United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response/
CEPPO (5101)
January 1994
&ERA CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION
AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1990
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
New Requirements to Prevent
Chemical Accidents
Preventing accidental releases of hazardous
chemicals is the shared responsibility of
industry, government, and the public. The first
steps toward prevention are identifying and
assessing the hazards. Once this information is
openly shared, industry, government, and the
community can work together toward reducing
chemical risks to public health and the
environment.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, whch
were signed into law on November 15, 1990,
contain important provisions that advance the
process of risk management planning and
public disclosure of risk. The amendments,
which cover a wide range of air pollution
issues, include specific provisions addressing
accidental releases that will affect facilities that
produce, handle, process, or store certain
chemicals.
The Clean Air Act makes it clear that facilities
that handle hazardous substances bear the
primary responsibility for ensuring their safe
use. The CAA section 112(r) general duty
clause outlines the underlying principle of the
statutory provisions. Facilities are responsible
for designing and maintaining a safe plant,
identifying their hazards, and minimizing the
consequences of accidental chemical releases.
The general duty clause applies to any facility
that handles a substance that may be hazardous,
regardless of the quantity on site and regardless
of whether it is on a government list.
The provisions also require EPA to establish a
list of regulated substances and thresholds and
to promulgate accident prevention regulations,
including requirements for risk management
plans. Industry is required to develop these
plans, to comply with accident prevention
regulations, to share plans with the public, and
to operate in a safe manner. Other provisions
include establishment of an independent
accident investigation board, a study on
hydrofluoric acid, and a mandate for OSHA to
establish a chemical process safety
management standard for the workplace.
More specifically, under the amended Clean
Air Act, EPA must:
* Publish a list of at least 100 substances
and associated threshold quantities that
determine who must comply with the
new regulations
* Develop regulations and guidance for
the response, prevention, and detection
of accidental releases associated with
these regulated substances
Certain facilities must:
* Prepare risk management plans that
include a hazard assessment, accident
prevention program, and emergency
response program
* Comply with other accidental release
regulations that EPA may adopt.
-------
The CAA also requires that each state establish
programs to provide small businesses with
technical assistance on the CAA and help them
comply with the Act's regulations. By statute
these small busmen programs must include
assistance related to accidental release
prevention and detection. These programs will
provide information on alternative technologies,
process changes, products, and methods of
operation that help reduce air pollution.
Background: Chemical Accident
Prevention Before 1990
Public awareness of the potential danger from
accidental releases of hazardous substances has
increased over the years as serious chemical
accidents have occurred ar d the world.
Public concern intensified r, owing the 1984
release of methyl isocyanate in Bhopal, India,
which killed more than 2,000 people. A
subsequent chemical release in Institute, West
Virginia, sent more than 100 people to the
hospital and made Americans aware that such
incidents can and do happen in the United
States.
EPA's Response to Bhopal
In response to this public concern and the
hazards that exist, EPA began its Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) in
1985. CEPP was a voluntary program to
encourage state and local authorities to identify
hazards in their areas and to plan for potential
chemical emergencies. This local planning
complemented emergency response planning
carried out at the national and regional levels by
the National Response Team and Regional
Response Teams.
The following year, Congress enacted many of
the elements of CEPP in the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986, also known as Title ffl of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA). SARA Title ffl requires states to
establish state and local emergency planning
groups to develop emergency response plans
for each community. SARA Title ffl also
requires facilities to make information available
to the public on the hazardous chemicals they
have on site. Workers on site also have a right
to know about the chemicals to which they
could be exposed. The U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
requirements to make information on hazardous
chemicals in the workplace available to
employees.
Milestone Report on Systems for
Prevention
SARA Title ffl did not require facilities to
establish accident prevention programs. Title
IH's reporting requirements, however, foster a
valuable dialogue between industry and local
communities on hazards to help citizens
become more informed about the presence of
hazardous chemicals that might affect public
health and the environment. In addition, under
SARA section 305(b), EPA was required to
conduct a review of emergency systems to
monitor, detect, and prevent chemical accidents
at facilities across the country. The final report
to Congress, Review of Emergency Systems
(EPA, 1988), concluded that the prevention of
accidental releases requires an integrated
approach that considers technologies,
operations, and management practices, and it
emphasized the importance of management
commitment to safety.
EPA's Prevention Program Takes Shape
Although SARA Title ffl did not directly
address accident prevention except through
section 305(b), EPA recognized that prevention,
preparedness, and response form a safety
continuum. Therefore, in 1986, EPA
established its Chemical Accident Prevention
Program and began collecting information on
chemical accidents. At the same time, EPA
began working with other stakeholder'groups to
increase knowledge of prevention practices and
encourage industry to improve safety at
facilities.
Under the Chemical Accident Prevention
Program, EPA developed the Accidental
Release Information Program (ARIP) to collect
data on the causes of accidents and the steps
facilities take to prevent recurrences. EPA also
developed its Chemical Safety Audit Program
to gather and disseminate information on
successful practices to mitigate and prevent
chemical accidents. The audit program also
points out problematic practices and ways to
-------
improve them. Through the program. EPA has
trained its regional staff as well as state officials
on process safety and auditing techniques.
Another significant component of EPA's
Chemical Accident Prevention Program
involves outreach to small and medium-sized
enterprises, which the section 305(b) study
indicated are generally less aware of risks than
larger facilities. EPA has worked with a broad
spectrum of stakeholder groups to determine
the best ways to reach these smaller operations
All these efforts are based on the premise that
while industry bears the primary responsibility
for preventing and mitigating chemical
accidents, many other groups also have a role to
play. Workers, trade associations,
environmental groups, professional
organizations, public interest groups, the
insurance and financial community, researchers
and academia, the medical profession, and
governments at all levels can help facilities that
use hazardous chemicals to identify their
hazards and find safer ways to operate. A
number of stakeholder groups have developed
programs and guidance to assist facilities in the
management of chemical hazards. Many of
these safety measures can make businesses
more efficient and productive.
Clean Air Act Requirements:
What Chemicals are Covered?
The CAA mandates that EPA develop and
publish an initial list of at least 100 substances
that, in an accidental release, could cause
death, injury, or serious adverse effect to human
health or the environment. The CAA mandates
the inclusion of 16 substances (see the box in
the next column).
In selecting other substances for the list, EPA
considered the severity of any acute adverse
health effects, the likelihood of an accidental
release, and the potential magnitude of human
exposure. In determining threshold quantities
for each chemical, EPA considered toxicity,
reactivity, volatility, flammability, explosivity,
and dispersibility as well as the amount known
or anticipated to cause effects of concern. EPA
selected commercially produced, acutely toxic
and volatile substances for this list from the
SARA Title III section 302 list of extremely
hazardous substances. EPA chose volatile
substances because they are more likely to
List of Substances Required by Statute
The Clean Air Act specifies the following 16
hazardous substances for inclusion in the
imtal list of regulated substances:
Chlorine
Anhydrous ammonia
Methyl chloride
Ethylene oxide
Vinyl chloride
Methyl isocyanate
Hydrogen cyanide
Ammonia (in addition to anhydrous
ammonia)
Hydrogen sulfide
Toluene diisocyanate (isomer not specified)
Phosgene
Bromine
Anhydrous hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen fluoride
Anhydrous sulfur dioxide
Sulfur tnoxide
become airborne and impact the public. One
substance, oleum, was listed because it has a
history of accidents that have affected the
public. Since flammable vapor cloud explosions
and blast waves from detonations of high
explosives have caused injuries to the public
and damage to the environment, EPA also
includes highly flammable gases and liquids as
well as high explosives on the list.
On January 14, 1994, EPA's Administrator
signed the final rule on the substances and
thresholds. The list includes 77 acutely toxic
chemicals, 63 flammable gases and volatile
flammable liquids, and Division 1.1 high
explosive substances as listed in 49 CFR
172.101. The rule establishes threshold
quantities for toxic substances that range from
500 to 20,000 pounds. For all listed flammable
substances, the threshold quantity is established
at 10,000 pounds. For explosive substances, the
threshold quantity is set at 5,000 pounds. Note
that the threshold quantity is determined by the
maximum amount in a process, not the
maximum quantity on site.
The rule also sets forth the procedures for
determining whether a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance is present at a stationary
-------
source. In addition, the rule specifies the
requirements for petitions to the Agency to add
substances to, or delete substances from, the list
Risk Management Planning
For industry, chemical accident prevention has
become more than a regulatory requirement.
More and more plant managers, whether they
are subject to regulation or not, recognize
chemical safety management as an integral part
of running an efficient operation. At the same
time, new regulations have ensured that the
public can be properly informed about chemical
nsks in their neighborhoods, and community
organizations, states, and me federal
government all have become active players in
helping to lower these risks.
EPA published its proposed regulation on the
risk management program on October 20,
1993. The program will apply to facilities that
have more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance in a process. As mandated
by the CAA, the proposed rule requires
facilities to develop and implement a risk
management program that includes a hazard
assessment (offsite consequence analyses,
including worst-case scenarios, a 5-year
accident history), a prevention program, and an
emergency response program.
The elements of EPA's proposed prevention
program adopt and build upon OSHA's process
safety management standard, issued on
February 24, 1992 (see page 5). Currently, four
states-New Jersey, California, Nevada, and
Delaware— also have regulations on accidental
release prevention. In addition, the Chemical
Manufacturers Association through Responsible
Care ™, the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, the American Petroleum Institute,
and the European Community all have
programs relating to chemical process safety
management. EPA has met with industry,
environmentalists, professional groups, and
representatives of states and localities to solicit
input in shaping the federal regulations.
The risk management plans required by the by
the CAA are to be registered with EPA and
submitted to the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board, the implementing agency
(the state or EPA), the State Emergency
Prevention Program Requirements
The proposed elements of the prevention
program include the following:
• Review and documentation of the plant's
chemicals, processes, and equipment
• Detailed process hazard analyses to
identify hazards, assess the likelihood of
accidental releases, and evaluate the
consequences of such releases
• Development of standard operating
procedures
• Training of employees on procedures
• Implementation of a preventive
maintenance program
• Management of changes in operation that
may impact the safety of the system
• Reviews before initial start-up of a
process and before start-up following a
modification of a process
• Investigation and documentation of
accidents
• Periodic safety audits to ensure that
procedures and practices are being
followed
Response Commissions, and Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs). The plans will
also be made available to the public.
The information in these risk management plans
complements information on chemicals already
provided by facilities to states and LEPCs under
SARA Title ffl. Once the CAA regulations are
in effect, it will be unlawful for facilities that
have at least a threshold quantity of a listed
substance to operate in violation of the accident
prevention regulations.
The regulations on risk management will take
effect three years after the date of their final
publication. Should EPA add to the list of
regulated substances, the regulations would
take effect for newly covered sources three
years after the date on which a substance is first
listed.
-------
EPA estimates that approximately 118,000
facilities could be affected by the risk
management planning requirements. These
facilities include manufacturers, oil and gas
production facilities* cold storgae facilities with
ammonia refrigeration systems including food
processors and distributors and refrigerated
warehouses, public water treatment systems,
wholesalers and distributors of these chemicals,
utilities, propane retailers, certain small
businesses, and some service industries, such as
janitorial services and commercial laundries.
Other CAA Provisions
Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board
The CAA establishes a five-member,
Presidentially appointed board to investigate (or
cause to be investigated) chemical releases that
result in death, serious injury, or substantial
property damage. The purpose of the board is
to determine the cause or probable causes of
accidents and to report on them to the public.
The board may also conduct research and
studies related to chemical accident prevention
and may make recommendations to federal,
state, and local authorities on ways to reduce
the likelihood or consequences of accidental
releases. Jurisdiction over transportation
accidents (air, rail, highway, barge) involving
hazardous chemicals, however, remains with
the National Transportation Safety Board.
Hydrofluoric Acid Study
As required by the CAA, EPA has conducted a
study on the potential hazards of hydrofluoric
acid and its uses with respect to chemical
accidents. The study, transmitted to Congress
in the fall of 1993, investigates the physical and
chemical properties of HF and its hazards in
commercial and industrial use. A characteriza-
tion of the HF industry identifies the types of
facilities in which HF is handled and the
approximate number of these facilities nation-
wide. The document describes accidents that
have resulted in the release of HF, as well as
any public and environmental impacts that
resulted from these releases. An analysis of
scenarios using atmospheric dispersion models
investigates potential impacts on the public
from a range of worst-case accidental releases.
The study also describes the current industry
and government controls to prevent accidental
releases of HF and to mitigate the potential
consequences of accidents through emergency
preparedness and response efforts.
Presidential Review
The CAA requires the President to conduct a
review of the current authority of various
federal agencies regarding chemical release
prevention, mitigation, and response and to
report the findings to Congress. The purpose of
the review is to clarify and co-ordinate
responsibilities and to identify any gaps and/or
overlaps that may exist. The President delegated
this authority to the EPA Administrator in 1993
Research Programs
The CAA requires EPA to establish a program
of long-term research on methods and
techniques for conducting detailed hazard
assessments. The CAA also requires EPA to
test substances at the Liquefied Gaseous Fuels
Spill Test Facility in Nevada to develop and
validate improved predictive models for
atmospheric dispersion, evaluate existing
dispersion models, and evaluate technology for
mitigation and emergency response.
New OSHA Standard
On February 24, 1992, OSHA adopted, as
required under the CAA 1990 amendments, a
standard requiring chemical process safety
management in the workplace—designed to
protect employees of facilities that use highly
hazardous chemicals.
The list of highly hazardous chemicals that is
part of the OSHA standard includes acutely
toxic, highly flammable, and reactive
substances. Requirements of the standard cover
safety information on chemicals and processes,
a workplace process hazard analysis, periodic
audits, standard operating procedures, training,
maintenance, pre-start-up safety reviews,
management of change, emergency response,
and accident investigation.
To minimize the confusion for facilities covered
by both the EPA and OSHA rules, the elements
and language of EPA's proposed prevention
program are nearly identical to the parallel
elements in OSHA's process safety management
standard. The differences between the two
-------
programs reflect the distinctions of the statutory
language of the CAA. EPA's mandate is to
protect public health and the environment;
while the OSHA standard is intended to protect
workers from chenucal accidents involving
highly toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive
substances. EPA anticipates that facilities in
compliance with the requirements in the OSHA
rule will also be in compliance with EPA's
proposed prevention program elements.
Natural Evolution
Since the mid-1980s, EPA has been working
closely with industry to help reduce the
likelihood and severity of chemical accidents.
Beginning with the voluntary Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Program in 1985,
extending to the SARA Title ID regulations in
1986, and now culminating in the new Clean
Air Act, these efforts address the entire safety
continuum from emergency response to
preparedness to prevention. At the same time,
a new partnership involving government,
business, and the public is being forged
Working together, each of these groups will play
a key role in preventing accidental releases of
hazardous chemicals.
For more information on EPA's proposed rules
on chemical accident prevention under the
CAA, contact:
Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office (CEPPO)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(5101)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Information Hotline
(800)535-0202
Monday through Friday, 8:00 am-7:30 pm
(Eastern time)
1990
1991
1993
1994
1995
1998
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Accidental Release Provisions
Chronology
Clean Air Act Amendments signed into law, November 15
EPA published guidance for the Clean Air Act section 112(r)(9) order authority
EPA proposed a list of "regulated substances," thresholds, and petition procedures
EPA proposed a regulation on nsk management program and plans
EPA provided hydrogen fluoride study recommendations to Congress
EPA submitted review of federal authorities on chemical release prevention,
mitigation, and response
EPA published final regulation on list of substances
EPA to publish final regulations on nsk management programs and plans and
related guidance documents
States should submit and gain approval for state implementation of accident
prevention program
EPA regulations on risk management programs effective*
* or three years after publication of final regulations
------- |