i
.:._•:•!•«&' §'
6ui>|jo/x\
666 I few
-------
Permission to reproduce this guide is
granted with the accompanying credit line:
"Reproduced from Guides to Chemical Risk
Management, Wliat Makes a Hazard Haz-
ardous: Working -with Chemical Informa-
tion with permission from the National
Safety Council's Environmental Health Cen-
ter, 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:
Q New Ways to Prevent Chemical Incidents
Q Chemical Safety in Your Community: EPA's New
Risk Management Program
Q How Safe Am I? Helping Communities Evaluate
Chemical Risks
Q 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.
-------
What Makes a Hazard Hazardous;
Working with Chemical Information
On November 17, 1998,
an error at a General Chemi-
cal Corporation facility in
Augusta, Georgia, resulted in
the release of an airborne
mixture of chemicals that
included sulfur trioxide va-
por. Nearly two hours passed
before the county's emer-
gency management officials
were notified of the hazard.
Fifty-one people in the sur-
rounding community sought
treatment for minor eye,
throat, and lung irritation.
When the same process
was restarted three days
later, a cloud of sulfur diox-
ide gas was released, which
was an expected part of the
process. No additional noti-
fications were required. But
unexpected weather condi-
tions kept the cloud from
dispersing, as it was sup-
posed to do. Exposure to the
cloud forced 39 workers
at an adjacent facility to
seek medical treatment for
symptoms that included
shortness of breath; burning
and irritation of the eyes,
nose, and throat; and nau-
sea and vomiting.
Unfortunately, chemical
releases, fires, and explo-
sions occur frequently. The
Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board (CSB)
found that approximately
60,000 hazardous chemical
releases were reported annu-
ally from 1987 through 1996.
The good news is that few of
these incidents resulted in
injuries or deaths. The bad
news is that some did (Fig-
ure 1).
Although critical report-
ing on controversial public
health issues does not re-
quire coursework in toxicol-
ogy and chemistry, some
understanding of these sub-
jects is clearly helpful. Un-
derstanding a hazard often
comes down to knowing the
following factors:
Q A chemical's health
effects
Q The concentration of
exposure
Q The duration of exposure
Hazardous chemicals in
the community are impor-
tant stories. But toxicology
is not a routine part of jour-
nalism school curricula.
Still, a little toxicology can
go a long way. Such terms as
IDLH, ERPG, endpoint, risk,
distance to endpoint, level of
concern, and toxic concen-
tration are tools of the trade
for emergency managers in
government and industry to
describe the health risks as-
sociated with hazardous sub-
stances in the community.
This backgrounder is a brief
primer to prepare reporters
working with chemical infor-
mation.
The New BMP Rule
To help prevent accidents
like the Augusta incidents in
the future, an estimated
66,000 facilities—chemical
plants, oil refineries, pro-
pane retailers, fertilizer
warehouses, ammonia users,
and water treatment plants
—must comply with the Risk
Management Plan Rule (RMP
Impact of Hazardous Chemical Releases
1987-1996
Property Damage
92%
Death or Injury
s%
Evacuation of
Workers or Public
2%
Incidents Causing
Death, Injury, Property
Damage, or Evacuation
29%
Incidents with the
Potential for Harm
71%
Figure 1: The Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investiga-
tion Board (CSB) found that
approximately 605,000
hazardous chemical releases
were reported from 1987
through 1996. Of the more
than 600,000 incidents that
occurred in this 10-year
period, about 29 percent
resulted in at least one
death or injury (9,705
incidents), evacuation of
workers or the public
(4,167 incidents), or
property damage (164,082
incidents) (Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation
Board 1999).
-------
Rule) by June 21, 1999. Fa-
cilities must file risk manage-
ment plans (RMPs) with the
U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) if any pro-
cess at the site contains
more than specified amounts
of 140 hazardous substances
such as propane, ammonia,
or chlorine. These 140 sub-
stances include 77 toxic
gases and liquids and 63
flammable gases and volatile
liquids. RMPs detail informa-
tion about hazards that can
be caused by chemical re-
leases and activities to pre-
vent chemical accidents and
prepare for emergencies.
Much of this information will
be readily available to the
public.
The RMP Rule focuses on
preventing accidental chem-
ical releases, reducing risk to
the community from expo-
sure to hazardous chemicals,
and minimizing the conse-
quences of releases on the
environment. The rule re-
quires facilities to identify
the hazardous chemicals
they store and use, analyze
the risks of these chemicals
to the surrounding commu-
nity, and develop emergency
response plans. This infor-
mation is summarized in the
RMP.
Hazard Versus Risk
A hazard is something
that is capable of causing
harm. The bigger the hazard,
the greater the capacity
to cause harm (DiNardi
1997). The hazard is based
on properties intrinsic to the
* T
A hazard is something
capable of causing harm.
... A risk is a measure of
probability.
Toxic or Flammable?
The RMP Rule regulates 77 acutely toxic and 63
flammable substances. All of the listed substances can
form gas or vapor clouds that may travel offsite and
have dangerous consequences if more than a threshold
quantity is released. Though some chemicals have both
toxic and flammable properties, a substance is only
placed in one of the categories—the one in which the
hazard is greatest. For example, sulfur trioxide is one of
the 77 toxic gases and liquids governed by the RMP
Rule. Although sulfur trioxide may ignite if it contacts
organic or other combustible materials, its toxic proper-
ties are of greater concern. Therefore, the EPA lists it as
a toxic chemical.
material and the level of ex-
posure. Hydrofluoric acid is
toxic, propane is flammable.
Little can be done to change
those characteristics. The
severity of the hazard often
depends on exposure. Expo-
sure can be measured by the
quantity of the substance
released and the circum-
stances of the release (for
example, weather condi-
tions, topography, or mitiga-
tion measures). Exposure
can be reduced, for example,
by lowering the quantity of
the chemical stored onsite or
by implementing design im-
provements.
The hazard assessment
requirements of the RMP
Rule direct facilities to deter-
mine the consequences of a
release of toxic chemicals
outside the grounds of the
facility. Once the conse-
quences of a spill are deter-
mined, they can be used to
predict how large an area will
be affected by a hazardous
incident. They also identify
the population and sensitive
environments within that
area.
Risk is a measure of prob-
ability. It refers to the likeli-
hood that an event will occur
(DiNardi 1997). The greater
the risk, the more likely it is
that the hazard will cause
harm. The likelihood is
based on several variables,
including the possibility of a
release, the hazard created
by the quantity of a chemi-
cal released, and the poten-
tial impact of the release on
the public and the environ-
ment.
Ideally, risk should be
quantified—for example, a
10 percent probability that
a certain event will occur.
Too frequently, however, the
data related to rates of equip-
ment failure and human er-
ror are unavailable, so it is
not possible to reliably quan-
tify risk. Nevertheless, we
know from experience that
certain events occur more
frequently than other events
—during transfer operations
or process startups, for ex-
ample. Catastrophic events,
like the Bhopal tragedy, oc-
cur rarely and would be con-
sidered high-hazard, low-risk
events. An incident that oc-
curs frequently yet does not
generate an offsite conse-
quence would be considered
a low-hazard, but high-risk
event.
RMPs only provide infor-
mation on the potential im-
pact of a release, not the
likelihood it will happen.
RMPs do not quantify the
probability of an event oc-
curring because data related
to rates of equipment failure
and human error are usually
not available.
-------
Recognizing Chemical
Hazards
The first step in recogniz-
ing a hazard is to identify the
chemical or chemicals that
could be released. Identifica-
tion is relatively simple when
pure materials or refined, fi-
nal products are involved.
But identification can be
more difficult if the release
could occur while mixtures
are undergoing reaction and
several raw materials or re-
active products are involved.
For example, because the
Augusta incidents occurred
at different stages in the same
chemical process, different
chemicals were released by
the two events.
The reaction of released
chemicals may make it diffi-
cult to identify them and
their hazards. For example,
sulfur trioxide reacts with
humidity and other water
sources to create sulfuric
acid. Although sulfuric acid is
not regulated by the rule, it
does have corrosive proper-
ties that make it dangerous.
While the RMP Rule regu-
lates chemicals when a pro-
cess contains an amount
greater than a specified
threshold quantity, these
chemicals can also create
hazards when present in
amounts less than the regu-
lated quantities. For ex-
ample, sulfur trioxide is
regulated by the RMP Rule
when more than 10,000
pounds are present in a pro-
cess. But because the Au-
gusta site only stores a
maximum of 370 pounds of
sulfur trioxide, the RMP Rule
would not apply.
The amount and duration
of a chemical release can af-
fect the size of the area sub-
ject to the hazard, so it is
often important to be able to
identify how much material
is released for how long. Gov-
ernment representatives
questioned the Augusta
Properties of Hazardous Substances
Property
Physical State
Vapor Pressure
Density
Influencefs}
The physical state of the sub-
stance affects its ability to move
after it is released into the envi-
ronment.
Gas clouds stop forming when
the leak is stopped. Liquids can
continue to form a cloud after
the leak has stopped, increasing
exposure time.
The higher the vapor pressure,
the faster the chemical evaporates
and the more concentrated a
vapor cloud may become.
Heavy gases tend to create a
larger hazard. They tend to settle
at ground level, increasing their
contact with living things.
chemical plant's initial
report of the quantity and
duration of the sulfur triox-
ide release because a larger-
than-predicted area was
affected.
Variation in the chemicals
released and the conditions
under which they are released
can affect the severity of a
hazard. The sulfur dioxide re-
lease in Augusta on Novem-
ber 20, 1998, demonstrates
some of the difficulties in rec-
ognizing and predicting haz-
ards because it was an
expected and permissible
startup event. Even so, a haz-
ard was created—39 people
sought medical treatment. Al-
though this type of release
normally dissipates quickly
without impact, weather con-
ditions on that day caused the
vapor cloud to settle on the
ground. The event has report-
edly prompted the EPA to re-
consider whether maximum
allowable emission levels
should be lowered.
What's Hazardous—
Which Chemicals and
Why?
The physical state of a
substance—solid, liquid, or
gas—affects its ability to dif-
fuse after it is released into
the environment. All of the
chemicals regulated by the
RMP Rule are either gases or
liquids that can evaporate
quickly. Unlike solids, vola-
tile liquids and gases can
readily create large chemical
clouds that can move offsite.
This is what happened in the
Augusta incidents. Sulfur tri-
oxide is a volatile liquid, and
because it can evaporate rap-
idly, it formed a vapor cloud
that affected people several
miles away. Sulfur dioxide is
a gas, and its release formed
a cloud that moved quickly
into the nearby community.
Whether a released chem-
ical is a gas or a liquid can
influence the hazard it cre-
ates. A cloud is likely to be
more hazardous if the com-
munity is exposed to it for a
longer time. Gas clouds stop
forming when the leak is
-------
stopped; however, liquids
can continue to form a cloud
after the leak has stopped.
Without the means to
control the spill, liquids can
continue to evaporate, in-
creasing the length of time a
community can be exposed
to its vapors. The faster a liq-
uid evaporates, the more
concentrated its vapor cloud
may become. The higher the
concentrations of chemical,
the greater the hazard.
When choosing the chem-
icals to regulate, EPA consid-
ered the accident history of
chemicals. Some chemicals
that could be a health risk
are not regulated by the RMP
Rule because they are not
widely used or not likely to
be involved in accidents that
significantly affect commu-
nities.
Measuring
Evaporation
The vapor pressure value
is an index of how quickly a
liquid will evaporate. The
higher the value, the faster
the chemical evaporates.
Most toxic liquids regulated
by the RMP Rule have a va-
por pressure of at least 10
millimeters of mercury (mm
Hg) at ambient temperature,
usually assumed to be 68 °F.
Only two regulated toxic
substances have a vapor
pressure less than 10 mm of
mercury. As a point of refer-
ence, the vapor pressure of
water is 23 mm Hg. Sulfur
trioxide has a vapor pressure
of 344 mm Hg at the same
temperature, indicating that
it can quickly evaporate and
create a cloud of a high
chemical concentration.
The concentration of the
chemical in a cloud is also
influenced by the volume of
the spill, the rate at which
the release occurs, and the
size of the area from which
a liquid spill can evaporate.
Another important prop-
erty is the density of the gas
or vapor. Many gases regu-
lated by the RMP Rule are
termed heavy or dense gases
because they are heavier
than air. Heavy gases tend to
create a greater hazard be-
cause they tend to settle at
ground level, increasing their
contact with living things.
Air has a density of 1; sulfur
dioxide has a vapor density
equal to 2.26, an example of
a heavy gas. High humidity
at the time of the November
20, 1998, release in Augusta
helped trap the sulfur diox-
ide gas, allowing it to sink
before it could be diluted and
swept away by the wind. In-
stead, it settled close to the
release site, affecting 39
workers at the adjacent
chemical plant.
Some neutrally buoyant
gases are also regulated by
the RMP Rule. They have
densities closer to that of
air, so they tend to neither
float nor sink in the atmo-
sphere. Wind and atmo-
spheric turbulence play a
large role in determining the
extent to which releases of
these chemicals affect com-
munities.
Exposure and
Toxicity
The human body metabo-
lizes different toxins at
different rates, and indi-
vidual rates vary. When an
individual's rate of exposure
exceeds the body's ability to
metabolize it, the toxin
accumulates. When it accu-
mulates to a certain concen-
tration, severe injury or
death may occur.
Dose is measured by the
quantity of chemical to which
an individual is exposed over
a given period. Chemicals
vary in potency or toxicity.
A highly toxic chemical, such
as sulfur trioxide, can cause
harmful effects from expo-
sure to a small amount in a
short time. Less toxic chemi-
cals require larger doses or
longer exposure times to
cause effects.
Toxic chemicals regulated
by the RMP Rule are all
acutely toxic, meaning they
cause adverse health effects
shortly after exposure. They
may affect various parts of
the body, resulting in several
types of health effects. For
example, sulfur trioxide dis-
solves readily in water, cre-
ating a corrosive solution of
sulfuric acid. Exposure could
result in eye and respiratory
irritation (such as that expe-
rienced by victims of the
Augusta release, skin burns,
and gastrointestinal tract
burns).
Toxic Endpoints
The term endpoint is used
frequently in the RMP Rule.
Endpoints are used when
facilities and emergency
planners perform offsite con-
sequence analyses to predict
areas that may be subject to
hazardous substances. A
toxic endpoint defines the
outer boundary of a concen-
tration considered hazard-
ous to the community.
Most people can be ex-
posed to an endpoint con-
centration for one hour
without suffering irrevers-
ible health effects or other
symptoms that would make
it difficult for them to es-
cape. People within the area
up to the endpoint are likely
to be exposed to higher con-
centrations. Individuals ex-
posed to higher levels for an
extended period may be se-
riously injured. Toxic end-
points are expressed as a
concentration of the chemi-
cal in the air.
Predicting Responses
to Chemical Exposure
It is difficult to predict
reliably whether communi-
ties will face a hazard when
they are exposed to endpoint
concentrations. Though
workplace exposures to
-------
Four Methods of Predictong Responses to Chemical Exposure
',• Source
IDHL
1/10 IDLH
ERPG-2
TLVs
Agency/
Organization
NIOSH
EPA
AIHA
ACGIH
Exposure
Period ".;;-.'•
30 minutes
30 minutes
60 minutes
8 hours
Population
Protected
Healthy, adult
workers
General population
General population
Most workers
Goal
Escape exposure
without respirator
Allow the public to
escape a hazardous
area
Prevent effects that
could impair the
ability to take
protective action
Work consistently
with no harmful
effects
many chemicals have been
well studied, relatively little
information is available
about community exposure
to the same chemicals.
Therefore, toxic end-
points used by the RMP Rule
are often based on conclu-
sions drawn from workplace
data. The general popula-
tion, more than the work-
force in a facility, consists of
individuals who may be
more sensitive and less able
to protect themselves—the
very young, the very old, and
the infirm.
The EPA used four differ-
ent sources of information
about responses to chemical
exposures when they se-
lected toxic endpoints speci-
fied by the RMP Rule:
1. Immediately Danger-
ous to Life and Health
(IDLH). These values and
their equivalents represent
the most commonly used
source of toxic endpoints.
IDHLs were originally devel-
oped by the National Insti-
tute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) to guide
employee respirator selec-
tion. Airborne concentra-
tions above IDLH values are
believed to pose a threat to
healthy, adult workers who
are exposed for more than 30
minutes. Excessive expo-
sures are likely to cause
immediate or delayed, per-
manent, adverse health ef-
fects or prevent escape from
the hazardous environment.
Questions have been raised
about whether IDHL values
can be used to protect mem-
bers of the general popula-
tion who may be unable to
escape exposure within 30
minutes.
2. One-tenth IDLH (1/10
IDLH). This measure cuts
the acceptable exposure
level by a safety factor of 10
and helps to compensate for
exposures longer than 30
minutes. It also compen-
sates for potentially higher
sensitivities that can be ex-
pected within the general
population. The EPA's
manual, Technical Guid-
ance/or Hazards Analysis,
also known as the Green
Book, helps local emergency
planning committees con-
duct the hazard analyses re-
quired by the Emergency
Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act. The
Green Book recommends
using the conservative, very
protective 1/10 IDLH mea-
sure as a level of concern
(LOG)—a threshold con-
centration of an airborne
pollutant, usually at which
a hazard to people is be-
lieved to exist.
Although emergency plan-
ners may use other values
when selecting an LOG and
estimating hazards created
by releases, many Local
Emergency Planning Com-
mittees (LEPCs) use the
value of 1/10 IDLH values as
the standard. Toxicologists
have refined the toxic end-
points for some chemicals
since the Green Book was
written in 1987. EPA believes
that endpoints used by the
RMP Rule represent better
science. Many emergency re-
sponse planners will be faced
with the challenge of adjust-
ing community response
plans to account for differ-
ences between RMP end-
points and the LOG values
they used previously.
3. Emergency Response
Planning Guidelines (ERPG).
ERPGs were developed by the
American Industrial Hygiene
Association (AIHA). These
guidelines provide three tiers
that predict the range of ef-
fects from a one-hour expo-
sure. The RMP Rule uses the
second tier values, ERPG-2,
as endpoints for nearly 30
toxic chemicals. ERPG-2 are
tolerable-effect thresholds
-------
8
that represent the maximum
airborne concentration be-
low which it is believed that
nearly all individuals could
be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing
or developing irreversible or
other serious health effects
or symptoms that could im-
pair an individual's ability to
take protective action. The
ERPG values estimate how
the public will react to
chemical exposure. Unlike
many other exposure guide-
lines, the ERPG values do
not incorporate safety fac-
tors that allow for individual
differences in sensitivities;
hypersensitive individuals
may experience more severe
effects at lower concentra-
tions. Therefore, ERPG val-
ues are better used for
emergency planning pur-
poses, rather than serving as
rigid standards for public
protection.
4. Threshold Limit Values
(TLVs). TLVs are the end-
points for two regulated
chemicals. TLVs were estab-
lished by the American
Conference of Industrial Hy-
gienists (AGGIH). These oc-
cupational exposure limits
represent concentrations to
which workers may be ex-
posed repeatedly for an 8-
hour shift and a 40-hour
week without suffering ad-
verse health effects. Most are
intended to protect healthy
male workers. Therefore,
they may not be adequate for
protecting the very young,
the very old, and the infirm.
Dangers of Flammable
Chemicals
Clouds of flammable gases
or vapors are dangerous be-
cause they may result in one
or more of the outcomes
listed as follows:
Writing a Story: Questions to Consider
Questions for Plant Managers
Q What chemicals do you have onsite that can cause injuries to the
public? What dangerous chemicals do you have onsite that are
not listed in the RMP regulation? Can you supply an MSDS or
other chemical hazard information?
Q How dangerous are these chemicals? Are they toxic, flammable,
or explosive?
Q How reactive are these chemicals to water, heat, or other
substances? Gould this reactivity result in an explosion or
exposure to an even more dangerous chemical?
Q Have toxicity or exposure studies been conducted on these
chemicals? Have these studies been verified by credible
scientists?
Q What are you doing to reduce hazards? For example, reducing
chemical inventories, substituting less hazardous chemicals,
improving process design, providing training and management
controls.
Q Are the endpoints you use for your worst-case and alternative
scenarios adequate to protect the public?
Questions for the LEPC
Q Have you obtained documentation of the chemicals onsite from
EPGRA and other regulatory filings? Are the documents consistent
with the RMP?
Q How does the RMP hazard assessment compare with the worst-
case scenario developed by the LEPG?
Q Vapor cloud fire (flash
fire)
Q Pool fire (burning of large
puddles)
Q Jet fire (pressurized gas or
liquid escaping from a
hole)
Q Boiling Liquid, Expanding
Vapor Explosion (BLEVE)
(an explosive release of
expanding vapor and boil-
ing liquid following the
catastrophic failure of a
pressurized vessel holding
a liquefied gas, such as
propane)
Q Vapor cloud explosion (a
more violent flash fire)
Explosions can signifi-
cantly affect communities
near accident sites. Powerful
shock waves may directly
cause injuries and property
damage. Shrapnel and struc-
tural damage created by the
blast may result in additional
injuries.
Fires resulting from chemi-
cal releases generally do not
have an offsite effect; they are
typically confined to the
property where the incident
occurs. Sites with potential
for large fires often establish
distance between the manu-
facturing processes that
handle flammable materials
and the end of the property
line. That distance usually
prevents fires from spreading
offsite. The heat radiating
from a fire may be more likely
to cause injuries and property
damage in the nearby com-
munity.
Flammable Endpoints
Releases of flammable
chemicals do not usually
lead to explosions; they are
more likely to become di-
luted by air mixing before
they can ignite. As with a
car's engine, if the fuel is not
rich enough, it will not ig-
nite. If it does ignite, a fire is
more likely than an explo-
sion. Fires usually are con-
centrated at the facility, so
-------
people -who are -within a
half-mile or less face the
greatest danger if an accident
occurs.
The RMP Rule specifies
that three endpoints may be
considered when analyzing
release scenarios for the 63
flammable gases and volatile
liquids regulated by the RMP
Rule:
1. Increases in air pres-
sure resulting from a vapor
cloud explosion. This end-
point must represent an in-
crease in air pressure by 1
pound per square inch (psi).
A 1 psi pressure increase is
intended to be conservative.
It does not define a level at
which severe injuries or
death would be expected.
Though a 1 psi shock wave
will not cause direct injury,
it will break windows and
may cause other property
damage that could result in
injuries. Some people within
an area exposed to a 1 psi
overpressure may be hurt,
but not everyone. Because
glass shards and other shrap-
nel from an explosion may
travel a distance greater than
the 1 psi shock wave, it is
possible for injuries to result
beyond the 1 psi endpoint.
2. Radiant heat of 5 kilo-
watts/meter2 (kw/m2) for 40
seconds resulting from a fire-
ball or pool fire. Human skin
exposure to radiant heat of
this intensity for more than
40 seconds causes second
degree burns or blisters, at a
minimum.
3. A chemical's lower flam-
mability limit (LFL). The
LFL represents the minimum
percentage of flammable
chemical in air that must be
present for ignition to occur.
When a gas or vapor is diluted
to a concentration below its
LFL endpoint, it can no
longer create a fire hazard.
Annotated List of Accident Prevention
References and Links
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/ceppo
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. However, RMP*Info will not
contain the OCA data. The site links to free RMP*Comp
software that identifies the size of the geographic area that
may become hazardous following an incident.
Introduction to the Accidental Release Prevention Pro-
gram is available at the following URL: http://www.epa.gov/
ceppo/pubs/hotline/caa.html
EPAs Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Superfund,
and EPCRA Hotline
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline
This site provides information on how to contact the EPA-
sponsored Hotline that addresses the Risk Management Pro-
gram Rule. Other information resources are also provided.
Many related documents, including those listed on the EPA
site above, can be ordered by calling (800) 424-9346 or (703)
412-9810 in the Washington, D.G., area.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NO/V\j Office of Response and Restoration
http .'//response, restoration. noaa.gov/index. html
NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration Web site pro-
vides tools and information for emergency responders and
planners. The Chemical Reactivity Worksheet (http://
response.restoration.noaa.gov/chemaids/react.html) is a free
program that provides reactivity information for more than
4,000 common hazardous chemicals.
ERAs Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
http://www. epa. gov/ERNS/
ERNS is a database of information on notifications of oil
discharges and hazardous substances releases. It is a coop-
erative data sharing effort among EPA, the Department of
Transportation, and the National Response Center.
Chemical Safely and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)
http://www.chemsafety.gov
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Web
site has information about incidents investigated by the
board, as well as a library of chemical safety documents
and information on the year 2000 issue.
-------
1O
National Response Center
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil
The National Response Center serves as the sole point of
contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, biologi-
cal, and etiological discharges into the environment any-
where in the United States and its territories. Summary
statistics on chemical accidents are available on the Na-
tional Response Center's Web site.
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.
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 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/081598/met_COL-
6845.001.shtml
Q Latest Release Stirs school Location Debate,
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/H2198/
met_gas3. shtml
Q Reports Show Plant Has History of Slow Notification,
http://www.augustachronicle.eom/stories/l 12198/
met_gasl.shtml
Documents
The 600K Report: Commercial Chemical Incidents in the
United States, 1987-1996
http://www.csb.gov/! 999/news/n9916.htm
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. 1999.
The 600K Report: Commercial Chemical Incidents in the
United States, 1987-1996.
Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis: Emergency
Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/nepishom/ (search on
document number OSWER880001)
EPA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. De-
partment of Transportation. 1987. Technical Guidance for
-------
Hazards Analysis: Emergency Planning for Extremely Haz-
ardous Substances. Document Number OSWER880001.
Exposure Guidelines
http://www.nsc.org/xroads.htm
Nir Barnea. 1997. "Exposure Guidelines." CAMEO
Today, 7 no. 5, July/August 1997.
The Occupational Environment: Its Evaluation and Control
DiNardi, S.R. 1997. The occupational environment: Its
evaluation and control. AIHA.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)
http://www. nsc.org/xroads. htm
MSDSs are valuable sources of information about a
chemical's physical and chemical characteristics, fire and
explosion hazards, and health hazards. The Emergency Plan-
ning and Community Right-to-Rnow Act requires regulated
facilities to submit copies of MSDSs to their Local Emer-
gency Planning Committee, which can distribute copies to
the public. The Chemical Crossroads Web site of the Na-
tional Safety Council's Environmental Health Center pro-
vides easy access to several Internet sources of MSDSs.
Information about specific hazardous chemicals can be also
be found at the EHC Web site http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ew/
chemical.htm. In addition, EPA's Chemical Emergency Pre-
paredness and Prevention Office has a Web page (http://
www.epa.gov/swercepp/cheminf.html) that provides access
to online information about hazardous chemicals.
Organisational 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
11
V
Printed on
Recycfed Paper
-------
OLZZ-Z6Z (ZQZ)
rajq-oip/gjio'osii-AVA^tt
9£OOZ OQ 'uojguiqsBAV
0021 35InS • AVM 'anuaAY jnoijoaiiuoQ c^OT
jiounoQ Xjapg ptiopujsj aqj jo UOISIAIQ y
U3JLN33 HJL1V3H 1VJLN3IAIIMOUIAN3
6661 ^eiAI
uo uoiji?DjunLuujoD UBS(jJBduou 'aAjjDs.j.fa jo pjQDBJ BUOJJS e Jijnq SBM
3H3 'JJBjs jeqj aouis 's>|su mieai-i iBjusujuojiAua (eijuajod jo aae,} atjj
ui Aiqjsuodsai pue A|qi?a6pa|Mou>| JDB pue puBjsjapun jajjaq suazjjp
PUB AjaiDos Suidfau) JB pauu.iB saijiA.aDe suoijBDiunLuuioD |BjuaoiuoJiAU3
a>|Bjjapun;oj 8861 ui 3H3 paL)si|qBjsa jpuno^ AjajBS IBUOIJBN am
•sanss.i AjajBs ABMLJSILJ PUB 'OJPB 'aDB|d>|JOM 'auuoq PUB uo.auaA
-ajd juappDB uo japB3| IBUOIJBU B s\ |puno3 AjajBS |BUOIJB/\| au.1 -uoij
-BziuBSjo |BjuaujujaAo6uou 'jyojduou pjo-JBaA-58 UB 'jpuno^ Ajajes
(BUOIJBN 9LJJ JO UOISjAjp B Sj (DH3) J3JU93 L(J|BaH |BlUaLUUOJIAU3 3LJJ.
------- |