United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention
Office OS-120
October 1993
•*55c/ F
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACT SHEET
CLEAN AIR ACT RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
On October 7, 1993, the EPA Administrator signed
a proposed rule under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provisions for accidental release prevention. The
rule proposes a risk management program that will
apply to facilities that have more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance. EPA proposed a
list of regulated substances, with thresholds, on
January 19, 1993. The proposed program includes
a hazard assessment, a prevention program, an
emergency response program, registration, and the
submission of a nsk management plan, which will
be available to the public. EPA is seeking com-
ments on the elements of the proposed program.
The comment period closes in February, 1994. A
public hearing will be held in Washington, DC, on
November 30, 1993. Details will be published
shortly in a Federal Register notice.
The purpose of the CAA regulations on accident
prevention is to ensure that facilities reduce the
likelihood and seventy of accidental chemical re-
leases that could harm the public and the environ-
ment. These rules will also ensure that the public
and state and local governments receive facility-
specific information on potential hazards and the
steps being taken to prevent accidents.
BACKGROUND
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) was a milestone in
federal actions to improve the ability of communi-
ties to prepare for and respond to chemical acci-
dents. Under EPCRA, communities must develop
emergency response plans, based on information
that facilities must provide on the hazardous chemi-
cals they handle. In 1990, Congress included
requirements for accidental release prevention
regulations in CAA section 112(r). Congress also
mandated that the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) adopt a process safety
management standard to protect workers from the
workplace effects of chemical accidents; the stan-
dard was issued on February 24, 1992.
ACTION
EPA is proposing a risk management program,
under the CAA section 112(r)(7). The program
will apply to facilities with more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance in a process.
The proposed regulations would require facilities to
develop and implement a risk management program
that includes a hazard assessment (offsite conse-
quence analyses, including worst-case scenarios, a
five-year accident history), a prevention program,
and an emergency response program. The preven-
tion program would be built on the OSHA process
safety management standard. Risk management
plans will be submitted to states, local emergency
planning committees, the Chemical Safety and Haz-
ard Investigation Board and will be available to the
public. Facilities would be required to register
with EPA and be in compliance with the rule three
years after the date on which the final rule is pub-
lished.
EPA estimates that approximately 140,000 facilities
are potentially affected by the proposed rule. The
facilities include manufacturers from most manufac-
turing sectors, cold-storage facilities that use am-
monia as a refrigerant, public drinking water and
waste water treatment systems, wholesalers of
chemicals, propane retailers, and utilities.
DISCUSSION
The CAA requires EPA to develop reasonable
regulations and appropriate guidance for the pre-
vention and detection of accidental releases and for
response to such releases by the owners or opera-
Racyctod/Rccyctabto
Printed with Soy/Canda Ink on paper that
contains at toast 50% racydod fiber
-------
tors of facilities. The regulations must include the
requirement that facilities develop and implement a
risk management plan that includes a hazard assess-
ment to assess the effects of an accidental release, a
five-year accident history, a prevention program,
and an emergency response program. The nsk
management plan (RMP) must be submitted to
government authorities and will be made available
to the public.
EPA is proposing a nsk management program that
parallels the requirements of the RMP. Facilities
would be required to conduct offsite consequence
analyses for a range of release scenarios including
worst case and other, more likely release scenarios.
For each scenario, they would define the quantity
released, rate of release, distance in all directions
of potential exposures or damage, the populations
within those distances, and potential environmental
damage.
EPA's proposed prevention program is built on the
OSHA process safety management standard. With
few minor exceptions, the prevention program
requirements are identical to the OSHA standard.
These requirements include process safety informa-
tion, process hazard analyses, standard operating
procedures, training, maintenance, prestartup re-
view, management of change, safety audits, and
accident investigation. EPA expects that facilities
in compliance with the OSHA standard will be in
compliance with the prevention program for sub-
stances that are on both the EPA and OSHA lists.
The main new requirement is that facilities would
be required to define their management system for
implementing the prevention program.
The emergency response element would require
facilities to develop an emergency response plan,
tram employees for response actions, maintain
response equipment, conduct drills and exercises,
and coordinate with the LEPC.
Facilities would be required to register with EPA
within three years of the date of the final rule. The
registration would identify the facility and the
substances the facility has above the thresholds.
Facilities would also be required to develop and
submit an RMP that includes the offsite conse-
quences analyses, lists the five-year accident histo-
ry, summarizes the major hazards identified
through the prevention program and t 'eps being
taken to address them, and summanzt ;e emer-
gency response program. Finally, the proposed
rule includes a system for auditing RMPs.
ISSUES
The CAA requires an assessment of worst-case
releases. Worst case would be defined as loss of
all of the regulated substance from a process in a
release that leads to the worst offsite consequences.
The worst-case scenario would assume an instanta-
neous release, failure of all mitigation systems, and
worst-case weather conditions. Although such
failures may be very unlikely, they will define for
the facility and the public the extreme worst case.
The RMP will be submitted to government agen-
cies. EPA decided that the information included in
the RMP should be sufficient to evaluate a facility's
nsk management program and the hazards posed by
a facility. EPA is concerned, however, that the
amount of information in the RMP should not be so
detailed that the agencies will find it difficult to
manage.
The proposed rule would affect a substantial num-
ber of small businesses. The CAA states that EPA
should develop guidance and model RMPs to be
issued with the final rule. EPA has identified some
industry sectors that may be candidates for model
RMPS; these sectors include propane retailers,
chlonnators, wholesalers, and cold storage facili-
ties.
CONCLUSION
The proposed rule outlines those management steps
that should be taken to identify hazards and operate
a safe facility. The proposed rule will reduce the
likelihood of accidental releases that could harm the
public and the environment.
CONTACT
Lyse Helsing
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office
U.S. EPA (OS-120)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Hotline (8:30 am - 7:30 pm EST)
(800) 535-0202 (Voice) (800) 535-7672 (TDD)
------- |