a source to
articulate its hazards, and the steps it
takes to prevent accidental releases. In
general, the kinds of information
specifying the source's hazards and risk
management program are not likely to
be competitively sensitive.
In particular, covered processes at the
vast majority of stationary sources
subject to the RMP rule are too common
and well-known to support a CBI claim
for information related to such
processes. For example, covered public
drinking water and wastewater
treatment plants generally use common
regulated substances in standard
processes (i.e., chlorine used for
disinfection). Also, covered processes at
many sources involve the storage of
regulated substances that the sources
sell (e.g., propane, ammonia), so the
processes are already public knowledge.
Other covered processes involve the use
of well-known combinations of
regulated substances such as
refrigerants. RMP information regarding
these types of processes should not
include CBI.
Even in the case of unusual or unique
processes, it is generally unlikely that
RMP information could be used to
reveal CBI through reverse engineering.
To begin with, required RMP
" information is general enough that it is
unlikely to provide a basis for reverse
engineering a process. For example, a
source must report in its RMP whether
overpressurization is a hazard and
whether relief valves are used to control
pressure, but it is not required to report
information on actual pressures used,
flow rates, chemical composition, or the
configuration of equipment. Moreover,
while RMP information may provide
some data that could be used in an
attempt to discover CBI information
through reverse engineering, it typically
will not provide enough data for such
an attempt to succeed, because the
source is not required to provide a
detailed description of the chemistry or
production volume of the process.
Businesses claiming CBI based on the
threat of reverse engineering will be
required to show how reverse
engineering could in fact succeed with
the information that the RMP would
otherwise make public, together with
other publicly available information A
business unable to do so will have its
claim denied.
While EPA is requiring that a source
claiming a chemical's identity as CBI
provide the generic category or class
name of the chemical, the RMP does not
require sources to provide information
about the adverse health effects of the
chemical. Chemicals were included in
the section 112 Or) program because they
are acutely toxic or flammable; health
effects related to chronic exposure were
not considered because they are
addressed by other rules (see List Rule
at 59 FR 4481). EPA believes that
generic names are sufficient to indicate
the general health concerns'from short-
term exposures. Should a member of the
public desire more information, EPA
encourages the use of EPCRA section
322 (h), which provides a means for the
public to obtain information about the
adverse health effects of a chemical
covered by that statute, where the
chemical's identity has been claimed a
trade secret. The public will find this
provision of EPCRA useful because most
sources subject to the RMP rule are also
subject to EPCRA. ,
3. Up-front Substantiation of CBI Claims
One commenter supported the
proposal to require CBI claims to be
substantiated at the time they are made.
Another commenter stated that there is
no compelling need to require up-front
substantiation. The commenter stated
that up-front substantiation would place
a sizable burden on both industry and
EPA and would be in direct conflict
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
commenter claimed that, with the
exception of EPCRA, where a submitter
is allowed to claim only one data
element—chemical identity—as CBI, it
is EPA's standard procedure not to
require submitters to provide written
substantiation unless a record has been
requested. Further, the commenter
stated that the Agency has not shown
any reason for departing from that
procedure in this rule.
EPA believes that requiring up-front
substantiation of CBI claims made for
RMP data has ample precedent, is fully
consistent with the Agency's CBI
regulations and the Paperwork
Reduction Act, and is critical to
achieving the public information
purposes of the accident prevention
program. EPCRA is not the only
example of an up-front substantiation
requirement. The Agency has also
required up-front substantiation in
several other regulatory contexts,
including those where, like here,
providing the public with health and
safety information is an important
objective [see e g., 40 CFR section
725.94, 40 CFR section 710.38, and 40
CFR section 720.85 (regulations
promulgated under Toxic Substances
Control Act)]. ,
Even under its general CBI
regulations, the Agency need not wait
for a request to release' data to require
businesses to substantiate their CBI
claims When EPA expects to get a
request to release data claimed
confidential, the Agency is to initiate
"at the earliest practicable time" the
regulations" procedures for making CBI
determinations (40 CFR section
2.204(a) (3)). Those procedures include
calling on affected businesses to
substantiate their claims (see 40 CFR
section 2.204(e)). Since state and local
agencies, environmental groups,
academics and others have already
indicated their interest in obtaining
complete RMP data (see comments
received on this rulemaking, available
in the DOCKET), EPA fully expects to
get requests for RMP data claimed CBI
Consequently, even if EPA did not
establish an up-front substantiation
requirement in this rule, under the
Agency's general CBI regulations it
could require businesses claiming CBI
for RMP data to substantiate their claims
without first receiving a request to
release the data: Establishing an up-
front requirement in this rule will
simply allow EPA to obtain
substantiation of CBI claims without
having to request it in every Instance.
Requiring up-front substantiation for
RMP CBI claims is consistent with the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Any burden
posed by this requirement has already
been evaluated as part of the
Information Collection Request (ICR)
associated with this rulemaking. EPA
disagrees that up-front substantiation
will impose a substantial or undue
burden. As noted above, under EPA's
current CBI regulations, a source
claiming CBI could and probably would
be required to provide substantiation for
its claim, in view of the public interest
in RMP information. A requirement to
submit substantiation with the claim
should thus make little difference to the
source. Moreover, a source presumably
does not make any claim of CBI lightly.
Before filing a CBI claim, the source
must first determine whether the claim
meets the criteria specified in 40 CFR
section 2.208. Up-front substantiation
only requires that the source document
that determination at the time it files its
claim. Since it would be sensible for a
source to document the basis of its CBI
claim for its own purposes (e.g., in the
case of a request for substantiation),
EPA expects that many sources already
prepare documentation for their CBI
claims by the time they file them. Also,
submitting substantiation at the time of
claim reduces any additional burden
later, such as reviewing the Agency's
request, retrieving the relevant
information, etc Therefore, providing
documentation at the time of filing
should impose no additional burden.
In view of the public information
function of RMPs, EPA believes that up-
front substantiation is clearly warranted
-------
972
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
for CBI claims made for RMP data. Up-
front substantiation will ensure that
sources filing claims have carefully
considered whether the data they seek
to protect in fact meets the criteria for
protection. Given the public interest
already expressed in RMP data, EPA
expects that CBI claims for RMP data
Will have to be substantiated at some
point. Up-front substantiation will save
EPA and the public time and resources
that would otherwise be required to
respond to each CBI claim with a
request for substantiation. EPA is
therefore promulgating the up-front
|ubstant|f tlon requirement as proposed.
4. State and Local Agency Access t6
Unredacted RMPs
One commenter objected to EPA's
statement in the proposal that it would
provide unredacted (unsanitized)
versions of the RMPs to a state and local
agency only upon meeting the criteria
required by the EPA's CBI rules at 40
CFR Part 2.4 The commenter, an
association of fire fighters, argued that
the Agency's position was inconsistent
with CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(Iii),
which provides that RMPs "shall... be
submitted to the Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board [a federal
Agency), to the State in which the
stationary source is located, and to any
local agency or entity having
responsibility for planning for or
responding to accidental releases which
rhiy occur at such source..,." The
commenter claimed that this provision
entitles the specified entities, including
local fire departments, to receive
unredacted RMPs without having to
make the showings required by EPA's
CBI regulations.
EPA is not resolving this issue today.
The Agency has reviewed the relevant
statutory text and legislative history, as
well as analogous provisions of EPCRA,
and believes that arguments can be
made on both sides of this issue. While
section 112(r)(7)(B}fiii) calls for RMPs to
be submitted to states, local entities and
the Board, it is not clear that Congress
Intended CBI contained in RMPs to be
provided to those entities without
ensuring appropriate protection of CBI.
, 4S«cUonl3Ql{Ji}(3) provides lh« a Slate or local
(Overnmcnt may obuin CBI from EPA under two
Circumstances, fl) It provides EPA a written
opinion from Its chief Itgil officer or counsel
suiting that tjte Suite or focal agency has the
luthoriiy undcf applicable State or local law to
compel the business to disclose the information
dtrtctly: or {?} the businesses whose information is
disclosed tre informed and the State or local
IPVtrnnMsrit haw shown loa EPA legal office's
itthfjction itut its disclosure of the information
will be governed by State or local law and by
"procedures which will provide adequate
protection to the Interests of affected businesses."
At stake in resolving this issue are two
important interests—local responders'
interest in unrestricted access to
information that may be critical to their
safety and effectiveness in responding to
emergencies and businesses* interest in
protecting sensitive information from
their competitors. Before making a final
decision on this issue, EPA believes it
would benefit from further public input.
Because EPA stated that it would not
provide unredacted RMPs to states and
local agencies, those interested in
protecting CBI may not have considered
it necessary to lay out the legal and
policy arguments supporting their
views. State and local agencies, many of
which in the past have expressed
concern about the potential
administrative burden of receiving
RMPs directly from sources, also did not
comment on the issue. EPA has
therefore decided to accept additional
comments on this issue alone.
(Additional comments on any other
issues addressed in this rulemaking will
not be considered or addressed, since
the Agency is taking final action on
them here.) Comments should be mailed
to the persons listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. In the meantime, unredacted
RMPs will be available to states, local
agencies and the Board under the terms
of the Agency's existing CBI regulations
at 40 CFR section 2.301 (h}(3) (for state
and local agencies) and 40 CFR section
2.209(c) (for the Board).
Section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) states in
relevant part:
[RMPs] shall also be submitted to the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board, to the State in which the stationary
source is located, and to any local agency or
entity having responsibility for planning for
or responding to accidental releases which
may occur at such source, and shall be
available to the public under section 114(c)
of [the Act].
Section 114(c) provides for the public
availability of any information obtained
by EPA under the Clean Air Act, except
for information (other than emissions
data) that would divulge trade secrets.
From a public policy perspective,
there are some obvious advantages to
reading section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) in the
way the commenter suggests. Local fire
departments and other local responders
are typically the first to arrive at the
scene of chemical accidents in their
jurisdictions. RMP information that first
responders could find helpful include
chemical identity, chemical quantity,
and potential source of an accident.
Under EPA's regulations, however, any
or all of this information could be
claimed CBI. In addition, state and local
authorities are often in the best position
to assess the adequacy of a source's risk
management program and to initiate a
dialogue with the facility should its
RMP indicate a need for improvement.
However, state and local authorities'
ability to provide this contribution to
community safely would be impeded to
the extent a source claimed key
information as CBI. While states and
local agencies may obtain information
claimed CBI under EPA's CBI
regulations (assuming they can make the
requisite showing), the time required to
obtain the necessary authority or
findings from state or local and EPA
officials could be substantial.
At the same time, there are also public
policy reasons for ensuring protection of
CBI contained in RMPs, Congress has in
many statutes, including the CAA and
EPCRA, provided for the protection of
trade secrets to safeguard the
competitive position of private
businesses. Businesses' ability to
maintain the confidentiality of trade
secrets helps ensure competition in the
U.S. economy and U.S. businesses*
competitive position in the world
economy. Protection of trade secrets
also encourages innovation, which is an
important contributor to economic
growth.
A reading of section 112(r) (7) (B) (iii)
that demands submission of unredacted
RMPs to states, local entities, and the
Board may lead to widespread public
access to information claimed CBI. For
purposes of section 112(r) (7) (B) (iii),
"any local agency or entity having
responsibility for planning for or
responding to accidental releases"
includes local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs) established under
EPCRA. Section 301(c) of EPCRA
provides that LEPCs must include
representatives from both the public and
private sectors, including the media and
facilities subject to EPCRA
requirements. Submission of an
unredacted RMP to an LEPC would thus
entail release of CBI to some members
of the public and potentially even
competitors.5 More generally, local
agencies may not be subject to any legal
requirement to protect CBI and may lack
the knowledge and resources to address
CBI claims. Arguably, it would be
3 EPA does not believe that submission of an
containing CBI to the statutonly specified entities
would defeat a source's ability to claim information
as CBI for purposes of section 114 (c) and EPA's CBI
regulations. Under those regulations, information
that has been released to the public cannot be
claimed CBI Release of a RMP containing CBI to
the entities specified by section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii).
including LEPCs, would not constitute such a
release EPCRA similarly provides that disclosure of
trade secret information to an LEPC does not
prevent a facility from claiming the information
confidential (see EPCRA section 322(b)(l))
-------
Federal legister/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
973
anomalous for Congress to require EPA
.to protect trade secrets contained In
RMPs against release to the public only
to risk divulging the same information
by requiring submission of unredacted
RMPs to a broad range of entities that
may not have the need or capacity to
protect CBI themselves. It would also
appear inconsistent with the approach
Congress took to protecting trade secrets
' in EPCRA, where Congress did not
provide for release of trade secret
chemical identity information to local
agencies.
Relatedly, many state and local
agencies objected to EPA's original <
proposal in the RMP proposed
rulemaking (58 FR 54190, October 20,
1993) that sources submit RMPs directly
to States, local agencies, and the Board,
as well as EPA. They noted that
managing the information contained in
RMPs would be difficult without a
significant expenditure of typically
scarce resources. Many states and local
agencies thus supported EPA's final
decision to develop an electronic
submission and distribution system that
would allow covered sources to submit
their RMPs to EPA, which would make
- them available to states, local agencies,
and the Board, as well as the general
public. If the statute is read to require
submission of RMP information to state
and local agencies, and the Board, to the
extent it is claimed as CBI, the resource
concerns raised by State and local
agencies commenters likely would be
raised to that extent again.
EPA also questions the extent to
which states, local entities and the
Board would be disadvantaged if they
did not receive unredacted RMPs
without making the showings required
by EPA's CBI regulations As noted
earlier, EPA expects that relatively little
• RMP information will be CBI. RMP data
will only rarely contain CBI, and the up-
front substantiation will minimize the
number of CBI claims it receives by
ensuring that sources carefully examine
the basis for any claims before
submitting them Consequently, the
Agency believes that a state or local
agency will rarely confront a redacted
RMP.
Moreover, EPCRA provides state and
local entities, including fire
departments, with access to much of the
pertinent data already, EPA's
regulations under EPCRA cover a
universe of sources and chemicals that
includes most, if not all, the sources and
substances covered by the RMP rule.
The EPCRA regulations require
reporting of some of the same
information required by the RMP rule,
including chemical identity. EPCRA
withholds from public release only
chemical identities that are trade secrets
and the location of specific chemicals
where a facility so requests. In practice,
relatively few facilities have requested
trade secret protection for a chemical's
identity.
Additionally, EPCRA section 312{f)
empowers local fire departments to
conduct on-site inspections at facilities
subject to EPCRA section 312 (a) and
obtain information on chemical
location. Most facilities subject to
EPCRA section 312 (a) are also subject to
the RMP rule. On-site inspections could
also provide information on hazards and
mitigation measures. In addition,
EPCRA section 303(d)(3) authorizes
LEPCs, which include representatives of
fire departments, to request from
facilities covered by EPCRA section
302 (b) such information as may be
necessary to prepare an emergency
response plan and to include such
information in the plan as appropriate
Some sources subject to the RMP rule
are also covered by EPCRA section
302(b).
In light of the points made above, EPA
questions whether section
112(r)(7)(B)(iii) should be interpreted to
require submission of unredacted RMPs
containing CBI to the statutorily
specified entities without provision
being made for protecting CBI. EPA
invites the public to provide any
additional comment or information
relevant to interpreting the submission
requirement of section 112(r)(7) (B) (iii).
5. Other CBI Issues
Two commenters disagreed with
EPA's statement that a source cannot
make a CBI claim for information
available to the public under EPCRA or
another statute. They claimed that a
request for information under EPCRA
cannot supersede the CBI provisions
applicable to data collected under the
authorities of the CAA or Toxic
Substances Control Act or any^ other
regulatory program.
EPA does not agree with this
comment. Claims of CBI may not be
upheld if the information is properly
obtainable or made public under other
statutes or authorities. For example,
chemical quantity on site is available to
the public under EPCRA Tier II
reporting. In addition, under EPCRA
section 303 (d) (3), LEPCs have the
authority to request any information
they need to develop and implement
community emergency response plans.
If information obtained through such a
request is included in the community
plan, it will become available to the
public under EPCRA section 324.
Information obtainable or made public
under EPCRA would not be eligible for
CBI protection under 40 CFR section
2.208, which specifically excludes from
CBI protection information already
available to the public. Filing a CBI
claim under the CAA or another statute
does not protect information if it is
legitimately requested and made public
under other federal, state, or local law.
Information obtainable or made public
(through proper means) under existing
statutes cannot be CBI under EPA's CBI
regulations.
6. Actions Taken
In summary, the Agency is adding
two sections (68.151 and 68.152) to Part
68. Section 68.151 sets forth the
procedures for a source to follow when
asserting a CBI claim and lists data
elements that can not be claimed as CBI.
This section also requires sources filing
CBI claims to provide the information
claimed confidential, in a format to be
specified by EPA, instead of the
unsanitized paper copy of the RMP as
discussed in the proposal. Section
68.152 sets forth the procedures for
substantiating CBI claims. Sources
claiming CBI are required to submit
their substantiation of their claims at the
same time they submit their RMPs.
E. Other Issues
Two commenters asked why EPA had
proposed to drop the phrase "if used"
in section 68,165(b)(3) where the rale
asks for the basis of the offsite
consequence analysis results. EPA has
decided to retain the language, since
sources will have a choice of using
either EPA's RMP guidance documents
or a model. Where a model is used, the
source will have to" provide the name of
the model. These commenters also
asked why EPA proposed to drop
(alternative releases only) from section
68.165 (b) (13). EPA has also decided to
retain the parenthetical language.
One commenter stated that: EPA
should allow/ sources to submit RMPs
either electronically or in hard copy.
The commenter stated that not allowing
hard copy submissions will be
burdensome on many sources who have
never filed an electronic report to the
government before As stated in the
April proposal, EPA is allowing sources
to submit RMPs on paper. Paper
submitters are asked to fill out a simple
paper form to tell EPA why they are
unable to file electronically.
Two commenters objected to placing
offsite consequence analysis (OCA) data,
particularly worst-case release
scenarios, on the Internet, for security
reasons Issues related to public access
to OCA data are beyond the scope of
this rulemaking, as this action is limited
to the issues discussed above. It does
-------
974
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
ript Include decisions regarding how the
public will access the OCA data
elements of the RMPs. Statements in the
preamble about EPA providing public
access to RMP data are not intended to
address which portions of the RMP data
\jflH be electronically available.
A number of cpmmenters were
concerned about a statement EPA made
Cn the preamble to the proposed rule
regarding the definition of "process",
and stated that EPA's interpretation of
"process" is not consistent with the
Interpretation the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) uses
?n Its, process safety management (PSM)
standard (29 CFR 1910,119). In this
rulemaking, EPA did not propose any
changes to the definition of process nor
Is it adopting any changes to the
definition. As EPA stated in the
preamble to the final RMP rule, it will
interpret "process" consistently with
OSHA's interpretation of that term (29
CFR 1910,119). Therefore, if a source is
subject to the PSM rule, the limits of its
processes) for purposes of OSHA PSM
Will be the limits of Its processes) for
purposes of RMP (except in cases
Involving atmospheric storage tanks
fcontamlng flammable regulated
substances, which are exempt from PSM
but riot RMP). If a source is not covered
by OSHA PSM and is complicated from
an engineering perspective, it should
consider contacting its implementing
agency for advice on determining
process boundaries, EPA and OSHA are
coordinating the agencies" approach to
common issues, such as the
Interpretation of''process".
F. Technical Corrections
When Part 68 was promulgated, the
text of section 68.79(a), was drawn from
|he OSH^ PSM standard, but it was not
reviseci to reflect the different structure
of EPA's rule. The OSHA PSM standard
Is contained in a single section; EPA's
Program 3 prevention program is
contained in a subpart. Rather than
referencing "this section." the
paragraph should have referenced the
"subpart." Therefore, as proposed, EPA
Is changing "section" to "subpart" in
isectlon 68.79(a).
Under section 68.180(b), EPA
Intended that all covered sources report
the name and telephone number of the
agency with which they coordinate
Emergency response activities, even if
the source is not required to have an
emergency response plan. However, the
rule refers only to coordinating the
emergency plan. In this action, EPA is
revising this section to refer to the local
agency with which emergency response
activities and the emergency response
plan Is coordinated.
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of the
Final Rule
In Section 68.3, Definitions, the
definition of SIC is removed and
replaced by the definition of NAJCS.
Section 68.10, Applicability, is
revised to replace the SIC codes with
NAICS codes, as discussed above.
Section 68.42, Five-Year Accident
History, is revised to require the
percentage concentration by weight of
regulated toxic substances released in a
liquid mixture and the five- or six-digit
NAICS code that most closely
corresponds to the process that had the
release. The phrase "five- or six-digit"
has been added before the NAJCS code
to clarify the level of detail required for
NAICS code reporting.
Section 68.79, Compliance Audits, the
word "section" in paragraph (a) is
replaced by "subpart."
Section 68.150, Submission, is revised
by adding a paragraph to state that
procedures for asserting CBI claims and
determining the sufficiency of such
claims are provided in new Sections
68.151 and 68.152.
Section 68.151 is added to set forth
the procedures to assert a CBI claim and
list data elements that may not be
claimed as CBI, as discussed above.
Section 68.152 is added to set forth
procedures for substantiating CBI
claims, as proposed.
Section 68.160, Registration, is
revised by adding the requirements to
report the method and description of
latitude and longitude, replacing SIC
codes with five- or six-digit NAICS
codes, and adding the requirement to
report Title V permit number, when
applicable. This section is also revised
to include optional data elements. The
phrase "five- or six-digit" has been
added before NAICS code to clarify the
level of detail required for NAICS code
reporting.
Section 68.165, Offsite Consequence
Analysis, is revised by adding the
requirement that the percentage weight
of a regulated toxic substance in a liquid
mixture be reported.
Section 68.170, Prevention Program/
Program 2, is revised to replace SIC
codes with five- or six-digit NAICS
codes, as is Section 68.175.
Section 68.180, Emergency Response
Program, is revised to clarify that
paragraph (b) covers both the
coordination of response activities and
plans, as proposed.
V. Judicial Review
The proposed rule amending the
accidental release prevention
requirements; under section 112(r)(7)
was proposed in the Federal Register on
April 17, 1998. This Federal Register
action announces EPA's final decision
on the amendrrients. Under section
307(b) (1) of the CAA, judicial review of
this action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit on or before March 8.1999.
Under section 307 (b) (2) of the CAA, the
requirements that are the subject of
today's action may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A, Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the
development of this ruiemaking. The
docket is a dynamic file, because it
allows members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the ruiemaking
process. Along with the proposed and
promulgated rules and their preambles,
the contents of the docket serve as the
record in the case of judicial review.
(See section 307 (d) (7) (A) of the CAA.)
The official record for this
ruiemaking, as well as the public
version, has been established for this
ruiemaking under Docket No. A-98-08
(including comments and data
submitted electronically). A public
version of this record, including
printed, paper versions of electronic
comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available
for inspection from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The official ruiemaking
record is located at the address in
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this
document.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order (E 0) 12866,
[58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is "significant", and
therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the E.O. The Order
defines "significant regulatory action"
as one that is likely to result in a rule
that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
state, local or tribal government or
communities;
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999 /Rules and Regulations
975
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the E O
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA
that it considers this a "significant
regulatory action" within the meaning
of the Executive Order. EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for
review Changes made in response to*
OMB suggestions or recommendations
will be documented in the public
record.
C, Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a
mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If
EPA complies by consulting. Executive
Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to
the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their
concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input to the development of
regulatory proposals containing
significant unfunded mandates."
EPA has concluded that this rule may
create a nominal mandate on State, local
or tribal governments and that the
Federal government will not provide the
funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by these governments in
complying with the mandate.
Specifically, some public entities may
be covered sources and will have to add
the new data elements to their RMP. In
developing this rule, EPA consulted
with state, local and tribal governments
to enable them to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
this rule. Even though this rule revises
Part 68 in a way that does not
significantly change the burden
imposed by the underlying rule. EPA
has taken efforts to involve state and
local entities in this regulatory effort.
Specifically, much of the rule responds
to issues raised by the Electronic
Submission Workgroup discussed
above, which includes State and local
government stakeholders. In addition,
EPA has recently conducted seminars
with tribal governments; however, there
were no concerns raised on any issues
that are covered in this rule EPA
discussed the need for issuing this
regulation in sections II and HI in this
preamble. Also, EPA provided OMB
with copies of the comments to the
proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045: "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks" (62 PR 19885,
April 23,1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the '
E.O. 13045 because it is riot
"economically significant" as defined in
E.O. 12866, and because it does not
involve decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks.
E. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Qrder 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that.
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds
necess_ary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives
of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments "to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory policies on
matters that significantly or uniquely
affect their communities."
Today's rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. Two of the
amendments made by this rule, the
addition of RMP data elements and the
conversion of SIC codes to NAICS
codes, impose only minimal burden on
any sources that may be owned or
operated by tribal governments, such as
drinking water and waste water
treatment systems The third
amendment made by this rule addresses
the procedures for submission of
confidential business information in the
RMP. The sources that are mentioned
above handle chemicals that are known
to public (e.g., chlorine for use of
disinfection, propane used for fuel, etc.).
EPA does not, therefore, expect RMP
Information on these types of processes
to include CBI, so any costs related to
CBI will not fall on Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
Notwithstanding the non-applicability
of E. O, 13084, EPA has recently
conducted seminars with the tribal
governments. However, there were no
concerns raised on any issues that are
covered in this rule.
F. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with
this final rule EPA has also determined
that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Two of the amendments made by this
rule, the addition of RMP data elements
and the conversion of SIC codes to
NAICS codes, impose only minimal
burden on small entities. Moreover,
those small businesses that claim CBI
when submitting the RMP will not face
any costs Beyond those Imposed by the
existing CBI regulations. Even
considering the costs of CBI
substantiation, however, there is no
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
EPA estimates that very few small
entities (approximately 500) will claim
CBI and that these few entities represent
a small fraction of the small entities
(less than 5 percent) affected by the
RMP rule. Finally, EPA estimates that
those small businesses filing CBI will
experience a cost which is significantly
less than one percent of their annual
sales For a more detailed analysis of the
-------
976
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No, 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
small entity Impacts of CBI submission,
sea Document Number, IV-B-02,
available in the docket for this
rulemaking (see ADDRESSES section).
G. Paperwork Reduction
I. General
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seg, An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1656.05) and
a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Fanner, by mall at Office of Policy.
Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137). 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC
20460. by e-mail at
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov or by
calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also
be downloaded off the Internet at http:/
/www.epa.gov/icr. The information
requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them.
The submission of the RMP is
mandated by section 112(r)(7) of the
CAA and demonstrates compliance with
Pan 68 consistent with section 114 (c) of
the CAA. The information collected also
SJjfnl be made available to state arid local
governments and the public to enhance
tlfieir preparedness, response, and
prevention activities. Certain
Information in the RMP may be claimed
as confidential business information
under 40 CFR Part 2 and Part 68.
This rule will impose very little
burden on affected sources. First, EPA
estimates that the new data elements
Will require only a nominal burden, .25
hours for a typical source, because
latitude and longitude method and
description will be selected from a list
of options, the Title V permit number is
available to any source to which Title V
applies, and the percentage weight of a
toxic substance in a liquid mixture is
Usually provided by the supplier of the
mixture. Second, the NAICS code
provision is simply a change from one
code to another.6 Third, as discussed
above In the preamble, EPA believes
that the CBI provisions of this rule will
add no additional burden beyond what
sources otherwise would face in
l','"'ji&A. intends to provide several outreach
mechanisms to assist sources In identifying their
IKIW NA1CS code, RMP'Submit wlil provide a
""pick list1' ihat wiU make ft easier for sources to
Itad the appropriate code. Also, selected NAICS
codes we included in the General Guidance for Risk
Management Programs duly 1998) and in the
Industry-specific guidance documents that EPA is
developing. EPA will also utilize the Emergency
Manning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline at
900-424-9345 (or 703-412-9810) to assist sources
in determining the source's NAICS codes.
complying with the CBI rules in 40 CFR
Part 2. The Agency has calculated the
burden of substantiations made for
purposes of this rule below.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, "maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and system for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
2. CBI Burden
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for these amendments, EPA proposed to
amend existing 40 CFR Part 68 to add
two sections which would clarify the
procedures for submitting RMPs that
contain confidential business
information (CBI). As proposed, CBI
would be handled in much the same
way as it presently is under other EPA
programs, except that EPA would
require sources claiming CBI to submit
documentation substantiating their CBI
claims at the time such claims were
made and EPA also would not permit
CBI claims for certain data elements
which clearly are not CBI. Aside from
these procedural changes, however, the
proposed rule was substantively
identical to the existing rules governing
the substantiation of CBI claims,
presently codified to 40 CFR Part 2.
At the time it proposed these
amendments, EPA estimated the public
reporting burden for CBI claims to be 15
hours for chemical manufacturers with
Program 3 processes, the only kinds of
facilities that EPA expects to be able to
claim CBI for any RMP data elements.
This estimate was premised upon EPA's
assessment that it would require 8.5
hours per claim to develop and submit
the CBI substantiation and 6.5 hours to
complete an unsanitized version of the
RMP, for a total of 15 hours. EPA also
estimated that approximately 20 percent
of the 4000 chemical manufacturers (out
of 64,200 stationary sources estimated to
be covered by the RMP rule) may file
CBI claims (800 sources). The 800
sources represent a conservative
projection based on the Agency's
experience under EPCRA program.
Consequently, the total annual public
reporting burden for filing CBI claims
was estimated to be approximately
12,000 hours over three years (800
facilities multiplied by an average
burden of 15 hours), or an annual
burden of 4,000 hours (Information
Collection Request No. 1656.04)
a. Comment received. EPA received
one comment on the ICR developed for
the proposed rule, opposing up-front
substantiation of any CBI claims. The
commenter stated that "[t]his is a major
departure from standard EPA procedure,
and would impose a substantial and
unjustified burden for several years."
The commenter further added that up-
front substantiation would significantly
increase the burden of this rule, and that
up-front substantiation unnecessarily
increases the volume and potential loss
of CBI documents. The commenter also
stated that the estimate of 15 hours for
chemical manufacturers "seems
unreasonably low," and cited the EPA
burden estimate of 27.7 to 33.2 hours
per claim (with an average of 28.8)
under the trade secret provisions of
EPCRA.
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
EPA estimated that 20 percent of the
4,000 chemical manufacturers will file a
CBI claim, The commenter contends
that "It]he EPA analysis * * * excludes
facilities in other industries that will
need to file CBI claims."
Finally, the commenter stated that
claiming multiple data elements as CBI
will increase reporting burden.
b. EPA response. Burden Estimates:
EPA disagrees with these comments. As
pointed out above, the requirement to
submit up-front substantiation of CBI
claims imposes no additional burden In
addition, the total burden of the CBI
provisions of this rule are not
understated. EPA has re-examined its
analysis in light of the commenter's
concerns and has determined—contrary
to the commenter's claim—that its
initial estimate of the total burden
associated with preparing and claiming
CBI was likely too conservative. As
explained below, the Agency's best
available information indicates that the
process of documenting and submitting
a claim of CBI should impose a burden
of approximately 9.5 hours per CBI
claimant.
First, EPA believes that the
requirement to submit, at the time a
source claims information as CBI,
-------
Federal Register/Vol 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
977
substantiation demonstrating that the
material truly is CBI imposes no burden
on sources beyond that which presently
exists under EPA's CBI regulations in
Part 2. In order to decide whether they
might properly claim CBI for a given
piece of information, a source must
determine if the criteria stated in section
2.208 of 40 CFR Part 2 are satisfied.
Naturally, a source goes through this
process before a CBI claim is made. EPA
agrees that most programs do not
require the information that forms the
basis for the substantiation to be
submitted at the time of the claim;
however, a facility must still determine
whether or not a claim can be
substantiated. Because existing rules
require sources to formulate a legitimate
basis for claiming CBI, even if those
rules do not require immediate
documentation, and because the Agency
fully expects requests for RMP
information which will necessitate
sources' submitting such
documentation, EPA believes that up-
front submission will not increase the
burden of the regulation.
Second, in response to the
commenter's claim that the Agency had
underestimated the total burden
associated with CBI claims, EPA
undertook a review of recent
information collection requests (ICRs)
covering data similar to that required to
be submitted in an RMP. Initially, EPA
examined the ICR prepared for Part 2
itself (ICR No. 1665.02, OMB Control
No 2020-0003). Under an analysis
contained in the Statement of Support
for the ICR, the Agency estimated that
it takes approximately 9 4 hours to
substantiate claims of CBI. prepare
documentation, and submit such
documentation to EPA Next, the
Agency reviewed a survey conducted by
the Agency (under Office of
Management and Budget clearance
#2070-0034), to present the average
burden associated with indicating
confidential business information
claims for certain data elements under
the proposed inventory update rule
(itlR) amendment under TSCA section
8 This survey specifically asked
affected industry how long it would take
to prepare CBI claims for two data
elements—chemical identity and
production volume range information.
Part 68 also requires similar information
(e.g., chemical identity and maximum
quantity in a process) to be included in
a source's RMP and, indeed, EPA
anticipates that they will be the data
elements most likely to be claimed CBI.
The average burden estimates for
chemical identity were between 1.82
and 3.13 hours, and the average burden
estimates for production volume in
ranges were between 0 87 and 2.08
hours. Thus, assuming that the average
source claims both chemical identity
and the maximum quantity in a process
as CBI, a conservative estimate for the
reporting burden would be 5.21 hours
Finally, EPA examined the burden
estimate upon which it relied at
proposal. That estimate predicted that
the average CBI claim would take 15
hours, of which 8.5 would be
developing and submitting the CBI
claim, and 6.5 would be completing an
unsanitized version of the RMP. In view
of EPA's current plan not to require a •
source claiming CBI to submit a full,
unsanitized RMP, but instead to submit
only the particular elements claimed as
CBI, the Agency expects the latter
burden to decrease to 1 hour, for a total
burden of 9.5 hours.
In light of its extensive research of the
burden hours involved in preparing and
submitting CBI claims, EPA believes
that the total burden estimate was not
understated in the April proposal.
Rather, other ICRs and the ICR proposal,
combined with the changes to the
method of documenting CBI claims,
indicate that a burden estimate between
5.21 and 9.5 hours is appropriate for
this final rule. EPA has selected the
most conservative of these, 9.5 hours, in
its ICR for this final rule
EPA rejected one ICR's burden
estimate as being inapplicable to the
present rulemaking. Although the
comrnenter urged the Agency to adopt
the estimate associated with trade secret
claims under EPCRA (28 hours), EPA
believes that the estimates discussed
above are more accurate for several
reasons. First, the EPCRA figures are
based upon a survey with a very small
sample size, as compared to the TSCA
survey cited previously Second, most
(if not all) of the facilities submitting
RMPs are likely to already be reporting
under sections 311 and 312 or section
313 of EPCRA, and many of the
manufacturers submitting an RMP are
subject to TSCA reporting requirements:
thus, most sources likely to claim CBI
for an RMP data element will have
already done some analysis of whether
or not such information would reveal
legitimately confidential matter.
Other Facilities Can Claim CBI: The
Agency does not agree with the
commenter's claim that facilities other
than chemical manufacturers might be
expected to claim CBI for information
contained in their RMPs The other
industries affected by the RMP rule (e.g ,
propane retailers, publicly owned
treatment works) will not be disclosing
in the RMP information that is likely to
cause substantial harm to the business's
competitive position. For example,
covered public drinking water and
wastewater treatment plants generally
use common regulated substances in
standard processes (i.e., chlorine used
for disinfection). Also, covered
processes at many sources involve the
storage5 of regulated substances that the
sources sell (e.g., propane, ammonia), so
the processes are already public
knowledge. Other covered processes
involve the use of well-known
combinations of regulated substances
such as refrigerants. Therefore, it is not
likely that these businesses would claim
information as CBI.
As a point of comparison, EPA notes
that of the 869,000 facilities that are
estimated to be required to report under
sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA,
approximately 58 facilities have
submitted trade secret claims for under
those sections. For this reason, EPA
believes the estimate of 800 sources
may, in fact, be an overestimate of the
number of sources claiming CBI.
Reporting Multiple Data Elements:
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters assertion that it has
underestimated the reporting burden on
sources' claiming multiple data
elements as CBI. The burden figures
stated above are based on the Agency's
estimates of the average number of data
elements that a typical source will likely
claim CBI
Public reporting of the new RMP data
elements is estimated to require an
average of .25 hours for all sources
(64,200 sources) and substantiating CBI
claims is estimated to take
approximately 9.5 hours for certain
chemical manufacturing sources (800
sources) The aggregate increase in
burden over that estimated in the
previous Information Collection Request
(ICR) for part 68 is estimated to be about
23,650 hours over three years, or an
annual burden of 7,883 hours for the
three years covered by the ICR
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title H of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P L 104-
4, establishes requirements for Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $ 100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
•written statement is needed, section 205
-------
978
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules'and Regulations
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
979
APPENDIX TO PREAMBLE—DATA ELEMENTS THAT MAY NOT BE CLAIMED AS CBI—Continued
Rule element
Comment
68.160(b){13) The date of the last safety in-
spection and the identity of the inspecting en-
tity.
68.165(b}(4) Basis of the results (give model
name if used).
68.165(b){9) Wind speed and atmospheric sta-
bility class (toxics only)
68,165(b)(10) Topography (toxics only)
68.165(b)(11) Distance to an endpoint
68.165(b)(l2) Public and environmental recep-
tors within the distance
68.168 Five-year accident history
68.170(b), (d), (e)(1), and (f)-(k)
68.175(b), (d), (e)(1), and (f)-(p)
NAICS code, prevention program compli-
ance dates and information.
68.180 Emergency response program
This information provides no information that would affect a source's competitive position.
Without the chemical name and quantity, this reveals no business information.
This information provides no information that would affect a source's competitive position.
Without the chemical name and quantity, this reveals no business information.
By itself, this information provides no confidential information. Other elements that would re-
veal chemical identity or quantity may be claimed as CBI.
By itseff, this information provides no confidential information. Other elements that would re-
veal chemical identity or quantity may be claimed as CBi.
Sources are required to report most of these releases and information (chemical released,
quantity, impacts) to the federal, state, and local agencies under CERCLA and EPCRA;
these data are available to the public and, therefore, do not meet the criteria for CBI claims.
Much of this information is also available from the public media.
NAICS codes and the prevention program compliance dates and information provide ,no infor-
mation that wojuld affect a source's competitive position.
This information provides no information that would affect a source's competitive position.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68
.Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated. December 29, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, subchapter
C, part 68 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended to read as
follows:
PART 68— CHEMICAL ACCIDENT
PREVENTION PROVISIONS
1 The authority citation for Part 68
continues_to read as follows:
Authority. 42 U.S C 7412(r), 760i(a)(l),
7661-7661f.
2. Section 68.3 is amended by
removing the definition of SIC and by
adding in alphabetical order the
definition for NAICS to read as follows.
§68.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
NAICS means North American
Industry Classification System.
V * * * *
3. Section 68 10 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(l) to read as
follows. -
§68.10
* *
Applicability.
* • *
(d) * * *
(1) The process is in NAICS code
32211,32411,32511,325181,325188,
325192, 325199, 325211, 325311, or
32532; or
*****
4. Section 68.42 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(3), redesignating
paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(10) as
paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(ll) and by
adding a new paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows.
§68.42 Five-year accident history.
* * * * *
, (b) * * *
(3) Estimated quantity released in
pounds and. for mixtures containing
regulated toxic substances, percentage
concentration by weight of the released
regulated toxic substance in the liquid
mixture;
(4) Five- or six-digit NAICS code that
most closely corresponds to the process;
* * ;* * *
5. Section 68.79 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§. 68.79 Compliance audits.
(a) The owner or operator shall certify
that they have evaluated compliance
with the provisions of this subpart at
least every three years to verify that
procedures and practices developed
under this subpart are adequate and are
being followed
***** ,
6 Section 68 150 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§68.150 Submission.
*****
(e) Procedures for asserting that
information submitted in the RMP is
entitled to protection as confidential
business information are set forth in
§§68 151 and 68 152
7. Section 68.151 is added to read as
follows:
§68,151 Assertion of claims of
confidential business information.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, an owner or operator
of a stationary source required to report
or otherwise provide information under
this part may make a claim of
confidential business information for
any such information that meets the
criteria set forth in 40 CFR 2.301.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
40 CFR part 2, an owner or operator of
a stationary source subject to this pa'rt
may not claim as confidential business
information the following information:
(1) Registration data required by
§68.160(b)(l) through (b)(6) and (b)(8),
(b)(10) through (b)(13) and NAICS code
and Program level of the process set
forthin§68.160(b)(7),
(2) Offsite consequence analysis data
required by §68.165(b)(4), (b)(9). (b)(10),
(b)(11), and (b)(12)
(3) Accident history data required by
§68.168;
(4) Prevention program data required
by §68 170(b), (d), (e)(l), (f) through (k);
(5) Prevention program data required
by§68.175(b), (d), (e)(l), (f) through (p);
and
(6) Emergency response program data
required by § 68.180.
(c) Notwithstanding the procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 2, an owner or
operator asserting a claim of CBI with
respect to information contained in its
RMP, shall submit to EPA at the time it
submits the RMP the following:
(1) The information claimed
confidential, provided in a format to be
specified by EPA;
-------
980
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 3/Wednesday, January 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
(2) A sanitized (redacted) copy of the
RMP. with the notation "CBI"
Substituted for the information claimed
confidential, except that a generic
category or class name shall be
substituted for any chemical name or
Identity claimed confidential; and
(3) The document or documents
substantiating each claim of confidential
business information, as described in
S 68.152,
?. Section 68.152 is added to read as
follows:
§68.152 Substantiating claims of
confidential business Information.
(a) An owner or operator claiming that
Information is confidential business
Information must substantiate that claim
by providing documentation that
demonstrates that the claim meets the
Substantive criteria set forth in 40 CFR
2.301.
(b) Information that is submitted as
part of the substantiation may be
claimed confidential by marking It as
confidential business information.
Information" not so marked will be
treated as public and may be disclosed
Mthout: notice to the submitter. If
Information that Is submitted as part of
the substantiation is claimed
confidential! the owner or operator must
provide a sanitized and unsanitized
version of the substantiation.
(c) The owner, operator, or senior
omelal with management responsibility
of the stationary source shall sign a
certification that the signer has
personally examined the information
submitted and that based on inquiry of
the persons who compiled the
information, the information is true,
accurate, and complete, and that those
portions of the substantiation claimed as
confidential business information
would. If disclosed, reveal trade secrets
or other confidential business
information.
9. Section 68.160 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(7), and
(b)(12) and adding paragraphs (b)(14)
through (b)(18) to read as follows:
§68.160 Registration.
*****
Stationary source name, street,
city, county, state, zip code, latitude and
longitude, method for obtaining latitude
and longitude, and description of
location that latitude and longitude
represent;
*****
(7) For each covered process, the
name and CAS number of each
regulated substance held above the
threshold quantity in the process, the
maximum quantity of each regulated
substance or mixture in the process (in
pounds) to two significant digits, the
five- or six-digit NAICS code that most
closely corresponds to the process, and
the Program level of the process;
*****
(12) If the stationary source has a CAA
Title V operating permit, the permit
number; and
*****
(14) Source or Parent Company E-Mail
Address (Optional);
(15) Source Homepage address
(Optional)
(16) Phone number at the source for
public inquiries (Optional);
(17) Local Emergency Planning
Committee (Optional);
(18) OSHA Voluntary Protection
Program status (Optional);
10. Section 68.165 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§68.165 Offsite consequence analysis.
*****
(b) The owner or operator shall
submit the following data:
(1) Chemical name,
(2) Percentage weight of the chemical
in a liquid mixture {toxics only);
(3) Physical state (toxics only);
(4) Basis of results (give model name
if used);
(5) Scenario (explosion, fire, toxic gas
release, or liquid spill and evaporation);
(6) Quantity released in pounds;
(7) Release rate;
(8) Release duration;
(9) Wind speed and atmospheric
stability class (toxics only);
(10) Topography (toxics only);
(11) Distance to endpoint;
(12) Public and environmental
receptors within the distance;
(13) Passive mitigation considered;
and
(14) Active mitigation considered
(alternative releases only);
11. Section 68.170 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§68.170 Prevention program/Program 2.
*****
(b) The five- or six-digit NAICS code
that most closely corresponds to the
process.
*****
12. Section 68.175 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§68.175 Prevention program/Program 3.
*****
(b) The five- or six-digit NAICS code
that most closely corresponds to the
process.
*****
13. Section 68.180 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§68.180 Emergency response program.
*****
(b) The owner or operator shall
provide the name and telephone
number of the local agency with which
emergency response activities and the
emergency response plan is
coordinated.
*****
[FR Doc 99-231 Filed 1-5-99, 8-45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-5O-P
-------
Appendix B
(Reserved)
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Appendix C
PART 68 CONTACT INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX C: PART 68 CONTACT INFORMATION
Region or Slate
Regional Office
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S} = Stale only toll free
(N) *» National Toll free
Region I
US EPA Region I
Office of Environmental Stewardship (SPP)
JFK Federal Building
One Congress Si,
Boston, MA. 02203-2211
(617)565-9232
(617) 5654939 PAX
imail: dinardo.rayOepa.gov
Connecticut
Glen Daraskevich
Small Business Assistance Program
Department of Environmental Protection
Environmental Quality Division
79 Elm St.
Hartford, CT 06106
860-424-3545
fax 860-424-4063
(8)800-760-7036
glen.daraskevich@po,state.ct us>
Maine
Brian Kavanah
Office of Pollution Prevention
Station 17
State Houie
Augutta, ME 04333
207-287-6188
fax 207-287-7826
(8)800-789-9802
Massachusetts
George Frantz
Office of Technical Assistance
Exec Office of Environmental, Affairs
100 Cambridge St, Suite 2109
Boston, MA 02202
617-727-3260, ext. 631
fax 617-727-3827
george.frantz(i>state ma ub
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S) = State only toll free
(N) = National Toll free
New Hampshire
Rudolph Cartier, Jr
Air Resources Division
Department of Environmental Services
64 North Mam Street
Caller Box 2033
Concord, MH 03302-2033
603-271-1379
FAX 603-271-1381
(S) 800-837-0656
cartier@desarsb.rar.com '
Rhode Island
Pam Annarummo
Dept. of Environmental Management
Office of Technical & Customer Assistance
235 Promenade Street
Providence, RI02908
401-277-66822, ext, 7204
fax'401-277-3810
Vermont
Judy Mirro
VT Environmental Assistance Division
Laundry Building
1038, Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05671
802-241-3745
fax 802-241-3273
Region 2 7*.
'-.- - -s-f,
EPA, Region 2,:?,j,; -^
'
r2i90 WoodbriageAvenue -,", /
EdisbV,NJ 0,8837,4679 '>2W '~
'(732)321-6620 •' r, ^V.*
-t **
'K
«?»,*
,,
Btnail; Blshoeferjotoj^epigoy ( «
New Jen>ey
Bureau of Chemical Release Information and
Prevention
22 South Clinton Avenue
P.O. Box 424
Trenton, NJ. 08625-0424
609-633-7289 phone
609-633-7031 fax
sseh]ffman@dep.state.nj,us
Chuck McCarty
Office Permit Information and Assistance
NJ DEPE
401 East State Street
CN423-3rd Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625-0423
609-292-3600
fax 609-777-1330
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(N)> National Tdl free
New York
Mtita Muclar
Environmental Program Manager
NYS Bnv. Pacil, Corp.
50 Wolf Rd.- Room 598
Albany, NY 12205
518-457-9135
fax 518-485-8494
(S) 800-780-7227
Puerto Rico
Maria L, Rivera
PREQB-SBAP
IIC-91Box9I97
VegaA!ta,PRQQ692-S6Q7
787-767-8025, art. 296
fax 787-756-5906
Virgin Islands
Marylyn Stapleton
Suite 231
8000 Nisky Center
Charlotte Amaile
St Thomas, V.I. 00802
809-777-4577
fax 809-775-5706
Region 3
US BPA Region 3
CEPP and Site Assessment Section (3HS33)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
(215)-8!4-3033
(215J-814-32S4PAX
Email; shabazz,mikal@epamail,epa,gov
Delaware
Bob Barrish
DEDNREC
715 Grantham Lane
New Castle, DE
19720
302-323-4542
fax 302-323-4561
-------
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S) = State only toll free
(N) a National Toll free
Olivia Achuko
ERA/ARMD
2100 M.L KingAve.,SE
Washington, DC 20020
202-645-6093, ext, 3071
fax 202-645-6102
Linda Moran
Small Business Assistance Program
Air & Radiation Mgmt, Adm. -
MD Department of the Environment
2500 Broemng Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21224
410-631-4158
fax 410-631-3896
(N) 800-433-1247
Cecily Beall
PRC Env, Management Inc.
6th Floor
1800 JFK Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-656-8709
fax 215-972-0484
(S) 800-722-4743
beallc @ prcemi .com
Richard Rasmussen
VA DEQ/Air Division
Small Business Assistance Program
PO Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240
804-698-4394
fax 804-698-4501
(S) 800-592-5482
rgrasmusie@deq,state.va,us
Fred Durham
WV Office of Air Quality "
Air Program Annex
1558 Washington St. East
Charleston, WV 25302
304-558-1217 '
fax 304-558-1222
(S) 800-982-2472
Region or State
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Regional Office
-------
Region or Stale
Regional Office
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(Sj» State only Id! free
(N) * National Toll free
Region 4
US EPA Region 4
Air Pesticides and Toxics Maiwgenwnt
Division
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Porsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404)562-9121
(404) 562-9095 FAX
Email; patraon.michelle@epa,gov
Alabama
James Moore
AL DEM Air Division
PO Box 301463
Montgomery, AL
36130-1463
334-271-7861
fax 334-271-7950
(N) 800-553-2336
Florida
Eve Rainy
Stale of Florida
Dcpt, of Community Affairs
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Taiiahaisee, Pla. 32399-2100
(850)413-9914 phone
(850) 488-1739 fax
eve.rainey@DCA,STATRFL US
Belli Hardm
Division of Air Resources and Management
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Fla 32399-2400
(850)921-9549 phone
(850) 922-6979 fax
Hardin_E®dep,state.fl us
F.lsa Bishop
Division of Air Res, Mgmt,
PL Dept, of Env, Protection
2600 Blair Stone Rd,
MS5500
Tallahassee, PL
32399-2400
904-488-0114
fax 904-922-6979
(S) 300-722-7457
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S) = State only toll free
(N) = National Toll free
Georgia
Kent HowcII
Georgia Depl Of Natural Resources.
Environmental Protection Division
7 M.L King Jr, Drive, Suite 139
Atlanta, Qa. 30334
(404) 656-6905 phone
(404) 657-7893 fax
keiit_howell@mail,dnr.state.ga,us
Anita Dorsey-Word
DNR/EPD/APB
Suite 120
4244 Intl. Parkway
Atlanta, QA 30354
404-362-4842
fax 404-362-2534
amta_dorsey-wordB>niaiI,dnr.state,ga.us
Kentucky
Gregory C. Copley
Director, BEAP
University of Kentucky
227 Bus. & Eco Bltig
Lexington, KY 40506-0034
606-257-1131
fax 606-257-1907
(N) 800-562-2327
gceopl I ©pop.uky edu
Mississippi
Danny Jackson
Mississippi Dept of Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control, Air Division
PO Box 10385
Jackson, Ms. 39289-0385
(601) 961-5225 phone
(601) 961-5725 fax '
Jackson_Danny@deq.state.ms,us
Danny Jackson
Air Quality
Office of Policy Conirol/DEQ
PO Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
601-961-5171
fax 601-961-5742
North Caroiini
Mike Chapman
Air Quality Section
North Carolina Dept of Environment, Health
and Resources
P.O Box 29580
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0580
(919) 715-3467 phone
(919) 733-1812 fax
michea!_chapman@aq.ehnr.statenc,us
Em Johnson
Dept, of Env, Health & Nat. Resources
PO Box 29583
Raleigh, NC 27626
919-733-1267
fax919-715r6794
finjohnson@owr.ehnr state.nc.us
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S)e Slate only (oil free
(N) = Nalkmal Toll free
Souih Carolina
Rhonda B. Thompson
Bureau of Air Quality Control
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Health
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201
(803) 734-4750 phone
(803) 734-4556 fax
ihompsrb@co!umb31 ,dhcc.stale,sc.us
Chad Pollock
SCDHEC
EQC Administration
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-2765
fax 803-734-9196
(N) 800-819-9001
polloerc®columb30.dhec.state.sc.us.
Tennessee
Linda Sadler
Small Business Assist. Program
8th Floor
L&C Annex
401 Church St.
Nashville, TN 37243
615-532-0779
fax 615-532-0614
(S) 800-734-3619
Region 5
US EPA Region 5
Superfund Division (SC6J)
77W.Jaelo>onBlvd,
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)8864061
(312) 886-6064 FAX
Email*, mayhugh.mbert@epa.gov
Illinois
Mark Enstrom
III. Dept. of Commerce & Community Affairs
620 East Adams Si S-3
Springfield, !L 62701
217-524-0169
fax 217-785-6328
mestrom@mhd084rl.state,il.us
Indiana
Chen Storms
IDEM/OPP&TA/VOC
Room 1320
ICON Senate
PO Box 6015
Indianapolis,, IN 46206-6015
317-233-1041
fax 317-233-5627
estor<9opn,dem.state,in,u4
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S) = State only toll free
(N) = National Toll free
Michigan
Dave Fiedler
Environmental Semces Division
MIDEQ
PO Box 30457
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-0607
fax 517-335-4729
(S) 80Q-662-9278
Minnesota
Barbara Conti
MPCA/AQPD/SBAP
520 Lafayette Rd,
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
612-297-7767
fax 612-297-7709
(N) 800-657-3938
barbara conti@pea,state mn.us
Ohio
Risk Carleiki
OH EPA
Division of Air Pollution Control
1600 Watermark Dr
Columbus, OH 43215
614-728-1742
fax 614-644-3681
richard_carle!>ki@central.epa ohio gov
Wisconsin
Pam Christenson
WI Clean Air Assistance Program
Department of Commerce, 9th Floor
123 W. Washington Ave
Madison, WI 53703
608-267-9214
fax 608-267-0436
(N) 800-435-7287
pchriste@mail.state.wi.us
fj
Region {>
"
.USB^Rsiioll^
Superfiirid Division
-------
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S) a Slate only toll free
(N)» National T
-------
Region or State
* '! J
Region 7 , , , '' .
,' - „"*" i "~ " j **
* " -•"' *A* ~ f/^i
* = ' " ,* >' * - "" " -A"',**** *<
"M ^ ' ~ *t _ * v?f " *t
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Regional Office
* -^y " \J* ? - 3* - ' '»*** '
USEPA|egton7'-"",r»,/' "' *,• ••" '»•
Ait; R^RA, and.Torios Diviiion » ,(-v j '•>" . ,,4»' J
".(ARTO/TSPP)"' *<^:*v ' ;.,'''- '.--,':'.'' ,
'T^MlmiesotejAwf'i^ ^( -'^^ *,-^«|
, Kansgj'.ei'fyrfci gfiibl ^-l^f , %s^- !;
ffiiafsji-iale ." v,#* " , /*'";' " -: l^!, -'.
/{gmssi^feHA*'*- ,r^ J^***""*-^
^ffti^sitttaMrkallpaigo^ «^*- '*;rf*
-
•
Implementing Agency
- , Sa^f^ „ ;:*;>'•„ ,>-*"ftf, >",*;%' ,-
!•>""' _t«. }""* '"*"r i - -*"Ł " ^f1*
* X-j^1 ° "***.' ^^ /*^,*i -^ ~ _, *^ . ^^ j "*
""„ »i*ii??' , ^ i'»^'*'Lf,i-i«!>'* ' -Tt4':*' *»",«.-!>*'***
»^% w M^ , *ityS^T-->a
^iia^""-^ '«*.ii#*HfJ^" '
.j^ :;v* r *'Ł$*• ^v>
,-,^'-/- * . ^-w t-^*,*1 -<^»-w;, ,»-«ii'4'"^,-iij
Small Business Assistance
(S) = State only toll free
(N) = National Toll free
., , ;j-\ ^ "" ^ 5 ^ ^ ^ • ' '
" "^4 ' ^ ?•*•*• v jAiy^ ' •! ^ '* > ^^ f ,
*A«(gW»* f I •si* VAu.Vi**^**^"' .'*'-'» ^' >
^r :^ ^ '^•\^'1:.;^'
1 ft1'1*, ,^. *''» r '"" * «»-' " ' c-i"*y • •-«**
•*>>ffn >& ' Hi ,:•'«*' /<" ,,
;^ ^|S^., a*6'".-^!
** J.M J?* ' »»^ 'J ^•"''t - •<•• ""*•*"
.'-35^^.-' ;••«**' - -,» !>-«»*** ,;.,Ti<4V" ,.-»
,if, ifi# . ^Iji -j, JPV -.fS«iir ,-1^**
•§#> j » : * ^?r ' j, *,*,. " 4Jfa^~* ' ,-* T
"^ "sirf" '«jflF V.*' ' V-**** ^'' '"
Somnath Dasgupta
John Konefes
IA Waste Reduction Center
Unv Of Northern Iowa
75 Biol. Res, Comp.
Cedar Falls, IAS06 14-0 185
319-273-2079
fax 3 19-273-2926
(S) 800-422-3109
dasgupta@uni.edu
Frank Orzulak
Director of Continuing Education
Continuing Education Bldg,
U. of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS 66045-2608
913-864-3978
fax 913-864-5827
(S) 800-578-8898
forzulak@falcon.cc ukans.edu
Byron Shaw
DNR Technical Assistance Program
Jefferson State Office Building
POBox 176
Jefferson City, MS 65 102
314-526-5352
fax 314-526-5808
-------
Region or State
Nebraska
Region 8
Colorado
Montana
Regional Office
OS EPA Region 8
Ecosystems Protection and Remgdiatioi
(8EPR-ER)
One Denver Place
999-18th Slrect, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303)312-6760
(303) 312-6071 FAX
Email; benoy.barbaja@epa.gov
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S) m Slate only Ml free
(N)* National Toll free
Dan Eddingcr
Public Advocate
Dep!. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
402-471-3413
fax 402-441-2909
dedding@juno.cam
Nick Mellladis
Air Pollution Control Division
Dept. of Public Health & the Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive - South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
303-692-3175
fax 303-782-5493
(N) 800-333-7798
mck.melliadisfflstate.co.us
Adel Johnson
Dept. Of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
MelcalfBldg,
1520 E. 6th Ave.
Helena, MT 59620-0501
406-444-4194
fax 406-444-5275
(S) 800-433-8773
-------
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S)= Slate only toll free
(N)= National Toll free
Tom Bachman
ND Dept of Health
Division of Environmental Engineering
1200 Missouri Avc,
PO Box 5520
Bismark,ND 58506-5520
701-328-5188
fax 701-328-5200
(8)800-755-1625
Bryan Gustafson
Dept Env & Nat, Resources
Joe Foss Bldg
523 East Capital Ave.
Pierre, SD 57501
605-773-3351
fax 605-773-6035
Frances Bernards
UTDEQ
Div of Air Quality
PO Box 144820
Salt Lake City, UT 841144820
801-536-4056
fax 801-536-4099
(S) 800-270-4440
fbernard@deq,itate,ut,usi
Charles Raffel&on
Dept, of Env, Quality
Div, of Air Quality
122 W. 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307-777-7391
fax 307-777-5616
eraffeWmissc.state.wy.Ub
Region or State
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Region 9
Regional Office
Siiperfund Diyi'sipn (SPDj-5) i", < > • *'~y'
"75 Hawthorne Strlst" ' , / ''' '"
p,CA' 94105']'*" s
-------
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S}» State only tell free
(N) = National Toll free
Greg Woricirwn
DEQ/Custorrwr Service
3033 N. Centra! Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-207-4337
fax 602-207-4872
(S) 800-234-5677 (x4337)
woricman,gregory@ev,state,az,us
Peter Venturini
CA EPA - Au Resource Board
Stationary Source *
2020 L Street
Sacramento CA, 95814-4219
916-445-5023
fax 916-445-5023
Robert Tarn
HI Department of Health
Clean Air Branch
919 AU Moans Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
808-586-4200
fax 808-586-4370
David Cowperthwaite
Small Business Program Manger
Drv. Of Env. Protection
333 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
702-687-4670x3118
fax 702-687-5856
(8)800-992-0900x4670
Region or State
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Region 10
Regional Office
US EPA Region 10
Emergency Response & Site Cleanup Unit
(ECU 16)
Office of Environmental Cleanup
U,S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-0285
-------
Implementing Agency
Small Business Assistance
(S) = Slate only toll free
(N) = National Toll free
Scott Lytle
Alas>ka Department of Env. Conservation
555 Cordova Si.
Anchorage, AK 99501-2617
907-269-7571
fax 907-269-7600
(8)800-510-2332
slytle®envircon,state,ak us
Doug McRoberts"
IDBQ/PL&E
Siatehouse Mail
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1290
208-373-0497
fax 208-373-0169
dmcrober@deq,s>tate,id.us
Terry Obteshka
ODBQ
Air Quality Division
811SW,6thAve,
Portland, OR 97204-1390
503-229-6147
fax 503-229-5675
(8)800452-4011
terry.obteshka@btate.or us
Bernard Brady
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
OIympia,WA 98504-7600
360-407-6803
fax 360-407-6802 *
bbra461@ecy wa gov
Region or State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Regional Office
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Appendix D
OSHA Contacts
-------
APPENDIX Di OSHA CONTACTS
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultlve Program
State Plan States
Region 1
JFK Federal Building
RoomE340
Boston, MA 02203
phone: (617)565-9860
fax: (617) 565-9827
Connecticut
Connecticut Department of
Labor
Division of Occupational
Safety & Health
38 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, Connecticut
06109
(203) 566-4550
(203) 566-6916 FAX
steve, wj eeter @ ct-ce-
wethrsfld.osha.gov E-mail
Department of Labor
200 Folly Brook Boulevard
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Program Director's Office
Steven Wheeler
phone; (860) 566-4550 fax;
(860) 566-6916
James P. Butler,
Commissioner
(860) 566-5123 (f) (860) 566-
1520
Maine
Division of Industrial Safety
Maine Bureau of Labor
State House Station #82
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 624-6460
(207) 624-6449 FAX
david.e.wacker@ state.me.us
E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultlve Program
State Plan States
Massachusetts
Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
Dept. of Labor & Industries
1001 Watertown Street
West Newton, Massachusetts
02165
(617) 727-3982
(617) 727-4581 FAX
jlamalva@N218.osha.gov E-
mail
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Department
of Health
Division of Public Health
Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire
03301-6527
(603) 271-2024
(603) 271-2667 FAX
jake@nh7ci.mv.com E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultlve Program
State Plan States
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of
Health
Division of Occupational
Health
3 Capital Hill
Providence, Rhode Island
02908
(401) 277-2438
(401) 277-6953 FAX
oshacon@ids.net E-mail
Vermont
Division of Occupational
Safety & Health
Vermont Department of Labor
and Industry
National Life Building,
Drawer 20
Montpelier, Vermont
05602-3401
(802) 828-2765
(802) 828-2748 FAX
web@labor.lab.state.vt.us
E-mail
Department of Labor and
Industry
National Life Building -
Drawer 20
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620
Robert McLeod, Project
Manager
phone; (802) 828-2765 fax:
(802) 828-2195
Steve Jansen, Commissioner
(802) 828-2288 (f) (802) 828-
2748
Region 2
201 Varick Street
Room 670
New York, NY 10014
phone: (212) 337-2378
fax: (212) 337-2371
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
New Jersey
Department of Labor
Div. of Publi Safety and
Occupational Safety and
Health
225 E. State Street, 8th Floor
West
P.O. EOK 953
Trenton, NJ 08625-0953
609-292-3923
609-292-4409 FAX
carol.farley@nj-c-
trenton.osha.gov E-mail
New York
Division of Safety and Health
State Office Campus
Building 12, Room 130
Albany, New York 12240
(518)457-1169
(518) 457-3454 FAX
j ames .r ush @ ny-ce-
albany.osha.gov E-mail
Department of Labor
W. Averell Harriman State
Office Building -12, Room
500
Albany, NY 12240
Richard Cuculo, Program
Director
phone: (518) 457-3518 fax:
(518) 457-6908
James McGowan,
Commissioner
(518) 457-2741 (f) (518) 457-
6908
-------
Region or State
Regional OWlce
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Puerto Rico
Occupational. Safety and
Health Office
Dept. of Labor & Human
Resources, 21st Floor
505 Munoz Rivera Avenue
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918
(809)754-2188
(809) 767-6051 FAX
Department of Labor and
Human Resources
Prudencio Rivera Martinez
Building
505 Munoz Rivera Avenue
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918
Cesar J. Almodovar-
Marchany, Secretary
phone: (787) 754-2119 fax:
(787) 753-9550
Assistant Secretary's Office
Ana Lopez
phone: (787) 754-2119 or
2171
fax: (787) 767-6051
Virgin Islands
Division of Occupational
Safety and Health
Virgin Islands Department of
Labor
3021 Golden Rock
Christiansted
St. Croix, Virgin Island 00840
(809)772-1315
(809) 772-4323 FAX
Department of Labor
2131 Hospital Street
Box 890, Christiansted
St. Croix, Virgin Islands
00820-4666
Raymond Williams, Program
Director
phone: (809) 772-1315 fax:
(809) 772-4323
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program '
State Plan States
Region 3
, Mf
we1
Delaware
Delaware Department of Labor
Division of Industrial Affairs
Occupational Safety and
Health
4425 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19802
(302) 761-8219
(302) 761-6601 FAX
Hrznadel@state.de.us E-mail
District of Columbia
DC Department of
Employment Services
Office of Occupational Safety
and Health
950 Upshur Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20011
(202) 576-6339
(202) 576-7282 FAX -
jcates @n217.osha.gov
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
ConsMltire Program
State Plan State
Maryland
Division of Labor and Industry
312 Marshall Avenue, Room
600
Laurel, MD 20707
410-880-4970
410-880-6369 FAX
Division of Labor and Industry
Dept. of Licensing and
Regulation
1100 North Eutaw Street,
Room 613
Baltimore, MD 21201-2206
John P. O'Conner,
Commissioner
phone: (410) 767-2215 fax:
(410)767-2003
Ileana O'Brien, Deputy
Commissioner
phone: (410)767-2992 fax:
(410)767-2003
Pennsylvania
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Safety Sciences Department
205 Uhler Hall
Indiana, Pennsylvania
15705-1087
(412) 357-2561
(412) 357-2385 FAX
rchriste@grove.iup.edu E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Virginia
Virginia Department of Labor
and Industry
Occupational Safety and
Health
Training and Consultation
13 South 13th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-6359
(804) 786-8418 FAX
nj akubecdoli® sprintmail.com
E-mail
Department of Labor and
Industry
Powers-Taylor Building
13 South 13th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Theron Bell, Commissioner
phone: (804) 786-2377 fax:
(804) 371-6524
Charles Lahey, Deputy
Commissioner
phone: (804) 786-2383 fax:
(804) 371-6524
West Virginia
West Virginia Department of
Labor
Capitol Complex Building #3
1800 East Washington Street,
Room 319
Charleston, West Virginia
25305
(304) 558-7890
(304) 558- 3797 FAX
Region'4. .Ni>,
C404)- se
,%\$jjjJ!?^' ^ •&3L^* ' ' ""ftf^
• ijfeKtS**1* 1
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consullive Program
State Plan States
Alabama
Safe State Program
University of Alabama
432 Martha Parham West
PO Box 870388
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487
(205) 348-3033
(205) 348-3049 FAX
bweems@ua.edu E-mail
Florida
Florida Dept. of Labor and
Employment Security
7(c)(l) Onsite Consultation
Prog. Div. of Safety
2002 St, Augustine Road,
Building E, Suite 45
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 922-8955
(904) 922-4538 FAX
brettcreco@safetyfl.org E-mail
Georgia
Onsite Consultation Program
Georgia Institute of
Technology
O'Keefe Building, Room 22
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
(404) 894-2646
(404) 894-8275 FAX
paul,middendorf@gtri.gatech.e
du E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Kentucky
Division of Education and
Training
Kentucky Labor Cabinet
1049 U.S. Highway 127 South
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-6895
(502) 564-4769 FAX
arussell@mail.lab,state,ky,gov
E-mail
Labor Cabinet
1047 U.S. Highway 127 So.,
Suite 2
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Joe Norsworthy, Secretary
phone (502) 564-3070 fax:
(502) 564-5387
Steven A. Forbes, Fed/State
Coordinator
phone: (502) 564-2300 fax:
(502) 564-1682
Mississippi
Mississippi State University
Center for Safety and Health
2906 North State Street, Suite
201
Jackson, Mississippi 39216
(601)987-3981
(601) 987-3890 FAX
Kelly@nl98.osha.gov E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consullive Program
State Pita States
North Carolina
Bureau of Consultative
Services
North Carolina Dept, of Labor
319 Chapanoke Road, Suite
105
Raleigh, North Carolina
27603-3432
(919) 6624644
(919) 662-4671 FAX
wjoyner@dol,state.nc.us
E-mail
Department of Labor
319 Chapanoke Road
Raleigh, NC 27603
Harry Payne, Commissioner
phone: (919) 662-4585 fax:
(919) 662-4582
Charles Jefress, Deputy
Commissioner
phone (919) 662-4585 fax:
(919) 662-4582
South Carolina
South Carolina Department of
Labor
Licensing and Regulation
3600 Forest Drive
PO Box 11329
Columbia, South Carolina
29204
(803) 734-9614
(803) 734-9741 FAX
scoshaovp @ infoave.net
E-mail
Department of Labor,
Licensing, and Regulation
Roger Office Park, Kingstree
Building
110 Centerview Drive
PO Box 11329
Columbia, SC 29210
William Lybrand, Program
Director
phone: (803) 734-9594 fax:
(803) 734-9772
Lewis Gossett, Director
(803) 896-4300 (f) (803) 896-
4393
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Tennessee
OSHA Consultative Services
Tennessee Department of
Labor
710 James Robertson
Parkway, 3rd Floor
Nashville, Tennessee
37243-0659
(615)741-7036
(615) 532-2997 FAX
mike.maenza® tn-c-
nashville.osha.gov E-mail
Department of Labor
710 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243
David R, Inman, Program
Director
phone: (615) 741-2793 fax;
(615)741-3325
AlphonsoR. Bodie,
Commissioner
(615) 741-2582 (f) (615) 741-
5078
Regiori:5" - i
?-,«i - '*
.
ri
353-2M
" "
Illinois
Industrial Service Division
Department of Commerce &
Community Affairs
State of Illinois Center, Suite
3-400
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-2337
(312) 814-7238 FAX
sfryzel@eommerce.state.il.us
E-mail
-------
Region or Slate
Regional Office
ConsuJUve Program
State Plan States
Indiana
Bureau of Safety, Education
and Training
Division of Labor, Room
W195
402 West Washington
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 232-2688
(317) 232-0748 FAX
Jon.mack@nin-ce-
indianpls.osha.gov E-mail
Department of Labor
State Office Building
402 West Washington Street,
RoomW195
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Timothy Joyce, Commissioner
phone: (317) 232-2378 fax:
(317)233-3790
John Jones, Deputy
Commissioner
phone: (317) 232-3325 fax:
(317)233-3790
Michigan
Michigan Dept of Public
Health
Division of Occupational
Health
3423 North Martin Luther
King Boulevard
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517)335-8250
(517) 335-8010 FAX
john,peek@eis.state.mi.us E-
mail
Department of Consumer and
Industry Services North
3423 No. Martin Luther King
Boulevard
PO Box 30649
Lansing, MI 48909
Kathleen M. Wilbur, Director
phone: (517) 373-7230 fax^
(517) 373-2129
Douglas E. Earle,
Program Director for Safety
and Health
phone: (517) 322-1814 fax:
(517)335-8010
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Minnesota
Department of Labor and
Industry
443 LaFayette Road
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
(612) 297-2393
(612) 297-1953 FAX
james.collins@state,mn.us E--
mail
Department of Labor and
Industry
443 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
GretchenB. Maglich,
Commissioner
phone: (612)296-2342 fax;
(612) 282-5405
Roslyn Wade, Assistant
Commissioner
phone: (612) 296-6529 fax:
(612) 282-5405
Ohio
Bureau of Employment
Services
145 S. Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614) 644-2246
(614) 644-3133 FAX
owen@n222.osha.gov E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Ctwisultlve Program
State Ban State
Wisconsin
Wisconsin (Health)
Wisconsin Department of
Health and Human Services
Section of Occupational
Health, Room 112
1414 East Washington Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
(608) 266-8579
(608) 266-9711 FAX
Wisconsin (Safety)
Wisconsin Department of
Industry
Labor and Human Relations
Bureau of Safety Inspections
401 Pilot Court, Suite C
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53188
(414) 521-5063
(414) 521-8614 FAX
LI 163@n215.osha.gov E-mail
Region 6
525 Griffin Street
Room 602
Dallas, TX 75202
phone: (214)7674731
fax: (214) 767-4137
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Arkansas
OSHA Consultation
Arkansas Department of Labor
10421 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 682-4522
(501) 682-4532 FAX
clark@n237.osha.gov E-mail
Louisiana
7(c)(l) Consultation Program
Louisiana Department of
Labor
Post Office Box 94094
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
(504) 342-9601
(504) 342-5158 FAX
oshacons@eatel.net E-mail
New Mexico
New Mexico Environment
Dept
Occupational Health and
Safety Bureau
525 Camino de Los Marquez,
Suite 3
PO Box 26110
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
(505) 827-4230
(505) 827-4422 FAX '
deborah@n023.osha.gov E-
mail
Environment Department
1190 St. Francis Drive
PO Box 26110
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
Mark E. Weilder, Secretary
phone: (505) 827-2850 fax;
(505) 827-2836
Sam A. Rogers, Chief
phone: (505) 827-4230 fax:
(505) 827-2836
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Cofuultive Program
State Plan Slates
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of
Labor
OSHA Division
4001 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73105-5212
(405) 528-1500
(405) 528-5751 FAX
Ieslie@n238.osha.gov E-mail
Texas
Workers' Health and Safety
Division
Workers' Compensation
Commission
Southfield Building
4000 South IH 35
Austin, Texas 78704
(512)440-3854
(512) 440-3831 FAX
margaret.nugent@mail.capnet.
state.tx.us
Region 7
City Center Square
1100 Main Street
Suite 800
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
phone: (816) 426-5861
fax: (816) 426-2750
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Iowa
7(c)(l) Consultation Program
Iowa Bureau of Labor
1000 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515)281-5352
(515) 281-4831 FAX
Division of Labor Services
1000 E. Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Mary L. Bryant, Administrator
phone: (515) 281-3469 fax:
(515)281-7995
Byron K. Orton,
Commissioner
(515) 281-3447 (f) (515) 242-
5144
Kansas
Dept. of Human Resources
512 South West 6th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66603
(913) 296-7476
(913) 296-1775 FAX
rady.leutzinger@ks-ce-
topeka.gov E-mail
Missouri
Division of Labor Standards
Dept, of Labor & Industrial
Relations
3315 West Truman Boulevard
P.O. Box 449
Jefferson City, Missouri 65109
(573) 751-3403
(573) 751-3721 FAX
rsimmons@serviees.state.mo.u
s E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Conswltive Program
State Plan States
Nebraska
Division of Safety Labor &
Safety Standards
Nebraska Department of Labor
State Office Building, Lower
Level
301 Centennial Mall, South
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5024
(402)471-4717
(402) 471-5039 FAX
amy@n214.osha.gov E-mail
Region 8
1999 Broadway
Suite 1690
Denver, CO 80202
phone: (303) 8444600
fax: (303) 844-1616
Colorado
Colorado State University
Occupational Safety and
Health Section
115 Environmental Health
Building
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
(303) 491-6151
(303) 491-7778 FAX
jdsand @lamar .colostate.edu
E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Montana
Montana
Dept. of Labor and Industry
Bureau of Safety
PO Box 1728
Helena, Montana 59624-1728
(406) 444-6418
(406) 444-4140 FAX
dfolsom@mt,gov E-mail
North Dakota
Division of Environmental
Engineering
1200 Missouri Avenue, Room
304
Bismarck, North Dakota
58506-5520
(701) 328-5188
(701) 328-5200 FAX
ccmail.lhuber @ ranch, state, nd,
us E-mail
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Caosultive Program
State Plan Stales
South Dakota
Engineering Extension
Onsite Technical Division
South Dakota State University
Box 510
West Hall
907 Harvey Dunn Street
Brookings, South Dakota
57007
(605) 688-4101
(605) 688-6290 FAX
scoshaovp@infoave,net
E-mail
Utah
Utah Industrial Commission
Consultation Services
160 East 300 South
Salt Lake City, Utah
84114-6650
(801)530-6868
(801) 530-6992 FAX
icmain.nandetso @state.ut.us
E-mail
Labor Commission
160 East 300 South, 3rd Floor
PO Box 146650
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-
6650
Jay W. Bagley, Administrator
phone: (801) 530-6898 fax:
(801) 530-7606
R. Lee Ellertson,
Commissioner
(801) 530-6898 (f) (801) 530-
6880
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Wyoming
Wyoming Department of
Employment
Workers' Safety and
Compensation Division
Herschler Building, 2 East
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7786
(307) 777-3646 FAX
Department of Employment
Worker's Safety and
Compensation Div.
Herschler Building, 2nd Floor
East
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Stephan R. Foster, Safety
Administrator
phone: (307) 777-7786 fax:
(307) 777-5850
Region 9
ti
*
>»,-. " "' „ t ^x^T" ' ' #f>f*" '*'<4
/«. ^-^ *y>Z-, u ^» ^ ,>W
Arizona
Consultation and Training
Industrial Commission of
Arizona
Division of Occupational
Safety & Health
800 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 542-5795
(602) 542-1614 FAX
henry@n245.osha.gov E-mail
Industrial Commission
800 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Derek Mullins, Program
Director
phone: (602) 542-5795 fax:
(602) 542-1614
Larry Etchechury, Director
(602) 542-5796 (f) (602) 542-
1614
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
California
CAL/OSHA Consultation
Service
Department of Industrial
Relations
Room 1260
45 Freemont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-8515
(415) 972-8513 FAX
DCBare@hq.dir.ca.gov E-mail
Department of Industrial
Relations
45 Freemont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dr. John Howard, Chief
phone; (415) 972-8500 fax:
(415) 972-8513
John Duncan, Director
(415) 972-8835 (f) (415) 972-
8848
Guam
OSHA Onsite Consultation
Dept. of Labor, Government of
Guam
PO Box 9970
Tamuning, Guam 96931
(671) 475-0136
(671) 477-2988 FAX
Hawaii
Consultation & Training
Branch
Dept of Labor and Industrial
Relations
830 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 586-9100
(808) 586-9099 FAX
Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations
830 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Loraine H Akiba, Director
phone: (808) 586-8844 fax:
(808) 586-9099
Jennifer Shishido,
Administrator
phone: (808) 586-9116 fax:
(808) 586-9104
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Nevada
Division of Preventive Safety
Department of Industrial
Relations, Suite 106
2500 West Washington
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
(702) 486-5016
(702) 486-5331 FAX
dalton.hooks @ nv-ce-
lasvegas.osha.gov E-mail
Division of Industrial
Relations
400 West King Street
Carson City, Nevada 97502
Ron Swirczek, Administrator
phone(702) 687-3032 fax:
(702) 687-6305
Danny Evans, Assistant
Administrator
phone: (702) 687-3250 fax:
(702) 687-6150
: Region. 10 _^
*
iill J^^em§5; 'VC-fi
Alaska
ADOL/OSHA Division of
Consultation
3301 Eagle Street •
P.O. Box 107022
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
(907) 269-4957
(907) 269-4950 FAX
timothybundy@labor.state.ak.
us E-mail
Department of Labor
1111 W. 8th Street, Room 306
Juneau, AK 99801
Alan W. Dwyer, Program
Director
phone: (907) 465-4855 fax:
(907) 465-3584
Tom Cashen, Commissioner
(907) 465-2700 (f) (907) 465-
2784
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
ConsuJUve Program
State Plan States
Idaho
Boise State University, Dept.
of Health Studies
1910 University Drive,
ET-338A
Boise, Idaho 83725
(208) 385-3283
(208) 385-4411 FAX
lstokes@bsu.idbsu.edu E-mail
Oregon
Department of Consumer and
Business Services
Oregon Occupational Safety
and Health Division
350 Winter Street NE, Room
430
Salem, Oregon 97310
(503) 378-3272
(800) 922-2689 TOLL FREE
(503) 378-5729FAX
steve.g.beech@state.or.us or
consult, web @ state.or.us
E-mail
Occupational Safety and
Health Division
Dept. of Consumer & Business
Services
350 Winter Street, NE, Room
430
Salem, OR 97310
Peter Delucat Administrator
phone: (503)378-3272 fax;
(503) 378-4538
David Sparks, Deputy
Administrator
phone: (503) 378-3272 fax:
(503) 378-4538
-------
Region or State
Regional Office
Consultive Program
State Plan States
Washington
Washington Dept of Labor and
Industries
Division of Industrial Safety
and Health
PO Box 44643
Olympia, Washington 98504
(360) 902-5443
(360) 902-5459 FAX
jarrie235@mi.wa,gov E-mail
Department of Labor and
Industries
General Administration
Building
PO Box 44001
Olympia, WA 980504-4001
Gary Moore, Director
phone: (360) 902-4200 fax:
(360) 902-4202
Michael Silverstein, Assistant
Director
phone: (360) 902-5495 fax:
(360) 902-5529
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
APPENDIX E: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
This appendix outlines trie resources that are available to warehousing facilities in
complying with 40 CFR part 68, organized by the group providing the assistance. For
specific points of contact for EPA regional offices, RMP implementing agencies, and
Clean Air Act small business assistance,programs, refer to Appendix C. For specific
points of contact for OSHA regional offices, OSHA state consultative programs, and
OSHA state plan states, refer to Appendix D
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO)
administers the RMP program at the national level.
Street Address: 401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
i
Phone Number: (202) 260-8600
WWW Address: www.epa.gov/ceppo/
The CEPPO homepage on the Internet provides access to downloadable versions of
numerous risk management program documents, including factsheets, questions and
answer documents, the list of regulated substances and thresholds, the text of the
regulatory requirements, general and industry-specific guidance, risk communication,
and RMP data elements and instructions. It also has links to sources of Material
Safety Data Sheets and other hazardous chemical information, as well as up-to-date
lists of LEPCs and SERCs.
If you do not have Internet access, these documents can be ordered from EPA's
EPCRA/Superfund/RCRA/CAA Hotline In addition, the Hotline responds to
factual questions on a variety of federal EPA regulations, including those developed
under Clean Air Act section 112(r).
Phone Number: Toil-Free: (800)424-9346
Local: (703)412-9810
TDD: (800)553-7672
TDD Local: (703) 412-3323
Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm EST
E-Mail: epahotline@bah.com
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires that all States develop a program to
assist small businesses in meeting the requirements of the Act. EPA has established its
own Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) to provide technical assistance to
January 27,1999
-------
Appendix E
Technical Assistance E-2
'ilia
these State small business programs. The SBAP Internet site at
i i i iii i r ° .
www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap was developed to allow State and EPA programs to share
information about their small business assistance materials and activities.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
OSHA administers the Process Safety Management Standard (29 CFR 1910.119),'
which mandates actions similar to that of EPA's prevention program. In about half of
the states (see Appendix D), OSHA programs are run by state agencies.
The OSHA Publications Office provides single copies of various documents related
I", I I : i'i » I I II III i II I i i I ! r °, r
TO risk management, process safety, accident prevention, and emergency planning and
response.
Street Address: U.S. Department of Labor
Room N3101
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Phone Number: (202) 523-9667
( i P ^ i <
s. ' '
WWW Address; www.osha.gov
The OSHA Computerized Information System at www.osha-slc.gov/ provides
downloadable versions of OSHA Standards and related documents, including OSHA
Regulations, Federal Register notices, Interpretations and Compliance Letters, OSHA
. Regulations (preambles to final rules), and OSHA Directives and Fact Sheets. OSHA
also publishes a quarterly CD-ROM with all of this information, available for
Windows and Macintosh computers from;
U.S. Government Printing Office
Stock f 729-013-00900-5 \
Phone:; '(202)'512-i 800
Fax: (202)512-2250
Price: $38/year (four quarterly releases), $15 (single copy)
OSHA's Small Business Outreach Training Program has prepared an Instructional
Guide on various topics in occupational safety and health, designed to provide ideas
and organizational assistance to an instructor who wishes to present these topics,
which specifically focus on the needs of small business. The text of the Guide is
available at www.osha-sIc.gov/SLTC/SmallBusiness.
* I ' i
ii1 '
Employers who take advantage of OSHA's Consultation Services can find out about
potential hazards at their worksites, improve their occupational safety and health
management systems, and even qualify for a one-year exemption from routine OSHA
Jinu«y27,1999
-------
Appendix E
E-3 Technical Assistance
Inspections. Targeted for smaller businesses, this safety and health consultation
program is completely separate from the OSHA inspection effort. For more
information, check in at www.osha.gov/oshprogs/consult.html.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS (AlCnE)
Street Address: 345 E. 47th St.
New York, NY 10017-2395
Phone Number (212)705-7338
WWW Address: ' www.aiche.org/
AIChE and its Center for Chemical Process Safety publish a variety of documents
including a Continuing Education catalog for its educational and training programs
and an annual Publications Catalog from which documents can be purchased. They
are available from:
t '
AIChExpress Service Center
(800) AIC-HEME (242-4363)
Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST
E-Mail: xpress@aiche.org
Some of the specific documents available include: "
Guidelines for Safe Storage and Handling of Highly Toxic Hazardous
Materials (119 pages)
Publication G-3
Order No. 0-8169-0400-6
Price: $65
f
Guidelines for Safe Warehousing of Chemicals (forthcoming)
Publication G-3 3
Order No, 0-8169-0659-9
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (CMA)
Street Address: 1300 Wilson Blvd.
' Arlington, VA 22209
Phone Number: (703)741-5000
WWW Address: www.cmahq.com/
CMA documents, including those listed below, are available from:
January 27,1999
-------
Appendix E
Technical Assistance - E-4
CMA Publications FulflJIment Office
341 Victory Drive
Hemdon,VA 22070
Phone: (703)709-0166
h , '
CMA Responsible Care: Handling and Storage: Warehouse Assessment
Protocol
Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Code Resource
Guide
Order No. 024012
Price: $50 members, $75 non-members
Safe Warehousing of Chemicals
Order No. 022003
Price: $10 members, $15 non-members
i (
CMA also maintains Chemtrec (Chemical Transportation Emergency Center) to
provide a centralized information and assistance center for individuals responding to
chemical emergencies and carriers of hazardous materials:
! S
Emergency: (800) 424-9300
Non-Emergency: (800) 262-8200
INTERNATIONAL WAREHOUSE LOGISTICS ASSOCIATION
Street Address: 1300 W. Higgins Rd., Ste. 111
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Phone Number: (847) 292-1891
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS
>
Street Address: Chemical Educational Foundation
1525 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 750
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone Number: (703) 527-6223
«*
Fax Number: (703)527-7747
v WWW Address: www.nacd.com/
Ja*uaiy27,1999
-------
Appendix E
E-5 Technical Assistance
The Chemical Educational Foundation publishes an Educational Aids and Training
Catalog and a Product Stewardship Resource Guide. CEF has published the following
document related to risk management:
Making It Easy: Community Outreach Ideas and Examples
NACD Product Stewardship Bulletin #1: Chemical Use, Handling, Storage,
and Transportation
NACD Product Stewardship Bulletin #5: Employee Hazardous Materials
Safety Training
NACD Product Stewardship Bulletin #8: Risk Management Program
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
Street Address: 1 Batterymarch Park
, P.O. Box 9101
Quincy, MA 02269-9101
Phone Number. (617)770-3000
Fax Number: (617)770-0700 '
E-mail: Iibrary@NFPA.org.
s
WWW Address: www.nfpa.org/
NFPA publishes standards related to fire safety, prevention, training, planning, and
- response that have been adopted as the official fire code in many states, as well as
guidance on how to implement its standards. The collection of NFPA Standards is
available at many libraries, but NFPA also publishes a bimonthly catalog of its
standards and fire safety products, which are available from:
NFPA Fulfillment Center
11 Tracy Drive
Avon, MA 02322-9908
Phone: (800)344-3555
Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 8:00 pm EST
Fax: (800) 593-NFPA (6372)
E-mail: custserv@NFPA.org.
A listing of these products and subscription service information (as well as a Spanish
version of the catalog) is provided at the NFPA homepage.
January 27, 1999
-------
Appendix E
Technical Assistance E-6
si : iiifli ] i mm M K
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Street Address: 409 Third Street, SW
Washington, DC 20416
( i '
Phone Number: (800) 827-5722
WWW Address: www.slja.gov/
! j *» *
SBA was created to help America's entrepreneurs form successful small enterprises.
SBA's program, offices in every state offer financing, training and advocacy for small
firms. In addition, the SBA works with thousands of lending, educational, and
training institutions nationwide.
January 27.1999
i t
-------
APPENDIX F
OSHA GUIDANCE ON PSM
-------
^PPENDIXF
OSHA GUIDANCE ON PSM
The following text is taken directly from OSHA's non-mandatory appendix C to the PSM standard
(29 CFR 1910.119). The only change has been to rearrange the sections to track the order of part 68.
PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION
i 1 i i 1
ii i
Complete and accurate written information concerning process chemicals, process technology, and process
equipment is essential to an effective process safety management program and to a process hazards
analysis. The compiled information will be a necessary resource to a variety of users including the team
that will perform the process hazards analysis; those developing the training programs and the operating
procedures; contractors whose employees will be working with the process; those conducting the
pre-startup reviews; local emergency preparedness planners; and insurance and enforcement officials.
The information to be compiled about the chemicals, including process intermediates, needs to be
comprehensive enough for an accurate assessment of the fire and explosion characteristics, reactivity
hazards, die safety and health hazards to workers, and the corrosion and erosion effects on the process
equipment and monitoring tools. Current material safety data sheet (MSDS) information can be used to
help meet this requirement, which must be supplemented with process chemistry information including
runaway reaction and over pressure hazards if applicable.
i i i'
Process technology information will be a part of the process safety information package and it is expected
that it will include diagrams as well as employer established criteria for maximum inventory levels for
process chemicals; limits beyond which would be considered upset conditions; and a qualitative estimate
of the consequences or results of deviation that could occur if operating beyond the established process
limits. Employers are encouraged to use diagrams which will help users understand the process.
A block flow diagram is used to show the major process equipment and interconnecting process flow lines
and show flow rates, stream composition, temperatures, and pressures when necessary for clarity. The
block flow diagram is a simplified diagram.
Process flow diagrams are more complex and will show all main flow streams including valves to enhance
the understanding of the process, as well as pressures and temperatures on all feed and product lines within
all major vessels, in and out of headers and heat exchangers, and points of pressure and temperature
control. Also, materials of construction information, pump capacities and pressure heads, compressor
horsepower and vessel design pressures and temperatures are shown when necessary for clarity. In
addition, major components of control loops are usually shown along with key utilities on process flow
diagrams.
Piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDS) may be the more appropriate type of diagrams to show some of
the above details and to display the information for the piping designer and engineering staff. The P&IDS
are to be used to describe the relationships between equipment and instrumentation as well as other
relevant information that will enhance clarity. Computer software programs which do P&IDS or other
diagrams useful to the information package, may be used to help meet this requirement.
The information pertaining to process equipment design must be documented. In other words, what were
the codes and standards relied on to establish good engineering practice. These codes and standards are
-------
Appendix F
OSHA Guidance on PSM F-2
published by such organizations as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Petroleum
Institute, American National Standards Institute, National Fire Protection Association, American Society
for Testing and Materials, National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, National Association
of Corrosion Engineers, American Society of Exchange Manufacturers Association, and model building
code groups. In addition, various engineering societies issue technical reports which impact process
design. For example, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers has published technical reports on
topics such as two phase flow for venting devices. This type of technically recognized report would
constitute good engineering practice.
For existing equipment designed and constructed many years ago in accordance with the codes and
standards available at that time and no longer in general use today, the employer must document which
codes and standards were used and that the design and construction along with the testing, inspection and
operation are still suitable for the intended use. Where the process technology requires a design which
departs from the applicable codes and standards, the employer must document that the design and
construction is suitable for the intended purpose,
PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS
A process hazard analysis (PHA), sometimes called a process hazard evaluation, is one of the most
important elements of the process safety management program. A PHA is an organized and systematic
effort to identify and analyze the significance of potential hazards associated with the processing or
handling of highly hazardous chemicals. A PHA provides information which will assist employers and
employees in making decisions for improving safety and reducing the consequences of unwanted or
unplanned releases of hazardous chemicals.
A PHA is directed toward analyzing potential causes and consequences of fires, explosions, releases of
toxic or flammable chemicals and major spills of hazardous chemicals. The PHA focuses on equipment,
instrumentation, utilities, human actions (routihe and non-routine), and external factors that might impact
the process. These considerations assist in determining the hazards and potential failure points or failure
modes in a process.
The selection of a PHA methodology or technique will be influenced by many factors including the
amount of existing knowledge about the process. Is it a process that has been operated for a long period of
time with little or no innovation and extensive experience has been generated with its use? Or, is it a new
process or one which has been changed frequently by the inclusion of innovative features? Also, the size
and complexity of the process will influence the decision as to the appropriate PHA methodology to use.
All PHA methodologies are subject to certain limitations. For example, the checklist methodology works
well when the process is very stable and no changes are made, but it is not as effective when the process
has undergone extensive change. The checklist may miss the most recent changes and consequently the
changes would not be evaluated. Another limitation to be considered concerns the assumptions made by
the team or analyst. The PHA is dependent on good judgment and the assumptions made during the study
need to be documented and understood by the team and reviewer and kept for a future PHA.
The team conducting the PHA need to understand the methodology that is going to be used. A PHA team
can vary in size from two people to a number of people with varied operational and technical backgrounds.
Some team members may only be a part of the team for a limited time. The team leader needs to be fully
knowledgeable in the proper implementation of the PHA methodology that is,to be used and should be
-------
Appendix F
F-3 OSHA Guidance on PSM
impartial in the evaluation. The other full or part time team members need to provide the team with
expertise in areas such as process technology, process design, operating procedures and practices,
including how the work is actually performed, alarms, emergency procedures, instrumentation,
maintenance procedures, both routine and non-routine tasks, including how the tasks, are authorized,
procurement of parts and supplies, safely and health, and any other relevant subject as the need dictates. At
least one team member must be familiar with the process.
The ideal team will have an intimate knowledge of the standards, codes, specifications and regulations
applicable to the process being studied. The selected team members need to be compatible and the team
leader needs to be able to manage the team and the PHA study. The team needs to be able to work together
while benefiting from the expertise of others on the team or outside the team, to resolve issues, and to forge
a consensus on the findings of the study and the recommendations.
he application of a PHA to a process may involve the use of different methodologies for various parts of
the process. For example, a process involving a series of unit operations of varying sizes, complexities, and
ages may use different methodologies and team members for each operation. Then the conclusions can be
integrated into one final study and evaluation.
1
A more specific example is the use of a checklist PHA for a standard boiler or heat exchanger and the use
of a Hazard and Operability PHA for the overall process. Also, for batch type processes like custom batch
operations, a generic PHA of a representative batch may be used where there are only small changes of
monomer or other ingredient ratios and the chemistry is documented for the full range and ratio of batch
ingredients. Another process that might consider using a generic type of PHA is a gas plant. Often these
plants are simply moved from site to site and therefore, a generic'PHA may be used for these movable
plants. Also, when an employer has several similar size gas plants and no sour gas is being processed at
the site, then a generic PHA is feasible as long as the variations of the individual sites are accounted for in
the PHA.
I I II I !
Finally, when an employer has a large continuous process which has several control rooms for different
portions of the process such as for a distillation tower and a blending operation, the employer may wish to
do each segment separately and then integrate the final results.
Additionally, small businesses which are covered by this rule, will often have processes that have less
storage volume, less capacity, and less complicated than processes at a large facility. Therefore, OSHA
would anticipate that the less complex methodologies would be used to meet the process hazard analysis
criteria in the standard. These process hazard analyses can be done in less time and with a few people
jbeing involved. A less complex process generally means that less data, P&DDS, and process information is
needed to perform a process hazard analysis.
i
Many small businesses have processes that are not unique, such as cold storage lockers or water treatment
facilities. Where employer associations have a number of members with such facilities, a generic PHA,
evolved from a checklist or what-if questions, could be developed and used by each employer effectively to
reflect his/her particular process; this would simplify compliance for them.
When the employer has a number of processes which require a PHA, the employer must set up a priority
system of which PHAs to conduct first. A preliminary or gross hazard analysis may be useful in
prioritizing the processes that the employer has determined are subject to coverage by the process safety
-------
Appendix F
OSHA Guidance on PSM F-4
management standard. Consideration should first be given to those processes with the potential of
adversely affecting the largest number of employees. This prioritizing should consider the potential
severity of a chemical release, the number of potentially affected employees, the operating history of the
process such as the frequency of chemical releases, the age of the process and any other relevant factors.
These factors would suggest a ranking order and would suggest either using a weighing factor system or a
systematic ranking method. The use of a preliminary hazard analysis would assist an employer in
determining which process should be of the highest priority and thereby the employer would obtain the ,
greatest improvement in safety at the facility.
OPERATING PROCEDURES
Operating procedures describe tasks to be performed, data to be recorded, operating conditions to be
maintained, samples to be collected, and safety and health precautions to be taken. The procedures need to
be technically accurate, understandable to employees, and revised periodically to ensure that they reflect
current operations. The process safety information package is to be used as a resource to better assure that
the operating procedures and practices are consistent with^the known hazards of the chemicals in the
process and that the operating parameters are accurate. Operating procedures should be reviewed by
engineering staff and operating personnel to ensure that they are accurate and provide practical instructions
on how to actually carry out job duties safely.
Operating procedures will include specific instructions or details on what steps are to be taken or followed
in carrying out the stated procedures. These operating instructions for each procedure should include the
applicable safety precautions and should contain appropriate information on safety implications. For
example, the operating procedures addressing operating parameters will contain operating instructions
about pressure limits, temperature ranges, flow rates, what to do when an upset condition occurs, what
alarms and instruments are pertinent if an upset condition occurs, and other subjects. Another example of
using operating instructions to properly implement operating procedures is in starting up or shutting down
the process. In these cases, different parameters will be required from those of normal operation. These
operating instructions need to clearly indicate the distinctions between startup and normal operations such
as the appropriate allowances for heating up a unit to reach the normal operating parameters. Also the
operating instructions need to describe the proper method for increasing the temperature of the unit until
the normal operating temperature parameters are achieved.
Computerized process control systems add complexity to operating instructions. These operating
instructions need to describe the logic of the software as well as the relationship between the equipment
and the control system; otherwise, it may not be apparent to the operator.
Operating procedures and instructions are important for training operating personnel. The operating
procedures are often viewed as the standard operating practices (SOPs) for operations. Control room
personnel and operating staff, in general, need to have a full understanding of operating procedures. If
workers are not fluent in English then procedures and instructions need to be prepared in a second
language understood by the workers. In addition, operating procedures need to be changed when there is a
change in the process as a result of the management of change procedures. The consequences of operating
procedure changes need to be fully evaluated and the information conveyed to the personnel. For example,
mechanical-changes to the process made by the maintenance department (like changing a valve from steel
to brass or other subtle changes) need to be evaluated to determine if operating procedures and practices
also need to be changed. All management of change actions must be coordinated and integrated with
-------
Appendix F
F-5 OSHA Guidance on PSM
current operating procedures and operating personnel must be oriented to the changes in procedures before
the change is made. When the process is shutdown to make a change, then the operating procedures must
be updated before startup of the process.
Training in how to handle upset conditions must be accomplished as well as what operating personnel are
to dq in emergencies such as when a pump seal fails or a pipeline ruptures. Communication between
operating personnel and workers performing work within the process area, such as non-routine tasks, also
must fee maintained. The hazards of the tasks are to be conveyed to operating personnel in accordance
'•ill in i n I«: l
-------
Appendix F
OSHA Guidance on PSM F-6
employees understood, and whether the desired results were obtained. If, after the evaluation, it appears
that the trained employees are not at the level of knowledge and skill that was expected, the employer will
need to revise the training program, provide retraining, or provide more frequent refresher training sessions
until the deficiency is resolved. Those who conducted the training and those who received the training
should also be consulted as to how best to improve the training process. If there is a language barrier, the
language known to the' trainees should be used to reinforce the training messages and information.
Careful consideration must be given to assure that employees including maintenance and contract
employees receive current and updated training. For example, if changes are made to a process, impacted
employees must be trained in the changes and understand the effects of the changes on their job tasks (e.g.,
any new operating procedures pertinent to their tasks). Additionally, as'already discussed the evaluation of
the employee's absorption of training will certainly influence the need for training.
MECHANICAL INTEGRITY
Employers will need to review their maintenance programs and schedules to see if there are areas where
"breakdown" maintenance is used rather than an on-going mechanical integrity program. Equipment used
to process, store, or handle highly hazardous chemicals needs to be designed, constructed, installed and
maintained to minimize the risk of releases of such chemicals. This'requires that a mechanical integrity
program be in place to assure the continued integrity of process equipment.
Elements of a mechanical integrity program include the identification and categorization of equipment and
instrumentation, inspections and tests, testing and inspection frequencies, development of maintenance
procedures, training of maintenance personnel, the establishment of criteria for acceptable test results,
documentation of test and inspection results, and documentation of manufacturer recommendations as to
meantime to failure for equipment and instrumentation.
The first line of defense an employer has available is to operate and maintain the process as designed, and ,
to keep the chemicals contained. This line of defense is backed up by the next line of defense which is the
controlled release of chemicals through venting to scrubbers or flares, or to surge or overflow tanks which
are designed to receive such chemicals, etc. These lines of defense are the primary lines of defense or
means to prevent unwanted releases. The secondary lines of defense would include fixed fire protection
systems like sprinklers, water spray, or deluge systems, monitor guns, etc., dikes, designed drainage
systems, and other systems which would control or mitigate hazardous chemicals once an unwanted release
occurs. These primary and secondary lines of defense are what the mechanical integrity program needs to
protect and strengthen these primary and secondary lines of defenses where appropriate.
The first step of an effective mechanical integrity program is to compile and categorize a list of process
equipment and instrumentation for inclusion in the program. This list would include pressure vessels,
storage tanks, process piping, relief and vent systems, fire protection system components, emergency
shutdown systems and alarms and interlocks and pumps. For the categorization of instrumentation and the
listed equipment the employer would prioritize which pieces of equipment require closer scrutiny man
others.
Meantime to failure of various instrumentation and equipment parts would be known from the
manufacturer's data or the employer's experience with the parts, which would then influence the inspection
and testing frequency and associated procedures. Also, applicable codes and standards such as the National
-------
Appendix F
F-7 OSHA Guidance on PSM
Board inspection Code, or those from the American Society for Testing and Material, American Petroleum
Institute, National Fire Protection Association, American National Standards Institute, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, and other groups, provide information to help establish an effective testing and
inspection frequency, as well as appropriate methodologies.
The applicable codes and standards provide criteria for external inspections for such items as foundation
aiid supports, anchor bolts, concrete or steel supports, guy wires, nozzles and sprinklers, pipe hangers,
grounding connections, protective coatings and insulation, and external metal surfaces of piping and
yei|els, etc, These codes and standards also provide information on methodologies for internal inspection,
and a frequency formula based on the corrosion rate of the materials of construction. Also, erosion both
internal and extemaj needs to be considered along with corrosion effects for piping and valves. Where the
corrosion rate is not known, a maximum inspection frequency is recommended, and methods of developing
the corrosion rate are available in the codes. Internal inspections need to cover items such as vessel shell,
bottom and head; metallic linings; nonmetallic linings; thickness measurements for vessels and piping;
inspection for erosion, corrosion, cracking and bulges; internal equipment like trays, baffles, sensors and
screens for erosion, corrosion or cracking and other deficiencies. Some of these inspections may be
performed by state or local government inspectors under state and local statutes. However, each employer
needs to develop procedures to ensure that tests and inspections are conducted properly and that
consistency is maintained even where different employees may be involved. Appropriate training is to be
provided to maintenance personnel to ensure that they understand the preventive maintenance program
procedures, safe practices, and the proper use and application of special equipment or unique tools that
may be required. This training is part of the overall training program called for in the standard.
A quality assurance system is needed to help ensure that the proper materials of construction are used, that
t fabrication and inspection procedures are proper, and that installation procedures recognize field
installation concerns. The quality assurance program is an essential part of the mechanical integrity
program and will help to maintain the primary and secondary lines of defense that have been designed into
the process to prevent unwanted chemical releases or those which control or mitigate a release. "As built"
drawings, together with certifications of coded vessels and other equipment, and materials of construction
need to be verified and retained in the quality assurance documentation.
Equipment installation jobs need to be properly inspected in the field for use of proper materials and
procedures and to assure that qualified craftsmen are.used to do the job. The use of appropriate gaskets,
packing, bolts, valves, lubricants and welding rods need to be verified in the field. Also, procedures for
installation of safety devices need to be verified, such as the torque on the bolts on ruptured disc
installations, uniform torque on flange bolts, proper installation of pump seals, etc. If the quality of parts is
a problem, it may be appropriate to conduct audits of the equipment supplier's facilities to better assure
proper purchases of required equipment which is suitable for its intended service. Any changes in
equipment that may become necessary will need to go through the management of change procedures.
i __ .
MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
To properly manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment and facilities, one must define
what is meant by change. In this process safety management standard, change includes all modifications to
equipment, procedures, raw materials and processing conditions other than "replacement in kind." These
changes need to be properly managed by identifying and reviewing them prior to implementation of the
change. For example, the operating procedures contain the operating parameters (pressure limits,
-------
Appendix F
OSHA Guidance on PSM F-8
temperature ranges, flow rates, etc.) and the importance of operating within these limits. While the
operator must have the flexibility to maintain safe operation within the established parameters, any
operation outside of these parameters requires review and approval by a written management of change
procedure. Management of change covers changes in process technology and changes to equipment and
instrumentation. Changes in process technology can result from changes in production rates, raw
materials, experimentation, equipment unavailability, new equipment, new product development, change
in catalyst and changes in operating conditions to improve yield or quality. Equipment changes include
among others change in materials of construction, equipment specifications, piping pre-arrangements,
experimental equipment, computer program revisions and changes in alarms and interlocks. Employers
need to establish means and methods to detect both technical changes and mechanical changes.
Temporary changes have caused a number of catastrophes over the years, and employers need to establish
ways to detect temporary changes as well as those that are permanent. It is important that a time limit for
temporary changes be established and monitored since, without control, these changes may tend to become
permanent. Temporary changes are subject to the management of change provisions. In addition, the
management of change procedures are used to insure that the equipment and procedures are returned to
their original or designed conditions at the end of the temporary change. Proper documentation and review
of these changes is invaluable in assuring that the safety and health considerations are being incorporated
into the operating procedures and the process. Employers may wish to develop a form or clearance sheet
to facilitate the processing of changes through the management of change procedures. A typical change
form may include a description and the purpose of the change, the technical basis foK the change, safety
and health considerations, documentation of changes for the operating procedures, maintenance
procedures, inspection and testing, P&IDS, electrical classification, training and communications,
pre-startup inspection, duration if a temporary change, approvals and authorization. Where the impact of
the change is minor and well understood, a check list reviewed by an authorized person with proper
communication to others who are affected may be sufficient.
However, for a more complex or significant design change, a hazard evaluation procedure with approvals
by operations, maintenance, and safety departments may be appropriate. Changes in documents such as
"P&IDS, raw materials, operating procedures, mechanical integrity programs, electrical classifications, etc.,
need to be noted so that these revisions can be made permanent when the drawings and procedure manuals
are updated. Copies of process changes need to be kept in an accessible location to ensure that design
changes are available to operating personnel as well as to PHA team members when a PHA is being done
or one is being updated.
PRE-STARTUP REVIEW
For new processes, the employer will find a PHA helpful in improving the design and construction of the
process from a reliability and quality point of view. The safe operation of the new process will be enhanced
by making use of the PHA recommendations before final installations are completed. P&IDs are to be
completed along with having the operating procedures in place and the operating staff trained to run the
process before startup. The initial startup procedures and normal operating procedures need to be fully
evaluated as part of the pre-startup review to assure a safe transfer into the normal operating mode for
meeting the process parameters.
For existing processes that have been shutdown for turnaround, or modification, etc., the employer must
assure that any changes other than "replacement in kind" made to the process during shutdown go through
-------
Appendix F
F-9 OSHA Guidance on PSM
the management of change procedures. P&IDS will need to be updated as necessary, as well as operating
procedures and instructions. If the changes made to the process during shutdown are significant and impact
the training program, then operating personnel as well as employees engaged in routine and non-routine
work in the process area may need some refresher or additional training in light of the changes. Any
incident investigation recommendations, compliance audits or PHA recommendations need to be reviewed
as well to see what impacts they may have on the process before beginning the startup.
COMPLIANCE AUDITS
Employers need to select a trained individual or assemble a trained team of people to audit the process
safety management system and program. A small process or plant may need only one knowledgeable
persoh to conduct an audit. The audit is to include an evaluation of the design and effectiveness of the
process safety management system and a field inspection of the safety and health conditions and practices
to verify that the employer's systems are effectively implemented. The audit should be conducted or led
by a person knowledgeable in audit techniques and who is impartial towards the facility or area being
audited. The essential elements of an audit program include planning, staffing, conducting the audit,
evaluation and corrective action, follow-up and documentation.
Planning in advance is essential to the success of the auditing process. Each employer needs to establish
the format, staffing, scheduling and verification methods prior to conducting the audit. The format should
be designed to provide the lead auditor with a procedure or checklist which details the requirements of
each section of the standard. The names of the audit team members should be listed as part of the format as
\vell. The checklist,, if properly designed, could serve as the verification sheet which provides the auditor
with the necessary information to expedite the review and assure that no requirements of the standard are
omitted. This verification sheet format could also identify those elements that will require evaluation or a
response to correct deficiencies. This sheet could also be used for developing the follow-up and
documentation requirements.
The selection of effective audit team members is critical to the success of the program. Team members
should be chosen for their experience, knowledge, and training and should be familiar with the processes
and with auditing techniques, practices and procedures. The size of the team will vary depending on the
size and complexity of the process under consideration. For a large, complex, highly instrumented plant,
it may be desirable to have team members with expertise in process engineering and design, process
chemistry, instrumentation and computer controls, electrical hazards and classifications, safety and health
disciplines, maintenance, emergency preparedness, warehousing or shipping, and process safety auditing,
The team may use part-time members to provide for the depth of expertise required as well as for what is
ictiiaily done or followed, compared to what is written.
>f ii ? ' ! ' '
An effective audit includes a review of the relevant documentation and process safety information,
inspection of the physical facilities, and interviews with all levels of plant personnel. Using the audit
procedure and checklist developed in the preplanning stage, the audit team can systematically analyze
compliance with the provisions of the standard and any other corporate policies that are relevant. For
example, the audit team will review all aspects of the training program as part of the overall audit. The
team will review the written training program for adequacy of content, frequency of training, effectiveness
of training in terms of its goals and objectives as well as to how it fits into meeting the standard's
requirements, documentation, etc. Through interviews, the team can determine the employee's knowledge
and awareness of the safety procedures, duties, rules, emergency response assignments, etc. During the
-------
Appendix F
OSHA Guidance on PSM F-10
inspection, the team can observe actual practices such as safety and health policies, procedures, and work
authorization practices. This approach enables the team to identify deficiencies and determine where
corrective actions or improvements are necessary.
An audit is a technique used to gather sufficient facts and information, including statistical information, to
verify compliance with standards. Auditors should select as part of their preplanning a sample size
sufficient to give a degree of confidence that the audit reflects the level of compliance with the standard.
The audit team, through this systematic analysis, should document areas which require corrective action as
well as those areas where the process safety management system is effective and working in an effective
manner. This provides a record of the audit procedures and findings, and serves as a baseline of operation
data for future audits. It will assist future auditors in determining changes or trends from previous audits.
Corrective action is one of the most important parts of the audit It includes not only addressing the
identified deficiencies, but also planning, follow up, and documentation. The corrective action process
normally begins with a management review of the audit findings. The purpose of this review is to
determine what actions are appropriate, and to establish priorities, timetables, resource allocations and
requirements and responsibilities. In some cases, corrective action may involve a simple change in
procedure or minor maintenance effort to remedy the concern. Management of change procedures need to
be used, as appropriate, even for what may seern to be a minor change. Many of the deficiencies can be
acted on promptly, while some may require engineering studies or in-depth review of actual procedures
and practices. There may be instances where no action is necessary and this is a valid response to an audit
finding. All actions taken, including an explanation where no action is taken on a finding, needs to be
documented as to what was done and why.
It is important to assure that each deficiency identified is addressed, the corrective action to be taken
noted, and the audit person or team responsible be properly documented by the employer.
To control the corrective action process, the employer should consider the use of a tracking system. This
tracking system might include periodic status reports shared with affected levels of management, specific
reports such as completion of an engineering study, and a final implementation report to provide closure
for audit findings that have been through management of change, if appropriate, and then shared with
affected employees and management. This type of tracking system provides the employer with the status
of the corrective action. It also provides the documentation required to verify that appropriate corrective
actions were taken on deficiencies identified in the audit.
INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
Incident investigation is the process of identifying the underlying causes of incidents and implementing
steps to prevent similar events from occurring. The intent of an incident investigation is for employers to
learn from past experiences and thus avoid repeating past mistakes. Some of the events are sometimes
referred to as "near misses," meaning that a serious consequence did not occur, but could have.
Employers need to develop in-house capability to investigate incidents that occur in their facilities. A team
needs to be assembled by the employer and trained in the techniques of investigation including how to
conduct interviews of witnesses, needed documentation and report writing. A multi-disciplinary team is
better able to gather the facts of the event and to analyze them and develop plausible scenarios as to what
-------
; Appendix F
F-l 1 OSHA Guidance on PSM
happened, and why. Team members should be selected on the basis of their training, knowledge and
ability to contribute to a team effort to fully investigate the incident.
i i i t *
Employees in the process area where the incident occurred should be consulted, interviewed or made a
member of the team. Their knowledge of the events form a significant set of facts about the incident which
occurred. The report, its findings and recommendations are to be shared with those who can benefit from
the information. The cooperation of employees is essential to an effective incident investigation. The
focus of the investigation should be to obtain facts, and not to place blame. The team and the investigation
process should clearly deal with all involved individuals in a fair, open and consistent manner.
EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION
I • I i I > I
: I 1
Section 304 of the Clean Air Act Amendments states that employers are to consult with their employees
and their representatives regarding the employers efforts in the development and implementation of the
process safety management program elements and hazard assessments. Section 304 also requires
employers to train and educate their employees and to inform affected employees of the findings from
incident investigations required by the process safety management program. Many employers, under their
safety and health programs, have akeady established means and methods to keep employees and their
representatives informed about relevant safety and health issues and employers may be able to adapt these
practices and procedures to meet their obligations under this standard. Employers who have not
implemented an occupational safety and health program may wish to form a safety and health committee of
employees and management representatives to help the employer meet the obligations specified by this
standard. These committees can become a significant ally in helping the employer to implement and
maintain an effective process safety management program for all employees.
HOT WORK PERMIT .
Non-routine work which is conducted in process areas needs to be controlled by the employer in a
consistent manner. The hazards identified involving the work that is to be accomplished must be
communicated to those doing the work, but also to those operating personnel whose work could affect the
safety of the process. A work authorization notice or permit must have a procedure that describes the steps
the maintenance supervisor, contractor representative or other person needs to follow to obtain the
nefcessary clearance to get the job started. The work authorization procedures need to reference and
coordinate, as applicable, lockout/tagout procedures, line breaking procedures, confined space entry
procedures and hot work authorizations. This procedure also needs to provide clear steps to follow once
the job is completed to provide closure for those that need to know the job is now completed and
equipment can be returned to normal.
j , i " !
CONTRACTORS
Employers who use contractors to perform work in and around processes that involve highly hazardous
chemicals, will need to establish a screening process so that they hire and use contractors who accomplish
the desired job tasks without compromising the safety and health of employees at a facility. For
contractors, whose safety performance on the job is not known to the hiring employer, the employer will
need to obtain information on injury and illness rates and experience and should obtain contractor
ill I ftp I J J t IT
references. Additionally, the employer must assure that the contractor has the appropriate job skills,
knowledge and certifications (such as for pressure vessel welders). Contractor work methods and
-------
Appendix F
OSHA Guidance on PSM F-12
experiences should be evaluated. For example, does the contractor conducting demolition work swing
loads over operating processes or does the contractor avoid such hazards?
Contract employees must perform their work safely. Considering that contractors often perform very
specialized and potentially hazardous tasks such as confined space entry activities and non-routine repair
activities it is quite important that their activities be controlled while they are working on or near a covered
process. A permit system or work authorization system for these activities would also be helpful to all
affected employers. The use of a work authorization system keeps an employer informed of contract
employee activities, and as a benefit the employer will have better coordination and more management
control over the work being performed in the process area. A well run and well maintained process where
employee safety is fully recognized will benefit all of those who work in the facility whether they be
contract employees or employees of the owner.
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
------- |