United States Office of Solid Waste 550-F-95-002
Environmental Protection and Emergency Response March 1995
Agency (5101)
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE TO
PROPOSED RULE FOR RISK
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Clean Air Act section 112(r)
FACTSHEET
The purpose of the
requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 112(r) is to pre-
vent serious chemical
accidents that have the
potential to affect public
health and the environ-
ment. Industry has the
obligation to prevent
accidents, operate safely,
and manage hazardous
On October 20, 1993, EPA published a proposed rule for risk management plan-
ning under the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(r). In response to public com-
ments, EPA has issued a supplemental notice proposing modifications and addi-
tions to the original proposed rule. The Agency requests additional comments
on several issues including a "tiered" approach that would set different require-
ments for different facilities; revised hazard assessment requirements, including
an alternative worst-case scenario; and state implementation of the rule. The
focus of the supplemental notice is to streamline the proposed rule by making
the requirements commensurate with the risk posed by facilities and to make
implementation and compliance more efficient. The supplemental notice was
signed by the EPA Administrator on February 28, 1995.
chemicals in a safe and
responsible way. The responsibility for prevention,
however, is also shared by government, the public,
and many other groups that have a stake in chemi-
cal safety. The risk management planning rules of
the CAA will give facilities a systematic mecha-
nism to identify, assess, and document their chemi-
cal hazards. The resulting information, when
shared with the public and other stakeholders, will
equip citizens to influence industry to reduce risks
to their health and the environment.
BACKGROUND
CAA section 112(r) mandates that EPA publish
rules and guidance for chemical accident
prevention. The rules must include requirements
that facilities develop and implement risk manage-
ment programs that incorporate three elements: a
hazard assessment, a prevention program, and an
emergency response program. The programs are
to be summarized in plans that must be registered
with EPA and submitted to state and local agen-
cies. The plans will also be available to the public.
Facilities will be covered by these rules if they have
more than a threshold quantity of a listed sub-
stance in a process. EPA proposed these risk man-
agement planning requirements on October 20,
1993, and promulgated the final list of substances,
with thresholds, on January 31,1994. The list
includes 77 acutely toxic substances, 63 flammable
gases and liquids, and high explosives as a class.
EPA held four public hearings on the proposed
rule and received more than 1,000 comments. In
response to concerns raised during this comment
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
^Printed on recycled paper
-------
Supplt-mental Notice.' Risk Management Planning
March 1995
period, EPA identified six issues on which it
requests additional comments before preparing a
final rule: a tiered approach that would set dif-
ferent requirements for different facilities;
revised hazard assessment requirements, includ-
ing an alternative worst-case scenario; accident
information reporting; public participation in the
review of the risk management programs and
plans; analysis of inherently safer technologies;
and state implementation of the rule. A supple-
mental notice of proposed rulemaking was
signed on February 28,1995, and published in
the Federal Register on March, 13 1995.
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE
ISSUES
Tiered Approaches
Under EPA's proposed rule, all affected
facilities would be required to complete all
elements of the risk management program.
These elements include a hazard assessment
(offsite consequence analysis and 5-year accident
history), an emergency response program, and,
for the prevention program, the process safety
management (PSM) standard adopted by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) in 1992 (29 CFR 1910.119). Many com-
menters asked for a modification to this "one
size fits all" approach, noting that facilities that
pose little or no risk to the public or the environ-
ment should not have to implement the techni-
cally rigorous requirements for risk management
planning.
In response to these comments, EPA has deter-
mined that its proposed approach should be
modified because facilities affected by the rule
pose a wide range of risks. EPA is seeking com-
ments on a new approach that would establish
three "tiers" or levels of requirements to make
the degree of detail appropriate for the risks
posed:
+ Tier 1 would apply to facilities that have
not had a significant accidental release
within the previous five years. This Tier
would require only registration and a
certification that a facility's worst-case
release would not affect human populations
or ecosystems.
Tier 2 would require facilities to register,
conduct an offsite consequence analysis,
and document a 5-year accident history. In
addition, facilities would have to
summarize prevention and emergency
response steps being taken to address
training, maintenance, monitoring, safety
precautions, and procedures for informing
the public during an emergency. Facilities
would be required to submit the stream
lined risk management plan to
implementing agencies and make the plan
available to the public.
Tier 3 would require compliance with the
rule as proposed.
EPA is seeking comment on two approaches for
assigning facilities that cannot meet the Tier 1
requirements to Tier 2 or Tier 3. EPA prefers to
limit Tier 3 to facilities with 100 or more full-time
employees in the following industry sectors:
Pulp mills (SIC code 2611)
Chlor-alkalis (SIC code 2812)
Industrial inorganics and organics, not else
where classified (SIC codes 2819,2869)
Plastics and resins (SIC code 2821)
Nitrogen fertilizers (SIC code 2873)
Agricultural chemicals, not elsewhere
classified (SIC code 2879)
Petroleum refineries (SIC code 2911)
After eight years, facilities with 20 to 99 employ-
ees would be required to comply with Tier 3 if
they are in the following industry sectors: chlor-
alkali (2812), industrial inorganics and organics,
not elsewhere classified (2819, 2869), nitrogen
fertilizer (2873), and petroleum refinery (2911).
-------
Supplemental Notice: Risk Management Planning
March 2995
EPA selected these sectors based on their accident
histories but is seeking comment on whether other
sectors should be included. An alternative
approach would be to extend Tier 3 requirements
to all facilities with 100 or more full-time employ-
ees; these facilities are likely to have larger quanti-
ties of regulated substances on site and to have the
resources to implement the rule.
Hazard Assessment
The CAA mandates that facilities conduct a
aazard assessment that analyzes the offsite con-
sequences of a range of releases including worst
case. Commenters recommended that EPA revise
the proposed definition of worst case as an instan-
taneous release of the entire contents of the process
and sought other changes to requirements related
to the hazard assessment.
EPA proposes to change the definition of worst-
case release to the release of the largest quantity
from a vessel or piping failure in a 10-minute peri-
od. The offsite consequences of such an event
would be analyzed under worst-case meteorologi-
cal conditions and would consider passive mitiga-
tion systems (e.g., diked areas), provided they
could withstand the impact of major natural haz-
ards such as floods, earthquakes, or hurricanes.
Active mitigation systems might be considered in
the analysis of other more likely release scenarios,
but not for worst case.
In response to comments, EPA is also proposing to
allow facilities to analyze a single flammable and a
single explosive to represent all affected flamma-
bles and explosives on site for the worst case and
other more likely scenarios. For each toxic sub-
stance, whether it is used in one process or multi-
ple processes, only one worst-case event would
have to be analyzed. However, each toxic substance
would require at least one other more likely release
scenario. These changes would limit the number of
analyses facilities would need to conduc t.
To reduce the cost burden on facilities and to allow
consistent and streamlined assessments, EPA plans
to prepare quick reference tables for all listed sub-
stances. These tables will enable owners and oper-
ators of facilities to determine impact distances
from their release scenarios without air dispersion
modeling. EPA will make the tables available for
public review and comment before the rule is final.
Also in response to comments, EPA is proposing to
clarify the detail needed for facilities to define
potentially affected populations and environments.
For populations, facilities would be able to limit the
task to providing information readily available
from the U. S. Census. For environments, facilities
would be required only to identify whether any
sensitive environments were within the impact dis-
tances of an accidental release; they would not
have to assess potential damage. EPA is seeking
comment on a list of sensitive environments.
Accident Information Reporting
The proposed rule required facilities to submit
a 5-year accident history as part of the risk
management program. EPA is seeking comment on
whether and how it could obtain additional infor-
mation on significant accidents. One approach
would be to require facilities to submit accident
investigation reports developed under this rule and
other rules, such as OSHA PSM. An alternative
would be to limit submissions to these reports but
require that reports be submitted only when EPA
requests them.
Public Participation
Public interest group commenters asked EPA to
mandate public participation in the develop-
ment or review of the risk management programs
and plans. Under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act, facilities are oblig-
ated to work closely with their Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs) and to use these
entities as a means of informing the public about
their operations. EPA is not proposing specific
requirements but requests comments on steps facil-
ities could take to involve the public in discussions
of the content of the risk management programs
and plans.
-------
Supplemental Notice: Risk Management Planning
March 1995
Inherently Safer Technologies
and Approaches
decision about whether the plan is complete could,
however, be made by the 112(r) implementing
agency under a co-operative agreement with the
Title V permitting agency.
Several commenters recommended that EPA
require facilities to eliminate, rather than con-
trol, hazards. They suggested that facilities be
required to analyze alternative approaches to the
use of certain substances and processes. EPA
believes that process safety management, exercised
over time, will lead to measurable improvements
in safety. Many facilities already perform analyses
of inherently safer approaches when designing
new processes or as part of process hazard analy-
ses. EPA encourages facilities to include discussion C^OlVC"! T JSTO1V
in the risk management plan of any steps they take
to implement inherently safer approaches. The
Agency is not proposing additional requirements
but is considering further study of this issue.
EPA believes that the risk management planning
requirements should be implemented and enforced
at the state or local level. EPA encourages states to
seek delegation of the program under CAA section
112(1) rules. If a state chooses not to implement the
CAA section 112(r) program, EPA, by default, will
serve as the implementing agency.
Implementation and Integration
with State Programs
Commenters asked EPA to explain the
relationship of the CAA section 112(r) require-
ments to the CAA Title V operating permit require-
ments. About 10 to 15 percent of the facilities sub-
ject to the 112(r) requirements must also obtain
operating permits under CAA Title V. The CAA
section 112(r) rules are applicable requirements for
facilities subject to Title V requirements. EPA
believes, however, that the risk management plan-
ning requirements should not be in the permit and
proposes a standard set of Title V permit conditions
to meet the 112(r) requirements.The state or local
air permitting agency would be required to deter-
mine whether the permit conditions have been met
and the risk management plan was complete. The
EPA encourages interested parties to submit
comments on these issues. EPA will hold a
public hearing at EPA headquarters (401 M St SW,
Washington, DC) on March 31,1995. To register for
the hearing, call (703) 934-3158. Comments may be
submitted to the EPA Docket, in duplicate, until
May 12. (EPA, Attn: Docket No. A-91-73, Room
1500,401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.)
For more information
Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Information Hotline
(800) 535-0202 (voice)
(800) 535-7672 (TTD)
Monday through Friday
8:30 am to 7:30 pm, eastern time
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
------- |