Monday
January 31, 1994
Part ill
i:;
Environmeanfal
ProtectiQgji Agency
40 CFR Parts 9 arid 63
List of Regulated {Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention and Risk Management
Programs for Chei^Scal Accident Release
Prevention; Final Bule and Motice
r.
V
i
I-'
-------
i^478 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 20 7 Monday, January
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 68
P=RL-4828-6]
List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention; Requirements for Petitions
Under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act as Amended
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is promulgating the list of
regulated substances and thresholds
required under section H2(r) of the
Clean Air Act as amended. The list is
composed of three categories: A list of
77 toxic substances, a list of 63
flammable substances, and explosive
substances with, a mass explosion
hazard as listed by the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT).
Threshold quantities are established for
toxic substances ranging 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 established at 5,000 pounds.
The list and threshold quantities will
Identify facilities subject to chemical '
accident prevention regulations
promulgated under section li2(r> of the
Clean Air Act as amended; a proposed
regulation for such requirements has
been published in the Federal Register
on October 20,1993. entitled Risk
Management Programs for Chemical
Accidental Release Prevention. EPA is
also promulgating in this regulation the
requirements for the petition process for
additions to, or deletions from, the list
of regulated substances. EPA is
deferring action on a proposed
exemption from regulation for listed
flammable substances when used solely
for facility consumption as fuel. For a
document relating to the proposed
exemption, see a supplemental notice
published elsewhere in this issue.
DATES: This rule is effective March 2
1994,
ADDRESSES: Docket: Supporting
information used In developing both the
proposed and the final rule is contained
in Docket No. A-91-74. The docket is
available for public inspection and
copying from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the EPA'S Air Docket
Section. Waterside Mall, room M 1500,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, SW.( Washington, DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical Engineer;
(2'02) 260-7913, Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office,
Mailcode 5101, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or the ,
Emergency Planning and Community '
Right-to-Know Hot Line at 1-800-535-
0202.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background ,
II. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
, A. Prevention of Accidental Releases
B. List of Substances and Thresholds; , ".
Petitions for Additions and Deletions
.1. Legislative Requirements :
2. Summary of Proposed Rule
IH. Public Participation -
IV. Discussion of Comments and Major
Regulatory Changes
A. List of Substances and Threshold
Quantities - . .'.,' '-.-...
1. Toxic Substances ,
a. Listing Criteria '
b. Specific Substances
c. Other List Options Considered
d. Threshold Quantities . '
e. Other Threshold Quantity Options
Considered
2. Flammable Substances
3. Explosives . ' .
B. Threshold Determination ' ,.
1. Basis for Threshold Determination
2. Mixture Exemption
a. Toxic Substances
b. Flammable Substances
c. Explosive Substances
3. Other Threshold Exemptions
C. Petition Process '
D. Definitions .
E. Exemptions
F. Scope
V. Summary of Provisions of the Final Rule
VI. Required Analyses
A. E.0.12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act .
C. Paperwork Reduction Act .
D. Display of OMB Control Numbers
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
rhis final rule is being issued under
sections 112(r) and 301 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) as amended (42 U.S.C.
?412(r), 7601).
B. Background
Public awareness of the potential
danger from accidental releases of
hazardous chemicals has increased over
the years.as serious chemical accidents
have^occurred around the world (e.g'.7
th'e 1974 explosion in Flixborough,
England, and the 1976 release of dioxin
in Seveso, Italy). Public concern
intensified following the 1984 release of
methyl isocyanate in Bhopal, India, '
which killed more than 2,000 people
living near the facility. A subsequent
' release from a chemical facility in
Institute, West Virginia, sent more than
100 people to the hospital and made
Americans aware that such accidents
can and do happen-in.the United States...
In response to this public concern and
the hazards that exist, the U;S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began its Chemical Emergency ' " -
Preparedness Program (CEPP) in 1985, /
as part of the Agency's Air Toxics
. Strategy. CEPP was a voluntary program
to encourage state and local authorities
to identify hazards in their areas and to
plan for chemical emergency response
actions. In 1986, Congress adopted
many of the elements of CEPP in the '
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-tp-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA),
also known as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorizatibn Act
of 1986 (SARA Title HI). EPCRA
requires states to establish state and
local emergency planning groups,
namely the State Emergency Response
Commissions (SERCs) and the Local.
Emergency Planning Committees :
(LEPCs), to develop emergency response
plans for each community. EPCRA
requires facilities to provide information
on the' hazardous chemicals they have
on-site; the info'rmation collected is
available to the public through the
:SERC/LEPC structure. This information
forms the foundation of both the .. ;
emergency response plans and the
public-industry dialogue on risks and .
risk^reduction.
Congress required EPA, under EPCRA
(SARA Title III) section 305(b), to " ., .
conduct a review of emergency systems
to monitor, detect, and prevent chemica
accidents. 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. The report
emphasized the importance of
management commitment to safety
In 1986, EPA established a chemical '-
accident prevention program to collect
information on chemical accidents and
work ,with other groups to increase
knowledge of prevention practices and '
encourage industry to improve safety at
facilities. Under this prbgram, EPA .
.developed its Accidental Release :
Information Program (ARIP) to collect
data on the causes of chemical accidents
and the steps facilities take to prevent
recurrences, EPA also'developed a
program for conducting chemical safety
audits at facilities. Through the audit
-------
one percent of the mixture by weight.
EPA also proposed to exempt ;,
substances if (1) they are part of articjes.^
(2) if they are used as structural
components; (3) if they «« »«ft J" .^.
ianitorial maintenance; or (4) it they are:
found in consumer products, process
water, or in water or air from the
environrbent of municipal sources.
Activities in laboratories were also
proposed for exemption. In addition an,
exemption was proposed for flammable
substances present at a facility to be ;
'used solely for consumption as fuel at
the facility. ^' . ..."
The Agency also proposed ^
requirements for petitions to add or
delete regulated substances under .
section 112(r). The Agency^roposed to
establish that the burden of proof b^ on
the petitioner to demonstrate that the
criteria for addition and deletion are
met. Basic administrative and
documentation requirements for
petitions were also included in the
proposal.
HI. Public Participation
A hearing was held on the proposed
rule in the EPA Auditorium, 401M
Street, SW., Washington DC, on
Tuesday, April 12,1993. The heanng
was held to provide interested parties
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed rule. This hearing was
open to the public; a transcript of the
public hearing is available in the docket.
A total of 272 letters were received
.during the public comment period on
the proposed rule (an additional18
were received after the close of the _
public comment period); copies of aH
comment letters received are available
for public inspection in the docket, A
response to comments document,
entitled Proposed Ust of Substances
and Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention: Summary and Response to
Comments, includes a summary of
comments received and the Agency s
responses; the dpcument is available in
the docket.
IV. Discussion of Comments and Major
Regulatory Changes ,
This portion of the preamble
discusses comments on major issues
received on the proposed list and
thresholds rule and the principal
regulatory changes made in the final
rule in response to pubUc comments.
mduded in the discussion is the
rationale for these changes and the
Agency action on the comments. Where
the proposed regulation has not been
changed in Uie final rule, the Agency
: continues to rely on the rationale ,
provided in the prbposal notice,
A. Ust of Substances and Thresholds
The list of substances and thresholds
promulgated today identifies sources
that are subject to accident prevention
regulations promulgated under section
. 112(r)(7Jof the Act. The list of
substances is intended to focus ..".
accidental release prevention efforts on
those stationary sources and substances
that pose the most significant risks to
the community. These risks may be ~
established either by the potential of the
chemical ted cause harm (the inherent
hazards and, physical/chemical
properties!, known incidents (accident
'history), or a combination thereof. EPA
strongly emphasizes that the substances
promulgated in today's listing are not
the only substances that may pose a
threat to communities upon release.
There are large numbers of compounds
andmixtures in commerce inthe U.S.
thai in specific circumstances could be
considered dangerous to human health
or the environment; however, it would
not be feasible io include all.such
substances and circumstances. This list
,"- should serve to focus prevention efforts
and is not a list of all substances that
could be'considered for accident
prevention. Similarly, the threshold
quantities established today may not
always represent a level below which no
hazard exists. Although stationary
sources will be required to comply with
the accidental release prevention
regulations-under section 112(r)(7)(B)
only if they have listed substances in ;
quantities exceeding the threshold
quantity, it does not mean that these
substances in smaller quantities
representno potential hazard to the
community in certain circumstances. In ...:
"support of this principle Congress
included general duty provisions under
section 112(r)(l) of the Act. ' -
Several eommenters objected to the
listing of classes of substances such as
explosives orparticular substances such
-as various flammable natural gases
because these eommenters claimed that
categorizing these chemicals as
regulated substances would also make.
these chemicals subject to the, general .
.duty clause of section 112(r)(l), and that
without such listing these chemicals
would be outside the scope of section
112(r)(l). The general duty provision in
section 112(r)(l) applies to "any -_' . .
substance listed pursuant to section
112(r)(3) or any other extremety ...
hazardous substance." The Agency
believes .the scope of substances covered
, by section 112(r)(l) isnot affected by
this nilem:aking except that by Including
a subikancie on the regulated substance .=:
list; die Agency unambiguously.., ^
species that the general duty . -' -, _. V
prpvi'sipnis apply to such chemicals. The
plainljanguage of section 112(rKl) ","-. ,
applies not only to the regulated ;
.substances listed today but also to "any
.otheifextiemely hazardous substance:.'"
In jiiscussing nearly identical
lahgiiage in the Senate's Clean Air Act .
Amendments bill of '1989, the =:
Enviirpnment and Public Works
Compittee expressed the intent that the
tenh]"exlTemely hazardous substance" .-,
: wouLd include not only listed; ; -.'
subs|ano^ under the accident ;
previintioh'pfpvisions.and extremely . ;
:hazardpvis substances under EPCRA
(SAI^A Title HI) section 302 but also
"other agents which may ormay not he
liste|i or otherwise, identified by any
Goviminent agency'which may as the
result of shprt-term exposures
assqpiated with releases to the air^cause
death, irijury dr property damage"
(Seriate Cpmrnit^eiB on Environment and
Public Worksj Glean-Air Act
Amtlndrnentspf 1989, Senate Report No,
22&tl01st Congress, 1st Session 211
(19ji9)L_."Senate Report"). Regardless of
wh«thei',a substance is listed under
tpdiiy's :rule, the general duty to identify
and assHss hazards associated with
,, accidental releases (as defined in
sediion 112tr)(2)Ji to design and
maintain afacility to prevent such -;
relelasesii and to miniinize,the
coiiisequences of such releases that do
'oocjur, extends to owners and operators
of'(toy facility that may cause such
imjaactii due to short-term exposures. As
the[Senate makes clear, "the release of ;
ani^substance which causes death or .;
serious injury because of its acute toxic
effect of as:a result of an/explosion pr '
firji or which causes substantial
pn»perliy damage by blast, fire, corrosion
or other reaction would create a
^presumption that such substance is
extreimely hazardous." Senate Repdrt at
. 2li. No revision to the list promulgated
today negates the applicabiuty, of the
general duty provisions.
1. Toxic Substances" .
"^'Listing criteria. Several eommenters
sxiggestedthat EPA modify its listing
criteria, largely so that EPA's list would
bef more consistent withPSHA's list of
Highly Hazardous Substances'for its
Pirpcess Safety Management'Standard,'
biit also because conimenters believed
HPA's list includes some chemicals that
do not pose the greatest'hazards to the
pablio. Some eommenters suggestedvthe
p'roposed 6.5 mm Hg vapor pressure cut"
off w«is too low: Others suggested an,
alileriiatiye methoi of choosing the list
-------
mil
4482 Federal Register / Vol.
; : ..
of toxics namely the "Substance Hazard
Index . Several commenters also
objected to EPA's use of accident history
as a criterion for listing substances.
EPA s proposed toxics list was based on
the EHS list under.-SARA Title III. with
additional consideration of the vapor
pressures and accident histories for each
substance. The proposed list included -
OSHA ° tances that a*8 not listed by
Substance Hazard Index: Some
commonters suggested replacing EPA's
proposed listing criteria with another
method labeled the "Substance Hazard
Index" (SHI). The SHI is the ratio of a
f t***ance!f VQP°r pressure to its acute
toxidty; all substances would be ranked
by their SHI and a cut-off would need
to be selected to determine the
substances to be listed. An SHI value of
1,000 \vas suggested by commenters as
a cut-off, but commenters did not
provide a technical basis, or any other
rationale, for why this cut-off was
selected. The SHI value of 1,000 would
derive a list of toxic substances that
more closely approximates OSHA's
PSM list than EPA's proposed list-
provided that the Agency considers only
those substances initially proposed for
listing as toxics.
EPA generally disagrees with the
comments concerning the use of the SHI
as a listing criterion. The Agency had
considered this approach duringthe
proposed rule development, but decided
not to toclude it as an alternate listing
methodology option. EPA instead
considered toxidty and vapor pressure
separately in identifying chemicals for
listing; the SHI combines these factors.
fcPA believes that using separate toxicity
an°.vaP°r pressure criteria is a more
valid method of identifying chemical ;
candidates for listing. Both EPA's
method and the SHI approach consider
properties related to the severity of
acute heath effects (toxicity) and the
livelihood of acddental releases of the
substances (volatility), as required by
Uie Act. However, as required by the
«%£,?A'S Wroacb- *s based on the list
of EHSs as a starting point for
identification of toxic substances (see
f°£o! £e?°rt at 218; UstinS fact°rs used
in EHS list are appropriate for
ocddental release program). EPA's
approach limits toxic chemicals to those
Sfral £! ac"te. *<*fclty criteria for
the EHS list and then applies a vapor
pressure cut-off. The SHI approach does
not include spedfic toxicity or vapor
pressure cut-offs but instead specifies a
cut-off value for a factor combining
toxicity and vapor pressure. To identify
all chemicals meeting the specific SHI
cut-off of 1,000 as recommended by
commenters, chemicals with a much
wider range of toxicity than those
represented by the EHSs would have to
be considered. Chemicals that are far
less toxic than the EHSs would be
potentially included, improperly
characterizing the risk associated with
them Moreover EPA does not believe
the SHI method has been systematically
applied to all substances for
development of any current chemical
list. The state of Delaware used the SHI
approach to develop a list of substances
lor its nsk management regulation; the
brtl methodology was applied to
existing lists of substances identified by
use of toxicity criteria and not all
substances. The Agency considers the
bril to be more appropriate for
determining the relative ranking of
substances in an already established list
I ne Agency's threshold quantity
methodologyrfor listed toxics is similar
on the toxicity/volatility ranking
principle; it differs from the SHI in that
the vapor pressure' is only part of the
factor used to account for the potential
dispensability of the listed substances
For these reasons, the Agency Will not
adopt the SHI criteria for listing toxic
substances.
Acute Toxicity Criteria: Commenters
generally supported EPA's
consideration of acute toxicify hazards
as a basis.for listing toxic substances
under section Il2(r). Some commenters
however, recommended other measures
of toxicity, such as the Emergency
Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs)
developed by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association, or data developed
by the National Academy of Sciences
among others. The Agency recognizes
, the value of these other measures and
guidelines for purposes of emergency
preparedness and prevention activities
However these measures are consensus
exposure levels judged by the
developing organizations to represent
concentrations above which there may
be serious irreversible health effects, or
death, as a result of a single exposure for
,,a relatively short period of time. In
addition, the methodology for most of
these measures is still in the ,
developmental stages, with
recommended guidelines or acute
exposure levels presently available only
tor a limited number of potentially
hazardous substances. The Agency
believes using acute toxicity data as
proposed is more appropriate for the
review and selection of hazardous
substances for listing under section
112(r) because acute toxicity data
directly reflects results of valid
mammalian testing and thus is more
objectively verifiable than judgmental
standards. -,
T
^Concerns were also expressed about
ra^^^^^^etoxicity
ci
also
also o
!
lljtl"g- Some commenters
ency's
as
-sures t
and oral routes. EPA believes
the
>cus'on those c
ar0^"r7"i"ir"i°f theif inherent toxic
.are most likely to cause immediate
severe, irreversible health effects
following exposures during an
accidental release. Consequently for
purposes of this rulemaking, the Agency
ipnmarily interested in substances y
that are acutely toxic, rather than in
Sf^f ^ C°uld Senerate a future
health effectafter repeated long term or
' SST eXp,°Suref- Furthermore, acute
toxic ty and lethality data are often
readily available and the most
commonly reported information
generated ,by animal toxicity testing A
greater number of potentially.hazardous
substances can therefore be screened on
the same basis using these values. For
purposes of this rule, the listed toxic
substances are expected to rapidly
become airborne, thus human exposure
by the inhalation route is of primary
concern. The Agency believe? thatusing
.data on oral and dermal acute lethality
m addition to inhalation lethality- is
appropriate for this listing :
Vapor Pressure Cut-Off: Other
commenters suggested that EPA should
use a higher .vapor pressure level as a
; listing criterion. EPA's vapor pressure '
criterion of 0.5 mm Hg was based on the
properties of toluene diisocyanate a
substance with relatively low volatility
which was mandated for the initial list
by Congress. Commenters noted that
Congress listed toluene diisocyanate
because it has been involved in ' '
accidents, not because of its properties, -
and that its properties do not
necessarily provide a valid basis for
UPA s vapor pressure criterion. Several
commenters suggested a vapor pressure
of 20 mm Hg (18 mm Hg is the
approximate vapor pressure^ water).
but did not provide a basis for-choosing.
this or any other vapor pressure
criterion. - : -..-
: EPA has considered the comments '
concerning the proposed vapor pressure
criterion of 0.5 mm.Hg and generally
agrees that this low vapor pressure level
may lead to an overly conservative
listing of chemicals that pose a :
relatively lower potential for air
releases. EPA has decided to set the
vapor pressure criterion at the higher
level of 10 mm Hg. In selecting .this new
vapor pressure cut-off, the Agency
examined the substances on the :
proposed Iist4hat have vapor pressures '
-------
No. 20 /Monday, January 31, 1994 j[ Rules arid Regulations. 14S3
of less than 10 mm Hg 'and compared
the rate of volatilization expected in a
large release to the rate expected for
substances with a vapor pressure greater
than 10 rfim Hg. As expected,
volatilization rates increase with
increasing vapor pressure and
increat/ing pool sizes. The Agency .
believes that a timely facility response
'after the onset of an accidental release
will likely limit the amount that could
volatilize'for substances with vapor
pressures lower than 10 mm Hg, thereby .
reducing the potential public or off-site.
impact. The Agehby believes that a :
greater amount of substances with vapor
pressures; .above 10 mm Hg is likely to
be volatilized and released, even after a
.timely facility response, occurs,
potentially causing off-site impacts. The '.
Agency also reviewed accident history
and production volume information on ,
the substance's that .would be delisted at
this vapor pressure. This review has led
the Agency to conclude that the :
accident histories or production
volumes associated with the delisted
substances do not warrant their listing
under this rulemaking at this time. The
Agency believes that this revised vapor
pressure criterion' focuses the list on
.chemicals that present a greater
potential for accidental' release than
would a list using a 0.5 mm Hg
criterion. " - : ..',. ,:
The new vapor pressure criterion will
drop from the list some chemicals that
may have,a lower likelihood of
accidental release to air. Using ithe new
vapor pressure criterion, the following
18 chemicals proposed for listing
(shown with their CAS Registry
numbers) will jiot be included in the list
promulgated today:
Acetone cyanohydrin (75^-86-5)
Aniline (62-53-3)- ,
Antimony pentafluoride (7783-70-2)
Benzal chloride (98-87-3)
Benzenamine, 3-(trifluoromethyl)-
- " ""' ' ''
Benzotrichloride (98-07-7)
Benzyl chloride (100-44-7) ~ "
Benzyl cyanide (140-29-4)
Chloroethanol (107-07-3)
Dichloroethyl.ether (111^-44-4)
Dimethyl phosphorbchloridothioate :
(2524-03-0)- V-' '.-.'" : v :
. Formaldehyde cyanohydrin (10716-4)
Hydrogen -peroxide (concentration >
. 52%) (7722-84-1)
Lactonitrila (78-97-7)
Pyridine, 2-methyl-5-vinyl- (140-76-1)
Thiophenol (1Q87-98T-5)
Trans-l,4-dichiorobutene (110--57-6J -
Trichloroethylsilane (115-21-9)
EPA will be reevaluatihg the list . .
periodically and as a result of petitions.
If additional information is submitted
on the accident history or production
volume of these substances, EPA may
list these substances at a later time. In r
addition, these substances, as well as ..
any other extremely hazardous /
: substance, are subject to the section
112(r), general duty clause.
Accident History: The Agency
disagrees with-several commenters who
claimed that the Agency lacked
: authority to list substances based on
accident history. The accident history
.associated with the use of a substance,
in combination with toxicity, physical/
chemical properties, and production
volume considerations, is a permissible
basis for the Administrator to list
substances under section 112(r)< Data
from recorded accidents relate to each of
the factors identified in section
112(r)(4): Such data can provide
information on. the'severity ptimpacts ;
when impacts occur* as well as on .the
likelihood and magnitude^ of exposure.
Substances that "are known to cause
* * * death, injury, or serious adverse
effects on human health or the
environment" may be included on the .
- list under section 112(r){3). It Would be
a strained reading of the statute to say
' toe Administrator must ignore
documented accidental releases of .
substance? in deciding which chemicals
shall be the focus of the accidental 1
release prevention program.
The listing criteria established for,
toxic substances considers not only
acute toxicity, but also physical/
chemical.properties (physical state,
vapor pressure), and accident history.
Several commenters argued that in
analyzing accident histories EPA should
not consider: (1) Transportation ''-/
accidents; (2) accidents not involving'>
death and/or injuries; (3) accidents
involving.fifes^and explosions; (4)
accidents involving reactions with other
chemicals; and (5) accidents involving:
elevated temperatures and pressures.
The Agency disagrees with these
comments. Accident nistory may
indicate, beyond vapor pressure or other
physical/chemipal properties, unique .
qualities or circumstances that warrant ,
accident prevention efforts. Evidence
from transportation accidents may
indicate the potential for airborne
releases. For example; chemicals may be
supplied in containers, such as tank :
cars, holding the chemical in similar
conditions to storage conditions at "
stationary source. A failure of a
container while in transit may indicate
the potential for release while at-a fixed ,
location, since it may be stored under
similar conditions. Quantities of T
chemicals are also commonly held at
facilities for some period of time, in -
trucks, tank cars, and other shipping.
containers. Accidents that did not result
irjj off-site deaths or injuries may still
:W|dicate the serious potential for off-site ,
inipacts; e.g., evacuations may indicate
.that there was concern that people "-""'
cifuld suffer adverse effects from
exposure. Furthermore; other effects,
stich as environmental damage, are
appropriate to consider as weU. While
th;e facrtors to be considered urider
selction 112(r)(4j do not specifically -
direct EPA to consider envkonmentar
effects,section iT2(r)(3) directs the
Aidministrator to consider '"substances :
which pose the greatest risk of causing
* :* * serious adverse effects to..* '*'*
th^ environment from accidental
.releases"-. As noted at several points in
tiis'preambie, EPA believes that its
decision to consider reported accidental
rejeasos involving fire and explosions as
evjents of concern is supported by botn"'-.
the statute arid .legislative history. See '
aliso 136 Congressional Record, S16992
(d^ily ed., Oct. 27,1990) (statement of
Sejnator Reid addressing the explosion
iriiHenderson, Nevada); 136
Qingrisssional Record H12931 (daily ed.,
O(it. 2(5,1990) (statement of ' ' ;,,-,-
Rffp'resientatiye Barton addressing '"'
releases from burning material); H.R.
Ccjiif. Rep. No. 952,101st Congress, "2nd
sejbs.,,0140 (1990) (Board to investigate
firtes and explosions).,It may also be
appropriate to consider chemical
- reilcticiris with common materials such
aslwater; e.g., it may be important to
consider whether the reaction of an acid
with water, producing heat,' could lead \
to iformatipn of an acid vapor or mist
(tiie Bhopal accident involved a reactipri
ofmetiiylisbcyanate with water;
gebterating heat). Accidents resulting ,J
fro|m conditions of elevated ' :
teinperatures and pressures hi chemical ..
priicesses may provide important , .',
information regarding the potential foj.
accidental releases having an effect bffr
.sitja:'_;.;;'._;:'.- ':;. _ --. ".'- ' '.;
The legislative history of section -
112(r) contains extensiveUisctlssion of
hiiitoriical accidents and accident history
data to support the need for enacting
seirtipn 1,12(r) and the particular '
provisions included in the legislation.
S&s 136 Congressional Record Hi 2940
(didly ed., Oct. 26,1990) (statement of
Representative Richafdsori); 136
Cgnigressibhal Record Si6921, S16925-:
26](daily ed., Oct. 27,1990) (statement '-,
of ^en?itqr Durenberger); 136 .
Cobgressiohal Record S16979 (daily ed.,
O_9jt. 27/1990) (statement of Senator
Bauc'us). Incidents such as the explosion '
in; Henderson, Nevada and the releases
doifnimented in the Acute .Hazardous' '-:
Evients database, as well as statistics .
coiJceriiipg the number, of releases arid ,
-------
4484 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 20 _/JMonday, January 31, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
evacuations were seen as demonstrating
the need for an accident prevention
program. See H.R. Rep. No. 490,101st
Congress. 2nd sess.. 154-157 (1990);
Senate Report at 211-221. The Agency
will continue to consider accident
history, in conjunction with acute
toxicity and vapor pressure; to
determine which substances need to be
listed under section Il2(r), and will
consider these same elements in any
revisions to the list promulgated today.
When determining whether to list a
substance based on its accident history,
the Agency will analyze and explain the
relevance of the accident history to the
potential for a stationary source to
accidentally release the substance.
b. Specific substances. Sulfuric acid,
phenol, parathion, and nitrobenzene,
proposed to be listed because of
accident history, were the focus of a.
number of comments. As stated above,
tha Agency believes that accident
history, as well as toxicity, physical/
chemical properties, and current
commercial production volume, are all
appropriate elements to be considered
in determining the substances to be
listed. The Agency reserves the
flexibility to consider the listed
substances in light of a combination of,
or all of these criteria elements.
Accident history was targeted by several
commenters as not being a valid criteria
to uso in listing these substances. As
discussed above, the Agency disagrees.
Tho Agency has listed substances that
meet two or three elements of the
criteria only; e.g., there are acutely toxic
substances listed that meet the high
vapor pressure considerations but have
no accident history associated with
them. By the same token, the Agency
also believes that commercially
produced substances that meet the acute
toxicity criterion and have an accident
history, still could present a high
potential for an impact beyond the
fenccline oven though they do not meet
tho vapor pressure consideration.
A number of commenters objected to
tho inclusion of sulfuric acid on the list
of substances, noting that because of its
high boiling point and low vapor
pressure under ambient conditions, it is
unlikely to become airborne in a release.
EPA recognizes that sulfuric acid does
not meet the vapor pressure criterion.
EPA originally proposed for listing
sulfuric add because of its toxicity, high
production volume, and because it has
been involved in a number of accidental
releases with reported migration of a
vapor cloud off-site; some of these
incidents also resulted in worker deaths
and injuries on-site. Several
commenters indicated that the accidents
dtad by EPA did not provide a valid
basis for listing for a number of reasons.
First, some of the accidents, according
to commenters, actually Involved
fuming sulfuric acid (oleum), which is
, a mixture of Sulfuric acid and sulfur
trioxide, and vapor clouds reported
from these accidents were attributable to
sulfur trioxide rather than sulfuric acid.
Second, commenters stated that the
injuries in some accidents were caused
by direct contact with sujfuric acid
rather than inhalation of vapor. Third,
according to some commenters, some
accidents involved reactions of sulfuric
acid with other substances. Finally,
comments were received which
indicated there have been no accidents
involving vapor clouds of sulfuric aci'd
that caused off-site deaths or injuries,
and that, in fact, the. low vapor pressure
of sulfuric acid makes it impossible for
an accidental release to have any effect
beyond the fenceline.
EPA is well aware that sulfuric acid
has a low vapor pressure and is unlikely
to be released into the air under ambient
conditions. However, as noted above,
EPA also believes that, exclusive of
vapor pressure, accident history can
provide a valid basis, in combination
with toxicity and/or physical/chemical
properties, for adding a substance to the
list. The Agency also notes that nothing
in the statute limits EPA to consider
solely the effects of vapor inhalation as
a consequence of a release. As noted
above,.the EHS toxicity criteria
endorsed by the Senate are not limited
to inhalation. Furthermore, death,
injuries, and environmental impacts
caused by direct contact are. relevant to
the risks posed by a chemical.
While believing the EPA has the
authority to list sulfuric acid if its
accident history, in conjunction with its
toxicity and significant production
volume, warrants listing, the comments
received by the Agency have created
doubt about the accuracy of what has
been reported as air releases of sulfuric
acid. For purposes of today's
rulemakihg, the Agency has been unable
to determine from accident history
whether sulfuric acid has generated an
air release that has caused impact off-
site. Because of the uncertainty
associated with past reported accidental
release information and the common
confusion between oleum and sulfuric
acid in such reporting, the Agency has
decided not to list sulfuric acid at this
time. Although sulfuric acid is not
specifically listed, facilities handling
sulfurie acid are still subject to general
duty requirements. The Agency will
continue to monitor and review sulfuric
acid accident reports to determine the
need for listing at a future time. EPA '.
also seeks data on the off-site impacts of
sulfuric acid that could be used to
evaluate,whether sulfuric apid should
be added to the list. . - ..
Related to the sulfuric acid issue are
comments suggesting that the Agency
specifically list oleum (fuming sulfuric
: acid), CAS number 8014-95-7. Oleum
is a mixture of sulfuric acid and sulfur
trioxide. In the proposed rule, the.
Agency believed oleum would be
subject to section 112(r) requirements
because both of its components, sulfuric
acid and'sulfur trioxide, were proposed
for listing, and because of the Agency's
'proposed de-minimis concentration for
mixtures. However, two commenters
noted that it is "reasonable to include
oleum as a regulated chemical" and thai
"oleum and sulfuric acid must be listed
separately, since the fuming effects of an
oleum release make it potentially much
more serious." The Agency agrees with
commenters that oleum should be
. included in this listing because of its '
accident history, toxicity, and
production volume. Furthermore, the
Agency has reviewed the accident
history data relevant to oleum and
sulfuric acid and agrees with
commenters that some of the accidents
the Agency had relied on to list sulfuric
acid in fact involved oleum.
Furthermore, because of the revisions . --
on the de-minimis concentration
provisions and the Agency's decision
not to finalize the listing of sulfuric acid
at this time, oleum would no longer be
subject to 112(r) provisions withoufa
; specific listing. In order to continue the
coverage of oleum in the accidental
release prevention provisions, EPA is
specifically listing all forms of oleum in
the section 112(r) list of-substances.
. Phenol (in liquid form only),
parathion, and nitrobenzene are also
included on the proposed list based ori
accident history. Several commenters ,
objected to the inclusion of these
chemicals, for reasons similar to those
concerning the listing of sulfuric acid,
i.e., the low vapor pressure of these
. substances arid the lack of sufficient
. supporting accident history to provide a
basis for listing. The Agency generally
agrees with the comments regarding
these three specific substances. Having
considere'd the comments and having
conducted further review of accident
history for these chemicals, the record
indicates that there are not a. clearly
significant number of accident reports
with effects, or potential effects, beyond
the fenceline to merit listing at this
time.
Several commenters objected to the
"listing of other specific substances for a
variety of reasons, including low vapor
pressure, low toxicity, existing safety
regulations, and'accident history. The
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 20 / Monday,; January 31>1994 7
chemicals mentioned include hydrogen
peroxide, acrylonitrile, and
hydrochloric acid, among others. EPA
has reviewed the comments on these
chemicals and categories of chemicals
that were recommended for deletion
'and has decided to, except as noted,
retain them on the list of regulated ,
substances under section 112(r}. As
noted above, EPA is.revising the vapor,
pressure criterion and hot proceeding to
h'st 18 chemicals with vapor pressures
below 10 rnm Hg. In addition; the
Agency has determined that section
112(rJ(3) prohibits it from listing methyl
broinide because the substance has been
listed by regulation as an ozone '
depleting chemical under CAA Title VI
(see 58 FR 65018, December 10,1993).
The Agency disagrees with _
commenters that seek deleting
substances because of other existing .-
regulations. The listing of substances
and thresholds, as mandated by , '
Congress, reflects the potential for these
listed substances to cause serious
adverse effects to human health or the .
environment. The Agency believes that
considerations of other regulations
applicable to these regulated substances
are appropriately accounted for In
accident prevention requirements
developed for facilities handling the '
. regulated substances above the \
threshold quantities; rather than in
determining whether any listed
substance poses a potential hazard.
Several commenters recommended
, the deletion of substances that were
mandated for Hsting by Congress, " .
including ammonia, toluene
diisocyanate, and anhydrous sulfur
dioxide. The Agency believes that the
language of section 112(r)(3) precludes
it from omitting these chemicals from ',-'-
-the initial-list The Agency will consider
petitions to delist these chemicals if
: such: petitions, comply with the petition
criteria announced today. - .'."'
Several commenters recommended
adding other specific substances, such
as chlordane and tetraethyl lead, to the
list of regulated substances. The Agency^
will consider these at the time it revises
the list promulgated today, or through
the petition process. However, the
Agency notes that notwithstanding ;
today's listing, these substances are still
subject to'the general duty provisions,
particularlyaf they are in commercial
production and use. ;, ,
In the list rule proposal, EPA
, requested information to determine the
need and appropriateness of including
radionuclides under this rulemaking.
Some commenters objected to including
radionuclides while others
recommended inclusion. Still other
commenters recommended the
inclusion of only some radionuclides.
Howeyer, none of the commenters ',."';
provided sufficient technical -,'
information to assist the Agency in
determining whether or not ;
radionuclides should be listed. Due to
the uncertainty associated with gaps in
EPA's data and the appropriate'eriterfa
for listing, the Agency has decided not
to include radionuclides in the initial
list of regulated substances. '
; c. Oihevlisi options considered. EPA
considered the option of adopting the
entire list of 360 toxic chemicals
regulated under EPCRA (SARA Title IH)
section 302. A small number of
commenters favored this option,. ;
believing that consistency with EPCRA
is desirable, that having a single list
would help avoid confusion, and that
listing additional toxic substances '
would be more protective of the public.
EPA did.not propose to adopt the entire
EHS list because it includes a number
of solids and non-volatile liquids for
which an effect beyond the fencelihevin
the event-of an accidental release is ,',
expected to be less likely than for '
gaseous or volatile liquids. It also
includes substances that are not
currently in commercial production..
Congress did not direct EPA to list all
EHS substances. Instead, Congress
provided that the Administrator could
include as few as 100 substances on the
initial list under section 112(r). In
'directing the Administrator to "use" the
EHS list, but hot to be "limited''.to" this
list, and in providing that "such :'"
modifications as * _ * * appropriate" be
made, the CAA provides the Agency
with the flexibility to cull from die EHS
list and other sources a more focused "
list of substances for accidental release
prevention regulations. Most , ;:
commenters supported EPA's decision
to propose for listing only those EHSs
that.best reflect the statutory criteria of
Ukelihobd and magnitude of release; For
these reasons, EPA is not adopting the
entireEHSlisL ;
d. Threshold quantities. EPA's ;
proposed thresholds were lower than
OSHA's for 15 of the substances listed
by both OSHA and EPA. A number of
commenters stated that EPA's .
thresholds should not be lower than
OSHA's for any listed substances; since
in general, workers: face a more
immediate threat of exposure-in an
accidental release than would the
public. Several commenters indicated
that EPA should adopt the OSHA .
thresholds for chemicals which EPA
;: had assigned lower thresholds. ,
Conversely, there were other comments
supporting, the lower thresholds
; proposed by EPA for several chemicals,
based on tlie eommenters' -experience
.with these chemicals. . :
EPAJ has reviewed the threshold ,
quantities for the listed substances and
the OSJHA thresholds for the substances
on both the EPA and QSHA lists prior -
to andjafter the proposal of EPA's rule. ,
EPA rocogiiizes the practical importance
of conisistency with, the QSHA list to the
extent|pos!5ible, but also believes it i$
neces^^ry ftb have a sound methodology"
for assignment of threshold quantities;
the C^|A n>quires the'Agency to include
an expjlaneition of the basis for
estabflshing the list, and to account for
specified factors hi setting threshold
quantises". OSHA's thresholds were not
required t<» reflect the factors EPA must
consicler. The statute also provides for
petiticjhs to add new chemicals,,and :.
requirps thte development of thresholds,
for siMsh diemicals when listed. A ,
,'>ound|methodology is essential for
making changes to the list and - _.-. .
threshplds after promulgation. The /:.
methcidolcigy adopted today considers
the faistprs required by the CAA under
sectiojii'il 2(r)(5). No other methodology
was identified that EPA could use to
derive| thresholds that would be
consistent and equally applicable to the
current listed substances and to those
that miay be addedIn the future.
Therelore, EPA is hot adopting the
OSHAf thresholds. ---,-
Neyferth'Bless, EPA agrees with
comm&hters that EPA should review its
prdpdged'iteeshbld methodology and '
quant'Jty categories to ensure that ftey,
, accurately reflect the range of risks,
posed by the listed toxic substances. :
Based on this review, EPA .has decided
to retain its threshold methodology but
revise the range of threshold quantities
for toitics. The minimum quantity
rematis at 500 pounds, representative, of
drum-size containers, but the maximum
threshold quantity is raisedtb 20,000
pounds, replacing the proposed 10,000
pound maximurn. This higher upper
limit expands the range of threshold
. quantiities to better reflect the relative
hazards among the listed toxics; the,
upperjlimit of 20,000 represents typical
handlfng (quantities, and would still be -'
, protecitiye pfthe public for those
substsijices which now have the higher
thresholds!. Thresliold quantity
categciries for toxic substances are now:
500 pounds, 1,000 pounds, 2,500
pounds, 5,000 pounds, 10,000 pounds,:
,15,00(5 pounds, and 20,000 pounds^ ...
Usijag this revised .range, higher :
,thresli|Qld« have been assigned for most ,
ofAejtpxic substances listed based on
the re'vised vapor pressure* criterion.
rSeverjil. taxic substanpes also meetthe ,
flampmbility criteria, and thus could be
assigrled two thresholds^ Toxic '
-------
4486 Federal Register / Vol. 59,
January 31, .1994 / Rules and-Regulations
substances that also meet the criteria for
listing as flammable substances are
assigned the lower of the thresholds.
Under the revised methodology, the
only substance that has a threshold
quantity that is lower under EPA than
OSHA's PSM standard is methyl
chloride, which meets the criteria for
listing for flammability and, therefore, is
assigned a threshold quantity of 10,000
pounds, rather than the 20,000 pounds'
that would apply under the
methodology for toxiqs. The OSHA
threshold for methyl chloride is 15,000
pounds. This is to account for those
hazards presented by the substance that
are considered in this rulemaking; the
lowest threshold quantity is assigned to
be more protective.
A number of commenters suggested
that site-specific factors should be
considered in setting or modifying
thresholds, such as population density,
ecosystem sensitivity, safety devices,
experience, uses of the substance, and
handling conditions. EPA recognizes
that these and many other site-specific
factors could affect the likelihood of
occurrence or the effects of a release.
Accounting for these factors has the -'*
advantage of more specifically tailoring
threshold quantities based on common
usa patterns of the substances and on
the particular site in which they would
bo used. One serious disadvantage of
applying site-specific factors to setting
thresholds would be that such an
approach would be inappropriate for
ubiquitous chemicals, such as chlorine
and ammonia, because of the
innumerable applications that would
have to ba considered. A greater
disadvantage to this approach is that the
intrinsic hazard of a chemical will still
ba present oven when it is used outside
of a "typical" scenario. As stated in the
proposed rule, EPA believes it is not
feasible to develop a methodology for
establishing threshold quantities based
on site-specific factors that would be
'applicable uniformly nationwide.
Therefore, EPA did not incorporate site-
specific factors in setting or modifying
thresholds. As discussed in the
preamble section IV.B. Threshold
Determination, substance-specific
factors and use scenarios are considered"
in determining whether there is a
threshold quantity on-site. Also, site
specific factors will more appropriately
ba accounted for in the accidental
release prevention regulations under
section 112(r)(7). This Agency rationale
is also applicable to similar comments
for establishing thresholds for
flammable and explosive substances.
o. Other threshold quantity options
considered. In addition to the proposed
'methodology for setting thresholds for
toxic substances and the use of OSHA.
thresholds as discussed above, EPA
, requested comment on severarother
options. One option was use of the
.vapor quantity method, based on air
dispersion modeling, to determine the
quantity in air needed to equal the
"Immediately Dangerous to Life and
Health" (IDLH, published by the
National .Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health) concentration level
at 100 meters from the point of release.
This option was not generally supported
by commenters. A second option was to
adopt the threshold planning quantities
(TPQs) under EPCRA section 302. A
small number of commenters favored
this option, believing that consistency
with EPCRA would help to avoid
confusion. EPA did not propose this
option because the TPQs are intended to
represent a level at which the chemical
hazards should be considered by
localities for discretionary community
planning purposes.' As mentioned in the
preamble of the proposed rule, the
thresholds established under this rule
have a different purpose, i.e., to indicate
which facilities ntust comply with
mandatory facility-based prevention
requirements. Any confusion that :
results from two different threshold -,'
quantities applying to the same
chemical under two EPA emergency
preparedness and prevention programs
is mitigated by the fact that the more
onerous and detailed planning
requirements are triggered when greater,
and presumably more dangerous,
quantities are present.
The third threshold option considered
for toxics was adoption of the OSHA
thresholds for all substances listed by
both EPA and OSHA. A number of,
commenters favored this option. As
noted above, EPA recognizes the,
importance of consistency with OSHA.
However, because of EPA's statutory
obligation to establish a methodology
based on.specified factors, the Agency
has elected not to adopt the OSHA
thresholds. The thresholds adopted in
today's rule for chemicals listed by EPA
are, with the exception of methyl
chloride, equal to or higher than
OSHA's.
2. Flammable Substances
EPA's listing of flammable gases and
volatile flammable liquids was generally
supported by commenters, although a
few commenters maintained that,
because OSHA regulates flammable
substances, EPA should not list them. :
The Agency disagrees that flammable
substances should not be listed for
accident prevention and potential
effects off-site, since such substances
pose a potential off-site hazard (namely,
a vapor cloud explosion) because of
their inherent properties. The proposed
threshold for flammables, 10,000
pounds, was generally supported as
well. EPA is finalizing the proposed
listing for flammables and their
threshold quantities', : .
^Commenters also focused .on specific
flammable substances, including
methane, ethane, propane, and butane
(some components of natural gas),
Commenters argued that special factors
(e.g., the low density of methane gas)
justify not listing or modifying the
listing of these substances. EPA has
reviewed the comments on specific ;
flammable substances and disagrees
with the commenters. EPA believes
there is sufficient information, from
both accident reports and modeling
results, to support the conclusion that
flammable substances that meet the
listing criteria, in quantities abdve the
.threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds,
could present a hazard to the public
from a vapor cloud explosion. EPA
, recognizes that, as noted by
commenters, some situations in which
these substances are handled may
present a lesser hazard than others.
However, these substances still pose, a
potential threat beyond the fertaeline in
case of an accidental release. Therefore,
in order to be protective of the public,
EPA is maintaining the same .
application of the criteria for flammable
substances as.proposed for all listed
flammable substances. EPA's listing
decision is based on the substances'
demonstrated or potential effects in the
event of'an accidental release, not on
existing regulations, standards, or
recommended practices applicable to
the listed substances; these factors may
more appropriately be accounted for
.when accident prevention regulations :
are promulgated under section 112(r)(7,'.
Several commenters recommended '
that EPA provide an exemption, similar
to the exemption under OSHA's PSKl
Standard, for flammable liquids kept in
atmospheric tanks below their normal
. boiling points. Unlike OSHA, EPA is "
listing only flammable gashes and
volatile flammable liquids. EPA
considers these substances to be
intrinsically hazardous, regardless of
conditions of storage, and, therefore,
does not believe it is appropriate to
provide an exemption for atmospheric.
storage. . .
3. Explosives - U/
. Explosives classified by DOT as Class
1, Division 1.1 and listed as such in 49
CFR 172.101 (the Hazardous Materials
Table) are covered by this rule with a
threshold of 5,000 pounds. In 49 CFR
173.50, DOTdefines the term . : ' .
I!
I
-J-'l
-; . :lj
.' If
-------
"explosive" as any substance or article,
mcluding a device, which is designed to
function by explosion (i.e., an extremely
rapid release of gas and heat) or which, >
by chemical reaction within itself, is
able to function in a similar jnanner
even if not designed to function by
explosion, unless the substance or
article is otherwise classed under DOT
provisions. Division 1.1 consists of
explosives with a mass explosion
hazard;' a .mass explosion is one which
.affects almost the entire load
instantaneously. The Agency proposed
to list all substances that met the
definition of Division I.I (58 FR 5110)
The Agency is clarifying and modifying
its listing of explosive substances to
, include only those substances listed in
49;CFR 172.101 (DOT'S Hazardous
: Material Table), which is a subset of all
substances and mixtures of substances
that would meet DOT's Division 11
definition. ....;, ' " :
EPA noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule that it believed this
threshold would apply primarily to
manufacturers of high explosives (58 FR
5112). More than 100 commenters,
primarily explosives distributors and
users, objected to the listing of
explosives in general. These
commenters maintained that explosives
are regulated adequately by a number of
agencies, including the Bureau of '
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF1
DOT, OSHA, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA), and the
Department of Defense (DOD). The
commenters believe the requirements of
the existing regulations serve to prevent
accidents and cited the safety record of
the explosives industry as evidence: The
commenters believe the American Table
of Distances, used by BATF to set
distances for storage of explosives,
provides protection for the community
from the effects of an accidental
, explosion; this table is based on a lower
overpressure level than the 3.0 psi used
by EPA to setthe threshold for
explosives and, therefore, is more
protective of the public. In addition, a
number of commenters said the 5,000-
pound threshold proposed by EPA
would not restrict the effects of the rule
to manufacturers, as suggested by EPA,
. but would also cover many distribution ~
and use sites; They noted that, for
example, blasting may require only a
small quantity of high explosive :
(Division 1.1), but that the entire ,
quantity of explosives on-site used in
blasting is treated as a high explosive;
the high explosive portion serves to
initiate the.reaction involving the entire
.quantity. ;
PA acknowledged in the proposed
mle that explosives ate already ' " :
regulated by a number of agencies. ;.
However, these existing regulations do
not negate the properties of these
. substances. The explosives listed in
today'srule meet the criteria of section
112{r) (3) .and (4) because the inherent
properties of the listed explosives
plainly indicate that such chemicals
may have a severe impact in the event
of a detonation. The listed explosives
represent the category of explosives that
may most easily detonate. In the event
of an accidental detonation these
substances pose an inherent risk of off-
site effects. Industry requirements under
other applicable regulations, or :
recommended standards, are more
appropriately accounted for in the
development of accidental release
prevention requirements. The
requirements for accident prevention in
section 112(r)(7) specifically allow for
. recognition of iridustry-specific
circumstances, including voluntary
prevention measures, in EPA's
prevention regulations. No similar
provision is set forth in sections 112(r)
(3), (4), or (5), which covers the
development of this list of substances
and thresholds quantities. Section
112(r)(7) implementing rules,,as
appropriate, Will allow for industry
specific circumstances to be considered.
Other regulatory requirements, and
other practices already "in place aimed
specifically at protecting the public
from adverse effects In case of :
accidental releases are expected to be
integrated Wito accident prevention
requirements of rulemaking under
section 112(r)(7).
^particular, EPA's review of existing
regulations indicates.that public safety
would be enhanced if additional
information about explosives, such as ' .
hazards assessments, were available to
emergency response agencies and local
emergency planners. Public safety
would also be enhanced if there were
additional coordination between
facilities handling explosives and the
local emergency planners and
responders. The listing of explosives
will make information available under
section 112(r) rulemaking and facilitate
this coordination. Furthermore, current
regulations do not provide for public
communication of potential off-site
hazards, as do CAA Amendments -
requirements imder section I12(r)(7)l
Currently, only information related to
the quantity and location of explosives
is available to the public-under sections
311 and 312 of EPCRA. Under the risk
management provisions of the GAA the
public will also have available to them
information about the measures being
taken by the. facility to prevent off-site
4487
[consequences from accidental
[detonations.1 - ' !,
1;:The Agency has noted that the
practice of treating the entire quantity of
mixtures of high explosives with other
.explosives as'high explosives, coupled
^witfci the Agency's proposed threshold
^termination rule for mixtures, creates
.toe potential for coverage of explosive
formulations that are intended to be
Ceased (exploded) on-site. The Agency
Rid not intend such coveragein its
'proposal. Jn response to this problem
Identified by the commenters, the
Agency is modifying the listing of
explosives in today's final rule so that ;
{Specific explosives oni the Hazardous
Materials Table are identified as the ;
ipgulated substances. This avoids the
potential circularity in the proposed
definition. Mixtures withsubstances
Jtstecl on,the Hazardous Materials Table
are,potentially covered only, through the
operation of the explosive mixture
provision in toe threshold
djetenmination portion of today's rule
1'he Agency is also clarifying the "
coverage of explosive mixtures.to be
used jfor intentional on-site detonation
(not an accidental release) when
determining if a threshold quantity is
p^aitin a process. This clkrificationisx
discussed l^ter in today's preamble.
B Threshold Determination ..?/-. ''...''
Secflion 68.115 was driginally
pipposed as section 68.5. It has been '
ccnsoMdated with other subpart C
piovisions that relate to covered
substances and applicable thresholds
Tlus ajction of the regulation
e|tablishes how to estimate the presence
of |a threshold quantity. Exemptions of -~
those quantities that need not be.
apcourrted for in determining a
thiresh(3ld are also included.
I".^^ Basis for Threshold Determination
Comments on the proposed rule
geiierally supported a threshold .
quiuitity determination that is based on
the} quantity of a regulated substance in -.
a process. Some commenters, however
suggested that determining threshold '
quiintities should be based on the
quality ori-site, the average annual
usage, or on-site specific factors. EPA
generally disagrees with these -
stat:ements. The total quantity on-site
wmle ODnsistent with other regulations
in determining threshold quantities"
(paiticularlyEPCnRA, section 302) does '
not necessarily represent the quantity
that| could be involvedin an accident
Thej total quantity 6h-site may include
quaatities in separate processes,
buildings,.and locations within the
san^e facility. The average annual usage
measures the quantity used by a facility
-------
4488
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 20 / Monday. January 31. 1994 / Rules and
in a year and is not related to the
maximum quantity that could be
released at a given time. Site-specific
factors are appropriately accounted for
both in defining the process for which
a threshold calculation must be
undertaken and in assessing the hazards
and preparing the risk management plan
for the particular facility. As
recommended by most commenters, .
EPA Is retaining the threshold
determination based on the total
Quantity In a process, using the same
process definition as OSHA. This
approach focuses on the quantity of a
substance that might be released in a
single accident, and that could be
reasonably anticipated to cause effects
= of concern as a result of an accidental .
release. This threshold determination
approach is consistent with OSHA's
PSM standard.
2. Mixture Exemption
a. Toxic substances. The proposed
rulo included a de-minimis
concentration of one percent by weight
for all listed substances present in a
mixture'; i.e., quantities of a regulated
substance in a mixture did not have to
bo accounted for purposes of the
threshold quantity if the substance were
present at concentrations below one
percent by weight. A number of
comments were received on this
exemption for solutions and mixtures.
Several commenters suggested
providing a threshold determination
method for mixtures based on the SHI.
The partial pressure of the listed
substance in solution and its toxicity
would be used to determine the value of
tho SHI for the solution; the index value
would be compared to a cut-off value
(commenters recommended a cut-off of
1,000). EPA does not agree that the SHI
criteria should be used to determine the
mixture cut-off. Because the SHI
approach was not used in determining
which chemicals to list, a mixtures
score based on this index would not
rolato to whether a chemical met the
listing criteria. EPA also remains
concerned about the lack of a basis for
the recommended 1,000 SHI cut-off. In
addition, EPA believes the SHI
approach would be difficult to .
implement within the structure of
section 112(r), especially for facilities
" outside the chemical manufacturing
Most of the commenters believed the
one percent concentration cut-off is toe
low for solutions of toxic substances;
their position being that one percent
mixtures of a regulated substance pose
essentially no threat to the public.
Several commenters also suggested that
EPA should provide specific
concentration cut-offs for solutions of
certain listed substances, such as
hydrogen fluoride, nitric acid, and
sulfuric acid. Several commenters
suggested that the concentration cut-offs
should be raised for hydrochloric acid
(listed for concentrations of 25 .percent
or greater) and ammonia (listed for
concentrations of 20 percent or greater}.
The Agency agrees with commenters
that the one percent cut-off may, prove
to be too conservative in certain
circumstances, and that it may not
adequately reflect the decreased
potential for air release of most
regulated substances in dilute mixtures
or solutions; at very low concentrations
some of these mixtures or solutions fail;
to meet the listing criteria. The Agency
also believes, however, that no
justification would exist to exclude the
quantities in mixtures or solutions from
the threshold calculation if it is . :
uncertain that these mixtures or
solutions fail to meet the original listing
criteria. en 4
In response to these comments, E.FA
has modified the one percent mixture
exemption to reflect the amount of the
regulated substance that may reasonably
be anticipated to cause an effect of
concern iji an accidental release. The
Agency has reassessed the concentration
at which certain dilute solutions of
regulated substances may pose a hazard,
to the community, sufficient to warrant
treatment as a regulated substance, for
purposes of determining whether a
threshold quantity is present in a
process. As part of this modification,
EPA has decided to provide specific cut-
off concentrations for certain chemicals.
These chemicals, in mixtures or
solutions with concentrations below the
specified cut-off, will not have to be
considered in determining whether a ..
threshold quantity is present. For other
chemicals, a method, rather than a
specific cut-off, will be provided to
determine whether mixtures should be
considered in the threshold
determination. The following chemicals
are now listed with concentration cut-
offs (hi addition to those already
proposed with concentrations cutoffs)
as shown for weight percent of the
substances in water solution:
» Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric
acid (concentration 50 percent or
greater); the listing of hydrogen fluoride
has been clarified to reflect that it
includes the aqueous form of hydrogen
fluoride, hydrofluoric acid.
"Nitric acid (concentration 80
percent or greater).
The concentration limits for
hydrofluoric and nitric acid are based
on the partial pressures of these
substances in water solution. At the
Concentrations listed, the partial
pressures of the solutions would meet
the vapor pressure criterion of 10 mm
Hg. Also, EPA is raising the proposed
concentration cut-off for hydrochloric
acid from 25 to 30 percent, based on
Water solutions, to meet the revised
vapo'r pressure criterion. EPA is not
changing the concentration cut-off for
ammonia because the partial pressure of ,
ammonia in a 20-percent solution still
exceeds, the 10 mm Hg vapor pressure
criterion. .
Other listed toxic substances in "
solutions or mixtures must be included
in threshold determination if the partial ,
pressure of the substance in the solution
or mixture is equal to, or exceeds, 10
mm Hg. If the partial pressure of the
regulated toxic substance in the mixture
is determined to be below 10 mm Hg...
under all conditions in process handling
or process storage, the solution or
mixture need not be considered in the
threshold determination. If the partial
pressure of the regulated toxic substance
- in the mixture equals or exceeds 10 mm
Hg in portions of the process, then the
quantity of the listed substance
contained in'the mixture at these
. portions of the process shall be included
in determining whether a threshold is
met, The facility will be required to use
the one percent de-minimis _
concentration in determining threshold
quantities unless it can measure or
estimate, and document, that the partial
pressure of the regulated substance in
the mixture or solution is less than 10
The methodology for determining the
amount of a regulated substance in a
mixture to apply to thresholds does not
apply to oleum, toluene 2,4-
diisocyanate, toluene 2,6-diisocyanate,
and toluene diisocyanate (unspecified
isomer). These substances have Vapor
pressures less than 10 mm Hg.
b.Flamma ble substances. The
proposed rule included the same de-
minimis concentration of one percent by
weight for all listed substances present
in a mixture for flammable substances.
A number of commenters noted that
mixtures of flammable substances in
concentrations above one percent may
not be flammable. They suggested that
a listed flammable substance in a
mixture should be included in threshold
determination only if the mixture meets
the flammability criteria for listing.;
Other commenters suggested that the
entire mixture containing a listed
.substance should be treated as a
regulated substance if the mixture meets.
the listing criteria for flammable
substances. EPA agrees that a mixture
containing a listed flammable substance
should only be considered in a
-------
i ,_
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 20 /Monday. January 31, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4489
threshold determination if the jnixture
itself meets the criteria for an NFPA
,-flammability rating of 4, i.e.. flash point
below 22.8° C f 73° F) and boiling point
: below 37,8° C (100° F). Again, as for the
toxics in mixtures or solutions, a facility
! is required to use the one percent de-
minimis concentration for trires^
quantity calculations unless it can
measure or estimate, arid document, that
.the mixture or solution does not have a
flash pointbelow 22.8° C (73° F) and a
boiling pciint below 37.8^ C (100° F). ...-
The Agency agrees with cOmmenters
who suggested that a mixture containing
'.-.- a flammable regulated substance should
be treated as the regulated substance for
purposes of determining whether a
threshold quantity is present if the
mixture itself meets the boiling point. "
. and flash point criteria of today's rule.
EPA believes the hazards associated
with such highly flammable mixtures
make it appropriate to treat such
i mixtures as regulated substances when .
such mixtures meet the flammability
listing criteria. EPA recognizes that
counting the entire quantity of a
flammable mixture for threshold,
determination differs from the proposed
rule and from the treatment of mixtures
containing regulated toxic substances.
However, the Agency believes this ,
' different treatment is appropriate
because, for flammable substance
mixtures, the mixture is known to -
display the flammability hazard at
levels that meet the listing criteria,,
while for toxic substance mixtures, the
mixture is not known to meet the acute
toxicity criterion. For toxic substance ...
mixtures, EPA requires counting
towards a threshold only the portion of
the mixture that would meet the acute
toxicity criterion (i.e.> the amount of the
actual substance). , ,
c. Explosive substances, A number of
-comments were received regarding the
threshold calculations for explosives, :
particularly for mixtures of division 1.1
^explosives with low explosives or ; :
blasting agents at use sites. In the
proposed rule, the Agency had "
established a de-minimis concentration
applicable to all listed substances. ,
Cornmenters pointed out problems with
this mixture consideration, in light of
EPA's listingof all explosives meeting
POT's definition of Division 1.1
hazardous materials.This definition
treats the entire quantity of a mixture
containing a high explosive as a
Division 1.1 explosive, hence negating
the de-minimis calculation for purposes
-pf threshold quantity determinations.-
This, affected particularly those mixtures
formulated on-site, prior to intentional...
detonations, following BATF , ,
regulations. TO minimize the potential
for accidents, these mixtures generally
are made shortly before intentional on-
site explosions. The Agency recognizes
that the intentional release (or
controlled release) in an explosion of
mixtures containing a regulated
substance is not an accidental release;
Thus, the Agency believes that the
.amount of an explosive, in such a
mixture cannot be reasonably
: anticipated to cause effects of concern
as a result of an accidental release when
". such quantities are intended to be
released on-site. Therefore, in addition
to clarifying the listing of explosives
only to include those substances listed
by DOT in 49 CFR 172.101, the Agency
is also clarifying the applicability of the
mixture .concentration provision for
explosives. Fai purposes of determining
whether a threshold quantity is present
in a process involving explosives,
mixtures of Division 1.1 explosives
listed by DOT in 49 CFR 172.101
(Hazardous Material Table) and-other
explosives need not to,be.included
when the mixture is intended to be used
in an-on-site non-accidental release in a
manner Consistent with applicable
BATF regulations. Quantities of
explosive regulated substances in
mixtures that are not intended to be
used on-site in an intentional explosion
would not be exempt if such mixture
would be treated "as a Division 1.1
explosive under 49 CFR parts 172 and
':173. ,'.- / /-«' '/. - -... :/ ... V' .'-;''' :.;.
The following two examples
demonstrate how this threshold ,
determination provision would operate.
An owner or operator of a stationary
source receives a mixture, or prepares a
.mixture, that: combines a small quantity
^of an explosive listed as Division 1.1
hazardous material in 49 GFR1721101
with a large quantity of a blasting agent,
so that the total quantity is above the
5,000 Ibs threshold quantity established
for listed explosives. If the owner or
operator intends to'detonate the high
explosive/blasting agent mixture at the
stationary,source in a manner that is
consistent with applicable BATF
regulations, then the owner or operator
need not count the weight of the ',-
mixture in determining whether the
source has a threshold quantity of the
T regulated substance on-site. If the-owner
or operator intends to store, and then
transport off-site the high explosive/
blasting agent mixture, and the entire
mixture would be treated as Division 1.1
explosive under applicable DOT:
regulations, then the weight of the entire
mixture would need to be calculated to
determine whether a threshold quantity
.is present.
}_<-,' , ' - , . '
3^ Other Threshold-Exemptions
. - . j: ' - -. '. ... :..-! ' . .' . r ' '- . .-..-.
Except as rioted below, all other
threshold;exerriptions in the proposed
rule are retained in the final rule. All
cordirieints received concerning these
, exeipptioris favored the Agency's
r projiosall. The Agency continues to
: beli(sve that the forms of regulated
substances exempted .in today's rule
-". canitotri3^s6riably be anticipated to
causle.efifects of concern hi flie eyent of
; anabcidentalreieasel, "'
; Use for facility, consumption as fuel:-
The Agency has deferred a decision on
the proposed exemption for listed 1
.flanimable substances when used solely
for facility consumption as fuel. Fora
dociiment relating to this proposed:
exeiiiption, see a supplemental notice
, published elsewhere in this issue. The
Ageiicy intends to decide on whether to
pronaulgate this exemption on or before
the date the final risk management
program rule is promulgated,
C. Petition Process
Section68.120 of'the rule establishes
the specific administrative and .
techj:ucal requirements for the ;
'^submission of petitions to add or, delete
' substances from the list of regulated
;subs:fanciBS. --- ' '" ' -. ; '-,' -.'"' :'.'
Several comments were received on
the catena for determining whether a
substanciBi that is the subject of a petition
should bi3 listed or deUsted. Two
conunenters said the listing criteria are
too piafeow. For example, it was argued
that 1EPA should allow petitioners to
develop a case for listing toxic
chendcals.that do not meet the acute
^ toxicjty criteria. Another cbminenter -
said the listing criteria are too broad,
and the standards for delisting are top
strinjjent; delisting requites , ;
denvmstiating that the substance^'will
not"|;au{ie death, injury, or
enviilbnmental harm.
EPA beh'eves the acute toxicity
criteiia for listing toxics, as well as the
volatility arid accident history, provide
a valild basis for identification of
chemicalis that pose hazards to the
.conn^unity in case of acute exposures
resulting from an accidental-release and
is reti|iriiiig these criteria for petition
review. The Agency is also retaining the
selecition criteria for h'stirig flammables
and explcisiyes. EPA agrees that the
petition risquiremerits for delisting may
be too stringent and will delete
substances from the list if it:can be
deteKpined that the substance, in case
of an laccidental release, "is not known
or anljicipated to" cause death, injury, or
serious" adverse effects to human health
or the| environment.
Onis commenter said the decision not
to accept additional petitions unless
-------
4490 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No* 20 /Monday, January. 31, 1994 /Rules and Regulations
now data become available should be
modified so that petitions that present
significant data not previously
considered (whether or not the data are
new) can be accepted. The petition
process provides that when a petition is
received, EPA will publish a notice in
the Federal Register requesting
additional, pertinent scientific
information that was not identified by
the petitioner. Interested parties will
have the opportunity to present
significant data not included in the
petition. Therefore, EPA believes it is
appropriate to accept additional
petitions on a substance only if new
data become available.
Another conunenter said the 18-
month period proposed for review of
petitions should be shortened to six
months. EPA believes the 18-month
review period is not excessive for
carrying out a thorough review of the
petition and any public comments and
publishing a decision concerning the
petition. Denials shall be published in
the Federal Register within 18 months
of the Agency receiving the petition; for
petitions granted, the Agency will
publish a proposed new listing within
18 months.
D. Definitions
Section 68.3 of the regulation sets
forth the definitions that will apply to
all regulations published under section
112(r). Some of the terms used in other
parts of the CAA are also applicable to
section 112(r). In addition, a number of
terms new to the CAA, resulting from
the implementation of section 112(r),
aro defined in section 68.3 for purposes
of all accidental release prevention
regulations. These definitions include
terms necessary to communicate
effectively the new regulatory
requirements.
Accidental .Re/ease: The definition
proposed for accidental release has been
taken directly from the legislative
language. Several commenters, however,
thought it appropriate that the Agency
clarify this definition to better focus on
EPA's intent through this regulation.
Several commenters submitted that the
definition of accidental release should
be clarified not to include routine
emissions to the environment. The
Agency believes that the definition is
clear in specifying that and accidental
release is an "unanticipated emission"
of a regulated substance and that this
would not include routine emissions. .
Several commenters also had concerns
regarding the inclusion of the term
"other extremely hazardous substances"
in the definition of accidental release.
This term has also been taken directly
from the legislative language and the
Agency believes it to be an important.
component of this definition. Under
section 112(r)(l) the owners and
operators of stationary sources have a
duty to initiate specific activities to
prevent and mitigate accidental releases
of any regulated substance under
112(r)(3), or any other extremely
hazardous substance.
Process: There were a number of
comments related to EPA's definition of
process. The proposed definition was
consistent with OSHA's definition of
process under their PSM standard, and
included any activity involving a
regulated substance including any use,
storage, manufacturing, handling, or on-
site movement of such substances, of
combination of these activities. Any
group of vessels that is interconnected,'
or separate vessels that are located such
that a regulated substance .could be
involved in a potential release, were
proposed to be considered a single
process. Because of the need to maintain
as much consistency as possible with - :
OSHA, EPA is retaining this definition
and is providing, in this preamble, some
clarification prompted by comments
submitted on this issue.
Many commenters. argued that the
proposed definition included terms that
were not clear, such as interconnected
vessels and single processes. The
commenters indicated, for example, that
in some cases vessels may be connected
in indirect ways and still present a low
probability that they could be involved
in a single release. The Agency believes
that this was already accounted for .
through the'proposed "definition of
process. To serve as clarification,
, interconnected vessels that could be
involved in a single release would'
include vessels physically connected so
that an event could lead to an accidental
release involving all these vessels at one
tune. The Agency still believes that the
facility is responsible in accounting for
any quantity o'f et regulated substance
that could potentially be released from
one or more vessels, whether these are
connected or not. ' ' '":.
Stationary source: Several
commenters requested clarification :-
regarding pipelines and whether listed
flammable substances in pipeline
transfer stations would be covered by
the rule under the stationary source
definition. Other commenters had
questions regarding the inclusion in this
definition of transportation containers
not under active shipping orders. The
Agency is clarifying the definition of
stationary source. For purposes of
regulations under section 112(r), the
term stationary source does not apply to
.transportation conditions, which would
include.storage incident to such -*''.
transportation, of any 112(r) regulated
substance. Pipelines, transfer stations,
and other activities already covered ,
under DOT as transportation of
hazardous substances by pipeline, or
incident to such transportation, under ;
49 CFR parts 192, 193 and 195 would
not be covered. Transportation .
containers that are not under active
shipping papers are not considered by
EPA to be storage incident to
transportation; the Agency considers the
definition of stationary source to
include such containers.
E.Exemptions ' """.'.'..' ','- .
The Agency is retaining the proposed :
exemption from this part for ammonia
used as an agricultural nutrient, when
held by farmers. This exemption was
authorized by statute, and it was also
generally supported by commenters. '
A number of commenters Suggested
that an exemption should be added for
natural gas, mainly because of other
existing regulations. As, discussed
previously in this preamble, EPA's ,
listing of a substance is based on the .
demonstrated or potential effects in the
event of an accidental release. Existing
regulations may be targeted to reduce a .. -"
potential release, or the effects of a
release, but do not.negate the hazards
presented by the substances regulated.
Existing requirements under other
regulations, standards, or recommended
practices are to be accounted for though
the requirements .of the risk
management program and any other
prevention regulations under section
"
F. Scope
An issue of concern to a number of
commenters were the general duty
requirements under section-112(r)(l).
Generally, commenters voiced some
confusion regarding what the
requirements would be, and particularly
about which substances would be
included. Because of similarities with
OSHA's general duty clause,
commenters expressed the need for EPA
to develop guidance along the OSHA
Field Operations Manual to assist
facilities in evaluating their compliance
with these requirements.
The CAA identified the following
activities as part of the general duty
requirements: Identification of hazards
which may result from an accidental
release using appropriate hazard
assessment techniques,,designing and .
maintaining a safe facility taking such
steps as necessary to prevent accidental
releases, and actions which minimize
the consequences of an accidental
release once it' has occurred.-, Section
112(r)(l) specifically indicates that the
p
"6
4
t
I
i
Ik
f-l'
W."
t
li
i
.ir
jl
1
.'P
I
-1
"-ti
SB
IS
M
1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.: 20 /Monday, January
Regulations , ,4431
" general duty provision applies in the
same manner and to the same extent as
OSHA's general duty clause under
section 654, title 29 of the U.S. Code.
The Agency is investigating the
relationship betwee.n requirements
under section 112(r) and OSHA's
general duty provisions. ".'
Comments were also received on the
separate issuance of the list and
thresholds rule and the risk
management program rule. The - /;
, comments'focused on the difficulties for
the regulated community to evaluate
and comment c-n the full impact of the
list and thresholds without specific
information on the accident prevention
requirements. The Agency agrees that
the separation of these rules does, not
allow the regulated .community the
optimum opportunity to commentori
the proposed regulation. While the
Agency recognizes that the two rules
comprise a single program, the statute v
allows for proposal and promulgation of
the list and thresholds rule prior to the
proposal and promulgation of the
section 112(r)(7) rule. Because EPA's
duty .to publish the list and thresholds
rale arose before the duty to publish the
risk management program rule, the
Agency was obligated to publish the
proposed list and thresholds rule before
the section 112(r)(7)(B) proposed rule
was publishable. The Agency has just
published a proposed notice for the
prevention requirements applicable to
facilities having the listed substances
above the threshold quantities (Risk
Management Programs for Chemical ^
Accidental Release Prevention, 58 FR
54190, October 20,1993). The comment
period for the risk management program
mle will be open at the time this rale
is finalized. This will give commenters
the opportunity to comment on the risk
management program with the
knowledge of what substances are
covered. .
V. Summary of Provisions of .the Fizaal
Rule <. : , ;.-...-.-...
EPA is adding part 68 to title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, including
the.list of regulated substances and
threshold quantities, as well as the
requirements for the petition process to
add regulated substances to the list or to
delete regulated substances from the
list.- ; -- ';- .- :/.;';.. ... >;
Section 68.1 establishes the scope of
the Part 68 chemical accident
prevention provisions.
Section 68.3 establishes definitions
applicable to all Part 68 regulations.
Section 68.100 establishes the
purpose of the subpart as the
designation of regulated substances and
their threshold quantities, and '.
establishment of the requirements for
petitions to add substances or delete
substances from the list.
.Section 68.115 (proposed §68.5)
establishes the procedures to determine
whether a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance is present at a
stationary source. Specific exemptions
to the threshold determination
procedure are also included for mixture
concentrations, articles, and certain uses
and activities.
The final rule includes several
exemptions for mixtures that have been
revised from the proposed rule. These
- are: : -":-. "., ',."- ' ' '".': .
(1) For toxic substances present hi a
mixture qr solution at a concentration of
one percent or greater by weight, the
facility has the option of demonstrating
that the partial pressure of the regulated
substance in the solution under any or
all storage or handling conditions is less
than 10 mm Hg; in this case, the
quantity of the regulated substance in
the mixture in the portion-pf the process
with a partial pressure of less than 10
- mm Hg would be exempt from threshold
determination; / - \ :
(2) Mixtures containing regulated
flammable substances are exempt from
threshold,determination if the facility
demonstrates that the mixture itself
does not meet the criteria for
flammability (flash point below 73°F
(22.8°C) and boiling point below 100°F
(37.8°C);and
(3) Mixtures of Division 1.1
explosives listed in 49 CFR 172.101 and
other explosives need not be considered
when,detennining whether a threshold
quantity is present, provided that the
mixture is intended to be intentionally
released (i.e., a non-accidental release) .
in a manner consistent with DOT and
BATF'regulations.
Section'68.120 specifies the
requirements for petitions to the Agency
to add substances to the list, and to
delete substances from the list: Petition '
requirements have been modified
slightly to read that a substance may be
deleted from the list if adequate data are
available to determine that the ~ .
substance, in the case of an accidental
release, is "unlikely to cause" (rather
than "will not cause") death, injury, or
serious adverse effects to human health
or the environment. -
Section 68.125 exempts ammonia
used as an agricultural nutrient when
held by a fanner. , , ,
Section 68.130 establishes the list of
regulated substances, including a list of
toxic substances, a list of flammable
substances, and a h'st criterion'for
commercial high explosives.;ThiS
section also establishes the threshold
quantities for all Hsted substances. "
The final rule includes several
changes to the proposed list and
thresholds, Eighteen substances, with
va:por pressures below 10 mm Hg, have
be^h deleted from the proposed list of
to:jdc substances, and one substance
(vinyl chloride) has been moved from
thiplist of toxic substances to the list of
flaimmable substances. One substance,
methyl bromide, has been deleted
because it is listed under Title VI of the
C/LA. Four substances on the proposed '
. list, included partly because of their
accident history, have been deleted
wliale another* oleum, has been
specifically h'sted. The final list
contains 77 toxic substances. .
Concentration ^cut-off levelshave been
specified for solutions of two additional
substances, hydrogen fluoride and nitric
acid. The concentration cut-off level has
be
-------
4492 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 1994 / Rules, and Regulations
action". Even though the list and
thresholds rule, by itself, imposes no
cost on facilities, the cost impact of the
list and thresholds derives from
compliance with the risk management
program regulations and other
reasonable regulations, which are
triggered by the presence of a regulated
substance above its threshold quantity.
Ths annual effect on the economy for
the accidental release prevention
regulations that will be triggered by this
rulo is expected to exceed $100 million.
As such, this action is submitted to
OMB for review as part of a larger
accidental release prevention program.
Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations will be
documented in the public record.
Tho Agency developed a draft
Regulatory Impacts Analysis (RIA) for
tha proposed rule that considered the
cost for the accidental release
prevention program envisioned under
section 112(r); this draft RIA includes
tha list and'thresholds and the risk
management program requirements. The
list rule, by itself, imposes only very
minimal costs associated with the
petition requirements for additions to,
and deletions from, the list and for the
documentation of mixtures; the majority
of costs relate to actions that facilities
with listed chemicals must undertake as
a result of the risk management program
rule.
The requirements under the OSHA
Process Safety Management Standard,
which parallels the EPA risk
management planning requirements,
have now been in place for some time,
and information is becoming available
on the costs to facilities working to
comply with OSHA. An addendum to
the draft RIA was developed for the
proposed risk management program rule
to reflect public comments and the new
information. The Agency estimate of the
universe of facilities covered by the
final list and thresholds rule has since
been revised. EPA now estimates that
approximately 118,000 facilities will be
covered by the final list and thresholds
rule. The distribution of facilities
covered includes 11,000 manufacturers
and 107,000 non-manufacturers (i.e.,
refineries; public chinking water and
waste treatment systems; cold storage
facilities; wholesalers; agricultural
retailers; service industry facilities;
private utilities; propane retailers,
propane users, explosives
manufacturers, and gas extraction ana
processing facilities). The average
number of regulated substances per
facility varies from one for cold storage
facilities to six for highly complex
manufacturing facilities.
EPA estimates that the petition
process under this rulemaking will cost
a facility submitting a petition an
average of $5,000.'EPA estimates that
there will be 11 petitions a year. EPA
anticipates that the cost to the Federal
government for processing and
reviewing the petitions will be
approximately equal to the cost to
facilities for filing a petition. The total
annual cost is estimated to be~$110,000
($5,000x2x11 petitions).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act ,
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., when
an agency publishes a notice of
rulemaking, for a rule that will have a
significant effect on a: substantial
number of small entities, the agency
must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that considers the effect of the .
rule on small entities (i.e., small '
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions).
The list rule, by itself, imposes only .
very minimal costs associated with the
petition requirements for additions to,
and deletions from, the list and for the
documentation of mixtures; the majority
of costs relate to actions that facilities
with listed chemicals must undertake as
a result of the risk management program
rule. The risk management program
regulation was proposed by EPA on
October 20,1993 (58 FR 54190); a
discussion of the impacts on small
entities is included on page 54212. The
initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
contained in the combined economic
analysis entitled Regulatory Impact
Analysis in Support of Listing Regulated
Substances and Thresholds and
Mandating Risk Management Programs
"for Chemical Accident Prevention, as
Required by Section 112(r) of the CAA,
available in the .docket. A revised.
economic analysis will be developed in
conjunction with the final risk
management program regulation.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and have been assigned control number
2050-0127. ,
Public reporting for this collection of
information in the petition process is :
estimated to be approximately 138 ,
hours per response, including time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information. EPA estimates that there
will be 11 petitions a year. The total
annual burden is estimated to be 1,518 '.
hours (138 hours x 11 petitions).
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this,
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to:
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, :
U,S., Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St. SW., Washington, DC.20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, '
Office of Management and Budget,
^Washington, DC 20503, marked "Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA."
D. Display of OMB Control Numbers
EPA is also amending the table of
currently approved information
collection request (IGR) control numbers
issued by OMB-for various regulations.
. This amendment updates the table to
accurately display those information
requirements contained in this final
rule. This display of the OMB control
number and its subsequent codification'
.in the Code of Federal Regulations .
satisfies the requirements of the -
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501et seq.) and OMB's implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 13201
The ICR was previously subject,to
public notice and comment prior to _
OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds
that there is "good cause" under section
553(b)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to
amend this table without prior notice
and'comment. Due to the technical
nature of the table, further notice and .
comment would be unnecessary. For the'
same reasons, EPA also finds that there
is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
L,ist of Subjects .
40 CFR Part 9 .
. Environmental protection, paperwork
reduction act. ,'_''..
40 CFR Part 68
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Chemical accident prevention, Clean
Air Act, Extremely hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations;
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
Recordkeeping requirements. "
Dated: January 14,1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator. -,
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, subchapter
A, part 9 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended, and title 40,
chapter I, subchapter C, part 68 ,of the -
Code of Federal Regulations is added, as
set forthbelbw: ."'....,.'. , .-, .- ;',-<.-_.;.._
-------
.Federal :RegisterV:Vol. 59, No. J20 I Monday. January 31, 1994^ Rules and Regulations
4493
PART SOMB APPROVALS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows: ,
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005,"2006, 2601-2671;
21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 '
U.S.G. 1251 et seqi, 1311,1313d, 1314,1321
1326,1330, 1344,1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O.
11735,;38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 ,
Comp. p, 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246,
300f, 300g, 300g-l, 3bOg-2,.300g-3, 300g-4,
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-l,-300j-2, 300J-3, 300J-
4, 300J-9,1857 et seq., 6901-^3992^ 7401-
7671q, 7542,"9601-9657,11023,11048. '
2. Section.9.1 is amended by adding
the new entry with a new heading to the
table to read as follows:
§9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. :
40 CFR citation.:
OMB control
No.
Chemical Accident Prevention:
Provisions:-
, 68.120 (a), (e), and (g) ......... 2050-0127
3. Part 68 is added to read as follows:
PART 68CHEMSCAL ACCIDEMT
PREVENTION PROVISIONS
Subpart AGeneral
Sec. '-,''. _ -_' ... : . -' ;.- -.:-.
68;l Scope. ". : ;-,
68.3 Definitions. ' ' " .
Subpart BRisk Management Plari
Requirements [Reserved]
Subpart CRegulated Substances for
Accidental Release Prevention
68.100 ' Purpose.
68.115 Threshold determination." ;
68.120 Petition process. '
68". 125 Exemptions. " '
68.130 List of substances; '-.'
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7412(r),76br. .
Subpart AGeneral
§68.1 Scope.
This Part sets forth the list of
regulated substances and thresholds, the
petition process for adding or deleting
substances to the list of regulated : .
substances, the requirements for owners.
or operators of stationary sources
concerning the prevention of accidental
releases, and the State accidental release
prevention programs approved under :
section ,112(r). The list of substances,
threshold quantities; and accident
prevention regulations promulgated '.:';'
under this part do not limit in any way
the general duty provisions under
section 112(r)(l). '
§68.3 Definitions,
Eor the purposes of,this Part:
Accidental release means an ';-'
unanticipated emission of a regulated
substance or other extremely hazardous
substance into the ambient air from a
stationary source. ":
Administrator means the
administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. :
Article means a manufactured item, as
defined under 29 CFR 1910.120p(b), that
is formed to a specific shape or design
during manufacture,.that has eiid use
functions dependent hi whole' or in part.
upon the shape or design during end
use,.and that does not release or
otherwise result in exposure .to a
regulated substance under normal "-'.'.'-
conditions of processing and use. -
CAS means the Chemical Abstracts
Service. : -
DOrmeans the United States
Department =6f Transportation.
Process means any .activity involving
a regulated substance including any use,
storage, manufacturing; handling, or on-
site movement of .suchsubstances, or
combination of these, activities. For the
purposes of this definition, any group of
.vessels that are interconnected; or
. separate vessels that are located such
that a regulated substance could be .'-
involved in a potential release, shall be
considered a single process.
. Regulated substance is any substance
.listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) of '
the Clean Ah-Act as amended, in
§68.130. >
Stationary source mearis any
buildings, structures, equipment, ,"':
installations> or substance.emitting
stationary activities which belong to the
same industrial group, which are
located on one or more contiguous
properties/which are under the.coritrol ,
of the same person (or persons under
common control), and from which an
accidental release may occur. A
stationary source includes
transportation containers that are ho
longer mider active shipping papers arid
transportation containers that are
connected to equipment at the
stationary source for the purposes of
temporary storage, loading, or :
unloading. The term stationary source
does not apply to transportation,
including the storage incident to
transportation, of any regulated
substance or any other extremely
hazardous substance under the
provisions of this part, provided that
such transportation is regulated under
49 CFR parts 192,193, or 195.
Properties shall not be considered
: contiguous solely because of a railroad
o!r gas pipeline right-of-way. '
^Threshold quantity means the
qjiianflty specified for regulated
. Substances pursuant to section 112(r)(5)
of the Clean Air Act as amended, listed
m 1 68.130 and determined to be ; '
Resent at a stationary source as -
specified in §«8.115 of this Part:
'.Kfeil^.means any reactor, tank', drum,
bprrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, boiler, pipe,
, pr other container. .-'-
^|ubpart B Risk Management Plan
R|equirements [Reserved]
Subpart C Regulated Substances for
Accidental Release Prevention
§ B8,KK) Purpose. -
liThissubpart designates substances to
-b(3 listed under section 112(r)(3), (4),
aiid (5) of the jClean Air Act, as
amended, identifies their threshold-
qjiantities; and establishes the ' .;
re|quireinents for petitioning to addTor
dijlete substances from the list.
. &":.- ---;' -...-: -y ;-."- ; -. - ". ' v-.-/. "
§158.1 1 5 Threshold determihation.
,n(a) A- threshold quantity of a regulated
substance listed in § 68:130 is present at
a istationary source if the total quantity
of|ffie regulated substance, contained in
a ^process exceeds the threshold.
j(b) For the purposes of determining
whether more than a threshold quantity "
°f[S^S^lated substance is present at th&
st|ti6ri^ry source, iihe following
exemptions apply: ' ,.
ti) Concentrations, of a regulated toxic
substance in a mixture. If a regulated
suhstattce is present in a mixture and-
this .concentration of the substance is
below one percent by weight of the
milxture, the amount of the substance in
this mticture need not be considered
wl^en determining whether more than a
thireshpld quantity is present at the
staitiqnary source. Except for oleum,
toluene 2,4-diispcyanate, toluene 2,6- ,
dii §t)cjranate, and toluene diisocyanate
{uiispecified isomer), if the
coiicentration of the regulated substance.
i?1 ^e mixture is one percent or greater
by [Weight, but the owner.or operator can
demonstrate that the partial pressure of
thej; regulated substance in the mixture '
: (solution) under handling or storage .
conjditions in any portion of the process
is Jess than 10 millimeters of mercury
(mm Hg), the amount of the substance
in lie mixture in that portion of the
prcjeess need hot be considered when
determining whether more than a
threshold quantity is present at the
staljiphary source. The owner or operatoi
shall dcicuinent this partial pressure ,
or esthriate. : '.'
-------
4494 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 20 / Monday, January51, 1994 /Rules. and Regulations^
(2) Concentrations of a regulated
flammable substance in a mixture. If a
regulated substance is present in a
mixture and the concentration of the
substance !s below one percent by
weight of the mixture, the mixture need
not be considered when determining
whether more than a threshold quantity
of the regulated substance is present at
tho stationary source. If the
concentration of the regulated substance
in the mixture is one percent or greater
by weight, then, for purposes of
determining whether more than a
threshold quantity is present at the
stationary source, the entire weight of
the mixture shall be treated as the
regulated substance unless the owner or
operator can demonstrate that the
mixture itself does not meet the criteria
for flammability of flash point below
73SF (22.8°C) and boiling point below
100°F (37.8*C). The owner or operator
shall document these flash point and
boiling point measurements or
estimates.
(3j Concentrations of a regulated'
explosive substance in a mixture.
Mixtures of Pivision 1.1 explosives
listed in 49 CFR 172.101 (Hazardous
Materials Table) and other explosives
need not be included when determining
whether a threshold quantity is present
in a process, when the mixture is
intended to be used on-site in a non-
acddental release in a manner
consistent with applicable BATF
regulations. Other mixtures of Division
1.1 explosives listed in 49 'CFR 172.101
and other explosives shall be included
in determining whether more than a
threshold quantity is present in a
process if such mixtures would be
treated as Division 1.1 explosives under
49 CFR Parts 172 and 173.
(4) Articles. Regulated substances
contained in articles need not be
considered when determining whether
more than a threshold quantity is
present at the stationary source.
(5) Uses. Regulated substances, when
in use for the following purposes, need
not be Included in determining whether
more than a threshold quantity is
present at the stationary source:
(i) Use as a structural component of
the stationary source;
(ii) Usa of products for routine
Janitorial maintenance;
(lii) Use by employees of foods, drugs,
cosmetics, or other personal items
containing the regulated substance; and
(iv) Use of regulated substances
present in process water or non^contact
cooling water as drawn from the
environment or municipal sources, or
use of regulated substances present in
air used either as compressed air or as
part of combustion.
(6) Activities in Laboratories. If a
regulated substance is manufactured,
processed, or used in a laboratory at a
stationary source under the supervision
of a technically qualified individual as
defined in § 720.3(ee) of this chapter, ;
the quantity of the substance need not
be considered in determining whether a
threshold quantity is present. This
exemption does not apply to:
.(i) Specialty chemical production;
(ii) Manufacture, processing, or use of
substances in pilot plant scale
operations; and '
(iii) Activities conducted outside the
laboratory.
§68.120 Petition process.
(a) Any person may petition the
Administrator to modify, by addition or
deletion, the list of regulated substances
identified in § 68.13ff. Based on the
information presented by the petitioner,
the Administrator may grant or deny a
petition.
(b) A substance may be added to the
list if, in the case of an accidental
release, it is known to cause or may be
reasonably anticipated to cause death,
injury, or serious adverse effects to
human health or the environment.
(c) A substance may be deleted from ,
the list if adequate data on the health
and environmental effects of the
substance are available to determine
that the substance, in the case of an
accidental release, is not known to
cause and may not be reasonably
anticipated to cause death, injury, or
serious adverse effects to human health
or the environment.
(d) No substance for which a national
primary ambient air quality standard
has been established shall be added to
the list. No substance regulated under
Title VI of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, shall be added to the list.
(e) The burdenofproofison the
petitioner to demonstrate that the
criteria for addition and deletion are
met. A petition will be denied if this
demonstration is not made.
(f) The Administrator will not accept
additional petitions on the same ..
substance following publication of a
final notice of the decision to grant or
deny a petition, unless new data
becomes available that could
significantly affect the basis for the
decision.
(g) Petitions to modify.the list of .
regulated substances must contain the
following:
(1) Name and address of the petitioner
and a brief description of the
organization^) that the petitioner
represents, if applicable;
(2) Name, address, and telephone
number of a contact person for the .
petition; .
(3) Common chemical name(s),
common synpnym(s), Chemical
Abstracts Service number, and chemical
formula and structure; (
(4) Action requested (add or delete a
substance);
(5) Rationale supporting the
petitioner's position; that is, how the
substance meets the criteria for addition
and deletion. A short summary of the
rationale must be submitted along with
a more detailed narrative; and ,
(6) Supporting data; that is,1he
petition must include sufficient
information to scientifically support the
request to modify the list. Such
information shall include: '
(i) A list of all support documents;
(ii) Documentation of literature
searches conducted, including, but not
, limited to, identification of the
database(s) searched, the search
strategy, date's covered, and printed
results; - , . . '
(iii) Effects data (animal^ human, and
environmental test data) indicating the
potential for death, injury, or serious
adverse human and environmental
impacts from acute exposure following
an accidental release; printed copies of
the data sources, in English, should be
provided; and,
(iv) Exposure data or previous
accident history data, indicating the
potential for serious adverse human
health or environmental effects from an
accidental release. These data may ;
include, but.are not limited to, physical
and chemical properties of the
substance, such as vapor pressure;
modeling results, including data and ' ,
assumptions used and model ,
documentation; and historical accident
data, citing data sources, " .
(h) Within 18 months of receipt of a
petition, the Administrator shall publish
in the Federal Register a notice either
denying the petition or granting the
petition and proposing a listing.
§68.125 Exemptions. .
Agricultural nutrients. Ammonia used
as an agricultural nutrient, when held
by farmers, is exempt from all
provisions of this part.
§63.130 List of substances.
(a) Explosives listed by DOT as
Division 1.1 in 49 CFR 172.101 are
covered under section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act. The threshold quantity
for explosives is 5,000 pounds.
(b) Regulated toxic and flammable
substances under section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act are the substances listed
in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. Threshold
-------
qlerd KBjister / Vol. 59, No. 20 / Monday, Jaman, 31. 1994 \, Mes 8nd Regulations
~"
4495
TO §ee,30.-LlsT
regulated substances are explained in
the notes tp the list.
TOX,
[Alphabetical Order 77 Substances]
'
Acrolein [2-Propenafl
Acrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile] .."..""!.."'"
Acrylyl chloride [2-Propenoyl chloride]'.".
Allyl alcohol [2-Propen4ol] '
Aliylamine [2-Propen-)-amine] '".'.'""". -
Ammonia (anhydrous) ..: .".." "
Ammonia (cone 20% or greater)" *
Arsenous trichloride
Arsine _" "
Boron trichloride [Borane, tricnloro-]
Boron trifluoride [Borane, trifluoro-]
SrS^"!.!.!!.1^^ Wi
-------
4496 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 20 / Monday. January 31. 1994 / Rules and Regulations ^
TABLE 1 TO §68.130.LIST OF REGULATED Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL
RELEASE PREVENTIONContinued
[Alphabetical Order77 Substances!
Chemical name
ProplontWIe [Propanenitrile] « > ~ » ->- --
Propyl chloroformata JCarbonochloridkJ add, propylesterj .......
PropytonolmJns [AzkhSne, 2-methyH ~ .......... .......................
Propytena oxkte [Oxlrane, methyl-] .__.....~.
Sulfur tfoxJda (anhydrous) .. "
Sulfur tetrafkKxkte [Sulfur fhjortde (aM). ti -4j-j . /
Sulfur trtoxkte - r"" "
Telxamethyttead [Plurnbane. tetramethyH ?~ <
TetranJtrornetnarm [Methane, tetran'rtro-] . ->- ? ..............
TKartom tatracMorlde [Titanium chloride (T1CI4> fJ-4H rrj-"^"" "" "' ' '
TokJ&na 2,4-dIsocyanate [Benzefte, 2,4-dilsocyanato-1 -methyl-]1 «
Toluene 2,6-dBsocyanata [Benzene, l,3-diisocyanato-2-methyl-]i "":"""" """"" ""
Totuorta dtisocyanata (unspecified isomer) [Benzene, 1,3-dnsocyanatomethyH1 -- -
Trhnothyhshtorosilana [Silane, chtorotrimethyH ... .... «
vinyl acetate monomer [Acetic add ethenyl ester] - -
CAS No.
107-12-0
109-61-5
75-55-8
75-56-9
7446-09-5
7783-60-0
7446-11-9
75-74-1
, 509-14-8
7550-45-0
' 584-84-9
91^08-7
26471^62-5
75-77-4
108-05-4
Threshold
quantity
(Ibs)
10,000
* 15iOOO
10,000
-10,000
5,000
, 2,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
2,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
15,000
Basis for
listing
b -
b
b
b .
a,b
b
a, b
b
b
b
a '
a
a ' . ' ;"
b
b
iTha mixture exemption In §68.115(b)(1) does not apply to the substance.
NOTE Basis for Listing:
a Mandated tor listing by Congress.
b On EHS list, vapor pressure 10 mmHg or greater.
c Toxic
Toxteilvfof hydfogen chloride, potential to release hydrogen chloride, and hfetorv^ac^"^- .. nt
Toxlcity of sulfwWoxIde and sulfuric acid, potential to release sulfur trioxide. and history of accidents,
TABLE 2 TO 568130 LIST OF REGULATED Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR
RELEASE PREVENTION
[CAS Number Ofder77 Substances]
ACCIDENTAL
CAS No.
50-00-0
5714-7 _
60-34-4
67-66-3 -
74-87-3
74-90-8
74-93-1
75-15-0
75-21-8
7544-5 ...........
75-55-8
75-66-9
75-74-1 »
75774
75-78-5 «
75-79-6
78-82-0
79-21-0
78-22-1
9-1-amine] - - -» .
Proplonitrne [Propanenitrile] .......i..........~~ -
Actyfonitrile [2-PropenenitriIe] ... ..~.
Ethylenediamlne[t^-Ethanediamine} . ......»
Ally) alcohol p-Propen-l-oi] .._......... . - - ,~~
Chloromethyl methyl ether [Methane, chtoromethoxy-j .-
Vinyl acetate monomer lAcetic acid ethenyl ester] -
Isopropyl chloroformate [Carbonochloridw actp, i-rneinyiemyi esierj ,
Cyclohexylamlne [Cyctohexanamine] ... .
Propyl chloroformate [Carbonochloridic acw, propyiesierj r
rUiclii .......................«....«."»".....?...**.* - i
Piperkfina ..... ~.~ ..-.« .....-.. ~. - - .................
CrotonaWehyde, (E)- [2-Butenal, (EH - ;." -' " - '
Methacrylonitrila [2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyH .-- " '-
Threshold
quantity
(Ibs)
15,000
15,000
15,000
20,000
10,000
2,500
10,000
20,000
10,000
500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
. 5,000
5,000
20,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
5,000
, 10,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
5,000
15^)00
15,000
15,000
15,000
" 5,000
15..000
. 20,000
' M 0,000
Basis for
listing
b
3 :
b
b
a
a.b
b
b
a.b
a,b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
b'
b -"
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b ,
b
b
b :.-
b'
b ; r',
-------
w-,*_Jp<,
Federal Raster /'Vol. 59, No.' 20 / Monday, January 31. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4497
TABLE 2 TO §68.l30.-LisT OF REGULATED Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL
RELEASE PREVENTIONContinued
[CAS Number Order77 Substances]
CAS No.
302-01-2
353-42-4-...
506-77-4 .
. 509-14-8 .
542-88-1 .;.......;
556-64-9
-584-84-9
594-42-3
624-83-9
814-68-6 ,
41 7O SO 3
7446-09-5
7446-11-9
7550-45-0 '
7637-07 2 ........
7647-01-0 ;.....
7647-01-0-
7664-39-3
7664-41-7
7664-41-7
7697-37 2 ........
7719^12-2
7726-95-6 ........
7782-41-4 ...-.-;...
7782-^60-5
7783-06-4 ........
7783-07-5
7783-60-0 .v......
_7784-34-1.........
7803-51-2 ........
8014-95-7 ...;....
10025-87-3 ......
10049-04-4 ......
10102-43-9 ......
10294-34-5 ......
13463--39-3 :,...".
13463-40-6 ......
19287-45-7 ......
26471-^2-5 :......
Chemicarnarhe
^
Ethyleneimine [Aziridine]
Hydrazihe .: !!!."!!!"!!! ' ' ""." ' '
BorOTWfluoriderompou^
Cyanogen chloride .....!..... --.-. . -.--..- " - '""* "
Tetranitromethane [Methane, tetranitro-j -"' "" ' "''"""""""""-
Chloromethyl ether [Methane oxybis[chloro-] ............... j ..........,..:.
Methyl thiocyanate rjhiocyanlc acid, methyl es'terj !"'""""""""""""
Toluene 2,4-dnsocyanate [Benzene, 2,4-diisocyanatc-1-methyl-]i
Perchlpromethylmercaptan [Methanesulfenyl chloride, trichlorc-1
Methyl isocyanate [Methane, isocyanato-]
Acryiyl chloride [2-Propenoyl chloride] "",»..........,.
I Crotonaldehyde [2-Butenal]
Sulfur dioxide (anhydrous) ................. . .--- ...
Sulfur trioxide ..........'... ......v...... .:.!]."]!!]!!!!"""""""'
Titanium tetrachloride [Titanium chloride (TiCI4) "(TM)'-i " ' "'"""":"
Boron trifluoride [Borane, trifluoro-] - ".' """""
.........,...vr....j; ;.^; ..,;.;;.;:.:...
Hydrogen chloride (anhydrous) [Hydrochloric acid] ....... ,----'";-" -
Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid (cone 50% or greater) [Hydrofluoric acid} ' ""'""""'" '""'.'
Ammonia (anhydrous) ........ . ' - .> .'" ..........
Ammonia (cone 20% or greater) - -. -."; -
Nitric acid (cone 80% or greater) ................. "------,-,- ;-" v;:;""; :;
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous trichloride] ..
Bromine '"""" """"
Fluorine. ...;..... . .. . :
Chlorine ;_.____ ; .;.-.........
Hydrogen sulfide ........;..... ..... --"-;"-- .......v... ....i......
Hydrogen selenide = -- ;
Sulfur tetrafluoride [Sulfur fluoride (SF4), (T-4J-1 -'-
Arsenbus trichloride ' """"
Arsine '"
Phosphine ...........; ......!"""""""" ......
Oleum (Fuming Sulfuric acid) [Sulfuric'acid'rmix't'ure"^
Phosphorus oxychloride [Phosphoryl chloride] .
Nitric oxide [Nitrogen oxide (NO)] ...»«..»..... ....
Boron trichloride [Borane, trichlorb-J ,
......... ,.... ....^...... .;..
1 ""...v .........................
.,:..,,.;....;:- :::::iv::;::"::;;;:
*>>»................-.....
ron, pentacarbonyl- [Iron carbonyl (Fe(eO)5), (TB-5-11)-] . ...............................
N^-lBasi'rfoTLSf''0-'1 '" § 68"1 1 5(b)(1 5 d°6S "Ot ^ to the substance- , ' '
a Mandated for listing by Congress. . *r^~"
. - b OnEHSIist, vapor pressure 10 mmHg or greater. "'
c Toxic gas.
e Toxicity-of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, potential to release sulfur trioxide, and history of accidents.
Thresholc
quantity
(IDS)
10,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
'10,000
1,000
- 20,000
"; 10,000
,10)000
'. 10,000
, 5,000
20,000
5,00'0
10,000
,2,500
5,000-
15,000
: .5,000
... 1,000
10,000
20,000
' 15,000
15,000
10,000
1,000
2,500
10,000
-2;500
15,000
1,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
;.i,ooo
10,000
5,000
, .1,000
; 2,500
:' "2.500
10,000
J\ "
Basis.for
listing
crcrq-D-crO Cf o cr o-cr,crer.p) M .CTJB cr.cra) w_os to .do- erm to cr cr.ia. 'cr ni & cr cr o b- cr cr
' .. '-"- .'. ._., ;'. " ' _ ., " , .."'--, eriy ' er- ; .. o-cr'cr, . ' crcr . . cr '' '.;''',.'','
- '-.'.' -. ,.:. .''...'' -'-.'',' '..' ' .' . ' ' '--. ' -'.' ' ''''-'",', -;
a
^>
TABLE 3 TO §68.130.-L1ST OF REGUUTED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL
RELEASE PREVENTION
[Alphabetical Order63 Substances]
. Chemicalnarne
Acetylene [Ethyne] ."«»'"»«"!!.""!"!!!!!."!!!.'."!".""
Brpmotrifluorethylene [Ethene, bromotrifluoro-1 "
1 ,3-Butadiene
Butane ;
1-Butene ..........:
2-Butene -.-.
Butene
. 2-Butene-cis I"."]."!".'"
2-Butene-trans [2-Butener(E)j '".'"-.
Cartxsn oXysulfide [Carbon oxide sulfide (COS)j . '
'
(DAS No.
75-07-0
I -74-66-2'
. 598-73-2
-106-99-0
106-97-8
106-98-9
107-01-7
25167-67-3
' 590-18-1
624646
Threshold
quantity
(Ibs)
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
1 10,000
10,000
10,000
"10,000
10,000'
10,000
" 10,000
Basis for
listing
g
f
f
)
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
;,
-------
4498 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 1994: /'Rules and^ Rggulatiofls J ^ -
TABLE 3 TO §68.130.LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL
RELEASE PREVENTtONr-Continued
[Alphabetical Order63 Substances] " .
Chemical name ; ,
Cyanogen [Ethanedioitrlle] ««. . ...,..«....... . . .....«««. «...«
Ethano ....... ............. *...........«........
Ethyl acatylooa [1-ButyneJ . .... . ............ - ».;..... ;« .........
Pthvl rhlwkift tPfhann chJorfWl " «.... .................................
Elmlana lEthenel -
P(m;l mAWJwrfnn rPlhnnfithlon -..««.....«....«
PHwl nttrffo IKIrtrnitft nrtrf fiihvl pe-terl '. .- ...........«....«.«...........*.......«
lJi)l^l>(-LnAr> , . >> » iiu.
Mcthano « .....«....,.^......
^.MolhvUlAi rtARA . fc .......................
2.Mc\thvH-hirtpno ..'. ..........
1 1.PnnJnH!nonfl . . . ... ..« * «... »....«
Trf^htrwftitlliina rsilana frfchloro-1 « ....-.....;....... -
VtnwllHnna fliinrlf irt fPfhflnfl 1 1-difluaro-T . ........;
Vinyl methyl ether [Ethene, methoxy-] - _
CAS No.
7791-21-1
557-98-2
590-21-6
460-19-5
75-19-4
4109-96-0
75-37-6
124-^0-3
463-82-1
74-84-0
107-00-6
75-04-7
75-00-3
74-85-1
60-29-7
75-08-1
109-95-5
1333-74-0
75-28-5
78-78-4
78-79-5
75-51-0
75-29-6
: , 74-82-8
74-89-5
563^45-1
563-46-2
115-10-6
107-31-3
115-11-7
50^-60-9
109-66-0
109-67-1
646-04-8
627-20H3
463-49-0
74-98-6
.11&-07-1
74-99-7
7803-62-5
116-14-3
75-76-^3
10025-78-2
79-38-9
75-50-3
689-QJ^
75-01-4
109-92-2
75-02-5
75-35-4
75-38-7
107-25-5
Threshold
quantity
(Ibs)
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
' 10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Basis for
listi'lg
f
g -
9 - ... '
9
g
f
f .-.. ."
f
g
g
g
g .'
f '
f
g .
?
f
g
g
g
g
f* -. .
f ;
f
f .
f
g
g .....
f
f
aj
g
g. " '"',
f
NOTE: Basis for Listing:
a Mandated for listing by Congress. .
I Flammable gas. - : - '
g Volatile flammable liquid. . ,
TABLE 4 TO §68.130.LIST.OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR AcciDbWA.
RELEASE PREVENTION
[CAS Number Order63 Substances] : . .
CAS No.
ftfi *vy, *r
' Chemical name
Pihvt p!h«r TPtharifl 1 1'-ox\Ais-l «...«.....i,,.....«.«*'
Methane ~..» - «'
CAS No. "
v- : 60-29-7
74-62-8
Threshold
quantity
(Ibs)
10,000
10,000
Basis for
listing
g ''-'
f . .- --
-------
CAS NO.
74-84-0
74-85-1 .......
74-86-2
- 74-B9-5 ......
74-98-6 ......
74-99-7 .......
75-00-3 .;....... :
-75-Q1-4 ;:..:.;.../
75-02-5 .......;;.
75-04-7 ;
75-07-0 ......
75-08-1 ......""
75-19-4...........
75-28-5 ...........
75-29-6
. 75-31-0 .........
. 75-50-3 .;..
75-76-3 ...........
- 78r78-=4 .;;....
". 78^-79-5.....:...
79-38-9 ,..^.....
106-97-S .....
106-98-9 .....
196-99-0 '
- 107-00-6....
107-01-7 ...
107-25^5 ......
107-31-3 ..
109-66-0 ,
109-67-1 ..
109-92-2
- 109-95-5.... "-
1.1.5-07-1 ....
115-10-6 ..
115-11-7 ,......"
116-14-3.....
124-^0-3
-460-19-5 ......
463-49-0 ....
463-58-1 ...
463-^2-T ...
504-60-9 ....
557-98-2
563-45-1........."
563-46-2 .....
590-18-1
590-21-6 ....
598-73-2.....
624-^4-6 .....
627-20-3 ....
646-04-5 ....
689-97--4 ....
1333-74-0
4109-96-0 ....:..
7791-21-1 :.....
7803-62-5 .......:
10025-78-2 .
25167-67-^ ' .
Chemical name
Ethane- ' . ' ~.~~ '. . -- - .. -.-..-...
Ethylene [Etherle] .....;....." ----....... .... ........,.,......;.....;
Acetylene [Ethyne] .:.""""" --- ~....~.,.......;...... ..._....;
, [Ethane, chlorb-j
vinyl chloride [Ethene, chlorp-j '-.- ' -'>: -
Vinyl fluoride {Ethene, fluoro-] ""'" ' ."""""" ^"--.",.......,1...:...
Ethylamine [Ethanamine] --- -- .....;..;;.;....;
Acetaldehyde ....^....^"""""" ."-.- - --~..^..^..........:...;..^..
Ethyl mercaptan [EthanethToJj f""""" -""---"v--.-.........r..,.....^...-;r..r..;
Cyclopropane """ "^' "....-............;.......;
isobiitane [Propane, 2-m'etnyli -...........
Isopropyl chloride [Propane, 2-chloroT""""" ' ""'"" ' ->--4.......
sopropylamine [2-Propahamine] ....... """-" :----» ;.:;:-...
Vinylidene chloride [Ethene, 1,1-dichloro-j""""' ; """" '"" "-{--
Difluoroethane [Ethane, 1;1-difluoro-l --;- ;~---.~........,..:.:.....»r.....
Vinylidene fluoride [Ethene, 1,1-difIuoro-]' "'"""" """ ---"!?"-
Tnmethylamine [Methanamine, N, N-dime'th'vlT'r'" """" """-v-":t^:,.,
Tetramethylsilane[SHane,tetramethyM --"------..-...-... ::...;p;,::..
Isopentane [Butane, 2-methyH "" """""""""" -;»-.:.....:.....£ :
teoprene [1,3,-Butadiene, 2-methyH "!i;!;;"!;Z!!I!Z:;Zr"""'"""'""'"""""""'""""T'";"
1-Butene -v.....!!""!r'""''"""" ' ....:.... ,... ..:l.....;..........v..J.^7:.
1,3-Butadiene '-'....;:"''""'""'"" v-----»-.r../.....: v-»:....,..-i.:...,..;'...i....:;|J;....'.-;'
Ethyl acefylene [1-Butyn'eT'ZZ" -----"-"---........ .,::...,.:.|j.;;
2-Butene .. ..::...... ---'-------.:....-,.......,.... ......£...
Vinyl methyl ether [EtneiieT meSoxHT"""" "---"-"----.....-U---
Methyl formate Formic acid, methyl ester]""""-""'''"""""'" "'""'------p-
Pentane .............;.. """; ' "V-..-iS"/.i:.
Vinyl ethyl ether {Ethene,' ethoxy-iZ '''"''"""""""'"''"'"""": '^>
Ethyl nitrite [Nitrous acid, ethyl esteri """"""""---"------.;....4---
Propylene [1-Propene] .. ' "r" -::. .--':. &...;,
Methyl ether [Methane, oxybis-J """"" " """"v ---;- v....,.p;:^
2^lethy!propene[1-Propene,2-meth'yH"""r"""""""'"^"' :-«»;-»£
Tetrafluoroethylene [Ethene, tetrafluorcA '""""""--""-'.............^
Dimethylamine [Methanamine, N-methvl-T""""""""""""""" """ ' "-F
'Cyanogen [Ethanedinitrile] . """ ' -- ......-.......!
Propadiene^[1,2-Propadienel -.."!"""""" -.-..... ;.^...._
Caibon oxysuifide-[Carbon oxide sulfide"(c"6sTr""""""""""""""": '" --"X"-
^Dimethylpropane [Propane, 2,2^ime%l-] " "" -"-- -^
1,3-Pentadiene ........ ; ....,.;....
Mote: Basis for Listing:,: a ;Mandated for listing by Congress./
GAS No.
74-84^-d
74-85-1
:v. 74-86-2
" 74-89^5
.,74-98-6
. 74-99-7:
75-00-3
75-O1-4
75-02-5
75-04-7
75-07-0
75-08-1
75-19-4
75-28-5
.7,5-29-^
-75-31-Q
.. 75-35-4
'75-<37-6
75-38-7
7&-50-3
75-76^-3
.78-78-4
78-79-5
79-^38^9
106-97-8
106-99-0
107-00-6
..... .107,7-01-7
107-25-5'
."107-31-3
-.. 10'9-66-0
109-67-1
109-92-2
109-95-5
. 115-07-1
115-10HB
;i 15-11-7
- ^16-14-3
124-40-3
460-19-5
463-49-0
' 463-68-t
Y 463-82-1
504-60-9
557-98^2
563-45-1
.563-46-2
590-18-1
590-21-6
598-73-2
624-64-6
627-20-3
646-04-8
689-97-4
1333-74-0
4109-96-^0
'7791-21-1
7803-62-5
10025-78-2
25167-67-3
'quantity
(Ibs)
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
x 10,000
:'" 10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
. 10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
.10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
i 0,000
-10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Basis for
listing
g
g,
10,000
10,000
g
g
10,000
10,000
"-10,000
io.ooo
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000'
10,000
10,000
10,000 f
10,000 f
10,000 g
10,000 f
Flammable gas. g VolatileJIammable liquid
:10,000
:i 0,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
. 10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
io.ooo
IFRDqc. 94-1556 Filed 1-28-94; 8:45 am]
BIUJNQ CODE i656(«(M> ''"'
-------
No. 20 /Monday, January 31, 1994 / Notices^
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
lFRt-4828-7]
List of Regulated Substances for
Accidental Release Prevention Under
Section 112{r) of the Clean Air Act as
Amended; Risk Management Programs
for Chemical Accident Release
Prevention Under Section 112(r)(7) of
the Clean Air Act as Amended
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice.
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, signed into law
on November 15,1990, include
provisions for chemical accident
prevention. Elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register, the Environmental
Protection Agency is promulgating the
list of regulated substances and
thresholds required under section 112
(r) of the Clean Air Act as amended. The
list and threshold quantities will
identify facilities subject to chemical
accident prevention regulations to be
promulgated under section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act as amended; a proposed
regulation for such requirements was
published in the Federal Register on
October 20,1993 (58 FR 54190). In
promulgating the list, EPA i.s deferring
action on threshold quantities for listed
flammable substances when used solely
for facility consumption as fuel (see 58
FR 5102,5120, (January 19,1993)). EPA
, requests additional public comment on
the hazards associated with flammables
used as fuel and the appropriateness of
the proposed exemption. In addition,
EPA requests comments on the impacts
of proposed accident prevention
requirements under section 112(r)(7), on
sources that would be covered by the
requirements in the absence of an
exemption, and on ways of reducing the
impacts of these requirements.
Comments will be placed in the dockets
for both the list of regulated substances
and the chemical accident prevention
regulations.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before March 2,1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed
or submitted to: Environmental
Protection Agency, Attn: Docket No. (A-
91-74), room 1500, Waterside Mall, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Comments must be submitted in
triplicate. ' .
DOCKET: Supporting information used ui
developing both the proposed and final
list rules is contained in Docket No. A-
91-74. Supporting information used in
developing the chemical accident
prevention regulations proposed rule is
contained in Docket No. A-91-73.
These dockets are available for public
inspection and copying between 8 a.m.
and 4p.m., Monday through Friday at
the address listed above. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vanessa Rodriguez (202) 260-7913, _
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
'Prevention Office (5101), US
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, or
the Emergency Planning and
Community-Right-to-Know Hot Line at
1-800-535-0202,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory.Authority -
B. Background
II. Use of Flammable Substances as Fuel
A. Regulatory History
B. Hazards Information
C. Regulatory Impact
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
This notice is being issued under
sections 112(r) and 301 of the Clean Air.
Act (CAA or Act) as amended (42 U.S.C.
7412(r), 7601).
B. Background
Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act of
1990 establishes chemical accident
prevention provisions that-focus on
chemicals posing a significant hazard to
the community. The intent of these
provisions is to require facility risk
management practices that will prevent
chemical accidents from occurring and
will minimize the impacts of accidents
that do occur. Section 112(r)(3) of the
CAA requires EPA to promulgate an
initial list of at least 100 substances
("regulated substances") that are known
to cause, or may be reasonably
anticipated to causa, death, injury, or
adverse effects to human health and the
environment. Section 112(r)(5) requires
EPA to set threshold quantities for each
listed substance. EPA is promulgating
the list of regulated substances and
threshold quantities elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. The list is
composed of three categories: toxic
substances, flammable substances, and
explosive substances. Threshold
quantities for toxic substances range ,
from 500 to 20,000 pounds. For all
listed flammable substances, the
threshold quantity is 10,000 pounds,
and for all explosive substances, the
threshold quantity is 5,000 pounds.
Under CAA section 112(r)(7), the Act
requires EPA to promulgate reasonable
regulations and appropriate guidance to
provide for the prevention and detection
of accidental releases and for response
to such releases. The accident
prevention regulations will apply to
stationary sources that have present
more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance. These regulations
shall address, as appropriate, the use,
operation, repair, and maintenance of .
equipment to monitor, detect, inspect,
and control releases, including training
of personnel in the use and maintenance
of equipment or in the conduct of
periodic inspections. The regulations
shall include requirements for the
development and submission of Risk
Management Plans (RMPs) by regulated
facilities. The RMP shall include a
hazard assessment, a prevention
program, and an emergency response
program^ The proposed rule for accident
prevention, Risk Management Programs
for Chemical Accidental Release
Prevention, was published on October
20,1993 (58 FR 54190).
II. Use of Flammable Substances as
Fuel
A. Regulatory History
In the proposed rule to establish a list
of regulated substances (58 FR 5102,
5120 (January 19,1993)), EPA proposed
to exempt from the 10,000-pound
threshold determination flammable
substances!used solely for facility -
'consumption as fuel. The final rule
establishing a list of regulated
substances (see the final rule published
elsewhere in this issue) defers action on
this exemption. EPA plans to make a
determination on the exemption before
or at the time:it publishes a final rule
for risk management planning. " -
A number of commenters. supported
the exemption, arguing that it is
appropriate to exclude on-site storage
and use of hydrocarbon fuels for what
were referred to as "low risk
applications" (e.g., heating and drying).
Some-commenters appeared to interpret
the exemption to apply to process-
related operations, such as process
heaters; this exclusion was not intended
by the Agency. It also was argued by
commenters that current fire protection
standards and emergency procedures
provide acceptable means to prevent
accidental releases and minimise the
impacts in the event of a release.
Other commenters opposed an
exemption for facility'consumption as
fuel. These commenters. argued that use
of flammable substances for fuel is _
probably responsible for more public
risk than all other uses of flammables
combined, and that the Agency had not
made hazard- or risk-based arguments in
support of the exemption. These
commenters noted that the proposed
-------
^. Federal Register / Veil: 59, No. 20 -../. Monday; January 3lfl994 I Notices
4561
exemption- would allow the handling of
large quantities of listed flammable -
?ubstances without the development of
risk management.plan's, - . ; : .-' .' .
The Agency'currently lacks '
information or evidence to demonstrate'
that the hazard and potential for an -
.accidental release is different for the
storage, trafisfer, or use of a flammable -'
substance'used solely as fuel from the ' ;
storage, transfer,,or use of the.same., '
substance in a chemical process. The
Agency also has data available in the . :
docket indicating that flammable
"substances used solely as fuel have been
involved in accidental releases," ;
Therefore, the Agency seeks comment ';...
on the appropriateness of this ' .-
exemption. ..,..; ; ,:.". ' ';. ',,/" -
B. Hazards Information '
EPA requests' comments supported by .-
data on the hazards associated with the.
use of EPA-listed fiamhiable substances
as fuel. In particular, the Agency seeks',
data on actual and potential off-site
impacts. For example, EPA recognizes -
that serious hazaidVare associated with
.propane,'but would like additional
information concerning the impacts of
propane accidents, as related to propane
use as fuel, on the public. EPA also :'
requests comment on whether a hazard-
based distinction'can be made between
flammable substances used as fuel and '
flammable substances otherwise^: :
regulated under the accident prevention
program. In particular, are the hazards
associated with handling flammables for
fuel uses greater or lower than the ' '
hazards associated with using the same
substances in industrial processes
otherwise regulated under the accident
prevention program? -
The Occupational Safety and Health""
Administration (OSHA) exempted
under its process safety management
standards "Hydrocarbon fuels used
solely for workplace consumption as a
fuel * * .,* if such fuels are not part of
a process containing another highly
hazardous chemical covered by the - <
[process safety management] standard"
(see 57 FR 6356, 6367 (February 24, : .
1992)). In part, OSHA's expressed ' .
rationale was that this type of use did ^
not have the same catastrophic potential
to workers.as other uses. Fuel storage
and handling may be systematically
different (due to industrial standards,
technology, and regulation) than storage
and handling of a substance for other
uses. EPA requests comments supported
by available data regarding whether the;
use of a flammable substance as .a fuel
affects the amount of the substance that
. may reasonably be anticipated to cause
off-site impacts of concern as a result of
an accidental release. Another question
concerns the extent to which a hazard-
based distinction can be made between
the EPA-regulated flammables and the
larger OSHA universe of flammable
substances when they are used as fuel.
C. Regulatory Impact.
EPA requests additional information
on: (1) the kinds of substances, (2) the
types and number of facilities,
especially small businesses, and (3) the
uses of flammables that would be
affected by an exemption for the use of
flammable substances as fuels. EPA also
requests comment on the
appropriateness of the risk management.
program as described in the proposed
rule of October 20,1993 (see 58 FR
54190) for this regulated universe.
Comments are sought on the extent
and effectiveness of existing'voluntary
, and regulatory programs that inay
redu.ce hazards associated with the use :
oli,flanimables as fuel, as well as the, -
d|gree to which such requirements'
accomplish the same goals (e.g., , .
availability pf information to the puMiej
as|th'e proposed chemical accident :
pffeveiilipn prograni and plans.^For :"
iiiStance, information on die OSHA
pife'cess safety management standard
ajtd on fire protection measures and
emergency procedures at the state and
local levelis requested. As OSHA noted,.
the OSHA standards for flammable arid -
combustible liquids and, liquified '
- petooloum gases address flammables
ufjfed as fuel (see 57 FR 6367); Do these
standards fuifiirparticular aspects of
EISA's proposed program, such as the
pijeyeiition program element?
EPA alsp seeks comment on ways to ,
reduce the impact of the risk . -
management planning regulations on. _
usiers of flamrnables as fuel if the
Agency determines that an exemption is
n
-------
-------
|7 ?
j. -,, (jr r 5TT f^ -1 j ip -5 -^^3^1
-------
Ite
-------
-------
-------
Federal Register'/ VoL 59, No. 20 /Monday, January 31,
Regulations 4479
program, EPA headquarter? and regional
staff, as well as state and local officials,
learned about integrated approaches to
process safety from facilities. EPA has
also worked with trade associations,
professional'organizations, labor, ;
environmental groups, and other ,
Federal agencies to determine how best
to reach smaller operations, which .the
section 305(bj study indicated are less
aware of risks than larger facilities. EPA -
has also been an active participant in *
international efforts related jto chemical
accident prevention, particularly
through the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OEGD),
which has held-five international
workshops from 1989 through 1991 to
discuss issues related to accident , :
prevention, preparedness-,_arid response, "
and has developed guidelines for -
member countries. -.
In addition to EPA's work in this area,
other agencies and states have
developed programs related to chemical
accident prevention. The Occupational'
Safety and.Health Administration
(OSHA) promulgated a final rule on "_'.
"chemical.process safety management
amending 29 CFR 1910.109 and adding
29 CFR 1910.119 (57 FR 6356, February
24,1992) as required under section 304
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of ,
1990 (CAA Amendments). Four states-
New Jersey, California, Delaware, and
Nevadahave .operational risk
management programs. Additional.,
states have begun to address accidental
release prevention as part of their air
"toxics program development.
Professional and trade organizations
have also developed programs in this .
area. For example, the Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the
American Institute of Chemical
Engineers has published guidance on
the management of chemical process
safety. The Chemical Manufacturers' ..
Association has adopted a Responsible
Care program, which all members
must comply with to maintain . "
membership. The American. Petroleum
Institute has developed a similar
program, Management of Process-
: Hazards; Recommended Practice 750
(RP 750), for its members. In 1982, the
European Community adopted the .,
Seveso Directive (82/501/EEC, as
amended), which requires facilities ,
handling certain'chemicals to develop a
safety report that is similar to a risk
management plan. "
II. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
'A. Preventionof AccidentalReleases
In the CAA Amendments, signed into
law on November 15,,1990, Congress
subsection (r) to CAA'section 112
for the prevention of chemical
accidents. The goals of the chemical
accident prevention provisions are to
focus on chemicals that pose a
significant hazard to the community
should an accident pccur, to prevent :
their accidental release and to minimize
the consequences of such releases.
Section 112(r) of the CAA has a
number of provisions. Under section
112(r) owners and operators of ...
stationary sources who produce, ; ;-
process, handle, or store substances
listed under section 112(r)(3) or any -
other extremely hazardous substances
have a general duty to initiate specific
activities to prevent and mitigate
accidental releases. The general duty ;_.--.-
requirements apply to stationary sources
regardless of the quantity 'of substances
managed at the facility. Activities such
as identifying hazards which may result
from accidental releases jising-, -'.
appropriate hazard assessment \,
techniques; designing, maintaining and
operating a safe facility; and minimizing
. the consequences .of accidental releases
if they occur would be essential - V:
activities to be taken as necessary to
satisfy the general duty requirements.
As a matter of business practice, owners
and operators of these stationary,sources
have a. duty to conduct these activities
under section 112(r) in the same manner
and to the same extent as an employer's
duties under OSHA's general duty ';;
clause in section 654 of title 29 of the
United States Code. .
Section 112(r)(3) of the CAA requires
EPA to promulgate an initial list of at
least 100 substances ("regulated
substances") that are known to cause, or
may be reasonably anticipated to cause, .
death, injury; or serious adverse effects.
to human health, or the environment if
accidentally released. EPA is required to
se,t threshold quantities for each listed
substance. Under CAA section 112(rJ{7),
the Act requires EPA to promulgate :
reasonable regulations and appropriate
guidance to provide for the'prevention -
,- and detection of accidental releases and .
for responses to such releases. The
accident prevention regulations will
apply to stationary sources that have
present more than a .threshold quantity
of a regulated substance..These
regulations shall address, as v ; -
appropriate, the use, operation, repair,
and maintenance of equipment to .
monitor, detect, inspect, and control
.releases, including; training of personnel
in the use and maintenance of
. equipment or in the conduct of periodic
inspections. The regulations shall
include requirements for the
development and submission of Risk
Management Plans {RKlPs) by regulated
sources. The RMP shall include a
hazard assessment, a prevention ,-
program, and an emergency response
jprogram-.The proposed rule for accident
jbfevention, Risk Management Programs
jbr Chemical Accidental Release
Prevention, was published on October
j|0, 1993 (58 FR 54190).
f: The Act establishes a Chemical Safety '..
lind Hazard Investigation Board to
investigate (or cause to be investigated):
ibhemical accidents at facilities and ' ; ;
irecbitamend to Congress, Federal, state,
local authorities, and the public actions ,
feat can be taken to improve chemical
isafet'y.-Under the Act; EPA is authorized
to conduct studies related to accidental
releases, including research on hazard
assessments, hydrogen fluoride, and air
Dispersion modeling. A report to
Opn|?ress 6ii hydrogen fluoride was
completed and published by the Agency
in September 1993, entitled Hydrogen
fluoride Study, Report to Congress,
'section 112(n)(6) of the Clean Air Act as
Amended. , " "?-.-
I; Tlie;Clean Air Act also addressed the -
ilapproyal of state programs and. ;
jdelegation of Federal authorities for all '
jsecttpn 112 requirements in* section
.|112(1). Thus, state Accidental Release
Prevention programs are approved , *
. Ihrougli,the authorities in section '112(1).
pThe approval provisions of section
1112(1)(5) include a determination that: A
iftate program contains the authorities to
' issujre; compliance by all sources within
the istate with each applicable standard,
"Sregulation, or requirement; adequate.;
ijpesources are available to implement the ;
;jprojprain; an expeditious ".,-.--""
^implementation schedule is in place to
|ensiu-e that affected sources achieve '
Icompliance; and the. state :program is : ;
:;, ptherwise in cornpliarice with the :
Idbjectives of the Act and guidance . ;
ipublished under section 112(1)(2).
ji THe Agency promulgated a final rule
'|in November 1993 which addresses the
[approval requirements of section 112(1)
"'lerititled Approval of State Programs and
jDelegation of Federal Authorities.These
! requirements can be -found hi 40 CFR .
jp'art 63SubpartE. Section 63.95 .:.
jspe<:ifically address the'required -..
;pqomponents of an accidental release '
."[prevention program. The Agency is
!cun-ently wprking on developing further
jguidarice to states in regard to the ''_
[Development of an accidental release
[prevention program. ; - '
[Under section 304 of the CAA ' :
;[A^nendments, OSHA was required to
ipramijlgate a chemical process safety
,;[rnaiiagbment standard to protect. .'-'.'
/[employees from hazards associated with.
! accidental releases of highly hazardous
Ichemicals in the workplace.. OSHA _.'..'.
| promulgated a final rule amending 29 "
JCFR 1916.1O9 and adding 29 CFR ;/'"
-------
4480
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 20 / Monday. January 31, 1994 / Rules, and
1910.110 (57 FR 6356, February 24,
19132) that requires a chemical process
safety management (PSM) program for
tiny process involving a highly
hazardous chemical at or above a
specified threshold quantity. The rule
applies to a list of highly hazardous
toxic and reactive substances at
particular threshold quantities,
flammable liquids or flammable gases in
quantities of 10,000 pounds or more and
to the manufacture of explosives and
pyrotechnics.
B.Ust of Substances and Thresholds;
Petitions for Additions and Deletions
1. Legislative Requirements
The Act requires EPA to promulgate
an initial list of at least 100 substances
that, in the event of an accidental
release, are known to cause or may
reasonably bo anticipated to cause
death, injury, or serious adverse effects
to human health or the environment. An
accidental release is defined under CAA
section 112(r)(2)(A) as "an
unanticipated emission * * * into the
ambient air from a stationary source." In
developing this list, EPA was required
to consider, but was not limited to, the
Hst.of extremely hazardous substances
(EHSs) promulgated under EPCRA
(SARA Title 111) section 302.
Congress listed the follo%ving 16
substances to be included in the initial
list (the Chemical Abstracts Service,
(CAS) Registry number is provided in
parentheses):
Chlorine (7782-50-5)
Ammonia and anhydrous ammonia
(7664-41-7)
Methyl chloride (74-87-3)
Ethyleno oxide (75-21-8)
Vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Methyl isocyanate (624-83-9)
Hydrogen cyanide (74-90-8)
Hydrogen sulfide (7783-06-4)
Toluene diisocyanate, represented by:
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate (584-84-9)
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate (91-08-7)
Toluene diisocyanate, unspecified
Isomer (26471-62-5)
Phosgene (75-44-5)
Bromine (7726-95-6)
Anhydrous hydrogen chloride (7647-
01-0)
Hydrogen fluoride (76.64-39-3)
Anhydrous sulfur dioxide (7446-09-5),
and
Sulfur trioxido (7446-11-9)
No air pollutant for which a national
primary ambient ah- quality standard
lias boon established maybe included
on the list, with the exception of
anhydrous sulfur dioxide and sulfur
trioxlde, which must be included. No
substances regulated under Title VI of
the Act as amended may be included on
the list. Title VI covers ozone depleters,
primarily chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
and halons. The Act requires EPA to
review, and if necessary revise, the list
. of regulated substances under section
112(r) at least every five years. EPA may
also review and if necessary revise the
list as a result of petitions. EPA is
required to develop procedures for
petitions to the Agency for the addition
of substances to, and deletion of
substances from, the list; these petition
procedures are to be consistent with
those applicable to the list of hazardous
air pollutants found in CAA
Amendments section 112(b).
2. Summary of Proposed Rule
On January 19,1993 (58~FR 5102),
EPA proposed a list of 100 toxic
substances and threshold quantities, a
list of 62 flammable substances (gases
and volatile liquids) with threshold
quantities of 10,000 pounds, and
commercial explosives defined by the
Department of Transportation (DOT) as
Division 1.1 (explosives with'mass
explosion hazard) with a threshold
quantity of 5,000 pounds. EPA also
proposed requirements for a petition
process to add or delete chemicals from
the list. x
Toxic substances were included on
the list based on their toxicity, physical
state, vapor pressure, production
volume, and accident history. Toxicity
criteria used to identify chemicals as
extremely hazardous.substances (EHSs)
under EPCRA were used as criteria for
the proposed list. The acute toxicity
criteria are:
(a) Inhalation LC50 S 0.5 milligrams
per liter of air (for,exposure time < 8
hours), or '
(b) Dermal LDso S 50 milligrams per.
kilogram of body weight, or T.
(c) Oral LD5o 5 25 milligrams per
kilogram of body weight where LC50 is
the median concentration in air at . .
which 50 percent of the test animals
died, and LDso is the median lethal dose
that killed 50 percent of the test
animals. In the absence of LC50 or LDso
data, LCu, or LEto data were used for
listing, where LCu, is the lethal
concentration low, or lowest
concentration in air at which any of the
test animals died, and LD^ is the lethal-
dose low, or the lowest concentration at
, which any of the test animals died.
Additional substances on the EHS list
meet the secondary EHS toxicity criteria
in light of production volume (see
appendix B of EPA's Technical
Guidance for Hazards Analysis,
December 1987, which is in the docket
for this rulemaking). A vapor pressure
criterion of 0.5 millimeters of mercury
(mm Hg) was used as a baseline, based
on the vapor pressure of.toluene
diisocyanate,. a substance mandated for
the initial list by Congress; toxic gases
and liquids with a vapor pressure of 0.5
mm Hg or higher under ambient
conditions were considered for listing.
. Only toxic chemicals in commercial
production, verified through EPA's
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Chemical Inventory, were included on
the list. By applying these criteria to the
360 chemicals on the EPCRA EHS list,
' the Agency identified 87 potential
regulated substances for the CAA
Amendments section 112(r) list. The
Agency also looked at other data sources
(including the OSHA highly hazardous
chemical list) to identify 9 more .
substances for the section 112(r) list. '
Four additional substances were
identified for listing based on a
combination of toxicity, high
production volume, and history of
accidents involving death or injury.
Threshold quantities were set for toxic
substances based on a ranking method
that considers toxicity and volatility of
the chemicals. EPA assigned identical
thresholds to chemicals with similar
ranking scores, ranging from 500
. pounds to 10,000 pounds.
Flammable gases, and volatile
flammable liquids were included on the
list based.on the flash point and boiling
point criteria used by,the National Fire ,
Protection Association (NFPA) for its '
highest flammability hazard ranking
(flash point below 73°F(22.8°C) and
boiling point below 100°F (37.8°C)) (Fire
Protection Guide on Hazardous
Materials, 1984, 8th edition). Only
flammable substances in commercial
production were listed. The threshold
quantity for flammable substances was
set at 10,000 pounds, based on the
potential for a vapor cloud explosion.
Explosives in Division 1.1 were
proposed for listing based on their -
potential to detonate. The threshold
quantity for .explosives was set at 5,000
pounds because a detonation of this
quantity'could yield blast wave
overpressures of 3.0 pounds per square
inch (psi) at a distance of 100 meters
from the blast-site and could have "
potentially lethal effects in the
community beyond the fenceline.
EPA proposed to apply the threshold
quantity to the maximum total quantity
of a substance in a process. This
definition would apply to the maximum
total quantity, at any one time, in a
single vessel, in a group'of
interconnected vessels or in several
vessels that could potentially be
involved at one time in an accidental
release. Substances in mixtures would
be exempted from the threshold '
"determination if they represent less than
------- |