Guides to Chemical
Risk Management
EPA550-B-99-013
May 1 999
How Safe Am I?
Helping Communities Evaluate Chemical Risks
I :«r*
-------
Permission to reproduce this guide is
granted with the accompanying credit line:
"Reproduced from Guides to Chemical Risk
Management, How Safe Am I? Helping
Communities Evaluate Chemical Risks with
permission from the National Safety
Council's Environmental Health Center, May
1999."
May 1999
The Current Status of the Risk Management
Program Rule
As of the publication date of this backgrounder, key ele-
ments of EPA's Risk Management Program Rule are still not
final. Public access to the offsite consequence analysis data
continues to be debated. EPA has not officially decided on
how it will respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.
The agency has said that while the offsite consequence
analysis data will not be distributed to the public on the
Internet, it will supply paper copies of the data upon re-
quest. Also, EPA intends to increase the reportable quan-
tity of hydrocarbon fuels (i.e., propane). Concurrently, the
U.S. Court of Appeals granted an interim stay of the Risk
Management Program Rule as it applies to facilities using
propane in a process. For the most current information,
see http://www.epa.gov/ceppo.
For More Information
The National Safety Council is maintaining the Chemi-
cal Emergency Management Web site at www.nsc.org/
xroads.htm as a resource supplement to this series of pub-
lications. The site is a directory of Risk Management Pro-
gram-related links to organizations, regulations, chemicals,
rules, and regulations involved in emergency management
and the safe handling of chemicals. A selection of articles
and papers written about the Risk Management Program
Rule and local efforts to identify and analyze risk in the
community is also included. The site will be constantly ex-
panding as industry and communities develop new infor-
mation required under the Risk Management Program Rule.
Other Publications in this Series
Other documents in the Guides to Environmental Risk
Management Series are listed below:
U New Ways to Prevent Chemical Incidents
U Chemical Safety in Your Community: EPA's New
Risk Management Program
U What Makes a Hazard Hazardous: Working with
Chemical Information
U Evaluating Chemical Hazards in the Community:
Using an RMP's Offsite Consequences Analysis
These documents can be downloaded for free from the
Chemical Emergency Management Web site at www.nsc.org/
xroads.htm.
About this Document
The Environmental Health Center produced this guide
under cooperative agreement CX 826604-01-0 with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. It is part of a series of
publications on the Risk Management Program Rule and
issues related to chemical emergency management.
-------
How Safe Am I?
Helping Communities Evaluate Chemical Risks
Journalists face a tough
but important task in report-
ing new information about
potential chemical acci-
dents. Local coverage can
help the public decide
whether to ignore risks or
demand better management.
Evaluating Chemical
Risks—One
Community's Story
The Richmond County
School Board in Augusta,
Georgia, has been accused of
courting disaster by building
a $20 million high school
670 yards from two large
chemical plants. Others in
the community were not
concerned. This example il-
lustrates how information
from a facility's risk manage-
ment plan (RMP) can affect
community decision making
and benefit more than one
point of view.
In July 1998, the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) presented ac-
cident modeling data show-
ing that the planned site for
the high school was inappro-
priate because of its proxim-
ity to Rutgers Organics and
Amoco Polymers, two plants
that use large amounts of
hazardous chemicals. Rich-
mond County Emergency
Management Director Pam
Tucker requested the EPA
report. EPA's projected acci-
dent scenarios foreshadowed
the real thing.
On November 17 and 20,
1998, General Chemical
Corporation in Augusta,
Georgia, accidentally re-
leased sulfur dioxide and sul-
fur trioxide, which become
deadly sulfuric acid when
they come in contact with
moisture. The two General
Chemical incidents sent
more than 80 people com-
plaining of eye and lung
irritation to area hospitals.
The first release occurred at
2:35 p.m., while students
were still in school. Students
and teachers at an elemen-
tary and a middle school lo-
cated less than two miles
away were affected. The el-
ementary school has a shel-
ter-in-place program, but it
received no warning of the
November 17 release.
There was a two-hour de-
lay between the first release
and when emergency per-
sonnel were notified. Amoco
Polymers, near where the
high school is being built,
stores 800 times as much
sulfur trioxide as does Gen-
eral Chemical, according to
the Augusta Chronicle.
Augusta Chronicle re-
porters Robert Pavey and
Faith Johnson were there.
Johnson's November 19th
story provides a concerned
parent's assessment of the
first accident. "That's ex-
actly the type of thing we're
concerned about," stated
Dietrich Dellerich, a mem-
ber of Citizens for Fair
Schooling. "We're con-
cerned about all of the
schools near chemical
plants, but to put a $20 mil-
lion investment under one
of the plants is ludicrous. I
hope and pray nothing ever
happens near the new
school, but you can't elimi-
nate human error. You have
to eliminate the risk."
Other Augusta citizens
believe they can live with
these risks, the Chronicle re-
ported. The school board has
approved the high school's
construction. Seven schools,
including the middle school
and an elementary school
affected by the November re-
leases, are already located
less than two miles from an
area of Richmond County
with a significant concentra-
tion of chemical plants.
Deputy School Superin-
tendent Gene Sullivan is one
of those who view worry as
needless. He was quoted
in a December 12, 1998,
Chronicle story as saying,
"The area is booming; people
are buying and building
homes there. We keep harp-
ing on this issue: If it's such
a scary area, why are people
continuing to live and move
there? We are building the
school where the people
live."
To prevent accidents, an
estimated 66,000 facilities—
chemical plants, oil refiner-
ies, propane retailers,
fertilizer warehouses, am-
monia users, and water
treatment plants—must
comply with EPA's Risk Man-
agement Program Rule (RMP
Rule) by submitting a sum-
mary of their RMPs by June
21,1999. The RMPs must be
filed if any process at a site
contains more than specified
amounts of 140 hazardous
substances, such as propane,
ammonia, or chlorine. Much
of the information contained
in the RMPs will be readily
available to the public.
The RMP Rule requires
these facilities to identify the
hazardous chemicals they
store and use, analyze the
risks of these chemicals to
Population Protection:
Shelter-in-Place
Shelter-in-place programs use
warning signals to alert people who live
near chemical plants to protect them-
selves from dangerous gas releases by
closing doors and shutting windows.
-------
The RMP Rule
The RMP Rule focuses on preventing emergency chemical releases,
reducing risk to the community from exposure to hazardous chemicals,
and minimizing the consequences of releases on the environment. This
is achieved by evaluating hazards, expanding industry accident preven-
tion programs, and coordinating facility and community emergency
response programs.
RMPs will be of interest to community members, including the
news media, because they provide new information about areas
vulnerable to toxic and flammable chemicals. This information can be
used to alert the public to chemical risks, allowing people to learn
about their community's vulnerability. An RMP does not identify the
specific levels of risk, nor does it tell communities what to do about
potential problems. These are local decisions. The media can assist
communities in obtaining and interpreting RMP information, identifying
previously unknown hazards, and presenting options for coping with
these hazards. Such efforts can lead communities to increase their
interaction with facilities, which in turn can lead facilities to further
reduce the risks.
the surrounding community,
and develop emergency re-
sponse plans in the event of
a release. This information
is summarized in the RMP.
Facilities will submit the
RMP to the EPA. EPA will dis-
tribute this new generation
of right-to-know information
dealing with chemicals and
potential community haz-
ards to state and local imple-
menting agencies and the
public.
The Augusta situation il-
lustrates the way release pro-
jection data, like the kind
that RMPs include, as well as
incidents and their local cov-
erage, have informed local
citizens. Some people find
the risk in this situation in-
tolerable. Others choose to
live with the risk and insist
on better emergency plan-
ning from the plants, schools,
and emergency response
groups.
Why Cover This Story?
Many communities will be
interested in learning about
hazardous chemicals that
can jeopardize their health.
They also will be interested
in finding out the level of risk
posed by local facilities.
Chemical hazards are more
likely to be addressed if lo-
cal stakeholders—people
who would be affected by an
accident—know about po-
tential problems and have a
say in their solution. Stake-
holders include individuals
such as company managers,
workers, and stockholders;
neighboring residents and
workers; and local officials.
More than a decade ago,
the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) began provid-
ing communities with infor-
mation about the size of
local facilities' chemical in-
ventories and the amounts of
hazardous chemicals they
release. Local emergency
planning committees (LEPCs)
and local emergency authori-
ties have used that informa-
tion to plan for and respond
to incidents. The informa-
tion provided by an RMP can
help communities determine
if current emergency plans
are adequate.
Different communities
will reach different decisions
about the information they
learn from RMPs. According
to Carole L. Macko of the
EPA's Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Preven-
tion Office, "The final evalu-
ation of risk will be made by
the public and officials at the
local level." Without local
coverage, though, RMPs will
be like the proverbial tree
that fell in the remote forest
without being heard. News
audiences will be interested
in the reactions of local
emergency authorities, gov-
ernment officials, business
leaders, facility managers,
neighbors, and environmen-
tal groups to RMP content.
News coverage can help
people evaluate their op-
tions. Some communities
may think they have to live
with poorly managed haz-
ards when there may be al-
ternatives. Once they know
about hazards and risks,
communities can choose
to use or ignore that knowl-
edge.
How to Get RMPs
EPA assumes that the
majority of the RMPs will be
submitted electronically,
and the agency plans to
make all but the offsite con-
sequence analyses (OCAs)
available to the public over
the Internet by September 1,
1999. The information will
be available through the
RMP*Info database. Check
EPA's Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ceppo to locate
RMP*Info. From this data-
base, the news media can
learn about local chemical
hazards by merely typing in
ZIP codes of interest.
The Clean Air Act man-
dated that EPA make RMP
information readily available
to the public. Through pub-
lic disclosure, Congress in-
tended to save lives, reduce
accidents, limit pollution,
and protect property. Ini-
tially, EPA planned to post
all of the data on the
Internet—freely available to
-------
all. However, on November
5, 1998, EPA announced it
would not include the OCA
portion of the RMP data in
the online database because
this particular information
could be used by terrorists
to identify mass casualty tar-
gets. The regulated indus-
tries, led by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association
(GMA) and the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, suc-
cessfully lobbied EPA to
withhold this information
from RMP*Info.
As of publication of this
backgrounder, all RMP data
is still subject to the Free-
dom of Information Act—
although congressional ini-
tiatives maybe underway to
block this avenue. (For
more information on the
debate, see the National
Safety Council Environ-
mental Health Center's
April 1999 issue of Environ-
ment Writer at the NSC
EHC Web site) LEPCs or
State Emergency Response
Commissions (SERCs) are
another source for RMPs. So
are the regulated facilities;
many, in fact, have already
been communicating their
RMPs in a variety of public
forums. CMA is recom-
mending that its members
share RMP data with the
community.
Reporters should periodi-
cally review RMP*Info and
other sources. New informa-
tion may create opportunities
for new stories. New sites
may open, or existing sites
may expand their chemical
inventories to the point at
which they exceed a thresh-
old quantity so they must
submit an RMP. Sites must
also revise their RMP if pro-
cesses change or accidents
occur.
Identifying Hazards
Communities will be in-
terested in the hazard
assessment information
Hazardous Areas Identified in Hypothetical
Offsite Consequence Analysis
At this distance, exposure may
lead to severe health effects or
death due to the high chemical
concentration of the cloud.
This chemical cloud can
travel with the wind in
any direction.
Plumb Township*
The chemical cloud is less
dense at this distance and
adverse heafth effects are
therefore less Jikeiy.
Figure 1: The OCA identifies neighbors and sensitive areas endangered by
a possible chemical release.
provided in RMPs. This sec-
tion will contain information
from the OCA on (1) a worst-
case toxic release, (2) an al-
ternative toxic release, (3) a
worst-case flammable re-
lease, or (4) an alternative
flammable release.
Worst-case and alternative
release scenarios identify the
area and population that may
face a hazard if these events
occur. The media and other
concerned parties can use
graphic representations to
display areas that may be in
danger from these events (fig-
ure 1). In addition, the
Rutgers Center for Environ-
mental Communication Out-
reach Materials About Risk
Management Plans: Guid-
ance from Pilot Research pro-
vides information on the
most effective designs for
these particular graphics for
communicating to the public.
The impact of worst-case
release scenarios will often
be the most sensational part
of an RMP. As explained in
more depth in the compan-
ion publication, Evaluating
Chemical Hazards in the
Community: Using an RMP's
Offsite Consequence Analy-
sis, these scenarios assume
that catastrophic accidents
occur under extreme, speci-
fied conditions. Worst-case
scenarios assume that the
total quantity of the sub-
stance is quickly released,
that atmospheric conditions
will maximize the effect of
the event, and that no miti-
gation or response actions
are taken. Though these sce-
narios represent an ex-
tremely unlikely chain of
events, they provide a way
to compare the maximum
consequences that can result
from different processes.
This comparison enables
emergency planners and
others to rank processes by
priority for further scrutiny.
Many facilities must also
develop and report analyses
of alternative release sce-
narios. These scenarios
provide a more realistic pre-
diction of hazards that can
be created by accidents.
They will often predict haz-
ards that are much less dra-
matic than those forecast by
worst-case release scenarios.
The scenario may even be
based on the facility's acci-
dent history. Alternative re-
lease scenarios provide more
practical information to
emergency planners and the
public.
-------
What Questions Do Citizens
Want Answered?
Experts say that when citizens learn about hazardous chemicals
used near them, they most want answers to questions such as—
U What are the health effects of hazardous substances at the site?
U Are community injuries or deaths likely from this site's hazards?
U How does it affect the environment?
U Is the facility addressing this potential risk?
U Are there alternative chemicals that can be used?
U Are community planners and responders aware of the facility's
emergency response plans?
U How can I independently verify this chemical risk information?
U Is the facility reducing, eliminating, and preventing possible risks?
6
The extent to which de-
sign of the process can limit
and control releases is re-
flected by the alternative
release scenario. These
more useful scenarios also
provide an important indica-
tor of the degree to which
emergency response plan-
ning helps to reduce hazards
that may be created.
News media willing to
pursue and report OCA in-
formation will provide
many community members
with their only view of this
vital information. EPA will
make most of the RMP data
available on the Internet
(with the major exception
of the OGAs), including
data on registration, acci-
dent history, accident pre-
vention, and emergency
response. This information
must be considered with
OCA data when identifying
risk. An RMP includes the
accident history of the
facility's process for the
past five years. Combined
with local knowledge of
other incidents at the facil-
ity, the facility's track
record provides an impor-
tant indicator.
The RMP also summarizes
the facility's emergency re-
sponse plan. Its ability
to cope with releases, and
the community's ability to
respond to emergencies, are
also very important risk fac-
tors to consider.
What's Safe?
RMPs present communi-
ties with complex decisions.
The news media can assist
citizens in determining
whether local chemical haz-
ards should be ignored,
eliminated, reduced, or bet-
ter managed by considering
what counts as safe for facili-
ties and communities. The
following discussion can help
reporters sift through the
information and provide
communities with guidelines
for evaluating facilities.
The past is prelude to the
future. To assess the level of
commitment to safety, re-
porters researching a story
may want to look at the RMP
section that details a
facility's five-year accident
history. The five-year acci-
dent history may be the
most informative section of
an RMP. A history of safety
is generally a good predictor
of future safety.
Safe facilities have several
high-level personnel antici-
pating and addressing chemi-
cal safety problems. Research
conducted by Garon Chess et
al. (1992) suggests that top-
level managerial commitment
to safety increases the likeli-
hood that organizations make
improvements as a result of
independent safety inspec-
tions, accidents, and commu-
nity input. Chess continues to
say that safety should not be
either one person's concern or
everyone's. She found that
organizations that perform
well at risk management
employed several top manag-
ers to identify and solve safety
problems. In fact, healthy
competition developed be-
tween the managers, and bad
news was more apt to travel
upwards. The production
manager, safety manager, en-
vironmental engineer, vice
president for public relations,
industrial hygienist, and the
human relations manager all
wanted to claim credit for
identifying and solving prob-
lems (Chess et al. 1992).
Budget allocations suggest
priorities. Safe facilities have
managers who take proactive
steps to identify safety prob-
lems. Instead of waiting for
accidents to reveal weak-
nesses, these facilities have
line items in their budgets to
conduct routine safety au-
dits, inspections, and emer-
gency drills. They secure
multiple, independent safety
audits from international,
national, and local inspec-
tors. Sometimes they use
monetary rewards to encour-
age line workers to alert su-
pervisors to safety problems.
Emergency response is
built on strong industry-
government working rela-
tionships. Donna Majewski is
responsible for safety at
Great Lakes Chemical
(GLC) in West Lafayette,
Indiana. Several years ago,
that facility had an acciden-
tal release of bromine, a
chemical somewhat similar
to chlorine in its capacity to
harm lungs and eyes. Two
workers were hospitalized
because of the release, and
children at a nearby daycare
center were evacuated.
Majewski said that before
the accidental release, GLC
-------
had no representation on
the Tippecanoe County
LEPG. After the release, and
the adverse publicity result-
ing from it, GLG manage-
ment has been much more
visible and helpful in ad-
dressing chemical safety
concerns. For example,
Majewski now meets regu-
larly with the Tippecanoe
County LEPG. She chairs its
vulnerability committee,
which attempts to identify
problems throughout north-
west Indiana in hazardous
chemical management be-
fore they become tragedies.
The company also has so-
phisticated hazardous mate-
rials response equipment it
now shares with the com-
munity.
Safe facilities encourage
and learn from community
input. One company that
uses community concern to
improve its operations is
Sybron Chemicals of Bir-
mingham, New Jersey. In
1988, Sybron released an
acrid-smelling substance
that caused area firefighters
to evacuate citizens. In
addition, a plant fire at the
company seriously injured
two workers. The commu-
nity became hostile toward
the company because of
these incidents.
Top management might
have reacted by stonewall-
ing. Instead, the company in-
vested money and time in
developing systems that
used community input to
make the facility safer. The
company installed the
Prompt Inquiry and Notifica-
tion System (PINS), a tele-
communications systems
that can automatically dial
Sybron's neighbors in the
event of an emergency. In
the inquiry mode, PINS
works like a sophisticated
answering machine and
plays recorded messages
about the plant's status to
those who call in. Callers can
How Effective is your LEPC?
LEPCs play a key role in managing chemical hazards in the com-
munity. Congress envisioned the LEPCs to identify chemical hazards,
plan for emergencies, communicate risk, and engage all stakeholders
in a common goal of public safety. Questions to pursue include the
following:
U Does the LEPC have a broadly based membership? Does it meet
regularly?
U Does the LEPC have information on hazardous chemical invento-
ries throughout the community available for review?
U Have vulnerable populations (e.g., schools, nursing homes,
hospitals, residences) been identified?
U Has the LEPC prepared and kept current site-specific emergency
response plans?
U Has the LEPC conducted drills and exercises?
U Has the LEPC developed and communicated evacuation or shelter-
in-place strategies?
U Have hazard analyses been integrated into fire and police
response plans?
also leave messages request-
ing further information.
Sybron does not use the
PINS system to placate
neighbors but rather to spot
problems and fix them. Man-
agers are rewarded for their
responses to PINS inquiries.
Another innovative step
Sybron has taken is to train
volunteers to identify and
report odor problems in a
precise way.
Safe facilities are situated
in communities with high
safety standards, regular in-
spection programs, and an
assertive LEPC. Communi-
ties have the power to insist
that those who handle haz-
ardous chemicals do so re-
sponsibly. Two mechanisms
for enforcing local safety
standards are routine inspec-
tions and active LEPCs. In
large communities like
Fairfax, Virginia, the county
government routinely in-
spects and issues operating
permits to drycleaning
plants, printers, newspapers,
and other facilities that
handle hazardous sub-
stances. For example, Steve
Dayton, manager of the MBC
Reproexpress copy shop in
Fairfax, says that when he
used anhydrous ammonia to
produce blueprints, Fairfax
County inspectors appeared
periodically to ensure that
his ammonia tanks were
chained to the wall, as local
codes required.
In less populated areas,
inspection may be more a
matter of routine conversa-
tions between the emer-
gency authorities like the fire
chief and facility managers.
Whether inspection is a for-
mal or an informal process,
its use should reduce the
risks associated with hazard-
ous substances.
Effective LEPCs result
in strong emergency man-
agement programs. An-
other indicator of local
government's alertness
to its role in preventing
chemical accidents is the
adequacy of the LEPC.
LEPCs should meet regu-
larly to identify trouble
spots. Typically, LEPCs in-
clude local emergency
management directors, fire
-------
8
Writing a Story: Questions
Reporters Might Asic a Facility Manager
Who is in charge of safety? What are their names and duties?
What safety programs are in place?
Why does the facility use hazardous chemicals? Could the facility
reduce reliance on them or do without them? Would doing so
improve community safety?
What routine training is provided for those who conduct emergency
response?
What are some ways the facility and the LEPC predict or anticipate
accidents?
How often does the facility conduct emergency response drills?
When was the most recent one? What was learned?
Does the facility have warning sirens that alert the community to
dangerous releases? Do workers and neighbors recognize them? When
was the last time they were tested?
Were accident prevention and emergency plans developed internally
or was outside help used?
Describe some of the routine steps taken to ensure safety. Describe
steps taken to maintain equipment and operate it safely.
Does the facility use internal or independent, third-party audits to
evaluate the adequacy of the accident prevention program?
Does the facility send a representative to the community's LEPC
meetings? If so, who? Does this individual communicate routinely
with the community about safety and emergency response?
What worries the plant manager the most about safety at the facility?
If the facility is a chemical manufacturer, reporters can ask engineers
to describe the codes of practice involved in Responsible Care, a
safety program developed by the Chemical Manufacturers Associa-
tion, and for illustrations of how those practices are implemented.
chiefs, industry leaders,
interested citizens and, oc-
casionally, media represen-
tatives. According to Tim
Gablehouse, a Denver-area
attorney and former emer-
gency responder, LEPGs
have significant authority,
if they choose to use it. He
says they can ask for any
information that's relevant to
preventing accidents.
Acceptable risk will vary by
community and even location
within the community. One
community's infrastructure,
environment, budget, and
regulatory framework might
be able to handle certain
chemical processes that cre-
ate intolerable risks in an-
other. A community might
believe hazardous substances
are used safely within a
company's walls, but want
their LEPG to inquire about
the routes used to transport
hazardous substances into
their areas. For example,
Gablehouse lives near the
Rocky Mountains. Rocky
Mountain delivery routes for
hazardous chemicals add an
extra element of risk that
Gablehouse's area must con-
sider. In Baton Rouge, Louisi-
ana, the LEPG invites a U.S.
Coast Guard representative to
meet with its members to help
them plan for emergencies in-
volving hazardous chemicals
carried by Mississippi River
barges.
Safe facilities operate in
communities with alert lo-
cal media. The news media
can help communities inter-
pret local RMPs by following
some of the steps taken by
Augusta Chronicle reporters
who had access to RMP-like
information in 1997. Meghan
Gourley, who covered some
of these 1997 stories for the
Chronicle, said the biggest
obstacle she encountered
came from plant managers'
worries that her stories
would panic the public.
"The idea is to be up
front, but fair," Gourley
said. "In no uncertain
terms, say [in a story] that
worst-case scenarios are
practically impossible. Fo-
cus on those scenarios that
are more likely. Be sure to
detail not only the elements
of the disaster, but what
steps officials are taking to
help prevent the disaster."
Gourley recommends ask-
ing facility managers lots of
questions and suggesting
they answer as though the
reporter was a teenager.
Community Reaction
In communities like Au-
gusta, Georgia, where RMP-
like information has already
been reported, citizens gen-
erally have reacted by being
concerned about their per-
sonal safety. They have
tended to decide they are
willing to live with hazardous
chemical risks if facilities can
ensure good warning and
emergency response sys-
tems. Once accidents occur,
communities are often less
tolerant. The news media can
assist both communities and
facility managers by helping
facilities develop risk man-
agement or risk reduction
plans the community finds
acceptable, instead of waiting
for accidents that harm
people.
-------
Annotated List of Risk Links and Documents
References and links to documents or Internet sites
should not be construed as an endorsement of the views
contained therein.
Federal Information
EPAs Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/acc-pre.html
EPA's web page for Chemical Accident Prevention and
Risk Management Planning provides very useful, compre-
hensive information. Examples of available information in-
clude fact sheets, questions and answers, newsletters, links
to non-EPA sites, the Glean Air Act section 112(r) legisla-
tion, the List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for
Accidental Release Prevention, the Risk Management Pro-
gram Rule regulations, technical guidance documents, and
many other resources. EPA will maintain an online data-
base of all RMPs—in RMP*Info.
Nonprofit Organisations
National Safety Council
http://www. nsc. org/xroads. htm
The Environmental Health Center's Crossroads Chemi-
cal Emergency Management page is designed to expand and
strengthen the network of organizations involved in emer-
gency planning and response, chemical safety, and hazard-
ous chemical rules and regulations. This Web page will
continually evolve to feature a comprehensive risk com-
munication repository focusing on the Risk Management
Program Rule. Additional useful resources not included in
this document can be found at this Web site.
Background Books and Articles
Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory
Decision-Making
http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1997/risk-rpt/vol-
ume2/pdf/v2epa. PDF
The Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk As-
sessment and Risk Management. 1997. Risk Assessment and
Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making, Final Re-
port, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Risk: The Policy Implications of Risk Compensation and Plural
Rationalization
Adams, John. 1995. Risk: The Policy Implications of Risk
Compensation and Plural Rationalization. London:
University College of London Press.
The chapter presents four common orientations. Indi-
vidualists see nature as robust and able to withstand as-
saults by people; egalitarians view nature as fragile and
precarious; hierarchists believe nature will be good to them,
if properly managed; and fatalists believe nature is capri-
cious and unpredictable.
Chemicals, the Press, and the Public
http://www.nsc.org/ehc/guidebks/chemtoc.htm
Environmental Health Center. 1989. Chemicals, the
Press, and the Public: A Journalist's Guide to Reporting on
Chemicals in the Community. Washington, DC: Environ-
mental Health Center, National Safety Council.
-------
The final evaluation of
risk will be made by the
public and officials at the
local level.
Carole L. Macko
EPA Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office
1O
The Organizational Links Between Risk Communication and
Risk Management: The case of Sybron Chemicals Inc.
Chess, G., A. Saville,M. Tamuz, andM. Greenberg. 1992.
The organizational links between risk communication and
risk management: The case of Sybron Chemicals Inc. Risk
Analysis, 12, 431-438.
Outreach Materials about Risk Management Plans: Guidance
from Pilot Project Research
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~cec/pubs/rmprpt.pdf
Daniel Kovacs, Ginger Gibson, Caron Chess, William
Hallman. 1998. Outreach Materials about Risk Manage-
ment Plans: Guidance from Pilot Project Research. New
Brunswick/Pisctaway: Cook College, Rutgers, the State Uni-
versity of New Jersey
Compliance Strategies and Regulatory Effectiveness of
Performance-Based Regulation of Chemical Accident Risks
Chiander, Karen R., Kleindorfer, Paul R., & Kunreuther,
Howard C. 1998. Compliance strategies and regulatory ef-
fectiveness of performance-based regulation of chemical
accident risks. Risk Analysis, 18, 135-143.
CMA, House Leaders Want Chemical Disaster Scenarios Offline
http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ew/issues/ew99apr.htm
Davis, Joseph A. 1999. CMA, house leaders want
chemical disaster scenarios offline, Environment Writer,
Volume 11, No. 1, April 1999.
Journalism
Meghan Gourley and others at the Augusta Chronicle wrote
about two releases of toxic chemicals from one chemical plant
that affected the surrounding community on November 18
and 21, 1998. These stories illustrate community concern
over local hazards, and factors that impact risk. Some of these
articles are listed below. Reporters at the Chronicle can be
reached at (800) 622-6358, Meghan Gourley at x3227 and
Robert Pavey at xl!9. E-mails for these reporters are
Meggit@hotmail.com and Rpavey@augustachronicle.com.
Q Hearings: School Chief Calls Plant Scare Minor,
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/01 1 299/
met_1 60-1 348.000.shtml
Q Some Schools Now Close to Hazards,
http://www.augustachronicle.eom/stories/013099/
met_160-1400.001.shtml
Q Chemical Spill Concerns School Officials,
http://www.augustachronicle.eom/stories/l 12098/
met_COL-2409.001 .shtml
Q School leader Denies Findings of EPA Report,
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/081 598/
met_COL-6845.001 .shtml
Q Latest Release Stirs school Location Debate,
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/H21 98/
met_gas3. shtml
Q Reports Show Plant Has History of Slow Notification,
http://www.augustachronicle.eom/stories/l 121 98/
met_gasl. shtml
-------
Organizational Contacts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Carole Macko, Communications Team Leader,
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office
Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW 5104
Washington, DC 20461
Phone: (202) 260-7938
E-mail: macko.carole@epamail.epa.gov
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Contact: James Solyst, Team Leader, Information
Management/Right-To-Know
Address: Chemical Manufacturers Association
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: (703) 741-5233
E-mail: jim_solyst@mail.cmahq.com
Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
Position: Paul Orum, Coordinator
Address: Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: (202) 544-9586
Web site: http://www.rkt.net/wcs
E-mail: orump@rkt.net
Center for Environmental Communication
Position: Professor Caron Chess
Address: Center for Environmental Communication
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Department of Human Ecology
Cook Office Building
55 Dudley Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520
Phone: (732) 932-8795
Web site: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~cec
E-mail: cec@aesop.rutgers.edu
Gablehouse & Epel
Position: Timothy R. Gablehouse, Attorney and
Counselor at Law
Address: Gablehouse & Epel
1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1730
Denver, CO 80265
Phone: (800)818-0050
Web site: http://www.gablehouse-epel.com
E-mail: Gablehouse@aol.com
Great Lakes Chemical
Position: Donna Majewski, Safety and Transport Supervisor
Address: Great Lakes Chemical
1 Great Lakes Blvd.
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Phone: (765)497-6100
11
Printed on
Recycled Paper
-------
The Environmental Health Center (EHC) is a division of the
National Safety Council, an 85-year-old nonprofit, nongovernmental or-
ganization. The National Safety Council is a national leader on accident
prevention and home, workplace, auto, and highway safety issues.
The National Safety Council established EHC in 1 988 to undertake
environmental communications activities aimed at helping society and
citizens better understand and act knowledgeably and responsibly in
the face of potential environmental health risks. Since that start, EHC
has built a strong record of effective, nonpartisan communication on
environmental health risks and challenges.
May 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTER
A Division of the National Safety Council
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW • Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
www.nsc.org/ehc.htm
(202) 293-2270
------- |