.:._•:•!•«&' §'
            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/

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
Q The  concentration of
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-

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
                                Property Damage
                  Death or Injury
                        Evacuation of
                       Workers or Public
                         Incidents Causing
                        Death, Injury, Property
                        Damage, or Evacuation
         Incidents with the
         Potential for Harm
             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
                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

              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

             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-
  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
  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-
  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
  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
  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
   Physical State
  Vapor Pressure
        The physical state of the sub-
        stance affects its ability to move
        after it is released into the envi-
        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
   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
  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-

   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-

Exposure and
  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

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
1/10 IDLH
Period ".;;-.'•
30 minutes
30 minutes
60 minutes
8 hours
Healthy, adult
General population
General population
Most workers
Escape exposure
without respirator
Allow the public to
escape a hazardous
Prevent effects that
could impair the
ability to take
protective action
Work consistently
with no harmful
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
   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

                     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
  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
  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
         Q What are you doing to reduce hazards? For example, reducing
           chemical inventories, substituting less hazardous chemicals,
           improving process design, providing training and management
         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
Q Pool fire (burning of large
Q Jet fire (pressurized gas or
  liquid escaping from a
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
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
  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-

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
   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
   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
   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/

EPAs Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act, Superfund,
and EPCRA 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)
   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.

National Response Center
   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
   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.

   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://
Q Latest Release Stirs school Location Debate,
   met_gas3. shtml
Q Reports Show Plant Has History of Slow Notification,
   http://www.augustachronicle.eom/stories/l 12198/

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
  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
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
  Printed on
Recycfed Paper

                         OLZZ-Z6Z (ZQZ)
                     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