United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 540-R-97-039
OSWER 9285.9-34
PB97-963259
January 1998
Superfurxj
v>EPA
Risk Management
Programs
40 CFR Part 68
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
9285.9-34
EPA540-R-97-G39
PB97-963259
FOREWORD
This manual is for reference use of students enrolled in scheduled training courses of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While it will be useful to anyone who needs information
on the subjects covered, it will have its greatest value as an adjunct to classroom presentations
involving discussions among the students and the instructional staff.
This manual has been developed to provide the best available current information; however,
individual instructors may provide additional material to cover special aspects of their presentations.
Because of the limited availability of the manual, it should not be cited in bibliographies or other
publications.
References to products and manufacturers are for illustration only; they do not imply endorsement
by EPA.
Constructive suggestions for improvement of the content and format of the Risk Management
Programs (RMP) manual are welcome.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Environmental Response Team
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Lecture Viewgraphs
• Risk Management Programs (RMP) 40 CFR Part 68
• RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance
• Prevention Programs, Emergency Response, and Risk
Management Plans
* Risk Management Plans
List of Regulated Substances. . .
40 CFR Parts 9 and 68
* List of Regulated Substances. . .
* Proposed Amendments
* Stay of Effectiveness
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements. . .
40 CFR Part 68
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance
Integrated Contingency Plans and Unified Command
Risk Management Plan Data Elements
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
RISK MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS (RMP)
40 CFR Part 68
Halliburton NUS Corporation
EPA Contract No. 68-C7-0033
HISTORY
Early 1980s - Responding to releases
Late 1980s - Preparing for releases
1990s - Preventing releases
RESPONDING TO RELEASES
• Bhopal, India
• Institute, West Virginia
• Chernobyl, USSR
-------
PREPARING FOR RELEASES
• Community Right-to-Know
• State emergency response
commissions
• Local emergency planning
committees
PREVENTING RELEASES
OSHA - Process safety
management
EPA - Risk management
programs
RMP ACTIONS
Facilities - Analyze risks and
generate risk management plans
Implementing agencies - Review
and audit the plans
Others - Use information from the
plans to review areas of concern
and improve release prevention
and emergency response
-------
BMP BENEFITS
States - Establish areas of concern to
identify needs and allocate limited
resources
Communities - Understand local risks
and identify vulnerable populations to
improve community emergency
notification and response
Facilities - Verify risks to help prioritize
prevention and mitigation activities
*
COURSE GOALS
Determine RMP applicability and program
levels for industrial facilities
Conduct hazard assessments (offsite
consequence analyses) using EPA's RMP
Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance
Verify that facilities' risk management
plans meet RMP requirements
CM AMENDMENTS OF 1990
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments
- EPA List of Regulated
Substances
- EPA RMP
-------
CAA AMENDMENTS (cont.)
• Section 112(r)(3)
40 CFR Parts 9 and 68 -
January 31,1994
- List of Regulated Substances
and Threshold Quantities
S 63 flammable substances
s 77 toxic substances
BMP
Section 112(r)(7)
40 CFR Part 68 - June 20,1996
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements:
Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air
Act, Section 112(r)(7); List of Regulated Substances
and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention,
Stay of Effectiveness; and Accidental Release
Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act
as Amended, Guidelines; Final Rules and Notice
BMP SUBPARTS
Definitions, Applicability, General
Requirements, and Management
(68.3-68.15)
Hazard Assessment (68.20-68.42)
Program 2 Prevention Program
(68.48-68,60)
Program 3 Prevention Program
(68.65-68.87)
-------
BMP PROGRAMS
* Program 1
• Program 2
• Program 3
One source could
have processes in one
or more programs
RMP PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA (68.10)
Program 1
- No offsite accident history
- No public receptors
- Emergency response coordinated
with local emergency organizations
Program 2
- Not eligible for Program 1 or 3
RMP PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA (68.10) (cont.)
Program 3
- Pulp mills
- Selected chemicals and allied
products industries
- Petroleum refineries
- Industries subject to OS HA
process safety management (PSM)
-------
RMP SUBPARTS (cont.)
• Emergency Response
(68.90-68.95)
• List of Regulated Substances
(68.100-68.130)
• Risk Management Plan
(68.150-68.190)
• Other Requirements
(68.200-68.220)
RMP APPLICABILITY (68.10)
A stationary source with more than a
threshold quantity of a regulated substance
in a process must compiy no later than the
latest of the following dates:
• June 21,1999
• 3 years after a new regulated substance
is first listed
* Date when the regulated substance is
first present at the source
EXCEPTIONS
* Exclusions and Exemptions
- Materials in transport
- Ammonia held by farmers (68.125)
• Modifications
- Gasoline (68.115)
- Naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures (68.115)
- Explosives
-------
PROCESS SAFETY
MANAGEMENT
29 CFR Part 1910.119-
February 24, 1992
- Process Safety Management of
Highly Hazardous Chemicals;
Explosives and Blasting Agents;
Final Rule
PROCESS SAFETY
MANAGEMENT (cont.)
Applies to processes involving:
- Manufacture and storage of
explosives, blasting agents, and
pyrotechnics
- Highly hazardous chemicals
- Flammable liquids or gases
(10,000 Ib)
PROCESS SAFETY
MANAGEMENT (cont.)
* Does not apply to:
- Retail facilities
- Oil or gas well operations
- Normally unoccupied remote
facilities
- Non-OS HA facilities
-------
RMP DEFINITIONS
Worst-case release scenarios (68.3)
- The release of the largest quantity
of a regulated substance from a
vessel or process line failure that
results in the greatest distance to
an endpoint
RMP DEFINITIONS (cont.)
Toxic endpoint (listed in Appendix A)
- Emergency Response Planning
Guidance level 2 (ERPG-2)
- Level of Concern (LOG)
- Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGLs) (being developed)
RMP DEFINITIONS (cont.)
Flammable endpoint (68.22)
- Explosive overpressure of 1 psi
- Radiant heat: 5kW/m2for
40 seconds
- Lower flammable limit
-------
BMP DEFINITIONS (cont.)
* Alternative release scenarios (68.28)
- Releases with an offsite impact
that are more likely to occur than
worst-case releases and that
consider active and passive
mitigation systems
RMP DEFINITIONS (cont.)
Offsite (68.3)
- Areas beyond the property
boundary of the stationary source,
and areas within the property
boundary to which the public has
routine and unrestricted access
during or outside of business hours
RMP DEFINITIONS (cont.)
• Population (68,3)
- The public: any person except
employees or contractors at
the stationary source
-------
BMP DEFINITIONS (cont.)
• Public receptor (68.3)
- Offsite areas such as
residences, schools, office
buildings, and parks where
members of the public could
be exposed
RMP DEFINITIONS (cont.)
Environmental receptor (68.3)
- Natural areas such as national or
state parks, forests, or monuments
that can be identified on local U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) maps
RMP DEFINITIONS (oont.)
Five-year accident history (68.42)
- Must include all accidental releases
of regulated substances from
covered processes resulting in
serious onsite or offsite impacts in
the 5 years prior to the submission
of each RMP
-------
BMP REQUIREMENTS
Requirements
Hazard Assessment (Subpart B)
* Worst-case analysis (68.25)
* Alternative releases (38.28)
* 5-year accident history (68.42)
Management Program (68.15)
* Document management system
Programs
1
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
-------
BMP REQUIREMENTS (cont.)
Requirements
Prevention Program (Subpart D
Prevention Program)
Certify no added steps needed
Safety information
Hazard review
Operating procedures
Training
Maintenance / mechanical Integrity
Incident investigation
Compliance audit
Management of change
Pre-startup review
Contractors
Employee participation
Hot work permits
Programs
1
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
RMP REQUIREMENTS (cont.)
Requirements
Emergency Response Program
(Subpart E Emergency Response)
* Coordinate with local responders
* Develop plan and program
Risk Management Plan Contents
(Subpart G Risk Management Plan)
Executive summary
Registration
Worst-case data
Alternative release data
5-year accident history
Prevention program data
Emergency response data
Certification
Programs
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
PREVENTION
PROGRAMS,
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE, AND
RISK MANAGEMENT
PREVENTION PROGRAMS
Goal: To prevent an uncontrolled
release of a regulated
substance from a
stationary source
METHODS OF RELEASE
PREVENTION
Intrinsic - Eliminates the hazard
by using materials or process
conditions that are non-hazardous
-------
METHODS OF RELEASE
PREVENTION (cent)
Passive - Eliminates or minimizes
the hazard by process or
equipment design that does not
require energy input to achieve
function
METHODS OF RELEASE
PREVENTION (cont.)
Active - Minimizes risk through
incorporation of devices such as
safety interlocks, process controls,
and emergency shutdown systems
to detect hazardous process
deviations and take corrective
actions
METHODS OF RELEASE
PREVENTION (cont)
Administrative.- Uses operating
procedures and management
approaches to prevent releases or
to minimize the effects if a release
does occur
-------
CORE PU\N
Discovery
Initial response
Sustained actions
Termination and follow-up
ANNEXES
Facility information
Notification
Response management
system
Incident documentation
ANNEXES (cont.)
Training
Response critique
Prevention
Regulatory compliance
-------
RELEASE PREVENTION
STRATEGIES
Intrinsic - Ideally the best method
Passive - Relied upon for a worst case
Active - Provides flexibility
Administrative - Limits human factors
INTEGRATED CONTINGENCY
PLANS (One Plan)
Philosophy - Minimizes duplication
Core plan - Essential steps
Annexes - Key supporting material
INTRODUCTION
• Purpose and scope
• Table of contents
• Revisions
» General facility information
-------
UNIFIED COMMAND STRUCTURE
-------
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
Page 70
« Worst-case scenarios - toxics
* Alternative scenarios - toxics
• Worst-case scenarios - flammables
• Alternative scenarios - flammables
-------
WORST-CASE SCENARIO
Page 2
« Meteorological conditions
• Topography
• Passive mitigation
• Administrative controls
WORST-CASE SCENARIO:
TOXICS - Page 4
• Toxic endpoints
* Toxic gases
* Toxic liquids
TOXIC GAS RELEASE RATES
PageS
* Unmitigated releases
* Releases in an enclosed space
* Liquefied refrigerated gas
-------
RMP OFFSiTE
CONSEQUENCE
ANALYSIS GUIDANCE
OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE
ANALYSIS GUIDANCE
• Types of chemicals
• Worst-case scenario
• Alternative release scenario
• Offeite receptors
TYPES OF CHEMICALS
Page VII
• Toxic substances
. Toxic gases
- Toxic liquids
• Flammable substances
- Not in mixtures
- Mixtures
-------
ALTERNATIVE RELEASE
SCENARIOS (cont.)
Page 35
• Toxic release rates
• Vapor cloud fires
• Pool fires
» BLEVEs (boiling liquid,
expanding vapor explosion)
OFFSITE RECEPTORS
Page 69
* Residential populations
* Public receptors
• Environmental receptors
• Maps
MAPS
LANOVIEWII maps (residential
populations)
Local street maps (public
receptors)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
maps (environmental receptors)
-------
TOXIC LIQUID RELEASE RATES
Page 8
• Releases from pipes
* Unmitigated releases
« Releases with passive mitigation
* Mixtures
WORST-CASE SCENARIO:
FLAMMABLES - Page 21
Vapor cloud explosions
Flammable non-mixtures
Flammable mixtures
ALTERNATIVE RELEASE
SCENARIOS
Page 35
* Meteorological conditions
• Topography
• Active mitigation
-------
B, Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Federal
agencies must evaluate the effects of this final rule on small entities
and examine alternatives that may reduce these effects. EPA has
examined this final rule's potential effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It has determined that this
rule will have no adverse effect on small entities because it defers
the need for stationary sources to comply with current rule provisions
that EPA has proposed to amend; the amendments, if adopted, likely
would reduce the number of stationary sources subject to the accidental
release prevention requirements. Therefore, I certify that today's
final stay of effectiveness rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not include any information collection
requirements for OMB to review under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3S01 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates
-------
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a statement to
accompany any rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, will be $100
million or more in any one year. Under section 205, EPA must select the
most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising
any small governments that may be significantly impacted by the rule.
EPA has estimated that this rule does not include a Federal mandate
that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector.
E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under section 801(a)(l)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by section 804(2) of the
-------
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical Engineer,
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Environmental
Protection Agency (5101), 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202)
260-7913.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Discussion
On April 15, 1996, EPA proposed amendments to regulations in 40 CFR
part 68 that, inter alia, list regulated substances and establish
threshold quantities for the accident prevention provisions under Clean
Air Act section 112(r). 61 FR 16598. Readers should refer to that
document for a complete discussion of the background of the rule
affected. The amendments proposed in that document f 'List Rule
Amendments") would, if promulgated, delete explosives from the list of
regulated substances, modify threshold provisions to exclude flammable
substances in gasoline and in naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures
prior to entry into a processing unit or plant, modify the threshold
provisions for other flammable mixtures, and clarify the definition of
-------
stationary source with respect to transportation, storage incident to
transportation, and naturally occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs.
On the same date, EPA proposed to stay provisions of part 68 that
were affected by the proposed List Rule Amendments until such time as
EPA takes final action on the proposed List Rule Amendments. 61 FR
16606. EPA proposed a stay of 18 months because it believed such a
period would be sufficient to take final action on the List Rule
Amendments and believed that owners and operators affected by the List
Rule Amendments should have the same certainty about whether they are
subject to part 68 as owners and operators of other sources have when
they begin their regulatory compliance planning. In general, owners and
operators of sources subject to the "Risk Management Program11 final
rule promulgated elsewhere in today's Federal Register, have three
years from today to achieve compliance with part 68.
[[Page 31731]]
EPA received seven comment letters on the proposed stay; all
generally supported EPA's action. The Agency's response to comments is
contained below. Three commenters suggested that EPA should promulgate
a stay for so long as it takes the Agency to take final action on the
List Rule Amendments rather than for t certain (18 month) time period.
The 18 month time period was selected to be consistent with the time
-------
period provided for final action on amendments discussed in the
settlement of litigation concerning the List Rule. EPA believes this
time will be sufficient to take any necessary action. Another commenter
expressed concern that the stay would not affect statutory deadlines
for seeking judicial review of the final Risk Management Program rule.
EPA has not taken final action on the Risk Management Program rule's
applicability to stationary sources, mixtures containing regulated
flammable substances, and regulated explosive substances that are
subject to today's stay. In the event that the Agency does not
promulgate the List Rule Amendments, the Agency intends to take final
action on applying the Risk Management Program to the sources,
mixtures, and substances to be regulated. In the absence of final
action on the Risk Management Program rule as it applies to these
sources, mixtures, and substances, a petition seeking review of that
rule would be premature.
Under the provisions of section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act, a
petition for judicial review of this stay may only be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit within
60 days of today's publication of this action.
II. Required Analyses
A E.G. 12866
-------
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must judge whether the regulatory action is "significant," and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a
"significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health or safety,
or state, local, or tribal government or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined this final rule is not a "significant
regulatory action" under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and
therefore is not subject to OMB review.
-------
APA as amended.
List of Subjects in 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: May 24, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I,
Subchapter C, Part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to
read as follows:
PART 68-ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION PROVISIONS
1, The authority citation for Part 68 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601.
-------
2, In Subpart A, Sec, 68.2 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 68.2 Stayed Provisions.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the
effectiveness of the following provisions is stayed from March 2,1994
to December 22, 1997.
(1) In Sec. 68.3, the definition of "stationary source," to the
extent that such definition includes naturally occurring hydrocarbon
reservoirs or transportation subject to oversight or regulation under a
state natural gas or hazardous liquid program for which the state has
in effect a certification to DOT under 49 U.S.C. 60105;
(2) Section 68.115(b)(2) of this part, to the extent that such
provision requires an owner or operator to treat as a regulated
flammable substance:
(i) Gasoline, when in distribution or related storage for use as
fuel for internal combustion engines;
(u) Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to entry into a
petroleum refining process unit or a natural gas processing plant
Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures include any of
[[Page 31732]]
-------
the following: concfensate, crude oil, field gas, and produced water,
each as defined in paragraph (b) of this section;
(iii) Other mixtures that contain a regulated flammable substance
and that do not have a National Fire Protection Association
flammability hazard rating of 4, the definition of which is in the NFPA
704, Standard System for the Identification of the Fire Hazards of
Materials, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1990,
available from the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101; and
(3) Section 68.130(a).
(b) From March 2, 1994 to December 22,1997, the following
definitions shall apply to the stayed provisions described in paragraph
(a) of this section:
Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that
condenses because of changes in temperature, pressure, or both, and
remains liquid at standard conditions.
Crude oil means any naturally occurring, unrefined petroleum
liquid.
Field gas means gas extracted from a production well before the gas
enters a natural gas processing plant.
Natural gas processing plant means any processing site engaged k
the extraction of natural gas liquids from field gas, fractionation of
-------
natural gas liquids to natural gas products, or both. A separator,
dehydration unit, heater treater, sweetening unit, compressor, or
similar equipment shall not be considered a "processing site" unless
such equipment is physically located within a natural gas processing
plant (gas plant) site.
Petroleum refining process unit means a process unit used in an
establishment primarily engaged in petroleum refining as defined in the
Standard Industrial Classification code for petroleum refining (2911)
and used for the following: Producing transportation fuels (such as
gasoline, diesel fuels, and jet fuels), heating fuels (such as
kerosene, fuel gas distillate, and fuel oils), or lubricants;
separating petroleum; or separating, cracking, reacting, or reforming
intermediate petroleum streams. Examples of such units include, but are
not limited to, petroleum based solvent units, alkylation units,
catalytic hydrotreating, catalytic hydrorefining, catalytic
hydrocraeking, catalytic reforming, catalytic cracking, crude
distillation, lube oil processing, hydrogen production, isomerization,
polymerization, thermal processes, and blending, sweetening, and
treating processes. Petroleum refining process units include sulfur
plants.
Produced water means water extracted from the earth from an oil or
natural gas production well, or that is separated from oil or natural
gas after extraction.
-------
[FRDoc. 96-14636Tiled 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental
[Federal Register: June 20, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 120)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31730-31732J
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[FRL-5516-6]
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental
Release Prevention; Final Rule—Stay of Effectiveness
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-------
SUMMARY: On April 15, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed several modifications to provisions of the rule listing
regulated substances and establishing threshold quantities under
section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as amended (List Rule Amendments).
The proposed List Rule Amendments, if promulgated in a final rule,
would clarify or establish that part 68 does not apply to several types
of processes and sources. In addition, EPA proposed, pursuant to Clean
Air Act section 30i(a)(l), 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(l), to stay the
effectiveness of provisions that would be affected by the proposed List
Rule Amendments, for so long as necessary to take final action on the
proposed List Rule Amendments. EPA received no adverse public comment
on the short-term stay. Today EPA is amending part 68 to promulgate the
stay, under which owners and operators of processes and sources that
EPA has proposed not be subject to part 68 would not become subject to
part 68 until EPA has determined whether to proceed with the List Rule
Amendments. The effect of today's action will be to give owners and
operators of sources affected by the proposed List Rule Amendments the
same amount of time to achieve compliance with the requirements of part
68 as owners and operators of other sources in the event that EPA does
not proceed with the List Rule Amendments as proposed.
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion I I2(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf hnp^/www.cpa.gov/swercepp/rules/lislruk
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for
AeeidentaLRelease Prevention; Requirements for
Petitions under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act as Amended
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PARTS 9 AND 68
[ FRL-4828-6]
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 112(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 112(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 Bisk 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.
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 8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, Room M 1500, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20460. A reasonable fee may
be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical Engineer, (202)
260-7913, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Mailcode 5101, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 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:
1 Introduction
Iof48 02/25/9711:17
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresho!...ion U2(r)of the Clean Air Act uAmendf http^/wwtv.epa.gov/jwcrccpjv'rules/'lisi
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
HI. 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
I. Basis for Threshold Determination
2. Mixture Exemption
a. Toxic Substances
b. Flammable Substances
c. Explosive Substances
3. Other Threshold Exemptions
2 of 48 02/25/97 !
-------
List of Regulated Substance* wid ThrtshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Ail Act as Amendf http://www.epa.gov/jweixwpp/rulesAiMnik.
C. Petition Process
D. Definitions —
E, Exemptions
F, Scope
V. Summary of Provisions of the Final Rule
VI, Required Analyses
A. E.G. 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Display of OMB Control Numbers
L Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
This 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. 7412(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., the 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 Ak
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-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA), also known as Title M of the Superfimd Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA Title III). 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 information 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.
3 of 48 02/2*9711:19:
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Tljreshol...ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/nilesi1is
Congress required EPA, under EPCRA (SARA Title HI) section 305(b), to conduct a review of
emergency systems to monitor, detect, and prevent chemical 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 program, EPA developed its Accidental Release
Information Program (ARJOP) 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 program, EPA headquarters 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(b) study indicated are less aware
of risks than larger facilities. EPA has also been an active participant in international efforts related to
chemical accident prevention, particularly through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), which has held five international workshops from 1989 through 1991 to discuss
issues related to accident prevention, preparedness, and 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 Nevada
— have 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 CareTM 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 (82/50 I/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, Prevention of Accidental Releases
In the CAA Amendments, signed into law on November 15, 1990, Congress added 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
occur, 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
4of4g 02/25/971
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol...ion 112(r) of the Clew Air Act as Amcndf http://www.eim.gov/fWMeepp/rules/listrijl
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 release* using appropriate hazard assessment techniques; designing, maintaining and
operating a safe facility; and minimizing the consequences of accidental releases if they occur would be
essential 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 set threshold quantities for each listed substance. 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 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 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 sources. 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).
The Act establishes a Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to investigate (or cause to be
investigated) chemical accidents at facilities and recommend to Congress, Federal, state, local authorities,
and the public actions that can be taken to improve chemical safety. 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 Congress on 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,
The Clean Air Act also addressed the approval of state programs and delegation of Federal authorities for
all section 112 requirements in section 112(1). Thus, state Accidental Release Prevention programs are
approved through the authorities in section 112(1). The approval provisions of section 112(1)(5) include a
determination that: a state program contains the authorities to assure compliance by all sources within the
state with each applicable standard, regulation, or requirement; adequate resources are available to
implement the program; an expeditious implementation schedule is in place to ensure that affected
sources achieve compliance; and the state program is otherwise in compliance with the objectives of the
Act and guidance published under section 112(1)(2).
The Agency promulgated a final rule in November 1993 which addresses the approval requirements of
section 112(1) entitled Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities. These
requirements can be found in 40 CFR Part 63 - Subpart E. Section 63.95 specifically address the required
components of an accidental release prevention program. The Agency is currently working on developing
further guidance to states in regard to the development of an accidental release prevention program.
Under section 304 of the CAA Amendments OSHA was required to promulgate a chemical process
safety management standard to protect employees from hazards associated with accidental releases of
Jof48
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of ihe Clean Air Act aa Ainendf http^/www.epa.gov/swereepp'reles/lisl
highly hazardous chemicals in the workplace. OSHA promulgated a final rule amending 29 CFR
1910,109 and adding 29 CFR 1910,119 (57 FR 6356, February 24, 1992) that requires a chemical
process safety management (PSM) program for any 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. List 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 be 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 list of extremely hazardous substances
(EHSs) promulgated under EPCRA (SARA Title m) section 302.
Congress listed the following 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),
ethylene 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),
6 of 48 QW5&!1
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf http://www.epft.gov/swercepp/rulcs/listnile
hydrogen fluoride (7664-39-3),
anhydrous sulfur dioxide (7446-09-5), and
sulfur trioxide (7446-11-9),
No air pollutant for which a national primary ambient air quality standard has been established may be
included on the list, with the exception of anhydrous sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, which must be
included. No substances regulated under Title VT 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.
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 0,5 milligrams per liter of air (for exposure time 8 hours), or
(b) Dermal LD50 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, or
(c) Oral LD50 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 LD50 is
the median lethal dose that killed 50 percent of the test animals. In the absence of LC50 or LD50 data,
LCLo or LDLo data were used for listing, where LCLo is the lethal concentration low, or lowest
concentration in air at which any of the test animals died, and LDLo 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
7 of 48 02/25/9711:1
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thre»hoi...ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Aet ms Arnendf http^/www.epa,gov/swere«|)jk'fMie»'lii
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 73oF (22.8oC) and boiling point below lOOoF (37.8oC)) (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 oft 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 one percent of the mixture by weight. EPA also proposed to exempt substances if (1)
they are part of articles; (2) if they are used as structural components; (3) if they are used for janitorial
maintenance; or (4) if they are found in consumer products, process water, or in water or air from the
environment or 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 proposed to establish that the burden of proof be 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.
DDL Public Participation
A hearing was held on the proposed rule in the EPA Auditorium, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington D.C.,
on Tuesday, April 12, 1993. The hearing 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 additional 18 were received after the close of
the public comment period); copies of all comment letters received are available for public inspection in
the docket. A response to comments document, entitled Proposed List 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 document is available in the docket.
TV. 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 public
comments. Included 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 the final rule, the Agency continues to
8 of 48 02/25/97
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air A« as Amendf hnp-//www.epa.gav/swcrceppfnilesi1istnih
rely on the rationale provided in the proposal notice, supplemented as appropriate by additional
discussion in this preamble and in the response to comments document.
A. List 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)(7) of 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 to 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 and mixtures in commerce in the U.S. that in specific circumstances could
be considered dangerous to human health or the environment; however, it would not be feasible to
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(rX7)(B) only if they have listed substances in quantities exceeding the threshold quantity, it does not
mean that these substances in smaller quantities represent no potential hazard to the community in certain
circumstances. In support of this principle Congress included general duty provisions under section
U2(r)(l)oftheAct
Several comrnenters objected to the listing of classes of substances such as explosives or particular
substances such as various flammable natural gases because these comrnenters 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 extremely hazardous substance." The Agency believes the
scope of substances covered by section 112(r)(l) is not affected by this rulemaking except that by
including a substance on the regulated substance list, the Agency unambiguously specifies that the general
duty provisions apply to such chemicals. The plain language of section 112(r)(l) applies not only to the
regulated substances listed today but also to "any other extremely hazardous substance."
In discussing nearly identical language in the Senate's Clean Air Act Amendments bill of 1989, the
Environment and Public Works Committee expressed the intent that the term "extremely hazardous
substance" would include not only listed substances under the accident prevention provisions and
extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA (SARA Title HI) section 302 but also "other agents which
may or may not be listed or otherwise identified by any Government agency which may as the result of
short-term exposures associated with releases to the air cause death, injury or property damage" (Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989, Senate Report No,
228, 101st Congress, 1st Session 211 (1989) - "Senate Report"). Regardless of whether a substance is
listed under today's rule, the general duty to identify and assess hazards associated with accidental
releases (as defined in section 112(r)(2)), to design and maintain a facility to prevent such releases, and to
minimize the consequences of such releases that do occur, extends to owners and operators of any facility
that may cause such impacts due to short-term exposures. As the Senate makes clear, "the release of any
substance which causes death or serious injury because of its acute toxic effect or as a result of an
explosion or fire or which causes substantial property damage by blast, fire, corrosion or other reaction
would create a presumption that such substance is extremely hazardous." Senate Report at 211. No
revision to the list promulgated today negates the applicability of the general duty provisions.
9 of 48 OXQ5/97 11:15
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of lie Clean Air Act as Amendf (ittp://www,epa.gov/swervepp/mles/!jiti
1. Toxic Substances
a. Listing Criteria •*•
Several commenters suggested that EPA modify its listing criteria, largely so that EPA's list would be
more consistent with OSHA's list of Highly Hazardous Substances for its Process Safety Management
Standard, but also because commenters believed EPA's list includes some chemicals that do not pose the
greatest hazards to the public. Some commenters suggested the proposed 0,5 mm Hg vapor pressure cut
off was too low. Others suggested an alternative method of choosing the list 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 SABA Title
HI, with additional consideration of the vapor pressures and accident histories for each substance. The
proposed list included 50 toxic substances that are not listed by OSHA.
Substance Hazard Index: Some commenters suggested replacing EPA's proposed listing criteria with
another method labeled the "Substance Hazard Index" (SHI). The SHI is the ratio of a substance's vapor
pressure to its acute toxicity; 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 was 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 during the proposed rule development, but decided not to include it
as an alternate listing methodology option. EPA instead considered toxicity and vapor pressure separately
in identifying chemicals for listing; the SHI combines these factors. EPA believes that using separate
toxicily and vapor 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 health
effects (toxicity) and the likelihood of accidental releases of the substances (volatility), as required by the
Act. However, as required by the Act, EPA's approach is based on the list of EHSs as a starting point for
identification of toxic substances (see Senate Report at 218; listing factors used in EHS list are
appropriate for accidental release program). EPA's approach limits toxic chemicals to those meeting the
acute toxicity criteria for the EHS list and then applies a vapor pressure cut-off. The SHI approach does
not include specific 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 for its risk
management regulation; the SHI methodology was applied to existing lists of substances identified by use
of toxicity criteria and not all substances. The Agency considers the SHI to be more appropriate for
determining the relative ranking of substances in an already established list. The Agency's threshold
quantity methodology for 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 dispersability
of the listed substances. For these reasons, the Agency will not adopt the SHI criteria for listing toxic
substances.
10 of48 02/25/91Ml
-------
List of Rcgulaied Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf http:/.'www.epa.gov/'swercep^ffulea/listnil
Acute Toxicity Criteria: Commenters generally supported EPA's consideration of acute toxicity hazards
as a basis for listing toxic substances under section 112(r). Some commenters, however, recommended
other measures of toxicity, such as the Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs) developed by
the American IndustriaHlygiene 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 for 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.
Concerns were also expressed about the Agency's focus on acute toxicity rather than on chronic toxicity
effects as a basis for listing. Some commenters also opposed the Agency's consideration of acute
exposures by the dermal and oral routes. EPA believes that chemical accident prevention efforts should
focus on those chemicals that, because of their inherent toxicity, are most likely to cause immediate
severe, irreversible health effects following exposures during an accidental release. Consequently, for
purposes of this rulemaking, the Agency is primarily interested in substances that are acutely toxic, rather
than in substances that could generate a future health effect after repeated long term or chronic
exposures. Furthermore, acute toxicity 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 believes that using data on oral and dermal acute
lethality, in 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 wasmandated 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 EPA's
vapor pressure criterion. Several commenters suggested a vapor pressure of 20 mm Hg (18 mm Hg is the
approximate vapor pressure of 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 list that have vapor pressures 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 mm Hg. As expected, volatilization rates increase with increasing vapor pressure and
increasing 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 Agency 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
11 of 48 02/25/9111:1
-------
List of Regulated Substancei and Threshol. Joo 112(r) of the Clean Air Act •* Aaendf http:tfwvw.epa.gov/iwCTceppfaileiflisti
accident history and production volume information on the substances 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 rulemaJting 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 the new vapor pressure criterion, the following 18 chemicals proposed
for listing (shown with their CAS Registry numbers) will not 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)- (98-16-8)
Benzotrichloride (98-07-7)
Benzyl chloride (100-44-7)
Benzyl cyanide (140-29-4)
Chloroethanol (107-07-3)
Dichloroethyl ether (111^4-4)
Dimethyl phosphorochloridothioate (2524-03-0)
Formaldehyde cyanohydrin (107-16-4)
Hydrogen peroxide (concentration > 52%) (7722-84-1)
Lactonitrile (78-97-7)
Pyridine, 2-methyl-5-vinyl- (140-76-1)
Thiophenol (108-98-5)
Trans-1,4-dichlorobutene (110-57-6)
Trichloroethylsilane (115-21-9)
EPA will be Devaluating the list periodically and as a result of petitions. If additional information a
submitted on the accident history or production volume of these substances, EPA may list these
substances at a later time. In addition, these substances, as well as any other extremely hazardous
substance, are subject to the section 112(r) general duty clause.
12 of 48 02/2*9711:
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion I I2(r) of the Clean Aa Act us Amendf http://www.epa.gov/swerccpp/ralesflistnile.
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 eombinatioTi 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 of impacts 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 the Administrator must ignore documented accidental releases of
substances in deciding which chemicals shall be the focus of the accidental 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 fires and explosions; (4) accidents
involving reactions with other chemicals; and (5) accidents involving elevated temperatures and
pressures. The Agency disagrees with these comments. Accident history may indicate, beyond vapor
pressure or other physical/chemical 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 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 in off-site deaths or injuries may still indicate
the serious potential for off-site impacts; e.g., evacuations may indicate that there was concern that
people could suffer adverse effects from exposure. Furthermore, other effects, such as envirorlmental
damage, are appropriate to consider as well. While the factors to be considered under section 112(r)(4)
do not specifically direct EPA to consider environmental effects, section 112(r)(3) directs the
Administrator to consider "substances which pose the greatest risk of causing... serious adverse effects
to...the environment from accidental releases". As noted at several points in this preamble, EPA believes
that its decision to consider reported accidental releases involving fire and explosions as events of
concern is supported by both the statute and legislative history. See also 136 Congressional Record
S16992 (daily ed., Oct. 27, 1990) (statement of Senator Reid addressing the explosion in Henderson,
Nevada); 136 Congressional Record H12931 (daily ed., Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Representative
Barton addressing releases from burning material); H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 952, 101st Congress, 2nd sess.,
340 (1990) (Board to investigate fires and explosions). It may also be appropriate to consider chemical
reactions with common materials such as water; e.g., it may be important to consider whether the
reaction of an acid with water, producing heat, could lead to formation of an acid vapor or mist (the
Bhopal accident involved a reaction of methyl isocyanate with water, generating heat). Accidents
resulting from conditions of elevated temperatures and pressures in chemical processes may provide
important information regarding the potential for accidental releases having an effect off-site.
The legislative history of section 112(r) contains extensive discussion of historical accidents and accident
history data to support the need for enacting section 112(r) and the particular provisions included in the
legislation. See 136 Congressional Record H12940 (daily ed., Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of
Representative Richardson); 136 Congressional Record S16921, S16925 - 26 (daily ed., Oct. 27, 1990)
(statement of Senator Durenberger); 136 Congressional Record SI 6979 (daily ed., Oct. 27, 1990)
(statement of Senator Baucus). Incidents such as the explosion in Henderson, Nevada and the releases
documented in the Acute Hazardous Events database, as well as statistics concerning the number of
13 of 48 02/25/9711:19:
-------
List of Regulated Substances and TlireshoL.ioo 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amemif http://www.epa.gov/swereepp/rulea/lii
releases and 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 112(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, Suifuric acid, phenol, parathion, and nitrobenzene, proposed to be listed because
of accident history, were the focus of a number of comments. As stated above, the 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 use
in listing these substances. As discussed above, the Agency disagrees. The 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
fenceline even though they do not meet the vapor pressure consideration.
A number of commenters objected to the inclusion of suifuric 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 suifuric acid does not meet the vapor pressure
criterion. EPA originally proposed for listing suifuric acid 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 cited 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 filming
suifuric acid (oleum), which is a mixture of suifuric acid and sulfur trioxide, and vapor clouds reported
from these accidents were attributable to sulfur trioxide rather than suifuric acid. Second, commenters
stated that the injuries in some accidents were caused by direct contact with suifuric acid rather than
inhalation of vapor. Third, according to some commenters, some accidents involved reactions of suifuric
acid with other substances. Finally, comments were received which indicated there have been no
accidents involving vapor clouds of suifuric acid that caused off-site deaths or injuries, and that, in fact,
the low vapor pressure of suifuric acid makes it impossible for an accidental release to have any effect
beyond the fenceline.
EPA is well aware that suifuric 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 suifuric 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 suifuric acid. For
purposes of today's rulemaking, the Agency has been unable to determine from accident history whether
14 of 48 02/25/97 1
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThrtshoL.ion I I2(r)of the Clean Air Act as Amendf hnp://www.epa.gov/swerc«pp/nile»TistJwlt
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 sulfuric 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 acid 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 eommenters noted that it is
"reasonable to include oleum as a regulated chemical" and that "oleum and sulfuric acid must be listed
separately, since the ruming effects of an oleum release make it potentially much more serious." The
Agency agrees with eommenters that oleum should be include 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 without a specific listing. In order to
continue the coverage of oleum in the accidental release prevention provisions, EPA is specifically listing
ail 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 on
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 and 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 considered 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 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 not proceeding to list 18
chemicals with vapor pressures below 10 mm Hg. In addition, the Agency has determined that section
112(r)(3) prohibits it from listing methyl bromide 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.
15of4S 02/25/97 11:1
-------
List of Regulated Substances andThreshol.. ion 112(») of ihe Clean Air Act as Amcndf
Several commenters recommended the deletion of substances that were mandated for listing 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, particularly if 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. However, 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 criteria for listing, the Agency has decided not to include
radionuclides in the initial list of regulated substances.
c. Other List Options Considered. EPA considered the option of adopting the entire list of 360 toxic
chemicals regulated under EPCRA (SARA Title HI) 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 fenceline in 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 not 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
the 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 likelihood and magnitude of release. For these reasons, EPA is not
adopting the entire EHS list.
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
the commenters1 experience with these chemicals.
EPA has reviewed the threshold quantities for the listed substances and the OSHA thresholds for the
substances on both the EPA and OSHA lists prior to and after the proposal of EPA's rule. EPA
recognizes the practical importance of consistency with the OSHA list to the extent possible, but also
believes it is necessary to have a sound methodology for assignment of threshold quantities; the CAA
requires the Agency to include an explanation of the basis for establishing the list, and to account for
16 of 4§ 02/25/97 1
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol..,wi» 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf httpr//www,epa.gov/m'ercepp/iules
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol...ion 112(r) of the Clean Air A« as Amendf
e. 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 several other options. One option was use of the vapor quantity method, based on air
dispersion modeling, t»-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 must 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 feet 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 above 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 fenceline 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).
18 of 48 02/25/971
-------
Lisi of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf hnp-J/www epa.gov/swercepp'rutes'listnil
Several commenters recommended that EPA provide an exemption, similar to the exemption under
OSHA's PSM Standard, for flammable liquids kept in atmospheric tanks below their normal boiling
points. Unlike OSHA, EPA is listing only flammable gases 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
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 Part
173.50, DOT defines the term "explosive" as any substance or article, including 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 manner 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 1.1 (58 FR
5110). The Agency is clarifying and modifying its listing of explosive substances to include only those
substances listed in 49 CFR Part 172.101 (DOT'S Hazardous Material Table), which is a subset of all
substances and mixtures of substances that would meet DOTs Division 1.1 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 (BATF), 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 set the 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.
EPA acknowledged in the proposed rule that explosives are already regulated by a number of agencies.
However, these existing regulations do not negate the properties of these substances. The explosives
listed in today's rule 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 industry-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
19 of 48 02/25/97115
-------
List of Regulated Substances tnd ThreshoL.ion 1 12(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf httpy'/www.c|».go¥/iwereepp*'i?ule*1ia
already in place aimed specifically at protecting the public from adverse effects in case of accidental
releases are expected to be integrated with accident prevention requirements of rulemaking under section
In 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 1 12(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 under section 1 12(r)(7). Currently, only
information related to the quantity and location of explosives is available to the public under sections 311
and 3 12 of EPCRA. Under the risk management provisions of the CAA, the public will also have
available to them information about the measures being taken by the facility to prevent off-site
consequences from accidental detonations.
The Agency has noted that the practice of treating the entire quantity of mixtures of high explosives with
other explosives as high explosives, coupled with the Agency's proposed threshold determination rule for
mixtures, creates the potential for coverage of explosive formulations that are intended to be released
(exploded) on-site. The Agency did not intend such coverage in its proposal. In 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 on the Hazardous Materials Table are identified as the regulated substances. This
avoids the potential circularity in the proposed definition. Mixtures with substances listed on the
Hazardous Materials Table are potentially covered only through the operation of the explosive mixture
provision in the threshold determination portion of today's rule. The Agency is also clarifying the
coverage of explosive mixtures to be used for intentional on-site detonations (not an accidental release)
when determining if a threshold quantity is present in a process. This clarification is discussed later in
today's preamble.
B. Threshold Determination
Section 68.115 was originally proposed as section 68. 5. It has been consolidated with other subpart C
provisions that relate to covered substances and applicable thresholds. This section of the regulation
establishes how to estimate the presence of a threshold quantity. Exemptions of those quantities that need
not be accounted for in determining a threshold are also included.
1 . Basis for Threshold Determination
Comments on the proposed rule generally supported a threshold quantity determination that is based on
the quantity of a regulated substance in a process. Some commenters, however, suggested that
determining threshold quantities should be based on the quantity on-site, the average annual usage, or
on-site specific factors. EPA generally disagrees with these statements. The total quantity on-site, while
consistent with other regulations in determining threshold quantities (particularly EPCRA, section 302)
does not necessarily represent the quantity that could be involved in an accident. The total quantity
on-site may include quantities in separate processes, buildings, and locations within the same facility. The
average annual usage measures the quantity used by a facility 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
20 of 48 02/25(97
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion i I2(r) of theClean Air Act as Amendf hnp^/www.cpft.gov/swercepp/rule«listnil«
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 rule 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 be 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 the 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 relate 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 industry.
Most of the commenters believed the one percent concentration cut-off is too 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.
In response to these comments, EPA 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 in 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 (in addition
to those already proposed with concentrations cut-offs) as shown for weight percent of the substances in
water solution:
21 of 48 02/25/9711:2
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol... ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Adas Amendf http://www.epa.gov/swerceppMjiw1w
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.
D 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 vapor 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 mm Hg.
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. Flammable 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 threshold determination if the mixture itself meets the
criteria for an NFPA flammability rating of 4, i.e., flash point below 22.80 C (73o F) and boiling point
below 37.8o C (lOOo F). Again, as for the toxics in mixtures or solutions, a facility is required to use the
one percent de-minimis concentration for threshold quantity calculations unless it can measure or
estimate, and document, that the mixture or solution does not have a flash point below 22,80 C (73o F)
and a boiling point below 37.80 C (lOOo 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
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
22 of 48 02/2 W?
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r)of ihe Clean Air Act as Aroendf http-'/www.cpa.gov/swcrcepp/niles1i3tnilt
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 texieity 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. Commenters pointed out problems with this mixture consideration, in light of EPA's
listing of all explosives meeting DOTs 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 of 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. For 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.
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 CFR 172.101 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 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
Except as noted below, all other threshold exemptions in the proposed rule are retained in the final rule.
All comments received concerning these exemptions favored the Agency's proposal. The Agency
continues to believe that the forms of regulated substances exempted in today's rule cannot reasonably be
anticipated to cause effects of concern in the event of an accidental release.
Use for facility consumption as fuel: The Agency has deferred a decision on the proposed exemption for
listed flammable substances when used solely for facility consumption as fuel. For a document relating to
this proposed exemption, see a supplemental notice published elsewhere in this issue. The Agency intends
23 of 48 02/25/77
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL..ion I I2(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf hnp-j'/www.cpa.gov/swercepjv'fules/lisi
to decide on whether to promulgate this exemption on or before the date the final risk management
program rule is promulgated.
C. Petition Process -
Section 68.120 of the rule establishes the specific administrative and technical requirements for the
submission of petitions to add or delete substances from the list of regulated substances.
Several comments were received on the criteria for determining whether a substance that is the subject of
a petition should be listed or delisted. Two commenters said the listing criteria are too narrow. For
example, it was argued that EPA should allow petitioners to develop a case for listing toxic chemicals
that do not meet the acute toxicity criteria. Another commenter said the listing criteria are too broad, and
the standards for delisting are too stringent; delisting requires demonstrating that the substance "will not"
cause death, injury, or environmental harm.
EPA believes the acute toxicity criteria for listing toxics, as well as the volatility and accident history,
provide a valid basis for identification of chemicals that pose hazards to the community in case of acute
exposures resulting from an accidental release and is retaining these criteria for petition review. The
Agency is also retaining the selection criteria for listing flammables and explosives. EPA agrees that the
petition requirements for delisting may be too stringent and will delete substances from the list if it can be
determined that the substance, in case of an accidental release, "is not known or anticipated to" cause
death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the environment.
One commenter said the decision not to accept additional petitions unless new 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 commenter 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), are
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 Release: 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
24 of 48 02/25/97 I
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thrcshol..,ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf hrtpy/www.epa.gov/swercepp/rulea^istrul
"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, or 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 time. The Agency still believes that the facility is responsible in accounting for any
quantity of a 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
25 of 48 02/25/9711
-------
LJsJ of Regulated Substances «nd ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act is Amendf http^Vwww epa gov/swercepp/rules/list
practices are to be accounted for though the requirements of the risk management program and any other
prevention regulations under section 112(r),
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 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 between 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 on the foil 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 comment on the proposed regulation. While the
Agency recognizes that the two rules comprise a single program, the statute 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 rule 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
HI 54190, October 20, 1993). The comment period for the risk management program rale will be open at
the time this rule 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 Final 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
26 of 48 02/25/9711
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amcndf hnp^/www epa.gov/ywercepfk'nj|es/listrul<
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 in a mixture or 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 of 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 73oF (22.8oC) and boiling
point below lOOoF (37.8oC); and (3) mixtures of Division 1.1 explosives listed in 49 CFR 172,101 and
other explosives need not be considered when determining 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 farmer.
Section 68.130 establishes the list of regulated substances, including a list of toxic substances, a list of
flammable substances, and a list criterion for commercial high explosives. This section also establishes the
threshold quantities for all listed substances.
The final rule includes several changes to the proposed list and thresholds. Eighteen substances, with
vapor pressures below 10 mm Hg, have been deleted from the proposed list of toxic substances, and one
substance (vinyl chloride) has been moved from the list of toxic substances to the list of flammable
substances. One substance, methyl bromide, has been deleted because it is listed under Title VI of the
CAA. Four substances on the proposed list, included partly because of their accident history, have been
deleted while another, oleum, has been specifically listed. The final list contains 77 toxic substances.
Concentration cut-offlevels have been specified for solutions of two additional substances, hydrogen
fluoride and nitric acid. The concentration cut-off level has been raised for hydrochloric acid from 25 to
30 percent by weight. Threshold quantities have been raised for 71 of the 77 toxic substances listed. The
final list contains 63 flammable substances, with the threshold quantity remaining at 10,000 Ibs. The
listing of explosive substances has been modified 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.
VI. Required Analyses
A. E.O. 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, 58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4, 1993), the Agency must deternriiie
whether the regulatory action is "significant;, and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements
of the Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to resuh in •
rule that may:
27 of 48 02/2V971l:2C
-------
Lisi of Regulated Substances and ThrcshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/rule4/lisir
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of SI 00 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, ortribal government or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another
agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights
and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a "significant
regulatory action". Even though the list and thresholds rule, by itself, imposes no cost oa 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. The annual effect on the economy for the accidental release prevention
regulations that will be triggered by this rule 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.
The Agency developed a draft Regulatory Impacts Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule that considered
the cost for the accidental release prevention program envisioned under section 112(r); this draft RIA
includes the 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 drinking 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 and 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 ($5,000 x 2 x 11
petitions).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
28of4t 02/25/9711
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol...ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Aiuendf httpa'/www.epa.gov/sw«recpp/niJes/U»tniJ
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 thai 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 A ct
The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of ttie 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. S.W., "
Washington, D.C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Afiairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Washington, D.C. 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 (ICR) 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. 3501 etseq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.
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
29 of 48 02/2 W7 11:
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thrcshol.. ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act *s Ainendf httpi/ywww.cpa.gov/swerc«pfy'rulcs/Ijs1
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds Tor Accidental Release Prevention; Requirements for
Petitions under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amended Page 72 of 97
and comment would betinnecessary. For the same reasons, EPA also finds that there is good cause under
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
List of Subjects
40CFRPart9
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
Signed:
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 forth below;
Part 9 - OMB 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.
33 Ij, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 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, 300£ 300g, 300g-l, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 30QJ-1, 300J-2, 300J-3,
300J-4, 300J-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 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,
*****
30 of 48
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Th«shol...ion 112(r) of the Clean Aix Act as Amendf http://www.epa.gov/rwcrcepp/nile3/listnjU
Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions
68.120 (a), (e), and (g) 2050-0127
*****
3. Part 68 is added to read as follows:
PART 68 - CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROVISIONS
Subpart A - General
Sec.
68.1 Scope.
68.3 Definitions.
Subpart B - Risk Management Plan Requirements [Reserved]
Subpart C - Regulated Substances for Accidental Release Prevention
68.100 Purpose.
68.115 Threshold determination.
6 8.120 Petition process.
68.125 Exemptions.
68.130 List of substances.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601.
Subpart A - General
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.
For the purposes of this Part:
Accidental release means an unanticipated emission of a regulated substance or other extremely
31 of 48 02/2S/97UJI
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ian ! I2(r) of the Clewi Air Act as Amendf http-//www.epa.gov/Swercepj»'(uIe*Ti3t
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 1910.1200(b), that is formed to a specific
shape or design during manufacture, that has end use functions dependent in 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.
DOT means the United States Department of Transportation.
Process means any activity involving a regulated substance including any use, storage, manufacturing,
handling, or on-site movement of such substances, 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 Air Act as
amended, in 68.130.
Stationary source means 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 control 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 no longer under active shipping papers and 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 or gas pipeline
right-of-way.
Threshold quantity means the quantity specified for regulated substances pursuant to section 112(rX5) of
the Clean Air Act as amended, listed in 68.130 and determined to be present at a stationary source as
specified in 68.115 of this Part,
Vessel means any reactor, tank, drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, boiler, pipe, hose, or other container.
Subpart B - Risk Management Flan Requirements [Reserved]
Subpart C - Regulated Substances for Accidental Release Prevention
68.100 Purpose.
This subpart designates substances to be listed under section 112(r)(3), (4), and (5) of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, identifies their threshold quantities, and establishes the requirements for petitioning to add or
delete substances from the list.
68.115 Threshold determination.
32 of 48 0205*71
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amcndf hap-j'/ww-w.epa.gov/swercepp/rules/listnik
(a) A threshold quantity of a regulated substance listed in 68.130 is present at a stationary source if the
total quantity of the regulated substance contained in a process exceeds the threshold,
(b) For the purposes of determining whether more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance is
present at the stationary source, the following exemptions apply:
(1) Concentrations of a regulated toxic substance in a mixture. If a regulated substance is present in a
mixture and the concentration of the substance is below one percent by weight of the mixture, the amount
of the substance in the mixture need not be considered when determining whether more than a threshold
quantity is present at the stationary source. Except for oleum, toluene 2,4-diisocyanate, toluene
2,6-diisocyanate, and toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), if the concentration of the regulated
substance in the mixture is one percent or greater by weight, but the owner or operator can demonstrate
that the partial pressure of the regulated substance in the mixture (solution) under handling or storage
conditions in any portion of the process is less than 10 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg), the amount of
the substance in the mixture in that portion of the process need not be considered when determining
whether more than a threshold quantity is present at the stationary source. The owner or operator shall
document this partial pressure measurement or estimate,
(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 is 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 the 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 iash point below 73oF (22.8oC) and boiling point below lOOoF
(37.8oC). The owner or operator shall document these flash point and boiling point measurements or
estimates.
(3) Concentrations of a regulated explosive substance in a mixture. Mixtures of Division 1.1 explosives
listed in 49 CFR 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table) and other explosives need not be included when
detenrnirung whether a threshold quantity is present in a process, when the mixture is intended to be used
on-site in a non-accidental release in a manner consistent with applicable B ATF 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) Use of products for routine janitorial maintenance;
(iii) Use by employees of foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items containing the regulated
substance; and
33 of 48 02/25/9? 11:2
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.icn 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf http://www.epa.gov/swerc*p^niIes/lB
(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 detenraning 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
(Hi) 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 68,130. 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. Ho substance regulated under Title VI of the Clean Air Act, as amended, shall be added
to the list.
(e) The burden of proof is on 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(s) 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 synonym(s), Chemical Abstracts Service number, and chemical
34 of 48 02/15/97
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshoi...ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act is Amendf
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, the 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, dates 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.
68,130 List of substances.
(a) Explosives listed by DOT as Division 1.1 in 49 CFR Part 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 quantities for listed toxic and flammable substances
are specified in the tables.
(c) The basis for placing toxic and flammable substances on the list of regulated substances are explained
in the notes to the list.
TABLE l TO 68.130 - LIST OF REGULATED TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD
QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
35 of 48 02/25/9111:2
-------
List of Regulated Substances ind ThreshoL.ion i I2(r)of the Clean Air Act as Amendf
http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/ruiesi1Js
[ALPHABETICAL ORDER - 77 SUBSTANCES]
Chemical Name
Listing
Acrolein f2-Propenal]
Acrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile]
Acrylyl chloride [2-Propenoyl
chloride]
Allyl alcohol [2-iropen-l-ol]
Allylamine [2-Propen-l-amine]
Ammonia (anhydrous)
Ammonia (cone 20% or greater)
Arsenous trichloride
Arsine
Boron trichloride [Borane, trichloro-J
Boron trifluoride JBorane, trifluoro-J
Boron trifluoride compound with methyl
ether (1:1) (Boron,
trifluoro[oxybis[metane]]-, T-4-
Bromine
Carbon disulfide
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide [Chlorine oxide
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThrcshoL.ioa 112(r) of the Clean Air Act M Amendf
Dimethyldichlorosilane [Silane,
dichlorodimethyl-]
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine [Hydrazine,
1, 1-dimethyl-] —
Epichlorohydrin [Oxirane,
(chloromethyl)-]
Ethylenediamine [1,2-Ethanediaznine)
Ethyleneimine [Aziridine]
Ethylene oxide [Oxirane]
Fluorine
75-78-5 5,000
57-14-7 15,000
106-89-8 20,000
107-15-3
151-56-4
75-21-8
7782-41-4
20,000
10,000
10,000
1,000
b
b
a, b
b
Formaldehyde (solution)
Furan
Hydrazine
Hydrochloric acid {cone 30% or greater)
Hydrocyanic acid
Hydrogen chloride (anhydrous)
[Hydrochloric acid]
Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid
{cone 50i or greater) [Hydrofluoric
acid]
Hydrogen selenide
Hydrogen sulfide
Iron, pentacarbonyl- {Iron carbonyl
(Fe
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol. .ion 112(r) of Jjje Clean Air Act as Amendf
http://www.eiM.gov/fwiereepp/nilei/Ui
Methyl mercaptan [Methanethiol]
Methyl thiocyanate [Thiocyanic acid,
methyl ester] ~"
Methyltrichlorosilane [Silane,
trichloromethyl-]
Nickel carbonyl
Nitric acid (cone 80% or greater}
Nitric oxide [Nitrogen oxide (NO)J
Oleum {Fuming Sulfuric acidj [Sulfuric
acid, mixture with sulfur trioxide]1
74-93-1 10,000
556-64-9 20,000
75-79-6 5,000
13463-39-3
7697-37-2
10102-43-9
8014-95-7
1,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
b
b
b
b
b
Peracetic acid [Ethaneperoxoic acid]
Perchloromethylmercaptan
[Methanesulfenyl chloride, trichloro-]
Phosgene I Carbonic dichloride]
Phosphine
Phosphorus oxychloride [Phosphoryl
chloride]
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous
trichloride]
Piperidine
Propionitrile [Propanenitrile]
Propyl chloroformate [Carbonochloridic
acid, propylester]
Propyleneimine [Aziridine, 2-methyl-]
Propylene oxide [Oxirane, methyl-]
Sulfur dioxide (anhydrous)
Sulfur tetrafluoride tSulfur fluoride
(SF4), (T-4)-]
Sulfur trioxide
Tetraraethyllead IPlumbane,
tetramethyl-]
Tetranitromethane fMethane,
tetranitro-]
Titanium tetrachloride [Titanium
chloride (TiC14) (T-4)-J
Toluene 2, 4-diisocyanate [Benzene,
2,4-diiaocyanato-l-methyl-]1
79-21-0 10,000 b
594-42-3 10,000 b
75-44-5 500 a, b
7803-51-2 5,000 b
10025-87-3 5,000 b
7719-12-2 15,000 b
110-89-4
107-12-0
109-61-5
75-55-8
75-56-9
7446-09-5
7783-60-0
7446-11-9
75-74-1
15
10
15
10
10
5,
2,
10
10
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
000
500
,000
,000
b
b
b
b
b
a, b
b
a, b
b
509-14-8 10,000
7550-45-0 2,500
584-84-9 10,000
38 of 48
02/25/97 1
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf http^/www,epa.gov/swereepp/iules/iis&ule
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate [Benzene, 91-OS-7 10,000
I,3-diisocyanato-2-methyl-]1
Toluene diisocyanale (unspecified 26471-62-5 10,000
isomer) [Benzene,
1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-]1
Trimethylchlorosilane [Silane, 75-77-4 10,000
chlorotrimethyl-]
Vinyl acetate monomer [Acetic acid 108-05-4 15,000
ethenyl ester]
IThe mixture exemption in 68.115(b)(1) does not apply to the
substance.
Basis for Listing:
aMandated for listing by Congress.
bOn EHS list, vapor pressure 10 nanHg or greater.
cToxic gas.
dToxicity of hydrogen chloride, potential to release hydrogen chloride,
and history of accidents.
eToxicity of sulfur trioKide and sulfuric acid, potential to release
sulfur trioxider and history of accidents.
TABLE 2 TO 68.130 - LIST OF REGULATED TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD
QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
[CAS NUMBER ORDER - 77 SUBSTANCES!
Threshold Basis
Quantity for
CAS No. Chemical Name (Ibs)
Listing
50-00-0 Formaldehyde (solution) 15,000 b
57-14-7 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine [Hydrazine, 15,000 b
1,1-diinethyl-]
60-34-4 Methyl hydrazine [Hydrazine, methyl-] 15,000 b
67-66-3 Chloroform [Methane, trichloro-] 20,000 b
74-87-3 Methyl chloride [Methane, chloro-] 10,000 'a
74-90-8 Hydrocyanic acid 2,500 a, b
74-93-1 Methyl mercaptan [Methanethiol] 10,000 b
75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 20,000 b
75-21-8 Ethylene oxide [Oxirane] 10,000 a, b
39 of 48 02/25/9711:21
-------
List of Regulated Substancei and TbfeshoL.ion 112(r)of tie Clean Air Act wAmendf http^/www.epa.gov/swercepp/niles/li$l
75-44-5 Phosgene (Carbonic dichloride] 500 a, b
75-55-8 Propyleneimine [Aziridine, 2-methyl-J 10,000 b
75-56-9 Propylene oxide [Oxirane, methyl-J 10,000 b
75-74-1 Tetramethyllead [Plumbane, 10,000 b
tetramethyl-]
75-77-4 Trimethylchlorosilane [Silane, 10,000 b
chlorotrimethyl-]
75-76-5 Dimethyldiehlorosilane [Silane, 5,000 b
dichloEodimethyl-]
75-79-6 Methyltrichlorosilane (Silane, 5,000 b
trichloromethyl-]
78-82-0 Isobutyronitrile [Propanenitrile, 20,000 b
2-raethyl-]
79-21-0 Peracetic acid [Ethaneperoxoic acidj 10,000 b
79-22-1 Methyl chlorofocmate [Carbonochloridic 5,000 b
acid, methyleaterj
91-08-7 Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate [Benzene, 10,000 a
1,3-diisocyanato-2-methyl-J1
106-89-8 Epichlorohydrin [Oxirane, 20,000 b
(chloromethyl)-]
107-02-8 Acrolein 12-Propenal] 5,000 b
107-11-9 Allylamine [2-Propen-l-aaine] 10,000 b
107-12-0 Propionitrile IPropanenitrile] 10,000 b
107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 12-Propenenitrile] 20,000 b
107-15-3 Ethylenediamine U/2-Ithanediamine] 20,000 b
107-18-6 Allyl alcohol [2-Propen-l-ol] 15,000 b
107-30-2 Chloronethyl methyl ether [Methane, 5,000 b
chlozomethoxy-]
108-05-4 Vinyl acetate monomer [Acetic acid 15,000 b
ethenyl ester]
108-23-6 Isopropyl chloroformate 15,000 b
[Carbonochloridic acid, 1-methylethyl
esterJ
108-91-8 Cyclohexylamine [Cyclohexanamine] 15,000 b
109-61-5 Propyl chloroformate [Carbonochloridic 15,000 b
acid, propylesterj
110-00-9 Furan 5,000 b
40 of 48 02/25/97 1
-------
List of Regulated Subftutccs and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf
httpy/www.epa.gov/swerocpp/njle&lisnuh
110-89-4 Piperidine
123-73-9 Crotonaldehyde, (E)- [2-Butenal, (E)-]
126-98-7 Methacrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile,
2-methyl-J
151-S6-4 Ethyleneimine [Aziridine]
302-01-2 Hydrazine
353-42-4 Boron trifluoride compound with methyl
ether (1:1) [Boron,
trifluoro[oxybis[metanej]-, T-4-
506-77-4 Cyanogen chloride
509-14-8 Tetranitromethane [Methane,
tetranitro-]
542-88-1 Chlororaethyl ether [Methane,
oxybisfchloro-]
556-64-9 Methyl thiocyanate [Thiocyanic acid,
methyl ester]
584-84-9 Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate [Benzene,
2,4-diisocyanato-l-methyl-]1
594-42-3 Perchloromethylmereaptan
[Methanesulfenyl chloride, trichloro-]
624-83-9 Methyl isocyanate [Methane,
isocyanato-]
814-68-6 Acrylyl chloride [2-Propenoyl
chloride]
4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde [2-Butenal]
7446-09-5 Sulfur dioxide {anhydrous)
7446-11-9 Sulfur trioxide
7550-45-0 Titanium tetrachloride [Titanium
chloride
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol...ion 112(r) of the Clean Ajf Act as Amendf
httpy/www.epa-gov/swereepp/niles/Ii
7597-37-2
7719-12-2
7726-95-6
7782-41-4
7782-50-5
7763-06-4
7783-07-5
7783-60-0
7784-34-1
7784-42-1
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
26471-62-5
Nitric acid (cone 80% or greater)
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous
trichloride]
Bromine
Fluorine
Chlorine
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen selenide
Sulfur tetrafluoride [Sulfur fluoride
(SF4), (T-4M
Azsenous trichloride
Arsine
Phosphine
Oleum (Fuming Sulfuric acid) [Sulfuric
acid, mixture with sulfur trioxidejl
Phosphorus oxycJiloride [Phosphoryl
chloride]
Chlorine dioxide [Chlorine oxide
(C102}]
Nitric oxide [Nitrogen oxide (NO)J
Boron trichloride [Borane, trichloro-J
Nickel carbonyl
Iron, pentacarbonyl- [Iron carbonyl
CFe(CO)5), (TB-5-1D-J
Diborane
Toluene diisocyanate (unspecified
isoraer) [Benzene,
It3-diisoeyanatomethyl-]1
15,000
15,000
10,000
1,000
2,500
10,000
500
2,500
15,000
1,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
1,000
10,000
5,000
1,000
2,500
2,500
10,000
b
b
a, b
b
a, b
a, b
b
b
b
b
b
e
b
• c
b
b
b
b
b
a
IThe mixture exemption in 68.115(b)(1) does not apply to the
substance,
%
Basis for Listing:
aMandated for listing by Congress.
bOn EHS list, vapor pressure 10 inmHg or greater.
cToxic gas,
dToxicity of hydrogen chloride, potential to release hydrogen chloride,
and history of accidents.
eToxicity of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, potential to release
sulfur trioxide, and history of accidents.
42 of 48
02/2*9?
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf
http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/niles1ianiii
TABLE 3 TO 68.130 - LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND
THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
[ALPHABETICAL ORDER - 63 SUBSTANCES]
Chemical Name
Listing
Acetaldehyde
Acetylene [Ethyne]
Bromotrifluorethylene [Ethene,
b romot ri f luoro- ]
1, 3-Butadiene
Butane
1-Butene
2-Butene
Butene
2-Butene-cis
2-Butene-trans [2-Butene, (E>1
Carbon oxysulfide {Carbon oxide
sulfide (COS) ]
Chlorine monoxide [Chlorine oxide]
2-Chloropropylene ll-Propene,
2-chloro-]
1-Chloropropylene [l-Vzopene,
1-chloro-]
Cyanogen [Ethanedinitrile]
Cyclopropane
Dichlorosilane {Silane, dichloro-]
Difluorosthane [Ethane, 1, 1-dif luoro-]
Dimethylainine [Methanamine, N-methyl-]
2, 2-Dimethylpropane [Propane,
CAS No.
75-07-0
74-86-2
598-73-2
106-99-0
106-97-8
106-98-9
107-01-7
25167-67-3
590-18-1
624-64-6
463-58-1
7791-21-1
557-98-2
590-21-6
460-19-5
75-19-4
4109-96-0
75-37-6
124-40-3
463-82-1
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
Basis
for
§
f
f
f
f
f
£
f
£
f
f
f
g
g
f
f
f
f
f
•f
2,2-dimethyl-]
Ethane
74-84-0 10,000
43 of 48
02/2S#7 Hi
-------
List of Regulated Substances and TJireshol...ion 1 12(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf hnp-7/www.epa.gov/jwcreeppi'ruie*Tin
Ethyl acetylene (1-Butyne] 107-00-6 10,000 f
Ethylamine [Ethanamine] 75-04-7 10,000 f
Ethyl chloride [Ethane, chloro-3 75-00-3 10,000 f
Ethylene [Ethene] 74-85-1 10,000 f
Ethyl ether [Ethane, 1, 1 '-oxybis-J 60-29-7 10,000 g
Ethyl mercaptan [Ethanethiol] 75-08-1 10,000 g
Ethyl nitrite . [Nitrous acid, ethyl 109-95-5 10,000 f
ester]
Hydrogen 1333-74-0 10,000 f
Isobutane [Propane, 2-methyl] 75-28-5 10,000 f
Isopentane [Butane, 2-methyl-J 78-78-4 10,000 g
Isoprene [1, 3-Butadiene, 2-methyl-] 78-79-5 10,000 g
Isopropylamine {2-PropanamineJ 75-31-0 10,000 g
Isopropyl chloride [Propane, 75-29-6 10,000 g
2-chloro-]
Methane 74-82-8 10,000 f
Methylamine [Methanamine] 74-89-5 10,000 f
3-Methyl-l-fautene 563-45-1 10,000 f
2-Methyl-l-butene 563-46-2 10,000 g
Methyl ether [Methane, oxybia-] 115-10-6 10,000 f
Methyl formate [Formic acid, methyl 107-31-3 10,000 g
ester]
2-Methylpropene [1-Propene, 2-»ethyl-J 115-11-7 10,000 f
1,3-Pentadiene S04-60-9 10,000 f
Pentane 109-66-0 10,000 g
1-Pentene 109-67-1 10,000 g
2-Pentene, (E)- . 646-04-8 10,000 g
2-Pentene, (Z)- 627-20-3 10,000 g
Propadiene [1,2-iropadiene] 463-49-0 10,000 f
Propane 74-98-6 10,000 f
Propylene [1-Propene] 115-07-1 10,000 f
Propyne [1-Propyne] 74-99-7 10,000 £
Silane 7803-62-5 10,000 f
44 of 41
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThrcshoL.ion 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amendf http://www.ef».gQv/swerc*pp<'rulesflistnil
Tetrafluoroethylene [Ethane, 116-14-3 10,000 f
tetrafluoro-]
Tetramethylsilane"" [Silane, 75-76-3 10,000 g
tetramethyl-]
Trichlorosilane [Silane, trichloro-] 10025-78-2 10,000 g
Trifluorochloroethylene [Ethene, 79-38-9 10,000 f
chlorotrifluoro-]
Trimethylamine [Methanamine, 75-50-3 10,000 f
N,N-diraethyl-]
Vinyl acetylene [l-Buten-3-yne] 689-97-4 10,000 f
Vinyl chloride [Ethene, chloro-J 75-01-4 10,000 a, f
Vinyl ethyl ether lEthene, ethoxy-] 109-92-2 10,000 g
Vinyl fluoride IEthene, fluoro-] 75-02-5 10,000 f
Vinylidene chloride [Ethene, 75-35-4 10,000 g
1,1-dichloro-]
Vinylidene fluoride [Ethene, 75-38-7 10,000 f
1,1-difluoro-]
Vinyl methyl ether [Ethene, methoxy-) 107-25-5 10,000 f
Basis for Listing:
aMandated for listing by Congress.
fFlammable gas.
gVolatile flammable liquid.
TABLE 4 TO 68.130 - LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND
THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
[CAS NUMBER ORDER - 63 SUBSTANCES}
Threshold Basis
Quantity for
CAS No. Chemical Name CAS No. Ubs)
Listing
60-29-7 Ethyl ether [Ethane, 60-29-7 10,000 g
1,I'-oxybis-J
74-82-8 Methane 74-82-8 10,000 f
74-84-0 Ethane 74-84-0 10,000 f
74-85-1 Ethylene [Ethene] 74-85-1 10,000 f
74-86-2 Acetylene [Ethyne] 74-86-2 10,000 f
45 of 48 02/25/97 111
-------
List of Regulated Substances and ThreshoL.ion l!2(r)of the Clean Air Act asAmendf
http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/nilc3/tts
74-89-5 Methylamine [Methanarnine]
74-98-6 Propane
74-99-7 Propyne [1-Propynel
75-00-3 Ethyl chloride [Ethane,
chloro-]
75-01-4 Vinyl chloride (Ethene,
chloro-]
75-02-5 Vinyl fluoride [Sthene,
fluoro-J
75-04-7 Ethylamine [Ethanamine]
75-07-0 Acetaldehyde
75-08-1 Ethyl mercaptan
[Ethanethiol]
75-19-4 Cyclopropane
75-28-5 Isobutane [Propane,
2-methyl]
75-29-6 Isopropyl chloride
[Propane, 2-chloro-J
75-31-0 Isopropylamine
[2-Propanamine]
75-35-4 Vinylidene chloride
[Ethene, 1,1-dichloro-]
75-37-6 Difluoroethane [Ethane,
1,1-difluoro-]
75-38-7 Vinylidene fluoride
[Ethene, 1,1-difluoro-J
75-50-3 Triraethylamine
[Methanamine, N,N-di»ethyl-]
75-76-3 Tetramethylsilane fSilane,
tetrajmethyl-J
78-78-4 Isopentane [Butane,
2-methyl-]
78-79-5 Isoprene [1,3-lutadiene,
2-methyl-J
79-38-9 Trifluorochloroethylene
[Ethene, chlorotrifluoro-]
106-97-8 Butane
106-98-9 1-Butene
74-89-5 10,000 f
74-98-6 10,000 f
74-99-7 10,000 f
75-00-3 10,000 f
75-01-4 10,000 a, f
75-02-5 10,000 f
75-04-7 10,000 f
75-07-0 10,000 g
75-08-1 10,000 g
75-19-4 10,000 f
75-28-5 10,000 f
75-29-6 10,000 g
75-31-0 10,000 g
75-35-4 10,000 g
75-37-6 10,000 f
75-38-7 10,000 f
75-50-3 10,000 f
75-76-3 10,000 g
78-78-4 10,000 g
78-79-5 10,000 g
79-38-9 10,000 f
106-97-8 10,000 f
106-98-9 10,000 f
46 of 48
02X5/911
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Threshol...ion U2(r)of the Clew Air Act as Ameodf
http://www.epa gov/swereepp'rules/listruli
106-99-0 1,3-Butadiene
107-00-6 Ethyi- acetylene [l-8utyne3
107-01-7 2-Butene
107-25-5 Vinyl methyl ether [Sthene,
methoxy-]
107-31-3 Methyl formate [Formic
acid, methyl ester]
109-66-0 Pentane
109-67-1 1-Pentene
109-92-2 Vinyl ethyl ether [Ethene,
ethoxy-]
109-95-5 Ethyl nitrite [Nitrous
acid, ethyl ester]
115-07-1 Propylene [1-PrapeneJ
115-10-6 Methyl ether (Methane,
oxyfois-]
115-11-7 2-Methylpropene [1-Propene,
2-methyl-j
116-14-3 Tetrafluoroethylene
(Ethene, tetrafluoro-]
124-40-3 Dintethylainine [Methanamine,
N-methyl-]
460-19-5 Cyanogen [Ethanedinitrile]
463-49-0 Propadiene [1,2-Propadiene]
463-58-1 Carbon oxysulfide [Carbon
oxide sulfide {COS>]
463-82-1 2,2-Dimethylpropane
[Propane, 2,2-dimethyl-J
504-60-9 1,3-Pentadiene
557-98-2 2-Chloropropylene
[1-Propene, 2-chloro-]
563-45-1 3-Methyl-l-butene
563-46-2 2-Methyl-l-butene
590-18-1 2-Butene-cis
590-21-6 1-Chloropropylene
[1-Propene, 1-chloro-]
598-73-2 Bromotrifluorethylene
106-99-0 10,000 f
107-00-6 10,000 f
107-01-7 10,000 f
107-25-5 10,000 f
107-31-3 10,000 g
109-66-0 10,000 g
109-67-1 10,000 g
109-92-2 10,000 g
109-95-5 10,000 f
115-07-1 10,000 f
115-10-6 10,000 f
115-11-7 10,000 f
116-14-3 10,000 f
124-40-3 10,000 f
460-19-5 10,000 f
463-49-0 10,000 f
463-58-1 10,000 f
463-82-1 10,000 f
504-60-9 10,000 f
557-98-2 10,000 g
563-45-1 10,000 f
563-46-2 10,000 g
590-18-1 10,000 f
590-21-6 10,000 g
598-73-2 10,000 f
47 of 48
-------
List of Regulated Substances and "ThrcshoL.ion 112 (r) of the Clean Air Act »s Am end f
hnp://www,epa,gov/swereep|*'ruleVlis<
lEthene, bromotrifluoro-]
624-64-6 2-Butene-trans [2-Butene,
(E)]
627-20-3 2-Fentene, (2)-
646-04-8 2-Pentene, (EJ-
689-97-4 Vinyl acetylene
[l-Buten-3-yne]
1333-74-0 Hydrogen
4109-96-0 Dichlorosilane [Silane,
dichloro-]
7791-21-1 Chlorine monoxide {Chlorine
oxide]
624-64-6 10,000
627-20-3
646-04-8
689-97-4
1333-74-0
4109-96-0
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
7791-21-1 10,000
7803-62-5 Silane
10025-78-2 Trichlorosilane JSilane,
trichloro-]
25167-67-3 Butene
aMandated for listing by Congress.
fFlammable gas.
gVolatile flammable liquid.
7803-62-5
10025-78-2
10,000
10,000
25167-67-3 10,000
g
g
f
f
g
48 of 48
02/25/971
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental httpi'/www,epa.gov/doca/fcdfgstr/EPA-AIR/1996/ApriI/D»y- 15/pr-23256.w
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental
[Federal Register: April 15, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 73)] [Proposed Rules]
[Page 16597-16604] ~
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[[Page 16597]]
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
40CFRPart68
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention; Proposed Rule
[[Page 16598]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40CFRPart68
[FRL-5657-7]
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention; Proposed Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing several modifications to the rule
listing regulated substances and threshold quantities under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as
amended. EPA is proposing to delete the category of Division 1.1 explosives (as listed by DOT) from the
list of regulated substances. Regulated flammable substances in gasoline used as fuel and in naturally
occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to initial processing are proposed for exemption from threshold
quantity determinations, and a clarification of the provision for threshold determination of flammable
substances in a mixture is proposed. Modifications to the definition of stationary source are proposed to
clarify the exemption of transportation and storage incident to transportation and to clarify that naturally
occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs are not stationary sources or parts of stationary sources. In addition,
EPA is clarifying that the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions do not apply to sources located on
the Outer Continental Shelf. EPA believes these proposed changes will better focus accident prevention
activities on stationary sources with high hazard operations and reduce duplication with other similar
requirements.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 1996 unless a hearing is
requested by April 25, 1996. If a hearing is requested, written comments must be received by May 30,
1996. Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact EPA no later than April 25, 1996.
If a hearing is held, it will take place on April 30, 1996 at 9:30 a.m.
1 of 13 02/2&91 09:5
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental http://www.cpt.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AlR/ 1996/April/Dmy- l5/pr-232Si
If a hearing is held, it will take place on April 30, 1996 at 9:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be mailed or submitted to: Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Docket (6102), Attn: Docket No. A- 96-08, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington,
DC 20460. Comments must be submitted in duplicate. Comments may be submitted on disk in
WordPerfect or Word formats. If a public hearing is held, written testimony should be submitted in
duplicate at the time of the hearing. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at Waterside
Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460, in the Conference Center in a room to be designated.
Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should notify by
telephone Vanessa Rodriguez (see For Further Information Contact). Docket. The docket for this
rulemaking is A-96-08. This proposed rule would amend a final rule, the docket for which is A-91-74.
The docket may be inspected between 8:00 am and 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday at EPA's Air
Docket, Room Ml500, Waterside Mall, 401M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)
260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical Engineer, Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Environmental Protection Agency, OS-120, 401 M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7913.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background
C. Summary of Final Rule
n. Discussion of Proposed Modifications A. Explosives
B. Regulated Flammable Substances in Gasoline and in Naturally Occurring Hydrocarbon Mixtures
C. Clarification of Threshold Determination for Mixtures Containing Flammable Substances
D. Definition of Stationary Source
E. Applicability to Outer Continental Shelf III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
IV. Required Analyses
A. E.O, 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates
I. Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is being issued under sections 112(r) and 301 of the Clean
Air Act (Act) as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 7412(r) and 7601).
B. Background
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), section 112(r), contains requirements related to prevention of
accidental releases. The goal of the accidental release provisions is to prevent accidental releases and
minimize the consequences of releases by focusing on those chemicals and operations that pose the
greatest risk. The CAA requires EPA to promulgate an initial list of at least 100 substances ("regulated
2 of 13 02/26/91C
-------
List of Regulated Substances «nd Thresholds for AccideMal hnp://wA*w,cpm.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AlR/i996/Aprii/Day-15/pr-23256.tJ
greatest risk. The CAA requires EPA to promulgate an initial list of at least 100 substances ("regulated
substances") that, in the event of an accidental release, are known to cause or may be reasonably expected
to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health and the environment. The Act identifies
16 substances to be included in the initial list. Factors required to be considered in listing substances are
the severity of acute adverse health effects associated with accidental releases of the substance, the
likelihood of accidental releases of the substance, and the potential magnitude of human exposure to
accidental releases of the substance. The CAA also requires EPA to establish a threshold quantity for
each chemical at the time of listing. In developing these thresholds, factors required to be considered
include toxicity, reactivity, volatility, dispersibility, combustibility, or flammability of the substance and
the amount of the substance which is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause death,
injury, or serious adverse effects in case of a release. Stationary sources that have more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance are subject to accident prevention regulations promulgated under CAA
section 112(r)(7), including the requirement to develop risk management plans.
EPA's final rule on the list of substances and thresholds (59 FR 4478, January 31, 1994) (the "List Rule")
promulgated the regulated list of substances and thresholds that identify sources subject to the accident
prevention rules. EPA subsequently sought comment on a proposed accident prevention frisk
management program") rule in two notices and intends to promulgate a final rule in late Spring 1996.
(See 58 FR 54190, October 20, 1993, 60 FR 13526, March 13, 1995.) For additional information on the
requirements of section 112(r) and related statutory provisions, see these notices.
C. Summary of the List Rule
In the List Rule, EPA promulgated a list that includes 77 acutely toxic substances, 63 flammable gases
and volatile flammable liquids, and Division 1.1 high explosive substances as listed by the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR 172.101. The final rule establishes threshold quantities
for toxic substances ranging from 500 to 20,000 pounds. For all listed flammable substances, the
threshold quantity is 10,000 pounds,
[[Page 16599]]
while all explosive substances have a threshold quantity of 5,000 pounds. The rule sets forth the
procedures for determining whether a threshold quantity of a regulated substance is present at a
stationary source. Specific exemptions for quantities considered in the threshold determination are also
included for mixtures, articles, and certain uses and activities. The rule also specifies the requirements for
any petitions to the Agency requesting to add substances to, or delete substances from, the list.
The criteria EPA considered in selecting substances for listing include severity of acute adverse health
effects, likelihood of release, and potential magnitude of human exposure. EPA was required to set
threshold quantities for each regulated substance considering its toxicity, reactivity, volatility,
dispersibility, and flammabUity, as well as amounts known or anticipated to cause effects of concent EPA
selected commercially produced acutely toxic and volatile substances mostly from the list of extremely
hazardous substances (EHSs) under section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto
-Know Act (EPCRA). EPA chose volatile substances because they are more likely to become airborne
and impact the public. EPA also considered accident history associated with a substance. One substance,
oleum, was listed because it has a history of accidents that have impacted the public. Because vapor cloud
explosions and blast waves from detonations of high explosives have caused injuries to the public and
damage to the environment, EPA also included highly flammable gases and liquids and high explosives on
the list. The American Petroleum Institute (API), the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), and one
other party filed petitions for judicial review of the List Rule (American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, No
94-1273 (D.C. Cir.) and consolidated cases). On March 28, 1996, EPA made available for public
comment under CAA section 113(g) proposed settlement agreements with API and IME (61 FR 13858,
March 28, 1996).
3ofJ3 G2/2&97Q9:
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental http://www,epa.gov/doc^fedrgstr/EPA-AJR/I996/April/Day-15/pr-23256
II. Discussion of Proposed Modifications
Following EPA's promulgation of regulated substances and thresholds in the List Rule, the petitioners
mentioned above and other members of the regulated community raised a number of issues concerning
the list and thresholds. Certain provisions of the List Rule that seemed inconsistent with EPA's intent
expressed in the preamble or other documents supporting the final rule were identified. Additional
information was also received addressing the concerns that led to the regulation. As a result, EPA is
proposing the following amendments to the final rule: delisting explosives; exempting from threshold
determination regulated flammable substances in gasoline and in naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures prior to initial processing; clarifying the provision for threshold determination of flammable
substances in mixtures to exempt mixtures that do not have a National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) flammability hazard rating of 4, modifying the definition of stationary source to clarify the
exemption of transportation and storage incident to transportation and to clarify that naturally occurring
hydrocarbon reservoirs are not stationary sources or parts of stationary sources; and clarifying that the
chemical accident prevention provisions do not apply to sources located on the Outer Continental Shelf
("OCS sources").
A. Explosives
In the final rule (59 FR 4478, January 31, 1994), EPA included explosives classified by DOT as Class 1,
Division 1.1, and listed as such in 49 CFR 172.101 (the Hazardous Materials Table) as regulated
substances with a threshold quantity of 5,000 pounds. Division 1.1 explosives were listed because of their
potential to readily detonate, causing ofisite impacts. While acknowledging that explosives are regulated
by a number of other agencies, EPA maintained that public safety would be enhanced if additional
information about explosives, such as hazard assessments, were available to emergency response agencies
and local emergency planners under section 112(r). EPA's primary concern was that there were gaps in
the existing regulatory framework in the area of communication with emergency responders and local
planners because existing regulations and programs were not comprehensive. EPA noted that public
safety would be enhanced by additional coordination between facilities handling explosives and the local
emergency planners and responders. Subsequent to promulgation of the List Rule, IME provided EPA
with additional information about the extent of the regulatory gaps discussed above, including
coordination with emergency responders. After additional review of other federal, state, and local laws
and regulations for explosives, as well as industry practices for explosives manufacturing and storage,
EPA has concluded that current regulations and current and contemplated industry practices promote
safety and accident prevention in storage, handling, transportation, and use of explosives. As a result,
these regulations and practices adequately protect the public and the environment from the hazards of
accidents involving explosives. Explosives are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(B ATF), the Mine Safety and Health Act (MSHA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the
Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and state and local agencies,
BATFs American Table of Distances (ATD) specifies distances for explosive storage from inhabited
buildings, public highways, and passenger railways; these distances are great enough to ensure that an
accidental explosion at a site that is in compliance with the ATD should not produce blast waves that are
hazardous to people at distances where the public could be affected (the hazard to which the public could
be exposed if a site complies with the ATD is significantly lower than that which the Agency would be
protecting against with its listing of Division 1.1 explosives at a 5,000-pound threshold). Most facilities
that manufacture or store explosives already are required to develop emergency response plans and to
provide local emergency responders with copies of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) or lists of
materials with MSDSs, or to advise local emergency responders regarding the type, quantity, and location
of Division 1.1 explosives on site.
4 of 13 02/26/97 0<
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental hRp"^www.epa,gov/doc^fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1996/April/Daytl5/pr-232561
EPA's review of existing regulations and current industry practices still indicates that public safety would
be enhanced if some sites handling explosives made additional information about explosives available to
emergency responders and planners. While EPA does not believe there are many sites that are not already
coordinating with local-authorities under other regulatory and voluntary programs, public safety would be
enhanced if there were additional coordination between the remaining facilities handling explosives and
the local emergency planners and responders. To address the gaps EPA identified, IME has developed
suggested safety practices that would be adopted in due course if EPA provides final consent to the
proposed settlement agreement. These actions would.provide additional information and enhance the
coordination between explosives facilities and the emergency planners and responders. IME member
companies would post signs at all
[[Page 16600]]
normal access routes stating, "Danger. Never Fight Explosive Fires. Explosives are stored on this site,"
and providing an emergency phone number. Whenever a new Division 1.1 commercial explosives storage
or manufacturing location is established at a temporary job site, IME member companies would notify
Local Emergency Planning Committees and other local authorities (e.g., fire departments and law
enforcement agencies) of the type, quantity, and location of explosives on site. At Division 1.1
commercial explosives storage or manufacturing locations with 5,000 pounds or more of Division 1.1
explosives (not including temporary job sites) where preparation of emergency response plans is not
already required, IME member companies would prepare emergency response plans, notify Local
Emergency Planning Committees and other local authorities of the type, quantity, and location of
explosives on site, provide the emergency response plans to local emergency responders, and respond to
reasonable requests for information from said authorities. IME member companies also would inform
their customers of the contents of the Settlement Agreement and the actions to be taken. IME would
respond to reasonable requests from law enforcement agencies and emergency responders for information
concerning the safe storage, distribution, and use of explosives. IME also would distribute a letter to
other non-IME commercial explosives manufacturers, distributors, and users informing them of the
Settlement Agreement and actions to be taken. The Agency believes these actions effectively close the
remaining gap in emergency planning and response communications, while allowing existing laws to
prevail. Therefore, EPA is proposing to delist explosives from the list of regulated substances under
section 112(r). EPA requests comments on whether explosives should be delisted.
B. Regulated Flammable Substances in Gasoline and in Naturally Occurring Hydrocarbon Mixtures
In the threshold determination provisions for mixtures containing flammable regulated substances, the
List Rule provides that such mixtures are exempt if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the
mixture does riot meet boiling point or flash point criteria; otherwise, the entire mixture is treated as a
regulated substance unless another exemption applies. The boiling point and flash point are objectively
determinable and derived from the definition of highly flammable liquids and gases, National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) flammability hazard rating of 4, Although EPA did not specifically
exempt gasoline and naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures (e.g., crude oil) from threshold
determination, it did not intend the List Rule to cover regulated flammable substances in mixtures that do
not meet the NFPA 4 criteria. Gasoline and crude oil are listed with NFPA flammability ratings of 3 in
Fire Hazard Properties of Flammable Liquids, Gases, and Volatile Solids, NFPA 325M (1991 edition).
EPA noted in Proposed List of Substances and Threshold for Accidental Release Prevention: Summary
and Response to Comments (1994) that it believed gasoline does not meet the boiling point criterion for
listing. EPA also noted that it considered unlisted hydrocarbons that fail to meet the NFPA 4 criteria to
represent a lower priority for accident prevention.
The NFPA criteria contain both the objective elements included in EPA's rule as well as certain
5 of 13 02/26(97 09
-------
List of Rcgulaied Substances and Thresholds for Accidental hnp://www.cp«.gov/docs/fcdrgstr/EPA-AIR/]996/ApnI/Day-15/pr-232S£
judgmental criteria. NFPA 4, as defined in the NFPA Standard System for the Identification of Fire
Hazards of Materials, NFPA 704 (1990 edition), includes the following: "Materials that will rapidly or
completely vaporize at atmospheric pressure and normal ambient temperature, and which will burn
readily. This degree usually includes:
Flammable gases;
Flammable cryogenic materials;
Any liquid or gaseous material that is liquid while under pressure and has a flash point below 73 deg.F
(22.8 deg.C) and a boiling point below 100 deg.F (37.8 deg.C) (i.e., Class IA flammable liquids);
Materials that ignite spontaneously in air." Thus, the promulgated threshold determination provision does
not exempt mixtures that meet the flash point and boiling point criteria, but that do not rapidly or
completely vaporize and, therefore, are not true NFPA 4 mixtures based on the full definition. In
particular, certain grades of gasoline and some naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures might be subject
to threshold determination under the provisions of the final rule, based on the flash point and boiling point
criteria, even though these mixtures do not meet the judgmental criteria of NFPA 4.
To better reflect EPA's original intent to exempt non-NFPA 4 mixtures and to clarify the regulatory
status of gasoline and naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures (e.g., crude oil and natural gas
condensate), EPA is proposing to provide specific exemptions from threshold determination for regulated
flammable substances in gasoline used as fuel for internal combustion engines and for regulated
substances in naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to initial processing in a petroleum refining
process unit or a natural gas processing plant. Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures would include
any or any combination of the following: condensate, crude oil, field gas, and produced water. EPA is
proposing definitions of these substances for inclusion in the rule and is also proposing definitions of
petroleum refining process unit and natural gas processing plant, EPA believes the proposed definitions
reflect standard, widely accepted meanings of these terms.
EPA believes gasoline and the naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures condensate and crude oil,
because they contain many nonvolatile components, have low potential for vapor cloud explosions (the
basis for listing flammable substances under CAA section 112(r)), even if, in some cases, they may meet
the flash point and boiling point criteria cited in the final rule. Produced water in naturally occurring
hydrocarbon mixtures would likely reduce the flammability and potential for vapor cloud explosion of
these mixtures. EPA believes field gas, prior to initial processing, also has low potential for vapor cloud
explosions that might have an impact on the public. Exploration and production facilities likely do not
have many congested areas or confined spaces; congested areas or turbulent conditions (in an advancing
flame front) generally are necessary for a vapor cloud explosion to occur, On-site processes are relatively
simple, and there are unlikely to be many ignition sources. The American Petroleum Institute (API)
evaluated the potential consequences of releases of naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures at oil and
gas exploration and production facilities, as discussed in Hazard Assessment of Exploration and
Production Facilities Potentially Subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Management
Program Regulations (January 20, 1995) (see docket), and concluded that hazard distances were
generally very short for the types of facilities evaluated. Finally, EPA believes these explicit, specific, and
clear exemptions for gasoline and naturally occurring hydrocarbons are useful in addition to revising the
flammable mixture provision to better reflect NFPA 4, because they simplify the task of applying the
judgmental criteria of NFPA 4 for these pervasive mixtures.
[[Page 16601J]
As naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures undergo processing in a petroleum refining process unit or a
natural gas processing plant, the potential for a vapor cloud explosion likely increases. The processes are
more complex, there may be significant on-site congestion from buildings and equipment, flammable
substance may be stored in large quantities, and there may be many ignition sources. The components of
crude oil and condensates may be separated based on volatility. The more volatile mixtures (or purified
6 of 13 02/26/970*
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental hnp://www.spa.gov/docs,'fcdrgsu-/EPA-AJR/l996/April/Day-15/pr-23256,
substances) resulting from such processing may meet the criteria for NFPA 4 and, therefore, would need
to be considered for threshold determination in accordance with the provisions for threshold
determination of regulated flammable substances in mixtures, as discussed in the next section of this
preamble. Similarly, beTore gasoline is finally formulated into a fuel for internal combustion engines,
during processing in a refinery, it may meet the criteria for NFPA 4 and, therefore, would need to be
considered for threshold determination in accordance with the provisions for threshold determination of
regulated flammable substances in mixtures.
EPA requests comments on the proposed exemption from threshold determination for gasoline used as
fuel for internal combustion engines and specifically requests comments on whether the qualifying phrase,
'"used as fuel for internal combustion engines," is a necessary part of the exemption, EPA also requests
comments on the proposed exemption for regulated substances in naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures prior to initial processing and on the proposed definitions related to the exemption for naturally
occurring hydrocarbon mixtures.
C. Clarification of Threshold Determination of Regulated Flammable Substances in Mixtures
In the final rule, EPA provided flash point and boiling point criteria for determining whether a mixture
containing a regulated flammable substance is subject to threshold determination. Although these flash
point and boiling point criteria are associated with an NFPA rating of 4, the NFPA rating was not
specifically cited as a criterion. As discussed in the preamble to the List Rule, EPA believes that mixtures
that do not have an NFPA rating of 4 should not be subject to threshold determination. Based on
comments from the regulated community, EPA now believes the flash point and boiling point criteria,
although they are part of the criteria for the NFPA 4 rating, are not adequate by themselves to identify
mixtures with the NFPA 4 rating. As noted above, the NFPA 4 rating applies to substances that will
rapidly or completely vaporize at atmospheric pressure and normal ambient temperature or that are
readily dispersed in air, and that will burn readily. Like gasoline and crude oil, which have NFPA 3 ratings
for flammability, other mixtures may contain low boiling flammable components that would cause the
mixture to meet the flash point and boiling point criteria, but also contain higher boiling components that
would prevent the mixture from rapidly or completely vaporizing. To clarify threshold determination for
mixtures, EPA is proposing to provide that, for mixtures that have one percent or greater concentration
of a regulated flammable substance, the entire weight of the mixture shall be treated as the regulated
substance unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the mixture does not have an NFPA
flammability hazard rating of 4, as defined in the NFPA Standard System for the Identification of Fire
Hazards of Materials, NFPA 704-1990. EPA requests comments on this proposed clarification, which
would be in addition to the specific exemption proposed for gasoline and naturally occurring
hydrocarbons.
D. Definition of Stationary Source
The List Rule defined stationary source to exclude transportation, including storage incident to
transportation, provided such transportation is regulated under 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195. In
addressing issues related to EPCRA, which also excludes transportation in commerce for most purposes,
EPA has interpreted the transportation exclusion to exempt substances being transported in commerce or
in storage under active shipping papers and to treat as a "stationary item" any storage in containers not
under active shipping papers. In the List Rule, EPA referred to DOT pipeline regulations under 49 CFR
parts 192, 193, and 195, and stated in the Preamble that pipelines, transfer stations, and other activities
already covered by DOT would be excluded. Furthermore, EPA intended to exclude from the definition
of stationary source all transportation and storage incident to such transportation to be consistent with
EPCRA. EPA believes the List Rule definition of stationary source clearly covers transportation
containers only when they are no longer in transportation in commerce and clearly excludes pipelines as
7 of 13 02/26/97 O1
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental hnp^'www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgsu/EPA-AJR/1996/April/Day-15/pr-232S6
defined by DOT; however, based on comments from the regulated community, EPA believes there still
may be potential for overlap and confusion regarding the jurisdiction and regulatory responsibility of EPA
and DOT for pipelines and for transportation containers at stationary sources. The Agency has received
questions regarding the~language in the stationary source definition that refers to "transportation
containers no longer under active shipping papers." Both EPA and DOT agree this term would generally
apply to containers that are not in transportation in commerce and that are at the stationary source for
purposes of storage, loading, or unloading that is not incidental to transportation in commerce.
"Transportation in commerce" is defined by DOT pursuant to Federal Hazardous Materials
Transportation Law (Federal HAZMAT Law, 49 U.S.C. sections 5107-5127). As a result of continued
questions regarding the scope of Federal HAZMAT Law and the applicability of the regulations issued
thereunder, DOT is currently working to better delineate and more clearly define the applicability of its
regulations, DOT currently contemplates clarifying its jurisdiction through the rulemaking process. As a
result, there may be a future need for EPA to further amend the definition of stationary source to better
comport with DOT clarifications or actions. The Agency will continue to work closely with DOT to
minimize overlap and confusion with respect to jurisdiction and items in transportation and will
coordinate with DOT to ensure that consistent interpretations about regulations coverage are provided to
the regulated community. EPA is proposing several amendments to the definition of stationary source to
reflect more clearly EPA's intent. First, EPA is proposing to modify the definition of stationary source to
clarify that exempt transportation shaU include, but not be limited to, transportation activities subject to
regulation or oversight under 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195, as well as transportation subject to natural
gas or hazardous liquid programs for which a state has in effect a certification under 49 U.S.C. section
60105. DOT established safety standards for pipeline facilities used in the transportation of natural gas by
pipeline in 49 CFR part 192, for liquefied natural gas facilities in 49 CFR part 193, and for pipeline
facilities used in the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline in 49 CFR part 195. State programs
with certifications under 49 U.S.C. section 60105 are comparable to the DOT
[[Page 16602]]
requirements and thus ensure public safety. In addition, EPA is proposing to modify the definition of
stationary source to clarify that naturally occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs are not stationary sources or
parts of stationary sources. This interpretation is consistent with EPA's policy under EPCRA. API
concluded in the Hazard Assessment of Exploration and Production Facilities Potentially Subject to the
Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Management Program Regulations (January 20, 1995) that the
flow of hydrocarbons from reservoirs would not contribute to the magnitude of a catastrophic release
scenario. This conclusion was based on consequence analysis of a range of fire and explosion events,
assuming a range of handling conditions, types of equipment, and material compositions typical of
exploration and production facilities. Finally, EPA is clarifying that the exemption for transportation
containers in transportation in commerce or storage incident to such transportation is not limited to
pipelines. EPA requests comments on these proposed revisions to the stationary source definition.
E. Applicability to Outer Continental Shelf
EPA is proposing an applicability exception for sources on the outer continental shelf (OCS sources).
Such an exception is consistent with CAA section 328, which precludes the applicability of EPA CAA
rules to such sources when such rules are not related to attaining or maintaining ambient air quality
standards or to the "prevention of significant deterioration" provisions of the CAA.
III. Summary of Proposed Revisions to the Rule
EPA is proposing to amend several sections of part 68 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
8ofl3 G2/2&970!
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental http^/www.epa,gov/docsi'fedrgstr/"EPA-AIR/1996/Aprii/D»y-15/pr-232S6.6tt
In Sec. 68.3, the definition of stationary source would be revised. The revised definition would
specifically state that naturally occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs are not stationary sources or parts of
stationary sources. The definition would state that exempt transportation shall include, but not be limited
to, transportation activities subject to regulation or oversight under 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195, as
well as transportation subject to natural gas or hazardous liquid programs for which a state has in effect a
certification under 49 U.S.C. section 60105. Several new definitions are proposed for Sec. 68.3, for
condensate, crude oil, field gas, natural gas processing plant, petroleum refining process unit, and
produced water.
Section 68.10 is proposed to be amended to clarify that part 68 does not apply to OCS sources.
Several revisions are proposed for Sec. 68.115 on threshold determination. Section 68.115(b)(2) is
proposed to be modified to state that the entire weight of the mixture containing a regulated flammable
substance shall be treated as the regulated substance unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that
the mixture does not have anMTPA flammability hazard rating of 4. Another proposed modification to
Sec. 68.115(b)(2) would exempt from threshold determination regulated flammable substances in
gasoline used as fuel in internal combustion engines. Regulated substances in naturally occurring
hydrocarbon mixtures (including condensate, crude oil, field gas, and produced water), prior to entry into
a natural gas processing plant or a petroleum refining process unit, also are proposed to be exempt from
threshold determination. Section 68.115(b)(3), on concentrations of a regulated explosive substance in a
mixture, is proposed to be deleted, and 68.115(b)(4), 68.115(b)(5), and 68.115(b)(6) would be
redesignated as68.115(b)(3), 68.115(b)(4), and 68.115(b)(5). Section 68.130 is proposed to be modified
by the deletion of (a), explosives listed by DOT as Division 1.1. Section 68.130(b) would be redesignated
as 68.130(a), and 68.130(c) would be 68.130(b).
IV. Required Analyses
A. E.G. 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must judge whether the
regulatory action is "significant," and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule
that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal government or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined this proposed rale is not a'' significant regulatory action" under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and therefore is not subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Federal agencies must evaluate the effects of
the rule on small entities and examine alternatives that may reduce these effects. EPA has examined the
proposed rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It has
determined that this rule will have no adverse effect on small entities because it reduces the number of
substances that would be used to identify stationary sources for regulation and provides exemptions that
will likely reduce the number of stationary sources subject to the accidental release prevention
requirements. Therefore, I certify that today's proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on
9 of 13 Q2/2&91 09;5S
-------
Lisf of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental
a substantial number of small entities,
C, Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not include any information collection requirements for OMB to review under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must prepare a statement to accompany any rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more in any one year.
Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objective of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly impacted
by the rule. EPA has estimated that this rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Chemical accident prevention, Clean Air Act, Extremely hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Hazardous
[[Page 16603]]
substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 5, 1996,
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 68 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 68-CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7412(r), 7601.
Subpart A—General
2. Section 68.3 is proposed to be amended by adding the following definitions in alphabetical order and
revising the definition of stationary source to read as follows:
Sec. 68.3 Definitions.
D * * * *
Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that condenses due to change* in
10 of 13 02/26.97
-------
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental http^/www,epa_gov/docs/fodrg3tr/EPA-AllV1996/April/Dsy-iS/pr-23256.a
temperature, pressure, or both, and remains liquid at standard conditions.
Crude oil means any naturally occurring, unrefined petroleum liquid.
* * * *
Field gas means gas extracted from a production well before the gas enters a natural gas processing
plant.
Natural gas processing plant (gas plant) means any processing site engaged in the extraction of
natural gas liquids from field gas, fractionation of mixed natural gas liquids to natural gas products,
or both. A separator, dehydration unit, heater treater, sweetening unit, compressor, or similar
equipment shall not be considered a "processing site" unless such equipment is physically located
within a natural gas processing plant (gas plant) site.
Petroleum refining process unit means a process unit used in an establishment primarily engaged in
petroleum refining as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification code for petroleum refining
(291 1) and used for the following: (1) Producing transportation fuels (such as gasoline, diesel fuels,
and jet fuels), heating fuels (such as kerosene, fuel gas distillate, and fuel oils), or lubricants; (2)
Separating petroleum; or (3) Separating, cracking, reacting, or reforming intermediate petroleum
streams. Examples of such units include, but are not limited to, petroleumbased solvent units,
alkylation units, catalytic hydrotreating, catalytic hydrorefining, catalytic hydrocracking, catalytic
reforming, catalytic cracking, crude distillation, lube oil processing, hydrogen production,
isomerization, polymerization, thermal processes, and blending, sweetening, and treating processes.
Petroleum refining process units include sulfur plants.
a * * * *
Produced water means water extracted from the earth from an oil or natural gas production well,
or that is separated from oil or natural gas after extraction.
Q * * * *
Stationary source means 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 control 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 no longer under active shipping papers and transportation
containers that are connected to equipment at the stationary source for the purposes of temporary
storage, loading, or unloading. A stationary source does not include naturally occurring
hydrocarbon reservoirs. The term stationary source does not apply to transportation, including
storage incident to transportation, of any regulated substance or any other extremely hazardous
substance under the provisions of this part. Transportation includes, but is not limited to,
transportation subject to oversight or regulation under 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195, or a state
natural gas or hazardous liquid program for which the state has in effect a certification to DOT
under 49 U.S.C. section 60105. Properties shall not be considered contiguous solely because of a
railroad or gas pipeline right-of-way.
D Section 68. 10, as proposed at 60 FR 13543, is further amended by adding a paragraph (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 68.10 Applicability.
Q * * * *
(e) The provisions of this part shall not apply to an Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS") source, as
defined in 40 CFR 55, 2.
Subpart C— Regulated Substances for Accidental Release Prevention
4. Section 68.1 15 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraph
02/269709:5!
-------
List of Regulated Substances ind Thresholds for Accidental ht1P-'/*rww.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AlR/1996/April/Day-15/pr-2325(
(b)(2); removing paragraph (b)(3); and by redesignating paragraphs (b)(4) as (b)(3), (b)(5) as (b)(4), and
(b)(6) as (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.115 Threshold determination.
a * * * *
(b) For the purposes of determining whether more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance is present at the stationary source, the following exemptions apply:
D *•* * *
(2) Concentrations of a regulated flammable substance in a mixture, (i) General provision. If a
regulated substance is present in a mixture and the concentration of the substance is 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 the stationary source.
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) (ii) and (iii) of this section, if the concentration of the
substance is one percent or greater by weight of the mixture, then, for purposes of determining
whether 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 have a National Fire Protection Association flammability hazard rating of 4.
The demonstration shall be in accordance with the definition of flammability hazard rating 4 in the
NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Fire Hazards of Materials, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1990. Available from the National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-
D This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C, 552(a) and 1 CFR part
D Copies may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency Air Docket (6102), Attn: Docket
No. A-96-08, Waterside Mall, 401 M. St. SW., Washington D.C.; or at the Office of Federal
Register at 800 North Capitol St., NW, Suite 700, Washington, B.C. (Note: this document will
only be available for inspection at the Federal Register after this action becomes a final rule.)
Boiling point and flash point shall be defined and determined in accordance with NFPA 321,
Standard on the Basic Classification of Flammable and Combustible Liquids, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1991. Available from the National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101. This
[[Page 16604]]
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency Air
Docket (6102), Attn: Docket No. A-96-08, Waterside Mall, 401 M. St. SW., Washington D.C.; or at the
OflBce of Federal Register at 800 North Capitol St., NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. (Note: this
document will only be available for inspection at .the Federal Register after this action becomes a final
rule.) The owner or operator shall document the National Fire Protection Association flammability hazard
rating, (ii) Gasoline. Regulated substances in gasoline, when in distribution or related storage for use as
fuel for internal combustion engines, need not be considered when determining whether more than a
threshold quantity is present at a stationary source, (iii) Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures. Prior
to entry into a natural gas processing plant or a petroleum refining process unit, regulated substances in
naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures need not be considered when determining whether more than a
threshold quantity is present at a stationary source. Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures include any
combination of the following: condensate, crude oil, field gas, and produced water, each as defined in
Sec. 68.3 of this part.
12 of 13 02/26/97 0
-------
List of Regulated Substance* tnd Thresholds for Accidental h^^/www,epa,gov/doc&/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1996/April/Day-15/pr-23256.t«
a * * * *
Sec. 68.130 [Amended]
-------
Monday
August 25, 1997
Part VIII
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 68
List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention; Final Rule
-------
45130 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 184 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and'Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 88
Category Example of regulated amities
List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds tor Accidental Release
Prevention
AGENCY; Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOM: Final rule. _
SUHMAflY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA] is taking Rp«l action to
modify (lie list of regulated substances
and threshold quantities authorized by
section 1 12(r) of the Clean Air Act as
amended. EPA is vacating the listing
and related threshold for hydrochloric
acid solutions with leu than 37%
concentrations of hydrogen chloride.
The current listing and threshold for all
other regulated substances, including
hydrochloric acid solutions with 37% or
greater concentrations and the listing
and threshold for anhydrous hydrogen
chloride, are unaffected by today's
rulemakiog. Today's action implements,
in part, a settlement agreement between
EPA and the General Electric Company
(GE) to resolve GE's petition tot review
of the ruiemaking listing regulated
substances and establishing thresholds
under the accidental release prevention
regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective August 25.
1997.
ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket for this
rulemakiag is A-97-28. This rule
amends a final rule, the docket for
which is A-91-74. The docket may be
inspected between 8:00 a,m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Air Docket, Room Ml 500. Waterside
Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC
204«0; telephone (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COHTACT! Sicy
Jacob, Chemical Engineer, Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office, Environmental
Protection Agency, MC 5104. 401 M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-
7249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially affected by this
action include the following types of
facilities if the facility has more than the
15, 000-pound threshold quantity of
hydrochloric acid solutions with
concentrations a Mess than 37%
hydrogen chloride.
Chemical
manufactur-
ers.
Petrochemical
Other manu-
facturers.
Wholesalers
Federal
sources.
industrial inorganics.
Plastics and resins.
Pulp and paper mills, primary
metal production, fab-
ricated metal products,
electronic and ottier elec-
tric equipment, transpor-
tation equipment industrial
macfiinefy and equipment,
food processors.
Chemical distributors.
Defense and eneigy installa-
tions.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. This table lists
types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could be affected. To
determine whether your facility is-
affected by this action, you should
carefully examine today's notice. If you
have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding For Further
Information Contact section.
The following outline is provided to
aid in reading this preamble to the rule:
Tabla at Contents
L Introduction aod Background
A. Statutory Authority
8. Regulatory History
C List Rule Litigation
n. Discussion at the Final Rule and Public
Comments
HI, Judicial Review
IV. Required Analyses
A, Executive Order 12866
i. Regulatory Flexibility
C Paperwork Reduction
D. Unfunded Mandate* Reform Act
E. Submission to Congress and the General
Accounting Office
L Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
This final rule is being issued under
sections I12(r) and 301 of the Clean Air
Act (Act) as amended.
B, Regulatory History
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act),
section 112(r), requires EPA to
promulgate an initial list of at least 100
substances ("regulated substances")
that, in the event of an accidental
release, are known to causa or may be
reasonably expected to cause death,
injury, or serious adverse effects to
human health and the environment. The
CAA also requires EPA to establish a
threshold quantity for each chemical at
the time of listing. Stationary sources
that have more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance are
subject to accident prevention
regulations promulgated under CAA
section 112(r){7), including the
requirement to develop risk
management plans.
On January 31.1994, EPA
promulgated the list of regulated
substances and thresholds that identify
stationary sources subject to the
accidental release prevention
regulations (59 FR 4478) (the "List
Rule"). This list included hydrochloric
acid solutions with concentrations of
30% or greater. Such solutions ware
assigned a threshold quantity of 15,000
pounds. EPA subsequently promulgated
a rule requiring owners and operators of
stationary sources with listed
substances above their threshold
quantities to develop programs
addressing accidental releases and to
make publicly aVailable risk
management plans ("RMPs")
summarizing these programs. (81 FR
31668, June 20,1998) (the "IMP Rula").
For further information on these
regulations, section 112(r), and related
statutory provisions, sae these nottcot,
These rules can be found in 40 CFR part
88, "Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions," and collectively are
referred to as the accidental release
prevention regulations.
C. List Rule Litigation
The General Electric Company (GE)
filed a petition for judicial review of the
List Rule regarding EPA's listing criteria
under the List Rule, the listing of certain
substances in the List Rule, the setting
of threshold quantities for certain
substances in particular and all
regulated toxic substances generally,
and the petition process for adding and
delating regulated substances to th* list-
Recognizing that the public's intantt
would best be served by settlement of
all issues raised in this litigation, GB
and EPA agreed to a settlement on April
7,1997. Under the terms of th*
settlement agreement, on May 23,19S7
(62 FR 27992), EPA proposed to vaca!»
the listing and related threshold faf
hydrochloric acid solutions with I*M
than 37% concentrations of hydragH
chloride. EPA is today taking final
action on this proposal.
Q. Discussion of the Final Rate *arf
Public Comments
Today's final rule adopts without
modification the May 22,199? (M F*
27992), proposal to vacate proiriaiea* of
the accidental release prevention
regulations that specifically addrwt
hydrochloric acid solutions with to"
than 37% hydrogen chlorida. Th» I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday. August_25. 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45131
and purpose of this rulemaking is sat
out in the above referenced proposal. As
discussed in the proposal, >h»* action
addresses the essential element of the.
dispute between EPA and GE while
eliminating the collateral uncertainty
that would exist about the regulatory
status of the remaining chemicals if the
litigation proceeded. EPA has
vigorously advocated responsible ~
accident prevention efforts by industry
even before enactment of section 112(r).
The Agency is concerned that
prolonging this dispute may encourage
owners and operators of sources who
are solely concerned about regulatory
compliance to defer engaging in
responsible accident prevention -
activities. By Implementing the
settlement agreement with GE and by -
implementing the settlement agreements
reached in the other two challenges to
the List Rule. EPA will be able to retain
on the list of regulated substances
nearly all of the chemicals originally
listed and eliminate uncertainty about
their regulatory status. As also • •
discussed in the proposal, the general
duty clause of section ll2(r}(l)and the
retention on the list of solutions with
concentrations of 37% or greater
ensures that today's rule is protective of
public health in several respects.
_EPA received 11 letters commenting
on-the proposed rule. All of the
comments were from industry and trade
associations. All commenters supported
vacating the listing of hydrochloric acid
in concentration below 37%. Several of
them specifically supported EPA's
stated position that this proposal is
protective of public health in several
respects and that this action will
eliminate uncertainty in the regulated
community regarding RMP compliance
for hydrochloric acid solutions.
Several commenlars brought up
technical issues regarding the basis for
listing hydrochloric acid in aqueous
solution. EPA stated in the proposed
rule that it was not reopening the
rulamaking record on the listing of
hydrochloric acid within the range of
30% to 37%. Any technical Issues
related to the listing of hydrochloric
acid solutions will be addressed if EPA
undertakes future regulatory actions
regarding such solutions. la agreeing to
the settlement with GE and in this
related rulemaking, EPA has not
conceded or acknowledged any
technical deficiencies in its original
listing of HC1 solutions with less than
37% concentration.
One commenter said that solutions at
37%, as well as those below 37%,
should be dalisted. EPA considers this
issue outside the scope of the current
rulemaking. The listing of solutions at
37% and above was decided in the
original List Rule and was not reopened
by this rulamaking; objections to the
listing of 37% solutions should have
been made by seeking review of the
original List Rule and are now untimely.
To the extent that the commenter
wishes to reopen the technical merits of
listing solutions that an precisely 37%
HC1, EPA would address that issue
along with other technical issues if EPA
were to take further action on
hydrochloric acid solutions.
Two commenters referred to
comments submitted on the original
proposal to list hydrochloric acid
solution. EPA addressed comments on
the proposed List Rule when it
promulgated the fJT1"1 rule (January 31,
1994).
Several commenters questioned the
accident history of hydrochloric acid
solutions and stated that EPA's accident
database does not support listing
hydrochloric acid solutions. To the
extent to which it is relevant, EPA will
consider the up-to-date accident history
if it takes any further regulatory actions
on the listing of hydrochloric acid
solutions.
One commenter stated that EPA
overestimated the number of regulated
sources that would not have to comply
with the List rule as a result of this
vacatur. EPA's estimate of 800 sources
was based on preliminary, conservative
assumptions that EPA used to determine
that a regulatory impact analysis was
not required and was not related to the
basis for the proposal. The number and
type of sources that are affected by a
listing are Irrelevant under sections
112(r)[3) and f4). The Agency recognizes
that this estimate may represent a
conservative picture of the effect of the
rule on the regulated community.
One commenter stated his
understanding that hydrochloric acid
solutions of 36.94% would not be
covered by the RMP rule. EPA confirms
that all solutions that can be accurately
measured at less than 37% are
excluded.
EPA also proposed on May 22,1997,
to extend the RMP rule compliance
deadline for hydrochloric acid solutions
with concentrations of 30% to 37% if
EPA did not take fl"«t action to vacate
the hydrochloric acid listing as
proposed. Because EPA is vacating the
listing of such solutions by the flr"»l
action today, no action is necessary on
tM* alternative proposal. If EPA were to
relist these solutions in the future, then
sources would have three years from the
new listing to comply with the RMP
rule.
Finally, as stated in the proposal, EPA
wishes to clarify that this rule will not
affect in any way the listing of
anhydrous hydrogen chloride.
Anhydrous hydrogen chloride will
retain its 5000-pound threshold.
Threshold determination provisions for
regulated toxic substances would apply
to anhydrous hydrogen chloride.
Anhydrous mixtures of hydrogen
chloride would be subject to the mixture
provisions for regulated toxic *
substances. Aqueous mixtures of
hydrochloric acid would be affected to
the extent that the minimum
concentration cutoff would be revised.
Based on the reasons discussed above,
EPA is vacating the listing in part 68 of
hydrochloric acid solutions at
concentrations of less than 37% (from
30% up to 37%) hydrogen chloride.
Solutions of 37% or greater will not be
affected by today's rule and remain on
the list In addition, EPA is vacating
other provisions of the accidental
release prevention regulations insofar as
they apply to hydrochloric acid
solutions at concentrations less than
37% hydrogen chloride. For example,
the reference to "hydrochloric acid
(cone 30% or greater)" in the toxic
endpoint table for 40 CFR part 68 will
be revised to refer to concentrations of
37% or greater.
HL Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), judicial review of the
actions taken by this final rule is
available only on the filing of a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within BO days of today's publication of
this action. Under section 307(b)(2) of
the CAA, the requirements that are
subject to today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
IV. Required Analyses
A. Executive Order 12868
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4,1993), the Agency
must fudge whether the regulatory
action is "significant," and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1} Have an annual effect on the
economy of SI00 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy.
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
state, local, or tribal government or
communities;
-------
45132
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially altar the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grantsruser fees,
or loan pro grams or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles-
set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule
is not a "significant regulatory action"
under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and, therefore, is not subject to
OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with
this final rule. EPA has also determined
that this rule will not have a significant
negative economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This Snal rule will not have a
significant negative impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it will reduce the range of
hydrochloric acid solutions listed under
part 68 and thus reduce the Dumber of
stationary sources subject to part 68.
C, Paperwork Reduction
This rule does not include any
Information collection requirements for
OMB to review under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title n of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 19i5 (UMRA), Pub. L
104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State. local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 20Z of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local.
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of 5100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal1
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments ,
to have meaningful and timely Input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Today's rule will reduce tha number of
sources subject to part 68. Thus, today's
rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For the same reason, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
E. Submission to Congress and the
General Accounting Office ~
Under 5 U.S.C. 8Ql[a)(l](A) as added
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1998, EPA
submitted a report containing this rule
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in ~
today's Federal Register. This rule is -
not a "major rule" as defined by 5
U.S.C. 304(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 88
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Chemical accident prevention.
Extremely hazardous substances.
Incorporation by reference.
Intergovernmental relations. Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 19,1997.
Carol M Browner.
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, subchapter
C. part 68 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 68—CHEMICAL ACCIDENT
PREVENTION PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 68
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7412(r), 76Q1WU).
7681-7681t
168.130 Tables land 2 [Amended]
2. In § 6fl. 130 List of substances, Table
1 is amended by revising the listing in
the column "Chemical name" from
"Hydrochloric acid (cone 30% or
greater)" to "Hydrochloric acid (cone
37% or greater}."
3. In § 68.130 List of substances. Table
2 is amended by revising the Listing in
th-3 column "Chemical name" from
"Hydrochloric acid (cone 30% or
greater}" to "Hydrochloric acid {cone
37% or greater}," and by adding a note
"d" between note "c" and "e" at the
end uf the table to read as follows:
"d Toxicity of hydrogen chloride,
potential to reiea*3 hydrogen chloride,
and history of accidents." *
Appendix A o« Part 88 [Amended]
4. Appendix A of Part 68 is a-nended
by revising the listing in the column
"Chemical name" from "Hydrochloric
acid (cone 30% or greater)" to
"Hydrochloric acid (cone 37% or
greater)."
(FR Doc. 97-22511 Filed B-2Z-97; 8:45 «nl
COPE UK to P
-------
Monday
August 25, 1997
Part IX
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 68
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements; Interpretations; Final Rule
-------
45134 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No, 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part SB
(FRL-5Sai-9)
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements; Interpretations
AOENCif: Environmental Protection
Agency-
ACTION: Interpretations.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is announcing clarifying
interpretations of the accident
prevention regulations authorized by
section 112(r} of the Clean Air Act
tCAAJ. First, the Agency is clarifying
the method for calculating whether a
quantity of a regulated substance in a
listed solution exceeds its regulatory
threshold under these rules. Second, the
Agency is clarifying that certain reports
and studies required by the accident
prevention rules do not need to be
reported under section 8{e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) or under
the rales implementing TSCA section
8(d). The interpretations announced
today clarify the Agency's existing
policy and should help regulated
entities understand their compliance
obligations under these regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE! August 25, 1997.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is
A-97-28. This notice pertains to
previous final rules under dockets A—
91-73 and A-91-74.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regarding CAA section 112(r) and part
68, Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical
Engineer, Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office,
Environmental Protection Agency
(5101), 401 M St. S.W., Washington, DC
20460, (202) 260-7913. Regarding TSCA
section 8(d), David R- Williams,
Associate Branch Chief, 401M St S.W..
Washington DC 20460, (202) 260-3468.
Regarding TSCA section 8(e), Richard. H.
Hefter, Jr., TSCA Section 8(e)
Coordinator, High Production Volume
Chemicals Branch, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (7403). 401 M St
S.W., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-
3470.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially affected by this
action are those stationary sources that
have more than a threshold quantity of
a regulated substance in a process.
Regulated categories and entities
include:
Category
Chemical
Manufactur-
ers.
Petrochemical
Other Manu-
facturing.
Agriculture
Public
Sources.
Utilities
Others ,
Federal
Sources.
Examples of regulated enti-
ties
Industrial organics &
inorganics, paints, Pharma-
ceuticals, adhesives, .
sealants, fibers.
Refineries, industrial gases,
plastics & resins, synthetic
rubber.
Electronics, semiconductors,
paper, fabricated metals,
industrial machinery, fur-
niture, textiles.
Fertilizers, pesticides.
Drinking and waste water
treatment works.
Electric and Gas Utilities.
Food and cold storage, pro-
pane retail, warehousing
and wholesalers.
Military and energy instate-.
Sons,
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provide* a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table also could
be affected. To determine whether a
stationary source is affected by this
action, carefully examine the provisions
of part 88 and related notices. If you
have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a - .
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
L Introduction and Background
The Clean Air Act (CAA), section
112(r), contains requirements for the
prevention of accidental releases. The
goal of the accidental release provisions
is to prevent accidental releases and
mr'nimiTu (jjg consequences ol release*
by focusing on those chemicals and
operations that pose the greatest risk,
The CAA requires EPA to develop a liat
of regulated substances that, in tha
event of an accidental release, are
known to cause or may be reasonably
expected to cau*e death, injury, or
serious adverse effects to human health
and the environment At the time EPA
promulgates its list of regulated
substances, EPA also must establish
threshold quantities for each regulated
substance. Stationary sources that have
more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance are subject to
accident prevention regulations
promulgated under CAA section
On January 31. 1994. EPA
promulgated the list of regulated
substances and thresholds that identify
stationary sources subject to the
accidental release prevention
regulations (59 FR 44781 line "List
Rule"). EPA subsequently promulgated
a rule requiring owners and operators of
these stationary sources to develop
programs addressing accidental releases
and to make publicly available risk
management plans ("RMPs")
summarizing these programs. (61 FR
31668, June 20, 1996) (the "RMP Rule").
On April 15, 1996, EPA proposed
amendments to the List Rule (61 FR
16S98) and on June 20,1996, stayed •
certain provisions of the list and
threshold regulations affected by the
proposed amendments (61 FR 31730).
On May 22,1997, EPA proposed
additional amendments to the List Rule
(62 FR 27992). For further information
on these regulations, section 112(r), and
related statutory provisions, see these
notices. These rules can be found in 40
CFR part 88, "Chemical Accident
Prevention Provisions," and collectively
are referred to as the accidental release
prevention regulations.
H. Interpretation*
In conducting outreach to affected
stakeholders concerning the
implementation of the accidental release
prevention regulations, EPA has
attempted to clarify informally various
interpretive issues concerning both the
List Rule and the RMP Rule.
Furthermore, interpretive issues have
been raised by various litigants that
have petitioned for judicial review of
the List Rule and the RMP Rule. EPA
has used a number of mechanisms to
communicate interpretation* to all
stakeholders, such as having staff
participate in conferences and seminars
sponsored by stakeholders and
maintaining both files of questions and
answers on its website and a hotline for
addressing public inquiries. Question
and answer files can be found at http:/
/www.epa.gov/swercepp/ under
Publications; the hotline can be reached
at (800) 424-9348. Publication in the
Federal Register allows EPA to give
wider notice to the public of
interpretations of the accidental release
prevention regulations that have
national application or nationwide
scope and effect. Also, publication of
these interpretations was part of the
settlement agreement of General Electric
Company's petition for review of the
List Rule; notice of this settlement was
published in the Federal Register on
May 22,1997 (62 FR 27992).
The interpretations discussed below
clarify how jo determine whether a
threshold quantity for a regulated
substance contained in a listed solution
has been exceeded and discuss the
relationship between offsite
consequence analyses required by the
RMP Rule and certain provisions of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45135
These interpretations are clarifications
of existing regulations and statutory
provisions rathar than revisions to the
accidental release prevention «_
regulations and are consistent with the
working interpretations EPA has been
using in its outreach efforts.
A. Thimshold Quantities for Listed
Solutions
In the regulations addressing the
procedures for determining whether a
threshold quantity of a regulated toxic
substance has bean exceeded, EPA set
out rules for how to calculate the
quantity of a regulated substance
contained in a mixture (4O CFR 68.115).
in general, the rule requires the owner
or operator of a stationary source (the
"source") to count towards a threshold
the quantity of a regulated substance
contained in a mixture if the regulated •
substance exceeds one percent (1%) of
the weight of the mixture. However, if ,
the partial pressure of the regulated
substance in a mixture is less than 10
millimeters of mercury (nun Hg), then
toe source does not need to count the
regulated substance in that mixture
towards the threshold quantity (40 CFR
6B.115[b)U)). For example, if chemical
A, a regulated substance, is present in
a mixture at 5% by weight, out the
partial pressure of that substance in the
mixture is 7 millimeters of mercury
(mm Hg), then the source does not need
to count the regulated substance in that
mixture towards the threshold quantity.
For certain chemicals commonly
handled in solution with water, EPA
established minimum concentrations for
mixtures with water (40 CFR 68.130,
Tables 1 and 2). These chemicals and
their minimum concentrations axe
ammonia (20% or greater), hydrogen
chloride / hydrochloric acid (37% or
greater), hydrogen fluoride /
hydrofluoric acid (50% or greater), and
nitric acid (80% or greater). EPA also
included separate listings for anhydrous
forms of ammonia and hydrogen
chloride.
Some confusion has arisen over
whether the one percent default mixture
rule would apply to mixtures containing
aqueous solutions of ammonia,
hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric add, or
nitric acid. When EPA included
minimum concentrations for these
chemicals on the tables listing regulated
substance*, EPA intended to supersede
the 1% general default rule for mixtures
containing regulated toxic substances
and to provide a simpler method for
threshold determination than the partial
pressure method. As EPA stated in the
preamble to the List Rule, "Ulhese
chemicals, io mixtures or solutions with
concentrations below the specified cut-
off, will not have to be considered in
determining whether a threshold
quantity-is present" (59 FR 4478, 4488,
January 31.1994), Therefore, EPA
wishes to clarify that the one percent
mixture rule established in 40 CFR
6a.l15(bJ(l) does not apply to aqueous
solutions or mixtures containing
ammonia, hydrochloric acid,
hydrofluoric acid or nitric acid for
purposes of determining whether more
than a threshold quantity is present at
a stationary source. For such mixtures,
the quantity of regulated substance in
the mixture must be considered only if
the concentration of the regulated
substance in the total mixture equals or
exceeds the specified minimum
concentration in the list rule.
Another question that has been asked
about how to calculate the quantity of
a regulated substance for a listed
solution concerns whether the source
must include the entire weight of the
solution towards the threshold. For
example, some have asked whether a
50,000 pound solution that is 28 percent
(28%) ammonia (14,000 pounds of
ammonia contained in solution) would
exceed the threshold for aqueous
ammonia, which is 20,000 pounds.
Some have read the specific listing of
these solutions to mean that the entire
solution is the regulated substance, thus
requiring threshold calculations to be
based on the entire solution.
In providing concentration cutoffs for
specific fAflml-r-ala, EPA did not intend
to treat the entire listed solution as a
regulated substance. Rather, EPA
intended simply to establish an
alternative method for calculating
minimum concentrations for substances
that themselves are listed. The Agency's
Intent can be inferred from the location
of the discussion of the concentration
cut-offs ta the "threshold
determination" section of the List Rule
preamble rathar than in the discussion
of the listing for toxic chemicals
(compare 59 FR 4481-85 with 59 FR
4488). Furthermore, the citation in
Tables 1 and 2 to the Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) number refers to the
regulated substance contained in the
solution rathar than the entire solution.
However, the Agency has not been
consistent in expressing this
interpretation since promulgation of the
List Rule. For example, in the "Risk
Management Plan Rule: Summary and
Response to Comments" ("RMP/RTC")
EPA stated, "ii]f the regulated substance
is listed as a solution * • *, then the
entire weight of the solution is used"
(page 28-104). This incorrect expression
of EPA's interpretation appears to be
isolated and was not in the context of
the development of the List Rule. The
action announced today reaffirms the
Agency's position taken in the List Rule
context: the threshold quantities for
solutions at and above the
concentrations stated in the List Rule
apply only to the quantity of the
regulated toxic substance (listed in
Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR 68.130) in the
solution and do not include the water
content of the solution. Thus, in the
ammonia solution example discussed
above, the threshold for aqueous
ammonia would not be exceeded
because the ammonia content of the
50,000 pound solution would be 14,000
pounds (28% of 50.000), while the
relevant threshold would be 20,000
pounds of ammonia.
B. Relationship to Certain TSCA
Reporting Requirements
Among the comments received on
both the List Rule and the RMP Rule
"ware questions that asked about
whether either TSCA section B(e) or the
rules implementing TSCA section 8(d)
require reporting under TSCA of either
the RMP or the hazard assessment
required by the RMP Rule. Whan EPA
promulgated the RMP Rule, EPA replied
in the RMP/RTC that it did not interpret
the TSCA provisions to require
submission of copies or listing of either
RMPs or the hazard assessments
required by the RMP Rule (RMP/RTC,
page 33—56). EPA believes that an
expanded discussion of the relationship
between the RMP Rule and the TSCA
requirements is appropriate and that
wider dissemination of rt*is
interpretation by this notice is useful to
regulated entities.
under TSCA section 8(d), current and
prospective producers, importers, and
processors are required to submit a
broad range of unpublished health and
safety studies conducted on the
substances ""^1 mixtures listed
at 40 CFR 716.120. Chemicals are
periodically added to section 716.120 by
rulemaking. The requirements become
effective on the date specified in the
final rule and prospective reporting
obligations terminate no later than 10
years after the effective date or upon
removal of the chemical substance or
mixture from section 716.120. Such
health and safety studies include but are
not limited to: epidemiologjcarbr
clinical studies; studies of occupational
exposure; in vivo and in vitro
lexicological studies; and studies of
environmental effects. Copies of such
studies possessed at the time a person
becomes subject to the reporting
requirements must be submitted, and
the following kinds of studies must be
listed: studies ongoing as of the date a
person becomes subject to the rule;
-------
45136 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
studies initiated after the date a person
becomes subject to tha rule; studies that
are known to, but are not possessed by,
a person as of the date that person
becomes subject to the rule; anq^studies
previously submitted to U.S.
Government Agencies without
confidentiality claims. It should be
noted that EPA is in the process of
substantially revising the TSCA section
8(d) reporting requirements at 40 CFR
part 716 and plans to issue a Federal
Register notice detailing these revisions
in the near future. The revisions are not
expected to affect the interpretations
included in this notice.
TSCA section SCe^states that "any
person who manufactures [including
imports], processes, or distributes in
commerce a chemical substance or
mixture and who obtains information
which reasonably supports the
conclusion that such substance or
mixture presents a substantial risk of
injury to health or the environment
shall immediately inform the [EPA)
Administrator of such information
unless such person has actual
knowledge that the Administrator has
been adequately informed of such
information," Tha type of information
required to be submitted under section
8(3) covers a broad range of health' and
environmental effects studies, exposure
studies, and certain emergency release
events not otherwise covered by other
EPA reporting requirements. The
majority of the information submitted
concerns controlled laboratory studies
of the effects of chemicals on human
health and* the environment, such as
animal bioassays and a wide range of
other in vivo and in vitro studies.
Incidents of environmental
contamination or exposure studies
based on actual releases may also be -
required to be submitted based on the
toxiciry of the chemicals and the
likelihood that humans or tha
environment will be impacted.
However, modeling studies including
those based on theoretical exposure data
(e.g., "worst-case" scenarios), are not
considered reportable under section
8(e), nor are hazard or risk assessments
based on reviews of existing data.
However, data or studies underlying tha
assessments may have bean reportable
at the time they were obtained by tha
companies performing tha assessments
if the information was not otherwise
known to EPA.
Hazard assessments required by the
RMP Rule consist of an off site
consequence analysis component and a
five-year accident history (40 CFR 68.20
through 68.42). For most sources
affected by the RMP Rule, the offsite
consequence analysis requires
development of two types of release
dispersion analyses, "worst-case release
scenario" analyses under 40 CFR 68.23
and "alternative release scenario"
analyses under 40 CFR 68.28. Under the
worst-case release scenario, the RMP
Rule provides most of tha modeling,
parameters, while under the alternative
release scenario, a source has more .
flexibility in selecting modeling
parameters. The worst-case release
scenario analysis does not require a
probability estimate of the specified
worst-case conditions actually
occurring, although the rule provides
soma flexibility if the specified
conditions have not occurred in a recent
period. The alternative release scenario
is supposed to represent a scenario that
is more likely to occur than the worst •
case scenario and that will have offsite
consequencas, unless'no alternative
scenario would have offsite
consequences.
The two types of scenarios required to
be analyzed under, the hazard
assessment provisions of the RMP Rule
are not unlike "vulnerability analyses"
that some sources have conducted for
Local Emergency Planning Committees
under tha Emergency Planning and-
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
in that these scenarios concern
theoretical upset plant conditions rather
>han actual or likely exposure scenarios.
The Agency has previously expressed
the view that vulnerability analyses are
not reportable under TSCA section 8(d).
Tne Bva-year accident history
component of the hazard assessment is
a compilation of data on historical
accidents, which Would include
information on release conditions,
impacts, and changes that may have _
resulted from investigation of the
release (40 CFR 68.42). As a compilation
of historical incidents, the Eve-year
accident history does not supersede
requirements for notification of
accidental releases under various
statutes and is distinct from the RMP
Rule's requirements for accident
investigations under 40 CFR 68.60 and
68.81. In particular, TSCA section 8(e),
EPCRA section 304, and section 103 of
the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) may require a release to
be reported and follow-up notification
submitted.
Having reviewed the requirements of
the RMP Rule in light of the
requirements of TSCA section 8(d) rules
and TSCA section 8(e), it is apparent
that a hazard assessment mandated by
the RMP Rule (i.e.. worst case and
alternative case scenario analyses and
five-year accident history! is not subject
to the copy and list submission
requirements of the Health and Safety
Data Reporting Rule codified at 40 CFR
part 716, which implements TSCA
section 3(d), and it is apparent that a*
hazard assessment mandated by the '
RMP Rule is not subject to the reporting
requirements of TSCA section 8{e],
However, the foregoing does not affect
the applicability of either TSCA section
8{e) or TSCA section 8{d) and
regulations promulgated thereunder to
any information or studies used to
develop such hazard assessment. For
example, it has been a longstanding EPA
interpretation of TSCA section 8{e) that
it requires some releases to be reported
to EPA; while such a release may need
to be compiled in the five-year accident
history, the release would remain
subject to TSCA section 8(e) reporting.
Similarly, a study initiated by a source
on its own as an outgrowth of the five-
year accident history, such as a follow
up study on known animal impacts
from a specific accidental release, may
be subject to tha listing and/or
submission requirements of the TSCA
section 8(d) and the rules thereunder.
Nevertheless, it should be clear that tha
preparation, compiling, and reporting of
hazard assessments as mandated by the
RMP Rule do not trigger the copy and
list submission requirements of the part
716 implementing regulation for TSCA
section 8(d) nor do they require
reporting under TSCA section 8(e).
Dated: August 19, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator,
[FR Doc 97-22512 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 ami
WLUNO COO€ 5WO-40-U
-------
Tuesday
January 6, 1998
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 68
List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention; Final Rule
639
-------
640
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No, 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
iNVIHONMENTAL PROTICTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[FRL-594Q-4]
RIN 2Q50-AE35
List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention; Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule,
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Is modifying the rule
listing regulated substances and
threshold quantities under section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act as amended.
EPA Is deleting the category of Division
LI explosives (as listed by DOT) from
the list of regulated substances.
Regulated flammable substances in
gasoline used as fuel and in naturally
occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to
Initial processing are exempted from
threshold quantity determinations, and
the provision for threshold
determination of flammable substances
in a mixture is clarified. The definition
of stationary source Is modified to
clarify the exemption of transportation
and storage incident to transportation
and to clarify that naturally occurring
hydrocarbon reservoirs are not
stationary sources or parts of stationary
sources. In addition, EPA is clarifying
that the Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions do not apply to sources
located on the Outer Continental Shelf,
EPA believes these changes will better
focus accident prevention activities on
stationary sources with high hazard
operations and reduce duplication with
other similar requirements.
DATES: This rule is effective January 8.
1998.
ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket for this
rulemaklng is A-96-Q8. This rule
amends a final rule, the docket for
which is A-91-74. The docket may be
inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Air Docket, Room Ml500, Waterside
Mall, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHf R INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical Engineer,
(202) 260-7913, Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
MC-5101, 401 M St, SW. Washington.
DC 20460, or the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Hotline
at 1-800-424-9346.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entitles
Entitles potentially affected fay this
action are those stationary sources that
have more than a threshold quantity of
a regulated substance in a process.
Regulated categories and entitles
Include:
Category
Chemical Manufacturers ..,.,
Petrochemical ,
Other Manufacturing , , ,.
Agriculture , ..,,,....., ,....,,,...., ,„,.
PubJte Sources ... . ...„„.„, .,,,.,,,, .,...,.,,,,..,...... .,,,,,,,,,, ..,.,,,,,,!,
Utilities „
Others
Federal Sources , .,
Examples of regulated entities
Industrial organics & inorganics, paints, Pharmaceuticals, adhesivea.
sealants, libers.
Refineries, industrial gases, plastics & resins, synthetic rubber.
Electronics, semiconductors, paper, fabricated metals, Industrial ma-
chinery, fumilure. textiles.
Fertilizers, pesticides.
Drinking and waste water treatment works.
Electric and Gas Utilities.
Oil and gas exploration and production, natural gas processing, food
and cold storage, propane retail, warehousing and wholesalers.
Military and energy installations.
This table Is not Intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entitles likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table also could
be affected. To determine whether a
stationary source Is affected by this
action, carefully examine the provisions
of today's notice. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT Section.
The following outline is provided to
aid In reading this preamble:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Regulatory History
C. List Rule Litigation
II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Public
Comments
A. Explosives
B. Regulated Flammable Substances In
Gasoline and in Naturally Occurring
Hydrocarbon Mixtures
C. Clarification of Threshold Determination
of Regulated Flammable Substances in
Mixtures
D. Definition of Stationary Source
E Applicability to Outer Continental Shelf
ill. Summary of Revisions to the Rule
IV. Judicial Review
V, Required Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility
C. Paperwork Reduction
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E Submission to Congress and the General
Accounting Office
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
I. Introduction and Background
A, Statutory Authority
This final rule is being issued under
sections 112{r) and 301 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) as amended.
B. Regulatory History
The CAA, section 112{r), requires EPA
to promulgate an Initial list of at least
100 substances ("regulated substances")
that, in die event of an accidental
release, are known to cause or may be
reasonably expected to cause death,
injury, or serious adverse effects to
human health and the environment. The
CAA also requires EPA to establish a
threshold quantity for each chemical ac
the tune of listing. Stationary sources
that have more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance are
subject to accident prevention
regulations promulgated under CAA
section 112(r){7), Including die
requirement to develop risk
management plans.
On January 31.1994, EPA
promulgated the list of regulated
substances and thresholds that identify
stationary sources subject to the
accidental release prevention
regulations (59 FR 4478) (the "List
Rule"). The listed substances included
77 acutely toxic substances, 63
flammable gases and volatile flammable
liquids, and Division 1.1 high explosive
substances as listed by the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT) in
49 CFR 172.101. EPA subsequently
promulgated a rule requiring owners
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
641
and operators of stationary sources with
listed substances above their threshold
quantities to develop programs
addressing accidental releases and to
make publicly available risk
management plans ("RMPs") —
summarizing these programs (61 FR
31668, June 20, 1996) (the "RMP Rule").
For further Information on these
regulations, section 112(r), and related
statutory provisions, see these notices.
These rules can be found In 40 CFR part
68, "Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions," and collectively are
referred to as the accidental release
prevention regulations,
C. List Rule Litigation
The American Petroleum Institute
(API) and the Institute of Makers of
Explosives QME) filed petitions for
judicial review of the List Rule
(American Petroleum Institute v. EPA,
No. 94-1273 (D.C. Clr.) and
consolidated cases). On March 28, 1996,
EPA made available for public comment
under CAA section 113(g) proposed
settlement agreements with API and
IME (61 FR 13858, March 28. 1996).
Consistent with these agreements, EPA
proposed amendments to the List Rule
on April 15, 1996 (61 FR 16598). On
June 20. 1996. EPA promulgated a stay
of certain provisions of the List Rule
that were affected by the proposed
amendments (61 FR 31730). EPA is
today taking final action on the
amendments proposed In April 1996,
II. Discussion of the Final Rule and
Public Comments
In this final rule, EPA Is taking the
following actions to amend the List
Rule: dellsting explosives; exempting
from threshold determination regulated
flammable substances In gasoline and In
naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures prior to initial processing;
clarifying the provision for threshold
determination of flammable substances
In mixtures to exempt mixtures that do
not have a National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) flammabtllty hazard
rating of 4; modifying the definition of
stationary source to clarify the
exemption of transportation and storage
Incident to transportation and to clarify
that naturally occurring hydrocarbon
reservoirs are not stationary sources or
parts of stationary sources; and
clarifying that the chemical accident
prevention provisions do not apply to
sources located on the Outer
Continental Shelf ("DCS sources").
These amendments were proposed on
April 15. 1996. EPA received 37 letters
commenting on the proposal. Major
comments are discussed below.
Summaries of all comments and the
Agency's responses can be found in the
summary and response to comments
document In the docket.
A. Explosives
EPA is amending the List Rule to
delete the category of high explosives
from the list of regulated substances.
Explosives were initially listed because
of their potential to cause offslte effects
from blast waves. In addition, EPA
believed that there existed potential
gaps in emergency planning and
response communication that made risk
management planning appropriate for
sources with explosives. In accordance
with the Settlement Agreement, IME has
developed and will implement safety
practices that will provide additional
information and enhance the
coordination between explosives
facilities and the emergency planners
and responders. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule of April
15, 1996, EPA concluded that current
regulations and current and
contemplated industry practices
promote safety and accident prevention
In storage, handling, transportation, and
use of explosives. As a result, these
regulations and practices adequately
protect the public and the environment
from the hazards of accidents Involving
explosives. The Agency believes these
actions effectively close the remaining
gap In emergency planning and
response communications. Therefore,
EPA is taking final action to del 1st
explosives from the list of regulated
substances under section 112(r).
EPA received six comment letters on
the proposal to dellst explosives. All the
commenters supported EPA's proposal,
citing current regulations, current and
contemplated industry practices, and
the regulatory burden imposed by
listing explosives.
B. Regulated Flammable Substances in
Gasoline and in Naturally Occurring
Hydrocarbon Mixtures
EPA is taking final action to provide
specific exemptions from threshold
determination for regulated flammable
substances In gasoline used as fuel for
internal combustion engines and for
regulated substances In naturally
occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to
initial processing in a petroleum
refining process unit or a natural gas
processing plant These exemptions
reflect EPA's original Intent to exempt
flammable mixtures that do not meet the
criteria for a National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) flammablllly hazard
rating of 4 and clarify the regulatory
status of gasoline and naturally
occurring hydrocarbon mixtures.
Naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures would Include any or any
combination of the following: natural
gas condensate, crude oil, field gas, and
produced water. This rule Includes
definitions of these substances as well
as definitions of natural gas processing
plant and petroleum refining process
unit.
EPA Is making minor changes to the
definitions proposed for natural gas
processing plant and petroleum refining
process unit. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) code has been added to the
definition for natural gas processing
plant in this final rule. In addition, part
of the proposed definition has been
dropped, because It Included the term
being defined and, as a result,
potentially could cause confusion. The
NAICS code also has been added to the
definition of petroleum refining process
unit. The proposed definition of
petroleum refining process unit
Included the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code (which Is still
cited In the definition); however, SIC
codes have been replaced by NAICS
codes.
EPA received 12 letters in support of
the gasoline exemption. No comments
were submitted opposing this
exemption. Several of the commenters
who supported the exemption also
suggested broadening the exemption to
include blendstocks, natural gasolines,
and other fuels. Several suggestions
were made for clarifying the gasoline
exemption.
EPA does not believe the exemption
should be broadened. Individual
flammable substances that do not meet
the criteria for NFPA 4 for flammablllry
were not considered for listing as
flammables in development of the list of
regulated substances. Although
substances such as blendstocks and
natural gasoline are not specifically
exempted, any flammable mixtures,
including blendstocks and natural
gasoline, that do not meet the criteria for
an NFPA rating of 4 for flammabiliry are
exempt from threshold determination
(see Clarification of Threshold
Determination of Regulated Flammable
Substances In Mixtures, discussed
below). EPA believes that substances
and mixtures that meet the criteria for
NFPA 4, Including blendstocks and
fuels, should be covered by the rule,
regardless of their use. EPA believes
such substances have the same Intrinsic
hazards whether they are used as
gasoline blendstocks. as fuels, or for
other purposes. EPA's analysis Indicates
that risks associated with the storage
and handling of flammable substances
are a function of the properties of the
materials, not their end use, EPA Is
-------
643
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 3 / Tuesday. January 6, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
exempting gasoline because It does not
meet the NFPA 4 criteria, and EPA
believes It does not represent a
significant threat to the public of vapor
cloud explosions.
EPA received 18 letters supporting the
exemption of naturally occurring
hydrocarbons prior to initial processing.
One commemer suggested modifying
the exemption to incorporate slte-
speciflc factors because conditions
conducive to vapor cloud explosions
might exist at some facilities with
exempted flammable substances,
particularly in the case of oil and gas
production facilities located adjacent to
chemical production facilities. EPA
recognizes that there may be cases
where a facility may not be subject to
the RMP requirements because of this
exemption, but where the potential for
vapor cloud explosions may exist.
Neither Congress nor EPA intended the
List Rule to capture every substance that
may pose a hazard In particular
circumstances. Instead, the statute
required EPA to select the chemicals
posing the greatest risk of serious effects
from accidental releases. To Implement
these criteria, EPA focused primarily on
chemicals that posed the most
significant hazards because site-specific
factors vary too greatly to be considered
at the listing stage of regulation. EPA
believes the hazards of naturally
occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to
entry into a natural gas processing plant
or petroleum refining process unit do
not warrant regulation. The general duty
clause of section 112(r)(l) would apply
when site-specific factors make an
unlisted chemical extremely hazardous.
Also, the particular risk cited by the
commenter probably would be
addressed by the RMP Rule even with
the exemption as promulgated today. In
the case of a chemical facility located
adjacent to an oil and gas production
facility, the owner or operator of the
chemical facility Is likely to have
processes covered due to other regulated
substances and would have to consider
sice-specific conditions such as the
presence of an adjacent oil and gas
production facility. Therefore, it is
Inappropriate to condition this
exemption on site-specific factors.
C, Clarification of Threshold
Determination of Regulated Flammable
Substances In Mixtures
To clarify threshold determination for
regulated flammable substances in
mixtures, EPA Is taking final action to
provide that, for mixtures that have one
percent or greater concentration of a
regulated flammable substance, the
entire weight of the mixture shall be
treated as the regulated substance unless
the owner or operator can demonstrate
that the mixture does not have an NFPA
flammability hazard rating of 4. as
defined In the NFPA Standard System
for the Identification of Fire Hazards of
Materials, NFPA 704-1996.
In its proposed rule, to define NFPA
4, EPA cited and proposed to
incorporate by reference NFPA 704,
Standard System for the Identification
of Fire Hazards of Materials (1990
edition). For the definition and
determination of balling point and flash
point, EPA cited and proposed to
Incorporate by reference NFPA 321,
Standard on the Basic Classification of
Flammable and Combustible Liquids
(1991 edition). In this final rule, EPA is
updating these references and
Incorporating by reference the 1996
edition of NFPA 704 and the 1996
edition of NFPA 30. Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code, which
replaces NFPA 321.
Nine comments were submitted
supporting this clarification. No
opposing comments were submitted.
D, Definition of Stationary Source
EPA is promulgating the amendments
to the definition of stationary source
that were proposed on April 15,1996.
First, EPA is clarifying that the
exemption for regulated substances In
transportation, or in storage Incident to
such transportation, is not limited to
pipelines. In addition, EPA is modifying
the definition of stationary source to
clarify that naturally occurring
hydrocarbon reservoirs are not
stationary sources or parts of stationary
sources. Finally, EPA is modifying the
definition of stationary source to clarify
that exempt transportation shall
include, but not be limited to,
transportation activities subject to
regulation or oversight under 49 CFR
parts 192.193, or 195, as well as
transportation subject to natural gas or
hazardous liquid programs for which a
state has in effect a certification under
49 U.S.C, section 60105.
EPA considers the transportation
exemption to Include storage fields for
natural gas where gas taken from
pipelines Is stored during non-peak
periods, to be returned to the pipelines
when needed. Such storage fields
Include, but are not limited to, depleted
oil and gas reservoirs, aquifers, mines,
and caverns (e.g., salt caverns). For
purposes of this regulation, this type of
storage Is incident to transportation and,
therefore, Is not subject to the RMP rule.
The transportation exemption also
applies to liquefied natural gas (LNC)
facilities subject to oversight or
regulation under 49 CFR parts 192, 193,
or 195, or a state natural gas or
hazardous liquid program for which the
state has in effect a certification to DOT
under 49 U.S.C. section 60105, These
facilities include those used to liquefy
natural or synthetic gas or used to
transfer, store, or vaporize LNG in
conjunction with pipeline
transportation.
EPA believes there still may be
potential for confusion regarding the
jurisdiction and regulatory
responsibility of EPA and DOT for
pipelines and for transportation
containers at stationary sources.
"Transportation in commerce" is
defined by DOT pursuant to Federal
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Law (Federal HAZMAT Law. 49 U.S.C.
sections 5107-5127). As a result of
continued questions regarding the scope
of Federal HAZMAT Law and the
applicability of the regulations issued
thereunder, the DOT is currently
working to better delineate and more
clearly define the applicability of Its
regulations. DOT currently
contemplates clarifying its Jurisdiction
through the rulemaklng process. As a
result, there may be a future need for
EPA to further amend the definition of
stationary source to better comport with
DOT clarifications or actions. The
Agency will continue to work closely
with DOT to minimize confusion
regarding transportation containers and
will coordinate with DOT to ensure that
compatible interpretations about
regulatory coverage are provided to the
regulated community.
EPA received 15 letters In support of
the exemption of transportation
activities from the definition of
stationary source. No one opposed this
exemption. A number of commenters,
however, believed the modification*
would not eliminate overlap and
confusion between EPA and DOT rule*.
A number of commenters also favored
exempting from the stationary source
definition transportation container* no
longer under active shipping papers and
transportation containers connected to
equipment for purposes of temporary
storage, loading, or unloading, Som#
commenters stated that EPA would be
undermining DOT'S authority by
regulating activities that are under DOT
jurisdiction. Four commenters
recommended exempting all containers
that are suitable for transportation.
EPA developed the transportation
exemptions discussed here In
consultation with DOT. EPA'i
regulations do not supersede or limit
DOT'S authorities and, therefore. ar« in
compliance with CAA section 310. EPA
believes these provisions are consistent
with other EPA regulations, such u clw
Emergency Planning and Community
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
643
Rlght-to-Know Act (EPCRA) regulations
under parts 355 and 370. EPA disagrees
that suitability for transportation should
be the criterion for determining whether
a container should be considered part of
the stationary source. For example, EPA
believes that a railroad tank car
containing a regulated substance could
be considered a stationary source or part
of a stationary source, even though the
tank car Is "suitable for transportation."
Such a tank car could remain at one
location for a long period of time,
serving as a storage container, and could
pose a hazard to the community. EPA
considers a container to be in
transportation as long as It is attached
to the motive power that delivered It to
the site (e.g., a truck or locomotive). If
a container remains attached to the
motive power that delivered It to the
site, even if a facility accepts delivery.
it would be In transportation, and the
contents would not be subject to
threshold determination. As stated
earlier, EPA will continue to work with
DOT to avoid regulatory confusion.
EPA agrees with commenters who
stated that active shipping papers may
not be a suitable criterion for
determining whether a container Is In
transportation. EPA Is aware that
shipping papers are not always
generated, nor are they required under
DOT rules. Therefore, EPA has modified
the definition of stationary source to
remove the reference to active shipping
papers. EPA also has modified the
definition to remove the reference to
temporary storage. This reference may
have been confused with storage
Incident to transportation.
EPA has received questions regarding
the statement In the stationary source
definition that properties shall not be
considered contiguous solely because of
a railroad or gas pipeline right-of-way.
In response to these questions, EPA is
clarifying this statement by deleting the
word "gas." EPA always intended that
neither a railroad right-of-way nor any
pipeline right-of-way should cause
properties to be considered contiguous.
E. Applicability to Outer Continental
Shelf
EPA Is providing an applicability
exception for sources on the outer
continental shelf (OCS sources) to
clarify that Part 68 does not apply to
these sources. This exception Is
consistent with CAA section 328, which
precludes the applicability of EPA CAA
rules to such sources when such rules
are not related to attaining or
maintaining ambient air quality
standards or to the "prevention of
significant deterioration" provisions of
the CAA. Eleven commenters supported
this exception, and no one opposed it.
III. Summary of Revisions to the Rule
EPA Is amending several sections of
part 68 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
In § 68.3, the definition of stationary
source Is revised. The revised definition
specifically states that naturally
occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs are
not stationary sources or parts of
stationary sources. The definition states
that exempt transportation Includes, but
is not limited to, transportation
activities subject to oversight or
regulation under 49 CFR parts 192, 193,
or 195, as well as transportation subject
to natural gas or hazardous liquid
programs for which a state has in effect
a certification under 49 U.S.C. section
60105. In addition, the agency has made
non-substantive wording changes to
Improve the clarity of this definition.
Several new definitions are added for
S 68.3, for condensate, crude oil, field
gas, natural gas processing plant,
petroleum refining process unit, and
produced water.
Section 68.10 Is amended to clarify
that part 68 does not apply to OCS
sources.
Several revisions are made to § 68.115
on threshold determination. Section
68.115(b)(2) Is modified to state that the
entire weight of the mixture containing
a regulated flammable substance shall
be treated as the regulated substance
unless the owner or operator can
demonstrate that the mixture does not
have an NFPA flammabjlity hazard
rating of 4. Another modification to
S 68,115(b}(2) exempts from threshold
determination regulated flammable
substances in gasoline used as fuel In
Internal combustion engines. Regulated
substances In naturally occurring
hydrocarbon mixtures (Including
condensate, crude oil, field gas, and
produced water), prior to entry Into a
natural gas processing plant or a
petroleum refining process unit, also are
exempt from threshold determination.
Section 68.1l5{b)(3), on concentrations
of a regulated explosive substance in a
mixture, is deleted, and §§68.115{b){4),
63.115(bM5). and 68.115(b)(6) are
redesignated as §§68,115(bM3),
S8.H5(b)(4), and 68.ll5{b)(5),
respectively.
Section 68.130 Is modified by the
deletion of (a), explosives listed by DOT
as Division 1.1. Section 68.130(b) Is
redesignated as §§ 68.130(a). and
§§68.130(c)as68.130(b).
IV, Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), Judicial review of the
actions taken by this final rule is
available only on the filing of a petition
for review In the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days of today's publication of
this action. Under section 307{b)(2) of
the CAA, the requirements that are
subject to today's notice may not be
challenged later In civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
V. Required Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
must judge whether the regulatory
action is "significant." and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(I) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition. Jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
state, local, or tribal government or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise Interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency:
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
Impact of entitlements, grants, user fees.
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy Issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth In the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule
Is not a "significant regulatory action"
under the terms of Executive Order
12868 and, therefore, is not subject to
OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with
this final rule. EPA has also determined
that this rule will not have a significant
negative economic Impact on a
substantial number of small entitles.
This final rule will not have a
significant negative impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because It reduces the number of
substances that would be used to
identify stationary sources for regulation
and provides exemptions that will
reduce the number of stationary sources
subject to the accidental release
prevention requirements.
-------
644
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
C. Paperwork Reduction
This rule docs not Include any
Information collection requirements for
OMB to review under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA.
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result In expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments. In the aggregate.
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement Is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
Identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are Inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
Intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result In expenditures of 1100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Today's rule will reduce the number of
sources subject to pan 68. Thus, today's
rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For the same reason, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
£. Submission to Congress and the
General Accounting O/Tkre
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(l)(A) as added
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA
submitted a report containing this rule
and other required Information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in
today's Federal Register. This rule Is
not a "major rule" as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act ("NTTAA"), the Agency is required
to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so
would be Inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practice, etc.) which are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standard bodies. Where
available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards are not
used by EPA, the Act requires the
Agency to provide Congress, through
the Office of Management and Budget,
an explanation of the reasons for not
using such standards.
EPA developed its list of regulated
flammable substances for this rule based
on analysis of the hazards of flammable
substances conducted In a review of the
EPCRA section 302 list As part of this
analysis, EPA identified and evaluated
existing listing and classification
systems. Including listing and
classification systems developed for
voluntary consensus standards. This
final rule incorporates, by reference, the
use of a voluntary consensus standard to
Identify the chemicals which are
covered according to their flammablllry,
namely NFPA 704, "Standard System
for the Identification of the Hazards of
Materials for Emergency Response."
EPA identified no other potentially
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 68
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Chemical accident prevention, Clean
Air Act, Extremely hazardous
substances. Hazardous substances.
Intergovernmental relations. Reporting
and recordkeeplng requirements.
Dated: December 18, 1997.
Carol M, Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out In the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, subchapter
C, part 68 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 68—CHEMICAL ACCIDENT
PREVENTION PROVISIONS
The authority citation for part 68
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 741Z(r). 7601 (a)(l).
76Sl-766if.
Subpart A—General
2. Section 68.3 is amended by adding
the following definitions In alphabetical
order and revising the definition of
"stationary source" to read as follows:
§ 68.3 Definition*.
*****
Condensate means hydrocarbon
liquid separated from natural gas that
condenses due to changes In
temperature, pressure, or both, and
remains liquid at standard conditions.
*****
Crude oil means any naturally
occurring, unrefined petroleum liquid.
*****
Field gas means gas extracted from a
production well before the gas enters a
natural gas processing plant.
*****
Natural gas processing plant (gas
plant) means any processing site
engaged in the extraction of natural gas
liquids from field gas, fractionatlon of
mixed natural gas liquids to natural gas
products, or both, classified as North
American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) code 211112
(previously Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code 1321).
*****
Petroleum refining process unit means
a process unit used in an establishment
primarily engaged in petroleum refining
as defined In NAICS code 32411 for
petroleum refining (formerly SIC code
2911) and used for the following:
Producing transportation fuels (such as
gasoline, diesel fuels, and jet fuels),
heating fuels (such as kerosene, fuel gas
distillate, and fuel oils), or lubricants;
Separating petroleum; or Separating,
cracking, reacting, or reforming
intermediate petroleum streams.
Examples of such units include, but are
not limited to, petroleum based solvent
units, alkylatlon units, catalytic
hydrotreating, catalytic hydroreflning.
catalytic hydrocracking. catalytic
reforming, catalytic cracking, crude
distillation, lube oil processing.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 63. No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
645
hydrogen production, Isomerlzatlon,
polymerization, thermal processes, and
blending, sweetening, and treating
processes. Petroleum refining process
units Include sulfur plants,
* * * * • M»
Produced water means water
extracted from the earth from an oil or
natural gas production well, or that Is
separated from oil or natural gas after
extraction.
* * * * *
Stationary source means 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 control
of the same person (or persons under
common control), and from which an
accidental release may occur. The term
stationary source does not apply to
transportation. Including storage
incident to transportation, of any
regulated substance or any other
extremely hazardous substance under
the provisions of this part. A stationary
source Includes transportation
containers used for storage not Incident
to transportation and transportation
containers connected to equipment at a
stationary source for loading or
unloading. Transportation includes, but
Is not limited to. transportation subject
to oversight or regulation under 49 CFR
parts 192. 193. or 195, or a state natural
gas or hazardous liquid program for
which the state has In effect a
certification to DOT under 4i U.S.C.
section 60105. A stationary source does
not Include naturally occurring
hydrocarbon reservoirs. Properties shall
not be considered contiguous solely
because of a railroad or pipeline right-
of-way.
*****
3. Section 68,10 Is amended by
adding a paragraph (0 to read as
follows:
§58.10 Applicability.
* * » » *
(f) The provisions of this part shall
not apply to an Outer Continental Shelf
("OCS") source, as defined In 40 CFR
55.2.
Subpart F—Regulated Substances for
Accidental Release Prevention
4, Section 68.115 Is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
and paragraph (b)(2); removing
paragraph (b)(3); and by redesignating
paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6) as (b)(3)
through (b}(5) to read as follows:
§68.115 Threshold determination.
• * • * *
(b) For the purposes of determining
whether more than a threshold quantity
of a regulated substance Is present at the
stationary source, the following
exemptions apply:
*****
(2) Concentrations of a regulated
flammable substance in a mixture, (i)
General provision. If a regulated
substance is present in a mixture and
the concentration of the substance Is
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 the
stationary source. Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(2) (II) and (111) of this
section, If the concentration of the
substance Is one percent or greater by
weight of the mixture, then, for
purposes of determining whether 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 have a National
Fire Protection Association flammablllty
hazard rating of 4. The demonstration
shall be in accordance with the
definition of flammabillty hazard rating
4 in the NFPA 704. Standard System for
ihe Identification of the Hazards of
Materials for Emergency Response.
National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy. MA, 1996. Available from the
National Fire Protection Association, 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-
9101. This Incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552{a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be Inspected at the Environmental
Protection Agency Air Docket (6102),
Attn: Docket No. A-96-O8, Waterside
Mall, 401 M. St. SW., Washington D.C.;
or at the Office of Federal Register at
800 North Capitol St., NW, Suite 700,
Washington. D.C. Boiling point and
flash point shall be defined and
determined In accordance with NFPA
30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code, National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy. MA, 1996.
Available from the National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy. MA 02269-9101. This
incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may
be inspected at the Environmental
Protection Agency Air Docket (6102).
Attn: Docket No. A-96-O8, Waterside
Mall, 401 M. St. SW., Washington D.C.;
or at the Office of Federal Register at
800 North Capitol St., NW, Suite 700,
Washington, D.C. The owner or operator
shall document the National Fire
Protection Association flammabillty
hazard rating.
(li) Gasoline. Regulated substances In
gasoline, when in distribution or related
storage for use as fuel for Internal
combustion engines, need not b*
considered when determining whether
more than a threshold quantity Is
present at a stationary source.
(Ill) Naturally occurring hydrocaitxoi
mixtures. Prior to entry Into a natural
gas processing plant or a petroleum
refining process unit, regulated
substances In naturally occurring
hydrocarbon mixtures need not be
considered when determining whether
more than a threshold quantity is
present at a stationary source. Naturally
occurring hydrocarbon mixtures Include
any combination of the following:
condensate, crude oil. field gas. and
produced water, each as defined In
§ 68.3 of this part
§88.130 [Amended]
5. Section 68.130 is amended by
removing paragraph (a) and
redesignating paragraphs (b) and (cj as
paragrpahs (a) and (b). The tables to the
section remain unchanged.
IFR Doc. 98-267 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 «m|
BILLING CODE 6580-SO-P
-------
Thursday
June 20, 1996
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 68
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act,
Section 112(r)(7); List of Regulate
Substances and Thresholds for
Accidental Release Prevention, Stay o
Effectiveness; and Accidental Release
Prevention Requirements: Risk
Management Programs Under Section
112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act as
Amended, Guidelines; Final Rules and
Notice
3168
-------
31668 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No, 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[FRL-5S19-5]
BIN 2050-AD28 ~~
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section
112(0(7)
AGENCY: Environmental Projection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Aci requires
EPA to promulgate regulations to
prevent accidental releases of regulated
substances and reduce the severity of
those releases that do occur. EPA is
promulgating rules that apply to all
stationary sources with processes that
contain more than a threshold quantity
of a regulated substance. Processes will
be divided into three categories based
on; the potential for offsite
consequences associated with a worst-
case accidental release; accident history;
or compliance with the prevention
requirements under OSHA's Process
Safety Management Standard. Processes
that have no potential impact on the
public in the case of an accidental
release will have minimal requirements.
For other processes, sources will
implement a risk management program
that includes more detailed
requirements for hazard assessment,
prevention, and emergency response.
Processes in Industry categories with a
history of accidental releases and
processes already complying with
OSHA's Process Safety Management
Standard will be subject to a prevention
program that is identical to parallel
elements of the OSHA Standard. All
other processes will be subject to
streamlined prevention requirements.
All sources must prepare a risk
management plan based on the risk
management programs established at the
source. The source must submit the plan
to a central point specified by EPA; the
plan will be available to state and, local
governments and the public. These
regulations will encourage sources to
reduce the probability of accidental
releases of substances that have the
potential to cause immediate harm to
public health and the environment and
will stimulate the dialogue between
industry and the public to Improve
accident prevention and emergency
response practices.
DATES: The rule is effective August 19.
1996.
ADDRESSES: Supporting material used in
developing the proposed rule,
supplemental notice, and final rule is
contained in Docket No. A-91-73. The
docket Is available for public inspection
and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday (except
government holidays) at Room 1500,
401 M St SW. Washington. DC 20460.
A reasonable fee may charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Matthlessen at (202) 260-8600,
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Hotline at 1-800-424-
9346 (in the Washington, DC.
metropolitan area. (703) 412-9810).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Judicial
Review. Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements; HIsk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section
U2(r)(7) were proposed in the Federal
Register on October 20, 1993 (58 FR
54190), A supplemental notice was
issued on March 13, 1995 (60 FR
13526). This Federal Register action
announces the EPA's final decisions on
the rule. Under section 307(b)(l) of the
Act, judicial review of the Accidental
Release Prevention Requirements: Risk
Management Programs is available only
by the petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this final rule.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the
requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this
action are those stationary sources that
have more than a threshold quantity of
a regulated substance in a process.
Regulated categories and endues
include:
Category
Examples of regulated antWas
ChemicaJ Manufacturers
Petfoenernieal
Other Manufacturing
Agriculture .........
Public Sources ..
Utilities
Others ,
Federal Sources
Industrial organica & inorganics, paints, pharmaceulicala, adhesivag, sealants, fibers
Refineries, industrial gases, plastics & resins, synthetic rubber
Electronics, semiconductors, paper, fabricated metals, industrial machinery, furniture
textiles
FertlLzers, pesticides
Drinking and wasle water treatment works
Electric and Gas utilities
Food and cold storage, propane retail, warehousing and wholesalers
Military and energy instaDalions
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entitles likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entitles that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entitles not
listed In the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether a
stationary source Is regulated by this
action, carefully examine the provisions
associated with the list of substances
and thresholds under §68.130 (59 FR
4478), the proposed modifications (61
FR 16598, April 15, 1996) and the stay
of Implementation of the affected
provisions until the proposed
modifications are final published
elsewhere In today's Federal Register.
and the applicability criteria in §68.10
of today's rule. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed In the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The following outline Is provided to
aid In reading this preamble;
[. Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background
II. Discussion of Final Rule
A. Applicability
B. Program Criteria and Requirements
C, Hazard Assessment
D. Prevention Programs
E. Emergency Response
F. Risk Management Plan (RMP)
G. Air Permitting
H. Other Issues
III. Discussion of Comments
A. Ttaring
1. Rationale
2. Program 1 vs. Program 2 and Program 3
Criteria
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, Ii96 / Rules and Regulations 31669
a. Potential for OfTslte Impact
b. Accident History
c- Other
3. Program 2 vs. Program 3 Criteria
a. Number of Employees
b. SIC Code
c. Sice-specific. Risk-based Criteria
d, Accident History
e. Other
4. Program 1 Requirements
a. Certification of No Environmental
Impact
b. Signs
c. Emergency Response Program
d. Other
5. Program 2 Requirements
a. Streamlined Program
b. Other Regulations
c. Emergency Response Program
B. OITsite Consequence Analysis
1. Worst-Case Release Scenario
Z, Mitigation Systems
a. Worst-Case Release Scenario
b. Alternative Scenarios
3, Populations Affected
4. Number of Scenarios
5. Technical Guidance
6. Modeling Parameters
a. Endpoints
b. Meteorology
C. Consideration of Environmental Impact
1. Inclusion of Environmental Impacts
2. Environments to be Considered
3. Level of Analysis Required
D. Program 3 Consistency with OSHA PSM
Standard
1, Prevention Program
2. Enforcement
3, Exemptions
£ Relationship Co Air Permits
1. General Relationship between the Part
88 and Part 70 programs
2. Impact of EPA's Proposal on Air
Permitting Programs
3. Part 68 as an "Applicable Requirement"
under Part 70
4. Role of the Air Permitting Authority
5- Air Permit Application Contents
6. Air Permit Contents
7, Completeness Review
8. Interaction of the Implementing Agency
and the Permitting Authority
S. Designated Agency
10. Reopening Air Permits to Incorporate
Section 112(r) Requirements
11. Use of Air Funds
12. Other Issues
F General Definitions
1, Significant Accidental Release
2, Stationary Source
3. Process
4. Offslte
S, Other Definitions
C. Risk. Management Plan (RMP)
1. Level of Detail
2. RMP Content
3. Submission
4. Other Issues
H. Prevention Program
I. Accident History
J. Emergency Response Program
K. Registration
L. Model Risk Management Programs
M, Implementing Agency Audits
N. Public Participation
O, Inherently Safer Technologies
P. Coverage by Other Regulations
1. General Issues
2, DOT Transportation Regulations
3. Other EPA Regulations
4, Other Federal Regulations
S. State and Local Regulations
Q, Industry-Specific Issues
1. Oil and Gas Facilities
2. Retail Facilities
a. Propane Retailers
b. Ammonia Retailers
3. Refrigeration Systems
4. Other Operations
R Implementing Agency Delegation
S, Accident Reporting
T, Other Issues
l.OSHAVPP
2. Qualified Third Party
3. Documentation
IV. Section-by-Section Analysts of the Rule
V. Required Analyses
A. E.O. 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Submission to Congress and the General
Accounting Office
L Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
This rule is promulgated under
sections 112(r). 301(a)(l).TlUe Vof the
Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42
U.S.C. 7412(r). 7601(a)(l). 7661-7661!},
B. Background
The CAA Amendments of 1990
amend section 1L2 and add paragraph
(r). The Intent of section 112(r) b to
prevent accidental releases to the air
and mitigate the consequences of such
releases by focusing prevention
measures on chemicals that pose the
greatest risk to the public and the
environment. Section 112(r)(3)
mandates that EPA promulgate a list of
regulated substances, with threshold
quantities: this list defines the
stationary sources that will be subject to
accident prevention regulations
mandated by section 112(r}(7). EPA
promulgated Its list of substances on
January 31. 1994 (59 FR 4478) ("List
Rule").
As noted elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, EPA has stayed certain
provisions of part 68 thai were
promulgated as part of the List Rule.
The stayed provisions are being
addressed in amendments to the List
Rule, which were proposed In 61 FR
16598 (April 15. 1996). Therefore, EPA
has not taken final action on provisions
of the Risk Management Program rule
that apply to regulated substances,
mixtures, and stationary sources
addressed by the stayed provisions.
Final action will be deferred until EPA
takes final action on the proposed
amendments to the List Rule.
Section 112(r)(7) mandates that EPA
promulgate regulations and develop
guidance to prevent, detect, and
respond to accidental releases.
Stationary sources covered by these
regulations must develop and
implement a risk management program
that includes a hazard assessment, a
prevention program, and an emergency
response program. The risk management
program must be described In a risk
management plan (RMP) that must be
registered with EPA, submitted to state
and local authorities, and made
available to the public. On October 20,
1993. EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the
section 112(r}{7) regulations (58 FR
54190). (For a summary of the statutory
requirements of section 112(r) and
related statutory provisions, see the
October 20, 1993, NPRM).
Following publication of the proposed
rule, EPA held four public hearings and
received approximately 770 written
comments. Because of these comments,
EPA Issued a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaklng (SNPRM) on
March 13, 1995 (60 FR 13526) for
comment on: approaches for setting
different requirements for sources that
pose different levels of hazard {tiering);
worst-case releases and other hazard
assessment issues; accident Information
reporting: public participation;
inherently safer approaches; and
Implementation and integration of
section 112{r) with state programs,
particularly state air permitting
programs. EPA held a public hearing on
March 31, 1995, in Washington, DC, and
received more than 280 written
comments. Today's rule reflects EPA's
consideration of all comments; major
issues raised by commenters and EPA's
response are briefly discussed in
Section HI of this preamble. A summary
of all comments submitted and EPA's
response to them is available In the
Docket (see ADDRESSES).
EPA has proposed to dellst explosives
from §68,130, Consequently, explosives
are not addressed in this rule. EPA had
also requested at the time of the final
List Rule comments on whether
flammable substances, when used as
fuel, posed a lesser Intrinsic hazard than
the same substance handled otherwise
(59 FR 4500, January 31, 1994). The
comments submitted lacked data that
would justify a lesser level of hazard
consideration for flammable fuels;
hence, the Agency will not adopt a fuel
use exemption for purposes of threshold
quantity determination.
With today's rule, EPA continues the
philosophy that the Agency embraced in
implementing the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of
-------
31670 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
1986 (EPCRA). Specifically, EPA
recognizes that regulatory requirements,
by themselves, will not guarantee safely.
Instead, EPA believes that information
about hazards In a community can and
should lead public officials and the
general public to work with Industry to
prevent accidents. For example, today's
rule requires covered sources to provide
information about possible worst-case
scenarios. EPA intends that officials and
the public use this information to
understand the chemical hazards In the
community and then engage in a
dialogue with industry to reduce risk. In
th is way, accident prevention Is focused
primarily at the local level where the
risk is found. Further, today's rule
builds on existing programs and
standards. For example, EPA has
coordinated with Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (QSHA) and
the Department of Transportation (DOT)
in developing this regulation. To the
extent possible, covered sources will not
face inconsistent requirements under
these agencies' rules. EPA is
encouraging sources to use existing
emergency response programs, rather
than develop a separate and duplicatlve
program under this rule. In addition,
today's rule scales requirements based
on the potential risk posed by a source
and the steps needed to address the risk,
rather than imposing Identical
requirements on all sources.
To accommodate the concerns of
small businesses, EPA Is providing
guidance with reference tables that
covered sources can use to model the
offsite consequences of a release. EPA is
providing a model RMP guidance for the
ammonia refrigeration industry, and
will develop similar guidance for
propane handlers and drinking water
systems. As today's rule is
implemented. EPA hopes that other
industry sectors will work with EPA to
develop model RMPs for other
processes, thereby reducing costs for
Individual sources. Finally, today's rule
requires industry to submit RMPs
centrally in a format and method to be
determined by EPA. Working with
stakeholders, EPA will develop
mechanisms to allow industry to use
appropriate electronic technology to
register with EPA and submit RMPs. In
turn, all interested parties will be able
to access electronically the data in
RMPs. This method of submission and
access avoids a potentially significant
amount of paperwork for all Involved
parties and promotes uniformity. Users
will be able to develop databases for
specific purposes and compare RMPs
for various sites across the country. In
turn, industries' use of the data will
promote continuous improvement, for
example, through new safety
technologies. As the method for
submitting RMPs Is developed, EPA
invites the participation of all
stakeholders, including Industry, state
and local governments, local emergency
planning committees, environmental
groups, and the general public.
II. Discussion of Final Rule
A, Applicability
The owner or operator of a stationary
source that has more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance In a
process must comply with these
requirements no later than June 21,
1999; three years after the date on which
a regulated substance Is first listed
under § 68.130; or the date on which a
regulated substance is first present In
more than a threshold quantity in a
process, whichever is later.
B. Program Criteria and Requirements
Under today's rule, processes subject
to these requirements are divided Into
three tiers, labeled Programs 1. 2, and 3.
EPA has adopted the term "Program" to
replace the term "Tier" found In the
SNPRM to avoid confusion with Tier I
and Tier II forms submitted under
EPCRA. also known as Title IK of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1§86 (SARA
Title III). Eligibility for any given
Program is based on process criteria so
that classification of one process In a
Program does not influence the
classification of other processes at the
source. For example, if a process meets
Program 1 criteria, the source need only
satisfy Program 1 requirements for that
process, even if other processes at the
source are subject to Program 2 or
Program 3. A source, therefore, could
have processes in one or more of the
three Programs.
Program 1 is available to any process
that has not had an accidental release
with offsite consequences In the five
years prior to the submission date of the
RMP and has no public receptors within
the distance to a specified toxic or
flammable endpoint associated with a
worst-case release scenario. Program 3
applies to processes In Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
2611 (pulp mills), 2812 (chlor-alkali),
2S19 (Industrial Inorganics), 2821
(plastics and resins), 2865 (cyclic
crudes), 2869 (Industrial organlcs), 2873
(nitrogen fertilizers), 2879 {agricultural
chemicals), and 2911 (petroleum
refineries). Program 3 also applies to all
processes subject to the OSHA Process
Safety Management (PSM) standard (29
CFR 1910.119), unless the process is
eligible for Program i. Owners or
operators will need to determine
Individual SIC codes for each covered
process to determine whether Program 3
applies. All other covered processes
must satisfy Program 2 requirements.
Program requirements and differences
are illustrated on Tables 1 and 2:
TABLE 1—PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Program 1
No offsita accident history .......
No public receptors in worst-case circle
Emergency response coordinated with local re-
s ponders,
Program 2
The process is not eligible for Program 1 or 3
Program 3
Process is subject to OSHA PSM,
Process ia In SIC code 2611, 2812, 2819.
2821, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2879, or 291 1.
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Program 1
Hazard Assessment
Worst-case analysis ... .> .1... <. ... ,,,..,.„
5-year accident history ,
Management Program:
Program 2
Worst-case analysis ,,..,, .,.,,,, ,,,.,,,,,, ,,,,..,,..
Alternative releases .,
5-year accident history
Document management system
Program 3
Worst-case analysis.
Alternative releases.
5-year accident history.
Document management system.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31671
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Program 1
Program 2
Program 3
Prevention Program;
Certify no addiiional steps needed
Emergency Response Program:
Coordinate with local re spenders ,
Risk Management Plan Contents:
Executive Summary
Registration ,
Worst-ease data .....
5-year accident history
Certification
Safety Information
Hazard Review
Operating Procedures
Training
Maintenance
Incident Investigation ..
Compliance Audit
Develop plan and program
Executive Summary.
Registration
Worst-ease data
Alternative release data
5-year accident history
Prevention program data ..
Emergency response data
Certificalion
Process Safety Information,
Process Hazard Analysis.
Operating Procedures.
Training.
Mechanical Integrity.
Incident Investigation,
Compliance Audit.
Management of Change.
Pre-startup Review.
Confractors.
Employee Participation.
Hot Work Permits.
Develop plan and program.
Executive Summary
Registration.
Worst-case data.
Alternative release data.
5-year accident history.
Prevention program data.
Emergency response data.
Certification.
The owner or operator of a covered
process most; (1) prepare and submit a
single risk management plan (RMP),
Including registration that covers all
affected processes and chemicals; (2)
conduct a worst-case release scenario
analysis, review accident history, ensure
emergency response procedures are
coordinated with community response
organizations to determine eligibility for
Program 1 and, If eligible, document the
worst case and complete a Program 1
certification for the RMP: (3) conduct a
hazard assessment, document a
management system, implement a more
extensive, but still streamlined
prevention program, and Implement an
emergency response program for
Program 2 processes; and (4) conduct a
hazard assessment, document a
management system, Implement a
prevention program that Is
fundamentally identical to the OSHA
PSM Standard, and implement an
emergency response program for
Program 3 processes.
Measures taken by sources to comply
with OSHA PSM for any process that
meets OSHA's PSM standard are
sufficient to comply with the prevention
program requirements of all three
Programs. EPA wUI retain its authority
to enforce the prevention program
requirements and the general duty
requirements of CAA Section H2(r)(l).
EPA and OSHA are working closely to
coordinate interpretation and
enforcement of PSM and accident
prevention programs. EPA will also
work with state and local agencies to
coordinate oversight of worker and
public safety and environmental
protection programs.
C. Hazard Assessment
EPA has adapted the worst-case
definition proposed in the SNPRM. For
all substances, the worst-case release
scenario will be defined as the release
of the largest quantity of a regulated
substance from a vessel or process line
failure, including administrative
controls and passive mitigation that
limit the total quantity involved or the
release rate. For most gases, the worst-
case release scenario assumes that the
quantity Is released in 10 minutes. For
liquids, the scenario assumes an
instantaneous spill; the release rate to
the air Is the volatilization rate from a
pool 1 cm deep unless passive
mitigation systems contain the
substance In a smaller area. For
flammables, the worst case assumes an
instantaneous release and a vapor cloud
explosion.
For the final rule, EPA has adopted
the term "alternative release scenarios"
to replace the term "other more likely
scenarios" found in the NPRM and
SNPRM. The non-worst-case accidental
releases for the hazard assessment
portion of the risk management plan
were presumed "more likely to occur"
and "more realistic" than the worst
case. EPA believes sources should have
flexibility to select non-worst-case
scenarios that are the most useful for
communication with the public and first
responders and for emergency response
preparedness and planning.
Catastrophic accidental releases are
typically rare events; the words "more
likely" suggests certainty of occurrence.
Consequently, the scenarios other than
worst case provided In the hazard
assessment are called alternative release
scenarios. For alternative scenarios,
sources may consider the effects of both
passive and active mitigation systems.
One worst-case release scenario will
be defined to represent all toxics, and
one worst-case release scenario will be
defined to represent all flammables held
above the threshold at the source.
Additional worst-case release
scenario (s) must be analyzed and
reported if such a release from another
covered process at the source
potentially affects public receptors that
would not be potentially affected by the
first scenario. EPA recognizes that this
approach may be problematic for some
sources such as batch processors and
warehouses where use of listed
substances or inventory may vary
considerably within an RMP reporting
period. EPA suggests that owners or
operators of such processes develop a
worst-case scenario for future chemical
use and Inventory based on past
practices to minimize the need for
frequent revision of their worst-case
scenario. For alternative release
scenarios, one scenario Is required for
each toxic substance and one to
represent all flammable substances held
In covered processes at the source.
An endpoint Is needed for the offaite
consequence analysis. Appendix A of
today's rule lists the endpoinu for toxic
substances that must be used In worst-
-------
31672 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
case and alternative scenario
assessment. The endpoini for a toxic
substance is its Emergency Response
Planning Guideline level 2 (ERPG-2)
developed by the American fndustrlal
Hygiene Association (AIHA)._If a
substance has no ERPG-2. then the
endpoint is the level of concern (LOC)
from the Technical Guidance for
Hazards Analysis, updated where
necessary to reflect new toxlcity data.
EPA recognizes the limitations
associated with ERPG-2 and LOC values
and is working with other agencies to
develop Acute Exposure Guideline
Limits (AECLs). When these values have
been developed and peer-reviewed, EPA
intends to adopt them through
rulemaking as the toxic endpolnts for
this rule. For flammables. vapor cloud
explosion distances will be based on an
overpressure of 1 psi; for alternative
flammable releases, radiant heat
distances wiJl be based on an exposure
of 5 kVWm2 for 40 seconds. For vapor
cloud fires and jet fires, the lower
flammability limit provided by the
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) or other sources shall be used.
EPA selected 1.5 meter per second
(m/s) wind speed and F atmospheric
stability class as the default worst-case
scenario meteorological conditions. If
the owner or operator has
meteorological data that show that
higher minimum wind speeds or less
stable atmospheric class conditions
existed at the source at all times in the
previous three years, then the higher
wind speed and different stability class
may be used. Alternative release
analyses may use site-specific, typical
meteorological conditions. If the owner
or operator has no data on typical
meteorological conditions, then
conditions used in the RMP Offsite
Consequence Analysis Guidance (3 m/s
and D stability), may be used. Although
EPA Is providing technical guidance
and reference tables for worst-case and
alternative release scenario assessments,
owners or operators may use any
generally recognized, commercially or
publicly available air dispersion
modeling techniques, provided the
modeling parameters specified in the
rule are used.
For the hazard assessment and the
RMP, populations potentially affected
are defined as those within a circle that
has as its center the point of release and
Its radius the distance to the toxic or
flammable endpoint. Owners or
operators may use Census data to define
this population, and may update those
data If they are inaccurate. EPA suggests
that owners or operators use LandVlew,
an electronic publication of
environmental, geographic and
demographic Information published by
EPA and the Bureau of Census. The
presence of schools, hospitals, other
institutions, public arenas, recreational
areas, and large commercial and
industrial developments that can be
identified on street maps within this
circle must be noted in the RMP, but the
number of people occupying them need
not be enumerated. The presence of
environmental receptors within this
circle must also be listed. EPA has
defined environmental receptors as
natural areas such as national or state
parks, forests, or monuments; officially
designated wildlife sanctuaries,
preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal
wilderness areas, that can be exposed to
an accidental release. All of these can be
Identified on local U.S. Geological
Survey maps or maps based on USGS
data.
The five-year accident history will
cover all accidents Involving regulated
substances, but only from covered
processes at the source that resulted In
serious on site or certain known offsite
impacts in the five years prior to the
submission of each RMP. EPA has
replaced the definition of significant
accidental release with specific
definitions of the types of releases to be
covered under each of the specific
requirements previously associated with
this definition.
D. Prevention Programs
EPA has retained the management
system requirement proposed in the
NPRM, but only for Program 2 and 3
processes. EPA has moved the
management system requirement from
the prevention program section to the
general requirements section because It
should be designed to oversee the
Implementation of all elements of the
risk management program. The owner or
operator must designate a qualified
person or position with overall
responsibility for the program and
specify the lines of authority If
responsibility for implementing
individual requirements is assigned to
other persons or positions.
In the SNPRM, EPA proposed a
Program 2 prevention program that
covered training, maintenance, safety
precautions, and monitoring, but did
not specify any particular actions. EPA
solicited comment on whether specific
prevention activities should be required
for Program 2 sources, such as any of
the specific activities Initially proposed
in the NPRM. For today's rule. EPA has
developed seven specific elements for
the Program 2 prevention program:
safety information (§ 63.48), hazard
review (§68,50), operating procedures
(S 68.52), training (§68.54), maintenance
(§68.56), compliance audits (§68.58),
and incident investigation (§68.60).
Most Program 2 processes are likely to
be relatively simple and located at
smaller businesses. EPA believes
owners or operators of Program 2
processes can successfully prevent
accidents without a program as detailed
as the OSHA PSM. which was primarily
designed for the chemical industry. EPA
combined and tailored elements
common to OSHA's PSM and EPA's
NPRM to generate Program 2
requirements and applied them to non-
petrochemical Industry processes. EPA
is also developing model risk
management programs (and RMPs) for
several industry sectors that will have
Program 2 processes. These model
guidances will help sources comply by
providing standard elements that can be
adopted to a specific source. EPA
expects that many Program 2 processes
will already be in compliance with most
of the requirements through compliance
with other Federal regulations, stats
laws. Industry standards and codes, and
good engineering practices.
The Program 3 prevention program
includes the requirements of the OSHA
PSM standard, 29 CFR 1910.119 (c)
through (m) and (o), with minor
wording changes to address statutory
differences. This makes it clear that one
accident prevention program to protect
workers, the general public, and the
environment will satisfy both OSHA
and EPA. For elements that are In both
the EPA and OSHA rules. EPA has used
OSHA's language verbatim, with the
following changes: the replacement of
the terms "highly hazardous substance,"
"employer," "standard" and "facility"
with "regulated substance." "owner or
operator," "part or rule," and
"stationary source"; the deletion el
specific references to workplace Impacts
or to "safety and health;" changes to
specific schedule dates; and changes to
references within the standard. The
"safety and health" and "workplace
Impacts" references occur in OSHA's
PSM standard in process safety
information (29 CFR 1910.119 (d)£2)(E)).
process hazards analysis (29 CFR
1910.119(e)(3)(vli)). and Incident
investigation (29 CFR 1910.119(m)(IJ).
These changes are designed to entur*
that OSHA retains its oversight at
actions designed to protect workers
while EPA retains its oversight of
actions to protect public health and the
environment and to remove poathU
interpretations (hat certain elements at
process safety management Call to
account for offsite Impacts. Comntenttfi
were particularly concerned about the
phase-in of process hazard analyses
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31673
(PHAs). Under the final rule, PHAs
conducted for OSHA are considered
adequate to meet EPA's requirements.
They will be updated on the OSHA
schedule (i.e., by the fifth anniversary of
their initial completion). This approach
will eliminate any need for duplicatlve
analyses. Documentation for the PHA
developed for OSHA will be sufficient
to meet EPA's purposes,
EPA anticipates that sources whose
processes are already in compliance
with OSHA PSM will not need to take
any additional steps or create any new
documentation to comply with EPA's
Program 3 prevention program. Any
PSM modifications necessary to account
for protection of public health and the
environment along with protection of
workers can be made when PSM
elements are updated under the OSHA
requirements. EPA has modified the
OSHA definition of catastrophic release,
which serves as the trigger for an
incident investigation, to include events
"that present imminent and substantial
endangermenc to public health and the
environment." As a result, this rule
requires investigation of accidental
releases that pose a risk to the public or
the environment, whereas the OSHA
rule does not. EPA recognizes that
catastrophic accidental releases
primarily affect the workplace and that
this change will have little effect on
incident Investigation programs already
established. However, EPA needs to
ensure that deviations that could have
had only an offslte Impact are also
addressed.
E. Emergency Response
EPA has adopted the emergency
response requirements found In the
statute, without additional specific
planning requirements beyond those
necessary to Implement the statute. This
action is consistent with the Agency's
effort to develop a single Federal
approach for emergency response
planning. The Presidential Review of
Federal release prevention, mitigation,
and response authorities (required
under section 112{r){10) of the Clean Air
Act) found that there is seldom harmony
in the required formats or elements of
response plans prepared to meet various
Federal regulations. Accordingly. EPA
has committed not to specify new plan
elements and/or a specific plan format
in today's rule beyond those that are
statutorily required. EPA believes that
plans developed to comply with other
EPA contingency planning requirements
and the OSHA Hazardous Waste and
Emergency Operations (HAZWOPER)
rule (29 CFR lilO.120) will meet most
of the requirements for the emergency
response program. In addition, EPA and
other National Response Team agencies
have prepared Integrated Contingency
Plan Guidance ("one plan") (NRT, May
1996). The NRT and the agencies
responsible for reviewing and approving
federal response plans to which the one
plan option applies agree that integrated
response plans prepared in the format
provided in this guidance will be
acceptable and be the federally
preferred method of response planning.
An emergency response plan that
includes the elements specified in this
guidance can be used to meet the
requirements in today's rule. The final
rule also provides relief for sources that
are too small to respond to releases with
their own employees; these sources will
not be required to develop emergency
response plans provided that
procedures for notifying non-employee
emergency responders have been
adopted and that appropriate responses
to their hazards have been addressed In
the community emergency response
plan developed under EPCRA (42 U.S.C.
11003) for toxics or coordinated with
the local fire department for
flammables,
F. Risk Management Plan (RMP}
Owners or operators must submit
their first RMP by the date specified In
§ 68.10. After the RMP is submitted,
changes at the source may require
updates to the RMP other than the
standard update every five years. If a
new substance or new process is added,
the RMP will need to be revised and
submitted by the date the substance Is
first In the process above the threshold
quantity. If changes to processes require
revised hazard assessments or PHAs, or
if a process changes Program level, the
source must submit a revised RMP
within six months.
EPA Intends that the RMP will be
submitted In a method and format to a
central point as specified by EPA.
States, local entitles Including local
emergency planning committees
(LEPCs). and the public will be able to
access all RMPs electronically. This
process will relieve states and local
entitles of the burden of filing
documents and providing public access
to them without limiting these agencies'
or the public's access to the Information.
The RMP is a multi-purpose
document. The CAA requires that the
RMP indicate compliance with the
regulations and also Include the hazard
assessment, prevention program, and
emergency response program. EPA Is
mandated to develop a program for
auditing RMPs and requiring revisions,
where appropriate. The RMP, therefore,
must Include enough data to allow the
Implementing agency to determine.
through review of the RMP, whether the
source Is in compliance with the rule.
EPA, however, believes that the RMP
must serve another function; to provide
information to the public In a form that
will be understandable and will
encourage the public to use the
information to improve the dialogue
with sources on issues related to
prevention and preparedness.
To meet both of these purposes, the
RMP will consist of the source's
registration; an executive summary that
will provide a brief description of the
source's activities as they relate to
covered processes and program
elements; and data elements that
address compliance with each of the
rule elements. While the public and
implementing agencies could make use
of all sections of the RMP, the executive
summary will provide text descriptions
and give the source a chance to explain
its programs In a format that will be
easy for communities to read and
understand. The data elements will
provide the implementing agency with
the basic data it needs to assess
compliance without asking for detailed
documentation. The Agency Is
considering development of an RMP
form where the data elements of the
form would provide the implementing
agency with the basic data It needs to
assess compliance without asking for
detailed documentation. All data
elements would be checkoff boxes, yes/
no answers, or numerical entries.
This approach will provide data that
anyone can download or search. States.
communldes. trade associations, or
public interest groups may want to use
the data or a subset of the data to create
databases that allow them to compare
sources In the same industry or same
area. For example, a local entity will be
able to download data from all reporting
sources that are similar to ones in its
community to determine whether the
quantities stored and process controls
used are typical. The Information will
provide the public with data that will
enhance their dialogue with sources. It
will also help sources and trade
associations to understand practices In
their industries and identify practices
that could be used to reduce risks. The
risk management program
documentation will remain at the source
and will be available for review by EPA
and the implementing agency.
G, Aie Permitting
The SNPRM discussed the
relationship between section 112(r) and
CAA air permitting requirements for
sources subject to both provisions.
Under the CAA, air permitting
authorities must ensure that sources are
-------
31674 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
in compliance with applicable
requirements to issue a permit. Because
section 112(r) is an applicable
requirement. EPA has identified In the
final rule the permit conditions and the
actions owners or operators and air
permitting authorities must take to
ensure compliance. The permit must
identify part 68 as an applicable
requirement and establish conditions
that require the owner or operator of the
source to submit either a compliance
schedule for meeting the requirements
of part 68 by the date specified in
§68.10(a) or. as part of the compliance
certification submitted under 40 CFR
70,6(c)(5), a certification statement that,
to the best of the owner or operator's
knowledge, the source Is in compliance
with all requirements of this pan.
including the registration and
submission of the RMP. The, owner or
operator must also submit any
additional relevant Information
requested by the air permitting authority
or designated agency to ensure
compliance with the requirements of
this section. If a permit Is already Issued
that does not contain the provisions
described above, then, the owner or
operator or air permitting authority shall
initiate permit revision or reopening
according to the procedures in 40 CFR
70.7 or 71.7 to Incorporate the terms and
conditions as described above. EPA also
allows the state to assign the authority
to implement and enforce these
requirements to another agency or
agencies (the "designated agency") to
take advantage of resources or accident
prevention expertise that might be
available in these other agencies.
Finally, the air permitting authority or
designated agency must (1) Verify that
the source owner or operator has
registered and submitted an RMP or a
revised plan when required; (2) verify
that the source owner or operator has
submitted the proper certification or
compliance schedule; (3) for some or all
sources, use one or more mechanisms
such as, but not limited to, a
completeness check, source audits,
record reviews or facility inspections to
ensure that permitted sources are In
compliance: and (4) initiate enforcement
action, based on the requirements of this
section, as appropriate.
H. Other Issues
In the SNPRM, EPA discussed three
other Issues raised by commenters:
accident information reporting, public
participation, and Inherently safer
technologies. EPA has decided not to
develop any requirements related to
these issues at this time. Although IPA
continues to believe that accident
reports that provide more detail on the
causes and impacts of accidents could
be useful, the Agency has decided to
limit such reporting required under this
rule to the five-year accident history
mandated by the CAA. When necessary.
EPA will use Its authority to Investigate
Individual accidents and to seek
additional Information to the extent
authorized by CAA section 114 (Le., to
determine compliance with this rule
and CAA section 112(r)(l), to support
further rule development, and to assist
research on hazard assessment).
Secondly, the Agency encourages
sources, the public, and local entitles to
work together on accident prevention
Issues, but believes that the wide variety
and large number of sources subject to
this rule make any single mandatory
approach to public participation
inappropriate. RMP Information should
be used as the basis for dialogue
between the community and sources on
accidental release prevention, risk
reduction and preparedness for
emergency response. Industry and the
public should continue to use the LEPC
as a mechanism for this dialogue.
Finally, EPA does not believe that a
requirement that owners or operators
conduct searches or analyses of
alternative process technologies for new
or existing processes will produce
significant additional benefits. Many
commenters, including those who
support these analyses, Indicated that
an assessment of Inherently safer design
alternatives has the most benefit in the
development of new processes. Industry
generally examines new process
alternatives to avoid the addition of
more costly administrative or
engineering controls associated with a
design that may be more hazardous In
nature. Although some existing
processes may be judged to be
inherently less safe than others, EPA
believes most of these processes can be
safely operated through management
and control of the hazards without
spending resources searching for
unavailable or unaffordable new process
technologies. Application of good PHA
techniques often reveals opportunities
for continuous improvement of existing
processes and operations without a
separate analysis of alternatives. EPA
encourages owners or operators to
continue to examine and adopt viable
alternative processing technologies,
system safeguards, or process
modifications to make new and existing
processes and operations Inherently
safer. Through the process and
prevention program Information In the
RMP, sources can demonstrate, and
users of the RMP Information can
observe and promote, progress toward
safer processes and operations.
EPA is considering the development
of incentives and awards to stimulate
inherently safer alternative research anc
development, public outreach and
education, and risk communication
efforts. The Agency welcomes Ideas anc
participation in this effort.
III. Discussion of Comments
EPA received 1220 comments.
Including 180 relevant comments
submitted for the List Rule. 757
comments on the NPRM, and 283
comments on the SNPRM. The
commenters represented 92 chemical
manufacturers, 81 other chemical users,
111 petroleum industry companies, 174
industry trade associations, 40 other
trade associations, 58 agricultural
supply retailers, 102 propane retailers,
132 explosives users, 29 water treatmem
facilities. 26 utilities. 66 state agencies,
63 local governments. 8 other Federal
agencies. 52 academics and consultants,
61 environmental groups, 6 labor
unions, and 31 private citizens. The
remaining 88 letters were requests for
extensions of the comment period.
interim or duplicate sets of comments,
or had been sent to the incorrect docket
The major issues raised by the
commenters are briefly addressed
below; a complete presentation of the
Agency's response to the comments
received on this rulemaking is available
in the Risk Management Program Rule:
Summary and Response to Comments In
the docket (see ADDRESSES).
Many commenters requested that
EPA's list be identical to OSHA's list of
highly hazardous substances and no
thresholds should be less than OSHA's.
These comments were addressed In the
final list rule (59 FR 4478; January 21.
1994) and background material related
to these issues is available In docket
number A-91-74 (see ADDRESSES).
A. Tiering
Commenters on the NPRM suggested
that EPA create different levels of
requirements for sources that pose
different risks. In the SNPRM, EPA
proposed three tiers: a low hazard tier
for sources whose worst-case release
would not affect any public or
environmental receptors of concern; a
medium hazard tier for sources that
were not eligible or covered by the low
or high hazard tiers; and a high hazard
tier based on either Industry sector
accident history and number of
employees or simply based on the
number of employees. Generally,
commenters were concerned that all
processes at a source would need to be
eligible for Program I before any process
could be, EPA has revised the rule to
clarify that eligibility for any tier
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No, 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31675
(Program) is based on process criteria,
not source. If a process meets Program
1 criteria, the owners or operators need
only meet Program I requirements for
that process even if other processes at
the source are subject to Program 2 or
Program 3- ""*
1. Rationale, Only 2 of the 57
commenters opposed tiering arguing
that the CAA mandates that all covered
sources be required to complete a full
prevention program and that Congress
had considered and rejected
exemptions. One commenter argued that
EPA had already accounted for
"differences In size, operations,
processes, class and categories of
sources" in developing the list and
thresholds. Most commenters supported
tiering as an appropriate way to
recognize different levels of risks and to
allow sources and emergency
responders to focus on the highest risk
processes.
EPA disagrees that the CAA requires
all covered processes to comply with
the same detailed risk management
program, EPA listed regulated
substances because of their Inherent
hazards, such as toxiciry and volatility,
EPA did not consider, nor does the CAA
indicate that it may consider,
"differences in size, operations,
processes, class and categories of
sources" in selecting chemicals or
setting thresholds. In establishing
section 112(r)(7) requirements, however.
Congress clearly recognized that a "one-
size-flts-all" approach may not be
appropriate for these regulations and
directed EPA to consider these factors in
the development of the accident
prevention regulations. Furthermore.
EPA strongly disputes the assertion that
it has exempted any source from
regulation by creating different
programs for different sources. As noted
below, all covered processes will be
addressed In RMPs that contain hazard
assessment, prevention, and response
Information, as required by statute.
2. Program 1 vs. Program 2 and
Program 3 Criteria. Commenters
generally supported Program 1 for low-
risk sources, but argued that few, if any,
sources would qualify because the
requirements were too stringent
a. Potential for OfTsite Impact.
Commenters generally agreed that
sources that can demonstrate no offslte
impact should be eligible for Program 1.
but only public health should be
considered, not environmental Impacts,
Others stated that only sources posing a
threat of "considerable" Impacts should
not be eligible for Program 1- One
commenter stated that EPA's worst-case
scenario is unrealistic and its use as a
Program 1 trigger is unreasonable. Other
commenters want EPA to allow site-
specific modeling for the offsite
consequence analysis, rather than look-
up tables.
In today's rule, EPA specifically
allows owners or operators to use site-
specific air dispersion modeling for
their offsite consequence analyses. EPA
disagrees chat offsite impacts should be
limited to "considerable" Impacts.
When offsite impacts are possible. It
may be reasonable to implement some
additional measures to reduce
accidental releases, especially when the
burden of measures such as additional
training or safety precautions is low.
Programs 2 and 3 provide flexibility to
allow source-specific consideration of
the appropriate level of effort. Program
1 requires no additional prevention
measures, which Is only categorically
justifiable if such measures would not
reduce offsite impact It Is reasonable to
couple a no Impact criterion with a
conservative worst-case scenario to
conclude categorically the public would
not benefit from additional prevention
measures. If no impact can be
demonstrated for a conservative worst-
case release, then no impact is likely to
occur for any other release event, and
the process could be judged to pose a
low threat to the surrounding area.
EPA has decided that potential impact
on environmental receptors resulting
from a worst-case scenario will not be
a criterion to determine eligibility for
Program 1. EPA agrees that very little,
if any. data exist on the potential acute
environmental impacts or
environmental endpoints associated
with listed chemicals upon accidental
release. In addition, the offsite
consequence distances estimated using
human acute toxiciry or overpressure
effects may not be directly relevant to
environmental effects. However, owners
or operators will be required to
document In the RMP the presence of
such receptors within the distance
determined for the worst case. EPA
believes that natural resource agencies
and the public will be able to benefit
from the environmental receptors
information In the RMP In discussions
with the source.
b. Accident History for Program 1.
Many commenters objected to accident
history as a Program 1 criterion, arguing
that a process that had a significant
accidental release in the previous five
years may have been changed to reduce
or eliminate future events and public
impact. Several commenters suggested
that such processes that otherwise meet
Program 1 criteria should remain
eligible, but be required to justify and
document the changes. Some
commenters also objected to EPA's
proposed definition of significant
accidental release, arguing that many
companies and emergency responders
conservatively evacuate or shelter-ln-
place during minor incidents. Under the
proposed definition, these actions
disqualify a process from Program 1
even if there were no offsite impacts.
Some commenters stated that the
accident history provision was
unnecessary because, by definition, a
Program 1 process is not capable of an
accidental release that could affect
public receptors.
EPA has decided to retain the
accident history criterion for Program 1
processes, excluding events with
evacuations and shelterings in place.
and to drop the definition of significant
accidental release. Program 1 eligibility
is not a one-time exercise; owners or
operators must certify in each RMP that
no qualifying releases have occurred
since the previous RMP submission and
provide current worst-case release data
indicating no offsite Impacts are
anticipated In the future. Program I
criteria and accident history provide
owners or operators an opportunity to
demonstrate to the community ongoing
excellence in accident prevention and
an Incentive to search for and
implement ways, such as Inventory
reduction, to reduce the potential for
offsite Impacts associated with large
scale accidental releases. Further, the
unique circumstances surrounding past
accidents can provide a reality check on
the theoretical modeling and worst-case
scenario claims used for the offsita
consequence assessment and serve to
verify that administrative controls and
passive mitigation measures work as
Intended. EPA decided to del eta public
evacuations or shelterlngs-in-place as
criteria for Program 1 eligibility. EPA Is
that Inclusion of these criteria In
Program 1 eligibility may create a
perverse incentive not to report releases
and it may encourage sources and local
emergency officials to take mor*
chances during an event when there
may be potential exposures that do not
rise to the endpolnt specified In this
rule but would otherwise be worthy of
precautionary actions by the source or
by local officials. If the evacuation or
sheltering takes place because of a
concern for public exposure to an
endpoint as specified in this rul*, than
public receptors necessarily would to
under the worst case distance and the
process would not be eligible for
Program 1 under the criteria of th* rule.
Owners or operators of processes that
meet Program 1 eligibility requirements
are required to report a 5 year accident
history for that process. If local
-------
31676 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
emergency planners, first responders or
the public have concerns about
processes in Program I because of a past
evacuation or sheltering-in-place event.
then mechanisms under EPCRA could
be used to gather more information from
the source about its prevention program
(such as EPCRA sections 302(b)(2)
(designation of a facility if it does not
already handle extremely hazardous
substances listed under section 302] and
303{d)(3) [provision of information to
the emergency planning committee])
and involve the source in emergency
planning. Sources and local first
responders should be discussing
evacuation and sheltering-in-place
criteria and decisions as part of
emergency response planning.
c. Other. Many commenters asked that
specific Industries such as ammonia
refrigeration, retail fertilizer outlets, all
flammables, and all non-PSM sources be
assigned to Program 1. EPA disagrees
because each source has unique
surroundings that must be considered In
the worst-case assessment and each
source must demonstrate favorable
accident history. All ammonia
refrigeration units covered by this rule
are already subject to OSHA PSM; many
of these have had accidents that affected
the community and should be required
to complete the requirements of the
hazard assessment and emergency
response program and provide the
community with full RMP Information.
According to the Industry, a typical
ammonia fertilizer retailer handles 200
tons of ammonia. Some retailers may be
very geographically isolated and can
qualify for Program 1, but EPA expects
that most will be subject to Program 2.
Given the large quantity of ammonia
involved, EPA considers It important
that the community have information on
oiTsite consequences from these sources
and that the owner or operator takes the
necessary steps to address accidental
release prevention and emergency
response,
EPA expects that some sources
handling flammables will qualify for
Program 1 because the distance to a 1
psi overpressure Is generally less than
distances to toxic endpoints.
Nonetheless, those sources handling
flammables in sufficient quantity to
generate a potential offslte Impact
should provide the community with
information on hazards and address
prevention and response steps. Many
sources handling flammables are
already subject to PSM; the only
additional steps required under this rule
are completion of the hazard assessment
and emergency response programs and
submission of an RMP.
EPA does not agree that non-PSM
sources should be assigned to Program
1. .vfany of these sources could have an
accidental release that can affect the
community. OSHA exempted retailers
because they are covered by other
OSHA or state regulations that address
workplace safety, not because they are
incapable of having offslte Impacts, All
retailers are In Program 2 unless they
can meet Program 1 criteria; thus, they
should be taking prevention steps and
wlU be providing the community with
Information. Compliance with other
existing Federal and state programs may
satisfy many Program 2 prevention
requirements, thereby limiting the
burden. In addition, EPA expects to
develop model risk management
programs for these sectors. Public
sources in states without delegated
OSHA programs are not covered by
OSHA PSM because OSHA is barred by
law from regulating them. Nonetheless,
these sources may pose a threat to the
community. Today's rule places diese
sources in Program 2.
3. Program 2 vs. Program 3 Criteria. In
the SNPRM, EPA's preferred approach
assigned sources to Program 3 based on
SIC code and number of employees;
sources in specified SIC codes with 100
or more full-lime employees (FTE)
would have been subject to the full
program In 3 years; sources in a subset
of these SIC codes with 20 to 99 FTEs
would have been subject to the full
program In 8 years. The alternative was
to impose the full program on all
sources with more than 100 FTEs. Most
SNPRM commenters submitted
suggestions and arguments about this
approach.
a. Number of Employees. Only two
commenters supported using the
number of employees as the sole
criterion, arguing It would be the easiest
approach to Implement with the greatest
amount of industry participation.
Commenters opposed it because the
number of employees proposed does not
reliably correlate with risk, hazard, or
quantity on site, and because it could
act as an incentive to reduce
employment. In addition, some
commenters stated that smaller sources
may have fewer resources to manage
hazards and, therefore, may pose a
greater risk to the public.
EPA agrees and has deleted the
number of employees as a Program 3
criterion. Although size oft source in
the manufacturing sectors may be
related to the quantities on site and
complexity of the processes, many other
sources may have similar characteristics
with fewer employees. Complexity is
more directly associated with the type
of industry (i.e., SIC code) than with
number of employees; a highly
automated process may involve fewer
employees and be more complex than a
more labor intensive process. Quantity,
irrelevant, can be directly measured
rather than indirectly by number of
employees. In addition, IPA was
concerned that the data on which the
Agency based its proposed approach
may not be representative of all
accidental releases. These data, drawn
from reports to the National Response
Center and EPA regions, appear to
indicate that larger sources have more
and larger accidental releases than do
smaller sources. This finding, however,
may in part reflect different levels of
reporting, rather than different levels of
accidents. Both Federal and state
officials report that the number of
releases has risen in recent years as
more sources learn about their reporting
obligations. EPA has decided that,
because the processes within the SIC
codes basically handle the same
chemicals in the same way. smaller
sources should not be moved to a
different Program based on the number
of employees.
b. SIC Code. Fifty-seven commenters,
particularly those in the oil industry,
utilities, and public systems, supported
the use of SIC codes based on accident
history; 28 commenters opposed It.
Supporters argued that industry
accident records represented a
reasonable criterion for Identifying high-
risk sources. If an entire Industry has a
long history without accidental release,
it may indicate that the materials
handled and handling conditions
generate a smaller potential for serious
releases or that the industry is
effectively controlled by government or
Industry standards. Some commenters
argued that Industry accident histories
reflect underlying risk better than
individual source accident histories
because accidents are rare events; a
source with no accidental releases over
the previous five years is not necessarily
safe.
Commenters opposing the use of SIC
codes stated that the approach is
arbitrary, that accidents with only onslte
effects should not be used, that sources
in other industry sectors handle similar
quantities and pose similar risks, and
that sources within an industry that
have successful risk management
practices are penalized by a few Isolated
sources within the Industry.
EPA has decided to retain the use of
SIC codes, adding SIC 286S based on
further review of accident histories, and
to add coverage by the OSHA PSM
standard as a separate criterion for
Program 3. EPA selected the SIC codes
by analyzing accident data filed by
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31677
sources in response to EPA's request for
information In the Accidental Release
Information Program (ARiP), AR1P
collects data from certain sources that
report releases under CERCLA section
103, EPA selected the SIC cod£S that
showed a high frequency of the mosl
serious accidents across a significant
percentage of all sources within the SIC
code to avoid mischaracterizlng an
industry based on isolated, problematic
sources. Data on the selection criteria
were summarized in the SNPRM and
the docket at the time of the SNPRM.
The accident history of the cyclic crudes
industry (SIC code 2865) is similar to
that of the categories selected. EPA
disagrees that only offslte impacts
should be considered; accidental
releases that caused death.
hospital Lzatlorts, or Injuries on site are
also of concern because they Indicate
significant safety problems that could
lead to releases that cause Impacts
offslte. The SIC codes selected by EPA
are basically the same ones OSHA
selected for Its PSM program Inspection
focus. EPA disagrees chat sources are
"penalized" by this approach because
owners or operators of processes In
these SIC codes have an opportunity to
present their safety record, demonstrate
the success of their accident prevention
programs, and communicate with the
local community the basis for their risk
management practices. Sources that
receive Merit or Star status in the OSHA
Voluntary Protection Program will be
favorably distinguished from others In
the same Industry when implementing
agencies are selecting sources for audits
(see section Ill.T.l below).
EPA agrees that serious accidents
occur Infrequently even at sources with
poor safety practices and that Industry-
wide accident records provide a better
mechanism than the accident history at
a single source for Identifying those
sectors whose chemicals and processes
may lead to serious releases. A high
proportion of the sources In same SIC
codes reported releases; EPA's analysis
specifically took Into account the
number of reports from individual
sources to avoid selecting an SIC code
because of a small number of sources
with serious safety problems.
The OSHA PSM already applies to
mast covered processes In the selected
SIC codes. EPA expects that there will
be fewer than 400 additional processes
assigned to Program 3 (hat are not
already subject to the OSHA PSM
standard at the approximately 1,400
sources In these SIC codes and that all
of these sources will already have other
processes covered by OSHA PSM.
Consequently, fulfill Ing the RMP
requirements Imposes little additional
burden,
EPA decided to include all covered
processes currently subject to the OSHA
PSM standard in Program 3 to eliminate
any confusion and inconsistency
between the prevention requirements
that the owners or operators of such
processes must meet. EPA's Program 3
prevention program is identical to the
OSHA PSM standard. Including OSHA
PSM processes in Program 3, therefore,
Imposes no additional burden on these
processes; the only new requirements
for such processes are the hazard
assessment, emergency response
program, and the RMP, which are the
same under Programs 2 and 3.
c. Site-Specific. Risk-based Criteria.
Many commenters stated that Program
assignment should be based on site-
specific risk-based criteria. Accident
history is one such criterion and Is
discussed separately in Section
m.A.3.d. Other criteria suggested
Include population density or
proximity, quantity on site, number of
substances held above the threshold,
process conditions, toxiciry, volatility,
alternative release scenario results, or
combinations of these factors as a risk
Index,
EPA agrees with commenters that
Program assignments should be risk-
based to the extent possible; however, as
the variety of suggestions indicates, a
considerable number of variables would
need to be considered. EPA knows of no
standard approach or equation that Is
used and generally accepted. The
variety of suggestions indicate the
likelihood that any proposed formula
would meet opposition. No commenter
provided a method to comprehensively
address these factors on a nation-wide
basis.
An important consideration for EPA
in developing the rule provisions for
Program assignment was to avoid undue
complexity, confusion, and resource
expenditure by sources and
Implementing agencies Implementing
the rule's criteria. To some extent, EPA
has Incorporated risk factors, Including
site-specific factors, in determining
which sources are eligible for which
Program. For example. Program 1
eligibility already considers the
potential for offsite Impacts; any process
for which there are no public receptors
within the distance to an endpolnt from
a worst-case release may be eligible for
Program 1, provided there have been no
releases with certain offsite
consequences within the previous five
years. Today's rule allows sources to
consider passive mitigation and
administrative controls In conducting
the worst-case release analysis. Such
site-specific considerations affect the
extent of potential exposure lo a worst-
case release, and thus are reflected in
the Program 1 eligibility criteria.
Elements of risk such as process
complexity and accident history are also
reflected the design of Program 2 end
Program 3 requirements and the
assignment of processes to these
Programs. Program 2 sources generally
handle and store regulated substances,
but do not react or manufacture them.
EPA believes Program 2 sources can
take prevention steps that are less
detailed than those in the OSHA PSM
standard and still accomplish accident
prevention that is protective of any
population nearby. Program 3 is
reserved for processes already subject to
the OSHA PSM standard and processes
with high accidental release histories.
The SIC codes with an accident history
selected by EPA for Program 3 are
typically complex processes. The PSM
standard was designed for. and Is
particularly appropriate for, these
processes.
EPA takes issue with the
appropriateness of some of the
suggested factors. Meteorological
conditions vary too much to be
considered in determining a risk level.
Chemical quantity alone does not
accurately relate to risk because the
location and handling conditions can
dramatically change the potential for
exposures.
In addition. EPA has implementation
concerns about a detailed, national,
multi-factor, risk-based approach, were
It to be feasible. States such as Delaware
have used a simple version of a risk-
based approach and found that It
created serious problems for the state
and the sources. Smaller sources and
those without technical staff have had
great difficulty in implementing the
approach and have had to rely on state
officials to determine applicability for
them. Delaware specifically
recommended that EPA not attempt
implementing a similar approach on a
national basis because of the burden It
imposes on the state and the confusion
and uncertainty It creates for sources.
Delaware has fewer than 100 sources;
nationally. EPA estimates that 66,000
sources will be subject to the rule,
approximately 62.000 of which are
outside of the chemical and refining
sectors. If Implementing agencies had to
help most of these sources determine
the index score and Program for each
process, not only would the burden on
the agencies be extreme, but
implementation would also be delayed.
Furthermore, were EPA to simply
identify risk factors without an Index
and leave the determination of Program
-------
31678 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
level to sources or implementing
agencies, ihe process for such site-
specific determinations would be even
more complex and resource Intensive
for sources and implementing agencies;
it would create disincentives for a state
to become Involved and to talfe on the
role of an implementing agency. EPA
believes it is better to have sources and
agencies focus their resources on
prevention activities.
EPA considered, but decided against,
a less comprehensive risk-based
approach using proximity or population
density as criteria for distinguishing
between Program 2 and 3. EPA
recognizes that accidental releases from
sources near or in densely populated
areas may harm more individuals and
be perceived to pose a greater risk than
other sources. However, as stated above,
EPA believes that the type of process, its
complexity and accident history should
be considered for Program 2 or 3
assignment, regardless of the number of
people potentially exposed. In other
words, EPA does not believe the
streamlined Program 2 prevention
elements should apply to a complex
Program 3 process just because fewer
persons could be potentially exposed or
that the Program 3 prevention elements
should apply to a Program 2 process
because more people could be
potentially exposed. EPA believes that
populations offslte should be protected
from harm based on the type of process;
the Program 2 prevention elements,
properly applied to the expected types
of Program 2 processes, serves to protect
off-site populations, just as the Program
3 prevention elements for complex
processes serves to protect offslte
populations.
It Program assignments were based on
the alternative release scenario results,
sources would not have the flexibility
and latitude In today's rule for these
scenarios because more definite criteria
would need to be considered to ensure
the proper scenarios and results are
assessed. This places more emphasis
and burden for sources on the offslte
consequence assessment rather than on
accident prevention artd communication
with the public and first responders.
Furthermore, because active mitigation
includes process and control equipment
that may fall, considering such
equipment in evaluating risk would not
be appropriate without detailed review
by the source and oversight by the
implementing agency.
Some commenters suggested yet
another variation of a less
comprehensive, "risk"-based approach
that would have EPA use a site-specific
analysis of likelihood of release to
assign Program levels. Many of the same
difficulties In developing a "risk Index"
for determining Program assignments
would apply to an attempt to
incorporate likelihood in a more
sophisticated manner than EPA was
able to do in Its analysis of accident
history by SIC code. In addition to the
substance-specific properties considered
as part of the chemical listing criteria,
the site-specific likelihood of a release
depends on a number of factors,
including the appropriateness of the
equipment in use, the maintenance of
that equipment, operator performance,
and safely systems and their
performance. Evaluating site-specific
likelihood of release requires data on
each of these items: such data rarely
exist especially for complex processes
where a variety of equipment must be
evaluated along with the performance of
multiple operators and maintenance
workers. Using surrogate data (e.g.,
manufacturer's failure rate data)
Introduces error of an unknown
magnitude to the analysis. Such
analyses are very costly and produce
results that are, at best, questionable.
EPA also believes that assessing the
likelihood of a release at most sites for
site-specific individualized Program-
level determinations is neither
technically feasible nor cost-effective. In
most cases, the data do not exist to
conduct a meaningful analysis; where
they do exist, the cost of developing a
defensible analysis and overseeing it
could well exceed the cost of
compliance with the rule. Such an
approach would resemble a permit
program, which would be resource-
intensive for sources and implementing
agencies. EPA determined that the
simpler approach for assigning sources
to Program 1 would provide regulatory
relief for those sources that could not
affect the public while allowing other
sources to devote their resources to
prevention activities rather than to
analyses that would be subject to legal
challenges,
EPA notes that sources have the
flexibility to Implement appropriate
accident prevention measures based on
the hazards and risks discovered In the
hazard review or process hazard
analysis. The structure of Programs 2
and 3, therefore, reflect site-specific risk
criteria. Further, the purpose of the risk
management program and RMP effort Is
to prevent accidents and facilitate local
level dialogue about the risks.
prevention measures, and emergency
response effort In place at the source.
The local community and first
responders may have far different
concerns that should, and can be
addressed better through today's
approach than those reflected by a risk
index approach.
d. Accident History, Some
commenters argued that EPA should
assign sources to Program 3 based on
the accident history of the source. One
commenter suggested that any source
with no accidental release that exceeded
a reportable quantity (as defined In
CERCLA) for the previous five years
should be in Program 2. Others argued
that a source should be in Program 2 If
it had no significant accidental release
in the previous five years. Some
commenters said that a one-release
standard was too stringent and that two
or more significant accidental releases
should be allowed before a source was
assigned to Program 3. Another
commenter suggested that a source with
no significant accidental releases in the
past five years and with few potentially
impacted neighbors should be placed in
Program 2.
Other commenters opposed this
approach, arguing that, in many cases,
sources take steps to prevent
recurrences following a serious release.
In some cases, the offslte impacts from
releases are minor and would not justify
assigning a source to a particular
Program. Other commenters stated that
the absence of an accidental release can
be Indicative of lower risk, but it can
also simply mean that a release has not
yet occurred Several commenters noted
that a five-year time period is
statistically insignificant because
accidental releases are infrequent
events.
EPA agrees that source-specific
accident history is not a reasonable
basis for assigning processes to
Programs 2 and 3. Given the relative
Infrequency of serious accidents, a flve-
or even ten-year period without an
accident may not be indicative of safe
operations. In addition, the criteria
necessary to define the types of past
accidental release for the purposes of
program classification would need to be
based on a wide variety of variables and
site-specific factors, which would lead
to confusion and unnecessary
complexity. Factors such as weather
conditions at the time of the release,
rather than the size of a source or its
management practices, often determine
whether a release has offslte
consequences. EPA believes that
accident history Is appropriately used
on an industry-wide basis as described
above for selection of Program 3
sources. If accidental releases with
consequences appear to occur at a large
proportion of sources within an SIC
code, where similar processes,
equipment and chemicals are used, then
it is reasonable to conclude that
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31679
processes in that SIC code pose a greater
likelihood of a high hazard release than
others. This approach removes the need
for at least one accident to occur at
every source that EPA believes ought to
be assigned to a particular Program.
especially when such accidents are rare
events, EPA is also concerned that using
source-specific accident history as a
criterion would create an incentive for
sources to fail to report releases. Finally,
as EPA has stated, assignments to
Program 2 and 3 also consider the
appropriateness of the prevention steps
for the types of sources. EPA believes
that both Programs move sources to
greater accident prevention.
e. Other, Some commenters asked that
the implementing agency be given
discretion to move a source Into a
different Program based on local
concerns and knowledge. EPA notes
that states have the authority, under the
CAA, to impose more, but not less,
stringent standards than EPA (see CAA
section 112MU1)).
A few commenters suggested that
Program 2 be limited to sources for
which a model risk management
program had been developed. The
models would be designed to reflect
risks associated with categories of
sources that all use the same type of
equipment and handle the substances In
the same way (e.g., propane retailers
and users, ammonia retailers). EPA
considered this approach and decided
that the Program 2 prevention program
provides a better, generic prevention
approach for processes for which the
more detailed PSM program would be
inappropriate. Limiting Program 2 to
those industrial sectors where industry-
specific models are feasible would place
some manufacturing sources at a
disadvantage simply because their
chemical uses, processes, and
equipment were too varied to allow
development of a model or because
there are too few sources to justify use
of EPA or industry resources to develop
a model. In addition, if EPA were to
limit Program 2 to sources with model
programs, Program 2 regulations would
need sufficient specificity to enforce the
use of these models; otherwise, sources
would be able to ignore both PSM and
the models, EPA is also concerned that
codifying the model plans could stifle
innovation in safety practices. If
industry codes or other Federal
regulations on which parts of the
models may be based were updated,
EPA would have to revise Its models:
given the time needed to propose and
adopt regulations, sources might have to
delay implementation of new systems
and. in some cases, might be caught
between complying with a revised EPA
or OSHA regulation or state law or
complying with the model.
Consequently, EPA decided it was better
to have models available as guidance,
but not require compliance with them.
Further. EPA believes that the key
elements of good accident prevention
practices are captured within the
requirements of the Program 2
prevention program. Model programs
and plans are likely to build on these
approaches, making it easier for sources
in Program 2 to use models that are later
developed by others.
EPA is working with industry to
develop model risk management
programs and RMPs for ammonia
refrigeration systems, propane
distributors and users, and water
treatment systems. EPA also expects to
develop models for ammonia retailers
and wastewater treatment systems. EPA
encourages other industrial sectors to
work together on additional model
development.
4. Program 1 Requirements.
Commenters were generally opposed to
posting signs, and certification of no
environmental impact
a. Certification of No Environmental
Impact. Many commenters stated that it
would be "virtually Impossible" to
certify "no potential for environmental
Impacts," as required by the SNPRM.
Commenters said that the definition of
environmental impact was too vague,
that the list of environments suggested
in the SNPRM was too broad, and that
the language seemed to require a full
environmental consequence assessment,
making the requirement impossible.
One commenter noted that companies
would find it difficult to assert that
there could be "no environmental
impacts" even after an environmental
consequence assessment reveals
insignificant impacts. Two commenters
suggested that EPA substitute "low
potential for environmental impact" or
"no potential for long-term, adverse
environmental impact" Other
commenters requested that
environmental impact be dropped or
that the requirement be changed to
mirror the Program 1 eligibility criteria
with an Indication in the RMP that no
environmental receptors of concern
were within the worst-case distance to
an endpolnt
As described above In section
HI.A.2.a. Potential for Oftsite Impact,
EPA has decided not to make the
presence of environmental receptors a
part of the eligibility criteria for Program
1 and has deleted the certification
requirement Instead, owners or
operators of all covered processes will
have to Identify In the RMP any
environmental receptors that are within
the distance potentially affected by the
worst case.
b. Signs. Commenters generally
opposed the SNPRM requirement that
sources with Program 1 processes post
signs warning of the hazards on site if
the only regulated substances present at
the site above the threshold quantity
were listed for flammabOlty.
Commenters stated that local and state
fire and safety codes often already
require such signs. In addition, sources
are already required under EPCRA
section 312 to file annual Inventories
with the LEPC and flre department that
identify hazards on site. Signs would
have fulfilled the emergency response
program requirements for a source.
Because Program 1 eligibility will now
be determined on a by-process basis
rather than by source-wide criteria and
because EPA has revised the emergency
response program provisions as noted
below, EPA has dropped the
requirement for signs.
c. Emergency Response Program. In
the SNPRM, EPA asked whether
additional emergency response planning
and coordination should be required for
Program 1 processes. Some commenters
supported this requirement, while
others stated that most sources are
already covered by EPCRA and
participate In community response
planning. Commenters stated that
because the worst-case release could not
reach public receptors, such efforts were
not necessary.
In the final rule, EPA is requiring the
owner or operator of a Program 1
process to ensure that any necessary
response actions have been coordinated
with local response agencies. EPA
believes that local responders may
become Involved to an incident, even If
the public Is not threatened. No
additional CAA-related planning
activities are required, however,
d. Other. Many commenters stated
that, since Program 1 processes generate
no offsite impact, they should be
exempt from this rule. One commenter
objected to Program 1 because members
of the public, particularly first
responders and business visitors, could
still be hurt by a release. Other
commenters suggested that the annual
EPCRA section 312 form could be
amended to Indicate that a source was
covered by the rule, replacing the RMP
registration form.
The CAA requires that all sources
with more than a threshold quantity of
a listed substance register an RMP,
perform a hazard assessment, and
develop accidental release prevention
and emergency response programs.
Therefore, total exemption of processes
that meet Program 1 criteria Is not
-------
31680 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
possible. See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st
Cong., 1st session, at 208 ("Senate
Report") (precursor of RMP provision
mandating hazard assessments for
sources that exceed threshold for listed
substance); 136 Congressional Record
S16S27 (daily ed. October 27~!990)
(remarks of Sen, Durenburger, sources
with more than a threshold quantity are
subject to regulations); 136 Cong, Rec.
HI2879 (daily ed. Oct. 26.
1990) (remarks of Rep. Barton) (all users
of hazardous chemicals are required to
plan for accidents). Moreover, even if an
exemption for processes that exceed a
threshold were permissible, the owner
or operator would need to take steps
that are equivalent to the hazard
assessment to establish eligibility for the
exemption. The oflfslte consequence
analysis is the most significant burden
for a Program 1 process under this rule.
The minimal additional actions required
in today's rule for Program 1 simply
establish a record of eligibility and a
response coordination mechanism.
EPA recognizes that emergency
responders and site visitors could be
hurt by an accidental release from any
process, but notes that responder safety
is covered by OSHA and EPA under the
HAZWOPER regulations. It is the
owners' or operators' responsibility to
inform visitors about the hazards and
the appropriate steps to take In the
event of an accidental release from any
process subject to today's rule.
Finally, EPA has based the
registration information requirements In
today's rule on the EPCRA section 312
Tier II form. The CAA requires that the
RMP be registered with EPA. Because
the EPCRA form Is not submitted to
EPA, It would not substitute for
registration with EPA either In Its
present or amended form. Completion of
the registration portion of the RMP
should impose little additional burden
on owners or operators. However, EPA
recognizes the Information overlap
between the Tier II form and the RMP
registration and is considering use of the
RMP registration for the Tier II reporting
requirement.
5. Program 2 Requirements.
Cornmenters were generally concerned
about the lack of specific requirements
for the Program 2 streamlined
prevention program and emergency
response requirements, and how
compliance with other regulations
would be incorporated.
a. Streamlined Program. Commenters
stated that the Program 2 prevention
program does not provide much, if any,
regulatory relief because sources would
need to address most of the ten elements
of the Program 3 prevention program.
Others said that the majority of the
sources affected by the rule are already
covered by OSHA PSM and chemical
industry standards, the Program 2
requirements do not satisfy the CAA
mandate, and that only a full process
hazard analysis would meet the hazard
assessment requirements under section
112(r). Another commenter argued that
EPA's statement that sources must
comply with the CAA's general duty
clause was Inadequate because EPA has
not used, and has no policy about, the
clause.
EPA agrees that the preferred
approach in the SNPRM did not provide
sufficient detail on Program 2
prevention requirements to distinguish
it from Program 3. EPA solicited
comments on whether Program 2 should
require additional, specific prevention
steps. Today's rule provides specific
requirements as discussed In section I.D
above and in Section IV below. In the
RMP, the owner or operator will be
required to report on other Federal or
state regulations, Industry codes, and
standards used to comply with
prevention elements as well as any
major hazards, process controls,
mitigation systems, monitoring and
detection systems examined in the
hazard review. This streamlined
prevention program addresses many of
the PSM elements as the basis for sound
prevention practices, but Is tailored to
processes with less complex chemical
uses; this program provides
considerable regulatory relief by
substantially reducing the
documentation and recordkeeping
burden of PSM. In addition. EPA will
provide guidance and model risk
management programs to further assist
Program 2 processes in developing and
maintaining good prevention program
practices,
EPA disagrees that only a full PHA
would meet the requirements of the Act.
Section 112[r) does not contain detailed
requirements for the hazard assessment,
beyond the key components of
accidental release scenarios and a five-
year accident history. EPA believes that
a PHA is more appropriately considered
an element of a prevention program.
such as PSM. The statute does not
mandate detailed PHA engineering
analyses for all sources, whether as part
of the hazard assessment or the
prevention program. EPA believes PHAs
involve a more detailed engineering
analysis than is necessary to prevent
accidents at Program 2 sources. The
"hazard review" provisions of Program
2 should be sufficient to detect process
hazards at these simpler processes. EPA
recognizes that although hazard
assessments and PHAs or process
hazard reviews are discreet elements
that can be performed independently,
hazard assessment results can enhance
PHA or process hazards reviews and In
turn, the results of the PHA or review
can enhance the hazard assessment,
EPA encourages owners or operators to
make maximum use of the PHA or
review and hazard assessment
Information to manage risks and preven
accidents.
Finally, sources with Program 2
requirements, as welt as sources with
Program I or 3 requirements, must
comply with the general duty clause of
CAA Section 112(r)(l). The general duty
clause provides that owners and
operators have a general duty to identify
hazards that may result from accidental
releases, design and maintain a safe
facility, and minimize the consequences
of any releases that occur. The general
duty clause is a self-executing statutory
requirement: it requires no regulations
or other EPA action to take effect. The
clause provides a separate statutory
mechanism that EPA will use in
appropriate circumstances to ensure the
protection of public health and the
environment. To date, EPA has
undertaken several Inspections designed
in part to determine compliance with
Section 112(r)(l). As appropriate at a
future date, EPA may issue policies or
guidance on application of the general
duty clause,
b. Other Regulations, Commenters
generally agree that OSHA PSM.
HAZWOPER, the OSHA hazard
communication standard (29 CFR
1910.1200), and NFPA-58 are examples
of other regulations or voluntary
Industry standards that could be cited to
meet the requirements of a Program 2
prevention program. Comrnenters
requested that EPA provide a matrix or
crosswalk that Indicates which other
regulations, standards, and codes met
specific requirements. One commenter
opposed the use of other regulations or
referencing of voluntary industry
standards, stating that, other than OSHA
PSM, no other OSHA standard
addresses safety precautions or
maintenance. Another commenter
objected that this approach creates
another documentation burden without
any commensurate benefit.
EPA agrees that the SNPRM preferred
approach for Program 2 was not specific
enough and has provided more detailed
requirements in this rule as noted
above. EPA continues to believe that
many of the Program 2 prevention
requirements are already met through
industry compliance with existing
regulations and voluntary standards. For
example, ammonia retailers whose
processes are designed to meet the
OSHA ammonia handling rule (29 CFR
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31681
19! 0.111) should be able to meet the
Program 2 requirement that the process
design meets good engineering
practices. This efTectiveJy allows
sources to ciie compliance with these
other regulations and standards instead
of developing specific, duplicative
elements solely to comply with Program
2. EPA will also use these existing
regulations and standards as It develops
model programs.
c. Emergency Response Program.
Commenters supported considering
HAZWQPER programs as adequate to
meet the Program 2 emergency response
program. A few commenters said that
HAZWOPER Is Inadequate because It
does not consider ofTsite Impacts or the
environment. Some commenters also
said that coverage of a source by an
EPCRA community emergency response
plan should be sufficient. Others said
that any contingency plan developed
under Federal or state law should be
considered sufficient because the
requirements under these programs are
generally consistent with EPA's
proposed emergency response program;
one eommenter noted thai, for
flammable processes, compliance with
29 CFR 1910.38 should be adequate
because the response is usually
evacuation of employees. Five
commenters opposed any requirement
that sources with Program 2 processes
conduct drills or exercises because they
represent lower hazards.
Consistent with Its efforts to
consolidate Federal emergency planning
requirements. EPA has Included
language In the final rule that will allow
any source in compliance with another
Federal emergency response program
that Includes the elements specified in
this rule to use that program to meet
these requirements. In particular, this
applies to response plans prepared In
accordance with the National Response
Team's Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance ("one plan") (NET, May
1996). EPA believes that sources should
have a single response plan; creation of
multiple response plans to meet slightly
different Federal or state standards Is
counterproductive, diverting resources
that could be used to develop better
response capabilities.
EPA recognizes that some sources will
only evacuate their employees in the
event of a release. For these sources.
EPA will not require the development of
emergency response plans, provided
that appropriate responses to their
hazards have been discussed in the
community emergency response plan
developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003 for
toxics or coordinated with the local fire
department for fiammables.
B. OfTsite Consequence Analysts
1. Worst-Case Release Scenario. EPA
proposed in the N'PRM to define the
worst-case release as the "loss of all of
the regulated substance from the process
* * " that leads to the worst offslte
consequences" and that the scenario
should assume "instantaneous release."
Hundreds of commenters stated that
instantaneous loss of the total process
contents Is not technically feasible for
complex systems and. therefore,
represents a non-credible worst case
that would provide no useful
information to the public or the source
for risk communication, accident
prevention, and emergency
preparedness. Many commenters also
argued that this approach differed from
the release modeling assumptions
contained In EPA's Technical Guidance
for Hazards Analysis, which has been
the basis for community emergency
planning activities under EPCRA,
Although some commenters were
generally opposed to the concept of
worst case, most of the commenters
were supportive of an approach similar
to that taken In the Technical Guidance.
In response to these comments. EPA
proposed in the SNPRM to redefine a
worst-case scenario as the release, over
a 10-minute period, of the largest
quantity of a regulated substance
resulting from a vessel or process piping
failure. The 10-mlnute release time is
drawn from the Technical Guidance for
Hazards Analysis. EPA believes this
duration is reasonable and accounts for
comments arguing that an
"instantaneous" release is unrealistic
for large-scale releases.
EPA has decided to adopt the SNPRM
approach for worst-case toxic vapor
releases in the final rule because most
of the SNPRM comments agreed that the
redefinition is generally more credible
and that the 10-mlnute time frame
particularly applies to vapor releases.
Although some commenters argued that
this approach still does not account for
all process-specific conditions, EPA
believes it is reasonable and
representative of accident history. EPA
notes that owners or operators may use
air dispersion modeling techniques that
better account for site-specific
conditions, provided modeling
parameters as specified In the rule are
applied. This release scenario will apply
to substances that are gases at ambient
conditions. Including (hose liquefied
under pressure. Gases liquefied by
refrigeration only may be analyzed as
liquids If the spill would be contained
by passive mitigation systems to a depth
greater than 1 cm.
Under the SNPRM, worst-case liquid
spills were assumed to form a pool in
10 minutes, with the release rate to the
air determined by volatilization rate.
EPA recognized that this approach
differs from the use of an instantaneous
release in the Technical Guidance,
which EPA cited as an alternative to its
favored approach. The few comments
received were divided between support
of this approach and arguments that the
10-mlnute time frame was unrealistic
for liquid releases (particularly for
pipelines and connected equipment)
and thus did not properly account for
process-specific conditions.
EPA's approach for the liquid worst-
case scenario In the final rule Is similar
to the Technical Guidance methodology.
In which the total quantity of liquid in
a vessel or pipeline Is Instantaneously
spilled upon failure, considering
administrative controls or passive
mitigation discussed below. The rate of
release to the air Is not Instantaneous; it
is determined by the volatilization rate
of the spilled liquid, which depends on
the surface area of the pool formed after
the spill. The pool surface area Is
determined by assuming the spilled
liquid rapidly spreads out and forms a
one-centimeter deep pool, unless
passive mitigation systems contain the
pool to a smaller area. EPA believes this
approach is reasonable because total
vessel or pipeline failure w01 generally
lead to immediate and rapid spillage
followed by pool volatilization. Further,
If the liquid were assumed to spill over
a particular time frame rather than
instantaneously, owners or operators
would need to calculate the amount of
vapor emitted to the air as the liquid is
spilled, in addition to the volatilization
rate as the pool spreads out and reaches
Its maximum size. Computer-based
models are available for such
calculations, but they are complex and
require considerable data input to use.
EPA believes that liquid spillage from a
worst-case scenario Is likely to be
extremely rapid such that the most
significant portion of the release rate is
given by pool volatilization;
consequently, liquid release time Is not
necessary. Liquid spill rates and times
could be reflected in alternative
scenarios discussed below.
As proposed, the worst-case for
fiammables assumes that the total
quantity of the substance In the vessel
or pipeline vaporizes, resulting in a
vapor cloud explosion. If the vapor
cloud explosion Is modeled using a
TNT-equivalent methodology, then a 10
percent yield factor must be used.
EPA requested comment In the
SNPRM on whether the worst-case
scenario should include an additional
-------
31682 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, ]une 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
amount of substance thai could
potentially drain or flow from process
equipment Interconnected with the
failed vessel or pipeline. Many
eommenters opposed this option,
suggesting that it is technically
uncertain and would have little value in
terms of what they saw as EPA's
intended purpose for the worst-case
assessment. Other eommenters
requested that "interconnected
equipment" be defined and clarified.
Given the assumption of rapid release
associated with initial equipment
failure, EPA agrees chat determination of
the spill rate from connected piping and
equipment is likely to be technically
complex, very different from thai of the
quantity in the vessel or Tailed pipeline,
and likely to extend the duration of
volatilization rather than affecting the
rate overall. Therefore, EPA has not
included this requirement In the final
rule.
EPA also sought comment In the
SNPRM on options for the
determination of the relevant quantity of
regulated substance in a vessel or
process piping for a worst-case release
scenario: the maximum possible vessel
inventory (design capacity) at any time
without regard for operational practices
and administrative controls; the
maximum possible vessel Inventory
unless there are Internal administrative
controls (written procedural
restrictions) that limit inventories to less
than the maximum; or historic or
projected maximum operating
inventories without regard to
administrative controls, EPA preferred
that the maximum vessel inventory
including administrative controls that
might limit or raise the vessel quantity
to be used In the worst-case assessment
and reported In the worst-case release
analysis section of the RMP. If the
quantity used in the assessment were
exceeded (e.g., an administrative control
were ignored), then the source would be
in violation of the rule (i.e.. failure to
perform a worst-case analysis) and RMP
reporting unless the administrative
control was revised, the worst-case
analysis updated to reflect any changes
in the analysis, and a revised RMP
submitted. This approach acknowledges
the efforts by sources to increase process
safety by Intentionally reducing the
inventory of regulated substances (e.g.,
vessels kept at half capacity to allow for
process upsets, emergency shutdowns,
and deinvemorying or maintenance
turnarounds). EPA notes that at some
sources, as a result of inventory
reduction measures, the largest quantity
may be held in a transportation
container that Is loaded or unloaded at
the source (See section P.2).
A few eommenters supported the
other options, noting that administrative
controls may fail, potentially generating
a larger scenario. However, the majority
of eommenters supported EPA's
preferred approach based on the
historical reliability of such controls at
many sources and the role that such a
provision could play in encouraging
their use at additional locations. Other
eommenters asked whether mechanical
controls, alone or in combination with
administrative controls, should be
incorporated into the proposal.
Although mechanical controls may also
serve to limit the quantity, EPA has
decided not to include them in the
quantity determination for the worst-
case release scenario because the
definition for administrative control as
"written procedural mechanisms used
for hazard control" provides a backup
for possible failure of mechanical
controls. For more discussion of
mechanical controls, see section
11I(B)(2). mitigation systems, below.
In the SNPRM, EPA considered
providing the Implementing agency
with the discretion to determine the
appropriate quantity for the worst-case
release scenario on a site-specific or
industry-specific basis. EPA noted in
the SNPRM, and most of the few
comments received on this issue agreed,
that implementing agency discretion
would result in increased administrative
burden on the implementing agency and
cross-jurisdictional differences in the
methodology used for the worst-case
analyses. EPA has decided not to
incorporate this approach in the final
rule. States, however, may impose more
stringent requirements, such as
additional modeling, under state
authority,
In the NPRM worst-case definition,
EPA did not specify what constitutes or
how to determine the worst offslte
consequences. Some eommenters
indicated that without clear direction,
EPA's proposed worst case might not
actually capture the scenario that leads
to the most severe offslte impact In the
SNPRM, EPA indicated that the worst-
case scenario should be the scenario
that generates the greatest distance to a
specified end point (I.e.. the toxic vapor
cloud or blast wave from a vapor cloud
explosion that travels the farthest).
EPA recognizes that there may be
other release scenarios that could
generate a greater distance than the
release from the largest vessel or
pipeline. Consequently. EPA has added
paragraph (h) to § 68.25 to require
owners or operators to consider other
scenarios If those scenarios generate
greater distances 10 the endpolnt than
the distance generated by the largest
vessel or pipeline scenario. Owners or
operators need to consider releases from
smaller vessels if those vessels contain
the substance at higher temperature or
pressures or Jf they are closer to public
receptors. In some cases, the largest
vessel will be a storage vessel where the
substance is held at ambient conditions.
A reactor vessel may hold a smaller
quantity, but at high pressures and
temperatures, generating a release that
could travel farther offsite to an
endpoint. Vessel location is Important.
especially at large sources. A smaller
vessel located nearer to the stationary
source boundary may generate a greater
Impact distance than a larger vessel
farther away. This difference may be
particularly important for flammables,
because Impact distances for
flammables are generally shorter than
those for toxic releases.
2. Mitigation Systems
a. Worst-case scenario. In the NPRM
worst-case scenario, EPA indicated that
sources must assume that both active
and passive systems fall to mitigate the
release. Commenters were generally
split between those who wanted passive
(as well as certain redundant active)
mitigation systems to be Included and
those who argued that historical
evidence from catastrophic releases
suggests that the worst case should
assume the failure of all such systems.
Those who supported mitigation argued
that inclusion provides a more credible
scenario for Improved risk
communication, accident prevention,
and emergency planning,
EPA proposed In the SNPRM to
include passive mitigation systems In
the worst-case release scenario *» long
as the system Is capable of
withstanding, and continuing to
function as Intended during and after a.
destructive event, such as an
earthquake, storm, or explosion, which
causes a vessel or pipeline to fall.
Passive systems such as dikes, catch
basins, and drains for liquid*, and
enclosures for both liquids and gmtn
could be assumed to mitigate th*
release. Some eommenters opposed this
approach, arguing again that tlw wont
case should account for the possibility
of passive mitigation failure. Th*
majority supported this approach
because the assumption that panto*
systems specifically designed and
installed as protection against a
potential catastrophe fall U unrealistic.
Furthermore, the approach recajnlxM
and encourages prevention thraufti
additional passive mitigation and
supports more realistic emergency
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31683
planning. A few commenters also
suggested that active mitigation
measures that were unlikely to fall (e.g.,
redundant or backup systems) should be
considered, for similar reasons.
Historical data, however, indicate that
certain events compromise active
mitigation systems (e.g., explosions
have destroyed Ore water piping
systems).
For the final rule, EPA has decided to
adopt the SNPRM approach. Passive
mitigation systems would be defined as
those systems that operate without
human, mechanical, or other energy
input and would include building
enclosures, dikes, and containment
walls. EPA also agrees that reservoirs or
vessels sufficiently buried underground
are passively mitigated or prevented
from falling catastrophlcally. In this
case, sources should evaluate the failure
of piping connected to underground
storage for the worst case or alternative
case scenarios. In addition to the
requirements outlined In § 68.25, EPA
provides guidance on how passive
mitigation would affect release race and
distance to endpolnts in its RMP Offslte
Consequence Analysis Guidance.
b. Alternative scenarios, EPA Initially
proposed that sources could Include
passive mitigation systems in their
alternative scenario assessments, but
that active mitigation systems (e.g.,
excess flow valves, fail-safe and
automatic shutdown valves, scrubbers,
flares, deluge systems, and water
curtains) would be assumed to fail.
Some commenters generally opposed
inclusion of any mitigation systems In
the hazard assessment, while other
commenters noted that the alternative
release scenario should recognize and
encourage Industry accident prevention
efforts, specifically the installation of
additional mitigation systems, and
support more realistic emergency
planning.
EPA proposed In the SNPRM to allow
sources to consider passive and active
mitigation measures in the alternative
release scenario assessment.
Commenters supported this approach
and EPA has decided to retain it in the
final rule. EPA agrees that the
assumption that both passive and active
mitigation measures fall when such
measures are specifically designed and
installed to mitigate catastrophic
releases is unrealistic for the alternative
scenarios. Although'not required, EPA
notes that sources may choose to apply
passive and active mitigation measures
to a worst-case type scenario to
illustrate the capabilities of such
systems to reduce the potential impact
of a worst-case accidental release. In
addition to the requirements outlined in
§ 68.28. EPA provides guidance in Its
RMP Offslte Consequence Analysis
Guidance on how passive and active
mitigation would affect release rate and
distance to endpoints,
3. Populations Affected, EPA
described in the NPRM preamble certain
locations (e.g., schools and hospitals)
where sensitive populations might be
present and proposed in the rule that
owners or operators identify potentially
exposed populations as part of the
offsite consequence assessment.
Commenters generally opposed
requirements for population surveys;
several commenters suggested that
Census data or other readily available
population information should be
sufficient, while other commenters
indicated that the LEPC or other local
planning entitles were the appropriate
entity to prepare these data.
EPA believes owners or operators
need to be aware of the magnitude of
impact on populations associated with
the worst-case and alternative scenarios.
However, EPA learned that, although
much of this information is readily
available, identification of some
sensitive populations could require
considerable effort, especially if the
distance to an endpotnt generated In the
offsite consequence assessment is large
or crosses several jurisdictions.
Consequently. EPA proposed In the
SNPRM that offsite populations be
defined using available Census data;
information on the number of children
and people over 65 could be considered
a proxy for sensitive populations,
thereby accomplishing the same
objective as the proposed rule. EPA also
indicated that it has developed a
geographic information system,
Land View, that will facilitate analysis of
resident populations. (LandView can be
ordered from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census customer service at (301) 457-
4100.) In general, commenters agreed
with the SNPRM approach. However,
some commenters questioned the
accuracy of potentially ten-year-old
Census data and requested additional
flexibility, or a greater role for local
government, In this analysis.
EPA has decided to adopt the
approach outlined in the SNPRM for the
final rule. Sources will be allowed to
use available Census data to estimate
populations potentially affected.
Sources may update these data If they
believe the data are Inaccurate, but are
not required to do so. Populations shall
be reported to two significant digits.
Because Census data are limited to
residential populations, sources will
also have to note in the RMP whether
other, non-residential populations, such
as schools, hospitals, prisons, public
recreational areas or arenas, and major
commercial or industrial areas, are
within the distance to an endpolnt.
These institutions and areas are those
that can generally be found on local
street maps. Sources will not be
required to estimate the number of
people who might be present at these
locations. EPA provides further
guidance on the identification of
affected populations in its RMP Offslte
Consequence Analysis Guidance.
4. Number of Scenarios In the NPRM.
EPA required a worst-case release
scenario for each regulated substance,
Commenters requested clarification,
because one substance could be present
in more than one process at the source
and sources would need to select the
"worst" worst case for substances in
multiple processes. In addition, one
process may have several, similar listed
substances and multiple worst-case
analyses of similar substances (e.g.,
flammables) would not provide
additional useful information to the
public.
EPA proposed In the SNPRM that
sources report in the RMP one worst-
case release scenario representative of
all toxic substances present at the
source and one worst-case release
scenario representative of all flammable
substances present at the source. Even
though additional screening analyses to
determine the appropriate worst-case
scenario might be necessary, this
approach reduces to a maximum of two
the number of worst-case analyses
reported In the RMP by a source. In
general, commenters favored this
approach, particularly for flammables.
which do not produce markedly
different adverse effects. A few
commenters argued that a single toxic
substance should not be considered
representative of all toxic substances at
a source, since there are considerable
differences in toxic endpoint and
adverse affect
EPA has decided to adopt the
approach outlined in the SNPRM for the
final rule: report one worst-case release
scenario for all flammables and one
worst-case release scenario for all toxics
at the source. EPA notes that the worst-
case scenario Is designed principally to
support a dialogue between the source
and the community on release
prevention, and not to serve as the sole
or primary basis for local emergency
planning. The "worst" worst-case
release scenario will Inform the broadest
range of Individuals that they may be
impacted by the source so that they may
participate in dialogue with the source
about prevention, preparedness, and
emergency response actions. Lesser
worst-case release scenarios would not
-------
31684 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Inform any person not already within
the range of the "worst" worst case even
though the health effects may be
different; consequently. EPA believes
that only a single toxic worst case Is
necessary. However, sources jnust also
analyze and report another worst-case
release scenario (for flammables or
toxics) if such a release from another
location at the source potentially affects
public receptors different from those
potentially affected by the flrsl scenario
(e.g., if a large-sized source is located
between two communities and has a
covered process adjacent to each
community).
In the NPRM, EPA did not specify the
number of alternative scenarios to be
reported for each regulated substance.
EPA noted in the preamble that this
approach, while providing flexibility,
may also create uncertainty about what
EPA will consider to be an adequate
number of scenarios. While a few
commenters argued against scenarios
beyond the worst case, many
commenters supported a requirement
for a maximum of two: the worst case
plus one additional scenario; others
supported a maximum of three. Many of
the commenters noted that local entitles
could request further Information under
EPCRA section 303(d)(3) authority If
they desired. At the same time, a
number of commenters suggested that
this determination should be made by
the source based on their scenario
analysis, perhaps in coordination with a
local agency.
In the SNPRM, EPA proposed to
require one alternative release scenario
for all flammable substances at the
source and one alternative scenario for
each toxic substance at the source. As
discussed above, the listed flammable
substances behave similarly upon
release and have the same endpoint,
while each toxic substance has a
different endpoint and different
atmospheric behavior. EPA sought
comment on whether one toxic
substance alternative scenario could
represent all toxic substances at a source
or in a process. Although commenters
generally agreed with the approach for
flammables, only a few argued that a
single alternative scenario for all toxics
was also appropriate: most others
supported EPA's proposal.
Upon review of the comments. EPA
has decided to adopt the approach
outlined in the SNPRM: an alternative
release scenario must be reported In the
RMP for each toxic held above the
threshold at the source, and one
alternative scenario must be reported
that represents all flammables held
above the threshold. As EPA noted In
the SNPRM preamble and commenters
echoed, the differences in the hazards
posed by individual toxic regulated
substances are significant and should be
reflected In the alternative scenarios.
This information has significant value
for emergency planning purposes and
could increase public Interest in
prevention at the source.
5. Technical Guidance The proposed
rule required sources to evaluate the
consequences (vapor cloud dispersion,
blast wave, or radiant heat modeling
calculations) associated with the worst-
case and alternative release scenarios.
EPA did not specify a methodology or
models, expecting that sources would
have, contract for, or find the expertise
and modeling tools needed to perform
potentially complex modeling
calculations. Because of the potential
burden associated with this approach,
EPA began working on the development
of a set of simple, generic tools that
could provide useful results and become
part of the technical guidance for the
rule. Based on Its experience In
developing the Technical Guidance for
Hazards Analysis and on advice from
commenters, EPA understands that a
generic methodology depends on
approximations to capture a wide
variety of situations, will likely Ignore
site-specific conditions, and potentially
may generate overly conservative or less
realistic estimates of offsite Impacts. In
spite of these limitations, EPA believes
that generic modeling tools are capable
of supporting greater understanding of
the hazards posed by substances and
emergency planning. Commenters
agreed this approach would reduce the
burden on smaller sources unfamiliar
with such activities as long as use of the
guidance was not mandatory, and the
guidance addressed specific industry
sectors or was used as part of a
screening process to focus resources on
significant problem areas. Many
commenters recommended that sources
be given the flexibility to use any
appropriate modeling techniques for the
offsite consequence analysis to take
advantage of expertise and to apply site-
specific considerations to the hazard
assessment. Other commenters argued
that EPA should establish mandatory
guidelines or specify certain dispersion
modeling tools to make release scenario
results more comparable across sources.
Some commenters were concerned
about the development of modeling
tools by EPA outside of the rulemaklng
process and requested the opportunity
to participate in their development
In the SNPRM. EPA stated it would
develop a generic methodology and
reference tables in an offsite
consequence assessment guidance to
assist sources with the analyses required
by the rule. EPA believed that the
Technical Guidance could be revised,
expanded, and updated to address the
rule requirements. The methodologies
and tables would be subject to public
review prior to publication of the final
rule; once finalized, the tables would
replace the Technical Guidance. EPA
added that sources that wish to conduct
more sophisticated modeling could do
so, provided the techniques used
account for the modeling parameters
described in the rule. Alternatively. EP^
proposed that only Program 2 sources
use the guidance; Program 3 sources
would be required to conduct their own
dispersion modeling.
Most commenters supported the
SNPRM approach, especially if sources
were given the option to use their own
site-specific modeling. Some
commenters argued that the generic
methodology and reference tables and
the option for site-specific modeling
should be applied to processes In all
three Programs, while others suggested
that they be applied only to a specific
Program. In recognition of these
comments, EPA prepared draft
modeling methodologies and reference
tables, provided an opportunity for their
review (see 61 FR 3031, January 30.
1996), and has published them as the
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis
Guidance. EPA Intends to conduct peer
review of the RMP Offsite Consequence
Analysis Guidance and will revise it as
appropriate. For the final rule, EPA will
allow sources in all Programs to use the
guidance or conduct their own site-
specific modeling, provided the
modeling techniques used account for
the parameters described in the rule. For
example, EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards has prepared a
publicly available modeling tool called
TScreen that can assist owners and
operators with consequence
assessments. EPA also encourages local
emergency planners, fire departments,
and others who use tools such as
CAMEO/ALOHA or other modeling
techniques to assist businesses in their
community who may need help In their
modeling efforts. EPA believes the final
rule approach takes advantage of the
broad range of expertise and modeling
tools already available and will provide
more useful results at the local level for
chemical emergency prevention,
preparedness, and response. This
approach will also stimulate accidental
release modeling research, new and
existing model development, and model
validation to generate new tools for
better understanding of hazards and the
behavior of substances in accidental
release situations.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31685
S. Modeling Parameters, a. Endpoints.
In the NPRM, EPA did not specify toxic
or flammable substance endpolnts that
must be used In the offslte consequence
assessment modeling. Most commenters
recommended that EPA specify
endpolnts to provide a consistent basis
for modeling; many favored the use of
existing standards or guidelines,
primarily the emergency response
planning guidelines (iRPGs) developed,
by the American Industrial Hygiene
Association for toxic substances. For
flammables, commenters suggested
overpressure, heat radiation, and
explosion or flammabllity limits. In
addition to other specific standards, a
few commenters recommended a
hierarchy of values if certain levels for
some chemicals were not available.
In the SNPRM, EPA indicated that it
would select one endpolnt for each
toxic substance for use In the ofEslte
consequence assessment methodology
and sought comment on whether It
should use a single endpoint to the
extent possible (e.g., the Immediately
Dangerous to Life and Health (1DLH)
value developed by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), unless one does not
exist for a substance), or a hierarchy of
endpoints (e.g., ERPGs; If one does not
exist, then the 1DLH; and finally toxicity
data if no other value Is available). EPA
also asked whether overpressure or both
overpressure and radiant heat effects
should be used for flammable substance
endpoints. Some commenters supported
the use of ERPG values for the toxic
substance endpolnt, or a hierarchy of
values beginning with the ERPG. Others
opposed IDLH or the IDLH divided by
10 for technical reasons.
EPA agrees with commenters that one
toxic endpoint should be set for each
substance. The endpoint for each listed
toxic substance Is provided in Appendix
A to the final rule. The endpolnt,
applicable whether the source uses die
EPA guidance or conducts site-specific
modeling described below, Is the AJHA
ERPC-2 or, if no ERPG-2 Is available.
the level of concern (LOG) developed for
the Technical Guidance, corrected.
where necessary to account for new
toxicity data. The LOCs that were based
on IDLHs have been updated only II the
IDLHs were revised between the original
LOC listing in 198? and the 1995 IDLH
revisions. The most recent IDLH
revisions were not used because they
are based on a methodology that EPA
has not reviewed; the previous IDLH
methodology was reviewed by EPA's
Science Advisory Board for use as
LOCs. EPA chose the ERPG-2 first
because ERPGs are subject to peer
review and are specifically developed
by a scientific committee for emergency
planning to protect the general public in
emergency situations. The ERPG-2
represents the maximum airborne
concentration below which the
committee judges that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to
an hour without experiencing or
developing irreversible or other serious
human health effects or symptoms that
could Impair their ability to take
protective action. EPA rejected the
ERPG-3, which Is a lethal exposure
level, because it Is not protective
enough of the public In emergency
situations. About 30 listed toxic
substances have ERPGs. EPA chose to
use LOC levels for substances with no
ERPG because LOCs have been peer
reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory
Board, they are intended to be
protective of the general public for
exposure periods of up to an hour, they
are widely used by the emergency
response planning community, and, for
a majority of the listed toxic substances.
there are no acceptable alternatives.
EPA notes that, for substances with both
values, the LOC is comparable to, and
In some cases is Identical to, the ERPG-
2.
EPA recognizes potential limitations
associated with the ERPG and LOC and
is working with other agencies to
develop Acute Exposure Guideline
Limits (AEGLs). See Establishment of a
National Advisory Committee for Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for
Hazardous Substances, (60 FR 553T6;
October 31. 199S). When these values
have been developed and peer-
reviewed, EPA Intends to adopt them.
through rulemaklng. as the toxic
endpoint for substances under this rule.
As proposed, vapor cloud explosion
distances will be based on an
overpressure of 1 psl, and for analysis
of worst-case releases, a yield factor of
10 percent Yield factors (the percentage
of the available energy released in the
explosion process) can vary
considerably. EPA selected 10 percent
to generate conservative worst-case
consequences. For flammables, EPA
selected a radiant heat exposure level of
5 kW/m* for 40 seconds as
recommended by the commenters, and,
for vapor cloud fire and jet fire
dispersion analysis, the lower
flammabillty limit (LFL) as specified by
NFPA or other recognized sources.
b. Meteorology. In the NPRM. EPA
proposed that sources model the
downwind dispersion of the worst-case
release scenario using an F atmospheric
stability class and 1.5 m/s wind speed
and model the alternative release
scenarios using both the worst-case
conditions and the meteorological
conditions prevailing at ihe source. EPA
did not revise the meteorological
assumptions In the SNPRM.
Several commenters argued that the
worst-case meteorological conditions
were too conservative or not applicable
on a national basis and that site-specific
conditions should be used, while others
agreed that for worst case, minimum
wind speeds and the most stable
atmospheric conditions should be used.
In the final rule, EPA has decided that
sources must conduct worst-case
dispersion modeling using an F
atmospheric stability class and a 1.5
m/s wind speed. A higher wind speed
or less stable atmospheric stability class
may be used if the owner or operator
has local meteorological data applicable
to the source that show that the lowest
recorded wind speed was always greater
or the atmospheric stability class was
always less stable during the previous
three years.
In the final rule, EPA also requires
sources to conduct alternative release
scenario dispersion modeling using the
typical meteorological conditions
applicable to the source. If
meteorological data are not available,
typical conditions In the RMP OfEslte
Consequence Analysis Guidance may be
used. EPA believes typical
meteorological conditions should be
used to generate realistic hazard
assessments for communication with
the public and first responders and for
emergency planning.
C, Consideration of Environmental
Impact
The issue of whether and how
environmental Impacts should be
addressed in the hazard assessment and
the rule in general drew considerable
comment The comments divide Into
three questions: Should EPA consider
environmental Impacts from accidental
releases? If so, which environments
should be identified? What constitute*
an environmental Impact?
1, Inclusion of Environmental
Impacts. Environmental groups argued
that the CAA requires assessment of
potential impacts to the environment
and that the environmental receptors
listed in the SNPRM should be
broadened. One commenter staled that
since the CAA Amendments of 1990
strengthened limits of continuous air
toxic emissions, wildlife Is now
threatened more by accidental irlgiaei
However, the majority of commeruer*
on this issue, principally Industry
groups, opposed consideration of the
environment because it Is adequately
protected by other environmental
statutes, environmental protection in
section U2(r) relates only to emci|ency
-------
31686 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
response, and Congress intended In
section 1 !2(r) for the environment to be
addressed only to the extent that human
health is protected. Several commenters
argued that flammable substances were
unlikely to generate environmental
impacts. Comrneruers also stated that
many industries have voluntarily
developed nature reserves around their
sources, often at the urging of
government agencies. Additional
regulations based on "environmental"
impact consideration would "penalize"
these sources for their efforts. Finally.
two commenters noted that EPA's
end points are based on acute human
effects; applying these lo the
environment may not be valid.
EPA disagrees that section 112(r) was
not Intended to protect the environment
as well as human health. Although
section 112(r)(5) links the threshold
quantity to human health, section
112(r)(3) requires EPA to select
substances that could Impact human
health and the environment. EPA agrees
that the only time sections
112(r)(75(B)(I) and (ii) mention
protection of the environment Is In
conjunction with emergency response:
however, this is also true for protection
of human health. Congress did not
intend to limit concern about either
impact strictly to emergency response
procedures; Congress may not have
mentioned either impact relative to
prevention because the act of preventing
an accident eliminates the impact on
both. When accidents occur, human
health and the environment need
protection. By mentioning both impacts
in the response or post accident phase.
Congress was stressing Its concern for
the environment as well as human
health. Given the integrated nature of
the RMP, It would be an Inappropriately
narrow reading of CAA section
112(r) (7) (B) to say environmental
impacts must be Ignored in hazard
assessments and In the design of the
prevention program, but must be
accounted for in emergency response. In
addition, section 112{r)(9) provides
authority for EPA to take emergency
action when an actual or threatened
accidental release of a regulated
substance may cause imminent and
substantial endangerment to human
health, welfare, or the environment.
Clearly, section 112(r)(9) allows EPA to
Lake action to prevent, as opposed to
simply respond to, accidental releases to
protect the environment Because
section 112(r)(7) Is Intended to prevent
situations that could lead to emergency
orders under section 112(r)(9), It is
logical to conclude that Congress meant
EPA to develop regulations that would
prevent accidental releases that could
cause environmental damage. Although
the consequences may not be precisely
known, EPA believes chat Impacts could
occur at environmental receptors
located within the distance to a human
acute exposure endpoint associated
with a worst-case or alternative scenario
because wildlife may be more sensitive
or require less exposure to cause an
adverse effect than humans.
2. Environmental Receptors to Be
Considered. In the SNPRM, EPA
proposed that sources report in their
RMP which sensitive environments
listed by the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) for the Clean Water Act are
within the distance determined by the
worst-case or alternative case scenario.
A few commenters argued that the list
should include state and local level
analogues to Federal entitles (e.g., state
parks), all surface waters that are
fishable or s wimmable or supply
drinking water, and ground water
recharge areas. Many commenters
opposed the NOAA list, arguing that the
list Is extremely broad, covers millions
of acres in primarily rural areas, and
contains areas that are difficult for both
the regulated community and the
government to clearly identify (e.g..
habitat used by proposed threatened or
endangered species, cultural resources,
and wetlands). They stated that the
NOAA list is not appropriate for this
rule because It represents guidance
applicable to offshore sources, and to a
limited number of very large onshore
sources, that could have catastrophic oil
spills. A few commenters suggested
limiting the list to Federal Class I areas
designated under the CAA prevention of
significant deterioration program, or
reducing the list of sensitive areas to
national parks and the designated
critical habitat for listed endangered
species, and limiting environmental
concern to those accidents that generate
a significant and long-term Impact, such
as an actual "taking" of an endangered
species.
For the final rule. EPA has not used
the NOAA list Instead EPA requires
owners or operators to indicate In the
RMP the environmental receptors
located within circles whose radii are
the distances to an endpoint for the
worst-case and alternative release
scenarios. EPA agrees with commenters
that the locations of certain natural
resources are difficult to identify.
Consequently, EPA has defined
environmental receptors as natural areas
such as national or state parks, forests,
or monuments; officially designated
wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges,
or areas; and Federal wilderness areas.
that can be exposed to an accidental
release. All such receptors typically can
be found on local U.S. Geological
Survey (USCS) maps or maps based on
USCS data. Habitats of endangered or
threatened species are not included
because the locations of these habitats
are frequently not made public to
protect the species. Natural resource
agencies will have access to the RMP
Information and can raise concerns with
local officials about potential harm to
these habitats, as necessary. Local
emergency planners and responders
may want to consult with
environmental management agencies as
part of emergency preparedness.
3. Level of Analysis Required. In the
SNPRM. EPA proposed that sources
only Identify sensitive environments
within the area of the worst-case release,
rather than analyzing potential Impacts.
A few commenters opposed this
approach, stating that the CAA requires
that sources analyze Impacts. Most
commenters supported EPA's position
because extensive expertise at
considerable cost is required to
adequately assess all environmental
Impacts associated with the
environments list 1PA provided.
Commenters stated that this cost would
make fewer resources available for
prevention activities and providing no
benefit. Other commenters noted that
much of the data needed for such
analyses is not available.
EPA agrees that extensive
environmental analysis is not Justified.
Irreversible adverse effect exposure
level data for the wide variety of
environmental species potentially
exposed in an accidental release event
are not available for most of the listed
substances. EPA believes that
identification of potentially affected
environmental receptors In the RMP is
sufficient for purposes of accident
prevention, preparedness, and response
by the source and at the local level.
D. Program 3 Consistency with OSHA
PSM Standard
1. Prevention Program. In EPA's
original proposal, the prevention
program requirements were based on
the elements of OSHA's PSM standard
(29CFR 1910.119). and some
commenters supported this approach.
But EPA added a paragraph to each
OSHA prevention program element to
explain the purpose of the provision
and, in some instances, added
additional recordkeeping. reporting, or
substantive provisions to ensure that
statutory requirements were met.
Several commenters argued that these
additions cause confusion and appear to
require sources to create two separate
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31687
prevention programs, which could
cause conflicting Inspection and
enforcement actions and greater cost for
sources that must comply with both the
OSHA and EPA requirements, Many
commenters suggested that EPA simply
reference the OSHA requirements.
EPA agrees thai the Program 3
prevention program requirements
should be Identical to OSHA's PSM
standard to avoid confusion and
redundant requirements and to ensure
that sources develop one accidental
release prevention program that protects
workers, the general public, and the
environment. Therefore, EPA has moved
the Management System requirement
{see section I.D) supported by most
commenters to a section separate from
the Prevention Program and deleted the
Introductory paragraphs and
modifications to the PSM language. The
Agency recognizes that many workplace
hazards also threaten public receptors
and that the majority of accident
prevention steps taken to protect
workers also protect the general public
and the environment; thus, a source
owner or operator responsible for a
process In compliance with the OSHA
PSM standard should already be in
compliance with the Program 3
prevention program requirements.
EPA did not cross-reference sections
of the PSM standard In today's rule
because, under Office of Federal
Register requirements at 1 CFR
21.21{c5(2), EPA cannot adopt OSHA's
requirements. EPA and OSHA have
separate legal authority to regulate
chemical process safety to prevent
accidental releases. Furthermore, cross-
referencing the OSHA standard would
be tantamount to a delegation of
authority to set standards In this area
from the Administrator of EPA to the
Secretary of Labor, because OSHA
would be able to modify the PSM
requirements without an EPA
rulemaking under CAA §307(d). The
Senate explicitly considered and
rejected the possibility of the
Administrator delegating to OSHA
responsibility for hazard assessment.
Senate Report at 226, As that term was
used in the Senate bill, hazard
assessment Included many of the
elements of PSM.
With the exception of some key terms
and phrases, the Program 3 prevention
program language in the final rule Is
identical to the OSHA standard
language (the rulemaking docket
contains a side-by-slde analysis of the
OSHA standard and EPA rule text with
word differences highlighted). Most of
the differences are terms based on
specific legislative authorities given to
OSHA or EPA that have essentially the
same meaning:
OSHA term
Highly hazardous substance ,
Employer , ,
Facility , ...
Standard
Regulated substance.
Owner or operator.
Stationary source.
Rule ot part.
EPA term
EPA also agrees with commenters that sound process safety management systems ideally address chemical acclden
prevention In a way that protects workers, the public, and the environment. Since OSHA's responsibility Is to pro tec
workers, there are phrases In the OSHA standard that are designed to focus employer attention on accidents that
affect the workplace. It could be argued that these phrases Inadvertently exclude consideration of offsite impacts. EPA
has deleted the phrases noted below to ensure that all sources Implement process safety management in a way that
protects not only workers, but also the public and the environment:
OSHA PSM requirement
EPA program 3 requirement
1910.1 l9(d)(2)(E) An evaluation of the consequences of deviations, in-
cluding those affecting the safety and health of employees.
1910.119(e)(3)(ii) The identification of any previous incident which had
a likety potential lor catastrophic consequences in trie workplace.
I9i0.ii9(e}(3)(vii) A qualitative evaluation of a range of trie possible
safety and health effects of failure of controls on employees in the
workplace.
I910.119(m}(1) Trie employer shall Investigate each Incident which re-
sulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release
of a highly hazardous chemical In the workplace.
66.65(c)(i){v) An evaluation of the consequences of deviations.
68.67(c)(2) The identification of any previous incident which had a like-
ly potential lor catastrophic consequences.
68.67(c)f7) A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety
and health effects of failure of controls.
60.81(a} The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which
resulted In, or could reasonably have resulted In a catastrophic re-
lease of a regulated substance.
EPA also made changes to specific
schedule dates to coordinate with the
OSHA PSM requirements, made Internal
references consistent, and added a
provision to the PHA section
specifically grandfatherlng all OSHA
PHAs and allowing sources to update
and re validate these PHAs on their
OSHA schedule, EPA believes these
modifications do not cause source
owners or operators to make major
adjustments to their PSM systems
established under OSHA. These minor
modifications ultimately lead to the
development of one comprehensive
process safety management system
satisfying both OSHA and EPA that
works to prevent accidents affecting
workers, the public, and the
environment.
EPA also modified the OSHA
definition of catastrophic release, which
serves as a trigger for an accident
Investigation, to include events "that
present Imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health and the
environment." This modification. In
combination with the changes noted
above, ensure that sources covered by
both OSHA and EPA requirements must
investigate not only accidents that
threaten workers, but also those that
threaten the public or the environment.
EPA agrees with commenters and
recognizes that most catastrophic
accidental releases affect workers first
However, the Agency also believes that
there are accidental release situations
where workers are protected but the
public and the environment are
threatened, e.g. vessel
overpressurizations that cause
emergency relief devices to work as
designed and vent hazardous
atmospheres away from the workplace
and Into die air where they are carried
downwind. Although many sources
through the PHA process will have
recognized and addressed the potential
impact offsite associated with safety
measures that protect workers (e.g. an
-------
31688 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No, 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
emergency vent scrubber system), EPA
believes chat the requirements In today's
rule ensure that all sources routinely
consider such possibilities and integrate
the protection of workers, the public,
and the environment into ona-program.
2, Enforcement. Many commenters
expressed concern for conflicting audit
procedures, interpretations, and
enforcement actions when EPA and
OSHA auditors Inspect the same
processes, EPA has no authority to
exempt a source covered under the PSM
standard and today's rule from any
prospect of an EPA enforcement action
for violations of section 112(r) and EPA
regulations Issued under it. EPA and
OSHA are working closely to ensure
that enforcement actions are based on
consistent interpretations and
coordinated to avoid overlapping audits.
Such coordination in enforcement was
recognized as an appropriate method for
exercising the Administrator's duty to
coordinate the EPA program with OSHA
(Senate Report at 244),
3, Exemptions. Many commenters
suggested that the Agency exempt small
businesses or certain industry sectors
because the rule is too costly, some
industries are already subject to
substantial regulation by other Federal
or state agencies, OSHA exempts certain
Industries from the PSM standard, and
some sources have effective self-
policing regimes in place.
Regardless of whether the source Is
covered under some other Federal, state,
or local program, EPA has no authority
to exempt a source that has more than
a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance from complying with the risk
management program rule (CAA section
n2(r)(7)(B)(il)j. EPA established the
tiered approach to acknowledge that
different industries pose different
potential risks to human health and the
environment and that elements of other
regulatory programs may serve to
prevent accidents. EPA believes that
owners or operators can Indicate In their
Program and RMP how compliance with
other particular regulations and
standards satisfies Program or RMP
elements, thereby, avoid duplication.
Only those processes in certain SIC
codes or covered by OSHA's PSM
standard must implement the full PSM
program under Program 3. A source
owner or operator can demonstrate
compliance with the Program 2 or 3
prevention program under today's rule
for a covered process by showing that it
complies with the PSM standard. This
approach Is consistent with the
authority to set different standards for
different types of sources under CAA
section 112{r)(7)(B)(n.
E. Relationship to Air Permitting
Several commenters on the NPRM
requested that EPA clarify the
relationship between the risk
management program and the air permit
program under Title V of the CAA for
sources subject to both requirements. In
the SNPRM, EPA Indicated that In Title
V, section 502(b)(5)(A), Congress clearly
requires that permitting authorities must
have the authority to "assure
compliance by all sources required to
have a permit under this title with each
applicable standard, regulation or
requirement under this Act." EPA
further states in part 70.2 that
"Applicable Requirement means * * *
(4) Any standard or other requirement
under section 112 of the Act, including
any requirement concerning accident
prevention under section 112(r)(7) of the
Act;* " *" Consequently, EPA must
require that air permitting authorities
implementing Title V permit programs
be able to assure compliance with
section I12fr). In the SNPRM. EPA
attempted to identify the section 112{r)
"applicable requirements," clarify the
minimum content of part 70 permits
with respect to these requirements, and
to specify the role and responsibilities
of the part 70 permitting authority In
assuring compliance with these
requirements.
The sections below address the major
issue areas raised by commenters on the
SNPRM. More detail can be found In the
Risk Management Program Rule:
Summary and Response to Comments In
the Docket. The SNPRM also addressed
the role and responsibilities of the
implementing agency with respect to
section 112(r). This Issue Is addressed
separately In Section R below,
1. General relationship between the
part 68 and air permitting programs.
Some commenters agreed with EPA's
proposed role for the air permitting
authority with respect to section 112(r),
but encouraged EPA to avoid new,
confusing, and duplicative state and
source permitting requirements. A few
commenters suggested that all part 68
requirements should become permit
conditions, that it be fully enforced
through the part 70 permitting program,
and that anything less violates the CAA.
Most commenters (state air permitting
authorities and Industry), opposed
EPA's proposal stating that Congress did
not Intend, and legislative history does
not support, section 1 l2(r) to be
Implemented or enforced through the
Title V permit program,
EPA agrees that Congress did not
Intend for section 112(r) to be
Implemented and enforced primarily
through Title V and recognizes the
potential for confusion and burden on
sources and air permitting authorities
associated with section 112(r). EPA
believes that the requirements In today's
rule are flexible, impose minimal
burden, address the concerns raised by
commenters and satisfy the CAA
requirement for assurance of
compliance with section 112(r) as an
applicable requirement for permitting.
The requirements apply only to sources
subject to both part 68 and parts 70 or
71; there are no permitting requirements
on sources subject solely to part 68. EPA
agrees that ideally, one authority should
implement part 68 oversight; however,
air permitting authorities should not be
responsible for Implementation just as
Implementing agencies should not be
responsible for permitting (see
implementing agency discussion In
Section R, below). The air permitting
authority has the flexibility under
today's rule to obtain assistance,
expertise or resources from other
agencies in fulfilling Its responsibilities
with respect to section 112(r). This wUl
foster interaction and coordination of air
pollution, pollution prevention, public
and worker safety and health and
environmental programs at the state and
local levels leading to more effective
oversight
2, Impact of EPA's proposal on air
permitting programs. Several
commenters stated that EPA's proposal
places an unreasonable burden on air
permitting programs because states
would need to amend or develop new
legislative authority and Implementing
regulations which diverts limited state
resources away from the development
and operation of more Important routine
emissions permit programs.
EPA disagrees that today's rule places
an unreasonable burden on air
permitting programs. Part of the
approval process for a state air
permitting program is confirmation that
states have the authority to ensure that
sources are in compliance with air
toxics requirements under section 112
including section 112(r). The provisions
of section 68.215 are sufficient to meet
the obligations under part 70. Thus, for
state and local agencies that have
approved part 70 programs, states
would need to develop new legislative
authorities only If they seek delegation
to Implement part 68 beyond the narrow
responsibilities provided In §68.215
(see Section R, below). State obligations
under § 68.215, which should be
covered by permit fees (see section E. L1,
below), should not Impose a substantial
burden on state resources because the
rule streamlines the RMP requirementi
and establishes centralized
recordkeeplng for RMPs.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31689
3. Part 68 as an "applicable
requirement" under part 70. As
described above, the CAA requires that
air permitting authorities ensure that
sources are in compliance with
applicable requirements as a condition
of permitting. In the preamble of
previous rulemaklngs for part 70 (57 FR
32301), EPA indicated that the
definition of "applicable requirement"
under Tide V Includes "any
requirement under section 112(r) to
prepare and register a risk management
plan (RMP)." This explanatory
statement preceded development of part
88, which Implements section 112(r)(7).
In the SNPRM, EPA proposed more
specific provisions to assure compliance
with applicable requirements for section
112(r) than the part 70 preamble so that
air permitting authority responsibility Is
clear. EPA believed that all elements of
part 68 are applicable requirements;
however, compliance with applicable
requirements could be assured by
including generic terms in permits and
certain minimal oversight activities.
Together, these steps ensure that
permitted sources fulfill their accident
prevention and information sharing
responsibilities,
EPA proposed standard permit
conditions that would allow air
permitting authorities to verify
compliance with part 68. Commenters
stated that alteration of the part 70 rule
definition of the term 'applicable
requirement" under the part 68
rulemaking is Inappropriate and that the
role of the air permitting authority with
respect to section 112(r) should be
defined in part 70 rulemaklngs rather
than In part 68.
EPA's action today does not alter the
definition of "applicable requirements"
under 40 CFR 70.2. which already
includes "any requirement concerning
accident prevention under section
112(r)(7)." Rather. EPA Is establishing
very simple permit terms and flexible.
minimal oversight responsibilities that
will assure compliance with part 68.
EPA disagrees that part 68 cannot
establish more specific terms for permits
than those given in part 70 or 71 with
respect to section 112(r). As mentioned
in the SNPRM preamble, part 70 does
not preclude EPA from clarifying or
even expanding air permitting
responsibilities. Specific permit
requirements are useful to clearly
establish the minimum permit
conditions and state responsibilities
essential to ensuring compliance with
part 68 and to reduce uncertainties that
may lead to overly broad interpretations
of the requirements. However, air
permitting authorities still have the
flexibility to establish additional terms
for the permit if it so chooses,
4. Role of the air permitting authority.
In the SNPRM, EPA proposed certain air
permitting authority responsibilities
necessary to ensure that sources are in
compliance with part 68 for purposes of
permitting. Commenters stated that the
role of the Title V permitting authority
should be defined in part 70, not in part
88 and opposed EPA's proposal arguing
that It causes unnecessary confusion for
sources. Commenters also argued that
air permitting authorities do not have
the relevant expertise needed and that
states should have the flexibility to
Implement risk management programs
In whichever agency they see fit Other
commenters argued that air permitting
authorities, without section 112(1)
delegation, could not accept the
responsibilities assigned by the SNPRM
and that EPA was unlawfully attempting
to delegate the responsibility for
Implementing section 112(r) to the state
permitting authorities. Several
commenters believed the permitting
authority should have no
responsibilities beyond those set forth
in EPA's April 13, 1993, policy
memorandum from John Seitz, Director
of the Office of Air and Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), to
EPA Regional Air Division Directors.
available In the docket because states
invested significant resources and effort
Into the development of their programs,
guided by this EPA memorandum.
However, a state permitting authority
stated that the EPA memorandum did
not account for many of the key program
elements, including the necessary
incorporation of standard permit
conditions. Many commenters also
opposed requiring extensive details or
all aspects of part 68 compliance in the
permit, finding this approach excessive
and overly burdensome on both state air
permitting authorities and sources and
contrary to the law and Congressional
intent In that it would have required
section 112 (r) (7) to be fully
Implemented by state permit programs.
Several commenters were concerned
that a single violation of part 68 could
potentially be enforced by both the
permitting authority and the
implementing agency. One commemer
suggested that the only case where a
violation of a part 68 requirement
should also be considered a violation of
part 70 would be the failure to register
an RMP on time under the requirements
of § 68.12. Another conunenter
requested that, al §68.58(6) P), EPA
should allow the state the discretion to
determine whether a penalty should be
assessed. Several commenters, uncertain
how the Programs proposed by EPA In
the SNPRM would affect the role of the
permitting authority, suggested that EPA
develop a process to inform states of the
tiering approach and to exclude
Program 1 and 2 sources from additional
permitting requirements.
EPA believes that part 68 should more
clearly define the role of the air
permitting authority with respect to
section 112(r). Part 70 requirements
were established well before part 68 and
are therefore vague. Consequently, EPA
is using part 68 to clarify the applicable
requirements, to specify permit terms
and to establish the minimum permit
conditions and activities to avoid
misinterpretations and to ensure
compliance with part 68. EPA agrees
that air permitting authorities may not
have the expertise necessary with
respect to part 68: consequently, the
requirements in today's rule only
specify the actions the state must take
to assure that sources have met their
part 68 responsibilities while giving the
state flexibility to assign or designate by
agreement entities other than the
permitting authority to carry out these
activities. The elements In today's rule
are the minimal components of a
successful compliance program;
anything less falls short of the statutory
requirements of assuring compliance
with all applicable requirements. EPA
also disagrees that it is forcing
delegation on air permitting authorities
to Implement section 112(r). As
described in the SNPRM and above, air
permitting authorities must ensure that
sources are In compliance with
applicable requirements for purposes of
permitting. This is not section H2(r)
implementation (see section R below),
EPA is merely specifying more clearly
the requirements already upon air
permuting authorities; without the
specification given In today's rule. It
could be argued that air permitting
authorities are obligated to review and
evaluate the adequacy of RMP
submissions, EPA agrees that oversight
of the adequacy of part 68 compliance,
including RMPs, Is not an appropriate
activity for the air permitting authority
and Is more appropriately an
Implementing agency duty. Delegation
of these implementing agency activities
can only be accomplished through a
delegation consistent with pan 63.
subpart £.
EPA also maintains that the air
permitting authority role should be
more specifically defined than that
offered by the April 13, 1993,
memorandum. The April 1993 policy
was prepared prior to the NPRM and
SNPRM, It does not account for
implementation of the risk management
program by the source (as opposed to
-------
31690 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
implementation of the plan), and there
is no mechanism, such as a review of
the RMP by the permitting authority, to
ensure that the plan contains the
elements required by pan 68. These
deficiencies were previously .indicated
by EPA in a June 24. 1994,
memorandum from John Seitz and Jim
Makris, Director of the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and
Prevenyon Office (CEPPO) to EPA
Regional Division Directors, which
stated that "approval criteria in the
April 13 memorandum may not be
sufficient to ensure compliance with all
'applicable requirements' established"
in the risk management program rule.
EPA acknowledges that states may have
invested considerable resources and
effort In development of air permitting
programs based on the April 13, 1993
policy. However, EPA also believes that
the minimum requirements and
flexibility offered by today's rule allow
air permitting authorities to fold these
activities into their programs with
minimal burden. EPA recognizes that
there may be multiple agency oversight
related to permitting and part 68. As
mentioned above, today's rule allows
the air permitting authority the
flexibility to use other agencies, such as
the implementing agency or a
designated agency (upon agreement), to
better coordinate at the state and local
level. In addition, EPA must note that
there is no 'approval* of either initial or
revised RMP submissions.
EPA agrees that requiring the permit
to contain extensive details of part 68
compliance goes well beyond the need
for part 70 permits to assure compliance
with applicable section 112(r)
requirements and it would impose
considerable resource and expertise
burdens on the permitting authority.
EPA has maintained that it Is not
appropriate to Include risk management
program elements as permit conditions
since these elements will be highly
source-specific and subject to change as
the source develops and Implements its
programs.
While enforcement would primarily
occur using part 68 authority, EPA
agrees chat the permitting authority also
has the authority to pursue violations
under part 70 and sources could be
subject to multiple violations. This is no
different from any other standard
promulgated by EPA that becomes an
applicable requirement for permitting.
EPA agrees that the air permitting
authority has the discretion to
coordinate with the implementing
agency with respect to penalty
assessment associated with §68.58(b)(3)
in the SNPRM (§68.2lS(e)(4) under
today's rule).
Finally, the tiering (Program)
approach benefits sources as well as air
permitting authorities. EPA has
simplified the tiering provisions so
sources and air permitting authorities
should be able to readily determine the
Program requirements each process
must satisfy, leading to more effective
oversight. EPA has also streamlined the
RMP reporting requirements and is
working on electronic submission of
RMP information which serve to reduce
the burden on air permitting authorities
and Implementing agencies.
5, Title V permit application contents.
Many commenters stated that sources
regulated under parts 70 or 71 and part
68 should only be required to certify
whether they are subject to section
112{r) in their initial permit application
to allow timely processing. Although
EPA Indicated that it did not want the
RMP included in permit applications or
in the permit, many commenters stated
their opposition because the additional
time required for RMP review could
delay permit grants and, in some states.
the RMP could be included In the
source's permit Several commenters
suggested that the air permitting
authority should decide whether It
wants the RMP; one commenter stated
that sources would have a significant
incentive to comply with such a request.
given the permitting authority's ability
to withdraw an application shield.
Others stated that the permitting
authority should be prohibited from
asking for the RMP as part of the permit
application.
As EPA has indicated, the RMP
should not be submitted with the permit
application or made part of the permit
EPA Is working to streamline permit
application requirements and has
Indicated that the minimum with
respect to section H2(r) is a "check
box" for the source to note whether it
is subject to section t I2(r). and either
certification that the source Is In
compliance with part 68 or has a plan
for achieving compliance. Any other
requirements are up to the air
permitting authority. All sources will be
required to submit their RMP to a
central point to be specified by EPA and
will be immediately available to local
responders and the state which may
elect to make it available to air
permitting authorities.
6. Air permit contents. EPA proposed
in the SNPRM thai each permit contain
standard conditions that address key
compliance elements in part 68 and
mechanisms for compliance plans,
certifications and revision!. Although
EPA indicated it did not believe the
RMP should be part of the permit, two
commenters suggested that It should be
included while most others indicated
that it should not or that the air
permitting authority should decide.
Several commenters supported no more
than the four conditions proposed In the
SNPRM while others suggested
requirements including: prompt
development and updating of a
complete RMP; no conditions other than
an indication that a source is subject to
pan 68; provisions stating the need to
register according to §68.12; a condition
stating that the source will comply with
all part 68 requirements; and a standard
provision recognizing that the
Implementing agency has the section
112(r) enforcement authority.
Except for the provisions of
S 68.215(a), EPA does not believe that
the RMP or all or any portion of the
remainder of part 68 should become
permit conditions because the RMP and
part 68 elements will be highly source-
specific and subject to frequent change
introducing unnecessary complexity
and delaying permit implementation.
The provisions of § 68.215 should allow
the air permitting authority to
implement the conditions In a
standardized way across many sources
with minimal burden. EPA has revised
§ 68.2 IS to require that all permits
contain a statement listing part 68 as an
applicable requirement and that
conditions shall be added that require
the source to submit a compliance
schedule for meeting the requirements
of part 68 or, as part of the compliance
certification all permitted sources must
submit under 40 CFR 70.6(c){5), a
certification statement that, to the best
of the owner or operator's knowledge,
the source Is in compliance with all
requirements of this part Including the
registration and submission of the RMP,
EPA had amended the authority citation
for part 68 to include CAA Tide V
because EPA is promulgating permit
terms and oversight duties. Consistent
with parts 70 and 71. the permit shield
provisions of parts 70 and 71 would not
apply to the substantive requirements of
part 68 because the detailed substantive
requirements of part 68 are not
addressed in the Title V permit or
permit application. If a permit without
these conditions has already been
issued, then when the permit comes up
for renewal under part 70 or 71
requirements (40 CFR Part 70.7), the
owner or operator shall submit an
application for a revision to its permit
to incorporate these conditions. The
suggested alternative conditions, not
adopted, generally help assure
compliance only with portions of part
68, such as registration or the
preparation of the RMP, or omit critical
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No, 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31691
Information, such as whether the source
Is subject to part 68 or what its
compliance status Is. The Implementing
agency's enforcement authority Is
apparent on the face of the CAA.
7. Completeness review. Aspartof
ensuring compliance. EPA proposed in
the SNPRM that within a certain time-
frame the air permitting authority must
verify thai an RMP containing the
required elements had been submitted
and indicated in the preamble that It
would assist air permitting authorities
by developing a checklist. EPA stated
that this review is independent of
completeness reviews required for
permit applications to avoid interfering
with the permit process. Further, air
permitting authorities could arrange for
other agencies, including the
implementing agency, to perform the
completeness review. EPA also
requested comment on whether the
permitting authority should be able to
require sources to make revisions to an
RMP.
Most commemers disagreed with this
proposal arguing that If a completeness
check is necessary, it should be
performed by the implementing agency
since most air permitting authorities
will not have the technical expertise
(e.g., chemical process safety) required
to adequately review RMPs for technical
completeness. Commenters also argued
that a completeness review would be
merely procedural, it duplicates effort
without creating any real benefit, it
consumes scarce resources, and it leads
to inconsistent RMP review without
ensuring the source is in compliance
with risk management program
requirements. Some commenters
suggested that the completeness review
could be better defined only as a review
of source self-certification that a
complete RMP was submitted rather
than a substantive review. Some
commenters generally agreed that
completeness checks should be
completed within sixty days. FinaJly,
most commenters argued that only the
implementing agency should be able to
require revisions to the RMP. Otherwise,
another revision review, appeal and
verification process would be necessary,
duplicating the process already
established for the implementing
agency.
Based on these comments, EPA has
decided not to require that air
permitting authorities perform a
completeness check as part of the
verification of compliance with part 68.
EPA has modified the rule requirements
so that the air permitting authority may
select for itself one or more appropriate
mechanisms (such as source audits,
record reviews, source inspections or
completeness checks) and time-frame In
conjunction with source certifications.
to ensure that permitted sources are in
compliance with the pan 68
requirements. Without some kind of
oversight, source self-certification Is not
a sufficient means of compliance
assurance, given that an RMP contains
information essential at the local level
for emergency prevention.
preparedness, and response and is not
subject to routine, case-by-case review
for quality. These oversight mechanisms
do not need to be used on each source
in order to be effective. EPA agrees that
the review for quality or adequacy of the
RMP is best accomplished by the
Implementing agency on a frequency
and scope that may vary. EPA Is willing
to work with air permitting authorities
on guidance, checklists or other tools to
assist in the development of compliance
mechanisms related to the RMP. In
addition, EPA Is willing to assist air
permitting authorities in electronic
checks once the electronic system for
RMP submlttal Is developed. EPA
emphasizes that If an RMP
completeness check is used by the air
permitting authority, it should remain
independent of the completeness
determination for the permit
application. The RMP will most likely
be submitted at a different time than a
permit application, since almost all
permit applications will have been
submitted well in advance of the risk
management program rule deadline. If
the completeness check determines that
an incomplete RMP has been submitted,
the permitting authority can request
additional information under
§ 6 8.215 (b) and should coordinate with
the Implementing agency on necessaiy
RMP revisions. The completeness
checks are facial reviews of RMPs to
verify that there are no omissions. Such
checks could be performed on a select
basis and occasionally Integrated with a
multi-purpose source inspection
conducted to ensure that the air source
Is In compliance with its permit
8. Interaction of the implementing
agency and the permitting authority. In
the SNPRM, EPA attempted to delineate
the specific requirements unique to the
air permitting authority and the
implementing agency. The role of the
state is described In more detail in E,4
while the Implementing agency Is
discussed In R. Commenters on the
SNPRM suggested that EPA should
require the Implementing agency to
certify to permitting authorities whether
part 68 sources regulated under part 70
are In compliance with part 68
requirement. Such certification should
be deemed sufficient to "assure
compliance" with the applicable
requirement under part 70. Other
commenters suggested that the
permitting authority could simply
consult with the Implementing agency
when it believes there is a problem
requiring attention or that the
Implementing agency should notify the
permitting authority of any problems in
part 68 compliance, so that the
permitting authority may then expand
the permit conditions accordingly.
EPA does not believe it is necessary
to define the interaction between the
permitting authority and the
implementing agency. Ideally, this
coordination and Interaction should
occur at the state or local level.
Coordination of other CAA programs
(Title V, S1AP, and other 112 programs)
with the 112(r) program will ensure that
the programs are more consistently
implemented and enforced, while
easing regulatory burden and providing
the public greater access to information.
However, when EPA is the
implementing agency, it stands ready to
work with air permitting authorities on
oversight associated with permitting
and enforcement of the part 68
requirements. Today's rule also
provides the state the flexibility to
assign some or all of its responsibilities
by prior cooperative agreements or
memoranda of understanding to the
implementing agency or another state,
local, or Federal "designated agency."
EPA recognizes that each state is
structured differently and will have
different impediments and
opportunities; therefore each state has
the flexibility to place the program In an
appropriate agency or department,
including the air permitting agency.
9. The "designated agency." In the
SNPRM. EPA proposed to define the
designated agency as the state or local
agency designated by the air permitting
authority as the agency responsible for
the review of an RMP for completeness.
This provision was designed to give the
air permitting authority the flexibility to
obtain expertise from other agencies to
fulfill its responsibilities. Several
commenters believed the SNPRM does
not dearly allow the permitting
authority to delegate tasks to a
designated agency and the permitting
authority should be able to delegate
more than the completeness review, e.g..
enforcement. Some commenters
requested that EPA redefine the term to
allow permitting authorities to delegate
tasks to EPA or other Federal agencies:
while one commenter argued that EPA
should not allow the permitting
authority to designate EPA as the
designated agency.
-------
31692 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
EPA agrees that the definition should
be revised to give the air permitting
authority more flexibility. EPA has
dropped the mandatory completeness
review, added broader implementation
and enforcement activities, and
included Federal agencies in The
designated agency definition. Thus, a
"designated agency" may be any state,
local, or Federal agency designated by
the state as the agency to carry out the
provisions of §68.215, provided that
such designation is in writing and, in
the case of a Federal agency, consented
to by the agency. The parties to any
such designation should negotiate the
terms and details of any agreements.
10. Reopening part 70 permits to
incorporate section 112{r) requirements.
in the preamble to the SNPRM. EPA
indicated that part 68 requirements
should be Incorporated Into part 70 or
71 permits using the part 70
administrative amendment process
because of the timing difference
between part 68 and air permitting.
Most commenters agreed with this
approach or Indicated that permits
should not be reopened at all; Instead,
sources that submitted permit
applications prior to promulgation of
die final section 112(r) regulations
should not be subject to enforcement
action under Title V until after the first
renewal of the permit (I.e., after 5 years).
As discussed under section E.6, If a
permit without the necessary part 68
conditions has already been Issued, then
the owner or operator or air permitting
authority shall initiate a permit revision
or reopening according to the
procedures detailed in 40 CFR 70.7 or
71.7 to Incorporate the terms and
conditions under paragraph (a) of
§ 68.215. Although EPA has not
completed part 70 permit streamlining
efforts, the requirements for permit
revisions or reopenings should be
complete by the time sources will be
required to be In compliance with the
part 68 requirements. Under the most
recent part 70 proposal, the part 68
requirements would be classified as
"less environmentally significant" and
the associated procedures would be
followed. Sources with such permits
shall be subject to enforcement under
authorities other than Title V.
11. Use of Title V funds. In the
SNPRM, EPA indicated that activities
conducted by air permitting authorities
should be covered by fees collected
under part 70 since part 68 is an
"applicable requirement." EPA also
acknowledged that air permitting
authorities may not have planned for
section H2(r) activities and requested
input on alternative funding
mechanisms or whether resources
would need to be reduced in other
programs to allow completion of part 68
responsibilities.
Several commenters raised concerns
about the impact of the section 112(r)
requirements on state and local air
permitting authorities because funding
will be needed and It may not be
possible In the current political climate
for the permitting authorities to raise the
necessary fees through Title V. Some
commenters argued that funding
decisions should be left up to the air
permitting authorities.
EPA agrees that funding decisions
regarding the part 68 program should be
made at the discretion of the state and
local agencies. However, air permitting
authorities need to be aware that the
CAA requires states to Impose permit
fees that are sufficient to cover the
direct and indirect costs of
Implementing the permit program.
Including part 68 activities and
activities conducted by state designated
agencies, EPA believes the straight-
forward and flexible requirements
established In today's rule impose
minimal additional burden on air
permitting authorities. Funding
associated with section 112(r)
Implementation Is addressed in section
R, below.
12. Other Issues. In the SNPRM
preamble, EPA stated that it worked
closely with and directly involved
several state and local air program
officials and state emergency response
and prevention representatives in the
development of the preamble and
regulatory language to prepare the
approaches described. EPA stated that
the proposed approaches "best reflect
the concerns of the states about air
permit program implementation and the
needs for comprehensive participation
In chemical accident prevention,
preparedness, and response at the state
and local level." Two commenters
disagreed, arguing that In January 1995,
the National Governors Association
(NGA) and ECOS (organization of state
environmental officials) presented
numerous recommendations to EPA
Assistant Administrator Mary Nichols
for changes In several clean air
programs; regarding section 112(r),
NGA/ECOS recommended that Title V
permitting authorities be required only
to certify that an RMP has been
submitted. These commenters believe
that the SNPRM falls to adequately
address states' central concern;
requiring permitting authorities to
review RMPs will encumber an already
overtaxed system.
Although EPA disagrees that the
proposal fails to adequately address
states' concerns, EPA agreed that the air
permitting authority requirements could
be more sharply focused to minimize
the burden. EPA believes that today's
rule is the product of many hours of
hard work with state and local air
permitting authorities to recognize their
concerns and to develop a rule that is
effective, flexible and imposes the least
economic burden possible.
F. General Definitions
1. Significant Accidental Release. In
the NPRM, EPA proposed to define
significant accidental release as "any
release of a regulated substance that has
caused or has the potential to cause
offsite consequences such as death,
injury, or adverse effects to human
health or the environment or to cause
the public to shelter in place or be
evacuated to avoid such consequences."
This definition was key to the
applicability of a number of rule
requirements. Including hazard
assessment, accident history, and
accident investigation. Only four of
more than 115 commenters supported
this proposal arguing that the definition
should be protective of the public and
should consider Inconvenience to the
public and precautionary measures
taken. Other commenters argued that
Congress intended for the section 112(r)
rules to address catastrophic releases.
not those with minor Impacts, and that
this definition overly broadens the
scope of the rule diverting resources and
increasing cost for little additional
benefit. Many commenters stated that
"injury" and "adverse effects" are
undefined and could mean any health
impact from irreversible effects to minor
irritation requiring no medical
treatment. "Potential to cause" was also
considered too vague. As discussed In
Section lU.C. many commenters
objected to consideration of
environmental Impacts, Commenters
also opposed sheltering-in-place and
evacuation as criteria because these
actions are often precautionary and, in
many cases, are later viewed as
unnecessary and may discourage
owners or operators from making
recommendations to evacuate or shelter-
in-place. Several commenters submitted
alternative definitions where Injuries
were limited to those that require
hospitalIzadon, adverse effects were
limited to serious effects, and
environmental effects were limited to
those that generate human deaths or
hospltallzatlons. Some suggested that all
environmental effects be dropped.
EPA agrees that the definition as
proposed was too vague and subject to
a wide variety of interpretations. In
addition, EPA decided that a single
definition does not adequately address
-------
Federal Register^ Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31693
the criteria needed for all affected
sections of the rule. For example, the
five-year accident history requirement
depends on the ofTslte impacts
generated by the accident while
endpoint criteria are used forjhe worst-
case and alternate scenario offsite
consequence assessments.
Consequently, EPA has decided to drop
the definition and instead identify the
criteria for the types of releases or
impacts that should be addressed by the
appropriate requirement. EPA has
considered the suggestions offered by
commenters and added definitions of
the terms "environmental receptor,"
"injury," "medical treatment," and
"public receptor" and adopted (with
modifications as described above) the
OS HA definition of catastrophic release.
EPA notes that sources should be aware
that within the definition of Injury,
direct consequences Include effects
caused by shrapnel and debris set in
motion by a vapor cloud explosion. EPA
adopted its Medical Treatment
definition from one OSHA uses for
logging occupational injuries and
illness. Finally, under the
environmental and public receptor
definitions, sources should note that
certain parks and recreational areas may
be both If the public could be exposed
as a result of an accidental release.
2. Stationary Source. Commenters
requested that EPA state whether the
term stationary source covers the entire
"facility" or simply a single process and
provide guidance on which
requirements apply source-wide and
which are process-specific. EPA also
received comments regarding the
relationship or overlap between the
stationary source definition and DOT
regulations. These are discussed In.
section IH.P.2 below.
In the List and Thresholds rule, EPA
defined stationary source to include an
entire "facility." Sources wlE be
required to submit one RMP and, one
registration as part of that RMP for all
processes at the source with more than
a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance. Although the management
system applies to all Program 2 and 3
processes, the prevention program
elements are process-specific The
hazard assessment requirements apply
to the regulated substances, but only In
covered processes. As a practical matter,
the emergency response program will
probably apply to the entire source
although technically it applies only to
covered processes.
3. Process. Several commenters
argued that the definition of process was
susceptible to overly expansive
interpretations and asked that certain
activities such as storage at sources or
distribution terminals be excluded.
Many commenters sought clarification
of "close proximity" and
"interconnected vessel." Commenters
also wanted the definition to be
consistent with OSHA,
EPA adopted OSHA's definition of
process in the original proposal and for
the final rule. This definition
specifically covers storage (as well as
handling and processing) of regulated
substances. EPA disagrees that storage-
only sources are adequately covered by
SPCC regulations since the regulations
under SPCC and OPA-90 cover oil
terminals and releases to water. This
rule Is directed at accidental releases of
regulated substances (not including oil)
to the ambient air. Generally, OSHA
PSM also covers these chemical
terminals; consequently, the only
additional steps these sources will need
to take will be to conduct the hazard
assessment and submit the RMP. as
existing emergency response plans may
meet the emergency response program
requirements.
Since EPA's definition Is identical to
OSHA's. EPA will coordinate
interpretations of the definition of
process with OSHA to ensure that the
rule is applied consistently. OSHA has
stated that processes are in "close
proximity" if a release from one could
lead to a release from the other. Owners
or operators must be able to demonstrate
that an "effective barrier" exists to
prevent a release from one process from
affecting another. OSHA has Interpreted
"interconnected vessel" to mean vessels
connected by any means, such as
piping, valves or hoses, even if these are
occasionally disconnected. EPA will
also adhere to these interpretations.
4. Offsite. One commenter stated that
EPA's proposed definition of offsite
should be expanded to Include the air
above and below the point of release to
cover exposure to the upper atmosphere
and groundwater. Another asked EPA to
limit the definition to areas frequented
by (he public. Two commenters
opposed including areas on site where
the public has access because OSHA
already covers these areas.
In the final rule, EPA has retained a
definition of offsite as "areas beyond the
property boundary of the stationary
source or areas within the property
boundary to which the public has
routine and unrestricted access during
or outside business hours." OSHA's
jurisdiction includes visitors that may
be on the property of a facility who are
conducting business as employees of
other companies but does not
necessarily extend to casual visitors or
to areas within a facility boundary to
which the public has routine and
unrestricted access at any time.
5. Other Definitions. Commenters
raised questions about several other
definitions. Three commenters
suggested changes or clarifications to
the definition of accidental release.
EPA's definition is the statutory
definition. Commenters also proposed
modifications to the definition of
"analysis of offsite consequence." As
noted above, EPA has determined that
this definition Is not needed and has
deleted it from the final rule.
Commenters sought clarification of
the definition of mitigation systems and
whether personnel should be
considered an active mitigation system.
Others asked for a list of passive
mitigation systems and provided
proposals. These commenters also
objected to limiting passive systems to
those that capture or control released
substances; they suggested that systems
that are designed to prevent releases or
control the volume or rate of a release,
such as vent/catch tanks, quench tanks,
blowdown tanks, elevated stacks and
high velocity stacks, adsorbents
Including carbon beds, neutralization
tanks, double-walled vessels or
pipelines, chemical sewers, closed drain
header systems for flammables, vapor-
liquid separators, fire barriers,
explosion-resistant walls, isolation
distances, barriers to prevent free access
of air flow after a release, containment
buildings, pre-charged water spray
systems, closed vent systems, and filters
should also be considered passive
mitigation. One commenter suggested
that active mitigation systems should be
defined as those that require manual
activation or an energy source (other
than gravitational attraction) to perform
their intended function.
For the final rule, EPA has decided to
define passive mitigation systems as
those systems that operate without
human, mechanical, or other energy
input and would Include building
enclosures, dikes, and containment
walls but excludes active mitigation
systems such as excess flow valves, fall-
safe systems, scrubbers, flares, deluge
systems, and water curtains. In addition
to the requirements outlined in §§ 68.25
and 68.28, EPA provides further
guidance on the consideration of the
effect of passive mitigation in its RMP
Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance.
EPA does not believe that all systems
designed to prevent releases or control
the volume or rate of a release should
be considered passive mitigation,
consistent widi its intent to reflect the
potential for failure of any system that
requires human, mechanical, or other
energy inputs.
-------
31694 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
C. Risk Management Plan (RMP)
In the NPRM. EPA proposed chat
owners or operators of stationary
sources covered by the requirements
submit an RMP summarizing the key
elements of its risk management
program. In the NPRM preamble, EPA
indicated that summaries of the
information requested (e.g., hazard
assessment and emergency response
program) would provide the most useful
information to the public and local
agencies without overburdening them
with unneeded detailed information.
EPA further stated that the RMP should
serve 10 provide local and state agencies
and the public with sufficient
information to determine if additional
details are needed. These details would
be available, if needed, to Implementing
agency officials conducting audits or
compliance inspections.
1. Level of Detail. Most commenters
agreed with EPA's proposal noting that
the public should be able to Identify key
hazard and risk management
Information from the RMP without
being overwhelmed by extraneous
documentation that is more
appropriately maintained on site. A
detailed submission would not be cost-
effective and could threaten plant
security; these commenters expressed
fears of terrorism, thieves, and
saboteurs.
Other commenters disagreed and
argued that summaries would not
provide enough information while "full
disclosure" would support an informed
public. Some commenters argued that
the public could be misled by a
summary derived from a "full" RMP
withheld from the public by the source.
Further, several commenters made the
general argument that right-to-know
provisions should be strengthened and
that the public should be given full
access to all risk management program
information including PHAs and actual
operating procedures. Individual
commenters also requested public
access to specific information regarding
such details as worst-case scenarios and
descriptions of chemical accidents.
Some commenters argued that an
Informed public and public scrutiny, In
general, can act as a powerful force in
reducing risk and preventing accidents
at stationary sources.
EPA agrees that an informed public is
a key element of sound chemical
emergency prevention, preparedness,
and response. However, EPA also
believes that it is essential for the public
to focus on the information essential at
the local level for prevention,
preparedness, and response and has
decided to maintain its proposed
requirement that the RMP provide
certain Information about the risk
management programs at a source. EPA
notes that its previous use of the word
summary was not intended to Imply
that the source prepares a "full" RMP
document from which a source extracts
summary information that Is shared
with the public. Rather, the source is
obligated to develop certain information
about the hazards, prevention, and
emergency response programs from the
array of documentation at the source to
prepare an RMP. EPA believes it would
be Impractical to require sources to
share all documentation used for the
safe operation of the processes at a
source. Not only is much of this
Information likely to be confidential,
but significant technical expertise and
time are necessary to extract,
understand, and to make meaningful
judgments about the adequacy of the
Information. The RMP will consist of an
executive summary and required data
elements addressing all elements of the
risk management program as described
below. Detailed supporting
documentation will be maintained on
site available to the implementing
agency for review.
2. RMP Contents. Most commenters
requested that EPA generally limit the
level of detail required, the number of
scenarios, or the number of pages in the
RMP. Other commenters recommended
EPA require submission of only
information specified in the CAA and
incorporate other detailed Information
by reference. Commenters also noted
that documenting each action taken to
address a hazard, the date on which the
action started (or is scheduled to start),
and the actual or scheduled completion
date would prove Impractical. EPA
received many comments stating that
the requirement that exact dates on
which training, emergency exercises, or
rescue drills, are conducted would be
impractical and unnecessary.
Commenters seeking more
comprehensive RMPs argued In favor of
requiring an index or bibliography of
detailed information or a catalog of all
available documents, an Investigation
and analysis of all other credible release
scenarios, and submission of
assumptions, methodology, and
modeling methods used to determine
worst-case accidents.
As described above. EPA Is
considering development of a reporting
mechanism and form to collect key data
elements. As discussed below, this
approach will foster electronic
submission and immediate availability
to Federal, state and local entitles, and
the public. To make such submission
possible, EPA wants to collect data that
generally can be reported by numerical
information, yes/no answers, and check
boxes. For the offsite consequence
analyses, owners or operators will be
asked to provide distance to the
endpoint, populations and
environments affected, and enough of
the data used to determine these
distances so that local entitles and the
public can check the distance against
the distance derived from EPA's
reference tables or a model identified in
the RMP. If EPA's guidance was not
used, sources will need to indicate
which models were used. Many of the
parameters for modeling are set In the
rule and do not need to be respecifled
in the RMP. The rule requires only one
alternative release scenario per toxic
substance and one for all flarnmables;
owners or operators may submit
additional scenarios.
For prevention programs, owners or
operators must provide Information
(primarily dates) that will allow the
Implementing agency to assess whether
the source Is in compliance with the
rule elements. For the PHA, owners or
operators must state which technique
was used far each covered process, the
general hazards associated with the
chemicals and process, the process
controls in use, mitigation and
monitoring or detection systems In use,
and changes Instituted since the last
PHA (Program 3) or hazard review
(Program 2} update. Through lists and
checkoff boxes, EPA can collect a
significant amount of information on
current safety practices without
requiring sources to develop lengthy
documentation that would have proved
a burden to both the source and any
government or public data user and
reduced the potential for electronic
submission. EPA believes this approach
provides the Agency and others with a
mechanism for identifying Industry
practices and controls from almost
70,000 sources that would not be
feasible otherwise. EPA notes that some
of the largest chemical sources and
refineries may be providing data on 30
or more processes. In the format
proposed in the NPRM. these sources
might have submitted several thousand
pages each; analyzing such submissions
would have been a daunting task for the
implementing agencies and probably
would have made it impossible for
public interest groups to review an
industry as a whole. With electronic
Submission, such reviews will be easier.
The implementing agency or EPA can
seek additional details from individual
sources, as needed. EPA has eliminated
the requirement to provide dates of
training and emergency exercises or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31695
drills because the Agency agrees that
this amount of detail is unnecessary and
impractical.
3. Submission. In the NPRM
preamble, EPA proposed that computer
software be developed that wj^uld
provide sources with a standard format
for completing the information required
in the RMP: that local authorities be
allowed to designate the state as the
receiving entity; or that RMPs be
submitted only on request from the
state, or local entity.
Many commenters, particularly those
in the potentially regulated community,
supported submission of the RMP upon
request or mandatory submission to the
implementing agency with submission
by request to other organizations. Others
recommended submission to the LEPC
and public with submission by request
to the Implementing agency, and SERC.
Most commenters favored reducing the
paperwork burden and electronic
submission because it would reduce
time and errors, provide more
consistency, and make information
more useful for the LEPC and regulatory
agencies. Only two commenters
opposed electronic filing because all
sources may not have the computer
capability.
Commenters also supported the
development of a standard RMP format
regardless of whether the RMP is
submitted electronically because
standardization would ensure
submissions were manageable and
useful and would ease burdens on both
regulated and reviewing entities.
EPA has decided to work toward
electronic submission of RMPs. The
Agency believes this will meet
numerous objectives of die program and
will address several Issues. First.
electronic submission would reduce the
burden on regulated and receiving
entitles. The Agency has noted that
Information management of regulatory
documents is not a cost-free
requirement, and that duplication of
effort. Including system development,
personnel resources, and storage and
maintenance efforts could be significant.
Electronic submissions would reduce
the paperwork burden on sources and
state and local governments and would
further serve to comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
which supports the maximum feasible
use of electronic submission. Second,
EPA wishes to limit the information
management burden on local entitles so
they can focus on the chemical safety
issues raised by this rule.
Third, electronic submissions would
benefit affected communities and the
general public. Besides having the RMP
provide the statutorily required
Information on compliance with the
regulations to the implementing agency,
EPA believes the specific value of RMP
information is for the local community
to understand its community's risk from
chemical accidents and to help them
work widi sources using these
chemicals to reduce such risks. The
Agency believes this objective would
not be served well with a centralized
paper information source and that using
an electronic medium would support
better access to information. With
electronic submission of RMPs to a
central point, states, local entities, and
the public will have access to all RMPs
electronically. RMP information may
also be made available on-line via
libraries and other institutions.
Electronic submissions further address
the issue of standardized RMPs. The
RMP data elements included in the
submission will be checkoff boxes, yes/
no answers, or numerical entries to ease
the burden of submission and reception
and will promote consistency and
uniformity. The Agency Intends to
develop technical guidance for the
submission of die RMPs, which wiU
provide for submission and receipt of an
electronic formatted document
containing the data elements outlined in
§§68.160 through 68.180.
4. Other Issues. In the NPRM. EPA
proposed that RMPs be resubmitted
within six months of an information
change. Several commenters argued it
would generate a continual flow of
paperwork and recommended an update
frequency requirement of once a year.
EPA has retained the requirement that
the RMP be resubmitted within six
months of the elimination of a substance
in a process or at the source, a change
in Program status for a process, or if a
process change at the source requires a
revised hazard assessment or hazard
revlew/PHA, To be consistent with the
statutory requirements for compliance,
the RMP would also have to be updated
on the date an already regulated
substance becomes present In a process
above the threshold or within three
years of the date when EPA lists a new
substance. EPA believes that with a
standardized format and electronic
Filing, updates can be rapidly and easily
made, and this information should be
promptly shared. EPA changed the
update schedule for hazard assessments
to make them consistent with the RMP
update. EPA also specified when offsite
consequence analyses require update:
the rule states that these analyses need
to be reviewed and changed if on-slte
changes may be reasonably expected to
change the distance to an endpoint by
a factor of two or more. EPA notes that
this change is likely to reduce the
number of updates required. For PHAs,
only major changes to a process or
installation of new processes is likely to
trigger a revised PHA. EPA expects that
relatively few sources will need to
update either their offsite consequence
analyses or PHAs/hazard reviews more
frequently than once every five years
because the majority of sources have
simple processes that do not change
frequently. Chemical industry sources
may need to submit more updates if
processes are changing significantly.
The RMP should reflect such significant
changes.
EPA proposed that RMPs be
submitted to implementing agencies.
SERCs, and LEPCs. and be made
available to the public. Several
commenters recommended that
additional parties, local fire officials in
particular, also receive RMPs. One
commenter stated that EPCRA requires
various reports go to local fire
departments, and another commenter
noted that RMP Information may b«
better used by emergency management
agencies, fire departments, and
hazardous materials teams. Because
EPA plans to have RMPs submitted to
and available from a central point In
electronic format, any agency that wants
the Information will be able to access It
directly on-line. The RMP wfll be
immediately available to local
responders and the state. Thus, this
manner of submission fulfills the
requirements of CAA section
112(r)(7)(B)(iii). Additional submission
requirements are, therefore,
unnecessary.
The Department of Defense (DOD)
commented concerning the lack of »
rule provision explicitly declaring that
information that is classified under
applicable laws and Executive Orders
(E.O.s) is not to be included in th* RMP.
EPA is clarifying that such claslAad
information is protected from disclosure
by including a specific regulatory
exemption for such Information,
Furthermore, EPA Is clarifying thai no
provision of part 68 requires the
disclosure of classified Information In
violation of Federal law, regulations, or
E.O.S. Finally. EPA Is also promulgating
a definition of "classified information"
that adopts the definition under tlM
Classified Information Procedure* Act.
EPA has found no relevant statutory
language superseding or Lmpltedry
repealing die Classified Information
Procedures Act or applicable ILO-i
regarding disclosure of classified
Information, nor has EPA found any
legislative history indicating thai
Congress intended to supersede or
repeal these provisions when it
establ ished the requirement to prepare
-------
31696 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
publicly-available RMPs. The provision
for exemptions from standards and
limitations established under CAA
section 112 narrowly addresses the
procedures for an exemption when "the
President determines that thfi.
technology to implement such standard
is not available and * * * it is in the
national security interests of the United
States to do so." CAA S 112(1)(4). The
focus of section 112(i}(4) is on the
technical capability to meet a limitation;
for example, the provision would apply
when an emission standard requires a
control device that precludes national
security-related equipment from
functioning. Section 112(i)(4) does not
consider or address the availability or
distribution of classified information to
the public, nor does the legislative
history demonstrate that such disclosure
was contemplated.
The requirement of section
1 l2(r)(7)(B)(IU) to make RMPs publidy
available must read in congruence with
the provisions prohibiting disclosure of
classified. Information. "Classified.
information," as defined by the
Classified Information Procedures Act,
18 U.S.C. App. 3, section l(a). Is "any
information or material that has been
determined by the United States
Government pursuant to an Executive
order, statute, or regulation, to require
protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of national
security. * * *" "National security
* * * means the national defense and
foreign relations of the United States"
18 U.S.C. App. 3, section l(b). Criminal
penalties exist for unauthorized
disclosure of classified information that
has been designated by the Department
of Defense or defense agencies for
limited or restricted dissemination or
distribution. 18 U.S.C. 793. It Is not
reasonable to Interpret the CAA to
require the disclosure of classified
Information in violation of criminal law.
It has been EPA's long-standing policy
to interpret information disclosure
provisions in its statutes as being
consistent with national security law to
the maximum extent possible and to
require such Information to be
maintained in accordance with the
originating agency's requirements.
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy
(November 1988). at page V-6.
Therefore, EPA Is promulgating
language In § 68.150(d) to clarify lu
intent with respect to the disclosure of
classified information In RMPs by
specifically exempting classified
information from the IMP except by
means of a classified annex submitted to
appropriately cleared Federal or state
representatives with proper security
clearances. Furthermore. EPA is
promulgating § 68.210(b) to clarify that
disclosure of classified Information is
controlled by the Classified Information
Procedures Act. E.O.s 12958 and 12968.
and other laws, regulations, and E.O.s
applicable to classified information.
Finally. In §68.3, EPA is defining
classified information by promulgating
the definition under the Classified
Information Procedures Act.
H. Prevention Program
In the NPRM preamble, EPA noted
that the CAA requires the risk
management program to Include a
prevention program that covers safety
precautions and maintenance.
monitoring, and employee training
measures. Because QSHA PSM covers
this same set of elements, EPA proposed
a prevention program that adopted and
built on OSHA PSM. The proposed
requirements for EPA's prevention
program included a management system
requirement and sections covering nine
elements: process hazard analysis,
process safety information, operating
procedures (SOPs). training,
maintenance, pre-startup review,
management of change, safety audits,
and accident investigation.
To assist in describing its prevention
program, EPA included a section in its
preamble comparing its prevention
program to OSHA PSM standard, EPA
noted that with the exception of the
management system requirement, the
proposed prevention program covered
the same elements as OSHA's PSM and
generally used identical language except
where the statutory mandates of the two
agencies dictated differences. EPA
added introductory paragraphs to most
sections to provide additional
information. Further, in some of the
sections, EPA proposed additional
requirements and established different
deadlines. The majority of comments
EPA received concerned conflicts and
differences between EPA's proposed
requirements and OSHA PSM standard.
In the final rule, the Program 3
prevention program Is the OSHA PSM
standard for parallel elements, with
minor wording changes to address
statutory differences. For elements that
are in both the EPA and OSHA rules,
EPA has used OSHA's language
verbatim, changing only certain
regulatory terms (e.g., highly hazardous
chemical to regulated substance and
employer to owner/operator) and dates.
The sections of the OSHA PSM standard
were not cross-referenced for the
reasons discussed in section II1.D of this
preamble. Key issues under PSM are
discussed below; the remainder are
addressed in the Response to Commer
Document.
Management. In the NPRM preambl.
EPA stated the purpose of its proposec
management system is to ensure
integration of all prevention program
elements. EPA proposed that owners c
operators identify a single person or
position that has the overall
responsibility for the development,
implementation, and integration of the
risk management program requirement
When responsibility for Implementing
individual requirements of the risk
management program is assigned to
persons other than the person
designated, the names or positions of
these people shall be documented and
the lines of authority defined through a
organization chart or similar documenl
Several commenters agreed with this
approach because it serves a useful
purpose and many PSM sources alread
Implement management systems. Maw
commenters opposed the requirement
for submission of an organization chart
of their source because it would be of
no value to EPA and that continual
updating would waste company
resources.
EPA has decided to maintain Itt
management system requirements in tr
final rule for sources with processes in
Program 2 and 3, but has moved It to
general requirements (§68.15) because
is the entire- risk management program
that should be managed, not just the
prevention program, EPA has also
revised the requirement to provide
flexibility in indicating lines of
authority; an organization chart is not
absolutely required and is not included
in the RMP.
Management of Change. Some
commenters objected to EPA'i
definition of replacement In kind,
asking that EPA adopt the OSHA PSM
definition. Other commenters stated th
management of change procedural
should only be implemented when the
changes had the potential to increase
the risk (e.g., an Increase In Inventory.
an introduction of a new substance).
As part of Its efforts to strengthen
coordination between the two program
EPA will use the OSHA definition far
"replacements In kind": "a replecemn
which satisfies the design
specification." OSHA defined thtt tern
to address a concern expressed by
commenters on its standard that &|]in|
to define "replacements in kind" could
result in misunderstandings such M
employers believing that only •
replacement with the same brand and
model number could be characterized i
a "replacement in kind." OSHA
promulgated a definition In recopiittoii
of these comments, and EPA
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31697
understands it to reflect a concept
understood in Industry.
Further, EPA does not agree that
management of change requirements
should exclude changes that reduce the
risk of an accidental release. The
Agency does not believe that only
changes to "critical systems" should be
subject to management of change
procedures. As EPA stated in the NPRM
preamble, most process changes
improve process safety or efficiency.
However, even these changes may result
in unintended effects when source
owners and operators fail to evaluate the
consequences of the change. Therefore,
the Agency continues to believe that a
change that reduces the risk of an
accidental chemical release may,
nonetheless, be an appropriate subject
for a management of change procedure.
Failure to subject such changes to a
management of change process could
inadvertently result in a change that was
believed to lower risk when such a
change. In fact. Increases risk. Regarding
the comment about critical systems,
EPA notes that chemical processes are
integrated systems, and that a change in
one part of the process can have
unintended effects in other parts of the
system—Irrespective of whether the
system is "critical." Consequently. EPA
agrees with OSHA that source owners
and operators must establish and
implement written management of
change procedures for any change to a
regulated substance, process technology,
or equipment and any change to a
source that affects the covered process.
Other Provisions. Several commenters
stated that EPA should include in its
risk management program the OSHA
PSM provisions on contractors,
employee participation, and hot work
permits that EPA had not proposed In
its prevention program. The NPRM
solicited comment on whether to
include these provisions (58 PR 54205;
October 20. 1993). Commenters argued
that contractors have been responsible
for a number of accidents that have
affected the public and the
environment. Commenters presented
the same argument to support inclusion
of the hot work permit requirements, A
substantial number of commenters also
argued that employee participation Is a
key factor in successful Implementation
of PSM. A few commenters supported
EPA's initial position that these
requirements were more properly OSHA
concerns.
In response to the former commeniers'
arguments and to ensure consistency
between the'elements of the two rules,
EPA has decided to add these sections
to its Program 3 prevention program.
EPA believes that each of these elements
is important to the implementation of an
effective prevention program. Worker
participation in PHAs and other
elements is critical to the success of
process safety because workers are
intimately familiar with the process and
equipment operation, possible failure
modes and consequences of deviations.
It also serves as a mechanism for greater
communication and understanding of
specific process hazards (as opposed to
the general chemical hazards) and the
importance of developing and following
proper procedures. Similarly, contract
employees have been Involved in a
number of major accidents in recent
years; for example, the explosion In
Pasadena. Texas, in 1989, which killed
23 workers, has been attributed to
improper maintenance practices by
contractor employees. Oversight of
contractors, therefore, can be critical for
accident prevention. Finally, hot work
permits ensure that use of flame or
spark-producing equipment Is carefully
controlled. Not only are many of the
listed substances highly flammable, but
fires in the vicinity of vessels or pipes
containing the toxic substances can lead
to releases of these substances.
/. Accident History
In the NPRM. EPA required sources to
document a five-year history of releases
that caused or had the potential to cause
oflsite consequences for each regulated
substance handled at the source. EPA
specified that the accident history
should Include the nature of any offslte
consequences, such as deaths, injuries,
hospitalizations, medical treatments,
evacuations, sheltering-!n-place, and
major offsite environmental impacts
such as soil, groundwater, or drinking
water contamination, fish kills, and
vegetation damage.
A few commenters argued that
releases with only the potential for
offslte consequences should not be
Included, while other commenters were
evenly divided on whether near-miss
events should be Included In the
accident history. A number of
commenters Indicated that releases with
on-site consequences should be added
to the accident history. Several
commenters requested that EPA clarify
that the accident history applies only to
covered processes.
In recognition of these comments. In
the final rule, only those accidents from
covered processes that resulted In
deaths, injuries, or significant property
damage on-site, or known offslte deaths,
injuries, evacuations, sheltering In
place, property damage, or
environmental damage need to be
included in the five-year accident
history. Near-miss accidents or
accidents with only the potential for
offslte consequences (that did not meet
any of the previous criteria) would not
need to be Included. Because the
accident history is. by statute, an aspect
of the hazard assessment, and the
hazard assessment provisions apply
only to covered processes, EPA believes
that requiring the accident history to
address accidental releases from
processes not covered by this rule
would be inconsistent with the structure
of part 68. EPA notes that such releases
may be subject to reporting under other
statutes; the Agency may investigate
such releases to determine the need for
a response action under CERCLA and to
determine whether CAA section
112{r)(l) has been violated.
/. Emergency Response Program
In the proposed rule, EPA required
sources to develop an emergency
response plan that defines the steps the
source and each employee should take
during an accidental release of a
regulated substance. EPA noted that
most sources are already required to
have at least part of the emergency
response plan In place as a result of
other EPA (Spill Prevention, Control,
and Coumermeasures and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act) and
OSHA (emergency action plans and
HAZWOPER) regulations and requested
comment on how the proposed
requirements could best be integrated
with these existing programs to
minimize duplication. Many of the
commenters were particularly
concerned with the potential for
increased duplication of emergency
planning requirements at the state and
Federal levels that would require
expenditure of additional resources
without improving source emergency
response capabilities. Most of these
commenters suggested that EPA allow
compliance with other Federal
regulatory programs to meet the
mandate of the Clean Air Act for an
emergency response program, while
other commenters recommended that
EPA work with other agencies to
develop a format for a single,
comprehensive response plan for the
source. Some commenters addressed
related concerns with respect to state
program or voluntary Initiatives.
EPA has decided to adopt the
emergency response requirements found
in the statute, without additional
specific planning requirements. This
action is consistent with the Agency's
effort to develop a single Federal
approach for emergency response
planning. The Review of Federal
Authorities for Hazardous Materials
Accident Safety, (required under section
-------
31698 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
L12(r)(IO) of the Clean Air Act) reported
liule harmony In the required formats or
elements of response plans prepared to
meet various Federal regulations.
Accordingly, EPA has committed not to
specify new plan elements or a specific
plan format in today's rule. SPA
believes that plans developed to comply
with other EPA contingency planning
requirements and the OSHA Hazardous
Waste and Emergency Operations
(HAZWOPER) rule (29 CFR 1910.120)
will meet the requirements for the
emergency response program provided
that they address the elements In
section 68.95(a). EPA believes that
coordination of the emergency response
plan with the community emergency
response plan will help ensure that
offsite response issues are addressed, In
addition. EPA and other National
Response Team agencies have prepared
Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance
("one plan") (NRT, May 1996). An
emergency response plan that includes
the elements specified In this guidance
can be used to meet the requirements in
today's rule. The flnaJ rule also provides
relief for sources that are too small to
respond to releases with their own
employees; these sources will not be
required to develop emergency response
plans provided that appropriate
responses to their hazards have been
discussed In the community emergency
response plan developed under EPCRA
(42 U.S.C. 11003) for toxics or
coordinated with the local fire
department for flarnmables,
K, Registration
In the NPRM, EPA proposed that
sources register with the EPA
Administrator by three years after the
publication date of the final rule, or
within three years of the date on which
a source becomes subject to the risk
management program requirements as
mandated by the CAA. While a number
of commemers agreed with this
proposal, a greater number requested
that EPA accelerate the registration to
between six months and two years of
promulgation of the rule so that
implementing agencies could better
determine resource allocation and
conduct more extensive outreach and
technical assistance to sources
developing risk management programs
and preparing RMPs.
EPA agrees that earlier registration
could aid outreach efforts and help
implementing agencies focus resources.
However, since the first RMP need not
be submitted until June 21. 1999, an
earlier, pre-reglstration would Impose
an additional burden on sources. Some
sources may reduce inventories, make
process modifications or switch
chemicals prior to the first RMP due
date and, consequently, will not be
subject to the rule. If EPA required a
pre-reglstratlon, these sources would
have to deregister at that time. Further.
states and local agencies already have
Information gathered under EPCRA
section 312 that could be used for early
identification and outreach to sources
covered by this rule. EPA Is also
working with trade associations and
other representatives of affected
industries to ensure that sources are
aware of the rule. Instead, in today's
rule, the registration is included as part
of the RMP to limit the number of filings
made by sources.
EPA also proposed that sources
submit written registration information.
A number of commenters advocated
either the modification of existing forms
(e.g.. the EPCRA Tier II form) or an
electronic filing system for the
submission of this information. Since
the RMP and the registration are
consolidated Into one submission, this
issue Is addressed generally In Section
III.G.
Under the proposed rule sources
would need to submit an amended
notice to the Administrator and the
implementing agency within 60 days if
information In the registration Is no
longer accurate. Many commenters
argued that six months or a year is
needed to ensure compliance with the
certification requirements. EPA agrees
with commenters and in the final rule
has lengthened the time for submission
of an amended registration to six
months which should be enough time to
modify the information and to
electronically resubmit the registration
and IMP.
L. Model Risk Management Programs
Commenters supported the
development of model risk management
programs and RMPs, stating that the
models were needed by smaller
businesses and public systems that lack
the expertise to Implement process
safety management. Commenters
specifically supported development of
models for industries with well-
understood processes and practices,
such as chlorinatlon systems, propane
and ammonia retailers, and refrigeration
systems. A few commenters asked that
the models be made available for public
review. Others said the models should
be published as guidance, not
regulations.
EPA is working with Industry groups
to develop model programs for ammonia
refrigeration, propane handling, and
water treatment. After having provided
the public with an opportunity to
review a draft of the ammonia model
program. EPA today Is issuing a
guidance on a model program for this
industry (see Model Risk Management
Program for Ammonia Refrigeration).
EPA encourages other industry groups
to work with the Agency to develop
models for their sectors. EPA notes that
the models are particularly relevant to
sources with Program 2 processes.
Because EPA has adopted the OSHA
PSM standard. EPA has not provided an
EPA guidance on PSM compliance. EPA
will also publish general technical
guidance to help sources understand
and comply with the rule which will
include Program 2 prevention program
guidance. The RMP Offsite Consequenci
Analysis Guidance contains reference
tables for the offslte consequence
analysis, which can be used instead of
site-specific modeling. EPA emphasizes
that the models are guidance, not
regulations; sources are not required to
use them.
M. Implementing Agency Audits
EPA originally proposed in § 68.60
seven criteria an implementing agency
could use to determine whether to audit
a source's RMP. EPA also proposed that
the implementing agency have the
authority to determine whether an RMP
should be revised and to direct the
owner or operator to make revisions.
Many commenters suggested that the
Agency lacked statutory authority to
specify measures to correct risk
management program elements through
the RMP, and that RMP changes based
on implementing agency directives will
be costly.
EPA or other implementing agencies
have general inspection and
enforcement authority under CAA
sections 112(r)(7)(E), 113, and 114 to
compel source owners and operators to
correct deficiencies In the risk
management program. EPA intends to-
use the audit process as a way to verify
the qualify of the program summarized
in the RMP. When it is reasonable. EPA
will require modifications to the RMP
that may lead to quality Improvements
in the underlying program.
EPA notes that many commenters
were uncertain of the distinction among
audits conducted under § 68.220,
reviews by the permitting authority
under §68.215, and inspections. CAA
section 112(r)(7)(B)(Hi) requires EPA to
develop, by regulation, a system for
auditing RMPs, These audits will review
the information submitted by sources to
determine whether the source Is In
compliance with the rule elements. For
example, the Implementing agency will
consider whether the dates for reviews
and revisions of various elements are
consistent with the steps sources are
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31699
required to take, If a source reported a
major change on a date later than the
last date on which safely information
and operating procedures were
reviewed, the Implementing agency
could seek further Information about
why such reviews had not been
conducted and require updates If the
agency determined that die source
should have reviewed the documents.
Audits may be detailed paper reviews or
may be done at a source to confirm that
on-site documentation Is consistent
with reported information.
In contrast, the air permitting
authority or its designated agency may
be reviewing the RMP for completeness,
rather that the quality of the RMP
contents. Inspections are generally more
extensive in scope than audits although
they may Include a review of the
accuracy of the RMP Information.
Inspections will consider whether the
source is in compliance with part 68 as
a whole, not just with the RMP
requirements, and may review both the
documentation kept at the source and,
operating practices.
Regarding comments that making
changes to the RMP would be too costly,
EPA has endeavored to ameliorate the
cost burden of this rule by using a
tiering approach to make the risk
management program elements on
which the RMP rests appropriate for
sources of various sizes and complexity.
In addition, EPA is considering
development of a standard RMP
reporting format and data elements,
which should significantly reduce the
time and effort necessary to revise the
RMP. Any source owner or operator can
further limit the costs associated with
revising its RMP by submitting a timely,
complete, and valid plan In the first
instance.
N. Public Participation
In the SNPRM, EPA requested
comments on how public participation
In the risk management program process
might be encouraged. EPA's preferred
approach was to encourage the public
and sources to use existing groups,
primarily the LEPC, as a conduit for
communications between the source
and the public throughout the RMP
development process. A substantial
number of commenters supported this
approach, stating that the LEPC was
well placed to interpret the RMP
information for the public. Commenters
said that LEPCs and their member
organizations have considerable
experience and have established rapport
in dealing with the community. Others
stated that this role is a logical
extension of current LEPC
responsibilities under EPCRA, although
funding for LEPCs was a concern,
A number of commenters opposed
this approach because some LEPCs are
not functional and that LEPCs are not a
substitute for public participation. A
few LEPCs also objected to assuming
any additional role. Commenters
suggested that EPA should require
public participation in the development
of the RMP and require all major
sources to have a public participation
strategy. Industry commenters generally
opposed any mandated public
participation requirements because
direct involvement in risk management
program development would delay the
process and would represent an
unwarranted and inappropriate
interference in management and site
control responsibilities. A few
commenters supported the SNPRM
suggestion that public participation be
limited to sources with Program 3
processes because these sources
represent the greatest risk. Other
commenters opposed this idea,
preferring the decision to be left to local
authorities.
EPA has not adopted any specific
public participation requirements. EPA
plans to make the RMP Immediately
available to any member of the public.
LEPCs and others will be able to
compare their sources with similar
sources In other areas to determine
whether quantities on sites, process
controls, mitigation systems, and
monitoring systems are significantly
different. This information will give the
public an opportunity to gain a better
understanding of local industries and
carry on a more informed dialogue with
sources on their prevention practices.
EPA continues to encourage sources to
work with the LEPCs and other
community groups to provide
Information to the public and ensure an
on-going dialogue during and after RMP
development and submission. The
public Is a valuable resource and a key
stakeholder In chemical accident
prevention, preparedness, and response
at the local level.
A number of commenters said that
EPA should prohibit the public from
triggering an audit through petitions
because this approach would open the
process to litigation; a petition process
would be expensive, lime-consuming,
and increase the time needed to
complete the RMP. Some commenters
said It would impose an excessive
burden on the implementing agency.
Two commenters favored public
petitions to trigger audits. One said that
the audits should be conducted by
qualified third parties, subject to
community selection and supervision.
EPA has not Included public petitions
as a mechanism for periodic audits of
sources under §68.220. States, however.
are able to adopt more stringent
requirements.
O. Inherently Safer Technologies
In response to the NPRM. a number of
commenters stated that EPA should
require sources to conduct "technology
options analyses" to identify Inherently
safer technologies. In the SNPRM. EPA
solicited comments on this issue, but
did not propose a requirement for such
analyses.
A number of commenters stated that
EPA should require analyses of
inherently safer technologies, at least for
sources with Program 3 processes or
new processes. Some commenters
argued that Inherent safety Is primary
prevention (directed at the source of the
hazard), while EPA's proposed
requirements are secondary prevention
(control of the hazard). One commenter
asked that sources be required to
provide full economic and technical
analyses of options. Commenters argued
that without a technology options
analysis requirement. Industry will not
conduct these analyses because, unlike
Its pollution prevention efforts, EPA has
provided no Incentive for safer plants.
Other commenters strongly opposed
any requirement for these analyses
because PHA teams regularly suggest
viable, effective (and inherently safer)
alternatives for risk reduction, which
may Include features such as Inventory
reduction, material substitution, and
process control changes. These changes
are made as opportunities arise, without
regulation or adopting of completely
new and unproven process
technologies. Commenters said that
similar analyses are frequently
conducted during the design phase of a
process or source where there are
sufficient economic Incentives to design
a process with as few costly additional
safety features as possible without new
EPA requirements. Commenters also
said that a requirement would prove
costly, without providing commensurate
benefits.
EPA has decided not to mandate
inherently safer technology analyses.
EPA does not believe that a requirement
that sources conduct searches or
analyses of alternative processing
technologies for new or existing
processes will produce additional
benefits beyond those accruing to the
rule already. As many commenters,
including those that support such
analyses, pointed out, an assessment of
inherently safer design alternatives has
the most benefit in the development of
new processes. Industry generally
-------
3 i 700 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
examines new process alternatives to
avoid the addition of more costly
administrative or engineering controls
10 mitigate a design that may be more
hazardous in nature. Although some
existing processes may be superficially
judged to be inherently less safe than
other processes, EPA believes these
processes can be safely operated
through management and control of the
hazards without spending resources
searching for unavailable or
uriaffordable new process technologies.
Good PHA techniques often reveal
opportunities for continuous
improvement of existing processes and
operations. EPA encourages sources to
continue to examine and adopt viable
alternative processing technologies,
system safeguards, or process
modifications to make new and existing
processes and operations Inherently
safer. EPA Included questions related to
process modifications in the IMP so
that sources can demonstrate, and users
of the RMP information can observe,
progress toward safer processes and
operations,
P. Coverage by Other Regulations
A large number of commenters
expressed concerns about duplication
between the risk management program
rule and other Federal and state
regulations. Issues related to overlap
between this rule and OSHA PSM are
discussed In Section UI.D of this
preamble; issues related to overlap
between this rule and other emergency
response planning regulations are
discussed in Section IH.J of this
preamble.
1. General Issues. A substantial
number of commenters stated that EPA
had failed to consider other regulations
to which sources are subject that cover
some of the same requirements as this
rule. They noted that many sources are
covered by DOT rules, other EPA rules.
OSHA rules, and. In some cases, other
agency or state rules. Some commenters
argued that these other regulations
essentially prevent accidents and,
therefore, this rule is not needed.
Commenters stated that EPA should
define jurisdlctlonal and enforcement
boundaries so that sources subject to
multiple regulations are not subjected to
multiple enforcement actions for the
same violation. Other commenters said
that EPA should clearly Identify which
similar requirements Imposed by other
programs satisfy this rule and what
additional steps are needed. Some
commenters said that any source
covered by another, similar rule should
be excluded from this rule. Others
suggested thai EPA explicitly cross-
reference other applicable rules. A few
commenters stated that EPCRA
reporting requirements provide ample
information to local entities and no
further reporting is needed.
EPA disagrees with some of these
comments. Except for the OSHA PSM
rule, no other rule cited by the
commenters addresses accidental
releases of regulated substances to the
extent that today's rule does. Some
Federal and state rules for certain
industries provide design standards;
compliance with these rules will satisfy
parts of today's rule. For example,
sources in compliance with 29 CFR
1910.111 for handling of anhydrous
ammonia may not need to take
additional steps to ensure the safe
design of the process. These other
standards generally do not cover
training, maintenance, hazards analysis,
and accident investigation, which are all
key elements in process safety
management. In addition, none of the
Federal rules require offslte
consequence analyses or reporting to the
public on the results of these analyses
and on prevention steps. Information
submitted under EPCRA, which consists
primarily of annual inventories, is not
equivalent to the RMP Information.
Nevertheless, EPA agrees with
commenters that duplication should be
minimized, which Is why the
emergency response and Program 2
prevention program steps recognize that
meeting other requirements will satisfy
elements of this rule. The model risk
management programs that EPA is
developing with industry will explicitly
cite other regulations, as well as codes
and standards, that satisfy specific
elements of this rule.
2. DOT Transportation Regulations.
Commenters concerned with overlap
with DOT regulations focused on two
Issues: pipeline regulations, and
loading/unloading and storage
regulations. Commenters asked EPA to
exclude pipelines and transportation
containers connected for loading or
unloading since these are adequately
covered by DOT regulations. Some
commenters disagreed and wanted
loading and unloading of transportation
containers to be Included because many
accidents occur during these
procedures.
In the final List Rule. EPA defined
stationary source to Include
"transportation containers that are no
longer under active shipping orders and
transportation containers that are
connected to equipment at the
stationary source for the purposes of
temporary storage, loading, or
unloading." One commemer stated that
the 1993 oleum release in Richmond.
California, demonstrated (hat DOT
regulations do not adequately address
risk management of loading and
unloading. The other commenters,
however, said that loading and
unloading were covered by DOT
regulations and should not be subject t<
this rule. They noted that DOT has
adopted regulations requiring training
for anyone who loads or unloads
hazardous materials. They further said
that at distribution centers, regulated
substances are not used or processed,
and, if in packages, the containers are
not opened.
Several commenters were concerned
that EPA regulation in this area could
create problems with DOT'S preemption
of state rules. Under U.S. law, states
may not adopt regulations in certain
specified areas that are not substanUvelj
the same as DOT rules or In other areas
that pose an obstacle to DOT goals
under Federal Hazardous Materials
Transportation Law. If state laws are
authorized by Federal law, however.
states could develop different
requirements than DOT Imposes. In this
case, the commenter said. If EPA were
to regulate loading and unloading undei
the CAA, the states would have the
authority under the CAA to Impose
more stringent requirements on this
activity.
EPA disagrees with the commenters
concerning the scope of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act
preemption authority In this area. EPA's
definition of stationary source clearly
covers transportation containers only
when they are no longer In
transportation in commerce and was
addressed in the List Rule. EPA believes
commenters have overstated the extent
of any preemption problem. EPA's
interpretation today Is consistent with
DOTs, as explained In "California and
Los Angeles County Requirements
Applicable to the On-Site Handling and
Transportation of Hazardous
Materials—Preemption Determination"
(80 FR 8774. 8776-78. February 15.
1995). EPA notes that In many cases
warehouses and wholesalers take
delivery of materials and resell them;
EPA considers this storage to be covered
by today's rule. EPA believes that DOT
standards for container integrity satisfy
process safety information
requirements. The same applies to DOT
standards for training requirements for
loading and unloading; that training
satisfies the training requirements of
this rule for loading and unloading.
Requirements for the PHA only apply to
connections to transportation containers
and for storage of containers.
3. Other EPA Regulations. Many
commemers stated that other EPA
regulations cover the same activities and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. Nd. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31701
should be deferred to or referenced to
prevent dupllcatlve requirements and
enforcement. A number of commenters
said that regulations under the Clean
Water Act, specifically the Spill
Prevention. Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) and Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-9G) rules.
duplicate many of the provisions of this
rule. Other commenters argued the
Underground Storage Tank (UST) rules
require sources to comply with
requirements equivalent to many of the
notification, prevention, and emergency
response provisions. A few commenters
stated that EPCRA already covers the
right-to-know provisions; others stated
that the risk management program
regulations should support existing
EPCRA rules. Three commenters said
that EPA should exempt any source
covered by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) because the
rules under that act already impose
comprehensive risk management
requirements.
As discussed In Section 1ILJ,
emergency response plans developed
under SPCC, OPA-90, or RCRA can be
used to meet the emergency response
requirements of this rule. EPA notes,
however, that SPCC, OPA-90, and UST
rules do not address storage, handling,
and release prevention for regulated
substances. SPCC and OPA-90 rules
apply to oil; UST rules apply to oil and
gasoline. The processes addressed by
these rules, therefore, do not overlap
with the processes covered by today's
rule.
RCRA requirements apply only to
certain activities undertaken at sources
that may be subject to the requirements
of today's final rule. As noted above,
EPA anticipates that emergency
response plans developed under RCRA
can be used to meet the emergency
response requirements of this rule. In
addition, certain training and other
release prevention activities required
under RCRA may satisfy certain of the
prevention program requirements for
Program 2 processes.
4. Other Federal Regulations. A
number of commenters stated that EPA
should not cover outer continental shelf
(DCS) sources because they are
adequately regulated under the Marine
Mineral Service, Pipeline Safety Act.
and OPA-90. The mining Industry said
chat they should not be covered because
their handling of explosives Is regulated
in great detail by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration and the Bureau
of Alcohol. Tobacco, and Firearms. In
its proposed rule (61 FR 16598. April
15. 1996). EPA has proposed to dellst
explosives and proposed a stay of the
affected list provisions; elsewhere in
today's Federal Register. EPA has
stayed Implementation of the affected
provisions until these changes are
finalized. OCS sources are not subject to
part 68 because the connection between
this part and protection of ambient air
quality is too remote; therefore. CAA
section 328 proscribes EPA's
jurisdiction.
5. State and Local Regulations.
Commenters sought clarification of how
risk management programs
implemented under state laws In
Delaware, New jersey, California, and
Nevada would be treated. Some
commenters said sources complying
with these state rules should be
grandfathered into EPA's rule for at least
five years. California commenters asked
that risk management prevention
programs (RMPPs) developed and
submitted under California's rule be
considered In lieu of the required RMP.
Some commenters asked that
documentation created to meet the state
requirements be considered adequate to
meet EPA's program so that additional
documentation need not be created just
to meet slightly different rules. A few
commenters suggested chat EPA should
explicitly preempt any state risk
management program regulations that
are not submitted to and approved by
EPA. Other states said that EPA should
defer to state rules on hydrogen sulfide
and propane.
None of the four state risk
management program rules is Identical
to EPA's or each other. The Delaware,
New jersey, and Nevada programs
closely parallel the OSHA PSM rule; the
California program Is less specific. EPA
expects that sources in compliance with
these state programs will have
completed most of the steps required
under EPA's rule. EPA notes that these
sources are generally also covered by
OSHA PSM and. therefore, should be in
compliance with a significant portion of
EPA's rule.
In relation to the request for
grandfathering. EPA does not have the
authority to grandfather compliance
with programs that the Agency has not
reviewed and approved. EPA expects
that these four states will seek
delegation of the 112(r) program under
CAA section 112(1). At that time. EPA
will review the state programs and
approve them if they are as stringent as
EPA's rule and meet other section 112{1)
requirements. If states are granted
delegation, they will have the authority
to grandfather previous compliance.
Because the CAA specifically grants
states the right to impose more stringent
regulations, EPA cannot preempt state
programs as one commencer requested.
EPA believes that substitution of the
RMPP for the RMP for California
sources is not feasible. The California
RMPPs are voluminous documents,
submitted per process, not per source.
These documents could not be
submitted electronically. Because EPA
is concentrating on submission of data
elements, EPA believes that Its RMP
requirements can be met quickly by any
source that has completed an RMPP.
Completion of the RMP will not impose
a large burden on sources. If the RMPP
has summary sections, these may be
directly transferable for use as the
executive summary.
In regard to other state laws, states
may include them as part of their CAA
section 112(1) submission for EPA's
review and approval. These laws,
however, must be as stringent as EPA's;
that is, they must cover all elements of
the rule with requirements that at least
match EPA's. EPA notes that state
propane laws are generally based on
NFPA-58, which EPA Is using to help
develop its model risk management
program for propane distributors and
users. Therefore, sources in compliance
with NFPA-58 requirements may meet
many of the requirements of Program 2,
as defined in the model.
Q. Industry-Specific Issues
A number of industries submitted
comments on issues that were particular
to them, in many cases seeking
exemption from the rule.
1. Oil and Gas Facilities. Industry
commenters argued that components of
the oil and gas Industries should be
excluded from EPA's risk management
program; in particular, that EPA should
exempt the following operations and
facilities from RMP requirements;
* Atmospheric storage and transfer of
flammable liquids;
» Retail facilities;
« Marketing terminals and bulk
plants;
« Remote, low-risk petroleum
operations;
• Oil and gas exploration, production
and processing facilities;
« Crude oil separation, handling, and
storage operations;
* Subsurface hydrocarbon reservoirs;
* All transportation and facilities
incident to transportation; and
* Outer continental shelf facilities.
Commenters noted that these Industries
and facilities pose a low risk to the
public for a number of reasons.
Significant accidental releases are
highly unlikely because these facilities
handle materials which, given site
conditions, have limited potential for
release to the air or offsite impacts.
Existing regulations reduce the potential
-------
31702 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
for significant accidental release's.
Additionally, commenters argued that
the RMP provisions extend beyond
EPA's statutory authority and run
counter to the Domestic Natural Gas and
Oil Initiative established by President
Clinton.
Commenters stated that most of the
exploration and production facilities are
remotely located and argued that even
the tiering approach that EPA proposed
in the SNPRM did not provide adequate
relief for these sources, which pose
minimal risks. They noted that OSHA
specifically excludes remotely located
sources, retail facilities. DQT-regulated
sources, and atmospheric storage tanks.
A number of commenters said that EPA
had never Included most of these
sources In Its economic analysis,
implying that EPA did not Intend to
cover them in these regulations: they
requested an explicit statement to that
effect. One commenter opposed an
exemption for oil and gas sources and
pipeline and other transportation
companies, arguing that these sources
have some of the most common or worst
accidents.
EPA does not agree that marketing
terminals or bulk plants should be
excluded If there are regulated
substances present above their threshold
quantities. Although EPA did not
specifically exempt gasoline and
naturally occurring hydrocarbons (e-g.,
crude oil), It did not intend to cover
regulated flammables in these mixtures.
In its proposed rule (61 FR 16598, April
15. 1996). EPA has proposed to revise
the criteria for flammable mixtures and
to exclude naturally occurring
hydrocarbons prior to processing at a
gas processing plant or refinery.
Flammable mixtures would be covered
only if they met all of the NFPA-4
criteria. Gasoline and crude oil are
listed with NFPA 3 flammabillty ratings
in NFPA 32S M, Fire Hazard Properties
of Flammable Liquids, Gases, and
Volatile Solids. 1991. Elsewhere In
today's Federal Register, EPA has
stayed Implementation of the risk
management program rule for
substances and processes that would be
affected by the proposed changes. As
EPA explained In the preamble to the
final list rule, the Agency has not
adopted OSHA's exemption for
atmospheric storage of flammables
because, unlike OSHA. EPA has listed
only flammable gases and highly
volatile flammable liquids. EPA
considers these substances to be
intrinsically hazardous, regardless of
storage conditions and, therefore, does
not believe it is appropriate to provide
an exemption for such tanks.
2. Retail Facilities. The rule is
expected to cover a substantial number
of retail facilities, specifically those
handling propane and ammonia as a
fertilizer. Approximately 100
commenters requested that EPA exempt
propane retailers from coverage under
the risk management program, primarily
due to the effectiveness of the existing
regulatory structure for the industry (in
particular, NFPA Standard 58). At the
same time, more than 50 commenters
requested that EPA exempt agricultural
chemical retailers (with inventories of
ammonia fertilizer) from coverage under
the risk management program because
of the existing state and Federal
regulation of these operations.
a. Propane Retailers, Commenters
argued that the primary thrust of the
proposed regulations is to preclude
unwarranted risk to the surrounding
community from an accidental failure of
a storage tank. They stated that the basic
purpose of NFPA 58, the Storage and
Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases,
Is to prevent such releases through
design and engineering. This standard
requlres-fire safety analyses, distance
separation between the storage tank and
surrounding exposures, and approval of
plans for new or existing facilities by
local authorities. They noted that NFPA
58 has been adopted as state law In 48
of the 50 states and that the two
remaining states (California and Texas)
have similar rules. They said that
propane storage containers are
manufactured strictly to the
specifications of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers. According to
commenters, emergency response
planning is already covered by NFPA-
58, OSHA, and DOT. Because of
compliance with this standard and state
law, commenters argued that the rule
would not provide any Improvement in
safety. A number of commenters argued
that propane was a heating fuel, not a
chemical, and did not pose the same
level of risk as larger quantities of
propane held and used as a chemical
feedstock. One commenter noted that
OSHA had exempted retailers and
propane when used as a fuel.
In contrast, one state, which also
regulates propane under Its state risk
management program law, argued that
propane Is not sufficiently regulated. It
stated:
Fire authorities inspect each new
facility before propane is introduced.
They concentrate on adequate fire water
supply, electrical code compliance, and
distance separation requirements. Some
fire authorities are not technically
capable of determining if the facility
piping system compiles with NFPA 58.
There are no follow-up inspections to
assure continuing compliance and no
requirements under NFPA 58 for
training distribution plant operators or
mechanics, written maintenance
programs, or procedures to control
change. During our inspections, we have
identified some facilities that were not
in conformance with NFPA 58.
EPA does not agree with commenters
who are seeking exemption of propane
retailers and users. In a supplemental
notice, EPA sought comment on
whether flammable substances, when
used as a fuel, posed a lesser intrinsic
hazard than the same substances
handled otherwise; no data were
submitted to EPA to justify this
position. Further, EPA has considerable
accident data for propane that Illustrates
Its potential to affect the public located
nearby. As a result, EPA continues to
believe that the hazard posed by
propane is Inherent and does not vary
with Its use. Because of a lack of data
justifying a different level of hazard for
flammables used as fuel, the Agency
will not adopt a fuel use exemption
similar to that provided by OSHA.
Furthermore, EPA notes that many
propane retailers are relatively close to
other commercial buildings and the
community. Should a flre or explosion
occur, the community could be
substantially Impacted. EPA believes
the community and sources need to be
aware of the potential risk and
understand the steps the source is
taking to limit the potential for a release.
Because EPA recognizes that the full
PSM standard is not appropriate for
propane retailers, EPA has assigned
propane retailers and users to Program
2. Compliance with most aspects of
Program 2 should be simple. For
example, use of tanks that meet relevant
ASME standards and retention of the
material safety data sheets required by
OSHA will satisfy the safety information
requirements of § 68.48. Furthermore,
EPA is developing a model risk
management program to help sources
comply. This model is being based on
NFPA-58 standards, where they apply,
so that sources already In compliance
with NFPA-58 will be in substantial
compliance with Program 2. The model
will help sources comply with other
elements in a cost-effective manner.
b. Ammonia Retailers. Ammonia Is
sold as a fertilizer from agricultural
retailers, primarily in the Middle West.
Great Plains, and West. Commenters
stated that the retail fertilizer Industry la
already governed by OSHA's Health and
Safety Standards, which are specifically
applicable to the storage and handling
of anhydrous ammonia. They noted that
this standard (29 CFR 1910.111) is based
on ANSI K61.1 and sets forth extensive
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31703
requirements applicable to the design,
construction. location, installation, and
operation of anhydrous ammonia
facilities. Measures designed to
adequately provide for the prevention of
and response to accidental releases are
an integral part of this standard. Some
commenters said that if EPA did not
exempt retail sources, ammonia retailers
should be deemed to be in compliance
with the prevention program. In
addition, commenters said they are
regulated under state laws and are
subject to EPCRA reporting
requirements. Many commenters argued
that retail fertilizer sources have an
excellent safety record. They stated that
retail fertilizer facilities are limited in
size, do not Involve complex processing
and manufacturing operations, and are
located In rural areas; consequently,
they present a low risk to the
surrounding communities. Commenters
objected to the regulations because they
would impose a substantial burden on
what are small operations. Some
commenters argued that, because
Congress had granted EPA the authority
to exempt ammonia when held by a
farmer for use as a fertilizer, EPA could
grant retail ammonia sources the same
exemption.
Although EPA recognizes that other
regulatory programs address safety for
agricultural retailers and that such
operations do not involve complex
processing or manufacturing, EPA
disagrees with the conclusions of these
commenters. According to the industry,
the typical ammonia retailer has 200
tons of ammonia on site at times. Even
in rural areas, release of even a fraction
of this quantity could affect the
community. Sources constructed and
operated consistent with the relevant
ANSI standard will meet the EPA rule
for subjects addressed by both. EPA
recognizes the OSHA standard for
anhydrous ammonia handling and
hopes to work with the ammonia
industry to develop a model risk
management program for ammonia
retailers. This model would be based on
the OSHA standard, where applicable.
The standard, however, does not
include some elements mandated by the
CAA as part of the prevention program,
specifically training and maintenance
programs. In addition. EPA believes that
there Is a further need to convey
information on hazards and risk
management practices of these
operations to the public and local
entities. The model will provide
guidance to help sources comply with
these elements in a cost-effective
manner. Finally. EPA does not agree
that the Congressionally allowed
exemption of farmers can be extended to
non-farmers. See 136 Cong, Rec. S22S4
(March 7, 1990) (colloquy between Sens.
Kerrey and Chafee).
3. Refrigeration Systems. A number of
commenters stated that ammonia used
in a refrigeration system should be
exempted from this rule because these
systems pose little risk to the public.
One comrnenter said that EPA should
exempt roof-mounted air handlers,
pipes, and components. Some
commenters said that the industry was
already overregulated and the
imposition of this rule would be a
burden.
The CAA requires EPA to impose this
rule on any source with more than a
threshold quantity of a regulated
substance. Therefore, EPA cannot
exempt ammonia refrigeration systems
that contain more than 10,000 pounds of
ammonia. In addition, ammonia
refrigeration plants have had a
substantial number of accidents where
the ammonia has migrated offslte,
indicating that these systems do pose a
risk to the public. At the same time, it
should be noted that all of these
refrigeration systems are already
covered by the OSHA PSM standard.
Consequently, the only additional steps
sources will have to take are to conduct
the hazard assessment, comply with the
emergency response requirements, and
file the RMP. EPA worked with the
International Institute of Ammonia
Refrigeration to develop a model risk
management program that will facilitate
compliance and reduce the burden on
sources (Model Risk Management
Program for Ammonia Refrigeration).
For most of these sources, which have
only one chemical, the RMP will be a
very brief document.
4. Other Operations. Comments were
submitted on a range of other Industries.
The warehouse Industry said that it
should be exempted where material is
received and shipped In packages that
are not opened; commenters noted that
they are covered by DOT packaging
regulations. EPA believes that
warehouses must be covered If they
have more than a threshold quantity of
a regulated substance. Under the OSHA
definition of process, which EPA has
adopted, packages of a substance stored
In the same room may be counted
toward the threshold quantity if the
packages could release their contents In
the same event. EPA notes that
warehouse fires have created major
incidents in the past 10 years, and the
Agency believes that warehouses should
take the steps necessary to prevent and
mitigate such incidents. EPA is
interested in working with the industry
to create a model risk management
program that would help sources
develop a hazard assessment process
that can account for potentially
changing contents of a warehouse.
Batch processors face related
problems with changing chemicals on
site. EPA is willing to work with
industry to develop a generic approach
to risk management programs. EPA
believes, however, that most batch
processors will already be covered by
OSHA PSM. The RMP OfTsite
Consequence Analyses Guidance will
reduce the burden of developing
multiple release scenario analyses. To
minimize the need for continual
revision of their worst-case scenario to
accommodate periodic inventory
changes, sources such as warehouses
and batch processors may want to
analyze their expected chemical
Inventory In developing a scenario that
represents the worst case for the
foreseeable future, even If the substance
is not currently in use at the source.
A number of commenters raised
questions about coverage of POTWs. A
specific concern was EPA's statement in
the NPRM that substances in waste
streams would not be covered by the
rule. This statement Is based on the
belief that the regulated toxic substances
will not constitute more than one
percent of any waste stream received by
a POTW. Consequently, they will not be
considered in calculations of threshold
quantities. No waste stream Is likely to
meet EPA's flammability criteria.
POTWs are likely, however, to be
covered because of regulated substances
they use to treat wastes.
J?. Implementing Agency Delegation
EPA received a number of comments
to the NPRM regarding the role and
potential burden on LIPCs, SERCs, and
other local agencies that may result from
Implementation of the risk management
program. In the SNPRM preamble. EPA
Indicated that EPA and the states share
the responsibility for protecting public
health and the environment and
encouraged state and local agencies to
seek delegation for this program because
their participation is essential to
successful chemical accident
prevention, preparedness and response
and recognized by the legislative history
and the CAA section 112 (r)
requirements by requiring that RMPs be
submitted to states and local planning
entities. States are already involved In
chemical emergency preparedness and
planning through the requirements of
EPCRA.
Commenters on the SNPRM requested
that the final rule clearly state thai EPA
is the implementing agency unless a
state or local agency is granted a
-------
3I7Q4 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
delegation of authority under section
L 12(1). Several commenters Indicated
lhat EPA should allow states the
flexibility to designate the most
appropriate implementing agency, such
as OSHA or the state agency ^hat
administers and enforces the OSHA
PSM standard, rather than mandating
the air permitting authority or a SiRC
agency in the final rule. A number of
commenters on the SNPRM and NPRM
suggested that existing local emergency
planning agencies (e.g., LEPCs, fire
departments) would be best suited to
serve as implementing agencies, in part
because they are closest to the
communities at risk. However, many
commenters (Including LEPCs that
commented) argued that LEPCs would
be unprepared to take on such a burden
and that even a minimal role in
implementing section Il2(r), including
mere storage of RMPs. would
overwhelm their limited resources and
technical expertise. In addition,
commenters indicated that LEPCs, as
mostly volunteer agencies, would not
and could not have the authority
necessary to Implement and enforce the
RMP rule.
The Implementing agency is the state
or local agency that obtains delegation
of the section 112(r) program under
section 112(1). As stated In the
definition of Implementing Agency in
today's rule, until a scale or local agency
is granted delegation of the risk
management program under CAA
section 112(1), EPA will serve as the
implementing agency. States may select
any state or local agency to implement
this program, including an air
permitting authority or a state OSHA
program, provided the agency has the
expertise, legal authority and resources
to Implement the program; the state
must also have the authority to enforce
the program. EPA realizes that, In most
cases, LEPCs will not have the authority
to be implementing agencies, but they
should be involved as much as possible
in the program,
Commenters on the SNPRM suggested
that EPA should avoid adding specific
implementation details to the final rule
so that states would have the flexibility
to develop or continue programs that
meet local needs. Other commenters,
however, suggested that EPA should
issue delegation guidance and to define
the elements of an adequate state
program to avoid inconsistent
interpretations and implementation of
the rule. Commenters representing
companies that operate In several states
were particularly concerned about
maintaining uniform implementation.
EPA has not added specific state or
local implementation requirements to
today's rule because the Agency already
promulgated sufficient provisions for
delegation of accident prevention
programs under section 112(rJ Jo states
and local authorities under 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, which implements CAA
§ 112(1). As EPA discussed in the
SNPRM, implementing agencies will be
responsible for such tasks as reviewing
RMP information, auditing and
Inspecting a percentage of sources
annually, requiring revisions to the RMP
as necessary, and assisting the
permitting authority in ensuring
compliance. States have the flexibility
to implement their own programs,
however the CAA requires that state or
local program requirements must be as
stringent as EPA's and must Include
EPA regulated substances and
processes. This means that California,
Delaware, Nevada, and New Jersey will
need to revise their existing program
requirements, substance lists, and In
some cases, thresholds, to meet EPA's
requirements and to obtain section
112(r) delegation. EPA intends to issue
additional guidance that will help state
and local agencies obtain program
delegation. EPA must review delegation
requests submitted under 40 CFR part
63, subpart 1 to ensure that state and
local programs requirements are as
stringent as EPA's. With respect to
nationwide uniform Implementation,
EPA notes that the CAA specifically
grants states the right to develop more
stringent requirements; consequently,
there may be state-to-state variations.
Many states, however, are prohibited
under their state laws" from adopting
regulations that are more stringent than
Federal rules.
One commenter on the NPRM
indicated that EPA's estimation of the
costs of Implementing the section 112(r)
program is extremely low, representing
demands that are 65 to 75 percent lower
than those experienced by states
implementing similar programs. LEPCs
and state governments were concerned
about the imposition of section 112(r)
requirements on state and local
governments as an unfunded mandate.
Several state agencies indicated that the
considerable financial burden Imposed
by section 112(r) Implementation would
prohibit them from seeking section
1120) delegation. Commenters
encouraged EPA to develop guidance on
potential funding mechanisms,
Including descriptions of the fee
systems used by existing state programs
for accidental release prevention.
Several commenters indicated that the
political climate at the state and local
level would make it impossible to levy
new, or raise existing, fees.
Since states are not required to seek
delegation of this program, it does not
constitute an unfunded mandate (see
also section V.C). Before EPA grants
delegation, state or local agencies must
show that they have the resources to
implement and enforce the risk
management program rules. EPA
recognizes that there is no Federal
funding associated with implementatlo;
of section 112(r) but believes that the
tiered program levels and centralized
electronic submission of RMPs in
today's rule substantially reduces the
cost and resource demand for state and
local entities seeking delegation. State
and local agencies that fully implement
section 112(r) will be able to develop
and operate a program that best fits theL
individual needs, resources, and
structures. As part of consideration of
the costs to implement section 112(r),
state and local agencies should also
weigh the benefits of integrating
accident prevention with pollution
prevention, environmental protection,
and worker and public health and safet)
at the state level, and the benefits to
local Industry associated with state,
rather than Federal, implementation of
this program. Many states and local
agencies have established a close
working relationship with the sources Lr
their Jurisdiction. In addition, a number
of state and local publicly owned
sources are covered by this rule; state
implementation can serve to enhance
compliance that may otherwise require
increased coordination with EPA.
Although other states have successfully
"self-funded" their accident prevention
programs with various state authorized
fees, EPA recognizes that it may be
difficult for state or local agencies to
generate the resources necessary to fund
full section Il2(r) Implementation.
Several commenters on the SNPRM
requested guidance and training for
sources, local entitles, and
Implementing agencies on
understanding hazard assessments, and
conducting program inspections,
reviews, and audits. EPA recognizes the
need for guidance and training for
implementing agencies and sources.
EPA plans to modify and to continue
offering its four-day Chemical Safety
Audit workshop to other federal agency
representatives, state and local
government officials, and industry
representatives as an introduction to
chemical process safety, current
industry chemical accident prevention
practices and understanding the
elements of the risk management
program. EPA is ready to assist state and
local agencies through its regional
offices to coordinate state and local
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31705
programs and to help in obtaining
program delegation and development of
resources to fund stale or local
programs. Region 4 In Atlanta. Georgia,
(or example, has developed an
integrated section U2(r) workgroup of
state and local air pollution control,
SERC, and LEPC representatives who
participate in workshops, seminars, and
pilot studies designed to foster local
program Implementation and to build a
support network. EPA also continues to
work with NOAA to enhance modeling
and information management tools
contained in the Computer Aided
Management of Emergency Operations
(CAMEO) and Areal Locations of
Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA)
software for local emergency planners
and responders.
Two commenters on the NPRM
requested that EPA address the issue of
tort liability in the event that an
accidental release occurs after an RMP
has been submitted to the Implementing
agency. One other eommenier believed
that the implementing agency must be
held accountable for RMP content while
another believed that EPA must ensure
that adequate limits to implementing
agency liability exist.
The primary responsibility for
accident prevention rests with the
owners or operators of sources. Section
112(r) does not create a basis for
implementing agency tort liability under
federal law. CAA § I I2(r)(l). When EPA
is the implementing agency. It is
immune from tort liability under state
law. States that are Implementing
agencies generally will have protection
from liability under their state laws. If
a state has waived its sovereign
immunity, EPA cannot take steps to
alter that situation, EPA encourages
states concerned about this issue to
discuss the matter with their attorneys
general to determine whether state law
protects them from liability.
S. Accident Information Reporting
In the SNPRM. EPA discussed the
possibility of additional accident
reporting to support a variety of future
accident prevention activities. EPA
proposed that sources either submit an
OSHA PSM or Program 3 investigation
report for certain accidental releases or
a survey form that collects certain
accident data. Otherwise EPA could use
existing authorities to collect additional
accident data from existing information,
as needed.
Most commenters opposed EPA's
proposal for additional accident
reporting requirements, especially the
collection of accident investigations
prepared under Program 3 or OSHA
PSM, because It Increases costs, it
would have no benefit, it generates
significant liability issues, and It would
divert limited resources away from
activities with greater public health
benefit. Commenters supported the use
of existing reports since this approach
should not generate an additional
burden, such reports are available
through EPA and OSHA under other
regulations and they should be adequate
for the objectives outlined by EPA.
EPA agrees with commenters and has
decided not to adopt any additional
accident reporting requirements. EPA
will rely on the five-year accident
history for the immediate future and,
based on that information, determine
whether additional information and
requirements are needed. EPA has the
authority under CAA section 114 to
investigate releases and seek additional
information as needed.
T. Other Issues
1. OSHA VPP. In the SNPRM, EPA
asked whether the OSHA Voluntary
Protection Program (VPP) protects
public health and the environment and
suggested that one approach to third
party review (discussed below) would
be to assign sources that participate In
VPP to Program 2. Many commenters
supported VPP participation as a
criterion for assigning a source to
Program 2. Several of these commenters
noted, however, that because VPP
sources are probably already covered by
OSHA PSM, assigning them to Program
2 would provide no reduction In burden
or regulatory relief. One commenter
suggested that EPA could allow VPP
sources the flexibility to determine,
with the LEPC. what the offsite
consequence analysis would cover.
Seven commenters opposed VPP
participation as a Program 2 criterion
because VPP does not address offsite
consequences, no evidence was
presented that PSM Is being carried out
adequately at VPP sources, and this
approach would discriminate against
other voluntary programs.
After consideration of the comments,
EPA has decided not to use VPP
participation as a Program 2 criterion,
but has adopted language in the final
rule to exempt sources with a Star or
Merit ranking under OSHA's VPP from
selection for audits based on the criteria
in § 68.220 (b)(2) and (b){7); such a
source may be audited if it has an
accidental release that requires an
accident investigation under these
regulations. This decision recognizes
that such sources have active accident
prevention programs and should not be
regarded In the same way as other
sources within the same Industry or as
other sources In general. In addition. It
thus provides a similar degree of benefit
wtih respect to EPA auditing as it does
with respect to OSHA auditing. EPA
agrees that VPP sources would gain no
benefit by assignment to Program 2. EPA
does not believe It is appropriate to
adjust the hazard assessment
requirements for VPP sources; this
Information is essential to local
emergency preparedness and response
and for public dialogue.
2. Qualified Third Party. In the
SNPRM, EPA sought comments on
whether sources should be allowed to
have qualified third parties assist them
in achieving and maintaining
compliance. Eight commenters
supported third party reviews as a way
to reduce implementing agency efforts.
One cornmenter stated that sources
should be required to hire a qualified
third party to assess their activities.
Most commenters, however, expressed
some reservations Including greater cost
if sources were required to hire third
parties, when many sources already
have staff qualified to implement the
risk management program. Commenters
said that a third party review would be
particularly costly for retailers who will
have model programs and stated that
use of third parties would add another
layer of bureaucracy to the process. A
number of commenters said that EPA
should fund third parties. Commenters
also stated that use of third parties
might confuse the Issue of who was
responsible for safety and for
enforcement; they said that EPA must
make it clear that the owner or operator
of the source remains responsible for
accidents and that the implementing
agency retains enforcement authority.
Finally, several commenters asked who
would determine the qualifications of a
qualified third party.
EPA Is not requiring use of qualified
third parties In this rule. EPA. hcn»p«vw.
endorses the concept of offering sources
the option of using third parties to assist
owner/operators In meeting their
obligations under the rule. Based on the
comments. EPA recognizes thai any
third party proposal must:
* Not weaken the compliance
responsibilities of source owner/
operators;
* Offer cost savings and benefits ID the
industry, community, and
implementing agencies that signifkmly
exceed the cost of Implementing th*
qualified third parry approach:
* Lead to a net increase In proceo
safety, particularly for smaller, tess
technically sophisticated sources; end
* Promote cost-effective agency
prioritization of implementing agency
oversight resources.
-------
31706 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Several key Issues need further
discussion before the use of a qualified
third party may be offered as an option.
These Include qualification criteria,
certification procedures, liability, and
other critical issues associate^, with the
use of a qualified third party. Therefore,
following promulgation of this rule,
EPA proposes to call a meeting to solicit
Input from trade associations,
professional and technical societies.
states, and other Interested parties to
address these issues and Investigate the
need for developing a process and a
national exam to qualify third parties,
3, Documentation. Commenters
expressed a number of concerns about
the level of recordkeeping and the
availability of information. Some
commenters stated that records need to
be maintained for longer than five years;
commenters suggested 10 years, 20
years, and the life of the source. One
commemer suggested that records
should be kept for the life of the process
and then seven years thereafter to
ensure that records would be available
if a lawsuit was initiated. Industry
commenters said that only current
documents and data, should be
maintained to prevent confusion from
having multiple versions of the same
document One commenter stated that
policies and procedures should be kept
until they are superseded, then they
should be destroyed; retaining old,
superseded Information is unsafe and
unacceptable and can result in
accidents.
One commenter said that sources
should be required to develop and
maintain a master index or catalogue of
documents relevant to the proposed rule
to support public access. Another
commenter stated that, in addition to
maintaining records supporting the
Implementation of the risk management
program, the owner or operator should
submit the records to ihe Implementing
agency. A third commenter said that the
rule should require that all records
supporting compliance with the rule be
organized and readily available through
the designated contact person at the
source to the implementing agency for
inspection.
Other commenters said the proposed
recordkeeping was excessive. One stated
that EPA Is forcing industries towards
"defensive universal recordkeeping,"
retaining mountains of documents
because EPA has not specified what
records need to be kept. Another
commenter said that an examination of
the proposal Indicated that no fewer
than about 22 separate written
documents are required to be
maintained on site or submitted to the
responsible regulatory agency and other
parties. One commenter noted that more
resources will be spent on filling out
paperwork than on actual spill
prevention.
In the final rule. EPA has adopted the
OSHA PSM language for Program 3
processes; therefore, documentation for
PSM elements Is dictated by that rule.
For other elements of the risk
management program and for processes
in other tiers, EPA has set a period of
five years for the maintenance of
supporting documentation. EPA agrees
with commenters that only current
versions of documents and procedures
should be retained. On the issue of
records submitted to the implementing
agency. EPA believes that the provisions
outlined in the final rule (as described
in Subpart G to part 68) will limit the
volume of such documentation. The
TABLE 3.—DISTRIBUTION TABLE
implementing agency and EPA will
have access to all on-site documentation
when needed. Much of the on-slte
documentation will be confidential and
protected under Section 114(c) of the
CAA. The burden on the Implementing
agency will be substantially reduced
because it will not have to establish
protected trade secret files and
procedures.
Finally. EPA agrees with commenters
that level of recordkeeping should be
kept as low as possible consistent with
EPA's statutory mandate. EPA has
reduced the documentation
requirements for Program 2 processes
(particularly with respect to the
prevention program) because it believes
that for these sources, the benefit of the
records does not offset the cost of
creating and maintaining files,
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the
Rule
This section discusses specific
changes to the rule that are not
otherwise described In this preamble.
The rule has been renumbered to
include new sections and subpam. The
hazard assessment requirements h*ve
been divided into separate sections in
subpart B. The Program 2 prevention
program requirements are in subpart C;
Program 3 prevention program elements
are in Subpart D. Emergency response
requirements are in subpart E, RMP
requirements in subpart G. The
registration requirement, proposed
§ 68.12, has been moved to the RMP
subpart Tables 3 and 4 present the
distribution of NPRM and SNPRM
sections and derivation of final rule
sections.
NPRM and SNPRM citations
Final rule citations
68.3 Deftnfflons ,
68.10 Applicability
68,12 Registration
68.13 No impact Sources (Tier 1)
68.14
68.15
68.20
68,22
68.24
68.26
68.28
68.30
60.32
68.34
8«.3i
68.38
Streamlined Risk Management Program (Tier 2)
Hazard Assessment ..
Prevention Program—Purpose ...
Prevention Program—Management System
Prevention Program—Process Hazard Analysis
Prevention Program—Process Safety ,
Prevention Program—Standard Operating Procedures
Prevention Program—Training
Prevention Program—Maintenance (mechanical integrity)
Prevention Program—Pre-Startup Bedew
Prevention Program—Management of Change
Prevention Program—Safety Audits
68.40 Prevention Program—Accioent Investigation
68.45 Emergency Response Program
68.3 Definitions.
68,10 Applicability.
€8.160 Registration.
68.10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31707
TABLE 3.—DISTRIBUTION TABLE—Continued
NPRM and SNPRM citations
Final rule citations
68,50 Risk Management Plan ,
88.55 Recordkeeping Requirements
63.58 Permit Content and Air Permitting Authority Requirements
68,60 Audits
Subpart G Risk Management Plan (68.150-68.190).
€8,200 Recordkeeping.
68.215 Permit Content and Air Permitting Authority or Designated
Agency Requirements.
68.220 Audits.
TABLE 4.—DERIVATION TABLE
Final rule citations
NPRM and SNPRM oil at tons
Assess-
68.3 Definitions
68.10 Applicability
68.12 General Requirements
68.15 Management
68-20 Applicability (Hazard Assessment)
68.22 Olfsite Consequence Analysis Parameters (Hazard
menl).
68.25 Worst-Case Release Analysis (Hazard Assessment)
68.28 Alternative Release Analysis (Hazard Assessment)
68.30 Defining Ottsiie Impacts—Population (Hazard Assessment) ..
68.33 Defining Off site Impacts—Environment (Hazard Assessment)
6S.38 Review and Update (Hazard Assessment)
68.39 Documentation (Hazard Assessment)
68.42 Five-year Accident History (Hazard Assessment)
68.48 Safety Information (Program 2)
€8.50 Hazard Review (Program 2)
68.52 Operating Procedures (Program 2)
68.54 Training (Program 2) ,
68.56 Maintenance (Program 2)
63.58
68.60
68.65
68.67
68.69
68.71
68.73
68.75
68.77
68.79
68.81
68.83
68.85
68.87
68.90
68.95
68.150
68.155
68.160
68.165
68.168
§8.170
68.175
68.180
68.185
Compliance Audits (Program 2)
Incident Investigation (Program 2) .........
Process Safety Information (Program 3)
Process Hazard Analysis (Program 3)
Operating Procedures (Program 3)
Training (Program 3)
Mechanical Integrity (Program 3)
Management of Change (Program 3)
Pre-Startup Review (Program 3) ,
Compliance Audits (Program 3)
Accident Investigation (Program 3)
Employee Participation (Program 3)
Hoi Work Permil (Program 3) ...
Contractors (Program 3)
Applicability (Emergency Response) ,
Emergency Response Program
Submission (Risk Management Plan)
Executive Summary (Risk Management Plan)
Registration (Risk Management Plan) ...
Oflsite Consequence Analysis (Risk Management Plan) ...
Five-Year Accident History (Risk Management Plan) ,
Prevention Program/Program 2 (Risk Management Plan)
Prevention Program/Program 3 (Risk Management Plan)
Emergency Response Program (Risk Management Plan)
Certification (Risk Management Plan)
68.190 Updates (Risk Management Plan)
68.200 Recordkeeping _
68.210 Availability of Information lo the Pubic t
68.215 Permit Content and Air Permitting Authority or Designated
Agency Requirements.
68.220 Audits ,
Appendix A—Table ol Toxfe Endpoints ,
€8,3 Definitions.
63.10 Applicability, SNPRM 68.13.
SNPRM 68.13,68.14.
68,22 Prevention Program—Management.
69.10 Applicability.
68.15(6) Hazard Assessment.
68.15(c) Hazard Assessment.
63,15(d) Hazard Assessment.
6a.l5(e)(3) Hazard Assessment.
68,i5(e)(4) Hazard Assessment.
68.15(8) Hazard Assessment.
68.i5(h) Hazard Assessment.
68.15(0 Hazard Assessment.
60.140) Streamlined Risk Management Program (Tier 2); 68,26 Proc-
ess Safety Information.
68.14(b) Streamlined Risk Management Program (Tier 2); 68.24 PHA.
68.14(b) Streamlined Risk Management Program (Tier 2); 68.28 SOPs.
68.14(b) Streamlined Risk Management Program (Tier 2}; 68.30 Train-
ing.
68.14(b) Streamlined Risk Management Program (Tier 2); 88.32 Main-
tenance.
68.38 Prevention Program—Safety Audits.
68.40 Prevention Program—Incident Investigation.
68.28 Prevention Program—Process Safely.
68.24 Prevention Program—Process Hazard Analysis.
68.28 Prevention Program—Standard Operating Procedures.
68.30 Prevention Program—Training.
68.32 Prevention Program—Maintenance (mechanical Integrity}.
68.36 Prevention Program—Management of Change.
68.34 Prevention Program—Pre-Startup Review.
68.38 Prevention Program—Safety Audits.
68.40 Prevention Program—Accident Investigation.
68.2
-------
31708 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
by the Center for Chemical Process
Safety (CCPS).
The definition of analysis of offslte
consequences has been deleted,
A definition of catastrophic release
has been added that Is adapted from
OSHA's definition of catastrophic
release (29 CFR 1910.119): OSHA's
language on danger to employees In the
workplace has been changed to
imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health and the environment
A definition of classified information
has been added. The definition is
adopted from the Classified Information
Procedures Act.
The proposed definition of covered
process Is unchanged.
The proposed definition of designated
agency has been revised to Indicate that
the state, not the state air permitting
authority, shall select an agency to
conduct activities required by § 68,215.
As discussed above, a definition of
environmental receptor has been added
10 list the receptors of concern.
The definition of full-time employee
has been deleted.
A definition of hot work has been
adopted verbatim from the OSHA PSM
standard.
The definition of implementing
agency is adopted as proposed In the
SNPRM,
A definition of Injury has been added.
A definition of major change has been
added to clarify the types of changes
that necessitate actions to manage
change. The definition will help sources
understand when they are required to
take steps to review their activities for
new hazards.
A definition of mechanical integrity
has been added to clarify the
requirements of maintenance sections.
A definition of medical treatment has
been added to clarify what constitutes
an Injury. The definition Is adapted
from an OSHA definition used by
sources in logging occupational injuries
and illnesses.
The proposed definition of mitigation
has been changed by adding a definition
of active mitigation.
A definition of offsUe has been
changed to clarify that areas within the
source would be considered offsite if the
public has routine and unrestricted
access during or outside of business
hours. Areas within a source's
boundaries that may be considered
offsite are public roads that pass
through sections of the site and natural
areas owned by the source to which the
public has unrestricted access. For some
sites, parking lots within the boundary
may be offsite if the source cannot
restrict access.
A definition of population has been
added. Population is defined as the
public.
A definition of public has been added
to state that all persons except
employees and contractors at the
stationary source are members of the
public. A number of commenters stated
that employees at other facilities should
not be considered part of the public.
EPA disagrees because these employees
may not be trained in protective actions
or have protective equipment
appropriate for releases from covered
processes.
A definition of public receptor has
been added. Some commenters stated
that EPA should Include public roads
within this definition. EPA decided that
Inclusion of public roads was
unwarranted. EPA recognizes that
people on public roads may be exposed
during a release. In most cases,
however, vehicles on public roads will
be able to leave the area quickly and
further access can be blocked, especially
in isolated areas. If public roads were
included, almost no sources would be
eligible for Program I because there will
be public roads leading to the source. In
those cases where public roads are
heavily traveled, there wUl be other
public receptors near the source and,
therefore, the source's processes will not
qualify for Program 1.
OSHA's definition of replacement In
kind has been adopted.
The definition of significant
accidental release has been deleted.
A definition of typical meteorological
conditions has been added which means
the temperature, wind speed, cloud
cover, and atmospheric stability class
prevailing at the source. Data on the first
three of these are available from local
meteorological stations (e.g., airports).
Atmospheric stability class can be
derived from cloud cover data.
The definition of worst-case release
has been revised to clarify that the
release is the one that leads to the
greatest distance to the applicable
endpoim.
Section 68.10. Applicability, has been
revised to change the term "tier" to
"Program." The section now details the
eligibility criteria for all three programs.
Paragraph (a) has been revised to be
consistent with statutory language on
compliance dates. Sources must comply
with the requirements by June 21, 19i9,
three years after EPA first lists a
substance, or the date on which a source
first becomes subject to this part
whichever is latest. After June 21. 1999,
sources that begin using a regulated
substance that has been listed for at
least three years must be in compliance
with the requirements of part 68 on the
day they bring the substance on site
above a threshold quantity.
The Program 1 eligibility
requirements have been revised to
clarify that the criteria are applied to a
process, not the source as a whole, as
discussed above. EPA has deleted
requirements for explosives because the
Agency is proposing to del 1st
explosives. The types of accidents that
will disqualify a process from Program
1 are now specified in the rule as those
accidental releases of a regulated
substance that led to offsite exposure to
the substance, its reaction products,
overpressure generated by an explosion
Involving the substance, or radiant heat
generated by a fire involving the
substance which resulted in offsite
death or injury (as defined by the rule),
or response or restoration activities at an
environmental receptor. These
accidental release criteria eliminate the
need for a definition of significant
accidental release, which has been
deleted. Offsite environmental response
or restoration would include such
activities as collection, treatment and
disposal of soil, shutoff of drinking
water, replacement of damaged
vegetation, or isolation of a natural areas
due to contamination associated with an
accidental release. The distance
calculation equation for flammables has
been dropped, and the worst-case
release endpolnt for flammables is
specified which allows the source to use
the reference tables or their own
methodology to determine the distance
to the endpoint. The requirement that
the community have an EPCRA
emergency response plan has been
replaced by a requirement that the
source coordinate emergency response
procedures with local community
respondent
As discussed above, the eligibility
criteria for Program 2 and 3 have been
changed. Both apply to processes, not
sources.
Paragraph (e) states that if a process
no longer meets the eligibility criteria of
its Program level, the source must
comply with the requirements of the
new Program level and the update the
RMP according to §68.190. This
paragraph clarifies the responsibility of
the source when a process becomes
ineligible fora Program level (e.g.,
public receptors move within the
distance to an endpolnt for a Program 1
process or OSHA changes the
applicability of Its PSM standard).
Proposed §68.12, Registration, has
been dropped. Registration
requirements are now part of the RMP
requirements in subpart G, §68.160.
New §68.12, General Requirement!,
has been added to provide a roadmap
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31709
for sources to use to Identify the
requirements that apply to processes in
each of the three tiers. The Program I
requirements, in proposed §68.13. have
been Included In this section. Owners or
operators of Program 1 processes are
required to analyze and document In the
RMP the worst-case release to ensure
that they meet the eligibility criteria of
no public receptors within the distance
to the endpolnt. As discussed above, the
requirement to post signs has been
dropped. The certification statement has
been revised to be consistent with the
eligibility requirements. If a source has
more than one Program 1 process, a
single certification may be submitted to
cover all such processes.
The Program 2 requirements specify
the sections of the rule that apply to
these processes.
The Program 3 requirements specify
the sections of the rule that apply to
these processes.
Proposed § 68.22, Management, has
been moved from the prevention
program to § 88.15 in subpart A-General.
The section has been adopted as
proposed except that the purpose
sentence in paragraph (a) has been
dropped and a phrase at the beginning
of paragraph (b) has been deleted as
unnecessary.
A new subpart B has been created to
cover the hazard assessment
requirements. The proposed §68.15 has
been divided into separate sections to
cover the parameters, the different types
of analyses, the identification of offsite
populations and environments,
documentation and updates, and the
five-year accident history. EPA believes
that limiting each section to a single
topic will make the rule easier to
understand.
Section 68.20 has been added to
specify which hazard assessment
requirements apply to Program 1, 2. and
3 processes. All sources are required to
complete a worst-case release analysis
for regulated substances In covered
processes, based on the requirements of
§ 68.25. Program 2 and 3 processes must
also perform alternative release analyses
required by §68.28. All sources must
complete the five-year accident history
for ail covered processes.
A new § 68.22 has been added to list
the parameters to be used In the offsite
consequence analyses. Owners or
operators who choose to use their own
air dispersion modeling tools must use
the parameters specified In paragraphs
(a), (e). (0, and (g) of this section; they
must use the meteorological parameters
specified in paragraph (b) of this section
unless they can demonstrate that the
conditions do not exist at their site.
Paragraph (c) specifies the ambient
temperature and humidity for worst
case (highest daily,maximum over the
previous three years and average
humidity); If a source uses the guidance.
It may use average temperature and
humidity (25" C and 50 percent) as
default values. EPA recognizes that
these values are less conservative than
the worst-case meteorological
conditions, but determined that they
represent a reasonable average to be
used for developing tables. Providing
tables for a variety of temperatures and
humidity would have made the
guidance much more voluminous and
difficult to use. EPA is requiring sources
that use dispersion models instead of
the guidance to use actual temperature
and humidity data applicable to the site.
EPA believes this approach represents a
reasonable tradeoff. The guidance
generates conservative results even with
the less conservative assumptions about
temperature and humidity; air
dispersion modeling will generally
produce less conservative results and.
therefore, should be based on actual
data for these variables. Average data
applicable to the source may be used for
alternative scenarios. Paragraph (d)
requires that the release height for
worst-case be at ground level (zero feet).
Paragraph (e) specifies that urban or
rural topography be used as appropriate
In modeling. Paragraph (f) requires
sources to use models or tables
appropriate for the density of the
substance being released (e.g., dense
gases must be modeled using tables or
models that account for the behavior of
dense gases). Dense gases are typically
those fiat are heavier than air as well as
those that form aerosols and behave as
if they are heavier than air upon release.
For worst-case releases, liquids (other
than gases liquefied by refrigeration
only) shall be considered to be released
at the highest daily maximum
temperature or at process temperature,
whichever Is higher. For alternative
scenarios, substances may be considered
to be released at ambient or process
temperatures as appropriate. Owners or
operators may choose to use EPA's RMP
Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance
for their offsite consequence analyses.
All of the parameters specified here are
reflected in this guidance.
A new §68.25 has been added on the
worst-case release analysis. As
discussed above, th« section requires
one worst-case release for toxics and
one for flammables. If additional
scenarios, for either class of substances,
would potentially expose receptors not
exposed by the worst-case release, the
additional scenario shall be analyzed
and reported. This provision is to take
into account the possibility that at large
sources, vessels at opposite ends of the
source may expose different
populations.
The section specifies how maximum
quantity In a vessel or pipe Is to be
determined, the scenarios to be
considered for toxic gases, toxic gases
liquefied by refrigeration only, toxic
liquids, and flammables, the parameters
to be used, consideration of passive
mitigation, and factors to be considered
In selecting the worst-case scenario. The
section also specifies that sources may
use proprietary models If the source
provides the implementing agency
access to the model and explains
differences between the model and
publicly available models. If requested.
This approach will allow sources to use
the most appropriate models available,
while preserving the transparency of the
results.
A new §68.28 has been added on
alternative release scenario analysis. As
discussed above, the section requires
one alternative release analysis for all
flammables held above the threshold In
processes at the source and one
alternative release analysis for each
toxic held above the threshold in
processes. For each scenario, the owner
or operator shall select a scenario that
is more likely to occur than the worst
case; and that will reach an endpoint
offsite, unless no such scenario exists.
The section Includes a list of scenarios
that owners/operators may want to
consider, but does not dictate a
particular scenario. EPA has provided
additional direction and suggestions for
defining these scenarios in the RMP
Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance.
As noted above, the section references
the parameters to be used and allows
consideration of both passive and active
mitigation systems. The section
specifies factors to be considered in
selecting alternative scenarios;
specifically, sources shall consider
releases that have been documented in
the five-year accident history; or failure
scenarios Identified through the PHA or
hazard review.
A new §68.30 has been added on
defining offsite Impacts—population.
The section specifies that populations
are to be defined for a circle with a
radius that Is the distance to the
endpoint. Owners or operators are
required only to estimate die residential
population within the circle to two
significant digits and may use Census
data to make these estimates. Owners or
operators are also required to note, in
the RMP, the presence of any major
Institutions, such as schools, hospitals,
prisons, public recreational areas.
arenas, and major commercial and
-------
3I71Q Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
industrial developments, but they are
not required to estimate the number of
people present at such sites. These
additional locations are chose chat
would normally be shown on area street
maps.
A new § 68.33 has been added on
defining offsite impacts to the
environment. As discussed above, the
owners or operators are required only to
identify any environmental receptors
within the circle with a radius
determined by the distance to the
endpomt. The owners or operators are
not required to assess the potential
types or degree of damage that might
occur from a release of the substance.
The environmental receptors are those
that can be identified on U.S. Geological
Survey local topographical maps or
maps based on U.S.G.S. data.
A new § 68.36 has been added to list
the requirements for reviewing and
updating the offsite consequence
analysis. As proposed, if no changes
occur at the site, the analyses must be
reviewed and updated at least once
every five years. If changes at the site
occur that would reasonably be
expected either to increase or decrease
the distance to the endpoint by a factor
of two or more, owners/operators are
required to update the offsite
consequence analysis within six
months. The time for the reanalysis has
been changed to six months to make It
consistent with the update requirements
for the RMP. The proposed requirement
for reviewing the analyses based on
offsite changes has been deleted. A
number of commenters objected to the
requirement because it would have
compelled them to track changes over
very large areas. Because the distance to
the endpolnts, especially for toxics, may
be as much as 40 km, the area affected
could easily exceed 1,000 square miles.
EPA agreed with commenters that there
was little benefit from requiring sources
to track offsite changes and redo
analyses because the public Is aware of
the changes.
A new § 68.39 has been added to list
the documentation related to the offsite
consequence analyses that must be
retained on site. For both types of
scenarios, the documentation shall
include a description of the scenarios
identified, assumptions and parameters
used, the rationale for the selection of
specific scenarios; assumptions shall
include use of mitigation and any
administrative controls that were
assumed to limit the quantity that could
be released. Documentation shall
include the effect of the mitigation and
controls on the release quantity. The
documentation shall also include the
estimated quantities released, release
rates, and durations of release. The
owners or operators shall also identify
the methodology used to determine
distance to endpoints (i.e., EPA's
guidance or an air dispersion model)
and the data used to estimate
population and environmental receptors
potentially affecied. EPA has deleted the
proposed requirement for
documentation of endpoints because
these are now dictated by the rule. EPA
has also dropped the requirement for
documentation of distance calculations;
distances will either be determined from
EPA's reference tables or by an air
dispersion model.
A new §68.42 has been added to
detail the requirements for the five-year
accident history. As discussed above,
the accident history is limited to
accidental releases of listed substances
from covered processes only. The only
accidental releases that must be
Included in the history are those that
resulted In deaths. Injuries, or
significant property damage on site, or
known offsite deaths, Injuries,
evacuations, sheltering In place,
property damage, or environmental
damage. Although language related to
the types of environmental damage
listed in the proposed rule has been
dropped. EPA Intends that
environmental damage not be limited to
environmental receptors; events where
any known environmental impact of any
kind (e.g., fish or animal kills, lawn,
shrub, or crop damage), should be
included in the history.
The data required on each accident
Include date, time, and approximate
duration of the release: chemical (s)
released; estimated quantity in pounds;
the type of release event and Its source:
weather conditions (if known); on-site
impacts and known offsite Impacts: the
initiating event and contributing factors
(If known); whether offsite responders
were notified (If known); and
operational or process changes that
resulted from the release. Estimates may
be provided to two significant digits.
EPA expects that for accidents that
occur after the publication of this rule,
sources will be able to document
weather conditions, Initiating events
and contributing factors, and
notification of offsite responders as
these items would be part of the
incident investigation. The Agency
recognizes, however, thai for Incidents
that occur before the rule Is final,
sources may not have inks information
unless OSHA PSM already would
require the source Co gather such
information (e.g., initiating event and
contributing factors). EPA has dropped
the requirement that the concentration
of the released substance be reported.
Concentration at the point of release is
assumed to be 100 percent except for
substances in solution, where the
concentration at the point of release Is
assumed to be the percentage of the
solution as held or processed. The data
provided will allow the source or the
public to estimate the concentration
offsite.
Because the five-year accident history
will Initially cover releases that
occurred before this rule is
promulgated. EPA Is requiring reports
on weather conditions only If the source
has a record. For future releases, EPA
encourages the owners or operators keep
a record of wind speed and temperature
if possible as these conditions have a
significant impact on the migration of a
release offsite. The rule specifies that
the source must document known
offsite impacts. The source is not
required to conduct research on this
subject, but must report impacts of
which it is aware through direct
reporting to the source or claims filed,
or reasonably should have been aware of
from publicly available information.
The source is not required to verify the
accuracy of public or media reports.
A new subpart C has been created to
Include the requirements of the
prevention program for Program 2
processes.
New § 68.48 details the safety
Information that sources will be
required to develop. The information Is
a subset of the information required
under the OSHA rule and is limited to
those Items that are likely to apply to
Program 2 processes: MSDSs, maximum
intended inventory, safe upper and
lower process parameters, equipment
specifications, and the codes and
standards used to design, build, and
operate the process. Because Program 2
processes are generally simple, EPA
determined that items such as process
chemistry, process flow diagrams,
detailed drawings on equipment, and
material and energy balances are not
necessary for these processes.
Evaluation of consequences of
deviations will be handled under the
process review and the offsite
consequence analysis.
Paragraph (b) of §68.48 requires
owners or operators to ensure that the
process is designed in compliance with
good engineering practices. The
paragraph states that compliance with
Federal or state regulations that address
industry-specific safe design or with
industry-specific design codes may be
used to demonstrate compliance.
NFPA-58 for propane handlers and
OSHA's rule for ammonia handling (29
CFR 1910.111) are examples of such
design codes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No, 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31711
The final paragraph of § 68.48
requires owners or operators to update
the safety Information if a major change
makes It inaccurate.
New § 68.50 sets the requirements for
a hazard review. The section lists the
hazards and safeguards that trie owners
or operators must Identify and review.
The section states that owners or
operators may use checklists, such as
those provided in model risk
management programs, to conduct the
review. For processes that are designed
to industry standards (e.g., NFPA-58) or
Federal/state design rules, owners or
operators need only check their
equipment closely to ensure that It has
been fabricated and Installed according
to the standards or rules and is being
operated appropriately. In this case, the
standard or rule-setting body has, in
essence, conducted the hazard review
and designed the equipment to reduce
hazards. Like the PHA required under
PSKf, the hazard review must be
documented and the findings resolved.
The review must be updated at least
once every five years or when a major
change occurs. A streamlined version of
the PHA requirement, the review
recognizes that for simple processes
some of the OSHA requirements, such
as the requirement for a team and a
person trained In the technique, may
not be necessary. Most Program 2
processes will have model risk
management programs that will assist
owners or operators In conducting the
review.
New §68.52 covers operating
procedures. The section allows owners
or operators to use standardized
procedures developed by industry
groups or provided in model risk
management programs as a basis for the
SOPs. Owners or operators will need to
review standardized SOPs to ensure that
they are appropriate for their operations;
some may need to be tailored. The steps
covered in the SOP are adapted from the
OSHA PSM standard. Certain elements
of the PSM requirement (e.g.. safety and
health consideration) were dropped
because they are generally covered In
training provided under the OSHA
hazard communication standard. Other
elements were not Included because
they are covered by other OSHA rules
or may not apply to the kinds of sources
in Program 2. The section requires that
the SOPs be updated whenever
necessary.
New § 88.54 covers training and Is a
streamlined version of the OSHA PSM
requirement. The primary difference
with the OSHA PSM training element is
that the documentation requirements
have been dropped. EPA believes that
for Program 2 sources, which generally
will have simple processes and few
employees involved In the process, the
level of documentation required by
OSHA PSM is not needed. The section
specifically states that training
conducted to comply with other Federal
or state rules or industry codes may be
used to demonstrate compliance with
the section if the training covers the
SOPs for the process. Workers must be
retrained when SOPs change as a result
of a major change.
New § 68.56 covers maintenance and
requires owners or operators to prepare
and implement procedures for
maintenance and train workers in these
procedures. The owners or operators are
also required to inspect and test process
equipment consistent with good
engineering practices. The OSHA list of
equipment has been dropped because it
seemed too detailed for the simpler
Program 2 processes. Similarly, the
OSHA PSM requirements for
documentation, equipment deficiencies,
and quality assurance seem too
burdensome given the type of processes
in Program 2. EPA emphasizes that
sources should address equipment
deficiencies when they arise.
New §§68,58 and 68.60 on
compliance audits and accident
Investigation are adopted directly from
the OSHA PSM standard. EPA believes
that these two elements are critical to
good prevention practices and that no
changes are needed from the OSHA
requirements. EPA has added a
provision to clearly indicate that audit
reports more than five-years old need
not be retained.
The Program 3 prevention program Is
codified in new subpart D. As explained
above, the subpart adopts the OSHA
PSM standard with only minor editorial
changes necessitated by the different
statutory authorities of the two agencies.
Throughout the subpart. "employer"
has been changed to "owner or
operator." "facility" to "stationary
source," and "highly hazardous
chemical" to "regulated substance."
EPA has reordered the elements
somewhat so that the order reflects the
progression in which sources will
generally Implement the program. For
example, process safety Information,
which is needed for the PHA, now
precedes thai section. Pre-startup
review, which is the last step of
management of change procedures, now
follows management of change. The
reordering does not reflect any change
In the content.
Section 68.65, process safety
Information, is adopted directly from
OSHA. The only changes are the
following: references to other
requirements have been changed to
reflect the appropriate EPA section
numbers; the phrase "highly hazardous
chemical" has been changed to
"regulated substance"; the word
"standard" has been changed to "rule"
in paragraph (a); and the date when
material and energy balances are needed
for new processes has been changed to
June 21, 1999. The words "Including
those affecting the safety and health of
employees" has been deleted from the
requirement for the evaluation of the
consequences of deviations (paragraph
(c)(l)(v)3 because EPA has no authority
to regulate the workplace. Further, EPA
believes this change reflects EPA's
desire that sources implement one
prevention program that protects the
safety and health of workers, the public
and the environment and should have
no effect on sources already complying
with the OSHA PSM rule.
Section 68.67, process hazard
analysis, has been adopted from the
OSHA rule with a few changes. The
OSHA schedule for completion of PHAs
has been replaced with the compliance
date of this rule; a new sentence has
been added to state that PHAs
conducted to comply with OSHA PSM
are acceptable as die Initial PHA under
this rule. These PHAs shall be updated
and re validated based on their OSHA
completion date. This provision will
ensure that sources do not need to
duplicate PHAs already completed or
change their update schedule.
In paragraph (c)(2). the phrase "In the
workplace" has been deleted from the
requirement to identify previous
incidents with the potential for
catastrophic consequences because EPA
does not have the authority to regulate
the work place. EPA believes that this
change will have no effect on the rule;
any incident with the potential for
catastrophic consequences in the
workplace will also have had the
potential for catastrophic consequences
offsite. Similarly, the phrase "on
employees in the workplace" has been
deleted from paragraph (c){7), which
requires a qualitative evaluation of a
range of the possible safety and health
effects of failure of controls. By deleting
the language, rather than changing It,
EPA Is consistent with its authority
without Imposing any new requirements
on sources. A new sentence has been
added to paragraph (I) to state that PHAs
updated and invalidated under the
OSHA rule are acceptable for EPA's
purposes. Throughout this section.
internal references have been changed.
To maintain consistency with OSHA
PSM. proposed paragraph (j), which
would have required the evaluation of
mitigation and detection systems, has
been dropped, as have proposed
-------
31712 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 /joules and Regulations
references to offsite consequences and
pubJic health and the environment
Evaluation of mitigation and. detection
systems is normally part of the PHA
process and of management's decisions
on implementing recommendations and.
therefore, EPA decided that a separate
requirement was not needed. EPA will
collect information on monitoring,
detection, and mitigation systems used
in each Program 2 and 3 process as part
of the RMP. Proposed paragraph {a),
which was advisory, has been dropped.
Section 68.69, Operating Procedures.
has been adopted verbatim from OSHA
except for changing "employer" to
"owner or operator." Proposed
paragraph (a) has been deleted to ensure
consistency with OSHA.
Section 68.71. Training, has been
adopted verbatim from OSHA except for
changing "employer" to "owner or
operator" and changes in referenced
sections. Proposed paragraph (a) has
been deleted to ensure consistency with
OSHA, as has proposed paragraph (e).
Section 68.73, Mechanical Integrity
proposed as Maintenance, has been
adopted verbatim from OSHA except for
changing "employer" to "owner or
operator." Proposed paragraph (a) has
been deleted to ensure consistency with
OSHA. The proposed requirements to
develop a critical equipment list,
document training, and "maintain" as
well as inspect and test under paragraph
(d) have been dropped to ensure
consistency with OSHA.
Section 68.75, Management of
Change, has been adopted verbatim
from OSHA except for changing
"employer" to "owner or operator" and
changes to referenced sections.
Proposed paragraph (a) has been deleted
to ensure consistency with OSHA.
EPA's proposed paragraph (b), which
defined changes not covered by the
section, has also been dropped In favor
of OSHA's definition of "replacement in
kind."
Section 68.77, Pre-Startup Review,
has been adopted verbatim from OSHA
except for changing "employer" to
"owner or operator" and changes to
referenced sections. Proposed paragraph
(a) and the reference to emergency
response training in proposed paragraph
(c) (4) have been deleted to ensure
consistency with OSHA.
Section 68.79. Compliance Audits,
has been adopted verbatim from OSHA
except for changing "employer" to
"owner or operator" and changes to
referenced sections. Proposed paragraph
(a) has been deleted to ensure
consistency with OSHA.
Section 63.81, Accident Investigation,
has been adopted verbatim from OSHA
except for changing "employer" to
"owner or operator" and "highly
hazardous chemical" to "regulated
substance" and changes to referenced
sections. Proposed paragraphs (a) and
(b), the latter of which would have
required written procedures, have been
deleted to ensure consistency with
OSHA. References to significant
accidental release have been dropped
because the phrase is no longer used.
Although EPA has adopted OSHA's
language, EPA has changed the
definition of catastrophic release.
Consequently, this section requires
owners or operators to investigate
accidents that resulted in or could
reasonably have resulted in a release
that presented serious danger to public
health or the environment. EPA does
not believe that, except in isolated
cases, the modification to this provision
will require sources to investigate
accidents that they would not
investigate under the OSHA rule.
Section 68.83, Employee
Participation, has been adopted
verbatim from OSHA except for
changing "employer" to "owner or
operator." Although EPA did not
propose adopting this section, the
Agency solicited comments on this
Issue, and commemers convinced the
Agency that employee participation is
an Important component of a complete
prevention program.
Section 68.85, Hot Work Permit, has
been adopted verbatim from OSHA
except for changing "employer" to
"owner or operator." Although EPA did
not propose adopting this section, the
Agency solicited comments on this
provision and decided that it was
valuable to maintain consistency with
the OSHA PSM elements and that the
hot work permit was Important to good
prevention practices.
Section 68.87. Contractors, has been
adopted verbatim from OSHA except for
changing "employer" to "owner or
operator," changing to referenced
sections, and deleting OSHA's
paragraph 29CFR 19l0.il9(hH23(vl).
Although EPA did not propose adopting
this section, the Agency solicited
comments on this Issue. Commenters
argued that contractor practices are an
important component of a complete
prevention program. A number of major
accidents have resulted from contractor
mistakes. EPA agrees with the
commenters and has included the
provision in the final rule. EPA has,
however, deleted the requirement that
employers maintain an occupational
injury and illness log for contract
employees because the Agency does not
have the authority to Impose this
requirement.
EPA has placed the emergency
response requirements In a new Subpai
E and divided the proposed emergency
response section into two separate
sections, an applicability section and a
section to cover the emergency respons
program.
A new § 68.90. Applicability, has
been added. Because many sources
covered by this rule may be too small
to handle emergency response
themselves, EPA has provided, in this
new section, the actions they must take
If they will not respond to releases.
Specifically, for sources with regulated
toxic substances, the source must be
addressed in the community emergency
response plan developed under EPCRA
section 303. Sources with regulated
flammable substances must coordinate
response actions with the local fire
department. These sources must also
establish a mechanism to contact local
emergency responders. Sources that do
not meet these requirements must
comply with EPA's emergency response
program requirements.
Section 68.95, Emergency Response
Program, is adopted from § 68.45 of the
proposed rule. The program has four
components: an emergency response
plan, procedures for use of response
equipment and its maintenance, train In,
for employees, and procedures to
update the plan after changes to the
source. The required elements of the
plan are those specified In CAA section
112(r)(7)(B){li): procedures for informlni
the public and local response agencies;
documentation of emergency medical
treatment; and procedures and measure
for emergency response. As explained
above. EPA decided that, to avoid
inconsistency with other emergency
response planning regulations, the rule
would be limited to the statutory
requirements. Consequently. EPA has
deleted the following proposed
requirements: documentation of
evacuation routes (which should be
covered under the emergency action
plans required by OSHA under 29 CFR
1910,38); descriptions of all response
and mitigation technologies available at
the source; documentation of the
maintenance and training programs;
emergency response drills and
exercises; revision of the plan based on
the findings of the drills and exercises;
and documentation of .management's
response to findings and a schedule for
completion. EPA believes that these
requirements are addressed in other
Federal regulations and, therefore,
sources are already doing them. By not
including them. EPA. however, avoids
the possibility that slightly different
wording could lead to unnecessary
additional effort on the part of sources.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31713
EPA has added a paragraph (b) to this
section to state that compliance with
other Federal contingency plan
regulations or use of the National
Response Team's Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance £0ne
Plan") that results In a written plan that
addresses the elements In paragraph (a)
shall satisfy the requirements of the
rule, provided that the owner or
operator also complies with paragraph
(c) of this section.
Paragraph (c) is adopted from
proposed paragraph §68,45(g) and
requires coordination of the plan with
the local community emergency
response plan. References to the local
emergency planning committee (LEPC)
have been changed to local emergency
response officials' to recognize and
include other local groups chat may be
in charge of coordinating emergency
planning. LEPCs would be included in
this category.
A new Subpart G has been created to
cover the Risk Management Plan. The
Risk Management Plan includes three
main sections, an executive summary,
the registration, and data elements that
provide information on the offslte
consequence analyses, the five-year
accident history, the prevention
program, and the emergency response
program. The subpart includes separate
section to address each of these, plus
sections on submission, certifications,
and updates.
New §68.150. Submission, has been
added. As discussed above, an owner or
operator shall submit a single RMP for
the source, regardless of the number of
covered processes or the tiers for which
they are eligible. All RMPs win be
submitted In a manner and method EPA
will specify by the compliance date to
a point designated by EPA; no other
submission will be required because
other agencies and the public will have
access to the submissions on-line. As
required by the CAA. the first RMP must
be submitted by June 21, 1999, three
years after EPA first lists a substance, or
the date on which a source first becomes
subject to this part, whichever is latest.
As discussed above under applicability,
after June 21, 1999, sources that begin
using a substance that has been listed
for at least three years will be required
to submit their RMPs on the date the
substance Is first on site above the
threshold quantity. Sources that begin
using such a regulated substance prior
to June 21. 1999 will need to be in
compliance with the rule on June 21,
1999. The final paragraph states that,
except for a classified annex that would
not be publicly available, the RMP shall
exclude classified Information.
New §68.155 details the requirements
for the executive summary. The
summary shall include brief
descriptions of the following Items: the
source's prevention and emergency
response approach; the stationary
source and regulated substances: worst-
case release scenario(s) and alternative
release scenarlo(s), including any
administrative controls applied to limit
the release quantity: the general
prevention program and chemical-
specific prevention steps; the five-year
accident history; the emergency
response program; and planned changes
to Improve safety. EPA anticipates that
none of these items should require more
than a half page of text. Because this
information may be filed electronically,
EPA Is not asking sources to submit
maps of the worst-case or alternative
release scenario circles. The data
submitted under each of these sections
will allow state or local agencies and the
public to map the circles.
Section 68.160. Registration, replaces
proposed § 6i,12. The registration shall
include the fallowing data: stationary
source name, street, city, county, state,
zip code, latitude, and longitude; the
stationary source and corporate Dun and
Bradstreet numbers; the name.
telephone number, and mailing address
of the owner/operator; the name and
title of the person responsible for
Implementation of the risk management
program; the name, title, telephone
number, and 24-hour telephone number
of the emergency contact; the stationary
source EPA Identifier; the number of
full-time employees at the stationary
source; whether the stationary source Is
subject to 29 CFR 1910.119; whether the
stationary source Is subject to 40 CFR
part 355; and the date on which the
stationary source last had a safety
Inspection by a Federal, state, or local
government agency.
For each covered process, the source
must list the regulated substances
present above a threshold quantity
(name and CAS number), the maximum
quantity of each substance in the
process, the SIC code of the process, and
the Program level that applies to the
process. This process information
provides a simple method for describing
covered processes and identifying
Program levels.
The reporting of the quantity has been
changed; rather than have sources report
In ranges, the rule requires that the
quantity be reported to two significant
digits. EPA has found that the reporting
ranges are so broad (generally an order
of magnitude) that data analysis Is
extremely difficult. By limiting the
reporting to two significant digits. EPA
will allow sources to estimate
quantities, but still provide more precise
data than are currently available. EPA
has added a requirement for reporting
full-time employees. These data are easy
for sources to provide and will enhance
the Agency's ability to assess the Impact
of its rule on businesses of various sizes
The EPA Identifier will be the unique
number EPA will assign to each source
and will allow EPA to cross reference
other reporting to the Agency. Use of the
Identifier also means that EPA may not
need to collect certain data on this form
because they will be available from the
identifier database; EPA may revise the
requirements when the identifier rule Is
promulgated.
EPA has deleted the certification
statement proposed for the registration
because the RMP as a whole will have
a certification statement that will cover
all elements, including registration.
Corrections to the registration will be
treated as corrections to the RMP and
must be filed within six months of the
change, rather than the 60 days
proposed for registration changes.
The registration now requires the
owners or operators to check off the
agency that last conducted a safety
Inspection at the source and provide the
date. The Inspection does not need to
have been related to prevention
practices as defined in this rule, but
may Instead cover fire safety, workplace
safety, etc.
New S 68.165 covers the requirements
for reporting on the offsite consequence
analysis. As discussed In Section ID.B,
the RMP shall include data on one worst
case release scenario for each Program 1
process; and, for Program 2 and 3
processes, one worst case release
scenario for toxics and one for
flammables {for sources with substances
in both hazard classes). If additional
worst-case release scenarios are required
under § 68.25 for either class, data on
that scenario must also be reported.
Sources with Program 2 and 3 processes
will also provide data on one alternative
release scenario to cover all flammables
in covered processes and an alternative
release scenario for each toxic substance
held In covered processes.
For each reported scenario, the
owners or operators shall provide the
following data: chemical name; physical
state (toxics only); basis of results and
model (if used); scenario; quantity
released in pounds; release rate;
duration; wind speed and stability
(toxics only); topography (toxics only);
distance to endpolnt: public and
environmental receptors within the
distance; passive mitigation considered;
and active mitigation (alternative
releases only) considered. A number of
the data elements are not relevant to all
-------
31714 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
flammable releases; for example, in the
worst-case release flammables are
assumed to be released and explode
almost instantly so that release rate.
duration, wind speed and stability, and
topography are not factors in
determining distances. "~
The purpose of requiring these data
elements, rather than the proposed
summary of the assessment, is to
provide the public with the essential
estimates of distance to the endpoints
and provide enough data on the release
scenario to allow agencies or the public
to confirm the distance estimate. With
the data provided, a public agency will
be able to use EPA's guidance to
determine the distance for a particular
chemical release and compare that
distance with the one reported by the
source. This ability will be particularly
important when a source has chosen to
use an air dispersion model rather than
the reference table. The proposed rule
approach, which required a summary of
the assessment, would have resulted in
considerable variation in the
information submitted, as happened In
the Kanawha Valley exercise. In that
case, each source decided on the level
of information to provide; although each
provided maps. It was not possible, in
many cases, to determine how the
distances were estimated because much
of the underlying data was not reported.
EPA believes that these requirements
will impose a minimal burden on
sources, because they will already have
the data from completing the analyses,
will ensure that the same data are
reported by all sources, and will provide
enough data to evaluate the results
using publicly available documents and
models.
New § 68.168 on the five-year
accident history simply references the
data elements listed in §68.42(a). The
data elements will be reported for each
accidental release covered by the
accident history requirement.
New § 68.170, Prevention Program/
Program 2. requires owners or operators
with Program 2 processes to 31st the
name of chemical (s) In, and SIC code
for, the Program 2 process: to provide
the dates of the most recent revisions or
reviews of the prevention program
elements; to provide, based on die
hazard review, Information on the major
hazards, process controls, mitigation
systems, monitoring or detection
systems, and changes since the last
hazard review; to list any state or federal
regulations of Industry-specific design
codes or standards being used to
demonstrate compliance with
prevention program elements; to list the
type of training and competency testing
used; to provide the date of the most
recent change that triggered a review or
revision of prevention elements; and to
provide the date of the completion of
any changes resulting from hazard
reviews, audits, or incident
investigations. EPA recognizes that not
all recommendations resulting from
hazard reviews, audits, or incident
investigations result in changes; some or
all may be resolved without changes.
However, If any changes are made, the
owners or operators shall report In the
RMP the date when such changes are
complete or expected to be complete.
New §68.175. Prevention Program/
Program 3, requires owners or operators
with Program 3 processes to list the
name of chemlcalfs) In, and SIC code
for, the Program 3 process; to provide
the dates of the most recent revisions or
reviews of the prevention program
elements; to provide, based on the PHA.
Information on the major hazards, •
process controls, mitigation systems,
monitoring or detection systems, and
changes since the last PHA; to list the
type of training and competency testing
used; to provide the date of the most
recent change that triggered a review or
revision of prevention elements; and to
provide the date of the completion of
any changes resulting from PHAs,
audits, or incident investigations. As
above, iPA recognizes that not all
recommendations resulting from PHAs,
audits, or incident investigations result
In changes; some or all may be resolved
without changes. However, if any
changes are made, the owners or
operators shall report in the RMP the
date when such changes are complete or
expected to be complete.
New §68.180, Emergency Response
Program, requires owners or operators to
answer questions about the required
content of the emergency response plan,
providing the date of the most recent
training of employees update of the
plan, Indicate whether the source
emergency response plan has been
coordinated with the LEPC plan,
provide the name and telephone
number of the local agency with which
the plan has been coordinated, and list
other Federal or state emergency
planning requirements to which the
source is subject.
New §68.185. Certification, specifies
the certification requirements that
owners or operators must complete
when the RMP is submitted.
New §68.190 details the requirements
for updating the RMP. The plan must be
updated at least once every five years.
If a new substance Is added to an
already covered process or a new
covered process is added, the RMP must
be updated on the date on which the
regulated substance is first present
above a threshold quantity. If EPA lists
a new substance that the source has
above a threshold quantity, the RMP
must be updated within three years of
the date of listing. If a change at the
source leads to a revised offsite
consequence analysis, process hazard
analysis or review, or a process changes
Program level, the RMP must be revised
and resubmltted within six months of
the change. Subsequent updates will be
required within five years of the update
A new Subpart H, Other
Requirements, has been added.
New § 68.200. Recordkeeplng, simply
states that records will be maintained
for five years unless otherwise specified
in the Program 3 prevention program.
New §68.210, Availability of
information to the public, has been
added and a paragraph Included to
provide that classified information Is
protected under applicable laws,
regulations, and executive orders.
New § 68.215, Permit content and air
permitting authority or designated
agency requirements, has been added to
define the requirements for including
part 68 in Part 70 and 71 permits, as
discussed above.
Section 63.220, Audits, has been
revised to change references in
paragraph (a), A new paragraph (c) has
been added to specify the sources that
have achieved a star or merit rating
under OSHA's VPP program will be
exempt from audits if the audit program
Is based on industry accident history or
on neutral random oversight and if the
source has not had an accidental release
that requires investigation under the
rule. Paragraph (h) has been revised to
clarify that the source must revise the
RMP 30 days alter completion of the
actions detailed In the implementation
plan, not 30 days after the issuance of
the final determination.
Appendix A has been added to
provide the toxic endpoints.
V. Required Analyses
A. E.0,12866
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(58 FR 51735; October 4. 1993), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory
action is "significant" and, therefore,
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the E.O. The Order
defines "significant regulatory action"
as one that is likely to result In a rule
that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 mlElon or more or
adversely affect In a material way th*
economy, a sector of the economy.
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
state, local, or tribal government or
communities.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31715
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise Interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy Issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the E.G.
Under terms of E.O, 12866. EPA has
determined that today's final
rulemaking is a "significant regulatory
action." EPA, therefore, has developed
an economic impact analysis for the
final rule, (Economic Analysis In
Support of Final Rule on Risk
Management Program Regulations for
Chemical Accidental Release
Prevention), which is available in the
docket,
In developing the final rule, EPA
notes that it has taken actions to
streamline requirements whenever
possible and has tailored the
requirements through the use of
Programs. This approach differed from
the proposed rule, which Imposed what
are now Program 3 requirements on all
sources and processes. EPA has also
changed substantially the requirements
for two elements of the rule, the offslte
consequence analysis and the RMP. For
the offslte consequence analysis, EPA
decided to develop methodologies and
look-up tables so sources would not
need to spend resources obtaining air
dispersion models; EPA also reduced
the requirements to define offslte
populations by allowing sources to use
Census data and to Identify only those
institutions and developments that
appear on local maps (as opposed to
identifying day care centers and nursing
homes). For the RMP. EPA has limited
the requirements for Information to that
which can be reported as data elements.
In contrast, the rule as proposed would
have required sources to document for
each process all major hazards, the
consequences of each of these hazards.
the risk reduction steps taken to address
each hazard, and the consequences of
each risk reduction step. The result
would have been, for large, complex
sources, documents of a 1,000 pages or
more.
To analyze the cost Impacts of the
various approaches, EPA considered
three possible options In the final EIA:
the final rule, an option that Imposed
final rule Program 3 requirements on all
sources, and an option that imposed
proposed rule requirements on all
sources. The last of these options was
considered to evaluate the Impact of
changing the requirements for the offslte
consequence analysis and RMP.
Based on the final list and thresholds,
EPA estimates that approximately
66,100 sources will be affected by the
rule. EPA expects that about 360 sources
and approximately 410 processes will
be eligible for Program 1. These sources
are primarily gas processors that,
because they are remote and unstaffed,
are not covered by OSHA PSM. EPA
also estimated that approximately 50
processes using toluene di-isocyanate
(TOO may qualify for Program 1 based
on the relatively low volatility of TDI.
Program 2 is expected to Include 40,200
sources and 47,700 processes; these
sources Include all retailers, propane
users, public drinking water and
wastewater systems and public electric
utilities not subject to OSHA PSM,
wholesalers, processes at Federal
facility processes, and non-chemical
manufacturers. Program 3 Is expected to
cover 25,500 sources and 43.800
processes. These sources include
manufacturers, electric utilities, POTWs
and drinking water sites covered by
OSHA PSM. wholesalers, ammonia
refrigeration systems, gas utilities, gas
processors, and Federal facilities. All of
these sources are already covered by
OSHA PSM for at least one regulated
substance; EPA estimates that about 370
non-OSHA Program 3 processes In the
specified SIC codes will be covered.
Sources that already have a high
quality PSM program would not need to
take any additional actions to satisfy
EPA's Program 3 prevention program,
but the analysis assumed that many
sources may still be In the process of
improving their PSM programs after
achieving Initial compliance. The public
scrutiny expected to follow submission
of the RMP is likely to encourage
sources to ensure that their prevention
efforts are fully Implemented and
effective. To account for these efforts,
the analysis assumed that sources
covered by OSHA would Improve
training, maintenance, and management
oversight and, in some cases. Institute
additional capital improvements.
The rule provides sources three years
to come into compliance with the rule.
The rule, however, will impose
continuing costs as sources implement
their risk management programs. Initial
compliance, therefore, covers the cost of
meeting the requirements of the rule by
the three-year compliance date. These
costs are presented as a single figure.
but are assumed to be incurred over a
three-year period. Total costs to
industry were estimated by multiplying
the estimated unit costs of compliance
with the risk management program
elements by the estimated number of
affected sources. Because many sources
already Implement some of the risk
management requirements (e.g.,
training), cost estimates were adjusted
to account for the expected likelihood
that a source Is already human health
(death or injury), responses to these
threats (evacuations, sheltering In place)
threats to the environment, and
economic damages (lost production,
property damages, and litigation).
Additional benefits may be provided by
making information available to the
public in the RMP, These benefits,
however, cannot be quantified.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, Federal agencies
must evaluate the Impacts of rules on
small entities and consider less
burdensome regulatory alternatives. As
originally proposed In 1993. EPA
believes that the rule would have
created a severe, adverse Impact on
small manufacturers. In February 1995.
EPA published a supplemenatal
proposal which introduced a tiering
approach for this regulation. By using
the tiering approach and streamlining
the Program 2 requirements, this final
rule significantly reduces the lmp*ct on
small businesses. The tiering approach
also significantly reduces the Impact on
small communities.
EPA has developed a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for this final rule
evaluating the effects on small entitles,
which Is presented In Chapter 7 of the
EIA. The number of small
manufacturers was estimated to be 960
sources with fewer than 20 FTEs. and
2,000 sources with between 20 and 99
FTEs. The number of small non-
manufacturers is more difficult to
determine. Virtually all retailer and
wholesalers have fewer than 100 FTfis.
Industry estimates, however, indicate
that about 80 percent of the affected
retailers may be owned by larger
companies; the analysis assumed that
3,700 retailers were small businesaes.
No Information was available to
estimate the percentage of wholesaler!
that might be owned by large
corporations. The analysis assumed that
all wholesalers were small. The iota!
number of small businesses, therefor*.
was estimated to be 8,160.
Public drinking water and waste
water systems affected by the rule
generally serve a minimum at!0,000
people. Approximately 930 water
systems are estimated to serve ber»een
10.000 and 25.000 people.
Approximately 500 water system are
estimated to serve between 23,000 and
50,000 people. Consequently, 1.480
drinking water systems would be
considered small governmental entitles.
The number of small PQTWi wm»
-------
31716 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
estimated to incJude all systems treating
less than 10 mgd and 59 percent of
those treating between 10 and 25 mgd
(based on the railo of drinking water
systems in this category that serve
populations below 50,000).
Approximately 2,600 POTWs-were
estimated to serve between 10,000 and
25,000 people and ISO to serve between
25,000 and 50,000, for a tota] of 2.800
POTWs. A total of approximately 4,300
small governmental entities would be
affected by this rule.
The total number of small entitles
affected by this rule was estimated to be
12,500 or 19 percent of the affected
universe. No detailed analysis of the
impact on small entitles was performed
because of the relatively low cost of the
rule for small entitles. Initial costs are
considerably less than one percent of
sales for all small manufacturers.
Subsequent year costs will be even
lower. Costs for non-manufacturers are
very low {less than S1,000 per year for
initial compliance). These sums do not
impose a serious adverse burden on
these sources. Only chemical
manufaciurerswlth complex processes
and 20 to 99 FTEs have Initial costs that
exceed $6.000 per year. The costs for
these sources, $28,000 to $30,000 per
year for the first three years, represent
less than 0.5 percent of sales. It should
be noted that all of the costs for small
manufacturers assume that the sources
will take additional efforts, above their
actions to comply with the OSHA rule,
to improve the quality of the risk
management programs. If they do not
take additional actions, their costs
would be substantially lower.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local.
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,
EPA must generally prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates!' that may
result in expenditures to state, local.
and tribal governments. In the aggregate.
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more In any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome
alternatives that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
Inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation of why the
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements
that significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments. It must have developed
under section 203 of UMRA, a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input
into the development of the regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains a Federal mandate that may
result In expenditures of $100 million or
more for state, local, and tribal
governments, In the aggregate, or to the
private sector, In any one year.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared, under
section 202 of the UMRA. a written
statement which Is summarized below.
EPA Is required to promulgate this
rule under CAA section 112(r). In the
first and third year of initial
compliance, the cost of the rule to the
regulated community will exceed $100
million; In all subsequent years the
costs will be below $100 million. EPA
has developed an economic impact
analysis, discussed above, that evaluates
several regulatory alternatives. EPA has
adopted the least costly of these
alternatives. EPA estimates that
annual Ized costs for state and local
governments will be $13 million;
annuallzed costs for the private sector
are estimated to be $72 million.
Consistent with the Intergovernmental
consultation provisions of section 204 of
the UMRA and Executive Order 12875
"Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership." EPA has involved state.
local and business representatives In
focus groups to develop the rule. EPA
Included representatives of state
government In the rulemaking
workgroup process, available to the
public under CAA section 114{c) and 40
CFR pan 2; EPA does not believe that
any of the requested Information will be
considered confidential.
The public reporting burden will
depend on the regulatory program Into
which the 66,100 sources are placed.
The public reporting burden for rule
familiarization is estimated to range
from 4 to 68 hours per source for all
three program tiers. The public
reporting burden to prepare and submit
the registration and other RMP element
is estimated to be 0.5 hours for sources
with only Program 1 processes, betweei
6.0 and 11.25 hours for Program 2
sources, and between 6,25 and 30.5
hours for Program 3 sources. The RMP
is submitted once, at the end of the
three year compliance period. The
public recordkeeping burden to
maintain on-slte documentation Is
estimated to range from 10 to 180 hours
for Program 2 sources and from 52 to
1,200 hours for Program 3 sources. On-
site documentation must be developed
and maintained on an ongoing basis,
which varies by rule element; based on
the statute of limitation for this rule,
documentation must generally be
maintained for five years. The total
annual public reporting burden for rule
familiarization, to complete the RMP,
and to maintain on-site documentation
is estimated to be about 3,36 million
hours over three years, or an annual
burden of 1.119 million hours. No
capital costs are expected to be Incurred
to maintain or submit this
documentation.
Burden means the total time, effort, 01
financial resources expended by person
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide Information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, Install, and use technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting.
validating, and verifying information.
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instruction* and
requirements; train personnel to IM «ble
to respond to a collection of
Information; search data sources:
complete and review the collection erf
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
E. Submission to Congress and dm
General Accounting Office
Under section 801(a)(l)(A) of 0*
Administrative Procedures Aa CAP A) as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Acs of
1998, EPA submitted a report comininf
this rule and other required information
to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Hous* of
Representatives and the Comptroller
General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule In
today's Federal Register. This rult if «
"major rule" as defined by section
304(2) of the APA as amended.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31717
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 68
Environmental protection. Chemicals,
Hazardous substances.
Intergovernmental relations.
Dated: May 24, 1996.
Carol M. Browner, """
Administrator.
For the reasons set out In the
preamble. 40 CFR Part 68 Is amended as
Follows:
PART 68—(AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 68 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412W. 7601 W(l),
7661-76611".
2. Part 68 is amended by
redesignatlng Subpart C (§§68.100-—
68.130) as Subpart F.
Subpart A—[Amended]
4. Section 68.3 Is amended to add the
following definitions:
§61.3 Definition*.
Act means the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
* * « » *
Administrative controls mean written
procedural mechanisms used for hazard
control.
AJChE/CCPS means the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers/Center
for Chemical Process Safety.
* * * * •
API means the American Petroleum
Institute.
ASMS means the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
Catastrophic release means a major
uncontrolled emission, fire, or
explosion. Involving one or more
regulated substances that presents
imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health and the environment.
Classified Information means
"classified Information" as defined In
the Classified Information Procedures
Act, 18 U.S.C. App. 3, section l(a) as
"any Information or material that has
been determined by the United States
Government pursuant to an executive
order, statute, or regulation, to require
protection against unauthorized
disclosure for reasons of national
security."
Covered process means a process that
has a regulated substance present in
more than a threshold quantity as
determined under § 68.115.
Designated agency means the state.
local, or Federal agency designated by
the state under the provisions of
§68.215(d).
Environmental receptor means natural
areas such as national or state parks,
forests, or monuments; officially
designated wildlife sanctuaries,
preserves, refuges, or areas: and Federal
wilderness areas, that could be exposed
at any time to toxic concentrations.
radiant heat, or overpressure greater
than or equal to the endpolnts provided
in § 68.22(aJ . as a result of an accidental
release and that can be Identified on
local U. S. Geological Survey maps.
Hot work means work Involving
electric or gas welding, cutting, brazing,
or similar flame or spark-producing
operations.
Implementing agency means the state
or local agency that obtains delegation
for an accidental release prevention
program under subpart E, 40 CFR part
63. The implementing agency may, but
Is not required to. be the state or local
air permitting agency. If no state or local
agency is granted delegation, EPA will
be the implementing agency for that
state.
Injury means any effect on a human
that results either from direct exposure
to toxic concentrations; radiant heat; or
overpressures from accidental releases
or from the direct consequences of a
vapor cloud explosion (such as flying
glass, debris, and other projectiles) from
an accidental release and that requires
medical treatment or hospital Izatlon.
Major change means introduction of a
new process, process equipment, or
regulated substance, an alteration of
process chemistry that results in any
change to safe operating limits, or other
alteration that introduces a new hazard.
Mechanical integrity means the
process of ensuring that process
equipment is fabricated from the proper
materials of construction and is
properly Installed, maintained, and
replaced to prevent failures and
accidental releases.
Medical treatment means treatment,
other than first aid. administered by a
physician or registered professional
personnel under standing orders from a
physician.
Mitigation or mitigation system means
specific activities, technologies, or
equipment designed or deployed to
capture or control substances upon loss
of containment to minimize exposure of
the public or the environment. Passive
mitigation means equipment, devices, or
technologies that function without
human, mechanical, or other energy
input. Active mitigation means
equipment, devices, or technologies that
need human, mechanical, or other
energy input to function.
NFPA means the National Fire
Protection Association.
Offslte means areas beyond the
property boundary of the stationary
source, and areas within the property
boundary to which the public has
routine and unrestricted access during
or outside business hours.
OSHA means the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.
Owner or operator means any person
who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises a stationary source.
Population means the public.
*****
Public means any person except
employees or contractors at the
stationary source.
Public receptor means offsite
residences, institutions (e.g., schools,
hospitals), industrial, commercial, and
office buildings, parks, or recreational
areas inhabited or occupied by the
public at any time without restriction by
the stationary source where members of
the public could be exposed to toxic
concentrations, radiant heat, or
overpressure, as a result of an accidental
release.
*****
Replacement in kind means a
replacement that satisfies the design
specifications.
RMP means the risk management plan
required under subpart C of this part.
SIC means Standard Industrial
Classification.
*****
Typical meteorological conditions
means the temperature, wind speed,
cloud cover, and atmospheric stability
class, prevailing at the site based on
data gathered at or near the site or from
a local meteorological station.
*****
Worst-case release means the release
of the largest quantity of a regulated
substance from a vessel or process line
failure that results In the greatest
distance to an endpolnt defined In
§68.22(a).
5. Section 68.10 is added to subpart
A to read as follows;
§68.10 Applicability.
(a) An owner or operator of a
stationary source that has more than a
threshold quantity of a regulated
substance in a process, as determined
under § 68.115, shall comply with the
requirements of this part no later than
the latest of the following dates:
(1) June 21. 1999;
(2) Three years after the date on
which a regulated substance Is first
listed under §68.130; or
(3) The date on which a regulated
substance la first present above a
threshold quantity in a process.
(b) Program 1 eligibility requirements.
A covered process Is eligible for
-------
31718 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Program I require merits as provided In
§ 68.12(b) if it meets all of the following
requirements:
(1) For the five years prior lo the
submission of an RMP. the process has
not had an accidental release of a
regulated substance where exposure to
the substance, its reaction products,
overpressure generated by an explosion
involving the substance, or radiant heat
generated by a fire Involving the
substance led to any of the following
offsite;
(i) Death;
(li) Injury; or
(iii) Response or restoration activities
for an exposure of an environmental
receptor;
(2) The distance to a toxic or
flammable endpoint for a worst-case
release assessment conducted under
Subpart B and § 68.25 is less than the
distance to any public receptor, as
defined in § 68.30; and
(3) Emergency response procedures
have been coordinated between the
stationary source and local emergency
planning and response organizations.
(c) Program 2 eligibility requirements.
A covered process Is subject to Program
2 requirements if it does not meet the
eligibility requirements of either
paragraph (b) or paragraph (d) of this
section,
(d) Program 3 eligibility requirements.
A covered process is subject to Program
3 if the process does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section, and if either of the following
conditions is met:
(1) The process is in SIC code 2611,
2812. 2819, 2821, 2865. 2869, 2873,
2879. or 291 i; or
(2) The process is subject to the OSHA
process safety management standard. 29
CFR 1910.119.
(e) If at any time a covered process no
longer meets the eligibility criteria of its
Program level, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements of
the new Program level that applies to
the process and update the RMP as
provided In §68.190.
6. Section 68.12 is added to subpart
A to read as follows:
§ 68.12 General requirement*.
(a) General requirements. The owner
or operator of a stationary source subject
to this part shall submit a single RMP,
as provided in §§68.150 to 68.185. The
RMP shall Include a registration that
reflects all covered processes,
(b) Program I requirements. In
addition to meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator of a stationary source with
a process eligible for Program 1, as
provided In § 68.10(b). shall:
(I) Analyze the worst-case release
scenario for the process(es), as provided
in §68.25: document that the nearest
public receptor is beyond the distance
to a toxic or flammable endpoint
denned in § 63.22(a); and submit In the
RMP the worst-case release scenario as
provided In § 68.165;
(2) Complete the five-year accident
history for the process as provided in
S 68.42 of this part and submit it in the
RMP as provided in § 68.168;
(3) Ensure that response actions have
been coordinated with local emergency
planning and response agencies; and
(4) Certify in the RMP the following:
"Based on the criteria in 40 CFR 68.10,
the distance to the specified endpoint
for the worst-case accidental release
scenario for the following process(es) is
less than the distance to the nearest
public receptor [list process(es)].
Within the past five years, the
process (es) has (have) had no accidental
release that caused offsite impacts
provided in the risk management
program rule (40 CFR 68.10(b)(l». No
additional measures are necessary to
prevent ofTsite Impacts from accidental
releases. In the event of fire, explosion,
or a release of a regulated substance
from the process(es). entry within the
distance to the specified end points may
pose a danger to public emergency
responders. Therefore, public
emergency responders should not enter
this area except as arranged with the
emergency contact indicated in the
RMP. The undersigned certifies that, to
the best of my knowledge, information.
and belief, formed after reasonable
inquiry, the information submitted Is
true, accurate, and complete. [Signature,
title, date signed]."
(c) Program 2 requirements. In
addition to meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator of a stationary source with
a process subject to Program 2. as
provided in § 68.10(c). shall;
(1) Develop and implement a
management system as provided in
§68.15:
{2} Conduct a hazard assessment as
provided in §§68.20 through 68.42:
(3) Implement the Program 2
prevention steps provided in §§ 68.48
through 68.60 or Implement the
Program 3 prevention steps provided In
§§ 68.65 through 68.87;
(4) Develop and Implement an
emergency response program as
provided In §§68.90 to 68.95; and
(5) Submit as part of the RMP the data
on prevention program elements for
Program 2 processes as provided In
§68.170.
(d) Program 3 requirements. In
addition to meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator of a stationary source with
a process subject to Program 3, as
provided In §68.10(d) shall:
(1) Develop and implement a
management system as provided in
§68.15;
(2) Conduct a hazard assessment as
provided In §§68.20 through 68.42:
(3) Implement the prevention
requirements of §§ 68.65 through 68.87;
(4) Develop and Implement an
emergency response program as
provided in §§68.90 to 68.95 of this
part; and
(5) Submit as part of the RMP the data
on prevention program elements for
Program 3 processes as provided in
§68.175.
7. Section 68.15 is added to subpart
A to read as follows;
§ 68.1 S Management.
(a) The owner or operator of a
stationary source with processes subject
to Program 2 or Program 3 shall develop
a management system to oversee the
Implementation of the .risk management
program elements.
(b) The owner or operator shall assign
a qualified person or position that has
the overall responsibility for the
development. Implementation, and
Integration of the risk management
program elements.
(c) When responsibility for
implementing individual requirements
of this part Is assigned to persons other
than the person identified under
paragraph (b) of this section, the names
or positions of these people shall be
documented and the lines of authority
defined through an organization chart 01
similar document.
3. Subpart B—Is added to read as
follows:
Subpart B—Hazard A*»e»»m«rrt
Sec.
68.20 Applicability,
68.22 Offisiea consequence analysis
parameters.
68.25 Worst-case release scenario analysis.
68.28 Alternative release scenario analysis.
68.30 Defining ofTsue impacts —
population.
68,33 Defining o/Tsite impacts —
environment.
68.36 Review and update.
68.39 Documentation.
68.42 Five-year accident history.
Subpart i—Hazard Assessment
988.20 Applicability.
The owner or operator of a stationary
source subject to this part shall prepare
a worst-case release scenario analysis u
provided In § 68,25 of this part and
complete the five-year accident history
as provided In §68.42. The owner or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31719
operator of a Program 2 and 3 process
must comply with all sections in this
subpart for these processes,
§ 68.22 Offarte consequence analysis
parameters.
(a) Endpoints. For analysefof ofTslte
consequences, the following endpolnts
shall be used:
(1) Toxics. The toxic endpolnts
provided In Appendix A of this part.
(2) Flammables. The endpolnts for
flammables vary according to the
scenarios studied:
(i) Explosion. An overpressure of 1
psi.
(ii) Radiant heat/exposure time. A
radiant heal of 5 kw/m2 for 40 seconds.
(iii) Lower flarnmabiUty limit. A
lower flammability limit as provided in
NFPA documents or other generally
recognized sources.
(b) Wind speed/atmospheric stability
class. For the worst-case release
analysis, the owner or operator shall use
a wind speed of 1.5 meters per second
and F atmospheric stability class. If the
owner or operator can demonstrate that
local meteorological data applicable to
the stationary source show a higher
minimum wind speed or less stable
atmosphere at all times during the
previous three years, these mlnimums
may be used. For analysis of alternative
scenarios, the owner or operator may
use the typical meteorological
conditions for the stationary source.
(c) Ambient temperature/humidity.
For worst-case release analysis of a
regulated toxic substance, the owner or
operator shall use the highest dally
maximum temperature in the previous
three years and average humidity for the
site, based on temperature/humidity
data-gathered at the stationary source or
at a local meteorological station; an
owner or operator using the RMP Offsite
Consequence Analysis Guidance may
use 258C and 50 percent humidity as
values for these variables. For analysis
of alternative scenarios, the owner or
operator may use typical temperature/
humidity data gathered at the stationary
source or at a local meteorological
station,
(d) Height of release. The worst-case
release of a regulated toxic substance
shall be analyzed assuming a ground
level (0 feet) release. For an alternative
scenario analysis of a regulated toxic
substance, release height may be
determined by the release scenario.
(e) Surface roughness. The owner or
operator shall use either urban or rural
topography, as appropriate. Urban
means that there are many obstacles In
the immediate area; obstacles Include
buildings or trees. Rural means there are
no buildings in the immediate area and
the terrain is generally flat and
unobstructed.
(f) Dense or neutrally buoyant gases.
The owner or operator shall ensure that
tables or models used for dispersion
analysis of regulated toxic substances
appropriately account for gas density.
(g) Temperature of released substance.
For worst case, liquids other than gases
liquified by refrigeration only shall be
considered to be released at the highest
daily maximum temperature, based on
data for the previous three years
appropriate for the stationary source, or
at process temperature, whichever is
higher. For alternative scenarios,
substances may be considered to be
released at a process or ambient
temperature that is appropriate for the
scenario.
§68.23 Worst-caw release scenario
analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shall
analyze and report in the RMP:
(1) For Program 1 processes, one
worst-case release scenario for each
Program 1 process;
(2) For Program 2 and 3 processes:
(1) One worst-case release scenario
that Is estimated to create the greatest
distance In any direction to an endpoint
provided In Appendix A of this part
resulting from an accidental release of
regulated toxic substances from covered
processes under worst-case conditions
defined In § 68.22;
(ii) One worst-case release scenario
that is estimated to create the greatest
distance In any direction to an endpoint
defined in § 63.22 (a) resulting from an
accidental release of regulated
flammable substances from covered
processes under worst-case conditions
defined in § 68.22; and
(lil) Additional worst-case release
scenarios for a hazard class if a worst-
case release from another covered
process it the stationary source
potentially affects public receptors
different from those potentially affected
by the worst-case release scenario
developed under paragraphs (a)(2)(l) or
(a) (2) (11) of this section.
(b) Determination of worst-case
release quantity. The worst-case release
quantity shall be the greater of the
following:
(1) For substances In a vessel, the
greatest amount held in a single vessel.
taking into account administrative
controls that limit th« maximum
quantity; or
(2) For substances in pipes, the
greatest amount in a pipe, taking Into
account administrative controls that
limit the maximum quantity.
(c) Worst-case release scenario—toxic
gases.
(1) For regulated toxic substances thai
are normally gases at ambient
temperature and handled as a gas or as
a liquid under pressure, the owner or
operator shall assume that the quantity
in the vessel or pipe, as determined
under paragraph (b) of this section. Is
released as a ps over 10 minutes. The
release rate shall be assumed to be the
total quantify divided by 10 unless
passive mitigation systems are In place.
(2) For gases handled as refrigerated
liquids at ambient pressure:
(1) If the released substance Is not
contained by passive mitigation systems
or if the contained pool would have a
depth of 1 cm or less, the owner or
operator shall assume that the substance
is released as a gas in 10 minutes;
(ii) If the released substance is
contained by passive mitigation systems
In a pool with a depth greater than 1 cm,
the owner or operator may assume that
the quantity in the vessel or pipe, as
determined under paragraph (b) of this
section, is spilled instantaneously to
form a liquid pool. The volatilization
rate (release rate) shall be calculated at
the boiling point of the substance and at
the conditions specified In paragraph
(d) of this section,
(d) Worst-case release scenario—toxic
liquids.
(1) For regulated toxic substances that
are normally liquids at ambient
temperature, the owner or operator shall
assume that the quantity In the vessel or
pipe, as determined under paragraph (b)
of this section. Is spilled
Instantaneously to form a liquid pool,
(1) The surface area of the pool shall
be determined by assuming that the
liquid spreads to 1 centimeter deep
unless passive mitigation systems are in
place that serve to contain the spill and
limit the surface area. Where passive
mitigation Is In place, the surface area
of the contained liquid shall be used to
calculate the volatilization rate.
(ii) If the release would occur onto a
surface that is not paved or smooth, the
owner or operator may take into account
the actual surface characteristics.
(2) The volatilization rate shall
account for the highest daily maximum
temperature occurring In the past three
years, the temperature of the substance
in the vessel, and the concentration of
the substance if the liquid spilled Is a
mixture or solution.
(3) The rate of release to air shall be
determined from the volatilization rate
of the liquid pool. The owner or
operator may use the methodology In
the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis
Guidance or any other publicly
available techniques that account for the
modeling conditions and are recognized
by industry as applicable as part of
-------
31720 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
current practices. Proprietary models
that account for the modeling
conditions may be used provided the
owner or operator allows the
implementing agency access to the
model and describes model features and
differences from publicly available
models to local emergency planners
upon request.
(e) Worst-case release scenario—
flammables. The owner or operator shall
assume that the quantity of the
substance, as determined under
paragraph (b) of this section, vaporizes
resulting in a vapor cloud explosion. A
yield factor of 10 percent of the
available energy released in the
explosion shall be used to determine the
distance to the explosion endpolnt If the
model used Is based on TNT-equivalent
methods.
(f) Parameters to be applied. The
owner or operator shall use the
parameters defined in § 68.22 to
determine distance to the endpolnts.
The owner or operator may use the
methodology provided In the RMP
Ofisice Consequence Analysis Guidance
or any commercially or publicly
available air dispersion modeling
techniques, provided the techniques
account for the modeling conditions and
are recognized by industry as applicable
as part of current practices. Proprietary
models that account for the modeling
conditions may be used provided the
owner or operator allows the
implementing agency access to the
model and describes model features and
differences from publicly available
models to local emergency planners
upon request.
(g) Consideration of passive
mitigation. Passive mitigation systems
may be considered for the analysis of
worst case provided that the mitigation
system is capable of withstanding the
release event triggering the scenario and
would still function as intended.
(h) Factors in selecting a worst-case
scenario. Notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
select as the worst case for flammable
regulated substances or the worst case
for regulated toxic substances, a
scenario based on the following factors
if such a scenario would result in a
greater distance to an endpolnt defined
in § 63.22(a) beyond the stationary
source boundary than the scenario
provided under paragraph (b) of this
section;
(1) Smaller quantities handled at
higher process temperature or pressure;
and
(2) Proximity to the boundary of the
stationary source.
}68.28 Alternative release scenario
analysis.
(a) The number of scenarios. The
owner or operator shall Identify and
analyze at least one alternative release
scenario for each regulated toxic
substance held in a covered process(es)
and at least one alternative release
scenario to represent all flammable
substances held in covered processes.
(b) Scenarios to consider. (1) For each
scenario required under paragraph (a) of
this section, the owner or operator shall
select a scenario:
(1) That Is more likely to occur than
the worst-case release scenario under
§68.25: and
(ii) That will reach an endpoint
offsite, unless no such scenario exists.
(2) Release scenarios considered
should include, but are not limited to,
the following, where applicable:
(1) Transfer hose releases due to splits
or sudden hose uncoupling;
(ii) Process piping releases from
failures at flanges, joints, welds, valves
and valve seals, and drains or bleeds;
(iii) Process vessel or pump releases
due to cracks, seal failure, or drain,
bleed, or plug failure;
(iv) Vessel overfilling and spill, or
averpresswlzatiort and venting through
relief valves or rupture disks; and
(v) Shipping container mishandling
and breakage or puncturing leading to a
spill.
(c) Parameters to be applied. The
owner or operator shall use the
appropriate parameters defined In
§ 68.22 to determine distance to the
endpoSnts. The owner or operator may
use either the methodology provided In
the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis
Guidance or any commercially or
publicly available air dispersion
modeling techniques, provided the
techniques account for the specified
modeling conditions and are recognized
by Industry as applicable as part of
current practices. Proprietary models
that account for the modeling
conditions may be used provided the
owner or operator allows the
implementing agency access to the
mode] and describes model features and
differences from publicly available
models to local emergency planners
upon request.
(d) Consideration of mitigation.
Active and passive mitigation systems
may be considered provided they are
capable of withstanding the event that
triggered the release and would still be
functional.
(e) Factors in selecting scenarios. The
owner or operator shall consider the
following in selecting alternative release
scenarios:
(1) The five-year accident history
provided in §68.42; and
(2) Failure scenarios identified under
§§68.50 or 68.67.
§66.30 Defining offslta impacM—
population.
(a) The owner or operator shall
esiimate in the RMP the population
within a circle with its center at the
point of the release and a radius
determined by the distance to the
endpoint defined in § 68.22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 I Rules and Regulations 31721
controls and any passive mitigation that
were assumed to limit the quantity that
could b« released. Documentation shall
include the anticipated effect of the
controls and mitigation on the release
quantity and rate.
(b) For alternative release scenarios, a
description of the scenarios Identified,
assumptions and parameters used, and
the rationale For the selection of specific
scenarios; assumptions shall Include
use of any administrative controls and
any mitigation that were assumed to
limit the quantity that could be released.
Documentation shall Include the effect
of the controls and mitigation on the
release quantity and rate,
(c) Documentation of estimated
quantity released, release rate, and
duration of release.
(d) Methodology used to determine
distance to end points.
(ej Data used to estimate population
and environmental receptors potentially
affected.
§68.42 Five-year accident h!«tory.
(a) The owner or operator shall
Include In the five-year accident history
all accidental releases from covered
processes that resulted in deaths,
injuries, or significant property damage
on site, or known offslte deaths,
injuries, evacuations, sheltering In
place, property damage, or
environmental damage.
(b) Data required. For each accidental
release Included, the owner or operator
shall report the following Information:
(1) Date, time, and approximate
duration of the release;
(2) Chemical(s) released;
(3) Estimated quantity released in
pounds;
(4) The type of release event and Its
source;
(5) Weather conditions, if known;
(6) On-slte Impacts;
(7) Known offsite Impacts;
(8) Initiating event and contributing
factors if known;
(9) Whether offsite responders were
notified if known; and
(10) Operational or process changes
that resulted from investigation of the
release.
(c) Level of accuracy. Numerical
estimates may be provided to two
significant digits.
9. Subpart C Is added to read as
follows:
Subpart C—Program 2 Prevention Program
Sees.
68.43 Safety information.
68.50 Hazard review.
63.52 Operating procedures.
68,54 Training.
€8.56 Maintenance.
63.53 Compliance audits.
68.60 Incident Investigation.
Subpart C—Program 2 Prevention
Program
§68.48 Safety Information.
(a) The owner or operator shall
compile and maintain the following up-
to-date safety Information related to the
regulated substances, processes, and
equipment:
(1) Material Safety Data Sheets that
meet the requirements of 29 CFR
lilO.I200(g);
(2) Maximum Intended Inventory of
equipment In which the regulated
substances are stored or processed;
(3) Safe upper and lower
temperatures, pressures, flows, and
compositions;
(4) Equipment specifications; and
(5) Codes and standards used to
design, build, and operate the process.
(b) The owner or operator shall ensure
that the process is designed in
compliance with recognized and
generally accepted good engineering
practices. Compliance with Federal or
state regulations that address Industry-
specific safe design or with Industry-
specific .design codes and standards may
be used to demonstrate compliance with
this paragraph.
(c) The owner or operator shall update
the safety Information If a major change
occurs that makes the information
Inaccurate.
§68.50 Hazard review.
(a) The owner or operator shall
conduct a review of the hazards
associated with the regulated
substances, process, and procedures.
The review shall Identify the following:
(1) The hazards associated with the
process and regulated substances;
(2) Opportunities for equipment
malfunctions or human errors that could
cause an accidental release;
(3) The safeguards used or needed to
control the hazards or prevent
equipment malfunction or human erron
and
(4) Any steps used or needed to detect
or monitor releases.
(b) The owner or operator may use
checklists developed by persons or
organizations knowledgeable about the
process and equipment as a guide to
conducting the review. For processes
designed to meet Industry standards or
Federal or state design rules, the hazard
review shall, by Inspecting all
equipment, determine whether the
process Is designed, fabricated, and
operated In accordance with the
applicable standards or rules.
{c) The owner or operator shall
document the results of the review and
ensure that problems Identified are
resolved In a timely manner.
(d) The review shall be updated at
least once every five years. The owner
or operator shall also conduct reviews
whenever a major change in the process
occurs; all Issues identified In the
review shall be resolved before startup
of the changed process.
§68.52 Operating procedure*.
(a) The owner or operator shall
prepare written operating procedures
that provide clear Instructions or steps
for safely conducting activities
associated with each covered process
consistent with the safety information
for that process. Operating procedures
or instructions provided by equipment
manufacturers or developed by persons
or organizations knowledgeable about
the process and equipment may be used
as a basis for a stationary source's
operating procedures.
(b) The procedures shall address the
following;
(1) Initial startup;
(2) Normal operations:
(3) Temporary operations;
(4) Emergency shutdown and
operations;
(5) Normal shutdown;
(6) Startup following a normal or
emergency shutdown or a major change
that requires a hazard review;
(7) Consequences of deviations and
steps required to correct or avoid
deviations; and
(8) Equipment Inspections.
(c) The owner or operator shall ensure
that the operating procedures are
updated, if necessary, whenever a major
change occurs and prior to startup of the
changed process.
§68.54 Training.
(a) The owner or operator shall ensure
that each employee presently operating
a process, and each employee newly
assigned to a covered process have been
trained or tested competent in the
operating procedures provided in
S 68.52 that pertain to their duties. For
those employees already operating a
process on June 21, 1999, the owner or
operator may certify in writing that the
employee has the required knowledge,
skills, and abilities to safely carry out
the duties and responsibilities as
provided in the operating procedures.
(b) Refresher training. Refresher
training shall be provided at least every
three years, and more often if necessary,
to each employee operating a process to
ensure that the employee understands
and adheres to the current operating
procedures of the process. The owner or
operator. In consultation with the
employees operating the process, shall
determine the appropriate frequency of
refresher training.
-------
31722 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
(c) The owner or operator may use
training conducted under Federal or
state regulations or under industry-
specific standards or codes or training
conducted by covered process
equipment vendors to demonstrate
compliance with this sectionto the
extent that the training meets the
requirements of this section.
(d) The owner or operator shall ensure
that operators are trained in any
updated or new procedures prior to
startup of a process after a major change.
§ 68,58 Maintenance.
(a) The owner or operator shall
prepare and Implement procedures to
maintain the on-going mechanical
integrity of the process equipment. The
owner or operator may use procedures
or Instructions provided by covered
process equipment vendors or
procedures In Federal or state
regulations or Industry codes as the
basis for stationary source maintenance
procedures.
fb) The owner or operator shall train
or cause to be trained each employee
involved in maintaining the on-going
mechanical integrity of the process. To
ensure that the employee can perform
the job casks in a safe manner, each such
employee shall be trained In the hazards
of the process, in how to avoid or
correct unsafe conditions, and in the
procedures applicable to the employee's
job tasks.
(c) Any maintenance contractor shall
ensure that each contract maintenance
employee Is trained to perform the
maintenance procedures developed
under paragraph (a) of this section. .
(d) The owner or operator shall
perform or cause to be performed
inspections and tests on process
equipment Inspection and testing
procedures shall follow recognized and
generally accepted good engineering
practices. The frequency of Inspections
and tests of process equipment shall be
consistent with applicable
manufacturers' recommendations,
industry standards or codes, good
engineering practices, and prior
operating experience,
f 68.58 Compliance audtts.
(a) The owner or operator shall certify
that they have evaluated compliance
with the provisions of this subpart at
least every three years to verify that the
procedures and practices developed
under the rule are adequate and are
being followed.
(b) The compliance audit shall be
conducted by at least one person
knowledgeable in the process.
(c) The owner or operator shall
develop a report of the audit findings.
(d) The owner or operator shall
promptly determine and document an
appropriate response to each of the
Findings of the compliance audit and
document that deficiencies have been
corrected,
(e) The owner or operator shall retain
the two (2) most recent compliance
audit reports. This requirement does not
apply to any compliance audit report
that is more than five years old.
§ 88.60 incident Investigation.
(a) The owner or operator shall
investigate each Incident which resulted
lit, or could reasonably have resulted in
a catastrophic release.
(b) An incident Investigation shall be
Initiated as promptly as possible, but
not later than 48 hours following the
Incident.
(c) A summary shall be prepared at
the conclusion of the Investigation
which Includes at a minimum:
(1) Date of Incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to the
Incident; and,
(5) Any recommendations resulting
from the Investigation.
(d) The owner or operator shall
promptly address and resolve the
investigation findings and
recommendations. Resolutions and
corrective actions shall be documented.
(e) The findings shall be reviewed
with all affected personnel whose job
tasks are affected by the findings.
(f) Investigation summaries shall be
retained for five years.
10. Subpart D is added to read as
follows:
Subpart D—Program 3 Prevention Program
Sec.
68.65 Process safety Information.
68.67 Process hazard analysis.
68.69 Operating procedures.
68.71 Training.
68.73 Mechanical integrity.
68.75 Management of change.
68.77 Pre-startup review,
68.79 Compliance audits.
63.81 Incident Investigation.
68.83 Employee participation.
68.85 Hot work permit,
68,87 Contractors,
Subpart D—Program 3 Prevention
Program
i 68.85 Proeesa safety Information.
(a) In accordance with the schedule
set forth In § 68.67, the owner or
operator shall complete a compilation of
writien process safety information
before conducting any process hazard
analysis required by the rule. The
compilation of written process safety
information is to enable ihe owner or
operator and the employees Involved In
operating the process to identify and
understand the hazards posed by those
processes involving regulated
substances. This process safety
information shall include information
pertaining to the hazards of the
regulated substances used or produced
by the process. Information pertaining
to the technology of the process, and
information pertaining to the equipment
in the process.
(b) Information pertaining to the
hazards of the regulated substances In
the process. This information shall
consist of at least the following:
(1) Toxlclty information;
(2) Permissible exposure limits;
(3) Physical data;
(4) Reactivity data:
(5) Corroslvlty data;
(6) Thermal and chemical stability
data; and
(?) Hazardous effects of Inadvertent
mixing of different materials that could
foreseeably occur.
Note to paragraph (b): Material Safety Data
Sheets meeting the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.1200(g) may be used to comply with
this requirement to the extent they contain
the information required by this
subparagraph.
(c) Information pertaining to the
technology of the process.
(1) Information concerning the
technology of the process shall include
at least the following:
(1) A block flow diagram or simplified
process flow diagram;
(11) Process chemistry;
(ill) Maximum Intended inventory;
(iv) Safe upper and lower limits for
such items as temperatures, pressures,
flows or compositions; and,
(v) An evaluation of the consequences
of deviations.
(2) Where the original technical
Information no longer exists, such
information may be developed In
conjunction with the process hazard
analysis in sufficient detail to support
the analysis.
(d) Information pertaining to the
equipment in the process.
(1) Information pertaining to the
equipment In the process shall include:
(i) Materials of construction;
(11) Piping and instrument diagrams
(P&ID's);
(iii) Electrical classification:
(iv) Relief system design and design
basis;
(v) Ventilation system design;
(vl) Design codes and standards
employed:
(vii) Material and energy balances for
processes built after June 21, 1999; and
(vlil) Safety systems (e.g. Interlocks,
detection or suppression systems).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. I2Q / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31723
(2J The owner or operator shaU
document that equipment complies
with recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices.
(3) For existing equipment designed
and constructed in accordance with
codes, standards, or practiceSThat are no
longer in general use, the owner or
operator shall determine and document
that the equipment Is designed.
maintained, Inspected, tested, and
operating In a safe manner.
§68.6? Process hazard analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shaU
perform an initial process hazard
analysis (hazard evaluation) on
processes covered by this part. The
process hazard analysis shall be
appropriate to the complexity of the
process and shall Identify, evaluate, and
control the hazards Involved In the
process. The owner or operator shall
determine and document the priority
order for conducting process hazard
analyses based on a rationale which
includes such considerations as extent
of the process hazards, number of
potentially affected employees, age of
the process, and operating history of the
process. The process hazard analysis
shall be conducted as soon as possible,
but not later than June 21. 1999, Process
hazards analyses completed to comply
with 29 CFR 1910.119(e) are acceptable
as initial process hazards analyses.
These process hazard analyses shall be
updated and invalidated, based on their
completion date.
(b) The owner or operator shall use
one or more of the following
methodologies that are appropriate to
determine and evaluate the hazards of
the process being analyzed.
(1) What-If;
(2) Checklist:
(3) What-ItfCheckllst;
(4) Hazard and Operablllty Study
(HAZOP);
(5) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
(FMEAJ;
(6) Fault Tree Analysis; or
(7) An appropriate equivalent
methodology.
(c) The process hazard analysis shall
address:
(1) The hazards of the process;
(2) The identification of any previous
incident which had a likely potential for
catastrophic consequences.
(3) Engineering and administrative
controls applicable to die hazards and
their Interrelationships such as
appropriate application of detection
methodologies to provide early warning
of releases, (Acceptable detection
methods might include process
monitoring and control instrumentation
with alarms, and detection hardware
such as hydrocarbon sensors.);
(4) Consequences of failure of
engineering and administrative controls;
(5) Stationary source siting;
(6) Human factors; and
(7) A qualitative evaluation of a range
of the possible safety and health effects
of failure of controls.
(d) The process hazard analysis shall
be performed by a team with expertise
in engineering and process operations,
and the team shall include at least one
employee who has experience and
knowledge specific to the process being
evaluated. Also, one member of the
team must be knowledgeable In the
specific process hazard analysis
methodology being used.
(e) The owner or operator shall
establish a system to promptly address
the team's findings and
recommendations; assure that the
recommendations are resolved in a
timely manner and that the resolution is
documented; document what actions are
to be taken; complete actions as soon as
possible; develop a written schedule of
when these actions are to be completed;
communicate the actions to operating,
maintenance and other employees
whose work assignments are in the
process and who may be affected by the
recommendations or actions.
(f) At least every five (5) years after
the completion of the initial process
hazard analysis, the process hazard
analysis shall be updated and
revalidated by a team meeting the
requirements in paragraph (d) of this
section, to assure that the process
hazard analysis is consistent with the
current process. Updated and
revalidated process hazard analyses
completed to comply with 29 CFR
1910.119(e) are acceptable to meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
(g) The owner or operator shall retain
process hazards analyses and updates or
revaluations for each process covered
by this section, as well as the
documented resolution of
recommendations described In
paragraph (e) of this section for the life
of the process.
188,89 Operating procedure*.
(a) The owner or operator shall
develop and Implement written
operating procedures that provide clear
instructions for safely conducting
activities involved in each covered
process consistent with the process
safety information and shall address at
least the following elements.
(1) Steps for each operating phase:
(i) Initial startup;
(li) Normal operations:
(Hi) Temporary operations;
{iv) Emergency shutdown including
the conditions under which emergency
shutdown Is required, and the
assignment of shutdown responsibility
to qualified operators to ensure that
emergency shutdown Is executed in a
safe and timely manner.
(v) Emergency operations;
(vi) Normal shutdown; and,
(vii) Startup following a turnaround,
or after an emergency shutdown.
(2) Operating limits:
(I) Consequences of deviation; and
(li) Steps required to correct or avoid
deviation.
(3) Safety and health considerations;
(i) Properties of, and hazards
presented by, the chemicals used In the
process;
(ii) Precautions necessary to prevent
exposure. Including engineering
controls, administrative controls, and
personal protective equipment;
(ill) Control measures to be taken if
physical contact or airborne exposure
occurs;
(iv) Quality control for raw materials
and control of hazardous chemical
Inventory levels; and.
(v) Any special or unique hazards.
(4) Safety systems and their functions.
(b) Operating procedures shall be
readily accessible to employees who
work In or maintain a process.
(c) The operating procedures shall be
reviewed as often as necessary to assure
that they reflect current operating
practice, including changes that result
from changes In process chemicals,
technology, and equipment, and
changes to stationary sources. The
owner or operator shall certify annually
that these operating procedures are
current and accurate.
(d) The owner or operator shall
develop and Implement safe work
practices to provide for the control of
hazards during operations such as
lockout/tagout; confined space entry:
opening process equipment or piping;
and control over entrance into a
stationary source by maintenance.
contractor, laboratory, or other support
personnel. These safe work practices
shall apply to employees and contractor
employees,
§88.71 Training.
(a) Initial training. (1) Each employee
presently involved in operating a
process, and each employee before
being involved in operating a newly
assigned process, shall be trained In an
overview of the process and in the
operating procedures as specified Ln
§68.69. The training shall include
emphasis on the specific safety and
health hazards, emergency operations
including shutdown, and safe work
practices applicable to the employee's
job tasks.
-------
31724 Federal Register / Vol. SI. No, 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
(2) In lieu or initial training for those
employees already involved in
operating a process on June 21, 1999 an
owner or operator may certify in writing
that the employee has the required
knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely
carry out the dudes and responsibilities
as specified in the operating procedures,
(b) Refresher training. Refresher
training shall be provided at least every
three years, and more often If necessary.
to each employee Involved In operating
a process to assure that the employee
understands and adheres to the current
operating procedures of the process. The
owner or operator, in consultation with
the employees involved In operating the
process, shall determine the appropriate
frequency of refresher training.
(c) Training documentation. The
owner or operator shall ascertain that
each employee Involved in operating a
process has received and understood the
training required by this paragraph. The
owner or operator shall prepare a record
which contains the identity of the
employee, the date of training, and the
means used to verify that the employee
understood the training.
§ 68.73 Mechanical Integrity.
(a) Application. Paragraphs (b)
through (0 of this section apply to the
following process equipment:
(1} Pressure vessels and storage tanks;
(2) Piping systems (including piping
components such as valves);
(3) Relief and vent systems and
devices;
(4) Emergency shutdown systems;
(5) Controls (including monitoring
devices and sensors, alarms, and
interlocks) and,
(6) Pumps.
(b) Written procedures. The owner or
operator shall establish and Implement
written procedures to maintain the on-
going Integrity of process equipment.
(c) Training for process maintenance
activities. The owner or operator shall
train each employee Involved In
maintaining the on-going integrity of
process equipment In an overview of
that process and its hazards and in the
procedures applicable to the employee's
job tasks to assure that the employee can
perform the job tasks in a safe manner.
(d) Inspection and testing. (1)
Inspections and tests shall be performed
on process equipment.
(2) Inspection and casting procedures
shall follow recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices.
(3) The frequency of inspections and
tests of process equipment shall be
consistent with applicable
manufacturers' recommendations and
good engineering practices, and more
frequently if determined to be necessary
by prior operating experience.
(4) The owner or operator shall
document each inspection and test that
has been performed on process
equipment. The documentation shall
identify the date of the inspection or
test, the name of the person who
performed the inspection or test, the
serial number or other Identifier of the
equipment on which the Inspection or
test was performed, a description of the
Inspection or test performed, and the
results of the Inspection or test.
(e) Equipment deficiencies. The
owner or operator shall correct
deficiencies In equipment that are
outside acceptable limits (defined by the
process safety information in § 68.65)
before further use or in a safe and timely
manner when necessary means are
taken to assure safe operation.
fl) Quality assurance. (1) In the
construction of new plants and
equipment, the owner or operator shall
assure that equipment as It Is fabricated
Is suitable for the process application
for which they wiU be used.
(2) Appropriate checks and
inspections shall be performed to assure
that equipment is Installed properly and
consistent with design specifications
and the manufacturer's instructions.
(3) The owner or operator shall assure
that maintenance materials, spare parts
and equipment are suitable for the
process application for which they will
be used.
§ 68.75 Management of change.
(a) The owner or operator shall
establish and implement written
procedures to manage changes (except
for "replacements in kind") to process
chemicals, technology, equipment and
procedures; and, changes to stationary
sources that affect a covered process.
(b) The procedures shall assure that
the following considerations are
addressed prior to any change:
(1) The technical basis for the
proposed change;
(2) Impact of change on safety and
health;
(3) Modifications to operating
procedures;
(4) Necessary time period for the
change; and,
(5) Authorization requirements for the
proposed change,
(c) Employees Involved in operating a
process and maintenance and contract
employees whose job tasks will be
affected by a change in the process shall
be informed of, and trained In, the
change prior to start-up of the process
or affected part of the process.
(d) If a change covered by this
paragraph results In a change In the
process safety information required by
§ 68.65 of this part, such Information
shall be updated accordingly.
(e) If a change covered by this
paragraph results in a change In the
operating procedures or practices
required by §68.69, such procedures oj
practices shall be updated accordingly.
§ SS.77 Pre-startup review.
(a) The owner or operator shall
perform a pre-startup safety review for
new stationary sources and for modlflei
stationary sources when the
modification is significant enough to
require a change in the process safety
Information.
(b) The pre-startup safety review shal
confirm that prior to the introduction ol
regulated substances to a process:
(1) Construction and equipment Is in
accordance with design specifications;
(2) Safety, operating, maintenance,
and emergency procedures are in place
and are adequate;
(3) For new stationary sources, a
process hazard analysis has been
performed and recommendations have
been resolved or Implemented before
startup; and modified stationary source:
meet the requirements contained in
management of change, §68.75.
(4) Training of each employee
involved in operating a process has beei
completed.
§ 68.79 Compliance audits,
(aj The owner or operator shall certify
that they have evaluated compliance
with the provisions of this section at
least every three years to verify that the
procedures and practices developed
under the standard are adequate and are
being followed.
(b) The compliance audit shall be
conducted by at least one person
knowledgeable In the process.
(c) A report of the findings of the
audit shall be developed,
(d) The owner or operator shall
promptly determine and document an
appropriate response to each of the
findings of the compliance audit, and
document that deficiencies have been
corrected.
(e) The owner or operator shall retain
the two (2) most recent compliance
audit reports.
§ 68.81 Incident Investigation.
(a) The owner or operator shall
investigate each incident which resulted
In, or could reasonably have resulted in
a catastrophic release of a regulated
substance.
(b) An incident investigation shall b«
Initiated as promptly as possible, but
not later than 48 hours following the
incident.
(c) An incident Investigation team
shall be established and consist of at
least one person knowledgeable In the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31725
process Involved, Including m contract
employee If the Incident involved work
of the contractor, and other persons
with appropriate knowledge and
experience to thoroughly Investigate
and analyze the Incident.
(d) A report shall be prepared at the
conclusion of the Investigation which
includes at a minimum:
(1) Date of incident;
(2) Dale investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to the
incident; and,
(5) Any recommendations resulting
from the Investigation.
(e) The owner or operator shall
establish a system to promptly address
and resolve the Incident report findings
and recommendations. Resolutions and,
corrective actions shall be documented.
(f) The report shall be reviewed with
all affected personnel whose job tasks
are relevant to the incident findings
including contract employees where
applicable.
(g) Incident Investigation reports shall
be retained for five years.
§ 88.83 Employee participation.
(a) The owner or operator shall
develop a written plan of action
regarding the Implementation of the
employee participation required by this
section.
(b) The owner or operator shall
consult with employees and their
representatives on the conduct and
development of process hazards
analyses and on the development of the
other elements of process safety
management In this rule.
(c) The owner or operator shall
provide to employees and their
representatives access to process hazard
analyses and to all other information
required to be developed under this
rule.
§ S4.BS Hot work permit
(a) The owner or operator shall issue
a hot work permit for hot work
operations conducted on or near a
covered process.
(bj The permit shall document that
the fire prevention and protection
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a)
have been Implemented prior to
beginning the hot work operations; it
shall Indicate the date(s) authorized, for
hot work; and identify the object on
which hot work is to be performed. The
permit shall be kept on file until
completion of the hot work operations.
§68.87 Contractor*.
(a) Application. This section applies
to contractors performing maintenance
or repair, turnaround, major renovation,
or specialty work on or adjacent to a
covered process. It does not apply to
contractors providing incidental
services which do not influence process
safety, such as janitorial work, food and
drink services, laundry, delivery or
other supply services.
{b} Owner or operator responsibilities.
(I) The owner or operator, when
selecting a contractor, shall obtain and
evaluate Information regarding the
contract owner or operator's safety
performance and programs.
(2) The owner or operator shall inform
contract owner or operator of the known
potential fire, explosion, or toxic release
hazards related to the contractor's work
and the process.
(3) The owner or operator shall
explain to the contract owner or
operator the applicable provisions of
subpart E of this part.
(4) The owner or operator shall
develop and Implement safe work
practices consistent with § 68.69(d), to
control the entrance, presence, and exit
of the contract owner or operator and
contract employees in covered process
areas,
(5) The owner or operator shall
periodically evaluate the performance of
the contract owner or operator in
fulfilling their obligations as specified
In paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Contract owner or operator
responsibilities. (1) The contract owner
or operator shall assure that each
contract employee Is trained in the work
practices necessary to safely perform
his/her job.
(2) The contract owner or operator
shall assure that each contract employee
Is instructed in the known potential fire,
explosion, or toxic release hazards
related to his/her job and the process,
and the applicable provisions of the
emergency action plan.
(3) The contract owner or operator
shall document that each contract
employee has received and understood
the training required by this section.
The contract owner or operator shall
prepare a record which contains the
identity of the contract employee, the
date of training, and the means used to
verity that the employee understood the
training.
(4) The contract owner or operator
shall assure that each contract employee
follows the safety rules of the stationary
source including the safe work practices
required by § 68.69(d).
(5) The contract owner or operator
shall advise the owner or operator of
any unique hazards presented by the
contract owner or operator's work, or of
any hazards found by the contract
owner or operator's work.
11. Subpart E is added to read as
follows:
Subpart E—Emergency Reaponaa
Sec.
68.90 Applicability.
68,95 Emergency Response Program.
Subpart £—Emergency Response
IS8.90 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, the owner or operator
of a stationary source with Program 2
and Program 3 processes shall comply
with the requirements of § 68.95.
(bj The owner or operator of
stationary source whose employees will
not respond to accidental releases of
regulated substances need not comply
with §68.95 of this part provided that
they meet the following:
(I) For stationary sources with any
regulated toxic substance held in a
process above the threshold quantity,
the stationary source is included In the
community emergency response plan
developed under 42 U.S.C. i 1003;
(2) For stationary sources with only
regulated flammable substances held In
a process above the threshold quantity,
the owner or operator has coordinated
response actions with the local fire
department; and
(3) Appropriate mechanisms are In
place to notify emergency responders
when there is a need for a response,
f 68.95 Emergency reaporiaa program.
(a) The owner or operator shall
develop and Implement an emergency
response program for the purpose of
protecting public health and the
environment. Such program shall
include the following elements:
(1) An emergency response plan,
which shall be maintained at th*
stationary source and contain at lent
the following elements:
(1) Procedures for informing th*
public and local emergency rtjponaa
agencies about accidental releases;
(it) Documentation of proper flrw-aid
and emergency medical treatment
necessary to treat accidental human
exposures; and
(iii) Procedures and measures for
emergency response after an accidental
release of a regulated substance;
(2) Procedures for the use of
emergency response equipment and far
Its Inspection, testing, and maintenance:
(3) Training for all employee* in
relevant procedures; and
{4} Procedures to review and i
as appropriate, the emergency i
plan to reflect changes at the stationary
source and ensure that employee* an
informed of changes.
(b) A written plan that compile* with
other Federal contingency plan
-------
31726 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
regulations or Is consistent with the
approach In the National Response
Team's Integrated Contingency Plan
Outdance ("One Plan") and that, among
other matters, includes the elements
provided In paragraph (a) of this
section, shall satisfy the requirements of
this section If the owner or operator also
complies with paragraph (c) of this
section.
(c) The emergency response plan
developed under paragraph (a)(l) of this
section shall be coordinated with the
community emergency response plan
developed under 42 U.S.C, 11003. Upon
request of the local emergency planning
committee or emergency response
officials, the owner or operator shall
promptly provide to the local
emergency response officials
information necessary for developing
and Implementing the community
emergency response plan.
12. Subpart G is added to read as
follows:
Subpart Q—Risk Management Plan
Sec.
68.150 Submission.
68.155 Executive summary.
88.160 Registration.
68.165 Oflsice consequence analysis.
68.168 Five-year accident history.
68.170 Prevention program/Program 2.
68.175 Prevention program/Program 3.
68.180 Emergency response program.
68.185 Certification.
63.190 Updates.
Subpart G—Risk Management Plan
§68.150 Submission.
(a) The owner or operator shall submit
a single RMP that includes the
information required by §§ 68.155
through 68.185 for all covered
processes. The RMP shall be submitted
in a method and format to a central
point as specified by EPA prior to June
21. 1S99.
(b) The owner or operator shall
submit the first RMP no later than the
latest of the following dates:
(1) June 21, 1999;
(2) Three years after the date on
which a regulated substance Is first
listed under § 88.130; or
(3} The date on which a regulated
substance is first present above a
threshold quantity in a process.
(c) Subsequent submissions of RMPs
shall be In accordance with § 68.190.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of
§§68.155 to 68.190, the RMP shall
exclude classified information. Subject
to appropriate procedures to protect
such information from public
disclosure, classified data or
information excluded from the RMP
may be made available in a classified
annex to the RMP for review by Federal
and state representatives who have
received the appropriate security
clearances.
§ 68.155 Executive summary.
The owner or operator shall provide
in the RMP an executive summary that
includes a brief description of the
following elements:
(a) The accidental release prevention
and emergency response policies at the
stationary source;
(b) The stationary source and
regulated substances handled;
(c) The worst-case release scenarlo(s)
and the alternative release scenario(s),
including administrative controls and
mitigation measures to limit the
distances for each reported scenario;
(d) The general accidental release
prevention program and chemical-
specific prevention steps;
(e) The five-year accident history;
(f) The emergency response program;
and
(g) Planned changes to Improve safety.
§68.160 Registration.
(a) The owner or operator shall
complete a single registration form and
include it in the RMP. The form shall
cover all regulated substances handled
in covered processes.
(b) The registration shall Include the
following data:
(1) Stationary source name, street
city, county, state, zip code, latitude,
and longitude;
(2) The stationary source Dun and
Bradstreet number;
(3) Name and Dun and Bradstreet
number of the corporate parent
company,
(4j The name, telephone number, and
mailing address of the owner or
operator;
(5) The name and title of the person
or position with overall responsibility
for RMP elements and implementation;
(6) The name, title, telephone number.
and 24-hour telephone number of the
emergency contact;
(7) For each covered process, the
name and CAS number of each
regulated substance held above the
threshold quantity in the process, the
maximum quantity of each regulated
substance or mixture In the process (In
pounds! to two significant digits, the
SIC code, and the Program level of the
process;
(8) The stationary source EPA
identifier;
(9) The number of full-time
employees at the stationary source;
(10) Whether the stationary source Is
subject to 29 CFR 1910.H9:
(II) Whether the stationary source Is
subject to 40 CFR part 355;
(12) Whether the stationary source has
a CAA Title V operating permit; and
(13) The date of the last safety
Inspection of the stationary source by a
Federal, state, or local government
agency and the identity of the
inspecting entity.
§ 68.165 Off site consequence analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shall submit
in the RMP Information:
(1) One worst-case release scenario for
each Program 1 process; and
(2) For Program 2 and 3 processes,
one worst-case release scenario to
represent all regulated toxic substances
held above the threshold quantity and
one worst-case release scenario to
represent all regulated flammable
substances held above the threshold
quantity. If additional worst-case
scenarios for toxics or flammables are
required by §68.25(a)(2)(lll). the owner
or operator shall submit the same
information on the additional
scenario(s). The owner or operator of
Program 2 and 3 processes shall also
submit information on one alternative
release scenario for each regulated toxic
substance held above the threshold
quantity and one alternative release
scenario to represent all regulated
flammable substances held above the
threshold quantity.
(b) The owner or operator shall
submit the following data:
(1) Chemical name:
(2) Physical state (toxics only):
(3) Basis of results (give model name
if used);
(4) Scenario (explosion, fire, toxic gas
release, or liquid spill and
vaporization);
(5) Quantity released in pounds:
(6) Release rate;
(?) Release duration;
(8) Wind speed and atmospheric
stability class (toxics only);
(9) Topography (toxics only};
(10) Distance to endpolnc
(11) Public and environmental
receptors within the distance
(12) Passive mitigation considered;
and
(13) Active mitigation considered
(alternative releases only);
§ 68.16fl Five-year accident history
The owner or operator shall submit in
the RMP the information provided in
§ 68.42(b) on each accident covered fry
§68.42(a).
§88.170 Prevention program/Proflrsei J.
(a) For each Program 2 proe**s* (he
owner or operator shall provide in die
RMP the information indicated in
paragraphs {b) dirough (k) of ihii
section. !f the same Information applies
-------
Federal Register / Voi. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31727
to more than one covered process, the
owner or operator may provide the
Information only once, but shall
indicate to which processes the
information applies.
(b) The SIC code for the process.
(c) The name(s) of the chemlcal(s)
covered.
(d) The date of the most recent review
or revision of the safety Information and
a list of Federal or state regulations or
industry-specific design codes and
standards used to demonstrate
compliance with the safety information
requirement.
(e) The date of completion of the most
recent hazard review or update.
(1) The expected date of completion
of any changes resulting from the hazard
review;
(2) Major hazards Identified;
(3) Process controls in use;
(4) Mitigation systems In use;
(S) Monitoring and detection systems
in use; and
(6) Changes since the last hazard
review.
(f) The date of the most recent review
or revision of operating procedures.
(g) The date of the most recent review
or revision of training programs;
(1) The type of training provided.—
classroom, classroom plus on the job, on
the job; and
(2) The type of competency testing
used.
fh) The date of the most recent review
or revision of maintenance procedures
and the date of the most recent
equipment Inspection or test and the
equipment inspected or tested.
(i) The date of the most recent
compliance audit and the expected date
of completion of any changes resulting
from the compliance audit.
(|) The date of the most recent
incident Investigation and the expected
date of completion of any changes
resulting from the Investigation.
(k) The date of the most recent change
that triggered a review or revision of
safety Information, the hazard review.
operating or maintenance procedures, or
training.
§88.175 Prevention program/Program 3.
(a) For each Program 3 process, the
owner or operator shall provide the
information indicated in paragraphs (b)
through (p) of this section. If the same
information applies to more than one
covered process, the owner or operator
may provide the Information only once,
but shall indicate to which processes
the information applies.
(b) The SIC code for the process.
(c) The name(s) of the substance(s)
covered.
(d) The date on which the safety
Information was last reviewed or
revised.
(e) The date of completion of the most
recent PHA or update and the technique
used.
(1) The expected date of completion
of any changes resulting from the PHA;
(2) Major hazards identified;
(3) Process controls In use;
(4) Mitigation systems In use;
(5) Monitoring and detection systems
in use; and
(6) Changes since the last PHA.
(f) The date of the most recent review
or revision of operating procedures.
(gj The date of the most recent review
or revision of training programs;
(1) The type of training provided—
classroom, classroom plus on the job. on
the job; and
(2) The type of competency testing
used.
(h) The date of the most recent review
or revision of maintenance procedures
and the date of the most recent
equipment Inspection or test and the
equipment inspected or tested.
(1) The date of the most recent change
that triggered management of change
procedures and the date of the most
recent review or revision of
management of change procedures.
(j) The date of the most recent pre-
startup review.
(k) The date of the most recent
compliance audit and the expected date
of completion of any changes resulting
from the compliance audit;
0) The date of the most recent
Incident investigation and the expected
date of completion of any changes
resulting from the investigation;
(m) The date of the most recent
review or revision of employee
participation plans:
(n) The date of the most recent review
or revision of hot work permit
procedures;
(o) The date of the most recent review
or revision of contractor safety
procedures; and
(p) The date of the most recent
evaluation of contractor safety
performance.
§ 68.180 Emergency response program.
(a) The owner or operator shall
provide In the RMP the following
Information:
(1) Do you have a written emergency
response plan?
(2) Does the plan Include specific
actions to be taken In response to an
accidental releases of a regulated
substance?
(3) Does the plan include procedures
for informing the public and local
agencies responsible for responding to
accidental releases?
(4) Does the plan include Information
on emergency health care?
(5) The date of the most recent review
or update of the emergency response
plan;
(6) The date of the most recent
emergency response training for
employees.
(b) The owner or operator shall
provide the name and telephone
number of the local agency with which
the plan Is coordinated.
(c) The owner or operator shall list
other Federal or state emergency plan
requirements to which the stationary
source is subject,
§68.185 Certification,
(a) For Program 1 processes, the
owner or operator shall submit In the
RMP the certification statement
provided In § 68.12(b) (4).
(b) For all other covered processes,
the owner or operator shall submit In
the RMP a single certification that to
the best of the signer's knowledge.
Information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry, the; information
submitted is true, accurate, and
complete.
i 88.190 Update*.
(a) The owner or operator shall review
and update the RMP as specified In
paragraph (b) of this section and submit
it In a method and format to a central
point specified by EPA prior to June 21.
1999.
{b} The owner or operator of a
stationary source shall revise and
update the RMP submitted under
§68.150 as follows:
(1) Within five years of its Initial
submission or most recent update
required by paragraphs (b) (2) through
(b)(7) of this section, whichever is later.
(2) No later than three years after a
newly regulated substance is first listed
by EPA;
(3} No later than the date on which a
new regulated substance Is first present
in an already covered process above a
threshold quantity;
(4) No later than the date on which a
regulated substance Is first present
above a threshold quantity In a new
process;
(5) Within six months of a change that
requires a revised PHA or hazard
review;
(3) Within six months of a change that
requires a revised offsite consequence
analysis as provided In § 68.36: and
(7) Within six months of a change that
alters the Program level that applied to
any covered process,
(c) If a stationary source Is no longer
subject to this part, the owner or
operator shall submit a revised
-------
31728 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
registration to EPA within six months
indicating thai the stationary source is
no longer covered,
13, Subpart H is added to read as
follows:
Subpart H—Other Requirement*^
Sec. *~
§68.200 Recordkeeping.
§68.210 Availability of information to the
public.
68.215 Permit content and air permitting
authority or designated agency
requirements.
68.220 Audits.
Subpart H—Other Requirements
§ 68.200 Reeordkeeplng.
The owner or operator shall maintain
records supporting the implementation
of this part for five years unless
otherwise provided in Subpart D of this
part.
168410 Availability of information to the
public.
(a) The RMP required under subpart
G of this part shall be available to the
public under 42 U.S.C. 7414(c).
(b) The disclosure of classified
information by the Department of
Defense or other Federal agencies or
contractors of such agencies shall be
controlled by applicable laws,
regulations, or executive orders
concerning the release of classified
information.
I 68.215 Permit content and air permitting
authority or designated agency
requirements.
(a) These requirements apply to any
stationary source subject to this part 68
and parts 70 or 71 of this Chapter. The
40 CFR part 70 or part 71 permit for the
stationary source shall contain:
(1) A statement listing this part as an
applicable requirement;
(2) Conditions that require the source
owner or operator to submit:
(1) A compliance schedule for meeting
the requirements of this part by the date
provided in §68.10(a) or;
(ii) As part of the compliance
certification submitted under 40 CFR
70.6(cJ(5). a certification statement that
the source is in compliance with all
requirements of this part. Including the
registration and submission of the RMP.
(b) The owner or operator shall
submit any additional relevant
information requested by the air
permitting authority or designated
agency.
(c) For 40 CFR part 70 or part 71
permits Issued prior to the deadline for
registering and submitting the RMP and
which do not contain permit conditions
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator or air
permitting authority shall initiate
permit revision or reopening according
to the procedures of 40 CFR 70.7 or 71.7
to incorporate the terms and conditions
consistent with paragraph (a) of this
section.
(d) The state may delegate the
authority to implement and enforce the
requirements of paragraph (e} of this
section to a state or local agency or
agencies other than the air permitting
authority. An up-to-date copy of any
delegation instrument shall be
maintained by the air permitting
authority. The state may enter a written
agreement with the Administrator under
which EPA will implement and enforce
the requirements of paragraph (e) of this
section.
(e) The air permitting authority or the
agency designated by delegation or
agreement under paragraph (d) of this
section shall, at a minimum:
(1) Verify that the source owner or
operator has registered and submitted
an RMP or a revised plan when required
by this part;
(2) Verify that the source owner or
operator has submitted a source
certification or in its absence has
submitted a compliance schedule
consistent with paragraph (a) (2) of this
section;
(3) For some or all of the sources
subject to this section, use one or more
mechanisms such as. but not limited to,
a completeness check, source audits,
record reviews, or facility inspections to
ensure that permitted sources are in
compliance with the requirements of
this part; and
(4) Initiate enforcement action based
on paragraphs (e)(I) and (e)(2) of this
section as appropriate.
868.220 Audit*.
(a) In addition to inspections for the
purpose of regulatory development and
enforcement of the Act, the
implementing agency shall periodically
audit RMPs submitted under subpart G
of this part to review the adequacy of
such RMPs and require revisions of
RMPs when necessary to ensure
compliance with subpart G of this part.
(b) The implementing agency shall
select stationary sources for audits
based on any of Uie following criteria:
(!) Accident history of the stationary
source;
(2) Accident history of other
stationary sources in the same industry;
(3) Quantify of regulated substances
present at the stationary source;
(4) Location of the stationary source
and its proximity to the public and
environmental receptors;
(5) The presence of specific regulated
substances;
(6) The hazards Identified In the RMI
and
(7) A plan providing for neutral,
random oversight.
(c) Exemption from audits. A
stationary source with a Star or Merit
ranking under OSHA's voluntary
protection program shall be exempt
from audits under paragraph (b)(2) and
(b)J7) of this section.
(d) The implementing agency shall
have access to the stationary source,
supporting documentation, and any ares
where an accidental release could occuf
(e) Based on the audit, the
implementing agency may issue the
owner or operator of a stationary source
a written preliminary determination of
necessary revisions to the stationary
source's RMP to ensure that the RMP
meets the criteria of subpart G of this
part. The preliminary determination
shall Include an explanation for the
basis for the revisions, reflecting
Industry standards and guidelines (such
as AlChE/CCPS guidelines and ASME
and API standards) to the extent that
such standards and guidelines are
applicable, and shall include a timetable
for their implementation.
(f) Written response to a preliminary
determination.
(I) The owner or operator shall
respond In writing to a preliminary
determination made in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section. The
response shall state the owner or
operator will implement the revisions
contained in the preliminary
determination in accordance with the
timetable Included in the preliminary
determination or shall state that the
owner or operator rejects the revisions
In whole or in part For each rejected
revision, the owner or operator shall
explain the basis for rejecting such
revision. Such explanation may include
substitute revisions.
(2) The written response under
paragraph (f)(l) of this section shall be
received by the Implementing agency
within 90 days of the issue of the
preliminary determination or a shorter
period of time as the implementing
agency specifies in the preliminary
determination as necessary to protect
public health and the environment.
Prior to the written response being due
and upon written request from the
owner or operator, the implementing
agency may provide in writing
additional time for the response to be
received.
(g) After providing the owner or
operator an opportunity to respond
under paragraph (f) of this section, the
implementing agency may issue the
owner or operator a written final
determination of necessary revisions to
-------
Federal Register/ Vol. 61. No. 126 I Thursday. June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31729
Lhe stationary source's RMP. The final
determination may adopt or modify the
revisions contained in the preliminary
determination under paragraph {e} of
this section or may adopt or modify the
substitute revisions provided in the
response under paragraph (tfot this
section. A final determination that
adopts a revision rejected by the owner
or operator shall Include an explanation
of the basis for the revision. A final
determination that fails to adopt a
substitute revision provided under
paragraph (f) of this section shall
Include an explanation of the basis for
finding such substitute revision
unreasonable.
(h) Thirty days after completion of the
actions detailed In the Implementation
schedule set in the final determination
under paragraph (g) of this section, the
owner or operator shall be in violation
ofsubpart G of this part and this section
unless the owner or operator revises the
RMP prepared under subpart G of this
part as required by the final
determination, and submits the revised
RMP as required under § 68.150.
(1) The public shall have access to the
preliminary determinations, responses,
and final determinations under this
section in a manner consistent with
§68.210.
Q) Nothing in this section shall
preclude, limit, or interfere in any way
with the authority of EPA or the state to
exercise Its enforcement. Investigatory,
and Information gathering authorities
concerning this part under the Act.
14. Part 68 Appendix A is added to
read as follows:
APPENDIX A TO PART 68—TABLE OF Toxic
[As defined in §68.22 of this pan*]
CAS No.
1Q7-O2-8
107-13-1 ,
814-68-8
107-18-6 ..
107-1 1-9 , ...
7664-41-7 ... .
7564-41-7
7784_34_1 t ,
7784-42-1 ... .
1Q294_34_5
7637-07-2 .,
353-42-4 .
7726-95-6
75-15-0 „ . .
7782-50-5
10049-04-4 .. .
67-66-3 .....
542-68-1
107-30-2
4170-30-3
123-73-9
506-77-4
108-91-a
19287-45-7
75-73-5
57-14-7 „„
108-89-8
107-15-3
151-56-4
75-21 -€
778S-41-4 ,
50-00-0 ..,.„.
110-00-9
302-01-2
7647-O1-Q
74-90-8
7647-01-0
7664-39-4
7783-07-5
7783-06—4
13463—40-6
78-82-0
108-23-6
126-98-7 ..
74-87-3
79-22-1
g 0_34_4
624-83-9
74-93—1
556-64-9
75-79-fi
13463-39-3
7697-37-2
Chemical name
Acroteln J2-Propenal] ,
Acrytonitrila [2-PropenenftrBe}
Acrytyt chloride |2-Pr0penoyf chloride] „. . .,
Alryl alcohol [2-Propen-1 -of] _.„ ..
Allylamlne [2-Propen-1*amfrwJ .„..,„.., ... ....... .„..„.,..,„.,.,...„.,. ,
Ammonia (anhydrous) . ... .. , .. ., .......... ,
Ammonia (cone 20% or greater) ... ... . .
Afsfifious iriftfiiorMs ,. ,,, .... ,,,,. ... , ,., ,. , , ,, .,...
Arsfne . . ... .. *. . .
Boron trichloride [Borane, irichtoro-J ... .... . ... .... .... .... ...
Boron trifluoride [Borane tnfluoro-J ..
Boron irifluorkse compound with methyl ether (vi) (Boron trtflu0ro[oxyt3is[methane]J- T-4
Bromine ,.,.. ...,, ..
Carbon dlsutfide ... , ... ...
Chlorine ,
Chlorine dioxide [Chlorine oxide (CIO2)J , ..... ...... .... .... , , ..... .. . ,
Chloroform [Methane, iricttoro-] , , ,
Chloromelhyl ether [Methane, oxyWs{ohloro-J .........
Chloromethyl methyl ether [Methane, chloromethoxy-] .....
Crotonaldefiyde [2-Sutenal] , .. .
Crotonaidehyde (£}• [2-6irtenal. (E)-j , ,
Cyanogen chloride , „ .,..,„,.. , ...
Cydoriexytamine [Cy clone xana mine] , ,
Dt'borane , ,
Dimeihyfdicrilorosilana [SOane, dicrilorodlrnsthyl-J , ,
1 1 -Dlmetnyirtydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,1 -dimethyl-] , ,. ......,,. .....
Eptchtorohytirin [Oxlnno (chlorwnethyl}-) ,
Elhytenedlamrno [1 2-ElhanedJamineJ ,...,„ .,.,... ...
EthyienflMra [Azfridlne] .„
Ethytena oxWs [Oxiranfl] ,,,....,.,,..
Fluorine ... ., .„ ,
Formaldehycte (solution) ., .,, ,.....,
Furan . ..... „. , .,.,...,
Hydrazine „ . . , , ... ... ..,..,,..,.........,,.
Hydrochloric acid (cone 30% or greater)
Hydrocyanic acid , ,
Hydrogen chloride (anhydrous) [Hydrochloric add]
Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid (cone 50% or greater) (Hydrofluoric acid]
Hydrogen selertde , ,......,
Hydrogen sutfide ., ......
Iron (xsntacarbonyi- [Iron carbonyl (Fd(CO)5) (TB— 5— 11)-] ,...„,
Isobutyronitrila [Propanenrtrile 2-methyl-j . . .. . ,
Isopropyl chioroformate (Cartoonochlortd* Mid, l-uiBthytethyl ester] , .... . . ........ ..
Melhacrytonrtrile [2-Propenenitrile, 2-rnettiyi*] _- 1
Methyl chloride [Methane cMoro-| , „ ,,.„... ,
Methyl chlnroformatfl (CarbonochlorMIc acid, methytesterj , .. ... ....^ ..... ,,,..,...,.,,,,.,
Methyl hydrazine [Hydrazine melhyl-} .. -~ ..„ , ,
Methyl isocyanate IMetharw isocyanato*i . . . .... . ..... ,..,..«,...,
Methyl mercaptan [Meirtanethion ....
Methyl thiocyanata [Thiocyanic acid, meUiyl wier) .,..., ,„....,
Nickel carOonyl •
Nitric acid (cone 80% or oreateri
Toxic
end point
(mgr'L)
G QG11
0078
0 00090
0036
00032
0 14
0 14
0010
000t9
0010
0028
0023
00065
0 16
0.0087
00028
0,49
0.00025
0.0018
0029
0029
0030
0.18
00011
0028
0012
0076
049
0.018
0.090
00039
0.012
.0012
0011
0.030
0.011
0.030
0.016
0.00066
0.042
0.00044
0-14
0.10
0.0027
0.82
0-0019
0.0094
0.0012
0.049
0.085
0.018
O.OOOS7
0.028
-------
31730 Federal Register / Vot. 61, No. 120 / Thursday. June 20. 1996 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX A TO PART 68—TAILE OF Toxic ENDPOINTS—Continued
[As defined in §68.22 of this part)
CAS No.
10102^13-9
8014-95-7
75-21-0
594-42-3
75-44-5
7803-51-2
10025-87-3
7719-12-2
l1Q-€ft-4 _ t
107-12-0
109-61-5 , .. .. , ,
75-55-8
75-56-9
7446-09-5
7783-60-0
744S_H_g
75-74-1
S09_14_fl ,
7750-45-0
584-84-9
91-08-7
25471-62-5
75-77-4
108-05-4
Chefnical name
Nitric oxide [Nitrogen oxide {NO}]
Oleum (Fuming Sulfuric acid) (Sulfuric acid, mixture wilh sulfur trtoxide]
Peracetic ictd [Ethaneperaxoic acid] , ,
PerchtoromeUiyifflercaptan (Melhanesulfenyl chloride, trtchloro-J ,. „ ... ....... .
Phosgene [Carbonic dichlorlda] , ., .
Phosphins , ... ..
Phosphorus oxyditoride (Phosphory! chloride] „ , „.,„
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous trichloride]
PiperkJine , , ,
PfopionNrile [PropanefiHriie] ...
Propyl cWorofoimale (Carbonochloridlc acid propylester]
Propyleneiirtne [Azirtcfflne 2-methyi-] , .
Propytene oxide [Qxirane methyl-}
Sulfur dfoxSde (anhydrous) . ,
Suffur tatrafluoride [Sulfur fluoride (SF4), (T-4)-] .... ...
Sulfur trioxide
Tetrarnelhyllead [Plumbane, tetramelliyl-] .
TelrartlfOflriflthaiie [Methane, telfanitro-J . ...... , .
Titanium teiracWoride [Titanium chloride (TiC14) {T-4)-J .. „
Toluene 2,4-
-------
RMP
OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
GUIDANCE
May 24, 1996
-------
This document guides the owner or operator of processes covered by the Risk Management Program
rule in the analysis of offsite consequences of accidental releases of substances regulated under section
H2(r) of die Clean Air Act. This document does not substitute for EPA's regulations, nor is it a
regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the
regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA
may change this guidance in the future, as appropriate.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pagg
Roadmap to Consequence Analysis Guidance by Type of Chemical vii
1.0 Overview 1
2.0 Determining Worst-Case Scenario 2
2.1 Definition of Worst-Case Scenario 2
2.2 Determination of Quantity for the Worst-Case Scenario 4
2.3 Selecting Single Worst-Case Scenario 5
3.0 Release Rates for Toxic Substances 5
3.1 Release Rates for Toxic Gases 5
3.1.1 Unmitigated Releases of Gas 6
3.1.2 Releases of Gas in Enclosed Space 6
3.1.3 Releases of Liquefied Refrigerated Gas in Diked Area 7
3.2 Release Rates for Toxic Liquids 8
3.2.1 Releases of Liquids from Pipes 8
3.2.2 Unmitigated Releases of Liquids 9
3.2.3 Releases of Liquids with Passive Mitigation 10
3.2.4 Mixtures Containing Toxic Liquids 13
3.3 Release Rates for Common Water Solutions of Toxic Substances 15
4.0 Estimation of Distance to Toxic Endpoint 18
S.O Estimation of Distance to Overpressure Endpoint for Flammable Substances 21
5.1 Flammable Substances Not in Mixtures 21
5.2 Flammable Mixtures 22
Reference Tables for Worst-Case Consequence Distances 24
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Rate Divided by
Endpoint, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per Second
1 10-Minute Release, Rural Conditions 24
2 60-Minute Release, Rural Conditions 25
3 10-Minute Release, Urban Conditions 26
4 60-Minute Release, Urban Conditions 27
-------
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
__ (Continued)
Pagg
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per
Second
5 10-Minute Release, Rural Conditions 28
6 60-Minute Release, Rural Conditions .29
7 10-Minute Release, Urban Conditions , 30
8 60-Minute Release, Urban Conditions 31
Vapor Cloud Explosion Distances for Flammable Substances:
9 Distance to Overpressure of 1.0 psi for Vapor Cloud Explosions
of 10,000 - 500,000 Pounds of Regulated Flammable Substances 32
6.0 Determining Alternative Release Scenarios 35
7.0 Analysis of Alternative Scenarios for Toxic Substances 35
8.0 Estimation of Release Rates for Alternative Release Scenarios for Toxic Substances .... 36
8.1 Release Rates for Toxic Gases . 36
8.1.1 Unmitigated Releases of Gases 36
8.1.2 Mitigated Releases of Gases .37
8.2 Release Rates for Toxic Liquids 39
8.2.1 Liquid Release Rate and Quantity Released for Unmitigated Releases ... 39
8.2.2 Liquid Release Rate and Quantity Released for Mitigated Releases 41
8.2.3 Evaporation Rate from Liquid Pool 43
8.2.4 Common Water Solutions of Toxic Substances 44
9.0 Estimating Impact Distances for Alternative Release Scenarios for Toxic Substances .... 44
10.0 Analysis of Alternative Release Scenarios for Flammable Substances 47
11.0 Estimation of Release Rates for Alternative Release Scenarios for Flammable
Substances . 48
11.1 Flammable Gases 48
11.2 Flammable Liquids 49
12.0 Estimating Impact Distances for Alternative Release Scenarios for Flammable
Substances 49
12.1 Vapor Cloud Fires 49
12.2 Pool Fires 52
12.3 BLEVEs 53
12.4 Vapor Cloud Explosion 53
-------
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.. (Continued)
Page
Reference Tables for Distances for Alternative Scenarios . 55
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Rate Divided by
Endpoint, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second:
10 10-Minute Release, Rural Conditions 55
11 60-Minute Release, Rural Conditions , 56
12 10-Minute Release, Urban Conditions 57
13 60-Minute Release, Urban Conditions 58
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per
Second:
14 10-Minute Release, Rural Conditions 59
15 60-Minute Release, Rural Conditions 60
16 10-Minute Release, Urban Conditions . 61
17 60-Minute Release, Urban Conditions 62
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Lower Flammability Limit (LFL) for Release
Rate Divided by LFL:
18 Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second 63
19 Urban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second 63
Dense Gas Distances to Lower Flammabiliry Limit:
20 Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second . 64
21 Urban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second .65
BLEVE Distances for Flammable Substances:
22 Distance to Radiant Heat Dose at Potential Second Degree Burn Threshold Assuming
Exposure for Duration of Fireball 66
13.0 Estimating Offsite Receptors .69
14.0 Submitting Offsite Consequence Analysis Information for Risk Management Plan 70
14.1 Documentation Required for Worst-Case Scenarios for Toxic Substances 70
14.2 Documentation Required for Alternative Scenarios for Toxic Substances . 71
14.3 Documentation Required for Worst-Case Scenarios for Flammable Substances ... 71
14.4 Documentation Required for Alternative Scenarios for Flammable Substances .... 72
-------
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
„_ (Continued)
Page
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Publicly Available Models and References for Calculation Methods 73
Appendix B: Toxic Substances gi
B.I Data for Toxic Substances ,82
B.2 Mixtures Containing Toxic Liquids . 89
Appendix C: Flammable Substances 91
C. 1 Equation for Estimation of Distance to 1 psi Overpressure for Vapor Cloud
Explosions . . . 92
C.2 Mixtures of Flammable Substances 92
C.3 Data for Flammable Substances 93
Appendix D: Technical Background 101
D.I Worst-Case Release Rate for Gases 102
D.I.I Unmitigated Release . 102
D.1.2 Gaseous Release Inside Building 102
D.2 Worst-Case Release Rate for Liquids 102
D.2.1 Evaporation Rate Equation 102
D.2,2 Factors for Evaporation Rate Estimates 103
D.2.3 Common Water Solutions . 104
D.2.4 Releases Inside Buildings 105
D.3 Toxic Endpoints 107
D.4 Reference Tables for Distances to Toxic and Flammable Endpoints ......... 10S
D.4.1 Neutrally Buoyant Gases , 10S
D.4.2 Dense Gases . 109
D.4.3 Choice of Reference Table for Liquids and Solutions 110
D.5 Worst-Case Consequence Analysis for Flammable Substances ............ 110
D.6 Alternative Scenario Analysis for Toxic Gases Ill
D.7 Alternative Scenario Analysis for Toxic Liquids 113
D.7.1 Releases from Holes in Tanks 113
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
~ Page
D.7.2 Releases from Pipes 114
D.8 Vapor Cloud Fires 115
D.9 Pool Fires 115
D.10 BLEVls 118
D.ll Alternative Scenario Analysis for Vapor Cloud Explosions 120
Appendix E: Risk Management Program Rule 122
-------
VI
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit ~" Page
i Required Parameters for Modeling 3
2 Atmospheric Stability Classes 45
A-l Summary of Several Public Domain Models 75
A-2 Selected References for Information on Consequence Analysis Methods ............ 79
B-l Data for Toxic Gases . 83
B-2 Data for Toxic Liquids .85
B-3 Data for Water Solutions of Toxic Substances and for Oleum 88
C-l Heats of Combustion for Flammable Substances 94
C-2 Date for Flammable Gases 97
C-3 Data for Flammable Liquids 100
-------
VII
Roadmap to Consequence Analysis Guidance by Type of Chemical
Type of Chemical and Release Scenario
Applicable Sections and Appendices
Toxic Gas
Wont-Case Scenario
1) Define Worst Case
2) Select Scenario
3) Calculate Release Rates
Unmitigated
Passive Mitigation
Refrigerated
4) Find Toxic Endpoint
S) Determine Reference Table and Distance
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant Plume
Urban or Rural
Release Duration
Section 2.1
Sections 2.2 & 2.3
Section 3.1.1
Section 3.1.2
Section 3.1.3
Appendix B (Exhibit B-l)
Section 3.1.3, 3.2.3
Section 4 & Appendix B (Exhibit B-l)
Sections 2.1 &4
Section 2.1
Alternative Scenario
1) Define Alternative Scenario
2) Select Scenario
3) Calculate Release Rates
Unmitigated (from tanks and pipes)
Active or Passive Mitigation
4) Find Toxic Endpoint
5) Determine Reference Table and Distance
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant Plume
Urban or Rural
Release Duration
Section 6
Section?
Section 8.1.1
Section S.I.2
Appendix B (Exhibit B-l)
Section 9 & Appendix B (Exhibit B-l)
Sections 2.1 & 9
Section 8.1.1
-------
Vlll
Toiic Liquid
Worst-Case Scenario
1) Define Worst Case
2) Select Scenario
3) Calculate Release Rales
Releases from pipes
Unmitigated Pool Evaporation
Passive Mitigation (dikes, buildings)
Release at Ambient Temperature
Release at Elevated Temperature
Releases of Solutions
Releases of Mixtures
4) Find Toxic Endpoint
For Liquids/Mixtures
For Solutions
5) Determine Reference Table and Distance
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant Plume (liquids)
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant Plume (solutions)
Urban or Rural
Release Duration (liquids)
Release Duration (solutions)
Section 2.1
Sections 2.2 & 2.3
Section 3.2.1
Section 3.2.2
Section 3.2.3
Section 3.2.2
Section 3.2.2
Section 3.3 & Appendix B (Exhibit B-3)
Section 3.2.4 and Appendix B (Section B.2)
Appendix B (Exhibit B-2)
Appendix B (Exhibit B-3)
Section 4 and Appendix B (Exhibit B-2)
Section 4 and Appendix B (Exhibit B-3)
Section 2.1 and 4
Section 3.2.2
Section 4
-------
IX
Toxic Liquid
Alternative Scenario
1) Define Alternative Scenario
2) Select Scenario
3) Calculate Release Rates
Unmitigated (from tanks and pipes)
Active or Passive Mitigation
Release at ambient temperature
Release at elevated temperature
Release of solution
4) Find Toxic Endpoint
For liquids/mixtures
For solutions
5) Determine Reference Table and Distance
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant Plume (liquids/mixtures)
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant Plume (solutions)
Urban or Rural
Release Duration (liquids/mixtures)
Release Duration (liquids/mixtures)
Section 6
Section?
Section 8.2 '
Section 8.2.1
Section 8.2.2
Section 8.2.3
Section 8.2.3
Sections 8.2.4 and 3.3 and Appendix B (Exhibit B-3)
Appendix B (Exhibit B-2)
Appendix B (Exhibit B-3)
Section 9 and Appendix B (Exhibit B-2)
Section 9 and Appendix B (Exhibit B-3)
Sections 2.1 and 9
Section 3.2.2
Section 9
-------
Flammable Substances
Worst-Case Scenario
1) Define Worst Case
2) Select Scenario
3) Determine Distance to Overpressure Endpoint
For Pure Flammable Substances
For Flammable Mixtures
Sections 5.1 and 2.1
Section S.I and 2.2 and 2.3
Section 5.1
Section 5.2
Alternative Scenario
1) Define Alternative Scenario
2) Select Scenario
3) For Vapor Cloud Files
Calculate Release Rates (gases)
Calculate Release Rates (liquids)
Find Lower Flammability Limit (gases)
Find Lower Fiammability Limit (liquids)
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant (gases)
Dense or Neutrally Buoyant (liquids)
Urban or Rural
Release Duration
Determine Distance
4) For Pool Fires
5) For BLEVEs
6) For Vapor Cloud Explosions
Section 10
Section 10
Section 12.1
Section 11.1 and Appendix C (Exhibit C-2)
Section 11.2
Appendix C (Exhibit C-2)
Appendix C (Exhibit C-3)
Appendix C (Exhibit C-2)
Appendix C (Exhibit C-3)
Section 2.1 and 9
Section 12.1
Section 9
Section 12.2 and Appendix C (Exhibit C-3)
Section 12.3
Section 12.4
-------
OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS GUIDANCE
1.0 Overview
Under the accidental release provisions of the Clean Air Act, regulated sources are required
to conduct hazard assessments, including offsite consequence analyses. This guidance is intended to
assist sources to conduct such offsite consequence analyses for worst-case release scenarios involving
regulated substances and alternative release scenarios. The worst-case consequence analyses and the
analyses for alternative scenarios are to be reported in the risk management plan (RMP). Consult
Chapters 13 and 14 of this document for information on what you will need to report.
If your site has Program 1 processes, you must submit information on a worst-case release
scenario for each toxic and flammable substance held above the threshold quantity in a Program 1
process. If your site has Program 2 or Program 3 processes, you must provide information on one
worst-case release for all toxic regulated substances present above the threshold quantity and one
worst-case release scenario for all flammable regulated substances present above the threshold
quantity. You may need to submit an additional worst-case scenario if a worst-case release from
another process at die source would potentially affect public receptors different from those potentially
affected by the initial worst-case scenario(s) for flammable and toxic regulated substances.
In addition to a worst-case release scenario, sources with Program 2 and Program 3 processes
must also provide information on alternative release scenarios. Alternative release scenarios are
should be those that may result in concentrations, overpressures, or radiant heat that reach the
endpoints specified for these effects offsite. You must present information on one alternative release
scenario for each regulated toxic substance, including the substance used for the worst-case release,
held above the threshold quantity and one alternative release scenario to represent all flammable
substances held above the threshold quantity.
The rule for risk management programs for accidental release prevention can be found at the
end of this document as Appendix E. Consult the rule for details of the requirements for regulated
sources.
This guidance provides simple methods and reference tables for determining consequence
distances for worst-case and alternative release scenarios. Results obtained using these methods are
expected to be conservative. Conservative assumptions have been introduced to compensate for high
levels of uncertainty. The methodology provided is optional. If you use this guidance to derive your
distances to endpoints, you will be considered to be in compliance with the requirements for offsite
consequence analyses. You may, however, use other air dispersion models or computation methods
provided that:
» They are publicly or commercially available or they are proprietary models
that you are willing to share with the implementing agency;
* They are appropriate for the chemicals and conditions being modeled;
* You use the applicable definitions of worst-case scenarios; and
* You use the applicable parameters specified in the rule.
-------
-2-
Exhibit 1 (next page) briefly presents the required parameters for modeling both worst-case
and alternative scenarios. If you do your own modeling, you may consider some site-specific
conditions for the worst-case analysis, as noted in the exhibit, and use site-specific conditions for the
alternative scenario analysis. For this guidance, a number of assumptions had to be made for broad
applicability and simplicity of use. These assumptions, which are noted in Exhibit 1 and in the text,
are built into and chemical-specific tables of data to be used in carrying out the release rate
calculations and the reference tables of distances.
Appendix A of this guidance provides some information on public domain models and
references that may be consulted for other methods of analysis. You are not limited to the models
and references included in the appendix, but may use any applicable model or method. This appendix
does not include details on the capabilities of the models listed. You will find that modeling results
may sometimes vary greatly from model to model.
In addition to this generic guidance, EPA is providing specific guidance for several industry
sectors, including:
• Ammonia refrigeration, Model Risk Management Program and Plan for
Ammonia Refrigeration (currently available);
* Propane distribution (currently in development); and
• Water treatment (currently in development).
2.0 Determining Worst-Case Scenario
2,1 Definition of Worst-Case Scenario
EPA has defined a worst-case release as the release of the largest quantity of a regulated
substance from a vessel or process line failure that results in the greatest distance to a specified
endpoint. The largest quantity should be determined taking into account administrative controls.
Administrative controls are procedures that limit the quantity of a substance that can be stored or
processed in a vessel or pipe at any one time, or, alternatively, procedures that occasionally allow the
vessel or pipe to store larger than usual quantities (e.g., during shutdown/turnaround). For the worst-
case analysis, you do not need to consider the possible causes of the worst-case release or the
probability that such a release might occur; the release is simply assumed to take place. All releases
are assumed to take place at ground level for the worst-case analysis,
Meteorological conditions for the worst-case scenario are defined for this guidance as
atmospheric stability class F (stable atmosphere), wind speed of 1.5 meters per second (3.4 miles per
hour), and ambient air temperature of 25° C (77° F).
Two choices are provided for topography for the worst-case scenario. If your site is located
in an area with few buildings or other obstructions, you should assume open (rural) conditions. If
your site is in an urban location, or is in an area with many obstructions, you should assume urban
conditions.
-------
-3-
Exhibit 1
Required Parameters for Modeling
WORST CASE
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Endpoints
Endpoints for toxic substances are specified in Appendix B.
For flammable substances, endpoint is overpressure of 1
pound per square inch (psi) for vapor cloud explosions.
Endpoints for toxic substances are specified in Appendix B.
For flammable substances, endpoint is overpressure of 1 psi 11
for vapor cloud explosions, or J[
Radiant heat level of 5 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) f
for 40 seconds for heat from fires (or equivalent dose), or j|
Lower flammability limit (LFL) as specified in NFPA
documents or other generally recognized sources.
Wind speed/stability
Use wind speed of 1.5 meters per second and F stability class
unless you can demonstrate that local meteorological data
applicable to the site show a higher minimum wind speed or
less stable atmosphere at all times during the previous three
years. If you can so demonstrate, these mmimuma may be
used. This guidance tpsgrocs 1.5 meters per second and F
stability.
For site-specific modeling, use typical meteorological
conditions for your site. If you use this guidance, you
assume wind speed of 3 meters per second and D stability.
Ambient temperature/humidity
For toxic substances, use the highest daily maximum
temperature and average humidity for the site during the past
three years. If you are using this guidance, 25 °C (77°F) and
50 percent humidity are assumed.
You may use average temperature/humidity data gathered at
the site or at a local meteorological station. If you are
using this guidance, 25 °C and 50 percent humidity are
assumed.
Height of release
For toxic substances, assume a ground level release.
Release height may be determined by the release scenario.
For this guidance, a ground-level release is **>"rn*4,
Topography
Use urban or rural topography, as appropriate.
Dense or neutrally buoyant gases
Tables or models used for dispersion of regulated toxic
substances must appropriately account for gas density. If you
use this guidance, see Tables 1-4 for buoyant gases and
Tables 5-8 for dense gases.
Use urban or rural topography, as appropriate.
B
Tables or models used for dispersion must appropriately
account for gas density. If you use this guidance, see
Tables 10-13 for buoyant gases and Tables 14-1? for denja
gases.
Temperature of released substance
Consider liquids (other than gases liquefied by refrigeration)
tn he released HI the highest
-------
-4-
Toxicj*a§e§. Toxic gases include all regulated toxic substances that are gases at ambient
temperature (temperature 25° C, IT F), with the exception of gases liquefied by refrigeration under
atmospheric pressure.*" For the consequence analysis, a gaseous release of the total quantity is
assumed to occur in 10 minutes. Passive mitigation measures (e.g., enclosure) may be taken into
account in the analysis of the worst-case scenario. Gases liquefied by refrigeration alone and released
into diked areas may be modeled as liquids at their boiling points and assumed to be released from a
pool by evaporation.
The endpoint for air dispersion modeling to estimate the consequence distance for a release of
a toxic gas is presented for each regulated toxic gas in Exhibit B-l of Appendix B. The toxic
endpoint is, in order of preference: (1) the Emergency Response Planning Guideline 2 (ERPG-2),
developed by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AfflA), or (2) the Level of Concern
(LOC) for extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) regulated under section 302 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), This endpoint was chosen as the threshold
for serious injury from exposure to a toxic substance in the air. (See Appendix D, Section D.3, for
additional information on the toxic endpoint.}
Toxic. liquids. For toxic liquids, the total quantity in a vessel is assumed to be spilled onto a
flat, non-absorbing surface. For toxic liquids carried in pipelines, the quantity that might be released
from the pipeline is assumed to form a pool. Passive mitigation systems (e.g., dikes) may be taken
into account in consequence analysis. The total quantity spilled is assumed to spread instantaneously
to a depth of 0.39 inch (one centimeter) in an undiked area or to cover a diked area instantaneously.
The release rate to air is estimated as the rate of evaporation from the pool. If liquids at your site
might be spilled onto a surface that could rapidly absorb the spilled liquid (e.g., porous soil), the
methods presented in this guidance may greatly overestimate the consequences of a release. Consider
using another method in such a case,
The endpoinl for air dispersion modeling to estimate the consequence distance for a release of
a toxic liquid is presented for each regulated toxic liquid in Exhibit B-2 of Appendix B, The toxic
endpoint is, in order of preference: (1) the ERPG-2 or (2) the LOC for EHSs, as for toxic gases.
substances. For regulated flammable substances, including both flammable gases
and volatile flammable liquids, the worst-case release is assumed to result in a vapor cloud containing
the total quantity of the substance mat could be released from a vessel or pipeline. The entire
quantity in the cloud is assumed to be between the upper and lower flammability limits of the
substance. For the worst-case consequence analysis, the vapor cloud is assumed to detonate.
The endpoint for the consequence analysis of a vapor cloud explosion of a regulated
flammable substance is an overpressure of 1 pound per square inch (psi). This endpoint was chosen
as the threshold for potential serious injuries to people as a result of property damage caused by an
explosion (e.g., injuries from flying glass from shattered windows or falling debris from damaged
houses). (See Appendix D, Section D.5 for additional information on this endpoint.)
2.2 Determination of Quantity for the Worst-Case Scenario
For the analysis of the worst-case scenario, you myst consider the largest quantity of a
regulated substance handled on site in a single vessel at any one time, taking into account
administrative controls. For example, if you have written procedural restrictions that limit vessel
-------
-5-
invemories to less than the maximum, you would not consider the maximum possible vessel
inventory. If the vessel normally contains only a small quantity, but may contain a much greater
quantity under speciaTcircumstances, such as a turnaround, you must use the larger quantity for the
worst case. You also must consider the quantity that might be released if a pipeline were sheared.
2.3 Selecting Single Worst-Cue Scenario
The hazard assessment requires a single offsite consequence analysis of the worst-case
scenario for substances in each hazard category (i.e., one for regulated toxic substances and one for
regulated flammable substances). Only the hazard for which the substance is listed needs to be
considered (i.e., substances on the list of regulated toxic substances that are also flammable should be
analyzed only for their toxic hazard; substances on the list of regulated flammable substances should
be considered only for flammability).
The substance chosen for the consequence analysis for each hazard should be die substance
that has the potential to cause the greatest offsite consequences. Choosing the toxic substance that
might lead to the greatest offsite consequences may require a screening analysis of the toxic
substances on site, because the potential consequences are dependent on a number of factors,
including quantity, toxicity, and volatility. Location (distance to the fence!ine) and conditions of
processing or storage (e.g., a high temperature process) also should be considered.
For flammable substances, the consequences of a vapor cloud explosion must be considered in
the analysis. The severity of the consequences of a vapor cloud explosion depends on the quantity of
the released substance in the vapor cloud and its heat of combustion. In most cases, the analysis
probably should be based on die regulated flammable substance present in the greatest quantity;
however, a substance with a high heat of combustion may have a greater potential offsite impact than
a larger quantity of a substance with a lower heat of combustion. In some cases, a regulated
flammable substance that is close to the fencellne might have a greater potential offsite impact than a
larger quantity farther from the fenceline,
3.0 Release Rates for Toxic Substances
This section describes a simple method far estimating release rates for regulated toxic
substances for the worst-case scenario. The estimated release rates may be used to estimate
dispersion distances to the toxic endpoint for regulated toxic gases and liquids, as discussed in Section
4.
3.1 Release Rates for Toxic Gases
Regulated substances that are gases at ambient temperature (temperature 25° C, 77° F) should
be considered gases for consequence analysis, with the exception of gases liquefied by refrigeration at
atmospheric pressure. Gases liquefied under pressure should be treated as gases. Gases liquefied by
refrigeration alone and released into diked areas may be treated as liquids at their boiling points. You
may consider passive mitigation for gaseous releases and releases of gases liquefied by refrigeration.
For regulated toxic gases, you may estimate a release rate as described below. Sections 3.1.1 and
3.1.2 describe methods for estimating release rates for unmitigated and mitigated gaseous releases,
and Section 3.1.3 describes the estimation of the release rate of a refrigerated liquefied gas from a
diked pool.
-------
-6-
EPA is providing guidance, including guidance on offsite consequence analysis, specifically
for ammonia refrigeration facilities in Model Risk Management Program and Plan for Ammonia
Refrigeration, The ammonia-specific guidance takes into account the conditions encountered in
ammonia refrigeration; modeling results are somewhat less conservative than the results obtained
using this off-site consequence analysis guidance. If you are conducting a worst-case analysis for
ammonia used for refrigeration, you should consult the guidance for ammonia refrigeration facilities.
3.1.1 Unmitigated Releases of Gas
If no passive mitigation system is in place, estimate the release rate for the release over a 10-
minute period of the largest quantity resulting from a pipe or vessel failure. For a release from a
vessel, calculate die release rate as follows:
- QS
(1)
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
For a gas pipeline, assume the pipeline is sheared and use the usual flow rate through die pipe as the
release rate for the consequence analysis.
Example 1. Gas Release (Diborane)
You have a tank containing 2,500 pounds of diborane gas. Assuming the total quantity in the tank is
released over a 10-miauta period, the release rate (QR), from Equation 1, is:
QR - 2,500 pounds/10 minutes = 250 pounds per minute
3,13, Releases of Gas in Enclosed Space
If a gas is released in an enclosure such as a building or shed, the release rate to the outside
air may be lessened considerably. The dynamics of this type of release are complex; however, you
may use the simplified method presented here to estimate an approximate release rate to the outside
air from a release in an enclosed space. The enclosed space is assumed to be in direct contact with
the outside air; i.e., this method does not apply to a release in a room that is enclosed within a
building. For the worst case, assume as before .that the largest quantity resulting from a pipe or
vessel failure is released over a 10-minute period. Determine the unmitigated worst-case scenario
release rate of the gas as the quantity released divided by 10 (Equation 1). The release rate from the
building will be approximately 55 percent of the worst case scenario release rate (see Appendix D,
Section D, 1.1 for the derivation of this factor), as follows:
-------
-7-
QR = x 0.55
V 10
(2)
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
0.55 — Mitigation factor (discussed in Appendix D, Section D.I.2)
Example 2. Gas Release in Enclosure (Diborane)
Suppose the diborane gas from Example 1 is released inside a building at the rate of 250 pounds per
minute. The mitigated release to the outside air from the building would be:
QR = 250 pounds/minute x 0.55 = 138 pounds per minute
3.1.3 Releases of liquefied Refrigerated Gas in Diked Area
If you have a toxic gas that Is liquefied by refrigeration alone, and it will be released into an
area where it will be contained by dikes to form a pool more than 0.033 feet (1 centimeter) in depth,
you can carry out the worst-case analysis assuming evaporation from a liquid pool. First compare the
diked area to the maximum area of the pool that could be formed. You can use Equation 6 in Section
3.2.3 to estimate the maximum size of the pool. Density factors (DF) for toxic gases at their boiling
points are listed in Exhibit B-l of Appendix B. If the pool formed by the released liquid would be
smaller than the diked area, assume a ten-minute gaseous release, and estimate the release rate as
described in Section 3.1.1. If the dikes prevent the liquid from spreading out to form a pool of
maximum size (assuming a depth of 0.033 feet (one centimeter)), you may use the method described
in Section 3.2.3 for mitigated liquid releases to estimate a release rate from a pool at the boiling point
of the released substance. Use Equation 8 in Section 3.2.3 for the release rate. The Liquid Factor
Boiling (LFB) for each toxic gas is listed in Exhibit B-l of Appendix B.
After you have estimated the release rate, estimate the duration of the vapor release from the
pool by dividing the total quantity spilled by the release rate.
-------
-8-
Example 3. Mitigated Release of Gases Liquefied by Refrigeration (Chlorine)
You have a refrigerated tank containing 50,000 pounds of liquid chlorine. A diked area around the
chlorine tank of 275 square feet is sufficient to bold all of the spilled liquid chlorine. Once the liquid
spills into (lie dike, it is then assumed to evaporate at its boiling point (-29° F or 239 Kelvin). The
evaporation rate at the boiling point is determined from Equation S. For the calculation, wind speed
is assumed to be 1.5 meters per second and the wind speed factor is 1.4, LFB for chlorine (from
Exhibit B-l) is 0.19, and A is 275 square feet. The release rate is:
QR = 1.4 x 0.19 x 275 = 73 pounds per minute
The duration of the release would be:
t » 50,000 pounds/73 pounds per minute = 685 minutes
3.2 Release Rates for Toxic Liquids
The release rate to air for toxic liquids is assumed to be the rate of evaporation from the pool
formed by the released liquid. Assume the total quantity in a vessel is released into the pool, or
estimate the quantity that might be released from a pipe as discussed in Section 3.2.1 below. Passive
mitigation measures (e.g., dikes) may be considered in determining the area of the pool and the
release rate. If the substance on site is always at ambient temperature, the evaporation rate may be
determined assuming the pool and surroundings are at 25s C (77° F); this guidance provides data for
this calculation. His guidance also provides data for estimating the evaporation rate at the boiling
point of the substance, for cases where the substance may be at elevated temperatures.
The calculation methods provided in this section apply only to substances that are liquids
under ambient conditions. For substances mat are gases under ambient conditions, but are liquefied
under pressure or refrigeration, see Section 3.1 above.
3 J.I Releases of Liquids from Pipes
To consider a liquid release from a broken pipe, estimate the maximum quantity that could be
released assuming that the pipe is full of liquid. To estimate the quantity in the pipe, you need to
know die length of the pipe (in feet) and cross-sectional area of the pipe (in square feet). Note also
that liquid may be released from both directions at a pipe shear (both in the direction of operational
flow and the reverse direction, depending on the location of the shear). Therefore, the length would
be the full length of pipe carrying the liquid on the facility grounds. Then, the volume of the liquid
in the pipe (in cubic feet) is the length of the pipe times the cross-sectional area. The quantity in the
pipe (in pounds) is the volume divided by the Density Factor (DF) times 0.033. (i/(DF times 0.033)
is equal to density in pounds per cubic foot). Assume the estimated quantity (in pounds) is released
into a pool and use the method and equations described below ia Section 3.2.2 (unmitigated releases)
or*3.2.3 (releases with passive mitigation) to determine the evaporation rate of the liquid from the
pool.
-------
.9-
3.2.2 Unmitigated Releases of Liquids
If no passive mitigation measures are in place, the liquid is assumed to form a pool 0,39 inch
(one centimeter) deep instantaneously. You may calculate the release rate to air from the pool (the
evaporation rate) as discussed below for releases at ambient or elevated temperature.
Ambient temperature. If die liquid is always at ambient temperature, find the Liquid Factor
Ambient (LFA) and the Density Factor (DF) in Exhibit B-2 of Appendix B (see Appendix D, Section
D.2.2 for the derivation of these factors). Calculate the release rate of die liquid from the following
equation:
QR = QS x 1.4 x LFA x DF (3)
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
1.4 = Wind speed factor = 1.5*71, where 1.5 meters per second (3,4 miles per hour) is the
wind speed for the worst case
LFA = Liquid Factor Ambient
DF = Density Factor
Example 4. Unmitigated Liquid Release at Ambient Temperature (Aorjlonltrile)
You have a tank containing 20,000 pounds of acrylonltrile at ambient temperature. The total
quantity in the tank is spilled onto the ground in an undiked area, forming a pool. Assume the pool
spreads out to a depth of one centimeter. The release rate from the pool (QR) is calculated from
Equation 3. For the calculation, the wind speed is assumed to be 1,5 meters per second and the
wind speed factor is 1.4. From Exhibit B-2, Appendix B, LFA is for acrylonitrile is 0.018 and DF
is 0.61, Then:
QR = 20,000 x 1.4 x 0.018 x 0.61 = 307 pounds per minute
The duration of the release (from Equation 5) would be:
t = 20,000 pounds/307 pounds per minute = 65 minutes
ElevateJjemperature. If the liquid is at an elevated temperature (any temperature above 25"
C), find the Liquid Factor Boiling (LFB) and the Density Factor (DF) in Exhibit B-2 of Appendix B
(see Appendix D, Section D.2.2, for the derivation of these factors). Calculate the release rate of the
liquid from the following equation:
-------
-10-
QR = QS x 1.4 x LFB x DF
(4)
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
1,4 = Wind speed factor = LS0'™, where 1.5 meters per second (3.4 miles per hour) is the
wind speed for the worst case
LFB = Liquid Factor Boiling
DF = Density Factor
Example S. Unmitigated Release at Elevated Temperature (Acrylonitrile)
You have a tank containing 20,000 pounds of acrylonitrile at an elevated temperature. The total
quantity in the tank is spilled onto the ground in an undiked area, forming a pool. Assume the pool
spreads out to a depth of 0.033 feet (one centimeter). The release rate from the pool is calculated
from Equation 4. For the calculation, the wind speed factor for l.S meters per second is 1.4. From
Exhibit, B-2, Appendix B, LFB for acrylonitrile is 0.11 and DF is 0.61. Then:
QR = 20,000 X 1.4 X 0,11 x 0,61 = 1,880 pounds per minute
The duration of the release (from Equation 5) would be:
t = 20,000 pounds/1880 pounds per minute =11 minutes
Duration of Release. After you have estimated a release rate as described above, determine
the duration of the vapor release from the pool (the time it will take for the liquid pool to evaporate
completely). To estimate the time in minutes, divide the total quantity released (in pounds) by the
release rate (in pounds per minute) as follows:
QR
(S)
where: t = Duration of the release (minutes)
QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
You will use the duration of the vapor release from the pool to decide which table is appropriate for
estimating distance, as discussed in Section 4 below.
323 Releases of Liquids with Passive Mitigation
Diked Areas. If the toxic liquid will be released into an area where it will be contained by
dikes, compare the diked area to the maximum area of the pool that could be formed; the smaller of
the two areas should be used in determination of the evaporation rate. The maximum area of the pool
(assuming a depth of 0.033 feet (1 centimeter)) is:
-------
-11-
A = QS x DF (6)
where; A = Area (square feet)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
DF = Density Factor (listed in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B)
If the maximum area of the pool is smaller than the diked area, calculate the release rate as
described for "no mitigation" above. If the diked area is smaller, go to Exhibit B-2 in Appendix B to
find the Liquid Factor Ambient (LFA), if the liquid is at ambient temperature, or the Liquid Factor
Boiling (LFB), if the liquid is at a temperature above ambient. Calculate the release rate from the
diked area as follows:
QR = 1.4 x LFA x A O
or
QR = 1.4 x LFB x A (8>
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
1.4 = Wind speed factor = 1.50-71, where 1.5 meters per second (3.4 miles per hour) is the
wind speed for the worst case
LFA = Liquid Factor Ambient (listed in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B)
LFB = Liquid Factor Boiling (listed in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B)
A = Diked area (square feet)
In case of a large liquid spill, you also need to consider whether the liquid could overflow the
diked area. Follow these steps:
« Determine the volume of the diked area in cubic feet from length times width times
depth (in feet).
* Determine the volume of liquid spilled in cubic feet from QS x DF x 0.033 (DF x
0.033 is equal to I/density in pounds per cubic foot),
* Compare the volume of the diked area to the volume of liquid spilled. If the volume
of liquid is greater than the volume of the diked area:
— Subtract the volume of the diked area from the total volume spilled to
determine the volume that might overflow the diked area.
- Estimate the maximum size of the pool formed by the overflowing liquid (in
square feet) by dividing the overflow volume (in cubic feet) by 0.033 (the
depth of the pool in feet).
- Add the surface area of the diked area and the area of the pool formed by the
overflow to estimate the total pool area (A).
-------
-12-
— Estimate the evaporation rate from Equation 7 or 8 above.
After you havl estimated the release rate, estimate the duration of the vapor release from the
pool by dividing the total quantity spilled by the release rate (Equation 5 above).
Example 6. Mitigated Liquid Release at Ambient Temperature (Bromine)
You have a tank containing 20,000 pounds of bromine it ambient temperature. Assume thai the total
quantity in the tank is spilled into a diked area 10 feet by 10 feet (area 100 square feet). The area
(A) that would be covered to a depth of 0.033 feet (one centimeter) by the spilled liquid is given by
Equation 6 as the quantity released (QR) times the Density Factor (DF). From Exhibit B-2,
Appendix B , OF for bromine is 0. 16. Then:
A = 20,000 x 0.16, or 3,200 square feet
The diked area is smaller than the maritaiim pool area; therefore, the diked area should be used to
determine the evaporation rate from Equation 7, For the calculation, wind speed is 1,5 meters per
second, the wind speed factor is 1.4, LFA for bromine (from Exhibit B-2) is 0.073, and A is 100
square feet. The release rate is:
QR = 1.4 x 0.073 x 100 = 10 pounds per minute
The duration of the release would be;
t = 20,000 pounds/10 pounds per minute = 2,000 minutes
Othercontainment. If the toxic liquid will be contained by other means (e.g., enclosed catch
basins or trenches), consider die total quantity that could be spilled and estimate die surface area of
the released liquid that potentially would be exposed to die air. Look at the dimensions of trenches or
other areas where spilled liquids would be exposed to die air to determine the surface area of pools
that could be formed. Use the instructions above to estimate a release rate from the total surface
area.
Releases Into Buildings. If the toxic liquid is released inside a building, compare the area of
the building floor to the maximum area of the pool that could be formed; the smaller of the two areas
should be used in determining the evaporation rate. The maximum area of the pool is determined as
described above in releases into diked areas, using Equation 6. The area of the building floor is:
A = L x W
where; A * Area (square feet)
L = Length (feet)
W = Width (feet)
-------
-13-
The evaporation rate is then determined for a worst case scenario (i.e., wind speed is 1.5 meters per
second (3.4 miles per hour)). The maximum rate of evaporated liquid exiting the building is taken to
be LO percent of the calculated worst case scenario evaporation rate (see Appendix D, Section D.2.4
for die derivation of this factor), as follows;
QRB = O.I x QR (10)
where: QRB = Release rate from building
QR = Release rate from pool, estimated as discussed above
0.1 = Mitigation factor, discussed in Appendix D, Section D.2.4
Example 7. Liquid Release Inside Building (Bromine)
Suppose that your tank of bromine from Example 6 is contained inside a storage shed 10 feet by 10
feet (area 100 square feet). From Example 6, you see that the area covered by the bromine in an
unenclosed space would be 3,200 square feet. The building area is smaller than the maximum pool
area; therefore, the building area should be used to determine the evaporation rate from Equation 7.
For the calculation, first determine the worst case scenario evaporation rate:
QR = 1.4 X 0.073 X 100 = 10 pounds per minute
The release rate to the outside air of the evaporated liquid leaving the building would then be:
QRB = 0.1X10 pounds per minute = 1 pound per minute
3.2.4 Mixtures Containing Toxic Liquids
In case of a spill of a liquid mixture containing a regulated toxic substance (with the exception
of common water solutions, discussed in the next section), you have several options for estimating a
release rate:
* Carry out the analysis as described above in Sections 3.2.2 or 3.2.3 using the quantity
of the regulated substance in the mixture and the liquid factor (LFA or LFB) and
density factor for tile regulated substance in pure form. This is a simple approach
that will likely give conservative results.
» If you know the partial pressure of the regulated substance in the mixture, you may
estimate a more realistic evaporation rate. An equation for the evaporation rate is
given at the end of Section B.2 in Appendix B.
— In this case, estimate a pool size for the entire quantity of the mixture, for an
unmitigated release. If you know the density of the mixture, you may use it
in estimating the pool size; otherwise, you may assume the density is the same
-------
-14-
as the pure regulated substance (in most cases, this assumption is unlikely to
have a large effect on the results).
You may estimate the partial pressure of the regulated substance in the mixture by the
method described in Section B.2 in Appendix B and use the equation presented there
to estimate an evaporation rate. As discussed above, use the pool size for the entire
quantity of the mixture for an unmitigated release.
Example 8. Mixture Containing Toxic Liquid (Acrylonitrile)
You have a tank containing 50,000 pounds of a mixture of acrylonitrile (a regulated substance) and
N,N-dime4hylfonnamide (not regulated). The weight of each of the components of the mixture ia
known (acrylonitrile = 20,000 pounds; N,N-dimeth¥lfofmamide = 30,000 pounds.) The molecular
weight of acrylonitrile, from Exhibit B-2, is 53.06, and the molecular weight of N,N-
dimethylformamide is 73.09, Using Equation B-3, Appendix B, calculate the mole fraction of
acrylonitrile in the solution as follows;
X. - f20.000/S3.06>
(20,000/53.06) + (30,000/73.09)
377
377 + 410
X, = 0.48
Estimate the partial vapor pressure of acrylonitrile using Equation B-4 as follows (using the vapor
pressure of acrylonitrile in pure form at 25°C, 108 mm Hg, from Exhibit B-2, Appendix B):
VP, = 0.48 x 108 = 51.8 mm Hg
Before calculating evaporation rate for acrylonitrile in the mixture, you must determine the surface
area of die pool formed by the entire quantity of the mixture, using Equation 6. The quantity
released u 50,000 pounds and the Density Factor for acrylonitrile is 0.61 in Exhibit B-2; therefore:
A = 50,000 x 0.61 = 30,500 square feet
Now calculate the evaporation rate for acrylonitrile in the mixture from Equation B-5 using the VPm
and A calculated above:
QR • Q.Q03S x 1.0 x fS3.06t» * 30.500 x 51.8
298
QR = 262 pounds per minute
-------
-15-
3,3 Release Rates for Common Water Solutions of Toxic Substances
This section presents a simple method of estimating the release rate from spills of water
solutions of several substances. Oleum (a solution of sulfur trioxide in sulfiiric acid) also is discussed
in this section.
The vapor pressure and evaporation rate of a substance in solution depends on its
concentration in the solution. If a concentrated water solution containing a volatile toxic substance is
spilled, the toxic substance initially will evaporate more quickly than water from the spilled solution,
and the vapor pressure and evaporation rate will decrease as the concentration of the toxic substance
in the solution decreases. At much lower concentrations, water may evaporate more quickly than the
toxic substance. There is one concentration at which the composition of the solution does not change
as evaporation occurs. For most situations of interest, the concentration exceeds this concentration,
and the toxic substance evaporates more quickly than water.
For estimating release rates from solutions, this guidance lists liquid factors (ambient) for
several common water solutions at several concentrations that take into account die decrease in
evaporation rate with decreasing concentration. Exhibit B-3 in Appendix B provides LFA and DF
values for several concentrations of ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid,
and nitric acid in water solution. Factors for oleum are also included in the exhibit. These factors
may be used to estimate an average release rate for the listed substances from a pool formed by a spill
of solution. Liquid factors are provided for two different wind speeds, because the wind speed affects
the rate of evaporation.
For the worst case, the factor for a wind speed of 1.5 meter per second (3.4 miles per hour)
should be used. You need to consider only the first 10 minutes of the release for solutions under
ambient conditions in estimating the consequence distance, because the toxic component in a solution
evaporates fastest during the first few minutes of a spill, when its concentration is highest. Therefore,
you do not need to take the duration of the release into account. Estimate release rates as follows;
• Unmitigated. If no passive mitigation measures are in place, and the solution is at
ambient temperature, find the LFA at 1.5 meters per second (3.4 miles per hour) and
DF for the solution in Appendix B, Exhibit B-3. Follow the instructions for liquids
presented in Section 3.2.2 above to estimate the release rate of the listed substance in
solution. Use the total quantity of the solution as the quantity released (QS) in
carrying out the calculation of release rate.
* Mitigated. If passive mitigation is in place, and the solution is at ambient
temperature, find the LFA at 1.5 meters per second (3.4 miles per hour) in Appendix
B, Exhibit B-3, and follow the instructions for liquids in Section 3.2.3 above. Use
the total quantity of the solution to estimate the maximum pool area for comparison
with the diked area.
-------
-16-
Example 9. Evaporation Rate for Water Solution at Ambient Temperature (Hydrochloric Acid)
You have a lank containing 50,000 pounds of 37 percent hydrochloric acid solution, at ambient
temperature. For the worst-case analysis, you assume the entire contents of the tank is released,
forming a pool. Hie release occurs in a diked area of 9,000 square feet.
From Exhibit B-3, Appendix B, the Density Factor (DF) for 37 percent hydrochloric acid is 0.42.
From Equation 6, the maximum area of the pool would be 50,000 times 0.42, or 21,000 square feet.
The diked area is smaller; therefore, the diked area should be used in the evaporation rate (release
rate) calculation, using Equation 7.
For the calculation using Equation 7, you need the pool area (9,000 square feet) and the Liquid
Factor Ambient (LFA) for 37 percent hydrochloric acid; you assume a wind speed of 1.5 meters per
second, so the wind speed factor is 1.4. From Exhibit B-3, Appendix B, the LFA is 0.0085. From
Equation 7, the release rate (QR) of hydrogen chloride from the pool is:
QR = L4 x 9,000 x 0,0085 = 107 pounds per minute
You do not need to consider the duration of the release, because only the first ten minutes are
considered.
Eleyatecj temperature. If the solution is at an elevated temperature, the vapor pressure
of the regulated substance and its release rate from the solution will be much higher.
If you know the vapor pressure of the solution at the relevant temperature, you can
carry out die calculation of the release rate using the equations in Appendix D,
Sections D.2.1 and D.2.2. If you do not know the vapor pressure, as a conservative
approach for the worst case analysis, use the appropriate instructions, as follows:
- Solutions containing substances that are pases under ambient conditions. The
list of regulated substances includes several substances that, in their pure
form, are gases under ambient conditions, but that may commonly be found in
water solutions. These substances include ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen
chloride, and hydrogen fluoride. For a release of a solution of ammonia,
formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, or hydrofluoric acid above ambient
temperature, assume the quantity of the hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride,
or ammonia in the solution is released as a gas over 10 minutes, as discussed
in Section 3.1 above. You may determine the amount of pure substance in the
solution from the concentration (e.g., a solution of 30 percent hydrochloric
acid by weight would contain a quantity of hydrogen chloride equal to 0.3
times the total weight of the solution).
-------
Example 10.
Acid)
-17-
Evaporation Rate for Water Solution at Elevated Temperature (Hydrochloric
You have 50,000 pounds of 37 percent hydrochloric acid solution in a high-temperature process. For
the worst-cose analysis, you assume the entire contents of the process vessel is released. In this
case, because the solution is at an elevated temperature, you consider the release of gaseous
hydrogen chloride from the hot solution.
The solution would contain 50,000 x 0.37 pounds of hydrogen chloride, or 18,500 pounds. You
assume the entire 18,500 pounds is released over 10 minutes. From Equation 1, the release rate is
18,500 divided by 10, or 1,850 pounds per minute.
Liquids in solution. For a release of nitric acid solution at a temperature
above ambient, determine the quantity of pure nitric acid in the solution from
the concentration. Assume the quantity of pure nitric acid is released at an
elevated temperature and use die LFB to estimate a release rate as discussed in
Section 3.2 above. Similarly, for a release of oleum at an elevated
temperature, determine the quantity of free sulfur trioxide in the oleum from
the concentration and assume the sulfur trioxide is released at an elevated
temperature. Use the LFB to estimate a release rate as discussed in Section
3.2.
Example 11. Evaporation Rate for Liquids in Solution at Elevated Temperature (Nitric Acid)
You have 18,000 pounds of 90% nitric acid solution in a high temperature process. The solution
would contain 18,000 x 0.90 pounds of nitric acid, or 16,200 pounds. You assume 16,200 pounds
of pun nitric acid is released at an elevated temperature.
For the calculation using Equation 4, you need the quantity released (16,200); the Liquid Factor
Boiling (LFB) for nitric acid (0.12 found in Exhibit B-2); the Density Factor (DF) for nitric acid
(0.32 found is Exhibit B-2); and you assume a wind speed of l.S meter per second, so the wind
speed factor is 1.4. From Equation 4, the release rate (QR) of hot nitric acid is;
QR = 16,200 x 1.4 x 0.12 x 0.32 = 870 pounds per minute
The duration of release (from Equation 5) would be:
t = 16,200 pounds/870 pounds per minute = 19 minutes
-------
-18-
4.0 Estimation of Distance to Toxic Endpoint
This guidancfprovides reference tables giving worst-case distances for neutrally buoyant
gases and vapors and for dense gases and vapors for both rural (open) and urban (congested) areas.
The tables were developed assuming a wind speed of 1.5 meters per second (3.4 miles per hour) and
F stability. To use the reference tables, you need the worst-case release rates estimated as described
in the previous sections. For liquid pool evaporation, you also need the duration of the release. In
addition, you will need to determine the appropriate toxic endpoint and whether the gas or vapor is
neutrally buoyant or dense, using the exhibits in Appendix B.
Tables are provided for both for 10-minute releases and for 60-minute releases. You should
use the tables for 10-minute releases if the duration of your release is 10 minutes or less; use the
tables for 60-minute releases if the duration of your release is more than 10 minutes. For the worst
case analysis, all releases of toxic gases are assumed to last for 10 minutes; you need to consider the
estimated duration of the release (from Equation 5) for evaporation of pools of toxic liquids. For
evaporation of water solutions of toxic liquids, you should always use the tables for 10-minute
releases.
The tables for distances (Reference Tables 1-8) are found at the end of Section 5. The
conditions for which each table is applicable are summarized below.
Reference Table
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Applicable Conditions
Release Duration
(minutes)
10
60
10
60
10
60
10
60
Topography
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Gas or Vapor Density
Neutrally buoyant
Dense
To use the reference tables, follow these steps:
* Find the toxic endpoint for the substance in Appendix B (Exhibit B-l for toxic gases
or Exhibit B-2 for toxic liquids).
* Determine whether the table for neutrally buoyant or dense gases and vapors is
appropriate from Appendix B (Exhibit B-l for toxic gases or Exhibit B-2 for toxic
liquids).
-------
-19-
• Determine whether the table for rural or urban conditions is appropriate.
— — Use the rural table if your site is in an open area with few obstructions.
— Use the urban table if your site is in an urban or obstructed area
• Determine whether the 10-minute table or the 60-minute table is appropriate.
— Always use the 10-minute table for worst-case releases of toxic gases.
- If you estimated the release duration for an evaporating toxic liquid pool to be
10 minutes or less, use the 10-minute table.
— If you estimated the release duration for an evaporating toxic liquid pool to be
more than 10 minutes, use the 60-minute table.
Neutrally Buoyant Gases or Vapors
• If Exhibit B-l or B-2 indicates the gas or vapor should be considered neutrally
buoyant, divide the estimated release rate (pounds per minute) by the toxic endpoint
(milligrams per liter).
* Find the range of release rate/toxic endpoint values that includes your calculated
release rate/toxic endpoint in the first column of the appropriate table (Reference
Table 1, 2, 3, or 4), then find the corresponding distance to the right.
Den§e Gases or Vapors
* If Exhibit B-l or B-2 indicates the substance should be considered a dense gas or
vapor (heavier than air), find the distance in the appropriate table (Reference Table 5,
6, 7, or 8) as follows;
- Find the toxic endpoint closest to that of the substance by reading across the
top of the table. If the endpoint of the substance is halfway between two
values on the table, choose the value on the table that is smaller (to the left).
— Find the release rate closest to the release rate estimated for the substance at
the left of the table. If the calculated release rate is halfway between two
values on the table, choose the release rate that is larger (farther down on the
table).
— Read across from the release rate and down from the endpoint to find the
distance corresponding to the toxic endpoint and release rate for your
substance.
The development of Reference Tables 1-8 is discussed in Appendix D» Section D,4. These
tables generally give conservative results. If you think the results of the method presented here
overstate the potential consequences of a worst-case release at your site, you may choose to use other
methods or models that take additional site-specific factors into account.
-------
-20-
Example 12. Gas Release (Diborane)
In Example 1, you estimated a release rate for diborane gas of 250 pounds per minute. From
Exhibit B-l, the toxic endpoint for diborane is 0.0011 mg/L; the appropriate reference table for
diborane ia a neutrally buoyant gas table. Your facility and the surrounding area have many
buildings, pieces of equipment, and other obstructions; therefore, you assume urban conditions. The
appropriate reference table is Reference Table 3, for a 10-minute release of a neutrally buoyant gas
in an urban area.
The release rate divided by toxic endpoint for this example is 250/0.0011 = 230,000.
From Reference Table 3, release rate divided by toxic endpoint falls between 221,000 and 264,000,
corresponding to about 8.1 miles.
Example 13. Gas Release (Ethylene Oxide)
You have a tank containing 10,000 pounds of ethylene oxide gas. Assuming the total quantity in the
tank is released over a 10-minute period, the release rate (QR) from Equation 1 is:
QR = 10,000 pounds/10 minutes = 1,000 pounds per minute
From Exhibit B-l, the toxic endpoint fot ethylene oxide is 0.09 mg/L; the appropriate reference table
for ethylene oxide is the dense gas table. Your facility is in an open, rural area with few
obstructions; therefore, you use the table for rural areas.
Using Reference Table S for 10-minute releases of dense gases in rural areas, the toxic endpoint of
0.09 mg/L is closer to 0.1 than 0.07S mg/L. For a release rate of 1,000 pounds per minute, the
distance to 0.1 mg/L is 3.6 miles.
-------
-21-
Example 14. Liquid Evaporation from Pool (Acrylonitrile)
You estimated an evaporation rate of 30? pounds per minute for acrylonitrile from a pool formed by
the release of 20,000 pounds into an undiked area (Example 4). You estimated the time for
evaporation of the pool as 65 minutes. From Exhibit B-2, the appropriate reference table for a
worst-case release of acrylonitrile is the dense gas table, and the toxic endpoint for acrylooitrUe is
0.076 mg/L. Your facility is in an urban area. You use Reference Table 8 for 60-minute releases
of dense gases in urban areas.
From Reference Table 8, the toxic endpoiat closest to 0.076 mg/L is 0.075 mg/L, and the closest
release rate to 307 pounds per minute is 250 pounds per minute. Using these values, the table gives
a worst-case consequence distance of 2.9 miles.
5.0 Estimation of Distance to Overpressure Endpoint for Flammable Substances
5.1 Flammable Substances Not in Mixtures
For the worst-case scenario involving a release of flammable gases and volatile flammable
liquids, the total quantity of the flammable substance is assumed to form a vapor cloud within the
upper and lower flammability limits, and the cloud is assumed to detonate. As a conservative
assumption, 10 percent of the flammable vapor ia the cloud is assumed to participate in the explosion.
You need to estimate the consequence distance to an overpressure level of 1 pound per square inch
(psi) from the explosion of the vapor cloud. An overpressure of 1 psi may cause partial demolition of
houses, which can result in serious injuries to people, and shattering of glass windows, which may
cause skin laceration from flying glass.
You may estimate the consequence distance for a given quantity of a regulated flammable
substances using Reference Table 9. This table provides distances to 1 psi overpressure for vapor
cloud explosions of quantities from 10,000 to 500,000 pounds. These distances were estimated from
Equation C-l in Appendix C, Section C.I, using data provided in Exhibit C-l, Appendix C. If you
prefer, you may calculate your worst-case consequence distance for flammable substances directly,
using Equation C-l.
-------
•22-
Example IS. Vapor Cloud Explosion (Propane)
You have a tank containing 50,000 pounds of propine. From Reference Table 9, the distance to 1
psi overpressure is 0,30 miles for 50,000 pounds of propane.
Alternatively, you can calculate the distance to 1 psi using Equation C-l from Appendix C:
D = 17 x [ 0.1 x (50,000/2.2) x (46,333/4,680) J*
D - 480 meters; converted to miles, 480 x 0.00062 = 0.30 miles
For the worst-case analysis of propane at propane distribution facilities, you should consult
the guidance developed specifically for this industry segment, when it becomes available.
The method presented here for analysis of vapor cloud explosions is based on a TNT-
equivalent model. Other methods are available for analysis of vapor cloud explosions, including
methods that consider site-specific conditions. You may use other methods for your worst-case
analysis if you so choose, provided you assume the total quantity of flammable substance is in the
cloud and the yield factor is 10 percent and use an endpolnt of 1 psi. Appendix A includes references
to documents and journal articles on vapor cloud explosions that may be useful.
5J Flammable Mixtures
If you have more man 10,000 pounds of a mixture of flammable substances mat meets the
criteria for listing under CAA section 112(r) (flash point below 22.8" C (73° F), boiling point below
37.8° C (100° F), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) flammability hazard rating of 4), you
may need to carry out a worst-case consequence analysis for the mixture. For simplicity, you may
carry out the worst-case analysis based on the predominant flammable component of the mixture or a
major component of the mixture with the highest heat of combustion (see Exhibit C-l, Appendix C
for data on heat of combustion). Estimate the consequence distance from Reference Table 9 for the
major component with the highest heat of combustion, assuming that the quantity in the cloud is the
quantity of the mixture.
-------
-23-
Example 16. Vapor Cloud Explosion of Flammable Mixture (Ethylene and Isobutane)
You have 10,000 pounds of a mixture of ethylene (the reactant) and isobutane (a catalyst carrier).
To cany out the worst-case analysis, assume Che quantity in the cloud is the total quantity of the
mixture. Use data for ethylene because it is the component with the highest heat of combustion.
(Ethylene heat of combustion = 47,145 kilojoules per kilogram; isobutane heat of combustion =
45,576, from Exhibit C-l, Appendix C). From Reference Table 9, the distance to 1 psi
overpressure is 0.18 miles for 10,000 pounds of ethylene; this distance would also apply to the
10,000-pound mixture of ethylene and isobutane,
Calculating the worst-case consequence distance from Equation C-l, Appendix C:
D = 17 x [ 0,1 x (10,000/2.2) x (47,145/4,680) ]H
D = 283 meters; converted to miles, 283 x 0.00062 = 0.18 miles
Alternatively, you may estimate the heat of combustion of the mixture from the heats of
combustion of the components of the mixture using the method described in Appendix C, Section
C.2, and then use the Equation C-l in Appendix C to determine the vapor cloud explosion distance.
Example 17. Estimating Heat of Combustion of Mixture for Vapor Cloud Explosion Analysis
You have a mixture of 8,000 pounds of ethylene (the reactant) and 2,000 pounds of isobutane (a
catalyst carrier). To cany out the worst-case analysis, estimate the heat of combustion of the
mixture from the heats of combustion of the components of the mixture. (Ethylene heat of
combustion - 47,145 kilojoules per kilogram; isobutane heat of combustion = 45,576). Using
Equation C-2, Appendix C:
HC., - f r8.QOO/2.2) x 47,145] + f f2.000/2.2V x 45,576 ]
(10,000/2.2) (10,000/2.2)
HCn = (37,716) + (9,115)
HC^, => 46,831 kilojoules per kilogram
Now use the calculated heat of combustion for the mixture in Equation C-l to calculate the distance
to 1 psi overpressure for vapor cloud explosion.
D = 17 x [ 0.1 x (10,000/2.2) x (46,831/4,680) ]*
D = 282 meters = 0.18 miles
-------
-24-
Reference Table 1
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic End point for Release Rate Divided by Endpoint
10-Minute Release, Rural Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed l.S Meters per Second
1 Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L)]
0-4.4
4.4 - 37
37-97
97- 180
180 - 340
1 340 - 530
I 530 - 760
| 760 - 1,000
1 1,000 - 1,500
fl 1,500 - 1,900
1,900 - 2,400
2,400 - 2,900
2,900 - 3,500
3,500 - 4,400
4,400 - 5,100
5,100-5,900
5,900 - 6,800
6,800 - 7,700
7,700 - 9,000
9,000 - 10,000
10,000 - 11,000
11,000-12,000
12,000 - 14,000
14,000 - 15,000
| 15,000 - 16,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.19
0.31
0.43
0.62
0.81
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L))
16,000 - 18,000
18,000 - 19,000
19,000 - 21,000
21,000-23,000
23,000 - 24,000
24,000 - 26,000
26,000 - 28,000
28,000 - 29,600
29,600 - 35,600
35,600 - 42,000
42,000 - 48,800
48,800 - 56,000
56,000 - 63,600
63,600 - 71,500
71,500 - 88,500
88,500 - 107,000
107,000 - 126,000
126,000 - 147,000
147,000 - 169,000
169,000-191,000
191,000 - 215,000
215,000 - 279,000
279,000 - 347,000
> 347,000
Distance to
Eadpoint
(miles)
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.8
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>25
-------
-25-
Reference Table 2
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Rate Divided by Endpoint
60-Minute Release, Rural Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per Second
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L)]
0-5.5
5.5-46
46- 120
120-220
220 - 420
420-650
650 - 910
910 - 1,200
1,200 - 1,600
1,600 - 1,900
1,900-2,300
2,300 - 2,600
2,600 - 2,900
2,900 - 3,400
3,400 - 3,700
3,700 - 4,100
4,100 - 4,400
4,400 - 4,800
4,800 - 5,200
5,200 - 5,600
5,600 - 5,900
5,900 - 6,200
6,200 - 6,700
6,700 - 7,000
7,000 - 7,400
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.19
0.31
0.43
0.62
0.81
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(rag/L)J
7,400 - 7,700
7,700-8,100
8,100-8,500
8,500 - 8,900
8,900 - 9,200
9,200 - 9,600
9,600 - 10,000
10,000 - 10,400
10,400 - 11,700
11,700-13,100
13,100-14,500
14,500 - 15,900
15,900 - 17,500
17,500- 19,100
19,100-22,600
22,600 - 26,300
26,300 - 30,300
30,300 - 34,500
34,500 - 38,900
38,900 - 43,600
43,600 - 48,400
48,400-61,500
61,500-75,600
> 75,600
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.1
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>25
-------
-26-
Reference Table 3
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Rate Divided by Endpoint
10-minute Release, Urban Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per Second
! Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L)]
0-21
21 - 170
170 - 420
420 - 760
760 - 1,400
1,400 - 2,100
2,100 - 3,100
3,100 - 4,200
4,200-6,100
6,100-7,800
7,800 - 9,700
9,700 - 12,000
112,000 - 14,000
14,000 - 11,000
18,000 - 22,000
22,000 - 25,000
25,000 - 29,000
29,000 - 33,000
33,000 - 39,000
39,000 - 44,000
44,000 - 49,000
49,000 - 55,000
55,000 - 63,000
63,000 - 69,000
69,000 - 76,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.19
0.31
0.43
0.62
0.81
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6 1
2,8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0 1
4.2 1
4.4
4.6 1
1 Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbsAniii)/(mg/L)]
76,000-83,000
83,000 - 90,000
90,000 - 100,000
100,000- 110,000
110,000- 120,000
120,000 - 130,000
130,000 - 140,000
140,000 - 148,000
148,000 - 183,000
183,000 - 221,000
221,000 - 264,000
264,000 - 310,000
310,000-361,000
361,000-415,000
415,000 - 535,000
535,000 - 671,000
671,000-822,000
822,000 - 990,000
990,000-1,170,000
1,170,000-1,370,000
1,370,000- 1,590,000
1,590,000-2,190,000
2,190,000-2,890,000
> 2, 890,000
Distance to J
Endpoint I
(miles)
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.8 I!
7.5 I
8.1 |
8.7
9.3
9.9
11 |
12 I!
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>n 1
-------
-27-
Reference Table 4
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Rate Divided by End point
60-Minute Release, Urban Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per Second
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L)]
0-26
26 - 210
210 - 530
530-940
940 - 1,700
1,700 - 2,600
2,600 - 3,700
3,700 - 4,800
4,800 - 6,400
6,400 - 7,700
7,700 - 9,100
9,100- 11,000
11,000 - 12,000
12,000 - 14,000
14,000 - 16,000
16,000 - 17,000
17,000 - 19,000
19,000 - 21,000
21,000 - 23,000
23,000 - 24,000
24,000 - 26,000
26,000 - 28,000
28,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 32,000
32,000 - 34,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.19
0.31
0.43
0.62
0.81
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(rag/L)]
34,000 - 36,000
36,000 - 38,000
38,000 - 41,000
41,000 - 43,000
43,000 - 45,000
45,000 - 47,000
47,000 - 50,000
50,000 - 52,200
52,200 - 60,200
60,200 - 68,900
68,900 - 78,300
78,300 - 88,400
88,400 - 99,300
99,300-111,000
111,000- 137,000
137,000 - 165,000
165,000 - 197,000
197,000 - 232,000
232,000 - 271,000
271,000-312,000
312,000 - 357,000
357,000 - 483,000
483,000 - 629,000
> 629,000
Distance to
Ettdpoint
(miles)
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.8
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>25
-------
-28-
Reference Table 5
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint
10-minute Release, Rural Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per Second
Release
Rate
(IK^mhl)
Toric Endpoint (mg/L)
0.0004
0.0007
0.001
0.902
0.0035
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0.02
0.035
0.05
0.075
0.1
2S
*
*
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10000 *
II 1SOOO •
(I 20000 § •
1.7
2.4
3.7
5.0
8,7
11
IS
18
22
>25
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
1.5
2.1
3.0
4.2
6.8
9.3
12
15
19
>2S
ft
»
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
»
*
*
1.1
1.5
2.2
3.0
5.2
6.8
8.7
11
14
19
23
>25
*
*
*
•
•
•
*
*
*
*
0.81
I.I
1.7
2.4
3.9
5.0
6.8
8.1
11
14
17
20
24
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.68
0.93
1.5
2.1
3.4
4.2
5.8
6.8
8.7
12
IS
17
20
23
>25
*
#
«
*
*
*
*
0.53
0.74
1.2
1.7
2.8
3.5
4.8
5.7
7.4
9.9
12
14
16
19
20
23
>25
*
*
*
*
*
0.46
0.68
0.99
1.4
2.4
3.0
4.2
5.0
6.2
8.7
11
12
14
16
18
20
22
25
>25
*
*
*
0.31
0.45
0.74
0.99
1.7
. 2.2
2.9
3.6
4.5
6.2
7.4
8.1
9.9
11
12
14
16
17
20
24
>2S
*
0.23
0.33
0.53
0.74
1.3
1.7
2.2
2.7
3.4
4.7
5.5
6.2
7.4
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
13
15
17
20
23
0.19
0.27
0.43
0.62
I.I
1.4
1.9
2J
2,8
3.8
4.5
5.2
6.2
6.8
8.1
8.7
9.3
11
12
14
17
19
0.15
0.21
0.34
O.SO
0.87
I.I
1.6
1.9
2.3
3.1
3.7
4.2
S.O
5.6
6.2
6.8
7.4
8.7
9.9
11
13
15
0.12
0.18
0.29
0.42
0.74
0.93
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.7
3.2
3.6
4.3
4.8
5.3
5.6
6,2
6.8
8.7
9.3
11
12
0.06
0.11
0.16
0.24
0.42
0.56
0.81
0.93
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.8
4.2
49
5.5
6.2
7.4
1
<0.06
0.11
0.15
0.27
0.35
0.51
0.61
0.81
I.I
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.2
2-5
2.7
3.2
3.6
4.2
4.7
1
<0.06
0.07
0.12
0.20
0.27
0.38
0.47
0.60
0.87
0.99
I.I
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.7
* > 25 miles
-------
-29-
Reference Table 6
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint
60-minute Release, Rural Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per Second
I Toxic Endpoint Gng/L)
RiJ^as2$
*
*
•
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
«
*
*
*
*
2,7
4.0
6.8
9.3
16
21
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.2
3.2
5.3
S.I
14
IS
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.4
2.2
3.7
5.3
9.9
12
18
22
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.99
1.6
2.7
4.0
7.4
9.3
13
17
22
>25
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
0.81
1.2
2.2
3.3
6.1
8.1
11
14
18
25
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.62
0.99
1.7
2.7
4.9
6.2
9.3
1!
14
20
25
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
tt
0.53
0.81
1.4
2.2
4.1
5.4
7.4
9.9
12
17
22
25
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.34
|_ 0.53
0.93
1.4
2.9
3.8
5.5
6.8
8.7
12
15
17
20
24
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.24
0.37
0.62
0.99
2.1
2.7
4.0
4.9
6.2
9.3
11
12
16
17
20
21
24
>25
*
*
*
*
0.19
0.29
O.S1
0.81
1.6
2.2
3.2
4.0
5.2
7.4
9.3
11
12
14
16
17
20
22
>25
*
*
*
0.14
0.22
0.39
0.60
1.2
1.7
2.5
3.1
4.1
5.8
7.4
8.1
9J
11
13
14
16
17
21
24
>25
*
0.12
0.18
0.32
0.50
0.99
1.4
2.1
2.7
3.S
5.0
6.1
6.8
8.7
9.9
11
12
14
15
IS
20
24
>2S
<0.06
0.09
0.17
0.26
0.52
0.74
1.1
1.4
1.9
2.9
3.5
4.0
5.0
5.7
6.2
6.8
8.1
8.7
11
12
14
16
1
<0.06
0.10
0.16
0.31
0.43
0.68
0.17
1.2
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.5
5.2
5.7
6.8
7.4
9.3
9.9
t
<0.06
0.07
0.11
0.22
0.31
0.48
0.61
OJ7
1.3
1.7
2.0
25
2.9
3.2
3.5
4.0
4.4
5.2
6.0
6.8
8.1
* > 25 miles
# <0.06 miles
-------
-30-
Reference Table 7
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint
ID-minute Release, Urban Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed 1.5 Meters per Second
Release
Rate
(UwJmin)
Tozk Endpoint (mg/L)
0.0004
0.0007
0.001
0.003
0.0035
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0.02
0.035
0.05
0.075
B.I
0.15
0.5
0.75
DisUno) (M2*s>
1 11 1,6
2 1 2.2
$
10
30
SO
100
150
ISO
500
158
1000
1500
2000
3.5
4.9
8.1
II
IS
19
24
>25
*•
*
*
*
-
2500 | *
3000
4000
5000
17500
10000
15000
20000
*
*
*
*
*
*
V
1.2
1.7
2.7
3.1
6.2
S.I
11
14
IS
>25
*
*
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.1
1.4
2.2
3.1
5.3
6.8
9.1
12
15
21
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
»
*
»
*
•
0.74
l-t
1.6
2.2
3.7
4.1
6.1
S.I
11
15
18
21
>25
*
*
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
0.55
0.81
1.2
1.7
2.9
3.7
S.2
6,1
B.I
11
14
16
19
22
24
>25
•
*
»
*
*
*
0.45
0.62
0.99
1.4
2.4
3.1
4.2
5.2
6,8
9.3
11
13
16
IS
20
22
25
>25
*
*
*
#
0.36
0.50
0.81
1.2
2.0
2.5
3.5
4,3
5.4
7.4
9.3
11
12
15
16
18
20
23
>25
*
*
*
0.31
0.44
0.68
0.99
1.7
2.1
3.0
3.6
4.6
6.2
8.1
9.3
11
12
14
16
17
20
24
>25
*
*
0,21
0.29
0.48
0.68
1.2
1.5
2.1
2.5
3.3
4.5
5.5
6,2
7.4
8.7
9.9
11
12
14
16
19
22
>25
0.15
0.20
0,35
0.50
0.87
l.l
1.6
1.9
2.4
3.4
4.1
4.6
5.6
6.2
6.8
7.4
8.7
9.9
12
14
16
19
0.13
0.17
0.27
0.40
0.74
0.93
1.3
1.6
2,0
2.8
33
3,8
4.6
5.2
5.8
6.2
6.8
8.!
9.9
11
13
15
0.10
0.13
0.21
0.31
0.56
0.74
0.99
1.2
1.6
2.2
2.6
3.0
3.7
4.1
4.7
5.0
5.6
6.2
7.4
8.7
11
12
0.07
0.11
0.17
0.25
0.45
0.61
0.87
1.1
1.4
1.9
2.2
2.5
3.0
3.5
3,8
4,2
4.8
5.3
6.2
7.4
8.7
9.9
1
<0.06
0.10
0.14
0.24
0.33
0.47
0.58
0,74
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.6
4.1
4,9
5.5
*
I
<0.06
0,09
0.14
0.19
0.28
0.35
0.47
0.68
0.81
0.93
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.6
3.1
3.5
/
1
f
<0.06
0.11
0.14
0.20
0.25
0.33
0.48
0.60
0.68
0,81
0.93
I.I
t.2
1J
1.4
1.7
2.0
2,3
2.7
-------
-31-
Reference Table 8
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint
60-minute Release, Urban Conditions, F Stability, Wind Speed 1,5 Meters per Second
Retaue
Rat*
(Ibs/min)
I
2-
5
110
30
50
100
ISO
250
500
750
1000
1500
2000
12500
3000
4000
5000
7500
10000
15000
20000
Toxk Endpoint (mj/L)
0,0004
0.0007
2.6
3,1
6.2
9.3
16
22
>15
*
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.9
2.9
4.7
6.1
12
16
24
>25
*
*
*
*
«
*
•
*
*
*
#
*
•
*
0.001
1.5
2.3
3.9
5.6
9.9
14
20
24
>25
+
*
*
*
•
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.002
I.I
1,5
*&
3.9
7.4
9.3
14
17
22
>2S
*
•
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.0035
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0.62
0.035
0.05
Disura (Miles)
0.6S
1,1
1-9
2.9
5.3
6.8
9.9
12
16
24
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
*
•
*
*
0.55
0.17
1.5
2.3
4.3
5.7
8.1
11
14
19
24
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
0.43
0.68
1.2
I.I
3,4
4.5
6.1
8.1
11
16
19
22
>2S
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
•
0.35
OJS
0.93
1,5
2.9
3.8
5.7
6.8
9.3
13
16
19
24
>25
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.22
0.35
0.61
0.93
1.9
2.6
3.8
4.8
6.2
9.3
11
13
16
19
20
22
>25
*
*
*
*
•
0.16
0.24
0.42
0.68
1.3
1.8
2.7
3.5
4.S
6.8
81
93
12
13
IS
16
19
21
>I5
*
*
*
0.12
0.19
0.31
0.51
0.99
1.4
2.2
2.8
3,7
5.4
6.8
7.4
9.3
11
12
13
16
17
20
24
>25
*
0.075
0.1 | 0.25
0.5
0.75
0.09
0.14
0.25
0.38
0.74
1.1
1.7
2.2
2.9
4.2
5.2
6.0
7.4
8.7
9.3
11
12
14
16
19
22
>25
0.07
0.11
0.20
0.31
0.62
0.87
1.4
1.8
2.4
3.5
4.3
5.0
6.2
7.4
8.1
8.7
9.9
11
14
16
19
21
1
<006
0.10
0.16
0.31
0.43
0.68
0.87
1.2
1.9
2.4
2.8
3.4
4.0
4.5
4.9
5.6
6.2
7.4
1.7
11
12
, '
1
<0.06
0,09
0.17
0.24
0.38
0.49
0.68
1.1
1.4
1.6
2.1
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.8
5.5
6.8
7.4
1
1
1
<0.06
0.12
0.17
0.26
0.34
0.47
0.74
0.99
1.2
1. 5
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.6
3,0
3.6
4.2
S.I
5.8
* > 25 miles
# < 0.06 miles
-------
-32-
Reference Table 9
Distance to Overpressure of 1.0 psi for Vapor Cloud Explosions of 10,000 - 500,000 Pounds or Regulated Flammable Substances
Based on TNT Equivalent Method, 10 Percent YieJd Factor
Quantity in Cloud (pounds)
CAS No.
7S-07^>
74-16-2
598-73-2
106-99-0
106-97-8
25167-47-3
$90-18-1
624-64-6
106-98-9
107-01-7
463-58-1
7791-21-1
590-21 -6
557-98-2
460-19-5
75-19-4
4109-96-0
75-37-6
124-40-3
46382 1
1444-0
Chemical N*m*
Acculdehyd*
Acetylene
Brornotriftuoroeihylcne
1 ,3-Buiidiene
Buttoe
BuUne
2-Butenc-cii
2-BMcDe-tniu
1-Bulcoe
2-Buttnc
Ciiboa oxyiulflde
Chlorine monoxide
I -Chlorop ropylene
2-Chloropropylenc
Cyanogen
Cyclopropane
DichloroiiUn*
Difluoroelhtne
Ditnelhylintine
2.1-Duucthylprapiae
ft*.
10,008
20,000
30,000
50.000 j 100,000
150,000
DuUnc« CMlcs) to 1 pi Ov«rvrauiin
0.14
0.18
0,061
0,17
0.17
O.lt
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.10
0.049
0,14
0.14
0.13
0.17
0.10
0.11
0.16
0.17
0,11
0.11
0.22
0.077
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0,22
0,13
0.061
0.17
0,17
0.17
0.22
0.12
0.14
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.2$
0.088
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0,25
0.25
0.15
0.070
0,20
0,20
0.19
0.25
0.14
0.16
0.23
0.2S
0.25
0.24
0.30
0.10
0.29
0.30
0,30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.17
0.083
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.30
0.17
0.19
0.27
0.30
OJO
0.31
0.38
0.13
0.37
0.37
OJ7
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.22
0.10
0.30
0,30
0.29
0.38
0.21
0.24
0.34
0.37
0.38
0.35
0.44
0.15
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.25
0.12
0,34
0.34
0.33
0.43
0.24
0.27
0.39
0.43
0.43
200,000
300,000
500,000
0.39
0,48
0.17
0,47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.28
0.13
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.47
0.27
0.30
0.43
0.47
0.48
{0.44
0.55
0.19
0.53
0.54
O.S4
0.54
O.S4
0.54
0.54
0.32
0.15
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.54
0.30
0.34
0.50
0.54
0.55
0.52
0.65
0.22
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0,64
0.64
0.37
0.18
0.51
0.51
0,49
0.64
0.36
0.40
O.S9
0.64
0.65
-------
-33-
Reference Table 9 (continued)
1 Quantity in Cloud (pounds)
CAS No.
107-004
75-04-7
75-00-3
74-85-1
60-29-7
75-01-1
109-95-5
1333-74-0
75-28-5
71-78-4
78-79-$
75-31-0
75-294
74-82-8
74-89-5
1 563-45-1
563-46-2
115-10-6
107-31-3
115-11-7
504-WW
109-66-0
109-67-1
ChmucBl Name
Ethyl tcetyltae
Ethyltmine
Eihyl chloride
Eihylcne
Elhyl ether
Elhyl mercipun
Eihyl oiurilc
Hydrogen
l*obuUoc
UopcoUne
ItcpnoG
Impropyl»mino
Uopropyl chloride
Melhtoe
Melhylunino
3-MtthyM-buttne
2-MeibyI-l-butene
Mcihyl tlher
Methyl formate
2-Mcthylpropeoe
1,3-PenLadiene
Beounc
i -PffMf ftft
10,000
20,000
30.000
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
300,000
500,000
Duttncc (Mile*) to 1 pti Orerpnawra
0.17
0.16
0.13
0,18
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.18
0.1S
0.17
0.17
0,15
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.20
0.17
0,22
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.30
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.23
0.19
0.22
0.22
0.19
0.15
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.23
0.19
0.25
0.23
0.21
0.18
0.3$
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.20
0.26
0.22
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.17
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.27
0.23
0.30
0.27
0.25
0.22
0.41
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.28
0.24
0.31
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.25
0.21
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.37
0.34
0.28
0.38
0.34
0.32
0.27
0.52
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.35
0.30
0.39
0.33
0.37
0.37
0.32
0.26
0.37
0,37
0.37
0.37
0.43
0.39
0.32
0.43
0.39
0.36
0.31
0.59
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.40
0.34
0.44
0.38
0.42
0.42
0.37
0.30
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.47
0.43
036
0.48
0.43
0.40
0.35
0.65
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.44
0.38
0.49
0.42
0.47
0.47
0.40
0.33
0.47
0.46
0.47
0.47
0.54
0.49
10.41
0.5$
0.49
0.46
0.40
0.74
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.50
0.43
0.56
0.48
0.53
0.53
0.46
0.37
0.54
0.53
OJ4
0.54
0.64
0.59
0.48
0.65
0.58
0.54
0.47
0.88
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.59
0.5!
0.66
0.56
0.63
0.63
0,55
0.44
0.64
0.63
0.63
0.63
-------
-34-
Reference Table 9 (continued)
(Quantity in Cloud (pounds)
CAS No.
646-04-8
627-20-3
463-49-0
74-98-6
IIS-07-I
74-99-7
7103-62-$
116-14-3
7S-76-3
10025-78-2
7938-9
75-50-3
689-97-4
75-01-4
109-92-2
175-02-5
75-35-4
75-38-7
I07-2S-S
Chankal N»m«
2-PenttM, (E)-
2-Penlent, (Z)-
Propidiene
Propane
Propylene
Propyne
Sil»ne
Telr*nuoroetliylcnc
TelrvnelhyUiUnc
Trichloroultne
TrifluorachkuQeltiylene
Tnmelhyliminc
Vinyl acetylene
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl ethyl clher
Vinyl fluoride
Viaylidcna chloride
Vinylidene fluoride
Vinyl methyl ether
10,000
20,000
30.000
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
300,000
500,000
Distant* (Mulct) to 1 pi OTerprttsur*
0.17
o.n
0.17
0.17
0,17
0.17
0.17
0.033
0.17
0.075
0.059
0.16
0.17
0.13
0.16
0.063
0.11
0.11
0.1S
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.066
0.21
0.10
0.075
0.21
0.22
0.16
0.20
0.079
0.13
0.14
0.19
0.25
0-23
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.076
0.24
0.11
0.086
0.24
0.25
0.19
0.22
0.091
0.15
0.15
0.22
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.090
0.29
0.13
0.10
0.28
0.30
0.22
0,27
0.11
0.18
0.18
0.26
0.37
OJ7
0.31
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.37
0.11
0.36
0.16
0.13
0.35
0.37
0.21
0.34
0.14
0.23
0.23
0.33
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.13
0.42
0.19
0.15
0.40
0.43
0.32
0.38
0.16
0.26
0.26
0.37
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.14
0.46
0.20
0.16
0.44
0.47
0.35
0.42
0.17
0.29
0.29
0.41
O.S3
0.53
f0.5<
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.16
O.S2
0.23
0.18
0.51
0.54
0.40
0.48
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.47
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.19
0.62
0.28
0.22
0.60
0.64
0.48
0.57
0.23
0.39
0.40
0.56
-------
-35-
6.0 Determining Alternative Release Scenarios
You are required to analyze at least one alternative release scenario for each listed toxic
substance you have in a Program 2 or Program 3 process above its threshold quantity. You also are
required to analyze one alternative release scenario for flammable substances in Program 2 or 3
processes as a class. You do not need to analyze an alternative scenario for each flammable
substance. For example, if you have five listed substances - chlorine, ammonia, hydrogen chloride,
propane, and acetylene - above the threshold in Program 2 or 3 processes, you will need to analyze
one alternative scenario each for chlorine, ammonia, and hydrogen chloride and a single alternative
scenario to cover propane and acetylene (listed flammable substances). Even if you have a substance
above the threshold in several processes or locations, you need only analyze one alternative scenario
for it.
Alternative release scenarios for toxic substances should be those that lead to concentrations
above the toxic endpoint beyond your fenceline. Scenarios for flammable substances should have the
potential to cause substantial damage, including on-site damage. Those releases that have the
potential to reach the public are of the greatest concern.
For alternative release scenarios, you are allowed to consider active mitigation systems, such
as interlocks, shutdown systems, pressure relieving devices, flares, emergency isolation systems, and
fire water and deluge systems, as well as passive mitigation systems, as described in Sections 3.1.2
and 3.2.3.
For alternative release scenarios for ammonia used for refrigeration, consult EPA's Model
Risk Management Program and Plan for Ammonia Refrigeration. For toxic substances at water
treatment facilities, see the guidance for mis industry segment.
7.0 Analysis of Alternative Scenarios for Toxic Substances
You have a number of options for selecting release scenarios for toxic substances.
* You may use your worst-case release scenario and apply your active mitigation system
to limit the quantity released and the duration of the release.
* You may use information from your process hazards analysis, if you have conducted
one, to select a scenario.
» You may review your accident history and choose an actual event as the basis of your
scenario.
* If you have not conducted a process hazards analysis, you may review your operation*
and identify possible events and failures.
Whichever approach you select, the key information you need to define is the quantity to be
released and the time over which it will be released; together, these allow you to estimate the release
rate and use essentially the same methods you used for the worst-case analysis.
-------
-36-
Section 8 below provides detailed information on calculating release rates for alternative
release scenarios. If you can estimate release rates for the toxic gases and liquids you have on site
based on readily available information, you may skip Section 8 and go to Section 9. Section 9
describes how to estimate distances to the toxic endpoint for alternative scenarios for toxic substances.
8.0 Estimation of Release Rates for Alternative Release Scenarios for Toxic Substances
8.1 Release Rates for Toxic Gases
8.1.1 Unmitigated Releases of Gases
gaseous Release^ from Tank. Instead of assuming release of the entire contents of a vessel
containing a toxic gas, you may decide to consider a release from a hole in a vessel or pipe. To
estimate a hole size you might assume, for example, the hole size that would result from shearing off
a valve or pipe from a vessel containing a regulated substance. If you have a gas leak from a tank,
you may use die following simplified equation to estimate a release rate based on hole size, tank
pressure, and the properties of the gas. (See Appendix D, Section. D.6 for the derivation of this
equation.)
QR * HA x Pt x — x GF
IT
*
(11)
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
HA = Hole or puncture area (square inches) (from hazard evaluation or best estimate)
P, — Tank pressure (pounds per square inch - absolute (psia)) (from process information)
T, = Tank temperature (K)
GF = Gas Factor, incorporating discharge coefficient, ratio of specific heats, molecular
weight, and conversion factors (listed for each regulated toxic gas in Exhibit B-l,
Appendix B)
This equation will give an estimate of the initial release rate. It will overestimate the overall
release rate, because it does not take into account the decrease in the release rate as the pressure in
the tank decreases. You may use a computer model or another calculation method if you want a
more realistic estimate of the release rate.
-------
-37-
Exaraple 18. Release of Toxic Gas from Tank (Diborane)
You have a tank that contains diborane gas at a pressure of 30 pounds per square iach - absolute
(psia). The temperature of the tank and its contents is 298 K (25 °C). A valve on the side of the
tank shears off, leaving a hole in the tank wall 5 square inches. From Exhibit B-l, the Gas Factor
for diborane is 17. Therefore, the release rate is:
QR = 5 X 30 X 1/(298)VI X 17 = 148 pounds per minute
Gaseous Release from Pipe. If shearing of a pipe may be an alternative scenario for a toxic
gas at your site, you could use the usual flow rate through the pipe as the release rate and carry out
the estimation of distance as discussed in Section 9.
If you want to consider a release of toxic gas through a hole in a pipe as an alternative
scenario, you may use the method described above for a gas release from a hole in a tank. This
method neglects the effects of friction along the pipe and, therefore, provides a conservative estimate
of the release rate.
Duration of Release. The duration, of the release is used in choosing the appropriate reference
table for distances (Section 9 below). You may calculate the maximum duration by dividing the
quantity in the tank or the quantity that may be released from pipes by your calculated release rate.
You may use 60 minutes as a default value for maximum release duration. If you know how long it
is likely to take to stop the leak, you may use that time as the release duration.
If a gaseous release from a hole in a tank or pipe is likely to be stopped very quickly (e.g.,
by a block valve), resulting in a puff of toxic gas that forms a vapor cloud rather than a plume, you
may want to consider other methods for determining a consequence distance. The behavior of a cloud
of toxic gas resulting from a puff release will not exhibit the same behavior as a plume resulting from
a longer release (e.g., a release over 10 minutes).
Gases Liquefied Under Pressure. Gases stored under pressure as liquids may be released very
rapidly in case of tank or pipe damage or failure. Such releases may involve rapid vaporization of a
fraction of the liquified gas and possibly aerosolization. The methods presented in this guidance are
not appropriate for this type of release. If you mink release of a liquefied gas under pressure is a
potential release scenario at your site, you may want to consider other models or methods to carry out
a consequence analysis.
8.1.2 Mitigated Releases of Gases
For gases, passive mitigation may include enclosed spaces, as discussed in Section 3.1.2.
Active mitigation for gases, which may be considered in analyzing alternative release scenarios, may
include an assortment of techniques including automatic shutoff valves, rapid transfer systems
(emergency deinventory), and water/chemical sprays. These mitigation techniques have the effect of
reducing either the release rate or the duration of the release, or both.
-------
-38-
Active Mitigation to Reduce Release Duration. An example of a mitigation technique to
reduce the release duration is automatic shutoff valves. If you have an estimate of the rate at which
the gas will be released and the time it will take to shut off the release, you may estimate the quantity
potentially released (release rate times time). If the release will take place over a period of 10
minutes or more, you may use the release rate to estimate the distance to the toxic endpoint, as
discussed in Section 9. For releases stopped in less than 10 minutes, multiply the Initial release rate
by the duration of release to estimate the quantity released, then divide the new quantity by 10
minutes to estimate a mitigated release rate that you may apply to the reference tables in Section 9 to
estimate the consequence distance. If the release would be stopped very quickly, you might want to
consider other methods that will estimate consequence distances for a puff release.
Active Mitigation, tq Directly Reduce RelegseJRate tQ Air. Examples of mitigation techniques
to directly reduce the release rate include scrubbers and flares. Use test data, manufacturer design
specifications, or past experience to determine the fractional reduction of the release rate by the
mitigation technique. Apply this fraction to the release rate that would have occurred without die
mitigation technique. The initial release rate, without mitigation, may be the release rate lor the
alternative scenario (e.g., a release rate estimated from the equations presented earlier in this section)
or the worst-case release rate. The mitigated release rate is:
QRg = (1 - FR) x QR (12)
where: QRH = Reduced release rate (pounds per minute)
FR = Fractional reduction resulting from mitigation
QR = Release rate without mitigation (pounds per minute)
Example 19. Water Spray Mitigation (Hydrogen Fluoride)
A bleeder valve on a hydrogen fluoride (HF) tank opens, releasing 660 pounds per minute of HF.
Water sprays are applied almost immediately. Experimental field and laboratory test data indicate
that HF vapors could be reduced by 90 percent. The reduced release rate is:
QRR = (I - 0.9) x (660 pounds per minute)
= 66 pounds per minute
Passive Mitigation. The same simplified method used for worst-case releases may be used for
alternative release scenarios to estimate the release rate to the outside air from a release in an
enclosed space. For alternative scenarios, you may use a modified release quantity, if appropriate.
Use the equations presented in Section 3.1.2 to estimate the release rate to the outside air.
Duration of Release. You should estimate the duration of the release either from your
knowledge of the length of time it may take to stop the release or by dividing the quantity that may be
released by your estimated release rate.
-------
-39-
8.2 Release Rates for Toxic Liquids
This section describes methods for estimating liquid release rates from tanks and pipes. The
released liquid is assumed to form a pool, and the evaporation rate from the pool is estimated as for
the worst-case scenario. For the alternative scenario, you may assume the average wind speed in
your area in the calculation of evaporation rate, instead of a wind speed of 1.5 meters per second (3.4
miles per hour). For the reference tables in this guidance, the wind speed for alternative scenarios is
assumed to be 3.0 meters per second (6.7 miles per hour).
If you have sufficient information to estimate the quantity of liquid that might be released to
an undiked area under an alternative scenario, you may go directly to Section 8.2.3 to estimate the die
evaporation rate from the pool and the release duration. After you have estimated the evaporation
rate and release duration, go to Section 9 for instructions on estimating distance to the toxic endpoint.
8.2.1 Liquid Release Rate and Quantity Released for Unmitigated Releases
Liquid Release from Tank under Atmospheric Pressure . If you have a liquid stored in a tank
at atmospheric pressure, you may use the following simple equation to estimate the liquid release rate
from a hole in the tank below the liquid level. (See Appendix D, Section D.7. 1, for the derivation of
this equation.)
QRL « HA x JIB x LLF 03)
where: QRi. = Liquid release rate (pounds per minute)
HA = Hole or puncture area (square inches) (from hazard evaluation or best
estimate)
LH = Height of liquid column above hole (inches) (from hazard evaluation or best
estimate)
LLF = Liquid Leak Factor incorporating discharge coefficient and liquid density
for each toxic liquid in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B).
This equation will give an overestimate of the release rate, because it does not take into
account the decrease in the release rate as the height of the liquid above the hole decreases. You may
use a computer model or another calculation method if you want a more realistic estimate of the
liquid release rate.
You may estimate the quantity that might be released by multiplying die liquid release rate
from the above equation by the time (in minutes) that likely would be needed to stop the release.
Alternatively, you may assume the release would stop when the level of liquid in the tank drops to the
level of the hole. You may estimate die quantity of liquid above that level in the tank from the
dimensions of the tank, the liquid level at the start of the leak, and the level of the hole. Assume the
estimated quantity is released into a pool and use the method and equations in Section 8.2.3 below to
determine the evaporation rate of the liquid from the pool and the duration of the release.
-------
-40-
Example 20. Liquid Release from Atmospheric Tank (Acrylonitrile)
You have a tank that contains 20,000 pounds of acrylonitrile at ambient temperature and pressure. A
valve on the side of the tank shears, leaving a hole in the tank wall 5 square inches in area. The
liquid column is 23 inches above the hole in the tank. From Exhibit B*2, the Liquid Leak Factor for
aerylonitrile is 39. Therefore, the release rate is:
QR «• 5 x (23)* X 39 = 936 pounds per minute
It takes 10 minutes to stop the release so that 10 minutes x 936 pounds per minute — 9,360 pounds
of acrylonitrile is released. From Exhibit B-2, the Density Factor for acrylonitrile is 0.61, and the
Liquid Factor Ambient is 0.018. Assuming that the liquid is not released into a diked area or inside
a building, the evaporation rate from die pool of acrylonitriJe, from Equation 3, using a wind speed
factor of 2.4 for wind speed 3 meters per second, is:
QR - 9,360 x 2.4 x 0.018 x 0.61 = 247 pounds per minute
Release from Pressurized Tank. If you have a liquid stored in a tank under pressure, you
may estimate a release rate using the equations presented in Appendix D, Section D.7.1.
Release from Pipe. To consider a liquid release from a broken pipe, you may use the
equations below (see Appendix D, Section D.7.2 for more information on these equations.) First
estimate the initial operational flow velocity of the substance through the pipe using the initial
operational flow rate as follows:
FR x DF x 0.033
(14)
where: V, = Initial operational flow velocity (feet per minute)
FR = Initial operational flow rate (pounds per minute)
DF - Density Factor (from Exhibit B-2, Appendix B)
Ap = Cross-sectional area of pipe (square feet)
The release velocity is then calculated based on the initial operational flow, any gravitational
acceleration or deceleration effects, and the pressure difference between the hole/shear and tank using
a form of the Bernoulli equation;
-------
-41-
(77,500 x Pfl - 7.85 x 10*) /I**
— —i- - + (77,460 * g x Z) + Ffl2 (15)
where: Vk = Release velocity (feet per minute)
P. = Operational pipe pressure (Pascals)
Z = Change in pipe elevation, inlet to outlet (meters)
g = Gravitational acceleration (9.8 meters per second2)
V, = Operational velocity (feet per minute)
D = Density of liquid (kilograms per cubic meter)
Please note that if the height of die pipe at the release point is higher than the initial pipe height, then
Z is negative and the release rate is actually lower than the operational rate.
The release velocity can then be used to calculate a release rate as follows:
QR = V»xA? (16)
L DFx 0.033
where: QRt. = Release rate (pounds per minute)
V> = Release velocity (feet per minute)
DP = Density Factor
A,, = Cross-sectional area of pipe (square feet)
You may estimate the quantity released into a pool from the broken pipe by multiplying the
liquid release rate (QRJ from the equation above by the time (in minutes) that likely would be needed
to stop the release. Assume the estimated quantity is released into a pool and use the method and
equations described in Section 8.2.3 below to determine the evaporation rate of the liquid from the
pool.
In the case of very long pipes, estimated release rates from a sheer or hole will be lower due
pipe roughness and frictional head loss. If this effect is deemed considerable, an established method
for calculating frictional head loss such as the Darcy formula may be used.
8.2.2 Liquid Release Rate and Quantity Released for Mitigated Releases
For alternative release scenarios, you are permitted to take credit for both passive and active
mitigation systems, or a combination if both are in place. For liquids, passive mitigation may include
techniques already discussed in Section 3.2.3 such as dikes and trenches. Active mitigation for
liquids may include an assortment of techniques including automatic shutoff valves, emergency
deinventory, foam or tarp coverings, and water or chemical sprays. These mitigation techniques have
the effect of reducing either the quantity released into the pool or the evaporation rate from the pool.
Some methods of accounting for active mitigation are discussed below.
-------
-42-
Active Mitigation..toJR.edu_c3 Quantity Released. Examples of mitigation techniques to reduce
the quantity released into the pool include automatic shutoff valves and emergency deinventory. You
may use the equationTin Section 8.2.1 above for calculating liquid release rate, if applicable.
Estimate the approximate time needed to stop the release by the mitigation technique. Multiply the
release rate times the duration of release to estimate quantity released. Assume the estimated quantity
is released into a pool and use the method and equations described in Section 8.2.3 below to
determine the evaporation rate of the liquid from the pool. You should also consider mitigation of
evaporation from the pool, if applicable; see the discussion of active mitigation below or passive
mitigation in Section 3.2.3.
Example 21. Mitigated Liquid Release
A bromine injection system suffers a hose failure; the greatly lowered system pressure triggers an
automatic shutoff valve within 30 seconds of the release. The flow rate out of the ruptured hose is
approximately 330 pounds per minute. Because the release occurred for only 30 seconds (0.5
minutes), die total quantity spilled was 330 x 0.5, or 165 pounds.
Acjiye Mitigation to Reduce Evaporation Rate. Examples of active mitigation techniques to
reduce the evaporation rate from the pool include water sprays and foam or tarp covering. Use test
data, manufacturer design specifications, or past experience to determine the fractional reduction of
the release rate by the mitigation technique. Apply this fraction to the release rate (evaporation rate
from the pool) that would have occurred without the mitigation technique, as follows:
QRny = (1-FR) x QR (17)
where: QRRV = Reduced evaporation rate from pool or release rate to air (pounds per minute)
FR = Fractional reduction resulting from mitigation
QR = Evaporation rate from pool without mitigation (pounds per minute)
Releases Into Buildings. If a toxic liquid is released inside a building, compare the area of
die building floor to the maximum area of the pool that could be formed; the smaller of the two areas
should be used in determining the evaporation rate, as for the worst case scenario. The maximum
area of the pool is determined from Equation 6 in Section 3,2.3 for releases into diked areas. The
area of the building floor is the length times width of the floor (in feet) (Equation 9).
If the floor area is smaller than the maximum pool size, estimate the outdoor evaporation rate
from a pool the size of the floor area from Equation 20 in the next section (Section 8.2.3). If the
maximum pool area is smaller, estimate the outdoor evaporation rate from a pool of maximum size
from Equation 18 in the next section. Estimate the rate of release of the toxic vapor from the
building as five percent of the calculated outdoor evaporation rate (multiply your evaporation rate by
0.05), See Appendix D, Section D.2.4 for more information on releases into buildings.
-------
-*3-
8.2.3 Evaporation Rate from Liquid Pool
Ambient temperature. For pools with no mitigation, if the liquid is always at ambient
temperature, find the Liquid Factor Ambient (LFA) and the Density Factor (DF) in Exhibit B-2 of
Appendix B (see Appendix D, Section D.2.2 for the derivation of these factors). Calculate the
release rate of the liquid from the following equation:
QR = QS x 2.4 x LFA x DF (18)
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
2,4 — Wind speed factor — 3.0"1, where 3.0 meters per second (6.7 miJes per hour) Is the
wind speed for the alternative scenario for purposes of this guidance
LFA = Liquid Factor Ambient
DF = Density Factor
Elevated temperature. For pools with no mitigation, if the liquid is at an elevated temperature
(any temperature above 25* C), find the Liquid Factor Boiling (LFB) and the Density Factor (DF) in
Exhibit B-2 of Appendix B (see Appendix D, Section D.2.2, for the derivation of these factors).
Calculate the release rate of the liquid from the following equation:
QR = QS x 2.4 x LFB x DF
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
QS = Quantity released (pounds)
2.4 = Wind speed factor = 3.00-71, where 3,0 meters per second (6.7 miles per hour) is the
wind speed for the alternative scenario for purposes of this guidance
LFB = Liquid Factor Boiling
DF = Density Factor
Diked Areas. If the toxic liquid will be released into an area where it will be contained by
dikes, compare the diked area to die maximum area of the pool that could be formed, as described in
Section 3.2.3 (see Equation 6). The smaller of the two areas should be used in determination of the
evaporation rate. If the maximum area of the pool is smaller man the diked area, calculate the release
rate as described for pools with no mitigation (above). If the diked area is smaller, go to Exhibit B-2
in Appendix B to find the Liquid Factor Ambient (LFA), if the liquid is at ambient temperature, or
the Liquid Factor Boiling (LFB), if the liquid is at a temperature above ambient. Calculate the
release rate from the diked area as follows:
-------
QR - 2.4 x LFA x A (20)
or
2.4 x LFB x A (21)
where; QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
2.4 = Wind speed factor = 3.05-71, where 3.0 meters per second (6.7 miles per hour) is the
wind speed for the alternative scenario for purposes of this guidance
LFA = Liquid Factor Ambient (listed in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B)
LFB = Liquid Factor Boiling (listed in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B)
A = Diked area (square feet)
Duration of Release. After you have estimated a release rate as described above, determine
the duration of the vapor release from the pool (the time it will take for the liquid pool to evaporate
completely). To estimate the time in minutes, divide the total quantity released (in pounds) by the
release rate (in pounds per minute) (see Equation 5 in Section 3.2.2).
8.2.4 Common Water Solutions of Toxic Substances
You may use the methods described above for pure liquids to estimate the quantity of a
solution of a toxic substance that may be spilled into a pool. LFA and DF values for several
concentrations of ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and nitric acid in
water solution and for oleum are listed in Appendix B, Exhibit B-3. The LFA for a wind speed of
3.0 meters per second (6.7 miles per hour) should be used in the release rate calculations for
alternative scenarios for pools of solutions at ambient temperature. For unmitigated releases or
releases with passive mitigation, follow the instructions in Section 8.2.3. If active mitigation
measures are in place, you may estimate a reduced release rate from the instructions in 8.2.2 above.
Use the total quantity of the solution as the quantity released from the vessel or pipeline (QS) in
carrying out the calculation of the release rate to the atmosphere. If the solution is at an elevated
temperature, you may treat the substance in solution as a pure substance and follow the instructions in
Section 3.3, or use a method mat accounts for increased volatilization of the toxic regulated
substance.
9.0 Estimating Impact Distances for Alternative Release Scenarios for Toxic Substances
If you do your own modeling for analysis of alternative release scenarios, you should consider
typical weather conditions at your site. If you do not keep weather data for your site (most sources
do not), you may call another nearby source, such as an airport, or a compiler, such as the National
Weather Service, to determine the average wind speed for your area. Atmospheric stability classes
are described in Exhibit 2, Select one that describes your typical weather. Your airport or other
source will be able to tell you average percent of cloud cover.
-------
-45-
Exhibit 2. Atmospheric Stability Classes
Surface Wind Speed at 10
Meters
Meters per
second
<2
2-3
3-5
5-6
>6
MiJes per
hour
<4.5
4.5-5
5-11
11-13
>13
Day
Incoming Solar Radiation
Strong*
A
A-B
B
C
C
Moderate
A-B
B
B-C
C-D
D
Slight"
B
C
C
D
D
Night
Thinly Overcast
or >4/8 low
cloud
E
D
D
D
<,m
Cloud
F
E
D
D
Class A is the most unstable, class D is neutral, class F is the most stable.
The neutral class, D, should be assumed for overcast conditions during day or night.
Sun high in the sky with no clouds. Solar radiation would be reduced to moderate with
broken middle clouds (5/8 to 7/8 cloud cover) and to slight with broken low clouds,
** Sun low in the sky with no clouds.
Source: D. Bruce Turner, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. Cincinnati: 1970.
-------
-46-
For estimating distances for toxic substances, this guidance provides four reference tables for
neutrally buoyant plumes and four for dense gases. These tables were developed assuming D stability
and a wind speed of 370 meters per second (6,7 miles per hour) as representative of likely conditions
for many sites. Many wind speed and atmospheric stability combinations may be possible at different
times in different parts of the country. If D stability and 3.0 meters per second are not reasonable
conditions for your site, you may want to use other methods to estimate distances.
To use the reference tables, you need to consider the release rates estimated for gases and
evaporation from liquid pools and the duration of the release. For the alternative scenarios, the
duration of toxic gas releases may be longer than the 10 minutes assumed for the worst-case analysis
for gases. You need to determine the appropriate toxic endpoint and whether the gas or vapor is
neutrally buoyant or dense, using the tables in Appendix B.
The reference tables for distances (Reference Tables 10-17) are found at the end of Section
12. The tables and the conditions for which each table is applicable are:
Reference Table
Number
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Applicable Conditions
Release Duration
(minutes)
10
60
10
60
10
60
10
60
Topography
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Gas or Vapor Density
Neutrally buoyant
Dense
For releases lasting 10 minutes or less, use the 10-minute tables. For releases lasting more
than 10 minutes, use the 60-minute tables. You should always use the 10-minute tables for releases
of water solutions of toxic substances. Follow the instructions in Section 4 to estimate distances to
the toxic endpoint for toxic gases and liquids.
-------
-47-
Example 22. Gas Release of Chlorine
Assume thai you calculated a release rate of 500 pounds per minute of chlorine from a tank. From
Exhibit B-l, Appendix B, the toxic endpoint for chlorine is 0.0087 mg/L, and chlorine is listed as a
dense gas. Based on emergency response systems available, you have estimated that the release will
last for 6 minutes. At a release rate of 500 pounds per minute, 3,000 pounds of chlorine would be
released in 6 minutes. To derive a release rate applicable to the reference tables, you calculate a 10-
minute release rate as 3,000 pounds/10 minutes, or 300 pounds per minute. The 10-minute reference
tables are appropriate for estimating the distance. The topography of your site is urban. For a 10-
minute release of a dense gas under average meteorology (D stability and 3 meters per second wind
speed) and urban topography, Reference Table 16 is appropriate. The toxic endpoint of 0.0087
mg/L is approximately halfway between 0.0075 and 0.01; you go to the lower endpoint of 0.0075
mg/L. The estimated release rate of 300 pounds per minute is closer to 250 pounds per minute on
the table than to 500 pounds per minute, so you use 250 pounds per minute. Then the consequence
distance for the alternative scenario is 2.0 miles.
10.0 Analysis of Alternative Release Scenarios for Flammable Substances
Alternative release scenarios for flammable substances are somewhat more complicated than
for toxic substances because the consequences of a release and the endpoint of concern may vary.
For the worst case, the consequence of concern is a vapor cloud explosion, with an overpressure
endpoint For alternative scenarios (e.g., fires), other end points (e.g., heat radiation) may need to be
considered.
Possible scenarios involving flammable substances include:
• Vapor cloud fires (flash fires) may result from dispersion of a cloud of flammable
vapor and ignition of the cloud following dispersion. Such a fire could flash back and
could represent a severe heat radiation hazard to anyone in the area of the cloud.
This guidance provides methods to estimate distances to a concentration equal to the
lower flammability limit (LFL) for this type of fire. (See Sections 11 and 12.1.)
• A pool fire, with potential radiant heat effects, may result from a spill of a flammable
liquid. This guidance provides a simple method for estimating the distance from a
pool fire to a radiant heat level that could cause second degree burns from a 40-
second exposure. (See Section 12.2).
« A boiling liquid, expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), leading to a fireball that may
produce intense heat, may occur if a vessel containing flammable material ruptures
explosively as a result of exposure to fire. Heat radiation from the fireball is the
primary hazard; vessel fragments and overpressure from the explosion also can result.
BLEVEs are generally considered unlikely events; however, if you think a BLEVE is
possible at your site, this guidance provides a method to estimate the distance at
which radiant heat effects might lead to second degree burns. (See Section 12.3.)
-------
You also may want to consider models or calculation methods to estimate effects of
vessel fragmentation.
« For a vapor cloud explosion to occur, rapid release of a large quantity, turbulent
conditions (caused by a turbulent release or congested conditions in the area of the
release, or both), and other factors are generally necessary. Vapor cloud explosions
generally are considered unlikely events; however, if conditions at your site are
conducive to vapor cloud explosions, you may want to consider a vapor cloud
explosion as an alternative scenario. This guidance provides methods you may use to
estimate the distance to 1 psi overpressure for a vapor cloud detonation, based on less
conservative assumptions than the worst-case analysis. (See Section 12.4.) A vapor
cloud deflagration, involving lower flame speeds than a detonation and resulting in
less damaging blast effects, is more likely than a detonation. This guidance does not
provide methods for estimating the effects of a deflagration, but you may use other
methods of analysis if you want to consider such events.
* A jet fire may result from the puncture or rupture of a tank or pipeline containing a
compressed or liquefied gas under pressure. The gas discharging from the hole can
form a jet that "blows" into the air in the direction of the hole; the jet then may
ignite. let fires could contribute to BLEVEs and fireballs if they impinge on tanks of
flammable substances. A large horizontal jet fire may have the potential to pose an
offsite hazard. This guidance does not include a method for estimating consequence
distances for jet fires. If you want to consider a jet fire as an alternative scenario,
you should consider other models or methods for the consequence analysis.
11.0 Estimation of Release Rates for Alternative Release Scenarios for Flammable Substances
This section describes methods to estimate a release rate that may be used in determination of
dispersion distance to the LFL for a vapor cloud fire (Section 12.1).
11.1 Flammable Gases
An alternative scenario for a release of a flammable gas may involve a leak from a vessel or
piping. To estimate a release rate lor flammable gases from hole size and storage conditions, you
may use the method described above in Section 8.1 for toxic gases. This release rate may be used to
determine the dispersion distance to the lower flammability limit (LFL), as described in Section 12.1.
Exhibit C-2 in Appendix C includes Gas Factors (GF) that may be used in carrying out the
calculations for each of the regulated flammable gases.
-------
-49-
Example 23. Release Rate of Flammable Gas from Hole in Tank
A pipe tears off a tank containing acetylene. Hie release rate from the hole can be estimated from
Equation 11 in Section 8.1. You estimate that the pipe would leave a hole with an area (HA) of 5
square inches. The temperature inside the tank (TJ is 282 K, 9*C, and the square root of the
temperature is 16.8. The pressure in the tank (P<) is approximately 481 psia. From Exhibit C-2,
Appendix C, the gas factor (GF) for acetylene is 17. From Equation II, the release rate (QR) is:
QR = 5 X 481 X (1/16.8) x 17 = 2,400 pounds per minute
11.2 Flammable Liquids
You may estimate a release rate for flammable liquids by estimating the evaporation rate from
a poo!. You first need to estimate the quantity in the pool.
You may use the method discussed in Section 8.2 to estimate a rate of liquid release for
flammable liquids into a pool from a hole in a tank or from a pipe shear. Exhibit C-3 la Appendix C
includes liquid leak factors (LLF) for calculating release rate from a hole. Note that the LLF is
appropriate only for atmospheric tanks.
Once you have an estimate of the quantity of flammable liquid in a pool, you may use the
methods presented in Section 3.2 to estimate the evaporation rate from the pool. Liquid factors at
ambient and boiling temperature (LFA and LFB) for the calculation are listed in Exhibit C-3 in
Appendix C. Assume a wind speed of 3.0 meters per second and use a value of 2.4 for the wind
speed factor for the evaporation rate calculations. Both passive mitigation (discussed in Section 3.2.3)
and active mitigation measures (discussed in Section 8.2.2) may be taken into account. You do not
need to estimate the duration of the release, because this information is not used to estimate distance
to the LFL, as discussed in the next section.
12.0 Estimating Impact Distances for Alternative Release Scenarios for flammable Substances
12.1 Vapor Cloud Fires
The distance to the LFL represents the maximum distance at which the radiant heat effects of
a vapor cloud fire might have serious consequences. Exhibit C-2, Appendix C, provides LFL data
(in volume percent and milligrams per liter) for listed flammable gases; Exhibit B-3 provides these
data for flammable liquids. To determine the distance to the LFL, find the LFL in milligrams per
liter and identify the appropriate reference table (neutrally buoyant or dense gas) from Exhibit C-2 or
C-3, Appendix C. Follow the steps described in Section 9 and Section 4 for toxic substances to find
the distance to the LFL from the release rate, using the appropriate reference table for flammable
substances, as discussed below.
-------
-50-
Because LFL values are generally much larger than toxic endpoints for regulated toxic
substances, and because vapor cloud fires are instantaneous events (in contrast to releases of toxic
substances, where ttie duration of exposure to the toxic cloud is an important factor), the reference
tables of distances for toxic substances are not applicable to vapor cloud fires. Therefore, additional
reference tables for the alternative scenario conditions (D stability and wind speed 3,0 meters per
second) are provided for estimating the distance to the LFL. Release duration does not need to be
considered for estimating vapor cloud fire distances; the reference tables for flammable substances
apply to both 10-minute and 60-minute releases. The reference tables for flammable substances
(Reference Tables 18-21 at the end of Section 12) are:
Reference Table
Number
18
19
20
21
Applicable Conditions
Release Duration
(minutes)
10-60
10-60
10-60
10-60
Topography
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Gas or Vapor Density
Neutrally buoyant
Dense
The development of these tables is discussed in Appendix D, Section D.4.
-------
-51-
Example 24. Vapor Cloud Fire from Evaporating Pool of Flammable Liquid
You have a tank containing 20,000 pounds of ethyl ether. A likely scenario for a release might be
shearing of a pipe from the *«"fc, with the released liquid forming a pool. You want to estimate the
consequences of a vapor cloud fire that might result from evaporation of the pool and ignition of the
vapor.
You first need to estimate the rate of release of the liquid from the tank. You can do this using
Equation 13, Section 8.2.1. For this calculation, you need the area of the hole that would result
from shearing the pipe (HA), the height of the liquid in the tank above the hole (LH), and the liquid
leak factor (LLF) for ethyl ether, from Exhibit C-3 in Appendix C. Hie pipe diameter is 2 inches,
so the cross sectional area of the hole would be 3.1 square inches. You estimate that the pipe is 2
feet, or 24 inches, below the level of the liquid when the tank is full. The square root of LH (24
inches) is 4.9. LLF for ethyl ether is 34. From Equation 13, the rats of release of the liquid from
the hole is calculated as:
QRi - 3.1x4.9x34
= 520 pounds per minute
You estimate that the release of the liquid could be stopped in about 10 minutes. In 10 minutes, 10
x 520, or 5,200 pounds, would be released.
The liquid would be released into an area without dikes. To estimate the evaporation rate from the
pool formed by the released liquid, you use Equation 3 from Section 3.2.2. To carry out the
calculation, you need the Liquid Factor Ambient (LFA) and the Density Factor (DF) for ethyl ether.
From Exhibit C-3, Appendix C, LFA for ethyl ether is 0.11 and DF is 0.69. Wind speed (U) is
assumed to be 3.0 meters per second; 3 to the 0.78 power is 2.4. The release rate to air is:
QR = 5,200 x 2,4 x 0.11 x 0.69
= 950 pounds per minute
To estimate the maximum distance at which people in the area of the vapor cloud could suffer
serious injury, you use the estimated release rate and the lower flammability limit (LFL) (in
milligrams per liter) for ethyl ether, and find the distance on the appropriate reference table. From
Exhibit C-3, Appendix C, LFL for ethyl ether is 57 mg/L, and the appropriate reference table is a
dense gas table. Your site is in a rural area with few obstructions, so you use Reference Table 20.
From Reference Table 20, the closest LFL is 60 mg/L. The lowest release rate on the table is 1,500
pounds per minute, which is higher than the evaporation rate estimated for the pool of ethyl ether.
For a release rate less than 1,500 pounds per minute, the distance to the LFL is less than 0.06 miles.
-------
-52-
Example 25, Flammable Gas Release (Acetylene)
In Example 23, you estimated a release rate for acetylene from a hole in a took of 2,400 pounds per
minute. You want to estimate the distance to the LFL for a vapor cloud fire resulting from this
release.
From Exhibit C-2, Appendix C, the LFL for acetylene is 27 mg/L, and the appropriate table for
distance estimation is a neutrally buoyant gas table for flammable substances. Your site is in a rural
area, so you would use Reference Table 18.
To use the neutrally buoyant gas tables, you need to calculate release rate/eodpoint. In this case,
release rate/LFL = 2,400/27 or 89. On Reference Table 18, 89 falls in die range of release
nte/LFL values corresponding to 0.20 miles.
12.2 Pool fires
A "Pool Fire Factor" (PFF) has been derived for each of the regulated flammable substances
to aid in the consequence analysis. This factor, listed in Appendix C, Exhibits C-2 and C-3 for each
regulated flammable substance, may be used to estimate a distance from the center of a pool fire
where people could potentially receive second degree burns from a 40-second exposure. The heat
radiation endpoint for this analysis is 5 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m*). Ambient temperature is
assumed to be 25° C (77* F) for calculation of the PFF for flammable liquids.
To estimate a distance using the PFF, you first need to estimate the size of the pool, in square
feet, that might be formed by the release of a flammable substance. You may use the methods
described above for toxic liquids to estimate pool size (density factors (DF) for the estimation of pool
size in undiked areas may be found for flammable liquids in Exhibit C-3 of Appendix C). Distances
may be estimated from the PFF and the pool area as follows:
(22)
where: d = Distance (feet)
PFF = Pool Fire Factor (listed for each flammable substance in Appendix C, Exhibits C-2
and C-3)
A = Pool area (square feet)
The derivation of these factors is discussed in Appendix D, Section D.9.
-------
-53-
Example 26, Fool Fire or Flammable Liquid
For the tank containing 20,000 pounds of ethyl ether, discussed in Example 24, you want to estimate
the consequences of a pool fire, for comparison with the vapor cloud fire results.
In Example 25, you estimated that 15,000 pounds would be released into an area without dikes,
forming a pool. Assuming the liquid spreads to a depth of 1 centimeter (0.39 inches), you estimate
the area of the pool formed from Equation 6, Section 3.2.3. For this calculation, you need the
density factor (DF) for ethyl ether; from Exhibit C-3, Appendix C, DF for ethyl ether is 0.69.
From Equation 6, the area of the pool is:
A = 15,000 x 0.69 = 10,400 square feet
You can use Equation 18 to estimate die distance from the center of the burning pool where the heat
radiation level would reach 5 kW/m2. For the calculation, you need the square root of the pool area
(A) and the pool fire factor (PFF) for ethyl ether. The square root of A, 10,400 square feet, is 102
feet. From Exhibit C-3, Appendix C, PFF for ethyl ether is 4.3. From Equation 18, the distance
(d) to 5 kW/m2 is:
d = 4.3 x 102 = 440 feet (about 0.08 miles)
123 BLEVEs
If a fireball from a BLEVE is a potential release scenario at your site, you may use Reference
Table 22 to estimate the distance to a potentially harmful radiant heat level. The table shows
distances for a range of quantities to the radiant heat level that potentially could cause second degree
bums to a person exposed for the duration of the fire. The quantity you use should be the total
quantity in a tank that might be involved in a BLEVE. The equations used to derive this table of
distances are presented in Appendix D, Section D. 10. If you prefer, you may use the equations to
estimate a distance for BLEVEs, or you may use a different calculation method or model.
12.4 Vapor Cloud Explosion
If you have the potential at your site for the rapid release of a large quantity of a flammable
vapor, particularly into a congested area, a vapor cloud explosion may be an appropriate alternative
release scenario. For the consequence analysis, you may use the same methods as for the worst case
to estimate consequence distances to an overpressure endpoint of 1 psi (see Section 5.1 and the
equation in Appendix C), Instead of assuming the total quantity of flammable substance released is in
the vapor cloud, you may estimate a smaller quantity in the cloud. You could base your estimate of
the quantity in the cloud on the release rate estimated as described above for gases and liquids
multiplied by the time required to stop the release.
To estimate the quantity in the cloud for a gas liquefied under pressure (not refrigerated), you
may use the following equation, incorporating a "flash fraction factor" (FFF), listed in Appendix C,
Exhibit C-2 for regulated flammable gases, to estimate the quantity that could be immediately flashed
-------
-54-
into vapor upon release plus the quantity that might be carried along as spray or aerosol (see
Appendix D, SectionJD.li for the derivation of this equation):
QF = FFF xQS x2
(23)
where: QF = Quantity flashed into vapor plus aerosol (pounds) (cannot be larger than QS)
QS = Quantity spilled (pounds)
FFF = Flash fraction factor (unitless) (listed in Appendix C, Exhibit C-2)
2 = Factor to account for spray and aerosol
For derivation of the FFF, the temperature of the stored gas was assumed to be 25° C (77° F).
You may estimate the flash fraction under other conditions using the equation presented in Appendix
D, Section D. 11,
You may estimate the distance to 1 psi for a vapor cloud explosion from the quantity in the
cloud using Reference Table 9 (at the end of the worst-case analysis discussion) or from Equation C-l
in Appendix C. For the alternative scenario analysis, you may use a yield factor of 3 percent, instead
of the yield factor of 10 percent used in the worst-case analysis. If you use the equation in Appendix
C, use 0.03 instead of 0.1 in the calculation. If you use Reference Table 9, you can incorporate the
lower yield factor by multiplying the distance you read from Reference Table 9 by 0.67,
Example 27. Vapor Cloud Explosion (Propane)
You have a tank containing 50,000 pounds of propane liquefied under pressure at ambient
temperature. You want to estimate the consequence distance for a vapor cloud explosion resulting
from rupture of the tank.
You use Equation 19 to estimate the quantity (hat might be released to form a cloud. You base the
calculation on the entire contents of the tank (QS = 50,000 pounds). From Exhibit C-2 of Appendix
C, the Flash Fraction Factor (FFF) for propane is 0.38. From Equation 19, the quantity flashed into
vapor, plus the quantity that might be carried along as aerosol, (QF) is:
QF = 0.38 x 50,000 x 2 = 38,000 pounds
You assume 38,000 pounds of propane is in the flammable part of the vapor cloud. This quantity
falls between 30,000 pounds and 50,000 pounds m Reference Table 9; 30,000 pounds is the quantity
closes! to your quantity. From the table, the distance to 1 psi overpressure is 0.33 miles for 30,000
pounds of propane for a 10 percent yield factor. To change the yield factor to 3 percent, you
multiply this distances by 0.67; then die distance becomes 0.22 miles.
-------
-55-
Reference Table 10
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic End point for Release Rate Divided by Endpoint
lOMinute Release, Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release Rate/Eadpoint
((lbs/min)/(mg/L)]
0-64
64 - 510
510 - 1,300
1,300 - 2,300
2,300 - 4,100
4,100 - 6,300
6,300 - 8,800
8,800 - 12,000
12,000 - 16,000
16,000 - 19,000
19,000 - 22,000
22,000 - 26,000
26,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 36,000
36,000 - 42,000
42,000 - 47,000
47,000 - 54,000
54,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 70,000
70,000 - 78,000
78,000 - 87,000
87,000 - 97,000
97,000- 110,000
110,000- 120,000
120,000 - 130,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.19
0.31
0.43
0.62
0.81
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(Ibs/min)/(mg/L)]
130,000 - 140,000
140,000 - 160,000
160,000 - 180,000
180,000- 190,000
190,000 - 210,000
210,000 - 220,000
220,000 - 240,000
240,000 - 261,000
261,000 - 325,000
325,000 - 397,000
397,000 - 477,000
477,000 - 566,000
566,000 - 663,000
663,000 - 769,000
769,000 - 1,010,000
1,010,000 - 1,280,000
1,280,000-1,600,000
1,600,000- 1,950,000
1,950,000-2,340,000
2,340,000 - 2,770,000
2,770,000 - 3,240,000
3,240,000 - 4,590,000
4,590,000-6,190,000
>6,190,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.8
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>2S
-------
-56-
Reference Table 11
Neutrally Buoyant^PIume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Rate Divided by Endpoint
60-Minute Release, Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lhs/min)/(mg/L)J
0-79
79 - 630
630 - 1,600
1,600-2,800
2,800 - 5,200
5,200 - 7,900
17,900- 11,000
11,000-14,000
14,000 - 19,000
19,000 - 23,000
23,000 - 27,000
27,000 - 32,000
32,000 - 36,000
36,000-42,000
42,000 - 47,000
47,000 - 52,000
52,000 - 57,000
57,000 - 61,000
1 61,000 - 68,000
1 68,000 - 73,000
73,000 - 79,000
79,000 - 84,000
84,000 - 91,000
191,000 - 97,000
97,000 - 100,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.19
0.31 1
0.43 1
0.62 1
0.81 1
0.99 1
1.2 ||
1.4 1
1.6 1
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
« 1
I Release Rate/Endpoint
((lbs/mui)/(mg/L)J
1 100,000 - 110,000
110,000-110,000
110,000-120,000
120,000 - 130,000
I 130,000 - 130,000
1 130,000 - 140,000
140,000 - 150,000
150,000- 151,000
151,000-171,000
171,000- 191,000
191,000-212,000
212,000 - 233,000
1233,000 - 256,000
256,000 - 280,000
280,000 - 332,000
332,000 - 390,000
390,000 - 456,000
456,000 - 529,000
529,000 - 610,000
1610,000 - 699,000
699,000 - 796,000
796,000- 1,080,000
1,080,000 - 1,410,000
> 1,410,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles) 1
4.8 ]
5.0 1
5.2 1
1
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.8
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>25 1
-------
-57-
Reference Table 12
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Rate Divided by Endpoint
10-Minute Release, Urban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release Rate/Endpoint
[Gbs/min)/(mg/L)]
0- 160
160 - 1,400
1,400 - 3,600
3,600 - 6,900
6,900 - 13,000
13,000 - 22,000
22,000 - 31,000
31,000-42,000
42,000 - 59,000
59,000 - 73,000
73,000 - 88,000
88,000 - 100,000
100,000 - 120,000
120,000 - 150,000
150,000 - 170,000
170,000 - 200,000
200,000 - 230,000
230,000 - 260,000
260,000 - 310,000
310,000 - 340,000
340,000 - 390,000
390,000 - 430,000
430,000 - 490,000
490,000 - 540,000
540,000 - 600,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.19
0,31
0.43
0.62
0.81
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lt»/min}/(mg/L)]
600,000 - 660,000
660,000 - 720,000
720,000 - 810,000
810,000 - 880,000
880,000 - 950,000
950,000 - 1,000,000
1,000,000-1,100,000
1,100,000- 1,220,000
1,220,000 - 1,530,000
1,530,000 - 1,880,000
1,880,000 - 2,280,000
2,280,000 - 2,710,000
2,710,000 - 3,200,000
3,200,000 - 3,730,000
3,730,000 - 4,920,000
4,920,000-6,310,000
6,310,000-7,890,000
7,890,000 - 9,660,000
9,660,000-11,600,000
11,600,000- 13,800,000
13,800,000 - 16,200,000
16,200,000-23,100,000
23,100,000-31,300,000
> 3 1,300,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.8
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>25
-------
-58-
Reference Table 13
Neutrally Buoyant Plume Distances to Toxic Endpoint for Release Bate Divided by Endpoint
60-Minute Release, Urban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
i Release Rate/Endpoint
[(Jbs/mJn)/(mg/L)]
0-200
200 - 1,700
1,700-4,500
4,500 - 8,600
8,600 - 17,000
17,000 - 27,000
27,000 - 39,000
39,000 - 53,000
53,000-73,000
173,000 - 90,000
90,000 - 110,000
110,000 - 130,000
130,000 - 150,000
150,000 - 170,000
170,000 - 200,000
200,000-220,000
220,000 - 240,000
240,000 - 270,000
270,000 - 300,000
300,000 - 320,000
320,000 - 350,000
1 350,000 - 370,000
1 370,000 - 410,000
410,000 - 430,000
1 430,000 - 460,000
Distance to
Endpoint 1
(miles) [
0.06
0.19
0.31
0.43
0.62
0.81
0.99
1.2
L4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2,2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
I Release Rate/Endpoint
[(Ibs/min}/(mg/L)]
460,000 - 490,000
I 490,000 - 520,000
i 520,000 - 550,000
I 550,000 - 580,000
| 580,000-610,000
610,000-640,000
| 640,000 - 680,000
680,000 - 705,000
705,000 - 804,000
804,000 - 905,000
905,000 - 1,010,000
1,010,000-1,120,000
1,120,000- 1,230,000
1,230,000-1,350,000
1,350,000 - 1,620,000
I 1,620,000 - 1,920,000
1 1,920,000 - 2,250,000
II 2,250,000 - 2,620,000
1 2,620,000 - 3,030,000
I 3,030.000 - 3,490,000
1 3,490,000 - 3,980,000
3,980,000-5,410,000
5,410,000-7,120,000
> 7, 120,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.8
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
25
>25
-------
-59-
Reference Table 14
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoinl
10-minute Release, Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release
Hate
Qhstaua)
1
2
5
10
30
SO
100
150
250
500
750
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
4000
5000
7500
10000
15000
20000
Toxic Eodpoini (mg/L)
0.0004
0.0007
0.001
0.002
0.0035
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0.01
0.035
0.05
0.075
0.1
OJS
OJ
0.15
DUunc«(MUa)
0.60
0.81
1.4
2.0
3.7
5.0
7.4
8.7
12
17
22
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.44
0.62
1.1
1.5
2.7
3.7
5.3
6.8
S.7
13
16
19
23
>25
*
*
*
*
<*
*
*
*
0.36
0.50
0.17
1.2
2.2
3.0
4.3
5.5
7.4
11
13
16
19
22
25
>25
+
*
*
*
•
*
0.24
OJ7
0.60
0.17
1J
2.1
3.0
3.1
5.0
7.4
9.3
11
13
15
17
19
22
>25
*
•
•
*
0.17
0.26
0.44
0.62
1.1
1.9
2.3
2.8
3.7
5.3
6.1
8.1
9,9
12
13
14
17
19
24
>25
*
*
0.14
0.22
0.36
0.54
0.93
1.2
1,7
2.3
3.0
4.5
5.6
6.8
8.1
9.3
11
12
14
16
19
22
>2S
*
0.11
0.17
0.29
0.43
0.74
0.99
1.4
1.9
2.4
3.6
4,5
5.2
6.8
7.4
8.7
9.3
11
12
16
18
22
>25
0.09
0.14
0.24
0.36
0.68
0.87
1.2
1.6
2.1
3.0
3.8
4.5
5.6
6.8
7.4
8.1
9.3
11
13
16
19
22
<0.06
0.09
0.17
0.25
0.47
0.62
0,87
1.1
1.4
2.1
2.7
3.1
3.9
4.5
5.2
5.7
6,8
7.4
9.3
11
13
16
<0.06
0.07
0.12
0.18
0.34
0.4S
0.62
0.11
1.1
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.9
3.4
3.8
4.2
4.9
5.6
6.8
8.1
9.9
11
1
<0.06
0.09
0.14
0.28
OJ7
0.56
0.68
0,87
1.3
1.6
2.2
2.4
2.7
3.2
3.5
4.1
4.7
5.8
6,8
8.1
9.3
1
<0,06
0.07
0.11
0.22
0.30
0.43
0.56
0.74
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
33
3.7
4.7
5.3
6.8
7.4
1
1
<0.06
0.09
0.19
0.25
0.37
0.47
0,51
0.17
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.9
2,1
2.4
2.8
3,1
4.0
4,6
5.7
6.8
t
1
1
<0.06
0.11
0.15
0.23
0.29
0.38
0.56
0.68
0.81
0.99
13.
1.3
1-4
1.7
2.1
2.4
2.8
3.5
4.0
'!
1
1
<0.06
0,07
0.10
0.15
0.19
0.26
0.37
0,47
0.56
0.68
0.81
0.17
0.99
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.4
2.8
1
1
t
t
25 miles
# <0.06 miles
-------
-60-
Reference Table 15
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint
60-minute Release, Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters par Second
Release
Rale
(Ua/min)
Tone Eodpoint (mg/L)
0.0004
11 | 0.53
2 I 0 81
5 I 1.6
10
30
50
1100
150
250
$00
750
1000
11 SOO
2000
2500
3000
4000
5000
7500
110000
15000
2.0
4.0
5.5
8.7
12
17
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
11 *
20000 | *
0.0007
0.39
0.57
0.99
1.4
2.8
3.9
6.1
8.1
11
19
25
>2S
*
*
•
*
•
t
«
*
*
*
0.001
0.002
0.0035
0.005
0.32
0.47
0.81
1.2
2.2
3.1
4.8
6.2
8.7
14
19
24
>25
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
*
*
0.22
0.32
0.54
0.81
U
2.1
3.2
4.1
5.6
9.3
12
15
20
24
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.16
0.23
OJ9
0.58
1.1
1.5
2-2
2.9
4.0
6.2
8.7
11
14
17
19
22
>25
*
*
*
*
•
0.13
0.19
0.32
0.47
0.87
1.2
1.8
2.3
3.2
5.0
6.8
8.1
11
13
15
17
21
25
>25
*
•
*
0.0075
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.38
0.68
0.99
1.4
1.8
2.5
3.9
S.I
6.1
8.1
9.9
12
13
16
19
25
>25
*
*
0.01
0.02
0.03S
O.OS
0.075
0.1
0.25
0.5
0.75
Distance (Mites)
0.09
0.13
0.22
0.32
0.61
0.81
1.2
1.6
2.1
3,3
4.2
5.2
6.8
8.1
9.3
11
14
16
20
25
>25
#
<0,06
0.09
0.15
0.22
0.42
0.56
0.81
1.1
1.4
2.2
2.8
3.4
4.3
5.2
6.0
6.8
8.7
9.9
13
16
21
25
1
<0.06
0.11
0.16
0.30
0.41
0.61
0.74
I.I
1.6
2.0
2.4
3.0
3.7
4.3
4.8
5.8
6.8
9.3
U
14
17
1
<0,06
0.09
0.13
0.2S
0.34
O.SO
0.62
0.»7
1.3
1.6
1,9
2.5
2.9
3.4
3J
4.7
5.3
6.8
8.7
11
14
f
<0.06
0.07
0.1 1
0.20
0,27
0.40
0.51
0.68
0.99
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.7
3.0
3.6
4.1
S.4
6.8
8.7
U
I
f
<0.06
0.09
0.17
0.23
0.34
0.43
0.57
0.47
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.5
5.4
7.4
8.7
f
f
t
<0.06
0.10
0.14
0.20
0.26
0.35
0.5 1
0.62
0.74
0.99
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.6
3.1
4.0
4.8
,'
f
f
<0.06
0.07
0.09
0,14
0.18
0.24
0.35
0.44
0.52
0.6S
0.74
0.87
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.6
3.1
f
t
1
i
<0.06
0.07
0.11
0.14
0.19
0.28
0.3$
0.42
0,52
0.61
0.68
0.81
0.93
1.1
1.4
1.6
2.1
2.5
* > 25 miles
-------
-61-
Reference Table 16
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint
10-minute Release, Urban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release
Rale
(tyuJmin)
1
2
$
10
30
SO
100
150
250
500
750
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
4000
5000
7500
10000
15000
20000
Toric Eudpomt (mg/L)
O.OOM
0.0007
0.001
0.002
0.0035
0.005
0.0075
0.01
O.OJ
0.03S
0.05
0.075
O.I
OJS
OS
0.75
DistaM* (MiUa)
0.49
0.68
1.1
2.1
3.0
4.1
5.8
7.4
9.9
14
17
20
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
0.34
0.50
0.11
1.2
2.2
3.0
4.3
5.5
7.4
11
13
15
19
22
24
>25
*
*
•
*
*
*
0.24
0.43
0.62
0.99
1.9
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.8
8.7
11
12
16
18
20
22
>25
*
*
*
*
*
0.19
0.28
0.47
0.61
1.2
1.6
2.7
3.1
4.1
5.9
7,4
8.7
11
12
14
16
18
20
>2S
»
*
*
0.12
0.22
0.33
0.50
0.93
1.2
1.8
2.2
3.0
4.3
5.5
6.2
8.1
9.3
11
11
14
IS
19
22
>25
#
0.11
0.17
0.28
0.42
0.81
0.99
1.4
1.9
2.5
3.6
4.5
5.3
6.2
7.4
8.7
9.3
11
12
16
18
22
>25
0.08
0.12
0.21
0.31
0.62
0.81
1.2
1.4
2.0
2.9
3.6
4.3
5.2
6.2
6.8
7.4
1.7
9.9
12
14
18
20
0.06
0.11
0.19
0.28
0.56
0.68
0.99
1.2
1.7
2.S
3.1
3.5
4.5
5.2
6.0
6.8
7.4
8.7
11
12
16
18
<0.06
0.07
0,12
0.19
0.37
0.50
0.74
0.87
I.I
1.7
2.1
2.5
3.0
3.7
3.8
4.5
5.3
5.1
7.4
8.7
11
12
1
<0.06
0.09
0.13
0.27
0.30
0.56
0.68
0.87
1.2
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.7
3.0
3.3
4.0
4.4
5.5
6.2
8.1
9.3
t
<0.06
0.07
0.11
0.22
0.29
0.45
0.56
0.68
0.99
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.7
3.2
3,6
4.5
5.2
6.8
7.4
*
1
<0.06
0.08
0.17
0.23
0.36
0.44
0.58
0.11
0.99
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.6
2.9
3.6
4.2
$.2
6.0
1
t
25 miles
f <0.06 miles
-------
•62-
Reference Table 17
Dense Gas Distances to Toxic Endpoint
60-minute Release, Urban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
1 Toak EndpMat (ng/L)
Rdeise |
R»l*
(Ibs/nuD)
•
-
2
5
0.0004
0.0007
0.43
0.68
1.1
10 | 1.7
I30J 3.3
SO| 4.7
100 1 7.4
ISO 1 9.9
150 | 14
500
750
1000
11500
22
>25
*
I *
2000 | •
2500
3000
4000
5000
7500
*
»
*
*
*
M
IOOOO | *
1 Ji«» I *
1 10000 1 »
0.31
0.47
0.81
1.2
2.4
3.3
5.2
6.8
9.3
16
20
24
>25
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.001
0.003
0.0035
0.005
0.0075
0.01
0.02
0.035 I 0.05
0.075
0.1
OJS
05
0.75
Distance (MOa)
0.25
0.38
0.68
0.99
1.9
2.6
4.1
5.3
7.4
12
16
19
>25
>25
>25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.17
0.25
0.43
0.61
13
1.7
2.7
3.4
4.7
7.4
9.9
12
16
19
23
>25
>2S
*
*
*
*
*
0.12
0.18
0.32
0.47
0.93
1.2
1.9
2,4
3.4
5.2
6.1
8.1
11
14
16
18
22
>25
*
*
*
*
0.09
0.15
0.25
0.38
0.74
0.99
1.5
1.9
2.7
4.2
5.4
6.8
8.7
11
12
14
17
20
25
>25
*
•
0,07
0.1 1
0.20
0.30
0.58
0.81
1.2
1.5
2.1
3.2
4.2
5.0
6.1
S.I
9.3
11
13
16
20
24
>25
*
<0.06
0.09
0.17
0.26
0.50
0.68
0.99
1. 3
1.7
2.7
3.5
4.2
S.5
6.8
7.4
8.7
Jl
12
17
20
>25
>25
I
<0.06
0.11
0.17
0.33
0.4.5
0.68
0.87
l.l
1.7
2.2
2.7
3.5
4.2
4.9
5.5
6.8
8.1
11
13
17
20
1
<0.06
0.08
0.12
0.24
0.33
0.48
0.61
0.81
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.9
3.0
3.4
3.8
4.7
53
6.8
8.7
11
14
1
1
<0.06
0.10
0.19
0.27
0.40
0.50
0.68
0.99
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.2
2.7
3.0
3.1
4.3
5.6
6.8
8.7
1!
1
1
<0.06
0.07
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.40
0.53
0.81
0.99
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.8
3.3
4.3
5.2
6.8
8.1
t
i
<0.06
0.06
0.13
0.17
0.27
0.33
0.45
0.68
0.87
0.99
1.3
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.4
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.6
6.8
1
i
t
<0.06
0.07
0.10
0.16
0.19
0.26
0.38
0.49
0.58
0.74
0.87
0.99
1.1
1.3
1.5
2.0
2.4
3.0
3.6
f*
t
i
1
<0.08
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.17
0.25
0.32
0.38
0.48
0.56
0.62
0.74
0.87
0.99
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.3
1
1
i
1
t
<0.06
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.27
0.30
0.37
0.44
0.50
0.56
0.68
0.74
0.93
I.I
1.5
1.7
-------
-63-
Reference Table 18
Neutrally Buoyant Flume Distances to Lower Flammability Limit (LFL)
- For Release Rate Divided by LFL
Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L)J
0-28
28-40
40-60
60-220
220 - 530
530 - 860
860 - 1,300
1,300 - 1,700
1,700 - 2,200
2,200 - 2,700
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L)]
2JOO - 3,300
3,300-3,900
3,900 - 4,500
4,500 - 5,200
5,200 - 5,800
5,800 - 6,800
6,800 - 8,200
8,200 - 9,700
9,700- 11,000
11,000 - 13,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.90
1.0
1.1
1.2
L3
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Reference Table 19
Neutral!? Buoyant Flume Distances to Lower Flammability Limit (LFL)
For Release Rate Divided by LFL
Urban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release Rate/Endpoint
[(lbs/min)/(mg/L)J
0-68
68- 100
100 - 150
150 - 710
710 - 1,500
1,500 - 2,600
2,600 - 4,000
4,000 - 5,500
Distance to
Endpoint
(mites)
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Release Rate/Endpoint
[abs/min)/(mg/L)]
5,500 - 7,300
7,300 - 9,200
9,200- 11,000
11,000-14,000
14,000 - 18,000
18,000-26,000
26,000 - 31,000
31,000-38,000
Distance to
Endpoint
(miles)
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-------
Reference Table 20
Dense Gas Distances to Lower Flammability Limit
Rural Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release
Rate
(Ibs/min)
<1SOO
1500
2000
2500
3000
4000
5000
7500
10000
Lower nammability Limit (mg/L)
27
30
35
40
#
<0.06
0.07
O.OS
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.17
tt
<0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.14
0.16
ff
i
<0.06
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.14
a
tt
it
<0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.13
45
50
Distance (Miles)
H
#
*
#
<0.06
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.12
ft
tt
»
it
<0.06
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.11
CO
70
It
tt
9
n
tt
<0.06
0.07
0.09
0.10
it
tt
it
n
it
9
<0.06
0.07
0.09
100
>iod
l_ *
#
tt
g
tt
*
tt
<0.06
0.07
tt
tt
It
ft
#
it
tt
8
<0.06
tt < 0.06 mile
-------
-65-
Reference Table 21
Dense Gas Distances to Lower Flamraability Limit
UPban Conditions, D Stability, Wind Speed 3.0 Meters per Second
Release
Rate
(Ibs/min)
<5000
5000
7500
10000
Lower Flammability Limit (mg/L)
27
30
35
40
>40
Distance (Miles)
#
<0.06
0.07
0.09
#
<0.06
0.06
0.07
#
»
<0.06
0.07
#
if
#
<0.06
#
#
#
it
# < 0.06 miles
-------
-66-
Reference Table 22
Distance to Radiant Heat Dose at Potential Second Degree Bum Threshold Assuming Exposure for Duration of Fireball
(Dose - [5 kW/nrT1 * Exposure Time)
1 Quantity in Fireball (pounds)
Duration of Fireball (seconds)
CAS No.
75-07-0
74-86-2
598-73-2
106-99-0
106-97-8
106-98-9
1107-01 -7
25167-67-3
590-18-1
624-64-6
463-58-1
7791-21-1
557-98-2
590^1-d
460-19-5
75 19-4
4109-96-0
75-374
124-4M
46312 1
74444)
Chttnicfl} NW&G
AcettUebyde
Acetylene
BromolnfluoroethylMM
1,3-BuudieDC
BuUnc
1-Bulenc
2-Butcne
Buiene
2-Bulzne-«ii
2-Butcnc-lnn*
Cuban oxyiulfide
Chlorine monoxide
2-Cbloropropylcne
1-Chluropropylcoc
Cyanogen
Cyclop rapine
Dichloroliline
Difluoroe thins
rfrif||ail|yt«miifrj
2,1-Dtmt^jlffaftof
•»*.
1,000
IJ
5,000
5.9
10,000
1JS
20,000
9.4
30,000
10.8
50,000
12.7
75,000
14.8
Distance (miles) at which Exposure for Duration of fireball May Cm
0.036
0.050
0.010
0.048
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.022
0.007
0.035
0.035
0.033
0.049
0.021
0.014
0.041
0.04S
O.OM
0.076
O.il
0.021
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.046
0.015
0.073
0.073
0.069
0.10
0.043
0.051
0.091
0.10
0 10
0.10
0.14
0.029
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.063
0.021
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.14
0.060
0.071
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.20
0.040
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.086
0.029
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.20
0.082
0.10
0.17
0-19
0.20
0.17
0.24
0.048
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.10
0.035
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.24
0.10
0.12
0.21
0.23
0.24
0.22
0.30
0.061
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.13
0.044
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.30
0.13
0.15
0.26
0.29
0.30
0.26
0.37
0.074
OJS
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.16
0.053
0.25
0,25
0.24
0.36
0.15
0.18
0.32
0.35
0.36
100,000
15.5
200,000
17.4
300,000
lg.7
500,000
20J
isa Second Degree Burns t
0.30
0.41
0.083
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.11
0.060
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.40
0.17
0.20
0.35
0.40
0.41
0.39
0.54
0.11
0,52
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.52
O.S2
0.24
0.078
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.53
0.22
0.26
0.47
0.52
0.54 _j
0.46
0.64
0.13
0.61
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.28
0.092
0.44
0.44
0.42
0.63
0.26
0.31
0.55
0.62
0.63
0.56
0.78
0.16
0.75
0-76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.7S
0.34
0.11
O.S4
0.54
0.52
0.77
0.32
0.38
0.67
0.75
0.77
-------
-67-
Reference Table 22 (continued)
Quantity in fireball (pounds}
Di
CAS No.
107-OM
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
75JI-0
75-29-6
74-82-S
74-89-5
563-45-1
563-46-2
115-10-6
107-31-3
115-11-7
504-60-9
109-66-0
109-67-1
iralion of Mrritall (gficoncb}
Chemical Name
Ethyl acetylene
Elbylinune
Ethyl chloride
Elhykn*
Elhyl ether
Ethyl rnertipun
Elhyl nilrile
Hydrogen
liobuunc
iMfwnline
l*oprene
Isopropylaiiune
Isopropyl chloride
Melhane
Melhylimine
3-Mcthyl-l-buient
2-Melhyl-l-buUne
Methyl eiher
Melhyl fonnate
2-Melhylpropene
| ,3-Ptnuditne
Feniane
1-Penwne
1,000
3.5
5,000
S,9
10,000
7.5
20,000
9.4
30,000
10.8
50,000
12.7
75,000
14.8
100,000
15.5
200,000
17.4
300,000
18.7
500,000
20J
Distance (mite) at which Exposure for Duration of fireball May Cause Second Degree Boras
0.049
0.043
0.032
0.050
0.042
0.038
0.031
0.079
0.049
0.048
0.048
0.044
0.03S
0.051
0.040
0.048
0.048
0.039
0.028
0.041
0.041
0.041
0.048
0.10
0.090
0.068
0.10
0.088
0.080
0.064
0.17
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.091
0.074
0.11
0-085
0.10
0.10
0.081
0.059
0.10
0.10
0.10
0,10
0.14
0.12
0.093
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.088
0.23
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.15
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.081
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.17
0.13
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.12
0.31
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.1$
0.11
0.19
0.19
0.19
0,19
0.23
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.20
O.tt
0.1S
0,38
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.17
0.24
0.19
0.23
0.23
0.19
0.14
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.29
0.26
0.19
0.30
0.25
0.23
0.19
0.4«
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.26
0.21
0.31
0.24
0.29
0.29
0.23
0.17
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.36
OJ1
0.24
0.36
0.31
0.28
0.22
0.58
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.32
0.26
0.37
0.30
0.35
0.35
0.28
0.21
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.26
0.41
0.34
0.31
0.25
0.65
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.36
0.29
0.42
0.33
0.40
0.39
0.32
0.23
0.40
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.53
0.46
0.35
0.54
0.45
0.41
0.33
0.85
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.47
0.38
0.55
0.44
0.52
0.52
0.42
0.31
0.52
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.62
' 0.54
0.41
0.63
0.53
0.48
0,39
1.0
0.62
0.61
061
0.55
0.45
0.65
0.51
0.61
0.61
0,49
0.36
0.62
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.76
0.67
0.50
0.77
0.65
0.59
0.48
1.2
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.68
0.55
0.79
0.63
0.75
0.75
0,60
0.44
0.75
0.74
0.75
0.7i
-------
-68-
Reference Table 22 (continued)
J
Quantity In RrtbaU (pounds)
Dt
CAS No.
1646-04-8
627-20-3
463-49-0
74-98-6
II 5-07-1
74-99-7
7803-62-5
116-14-3
75-76-3
I0025-7»-2
79-38-9
75-503
689-97-4
75-01-4
109-92-2
75-02-5
75-35-4
75-31-7
1 107-25-5
iTftdim rf flffiHiill (pcQUidi)
Chank^Nanw
2-Fentene, (E)-
2-Pew*ne, (Z)-
(VopidicDc
Propind
Propylent
Pntpyne
SiUne
Tmmfluoroeihylene
Te*f*mclhyl«il*nc
TricUorotilane
Trifluoruehloroelhylene
Tiimelhyluiune
Vinyl acetylene
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl clhyl elher
Vinyl fluoride
Viaylideqe chloride
Viaylidcne fluoride
Vinyl methyl ether
1,000
3J
5,000
5.9
10,000
1JS
20,000
9.4
30,000
10.8
50,000
12.7
75,000
14.S
100,000
15.5
100,000
17.4
300,000
18.7
500,000
20J
Distuce (miles) it which Exposure for Doraikm of FinbtU M*y C uiie Second Degree Bams
0.048
0.048
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.048
0.008
0.047
0.014
0.010
0.044
0.049
0.031
0.041
0.011
0.023
0.024
0.040
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.017
0.091
0.029
0.020
0.093
0.10
0.066
0.087
0.022
0.049
0.050
0.084
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.024
0.13
0.040
0.028
0.13
0.14
0.090
0.12
0.031
0.067
0.068
0.11
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.032
0.18
0.055
0.039
0.18
0.19
0.12
0.16
0.042
0.092
0.094
0.16
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.039
0.22
0.067
0.047
0.21
0.23
0.15
0.20
0.051
0.11
0.11
0.19
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.30
030
0.29
0.049
0.28
0.085
0.059
0.27
0.29
0.19
0.25
0.065
0.14
0.14
0.24
OJ5
0.35
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.060
0.34
0.10
0.072
0.33
0.36
0.23
0.30
0.078
0.17
0.17
0.29
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.067
0.38
0.11
0.080
0.37
0.40
0.26
0.34
0.088
0.19
0.19
0.33
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.088
0.50
0.15
0.11
0.48
0.53
0.34
0.45
0.12
0.25
0.26
0.43
0.61
* 0.61
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.61
0.10
0.59
0.18
0.12
0.57
0.62
0.40
0.53
0.14
0.30
0.30
0.51
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.13
0.73
0-22
0.15
0.69
0.76
0.49
0.64
0.17
0.36
0.37
0.62
-------
-69-
13.0 Estimating Offsite Receptors
The rule requires that you estimate residential populations within the circle of your worst-case
and alternative release scenarios. In addition, you must report in the RMP whether types of public
receptors and environmental receptors are within the circles.
To estimate residential populations, you may use the most recent Census data or any other
source of data that you believe is more accurate. You are not required to update Census data or
conduct any surveys to develop your estimates. Census data are available in public libraries and in
the LANDVIEW system, which is available on CD-ROM. The rule requires that you estimate
populations to two-significant digits. For example, if there are 1,260 people within the circle, you
may report 1,300 people.
Census data are presented by Census tract. If your circle covers only a portion of the tract,
you should develop an estimate for that portion. The easiest way to do this is to determine the
population density per square mile (total population of the Census tract divided by the number of
square miles in the tract) and apply that density figure to the number of square miles within your
circle. Because there is likely to be considerable variation in actual densities within a Census tract,
this number will be approximate. The rule, however, does not require you to correct the number.
Other public receptors must be noted in the RMP. If there are any schools, residences,
hospitals, prisons, public recreational areas or arenas, or major commercial or industrial areas within
the circle, you must report that. You are not required to develop a list of all institutions and areas;
you must simply checkoff that one or more such areas are within the circle. Most of these institutions
or areas can be identified from local street maps. Recreational areas include public swimming pools,
public parks, and other areas that are used on a regular basis for recreational activities (e.g., baseball
fields). Commercial and industrial areas include shopping malls, strip malls, downtown business
areas, industrial parks, etc.
Environmental receptors are defined as national or state parks, forests, or monuments;
officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges; and Federal wilderness areas. All of
these can be identified on local U.S. Geological Survey maps. You are not required to locate each of
these specifically. You are only required to checkoff in the RMP that these specific types of areas are
within the circle. If any part of one of these receptors is within your circles, you must note that in
the RMP.
The rule does cot require you to assess the likelihood, type, or severity of potential impacts
on either public or environmental receptors. Identifying them as within the circle indicates that they
could be adversely affected by the release.
-------
-70-
14.0 Submitting Offsite Consequence Analysis Information for Risk Management Plan
For the offsite consequence analysis (OCA) component of the RMP you must provide
information on your worst-case and alternative release scenario(s) for toxic and flammable regulated
chemicals held above the threshold quantity. The requirements for what information you must submit
differs if your source has Program 1, Program 2, or Program 3 processes.
If your source has Program 1 processes, you must submit information on a worst-case release
scenario for each toxic and flammable substance held above the threshold quantity in a Program 1
process. If your source has Program 2 or Program 3 processes, you must provide information on one
worst-case release for all toxic regulated substances present above the threshold quantity and one
worst-case release scenario for all flammable regulated substances present above the threshold
quantity. You may need to submit an additional worst-case scenario if a worst-case release from
another process at the source would potentially affect public receptors different from those potentially
affected by the initial worst-case scenario(s) for flammable and toxic regulated substances.
In addition to a worst-case release scenario, sources with Program 2 and Program 3 processes
must also provide information on alternative release scenarios. Alternative releases are releases that
could occur, other than the worst-case, that may result in concentrations, overpressures, or radiant
heat that reach endpoints offsite. You must present information on one alternative release scenario
for each, regulated toxic substance, including the substance used for the worst-case release, held above
die threshold quantity and one alternative release scenario to represent all flammable substances held
above the threshold quantity. The format of the information will be provided by EPA in general
guidance to the Risk Management Program. The types of documentation to submit are presented
below for worst-case scenarios involving toxic substances, alternative scenarios involving toxic
substances, worst-case scenarios involving flammable substances, and alternative scenarios involving
flammable toxic substances.
14.1 Documentation Required For Worst-Case Scenarios for Toxic Substances
For worst-case scenarios involving toxic substances, you will have to submit the following
information. See the Risk Management Plan Data Elements Guide for complete instructions,
* Chemical name;
* Physical state of the chemical released (gas, liquid, refrigerated gas, refrigerated
liquid);
* Basis of results (OCA reference tables or modeling; name of the model used);
• Scenario (toxic gas release or liquid spill and vaporization);
* Quantity released (pounds);
* Release rate (pounds per minute);
* Duration of release (minutes) (10 minutes for gases; if you used OCA guidance for
liquids, indicate either 10 or 60 minutes);
* Wind speed (meters per second) and stability class (1.5 meters per second and F
stability unless you can show higher minimum wind speed or less stable atmosphere at
all times during the last three years);
* Topography (rural or urban);
• Distance to endpoint (miles);
« Population within distance (residential population rounded to two significant digits);
-------
-71-
• Public receptors within the distance (schools, residences, hospitals, prisons, public
recreation areas or arenas, major commercial or industrial areas);
• Environmental receptors within the distance (national or state parks, forests, or
monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges; Federal
wilderness areas); and
• Passive mitigation measures considered (dikes, enclosures, benns, drains, sumps,
other).
14.2 Documentation Required for Alternative Scenarios for Toxic Substances
For alternative scenarios involving toxic substances held above the threshold quantity in a
Program 2 or Program 3 process, you will have to submit the following information. See the Risk
Management Plan Data Elements Guide for complete instructions.
* Chemical name;
* Physical state of the chemical released (gas, liquid, refrigerated gas, refrigerated
liquid);
* Basis of results (OCA reference tables or modeling; name of model used);
* Scenario (transfer hose failure, pipe leak, vessel leak, overfilling, rupture disk/relief
valve, excess flow valve, other);
• Quantity released (pounds);
* Release rate (pounds per minute);
« Duration of release (minutes) (if you used OCA guidance, indicate either 10 or 60
minutes);
* Wind speed (meters per second) and stability class (3.0 meters per second and D
stability if you use OCA guidance, otherwise use typical meteorological conditions at
your site);
• Topography (rural or urban);
* Distance to endpoint (miles);
* Population within distance (residential population rounded to two significant digits);
• Public receptors within the distance (schools, residences, hospitals, prisons, public
recreation areas or arenas, major commercial or industrial areas);
* Environmental receptors within the distance (national or state parks, forests, or
monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges; Federal
wilderness areas);
* Passive mitigation measures considered (dikes, enclosures, benns, drains, sumps,
other); and
• Active mitigation measures considered (sprinkler system, deluge system, water
curtain, neutralization, excess flow valve, flares, scrubbers, emergency shutdown
system, other).
143 Documentation Required for Worst-Case Scenarios for Flammable Substances
For worst-case scenarios involving flammable substances, you will have to submit the
following information. See the Risk Management Plan Data Elements Guide for complete
instructions.
-------
-72-
• Chemical name;
• Basis of results (OCA reference tables or modeling; name of model used);
• Scenafio (vapor cloud explosion; BLEVE if it produces worst-case consequences);
« Quantity released (pounds);
* Endpoint used (for vapor cloud explosions use I psi, for BLEVE use 5 kw/m2 for 40
seconds (or thermal dose equivalent to receive second degree bums));
• Distance to endpoint (miles);
* Population within distance (residential population rounded to two significant digits);
• Public receptors within the distance (schools, residences, hospitals, prisons, public
recreation areas, major commercial or industrial areas);
• Environmental receptors within the distance (national or state parks, forests, or
monuments, officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges, Federal
wilderness areas); and
• Passive mitigation measures considered (dikes, fire walls, blast walls, enclosures,
other).
14,4 Documentation Required for Alternative Scenarios for Flammable Substances
For alternative scenarios involving flammable substances held above the threshold quantity in
a Program 2 or Program 3 process, you will have to submit the following information. See the Risk
Management Plan Data Elements Guide for complete instructions.
Chemical name;
Basis of results (CCA reference tables or modeling; name of the model used);
Scenario (vapor cloud explosion, vapor cloud fire, BLEVE, pool fire, jet fire, other);
Quantity released (pounds);
Release rate (pounds per minute) (only for vapor cloud fires);
Wind speed (meters per second) and stability class (only for vapor cloud fires; 3.0
meters per second and D stability if you use OCA guidance, otherwise use typical
meteorological conditions at your site);
Topography (rural, urban) (only for vapor cloud fires);
Endpoint used (for vapor cloud explosions use 1 psi; for BLEVE, jet fire, pool fire,
use 5 kw/m2 for 40 seconds (or thermal dose equivalent to receive second degree
burns); for vapor cloud fire use lower flammabiliry limit);
Distance to endpoint (miles);
Population within distance (residential population rounded to two significant digits);
Public receptors within the distance (schools, residences, hospitals, prisons, public
recreation areas, major commercial or industrial areas);
Environmental receptors within the distance (national or state parks, forests, or
monuments, officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges, Federal
wilderness areas);
Passive mitigation measures considered (e.g., dikes, fire walls, blast walls,
enclosures, other); and
Active mitigation measures considered (e.g., sprinkler system, deluge system, water
curtain, neutralization, excess flow valve, flares, scrubbers, emergency shutdown
system, other).
-------
-73-
APPENDKA
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MODELS AMD REFERENCES FOR CALCULATION METHODS
-------
.74-
This appendix provides infonnation on some models that could be used for the offsite
consequence analyses required under CAA section 112(r) and lists references that may provide useful
infonnation for modeling or calculation methods that could be used in the offsite consequence
analyses. Exhibit A-l summarizes information on some publicly available models. Exhibit A-2 lists
references that provide information on consequence analysis methods. Neither of these exhibits is
intended to be a complete listing of models or references that may be used in the consequence
analysis; any appropriate model or method may be used.
-------
-75-
Exhibit A-l
Summary of Several Public Domain Models
Identification
Description
Information on Acquiring Software
AIRTOX Modeling System
Developed by ENSR
AIRTOX calculates concentrations of toxic or
flammable chemicals for steady, instantaneous, or
varying releases of volatile liquids or gases. A number
of accompanying spreadsheet-based models are available
for calculation of specific release profiles. AIRTOX
has algorithms that address releases from various source
configurations, including buoyant and heavier-than-air
sources, jets, liquid pools, fires, and explosions. The
model has been applied to offsite consequence
assessments, response planning, and accident
investigations.
Address:
ENSR
35 Nagog Park I
Acton, MA 01720
Phone:
1-508-635-9500, ext. 3150
Cost:
Dependent upon the modeling package selected;
contact ENSR for information
ALOHA
(Ajeal Locations of Hazardous
Atmospheres)
Developed by (he National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
ALOHA is an emergency response model, intended
primarily for rapid deployment by responders as well as
for use in emergency pre-planning. It incorporates
source strength as well as Gaussian and heavy gas
dispersion models and an extensive chemical library.
Model output data is in both text and graphic form and
includes a "footprint" plot of the area downwind of a
release where concentralions may exceed a user-set
threshold level. ALOHA can accept weather data
transmitted from portable monitoring stations and can
plot footprints on electronic maps displayed in a
companion mapping application, MARPLOT™.
ALOHA runs on a Macintosh or in Microsoft Windows.
Address:
National Safety Council
P.O. Box 558
Itasca, IL 60611
Phone: 1-800-621-7619
Fax: 1-708-285-0797
Cost:
ALOHA: $2l5/Govt. & Non-profit
$610/Commercial
CAMEO MAC/ALOHA: $375/Govt. & Non-profit,
$1050/CommerciaI
-------
-76-
Exhibit A-l (continued)
Identification
Description
Information on Acquiring Software
ARCHIE
(Automated Resource for Chemical
Hazard Incident Evaluation)
Prepared for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
ARCHIE estimates downwind dispersion of a chemical
release to provide emergency planning personnel with
the tools necessary to evaluate the nature and magnitude
of chemical release threats at potentially hazardous
Kites. Includes methods to estimate the discharge rate
and duration of a gas or liquid release from a tank or
pipeline, the size of a liquid pool, the rate at which a
liquid pool will evaporate or boil, the overpressure and
heat generated from explosions and fires, and the
downwind chemical concentration and hazard zones.
Contact/Address;
William Dorsey
ARCHIE
(DHM-15/Room 8104)
U.S. Dept. of Transportation
400 7th St., SW
Washington, DC 20S90
Phone: (202)366-4900
Cost: Free
BP CIRRUS
Developed by the Corporate Safety
Services of British Petroleum,
International
BP CIRRUS is a package of models to forecast the
effects of a release of hydrocarbon or other chemical
liquid or vapor. It is used for consequence modeling in
relation to die design of new facilities, in risk
assessment studies, and in developing emergency plans
for currently operating facilities.
HELPLINE
Address;
Corporate Safety Services
BP International Ltd.
London
Phone: (044) 71 9203157
Fax: (044) 71 628 2709
DEGAD1S
(Dense Gas Dispersion)
Developed by the United States
Coast Guard
DEGAD1S predicts contaminant movement for heavier-
than-air gases for instantaneous and continuous ground
level releases. It is used for emergency response
planning and vulnerability analysis.
Address:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Rd.
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone: (703)487-4600
Cost: $90 (Version 2.1)
The FORTRAN source code for operation on a
VAX or PC can be downloaded through the Support
Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM)
Bulletin Board System, (919)541-5742.
-------
•77-
Exhibit A-l (continued)
Identification
Description
Information on Acquiring Software
HGSYSTEM
Developed by the Industry
Cooperative HP Mitigation /
Assessment Program (20 companies
from the chemical and petroleum
industries)
HGSYSTEM is a package of models for predicting the
transient and steady-slate release and dispersion
behavior of hydrogen fluoride or ideal gases;
incorporates the thermodynamic and cloud aerosol
effects of hydrogen fluoride.
Address:
Energy, Science & Technology Software Center
P.O. Box 1020
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-1020
I
Phone: (615)576-2606
Cost: $510
SAFER System - TRACE and
SAFER Rod-Time System
Developed by DuPont
TRACE can model ground level and elevated releases
of dense, neutral, or buoyant gases and predict
downwind chemical concentrations and impact on
receptors. Methods are included to estimate the
discharge rate and duration of releases from tanks or
pipelines and size and evaporation rale of liquid pools.
A high momentum jet model, special algorithms to
model hydrogen fluoride and titanium tetrachloride, and
models for a variety of fire and explosion scenarios are
included. Output is presented in text and graphical
forms. An optional enhancement allows in-depth
evaluation of impact on population.
SAFER Real-Time System is based on the same
modeling algorithms as die TRACE model, but is
designed for emergency preparedness and response
activities. The model uses real-time meteorological
for modeling, has optional complex terrain modeling
capabilities, and can interface with toxic gas sensors.
Address:
DuPont SAFER Systems, Inc.
4165 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 350
Wesdake Village, CA 91362
Phone: (805)446-2450
FAX: (805)446-2470
Cost:
TRACE (including Fire and Explosion models):
$15,000
SAFER Real-Time System: $18,400
-------
-78-
Exhibit A-l (continued)
Identification
Description
Information on Acquiring Software
SLAB
Developed by the Lawrence
Livennore National Laboratory
SLAB is a dense gas mode] for various types of releases
including a ground-level evaporating pool, an elevated
horizontal jet, a stack or elevated vertical jet, and an
instantaneous volume source; solves conservation
equations of mass, momentum, energy, and species for
continuous, finite duration, and instantaneous releases.
Contact/Address:
BOWMAN Environmental Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 59916
DaUas,TX 75229
t
Phone; (214)233-5463
FORTRAN version available on EPA Bulletin Board
at no cost / (919)541-5742
TSCREEN
Developed for EPA by Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc.
TSCREEN is a model for screening toxic air pollutants
to assist slate and local agencies in analyzing toxic
emissions and their subsequent dispersion from one of
many different types of possible releases from
Superrund sites. SCREEN, RVD, and PUFF are three
air toxics dispersion screening models imbedded within
TSCREEN that are used to simulate the release and to
calculate the dispersion characteristics and pollutant
concentrations of the resulting plume.
Contact/Address:
Jawad Touma
USEPA, OAQPS
Maildrop 14
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: (919)541-5381
TSCREEN can be acquired through the EPA
Electronic Bulletin Board at no cost by means of a
modem or via the Internet / (919)541-5742
WHAZAND
(World Bank Hazard Analysis)
Developed by DNV Technica Ltd.
and the World Bank
WHAZAN is a series of models to predict the
consequences of accidental releases of toxic and
flammable gases or liquids. The models provide
information about outflow, behavior immediately after
release, dispersion, and fires and explosion. WHAZAN
includes a database containing the values of relevant
properties for twenty hazardous chemicals.
Contact/Address:
Mike Johnson
DNV Technica Ltd.
40925 County Center Drive
Suite 200
Temechula, CA 92591
Phone: (909)694-5790
Cost: $2500
-------
-79-
Exhibit A-2
Selected References for Information on Consequence Analysis Methods
Center for Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE). Guidelines for
Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs. New
York: AIChE, 1994.
Center for Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). Guidelines for
Use of Vapor Cloud Dispersion Models. New York: AIChE, 1987.
Center for Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). International
Conference and Workshop on Modeling and Mitigating the Consequences of Accidental
Releases of Hazardous Materials, September 26-29, 1995, New York: AIChE, 1995.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures, 1989.
Madsen, Warren W. and Robert C. Wagner. "An Accurate Methodology for Modeling the
Characteristics of Explosion Effects." Process Safety Progress, 13 (July 1994), 171-175.
Merot, W.P.M., D.M. Johnson, and J. Puttock. "Validation of Scaling Techniques for Experimental
Vapor Cloud Explosion Investigations." Process Safety Progress, 14 (April 1995), 120.
Mercx, W.P.M., R.M.M. van Wees, and G. Opschoor. "Current Research at TNO on Vapor Cloud
Explosion Modelling." Process Safety Progress, 12 (October 1993), 222.
Prugh, Richard W. "Quantitative Evaluation of Fireball Hazards." Process Safety Progress, 13
(April 1994), 83-91.
Scheuermann, Klaus P. "Studies About the Influence of Turbulence on the Course of Explosions."
Process Safety Progress, 13 (October 1994), 219.
TNO Bureau for Industrial Safety, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research.
Methods for the Calculation of the Physical Effects of the Escape of Dangerous Material
(Liquids and Gases). Voorburg, the Netherlands: TNO (Commissioned by Directorate-
General of Labour), 1980.
TNO Bureau for Industrial Safety, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research.
Methods for the Determination of Possible Damage to People and Objects Resulting from
Releases of Hazardous Materials. Rijswijk, the Netherlands: TNO (Commissioned by
Directorate-General of Labour), 1992.
Touma, Jawad S., et al. "Performance Evaluation of Dense Gas Dispersion Models." Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 34 (March 1995), 603-615.
-------
-SO-
ILS. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department
of Transportation. Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis, Emergency Planning for
Extremely Hazardous Substances, December 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Workbook of
Screening Techniques for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants. EPA-45Q/4-88-QQ9.
September 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Guidance on
the Application of Refined Dispersion Models for Hazardous/Toxic Air Release. EPA-454/R-
93-002. May 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances.
Flammable Gases and Liquids and Their Hazards. EPA 744-R-94-002. February 1994.
-------
-81-
APPENDIXB
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
-------
-82-
B.l Data for Toxic Substances
The exhibits To this section of Appendix B provide the data needed to carry out the
calculations for regulated toxic substances using the methods presented in the text of this guidance.
Exhibit B-l presents data for toxic gases, Exhibit B-2 presents data for toxic gases, and Exhibit B-3
presents data for several toxic substances commonly found in water solution and for oleum.
-------
-83-
Exhibit B-l
Data for Toxic Gases
CAS Number
7664-41-7
7784-42-1
10294-34-5
7637-07-2
7782-50-5
10049-04-4
506-77-4
19287-45-7
75-21-8
7782-41-4
50-00-0
74-90-1
7647-01-0
7664-39-3
7783-07-5
7783-06^1
74-87-3
74-93-1
10102-43-9
Chemical Nam*
Ammonia (aahydmui)*
Anioe
Boron trichloride
Boron In fluoride
Chlorine
Chlorite dioxide
Cyanogen chloride
Dibonne
Eihylene oxide
Fluorine
Formaldehyde (tnhydrau*)*
Hydrocyanic acid
Hydrogen chloride
(•nhydroui)*
Hydrogen fluoride
(inhydroui)'
Hydrogen telenide
Hydrogen lulfide
Meihyl chloride
Methyl mercaplao
Nitric oxide
Molecular
Weigh!
17.03
77.95
117.17
67.81
70.91
67.45
61.47
27.67
44.05
38.00
30.03
27.03
36.46
20.01
80.98
34.08
50.49
48.11
30.01
Ratio of
Specific
Heats
1.31
1.28
1.15
1.20
1.32
1.25
1.21
1.17
1.21
1.36
1.31
1.30
1.40
1.40
1.32
1.32
1.26
1.20
1.38
Tone Endowi*
Level (mg/L)
0.14
0.0019
0.010
0.028
0.0087
0.0028
0.030
0.0011
0.090
0.0039
0.012
0.011
0.030
0.016
0.00066
0.042
0.82
0.049
0.031
Baas
ERFO-2
EHS-LOC (IDLH)
1HS-LOC (Ton"1
EHS-LOC (IDLH)
ERPG-2
EHS-LOC equivalent
(IDLH)*
EHS-LOC equivalent
(T<«)«
ERPG-2
ERFG-2
1HS-LOC (IDLH)
ERPG-2
ERPG-2
ERKJ2
ERPQ-2
EHS-LOC (IDLK)
ERPQ-2
ERPO-2
ERPG-2
EHS-LOC CTLV1)
Liquid Factor
IWMlll^g
(LFB)
0.073
0.23
012
0.25
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.35
0.10
0.079
0.15
0,066
0.21
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.21
Dimity
Factor
(Baaing}
0.71
0.30
0.36
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.41
1.13
0.55
0.32
0.59
0.72
0.41
0.51
0.25
0.51
0.48
0.55
0.38
Gas
Factor
(GF)
14
30
36
28
29
28
26
17
22
22
19
18
21
16
31
20
24
23
19
Refertwe
Table
(SetN«ta)
jluoyanl
DC me
DC cue
De me
DCOK
Deoae
Dciue
Buoyant
Dense
Dense
Dense
Buoyant
DefiK
Buoyant
De we
Deiue
DCMC
Deiue
Deiue
-------
-84-
Exhibit B-l (continued)
CAS Number
7S-44-5
7803-51-2
7446-09-5
77I3-6W)
Chemical Name
Riefgeae
Phojphine
Sulfur dioxide (inhydrou*)
Sulfur ielnOuofkle
Molecular
Wright
98.92
34.00
64.07
108.06
Ratio of
Specific
Hails
1. 17
1.29
1,26
130
ToxkEud point
Lerd (mg/L)
0.00081
0.0035
0.0071
0.0092
BUM
ERKJ-2
ERPG-2
ERPG2
EHS-LOC (T«O
Uquid Factor
Bailing
(LFB)
0.20
0.1S
0.16
0.25
Density
Factor
(Boiling)
0.35
0.65
0.33
0.2S
(tt -73*Q
Cm
Factor
(CF)
33
20
27
36
Reference
Tabl*
(See Note)
Dcnic
Dciuc
Deiue
D< rue
Notes:
'Buoyant* in the Reference Table column refers to the tables for neutrally buoyant gases and vapors; "Dense" refers to the tables for dense gases and
vapors. See Appendix D, Section D.4.3, for more information on die choice of reference tables.
* See Exhibit B-3 of this appendix for data on water solutions.
** LOG is based on the IDLH-equivulent level estimated from toxicity data.
f Not an EHS; LOC-equivalent value was estimated from one-tenth of the IDLH.
* Not an EHS; LOC-equivalent value was estimated from one-tenth of the IDLH-equivalent level estimated from toxicity data.
LOC based on Threshold Limit Value (TLV) - Time-weighted average (TWA) developed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygieaists (ACGIH).
-------
-85-
Exhibit B-2
Data for Toxic Liquids
CAS
Number
107-02-8
107-13-1
1814-68-6
107-18-6
107-11-9
7784-34-1
353-42-4
7726-95-6
15-15-0
67-66-3
542-88-1
107-30-2
4170-30-3
123-73-9
1 08 91-8
75-78-5
57-14-7
10689-8
107-15-3
15156-1
1 10-00-9
JOJ-Ol 1
CboaicalNaou
Acmlein
Acrylonitrilo
Acrylyl chloride
Allyl alcohol
Allylamiiie
Ancaoui trichloride
Boron tri fluoride compound
with methyl ether (1:1)
Bromine
C»rfcon diiulfidt
Chloroform
Chloromelhyl ether
Chloroinelhyl methyl ether
CnMomldthyde
Crotoiuldehyde, (E)-
CyclohcxyUminc
Diraelhyldicbloro«U*oe
1 , 1 -Dime thy Ihydrazioe
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Elhylcor.iminc
Km*
Hy*ai}a*
Molecular
WagM
56.06
53.06
90.51
58.08
57,10
181.28
113.89
159.81
76.14
119.38
114.96
80.51
70.09
70.09
99.18
129.06
60.10
92.53
60.10
43.07
61.01
12.03
Vapor
Prwsor*
•t2S*C
feunlig)
274
108
110
26.1
242
10
11
212
359
196
29.4
199
30.8
30.8
10.1
141
157
16.5
12.2
211
600
144
TOOK Endpoiiit
Urrd
(mg/L)
0.0011
0.076
0.00090
0.036
0.0032
0.01
0.023
0.0065
0.16
0.49
0.00025
0.0018
0.029
0.029
0.16
0.026
0.012
0.076
0.49
0.011
0.0012
0.011
Basis
ERPG-2
ERPG-2
EHS-LOC
-------
-86-
Exhibit B-2 (continued)
CAS
Number
13463-40-6
78-82-O
108-23-6
126-98-7
79-22-1
60-34-4
624-83-9
556^4-9
75-79-6
13463-39-3
17697-37-2
79-21-0
594-42-3
10025-17-3
7719-12-2
110-89-1
107-12-0
10WI-5
7S-S5-8
75-569
7446-11-9
175 74- 1
MW-14-4
M10-4J-0
Chemical Name
Iron, pcouctrbonyl-
lobuiyronilrile
Ltopropyl chlorofonmle
Vfcihieryloniuile
Melbyl chlorofonnile
Methyl hydnzine
Melhyl iiocyioile
Melhyl thiocyiMle
Melhyllrichloroiiknc
Nickel c«rbonyl
Niiric acid (100%)-
Pencetic Acid
Pcrchloromethylmerciplen
Fhoiphonii oxyehloride
Pho»phorui trichloride
Pipcridine
Propionitrile
Propyl chlorofomulo
Propyleneimino
Propylene oxide
Sulfur trioxidc
TitiafMih^lfaml
T«™~*«.
Tlnarim itlri-hlnriii
Molecular
Waghi
195,90
69.11
122.5$
67.09
94.50
46.07
57.05
73.12
149.48
170.73
63.01
76.05
185.87
153.33
137.33
15.15
55.08
122.56
57.10
58.08
80.06
247.33
196.04
11949
Vapor
Pkvmra
•tare
(niraUg)
4X1
32.7
28
71.2
108
49.6
457
10
173
400
63.0
H-4
6
3S.S
120
32.1
47.3
20.0
533
187
263
22.5
11
12.4
Toxic Eadpoint
Lord
(mg/L)
0.00044
0.14
0.10
0.0027
0.0019
0.0094
0.0012
0.085
0.018
0.00067
0.026
0.0045
0.0076
0.0030
0.028
0.022
0.0037
0.010
0.12
0.59
0.010
0.0040
0.0040
0.020
Boot
EHS LOC (Tox1)
ERPO-2
BHS-LOC (Tnt)
EHS-LOC (fLV)
BHS-LOC (Tax1)
EHS-LOC (Q>LH)
ERPO-2
EHS-LOC (Tox*)
EBPG-2
EHS-LOC (totf)
EHS-LOC (1DLH)
EHS-LOC (Tox1)
EHS-LOC (1DLH)
EHS-LOC {Tax1)
EHS-LOC 0DLH)
EHS-LOC (fox1)
EHS-LOC (Tox*)
EHS-LOC fTox'
EHS-LOC (IDLH)
ERPO-2
ERPO-2
EHS-LOC (IDLH)
BHS-LOC (IDLH)
ERPQ-2
Liquid Fatlart
Amhianf
(LFA)
0.016
0.064
0.080
0.014
0.026
0.0074
0.079
0.0020
0.057
0.14
0.012
0.0030
0.0023
0.012
0.037
0.072
0.080
0.0058
0.032
0.093
0.057
0.011
0.051
0.0048
Baffin?
(LFB)
0.24
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.16
0.094
0.13
0.11
0.22
0.26
0.12
0.12
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.13
0.10
0.17
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.29
0.22
0.21
Density
Factor
-------
-87-
Exhibit B-2 (continued)
CAS
Number
$84*14-9
91-01-7
26471-62-S
7S-77-4
I08-OS-4
Chemical NttoiB
Toluene 2,4-dtitocyuiata
Toluene 2,6-dii»ocyan»lc
Toluene diiiocyanile
(unspecified itomer)
Trundhylchloroulane
Vinyl acetate monomer
Molecular
Weight
174.16
174.16
174.16
108.64
16.09
Vapor
Pfcmm
al25-C
(mm Hg)
0.013
0.05
0.013
231
114
Toxk Rodpoint
Lewi
(mg/L)
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.050
0.16
Baab
EHS-LOC (IDLH)
EHS-LOC (TDLH*)
EHS-LOC
equivalent (1DLH*)
EHS-LOC flW)
BRPG-2
Liquid FlKtOri
Arabian
(LFA)
0.000005
0.000018
0.000005
0.061
0.02$
Boffiag
O.FW
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.15
Dauify .
Faclor
COT)
0.40
0.40
0.40
O.S7
0.52
Liquid
Leak
Factor
(LJLF)
59
59
59
41
45
Rejoice Table
(See Notes)
Worn
Case
Buoyant'
Buoyant*
f
BuoyinT
Denie
Denie
AHernatJTe
Caw
Buoyux*
Buuynu'
Buoyant*
Deiue
Deiue
Notes:
'Buoyant' in the Reference Table column refens to the tables for neutrally buoyant gases and vapors; "Dense' refers to the tables for dense gases and vapors. See Appendix
D, Section D.4.3, for more information on the choice of reference tables.
* Use dense gas table if substance is at an elevated temperature.
** See Eihibil B-3 of ihis appendix for data on water solutions.
* LOC is based on IDLH-equivalent level estimated from toxicity data.
* LOC for this isomer is based on IDLH for toluene 2,4-diisocyanate.
* Not an EHS; LOC-equivalent value is based on IDLH for toluene 2,4-diisocyanate.
LOC based on Threshold Limit Value (TLV) - Time-weighted average (TWA) developed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH).
-------
-88-
Exhibit B-3
Data for Water Solutions of Toxic Substances and for Oleum
Average Vapor Pressure and Liquid Factors Over 10 Minutes for
Wind Speeds of IS and 3.0 Meters per Second (ITU'S)
CAS
Number
7664-41-7
50-00-0
7647-01-0
7664-39-3
1697-37-2
8014-9S-7
Regulated
Substance
in Solution
Ammonia
Formaldehyde
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrofluoric »cid
Nitric icid
Oleum - bated on
Nilfur Irioxide (SO,)
Molecular
Weight
17.03
30.027
36,46
20.01
63.01
80,06
(scy
TOXIC EiMlpftUffi
Lent
(mg/L)
0,14
0.012
0.030
0.016
0.026
0,010
Bun
ERFQ-2
ERPG-2
ERKJ-2
ERFO-2
EHS-LOC
(IDLH)
ERPQ-2
Initial
ftmeetitrqfaiui
(Wt%)
30
24
20
37
38
37
36
34
30
70
50
90
IS
80
30 (SO,)
HHuinute A?erag« Vapor
Pressure (nun Hg)
Wind Speed
Urn/sec
332
241
290
1J
78
67
56
31
13
124
16
25
17
10.2
3.5 (SO,)
Wind Speed
3.0 ID/I
248
1«4
141
1.4
55
48
42
29
12
107
15
22
16
10
3.4 (SO,)
Liquid Factor at 25* C
(LFAJ
Wind Speed
1.S IB/IK
0.026
0.019
O.OlS
0.0002
0.010
0.0085
0.0072
0.0048
0.0016
0.011
0.0014
0.0046
0.0032
0.0019
0.0008
Wind Speed
3.0 m/f
0.019
0.014
0.011
0.0001
0.0070
0.0062
0.0053
0.0037
0.0015
0.010
0.0013
0.0040
0.0029
0.0018
0.0007
Density
Factor
IDF)
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.44
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.39
0.41
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.2S
Reference Table
(Sw Notts)
\
Wont
CMC
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Denie
Denae
Dcnic
Defile
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Dctue
Denic
Denac
Buoyant
AUorutire
Caw
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyant
Buoyanl
Buoyant
Buoyanl
Buoyant
Buoyanl
Buoyant
Notes;
'Buoyant* in Iha Reference Table column refers to the tables for neutrally buoyant gases and vapors; 'Dense" refers to the tables for dense gases and vapors. See Appendix
D, Section D.4.3. for more information on the choice of reference tables.
-------
-89-
B.2, Mixtures Containing Toxic Liquids
In case of a spill of a liquid mixture containing a regulated toxic substance (with the exception
of common water solutions, discussed in Section 3.3 in the text), the area of die pool formed by the
entire liquid spill is determined as described in Section 3.2.2 or 3.2.3. For the area determination, if
the density of the mixture is unknown, the density of the regulated substance in the mixture may be
assumed as the density of the entire mixture.
If the partial vapor pressure of the regulated substance in the mixture Is known, that vapor
pressure may be used to derive a release rate using the equations in Section 3.2. If the partial vapor
pressure of die regulated toxic substance in the mixture is unknown, it may be estimated from the
vapor pressure of the pure substance (listed in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B) and the concentration in the
mixture, if you assume the mixture is an ideal solution (an ideal solution is one in which there is
complete uniformity of cohesive forces). Use the following steps, based on Raoult's Law for ideal
solutions:
* Determine the mole fraction of the regulated substance in the mixture.
— The mole fraction of the regulated substance in the mixture is the number of
moles of the regulated substance in the mixture divided by the total number of
moles of all substances in die mixture.
— If the molar concentration (moles per liter) of each component of the mixture
is known, the mole fraction may be determined as follows:
X = _ MfXV' _ : _ (B-l)
or
X = _ _ ^ _ (B-2)
' Mf + Mt + M.
where: X, = Mole fraction of the regulated substance in the mixture
(unitless)
M, = Molar concentration of the regulated substance in the mixture
(moles per liter)
V, = Total volume of mixture (liters)
MX = Molar concentration of second component of the mixture
(moles per liter)
M. = Molar concentration of any other components of the mixture
(moles per liter)
— If the weight of each of the components of the mixture is known, the mole
fraction of the regulated substance in the mixture may be calculated as
follows:
-------
-90-
m-3)
where: X, = Mole fraction of the regulated substance
W, = Weight of the regulated substance
MWr = Molecular weight of the regulated substance
WK = Weight of the second component of the mixture
MW, = Molecular weight of the second component of the mixture
W. = Weight of any other component of the mixture
MWa = Molecular weight of any other component of the mixture
(Weights can be in any consistent units)
* Estimate the partial vapor pressure of the regulated substance in the mixture as
follows:
W. * *,.* W,
-------
-91-
AFPENDIXC
FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
-------
-92-
C.l Equation for Estimation of Distance to 1 psi Overpressure for Vapor Cloud Explosions
For a worst-case release of flammable gases and volatile flammable liquids, the release rate is
not considered. The total quantity of the flammable substance is assumed to form a vapor cloud.
The entire contents of the cloud is assumed to be within the flammability limits, and the cloud is
assumed to explode. For the worst-case, analysis, 10 percent of the flammable vapor in the cloud is
assumed to participate in the explosion (i.e., the yield factor is 0.10), Consequence distances to an
overpressure level of 1 pound per square inch (psi) may be determined using the following equation,
which is based on the TNT-equivalency method;
m
(C-l)
where: D = Distance to overpressure of 1 psi (meters)
W, = Weight of flammable substance (kilograms or pounds/2.2)
HCf = Heat of combustion of flammable substance (kilojoules per kilogram) (listed in
Appendix C)
Heat of combustion of trinitrotoluene (TNT) (4,680 kilojoules per kilogram)
The factor 17 is a constant for damages associated with 1.0 psi overpressures. The factor 0.1
represents an explosion efficiency of 10 percent. To convert distances from meters to miles,
multiply by 0.00062.
C J Mixtures of Flammable Substances
For a mixture of flammable substances, you may estimate the heat of combustion of the
mixture from the heats of combustion of the components of the mixture using the equation below and
then use the equation given in the previous section of this appendix to determine the vapor cloud
explosion distance. The heat of combustion of the mixture may be estimated as follows:
where: HCa = Heat of combustion of mixture (kilojoules per kilogram)
Wx = Weight of component "X" in mixture (kilograms or pounds/2.2)
Wm = Total weight of mixture (kilograms or pounds/2.2)
HC, = Heat of combustion of component "X" (kilojoules per kilogram)
Wy = Weight of component "Y" in mixture (kilograms or pounds/2.2)
HC, = Heat of combustion of component "Y" (kilojoules per kilogram)
Heats of combustion for regulated flammable substances are listed in Exhibit B-l in
Exhibit C-l in the next section (Section C.3) of this appendix.
-------
-93-
C.3 Data for Flammable Substances
The exhibits in this section of Appendix C provide the data needed to carry out the
calculations for regulated flammable substances using the methods presented in the text of this
guidance. Exhibit C-l presents beat of combustion data for all regulated flammable substances,
Exhibit C-2 presents additional data for flammable gases, and Exhibit C-3 presents additional data for
flammable liquids.
-------
-94-
Exhibit C-l
Heats of Combustion for Flammable Substances
ICAS No.
75-07-0
74-86-2
598-73-2
106-99-0
106-97-8
125167-67-3
590-18-1
624-64-6
106-98-9
107-01-7
463-58-1
7791-21-1
590-21HS
11 557-98-2
II 460-19-5
I 75-19-f
1 4109-96-0
75-37-6
124-40-3
463-82-1
74-84-0
107-00-6
1 75-04-7
75-00-3
1 74-85-1
1 60-29-7
Chemical Name
Acetaldehyde
Acetylene [Ethyne]
Bfotootrifluoroelhylene [Ethene, bromotrifluoro-]
1,3-Butadiene
Butane
Butene
2-Butene-cis
2-Butene-trans [2-Butene, (E)]
1-Butene
2-Butene
Carbon oxysulfide [Carbon oxide sulfide (COS)]
Chlorine monoxide [Chlorine oxide]
1-Chloropropylene [1-Propene, 1-chloro-]
2-CMoropropylene [1-Propene, 2-chloro-]
Cyanogen [Ethaaedinitrile]
Cyclopropane
Dichlorosilane [SUane, dichloro-]
Difluotoethaae [Ethane, 1,1-difluoro-]
Dimethylunine [Methanamine, N-tnethyl-)
2,2-DLmethyIpropane [Propane, 2,2-dimethyl-]
Ethane
Ethyl acetylene Cl-Butyne]
Fthylamina [Ethanamine]
Ethyl chloride [Ethane, ctdoro-]
Ethylene [Ethene]
Ethyl ether [Ethane, l,l'-oxybis-]
Physical State
at25»C
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gaa
Gas
Liquid
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Liquid
Heat of
Combustion
(kjoule/kg)
25,072
48,222
1,967 |
44,548 1
45,719 I
45.20CT I
45,171 1
45,069 1
45,292 ||
45,100- 1
9,126
1,011*
23,000*
22,999 11
21,064
46,560
8,225
11,484
35,813
45,051
47,509 B
45,565 1
35,210 |
19,917
47, 145
33.775
-------
-95-
Exhlbtt C-l (continued)
CAS No.
75-08-1
109-95-5
1333-74-0
75-28-5
78-78-4
78-79-5
75-31-0
75-29-6
74-82-8
74-89-5
563-45-1
563-46-2
115-10-6
107-31-3
115-11-7
504-60-9
109-66-0
109-67-1
646-04-8
627-20-3
463-49-0
74-98-6
115-07-1
74-99-7
7803-62-5
116-14-3
75-76-3
Chemical Name
Ethyl mercaptan [EthanetMol]
Ethyl oitrite [Nitrous acid, ethyl ester}
Hydrogen
Isobutane [Propane, 2-methyl]
Isopentane [Butane, 2-methyl-]
Isoprene [1,3 -Butadiene, 2-methyl-]
Isopropylamine [2-Propanamine]
Isopropyl chloride [Propane, 2-chIoro-]
Methane
Methylamiae [Methanamine]
3-MethyM-butene
2-Methyl-l-butene
Methyl ether [Methane, oxybis-]
Methyl formate [Formic acid, methyl ester]
2-Methylpropene [1-Propene, 2-methyl-J
1,3-Pentadiene
Pen tans
1-Pentene
2-Pentene, (E)-
2-Pentene, (2>
Propadiene [1,2-Propadicne]
Propane
Propylene [1-Propene]
Propyne Il-Propyne]
Silane
Tetrafluoroethylene [Ethene, tetrafluoro-]
Tetramethylsilane [SUaae, tetimmethyl-]
Physical State
atlfC
Liquid
Gas
Gas
Gas
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Gas
Gas
Gas
Liquid
Gas
Liquid
Gas
Gas
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Liquid
Heat of
Combustion
(kjoule/kg)
27,948
18,000
119,950
45,576
44,911
43,809
36,484
23,720
50,029
31,396
44,559
44,414
28,835
15,335
44,985
43,510*
44,697
44,625
44,458
44,520
46,332
46,333
45,762
46,165
44,307
1,230
41,712
-------
-96-
Exhibit C-l (continued)
CAS No.
10025-78-2
79-38-9
75-50-3
689-97^1
75-OM
109-92-2
75-02-5
75-35-4
75-38-7
107-25-5
Chemical Name
Trichlorosilane [Sil&ae, trichloro-]
TrifluorochJorofrthylene [Ethene, chJorotrifluoro]
TrinKfthylsimine [Methmanune, N.N'-dimetJiyl-]
Vinyl acetylene [l-Buten-3-yne]
Vinyl chloritte [Ethene, chloro-]
Vinyl ethyl ether [Ethene, ethoxy-]
Vinyl fluoride [Ethene, fluoro-J
Vinylidene chloride [Ethene, 1,1-dichJoro-]
Vinylidene fluoride [Ethene, 1,1-difluoro-]
Vinyl methyl ether [Ethene, methoxy-]
Physical State
atas-c
Liquid
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Liquid
Gas
Liquid
Gas
Gas
Beat of
Combustion
(kjoule/kg)
3,754
1,837
37,978
45,357
18,848
32,909
2,194
10,354
10,807
30,549
' Estimated heat of combustion
-------
-97-
Exhibit C-2
Data for Flammable Gases
CAS Number
75-07-0
74-86-2
598-73-2
106-99-0
106-97-8
25167-67-3
590-18-1
624-644
106-98-9
107-01-7
463-58- 1
7791-21-1
$57-98-2
460-19-5
75-19-1
4109-964
75-37-6
124-40-3
463-12-1
74-84-0
10740-6
Chemical Name
Acettldchyde
Acetylene
BroatotriQuonxthyleoe
1,3-BuUdiene
Butane
Butene
2-Bulene-c'u
2-Buiene-tnni
I-Bulcne
2-Bulene
CUrbon oxymlfide
Chlorine monoxide
2r-ChIoropropylene
Cyanogen
Cyclopropane
Dichloroiilioc
Difluofuclhinc
Dimclhylimiac
2,2-Dimelhylpropine
ah.no
Bd>yl tctfylcM
Molecular
Weigh!
44.05
26,04
160.92
54.09
58.12
56.11
56.11
56.11
56.11
56.11
60.08
86.91
76.53
52.04
42.08
101.01
66.05
45.08
72.15
30.07
54.09
Radnor
Specific
Beau
1.18
1.23
1.11
1.12
1.09
1.10
1.12
1.11
1.11
1.10
1.25
1.21
1.12
1.17
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.14
1.07
1.19
1.11
Hammahilitv 1
Lower
CLFL)
4.0
2.5
*
2.0
1.5
1.7
1.6
1,8
1.6
1.7
12.0
23.5
4.5
6.0
2.4
4,0
3.7
2.8
1.4
2.9
2.0
Limits (Vol %)
Upper (UFL)
60.0
80.0
37.0
11.5
9.0
9.5
9.7
9.7
9.3
9.7
29.0
NA
16.0
32.0
10.4
96.0
18.0
14.4
7.5
13.0
32.9
LFLH[/L)
72
27
*
44
36
39
37
41
37
39
290
830
140
130
41
160
100
52
41
36
44
Gu Factor
«JF)
22
17
41'
24
25
24
24
24
24
24
26
31
29
24
22
33
27
22
27
18
24
Reference
Table
(SeeNoua)
Deue
Buoyant
Denu
Deme
Deiue
Dtiue
Denae
Dense
Dense
Dense
Dense
Dene
Done
Deu»e
Deme
Deme
Deiuc
Deme
Deme
Dense
Dense
PoolRre
Factor
(ren
2.7 »
4.8
0.42
5.5
5.9
5,6
5.6
S.6
5.7
5.6
1.3
0.15
3.3
2.5
5.4
1.3
1.6
3.7
6.4
5.4
5.4
Flash
FVacbou
Factor
(FFSV
0.018
0.23
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.29
NA
0.011
0.40
0.21
0.084
0.23
0.089
0.11
0.75
0.091
-------
-98-
Exhibit C-2 (continued)
CASNumbtf
75-04-7
754)0-3
74-85-1
109-95-5
1333-74-0
75-28-5
74-82-8
7«95
S63-M-1
II5-IO-6
115-11-7
504-60-9
46349-0
74-98-6
1 15417-1
74-99-7
7S03-62-S
116-14-3
79-38-9
75-50-3
689-97-*
7S-OM
Chemical Nat
Elbylamine
Elhyl chloride
Eihyleae
Eihyl nilrii*
Hydrogen
bobiiiaae
Methaoo
Melhylaminc
3-Mtlhyl-l-bulene
Mclhyl elhcr
2-MeUsylpropene
1 ,3-PenUdicnc
Fropidtene
Propane
Propylenc
Ptopync
Silcne.
Teinfluoroelhylenc
Trifluorochlorodlhyleno
Trimclhylamin*
Vinyl iceJylene
Vinyl chloride
MotocuUr
Wei|U
45.08
64.51
21 .OS
73.07
2.02
58.12
16.04
31.06
70.13
46.07
56,11
68,12
40.07
44.10
42.08
40.07
32.12
100.02
116.47
S9.ll
52.08
62.50
Ratio of
Specific
Heats
1.13
1.15
114
1.30
1.41
1.09
1.30
1.19
1.08
1.15
1.10
1.30
1.16
1.13
1.15
1.16
1.24
1.12
1. 11
1.10
1.13
1.11
n.m.n.h.-Ktv 1
Lower
(LFLJ
3J
3.8
2.7
4.0
4.0
1.8
5.0
4.9
1.5
3.3
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
L7
*
11.0
8.4
2.0
2,2
3.6
Umiti(Vol%)
Upper im)
14.0
15.4
36 A
50.0
75.0
8.4
15.0
20.7
9.1
273
8.S
NA
2.1
9.5
11.0
39.9
*
60.0
31.7
114
31.7
33.0
LFLfcna/L)
64
100
31
120
3J
43
33
62
43
64
41
56
34
36
34
28
0
450
400
49
47
92
Gu factor
(GW
22
27
18
30
5.0
25
14
19
26
22
24
28
21
22
21
21
19*
33
35
25
24
26
Reference
Tabto
(See Nous)
Dcme
DC OK
Buoyinl
Deue
**
Dtrut
Buoyuu
Derue
Done
Deue
Dentc
Deu«
DC me
De me
De me
Denie
Deoie
Denie
Den»
Denie
DC cue
Deoie
PooH-lre
Factor
(PTO
3.6
2.6<
5.4
2.0
t
6.0
5.6
2.7
6.0
3.4
5.7
NA
5.2
S.7
5.S
4.9
5.7
0.25
0.34
4.8
5.4
2.4
Rub
FtmciNM
Factor
(FW
0.040
0.053
0.63
NA
NA
0.23
0.87
0.12
0.030
0.22
0.11
NA
0.20
0.38
0.35
0.18
0.41
0.5S
0.27
0.12
0.086
0.14
-------
,99-
Exhibit C-2 (continued)
CAS Number
75-02-5
75-J8-7
107-25-5
dwoucal Name
Vinyl fluoride
Vinylidene fluoride
Vinyl methyl elhcr
Molecular
Weight
46.04
64.04
58.08
Ratio of
Specific
Heals
1.20
1.16
1.12
FUmmahility Units (Vol %)
Lower
(LH.)
2,6
5.5
2.6
Uppa-Om.)
21.7
21.3
39.0
LFL(m*/L)
49
140
62
Gat Factor
(GF)
23
27
25
Reference
Table
(See Notes)
Dcnao
Denie
Denae
Pool Fire
Factor
(pin
0.28
1.81
3.7
FUih
Fractkm
Factor
(WF)1
0.41
0.50
0.093
Notes
"Buoyant" in the Reference Table column refers to the tables for neutrally buoyant gases and vapors; 'Dense* refers to the tables for dense gases and vapors. See Appendix
D, Section D.4.3, for more information on the choice of reference tables.
NA: Data not available
Reported to be spontaneously combustible; estimation of dispersion distance to LFL not appropriate.
~ Much lighter than air, table of distances for neutrally buoyant gases not appropriate.
' Pool fire unlikely.
* Calculated at 298 K (25° C) with the following exceptions:
Acetylene factor at 250 K as reported in TNO, Methods for the Calculation of the Physical Effeas of the Escape of Dangerous Material (1980).
Ethylene factor calculated at critical temperature, 282 K,
Methane factor calculated at critical temperature, 191 K.
Silane factor calculated at critical temperature, 270 K.
-------
-100-
Exhibit C-3
Data for Flammable Liquids
CAS Number
$90-21-6
60-29-7
7S-08-I
78-71-4
78-79-5
75-31-0
75-29-6
$63-46-2
107-11-3
109-66-0
109-67-1
646-04-8
627-20-3
75-76-3
10025-78-2
109-92-2
75-3S-4
Chemical Name
I -Chloropropyleno
Eihyl eihcr
Elh>l merciptiD
bopcnune
lioprene
liopropylimint
Uopropy I chloride
2-Melhy!-H>uI«ne
Methyl fannUa
PtnUne
1-PeiUcnt
2-Penleite, (E)-
2-Pentene, (Z)-
Tclnmcthyliiltne
TrkhlorotiltDc
Vinyl tihyl ether
Viny lidcnc chloride
Mokenlar
Weight
76.53
74.12
62.14
72.15
61.12
$9.11
78.54
70.13
60.05
72.15
70.13
70.13
70.13
88.23
135.45
72.11
96.94
FUunmability Limil (Vol%)
Lower
(LFL)
4.5
1.9
2.8
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.8
1.4
5,9
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.7
7.3
Upper
(UFL)
16.0
48.0
18.0
7.6
9.0
10.4
10.7
9.6
20.0
8.0
8.7
10.6
10.6
NA
90.5
28.0
NA
LFL
(m^/L)
140
57
71
41
56
48
90
40
140
38
43
40
40
54
66
50
290
liquid Facton
Aahteot
(LPA)
0.17
O.il
0.10
0.14
0.11
0.10
o.ii
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.17
0.18
0.10
0.1S
IWfeg
(LFB)
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.1S
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.23
0.15
0.18
Douily
Factor
0.52
0.69
0.58
0.79
0.72
0.71
0.57
0.75
0.50
0.78
0.77
0.76
0.75
0.59
0.37
0.65
0.44
Liquid Leak
Factor
OAR
45
34
40
30
32
33
41
31
46
30
31
31
31
40
64
36
54
Reference
Table
Den»e \
DCOM
Deme
Denw
Dtrue
Dciue
Dense
Dense
Dciue
Denae
Dciue
Dense
Deme
Denic
Dune
Denie
Deme
Pool Eire
Factor
(PFF)
3.2
4.3
3,3
6.1
5.5
4.1
3.1
5.8
1.8
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.6
6.3
0.68
4.2
1.6
NA: Data not available
-------
-101-
APPENDEXD
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
-------
-102-
D.l Worst-Case Release Rate for Gases
D.I.I Unmitigated Release
The assumption that the total quantity of gas is released in 10 minutes is the same assumption
used in EPA's Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis (1987).
D.I.2 Gaseous Release Inside Building
The mitigation factor for gaseous release inside a building is based on a document entitled
"Risk Mitigation in Land Use Planning: Indoor Releases of Toxic Gases" by S.R. Porter, This paper
presented three release scenarios and discussed the mitigating effects that would occur in a building
with a volume of 1,000 cubic meters at three different building air exchange rates. There is a
concern that a building may not be able to withstand the pressures of a very large release. However,
this paper indicated that release rates of at least 2,000 pounds per minute could be withstood by a
building.
Analyzing the data in this paper several ways, the value of 55 percent emerged as
representing the mitigation that could occur for a release scenario into a building. Data are provided
on the maximum release rate in a building and the maximum release rate from a building. Making
this direct comparison at the lower maximum release rate (3.36 kg/s) gave a release rate from the
building of 55 percent of the release rate into the building. Using information provided on another
maximum release rate (10.9 kg/min) and accounting for the time for die release to accumulate in the
building, approximately 55 percent emerged again,
The choice of building ventilation rates affects the results. The paper presented mitigation for
three different ventilation rates, 0.5, 3, and 10 air changes per hour. A ventilation rate of 0.5
changes per hour is typical for buildings designed to house toxic gases; therefore, EPA decided that
this ventilation rate was appropriate for this analysis. A release factor of 55 percent serves as a
conservative value to use in the event of a gaseous release which does not destroy the building into
which it is released.
D.2 Worst-Case Release Rate for Liquids
D.2.1 Evaporation Rate Equation
The equation for estimating the evaporation rate of a liquid from a pool is from die Technical
Guidance for Hazards Analysis, Appendix G. The same assumptions are made for determination of
maximum pool area (i.e., the pool is assumed to be 1 centimeter (0.033 feet) deep). The
evaporation rate equation has been modified to include a different mass transfer coefficient for water,
the reference compound. For this document, a value of 0.67 centimeters per second is used as the
mass transfer coefficient, instead of the value of 0.24 cited in the Technical Guidance Jbr Hazards
Analysis. The value of 0.67 is based on Donald MacKay and Ronald S. Matsugu, "Evaporation Rates
of Liquid Hydrocarbon Spills on Land and Water," Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
August 1973, p. 434. The evaporation equation becomes:
-------
-103-
z
OR - 0-284 x U°-n x MW* xAxVP (D-l)
82,05 x T
where; QR = Evaporation rate (pounds per minute)
U = Wind speed (meters per second)
MW = Molecular weight (given in Exhibit B-2, Appendix B)
A = Surface area of pool formed by the entire quantity of the mixture (square feet)
(determined as described in 3.2.2)
VP = Vapor pressure (mm Hg) (VPm from Equation B-4 above)
T = Temperature (Kelvin (K); temperature in ° C plus 273, or 298 for 25° C)
D.2.2 Factors for Evaporation Rate Estimates
Liquid Factors. The liquid factors, Liquid Factor Ambient (LFA) and Liquid Factor Boiling
(LFB) used, to estimate the evaporation rate from a liquid pool (see Section 3.2 of this guidance
document), are derived as described in the Technical Guidance far Hazards Analysis, Appendix G,
with the following differences:
* The mass transfer coefficient of water is assumed to be 0.67, as discussed above; the
value of the factor that includes conversion factors, the mass transfer coefficient for
water, and the molecular weight of water to the one-third power, given as 0.106 in
the Technical Guidance is 0.284 in this guidance.
* Density of all substances was assumed to be the density of water in the Technical
Guidance; the density was included in the liquid factors. For this guidance document,
density is not included in the LFA and LFB values presented in the tables; instead, a
separate Density Factor (DF) (discussed below) is provided to be used in the
evaporation rate estimation,
With these modifications, the LFA is:
LFA =
I
0.284 x MW* x VP (D-2)
82.05 x 298
where: MW = Molecular weighs
VF = Vapor pressure at a
298 K (25* C) = Ambient temperature
LFB is:
MW = Molecular weighs
VF = Vapor pressure at ambient temperature in millimeters of mercury
70S If n*9 F\ = AmhiWf f(»mtv»ramr(»
-------
-104-
2
0.284 x MW~3 x 760 (D-3)
82.05 x BP
where: MW = Molecular weight
760 = Vapor pressure at boiling temperature (millimeters of mercury (mm Hg))
BP = Boiling point (K)
Density Factor. Because some of the regulated liquids have densities very different from that
of water, the density of each substance was used to develop a Density Factor (DF) for the
determination of maximum pool area for the evaporation rate estimation. The density factor is:
(D-4)
d x 0.033
where: DF — Density factor (i/Qbs/ft2)
d = Density of the substance in pounds per cubic foot
0.033 = Depth of pool for maximum area (feet)
D.2.3 Common Water Solutions
Water solutions of regulated toxic substances must be analyzed somewhat differently from
pure toxic liquids. Except for solutions of relatively low concentration, the evaporation rate varies
with the concentration of the solution. At one specific concentration, the composition of the liquid
does not change as evaporation occurs. For concentrated solutions of volatile substances, the
evaporation rate from a pool may decrease, very rapidly in some cases, as the toxic substance
volatilizes and its concentration in the pool decreases. Using a the ALOHA model with an additional
feature (not available in the public version), changes in the release rate could be incorporated and the
effects of these changes on the consequence distance analyzed. The distance results obtained using
mis model for various solutions were compared with the results from various time averages to
examine the sensitivity of the results. An averaging time of 10 minutes was found to give reasonable
agreement with the step-function model for most substances at various concentrations.
NOAA developed a computerized calculation method to estimate partial vapor pressures and
release rates for regulated toxic substance in solution as a function of concentration, based on vapor
pressure data from Perry's Engineers ' Handbook and other sources. Using this method, EPA
estimated partial vapor pressures and evaporation rates at one-minute intervals over 10 minutes for
solutions of various concentrations. The 10- minute time period was chosen based on the ALOHA
results. For each one-minute interval, EPA estimated the concentration of the solution based on the
quantity evaporated in the previous interval, and estimated the partial vapor pressure based on the
concentration. These estimated vapor pressures were used to calculate an average vapor pressure
over the 10-minute period; this average vapor pressure was used to derive Liquid Factor Ambient
(LFA) values, as described above for liquids. Use of these factors is intended to give an evaporation
rate that accounts for the decrease in evaporation rate expected to take place as the solution
evaporates.
-------
• 105-
Density Factors (DF) were developed for solutions of various concentrations from data in
Perry's Engineers' Handbook and other sources, as discussed above for liquids.
Because solutions do not have defined boiling points, EPA did not develop Liquid Factor
Boiling (LFB) values for solutions. As a simple and conservative approach, the quantity of a
regulated substance in a solution at an elevated temperatures is treated as a pure substance. This
approach will likely give an overestimate of the consequence distance.
D.2.4 Releases Inside Buildings
If a toxic liquid is released inside a building, its release to the outside air will be mitigated in
two ways. First, the evaporation rate of the liquid may be much lower inside a building than outside.
This is due to wind speed, which directly affects the evaporation rate. The second mitigating factor is
that the building provides resistance to discharge of contaminated air to the outdoors.
In this method, a conservative wind speed, U, of 0.1 m/s was assumed in the building. (See
end of text for a justification of this wind speed.) For a release outdoors in a worst-case scenario, U
is set to 1.5 m/s, and for an alternative scenario, U is set to 3 m/s. The evaporation rate equation is:
QR = U9n x (LFA. LFB) x A
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
U = Wind speed (meters per second)
LFA = Liquid Factor Ambient
LFB = Liquid Factor Boiling
A = Area of pool (square feet).
As can be seen, if U inside a building is only 0.1, then the evaporation rate inside a building will be
much lower than a corresponding evaporation rate outside (assuming the temperature is the same).
The rate will only be (O.l/l.S)*7*, about 12 percent of the rate for a worst case, and (0.1/3)0-7*, about
seven percent of the rate for an alternative case.
The evaporated liquid mixes with and contaminates die air in the building. What EPA is
ultimately interested in is the rate at which this contaminated air exits the building. In order to
calculate the release of contaminated air outside the building, EPA adapted a method from an UK
Health and Safety Executive paper entitled, Risk Mitigation in Land Use Planning: Indoor Releases of
Toxic Gases, by S.R. Porter. EPA assumed that the time for complete evaporation of the liquid pool
was one hour. The rate at which contaminated air was released from the building during liquid
evaporation (based on the paper) was assumed to be equal to the evaporation rate plus the building
ventilation rate (no pressure buildup in building). The building ventilation rate was set equal to 0.5
air changes per hour, which is a typical ventilation rate for a building used to store toxic liquids and
gases. EPA used a typical storage building with a volume of 1000 m3 and a floor area of 200 m*
(2152 ft2), and assumed that the liquid pool would cover the entire building floor, representing a
conservative scenario.
-------
-106-
To provide a conservative estimate, EPA calculated the evaporation rate for a spill of a
volatile liquid, carbon disulfide, under ambient conditions inside the building:
QR = O.I07* x 0.075 x 2152 = 26,8 Ibs/niin.
Next, this evaporation rate was converted to nrVmin using the ideal gas law:
26.8 Ibs/min x 454 g/lb x 1 mol CS/76.1 g x 0.0224 mVmol = 3,58 mVmin.
"He ventilation rate of the building is 0.5 changes per hour, which equals 500 m3 per hour, or
8.33 mVmin. Therefore, during evaporation, contaminated air is leaving the building at a rate of
8.33 + 3,58, or 11.9 nrVmin.
EPA used an iterative calculation for carbon disulfide leaving a building using the above
calculated parameters. During the first minute of evaporation, 26.8 Ibs of pure carbon disulfide
evaporates, and EPA assumed this evenly disperses through the building so that the concentration of
CS2 in the building air is 0.0268 lbs/m3 (assuming 1000 m3 volume in the building). Contaminated
air is exiting the building at a rate of 11.9 nrVmin, so EPA deduced that 11.9 x 0.0268 = 0.319 Ibs
of carbon disulfide exit the building in the first minute, leaving 26.5 Ibs still evenly dispersed inside.
Since this release occurs over one minute, the release rate of the carbon disulfide to the outside is
0.319 Ibs/min. During the second minute, another 26.8 Ibs of pure carbon disulfide evaporates and
disperses, so that the building DOW contains 26.8 -f 26.5 = 53.3 Ibs of carbon disulfide, or 0.0533
lbs/m3. Contaminated air is still exiting the building at a rate of 11.9 m3/miii, so 11.9 x 0,05328 =
0.634 Ibs of carbon disulfide are released, leaving 52.6 Ibs inside. Again, this release occurs over
one minute so that the rate of carbon disuJfide exiting the building in terms of contaminated air is
0.634 Ibs/min. EPA continued to perform mis estimation over a period of one hour. The rate of
release of carbon disulfide exiting the building in the contaminated air at the sixty minute mark is
13.7 Ibs/min. This represents the maximum rate of carbon disulfide leaving the building. After all of
the carbon disulfide is evaporated, mere is a drop in the concentration of carbon disulfide in the
contaminated air leaving the building because the evaporation of carbon disulfide no longer
contributes to the overall contamination of the air.
Note that if die same size pool of carbon disulfide formed outside, the release rate for a worst
case scenario would be;
QR = l.S0-71 x 0.075 x 2152 = 221 Ibs/min.
and for an alternative case:
QR = 3011 x 0.075 x 2152 = 380 Ibs/min.
The maximum release rate of carbon disulfide in the contaminated building air, assuming a
1,000 m3 building with a building exchange rate of 0.5 air changes per hour, was only about 6
percent (13.7^-221 Ibs/min x 100) of the worst case scenario rate, and only about 3.6 percent
(13.7-5-380 Ibs/min x 100) of the alternative scenario rate. IPA set an overall building mitigation
factor equal to 10 percent and five percent, respectively, in order to be conservative. Please note mat
(at a constant ventilation rate of 0.5 changes per hour) as the size of the building increases, the
maximum rate of contaminated air leaving the building will decrease, although only slightly due to tiM
-------
-107-
balancing effect of building volume and ventilation rate. Obviously, a higher ventilation rate will
yield a higher maximum release rate of contaminated air from the building, but most buildings used to
store a toxic chemical should have ventilation rates close to 0.5 changes per hour.
For a release inside a building, EPA assumed a building air velocity of 0.1 m/s. This
conservative value was derived by setting the size of the ventilation fan equal to 1.0 m2. This fan is
exchanging air from the building with the outside at a rate of 0.5 changes per hour. For a 1000 m3
building, this value becomes 500 m3/hour, or 0,14 mVs. Dividing 0.14 mj/s by the area of the fan
yields a velocity of 0,14 m/s, which was rounded down to 0.1 m/s.
DJ Toxic Endpoints
The toxic eadpoints found in Appendix B, Exhibits B-l, B-2, and B-3, were chosen as
follows, in order of preference:
(1) Emergency Response Planning Guideline 2 (ERPG-2), developed by die American
Industrial Hygiene Association, if available;
(2) Level of Concern (LOC) derived for extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) regulated
under section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) (see the Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis for more information on
LOCs); the LOC for EHSs is based on:
— One-tenth of the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) level,
developed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), using IDLH values developed before 1994,
or, if no IDLH value is available,
- One-tenth of an estimated IDLH derived from toxicity data; the IDLH is
estimated as described in Appendix D of the Technical Guidance for Hazards
Analysis.
ERPG-2 is defined as the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed nearly
all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or
other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair an individual's ability to take protective
action.
IDLH is defined in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (1994) as a condition that
poses a threat of exposure to airborne contaminants when that exposure is likely to cause death or
immediate or delayed adverse health effects or prevent escape from such an environment. The IDLHa
are intended to ensure that workers can escape from a given contaminated environment in the event of
failure of the respiratory protection equipment.
The estimated IDLH is derived from animal toxicity data, in order of preferred data, as
follows:
» From median lethal concentration (LCjo) (inhalation): 0.1 x
-------
-108-
« From lowest lethal concentration (LCW) (inhalation): 1 x
• From median lethal dose (LDX) (oral): 0.01 x
* From lowest lethal dose (LD^) (oral): 0.1 x
The toxic endpoints based on LOCs for EHSs presented in the tables in Appendix B are, in
some cases, different from the LOCs listed in the Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis, because
some of the LOCs were updated based on DDLHs that were published after the development of the
LOCs (and before 1994) or on new or revised toxicity data,
D.4 Reference Tables for Distances to Toxic and Flammable Endpoints
D.4.1 Neutrally Buoyant Gases
Toxic Substances. Reference tables for distances to toxic endpoints for neutrally buoyant
gases and vapors were derived from the Gaussian model using the longitudinal dispersion coefficients
based on work by Beals (Guide to Local Diffusion of Air Pollutants. Technical Report 214, Scott Air
Force Base, Illinois: U.S. Air Force, Air Weather Service. 1971). The reasons for using the Beals
dispersion coefficients are discussed below.
Longitudinal dispersion (dispersion in the along-wind direction) is generated mostly by
vertical wind shear. Wind shear results from the tendency of the wind speed to assume a wind
profile—the speed is lowest next to the ground and increases with height until it reaches an asymptotic
value at approximately a few hundred feet above the surface. To account for shear-driven dispersion,
any air dispersion model intended for modeling short-duration releases must include either (a) a
formulation that accounts, either implicitly or explicitly, for the height-dependence of wind speed or
(b) some type of parameterization that converts shear effect into &„ the standard deviation function in
the along-wind direction.
Because the standard Gaussian formula does not incorporate
-------
-109-
Averaging time is the time interval over which the instantaneous concentration of the
hazardous material injhe vapor cloud is averaged to assess the health effects of the exposure.
Averaging time should generally be equal to or shorter than either the release duration or cloud
duration and if possible, should reflect the exposure time associated with the toxic exposure guideline
of interest. In this regulation, the exposure time associated with the toxic endpoints include 30
minutes for the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) level and 60 minutes for the
Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG). For the neutrally buoyant tables, the 10-minute
release scenario was modeled using a 10-minute averaging time. The 60-minute release scenario was
modeled using a 30-minute averaging time to be consistent with the 30-minute exposure time
associated with the IDLH. A 60-minute averaging time may have underpredicted consequence
distances.
Cloud dispersion from a release of finite duration (10 and 60-minute releases) is calculated
using an equation specified in the NOAA publication ALOHA™ 5.0 Theoretical Description*
Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 65, August 1992.
Flammable Substances. The reference tables of distances for neutrally buoyant flammable
substances were derived using the same model as for toxic substances, as described above. The
endpoint for modeling was the lower flammability limit (LFL). For flammable substances, an
averaging time of 0.1 minute (six seconds) was used, because fires are considered to be nearly
instantaneous events.
Distances of interest for flammable substances are generally much shorter than for toxic
substance, because the LFL concentrations are much larger than the toxic endpoints. For the short
distances found in modeling the flammable substances, modeling results were found to be the same
for 10-minute and 30-minute releases; therefore, one table of distances for rural conditions and one
table for urban conditions, applicable for both 10-minute and 30-minute releases, were developed for
flammable substances.
D.4.2 Dense Gases
Toxic Substances. The reference tables for dense gases were developed using the widely
accepted SLAB model, developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. SLAB solves
conservation equations of mass, momentum, energy, and species for continuous, finite duration, arid
instantaneous releases. The reference tables were based on the evaporating pool algorithm and on
releases of hydrogen chloride (HC1). A SLAB modeling analysis of releases of dense CAA gases or
vapors with different molecular weights revealed that releases of HC1 generally provided conservative
results under a variety of stability/wind speed combinations, release rates, and toxic endpoints.
Similar to the modeling of neutrally buoyant plumes, the 10-minute release scenario of toxic
chemicals was modeled using a 10-minute averaging time. The 60-minute release scenario was
modeled using a 30-minute averaging time to be consistent with the 30 minute exposure time
associated with the IDLH.
For all dense gas tables, the reference height for the wind speed was 10 meters. Relative
humidity was assumed to be SO percent, and the ambient temperature was 25°C. The source area
was the smallest value that still enabled the model to run for all release rates. The surface roughness
factor was one meter for urban scenarios and three centimeters for rural scenarios.
-------
-110-
Flammable Substances. The reference tables for dispersion of dense flammable gases, the
same model was used^as for toxic substances, as described above, and the same assumptions were
made. For the dispersion of flammable chemicals, averaging time should be very small (i.e., no
more than a few seconds) since flammable vapors need only be exposed to an ignition source for a
short period of time to initiate the combustion process. Thus, both the 10-minute and 60-minute
reference tables for flammable substances use an averaging time of 10 seconds. The 10-minute and
60-minute tables were combined for flammable substances because the modeling results were found to
be the same,
D.4.3 Choice of Reference Table for Liquids and Solutions
The methodology presented in this guidance for consequence analysis for liquids and solutions
assumes evaporation from a pool. All of the toxic liquids regulated under CAA section 112(r) have
molecular weights greater than the molecular weight of air; therefore, their vapor would be heavier
than air. However, because the vapor from a pool will mix with air as it evaporates, the initial
density of the vapor with respect to air may not in all cases indicate whether the vapor released from
a pool should be modeled as a dense gas or a neutrally buoyant gas. If the rate of release from the
pool is relatively low, the vapor-air mixture that is generated may be neutrally buoyant even if the
vapor is denser than air.
To identify substances with molecular weight greater than air that might behave as neutrally
buoyant gases when evaporating from a pool, EPA used the ALOHA model for pool evaporation of a
number of substances with a range of molecular weights and vapor pressures. Modeling was carried
out for F stability and wind speed 1.0 meter per second and for D stability and wind speed 3.0 meters
per second. Pool spread to a depth of one centimeter was assumed. EPA noted the molecular
weights and vapor pressures in cases where ALOHA used the model for neutrally buoyant gases. The
molecular weight-vapor pressure combinations at which ALOHA used the neutrally buoyant gas
model for the two stability and wind speed combinations were used to develop the reference table
choices given in Exhibit B-2 (for liquids) and B-3 (for solutions) in Appendix B. The neutrally
buoyant tables are to be used at ambient conditions when indicated, for the liquids; at elevated
temperatures, evaporation rates will be greater, and the dense gas tables should be used. When use of
the neutrally buoyant tables is indicated, these tables should generally give reasonable results for pool
evaporation under ambient conditions; however, the reference table choices shown in Exhibit B-2 are
not intended to predict the behavior of the substances when evaporating under all conditions. The
analysis did not take into account all factors (e.g., pool size) that may affect the degree of mixing of
the vapor with air.
D.5 Worst-Case Consequence Analysis for Flammable Substances
The equation used for the vapor cloud explosion analysis for the worst case involving
flammable substances is given in Appendix C. This equation is based on the TNT-equivalency
method of the UK Health and Safety Executive, as presented in the publication of the Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), Guidelines for
Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Goud Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs (1994). The
assumption was made for the worst case that the total quantity of the released substance is in the
flammable part of the cloud. The AIChE document lists this assumption as one of a number that have
been used for vapor cloud explosion blast prediction; it was chosen as a conservative assumption for
the worst-case analysis. The yield factor of 10 percent was a conservative worst-case assumption,
-------
•m-
based on infonnation presented in the AIChE document. According to the AIChE document, reported
values for TNT equivalency for vapor cloud explosions range from a fraction of one percent to tens
of percent; for most major vapor cloud explosions, the range is one to ten percent.
The endpoint for the vapor cloud explosion analysis, 1 psi, is reported to cause damage such
as shattering of glass windows and partial demolition of houses. Skin laceration from flying glass
also is reported. This endpoint was chosen for the consequence analysis because of the potential for
serious injuries to people from the property damage that might result from an explosion.
The TNT equivalent model was chosen as the basis for the consequence analysis because of
its simplicity and wide use. This model does not take into account site-specific factors and many
chemical-specific factors that may affect the results of a vapor cloud explosion. Other methods are
available for vapor cloud explosion modeling; see the list of references in Appendix A for some
publications mat include information on other vapor cloud explosion modeling methods.
D.6 Alternative Scenario Analysis for Toxic Gases
The equation for estimating release rate of a gas from a hole in a tank is based on the
equations for gas discharge rate presented in the Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), DOT, and EPA, and equations in EPA's
Workbook of Screening Techniques for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants. The equation for an
instantaneous discharge under non-choked flow conditions is:
m *
(D-4S)
where: m = Discharge rate, kg/s
Cd = Discharge coefficient
Ah = Opening area, m2
y = Ratio of specific heats
p0 = Tank pressure, Pascals
Pi = Ambient pressure, Pascals
P0 = Density, kg/m3
Under choked flow conditions (maximum flow rate), the equation becomes:
m
(D-7)
For development of the equation and gas factors presented in this guidance, density (p) was
rewritten as a function of pressure and molecular weight, based on the ideal gas law:
-------
-112-
P »
RTt
(D-B)
where: MW = Molecular weight (kilograms per kilomole)
R — Gas constant (8314 Joules per degree-kilomole)
T, = Tank temperature (K)
The choked flow equation can be rewritten:
(D-9)
To derive the equation presented in the guidance, all the chemical-specific properties,
constants, and appropriate conversion factors were combined into the "Gas Factor" (GF). The
discharge coefficient was assumed to have a value of 0.8, based on the screening value recommended
to EPA's Workbook of Screening Techniques for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants. The GF
was derived as follows:
GF * 132.2 x 0.6895 x 10* x 6.4516 x 10"* x 0.8,
(D-10)
where: 132.2 = Conversion factor for kg/s to Ibs/min
0.6895 x 10* — Conversion factor for Pascals to psi
6.4516 x 10*4 = Conversion factor for square meters to square inches
GF values were calculated for all gases regulated under CAA section 112(r) and are listed in
Appendix B, Exhibit B-l, for toxic gases and Appendix C, Exhibit C-2, for flammable gases.
From the equation for choked flow above and the equation for the GF above, the initial
release rate for a gas from a hole in a tank can be written as:
Qr - HA x Pt x — x GF
(D-U)
where: QR = Release rate (pounds per minute)
HA = Hole area (square inches)
P, = Tank pressure (psia)
Tt = Tank temperature (K)
-------
-113-
D.7 Alternative Scenario Analysis for Toxic Liquids
D.7.1 Releases from Holes in Tanks
The equation for estimating release rate of a liquid from a hole in a tank is based on the
equations for liquid release rate presented in the Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures
by FEMA, DOT, and EPA and EPA's Workbook of Screening Techniques for Assessing Impacts of
Toxic Air Pollutants, The equation for the instantaneous release rate:
m = Aft fa [2gPl (HL -Hk
where: m = Discharge rate (kilograms per second)
Ak = Opening area (square meters)
Q - Discharge coefficient (unitless)
g = Gravitational constant (9.8 meters per second squared)
pl = Liquid density (kilograms per cubic meter)
P0 = Storage pressure (Pascals)
P. = Ambient pressure (Pascals)
HL = Liquid height above bottom of container (meters)
H], = Height of opening (meters)
If the liquid is stored at ambient pressure, the equation becomes:
m =
(HL - Hk)
To derive the equation presented in the guidance, all the chemical-specific properties,
constants, and conversion factors were combined into the "Liquid Leak Factor" (LLF). The
discharge coefficient was assumed to have a value of 0.8, based on the screening value recommended
in EPA's Workbook of Screening Techniques for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants. The LLF
was derived as follows:
LLF = 132.2 x 6.4516 x W4 x 0.1594 x 0.8 x
where: LLF = Liquid Leak Factor (pounds per minute-inches")
132.2 = Conversion factor for kilograms per second to pounds per minute
6.4516 x 10~* = Conversion factor for square meters to square inches
0.1594 = Conversion factor for square root of meters to square root of inches
0.8 = Discharge coefficient (0,8),
9.8 = Gravitational constant (meters per second squared)
Pi — Liquid density (kilograms per cubic meter)
LLF values were calculated for all liquids regulated under CAA section 112(r) and are listed
in Appendix B, Exhibit B-2, for toxic liquids and Appendix C, Exhibit C-3, for flammable liquids.
-------
-114-
From the equation for liquid release rate from a hole in a tank at ambient pressure and the
equation for the LLF^the initial release rate for a liquid from a tank under atmospheric pressure can
be written as:
QRL => HA x JIM x LLF (IMS)
where: QR^ = Liquid release rate (pounds per minute)
HA - Hole area (square inches)
LH = Height of liquid above hole (inches)
D.7.2 Releases from Pipes
The equation used to estimate releases of liquids from pipes is the Bernoulli equation. It
assumes mat the density of the liquid is constant and does not account for losses in velocity due to
wall friction. The equation follows:
* V* ' ZJ = 0V • •« ' (D.16)
8t 2ge
where: P. = Pressure at pipe inlet (Pascals)
Pfc «= Pressure at pipe outlet (Pascals)
Z. = Height above datum plane at pipe inlet (meters)
Z* = Height above datum plane at pipe release (meters)
g = Gravitational acceleration (9.8 meters per second2)
g, = Newton's law proportionality factor (1.0)
V. = Operational velocity (meters per second)
Vfc = Release velocity (meters per second)
D = Density of liquid (kilograms per cubic meter)
Isolating Vb yields:
*****>-*>.2,„,,.-».r> «P-W
Adjusting Vb In feet per minute yields:
(77^00 x J» - 7.85 * 109) , (D»18)
i-^--- i- * (77,460*^x2) * F2 l^°;
-------
-1L5-
where: P. = Operational pipe pressure (Pascals)
Z = Change in pipe elevation, inlet to outlet (meters)
g = Gravitational acceleration (9.8 meters per second12)
V, = Operational velocity (feel per minute)
V,, = Release velocity (feet per minute)
D = Density of liquid (kilograms pet cubic meter)
D.8 Vapor Cloud Fires
Factors for leaks from tanks for flammable substances were derived as described for toxic
substances (see above).
The endpoint for estimating impact distances for vapor cloud fires of flammable substances,
the lower flammabiiity limit (LFL), was chosen as a reasonable, but not very conservative, estimation
of the possible extent of a vapor cloud fire,
DJ Pool Fires
Factors for estimating the distances to a heat radiation level mat could cause second degree
burns from a 40-second exposure was developed based on equations presented in the AIChE
document, Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and
BLEVEs and in me Netherlands TNO document, Methods for the Determination of Possible Damage
to People and Objects Resulting from Releases of Hazardous Materials (1992), The AIChE and TNO
documents present a point-source model that assumes that a selected fraction of the beat of
combustion is emitted as radiation in all directions. The radiation per unit area received by a target at
some distance from the point source is given by:
where: q = Radiation per unit area received by the receptor (Watts per square meter)
m = Rate of combustion (kilograms per second)
rm = Atmospheric transmissivity
H0 = Heat of combustion (Joules per kilogram)
f = Fraction of heat of combustion radiated
x = Distance from point source to receptor (meters)
The fraction of combustion energy dissipated as thermal radiation (f in the equation above) is
reported to range from 0.1 to 0.4. To develop factors for estimating distances for pool fires, this
fraction was assumed to be 0.4 for all the regulated flammable substances. The heat radiation level
(q) was assumed to be 5,000 Watts per square meter. This level is reported to cause second degree
burns from a 40-second exposure. It was assumed that exposed people would be able to escape from
the heat in 40 seconds. The atmospheric transmissivity (rj was assumed equal to one.
For a pool fire of a flammable substance with a boiling point above the ambient temperature,
the combustion rate can be estimated by the following empirical equation:
-------
-116-
0,0010 Hc A
where: m = Rate of combustion (kilograms per second)
He = Heat of combustion (Joules per kilogram)
H, = Heat of vaporization (Joules per kilogram)
Cp = Liquid heat capacity (Joules per kilogram-degree K)
A = Pool area (square meters)
Tk = Boiling temperature (K)
T« = Ambient temperature (K)
0.0010 = Constant
Combining the two equations given above, and assuming a heat radiation level of 5,000 Watts
per square meter, gives die following equation for liquid pools of substances with boiling points
above ambient temperature:
X =
0,4
0.0010 A |
+ C(T. ~T\\ ff>-21)
or
5,000s (JI,
where: x = Distance from point source to receptor (meters)
q = Radiation per unit area received by the receptor = 5,000 Watts per square meter
H0 = Heat of combustion (Joules per kilogram)
f = Fraction of heat of combustion radiated = 0.4
K,, = Heat of vaporization (Joules per kilogram)
Cp = Liquid heat capacity (Joules per kilogram-degree K)
A = Pool area (square meters)
Tk = Boiling temperature (K)
T, - Ambient temperature (K)
0.0010 = Constant
For a pool fire of a flammable substance with a boiling point below the ambient temperature
(i.e., liquefied gases) the combustion rate can be estimated by the following equation, based on the
TNO document:
-------
-117-
0,0010 He A
m -- _-£_ (D-23)
where: m = Rate of combustion (kilograms per second)
H, = Heat of vaporization (Joules per kilogram)
He = Heat of combustion (Joules per kilogram)
A = Pool area (square meters)
0.0010 = Constant
Then the equation for distance at which the radiation received equals 5,000 Watts per square meter
becomes:
0.0001 A
5,000* Hv
where: x = Distance from point source to receptor (meters)
Radiation per unit area received by the receptor = 5,000 Watts per square meter
He = Heat of combustion (Joules per kilogram)
HV = Heat of vaporization (Joules per kilogram)
A = Pool area (square meters)
0.0001 = Derived constant (see equations D-20 and D-21)
A "Pool Fire Factor" (PFF) was calculated for each regulated flammable liquid and gas to
allow estimation of the distance to the heat radiation level that would lead to second degree burns.
For the derivation of mis factor, ambient temperature was assumed to be 298 K (25" C). Other
factors are discussed above. The PFF for liquids with boiling points above ambient temperature was
derived as follows:
PFF =* H fiM29 0>-25)
5,000* (HY «• C(Ti - 298))
where: 5,000 = Radiation per unit area received by the receptor (Watts per square meter)
Ha = Heat of combustion (Joules per kilogram)
H, = Heat of vaporization (Joules per kilogram)
Cp = Liquid heat capacity (Joules per kilogram-degree K)
Tb = Boiling temperature (K)
298 = Assumed ambient temperature (K)
0.0001 = Derived constant (see above)
0.0929 = Conversion factor for square meters to square feet
-------
-118-
For liquids with boiling points below ambient temperature, the PFF is derived as follows:
PFF = a.
0.0001
5,000 n Hv
where: 5,000 = Radiation per unit area received by the receptor (Watts per square meter)
He = Heat of combustion (Joules per kilogram)
Hy = Heat of vaporization (Joules per kilogram)
0.0001 = Derived constant (see above)
0.0929 = Conversion factor for square meters to square feet
Distances where exposed people could potentially suffer second degree burns can be estimated
as the PFF multiplied by the square root of the pool area (in square feet), as discussed in the text.
D.10 BLEVEs
Reference Table 22, the table of distances for BLEVEs, was developed based on equations
presented in the AIChE document, Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Good
Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs. The Hymes point-source model for a fireball, as cited in the
AIChE document, uses the following equation for the radiation received by a receptor:
12 *.**.«/" (D-27)
where: q = Radiation received by the receptor (W/m2)
m, = Mass of fuel in the fireball (kg)
r, = Atmospheric transmissivity
H8 = Heat of combustion (J/kg)
R = Radiative fraction of heat of combustion
L = Distance from fireball center to receptor (meters)
w = 3.14
Hymes (as cited by AIChE) suggests me following values for R:
R = 0.3 for vessels bursting below relief valve pressure
R = 0.4 for vessels bursting at or above relief valve pressure
For development of the table in Exhibit 16, the following conservative assumptions were made:
R = 0,4
r.« I
-------
-119-
The effects of radiant heat on an exposed person depend on both the intensity of the radiation
and the duration of the exposure. For development of the table of distances for BLEVEs, it was
assumed that the time*"of exposure would equal the duration of the fireball, The AIChE document
gives the following equations for duration of a fireball:
te = 0.45 m/ for mf < 30,000 kg
and
te = 2.6 mf for mf > 30,000 kg (D~29)
where: m, = Mass of fuel (kg)
te = Combustion duration (seconds)
According to several sources (e.g., Eisenberg, et al., Vulnerability Model, A Simulation
System for Assessing Damage Resulting from Marine Spills; Mudan, Thermal Radiation Hazards from
Hydrocarbon Pool Fires (citing K. Buettner)), the effects of thermal radiation are generally
proportional to radiation intensity to die four-thirds power times time of exposure. Thus, a thermal
"dose* can be estimated using the following equation:
| (D-30)
Dose = t q 3
where: t = Duration of exposure (seconds)
q as Radiation intensity (Watts/m2)
The thermal "dose" that could cause second-degree burns was estimated assuming 40 seconds
as the duration of exposure and 5,000 Watts/m2 as the radiation intensity. The corresponding dose is
3,420,000
For estimating the distance from a fireball at which a receptor might receive enough thermal
radiation to cause second degree bums, the dose estimated above was substituted into the equation for
radiation received from a fireball:
q = [M20.000l| (D-31)
-------
-120-
3.420,000]! _ 2.2 t. R H( m™
t \
L =
2.2 Ta R Hc
where: L = Distance from fireball center to receptor (meters)
q = Radiation received by the receptor (W/m2)
m, = Mass of fuel in the fireball (kg)
r, = Atmospheric transmissivity (assumed to be 1)
H6 = Heat of combustion (T/kg)
R = Radiative traction of heat of combustion (assumed to be 0.4)
t = Duration of the fireball (seconds) (estimated from the equations above); assumed to be
duration of exposure
D.ll Alternative Scenario Analysis for Vapor Cloud Explosions
For consideration of vapor cloud explosion as a potential alternative scenario, the guidance
provides a method to estimate the quantity in the cloud from the fraction flashed into vapor plus the
quantity that might be carried along as aerosol. The recommendation to use twice the quantity flashed
into vapor as the quantity flashed plus aerosol for determination of consequence distance is based on
the method recommended by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as cited in the AIChE
document, Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and
BLEVEs. In addition, according to T.A. Kletz, in "Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosions" (Elevendi
Loss Prevention Symposium, sponsored by AIChE, 1977), unconfined vapor cloud explosions almost
always result from the release of flashing liquids.
The equation for the flash fraction, for possible use in for the alternative scenario analysis, is
based on the Netherlands TNO document, Methods for the Calculation of the Physical Effects of the
Escape of Dangerous Material (1980), Chapter 4, "Spray Release." The following equation is
provided:
TC T
(D-34)
*«v,fl =
where: X,,,, = Weight fraction of vapor after expansion
X^> = Weight fraction of vapor before expansion (assumed to be 0 for calculation of the
flash fraction)
-------
-121-
Tk = Boiling temperature of gas compressed to liquid (K)
T, = Temperature of stored gas compressed to liquid (K)
C, = Specific~heat of gas compressed to liquid (Joules/kilogram-K)
h¥ = Heat of evaporation of gas compressed to liquid (Joules/kilogram)
To develop a Flash Fraction Factor (FFF) for use in consequence analysis, compressed gases
were assumed to be stored at 25°C (298 K) (except in cases where the gas could not be liquefied at
that temperature). The equation for FFF is:
where: Tk = Boiling temperature of gas compressed to liquid (K)
C, = Specific heat of gas compressed to liquid (Joules/kilogram-K)
h, = Heat of evaporation of gas compressed to liquid (Joules/kilogram)
298 = Temperature of stored gas compressed to liquid (K)
The recommendation to use a yield factor of 0.03 for the alternative scenario analysis for
vapor cloud explosions also is based on the UK HSE method cited by AIChE.
-------
-122-
AFPENDKE
RISK MANAGiMENT PROGRAM RULE
-------
-123-
l. Part 68 is amended by redesignating Subpart C as Subpart F as follows;
Subpart F Regulated Substances for Accidental Release Prevention
2. The table of contents of Part 68 is revised to read as follows:
Part 68 — ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION PROVISIONS
Subpart A General
68.1 Scope.
68.3 Definitions.
68.10 Applicability.
68.12 General requirements.
68.15 Management.
Subpart B Hazard Assessment
68.20 Applicability.
68.22 Offsite consequence analysis parameters.
68.25 Worst-case release scenario analysis.
68.28 Alternative release scenario analysis.
68.30 Defining orfsite impacts — population,
68.33 Defining offsite impacts — environment.
68.36 Review and update.
68.39 Documentation,
68.42 Five-year accident history.
Subpart C Program 2 Prevention Program
68.48 Safety information.
68.50 Hazard review.
68.52 Operating procedures.
68.54 Training.
68.56 Maintenance.
68.58 Compliance audits.
68.60 Incident investigation.
Subpart D Program 3 Prevention Program
68.65 Process safety information.
68.67 Process hazard analysis.
68.69 Operating procedures.
68.71 Training,
68.73 Mechanical integrity.
68.75 Management of change.
68.77 Pre-startup review.
68.79 Compliance audits.
68.81 Incident investigation.
68.83 Employee participation.
68.85 Hot work permit.
68.87 Contractors.
-------
-124-
Subpart E Emergency Response
68.90 Applicability^
68,95 Emergency response program.
Subpart F Regulated Substances for Accidental Release Prevention
68,100 Purpose.
68.115 Threshold determination.
68.120 Petition process.
68.125 Exemptions.
68.130 List of substances.
Subpart G Risk Management Plan
68.150 Submission.
68.155 Executive summary.
68.160 Registration.
68.165 Offsite consequence analysis.
68.168 Five-year accident history.
68.170 Prevention program/program 2.
68.175 Prevention program/program 3.
68.180 Emergency response program.
68.185 Certification.
68.190 Updates.
Subpart H Other Requirements
68.200 Recordkeeping.
68.210 Availability of information to the public.
68.215 Permit content and air permitting authority or designated agency requirements.
68.220 Audits.
APPENDIX A Table of Toxic Endpoints
3. The authority citation is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601(a)(l), 7661-766lf.
4. Section 68.3 is amended to add the following definitions:
68.3 Definitions
Act means the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
Administrative controls mean written procedural mechanisms used for hazard control.
AlChE/CCPS means the American Institute of Chemical Engineers/Center for Chemical
Process Safety.
API means the American Petroleum Institute.
ASME means the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Catastrophic release means a major uncontrolled emission, fire, or explosion, involving one
or more regulated substances that presents imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
and the environment.
-------
-125-
Oassified information means "classified information" as defined in the Classified Information
Procedures Act, 18 y..S.C. App. 3, section l(a) as "any information or material that has been
determined by the United States Government pursuant to an executive order, statute, or regulation, to
require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security."
Covered process means a process that has a regulated substance present in more than a
threshold quantity as determined under § 68,1.15 of this part.
Designated agency means the state, local, or Federal agency designated by the state under the
provisions of § 68.215(d) of this part.
Environmental receptor means natural areas such as national or state parks, forests, or
monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal
wilderness areas, that could be exposed at any time to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or
overpressure greater than or equal to the endpoints provided in § 68.22(a) of this part, as a result of
an accidental release and that can be identified on local U. S. Geological Survey maps.
Hot work means work involving electric or gas welding, cutting, brazing, or similar flame or
spark-producing operations.
Implementing agency means the state or local agency that obtains delegation for an accidental
release prevention program under subpart E, 40 CFR part 63. The implementing agency may, but is
not required to, be the state or local air permitting agency. If no state or local agency is granted
delegation, EPA will be the implementing agency for that state.
Injury means any effect on a human that results either from direct exposure to toxic
concentrations; radiant heat; or overpressures from accidental releases or from the direct
consequences of a vapor cloud explosion (such as flying glass, debris, and other projectiles) from an
accidental release and that requires medical treatment or hospitalization.
Major change means introduction of a new process, process equipment, or regulated
substance, an alteration of process chemistry that results in any change to safe operating limits, or
other alteration that introduces a new hazard.
Mechanical integrity means the process of ensuring that process equipment is fabricated from
the proper materials of construction and is properly installed, maintained, and replaced to prevent
failures and accidental releases.
Medical treatment means treatment, other than first aid, administered by a physician or
registered professional personnel under standing orders from a physician.
Mitigation or mitigation system means specific activities, technologies, or equipment designed
or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to minimize exposure of the
public or the environment. Passive mitigation means equipment, devices, or technologies that
function without human, mechanical, or other energy input. Active mitigation means equipment,
devices, or technologies that need human, mechanical, or other energy input to function.
NFPA means the National Fife Protection Association.
Offiite means areas beyond the property boundary of the stationary source, and areas within
the property boundary to which the public has routine and unrestricted access during or outside
business hours.
OSHA means the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a
stationary source.
Population means the public.
Public means any person except employees or contractors at the stationary source.
-------
-126-
Public receptor means offsite residences, institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals), industrial,
commercial, and office buildings, parks, or recreational areas inhabited or occupied by the public at
any time without restriction by the stationary source where members of the public could be exposed
to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressure, as a result of an accidental release,
Replacement in kind means a replacement that satisfies the design specifications.
RMP means the risk management plan required under subpart G of this part,
SIC means Standard Industrial Classification.
Typical meteorological conditions means the temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, and
atmospheric stability class, prevailing at the site based on data gathered at or near the site or from a
local meteorological station.
Worst-case release means the release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance from a
vessel or process line failure that results in the greatest distance to an endpoint defined in § 68.22(a)
of this part
5. Section 68.10 is added to read as follows:
68.10 Applicability.
(a) An owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance in a process, as determined under § 68.115 of this part, shall comply with the
requirements of this part no later than the latest of the following dates:
(1) finsert date 3 years after the date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER];
(2) Three years after the date on which a regulated substance is first listed under § 68.130 of
this part; or
(3) The date on which a regulated substance is first present above a threshold quantity in a
process.
(b) Program 1 eligibility requirements. A covered process is eligible for Program 1
requirements as provided in § 68.12(b) of this part if it meets all of the following requirements:
(1) For the five years prior to the submission of an RMP, the process has not had an
accidental release of a regulated substance where exposure to the substance, its reaction products,
overpressure generated by an explosion involving the substance, or radiant heat generated by a fire
involving the substance led to any of the following offsite:
(i) Death;
(ii) Injury; or
(iii) Response or restoration activities for an exposure of an environmental receptor;
(2) The distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release assessment
conducted under Subpart B and § 68.25 of this part is less than the distance to any public receptor, as
defined in § 68.30 of this part; and
(3) Emergency response procedures have been coordinated between the stationary source and
local emergency planning and response organizations.
(c) Program 2 eligibility requirements. A covered process is subject to Program 2
requirements if it does not meet the eligibility requirements of either paragraph (b) or paragraph (d)
of this section.
(d) Program 3 eligibility requirements. A covered process is subject to Program 3 if the
process does not meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, and if either of the following
conditions is met:
(1) The process is in SIC code 2611, 2812, 2819, 2821, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2879, or 2911;
or
-------
-127-
(2) The process is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 CFR
1910.119.
(e) If at any fTme a covered process no longer meets the eligibility criteria of its Program
level, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of the new Program level that applies
to the process and update the RMP as provided in § 68.190 of this part.
6. Section 68,12 is added to read as follows:
$8.12 General requirements.
(a) General requirements. The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this part
shall submit a single RMP, as provided in §§ 68.150 to 68.185 of this part. The RMP shall include a
registration that reflects all covered processes.
(b) Program 1 requirements. In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process eligible for Program 1, as
provided in § 68.10(b) of this part, shall:
(1) Analyze the worst-case release scenario for the process(es), as provided in | 68.25 of this
part; document that the nearest public receptor is beyond the distance to a toxic or flammable
endpoiflt defined in § 68.22(a) of this part; and submit in the RMP the worst-case release scenario as
provided in § 68.165 of this part;
(2) Complete the five-year accident history for the process as provided in § 68.42 of mis part
and submit it in die RMP as provided in § 68.168 of this part;
(3) Ensure mat response actions have been coordinated with local emergency planning and
response agencies; and
(4) Certify in the RMP the following: "Based on the criteria in 40 CFR 68.10, the distance
to the specified endpoint for the worst-case accidental release scenario for the following process(es) is
less than the distance to the nearest public receptor: [list process(es)]. Within the past five years, the
process(es) has (have) had no accidental release that caused offtite impacts provided in the risk
management program rule (40 CFR 68.10(b)(l)>- No additional measures are necessary to prevent
offsite impacts from accidental releases. In the event of fire, explosion, or a release of a regulated
substance from the process(es), entry within the distance to the specified endpoints may pose a danger
to public emergency responders. Therefore, public emergency responders should not enter this area
except as arranged with the emergency contact indicated in the RMP. Hie undersigned certifies that,
to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, the
information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. [Signature, title, date signed].*
(c) Program 2 requirements. In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2, as provided
in § 68.10(c) of this part, shall:
(1) Develop and implement a management system as provided in f 68.15 of this part;
(2) Conduct a hazard assessment as provided in §§ 68.20 through 68.42 of this part;
(3) Implement the Program 2 prevention steps provided in §§ 68.48 through 68.60 of this
part or implement the Program 3 prevention steps provided in §§ 68.65 through 68.87 of this part;
(4) Develop and implement an emergency response program as provided in §§ 68.90 to
68.95 of this part; and
(5) Submit as part of the RMP the data on prevention program elements for Program 2
processes as provided in § 68.170 of this part.
(d) Program 3 requirements. In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of diii
section, the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3, as provided
in § 68.10(d) of mis part shall:
-------
-128-
(1) Develop and implement a management system as provided in § 68.15 of this part;
(2) Conduct a hazard assessment as provided in §§ 68.20 through 68.42 of this part;
(3) Implement the prevention requirements of §§ 68.65 through 68.87 of this part;
(4) Develop and implement an emergency response program as provided In §§ 68.90 to
68.95 of this part; and
(5) Submit as part of the RMP the data on prevention program elements for Program 3
processes as provided in § 68.175 of this part.
7. Section 68.15 is added to read as follows:
68.15 Management.
(a) The owner or operator of a stationary source with processes subject to Program 2 or
Program 3 shall develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management
program elements.
(b) The owner or operator shall assign a qualified person or position that has the overall
responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program
elements.
(c) When responsibility for implementing individual requirements of this part is assigned to
persons other than the person identified under paragraph (b) of this section, the names or positions of
these people shall be documented and the lines of authority defined through an organization chart or
similar document.
8. Subpart B is added to read as follows:
Subpart B Hazard Assessment
68.20 Applicability.
68.22 Offsite consequence analysis parameters.
68.25 Worst-case release scenario analysis.
68.28 Alternative release scenario analysis.
68.30 Defining offsite impacts — population.
68.33 Defining offsite impacts — environment.
68.36 Review and update.
68.39 Documentation.
68.42 Five-year accident history.
68.20 Applicability. The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this part shall prepare
a worst-case release scenario analysis as provided in § 68.25 of this part and complete the five-year
accident history as provided in § 68.42 of this part. The owner or operator of a Program 2 and 3
process must comply with alt sections in mis subpart for these processes.
68.22 Offsite consequence analysis parameters.
(a) Endpoints. For analyses of offsite consequences, the following endpoints shall be used:
(1) Toxics. The toxic endpoints provided in Appendix A of this part.
(2) Flammabies. The endpoints for flammables vary according to the scenarios studied:
(i) Explosion. An overpressure of 1 psi.
(ii) Radiant heat/exposure time. A radiant heat of 5 kw/m2 for 40 seconds.
(iii) Lower flammability limit. A lower flammability limit as provided in NFPA documents
or other generally recognized sources.
-------
-129-
(b) Wind speed/atmospheric stability class. For the worst-case release analysis, the owner or
operator shall use a wind speed of 1.5 meters per second and F atmospheric stability class. If the
owner or operator can* demonstrate that local meteorological data applicable to the stationary source
show a higher minimum wind speed or less stable atmosphere at all times during the previous three
years, these minimums may be used. For analysis of alternative scenarios, the owner or operator
may use the typical meteorological conditions for the stationary source.
(c) Ambient temperature/humidity. For worst-case release analysis of a regulated toxic
substance, the owner or operator shall use the highest daily maximum temperature in the previous
three years and average humidity for the site, based on temperature/humidity data gathered at the
stationary source or at a local meteorological station; an owner or operator using the RMP Offsite
Consequence Analysis Guidance may use 25 °C and 50 percent humidity as values for these variables.
For analysis of alternative scenarios, the owner or operator may use typical temperature/humidity data
gathered at the stationary source or at a local meteorological station.
(d) Height of release. The worst-case release of a regulated toxic substance shall be analyzed
assuming a ground level (0 feet) release. For an alternative scenario analysis of a regulated toxic
substance, release height may be determined by the release scenario.
(e) Surface roughness. The owner or operator shall use either urban or rural topography, as
appropriate. Urban means that there are many obstacles in the immediate area; obstacles include
buildings or trees. Rural means there are no buildings in the immediate area and the terrain is
generally flat and unobstructed.
(f) Dense or neutrally buoyant gases. The owner or operator shall ensure that tables or
models used for dispersion analysis of regulated toxic substances appropriately account for gas
density.
(g) Temperature of released substance. For worst case, liquids other than gases liquified by
refrigeration only shall be considered to be released at the highest daily maximum temperature, based
on data for the previous three years appropriate for the stationary source, or at process temperature,
whichever is higher. For alternative scenarios, substances may be considered to be released at a
process or ambient temperature that is appropriate for the scenario.
68.25 Worst-case release scenario analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shall analyze and report in the RMP:
(1) For Program 1 processes, one worst-case release scenario for each Program 1 process;
(2) For Program 2 and 3 processes:
(i) One worst-case release scenario that is estimated to create the peatest distance in any
direction to an endpoint provided in Appendix A of this part resulting from an accidental release of
regulated toxic substances from covered processes under worst-case conditions defined in § 68.22 of
this part;
(ii) One worst-case release scenario that is estimated to create the greatest distance in any
direction to an endpoint defined in § 68.22(a) of this part resulting from an accidental release of
regulated flammable substances from covered processes under worst-case conditions defined in
§ 68.22 of this part; and
(iii) Additional worst-case release scenarios for a hazard class if a worst-case release from
another covered process at the stationary source potentially affects public receptors different from
those potentially affected by the worst-case release scenario developed under paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or
(a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(b) Determination of worst-case release quantity. The worst-case release quantity shall be the
greater of the following:
-------
-130-
(1) For substances in a vessel, the greatest amount held in a single vessel, taking into account
administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity; or
(2) For substances in pipes, the greatest amount in a pipe, taking into account administrative
controls that limit the maximum quantity,
(c) Worst-case release scenario — toxic gases,
(1) For regulated toxic substances that are normally gases at ambient temperature and
handled as a gas or as a liquid under pressure, the owner or operator shall assume that the quantity in
the vessel or pipe, as determined under paragraph (b) of this section, is released as a gas over 10
minutes. The release rate shall be assumed to be the total quantity divided by 10 unless passive
mitigation systems are in place.
(2) For gases handled as refrigerated liquids at ambient pressure."
(i) If the released substance is not contained by passive mitigation systems or if the contained
pool would have a depth of 1 cm or less, the owner or operator shall assume that the substance is
released as a gas in 10 minutes;
(ii) If the released substance is contained by passive mitigation systems in a pool with a depth
greater than 1 cm, the owner or operator may assume that the quantity in the vessel or pipe, as
determined under paragraph (b) of this section, is spilled instantaneously to form a liquid pool. The
volatilization rate (release rate) shall be calculated at the boiling point of the substance and at the
conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Worst-case release scenario — toxic liquids.
(I) For regulated toxic substances that are normally liquids at ambient temperature, the
owner or operator shall assume that the quantity in the vessel or pipe, as determined under paragraph
(b) of this section, is spilled instantaneously to form a liquid pool.
(i) The surface area of the pool shall be determined by assuming that the liquid spreads to 1
centimeter deep unless passive mitigation systems are in place that serve to contain the spill and limit
the surface area. Where passive mitigation is in place, the surface area of the contained liquid shall
be used to calculate the volatilization rate.
(ii) If the release would occur onto a surface that is not paved or smooth, the owner or
operator may take into account the actual surface characteristics.
(2) The volatilization rate shall account for the highest daily maximum temperature occurring
in the past three years, the temperature of the substance in the vessel, and the concentration of the
substance if the liquid spilled is a mixture or solution.
(3) The rate of release to air shall be determined from the volatilization rate of the liquid
pool. The owner or operator may use the methodology in the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis
Guidance or any other publicly available techniques that account for the modeling conditions and are
recognized by industry as applicable as part of current practices. Proprietary models that account for
the modeling conditions may be used provided the owner or operator allows the implementing agency
access to the model and describes model features and differences from publicly available models to
local emergency planners upon request.
(e) Worst-case release scenario - flammables. The owner or operator shall assume that the
quantity of the substance, as determined under paragraph (b) of this section, vaporizes resulting in a
vapor cloud explosion. A yield factor of 10 percent of the available energy released in the explosion
shall be used to determine the distance to the explosion endpoint if the model used is based on TNT-
equivalent methods.
(f) Parameters to be applied. The owner or operator shall use the parameters defined in
§ 68.22 of this part to determine distance to the endpoints. The owner or operator may use the
methodology provided in the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance or any commercially or
publicly available air dispersion modeling techniques, provided the techniques account for the
-------
-131-
modeling conditions and are recognized by industry as applicable as part of current practices.
Proprietary models that account for the modeling conditions may be used provided the owner or
operator allows the implementing agency access to the model and describes model features and
differences from publicly available models to local emergency planners upon request.
(g) Consideration of passive mitigation. Passive mitigation systems may be considered for
the analysis of worst case provided that the mitigation system is capable of withstanding the release
event triggering the scenario and would still function as intended.
(h) Factors in selecting a worst-case scenario. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(b) of this section, the owner or operator shall select as the worst case for flammable regulated
substances or the worst case for regulated toxic substances, a scenario based on the following factors
if such a scenario would result in a greater distance to an endpoint defined in § 68.22(a) of this part
beyond the stationary source boundary than the scenario provided under paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Smaller quantities handled at higher process temperature or pressure; and
(2) Proximity to the boundary of the stationary source.
68.28 Alternative release scenario analysis.
(a) The number of scenarios. The owner or operator shall identify and analyze at least one
alternative release scenario for each regulated toxic substance held in a covered process(es) and at
least one alternative release scenario to represent all flammable substances held in covered processes.
(b) Scenarios to consider. (1) For each scenario required under paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall select a scenario:
(i) That is more likely to occur than the worst-case release scenario under § 68.25 of this
part; and
(ii) That will reach an endpoint offsite, unless no such scenario exists.
(2) Release scenarios considered should include, but are not limited to, the following, where
applicable:
(i) Transfer hose releases due to splits or sudden hose uncoupling;
(ii) Process piping releases from failures at flanges, joints, welds, valves and valve seals, and
drains or bleeds;
(iii) Process vessel or pump releases due to cracks, seal failure, or drain, bleed, or plug
failure;
(iv) Vessel overfilling and spill, or overpressurization and venting through relief valves or
rupture disks; and
(v) Shipping container mishandling and breakage or puncturing leading to a spill.
(c) Parameters to be applied. The owner or operator shall use the appropriate parameters
defined in § 68.22 of this part to determine distance to the endpoints. The owner or operator may
use either the methodology provided in the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance or any
commercially or publicly available air dispersion modeling techniques, provided the techniques
account for the specified modeling conditions and are recognized by industry as applicable as part of
current practices. Proprietary models that account for the modeling conditions may be used provided
the owner or operator allows the implementing agency access to the model and describes model
features and differences from publicly available models to local emergency planners upon request.
(d) Consideration of mitigation. Active and passive mitigation systems may be considered
provided they are capable of withstanding the event thai triggered the release and would still be
functional.
(e) Factors in selecting scenarios. The owner or operator shall consider the following in
selecting alternative release scenarios:
(1) The five-year accident history provided in § 68.42 of this part; and
(2) Failure scenarios identified under §§ 68.50 or 68.67 of this part.
-------
-132-
65,30 Defining ofTsite impacts — population.
(a) The owner or operator shall estimate in the RMP the population within a circle with its
center at the point of"the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in
§ 68.22(a) of this part.
(b) Population to be defined. Population shall include residential population. The presence
of institutions (schools, hospitals, prisons), parks and recreational areas, and major commercial,
office, and industrial buildings shall be noted in the RMP.
(c) Data sources acceptable. The owner or operator may use the most recent Census data, or
other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected.
(d) Level of accuracy. Population shall be estimated to two significant digits.
6833 Defining ofTsite impacts — environment.
(a) The owner or operator shall list in the RMP environmental receptors within a circle with
its center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in
§ 68.22(a) of this part.
(b) Data sources acceptable. The owner or operator may rely on information provided on
local U.S. Geological Survey maps or on any data source containing U.S.G.S. data to identify
environmental receptors.
68.36 Review and update.
(a) The owner or operator shall review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least
once every five years.
(b) If changes in processes, quantities stored or handled, or any other aspect of the stationary
source might reasonably be expected to increase or decrease the distance to the endpoint by a factor
of two or more, the owner or operator shall complete a revised analysis within six months of the
change and submit a revised risk management plan as provided in § 68.190 of this part.
6839 Documentation. The owner or operator shall maintain the following records on the offsite
consequence analyses:
(a) For worst-case scenarios, a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as
worst case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for selection; assumptions shall
include use of any administrative controls and any passive mitigation that were assumed to limit the
quantity mat could be released. Documentation shall include the anticipated effect of die controls and
mitigation on the release quantity and rate.
(b) For alternative release scenarios, a description of the scenarios identified, assumptions
and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios; assumptions shall
include use of any administrative controls and any mitigation that were assumed to limit the quantity
that could be released. Documentation shall include the effect of the controls and mitigation on the
release quantity and rate.
(c) Documentation of estimated quantity released, release rate, and duration of release.
(d) Methodology used to determine distance to endpoints.
(e) Data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected.
68.42 Five-year accident history.
(a) The owner or operator shall include in the five-year accident history all accidental
releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage on
site, or known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or
environmental damage.
-------
-133-
(b) Data required. For each accidental release included, the owner or operator shall report
the following information;
(1) Date, tints, and approximate duration of the release;
(2) Chemical (s) released;
(3) Estimated quantity released in pounds;
(4) The type of release event and its source;
(5) Weather conditions, if known;
(6) On-site impacts;
(7) Known offsite impacts;
(8) Initiating event and contributing factors if known;
(9) Whether offsite responders were notified if known; and
(10) Operational or process changes that resulted from investigation of the release.
(c) Level of accuracy. Numerical estimates may be provided to two significant digits.
9. Subpart C is added to read as follows:
Subpart C Program 2 Prevention Program
68.48 Safety information.
68.50 Hazard review.
68.52 Operating procedures,
68.54 Training.
68.56 Maintenance.
68.58 Compliance audits.
68.60 Incident investigation.
68.48 Safety information.
(a) The owner or operator shall compile and maintain the following up-to-date safety
information related to the regulated substances, processes, and equipment:
(1) Material Safety Data Sheets that meet the requirements of 29 CFR 19l0.1200(g);
(2) Maximum intended inventory of equipment in which the regulated substances are stored
or processed;
(3) Safe upper and lower temperatures, pressures, flows, and compositions;
(4) Equipment specifications; and
(5) Codes and standards used to design, build, and operate the process.
(b) The owner or operator shall ensure that the process is designed in compliance with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Compliance with Federal or state
regulations that address industry-specific safe design or with industry-specific design codes and
standards may be used to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph.
(c) The owner or operator shall update the safety information if a major change occurs that
makes the information inaccurate.
68.50 Hazard review
(a) The owner or operator shall conduct a review of the hazards associated with the regulated
substances, process, and procedures. The review shall identify the following:
(1) The hazards associated with the process and regulated substances;
(2) Opportunities for equipment malfunctions or human errors that could cause an accidental
release;
-------
-134-
(3) The safeguards used or needed to control the hazards or prevent equipment malfunction
or human error; and
(4) Any stepf used or needed to detect or monitor releases.
(b) The owner or operator may use checklists developed by persons or organizations
knowledgeable about the process and equipment as a guide to conducting the review. For processes
designed to meet industry standards or Federal or state design rules, the hazard review shall, by
inspecting all equipment, determine whether the process is designed, fabricated, and operated in
accordance with the applicable standards or rules.
(c) The owner or operator shall document the results of the review and ensure that problems
identified are resolved in a timely manner.
(d) The review shall be updated at least once every five years. The owner or operator shall
also conduct reviews whenever a major change in the process occurs; all issues identified in the
review shall be resolved before startup of the changed process.
68.52 Operating procedures.
(a) The owner or operator shall prepare written operating procedures that provide clear
instructions or steps for safely conducting activities associated with each covered process consistent
with the safety information for that process. Operating procedures or instructions provided by
equipment manufacturers or developed by persons or organizations knowledgeable about the process
and equipment may be used as a basis for a stationary source's operating procedures,
(b) The procedures shall address the following:
(1) Initial startup;
(2) Normal operations;
(3) Temporary operations;
(4) Emergency shutdown and operations;
(5) Normal shutdown;
(6) Startup following a normal or emergency shutdown or a major change that requires a
hazard review;
(7) Consequences of deviations and steps required to correct or avoid deviations; and
(8) Equipment inspections.
(c) The owner or operator shall ensure that the operating procedures are updated, if
necessary, whenever a major change occurs and prior to startup of the changed process.
68.54 Training.
(a) The owner or operator shall ensure that each employee presently operating a process, and
each employee newly assigned to a covered process have been trained or tested competent in the
operating procedures provided in § 68.S2 of this part that pertain to their duties. For those
employees already operating a process on [insert date 1 years after the date ot publication in the
FEDERALREGT§TER|f the owner or operator may certify in writing that the employee has the
required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out the duties and responsibilities as provided
in the operating procedures.
(b) Refresher training. Refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and
more often if necessary, to each employee operating a process to ensure that the employee
understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process. The owner or operator,
in consultation with the employees operating the process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of
refresher training.
-------
-135-
(c) The owner or operator may use training conducted under Federal or state regulations or
under industry-specific standards or codes or training conducted by covered process equipment
vendors to demonstrate compliance with this section to the extent that the training meets the
requirements of this section.
(d) The owner or operator shall ensure that operators are trained in any updated or new
procedures prior to startup of a process after a major change.
6S.56 Maintenance.
(a) The owner or operator shall prepare and implement procedures to maintain the on-going
mechanical integrity of the process equipment. The owner or operator may use procedures or
instructions provided by covered process equipment vendors or procedures in Federal or state
regulations or industry codes as the basis for stationary source maintenance procedures.
(b) The owner or operator shall train or cause to be trained each employee involved in
maintaining the on-going mechanical integrity of the process. To ensure that the employee can
perform the job tasks in a safe manner, each such employee shall be trained in the hazards of the
process, in how to avoid or correct unsafe conditions, and in the procedures applicable to the
employee's job tasks.
(c) Any maintenance contractor shall ensure that each contract maintenance employee is
trained to perform the maintenance procedures developed under paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) The owner or operator shall perform or cause to be performed inspections and tests on
process equipment. Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices. The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be
consistent with applicable manufacturers* recommendations, industry standards or codes, good
engineering practices, and prior operating experience.
68.58 Compliance audits.
(a) The owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the
provisions of this subpart at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices
developed under the rule are adequate and are being followed.
(b) The compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the
process.
(c) The owner or operator shall develop a report of the audit findings.
(d) The owner or operator shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to
each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
(e) The owner or operator shall retain the two (2) most recent compliance audit reports. This
requirement does not apply to any compliance audit report that is more than five years old.
68.60 Incident investigation.
(a) The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could
reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release.
(b) An incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible, but not later than 48
hours following the incident.
(c) A summary shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a
minimum-
(1) Date of incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to the incident; and,
-------
-136-
(5) Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
(d) The owner or operator shall promptly address and resolve the investigation findings and
recommendations. Resolutions and corrective actions shall be documented,
(e) The findings shall be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are affected by
the findings,
(f) Investigation summaries shall be retained for five years.
10. Subpart D is added to read as follows:
Subpart D Program 3 Prevention Program
68.65 Process safety information.
68.67 Process hazard analysis,
68.69 Operating procedures.
68.71 Training.
68.73 Mechanical integrity.
68.75 Management of change.
68.77 Pre-startup review.
68.79 Compliance audits.
68.81 Incident investigation.
68.83 Employee participation.
68.85 Hot work permit.
68.87 Contractors.
68,65 Process safety information.
(a) In accordance with the schedule set forth in § 68.67 of this part, the owner or operator
shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process
hazard analysis required by the rule. The compilation of written process safety information is to
enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and
understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety
information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or
produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information
pertaining to the equipment in the process.
(b) Information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances in the process. This
information shall consist of at least the following:
(1) Toxieiry information;
(2) Permissible exposure limits;
(3) Physical data;
(4) Reactivity data:
(5) Corrosivity data;
(6) Thermal and chemical stability data; and
(7) Hazardous effects of inadvertent mixing of different materials mat could foreseeably
occur.
Note: Material Safety Data Sheets meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) may be
used to comply with this requirement to the extent they contain the information required by this
subparagraph.
(c) Information pertaining to the technology of the process.
(1) Information concerning the technology of the process shall include at least the following:
(i) A block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram;
(ii) Process chemistry;
-------
-137-
(iii) Maximum intended inventory;
(iv) Safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or
compositions; and, *""
(v) An evaluation of the consequences of deviations.
(2) Where the original technical information no longer exists, such information may be
developed in conjunction with the process hazard analysis in sufficient detail to support the analysis.
(d) Information pertaining to the equipment in the process,
(1) Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include:
(i) Materials of construction;
(ii) Piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's);
(iii) Electrical classification;
(iv) Relief system design and design basis;
(v) Ventilation system design;
(vi) Design codes and standards employed;
(vii) Material and energy balances for processes built after rinsert date 3 years after the date
of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]: and
(viii) Safety systems (e.g. interlocks, detection or suppression systems).
(2) The owner or operator shall document mat equipment complies with recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices.
(3) For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or
practices that are no longer in general use, the owner or operator shall determine and document that
the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
68.67 Process hazard analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shall perform an initial process hazard analysis (hazard evaluation)
on processes covered by this part. The process hazard analysis shall be appropriate to the complexity
of the process and shall identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the process. The
owner or operator shall determine and document the priority order for conducting process hazard
analyses based on a rationale which includes such considerations as extent of the process hazards,
number of potentially affected employees, age of the process, and operating history of the process.
The process hazard analysis shall be conducted as soon as possible, but not later than f insert date 3
years after the date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER!. Process hazards analyses
completed to comply with 29 CFR 1910.119(e) are acceptable as initial process hazards analyses.
These process hazard analyses shall be updated and revalidated, based on their completion date.
(b) The owner or operator shall use one or more of the following methodologies that are
appropriate to determine and evaluate the hazards of the process being analyzed.
(1) What-If;
(2) Checklist;
(3) What-If/Checklist;
(4) Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP);
(5) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA);
(6) Fault Tree Analysis; or
(7) An appropriate equivalent methodology.
(c) The process hazard analysis shall address:
(1) The hazards of the process;
(2) The identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic
consequences.
-------
-138-
(3) Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their
interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning
of releases. (Acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control
instrumentation with alarms, and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors.);
(4) Consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls;
(5) Stationary source siting;
(6) Human factors; and
(7) A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of
controls.
(d) The process hazard analysis shall be performed by a team with expertise in engineering
and process operations, and the team shall include at least one employee who has experience and
knowledge specific to the process being evaluated. Also, one member of the team must be
knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used.
(e) The owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address the team's findings
and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the
resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as
possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate the
actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process
and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions.
(f) At least every rive (5) years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis, the
process hazard analysis shall be updated and re validated by a team meeting the requirements in
paragraph (d) of this section, to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current
process. Updated and revalidated process hazard analyses completed to comply with 29 CFR
1910.119(e) are acceptable to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(g) The owner or operator shall retain process hazards analyses and updates or revalidations
for each process covered by this section, as well as the documented resolution of recommendations
described in paragraph (e) of this section for the life of the process.
68.69 Operating procedures.
(a) The owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that
provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent
with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.
(1) Steps for each operating phase:
(i) Initial startup;
(ii) Normal operations;
(iii) Temporary operations;
(iv) Emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is
required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that
emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner.
(v) Emergency operations;
(vi) Normal shutdown; and,
(vii) Startup following a turnaround, or after an emergency shutdown.
(2) Operating limits:
(i) Consequences of deviation; and
(ii) Steps required to correct or avoid deviation.
(3) Safety and health considerations:
(i) Properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process;
-------
-139-
(ii) Precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative
controls, and personal protective equipment;
(iii) ControrTneasures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs;
(iv) Quality control for raw materials and control of hazardous chemical inventory levels;
and,
(v) Any special or unique hazards.
(4) Safety systems and their functions.
(b) Operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who work in or maintain a
process.
(c) The operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they
reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals,
technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. The owner or operator shall certify
annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
(d) The owner or operator shall develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the
control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process
equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary source by maintenance, contractor,
laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe work practices shall apply to employees and
contractor employees.
68.71 Training.
(a) Initial training. (1) Each employee presently involved in operating a process, and each
employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, shall be trained in an
overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified in § 68.69 of this part. The
training shall include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations
including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee's job tasks.
(2) In lieu of initial training for those employees already involved in operating a process on
[insert date 3 years after the date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER! an owner or operator
may certify in writing that the employee has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely
carry out the duties and responsibilities as specified in the operating procedures.
(b) Refresher training. Refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and
more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee
understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process. The owner or operator,
in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, shall determine the appropriate
frequency of refresher training.
(c) Training documentation. The owner or operator shall ascertain that each employee
involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by this paragraph.
The owner or operator shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of
training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
68.73 Mechanical integrity.
(a) Application. Paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section apply to the following process
equipment:
(1) Pressure vessels and storage tanks;
(2) Piping systems (including piping components such as valves);
(3) Relief and vent systems and devices;
(4) Emergency shutdown systems;
(5) Controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) and,
(6) Pumps.
-------
-140-
(b) Written procedures. The owner or operator shall establish and implement written
procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
(c) Training^or process maintenance activities. The owner or operator shall train each
employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of that
process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks to assure that the
employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner.
(d) Inspection and testing. (1) Inspections and tests shall be performed on process
equipment.
(2) Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices.
(3) The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with
applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if
determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
(4) The owner or operator shall document each inspection and test that has been performed
on process equipment. The documentation snail identify the date of the inspection or test, the name
of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the
equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test
performed, and the results of the inspection or test.
(e) Equipment deficiencies. The owner or operator shall correct deficiencies in equipment
that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in § 68.65 of this part)
before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe
operation.
(f) Quality assurance. (1) In the construction of new plants and equipment, the owner or
operator shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable for the process application for which
they will be used.
(2) Appropriate checks and Inspections shall be performed to assure that equipment is
installed properly and consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer's instructions.
(3) The owner or operator shall assure that maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment
are suitable for the process application for which they will be used.
68.75 Management of change.
(a) The owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to manage
changes (except for "replacements in kind") to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and
procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process.
(b) The procedures shall assure that the following considerations are addressed prior to any
change:
(1) The technical basis for the proposed change;
(2) Impact of change on safety and health;
(3) Modifications to operating procedures;
(4) Necessary time period for the change; and,
(5) Authorization requirements for the proposed change.
(c) Employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees
whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process shall be informed of, and trained in, the
change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process.
(d) If a change covered by this paragraph results in a change in the process safety
information required by § 68.65 of this part, such information shall be updated accordingly.
(e) If a change covered by this paragraph results in a change in the operating procedures or
practices required by § 68.69 of this part, such procedures or practices shall be updated accordingly.
-------
-141-
68,77 Pre-startup review.
(a) The owner or operator shall perform a pre-startup safety review for new stationary
sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough to require a
change in the process safety information.
(b) The pre-startup safety review shall confirm that prior to the introduction of regulated
substances to a process:
(1) Construction and equipment is in accordance with design specifications;
(2) Safety, operating, maintenance, and emergency procedures are in place and are adequate;
(3) For new stationary sources, a process hazard analysis has been performed and
recommendations have been resolved or implemented before startup; and modified stationary sources
meet the requirements contained in management of change, § 68.75 of this part.
(4) Training of each employee involved in operating a process has been completed.
68.79 Compliance audits.
(a) The owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the
provisions of mis section at least every three years to verify that die procedures and practices
developed under the standard are adequate and are being followed.
(b) The compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the
process.
(c) A report of the findings of the audit shall be developed.
(d) The owner or operator shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to
each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
(e) The owner or operator shall retain the two (2) most recent compliance audit reports.
68.81 Incident investigation.
(a) The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could
reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance.
(b) An incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible, but not later than 48
hours following the incident.
(c) An incident investigation team shall be established and consist of at least one person
knowledgeable in the process involved, including a contract employee if the incident involved work of
the contractor, and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate
and analyze the incident.
(d) A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a
minimum-
(1) Date of incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to the incident; and,
(5) Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
(e) The owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address and resolve the
incident report findings and recommendations. Resolutions and corrective actions shall be
documented.
(f) The report shall be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant to
the incident findings including contract employees where applicable.
(g) Incident investigation reports shall be retained for five years.
-------
-142-
68.83 Employee participation.
(a) The owner or operator shall develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation
of the employee parttgipation required by this section.
(b) The owner or operator shall consult with employees and their representatives on the
conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the other elements of
process safety management in this rule.
(c) The owner or operator shall provide to employees and their representatives access to
process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under this rule.
68.85 Hot work permit.
(a) The owner or operator shall issue a hot work permit for hot work operations conducted
on or near a covered process.
(b) The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR
1910.252(a) have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations; it shall indicate the
date(s) authorized for hot work; and identify the object on which hot work is to be performed. The
permit shall be kept 00 file until completion of the hot work operations.
68,87 Contractors.
(a) Application. This section applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair,
turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. It does not
apply to contractors providing incidental services which do not influence process safety, such as
janitorial work, food and drink services, laundry, delivery or other supply services.
(b) Owner or operator responsibilities. (1) The owner or operator, when selecting a
contractor, shall obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator's safety
performance and programs.
(2) The owner or operator shall inform contract owner or operator of the known potential
fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process.
(3) The owner or operator shall explain to the contract owner or operator the applicable
provisions of subpart E of this part.
(4) The owner or operator shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent with
§ 68.69(d) of this part, to control the entrance, presence, and exit of the contract owner or operator
and contract employees in covered process areas.
(5) The owner or operator shall periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner
or operator in fulfilling their obligations as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Contract owner or operator responsibilities. (1) The contract owner or operator shall
assure that each contract employee is trained in the work practices necessary to safely perform his/her
job.
(2) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee is instructed in
the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job and the process,
and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.
(3) The contract owner or operator shall document that each contract employee has received
and understood the training required by this section. The contract owner or operator shall prepare a
record which contains the identity of the contract employee, the date of training, and the means used
to verify that the employee understood the training.
(4) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee follows the
safety rules of the stationary source including the safe work practices required by § 68.69(d) of this
part.
-------
-143-
(5) The contract owner or operator shall advise the owner or operator of any unique hazards
presented by the contract owner or operator's work, or of any hazards found by the contract owner or
operator's work. "*
11. Subpart £ is added to read as follows:
Subpart £ Emergency Response
68.90 Applicability.
68.95 Emergency Response Program.
68.90 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the owner or operator of a stationary
source with Program 2 and Program 3 processes shall comply with the requirements of § 68.95 of
this part.
(b) The owner or operator of stationary source whose employees will not respond to
accidental releases of regulated substances need not comply with § 68.95 of this part provided that
they meet the following:
(1) For stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a process above the
threshold quantity, the stationary source is included in the community emergency response plan
developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003;
(2) For stationary sources with only regulated flammable substances held in a process above
the threshold quantity, the owner or operator has coordinated response actions with the local fire
department; and
(3) Appropriate mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders when there is a
need for a response.
68.95 Emergency response program
(a) The owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program for
the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. Such program shall include the
following elements:
(1) An emergency response plan, which shall be maintained at the stationary source and
contain at least the following elements:
(i) Procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about
accidental releases;
(ii) Documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat
accidental human exposures; and
(iii) Procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental release of a
regulated substance;
(2) Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing,
and maintenance;
(3) Training for all employees in relevant procedures; and
(4) Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect
changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes.
(b) A written plan that complies with other Federal contingency plan regulations or is
consistent with the approach in the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance
("One Plan") and that, among other matters, includes the elements provided in paragraph (a) of this
section, shall satisfy the requirements of this section if the owner or operator also complies with
paragraph (c) of this section.
-------
•444-
(c) The emergency response plan developed under paragraph (a)(l) of this section shall be
coordinated with the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003. Upon
request of the local emergency planning committee or emergency response officials, the owner or
operator shall promptly provide to the local emergency response officials information necessary for
developing and implementing the community emergency response plan.
12. Subpart G is added to read as follows:
Sub part G Risk management plan
68. 150 Submission.
68.155 Executive summary.
68. 160 Registration.
68.165 Offsite consequence analysis.
68.168 Five-year accident history.
68. 170 Prevention program/program 2.
68.175 Prevention program/program 3.
68.180 Emergency response program.
68.185 Certification.
68. 190 Updates.
68.150 Submission.
(a) The owner or operator shall submit a single RMP that includes the information required
by §§ 68.155 through 68.185 of this part for all covered processes. The RMP shall be submitted in a
method and format to a central point as specified by EPA prior to flngert date 3 year$ after the date of
publication in thg FEDERAL
(b) The owner or operator shall submit the first RMP no later than the latest of the following
dates:
(1) [insert date 3 years after the date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER];
(2) Three years after the date on which a regulated substance is first listed under § 68.130 of
this part; or
(3) The date on which a regulated substance is first present above a threshold quantity in a
process.
(c) Subsequent submissions of RMPs shall be in accordance with § 68. 190 of this part.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 68. 155 to 68. 190 of this part, the RMP shall
exclude classified information. Subject to appropriate procedures to protect such information from
public disclosure, classified data or information excluded from the RMP may be made available in a
classified annex to the RMP for review by Federal and state representatives who have received the
appropriate security clearances,
68.155 Executive summary.
The owner or operator shall provide in the RMP an executive summary that includes a brief
description of the following elements:
(a) The accidental release prevention and emergency response policies at the stationary
source;
(b) The stationary source and regulated substances handled;
(c) The worst-case release scenario(s) and the alternative release scenario(s), including
administrative controls and mitigation measures to limit the distances for each reported scenario;
(d) The general accidental release prevention program and chemical-specific prevention steps;
-------
•145-
(e) The five-year accident history;
(f) The emergency response program; and
(g) Planned ihanges to improve safety,
63.160 Registration.
(a) The owner or operator shall complete a single registration form and include it in the
RMP. The form shall cover all regulated substances handled in covered processes.
(b) The registration shall include the following data:
(1) Stationary source name, street, city, county, state, zip code, latitude, and longitude;
(2) The stationary source Dun and Bradstreet number;
(3) Name and Dun and Bradstreet number of the corporate parent company;
(4) The name, telephone number, and mailing address of the owner or operator;
(5) The name and title of the person or position with overall responsibility for RMP elements
and implementation;
(6) The name, title, telephone number, and 24-hour telephone number of the emergency
contact;
(7) For each covered process, the name and CAS number of each regulated substance held
above the threshold quantity in the process, the maximum quantity of each regulated substance or
mixture in the process (in pounds) to two significant digits, the SIC code, and the Program level of
the process;
(8) The stationary source EPA identifier;
(9) The number of full-time employees at the stationary source;
(10) Whether the stationary source is subject to 29 CFR 1910.119;
(11) Whether the stationary source is subject to 40 CFR part 355;
(12) Whether the stationary source has a CAA Title V operating permit; and
(13) The date of the last safety inspection of the stationary source by a Federal, state, or
local government agency and the identity of the inspecting entity.
68.165 Offsite consequence analysis.
(a) The owner or operator shall submit in the RMP information:
(1) One worst-case release scenario for each Program 1 process; and
(2) For Program 2 and 3 processes, one worst-case release scenario to represent all regulated
toxic substances held above the threshold quantity and one worst-case release scenario to represent all
regulated flammable substances held above the threshold quantity. If additional worst-case scenarios
for toxics or flammables are required by § 68.25(a)(2)(iii) of this part, the owner or operator shall
submit the same information on the additional scenario®. The owner or operator of Program 2 and
3 processes shall also submit information on one alternative release scenario for each regulated toxic
substance held above the threshold quantity and one alternative release scenario to represent all
regulated flammable substances held above the threshold quantity.
(b) The owner or operator shall submit the following data:
(1) Chemical name;
(2) Physical state (toxics only);
(3) Basis of results (give model name if used);
(4) Scenario (explosion, fire, toxic gas release, or liquid spill and vaporization);
(5) Quantity released in pounds;
(6) Release rate;
(7) Release duration;
(8) Wind speed and atmospheric stability class (toxics only);
-------
-146-
(9) Topopaphy (toxics only);
(10) Distance to endpoint;
(11) Public and environmental receptors within the distance;
(12) Passive mitigation considered; and
(13) Active mitigation considered (alternative releases only);
68.168 five-year accident history. The owner or operator shall submit in the RMP the information
provided in | 6"8.42(b) of this part on each accident covered by § 68.42(a) of this part.
68.170 Prevention program/Program 2.
(a) For each Program 2 process, the owner or operator shall provide in the RMP the
information indicated in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section. If the same information applies to
more than one covered process, the owner or operator may provide the information only once, but
shall indicate to which processes the information applies.
(b) The SIC code for the process.
(c) The name(s) of the chemical(s) covered.
(d) The date of the most recent review or revision of the safety information and a list of
Federal or state regulations or industry-specific design codes and standards used to demonstrate
compliance with the safety information requirement.
(e) The date of completion of the most recent hazard review or update.
(1) The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the hazard review;
(2) Major hazards identified;
(3) Process controls in use;
(4) Mitigation systems in use;
(5) Monitoring and detection systems in use; and
(6) Changes since the last hazard review.
(r) The date of the most recent review or revision of operating procedures.
(g) The date of the most recent review or revision of training programs;
(1) The type of training provided — classroom, classroom plus on the job, on the job; and
(2) The type of competency testing used.
(h) The date of the most recent review or revision of maintenance procedures and the date of
die most recent equipment inspection or test and the equipment inspected or tested.
(i) The date of the most recent compliance audit and the expected date of completion of any
changes resulting from the compliance audit.
0) The date of the most recent incident investigation and the expected date of completion of
any changes resulting from the investigation.
(k) The date of the most recent change that triggered a review or revision of safety
information, the hazard review, operating or maintenance procedures, or training.
58.175 Prevention program/Program 3.
(a) For each Program 3 process, the owner or operator shall provide the information
indicated in paragraphs (b) through (p) of this section. If the same information applies to more than
one covered process, the owner or operator may provide the information only once, but shall indicate
to which processes the information applies.
(b) The SIC code for the process.
(c) The name(s) of the substance(s) covered.
(d) The date on which the safety information was last reviewed or revised.
(e) The date of completion of the most recent PHA or update and the technique used.
-------
-147-
(1) The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the PHA;
(2) Major hazards identified;
(3) Process controls in use;
(4) Mitigation systems in use;
(5) Monitoring and detection systems in use; and
(6) Changes since the last PHA.
(f) The date of the most recent review or revision of operating procedures.
(g) The date of the most recent review or revision of training programs;
(1) The type of training provided — classroom, classroom plus oa the job, oa the job; and
(2) The type of competency testing used,
(h) The date of the most recent review or revision of maintenance procedures and the date of
the most recent equipment inspection or test and the equipment inspected or tested.
(i) The date of the most recent change that triggered management of change procedures and
the date of the most recent review or revision of management of change procedures.
(j) The date of the most recent pre-startup review,
(k) The date of the most recent compliance audit and the expected date of completion of any
changes resulting from the compliance audit;
(1) The date of the most recent incident investigation and the expected date of completion of
any changes resulting from the investigation;
(m) The date of the most recent review or revision of employee participation plans;
(n) The date of the most recent review or revision of hot work permit procedures;
(o) The date of the most recent review or revision of contractor safety procedures; and
(p) The date of the most recent evaluation of contractor safety performance.
68.180 Emergency response program*
(a) The owner or operator shall provide in the RMP the following information:
(1) Do you have a written emergency response plan?
(2) Does the plan include specific actions to be taken in response to an accidental releases of
a regulated substance?
(3) Does the plan include procedures for informing the public and local agencies responsible
for responding to accidental releases?
(4) Does the plan include information on emergency health care?
(5) The date of the most recent review or update of the emergency response plan;
(6) The date of the most recent emergency response training for employees.
(b) The owner or operator shall provide the name and telephone number of the local agency
with which the plan is coordinated.
(c) The owner or operator shall list other Federal or state emergency plan requirements to
which the stationary source is subject.
68.185 Certification.
(a) For Program 1 processes, the owner or operator shall submit in the RMP the certification
statement provided in § 68.12(b)(4) of this part.
(b) For all other covered processes, the owner or operator shall submit in the RMP a single
certification that, to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete.
-------
-148-
68.190 Updates.
(a) The owner or operator shall review and update the RMP as specified in paragraph (b) of
this section and submit it in a method and format to a ceniral point specified by EPA prior to finsert
date 3 yeai£jfter the date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER!.
(b) The owner or operator of a stationary source shall revise and update the RMP submitted
under § 68,150 as follows:
(1) Within five years of its initial submission or most recent update required by paragraphs
(b)(2)-(b)(7) of this section, whichever is later.
(2) No later than three years after a newly regulated substance is first listed by EPA;
(3) No later than the date on which a new regulated substance is first present in an already
covered process above a threshold quantity;
(4) No later than the date on which a regulated substance is first present above a threshold
quantity in a new process;
(5) Within six months of a change that requires a revised PHA or hazard review;
(6) Within six months of a change that requires a revised offsite consequence analysis as
provided in § 68.36 of this part; and
(7) Within six months of a change that alters the Program level that applied to any covered
process.
(c) If a stationary source is no longer subject to this part, the owner or operator shall submit
a revised registration to EPA within six months indicating that the stationary source is no longer
covered.
13. Subpart H is added to read as follows:
Subpart H Other Requirements
68.200 Recordkeeping.
68.210 Availability of information to the public.
68.215 Permit content and air permitting authority or designated agency requirements.
68.220 Audits,
(8,200 Recordkeeping.
The owner or operator shall maintain records supporting the implementation of mis part for
five years unless otherwise provided in Subpart D of this part.
68.210 Availability of information to the public.
(a) The RMP required under subpart G of this part shall be available to the public under 42
U.S.C. 7414(c).
(b) The disclosure of classified information by the Department of Defense or other Federal
agencies or contractors of such agencies shall be controlled by applicable laws, regulations, or
executive orders concerning the release of classified information.
68.215 Permit content and air permitting authority or designated agency requirements.
(a) These requirements apply to any stationary source subject to part 68 and parts 70 or 71 of
this Chapter. The 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 permit for the stationary source shall contain;
(1) A statement listing this part as an applicable requirement;
(2) Conditions that require the source owner or operator to submit:
(i) A compliance schedule for meeting the requirements of this part by the date provided in
§ 68.10(a) of this part or;
-------
-149-
(ii) As part of the compliance certification submitted under 40 CFR 7Q.6(c)(5), a certification
statement that the source is in compliance with all requirements of this part, including the registration
and submission of the" RMP.
(b) The owner or operator shall submit any additional relevant information requested by the
air permitting authority or designated agency.
(c) For 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 permits issued prior to the deadline for registering and
submitting the RMP and which do not contain permit conditions described in paragraph (a) of this
section, die owner or operator or air permitting authority shall initiate permit revision or reopening
according to the procedures of 40 CFR 70.7 or 71.7 to incorporate die terms and conditions
consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) The state may delegate the authority to implement and enforce the requirements of
paragraph (e) of this section to a state or local agency or agencies other than the air permitting
authority. An up-to-date copy of any delegation instrument shall be maintained by the air permitting
authority. The state may enter a written agreement with the Administrator under which EPA will
implement and enforce tie requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) The air permitting authority or the agency designated by delegation or agreement under
paragraph (d) of this section shall, at a minimum:
(1) Verify that the source owner or operator has registered and submitted an RMP or a
revised plan when required by this part;
(2) Verify that the source owner or operator has submitted a source certification or in its
absence has submitted a compliance schedule consistent with paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
(3) For some or all of the sources subject to this section, use one or more mechanisms such
as, but not limited to, a completeness check, source audits, record reviews, or facility inspections to
ensure that permitted sources are in compliance with the requirements of this part; and
(4) Initiate enforcement action based on paragraphs (e)(l) and (e)(2) of this section as
appropriate.
68,220 Audits.
(a) In addition to inspections for the purpose of regulatory development and enforcement of
the Act, the implementing agency shall periodically audit RMPs submitted under subpart G of this
part to review die adequacy of such RMPs and require revisions of RMPs when necessary to ensure
compliance with subpart G of this part.
(b) The implementing agency shall select stationary sources for audits based on any of the
following criteria:
(I) Accident history of die stationary source;
(2) Accident history of other stationary sources in the same industry;
(3) Quantity of regulated substances present at the stationary source;
(4) Location of the stationary source and its proximity to the public and environmental
receptors;
(5) The presence of specific regulated substances;
(6) The hazards identified in the RMP; and
(7) A plan providing for neutral, random oversight.
(c) Exemption from audits. A stationary source with a Star or Merit ranking under OSHA's
voluntary protection program shall be exempt from audits under paragraph (b)(2) and .(b)(7) of this
section.
(d) The implementing agency shall have access to the stationary source, supporting
documentation, and any area where an accidental release could occur.
-------
-150-
(e) Based on the audit, the implementing agency may issue the owner or operator of a
stationary source a written preliminary determination of necessary revisions to the stationary source's
RMP to ensure that die JUMP meets the criteria of subpart G of this part. The preliminary
determination shall include an explanation for the basis for the revisions, reflecting industry standards
and guidelines (such as AIChE/CCPS guidelines and ASME and API standards) to the extent that
such standards and guidelines are applicable, and shall include a timetable for their implementation.
(f) Written response to a preliminary determination,
(1) The owner or operator shall respond in writing to a preliminary determination made in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. The response shall state die owner or operator will
implement the revisions contained in the preliminary determination in accordance with the timetable
included in the preliminary determination or shall state that the owner or operator rejects the revisions
in whole or in part. For each rejected revision, the owner or operator shall explain the basis for
rejecting such revision. Such explanation may include substitute revisions.
(2) The written response under paragraph (f)(l) of this section shall be received by the
implementing agency within 90 days of the issue of the preliminary determination or a shorter period
of time as the implementing agency specifies in the preliminary determination as necessary to protect
public health and the environment. Prior to the written response being due and upon written request
from the owner or operator, the implementing agency may provide in writing additional time for the
response to be received.
(g) After providing the owner or operator an opportunity to respond under paragraph (f) of
this section, the implementing agency may issue the owner or operator a written filial determination
of necessary revisions to the stationary source's RMP. The final determination may adopt or modify
die revisions contained in the preliminary determination under paragraph (e) of this section or may
adopt or modify the substitute revisions provided in the response under paragraph (f) of this section.
A filial determination that adopts a revision rejected by the owner or operator shall include an
explanation of the basis for the revision. A filial determination that fails to adopt a substitute revision
provided under paragraph (f) of this section shall include an explanation of the basis for finding such
substitute revision unreasonable.
(h) Thirty days after completion of the actions detailed in the implementation schedule set in
the filial determination under paragraph (g) of this section, the owner or operator shall be in violation
of subpart G of this part and this section unless the owner or operator revises the RMP prepared
under subpart G of this part as required by the final determination, and submits the revised RMP as
required under § 68.150 of this part.
(i) The public shall have access to the preliminary determinations, responses, and final
determinations under this section in a manner consistent with § 68.210 of this part.
(j) Nothing in this section shall preclude, limit, or interfere in any way with the authority of
EPA or the state to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering authorities
concerning this part under the Act.
-------
-151-
14. Part 68 Appendix A is added to read as follows:
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF TOXIC ENDPOINTS
(as defined in § 68.22 of this part)
CAS No.
107-02-8
107-13-1
814-63-4
107-18-6
107-11-9
7664-41-7
7664-41-7
7784-34-1
7784-12-1
10294-34-5
7637-07-2
353-42-4
7726-95-6
75-15-0
7782-50-5
10049-044
67-66-3
542-88-1
107-30-2
4170-30-3
123-73-9
506-77-4
108-91-8
19287-45-7
75-78-5
57-14-7
Chemical Name
Acrokifl [2-Propcnal]
Aerylonitrile [2-PropcnenitrileJ
Acrylyl chloride p-Ftopenoyl chloride]
Aflyl alcohol p-Propea-1-oI]
AJlylamine [2-Propen-l-arnine]
Ammonia (anhydrous)
Ammonia (cone 20% or greater)
Arsenoui trichloride
Ars ire
Boron trichloride [Boranc, trichloro-]
Boron trifluoride [Bonne, triHuoro-]
Boron trifluoride compound with methyl ether (1:1) [Boron, crifluorotoxybiafmcthaneU-, T-4
Bromine
Carbon diaulfide
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide [Chlorine oxide (C1O2)]
Chloroform [Methane, trichloro-]
Chloromethyl ether [Methane, oxybu[chJoro-]
Chloromethyl methyl ether [Methane, chloromethoxy-J
Crolonaldehyde p-ButenaQ
Crotonaldehyde, (£)- [2-Butenal, (EH
Cyanogen chloride
Cyclohexylamine [Cyclohexanamlne]
Diborane
DimethyldichlorojUAne [Sikne, dichbrodimethyH
1,1-Dimcihylhydrazine [Hydrazine, 1,1-dimcthyJ-)
Toxic
Endpoint
(mg/L)
0.0011
0.076
0.00090
0.036
0.0032
0.14
0.14
0.010
0.0019
0.010
0.028
0.023
0.0065
0.16
0.0087
0.0028
0.49
0.00025
0.0018
0.029
0.029
0.030
0.16
0.0011
0.026
0.012
-------
-152-
I CAS No.
106-89-8
1 107-15-3
151-56-4
1 75-21-8
7782-41-4
50-00-0
110-00-9
302-01-2
7647-01-0
74-90-8
| 7647-01-0
1 7664-39-3
I 7783-
-------
-153-
CAS No,
594-42-3
75^4-S
7803-51-2
10025-87-3
7719-12-2
110-89-4
107-12-0
109-41-5
75-55-8
75-56-9
744649-5
7783-60-0
7446-11-9
75-74-1
509-14-8
7550-45-0
554-84-9
91-08-7
26471-62-5
75-77-4
108-05-4
Chemkai Name
Perchioromethylmercaptaij JMethanesulfenyl chloride, trichtoro-J
Phosgene [Carbonic dichloride]
Phosphine
Phosphorus oxychloride [Phosphoryl chloride}
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous trichloride]
Piperidine
Propioninilc [Propanenitrile]
Propyl chlorofoimate [CArbonochlorkfic acid, propylwtcr]
Propylcneiminc [Aziridine, 2-mcthyl-]
Propylene oxide [Oxinn«, methyl-]
Sulfur dioxide (anhydrous)
Sulfur tctrafluoridc [Sulfur fluoride (SF4), (T-4)-]
Sulfur trioxide
Tetnunethyllead [Plumbane, tctr&methyl-]
Tetranitromethane (Methane, tctranitro-J
Tttanium letrachloride [Titanium chloride (TiCP) fT-4)-J
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate [Benzene, 2,4-diisocyanato-l-methyH
Toluene 2, 6-diisocyanmte [Benzene, l,3-diisocyanato-2-raethyl-]
Toluene dusocymnate (unspecified isorner) [Benzene, 1 ,3-diisocyanatomethyl-]
Trimethylchloroiikne [Silanc, chlorotrimethyi-]
Vinyl acetate monomer [Acetic acid ethenyl ester]
Toxic
Endpoint
(mg/L)
0,0076
0.00081
0.0035
0,0030
0.028
0.022
0.0037
0.010
0.12
0.59
0.0078
0.0092
0.010
0.0040
0.0040
0.020
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.050
0.26
-------
Wednesday
June 5, 1996
Part II
Environmental Protection
Agency
Department of
Transportation
Coast Guard
Research and Special Programs
Administration
Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
The National Response Team's Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance; Notice
-------
28642
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No- t09 _/ Wednesday, June 5. 1996 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard *~
Research and Special Programs
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
DEPARTMENT OF LAiOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[FflL-4512-8]
The National Response Team's
Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), U.S. Coast Guard
(USCGJ. Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPAJ, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(QSHAJ.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY; The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, as the chair of the
National Response Team (NRT), is
announcing die availability of the NRT's
Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance
("one plan"). This guidance is intended
to be used by facilities to prepare
emergency response plans. The intent of
ihe NRT is to provide a mechanism for
consolidating multiple plans that
facilities may have prepared to comply
with various regulations into one
functional emergency response plan or
integrated contingency plan (ICP). This
notice contains the suggested ICP
outline as well as guidance on how to
develop an ICP and demonstrate
compliance with various regulatory
requirements. The policies set out in
this notice are intended solely as
guidance.
ADDRESSES: Additional copies of this
one-plan guidance can be obtained by
writing to the following address:
William Finan. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mai! Code 5101, 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Copies of the ICP Guidance are also
available by calling the EPCRA/RCRA/
Superfund Hotline at [800) 424-9346 (in
the Washington, DC. metropolitan area,
(703) 412-9810). In addition, this
guidance is available electronically at
the home page of EPA's Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office (http://www.epa.gov/
swercapp/).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Finan. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401
M Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460,
at (2f)2) 200-0030 (E-Mail
homepage.cftppo@epamail,epa.gov—
please include "one plan" in the subject
line). In addition, the CPCRA/RCRA/
Superfund Hotline can answer general
questions about the guidance.
For further information and guidance
on complying with specific regulations,
contact: for EPA's Oil Pollution
Prevention Regulation: Bobbie Lively-
Diebold, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 5203G, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington. DC 20460, at (703)
356-8774 (E-Mail
Lively.Barbara@epamatl.epa.gov), or the
SPCC; Information Line at (202) 260-
2342): for the U.S. Coast Guard's
Facility Response Plan Regulation:
LCDR Mark Hamilton, U.S. Coast Guard,
Commandant (G—MOR), 2100 2nd
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593, at
202-267-1983 (E-Mail M.Hamilton/G-
M03@CGSMTP.uscg.mil); for DOT/
RSPA's Pipeline Response Plan
Regulation: Jim Taylor, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Room 2335, 400 7th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20S90 at
(202) 366-6860 (E-Mail
OPATEAM©RSPA.DOT.GOV); for
pertinent OSHA regulations, contact
either your Regional or Area OSHA
office; forDOI/MMS' Facility Response
Plan Regulation: Larry Ake, U.S.
Department of the Interior—Minerals
Management Service, MS 4700, 381
Elden Street, Herndon, VA 22070-4817
at (703) 787-1567 (E-Mail Larry_
Ake@SMTP.MMS.GOV): for EPA's Risk
Management Program Regulation:
WiilifcL'n Finan (see above); end for
RCRA's Contingency Planning
Requirements, contact the EPCRA/
RCRA/Superfund Hotline (see above).
The NRT welcomes comments on
specific implementation issues related
to this guidance. Please provide us with
information about the successful use of
this guidance, about problems with
using this guidance, as well as
suggestions for improving the guidance.
Send comments to William Finan (see
above) or to any of the other people
listed in the previous paragraph.
SUPPLEMaiTARY INFORMATION:
Presidential Review Findings
Section 112(r)(10) of the Clean Air Act
required tho President to conduct a
review of federal release prevention,
mititjali'on. and response authorities.
The Presidential Rnview was delegated
to EPA. in coordination with agencies
and departments that are members of
the National Response Team (NRT). The
Presidential Review concluded th.it.
while achieving its statutory goals to
protect public safely and the
environment, the current system is
complex, confusing, and costly. It
identified several key problem areas anc
recommended a second phase to
address these issues. One of the issues
identified by the Presidential Review is
the multiple and overlapping federal
requirements for facility emergency
response plans.
NRT Policy Statement
This one-plan guidance is intended to
be used by facilities to prepare
emergency response plans for
responding to releases of oil and non-
radiological hazardous substances. The
intent of NRT is to provide a mechanism
for consolidating multiple plans that
facilities may have prepared to comply
with various regulations into one
functional emergency response plan or
integrated contingency plan (ICP). A
number of statutes and regulations,
administered by several federal
agencies, include requirements for
emergency response planning. A
particular facility may be subject to one
or more of the following federal
regulations:
• EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention
Regulation (SPCC and Facility Response
Plan Requirements)—40 CFR part
112.7(d)and 112.20-.21;
• MMS's Facility Response Plan
Regulation—30 CFR part 254;
• RSPA's Pipeline Response Plan
Regulation—49 CFR part 194;
« USCG's Facility Response Plan
Regulation—33 CFR part 154, Subpart F;
* EPA's Risk Management Programs
Regulation—40 CFR part 68;
« OSHA's Emergency Action Plan
Regulation—29 CFR 1910.38(a);
» OSHA's Process Safety Standard—
29 CFR 1910.119;
• OSHA's HAZWOPER Regulation—
23 CFR 1910.120; and
« EPA's Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Contingency Planning
Requirements—40 CFR part 264.
Subpart D, 40 CFR part 265, Subport D.
and 40 CFR 279.52.
In addition, facilities may also be
subject to state emergency response
planning requirements that this
guidance does not specifically address.
Facilities are encouraged to coordinate
development of their ICP with relevant
state and local agencies to ensure
compliance with any additional
regulatorv requirements.
Individual agencies' planning
requirements and plan review
procedures are not changed by Hie
advent of the !CP format opiion. This
one-plan guidance has b«eu developed
-------
Feder.il Register / Vol. 61. No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5. 1996 / Notices
28643
to assist facilitJHs in demonstrating
compliance with the uxisting federal
emergency response planning
requirements referenced above.
Although it does not relieve t'acilities
from their current obligations, it has
been designed specifically to help meet
those obligations. Adherence to this
guidance is noj required in order to
comply with federal regulatory
requirements. Facilities are free to
continue maintaining multiple plans to
demonstrate federal regulatory
compliance: however, the NRT believes
that an integrated plan prepared in
accordance with this guidance is a
preferable alternative.
The NRT realizes that many existing
regulations pertaining to contingency
planning require review by a specific
agency to determine compliance with
applicable requirements. It is not the
intent of the NRT to modify existing
agency review procedures or to
supersede tha requirements of a
regulation.
This one-plan guidance was
developed through a cooperative effort
among numerous NRT agencies, state
and local officials. and industry and
community representatives. The NRT
and the agencies responsible for
reviewing and approving federal
response plans to which tha ICP option
applies agree that integrated response
plans prepared in tha format provided
in this guidance will be acceptable and
be tha federally preferred method of
response planning. The NRT realizes
that alternate formats for integrating
multiple plans already exist and that
others likely will be developed. Certain
facilities may find those formats more
desirable than the one proposed here.
The NRT believes thai a single
functional plan is preferable to multiple
plans regardless of the specific format
chosen. While they are acceptable, other
formats may not allow the same ease of
coordination with external plans. In any
case, whatever format a facility chooses,
no individual NRT agency will require
an integrated response planning format
differing from the ICP format described
here. The NRT anticipatas that future
development of all federal regulations
addressing emergency response
planning will incorporate use of the ICP
guidance. Also, developers of state and
local requirements wilt be encouraged
to be consistent with this document.
The ICP guidance does not change
existing regulatory requirements; rather,
it provides a format for organizing and
presenting material currently required
by the regulations. Individual
regulations are often more detailed than
the ICP guidance. To ensure full
compliance, facilities should continue
to read and comply with all of the
federal regulations that apply to them.
Furthermore, facilities submitting an
ICP (in whatever format) for agency or
department review will need to provide
a cross-reference to existing regulatory
requirements so that plan reviewers can
verify compliance with Lhese
requirements. The guidance contains a
series of matrices designed to assist
owners and operators in consolidating
various plans and documenting
compliance with federal regulatory
requirements. (See Attachments 2 and
3.) The matrices can be used as the basis
for developing a cross-reference to
various regulatory requirements.
This guidance also provides a useful
contingency planning template for
owners and operators of facilities not
subject to the federal regulations cited
previously.
Integrated Contingency Plan
Philosophy
The ICP will minimize duplication in
the preparation and use of emergency
response plans at the same facility and
will improve economic efficiency for
both the regulated and regulating
communities. Facility expenditures for
the preparation, maintenance,
submission, and update of a single plan
should be much lower than for multiple
plans.
The use of a single emergency
response plan per facility will eliminate
confusion for facility first responders
who often must decide which of their
plans is applicable to a particular
emergency. The guidance is designed to
yield a highly functional document for
use in varied emergency situations
while providing a mechanism for
complying with multiple agency
requirements. Use of a single integrated
plan should also improve coordination
between facility response personnel and
local, state, and federal emergency
response personnel.
The adoption of a standard plan
format should facilitate integration of
plans within a facility, in the event that
large facilities may need to prepare
separate plans for distinct operating
units. The ICP concept should also
allow coordination of facility plans with
plans that are maintained by local
emergency planning committees
(LEPCs),1 Area Committees,2 co-
operatives, and mutual aid
organizations. In some cases, there are
11.EPC pkrj sra dave!op«d by LEPCj in
coordination wiih facility amerjsncy response
coordinator! und«r «ction 303 at !h» Em«fg»ncy
Planning and Curnmunity Right-lo-Know Ac).
1 Aisa Contingency Plans M» developed by Arta
ComrnillEes jiursuam Jo lection 42Q3(a)(6! of tha
Oil Pnihilion Act of 1S9O SOPA).
specific regulatory requirements to
ensure that facility plans are consistent
with external planning efforts. Industry
use of this guidance along with active
participation on local and Area
Committees will improve the level of
emergency preparedness and is
therefore highly encouraged-
In some areas, it may be possible to
go beyond simple coordination of plans
and actually integrate certain
information from facility plans with
corresponding areas of external plans.
The adoption of a single, common ICP
outline such as the one proposed in this
guidance would facilitate a move
toward integration of facility plans with
local, state, arid federal plans.
The projected results described above
will ultimately serve the mutual goal of
the response community to more
efficiently and effectively protect public
health, worker safety, the environment,
and property.
Scope
This one-plan guidance is provided
for any facility subject to federal
contingency planning regulations and is
also recommended for use by other
facilities to improve emergency
preparedness through planning. la this
context, the term "facility" is meant to
have a wide connotation and may
include, but is not limited to, any
mobile or fixed onshore or offshore
building, structure, installation,
equipment, pipe, or pipeline.
Facility hazards need to be addressed
in a comprehensive and coordinated
manner. Accordingly, this guidance (a
broadly constructed to allow for
facilities to address a wide range of risks
in a manner tailored to the specific
needs of the facility. This includes both
physical and chemical hazard*
associated with events such as chemical
releases, oil spills, Bros, explosion*. «ad
natural disasters.
Organizational Concepts
The ICP format provided in thif on*-
plan guidance (See Attachment I) It
organized into three main sections: *n
Introductory section, a core plan, and •
series of supporting annexes. It is
important to note that the element*
contained in these sections arv not nmv
concepts, but accepted emergency
response activities that are currently
addressed in various forms in Misting
contingency planning regulations. Th«
goal of the NRT is not to creat* n«w
planning requirements, but to prorid* «
mechanism to consolidate existing
concepts into a single functional plan
structure. This approach would provid*
a consistent basis for addressing
-------
2H644
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 109 / Wednesday. June 5. 1906 / Notices
emergency response concerns as it gains
widespread use among faeilitius.
The introduction section of the plan
form.it is designed to provide faciliiv
response personnel, oulside responders,
and regulatory officials wittTbasic
information about the plan and the
entity it covers. It calls for a statement
of purpose and scope, a table of
contents, information on the current
revision date of (he plan, general facility
information, and the key eontact(s) for
plan development and maintenance.
This section should present the
information in a brief factual manner.
The structure of the sample core plan
and annexes in this guidance is based
on the structure of the National
Interagency Incident Management
System (NIIMS) Incident Command
System (1CSJ, NIIMS ICS is a nationally
recognized system currently in use by
numerous federal, state, and local
organizations (e.g., some Area
Committees under OPA). NIIMS ICS is
a type of response management system
that has been used successfully in a
variety of emergency situations.
including releases of oil or hazardous
substances. NIIMS ICS provides a
commonly understood framework that
allows for effective interaction among
response personnel. Organizing the ICP
along the lines of the NIIMS ICS will
allow the plan to dovetail with
established response management
practices, thus facilitating its ease of use
during an emergency.
The core plan is intended to contain
essential response guidance and
procedures, Annexes would contain
more detailed supporting information
on specific response management
functions. The core plan should contain
frequent references to the response
critical annexes to direct response
personnel to parts of the ICP that
contain more detailed information on
the appropriate course of action for
responders to take during various stages
of a response. Facility planners need to
find the right balance between the
amount of information contained in the
core plan versus the response critical
annexes (Annexes 1 through 3).
Information required to support
response actions at facilities with
multiple hazards will likely be
contained in the annexes. Planners at
facilities with fewer hazards may choose
to include most if not all information in
the core plan. Other annexes (e.g.,
Annexes 4 through 8) are dedicated to
providing information that is non-
critical at the time of a response (e.g.,
cross-references to demonstrate
regulatory compliance and background
planning information). Consistent with
the goal of keeping the size of the ICP
.-is manageable as practicable, it is not
necessary for a plan holder to provide
its field responders with all the
compliance documuniation (e.g..
Annexes 4 through S) that it submits lo
regulatory agencies. Similarly, it may
not be necessary for a plan holder to
submit all annexes to every regulatory
agency for review,
Basic headings are consistent across
the core plan and annexes to facilitate
ease of use during an emergency. These
headings provide a comprehensive list
at elements to be addressed in the core
plan and response annexes and may not
be relevant to all facilities. Planners
should address those regulatory
elements that are applicable to their
particular facilities. Planners at facilities
with multiple hazards will need to
address most, if not all, elements
included in this guidance. Planners at
facilities with fewer'hazards may not
need to address certain elements. If
planners choose to strictly adopt the ICP
outline contained in this guidance but
are not required by regulation to address
all elements of the outline, they may
simply indicate "not applicable" for
those items where no information is
provided. A more detailed discussion of
the core plan and supporting annexes
follows.
Core Plan
The core plan is intended to reflect
the essential steps necessary to initiate?
conduct, and terminate an emergency
response action: recognition,
notification, and initial response,
including assessment, mobilization, and
implementation. This section of the
plan should be concise and easy to
follow. A rule of thumb is that the core
plan should fit in the glovebox of a
response vehicle. The core plan need
not detail all procedures necessary
under these phases of a response but
should provide information that is time
critical in the earliest stages of a
response and a framework to guide
responders through key steps necessary
lo mount an effective response. The
response action section should be
convenient to use and understandable at
the appropriate skill level.
The NET recommends the use of
checklists or flowcharts wherever
possible to capture these steps in a
concise easy-to-understand manner. The
core plan should be constructed to
contain references to appropriate
sections of the supporting annexes for
more detailed guidance on specific
procedures. The NRT anticipates that
fora large, complex facility with
multiple hazards the annexes wilt
contain a significant amount of
information on specific procedures to
follow. Fora small faciliiv with a
limited number of hazard scenarios, ihe
core plan may contain most il not all of
the information necessary to carry out
the response thus obviating the need for
moru detailed annexes. The checklists.
depending on their size and complexity,
can be in either the core or the support
section.
The core plan should reflect a
hierarchy of emergency response levels.
A system of response levels is
commonly used in emergency planning
for classify ing emergences according to
seriousness and assigning an
appropriate standard response or scries
of response actions to each level. Both
complex and simple industrial facilities
use a system of response levels for
rapidly assessing the seriousness of an
emergency and developing an
appropriate response. This process
allows response personnel to match the
emergency and its potential impacts
with appropriate resources and
personnel. The concept of response
levels should be considered in
developing checklists or flowcharts
designed to serve as the basis for the
core plan. Note that for those facilities
subject to planning requirements under
OPA, response levels in the core plan
may not necessarily correspond to
discharge planning amounts (e.g.,
average most probable discharge,
maximum most probable discharge, and
worst case discharge).
Facility owners and operators should
determine appropriate response levels
based on 1) the need to initiate Lime-
urgent response actions to minimize or
prevent unacceptable consequence* to
the health and safety of workers, the
public, or the environment; and 2} the
need to communicate critical
information concerning the emergency
to offsite authorities. The consideration
and development of response lev«U
should, to the extent practicable, b*
consistent with similar effort! that may
have been taken by the LEPC, local Arsa
Committee, or mutual aid organization.
Response levels, which are used in
communications with offsite authorities,
should be fully coordinated and UM
consistent terminology.
Annexes
The annexes are designed to provide
key supporting information for
conducting an emergency resporu*
under the core plan as weli as document
compliance with regulatory
requirements not addressed al*«wrj»r»
in the ICP. Annexes are not m««ni to
duplicate information that is already
contained in the core plan, but to
augment core plan information. Th»
annexes should relate to the basic
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No, ing / Wednesday, lune 5, 1906 / Notices
28645
headings of th« core plan. To
accomplish ihis. the annexes should
cuntnin sections on facility information,
notification, and a detailed description
of response procedures under the
response management sygiJin (i.e.
command, operations, planning,
logistics, and finance). The annexes
should also address issues related to
post accident investigation, incident
history, written follow-up reports,
training and exercises, plan critique and
modification process, prevention, and
regulatory compliance, as appropriate.
The ICP format contained in this
guidance is based on the NHMS ICS, If
facility owners or operators choose to
follow fundamental principles of the
NHMS ICS, then they may adopt NilMS
ICS by reference rather than having to
describe the system in detail in the plan.
The owner or operator should identify
whera NHMS ICS documentation is kept
at the facility and how it will be
accessed if needed by the facility or
requested by the reviewing agency.
Regardless of the response management
system used, the plan should include an
organization chart, specific job
descriptions,* a description of
information flow ensuring liaison*with
the on-scene coordinator (OSC), and a
description of how the selected
response management system integrates
with a Unified Command.4 If a system
other than NI1MS ICS is used, the plan
should also identify how it differs from
NILMS or provide a detailed description
of the system used.
The NRT anticipates that the use of
linkages (i.e., references to other plans)
when developing annexes will serve
several purposes. Linkages will facilitate
integration with other emergency plans
within a facility (until such plans can be
fully incorporated into the ICP) and
9 OPA 90 pUnning rpquiiemenu for marine
transfer fad I it iw (33 CFR 1S4.1033) require lob
descriptions for each ipilt management team
member regardless al ine taspoiua aunagemant
system employed by the Facility.
••Under MIMS 1CS. I he command module has
traditionally be«n represented bv a single incident
mmmander (supported by a command atafD who
directs efforts at and receives input (rum the four
supporting functional areas [planning, logistics,
operation*, jnd finance]. More recently, a Unified
Command Syitnm as described in ihe National Oil
ami Haatdaat Subsuuicw Pollution Contingency
P!on INCPI found at 40CFR part 100 liaa beers used
for Idrger spilt responsas whare the command
modu!« is comprised of rsprtseninlves from tha
federal government (i.e.. federal on-scene
cuorrtinjior). siatn government (state on-scene
courUmjtorj, and ih« responsible party working in
a cooperative triHrmer. Unified Command allows .vll,
p.ir.i.*' i*ho hi»-H jurisdictions! nr funrtiuna!
rKSpon.iibilily fur ih* inu.dcnl !u jointly develop 4
cnmmon am of incident obj«ctiv>»s and strategic*.
Such coorstin-ilion ihonld b« gukiaJ tiy procedures
loiiri! in -he NTP («o figure la at -10 CFR
100 n)5(«Hl;i 4nrf 'he .ipplieiolu -\rea rontingeney
Pljr:.
with external plans, sucis as LEPC plans
and Area Contingency Plans (ACPs).
Linkages will also holp ensure that the
annexes do not become too
cutnbfirsomo. Tho use of references lo
information contained in external plans
docs not reliuve facilities from
rcgulutorv requirements to address
certain elements in a facility-specific
manner and to have information readily
accessible to responders. When
dutermining what information maybe
linked by reference and what needs to
be contained in the ECP, response
planners should carefully consider the
time critical nature of the information.
If instructions or procedures will be
needed immediately during an incident
response, they should be presented for
ready access in the ICP. The following
information would not normally be
well-suited fof reference to documents
external to the ICP: core plan elements,
facility and locality information (to
allow for quick reference by responders
on the layout of the facility and the
surrounding environment and
mitigating actions for tho specific
hazard(s) present), notification
procedures, details of response
management personnel's duties, and
procedures for establishing the response
management system. Although linkages
provide the opportunity to utilize
information developed by other
organizations, facilities should note that
many LEPC plans and ACPs may not
currently possess sufficient detail to be
of use in facility plans or the ICP. This
information may need to be developed
by the facility until detailed applicable
information from broader plans is
available.
In all cases, referenced materials must
be readily available to anticipated plan
users. Copies of documents that have
been incorporated by reference need aot
be submitted unless it is required by
regulation. The appropriate sections of
referenced documents that are unique to
the facility, those that are not nationally
recognized, those that are required by
regulation, and those that could not
reasonably be expected to be in the
possession of the reviewing agency,
should be provided when the plan is
submitted for review and/or approval.
Discretion should be used when
submiiting documents containing
proprietary data. It is. however,
necessary to identify in the ICP the
specific section of the document being
incorporated by reference, whera the
document is kept, and how it will be
accessed if needed by the facility or
requested by the reviewing agency. In
addition, facility owners or operators
are reminded to take note of submission
requirements of specific regulations
when determining what niaturinis to
provide nn agency for review ns il mav
not be necessary to submit all parts of
an ECP to a particular agency.
As discussed previously, this
guidance t:ontains a series of matrices
designed to assist owners and operators
in tho plan consolidation process and in
the process of ensuring and
documenting compliance with
regulator)' requirements. The matrix in
Attachment 2 to this guidance displays
areas of current regulations that align
with the suggested elements contained
in this guidance document. When
addressing each element of the ICP
outline, plan drafters can refer to this
matrix to identify specific regulatory
requirements related to that element.
The matrices in Attachment 3 to this
guidance display regulatory
requirements as contained in each of the
regulations listed in the NRT policy
statement above (which are applicable
lo many facilities} along with an
indication of where in the suggested ICP
outline these requirements should be
addressed. If a facility chooses to follow
the ICP outline, these matrices can be
included as Annex 8 to a facility's ICP
to provide Ihe necessary cross-reference
for plan reviewers to document
compliance with various regulatory
requirements. To the extent that a plan
deviates from the suggested ICP outline.
plan drafters will have to alter the
matrices to ensure that the location of
regulatory requirements within the ICP
is clearly identified for plan reviewers.
Integrated Contingency Plan Elements
Presented below is a list of elements
to be addressed in the ICP and a brief
explanation, displayed in italicized text,
of the nature of the information to be
contained in that section of the ICP.
Attachment 1 presents the complete
outline of the ICP without the
explanatory text. As discussed
previously, the elements are organized
into three main sections: plan
introduction, core plan, and response
annexes.
Section I—Plan Introduction Elements
1. Purpose -ind Scope of Plan Coverage
This section should provide a brief
overview of facility operations and
describe in general the physical area,
and nature of hazards or events to
which the plan is applicable. This brief
description will help plan users? quickly
assess the relevancy of the plan to a
particular type of emergency in a given
location. Thin section should ri!*o
include u lint of which re°ulati<>ntii) art
bet tie addressed in the ICP.
-------
23646 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 109 / Wednesday. June 5. 1996 / Notices
2, Table of Contents
This section should clearly identify
lhe structure of the plan ond include a
lixl of annexes. This will facilitate rapid
use of the plan during an efijtergency.
3. Current Revision Data
This section should indicate the date
that the plan was last revised to provide
plan users with information on the
currency of the plan. More detailed
information on plan update history (i.e.,
a record of amendments) may be
maintained in Annex 6 (Response
Critique and Plan Review and
Modification Process).
4. General Facility Identification
Information
a. Facility name
b. Owner/operator/agent (include
physical and mailing address and
phone number)
c. Physical address of the facility
(include county/parish/boroygh,
latitude/longitude, and directions)
d. Mailing address of the facility
(correspondence contact)
a. Other identifying information (e.g., ID
numbers, SIC Code, oil storage start-
up date]
f. Key contaci(s) for plan development
and maintenance
g. Phone numbers) for key contacts)
h. Facility phone number
i. Facility fax number
This section should contain a brief
profile of the facility and its key
personnel to facilitate rapid
identification of key administrative
information.
Section II - Core Plan Elements
1. Discovery
This section should address the initial
action the person(s) discovering an
incident will take to assess the prod/em
at hand and access the response system.
Recognition, basic assessment, source
control (as appropriate), and initial
notification of proper personnel should
he addressed in a manner that can be
easily understood by everybody in the
facility. The use of checklists or
flowcharts is highly recommended.
2, Initial Response
a. Procedures for internal and external
notifications (i.e., contact,
organization name, and phone
number of facility emergoncy
response coordinator, facility
response team personnel, federal,
state, and local officials)
h. Establishment of a response
management system
{;. Procedures for preliminary
assessment of the situation.
including an identification of
incident type, hazards involved,
magnitude of the problem, ond
resources threatened
d. Procedures for establishment of
objectives and priorities for
response to the specific incident,
including:
(1} Immediate goals/tactical planning
(e.g., protection of workers and
public as priorities)
(2) Mitigating actions (e.g., discharge/
release control, containment, and
recovery, as appropriate)
(3) Identification of resources required
for response
e. Procedures for implementation of
tactical plan
f, Procedures for mobilization of
resources
This section should provide for
activation of the response system
following discovery of the incident. It
should include an established 24-hour
contact point (i.e., that person and
alternate who is called to set the
response in motion) and instructions for
that person on who to call and what
critical information to pass. Plan
drafters should also consider the need
for bilingual notification. It is important
to note that different incident types
require that different parties be notified.
Appropriate federal, State, and local
notification requirements should be
reflected in this section of the ICP.
Detailed notification lists may be
included here or in Annex 2, depending
upon the variety of notification schemes
that a facility may need to implement.
For example, the release of an extremely
hazardous substance will require more
extensive notifications (i.e., to State
Emergency Response Commissions
(SERCs) and LEPCs) than a discharge of
ail. Even though no impacts or
awareness are anticipated outside the
site, immediate external notifications
are required for releases ofCEHCLA and
EPCRA substances. Again, the use of
forms, such as flowcharts, checklists,
call-down lists, is recommended.
This section should instruct personnel
in the implementation of a response
management system for coordinating
the response effort. More detailed
information ofi specific components and
functions of the response management
system (e.g.. detailed hazard
assessment, resource protection
strategies) may be provided in annexes
to the ICP.
This part of the plan should then
provide information on problem
assessment, establishment of objectives
and priorities, implementation of a
tactical plan, and mobilization of
resources. In establishing objectives and
priorities for response, facilities should
perform a hazard assessment using
resources such as Material Safety Data
Sheets {MSDSsJ or the Chemical Hazard
Response Information System (CHRIS)
manual. Hazardous Materials
Emergency Planning Guide (NRT-1).
developed by the NRT to assist
community personnel with emergency
response planning, provides guidance
on developing hazard analyses, if a
facility elects to provide detailed hazard
analysis information in a response
annex, then a reference to that annex
should be provided in this part of the
core plan.
Mitigating actions must be "•_'„. ed to
the type of hazard present, for example,
containment might be applicable to an
oil spill (i.e., use of booming strategies)
but would not be relevant to a gas
release. The plan holder is encouraged
to develop checklists, flowcharts, and
brief descriptions of actions to be taken
to control different types of incidents.
Relevant questions to ask in developing
such materials include:
• What type of emergency is
occurring?
• What areas/resources have been or
will be affected?
• Do we need an exclusion zone?
« is the source under control?
* What type of response resources
are needed?
3. Sustained Actions
This section should address the
transition of a response from the initial
emergency stage to the sustained action
stage where more prolonged mitigation
and recovery actions progress under a
response management structure. The
NRT recognizes that most incidents are
able to be handled by o few individuals
without implementing an extensive
response management system. This
section of the core plan should be brief
and rely heavily on references to
specific annexes to the ICP.
4. Termination ond Follow-Up Actions
This section should briefly address
the development of a mechanism to
ensure that the person in charge of
•mitigating the incident can, in
coordination with the federal or stale
OSC a$ necessary, terminate the
response, In the case of spills, certain
regulations may become effective once
the "emergency" is declared over. The
section should describe how the orderly
demobilization of response resources
will occur. In addition, follow-up
actions associated with termination of a
response (e.g., accident investigation,
response critique, plan review, written
follow-up reports/ should a/so ne
outlined in this section. Plan (trailers
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices
286
may reference appropriate annexes to
ibe 1CP in this section of the core plan.
III — Annexes
Annex 1, Facility and Locality
Information w
a. Facility maps
b. Facility drawings
t. Facility description/layout, including
identification of facility hazards
and vulnerable resources and
population? on and off the facility
which may ha impacted by an
incident
This annex should provide detailed
information to responders on the layout
of the facility and the surrounding
environment. The use of maps and
drawings to allow for quick reference is
preferable to detailed written
descriptions. These should contain
information critical to the response such
as the location of discharge sources,
emergency shut-off valves and response
equipment, and nearby environmentally
and economically sensitive resources
and human populations (e.g., nursing
homes, hospitals, schools). The ACP
and LEPC plan may provide specific -
information on sensitive environments
and populations in the area. EPA
Regional Offices, Coast Guard Marine
Safety Offices, and LEPCs can provide
information on the status of efforts to
identify such resources. Plan holders
may need to provide additional detail
on sensitive areas near the facility. In
addition, this annex should contain
other facility information that is critical
to response and should complement but
not duplicate information contained in
part 4 of the plan introduction section
containing administrative information
on the facility.
Annex 2. Notification
a. Internal notifications
b. Community notifications
c. Federal ana state agency notifications
This annex should detail the process
of making people aware of an incident
(i.e., who to call, when the cali must be
made, and what information/data to
provide on the incident). The incident
commander is responsible for ensuring
that notifications are carried out in a
timely manner but is not necessarily
responsible for making the notifications.
ACPs, Regional Contingency Plans
(RCPsi, and LEPC plans should be
consulted and referenced as a source of
information on the roles and
responsibilities of external parties that
are to be contacted. This information is
important to help company responders
understand how external response
officials fit into the picture. Call-down
lists must be readilv accessible to ensure
rapid rcypnrtsu- Notification lists
provided in the core plan need not be
duplicated here but need to be
referenced,
Annex ,1. Response Management System
This annex should contain a general
description of the facility's response
management system as well as contain
specific information necessary to guide
or support the actions of each response
management function (i.e., command,
operations, planning, logistics, and
finance) during a response.
a. General
If facility owners or operators choose
to follow the fundamental principles of
NIIMSICS (see discussion of annexes
above}, then they may adopt NIIMS ICS
by reference rather than having to
describe the response management
system in detail in the plan. In this
section of Annex 3, planners should
briefly address either 1) basic areas
where their response management
system is at variance with NIIMS ICS or
21 how the facility's organization fits
into the NIIMS ICS structure. This may
be accomplished through a simple
organizational diagram.
If facility owners or operators choose
not to adopt the fundamental principles
of NIIMS ICS. this section should
describe in detail the structure of the
facility response management system,
Begardless of the response management
system used, this section of the annex
should include the following
information:
* Organizational chart;
» Specific job description for each
position;*
• A detailed description of
information flow; ana
« Description of the formation of a
unified command within the response
management system.
b. Command
(1) List facility Incident Commander
and Qualified Individual (if applicable)
by name and/or title and provide
information on their authorities and
duties.
This section of Annex 3 should
describe the command aspects of the
response management system that will
be used (i.e., reference NIIMS ICS or
detail the facility's response
management system). The lacation(s) of
predesignated command posts should
also be identified.
'OPA 90 planning raquinmtflU far nurir.s
transfer facilities (3J CFR SS4.I033S require job
description] for each ipill management leant
[number regard'eu ofih* rwponw minagemcm
systtrn employed by ih« ttcilily.
{2> Information (i.e., internal and
external communications).
TYiw section of Annex 3 shnuld
address haw the facility will
disseminate information internally fi.t
to facility/response employees) and
externally (i.e.. to (he public). For
example, this section might address ht
the facility would interact with local
officials to assist with public evacuatic
and other needs. Items to consider in
developing this section include press
release statement forms, plans for
coordination with the news media,
community relations plan, needs of
special populations, and plans for
families of employees.
(3) .Safety.
This section of Annex 3 should
include a process for ensuring the safet
of responders. Facilities should
reference responsibilities of the safety
officer, federal/state requirements (e.g.,
HAZWOPERL and safety previsions of
the ACP. Procedures for protecting
facility personnel should be addressed
(i.e., evacuation signals and routes,
sheltering in place).
(4) Liaison—Staff Mobilization.
This section of Annex 3 should
address the process by which the
internal and external emergency
response teams will interact. Given that
parallel mobilization may be occurring
by various response groups, the process
of integration (i.e., unified command)
should be addressed. This includes a
process for communicating with local
emergency management especially
where safety of the general public is
concerned.
c. Operations
(1) Operational response objectives
{2} Discharge or release control
(3) Assessment/monitoring
(4) Containment
(5) Recovery
(6) Decontamination
(7) Non-responder medical needs,
including information on
ambulances and hospitals
(8) Salvage plans
This section of Annex 3 should
contain a discussion of specific
operational procedures to respond to an
incident. It is important to note that
response operations are driven by the
type of incident. That is, a response to
an oil spill will differ markedly from a
response to a release of a toxic gas to
the air. Plan drafters should tailor
response procedures to the particular
hazards in place at the facility, A
facility with limited hazards mav have
relatively few procedures. A larger more
complex facility with numerous hazards
is likely to have a series of procedures
-------
28648
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No, iQy / Wednesday. June 5, 1990 / Notices
designed to address the nuances
associated with each type ofincidrnt,
d. Planning
[1J Hazard assessment, including
facility hazards identifi
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 109 / Wednesday, funo 5. 1996 / Notices
2884
ruqtiinnimils (e.g.,
mainlantinr.H. tenting, in-hviise
inspections, wA;oj>t' duiectian, site
security. t:nntuinmunt. fnil safe
enaintiitrtHjf) that are required in
ciml
g. J'hono number Tor kuy coniactfs)
h. Facility phone number
i. F.icility fax number
Section II — Core Plan Elements
1. Discovery
2. Initial Response
a. Procedures for internal and external
notifications {i.e.. contact, organization
name, and phone number, of facility
emergnncy response coordinator, facility
response team personnel, federal, state,
and local officials)
b. Establishment of a response management
system
c. Procedures for preliminary assessment of
the situation, including an identification
of incident type, hazards involved,
magnitude of the problem, and resources
threatened
d. Procedures for establishment of
objectives and priorities for response to
the specific incident, including:
(1) Immediate goals/tactical planning [e.g.,
protection of workers and public as
priorities)
(2) Mitigating actions (e.g., discharge/
release control, containment, and
recovery, as appropriate)
(3) Identification of resources required for
response
e. Procedures for Implementation of
tactical plaa
f. Procedure for mobilization of resources
3. Sustained Actions
4. Termination and Follow-Up Actions
Section Ill-Annexes
Annex 1. Facility and Locality Information
a. Facility maps
b. Facility drawings
c. Facility description/layout, including
identification of facility hazards and
vulnerable resources and populations on
and off the facility which may be impacted
by an incident
Annex 2. Notification
a. Internal notifications
b. Community notifications
c. Federal and state agency notifications
Annex 3. Response Management System
a. General
b. Command
(1) List facility incident CommnnUcr and
Qualified Individual {if rfpplicnbluj by
ndmo and/or titl« and provide
information on their iiuthorilms and
dutios
(2) Information (La., internal .ind extcrn.il
communications)
(3) Safety
(4i Liaison—Staff mobilization
c. Operations
(l) Opfirationa! response objectives
[2i Discharge or release control
(31 Assessment/ monitoring
(4) Containmnnt
(5) Recovery
(6) Decontamination
(7) Non-responder medical needs including
information on ambulances and
hospitals
(8! Salvage plans
d. Planning
(1) Hazard assessment. Including facility
hazards identification, vulnerability
analysis, pnontization of potential rinks
(2} Protection
(3] Coordination with natural resource
trustees
(4) Waste management
e. Logistics
(11 Medical needs of rasponders
(21 Site security
(3) Communications (internal and external
resources)
(4) Transportation (air. laad, water)
(5) Personnel support (e.g., meals, housing,
equipment)
(6) Equipment maintenance and support
f. FLnance/procurement/administration
(1} Resource list
(2) Personnel management
{3J Response equipment
(4) Support equipment
(3) Contracting
(6) Claims procedures
(7) Cost documentation
Annex 4. Incident Documentation
a. Post accident investigation
b. Incident history
Annex S. Training and Exercises/Drills
Annex 6. Response Critique and Plan Review
and Modification Process
Annex 7. Prevention
Annex 8. Regulatory Compliance and Cross-
Reference Matrices
BllUMO COO€ ««W»-«>
-------
Attachment 2; ICP Development Matrix
to
09
Ol
o
ICP Of IMM*
RCRA(WCFllp»rt
J64.Subp.rtD.40
OR pert U9,
Subpirl D, ud 40
CPR27»J2)
EPA'i Oil Pollullon
Pftvcnlton
R«|ulillo«
(40CFRpirt 112)
USCG-FRP
(M CFK part 154)
DOT/RSPA-FW
(49 CFK pirt 1W)
OSHA Eimifciicy
Action Ha QJ
(» CFB 1910.3*{»»
ind Procui Sihty
(» era i»io.n»j
OSHA HAZWOPtR
(2V CFK 1»10.120)
StclloD I - Plan iMrwhtcllaa Htmtmi
1. furpott mil (top* of plan
cover»(r
2. Table of cgalcnU
3, Current rtvUloa dMt
4. Ctncrtl hdlUy
IdtMilkMloii lnt*nn*llra
». FKUUjrunw
b. O*ot r/optr»lur/ • j«ti(
c. PJi>»lc»t tddrttt tad
dlrccllau
d. MiUlniiddmi
e. UlhcridcnUrytng
Infomullon
26451
265.51
imsubxi)
»4J««»
265SJ(»)
I79.ja»X2Kl>
1 12.20(!i)
ApptadliP
F1J
PI4
Fl.»
F1J
1 !2.aO(hXl)
FIJI
rxo
II2.20(kX2»
us.
F1.0
H2.2(XhK2)
OJ^^)1
lojocuj
I015(»X6)
i
m in
L94 IIXbXD
!W.ll3{iXl)
A-l
194.11J(lM2)
IM.11J(||)(3J,(4J
A-I
IM.II3(a)(l)
3*»KI>'
19(11)
273{d|
i)1
PXW
qKD
CAA RMP
<40CFRp»rt«S)
1 All riuiiom refer ID pan IVIOunhsi aihcr*nc
' Allouiiuni refer 10 J9 CFR 1910.120 unleii atteiwue noted
' All cimiaiu ic let IB put 154 unlcu oihcnritc nettd.
-------
ICP Clcmcnii
t Kt j conUO(l) tor pl*B
1 dtrdapnmiMd
[ nutalcouct
g. i*hoot number for key
coaUclM
k. 1-iciUfy plww ourobtr
L FatlUly fti number
Section II • Core flM Ekocnu
1. UUtovtry
1. ltJtl»l rcipooM
M. PtoccduTtttot Inltrotl
tad tilt real noltAtiUooj
k EiiabUikiBCiilafi
capo OH mMtgancal
juncture
,,,r
t. Pnliniin«ry KutMnttal
RCRA (40 CTB fat
JM.SubfurlD.W
Cl B ftn 16J,
Subjwrt 0, MMi 40
CFH 27VJ2)
264.52U)
265.3 Z(d)
2I9.SMbXZKiv»
264 JS
265 55
2T9.«(lbK5)
msKixmv
26S,S6<*KIMI)
219J2X6MtXA),(B)
2MJ6(<1KI|.(2>
26S-56,(2J
mS2.$abX2j^iii)
2M.S6(bMi:)
16S.S6«b).(c)
17V,SKbK&X»)4iii>
EPA'i Oil FolluUon
Prcvtnllon
KcguUtloo
<40 Oft pan 112)
•
P1J
n.i
II2.20(hX«
yu.l, F1.&2
II2.20(h!(7Xi>
FIJ.6
n.7
IU2D(hKIHiii)
H2.20(hKJNUi)
1 12 20(h)(3M"i)
H2JO(hK3Kiv»
FU
F1J.J
II220(hXIMv)
II2.2(KhXJX*)
ri3^
II22U(l>K3)(u>
H2.1U(hX4)
»^,iM.2
USCG-FRP
|MCtKj,irtI54)
10)500(1)
lOlSIiNI)
IMJ(liWXi>
l035(bX2Mii)
I03XbXJXi>
HBSlbXJXW
1026
1035(iX3)
IOM(bXIXi>
IQ15(«XZ)
IOMJbX3Xiii>
IO]I(bX3)
10MtbX«Xi)
OOT/RSPA-FRf
(4»C>Kp*rllW(
IQ4.l07(d)(l)(iii)
A-3
A-2
IM.I07(d)(IKii)
IM.i I»bX2J
A-l.A-llbXl)
A-l
A-S
!9J.I07(dXIXv)
A-4
A-»
i94.IO?(dXIMi>)
OSHA Emcrgtncjf
ACIIOQ FlltlU
U»CFKl»10.}Mii))
»nd froccu !>>(ct^
C9CKRI9IO.il'*)
M(lXlXvi)
II9(n)
38UX2KD
3«i)l2Xii)
119(n>
38(»XWv)
38(.X2)(vi)
38(iXlKO
38dX3Ki')
I6S
38[iK2)(,l
3K«)(2Xn)
OSHA HA2WOPEK
(2»CrftI*l0.12U)
K t) Jfi 68)
1
OXlXiii)
(pMIMiiKC)
(qXIXiii)
HX2Xi»)
(pXSKiiXI)
(HXJMu»
(1X2NM)
(pMKXuKIl
(qX2)(U)
fIX2)(i>.«uJ
(P)(8KnMA),(H)
<4K2Ki).Hi)
(qM3Xi)
WHi)
tlX3«v,i)
(p)(8KnMA}
tc|!(2Xi)
(^inMNi.niK
t)i,9V4)il)iui)
6g.«5(«XIX'n)
4*9JjaKINil
-------
i
«
ICPEitniciiU
d EilibUihratnl of
ohjft ilru uul prioritkt for
rupoow, IncUuUni:
(I) ImmMlUU |o*li/
ucllciJ pUnnlng
Ok Kwpomt rt»urc«
c. ImplenHnUllon of
ficllcalpUn
f. MoMlkuilonefraourcts
3. Suiulncd itilttiu
4, TtrmlmUon »nd follow-up
•clkxu
RCKA(40CFRp*n
IM, Subp.rt D, 40
CVK part US,
Subptn D, 4J>d 40
CFR 219JJ)
264 S2(c>
261 «(e)
279.S2fl)X2Xv)
!M.52(e)
24J52W)
27952(bK2M*)
2M.52(c)
26i.J2(c)
279.S2(bX2X«>
264,35(0
Section III -Annul
I. Ktclllly «nd tot»Uly
InTormilloo
l. FadUljrmapl
b. Facility duwlnji
r. Kidlily dociipliuii/
lijoul
KPA'l OH Poilullon
PramMlan
RcgvUllon
(40CKRp«rl IIJ)
12 20
1 12 20(hX7)
112 20(hX7)
FI.7.I
I !2.20(hX7)
U2,20(hX7)
lll,20(bX2!
FI.2,
FIJI
N220(hKIKviii)
FI.9
1122ft.hXIKviii)
H220(hX9)
FI.9
FI.»
USCG-FU*
'i3 CKR p»n JJ4)
!033(bX2)
IOJi(bX3Xi^).(vl
10»(bX2Xiii>
HHJtbXJ)
IOJS(bX4H»')
1035^x2X>ii)
lOMfliXM
l035(bM4Kiii)
!03S(bX3)
IOJS(M3)
1035(1)
uoHcXn
I035(t)
IOJ.1(bK4)
DOT/KSPA-FKF
(49 CFR part 1*4)
IM l07(JHIK»i)
!94.107(dXIXv)
I94J07WXIKV)
A-3
IM.liS
194.l07(dXlXv)
A-l
A-3
194.IU7(ilMlX*t
A-9
194 l07(dHJXD
194.111
194,li3
J8(iX2)(iii)
tKHA llAZWOfEH
(2VCFK1VIO.UO)
(tR2)lvi).(»inl
lp)rtX'i){F).{H)
(p)ISXivXF)
(qXJM").lm).
-------
ICP ilcmoal*
1. NolUUlUon
*. loUnul
b. Community
C FedcraJ *nd *Uit igtncy
3. HopooK nuni(tmeal
MruelHK
a. Gtnmtl
h. CMBOMUf
HI P«dlU> Inddtnl
pffMWMHlcy utd Quiiltaf
MiiUiMl
(2) IrfMnMlM
«)Silct7
(41 ii-' —
HCRA(40CFHp»rt
2M,Sid>pulD,«I
CFRp»nJ*J,
HubpvtD,«td40
CFEJ7VJJ)
764 5 W)
MJ57(d)
n9.5J(bX2Hlv)
M4JitiK!M2)
26IJ6<»XIM2)
2»Jl2(bK6K*XA).(8)
IM.iXdXD.a)
i65.56«IXl),a)
imSftbl^Jd^A^B)
2M.52(c)
165JKO
2».5«l>K2Xili)
264.5S
26355
mszcbxs
26456
II2.20(hX3X»)
F1J.4
H2.20(hX3Xiv)
HJ.20(liXIXi|
F1JJ
ll2.20(hXlKiii)
112.2lHhKIKvi)
ll2,20lhX3Xvu}
U2.2(XK)(3Kviii)
Fl.3.3
USCG-FRP
OJCfBjwnlM)
1035(bXlXi)
!035(bKlX»)
l(05(eX2>
l035(bKIXO
laJJlbMIXii)
J03S(cK2>
l03S(bXIXi)
!035(hXIK»)
mwn
lOJJttMJXiii)
1035(bX3XiiiJ
1024
!03J(liX3Xiii>
l033
A-l
OSKA Emergency
Actloa Plilu
(21 CFK I9IO.}»(»))
•a4 Ifonu s«f«i j
a*CFKI*I0.1t»»
I9(n»
6MbXD
iS(t>X<>
27J«»
II«Hn)
l65(bKI)
I19(»)
38(»X2Xvi)
JJtaXSXui)
38(.X2H.)
38(i)(2Xiii)
3«tiXIXi»)
3UlX4)
J8(«X2M*<>
USIU HA7.WOFKK
U»CI-K IV10.1ZQ)
IX3X1XB)
dlCNn)
(pKSXJiKI)
(pK*Xi»XAH2)
(
-------
ICPEJemtnli
c. Optnliem
(I) Ropoou objerti.u
(J) DUctitr|« »r rtlciM
conirol
Monitorial
(4) ConUinnunl
(S) RnBvtiy
14) DttODlamlniUon
(?) Non-rtipandtr
mottcll oe«t»
(I) Silvif c pluu
d. PUnnlng
mHnirdMKMmcol
111 *——
RCEA (40 CVX pj^t
164,Subp4rtD,«
CrRp*rt26S,
Subpul D, uul 40
CfRlTIJ!)
*
I
26i.S6(£)
264 56(b)JO.(d).(0
279 52(bX6Xii).(m).
26556(e|
SSSB—
KPA'iOllPolluUon
pttnollpn
RtguUUan
(«CFRp»rtH2)
1 !2.20(t>XJKi)
II22(XhX7Kiv)
1 12 20(hX3X'«>
H.74
l2,M(h)(IXvii)
1220ChX)Xi)
I l],200>X?Kii')
UllOChXIXi)
I2MhX1Xiii!
H.M
H320(hH7Xiil)
FI.74
U220(hK4)
1 l2.2(XhX5)
ru.i.ru.i
f 1.1.1, ri.u
USCG-PRP
iMJ{bX)XiH)
!033(bX2Kiii)
103J(bX4Xili)
!035
(pXlX")(DMF.).(K)
(qX2j(i»).(v),i>i)
(A A KMP
(40 CKR pat I Mr
1
1
68. 20-16
6S.M
6167
-------
ICJ* Elements
(3) CoordJiuUaq with
•Mural rtjoupct trance*
(4) W«itt muimpnitiil
t. LoglUla
(I) Mtdiul need*
(J) SIICMCiirity
(3) L'ammunJciliMU
14) TrmniporuUoo
36«.S%>
26S,S6(|)
'm «
II2U)(hKIMi-ii)
M2-2(XhKJKv)
H220(hK3Hvii)
n.u
H2.20(hXIX»)
uianiiXJKvii
II2.20(I,X»)
HJJ
Pl.1,1
H2,20(hX]»»>
IIZ.20(bXl)(iv)
lia.2D(hXlK<«i)
IIJ.1
11,7.1
II2.JO(hXlK»)
1 !2.20(hK3Hv)
H.J.4
USCG-FRP
(33 CKH p*rt ISO
1030(0
IOMO.XS)
101S(l>MJ)(iii)
I035(c)(j)
I03S(«H3>
103Xb)(3Mw)
IOJ$(eKM
1057
1028
!03S
IOJ5(l.)(JXiv)
DOT/HSPA FW
(4»CHtp«nlW)
194.101(0)
I94.l07(dXIM»)
IW,l07(dXlH»)
A-2
l94.I07(JX!X*!ti)
I
OSMA tmtrjcncy
Action Pltm
(2fCrK1910Ji(»}|
aad PitKeu S«ftl]r
(»Cmi«J0.1l9)
3«iK2Xi«)
M(»a)
HXeXlXiii)
165(b)
38<«KS)(0
1IWJM4I
»9K«H»)(K>
(qX^Hii)
CAA RMP
UOOKpwlW)
f
6195uHIH«i>
«895u«2)
31
D.
n
n
CU
^w
pa
&
Z'
m
i
*-».
o
a>
»-«
p
t~*
Q
Ol
U1
-------
s
8
D
QD
05
Ul
OS
1 ICT Elements
tit HttpoOK f qulprutnl
(4) Support equipment
(S) Coatncibif
(6) Ctiirai ftoftiant
|7J Coal documtnlillon
4. incUcol doaim*QUtkm
*. PuU-«cUUn[
lnw|l|»lloo
b, huMral hUlory
t. T ruining (ud turrlmMiflk
«. Hapoiut crllUj uc and pl«n
re»lt » Md madtfkcilMi pra
265.52
264.56(1)
265.56
II2.20lhXIK»l
M2.M(hX3Kvi)
F1JJ
r I.T.I
FJ.3J
Fl.1.1
il2.2«hX3XB)
II2.2^W(4!
Fl.4.4
H2.20(hK8)
112.21
fl J.2, Fl.J J
112.20C|>
USCG-FW
(UCFRpartlM)
l035(bK2Mii)
!
I94.IH
IM 119
1
U^eXJXiU
IHXra)
HS(eXJXH)
JKtXSI
I!4<1KI)(.)
H 9(1)
H9(oXl)
OS HA HA2WOPKR
(29CFR 1110.120)
(!X2X«»
(p>(8Kn)(K)
(IK2X»)
(pXBXuMI)
(qXIXi)
(IXiXi't
(pHSXlii)
(qX<»
(IX2M«)
(pX^XiiXl)
(qX2X»
ilUJjliiD
(pXINiiXC)
(qK3l(nO
t A* HMP
(4B CFH pul U)
t
6860
6881
fit.42
«895(aM3)
6I»S(»K4)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No, 109 / Wednesday. June 5. 1996 / Notices
28637
ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES
ICP Citaiion(s)
RCRA (40 CFR Part 264 Subpart O', 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart 0:. 40 CFR Part 279.52(b)l)
26J.52 Consent of contingency plan; i
(a) Emergency response actions."
ID) Amendmenis to SPCC plan. j
(c) Coordination with State and local response parties* j il.2.b:lll.3.a.
(d) Emergency coordinatQf(s) j lf.2.a; 111.2.
(e) Detailed description of emergency equtpment on-site it.2.d.(3): il.2.e; li_2.f; in.3.f.(i);
Follow-up report „.
265.52 Content ol contingency plan:
(a) Emergency response actions."
(5) Amendments to SPCC plan.
(c) Coordination with Stale and local response parties 7 ..
(d) Emergency coordinators)
(e) Detailed description of emergency equipment on-site
111,6.
11.2.3;
ll.2.a; ill.2; lli.3.b J2J,
ti.2.c; HI.3.c.(3).
il.2.c; lll.3.c.(3).
H.2.a; IH.2; Ill.3.c.(3).
lll.3,e.(2); HI.3.c.(4).
(!) Evacuation plan if applicable _
265.53 Copies of contingency plan.
265.54 Amendment ol contingency plan
265.55 Emergency coordinator
265.56 Emergency procedures:
(a) Notification
(b) Emergency identificatkxVcharactenzabon _
(c) Health/environmental assessment
(d) Reporting
(e) Containment
(f) Monitoring .....
(g) Treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes
(h) Cleanup procedures:
(1) Disposal ...»
(2) Decontamination .„. — .....
(i) Follow-up procedures
(j) Follow-up report _ ....
279.52(b)(2) Content of contingency plan:
(i) Emergency response actions*
(ii) Amendments to SPCC plan.
(;ii) Coordination with State and local response parties* ,
(iv) Emergency cooitSnator(s) .......
(v) Detailed description of emergency equipment on-srte
11.4.
III. 4. a.
li.2.b; Hi.3,a.
ll.2.a; III.2.
III.3.M4).
}; IH.3.f.(3);
III. 6.
H.2,a: lll.3.
».2.a; H1.2: lll.3.b.{2).
H.2.C; Ill.3.c.f3}.
ll.2.a; HI.2; Ili.3.c.(3).
H.4.
(vi) Evacuation plan if applicable ,
(3) Copies of contingency plan.
(4) Amendment of contingency plan
(5) Emergency coordinator —
(5) Emergency procedures:
(i) Notification -....
(ii) Emergency pdentificatkWcharactenzatyon....
(iii) Heaitn/environmental assessment
(ivj Reporting
(v) Containment
(vi) Monitoring
(vii) Treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes .
(viii) Cleanup procedures:
(A) Disposal
(B) Decontamination
l.3.f(4).
ttl.8.
; ui.2: »l.3.b.(2J.
Ilia; IH.2; lll.3.c.(3).
lll.3.c.(2>; lll.3.c.(4!.
lll.3.b.{3): III J.c.(3).
ni.3.d.(4).
-------
28658 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices
ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES—Continued
ICP Citation(s)
fix) Follow-up report_„
EPA's OH Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CFR tl2)
ii2.7(d)(i) Sirong spill contingency plan and written commitment of manpower, equipment
and materials,1"-"
1 i2.20(g) General response planning requirements
ii2.2Q(ri) Response plan elements
(i) Emergency response action plan (Append* F1.1):
(i) identity and telephone number olqualified individual (Ft,2.5)
(ii) identity of individuals/organizations to contact if there is a discharge (F1.3,1>
(lit) Description of information lo pass to response personnel in event of a reporutx
spill (Fi .3),
(iv> Description of facility's response equipment and its location (F1.3.2), ,
{v) Description of response personnel capabiliBea (F1.3.4)
(vi) Plans for evacuation of the facility and a reference to community evacuation plans
(Ft.3,5).
(vii) Description of immediate measures to secure the source (F1.7.J)
(viii) Diagram of the facility (Fl.9).~
(2) Facility information (F1.2. F2.0J
(3) Information about emergency responses:
(i) toe ntrty of private personnel and equipment to remove to tha maximum extent prac-
ticable a WCO or other discharges (Ft,3.2, Fi.3.4).
(ii) Evidence of contracts or other approved means for ensuring personnel and equip-
ment availability.
(Hi) Identity and telephone of individuals/organizations to be contacted in event of a
discharge (F1.3.1).
fry) Description of information to pass to response personnel in event of a reportabte
spill (F 1.3.1).
{v} Description of response personnel capabilities (F1.3.4) .......— „
(vi) Description of a facility's response equipment, location of the equipment, anc
equipment testing Duties of the qualified individual (F1.3.6) _.
(4) Haiard evaluation ; lll-3.c.(4M5); lll.3.e.{
i; 111.3; lll.3.e.(5); III J.f.(2).
JI1.3.M3).
.C: «.2.d.(i); l.2.e; HU.b-c;
; IH.3.f.
; Hl.4.b.
11.1.
U.cM; 11.3; 11.4.
ll.3.c.(5H6)
lf.3.c.(2); ill.
ll.3.e.(6); III JS.
11.1. b.
; Hl.3.d.(4).
11.5.
.2.
.3; U.a; l.4.
.a; 111.1.
l^.d(3); Nl.3.e.(3); H1.3J.(1); lll.3.f.
fl.3.e.(6).
U.b; 1II.3; lll.3.f.(2).
2,
-2.C.
.1.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday. June 5, 1996 / Notices
28659
ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES—Continued
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
2.0
1.6.2 Automated Discharge Detection
Plan Implementation
I.7.T Response Resources lor Small Medium, and Worst Case Spills
1.7.2 Disposal Plans
1.7.3 Containment and Drainage Planning
Sell-Inspection, Drills/Exercises, and Response Training:
t.a.l Facility Self-inspection
1.8.2 Facility Drills/Exercises
1.8.3 Response Training ,
Diagrams ,
Security
Response Plan Cover Sheet ...
ll.i.
11.2.
».2.d.(3); ll.2.f;
ill,3.!.(3>-(4).
Ill 3 c (5HS)' I"
11.2 d; ill 3 c (4)
m.3.e.(6).
III.5.
III.5.
1.4- ill i a-c
III 3 e (2)
1.4 b' 1 4 C' I 4 tV
1CP Citation(s)
lil 3,c.(3)- til 3 d (2)' 11131(1)-
3 d (4)
ill 3 d (2)
ill i
USCG FRP (33 CFR part 154)
154.1026 Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual ............................... _ .................
154.1028 Availability of response resources by contract or other approved means ...................
154.1029 Worst case discharge ...... [[[ „ ....................
154,1030 General response plan contents:.
(a) The plan must be written in English.
(b) Organization of the ptan ' » ...... ...... . ............. ... ..... . ...... _.,.., ........ . ....................... „ ......... ..„,..
(cj Required contents,
Consistency with NCP and ACPs ............ . .............................................. „.., ............. . ........ .
154.1035 Significant and substantial harm facilities:
(a) Introduction and plan content ................................ _ ................................... . .......................
(1) Facility's name, physical and mailing address, county, telephone, and fax .... ..... — ..
(2) Description of a facility's location in a manner that could aid in locating the facility
(3) Name, address, and procedures for contacting ttie owner/operator on 24-hour
basis,
(4) Table of contents . ....... .._.,.... ................. . ................ . ............................................. . ......
(5) Cross index, if appropriate [[[ . ................. . ........
(6) Record of change{s) to record information on plan updates ........ _ ................. . ..........
(b) Emergency Response Acton Plan:
(1) Notification procedures:
(i) Prioritized list identifying person(s). including name, telephone number, and
role m plan, to be notified in event of threat or actual discharge.
(ii) Information to be provided in initial and follow-up notifications to federal, state,
and local agencies.
(2) Facility's spill mitigation procedures " .... [[[
(i) Volume(s) of persistent and non-persistent oil groups.
(n) Prioritized procedures/task delegation to mitigate or prevent a potential or ac-
tual discharge or emergencies involving certain equipment/scenarios.
(iii) List of equipment and responsibilities of facility personnel to mitigate an aver-
age most probable discharge,
(3) Facility response activities15 ..... ....... ; ............... . ............ . ................. „ ................... . ......
(i) Description of facility personnel's responsibilities to initiate/supervise response
until arrival of qualified individual.
(ii) Qualified individual's re3ponsibi«ies/auif»rity .„ .................................. ..... ........ .-
(HI) Facility or corporate organizational structure used to manage response actions
(iv) Oil spill response organization(syspiS. management team available by contract
or other approved means.
(v) For mobile facilities that operate in more than one COTP, the oil spill response
orgart!zaticn(s)/spiii management team in the applicable geographic-specific ap-
pendix.
(4) fish and wildlife sensitive environments ........ . [[[
{i) Areas of economic importance and environmental sensitivity as identified in the
ACP that are potentially impacted by a WCD.
(ii) List areas and provide maps/charts and describe response actions.
(«} Equipment and personnel necessary to protect identified areas ....... ............ .....
{5) Disposal plan ................... .................. ..... ............ . ........................................ . ............ ...
{c) Training and exercises ........ . ............. . .......... ..... ........ ..... ........ ........ ............. .......... ...... .......
(d) Plan review and update procadures ................ ... ...... ................ ........... . ............. ..... ........ ...
(.e) Appendices [[[ . .................... ..... ...... ...
(1) Facility specific information [[[ ... .........
(2) list of contacts [[[ . .................................. ..........
(3) Equipment lists and records ............................................. . ......................... . ........ ........
(4) Communications plan ............................................ . ............... . ...................... . .......... ....
(5) Site-specific safety and health plan ............... . ...... . .......... . ...... ...... ................. . ............
tl.2.a; tll.3.b.(l).
!H.3.f or 111.8: lll.3.f.(5).
H),3.d.— (5)-
ll.2.c; tl.2.e-f; 11.3; 11.4; lll.3.c.(3).
11.1; 11.2.
11.2.
!l.2.b; 11.3; l!l.3.a; lil.3.b.(2H4); lil.3.c;
H.2.d.(3); lll.3.c.(4)-(5); IH.3.e.(6); l!l,3.l.(i)-{2);
iil.3.f.(5).
ll.2.d.(3).
lll.i.c; UI.3.d.(iH2l).
H.2.C.
ll.2.e-f; lll.3.f.(3); lll.3.c.(1H5).
lll.3.d.(4).
111,5.
111.6,
-------
28860 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, tune 5. 1996 / Notices
ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES—Continued
1CP Crtat-anisj
(6) List ol acronyms and definitions,
(71 A geocrapnic«sf*cific appendix.
154. lO-sQ Specif* requirements tor substantial harm tacilities.
154,1041 Specific response information to be maintained on mobile MTH facilities.
154,:045 Groups I-IV petroleum oils,
154.1Q47 Group V petroleum oils.
154.1050 Training „ , Iil.5.
154.1055 Drills 111,5.
154.IQ57 inspection and maintenance of response resources llt.3.e.(6).
154.1060 Submission and approval procedures.
154.1065 Plan revision and amendment procedures , ...
154.1070 Deficiencies.
154.1075 Appeal Process.
Appendix C—Guidelines for determining and evaluating required response resources for facility HI.3.M3).
response plans,
Appendix D—Training elements for oil spill response plans HI.5.
DOT/RSPA FRP (49 CFR Part 194}
194,101 Operators required to submit plans.
194.103 Significant and substantial harm: operator's statement 111,8.
194.105 worst case discharge lll.3.d.{l).
194.107 General response plan requirements:
(a) Resource planning requirements j lll.S.d.
(b) Language requirements.
(cj Consistency with NCP and ACP(s) .._ , lli.3.d.(3); 111.8.
(dj Each response plan must include:
(1) Core Plan Contents:
(i) An information summary as required in 194.113 1.4; 111.1.
194.113(a) Core plan information summary;
(1) Name and address o* operator „.... I.4.&; l.4.d.
<2) Description of each response zone l.4,c.
(b) Response zone appendix information summary.
(i> Core plan information summary I.4; lll.i.
(2) Name-OS"A*A"O Submission and approval procedures „... III.6,
194.121 Response plan review and update procedures III.6.
«Apenolj!"S*A*AecomrnerKJed guideines for the preparation of response plans 1.2.
Section 1—information summary l.4.b-c; ll.2.a; 11.2.1; II1.8.
Section 2—Notification procedures _ tl.2.a; III.2: IIU.b.(2); lll.3.e.{3).
Section 3—Spill detection and oo-scene spin mitigation procedures 11.1; II.2.9—r; lll.3.c.(2).
Section 4—Response activities ll.2.b; lll.3.b.{1).
Section 5—List ol contacts , _. O.a.
Section 6—Training procedures 111.5.
Section 7—Drill procedures _ 111.5.
Section 8—Response plan review and update procedures — IN.6.
Section 9—Response zone appendices — „ „ II.2J); II3: lll.1.a-c; 111.3.
OSHA Emergency Action Plans (29 CFR I9i0.3fi{a|) and Process Safety (29 CFR 1610.118)
1910,38(3} Emergency action plan:
(I) Scope and applicability „. „ „ „... lll.3.c.(i); lll.3.d-
(2) Elements:
(i) Emergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments , 11.2; H.2.C.* lll.3.b.(3); UI.3.C.
(ii) Procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant oper- 11.2; ll-2-c; 11.2.e; III.3.C.
ations before they evacuate.
(IK) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency evacuation has been H-2.a; Hi.3.b.(2); lll.3.b.(3); lii.3.c; in.4.
completed.
(iv) Rescue and medical duties (or those employees who are to perform tf»em lll.3.b.(3): Hf.3,c; l!l.3.c.(7); lll.3.e.(i).
(v) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies „ Il.2.a; I1I.3J).
(vi) Names or regular job tiBes of persons or departments who can be contacted for 1.4.1; ll_2.a; m.3.b.(2); Jil.3.b.(4).
further information or explanation of duties under the plan.
(3) Alarm system'« HJ.a; lll.3.c.(3>; lll.3.e.<3).
(4) Evacuation _ H^.d; lll.3.b.(3J; lll.3.c.(3J; lll.3.d: iH.3.d.(i}.
(5) Training lll.3.e.(5); lll.S.
1910.119 Process safety management of highly hazardous chemica& i
{e)(3)(ii) investigation of previous incidents j 111.4; lll.4.b.
(e)(3)(in) Process hazard analysis requirements ~ i lil.3.e.(3).
ffl)(l}0) Employee training in process/operating procedures I W.5.
(j)(4) (nspectjon/testing of process equipment i Hl.3.e.(6).
(jM5) Equipment repair , )ll.3.e.(6),
(I) Management of change(s) , j H'.S.
(m) incident investigation , i lll.4.a.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 109 / Wednesday. June 3. 1996 / Notices
28661
ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATOR* CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES—Continued
tCP Gtation(s)
Personnel roles, lines al authority, and communication
p) Emergency recognition and prevention
(iv) Safe distances and places of refuge
fv> Site security and control ......................
(vi) Evacuation routes and procedures
(yii) Decontamination procedures ,.„.,
(viii) Emergency medical treatment and response procedures
(ix) Emergency alerting and response procedures
(x) Critique of response and follow-up.
Cxi) PPE and emergency equipment....
(3) Procedures for handling emergency incidents:
(i) Additional elements of emergency response plans:
(A) Site topography, layout, and prevailing weather conditions
(8) Procedures for reporting incidents to local, state, and federal government
agencies.
(ii) The emergency response plan shall be a separate section of the Site Safety and
Health Plan.
(iii) The emergency response plan shall be compatible with the disaster, fire, and/or
emergency response plans oi local, stale, and federal agencies.
(rv) The emergency response plan shall be rehearsed regularly as part of the overall
training program for sKe operations.
(v) The site emergency response plan shafl be reviewed periodically and, as nec-
essary, be amended to keep it currant with new or changing site conditions or Infor-
mation.
(vi) An employee alarm system shall be installed in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.165
to notify employees of an emergency situation; to stop work activities if necessary;
to lower background noise in order to speed communications; and to begin emer-
gency procedures.
(vii) Based upon the information available at time of the emergency, the employer
snaif evaluate the incident and the site response capabilities and proceed with tha
appropriate steps to implement the site emergency response plan.
1910.120(p)(8) Emergency response program:
(i) Emergency response plan.
(ii) Elements of an emergency response plan:
(A) Pre-errwrgency planning and coordination with outside parties ....
(8) Personnel roles, lines of authority, and communieafJon ...
(Q Emergency recognition and prevention
(0) Safe distances and places of refuge
(E) Site security and control ,
(F) Evacuation routes and procedures
(G) Decontamination procedures
.
111.1.c.
ll.2.a; I
3.a.
III.5.
1.2.
H.2.d.
.4.ft II.2J3; ll.2.
lll.3.d.
.4.t lL2.b; IHJ.c;
1.1; Ili.7
ll,3.b.(3); 111 J.d(2J
ll.3.d.{2); IH.3.M2)
lll.3.b.(3).
; fl.2.a; ll.2.f: 11.4;
il.2.b; ni-2.c:
-------
28662
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 109 / Wednesday. June 5, 1996 / Notices
ATTACHMENT 3: REGUWTOBY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES—Continued
ICP CiiatiorfsJ
(J) Critique o! response and follow-up ,
(Kj PPE and emergency equipment ....
11.3; 111.4; iu.4.a; Hl.B.
(iii) Training , - ,
(iv) Procedures (or handling emergency incidents:
(A) Additional elements of emergency response plans:
(1) Siie topography, layout, and prevailing weather conditions
(2) Procedures for reporting incidents to local, state, and federal govemmen
agencies.
(8) Th« emergency response plan shall be compatible and integrated with the disas
tef, fire and/or emergency response plans of local, state, and federal agencies.
;C) The emergency response plan shall be rehearsed regularly as part of the overaf
training program for site operations.
(0) The site emergency response plan shall be reviewed periodically and, as nee
essary, be amended to keep it current with new or changing site conditions or infor
mation.
<£) An employee alarm system shall be installed in accordance with 29 CFR
1910,155.
(F) Based upon the information available at the time of the emergency, the employe
shall evaluate the incident and the site response capabilities and proceed with the
appropriate steps to implement the site emergency response plan
19i0.120(q) Emergency response to hazardous substance releases:
(1) Emergency response plan
(2) Elements of an emergency response plan:
(i) Pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties ......
(ii) Personnel roles, lines of authority, training, and communication .
(Hi) Emergency recognition and prevention ,
(iv) Safe distances and places of refuge ,.
(v) Site security and control
(vi) Evacuation routes and procedures
(vii) Decontamination procedures _ -,..
(viii) Emergency medical treatment and response procedures
(«) Emergency alerting and response procedures
(x) Critique of response and follow-up .
(xi) PPE and emergency equipment ....
(xiij Emergency response plan coordination and integration
(3) Procedures for handling emergency response:
(i) The senior emergency response official responding to an emergency shall become
the individual in charge of a site-specific Incident Command System (ICS).
{ii} The individual in charge of the ICS shall identify, to the extent possible, ail hazard-
ous substances or coocfitions present and shaD address as appropriate site analysis,
use of engineering controls, maximum exposure limits, hazardous substance han-
dling procedures, and use of any new technologies.
(iii) Implementation of appropriate emergency operations and use of PPE ,.—
(iv) Employees engaged in emergency response and exposed to hazardous sub-
stances presenting an inhalation hazard or potential inhalation hazard shall wear
positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus while engaged in emergency
response.
(v) The individual in eharg* of th* ICS shall limit the number of emergency response
personnel at the emergency site, in those areas of potential or actual exposure to
incident or site hazards, to those who are actively performing emergency operations.
(vi) Backup personnel shall stand by with equipment ready to provide assistance or
rescue.
(vii) The individual in charge of the ICS shall designate a safety official, who is knowt-
edgaatJe in the operations being implemented at the emergency response sHa.
(viii) When activities ara Judged by the safety official to be an IDLH condition and/or to
involve an imminent danger condition, the safety official shall have authority to alter,
suspend, or terminate those activities.
(ix) After emergency operations have terminated, the individual in charge of the ICS
shall implement appropriate decontamination procedures.
IH.3J.(3).
11.5.
HM.c; Ul.3.
U.2.a; 111.2.
Hi.3
H.2.d; U.2
III.3.I.
l,4,f; lt.2.b; ll.2,c: III-2.D: l'l(.2.c; 111.3.
IU.3.d.
1.4.1; ll.2.b; IH-2.b; HI.2.K lll.3,b.{4); lll.3.e.(
IM.-UI.7.
IH.3.C.(6).
11.2.3 lll.3.e.(7);lll.3.«.(l).
11.2: 11.2.3; li,2.f; 11.4; IIIJ2; lll.2.a; l!l.2.b; III
IH.3.d.
11.3; 111.4; llU.a; 111.6.
lll.3.e.(6); lll.3.f.(3): Hl.3.d(2): IH.3.«
HI.3-f.C3).
:ll.3.e; III. 8.
1.2.6; III.3; Hl.3.a; Ili.S.b;
IH.3.e.(3).
I.2.C; U.2.d; ill.3,c.(3).
H-2.d; IIAe; III.S.c;
ll.3.fc
); 111.3.0
.A, III.3.e.(5).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices
28663
ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES—Continued
ICP Citation^)
(x) When deemed necfjsary tor meeting the tasks al hand, approved sell-contained
compressed air oreathing apparatus may be used win approved cylinders Irom
other approved self-contained compressed air breathing apparatus provided Wat
such cylinders ai9 ol the same capacity and pressure rating.
(4) Skilled support personnel.
(5) Specialist employees.
(6) Training
(7) Trainers.
(8) Refresher training.
(9) Medical surveillance and consultation.
(tO) Chemical protective clothing.
(11) Post-emergency response operations.
111.5.
EPA's Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 88)
6820—36 Offsite consequence analysis
68 42 Five-year accident history
68 50 Hazard rgview .
68.60 Incident investigation ...„,...
88.67 Process hazards analysis
68.81 Incident investigation
&8.95(a) Elements of an emergency response program:
• (i) Elements of an emergency response plan:
-------
28664 Federal Register / VoJ. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices
Dated- April 18. 1996.
Elliutr P Laws,
Assistant Administrator. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, U.S.
En '.•imnmsntal PnteetioifAgency.
Dated: April 22. 1996.
Rear Admiral lanes C Card,
Chief, Marine Safely and Environmental
Protection Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard.
Dated: April 18. 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safely.
Research and Special Programs
Administration, U.S. Deportment of
Transportation.
Dated: April 18. 1998.
John B. Moran,
Director of Pol icy. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Department of Labor,
Dated; April IS. 1996.
Thomas Gemhofcr,
Associate Director, Offshore Minerals
Management. Mineral* Management Service,
Department of the Interior.
1FR Doc. 36-13712 Fiitd 6-4-96; «:45 ami
•ILLMS coot tseo to- P
-------
'NKT
INCIDENT COMMAND
SYSTEM/ UNIFIED
COMMAND
Technical Assistance
Document
MANAGING RESPONSES TO
OIL DISCHARGES AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE RELEASES UNDER THE NCR
-------
Acknowledgments
This document is a product of the National Response Team (NRT), the organizaiion of 16 federal agencies
responsible for national planning and coordination of oil and hazardous .substance emergency preparedness and
response. The NRT and Regional Response Teams (RRTs) are cited in various federal statutes, including Superfund
Amendments and Reauinorization Act - Title III and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. NRT and RRT
authorities and responsibilities can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 300) National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. The NRT is Chaired by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Coast Guard serves as Vice Chair.
Responsibility for undertaking this project was delegated by the National Response Team to the NRT Response
Committee, which developed this report. The NRT acknowledges the federal agencies participating on the Response
Committee for their contributions.
We invite your comments or concerns on the use of uiis guidance in plannir-g for responses to dischrages o." oil or
rehases of hazardous substances. You may send your comments to:
National Response Team
(Mail Code 5101)
NRT Response Committee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460
National Response Team:
Chair:
Environmental Protection Agency
Vice-Chair:
U.S. Coast Guard
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Justice
Department of Transportation
Department of He^Oi and Human Services
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Energy
Department of Labor
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
General Services Administration
Department of the Treasury
-------
National Response Team
ICS/UC Technical Document
Managing Responses to Oil Discharges
and Hazardous Substance Releases under thejNCP
Technical Assistance Document
PURPOSE
The purpose of this National Response Team (NRT) technical document is to
educate all responders of the National Response System (NRS) to the organizational
management concept of Unified Command as it fits within the Incident Command
System for emergency response. Unified Command is a necessary tool for
effectively managing multi-jurisdictional responses to oil spills or hazardous
substance releases. The NRT and Regional Response Teams (RJRTs) hope that this
document will increase awareness, improve integration and training, help develop a
common language and response culture, and help achieve consistent, effective, and
efficient response among members of the NRS.
H. INTRODUCTION
Managing a major response — especially a complex, multi-jurisdictional response
— is c". of the most important challenges facing the NRS. Unified Command (UC)
is designed to address this challenge. The UC provides a management structure to
facilitate cooperative participation by representatives from the federal government.
state and local governments, and the responsible party. The FOSC retains the
ultimate decision-making authority.1 UC is a recognition that the most effective
responses involve all parties working together to bring their respective expertise to
the response. An Incident Command System (ICS) led by a UC maintains a
cooperative environment, promoting overall efficiency in the emergency response.
Unified Command allows all parties with jurisdictional or functional responsibility
for the incident to work together to develop a common set of incident objectives and
strategies, share information, maximize the utilization of available resources, and
enhance the efficiency of the individual response organizations.
A UC is an essential component of the ICS and a management process for
responding to a discharge/release of oil or hazardous substances. It forms the
framework for an effective and efficient response management structure that brings
1 This decisionmaking authority is explained in §300. !05(cX3) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which states that the OSC and the RPM are "primarily responsible for directing
response efforts and coordinating ail other efforts at the scene of a discharge or release," Subpart B - Responsibility and
Organization for Response, §300.105 of the preamble to the NCP explains further that "The OSC always retains the
authority to take ail actions that he or she deems appropriate," retaining "ultimate decisionmaking authority.*
-------
JCS/UC Technical Document
togeiher the Junctions of [he federal government, state and local governments, and
the responsible party, [t integrates all re^ponders inco a coordinated. [CS, Thus, the
L'C represents an evolution in response management by emphasizing cooperation
among participants at all levels as the best means to achieving cleanup.
The NRT and KRTs encourage the use of the mosi effective national response
management system to address discharges or releases by providing an integrated and
flexible mechanism that emphasizes cooperation and coordination for dealing with
complex responses. To that end, this document describes procedures to ensure
coordination between federal, state, and local governments and private organizations
when responding to oil discharges and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants, as required in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300.110). An Incident Command System led
by a Unified Command {hereafter referred to as an ICS/UC) is the most
effective system to manage federal, state, and local response" *o complex multi-
agency, mulri-jurisdictional incidents. This mechanism is necessary to effectively
utilize the resources of the parties responsible for the releaseVdischarge, the federal
agencies in the NRT/RRT structure, and the affected state(s) and local governments.1
This document describes an ICS/UC that is consistent with the NCP and meets the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements of 29 CFR
1910. 120(q). The document also provides a discussion of the essential components
of an ICS with the Unified Command added. It describes the relationship between
the UC and the incident command systems used by some state and local
governments and the private sector. As described in greater detail below, the UC
cannot stand alone; it must be fully supported by an ICS organization.
Th'e ICS identifies five functional areas that are essential for successful response
operations: Command. Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance (see Appendix
A). Traditionally, the command function has been handled by a single incident
commander (supported by a command staff), who directs the efforts and receives
input from the four supporting areas. The ICS is typically implemented at the local
level by first responders (fire, police, emergency management agencies). An ICS
may be expanded to include a Unified Command at the helm for complex responses
that often require multi-agency resources on the federal, state, and local levels.
EL DNCroErtTCC^MANDSYSTEM/UNflHED COMMAND
The ICS provides a modem organizational structure for responding to oil spills and
hazardous substance emergencies. The ICS enables integrated communication and
planning by establishing a manageable span of control. As mentioned, the ICS
divides an emergency response into five manageable functions: Command,
Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance (Figure 1).
The Exxon VaJdez Oil Spill Report to the President from the NRT, May 1989. p. 10.
-------
National Response Team
fCS/UC Technical Document
Figure 1 - Typical [rodent Con^mand Management Structure3
In responses involving responders from a single jurisdiction, the ICS establishes a
format for comprehensive response management. When an incident involves more
than one agency or jurisdiction, however, the ICS framework of a single-jurisdiction
incident command allows expansion to a multi-jurisdictional response. The modular
organization of the ICS allows responders to scale their efforts to the needs of the
incident. As a component of an ICS, the Unified Command provides the
organizational management tool to coordinate the effective involvement of the
various agencies. It creates the link between the organizations responding to the
incident. The ICS/UC brings together the "incident commanders" of all major
organizations involved in the response. The Unified Command can be described by
a triangle, wherein the member placed at the top of the triangle has the final
authority for the response (Figure 2). Under the NCP, the Unified. Command
typically consists of the FOSC, the state on-scene coordinator, and the incident
commander of the responsible party (RP).
The NRT and RRTs recognize local government as a key emergency response
vehicle to protect public health and the environment for most emergencies under the
jurisdiction of '.he MRS. Frequently, the first responders to arrive at the scene of an
incident will be emergency response personnel from local fire and police
departments. Further, these organizations possess specific authorities such as
evacuation and shelter-in-place orders and arrest powers. They are familiar with the
ICS and are likely to immediately establish an incident command. As federal, state.
J "Unified Command: The Mechanism for Ensuring a Comprehensive. Coordinated Response," 1995 International
Oil Spill Conference. .
-------
National Response Team
fCS/UC Technical Document
and private party responders arrive on-scene. they would participate in a response by
developing a UC within she established 1CS.
Figure 2 - Typical Unified Command4
STATE
This usually includes ioeal auiAonoes at well.
The FOSC is "primarily responsible for directing response efforts and coordinating
aJ! other efforts at the scene of a discharge" (40 CFR 300.105 (c) (3)). Where the RP
is identified and participating in the response, the FOSC will typically "direct" the
response by overseeing the RFs actions.3 Where the RP is unable or unwilling to
accomplish the response, the NCP provides for the federal government to more
directly manage response operations through the FOSC.
One of the greatest aspects of the ICSAJC is the flexibility for information to flow
between the various functions of the management organization. Other entities that
may have jurisdictional responsibilities in the incident are given an avenue to
establish input into the decision-making process (Figure 3), Information flows both
horizontally and vertically, significantly enhancing the effectiveness of the response
management structure. In addition, the ICS/UC allows the response organizations of
each of the incident commanders to be incorporated into the overall response
management structure.
4 "Unified Command: The Mechanism for Ensuring a Comprehensive, Coordinated Response." 1995 International
Oil Spill Conference.
5 Under certain circumstances, however, when a discharge poses a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of
the United States, the FOSC is required to initiate and direct appropriate response activities (40 CFR 300.130).
-------
National Response Team
ICS/VC Technical Document
^Figure 3 - Relationship beiween .;.„
Command
and [he Incident Command System*
OPERATIONS
PLANNING
LOOI3TIC3
FINANCE
rv.
This usually (ndudtti local nitftorKte* •• w«0.
The Unified Command is a larger accommodating structure that ensures that
responsibilities are defined, efforts and resources are combined, and maximum
efficiency is achieved within a cooperative environment. While the NCP mandates
that the FOSC has ultimate authority to direct the response, an ICS led by a UC
maintains a cooperative environment, promoting overall efficiency in the emergency
response.
FUNCTIONS OF A UNIFIED COMMAND
The functions of a Unified Command are to:
-------
National Response Team
fCS/UC Technical Document
y Establish incident priorities
•/ De,slop incident objectives
•/ Develop strategies to achieve objectives
•/ Assign objectives to response structure
^ Review/approve incident action plans
•/ Ensure integration of response organization
•/ Establish protocols,
V. ADVANTAGES OF A UNIFIED COMMAND WITHIN AN INCIDENT COMMAND S YSTEM
An ICS led by a Unified Command has been used to manage federal, state, and local
responses to complex multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional incidents. The guidelines of
the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (which were issued by the
Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency) describe the ICS as "the system to achieve the
coordination necessary to carry out an effective and efficient response."
Advantages to using the ICS/UC include:7
-------
National Response Team
ICS/UC Technical Document
Agency (EPA) or the U.S. Coast Guard (LJSCG) to coordinate and direct responses.*
The NRS is composed of the NRT, RRTs, FOSCs, Area Committees, Special Forces
and related support entities.10 Under the Oil Pollution Ace of 1990 (OPA), the Area
Committees are required to include state and local governments in the planning
process and are encouraged to invite the private sector to participate. The
organizational concept of the NHS (for response activities) is depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 4 - National Response System Concepts: Response1'
F*d*r*l
A**l*tane*
•quired?
f
1 National Raapoita* Trnrna
^
•If
ill Rational Raaper
1
. . „ ^_
•«i i « •>» tome !•• i Mm mi
,^
IM T«am * 1
^
y«* w
: ^X^ oac \^
; .i^ "s,^
: >^ SUM" BF >v
: (UnMad Command, u d»v«K>p*d
t
3PMU1 Fonsa.
RERT
9flC
DRO
SUP4ALV
1l, 1«*, %M. M. No. i
* The Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) may provide ihe FOSC in cases where a
response involves a facility or vessel under one of the departments' jurisdiction, custody, or contror.
10 NCP. Appendix 1 to Part 300. section 2.0 59 FR 47477.
1' 40 CFR. §300.105 (e) (1) figure la.
-------
nesponse t earn
ICS/UC Technical Document
VI3. Structure of an Incident Command System/Unified Command under the HCP
For the ECS/UC to be effective, the following elements should be !n place well
before an incident occurs:
•/ The structure must be formalized in the planning stages and must be accepted
by all parties concerned;
V Specific functions and responsibilities must be well defined;
^" Individuals must be designated for each function and the reporting mechanisms
defined and accepted;
V The participating organizations must make a committed effort to respond as a
team;11
-------
National Response Team
ICS/UC Technical Document
An ICS/UC should remain flexible and should include !he components illustrated in
Figure 3, although not all incidents may be la,-^ enough to warrant a fully structured
system. Positions in the ICS need not be staffed by separate individuals in every
response. Depending on the situation, an individual 'may play more than one role.
specific tasks may be elevated if the situation demands. For example, the incident
commander may also serve as the site safety officer, or the planning and logistics
function may be performed by the same individual or staff.
The NCP does not attempt to prescribe specifically how a particular organization or
individual fits within a given response structure. The FOSC and the Area
Committee are responsible for developing, adopting, and implementing a response
management system, through the ACP. A NUMS-based ICS/UC can be used as the
model for response management in the ACP to ensure an effective response.
Because key players differ from area to area, hov>w,er. Area Committees must have
flexibility to adapt the ICS/UC to be effective •« each specific area.
In addition, when developing an ICS/UC, it is important to recognize that the key
players in the response management system maintain a separate internal management
infrastructure during a response; they do not relinquish agency authority,
responsibility, or accountability.
The following items should be considered when developing the Area Contingency
Plans:
o a specific incident. iO/UC is an important
concept to practice as part of response exercises and include in local and area
contingency plans. Such exercising and planning will facilitate coordination and
-------
ivu.uuuii.1 ncif/onse i earn
fCS/UC Technical Document
cooperation between federal, state, focal, and private party responders when the
ICSAJC is implemented incident specifically,
VOL IMPLEMENTATION
The key to successful implementation of an ICS is planning, understanding and
exercising, and addressing many of the issues prescribed in the regional contingency
plans, or area contingency pfans, long before an incident occurs. There are three
keys to effective implementation of the £CS with a UC:U
/ Learn the ICS. The NRT encourages all responders to learn the ICS. The
better it is understood, and the more familiar it is, the easier it will be to form a
common structure when demanded by an incident,
/ Start early In the game. As soon as two organizations are determined to have
responsibility for, or in. a response, implement the ICSAJC. Decide in advance
of an incident how the ICSAJC will be implemented in potential situations.
S Practice. Periodic trainingAJrills are crucial to providing training and role play
opportunities in a non-threatening way.
The implementing system and structure to be used during a response are to be set by
the Area Committees and tested and refined by regular drills and exercises. They
should be consistent with the general ICSAJC identified above. The NCP does not
define the specific response management system to be used for the implementation
of an ICSAJC although the functional elements are implied in several places. Use of
a NDMS-based ICSAJC as the model for response management in the-ACP can be
helpful in ensuring an effective response.
Because most responses chat require an ICS with a UC will be multi-agency and may
be multi-jurisdictionaJ, all participating organizations must understand the
complexities of coordination. The question is not "Who is in charge?" but "How can
all responders work together for the best results?" The goal of the ICS is to enhance
response efficiency by eliminating duplication of effort and lessening response time
(and consequently response costs). The best way to reduce confusion and conflict is
to anticipate, problems and develop possible solutions. This requires ,«*cnario-based
planning and exercises with constant communications and coordination among all
participants, working together as a team.
DC. ICSA/C IN ACTION
The ICSAJC provides a general structure that must be modified to fit the demands of
each response. For instance, the CWA (OPA §4202) requires that the FOSC direct
14 Texas General Land Office, Oil Spill Prevention & Response Division, "ICS Unified Command1' Video, 1995.
10
-------
National Response Team
ICS/UC Technical Document
discharges posing substantial threat to the public health and welfare. Under
CERCl A, however, although ^ as in every " 3e of a response under the NCP —
ihe FOSC retains the authority to direct the response, the FOSC may choose to
monitor rather than command the actions of the' RP and/or the state/local
governments, providing support and technical advice/direction, where appropriate.13
An important application of the ICS/UC concept to a response action can be seen in
federal responses to major disasters. When a major disaster is declared by the
President of the United States under the Stafford Act, in response to a significant
event such as an earthquake or hurricane, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) activates the Federal Response Plan (FRP) to facilitate the overall
federal response. Although the purpose of this document is not to explain the FRP,
the Plan serves as an excellent example of the power of the ICS/UC.
When the FRP is activated. Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10, Hazardous
Materials, may be activated as welt. This activation of ESF #10 automatically brings
the NRT/RRT response management system (identified in the NCP) into
coordination with the FRP. The resources of the NRT/RRTs become a component
of the FRFs response management structure and the NRT/RRTs are responsible for
resource coordination to address discharges or releases of oil or hazardous
substances. In aJl Regions, the EPA RRT Co-Chair is the same person as the ESF
#10 Regional Chair.
Although the overall disaster coordination falls under the FRP, the FOSC is
responsible for managing the response to a discharge, release, or other "hazardous
materials" threat to the environment. This expanded ICS/UC coordination process
expands the ability of the FOSC to respond to oil discharges or hazardous substance
releases while providing coordination with all 28 federal departments/agencies of the.
FRP. The ICS/UC coordination process provides expanded federal assistance to the
states and maximizes federal response capabilities. FRP activation also affects how
the response is funded, for example, by OPA, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Stafford Act, and/or
state funds.
IJ 40 CFR §§300.135, 300.105 (c) (3). 300.305
11
-------
ICS/UC Technical Document
X. CONCLUSION
The ICSAJC is designed to be flexible in order to lend itself to integration at the
decision-malting and operational levels, and to expansion and contraction when
needed. Complex and/or rnulti-jurisdictional incidents will call for an ICS led by a
(JC. A commitment to cooperation by all involved parties is necessary for the
creation of an improved organizational and operational process. Federal, state, and
local officials should jointly plan and conduct simulation exercises to ensure an
effective and efficient response to major discharges of oil or releases of hazardous
substances.
Appendix B presents an example of successful use of the ICS/UC ?/ the Colonial
Pipeline Emergency Response in Reston/Hemdon, Virginia.
12
-------
Hationai Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/UC Technical Document
Appendix A; Key Terms in an ICS/UC Response
COMMAND - Although the FOSC has overall responsibility for the management of the response, the
Command sets objectives and priorities and defines the JCS organization for the particular response. Even
if other positions are not assigned, the federai OSC will always be designated. In some instances, the
unified command may designate a spill manager to direct the response and coordinate the activities of the
functional managers.
The four functional managers are responsible for the following tasks:
OPERATIONS: Directing tactical actions to meet incident objectives, administering staging
areas, and identifying and utilizing resources.
PLANNING: Collecting, evaluating, and displaying incident information, preparing an action
plan and health and safety plan, evaluating disposal options, planning for demobilization, and
maintaining documentation.
LOGISTICS: Providing adequate service and support to meet incident or event needs, including
supplies, first aid. food, communications, ground support, transportation and vehicle
maintenance.
FINANCE: Tracking incident costs, personnel and equipment records, claims, procurement
contracts, and providing legal expertise.
SPECIAL FORCES - Personnel and resources provided by the following special teams are available to the
FOSC if required; the National Strike Force (USCG), Environmental Response Team (EPA), Radiological
Emergency Response Team (EPA), Scientific Support Coordinators (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in coastal areas and EPA inland). National Pollution Funds Center (USCG), District
Response Group (USCG), and the U.S, Navy Super* isor of Salvage (Department of Defense).
COMMAND STAFF - Depending on the magnitude and impact of the discharge or release, the FOSC may
appoint a person(s) who will be in charge of spill management, public affairs, media relations.
Congressional liaison, legal advice, etc. This person(s) will report directly to the FOSC and will support,
advise, and keep the other key functional managers informed. In disasters where criminal activity is
suspected, the Federal Bureau of Investigation may take the lead in investigation, public affairs, media
relations, etc. If disaster causes multiple deaths and health concerns, representatives from the Department of
Health and Human Services will play a key role.
A-13
-------
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/UC Technical Document
Appendix B: Unified Command at Work
Region 3 — Colonial Pipeline Emergency Response1
Resion/Hemdon, Fairfax/Loudon Counties, Virginia
March 28 - April 9, 1993
Summary of Response
The Colonial Pipeline spill was the result of a rupture in a 36-inch oil pipeline, which extends along the east
coast from the Gulf of Mexico to Maine. The pipeline is operated by the Colonial Pipeline Company (the
responsible party). The regulation of the pipeline's operannn falls under the jurisdictic i of the U.S.
Department of Transportation. The rupture caused No. 2 heating oil to be ejected 100 feet into the air. and
the oil flowed from the break to the Sugarland Run creek, a tributary of the Potomac River. Of the
estimated 477,436 gallons of oil that were discharged into the environment, 372,498 gallons of oil were
finally recovered from 407,436 gallons of oil/water collected. An additional 100,000 gallons of oil were
recovered directly from the inactivated pipeline.
The National Response Center received the first report of the spill and contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office in Baltimore, Maryland. A Coast Guard duty team was dispatched to the scene and
the U.S. EPA Regional Response Center was contacted. The Regional Response Center dispatched an EPA
On-Scene Coordinator-(OSC), who quickJy arrived at the scene, along with a technical assistance contractor.
Upon arrival at the scene, the OSC was apprised of an incident command system led by the Fairfax County
Fire and Rescue Department and the responsible party, who by then had deployed four booms to recover the
oil from Sugarland Run. It was immediately apparent that the scope of the discharge extended beyond the
boundaries of Fairfax County and potentially beyond the boundary of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
exceeding the response capabilities of die local and state authorities. The OSC assumed control of the
response and began the transition Jo an Incident Command System/Unified Command (ICS/UQ, bringing in
representatives from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, the District of Columbia, and
local municipalities, to join representatives of the Colonial Pipeline Company who were already on site.
Recognizing the magnitude of the incident, the OSC requested assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard
Atiantic'Strike Team, who arrived at the scene with specialized equipment and response personnel. Later,
personnel and equipment from the Coast Guard Gulf Strike Team were also utilized.
Forty-one residents in the area of Sugarland Run were voluntarily evacuated from their homes. An
information hotline was set up by the responsible party, and die media were kept regularly informed of the
progress. The Unified Command relied on information from ftc;-i assessment teams, as well as on
Summarized from the Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Report, EPA Region 3.
B- I
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the KS/UC Technical Document
observations from overflights of the area. The OSC established a communication eemer at the staging area
to facilitate information exchange between the field and the unified command center.
As the oii flowed from Sugariand Run into the Potomac River, additional personnel from the Coast Guard
Strike Teams. EPA. and contractors of the responsible party were mobilized to the site. The Co-Chair of the
Region 3 Regional Response Team (RRT) mobilized to the scene and established an incident-specific RRT
to help coordinate activities.
As oil containment and recovery continued, there were several challenges to be faced. Heavy rains prior to
and shortly after the rupture caused flood waters to spread the oil over a much larger area and into
residential and low-lying areas. Saturated soil conditions, combined with wooded areas, hindered efforts to
move oil recovery equipment to the containment area. The distance of half a mile from the containment
area at the mouth of Sugariand Run to the nearest access for tanker trucks had to be spanned. This was
achieved with the help of the U.S. Marines, who provided a helicopter to airlift equipment safely and
efficiently. Meanwhile, boats were used to ferry tanks of skimmed oil up the Potomac River to tanker
trucks for removal.
With the water quality of the Potomac River affected, a downstream municipal water intake operated by the
Fairfax County Water Authority was temporarily shut down, and arrangements were made to borrow water
from surrounding jurisdictions for affected residents.
The flood waters carried the oil further, making the oil layer thinner and more difficult to recover. This
resulted in an increased amount of water recovered with the oil. The Commonwealth of Virginia agreed to
decant the water from tanker trucks and return the water to Sugariand Run. This increased the efficiency of
the oil recovery operations.
Natural resource trustee agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-(NO AA), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and state resource staff assisted the UC with: regular reports on the effects of tlie
oil on fish, wildlife, and ether environmental resources; systematic shoreline evaluations; and the collection
and rehabilitation of affected wildlife. Protocols and telephone numbers were established for the public to
report distressed vegetation, marine life, and wildlife, NOAA provided aeriaJ photography of the spill area.
Natural resource trustee agencies also gathered data and initiated natural resource damage assessments;
relevant data were also provided to the OSC to assist in planning and carrying out response activities.
The responsible party was in charge of operations at the site and participated actively and cooperatively in
the other functions of planning, logistics and administration, and finance. When the responsible party was
unable to arrange for additional cleanup equipment, the OSC began to draw on federal resources.
Arrangements were made with the Coast Guard Gulf Strike Team to supply additional skimmers. At the
B-2
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the /CS/C/C Technical Document
same time, personnel from the Navy Supervisor of Salvage were mobilized to the scene, together with
additional booms and skimmers.
Representatives from the Fairfax and Loudon County Water Authorities sampled residential wells in the
area and collected gas samples from several points around the spill to determine contamination and to
address citizens' concerns,
The National Park Service temporarily closed Great Falls National Park because of strong diesel fuel odors,
and the Northern Virginia Park Authority partially closed Algonkian Park because of the spill and the
presence of heavy equipment, the command post nd several tanker trucks in the area.
On the second day of the response, a Joint Information Center (JIC) was established, staffed by public
information representatives from each of the federal, state, and local responders. The JIC ensured that all
media releases were approved by each agency represented in the Unified Command, and that interviews
were always led by the Unified Command. The JIC conducted frequent briefings (five daily initially,
diminishing in frequency over the course of the response), and issued press releases and information flyers.
The Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia was given an update when he visited the site and held a
press conference.
The Coast Guard Atlantic Strike Team developed and implemented the site safety and health plan and
monitored compliance. Other agencies also had their own health and-safety protocols and ensured
compliance.
Several logistical items helped to facilitate coordination efforts. For example, a "quiet room" was
established for the Unified Command officials — a meeting place where decisions could be made free from
distractions. Conducting meetings every two hours for the first 24 hours was crucial for maintaining
communication and progress.
Conclusion
The ICS/UC established by the OSC served to direct cleanup operations without delay. For example, when
the responsible party petitioned the RRT for approval to use a chemical oil coagulant to aid in oil recovery.
the presence of some RRT members at the site and their understanding of the product facilitated a quicker
response from the RRT. Having representatives on scene from all levels of government as well as from the
responsible party facilitated coordination at all levels. In addition, communication between the Unified
Command and the public and media was well orchestrated due primarily to the resources of local
government arid llie use of a JIC. The ability of the Unified Command to reach a cooperative decision
quickly kept response activities moving and ensured that all interests — federal, state, and local — were
B-3
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the fCS/UC Technical Document
be ing considered and protected. A consensus was quickly reached during the few disputes, and the Unified
Command's decisions were actively enforced.
The ICS/UC implemented at the Colonial Pipeline oil spill was the key to successful mitigation operations.
The ICS/UC allowed the OSC to manage and coordinate effectively an emergency response that included
the participation of approximately 40 federal, state, and local agencies. Timely and frequent coordination
by all members of the RUT with ihe responsible party and local representatives greatly enhanced the
recovery of oil and provided a more efficient and cost-effective response. The success of the cleanup
operation and the lack of negative publicity at the Colonial Pipeline spill supports the premise that all levels
of gover -.lent can function efficiently within a group.2
The following is a list of actions taken by the Unified Command at the Colonial Pipeline spill which
contributed to an effective and successful response.
1. Early and continued presence of the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office and National Strike Force
provided continuity throughout the response. Their expertise, knowledge, and the additional
resources they made available were invaluable to the successful management of the response. The
southern sector command center, set up by the Coast Guard (Baltimore) Marine Safety Office to
supervise uownstream recovery operations, relieved the OSC of long-distance management.
1. Early coordination with the RRT played a key role in the success of mitigation efforts by giving the
OSC rapid access to a large supporting team and assisting in the resolution of many problems. The
presence of the Region 3 RRT Co-Chair on site was advantageous for obtaining critical resources,
guidance, and approvals.
3. Having representatives from all levels of government in the Unified Command expedited
coordination efforts with other agencies at all levels.
4. Close anc* early coordination with Natural Resource Trustee agencies ensured that there was no
duplication of effort during the assessment of affected areas, and helped EPA Enforcement in their
efforts with the responsible party. Representatives of these agencies helped the unified command
achieve an integrated spill response and damage assessment and address the concerns of the public.
Kevin Koob et al., "Tbe Colonial Pipeline Spill: A Cas* Study," 1995 International Oil Spill Conference, pp. 473-
478.
B-4
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/UC Technical Document
The following table lists the agencies and organizations that participated in (he response and a brief
description of their duties.
AGENCY
U.S. EPA-Region 3
Technical Assistance
Contractor
U.S. Coast Guard
Atlantic Strike Team
U.S. Coast Guard
Gulf Strike Team
U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office
U.S. Coast Guard
National Pollution Fund
Center
U.S. Navy
Supervisor of Salvage
U.S. Department of
Transportation - Office of
Pipeline Safety
National Transportation
Safety Board
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES
• Federal OSC. head of unified command
RRT Co-Chair, established incident-specific RRT
* Enforcement OSC, delivered Administrative Order and began
enforcement activities against the responsible party
* Public Information Officer, handleu public relations, issued press
releases, coordinated press briefings
Maintained site log book and photo documentation, conducted ambient
air monitoring, responded to citizens' complaints
Provided personnel and equipment, and strategic assessment of oil
containment and recovery operations
Supplied additional equipment and personnel for oil recovery operations
Assisted in emergency response, coordinated response activities,
established and commanded southern sector activities on behalf of the
OSC
Handled the disposal of funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,
cost tracking and documentation
Provided personnel and equipment for recovery operations
Investigated cause of pipeline rupture, inspected repaired pipeline before
return to service
Investigated cause of pipeline rupture
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
B-5
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/VC Technical Document
AGENCY
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES
U.S. Department of the
Interior
Participating member of Natural Resource Damage Assessments
Assisted the OSC in establishing the extent of oiling and
identifying environmental resources at risk
Assisted the OSC in the coordination of oiled wildlife collection
and rehabilitation
Assisted the OSC in evaluating the degree and extent of shoreline
oiling for cleanup decisions
Provided spokespeople to media and public gatherings to explain
impacts to resources and authorities to restore
Delivered timely advice and approval to utilize an elasticizer on a
portion of the spill to improve understanding of this alternative
tool
Served as a liaison between OSC and trustee actions
Assisted OSC in follow-up site visits co decide how. clean is
"clean"
National Parks Service
Participating member of Natural Resource Damage Assessments
Collected information on extent of oiling to fish, wildlife, and
other environmental resources
Participating member of Natural Resource Damage Assessments,
conducted aerial photography of spill area
Served as a liaison between OSC and trustee actions
Assisted OSC through routine reports of oil impacts to the
environment, systematic shoreline evaluations, and collection and
rehabilitation of oiled wildlife
Assisted OSC through routine reports of oil impacts to the
environment, systematic shoreline evaluations, and collection and
rehabilitation of oiled wildlife
B-6
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/UC Technical Document
1 AGENCY _
j U.S. Marine Corps
Virginia Dept. of
Emergency Services
Virginia Water Control
Board
Virginia Dept. of
Transportation
Virginia Dept. of Game and
Inland Fisheries
Maryland Depc, of ihe
Environment
District of Columbia - Water
.Hygiene Branch
Northern Virginia Regional
Park Authority
1 Fairfax County Fire and
Rescue Department
Fairfax County Health
Department
Fairfax County (Board of
Supervisors)
Fairfax County Water
Authority
Fairfax County Animal
Control
Loudon County Fire and
Rescue Department
Loudon County Health
Department
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES
Airlifted pumps and heavy equipment
Initial responder. supplied command post and communications, technical
and logistical advice
Provided response support for affected waterways
Assumed traffic control duties, freeing the police force for security,
supplied sandbags to support pipeline during excavation
Participating member of Natural Resource Damage Assessments
Addressed concerns pertaining to the Potomac River
Participating member of Natural Resource Damage Assessments
Provided access and use of regional park where major oil recovery
operations were conducted, identified areas to protect
First responders who established initial command structure, committed
massive resources including initial containment measures, personnel,
communications, command post, and public information phone line
Addressed citizens' concerns about odors and water contamination in
Fairfax County
Provided personnel from the County Dept. of Public Works, Police Dept.,
and County Attorney's office for support and assistance
Conducted well sampling, apprised responders of conditions at the
Potomac River water intake
Supplied personnel and facilities to collect and treat wildlife affected by
the oil
Supplied equipment and manpower for oil containment and recovery
operations
Addressed citizens' concerns about odors and water contamination in
Loudon Counry
B-7
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/UC Technical Document
AGENCY "
Loudon County (Board of
Supervisors)
Loudon County Animal
Control
Town of Herndon (Town
Director)
Colonial Pipeline Company
BRJEF DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES
Provided personnel from Sheriffs Dept. and Police Dept. to assist in
response operations
Supplied personnel and facilities to collect and treat wildlife affected by
the oil
Supplied personnel from the Dept. of Public Works, Sewer and Water
Dept.. Police Dept., and Town Engineer to assist in response operations
Responsible party, provided equipment and contractor personnel for oil
recovery operations
B-8
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/UC Technical Document
The following diagram depicts the functions of the players in the ICS/UC at Colonial Pipeline Emergency
Response, ""
SPECIAL FORCES
VA (N. VA,
Fx, Ln,
Harden)
MO, DC
COMMAND STAFF
H & S-USCG
Public Rolatloni - EPA
(.•gal - EPA (others)
R*«oure*« Trusto** (DOI,
NOAA)
OPERATIONS
c.f».
USCO • AST, GST, MSO
USAGE
Fx/Ln FAR D«pL
H«mdo«i
EPA
PLANNING
USCG
VA (Env. O«pt»
N.VA, fx, Ln, H»mdon)
MO
DC
C.R
EPA
LOGISTICS
USCG
VA (N.VA, Fx, Ln)
C.P.
EPA
FINANCE
USCG
C.P.
EPA
• NPFC
B-9
-------
National Response Team
Attachment to the ICS/UC Technical Document
Acronyms
AST
C.P.
DC
DO!
EPA
F&R
Fx
GST
H&S
Ln
MD
MSO
NOAA
NPFC
NFS
NSF
N.VA
OSC
RRT-3
SUPSAJLV
CJSACE
USCG
USFWS
USMC
VA
U. S. Coast Guard - Atlantic Strike Team
Colonial Pipeline Company
District of Columbia
LJ. S. Department of the Interior
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fire and Rescue Department
Fairfax County
U. S. Coast Guard - Gulf Striiu. Team
Health and Safety
Loudon County
State of Maryland
U. S. Coast Guard - Marine Safety Office (Baltimore)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollution Funds Cencer
National Park Service
National Strike Force
Northern Virginia Regional Authority
On-Scene Coordinator
Regional Response Team (Region 3)
U, S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Coast Guard
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Marine Corps
Commonwealth of Virginia •
B-10
-------
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA ELEMENTS
The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the risk management program rule shall
submit a single Risk Management Plan (RMP) that includes the information required in §§ 68.155 through
68.185 for all covered processes. A covered process is defined as a process that has a regulated substance
present in more than a threshold quantity as determined under § 68.115 of the rule. The following elements
should be submitted to EPA as specified in § 68.150.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As specified in §68.155, the owner or operator must provide an executive
summary in the RMP, The executive summary should be brief and concise, no more than four pages in
length for sources with one or two regulated substances. Your executive summary should include
descriptions of:
1. The accidental release prevention and emergency response policies at the stationary source.
2. The stationary source and regulated substances handled. This information may be presented in a
paragraph or as bullets. The information should include the following:
* Primary activities (e.g., manufacturer of polyethylene, pulp mill, chlorine wholesaler);
• Use of regulated substances (e.g., chlorine used to produce bleach, treat wastewater,
repackage for sate);
* Quantities handled or stored.
3. The worst-case release scenario(s) and the alternative release scenario(s), including administrative
controls and mitigation measures to limit the distances for each reported scenario. The information
should include the following:
* The scenario (e.g., failure of the storage tank containing 40,000 pounds of chlorine, storage
quantity limited to 60 percent of tank's capacity by company procedures; 10 minute release);
* Distance to endpoint (e.g., under worst-case weather, the substance could travel x miles
before dispersing enough to no longer pose a hazard to the public).
4. The general accidental release prevention program and chemical-specific prevention steps. For
example, you may state that you are in compliance with the OSHA PSM rule and this rule. You
may want to highlight general or specific steps that you believe are key to your prevention program.
These steps may be either technological (e.g., backup systems) or procedural/managerial (e.g.,
improved maintenance or training).
5. The five-year accident history. This should be a summary (e.g., we have had five accidental releases
of chlorine in the past five years; the largest release was 1500 pounds. No one oflsite was injured,
but several houses were evacuated as a precautionary measure during the 10/25/95 and 5/1/96
releases). Do not present the information in a table format.
6. The emergency response program (e.g^ source has an emergency response plan, which has been
coordinated with the community plan. The source hazmat team has conducted joint training and
drills with the local fire department. Mention any public notification and alert systems).
7. Planned changes to improve safety.
-------
1. REGISTRATION: The owner or operator should complete a single registration for the entire
source. The registration should cover all regulated substances handled is covered processes.
1.1 Source identification: These fields indicate the location of the source and should be completed
using street or local road designation. Do NOT use post office box numbers or rural box numbers.
a. Name: This is the name of the source, which may include the name of any parent company.
The name should be specific to the site.
b-f. Address (Street, City, County, State, Zip): This is the location of the source using local
street and road designations. Do not use post office box numbers or rural box numbers,
This k not a mailing address.
g-h. Latitude and Longitude: Latitude is the distance north or south of the equator. Longitude
is the distance east or west of the prune meridian. Latitude and longitude are measured in
degrees, minutes, and seconds. The best tool for determining your latitude and longitude
measurements are U.S. Geological Survey (XJSGS) topographic quadrangle maps.
12 Source Dun and Bradstreet number: This is an identification number that allows your business to
be cross referenced to various business information. Dun & Bradstreet is a service mark for an
agency furnishing subscribers with information as to the financial standing and credit rating of a
business. You may be able to obtain this number from your finance department Not all sources
will have a Dun & Bradstreet number.
13 Name and Dun and Bradstreet Number of corporate parent company (if applicable): These fields
provide information about the source's parent company.
a. Name of corporate parent company (if applicable): The parent company is the corporation
or other business entity that owns at least 50 percent of the voting stock of another
company.
b. Dun and Bradstreet number of corporate parent company (if applicable); This is an
identification number that allows the parent company 10 be cross referenced to various
business information. Not all sources will have a Dun & Bradstreet number.
1.4 Owner/operaton This section contains information about the person who owns or operates the
source. The owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises
a stationary source.
a. Name: This is the name of the person who owns or operates the source. This
owner/operator is the highest ranking company executive on-site. Unmanned sources
should supply the name of the executive responsible for the source.
b. Phone: This is the business phone number for the owner or operator.
c. Mail Address: This is the business mailing address for the owner or operator of the source,
Please use post office box numbers or rural box numbers, as appropriate, and the proper zip
code to correctly identify the owner's or operator's mailing address.
1.5 Name aad title of person responsible for part 68 implementation: This is the person designated
under § 68.15. This item is not applicable to a source with only Program 1 processes.
-------
1.6 Emergency contact
a. NameT This is the name of tlie person who has been designated as the emergency contact
for the source. This person should be knowledgeable about the site and any emergency
plans and be able to mitigate a release, fight a fire, or direct response personnel conducting
such tasks. This person should be an employee (or a contract employee) of the source.
The emergency contact may be the owner or operator of the source.
b. Title The tide or job classification of the emergency contact.
c. Phone: This is the phone number where the emergency contact can be reached during
normal working hours. It is probably the phone number of the source. If the source does
not have a phone number, you may either use the business phone number of the emergency
contact, the phone number of the dispatcher, or the phone number of customer service.
d. 24-hour Phone: This is the phone number where the emergency contact can be reached
during non-working hours. It is probably the home phone number of the emergency contact
or a 24-hour emergency notification "beeper* service.
1.7 For each covered process: Provide the chemical name, CAS number, quantity, SIC code, and
program level for each covered process at the source.
1. Chemical Name: The name of the regulated chemical Space is provided to list ail
regulated chemicals present about the threshold quantity in a process at the source. Note:
See 40 CFR Part 68 "List of Regulated Substances and Tivesholds for Accidental Release
Prevention and Risk Management
2, CAS number: The Chemical Abstract Service registry number for the chemical
3. Quantity: The maximum inventory quantity of each regulated substance or mixture in the
process in pounds to two significant digits.
4. SIC Code: The four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code is the federal
government category of business activity. See Standard Industrial Classification Manual,
Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
The four-digit SIC code should be applicable to the process, not the source as a whole.
5. Program level: Enter either Program 1, 2, or 3 to identify with which program the process
complies.
1.8 EPA. Identifier: This will be the key identifier number [reserved pending key identifier rule]
1 J Number of full-time employees: This is the number of full-time equivalent workers. Part-time or
seasonal workers can be added together to approximate an equivalent full-time worker. Part-time
and seasonal workers should be weighted against a full-time work schedule. For example, a part-
time worker who works 30 hours per week is 3/4 of a full-time worker, and a seasonal worker who
works 3 months per year is 1/4 of a full-time worker.
1.10 Covered by: Indicate with a check mark whether the source is covered by the following regulatory
programs.
-------
a. OS HA PSM: The OSHA Process Safety Management Standard, codified at 29 CFR
1910.119, is similar to the Pro-am 3 prevention program, and is designed to protect
workers from the effects of accidental releases of hazardous substances. Note that this
question covers all processes at your source; if any process at your source is subject to
OSHA PSM, you must answer yes even if the PSM process is not covered by this rule.
b. EPCRA section 302: This question refers to the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Kaow-Act, which requires notification of local authorities of the presence of certain
Extremely Hazardous Substances listed in 40 CFR 302. If you have a toxic regulated
substance about the threshold quantity in a process, you are subject to EPCRA section 302.
If you are covered for only flammable regulated substances, you are not subject to 40 CFR
355 for those substances, although you may be for toxic substances not affected by this rule.
c. CAA Title ¥ operating permit: State and local operating permit programs are required
under Title V of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR Part 70), Title V requires major sources of air
pollution to receive permits, pay fees to cover costs of administering the program, and sign a
binding certification of compliance on all permit applications and documents.
1 Jl Last safety Inspection: Record the date of the last safety inspection of your source and check the
appropriate agency (OSHA, State OSHA, EPA, State EPA, Fire department, Other, or not
applicable) that performed the inspection.
2. TOXICS: WORST CASE: Complete once for each Program 1 process containing a regulated toxic,
and once to represent all regulated toxic substances held above the threshold quantity in Program 2
and Program 3 processes. la addition, you may need to complete additional worst-case release
scenario(s) for a hazard class if a worst case release from another process within the source
potentially affects public receptors different from those potentially affected by the worst-case release
reported. See the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) Guidance for more information on
determining your worst-case release scenarios.
2.1 Chemical name: The name of the regulated chemical evaluated in the worst-case scenario.
2.2 Physical state: Indicate with a check mark the physical state of the chemical as it is released in the
scenario.
a. Gas: Indicate with a check if the chemical is a gas.
b. Liquid: Indicate with a check if the chemical is a liquid.
23 Results based on: Indicate with a check mark whether you used the reference tables provided in the
RMP OCA guidance or conducted modelling to calculate your worst-case release. If you performed
modelling, you must also indicate which model was used.
2.4 Scenario: Indicate with a check mark which of the following release scenarios describes your worst-
case release scenario.
a. Explosion: A rapid chemical reaction with the production of noise, heat, and violent
expansion of
b. Fire: A product (e.g., fuel) in a state of combustion.
-------
5
c. Toxic gas release: A release of the substance in a vapor state.
d. Liquid spill and vaporization; A release of the substance in a liquid state with subsequent
vaporization.
2JS Quantity released: Indicate the quantity of the chemical released during the worst-case release in
pounds.
2.6 Release rate: Indicate the rate of release in pounds per minute.
2.7 Release duration (if modeled): Indicate the length of time La minutes for the vessel, pipeline, or
other location of the regulated substance to release all of its contents. For gasses, the duration is 10
minutes.
2.8 Wind speed: This is 1-5 meters per second unless you can demonstrate that local meteorological
data applicable to the source show a higher n^ni'miim wind speed at all times during the last three
years. If you can demonstrate higher minimums existed at all times, these minimums may be used.
Provide wind speed in meters per second.
2.9 Stability class! This is an "P stability class unless you can demonstrate that local meteorological
data applicable to the source show a less stable atmosphere at all limes. If you can demonstrate less
stable conditions existed at all times, these minimums may be used.
2.10 Topography (check one): Indicate with a check mark whether the local topography is urban or
rural. Urban means that there are many obstacles in the immediate area; obstacles include buildings
or trees. Rural means that there are few buildings or other obstacles in the immediate area.
2J.1 Distance to end point Indicate the distance to the endpoint in miles for the chemical, using the
endpoint specified for the chemical in Appendix A of the risk management program rule.
2.12 Residential population within distance: Indicate the population within the distance to the endpoint
as specified in question 11 of this section. Populations should be estimated within a circle with a
center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint.
Populations estimated need only include residential populations and may be rounded to two
significant digits (e.g^ 5,500,11,000).
2JLJ Public receptors: These are the public receptors within the distance to the endpoint specified in the
worst-case release. Public receptor means locations offsite where members of the public may be
exposed to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressure as a result of an accidental release.
Residences, institutions, industrial, office, and commercial buildings, parks, or recreational areas
inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the source are public
receptors. You do not need to list specific locations or estimate populations at these locations. The
presence of these receptors may be determined by using local street maps. Check all that apply.
a. Schools: Public and private elementary, secondary, or higher education schools.
b. Residences
c. Hospitals
d. Prisons
-------
6
e. Public recreational areas or arenas; These include stadiums, parks, and public pools.
f. Major commercial, office or industrial areas: Industrial parks, office buildings, shopping
malls, commercial areas.
2.14 Environmental receptors within distance: Environmental receptors should be identified within a
circle with a center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the
endpoint. Environmental receptor means natural areas, such as national or state parks, forests, or
monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and federal
wilderness areas that could be exposed at any time to toxic concentrations, radiant hear, or
overpressure as a result of an accidental release and that can be identified on local U.S. Geological
Survey maps. Check all that apply.
a. National or state parks, forests, or monuments
b. Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges
c Federal wilderness areas
2.15 Passive mitigation considered: Mitigation means specific activities, technologies, or equipment
designed or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to mjpini"y
exposure of the public or the environment. Passive mitigation means equipment, devices, or
technologies that function without human, mechanical, or other energy input. Check all tlmt were
considered in defining the release quantity or rate to the worst-case scenario,
a. Dikes: A low wall that acts as a barrier to prevent a spill from spreading.
b. Enclosures: Physical containment of the release within a structure (e.g., a building).
c. Berms: A mound or wall of earth at the top or bottom of a slope that prevents a spill from
spreading.
d. Drains: A channel that carries off surface water.
e. Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal
L Other (specify)
3. TOXICS: ALTERNATIVE RELEASES: Complete for each toxic regulated substance held above
the threshold quantity in a Program 2 or Program 3 process.
34 Chemical: The name of the regulated chemical evaluated b the alternative release scenario.
32 Physical state: Indicate with a check mark the physical state of the chemical as it is released in the
scenario. See question 22 of this guidance for an explanation of each physical state.
3J Results based on: Indicate with a check mark whether you used the reference tables provided in the
OCA guidance or conducted modelling to calculate your worst-case release. If you performed
modelling, you must also indicate which model was used.
-------
3.4 Scenario (check one): Indicate with a check mark which of the following scenarios describes your
alternative release scenario,
a. Transfer Hose Failure! Failure of the connection between two or more vessels.
b. Pipe Leak: Release through a rupture in a pipe,
c. Vessel Leak: Release through a rupture in a vessel.
d. Overfilling: Release due to filling a pipe, vessel, or other container past its capacity.
e. Rupture Disk/Relief Valve; Release due to failure of a rupture disk/relief valve to function
properly. A rupture disk/relieve valve is a valve that relieves pressure beyond a specified
limit and redoses upon return to normal operating conditions.
f. Excess Flow Valve Failure: Release caused by the failure of excess flow device to function
properly and prevent surges from reaching downstream equipment
g. Other (specify)
3.5 Quantity released: Indicate the quantity of the chemical released during the alternative release
scenario in pounds.
3.6 Release rate: Indicate the rate of release in pounds per minute.
3.7 Release duration: Indicate the length of time in minutes for the vessel, pipeline, or other location of
the regulated substance to release the quantity indicated in question 3.5.
3.8 Wind speed: II you use the RMP OCA guidance, list 3 m/s. If you modeled your scenario indicate
the wind speed used. This wind speed should be the average daily wind speed based on annual data
collected at your site or at a local meteorological station.
33 Stability class: If you use the RMP OCA guidance, list "D" stability. If you modeled your scenario
indicate the stability used. The stability should be the average daily stability based on annual data
collected at your site or at a local meteorological station.
3.10 Topography (check one): Indicate with a check mark whether the local topography is urban or
rural Urban means that there are many obstacles in the immediate area; obstacles include buildings
or trees. Rural means that there are few buildings or other obstacles is the immediate area.
3.11 Distance to endpoint; Indicate the distance to the endpoint in miles for the chemical, using the
endpoint specified for the chemical in Appendix A of the risk management program rule.
3.12 Residential population within distances Indicate the population within the distance to the endpoint
as specified in question 11 of this section. Populations should be estimated within a circle with a
center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint
Populations estimated need only include residential populations and may be rounded to two
significant digits (e.g, 5,500, 11,000).
3.13 Public receptors; These are the public receptors within the distance to the endpoint specified in the
alternative release. Check ail that apply. See question 2.13 of this guidance.
-------
3.14 Environmental receptors within distance: Environmental receptors should be identified within a
circle with a center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the
endpoiat. Check all that apply. See question 2.14 of this guidance,
3.15 Passive mitigation considered: Mitigation means specific activities, technologies, or equipment
designed or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to
exposure of the public or the environment. Passive mitigation means equipment, devices, or
technologies that function without human, mechanical, or other energy input. Check all tk*t were
considered in defining the release quantity or rate of the alternative release scenario. See question
2.15 of this guidance.
3.16 Active mitigation considered: Mitigation means specific activities, technologies, or equipment
designed or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to minimise
exposure of the public or the environment. Active mitigation means equipment, devices, or
technologies that need human, mechanical, or other energy input to function. Check all that were
considered in defining the release quantity or rate of the alternative release scenario.
a. Sprinkler Systems: A system for protecting a building against fire by means of overhead
pipes which convey an extinguishing fluid through heat activated outlets.
b. Deluge Systems: A system to overflow an area of a release with water or other
extinguishing fluid.
c. Water Curtain: A spray of water from a horizontal pipe through nozzles, the curtain may
be activated manually or automatically.
d. Neutralization: Making a toxic chemical harmless through chemical reaction.
e. Excess Flow Valve: A system for diverting overflow.
f. Flares: A device for disposing of combustible gases from a chemical process by burning
them in the open.
g. Scrubbers: A pre-release protection measure that uses water or aqueous mixtures
containing scrubbing reagents to remove discharging liquids and possibly also treating the
discharging chemical.
h. Emergency Shutdown Systems: Controls that are triggered when process limits are
exceeded aad that shut down that process.
L Other (specif/)
4 FLAMMABLES: WORST CASE: Complete once for each Program 1 process, and once to cover
all flammables held above the threshold quantity in Program 2 or Program 3 processes. See the
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) Guidance for more information on determining your
worst-case release scenarios.
4.1 Chemical: The name of the regulated chemical evaluated in the worst-case scenario.
-------
42 Results based on (check one): Indicate with a check mark whether you used the reference tables
provided in Che OCA guidance or conducted modelling to calculate your worst-case release. If you
performed modelling, you must also indicate which model was used.
43 Scenario (check one): Indicate with a check mark which of the following release scenarios is
appropriate to describe your worst-case release scenario. Generally the worst-case release scenario
is a vapor cloud explosion.
a. Vapor Cloud Explosion; An explosion of a cloud made of a mixture of a flammable vapor
or gas with air.
b. Fireball: Hie atmospheric burning of a fuel-air cloud in which the energy is mostly emitted
in the form of radiant heat. As buoyancy forces of the hot gases begin to dominate, the
burning cloud rises and becomes spherical in shape. Often caused by the ignition of a vapor
cloud of a flammable substance.
4.4 Quantity released: Indicate the quantity of the chemical released during the worst-case release in
pounds.
4.5 Endpoint used: For vapor cloud explosions, the endpoint is 1 PSI overpressure; for a fireball the
endpoint is 5 Icw/m2 for 40 seconds.
4.6 Distance to endpoint: Indicate the distance in miles to the endpoint for the chemical specified,
4.7 Residential population within distance Indicate the population within the distance to the endpoint
as specified in question 6 of this section. Populations should be estimated within a circle with a
center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint.
Populations estimated need only include residential populations and may be rounded to two
significant digits (e.g., 5,500,11,000).
4 J Public receptors: These are the public receptors within the distance to the endpoint specified in the
worst-case release. Check all that apply. See question 2.13 of this guidance.
4.9 Environmental receptors within distance: Environmental receptors should be identified within a
circle with a center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the
endpoint Check all that apply. See question 2.14 of this guidance.
4JO Passive mitigation considered: Mitigation means specific activities, technologies, or equipment
designed or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to minimSy.fr
exposure of the public or the environment. Passive mitigation means equipment, devices, or
technologies that function without human, mechanical, or other energy input Check all that were
considered in defining the release quantity or rate to the worst-case scenario.
a. Dikes: A low wall that acts as a barrier to prevent a spill from spreading.
b. Fire Walls; A wall constructed to prevent the spread of fire.
c. Blast Walls: A heavy wall used to isolate buildings or areas that contain highly combustibk
or explosive materials.
d. Enclosures: Physical containment of the release within a structure (e.g., a building).
-------
10
e. Other (specify)
5. FLAMMABLES: ALTERNATIVE RELEASES: Complete once for all flammable regulated substances
held above the threshold quantity in a Program 2 or Program 3 process.
5.1 Chemical: The name of the regulated chemical evaluated in the alternative release scenario.
52 Results based on (check one): Indicate with a check mark whether you used the reference tables
provided in the OCA guidance or conducted modelling to calculate your alternative release scenario.
If you performed modelling, you must also indicate which model was used.
53 Scenario (check one): Indicate with a check mark which of the following release scenarios describes
your alternative release scenario.
a. Vapor Cloud Explosion: An explosion of a cloud made of a mixture of a flammable vapor
or gas with air.
b. Fireball: The atmospheric burning of a fuel-air cloud in which the energy is mostly emitted
in the form of radiant heat. As buoyancy forces of the hot gases begin to dominate, the
burning cloud rises and becomes spherical in shape. Often caused by the ignition of a vapor
cloud of a flammable substance.
c. BLEVE: Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion: used to describe the sudden rupture
of a vessel/system containing liquefied flammable gas under pressure due to radiant heat
flux. The pressure burst and the flashing of the liquid to vapor creates a blast wall and
potential missile damage, and immediate ignition of the expanding fuel-air mixture leads to
an intense combustion creating a fireball
d. Pool Fire The combustion of material evaporating from a layer of liquid at the base of the
fire.
e. Jet Fire: Gas disdiarging or venting from a rupture will form a gas jet that "blows* into the
atmosphere in the direction the whole is facing, all the white entraining and mixing with air.
If the gas is flammable and encounters an ignition source, a flame jet may form.
L Vapor Cloud Fire A flash fire results from the ignition of a released flammable cloud in
which there is essentially no increase in the combustion rate.
5.4 Quantity released: Indicate the quantity of the chemical released during the release in pounds.
S3 Endpoint used: For vapor cloud explosions, the endpoint is 1 PSI overpressure; for a fireball the
endpoint is 5 kw/m2 for 40 seconds. A lower flammability limit may be listed as specified in NFPA
documents or other generally recognized sources.
5.6 Distance to endpoint: This is the distance in* miles to the endpoint in miles for the chemical
5.7 Residential population within distance: Indicate the population within the distance to the endpoint
as specified in question 6 of this section. Populations should be estimated within a circle with a
center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint.
Populations estimated need only include residential populations and may be rounded to two
significant digits (e.g., 5,500, 11,000).
-------
11
5.8 Public receptors: These are the public receptors within the distance to the endpoint specified in the
alternative release. Check all that apply. See question 2.13 of this guidance,
5.9 Environmental receptors within distance: Environmental receptors should be identified within a
circle with a center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the
endpoint. Check all that apply. See question 2.14 of this guidance.
5.10 Passive mitigation considered: Mitigation means specific activities, technologies, or equipment
designed or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to minimize
exposure of the public or the environment Passive mitigation means equipment, devices, or
technologies that function without human, mechanical, or other energy input. Check all that were
considered in defining the release quantity or rate to the worst-case scenario. See question 4.10 of
this guidance.
5.11 Active mitigation considered: Mitigation means specific activities, technologies, or equipment
designed or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to
exposure of the public or the environment. Active mitigation means equipment, devices, or
technologies that need human, mechanical, or other energy input to function. Check all that were
considered in defining the release quantity or rate of the alternative release scenario. See question
3.16 of this guidance.
6. FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY: Complete a separate record for each accidental release from
covered processes that occurred within the last five years and that resulted in deaths, injuries, or
significant property damage on site, or known oflsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place,
property damage, or environmental damage.
6.1 Date: Indicate the date on which the accident occurred.
62 Time: Indicate the time the release began.
63 Release duration: Indicate the approximate length of time of the release in minutes.
6,4 CheroJcal(s): Indicate the regulated substance(s) released,
6.5 Quantity released: Indicate the amount of each substance released in pounds.
6.6 Release event* Indicate with a check mark which of the following release events best describes your
accident.
a. Gas Release A release of the substance in a vapor state.
b. Liquid Spill /Evaporation: A release of the substance in a liquid state with subsequent
vaporization.
c. fire: A product (e.g., fuel) in a state of combustion.
d. Explosion: A rapid chemical reaction with the production of noise, heat, and violent
expansion of gasses.
6.7 Release source: Indicate which best describes the source of the release. Check all that apply.
-------
12
a. Storage Vessel: A container for storing, holding, or transporting a liquid.
b. Piping: A system of pipes used to carry a fluid.
c. Process Vessel: A container in which regulated substances are blended to form a mixture
or reacted to convert them into some other final product or form,
d. Transfer Hose: A connection between two or more vessels.
e. Valve: A structure that closes temporarily a passage or permits movement of fluid in one
direction only.
t. Pump: A device that raises, transfers, or compresses fluids or that attenuates gases by
suction or pressure or both,
6A Weather conditions at time of event (if known): This information is important to those concerned
with predicting the effects of accidents. Reliable information from those involved in the incident is
better information than can be obtained from a meteorological weather station located miles from
the incident site. Complete as much of the following as possible.
a. Wind Speed/Direction: Wind speed is an estimate of how fast the wind is traveling.
Indicate the speed in miles per hour, meters per second, or knots. Be sure to identify the
units of measure. Wind direction is the direction from which the wind comes. For example,
a wind that blows from west to east comes from the west You may describe the direction
that the wind blows from as a standard compass reading such as 'Northeast' or 'South-
southwest.' You may also describe the direction in degrees with North as zero degrees and
East as 90 degrees. Thus northeast would represent 45 degrees, and south-southwest would
represent 2015 degrees. Abbreviations for the wind direction such as NE (for northeast)
and SSW (for south-southwest) are also acceptable.
b. Temperature: The ambient temperature at the scene of the accident in degrees Fahrenheit
c. Stability Class: This is a general indication of the degree of mixing present in the
atmosphere accounting for windspeed and sunlight. The designation ranges from "A to F,"
where "A* represents extremely unstable conditions (high mixing) and *P represents
extremely stable or clam (little mixing) conditions. *F" conditions occur on overcast nights
with low wind speeds and 'A* conditions occur on dear days at high wind speeds. See the
RMP OCA guidance for more information.
d. Precipitation Present: Check yes or no based on whether there was precipitation at the
tune of the accident
e. Unknown: If you have no record of weather conditions check this.
6J On site impacts: Complete as much of the following as possible about on-aite effects.
a. Deaths: Indicate the number of on-slte deaths that are attributed to the accident or
mitigation activities. On-site deaths means the number of employees or contract employees
who were killed during the accident of performing any mitigation activities. What about
offsite response contractors?
-------
13
b. Injuries: Indicate the number of employees or contract personnel who were injured as a.
result of the accident or mitigation activities. An injury may or may not involve lost work
time. ~*Ao. injury means any effect that results either from direct exposure to toxic
concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressures from accidental releases or from the direct
consequences of a vapor cloud explosion from an accidental release that requires medical
treatment or hospitalization. Medical treatment means treatment, other than Brst aid,
administered by a physician or registered professional personnel under standing orders from
a physician,
c Property Damage: Estimate the value of the equipment or business structures (for your
business alone) that were damaged by the accident or mitigation activities. Record the
value in American dollars. Do not include any losses that you may have incurred by
business interruption.
6JO Known ofTsite Impacts: These are impacts that you are aware of or that were reported to the
source. You are not required to conduct additional investigation to determine offsite impacts.
Offsite means areas beyond the property boundary of the source or areas within the property
boundary to which the public has routine and unrestricted access during or outside business hours.
a. Deaths: Indicate the number of offsite deaths that are attributable to the accident or
mitigation activities. Offsite deaths means the number of community members and
members of public response agencies who were killed during the accident or performing any
mitigation activities.
b. Hospitalizations: Indicate the number of injuries that are attributable to the accident or
mitigation activities where community members or members of response agencies required
hospitalization due to the injury.
c. Other Medical Treatment: Indicate the number of injuries that are attributable to the
accident or mitigation activities where community members or members of response
agencies required medical treatment, not including first aid, due to the injury.
d. Evacuated: Indicate the number of members of the community who were evacuated as a
result of the accident A total count of the number of people evacuated is preferable to the
aumber of houses evacuated.
& Sheltered: Indicate the number of members of the community who were sheltered-ia-place
during the accident Sheltering-in-place is the official designation when the incident
commander orders community members to remain inside their residence or place of work
until the emergency Is over to prevent exposure to the substance. Usually these are
associated with an emergency broadcast or similar method of mass notification by response
agencies.
f. Property Damage: Estimate the value of any property (not belonging to the source) that
may have been damaged as a result of the accident. Record the value in American dollars.
Include the value of damages to any response equipment
g. Environmental Damage: Indicate whether any environmental damage occurred and specify
the type. The damage is not limited to environmental receptors listed in the rule. Any
damage to the environment (e.g., defoliation, water contamination) should be considered.
You are not, however, required to conduct surveys to determine whether such impact
occurred.
-------
14
6.11 Initiating event: Indicate with a check mark the initiating event that best describes the cause of the
accident, if known.
a. Equipment Failure: A device or piece of equipment did not function as designed.
b. Human Error. An operator performs an operation improperly.
c. Weather Condition: Weather conditions, such as lightning, hail, ice storms, tornados,
hurricanes, floods, or high winds caused the accident
6.12 Contributing factors: These are factors that contributed to the accident occurring but were not the
initiating event, if known. Check all that apply.
a. Equipment Failure: A device or piece of equipment did not function as designed thereby
allowing a substance to be released.
b. Human Error. An operator performs an operation improperly or makes a mistake resulting
in a release.
c. Improper Procedures: The procedure did not reflect the current method of operation, the
procedure omitted steps that affected the accident, or the procedure was written in a
manner that allowed for mis-interpretation of the instructions.
d. Overpressurizatlon: The process was operated at pressures exceeding the design working
pressure.
e. Upset Condition: Release caused by incorrect process conditions (e.g., increased
temperature or pressure).
f. By-pass Condition: A pipe or channel that provides an alternate pathway that detours the
main pathway fails releasing a substance.
g. Maintenance Activity/Inactivity: This is any failure that occurs because of maintenance
activity or inactivity. For example, the pipes remain unpainted for so long that corrosion
caused the pipe to fail, or the maintenance mechanic began to repair the wrong pump.
h. Process Design: Any failure that may be design related,
i. Unsuitable Equipment: The equipment used was incorrect for the process.
j. Unusual Weather Condition: Weather conditions, such as lightning, hall, ice storms,
tornados, hurricanes, floods, or high winds caused the accident
k. Management Error: This may be used to describe failures that occur because management
did not exercise its managerial control to prevent the situation from occurring. This is
usually used to describe faulty procedures, inadequate training, or failure to follow existing
administrative procedures.
£.13 Offslte responders notified: Indicate with a check mark whether agencies were contacted
6.14 Changes introduced as a result of the accident: Indicate with a check mark any measures that you
have taken at the source to prevent recurrence of the accident.
-------
15
a. Improved/Upgraded Equipment; A device or piece of equipment that did not function as
designed was repaired or replaced.
b. Revised Maintenance: Maintenance processes were clarified or changed to ensure safe
operation and timely maintenance.
c. Revised Training: Training programs were clarified or changed to ensure that employees
and contract employees are aware of and are practicing correct safety, process, and
administrative procedures.
d. Revised Operating Procedures: Operating procedures were clarified or changed to ensure
that employees and contract employees are trained on process operating procedures.
e. New Process Controls: New process designs and controls were installed to correct problems
and prevent recurrence of an accidental release.
t New Mitigation Systems: New mitigation systems were initiated to limit accidental releases.
g. Revised Emergency Response Plan: The emergency response plan was revised.
b. Changed process
L Reduced Inventory: Inventory was reduced at the source to prevent accidental release.
J. Other
k. None
7. PREVENTION PROGRAM — PROGRAM 3: Complete the following information about each
Program 3 process at your source. If the same information applies to more than once covered
process, the owner or operator may provide the information only once, but shall indicate to which
process the information applies.
7,1 SIC code for process: The four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code is the federal
government category of business activity. See Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Office of
Management and Budget, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. The four-digit SIC
code should be applicable to the process, not the source as a whole.
12 Name of substance(s) covered: The name of the regulated substance(s) in the process.
73 Date on which the safety information was last reviewed or revised:
7.4 PHAj Answer the following questions about the status of your Process Hazard Analysis (PHA).
The owner or operator must perform a PHA on processes covered by the risk management program
rule,
a. The date of completion of the most recent PHA or update
b. The technique used: Indicate which of the following methodologies were used to evaluate
the hazards of the process. Check all that apply.
-------
16
1. What If: A What If analysis considers the consequences associated with events that
occur as a result of failures involving equipment, design, or procedures. AH
*" possible system failures may be collected in checklist form and evaluated.
Compiling a list of failures requires a basic understanding of what is intended and
the ability to combine or synthesize possible deviations and reject incredible
situations.
2. Checklist: This system involves developing a checklist of failure areas and
reviewing each area to determine the possible effects of failure.
3. What If/Checklist This methodology combines the what if and checklist analysis
methodologies to identify and evaluate process hazards.
4. HAZOP: Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOPs) are conducted by teams that
brainstorm to systematically identify hazards or operability problems throughout a
source through the use of certain guidewords such as 'no flow* and "no cooling*.
The consequences of the deviation associated with the guidewords are assessed and
credible deviations are identified and addressed.
S. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis: This is a methodology of tabulating the
source's equipment, failure modes (how equipment fails), each failure mode's effect
on the source, and a ranking of each failure mode,
6. Fault Tree Analysis: This is a deductive technique that focuses on one particular
accident event and provides a method for determining causes of the event The
fault tree is a graphic model that displays the various combinations of equipment
faults and failures that can result in a release.
7. Other (specify)
The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the PHA: Not all
recommendations will have resulted in changes. Record the date of expected final
implementation of any changes that are made as a result of PHA recommendations.
Major hazards; Indicate with a check mark jU major hazards that were identified for the
Program 3 process at your source as a result of the PHA. Major hazards are defined as the
potential for
1. Toxic Release: If an accidental release occurred a regulated toxic substance could
be released.
2. Fire Process upsets, leaks, equipment failure, etc., could result in a fire. For listed
flammables, Ore will always be a major hazard. Fire, however, may also be a
hazard in other processes and could lead to a toxic release.
3* Explosion: Confined or unconfined vapor cloud explosions, BLEVES; explosion
will be a major hazard for listed Qammables. It may also be a hazard for toxics,
especially those handled at extreme conditions.
4. Runaway Reaction: An uncontrolled reaction that proceeds at an increasing rats.
-------
17
5. Polymerization: A chemical reaction that produces the bonding of two or more
^ monomers.
6. Overpressurization: Instantaneous energy release or detonation.
7. Corrosion: The presence of the regulated substance could lead to destruction of
equipment aad a release. Corrosion may be a major hazard for substances
identified as corrosives on MSDSs unless the equipment used limits the hazard.
8. Overfilling: Filling a tank or vessel beyond its maximum safe capacity.
9, Contamination: A release could occur if inappropriate substances are introduced
into storage or process vessels. Contamination may be a major hazard if controlling
inappropriate substances (e.g., H2O) is difficult,
10. Equipment Failure: Equipment failure is likely to be a major hazard for most
processes because such failure could lead to a release. Equipment failure includes
cracks, weld failures, disk failures, ruptures, pump/gauge/control system failures,
etc.
11. Loss of Cooling, Heating, Electricity, Instrument Air: These losses could be major
hazards if they would lead to releases. For example, loss of cooling could lead to
an increase in pressure and failure of a vessel or pipe; a loss of heating or power
could lead to unstable processes. These conditions are less likely to be major
hazards for substances handles at atmospheric temperatures and pressures.
12. Earthquake: Report these only if they are frequent enough or likely enough to
occur at your site so that you design and plan for them.
13. Floods (Flood Plain): Report these only if they are frequent enough or likely
enough to occur at your site so that you design and plan for them.
14. Tornado: Report these only if they are frequent enough or likely enough to occur
at your site so that you design and plan for them.
15. Hurricanes: Report these only if they are frequent enough or likely enough to
occur at your site so that you design and plan for them.
16. Other (specify)
Process controls: Indicate all of the process controls used on this Program 3 process.
Process controls are equipment and associated procedures used to prevent or limit releases.
Check all that apply.
1. Vents: An opening provided for the discharge of pressure or release of pressure
form tanks, vessels, processing equipment, etc.
2. Relief Valves: A relief valve is a valve that relieves pressure beyond a specified
limit and recloses upon return to normal operating conditions.
3. Check Valves: A device for automatically limiting flow in a piping system to a
single direction,
-------
18
4. Scrubbers: A pre-release protection measure that uses water or aqueous mixtures
^ containing scrubbing reagents to remove discharging liquids and possibly also
treating the discharging chemical.
5. Flares: A pre-release protection measure used for flammable gases and vapors to
remove and possibly treat discharged liquids.
6. Manual Shutofls: Controls the shutoff flow to a pipe or vessel and that must be
operated manually.
?. Automatic SbutofTs: Controls the shutoff flow to a pipe or vessel and that are
triggered automatically when process conditions are exceeded
8. Interlocks: A switch or other device that prevents activation of a piece of
equipment when a protective door is open or some other hazard easts.
9. Alarms and Procedures: Systems that operate a warning device after the
occurrence of a hazardous condition and procedures to activate the alarm system.
10. Keyed Bypass: A bypass system that is activated by a control signal.
11. Emergency Air Supply: A backup system to provide air to a process when the
regular air supply fails.
12. Emergency Power: Backup power systems.
13. Backup Pump: A secondary pump intended to serve the same function as the
primary pump if the primary pump fails.
14. Grounding Equipment: Devices that ground electrical equipment to avoid
explosions.
IS. Inhibitor Addition: A substance that is added to a reaction that is capable of
stopping or retarding a chemical reaction.
16. Rupture Disks: A rupture disk is a device that relieves pressure beyond a specified
limit and recloses upon return to normal operating conditions.
17. Excess flow Device Flow-limiting equipment that protects downstream equipment
from surges.
18. Quench System: A system that coots by removing excess heat or immersing liquid
into a cooling medium.
19. Purge System: A system that replaces the atmosphere in a container with an inert
substance to prevent the formation of an explosive mixture.
20. Other (specify)
Mitigation systems: Indicate with a check mark all of the mitigation systems in place to
control a release should one occur from the process.
-------
19
1- Sprinkler System: A system for protecting a building against fire by means of
overhead pipes which convey an extinguishing fluid through heat activated outlets.
2. Dikes: A low wall that acts as a barrier to prevent a spill from spreading.
3. Fire Walls: A wall constructed to prevent the spread of fire.
4. Blast Walls: A heavy wall used to isolate buildings or areas that contain highly
combustible or explosive materials.
5. Deluge System: A system to overflow an area of a release with water or other
extinguishing fluid.
6, Water Curtain: A spray of water from a horizontal pipe through nozzles, the
curtain may be activated manually or automatically.
7. Enclosure: Physical containment of the release within a structure (e.&, a building).
8. Neutralization: Controlling a release by neutralizing the released chemical
9. Other (specify)
Monitoring/detection systems: Indicate with a check mark the monitoring and detection
systems installed to detect a release of a regulated substance from the process.
1. Process Area Detectors: Detection systems located on or close to process
equipment Detection systems include indicator tubes, and chromatographic,
spectrometric, electrochemical, and colorimetric gas analysis.
2. Perimeter Monitors: Integrated detection networks at the source boundary.
Detection systems can include fluorescent SO2 analyzers, photoelectric tape
sensors, or electrolytic chlorine detectors.
3, Other (specify)
Changes since last PHA update: Indicate with a check mark all of the changes made to the
process since the last PHA, Check all that apply.
1. Reduction In Chemical Inventory: Decrease in the quantity of regulated substance*
stored on site.
2, Increase In Chemical Inventory: Increase in the quantity of regulated substances
stored on site.
3. Change la Process Parameters: Increase or decrease in temperature, pressure,
flow rates, etc.
4. Installation of Process Controls: Addition of controls such as those listed in
question 5 above.
5. Installation of Process Detection Systems: Addition of systems such as those listed
in question 7 above.
-------
20
6. Installation of Perimeter Monitoring Systems: Addition of systems such as those
listed in question 7 above.
7. Installation of Mitigation Systems: Addition of systems such as those listed in
question 6 above.
8. Other (specify)
9, None Required/Recommended; PHA team recommended no change.
7.5 The date of the most recent review or revision of operating procedures: You should have
developed and implemented written operating procedures as defined in § 68.69 that provide dear
instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process that are consistent with
the process safety information. Operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to
assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in
process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. Indicate the date
of the most recent review or revision,
7.6 Training: The training program, as specified in § 68.71, should cover initial training for each
employee involved in operating a process that emphasizes specific safety and health hazards,
emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices. You should also offer refresher
training at least every three years and training documentation to show that each employee involved
in operating a process has received and understood the required training.
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of training programs
b. The type of training provided: Indicate whether the training was held is a classroom, was a
combination of classroom and on the job, on the job, or other.
c. The type of competency testing used: Indicate with a check mark how employees were
tested to determine and evaluate comprehension of the training materials.
7.7 Maintenance: The maintenance program, defined in § 68.73, ensures the mechanical integrity of
process equipment The maintenance program procedures should be written, training should be
provided for employees involved in maintenance activities, inspection and testing should be
performed in process equipment, equipment deficiencies should be corrected before further use or in
a safe and timely manner, and the owner or operator should ensure that the equipment is installed
properly and consistent with design specifications.
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of maintenance procedures
b. The date of the most recent equipment Inspection or test
c The equipment inspected or tested
7 J Management of Change: The owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures
to manage changes (except for 'replacements in kind*) to process chemicals, technology, equipment,
and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process as specified in §
68.75.
a. The date of the most recent change that triggered management of change procedures
-------
21
b. The date of the most recent review or revision of management of change procedures
7.8 The date of tHe" most recent pre-startup review: Pre-start up review, as specified in § 68.77, shall be
performed for new stationary sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is
significant enough to require a change in the process safety information,
7 J Compliance audits: Compliance audits, as specified in § 68.79, evaluate whether the source is in
compliance with the risk management program provisions and should be conducted at least every
three years by a person knowledgeable la the process,
a. The date of the most recent compliance audit
b. The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit
7.10 Incident Investigation; The owner or operator should have procedures, as specified in § 68.81, to
investigate each incident that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release
of a regulated substance.
a. The date of the most recent incident Investigation
b. The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the Investigation
7.11 The date of the most recent review or revision of employee participation plans: Employee
participation is described in § 68.83.
7J2 The date of the most recent review or revision of hot work permit procedures: Hot work permits
are described in § 68.85.
7.13 The date of the most recent review or revision of contractor safety procedures: Contractor safety
procedures, as described in § 68.87, describe procedures to oversee contractors performing
maintenance or repair work, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a
covered process. This section does not apply to contractors providing incidental services that do not
influence process safety (e.g., trash removal, groundkeeping).
7.14 The date of the most recent evaluation of contractor safety performance: Contractor safety
procedures are described in § 68.87.
8. PREVENTION PROGRAM — PROGRAM 2: For each Program 2 process, the owner or operator
must provide the following information. If the same information applies to more than once covered
process, the owner or operator may provide the information only once, but shall indicate to which
process the information applies.
8.1 SIC code for process; The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code is the federal government
category of business activity. See Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Office of Management
and Budget, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. The SIC code should be applicable
to the process, not the source as a whole.
8.2. Chemicals: The name of the regulated substances in the process.
83 Safety information; As described in § 68.48 the owner or operator shall compile and maintain up-
to-date safety information related to regulated substances, processes, and equipment.
-------
22
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of toe safety information:
b. A list of Federal or state regulations or industry-specific design codes and standards used to
demonstrate compliance with the safety information requirement: Indicate with a check mark
whether you are using any of the following:
1. NFPA 58 (or state law based on NFPA 58): National fire Protection Association propane
handling laws. Propane laws are based on NFPA 59 except in the states of California and
texas.
2. OSHA (29 CFR 1910.111); OSHA rule for handling anhydrous ammonia.
3. ASTM Standards: American Society of Testing Materials standards. Establishes standards
for materials, products, systems, services, test methods, specifications, classifications,
definitions, and recommended practices.
4, ANSI Standards: American National Standards Institute standards. Nationally coordinates
voluntary standards. Gives status to standards in such areas as definitions, terminology,
symbols, and abbreviations; materials, performance characteristics, procedure, and methods
of rating; methods of testing and analysis; size, weight, and volume; safety, health, and
building construction.
5. ASME Standards; American Society of Mechanical Engineers standards. Conducts
research and develops boiler, pressure vessel, and power test codes. Also develops safety
codes and standards for equipment
6. Other (specify)
7. None
8,4 Hazard review Your hazard review, as specified in § 68.50, must identify the hazards associated
with the process, opportunities for equipment malfunctions or human errors, safeguards needed to
control the hazards or prevent equipment malfunction or human error, and any steps used or needed
to detect or monitor releases.
a. Hie date of completion of the most recent hazard review or update
b. The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the hazard review
c. Major hazards: Indicate with a check mark_alj major hazards that were identified for the
Program 2 process at your source as a result of the hazard review. Major hazards are
defined in 7.4{d) of this guidance.
d. Process controls: Indicate with a check mark all of the process controls used on this
Program 2 process. Process controls are equipment and associated procedures used to
prevent or limit releases. Process controls are described in 7.4{e) of this guidance.
e. Mitigation systems; Indicate with a check mark all of the mitigation systems in place to
control a release should one occur from the process. Mitigation systems are defined in
7.4(f) of this guidance.
-------
23
f. Monitoring/detection systems: Indicate with a check mark the monitoring and detection
systeqjs installed to detect a release of a regulated substance from the process.
Monitoring/detection systems are described in 7.4(g) of this guidance,
g. Changes since last PHA update.* Indicate with a check mark all of the changes made to the
process since the last PHA, PHA changes are described in 7.4(h) of this guidance.
8.5 Hie date of the most recent review or revision of operating procedures: You should have
developed and implemented written operating procedures as defined ia § 68.52 that provide dear
instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process that are consistent with
the process safety information. Operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to
assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in
process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. Indicate the date
of the most recent review or revision,
8J$ Training: The training program, as specified in § 6834, should cover initial training for each
employee involved in operating a process that emphasizes specific safety and health hazards,
emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices. You should also offer refresher
training at least every three years.
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of training programs
b. Hie type of training provided: Indicate whether the training was held in a classroom, was a
combination of classroom and on the job, on the job, or other.
c. The type of competency testing used: Indicate with a check mark how employees were
tested to determine and evaluate comprehension of the training materials.
8.7 Maintenance: The maintenance program, as specified in § 68.56, ensures mechanical integrity of
process equipment. The maintenance program procedures should be written, training should be
provided for employees involved in maintenance activities, and inspection and testing should be
performed in process equipment.
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of maintenance procedures
b. The date of the most recent equipment inspection or test
c. The equipment inspected or tested
8.8 Compliance audits: Indicate the date of your last compliance audit, as specified in § 68-58.
Compliance audits are important to evaluate whether the source is in compliance with the risk
management program provisions and should be conducted at least every three years by a person
knowledgeable in the process.
a. The date of the most recent compliance audit
b. The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit
8.9 Incident investigation: Indicate the date of your most recent incident investigation. As specified in
§ 68.60, you must investigate each incident that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a
catastrophic release of a regulated substance.
-------
24
a. The date of the most recent incident investigation
b. Hie expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the investigation
8.10 The date of the most recent change that triggered a review or revision of safety information, the
hazard review, operating or maintenance procedures, or training:
9. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
9.1 Do you have a written emergency response plan? Indicate whether or not your source has a written
emergency response plan. You are not required to have a plan if all response activities will be
handled by public responders or other non-employees.
92 Does the plan Include specific actions to be taken in response to an accidental releases of a
regulated substance? Indicate whether or not whether your plan includes specific actions that
should be taken in response to an accidental release of a regulated substance.
9_3 Does the plan include procedures for informing the public and local agencies responsible for
responding to accidental releases? Indicate whether or not the plan includes procedures for public
notification and notification of local agencies responsible for responding to accidental releases.
9.4 Does the plan include information on emergency health care? Indicate whether or not the plan
includes information on emergency health care.
9.5 The date of the most recent review or update of the emergency response plan
9.6 The date of the most recent emergency response training for employees: Enter the date of the last
emergency response training. Drills involving your personnel with or without outside emergency
response agencies and tabletop exercises of your emergency response plan are acceptable. Single
purpose drills (e.g., alarm system drills) may be listed, but exercises that test more aspects of the
plan are preferable.
9,7 The name and telephone number of the local agency with which the plan is coordinated; Indicate
die name and phone number of the agency that reviewed your plan (e.g, fire department). If you
do not have a plan, indicate the agency that will handle responses to releases at your source.
9J5 Subject to: The following is a list of federal and state regulations dealing with emergency response
plans. You may or may not be covered under these regulations. Check all that apply.
a, OSHA 191038: OSHA's Emergency Action Plan. All sources are subject to this rule
except state and local governments in states without delegated OSHA programs.
b. OSHA 1910.120: OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
(HAZWOPER) plan.
c Clean Water Act/SPCC (40 CFR 112): EPA's oil Spul Prevention Control and
Couatermeasures Plan requirements.
d, RCRA (40 CFR 264,265, 279.52): EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
permitting requirements for solid waste.
-------
25
e. OPA 90 (40 CFR 112,33 CFR 154, 49 CFR 194, 30 CFR 2S4)s EPA, US. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation, and Department of the Interior facility response plan
requirements. Currently these apply only to oil.
f. State EPCRA Rules/Law: These are the state emergency planning and community right-to-
know laws. Federal EPCRA does not require facility response plans, but some state laws
may,
g. Other (specify)
-------
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR CHLORINE HANDLING
AT THE
DE SOTO
CHLORINATION STATION
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
IN COMPLIANCE WITH 40 CFR 68
FEBRUARY 1997
PREPARED FOR THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
BY:
PARSONS ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC.
DESIGN * RESEARCH • PLANNING
100 WEST WALNUT STREET* PASADENA • CALIFORNIA 31124
(818) 440-6122, 440-6043
OESOTO
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , , i
1. REGISTRATION , 4
2. OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS - TOXICS: WORST CASE 6
3. OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS - TOXICS:
ALTERNATIVE RELEASE...... ..g
4. FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY 10
5. PREVENTION PROGRAM; PROGRAM 2 13
6. EMERGENCY RESPONSE 17
7. CERTIFICATION ..18
SECTION 2 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
A. INTRODUCTION A-l
B. HAZARD ASSESSMENT.... B-l
1. Applicability ......B-l
2. Offsite Consequences Analysis Parameters ....B-l
3. Worst-Case Release Scenario Analysis. B-3
4. Alternative Release Scenario Analysis... B-6
5. Offsite Impacts - Population B-7
6. Offsite Impacts - Environment B-9
7. Review and Update. B-9
8. Documentation ....B-9
9. Five-Year Accident History.. ....B-9
OE SOTO
-------
SECTION 1
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENTS
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
a. The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) accidental release
prevention policy involves a unified approach that integrates technologies,
procedures, and management practices. All applicable procedures of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Prevention Program are adhered to. The
DWP emergency response policy involves the preparation of response plans which
are tailored to each facility and to the emergency response services available in the
community, and is in compliance with the EPA Emergency Response Program
requirements.
b. The De Soto Chlorination Station has been installed to disinfect the flow in the De
Soto Trunk Line. This water serves the Chatsworth and San Fernando Valley area.
The chlorination station is located on De Soto Avenue north of Rinaldi Street, next to
the De Soto Reservoir. The station includes a chlorination room, which contains
liquid chlorine containers, a chlorinator, and various safety equipment, and an
instrument room, which contains a flow recorder, various electrical panels, and
additional safety equipment. The amount of chlorine handled is two one-ton
containers and a 150-lb cylinder. The facility is normally unmanned. Water
treatment operators visit the facility daily and respond to any trouble alarms which
may occur,
c. The offsite consequence analysis includes consideration of two chlorine release
scenarios, identified as "worst case release" and "alternative scenario". The first
scenario is defined by EPA, which states that "the owner or operator shall assume
that the ... maximum quantity in the largest vessel ... is released as a gas over 10
minutes," due to an unspecified failure. The alternative scenario is defined as "more
likely to occur than the worst-case release scenario".
Atmospheric dispersion modeling has to be performed to determine the distance
traveled by the chlorine released before its concentration decreases to the "toxic
endpoint" selected by EPA of 3 ppm, which is the Emergency Response Planning
Guideline Level 2 (ERPG-2). This is defined by the American Industrial Hygiene
Association (AIHA) as the "maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without
experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms
which could impair an individual's ability to take protective action." The residential
population within a circle with a radius corresponding to the toxic endpoint distance
has to be defined, "to estimate the population potentially affected".
DESOTO 5/10/97
-------
The worst-case release scenario at the De Soto Chlorination Station involves a failure
of the two ton-containers which could be connected concurrently (a total of 4,000 Ib
of chlorine).- The offsite consequence analysis for this scenario was performed for
two sets of conditions. The first set followed conditions pre-defined by EPA, namely
release of the entire amount as a gas in 10 minutes, use of the one-hour average
ERPG-2 as the toxic endpoint, and consideration of the population residing within a
full circle with radius corresponding to the toxic endpoint distance. EPA set these
conditions to facilitate the performance of the offsite consequence analysis; however,
the assumptions used may be unrealistic because:
(I) Only a fraction (about 26% of the -total) of the compressed liquefied chlorine
released to the atmosphere flashes as a vapor. The remaining unflashed liquid
forms liquid-droplet aerosols. This results in the formation of a very dense
chlorine cloud consisting of vapor and liquid droplets, with dispersion
characteristics significantly different than for a cloud consisting only of chlorine
(2) It is not appropriate to compare a 10-minute release to a one-hour average
standard. The 3 ppm one-hour ERPG value can be modified using available
time of exposure/concentration relationships to match the ten-minute release
time; the value obtained is 7,3 ppm.
(3) Only the population within an elliptical plume extending downwind of the
release point is potentially affected. This plume area, or footprint, is
approximately 6% (one-twentieth) of the area of the full circle.
EPA-mandated meteorological conditions, namely Stability F, wind speed of 1.5
m/sec, highest daily maximum temperature (116°F), and average humidity (65%)
were used for both sets.
When atmospheric dispersion modeling for the worst case scenario was performed
using the EPA assumptions, a distance to toxic endpoint of 2.9 miles and an estimate
of residential population potentially affected of 110,000 was obtained. When the
same modeling was performed with the second set of conditions, namely using a
vapor/aerosol release, a 10-minute average ERPG-2 of 7 ppm, and consideration of
the plume footprint only, a distance to toxic endpoint of 1 .4 miles and an estimate of
population potentially affected of 1,500 resulted.
The alternative release scenario involves the rupture of the flexible connections
(pigtails) connected to three ton-containers, possibly due to an earthquake. The
amount of chlorine released is 581 Ib, at an average rate over one hour (the duration
of the release) of 9.7 Ib/min. Toxic endpoint distances to ERPG-2 and -3 levels were
obtained. The latter is defined by A1HA as "the maximum airborne concentration
below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects". The typical
meteorological conditions used were Stability E, wind speed 2.0 m/s, average air
temperature of 62°F, and 63% average humidity. The estimated distances traveled to
the toxic endpoints are 4,300 ft for the ERPG-2 and 1,400 ft for the ERPG-3.
DE SOTO 3/20/97
-------
Actuation of the chorine detector is an active mitigation measure considered. An
additional mitigation system installed is the conversion of the existing chiorinators to
a remote vaewum type, with all pressurized chlorine gas piping replaced with vacuum
piping. This will reduce significantly the amount of chlorine released in case of
pigtail rupture.
d. The general DWP accidental release prevention program is based on the following
key elements:
• High level of training of the operators
* Preventive maintenance program
» Use of state-of-the-art process and safety equipment
• Use of accurate and effective operating procedures, written with the participation
of the operators
« Performance of a hazard review of equipment and procedures
* Implementation of an auditing and inspection program.
Chemical-specific prevention steps include availability of self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA), worn by the operators during connection/disconnection of
chlorine supply, awareness of the hazardous and toxic properties of chlorine, and
presence of chlorine detectors.
e. No accidental releases of chlorine have occurred at this facility in the past five years.
f. The facility has an emergency response program, which has been coordinated
(reviewed) by the City of Los Angeles Fire Department, which is a member of the
Local Emergency Response Planning Committee (LEPC). This program includes an
emergency response decision tree and a notification plan. Emergency response drills
and drill evaluations are conducted every six months; emergency operation and
response procedures are also reviewed at that time.
g. Fourteen changes to improve safety (recommended actions) were identified in April
1994, when a State of California Risk Management Prevention Program was
completed for the facility. These recommended actions have now been evaluated
and implemented as required.
DE SOTO 3/10/97
-------
I. REGISTRATION
1.1 Source Identification
a. Name De Soto Chlorination Station
b. Street De Soto Avenue north of Rinaldi Street
c. City Los Angeles
d. County Los Angeles
e. State CA
/ Zip 91324
g. Latitude 34° 16' 18.3" N
h. Longitude 118° 35' 06.1" W
1,2 Source Dun and Bradstreet Number
1.3 Corporate Parent Company N/A
a. Name of Corporate Parent Company
b: Dun and Bradstreet Number of Corporate Parent Company
1.4 Owner/Operator
a. Name Department of Water and Power (DWP)
b. Phone (213)367-4211
c. Mailing address 111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, C A 90051
1.5 Name and Title of Person Responsible for Part 68 Implementation
Bruce Kuebler
Engineer-in-Charge
Water Quality and Distribution Division - DWP
1.6 Emergency Contact
a. Name Daniel Saenz
b. Title Water Treatment Supervisor
. c. Phone (213)367-4211
d. 24-hour phone (213) 367-4211
1.7 Covered Process
a. Chemical name Chlorine
b. CAS number 007782-50-5
DESOTO 3/10/9?
-------
c. Quantity 4,1501b
d. SIC code 4941
e. Program level 2
1.8 EPA Identifier
1.9 Number of Full-Time Employees: None at source; 8,750 at DWP
1.10 Covered by
a. OSHA PSM (29 CFR 1910.119} 1. Yes 2. No V
b. EPCM section 302 (40 CFR 355) 1. Yes V 2. No
c. CAA Title V operating permit 1. Yes 2. No V
1.11 Last Safety Inspection
a. OSHA
b. State OSHA
c. EPA
d. State EPA
e. Fire Department
f. Other (specify)
g. Not applicable V
OESOTO 3/10/97
-------
2, OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS - TOXICS; WORST CASE
— (complete at least one)
2.1 Chemical Name Chlorine
2.2 Physical State
a. Gas V b. Liquid V
2.3 Results Based On
a. Reference table b. Modeling V
c. Model used DEGADIS
2.4 Scenario
a. Explosion
b. Fire
c. Toxic gas release V
d. Liquid spill and vaporization V
2,5 Quantity Released 4,000 Ib
2.6 Release Rate 400 Ib/min
2.7 Release Duration (if modeled) lOmin
2.8 Wind Speed LSm/sec
2.9 Stability Class: F
2.10 Topography (check one)
a Urban V b. Rural
2.11 Distance to endpoint: 2.9 miles (See Item 2.16)
2.12 Residential Population Within Distance (number): 110,000 (See Item 2.16)
2.13 Public Receptors (check all that apply)
a. Schools V
b. Residences V
c. Hospitals V
d. Prisons
e. Public recreational areas or arenas V
f. Major commercial, office, or industrial areas V
DE SOTO 3/10/97
-------
2.14 Environmental Receptors Within Distance (check all that apply)
fl. National or state parks, forests, or monuments V
b. Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges
c. Federal wilderness areas
2.15 Passive Mitigation Considered (check all that apply)
a. Dikes
b. Enclosures
c. Berms
d. Drains
e. Sumps
f Other (specify)
2.16 Use of More Realistic Modeling Conditions
Use of more realistic modeling than mandated by EPA, namely two-phase
gas/aerosol chlorine release, use of a modified endpoint to match the release
time, and consideration that only the population downwind of the release is
actually affected, reduces the distance to endpoint to 1.4 miles and the
residential population within distance to 1,500 people.
DE SOTO 3/20/9?
-------
3. OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS -
TOXICS: ALTERNATIVE RELEASE
(complete for each toxic)
3.1 Chemical Chlorine
3.2 Physical State
a. Gas V b. Liquid
3.3 Results Based On
a. Reference table b. Modeling V
c. Model used DEOADIS
3.4 Scenario (check one)
a. Transfer hose failure
b. Pipe leak
c. Vessel leak
d. Overfilling
e. Rupture disk/relief valve
f Excess flow valve failure
g. Other (specify) : Pigtail rupture
3.5 Quantity Released: 581 Ib
3.6 Release Rate 9.7 Ib/min
3.7 Release Duration: 60 min
3.8 Wind Speed: 2.0 m/see
3.9 Stability Class: E
3.10 Topography (check one)
a. Urban V b. Rural
3.11 Distance to Endpoint: 4,300 feet (see 3.17)
3.12 Residential Population Within Distance (number): 10,000 (see 3.17)
3.13 Public Receptors (check all that apply)
a. Schools V
b. Residences V
c. Hospitals V
d. Prisons
B
DESOTO 3/10/9?
-------
e. Public Recreational areas or arenas V
f. Major commercial, office, or industrial areas V
3.14 Environmental Receptors Within Distance (check all that apply)
a. National or stale parks, forests, or monuments
b. Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges
c. Federal wilderness areas
3.15 Passive Mitigation Considered (check all that apply)
a. Dikes
6. Enclosures
c. Berms
d. Drains
e. Sumps
f Other (specify)
3,16 Active Mitigation Considered (check all that apply)
a. Sprinkler systems
b. Deluge system
c. Water curtain
d. Neutralization
e. Excess flow valve
f. Flares
g. Scrubbers
h. Emergency shutdown systems
i. Other (specify) Chlorine detector, Chlorinators have been converted to a
remote vacuum type; all pressurized chlorine gas piping is being replaced
with vacuum piping.
3.17 Use of More Realistic Modeling Conditions
Use of more realistic modeling than mandated by EPA, namely consideration
that only the population downwind of the release is actually affected, reduces
the residential population within distance to 590 people.
DESOTO 3'10/97
-------
4. FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY
— (complete the following for each release)
4.1 Date N/A (no accidental releases occurred)
4,2 Time
4.3 Release Duration
4.4 Chemical
4.5 Quantity Released Ib
4.6 Release Event
a. Gas release
b. Liquid spill/evaporation
c. Fire
d. Explosion
4.7 Release Source
a. Storage vessel
b. Piping
c. Process vessel
d. Transfer hose
e. Valve
f. Pump
4.8 Weather Conditions at Time of Event (if known)
a. Wind speed/direction
b. Temperature
c. Stability class
d. Precipitation present
e. Unknown
4.9 On-site Impacts
a. Deaths (number)
b. Injuries (number)
c. Property damage ($)
4.10 Known Offsite Impacts
a. Deaths (number)
10
DE SOTO 3/10/97
-------
b. Hospitalizations (number)
c. Oliver medical treatment (number)
d Evacuated (number)
e. Sheltered (number)
f. Property damage ($)
g. Environmental damage (specify type)
4.11 Initiating Event
a. Equipment failure
b. Human error
c. Weather condition
4.12 Contributing Factors (check all that apply)
a. Equipment failure
b. Human error
c. Improper procedures
d, Overpressurization
e. Upset condition
f. By-pass condition
g. Maintenance activity/inactivity
h. Process design
i. Unsuitable equipment
j. Unusual weather condition
k. Management error
4.13 Offsite Responders Notified
a. Yes b. No
4.14 Changes Introduced as a Result of the Accident
a. Improved/upgrade equipment
b. Revised maintenance
c. Revised training
d. Revised operating procedures
e. Ne w process controls
f. New mitigation systems
II
DESOTO
-------
g, Revised emergency response plan
h. Changed process
i. Reduced inventory
j. Other
k None
DE SOTO
12
3/10/9?
-------
5. PREVENTION PROGRAM; PROGRAM 2
•> (For Each Program 2 Process)
5.1 SIC Code for Process: 4941
5.2 Chemicals Chlorine
5.3 Safety information
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of the safety information
December 1996
b. A list of Federal or state regulations or industry-specific design codes and
standards used to demonstrate compliance with the safety information
requirement.
1. NFPA 58 (or state law based on NFPA 58) V
2. OSHA19J0.111
3. ASTM V
4. ANSI standards V
5, ASME standards V
6. Other (specify) NEC, UBC, AISC, ASHRIE, UFC V
7. None
5.4 Hazard Review
a. The date of completion of the most recent hazard review or update
April 1994
b. The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the hazard
review April 1995
c. Major hazards identified (check ail that apply)
I. Toxic release V
2. Fire V
3. Explosion
4, Runaway reaction
5, Polymerization
6, Overpressurization V
7, Corrosion V
8, Overfilling V
13
DESOTO 3/10/97
-------
9. Contamination
10, Equipment failure V
11. Loss of cooling, heating, electricity, instrument air V
12. Earthquake V
13. Floods (floodplain) V
14, Tornado V
15. Hurricanes V
16. Other Tsunami
d Process controls in use (check all that apply)
L Vents V
2. Relief valves V
3. Check valves V
4. Scrubbers
• 5. Flares
6. Manual shutoffs V
7, Automatic shutoffs V
8. Interlocks V
9. Alarms and procedures V
JO. Keyed bypass
1 /. Emergency air supply V
12. Emergency power V
13. Backup pump
14. Grounding equipment
15. Inhibitor addition
16, Rupture disks
17. Excess flow device
18. Quench system
19. Purge system
20. Other
14
DESOTO
-------
e. Mitigation systems in use (check all that apply)
I. ^Sprinkler system
2, Dikes
3. Fire walls V
4. Blast walls
5. Deluge system
6. Water curtain
7. Enclosure V
8. Neutralization
9. Other Two chains used to restrain ton containers
/ Monitoring/detection systems in use
1. Process area detectors V
2. Perimeter monitors
3. Other Process controls
g. Changes since last hazard review updated (check all that apply)
L Reduction in chemical inventory
2, Increase in chemical inventory
3. Change in process parameters
4. Installation of process controls
5. Installation of process detection systems
6. Installation of perimeter monitoring systems
7, Installation of mitigation systems V
8. Other Replacement/upgrade of equipment
9, None required/recommended
5.5 Date of the Most Recent Review or Revision of Operating Procedures:
December 1996
5.6 Training
a. Date of the most recent review or revision of training programs
December 1996
b. Type of 'training provided
1. Classroom V
15
DESOTO 3/10/97
-------
2. Classroom plus on (he Job V
3. ^On the job V
4, Other Audiovisual Aids, Simulation, Written Exercises
c. Type of competency testing used
1. Written tests
2. Oral tests V
3, Demonstration V
4. Observation V
5. Other
5.7 Maintenance
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of maintenance procedures
December 1996
b. The date of the most recent equipment inspection or test December 1996
c. The equipment inspected or tested Chlorine System
5.8 Compliance Audits
a. Date of the most recent compliance audit April 1994
b. Expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance
audit April 1995
5.9 Incident Investigation
a. Date of the most recent incident investigation N/A
b. Expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the
investigation
5.10 Date of the Most Recent Change that Triggered a Review or Revision of Safety
Information, the Hazard Review, Operating or Maintenance Procedures, or
Training; N/A
16
DESOTO 3/10/9?
-------
6. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
6.1 WritteE Emergency Response Plan? a. Yes V b. No
6.2 Does the Plan Include Specific Actions to be Taken in Response to an
Accidental Release of a Regulated Substance? a. Yes i/ b. No
6.3 Does the Plan Include Procedures for Informing the Public and Local Agencies
Responsible for Responding to Accidental Release? a. Yes V b. No
6.4 Does the Plan Include Information on Emergency Health Care?
a. Yes "/ b. No
6.5 Date of the Most Recent Review or Update of the Emergency Response Plan:
December 1996
6.6 Date of the Most Recent Emergency Response Training for Employees:
December 1996
6.7 Name and Telephone Number of the Local Agency With Which the Plan is
Coordinated
a. Name Los Angeles City Fire Department
b. Telephone number (213)485-8324
6.8 Subject to (check all that apply)
a. OSHA 1910.38 (Emergency Action Plan) V
b. OSHA 1910.120 (HAZWOPER) V
c. Clean Water Act/SPCC
d RCRA
e. DOTOPA-90
f. State EPCRA Rules/Law V
g. Other (specify)
17
DESOTO 3/10/97
-------
7. CERTIFICATION
To the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and
belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the information
submitted is true, accurate, and complete.
Bruce Kuebler
Engineer-in-Charge, DWP
Water Quality and Distribution Division
IS
OESOTO
-------
SECTION 2
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
The De Soto Chlorination Station has been installed to disinfect the flow in the De
Soto Trunk Line. This water serves the Chatsworth and San Fernando Valley area. The
chlorination station is located on De Soto Avenue north of Rinaldi Street, next to the De
Soto Reservoir. The station includes a chJorination room, which contains liquid chlorine
containers, a chlorinator, and various safety equipment, and an instrument room, which
contains a flow recorder, various electrical panels, and additional safety equipment. The
amount of chlorine handled is two one-ton containers and a 150-lb cylinder. The facility
is normally unmanned. Water treatment operators visit the facility daily and respond to
any trouble alarms which may occur.
These EPA Risk Management Plan (RMP) Support Documents satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 68. The regulatory items are referenced in the text ("40 CFR" is
omitted). Some of the material provided was prepared as part of a State of California
Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP), developed in April 1994. This
RMPP, which consists of two volumes, RMPP Public Document and RMPP Technical
Document, is attached to the RMP as a reference.
A-1
DE SOTO J/10/97
-------
B. HAZARD ASSESSMENT
This hazard assessment was prepared in compliance with Subpart B of 40 CFR 68.
BL APPLICABILITY
The De Soto Chlorination Station handles chlorine, an EPA-regulated substance, in
amounts exceeding the regulatory threshold of 2,500 Ib. The process of chiorination for
disinfection of water supplies is not part of the SIC codes listed by EPA in 68.10(d), and
the facility is not subject to OSHA Process Safety management (PSM) requirements,
because it is a normally unoccupied remote facility (29 CFR 1910,119(b)]. However,
many public receptors are present in the toxic endpoint zone. This qualifies the De Soto
Chlorination Station as a Program 2 process.
B2. OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS PARAMETERS (68.22 and
Appendix A)
The offsite consequence analysis parameters are listed below.
(a) Endpoint
As required by EPA, the chlorine toxic endpoint used is 0.0087 mg/L. This
corresponds to 3 parts per million by volume (pprn), and represents the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Emergency Response Planning Guideline
(ERPG)-2, which is defined as "the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without
experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which
could impair an individual's ability to take protective action."
An additional toxic endpoint (level of concern) was considered for the alternative
release scenario, namely the ERPG-3 level (20 ppm). This is defined by AIHA as "the
maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals
could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing life-threaten ing
health effects."
(b) Wind speed/atmospheric stability class
As required by EPA, a wind speed of 1.5 meters per second (m/s)t and an atmospheric
stability class F were used for performing the offsite consequence analysis for the worst-
case release scenario.
For the alternative release scenario, EPA suggests the use of typical meteorological
conditions or, if these are not available, a wind speed of 3 m/s and an atmospheric
B-l
DESOTO 3/10/9?
-------
stability class D may be used. Typical meteorological conditions were used for
performing the'offsite consequence analysis for the alternative release scenario.
(c) Ambient terrTperature/humidity
EPA RMP regulations for the worst-case release analysis require use of the highest
daily maximum temperature in the previous three years, and average humidity. Since site
specific temperature data were not available, the highest daily temperature was identified
from a review of the highest temperatures recorded in Los Angeles County and reported
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in their publication, "A
Climatological Air Quality Profile, California South Coast Air Basin, 1980." The highest
daily temperature was identified as 116°F and used for the dispersion analysis of the
worst-case release scenario. Since site specific humidity data were also not available, the
average humidity was estimated from records reported by the SCAQMD for Los Angeles
County. The average relative humidity value used for the dispersion analysis was 65%.
According to the RMP regulations, typical temperature/humidity data may be used for
the alternative release scenario. The annual average value of the temperature and
humidity reported by the SCAQMD for the Van Nuys air monitoring station, 62°F and
63% respectively, were used as inputs to the dispersion model,
(d) Height of release
The RMP regulations require that, for the worst-case release analysis, the release
should be assumed to occur at ground level (0 feet). Accordingly, the worst-case release
analysis was performed for this level.
For performing the offsite consequence analysis for the alternative scenario, the
height of release may be determined from the release scenario conditions. The alternative
scenario was also modeled as a ground level release.
(e) Surface roughness
RMP regulations require that either urban or rural topography should be used for
performing the air dispersion analysis for the identified release scenarios. The rural and
urban topographical conditions are characterized in the air dispersion models in terms of
surface roughness. The rural condition, defined by EPA as "no buildings in the
immediate area and the terrain is generally flat and unobstructed" [68.22 (e)], is
characterized by a surface roughness of 0.03 meter, whereas the urban condition is
characterized by a surface roughness of 1.0 meter (EPA Offsite Consequence Analysis
Guidance, May 1996, Section D.4.2). Surface roughness values assigned by EPA to
urban conditions are not suitable for the DEGADIS model (see below), which was
designed for essentially unobstructed, flat surfaces. A maximum value of 0.03 meter,
therefore, was used for surface roughness (a conservative assumption).
(f) Dense or neutrally buoyant gases
RMP regulations require that the models used for dispersion analysis should
appropriately account for the density of the released gas. Since the chlorine gas released
during the identified accidental release scenarios would be denser-than-air, the Dense Gas
B-2
DESOTO 3/SQ/97
-------
Air Dispersion (DEGADIS 2.1) model was used for performing the air dispersion
modeling,
This modeFwas initially developed at the University of Arkansas for the U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. Coast Guard Service), and later released by EPA in
1991 for performing dispersion analyses for denser-than-air accidental releases. The
DEGADIS 2.1 model can simulate a wide variety of release scenarios for gases/aerosols
heavier than air, including instantaneous releases, steady releases, and prescribed time
releases. The model is suitable for dispersion analysis of ground-level (DEGADISIN
Option) as well as elevated releases from vents and relief valves (JETPLU Option). A
release is considered transient if the source characteristics do not vary with time but the
duration of the release from the source is limited. The chlorine releases were modeled as
transient releases. The inputs required by the DEGADIS 2.1 model are: release rate,
release duration, release temperature, release height (for jet type releases), meteorological
conditions (atmospheric stability, wind speed, humidity, ambient temperature), surface
roughness, physical properties and level of concern for the released gas,
(g) Temperature of released substance
The facility process temperature coincides with the ambient temperature. Therefore,
the temperature of any released chlorine is the same as the ambient temperature discussed
above in (c).
B3. WORST-CASE RELEASE SCENARIO ANALYSIS (68,25)
RMP regulations require that a worst-case release scenario analysis be performed in
compliance with specified conditions, as detailed below.
(a) Number of release scenarios
RMP regulations for Program 2 processes require the performance of a consequence
analysis for one worst-case release scenario, estimated to create the greatest distance in
any direction to a toxic endpoint. The worst-case release scenario selected was the
complete de-inventory of the two one-ton chlorine containers present at the facility and
connected to the chlorination system.
(b) Worst-case release quantity
The 2-ton (4,000 Ib) worst-case release quantity selected represents the greatest
amount held by interconnected vessels.
(c) Worst case release scenario for to%ic gases
According to the RMP regulations, it should be assumed that, for toxic substances
that are normally gases at ambient temperature and handled as a gas or as a liquid under
pressure, the quantity present in a vessel will be released as a gas over 10 minutes. The
release rate is assumed to be the total quantity divided by 10, unless passive mitigation
systems (such as berms or sumps) are in place. The boiling point temperature for
chlorine is -31°F; thus, chlorine is a gas at ambient temperature. In addition, there are no
B-3
DE SOTO 3/10/97
-------
passive mitigation systems in place. The worst-case chlorine release rate was therefore
estimated at 400 Ib/min.
A summary dYall the parameters selected for the dispersion modeling is presented in
Table B-l. Dispersion modeling calculations are presented in Appendix A.
Table B-l
Dispersion Model Summary Sheet for the Worst-Case Release Scenario
Input Parameter
Release Quantity (kg)
Release Rate (kg/s)
Release Time (sec)
Physical State
Release Direction
Release Temperature (°K)
Release Pressure (atm)
Ambient Temperature (°K)
Ambient Pressure (atm)
Stability Class
Wind Speed (m/s)
Concentration Averaging Time
EPA Level of Concern
Additional Level of Concern
Release Scenario;
Tank De-Inventory Release
1,814.4
3.024
600
Gas
Ground
319.82
1
319,82
1
F
1.5
600 seconds
3 ppm
7 ppm
Dispersion Modeling Results. The chlorine concentrations predicted by the
atmospheric dispersion analysis for the worst-case scenario are summarized in Table B-2;
they are presented as:
• Maximum eentedine downwind distance up to which the EPA level of concern
concentration of 3 ppm was observed
» Maximum isopleth width for the 3 ppm concentration, and distance at which it
occurred.
DE SOTO
J/10/97
-------
Table B-2
Dispersion Modeling Results, Worst-Case Release Scenario
(Chlorine Tank De-Inventory)
I
Release Isopleih
Atmospheric Wind Speed Concentration Concentration Maximum Distance Maximum Distance
Conditions Stability (m/sec) (ppm) Averaging Period Where Observed Width
^ (min) (m) (m) (m)
1. EPA-defmed F 1.5 3 10 4,729 596 2,412
2. Gas/aerosol release and 10-min F 1.5 7 10 2,271 448 1,197
average modified ERPG-2
B-5
; SOTO
-------
As shown in the table, the maximum distance to toxic endpoint (3 ppm) reached by
chlorine concentrations generated by a 10-min release of 4,000 Ib of chlorine is 4,8 km
(2.9 miles).
Detailed computer outputs are provided in Appendix F.
Use of More Realistic Assumptions. EPA provided simplified conditions for a
worst-case scenario offsite consequence analysis to facilitate its performance; however,
the assumptions used may be unrealistic because:
(1) Only a fraction (about 26% of the total) of the compressed liquefied chlorine
released to the atmosphere flashes as a vapor. The remaining unflashed liquid
forms liquid-droplet aerosols. This results in the formation of a very dense
chlorine cloud consisting of vapor and liquid droplets, with dispersion
characteristics significantly different from a cloud consisting only of chlorine gas.
t
(2) It is not appropriate to compare a 10-minute release to a one-hour average
standard. The 3 ppm one-hour ERPG value can be modified using available time
of exposure/concentration relationships to match the 10-minute release time. The
relationship for chlorine is related to probit functions suggested by the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers ("Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative
Risk Analysis", 1989), and assumes that the square of the concentration of
chlorine (C2) is inversely proportional to time (t) or C2t=£. For a 10-minute time
(the lowest exposure period to which modified ERPGs are applicable), the
modified ERPG value is 7.3 ppm.
When these more realistic assumptions were used for dispersion modeling, the
distance to toxic endpoint (approximated at 7 ppm) reached by chlorine concentrations
generated by a 10-min release of 4,000 Ib of chlorine was 2.3 km (1.4 miles), as noted on
Table B-2.
B4. ALTERNATIVE RELEASE SCENARIO ANALYSIS (68.28)
(a) Number of Scenarios
RMP regulations require that at least one alternative scenario be identified and
analyzed for each regulated toxic substance. Since chlorine is the only regulated toxic
substance used at the facility, one alternative scenario was selected for the offsite
consequence analysis.
(b) Scenarios to Consider
RMP regulations require that a scenario which is more likely to occur than the worst-
case scenario be selected as the alternative release. The scenario selected involves the
rupture of the flexible connections (pigtails) connected to three ton-containers, possibly
due to an earthquake. The amount of chlorine released is 581 Ib, at an average rate over
one hour (the duration of the release) of 9.7 Ib/min. Toxic endpoint distances to ERPG-2
and -3 levels were obtained. The latter is defined by A1HA as "the maximum airborne
concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for
up to one hour without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects". The
distances reached are listed on Table B-4.
B-6
DE SOTO J/KV97
-------
(c) Parameters to be Applied
The parameters applied to the dispersion analysis for the alternative release scenario
are discussed above in Section B-2.
(d) Consideration of Mitigation
No passive mitigation systems were considered. An active mitigation system
considered is the actuation of a chlorine detector. An additional mitigation system being
installed is the conversion of the existing chlorinators to a remote vacuum type, with all
pressurized chlorine gas piping replaced with vacuum piping. This will reduce
significantly the amount of chlorine released in case of pigtail rupture.
(e) Factors in Selecting Scenarios
The rationale for selection of this scenario, which is more likely to occur than the
EPA worst case release discussed in Section B3, is based on performance of a hazard
review using the Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) procedure, and of a concurrent
hazard analysis where possible failure scenarios were identified, as described in Section C
of the RMPP Technical Document.
Dispersion Modeling. Dispersion modeling inputs and results obtained are discussed
in Section E of the RMPP Technical Document.
B5. OFFSITE IMPACTS - POPULATION (68.30)
EPA RMP regulations require the determination of the potentially affected residential
population within a circle with its center at the point of the release and a radius
determined by the distance to the endpoint, estimated to two significant digits. The data
source used for this estimate was the 1990 census data; the census tracts involved are
listed in Appendix B.
As discussed in Section B3, the distance to the toxic endpoint obtained for the worst-
case scenario using EPA conditions, was 2.9 miles from the release source. The
geographical area within a circle of 2.9 mile radius from the De Solo Chlorination Station
is presented in Figure B-I. It should be noted that only the population residing within the
footprint of the downwind plume generated (of elliptical shape) would be actually
affected. The plume footprint is also shown on Figure B-l, oriented in the prevailing
wind direction; it would be oriented in different directions at various times of the year.
As discussed in Section B3, use of more realistic conditions, namely a gas/aerosol
chlorine release and a 10-minute average modified ERPG, leads to a toxic endpoint
distance of 1.4 miles, A circle of 1.4 mile radius and a corresponding plume footprint are
also shown on Figure B-1.
The residential population estimates obtained for these areas for both full circle and
plume footprint are reported in Table B-3. The estimates of the residential populations
were obtained from census data (Appendix B).
B-7
DESOTO 3/10/97
-------
0 1
5
Scale in Kilometers
0 1 2
Scale in Miles
A. EPA Conditions (endpoint distance: 2,9 miles)
B. Gas/Aerosol Release and 10-minute average ERPG-2
(endpoint distance: 1.4 miles)
Figure B-l -Geographical Area Affected by a
Worst-Case Scenario
B-8
-------
Public receptors to be identified include institutions (schools, hospitals, prisons),
parks and recreational areas, and major commercial, office, and industrial buildings. The
institutions and parks and recreational areas within a 2,9 mile radius from the release
source were identified. They are listed in Appendix C. Due to the large size of the urban
area involved, major commercial, office, and industrial buildings could not be
individually identified; in place of this, a land use map using data provided by the City of
Los Angeles Planning Department, identifying major commercial, residential, and
industrial districts, was included as Figure B-2.
Estimates of residential population potentially affected by an alternative release are
presented in Table B-4, These estimates were also obtained from census data.
A graphic representation of the affected areas is provided on Figure E-6 of the RMPP
Technical Volume. The public receptors affected are identified on this figure and on
Table E-7 of the RMPP Technical Volume, In addition, Brown's Creek Canyon Park,
located to the northwest of the facility, is also affected.
B6. OFFSITE IMPACTS - ENVIRONMENT (68.33)
Environmental receptors to be identified (Federal Register, Vol. 61, p. 31672,
6/20/96) include natural areas such as national or state parks, forests, or monuments;
officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal
wilderness areas. Local U.S. Geological Survey maps were consulted: no environmental
receptors were found to be present within the endpoint area.
B7. REVIEW AND UPDATE (68.36)
(a) DWP will review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every
five years.
(b) If changes in processes, quantities stored or handled, or any other aspect of the
facility might reasonably be expected to increase or decrease the distance to the
endpoint by a factor of two or more, DWP will complete a revised analysis within
six months of the change and submit a revised risk management plan.
B8. DOCUMENTATION (68.39)
The required records for the offsite consequence analyses are provided above in
Sections B2 through B6.
B9. FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY (68.42)
No accidental chlorine releases have occurred at this facility since January 1, 1992.
Accident definitions and accident investigation procedures are provided in Section 2 of
the RMPP Public Volume.
B-9
DE SOTO 3/10/9?
-------
ft^:' ;••"•'• •':•-''."/'•- ••^-:-'^~:-i:''":fe---"--.•t.'-'-'-r-•
fe
rrf>
o.s
1.5
De Solo
Reproduced with permission granted
2 Miles by Southern California Association
of Governments.
Land Use
, Residential
ggU Commercial
Industrial
T£: Open Sp«e«
•• Othar
Figure B-2 - Laod Use Map
B-10
DE SOTO
3/IO/9?
-------
Table B-3
_ Estimates of Residential Population
- Potentially Affected by a Worst-Case Scenario
Conditions
EPA-defined
Gas/aerosol release and 10-rnin
average modified ERPG-2
Endpoint
Distance (miles)
2,9
1.4
Within the
Full Circle
(no. of people)
110,000
24.000
Within the
Plume Footprint
(no. of people)
4,300
1,500
Table B-4
Estimates of Residential Population
Potentially Affected by an Alternative Release
Exposure Standard
One-hour average ERPG-2
One-hour average ERJH3-3
Endpoint
Distance (ft)
4,300
1,400
Within the
Full Circle
(no. of people)
10,000
4,000
Within the
Plume Footprint
(no. of people)
590
240
B-ll
DESOTO
3/20/9?
-------
C. PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION PROGRAM
The DWP accidental release prevention policy involves a unified approach that
integrates technologies, procedures, and management practices, and is in compliance with
all applicable EPA Prevention Program requirements.
Chemical-specific prevention steps include availability of self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA), worn by the operators during connection/disconnection of chlorine
supply, awareness of the hazardous and toxic properties of chlorine, and presence of
chlorine detectors.
Cl. SAFETY INFORMATION (68.48)
(a) Safety information is provided below as follows:
(1) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for chlorine in compliance with 29 CFR
1910.1200(g), This is included in Appendix D.
(2) The maximum intended inventory of chlorine is 4,150 Ib stored in two one-
ton containers, connected to the chlorination system, and in one additional
150-lb cylinder.
(3) The chlorine header pressure varies from 20 to 140 psig depending on the
temperature and amount of chlorine left. The chlorinator gas pressure varies
from 30 to 35 psig. Operating temperature is always atmospheric. Control of
the chlorination process is by flow proportional and residual chlorine feed
pacing. Chlorine residual analyzers continuously monitor and record the
treated water residuals.
(4) Equipment specifications are presented in the Technical Data Sheets included
in Appendix E.
(5) The facility was designed and built in conformance with the following Codes
and Standards:
Equipment Code/Standard
Electrical National Electrical Code (NEC)
Piping American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American
National Standards Institute (ASME/ANSI)
Storage Tank ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Div. 1
Structures Uniform Building Code (UBC)
American Institute of Sleel Construction (AJSC)
C-l
OESOTO 3/25/97
-------
Ventilation American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
_ Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Offier General Uniform Fire Code (UFC)
Concrete American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
(b) The chlorination process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices. The operation of the facility adheres to the
guidelines of the Chlorine Institute.
(c) DWP will update this safety information if a major change occurs that makes the
information inaccurate.
C2. HAZARD REVIEW (68.50)
(a) A review of the hazards associated with the chlorine facility process and
procedures was performed, using the HAZOP procedure. It is included in Section
C of the RMPP Technical Document. Other applicable items from, other sections
are referenced below. The following required items were identified:
(1) The hazards associated with chlorine and the chlorination process (Appendix
D of this report).
(2) Possibility of equipment malfunctions or human errors that could cause an
accidental release (Section C of the RMPP Technical Document).
(3) The safeguards used or needed to control the hazards or prevent equipment
malfunction or human error (Section C of the RMPP Technical Document).
(4) Steps used or needed to detect or monitor releases (Section 5 of the RMPP
Public Document).
(b) All equipment was inspected during the hazard review; it was determined that the
chlorination facility was designed, built, and operated in accordance with
applicable codes and industrial guidelines [see Section C 1(5) of this report],
(c) The results of the hazard review were documented (Section C of the RMPP
Technical Document).
(d) The hazard review will be updated at least once every five years. DWP will also
conduct reviews whenever a major change in the process occurs; all issues
identified in the review will be resolved before startup of the changed process
occurs.
C3. OPERATING PROCEDURES (68.52)
DWP has prepared written procedures that provide clear instructions or steps for
safely conducting activities associated with the chlorination process. They are consistent
with the applicable safety information.
C-2
OESOTO
-------
The following procedures are included in Section III of the DWP General Operation
and Maintenance Manual for Chlorination Stations:
Initial siJuFtup;
Normal operations;
Temporary operations;
Emergency shutdown and operations;
Normal shutdown;
Startup following a normal or emergency shutdown or a major change that
requires a hazard review;
Consequences of deviations and steps required to correct or avoid deviations; and
Equipment inspections.
DWP updates these operating procedures, if necessary, whenever a major change
occurs and prior to startup of the changed process.
C4. TRAINING (68.54)
DWP ensures that each employee presently operating the chlorination process, and
each employee newly assigned to this process have been trained or tested competent in
the operating procedures listed above that pertain to their duties. The DWP employee
training documentation files include a written DWP certification for each employee
assigned to operate the chlorination process that the employee has die required
knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out the duties and responsibilities as
provided in the operating procedures.
Refresher training is provided yearly to each employee operating the chlorination
process to ensure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating
procedures of the process. This frequency of refresher training was determined by DWP,
in consultation with the employees operating the process.
DWP ensures that operators are trained in any updated or new procedures prior to
startup of a process after a major change. The DWP training program is further discussed
in Section 11 of the RMPP Public Document.
C5. MAINTENANCE (68.56)
(a) DWP has prepared and implemented procedures to maintain the on-going
mechanical integrity of the chlorination process equipment Some procedures or
instructions were provided by chlorination process equipment vendors.
(b) DWP has trained each employee involved in maintaining the on-going mechanical
integrity of the chlorination process. To ensure that the employee can perform the
job tasks in a safe manner, each employee was trained in the hazards of the
C-3
DE SOTO 3/l(W7
-------
process, in how to avoid or correct unsafe conditions, and in the procedures
applicable to the employee's job tasks.
(c) DWP-does not commonly use outside maintenance contractors, but DWP verifies
that any such contractors are trained to perform the required maintenance
procedures.
(d) DWP performs inspections and tests on chlorination process equipment.
Inspection and testing procedures follow recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices. The Frequency of inspections and tests of process
equipment is consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations,
industry standards or codes, good engineering practices, and prior operating
experience.
Maintenance procedures and inspection frequency are further described in Section 4 of
the RMPP Public Document.
C6. COMPLIANCE AUDITS (68.58)
(a) DWP will certify every three years (or earlier) that compliance with Program 2
Prevention Program requirements has been evaluated to verify that the procedures
and practices developed are adequate and are being followed.
(b) The compliance audit will be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in
the process.
(c) DWP will prepare a report of the audit findings.
(d) DWP will promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of
the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been
corrected.
(e) DWP will retain the two most recent compliance audit reports within the prior
five-year period.
Auditing and inspecting procedures are also discussed in Section 8 of the RMPP
Public Document
C7. INCIDENT INVESTIGATION (68.60)
(a) DWP will investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have
resulted in a catastrophic release.
(b) An incident investigation will be initiated as promptly as possible, but not later
than 48 hours following the incident.
(c) A summary will be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation including:
(I) Date of incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
C-4
DESOTO 3/10/97
-------
(4) The factors that contributed to the incident; and
(5) Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
(d) DWP-will promptly address and resolve the investigation findings and
recommendations. Resolutions and corrective actions will be documented,
(e) The findings will be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are
affected by the findings.
(f) Investigation summaries will be retained for five years.
C-5
OESOTO
-------
D. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The DWP emergency response policy involves the preparation of response plans
which are tailored to each facility and to the emergency response services available in the
community, and is in compliance with the EPA Emergency Response Program
requirements.
Dl. APPLICABILITY (68.90)
DWP is a first responder; DWP employees respond to chlorine accidental releases.
D2. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM (68.95)
DWP has developed and implemented an emergency response program for the
purpose of protecting public health and the environment The following elements are
included:
(a) An emergency response plan, maintained at the stationary source, and containing:
Procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about
accidental releases;
Documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to
treat accidental human exposures; and
Procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental chlorine
release.
(b) Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection,
testing, and maintenance,
(c) Training in relevant procedures for all employees involved with the chlorination
process.
(d) Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to
reflect changes and ensure that employees are informed of changes.
The facility emergency response plan has been coordinated (reviewed) with the City
of Los Angeles Fire Department, which received a copy of this report. This agency is a
member of the Local Emergency Response Planning Committee (LEPC), and was
involved with the development of a community emergency response plan.
Emergency response procedures are discussed in Section 10 of the RMPP Public
Document, which includes an emergency response decision tree and a notification plan.
Emergency response drills and drill evaluations are conducted every six months;
emergency operation and response procedures are also reviewed at that time, and updated
if required.
D-l
DESOTO
-------
United states Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 15101)
550-F-96-001
April 1996
CEPPO ELECTRONIC SOWRCES - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BULLETIN
More information is available today, in more ways, and at a faster rate, than anyone
possible, even two years ago. EPA1a Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention O
(CEPPO) has joined this new wave of information with an electronic home patge and bul
board system. This quick-reference assistance bulletin describes what you need to kn
information electronically on chemical emergency preparedness and chemical accident
Tap in to CEPPO in cyberspace. It's not the wave of the future — it's now!
LEPC / SSRC BULLETIN BOARD
In April, 1996, EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO)
introduced the new electronic bulletin board for Local Emergency Planning Committees
and State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCa). As CEPPO's primary stakeholders in
emergency planning and chemical accident prevention, these organizations need easy a
wide array of information — documents, databases, and other resources. Modem access
bulletin board provides all this. With Internet access, users can also find links to
Internet sites such as mapping resources or other databases as well as a "'conference
LEPCs and SERCs can communicate directly with each other.
The bulletin board has been developed by CEPPO in conjunction with RTK-Net, an on-li
network operated by the public interest organizations OMB Watch and Unison Institute
selected the bulletin board format because it is the most easily accessible to the 1
people. SERCs and LEPCs can gain access to it either through an 800 toll-free modem
connection or through the Internet.
HARDWARE
For modem dial-up access to the LEPC / SERC bulletin board, a user needs a computer
Macintosh), a modem (from 2400 to 2SOO), and communications software. If you use an
system, RTK-Net can give you compatible communications shareware. Many Macintosh sys
come already equipped with communications packages. Communications software is also
commercially available.
For access to the bulletin board through the Internet, you need a computer, a modem,
Internet provider, and Internet search mechanism such as Netscape to reach the RTK-N
World Wide Web is preferable, but Telnet is also possible; it works like a modem dia
Your Internet provider may be able to give you appropriate software; otherwise, it i
commercially available.
ELECTRONIC ADDRESSES
Either system will take you to the same information on the bulletin board. For accea
these routes:
World Wide Web: https//www.rtk.net/lepc.net
Telnet: Telnet to rtk.net
Modem number: 202-234-8570 or toll-free: 1-800-444-8697
Please note that on the bulletin board, you will be prompted for a user name and pas
"user name," type in "lepc." For "password," type "lepcepa." You will need to us« th
the tab key to move the cursor down to the password field before entering the paaswo
pressing "enter."
For technical assistance in accessing the system, call a systems operator on th* RTK
at 202-234-8494.
I of 2 05-211^ 07 5<
-------
CEPPO HOME PAGE
CEPPO has also set up its own home page on the internet's World Wide Web, If offers
information about CSPPO, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, ris
management planning requirements of the Clear Air Act, as well as publications, regu
databases. It also «hows links relevant to emergency preparedness and chemical accid
prevention. To go -directly to the CSPPO home page, the address is:
http://www.epa,gov/swercepp/
If you would like information about the larger division of EPA of which CEPPO is a p
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response or OSWER — you may go directly to the
QSWER home page:
http t//www,epa.gov/epaoswer/
For a broad range of information about the Environmental Protection Agency in genera
EPA'a home page:
http://www.epa.gov
LANDVIEW II (fM)
LandView II is a community right-to-know software tool in the format of an electron!
both geographical and tabular information from selected EPA databases and the Bureau
Census. Published originally on CD ROM, it is now available on RTK-Net, sorted by in
county. RTK-Net users of LandView II must download files on a county by county basis
run the actual program In DOS on their own computer, since the program itself does n
within che confines of RTK-Net. Users will also need to download the program needed
the LandView II files, an installation file, and an instruction file. Like the CD-RO
software, LandView filea must be run on a PC.
To access LandView II through RTK-Net, the address is:
http://rtk.net/landview
If you need technical assistance while downloading LandView II froia RTK-Net, call th
RTK-Net Helpline at 202-234-8494.
CAMEO (TM)
The Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) is a software system t
integrates a chemical database, an air dispersion model, a mapping capability, and d
management capability. CAMEO now has its own home page with information on software
fixes," ordering, training, and technical support. To reach the page on the Internet
http://www.nac.org/nsc/ehc/cameo.html
FOR ADDITIONAL IKFORMAfIOW
Contact the Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Hotline:
<800) 424-9346 0 R 1703) 412-9810
TDD <800) 535-7672
Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6 pm. Eastern Time
2 of 2 0S'2l<»7{
-------
CAA 112(R) APPLICABILITY AND PROGRAM LEVELJ
Is subtanc*
on 112(r)list?
Yes
No ^
Not Subject!
Program 3
threshold quaatity ?
Does the process
ol tfee
following SIC cades:
':.','-f-'"i rf-.!f:.f-;f ^*-'-'"-.-:
2821,2565.2869,
Have you coordinated
Program 2
procedures with
Program 1
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - FT... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 1 of 46
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office (CEPPO)
July 1997
CAA Section 112(r) Frequently Asked Questions
Disclaimer
It is important that the user understand the purpose and limitation of the "CAA Section
112(r) Frequently Asked Questions" file. The questions and answers are not intended to
fully represent or be used in place of the regulations. These questions can be used to explore
the application of the regulations in different scenarios or to shed light on complex issues. The
answers provided are not rules nor are they binding upon the Agency in any context. The EPA
may withdraw, modify, or depart from the answers provided in this file at any time without
notice. For an understanding of the actual regulatory requirements in any given situation, the
reader must consult the appropriate sections of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), pertinent Federal Registers and EPA guidance documents, as well as relevant State
regulations.
CAA Questions and Answers
Table of Contents
I. General Duty
IL Applicability
A. Proposed Amendments to List Rule (April 15,^ 1996)
B. Exemptions
C. DOT Transportation Regulations
HL Program Level Screening
IV. Hazard Assessment
A. Offsite Consequence Analysis
B. Worst-Case Release Scenario
C. Alternative Release Scenario
D. Modeling (inc. Meteorology)
E. Defining offsite impacts - Populations Affected
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Interact Explorer Page 2 of 46
F Defining offsite impacts - Environmental Impact
G. Five-Year Accident History
V. Prevention Program
A. Prevention Program - OSHA PSM
VI.. Emergency Response Program
VTI. Risk Management Plan CKMP)
A. Registration / RMPlan Submission
B. Model Risk Management Programs (*No questions)
VHL Enforcement
IX. Implementation
A. Implementation - Interaction with CAA Title V Programs
B. Implementation - Audits
X. Miscellaneous
L General Duty
L 1. Question: What is the general doty clause under CAA 112(r)(l)?
Answer: The CAA general duty clause directs owners and operators of stationary sources to
identify hazards that may result from accidental releases, to design and maintain a safe facility,
and to minimize the consequences of releases when they occur,
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
L 2. Question: For CAA section 112(r)(l), General Duty, what are the chemicals that
are covered?
Answer: There is no specific list of substances which subject a stationary source owner or
operator to the general duty provisions. The general duty provisions apply to owners and
operators of all stationary sources which have any " extremely hazardous substances".
Extremely hazardous substances are not limited to the list of regulated substances listed under
section 112(r>, nor the extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA 302 (40 CFR Part 355,
Appendices A and B).
Although there is no definition for extremely hazardous, the Senate Report on the Clean Air
Act provides criteria EPA may use to determine if a substance is extremely hazardous. The
report expressed the intent that the term "extremely hazardous substance11 would include any
agent "which may or may not be listed or otherwise identified by any Government agency
which may as the result of short-term exposures associated with releases to the air cause
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section I L2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 3 of 46
death, injury or property damage due to its toxicity, reactivity, flammability, volatility, or
corrosivity" (Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Clean Air Act
Amendments of 19£9, Senate Report No. 228, 101st Congress, 1st Session 211 (1989) -
"Senate Repoit'>
As the Senate makes clear, "the release of any substance which causes death or serious injury
because of its acute toxic effect or as a result of an explosion or fire or which causes
substantial property damage by blast, fire, corrosion or other reaction would create a
presumption that such substance is extremely hazardous." Senate Report at 211, Revisions to
the list of regulated substances under CAA 112(r) do not affect the applicability of the general
duty provisions.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
L 3. Question: Does the exemption at 40 CFR 68.125 for "ammonia used as an
agricultural nutrient, when held by farmers" apply to the CAA Section 112(r)(l)
general duty clause?
Answer: No, The exemption for ammonia held by farmers for use as fertilizer applies only to
the provisions of the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68, The general
duty requirement is statutory rather than regulatory and is, therefore, not subject to the
regulatory exemption at 40 CFR 68,125.
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
EL Applicability
EL 1. Question: Who If covered by CAA 112(r)(7)?
Answer: An owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity
of a regulated substance in a process (40 CFR 68.10). Underlined terms were defined in the
List Rule.
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
H. 2. Question: Does a. chemical need to be in a process to be covered by the CAA.
112(r) risk management program requirements?
Answer: The risk management program requirements apply to owners and operators of
stationary sources that have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance contained
in a process (40 CFR 68.115), The definition of process is very broad, and includes any use,
storage, manufacturing, handling, on-site movement, or any combination of these activities.
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
IL 3. Question: Are there any pending changes to the January 31,1994, List Rule?
Answer: Yes. In the April 15, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 16598), EPA proposed several
amendments to the list rule. The proposed amendments include deleting the entire category of
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 4 of 46
Division 11 explosives from the list of regulated substances, clarifying threshold
determinations for regulated flammable substances in a mixture, exempting listed flammable
substances in gasoline used as a fuel and in naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures from
threshold determination, modifying the definition of stationary source to clarify the
transportation exemption and to clarify that naturally occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs are not
stationary sources.
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
EL 4. Question: CAA 112(r)(3) provides EPA the authority to amend the list of
regulated substances. Does EPA expect to add chemicals to the list of regulated
substances in the near future?
Answer: At this time, EPA does not expect to add any chemicals to the list of regulated
substances. The statute, however, requires that the list be reviewed at least every five years
(CAA 112(rX3)).
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
H. 5. Question: Are the risk management program requirements under 40 CFR Part 68
applicable to federal facilities?
Answer: Yes. The requirements at 40 CFR Part 68 are applicable to an owner or operator oft
stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process
(40 CFR 68.10(a)). The definition of stationary source includes 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
control of the same person, and from which an accidental release may occur (40 CFR 68.3).
The Clean Air Act Section 302(e) defines "person" as an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, political subdivision of a State, and any agency, department,
or instrumentality of the United States and any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997 "revised from August 1996 Q&A)
IL 6. Question: A stationary source is subject to the OSHA process safety management
standard (PSM) because it exceeds the OSHA PSM threshold for chlorine. The
stationary source does not, however, exceed the threshold for chlorine (or any other
regulated substances) in a process under tbe Risk Management Program regulations (40
CFR 68.130^ Is tile stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program,
requirements?
Answer: No. A stationary source is subject to the Risk Management Program requirements
only if it has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
IL 7. Question: Why are hydrochloric acid and hydrogen chloride listed separately in
the List of Regulated Substances at 40 CFR 6S.130?
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 5 of 46
Answer: The aqueous form (hydrochloric acid) and the anhydrous form of this chemical
(hydrogen chloride) have been assigned different thresholds.
(CAAQ&ADatabtse, August 1996)
n. 8. Question: A wastewater treatment plant generates methane through a natural
digestion process, then stores and uses the methane as fuel. Under 40 CFR Part 68,
must the owner or operator of this stationary source evaluate the amount of methane to
determine whether more than a threshold amount is present in any process?
Answer: Yes. Methane is listed as a regulated flammable substance at 40 CFR 68,130. There
are no general exemptions for naturally-produced regulated substances, such as methane
produced from the digestion of bacteria at a wastewater treatment plant. If more than 10,000
pounds of methane are present in a process at any time, that process is covered under 40 CFR
Part 68.
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
IL 9. Question: Are propane and lead substances which will subject a stationary source
to CAA 112(r)?
Answer: Lead is not a regulated substance. Propane is a regulated flammable substance with, t
10,000-pound threshold and is therefore potentially subject to CAA 112(r).
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
EL 10. Question; If there are less than 10,000 pounds of propane in a process, is that
process covered by the BMP rule?
Answer: If a process contains less than a threshold amount of a regulated substance, the
process is not covered. It is important to note, however, that the definition of a single process
includes any group of interconnected vessels or separate vessels that are located such that a
regulated substance could be involved in a potential release (40 CFR 68.3).
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
IL 11. Question: Are propane tanks potentially covered by the risk management
program regulations of 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: Yes. Propane is listed as a regulated flammable substance (40 CFR 68.130) with a
10,000-pound threshold.
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
EL 12. Question* Would storage of propane count as a process?
Answer Yes. The definition of "process" includes storage (40 CFR 68.3).
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section i 12(r) - Fr. . - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 6 of 46
n. 13. Question: An owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a
threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process must comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 68. How large would a pipe have to be to contain a
threshold amouitF(10,000 pounds) of methane?
Answer: Assuming a methane gas density of 0.042 pounds per cubic foot, at 1 atm and 60
degrees F (Handbook of Compressed Gases, Compressed Gas Association), the volume
occupied by 10,000 pounds of methane is 236,000 cubic feet at 1 atm; 47,000 cubic feet at 5
atm; and 24,000 cubic feet at 10 atm. For a pipe with a 2-inch diameter to contain 10,000
pounds of methane gas, it would have to be: 2,000 miles long at 1 atm; 400 miles long at 5
atm; or 200 miles long at 10 atm.
For a pipe with a 3-inch diameter to contain 10,000 pounds of methane gas, it would have to
be:
900 miles long at 1 atm; 180 miles long at 5 atm; or 90 miles long at 10 atm.
For a pipe with a 4-inch diameter to contain 10,000 pounds of methane gas, it would have to
be: 560 miles long at 1 atm; 111 miles at 5 atm; or 57 miles long at 10 atm.
(CAA Q&A Database, October 199.6)
IL 14. Question: Would underground storage of a regulated substance listed at 40
CFR68.130 subject a stationary source owner or operator to the risk management
program regulations?
Answer: If more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance is present in a process at a
stationary source, the owner or operator of that source must comply with the risk
management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 6S. The definition of "process" includes
storage of a regulated substance, and there is no general exemption for underground storage.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IL 15. Question: Formaldehyde is listed as a regulated substance under 40 CFR 68.130
with the qualifier "(solution)," When determining whether a threshold amount of this
substance exists in a process, should a person consider the weight of the entire solution,
or simply the amount of formaldehyde in the solution? How are thresholds for other
regulated toxic substances in mixtures determined?
Answer: The owner or operator of a stationary source need only consider the weight of the
formaldehyde in the solution; not the entire weight of the mixture. This is the case for all listed
toxic substances, including those with concentration qualifiers (i.e., "cone 80% or greater").
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
D. 16. Question: Who b covered by the RMP rule under CAA H2(r)(7)?
Answer: Section 112(r) of the CAA contains several provisions. The two most relevant to the
regulated community at this time are Sections 112(rX 1) and 112(r)(7), Owners and operators
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 1 L2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 7 of 46
of stationary sources at which regulated or any other extremely hazardous substances are
present in a process, regardless of the amount of the substance, are subject to the general duty
clause in section 112(r)(l). In addition, owners or operators of stationary sources are also
subject to the RMP rule, pursuant to Section 1 i2(r)(7), for those processes which contain a
regulated substance in more than a threshold amount.
(C AA Q&A Database, January 1997)
n. 17, Question: What is the definition of "process"?
Answer: Process, as defined at 40 CFR 68.3, means any activity involving a regulated
substance, including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or on-site movement of such
substances, or combination of these activities. 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, is considered a single process. The owner or operator of the stationary
source must make a reasonable determination as to whether two or more vessels may be
involved in the same accident, or whether a release from one vessel may be anticipated to lead
to a release from another. The owner/operator should document his decision as to whether the
individual vessels do or do not constitute a single process.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
EL 18. Question: Does the chlorine listing apply only to gaseous forms of chlorine?
Answer: There is no qualifier attached to the listing for chlorine (40 CFR 68.130). The listing,
therefore, applies to chlorine (CAS number 7782-50-5), regardless of physical state.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IL 19. Question: Can EPA on its own initiative add chemicals to the list, or must it
receive a petition from an outside party first and then follow the petition process?
Answer: EPA may revise the list of regulated substances at the discretion of the Administrator
or as a result of petitions. Modifications to the list must be made through a rulemaking in
which EPA explains the basis for the modifications. All petitions to amend the list must be
made in accordance with 40 CFR 68.120.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
EL 20. Question: When determining whether a threshold amount of a regulated
substance is present in a process (e.g., a tank), must the owner or operator of a
stationary source consider the total capacity of the process, or the actual amount of
regulated substance contained in the process?
Answer: The threshold determination is based on the maximum actual amount of the regulated
substance contained in a process at any one time (40 CFR 68,115; see also 58 Fed. Reg. 5102,
5114 (January 19, 1993)).
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr. . - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 8 of 46
n. 21. Question: A stationary source has a mixture containing 9,000 pounds of butane
and 1,001 pounds of water in a process. The mixture meets the criteria for a National
Fire Protection Association flammabiiity rating of 4 (NFPA 4). Is this process covered
under the RMPregulations?
Answer: Yes. The entire weight of a mixture containing a regulated flammable substance must
be counted for threshold determination if the mixture itself meets the NFPA 4 criteria.
The regulations at 40 CFR 68.115(b)(2), as originally promulgated in the January 31, 1994,
Federal Register (59 FR 4478) stated that the entire weight of a mixture containing a
regulated flammable substance in concentrations greater than 1% was to be counted for
threshold determination, unless the owner or operator could demonstrate that the mixture did
not meet NFPA 4 boiling point (BP) and flash point (FP) criteria. Regulated flammable
substances, when in mixtures that did not meet the BP and FP criteria, were exempt from
threshold determination (40 CFR 68.115(b)(2)).
In the April 15, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 16598), EPA proposed to clarify the original
method of threshold determination for mixtures containing regulated flammable substances.
The proposed rule would exempt from threshold determination mixtures containing a
regulated flammable substance in concentrations greater than 1% that do not meet the full
NFPA 4 definition, not just the BP and FP criteria. EPA expects to issue a final rule within the
next year. While the proposed amendments are being finalized, EPA has stayed the original
provisions of 40 CFR 68.115(b)(2) such that mixtures containing regulated flammable
substances must meet the proposed NFPA 4 criteria (not just the BP and FP criteria) in order
to be considered toward thresholds (40 CFR 68,2). Because this mixture meets NFPA 4, it is
not affected by the stay and the entire quantity of the mixture must be counted toward the
butane threshold.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IL 22. Question: According to the definition of "process" at 40 CFR 68.3, any group of
vessels that are interconnected is considered to be a single process. If a stationary source
has two interconnected vessels and one contains 6,000 pounds of butane while the other
contains 6,000 pounds of propane, is this a covered process under 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: No. Although the two interconnected vessels are considered a single process, in
order for that process to be subject to the risk management program regulations it must
contain more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance (40 CFR 68.10(a)). The
threshold quantity for both butane and propane (and all other regulated flammable substances)
is 10,000 pounds (40 CFR 68.130). The amounts of different regulated substances present in a
single process need not be aggregated to determine whether a threshold is exceeded. If, at any
time, more than 10,000 pounds of either butane or propane is present in a process, that
process is covered by the regulations at 40 CFR Pan 68. Although this process as described is
not subject to part 68, it is subject to Section 112
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 9 of 46
be calculated differently. Because a mixture of propane and butane would meet the NFPA 4
flammability criteria, the entire weight of the mixture needs to be treated as the regulated
substance and added up to account for the threshold quantity. If there are additional vessels in
the process that contain pure butane and/or propane, the weight of the mixture should be
added to both the weight of the remaining butane and the weight of the remaining propane to
determine whether either the threshold for propane or butane has been exceeded (40 CFR
68.ll5(b)(2)). For example, if 1,000 pounds of the 6,000 pounds of propane are mixed with
the 6,000 pounds of butane to make a 7,000 pound mixture, then that 7,000 pound mixture
would be treated as the regulated substance (both butane and propane) for threshold
calculations. The 7,000 pound mixture would have to be added to the remaining 5,000 pounds
of pure butane and the threshold for butane would be exceeded.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
n. 23, Question: Art! agricultural facilities potentially subject to the risk management
program requirements of 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: Yes. Although there is one specific exemption from the provisions of 40 CFR Part 68
for ammonia held bv a farmer for use as an agricultural nutrienj (40 CFR 68.125), there is no
general exemption from the risk management program regulations for farms. If fertilizers,
pesticides, or any other materials present at a farm are (or contain) regulated substances in
excess of the applicable threshold quantity, the facility must comply with the requirements of
40 CFR Part 68. Ammonia held for distribution at a farm would not be exempt. In addition,
even if a fanner is exempt from the Risk Management Plan rule, he is still subject to the
General Duty Clause under CAA 112(r)(l) (see questions under General Duty Clause)
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IL 24. Question: The lift of regulated toxic substances at 40 CFR Section 68.130
includes botb "ammonia (anhydrous)" and "ammonia (cone 20% or greater)," but
does not include a specific listing for "ammonium hydroxide." The Chemical Abstract
Registry Service (CAS) number for ammonium hydroxide is 1336-21-6, and the CAS
number for ammonia is 7664-41-7. Ammonium hydroxide is, however, simply a mixture
of ammonia and water. Must a stationary source owner or operator consider the
amount of ammonia present in ammonium hydroxide that is contained in a process
when determining whether the threshold for ammonia is exceeded?
Answer: Yes* For the purposes of the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part
68, ammonium hydroxide must be treated as a solution of ammonia and water, regardless of
the fact that ammonium hydroxide may be identified by a unique CAS number. The Agency
has made it dear that the listing for "ammonia (cone 20% or greater)11 applies to aqueous
solutions of ammonia (List Rule Response to Comments document, page 50). If the
concentration of ammonia in the ammonium hydroxide is 20% or greater, then the mixture if
subject to threshold determination for "ammonia (cone 20% or greater)" under 40 CFR
Section 68.115.
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
Monday, October 13, 1997 4.51PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 10 of 46
O. 25. Question: The list of regulated substances at 40 CFR Section 130 includes
aqueous ammonia that is at a concentration of 20 percent (by weight) or greater. Why
did EPA select 20 percent as the concentration cut-off value?
Answer: Commonly used commodity solutions of ammonia (which mean the bulk shipments,
not bottles of ammonia you can buy in the supermarket which are considerably more dilute)
usually contain at least 20 percent ammonia by weight. The 20 percent concentration cut-off
was proposed for regulation so that these solutions would be covered by the risk management
program regulations (58 FR 5110; January 19, 1993). EPA did not revise the concentration
cutoff in the final rule because such solution exceeded the volatility criterion of the final rule
(59 FR 4488; January 31, 1994),
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
XL 26. Question: Several toxic substances are listed as a regulated substances under 40
CFR 68.130 with concentration qualifiers (e.g., "cone 30% or greater"). What does this
concentration mean? Wben determining whether a threshold amount of these
substances exists in a process, should I consider the weight of the entire solution, or
simply the amount of the regulated toxic substance in the solution?
Answer: If a regulated substance has a specific concentration listed, you need only consider
solutions/mixtures with concentrations of the regulated substance that are it or above this
concentration. You do not need to consider solutions/mixtures with concentrations of a
regulated substance below the listed concentration when you determine threshold quantities.
Examples: Ammonia has a specified concentration of 20%. Hence, you do not need to
consider a IS percent ammonia solution, but do need to account for a 25 percent ammonia
solution. For any regulated substance without a listed concentration cutoff you must consider
the quantity of the regulated substance if the concentration exceeds one percent.
Once you have determined that the solution/mixture must be accounted for, you need to
determine whether you exceed the threshold quantity. For regulated toxic substances, you
must consider only the weight of the regulated substance in the solution/mixture towards the
threshold quantity. Examples: The Threshold Quantity for ammonia solutions is 20,000
pounds. If you have more than 100,000 total pounds of a 20% ammonia solution, then you
would have more than 20,000 pounds of ammonia in the solution and would have more than a
threshold quantity. Similarly, if you have more than 50,000 total pounds of a 40% solution,
you would also have more than a threshold quantity.
There are four regulated substances that have concentration qualifiers:
Ammonia (cone 20% or greater)
Hydrochloric acid (cone 30% or greater) see NOTE
Hydrogen fluoride/hydrofluoric acid (cone 50% or greater)
Nitric acid (cone 80% or greater)
NOTE: There has been a proposed rule to modify the concentration qualifier for Hydrochloric
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section I I2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 11 of 46
Acid from 30% to 37% (May 22, 1997, 62 FR 27992). The Agency will take final action on
this proposal by August 20, 1997,
( CAA Q&A DataBase, July 1997)
II. 27. Question: A stationary source has a mixture above the threshold. At standard
temperature and pressure, the mixture does not meet the criteria for a National Fire
Protection Association flammability rating of 4 (NFPA 4). At elevated temperatures and
pressures, however, the mixture meets the NFPA 4 criteria. Is this process covered
under the risk management program regulations?
Answer: No. The determination of whether a substance or mixture meets the NFPA 4 hazard
rating is made in accordance with the definition of flammability hazard rating 4 in the 1NFPA
704, Standard System for the Identification of the Fire Hazards of Materials, and boiling point
and flash point shall be defined and determined in accordance with NFPA 321, Standard on
the Basic Classification of Flammable and Combustible Liquids. Standard (or ambient)
temperatures and pressures are referenced in these standards. Although, this mixture as
described is not subject to part 68, it is subject to Section 112(r)(l), the general duty clause
(See questions under General Duty Clause).
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
IL 28. Question: The list of regulated substances under the chemical accident
prevention provisions of 40 CFR Fart 68 contains 77 toxic substances and 63 flammable
substances. How did EPA select the substances to be included in this list?
Answer: The chemical accident prevention provisions promulgated pursuant to Section 112(r)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are designed to focus on chemicals that pose a significant hazard
to the community in the event of an accidental release, and to prevent and minimize the
consequences of such releases (59 FR 4479; January 31, 1994). EPA was required by CAA
Section 112(rX3) to promulgate an initial list of at least 100 regulated substances that are
known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment if accidentally released. Congress required the
inclusion of sixteen specific toxic substances on the initial list: chlorine, ammonia, anhydrous
ammonia, methyl chloride, ethylene oxide, vinyl chloride, methyl isocyanate, hydrogen
cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, toluene diisocyanate, phosgene, bromine, anhydrous hydrogen
chloride, hydrogen fluoride, anhydrous sulfur dioxide, and sulfur trioxide (CAA Section
112(r)(3)). Additional toxic substances were included on the list based on toxicity, physical
state, vapor pressure, production volume, and accident history. Commercially produced
flammable gases and volatile flammable liquids were listed on the basis of flash point and
boiling point criteria used by the National Fire Protection Association for its highest
flammability hazard ranking (59 FR 4480; January 31, 1994). For a complete description of
the methodology and criteria used to select the substances, refer to the final rule (59 FR 4479;
January 31, 1994), and proposed modifications (61 FR 16598, April 15, 1996).
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
EL 29. Question: Drums containing regulated substances (listed at 40 CFR Section
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section i I2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 12 of 46
68.130) are stored in several separate locations at a stationary source and there is no
possibility that an accidental release in any of the individual storage areas would impact
any of the other storage areas. Must the overall amount of the regulated substance
present at the stationary source be considered when determining whether the threshold
quantity for that substance is exceeded?
Answer: No. Applicability of the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68 is
contingent upon the existence of more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a
process at a stationary source (40 CFR Section 68. iO(a)). Although the definition of
"process" does include storage, the total amount of a regulated substance in storage at a
stationary source does not necessarily constitute a single process. Separate, individual vessels
must be considered as a. single process for the purpose of threshold determination only if they
are located such that a release of a regulated substance from one of the vessels could lead to a
release of a regulated substance from another (40 CFR Section 68.3). The owner or operator
of a stationary source must use his or her best judgment, backed up by a sound technical and
scientific basis, to make a determination as to whether two or more vessels may be involved in
the same accident, or whether a release from one vessel may reasonably be anticipated to lead
to a release from another vessel. The owner or operator should be able to document the
decision that the individual vessels do or do not constitute a single process.
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
IL 30. Question: Oleum, which is a mixture of sulfuric acid and sulfur trioxide, is listed
as a regulated toxic substance at 40 CFR Section 68.130. Sulfur trioxide is also listed
individually as a regulated toxic substance. If a single process consists of one vessel
containing oleum and one vessel containing sulfur trioxide, must the amount of sulfur
trioxide in the oleum be aggregated with the amount of pure sulfur trioxide in the
process when determining whether the threshold quantity for sulfur trioxide is
exceeded?
Answer: No. If a process contains discrete amounts of both oleum and sulfur trioxide, the
amount of sulfur trioxide that is a part of the oleum mixture should not be considered when
determining whether the threshold quantity for sulfur trioxide is exceeded in that process. If
the threshold is not met for either chemical, then the process is not subject to part 68,
however, the process is subject to Section 112(r)(l), the general duty clause (See questions
under General Duty Clause).
( CAA Q&A Database, My 1997)
IL 31. Question: Under 40 CFR Part 68, if multiple processes at a stationary source
contain the same regulated substance* must the amounts of toe substance in the
individual processes be aggregated to determine whether a threshold is exceeded?
Answer: No. Applicability of the risk management program requirements is based upon the
presence of more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process at a
stationary source (40 CFR 68.10(i)). The quantity present is evaluated on a
process-by-process basis. It is important to note, however, that multiple, separate vessels
located such that both could potentially be involved at one time in an accidental release are
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 13 of 46
considered to be a single process (40 CFR 68.3). The owner or operator of a stationary
source will need to make a reasonable determination as to whether two or more vessels may
be involved in the same accident. The owner or operator should be able to document the
decision that the individual vessels do or do not constitute a single process. If the threshold is
not met for a process and thus not subject to part 68, the process is still subject to Section
112(r)(l), the general duty clause (See questions under General Duty Clause).
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
n. A. Applicability - Proposed Amendments to the List Rule (April 15t 1996)
IL A. 1. Question: How is the explosives industry affected by the Risk Management
Program final rule?
Answer: EPA proposed amendments to the List Rule (59 FR 4478; January 31, 1994) cm
April 15, 1996 (61 FR 16598). Among the proposed amendments is the delisting of explosives
from the list of regulated substances under CAA 112(r). The Agency has stayed certain
provisions of the List Rule pending final action on the proposed amendments (40 CFR 68.2).
Therefore, no final action has yet been taken on the provisions of the Risk Management
Program rule which apply to explosives (61 FR 31669; June 20, 1996). However, to the
extent that an explosives plant handles other regulated substances such as ammonia and
propane with more than a threshold quantity, it is subject to part 68 for such substances.
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
IL A. 2. Question: The proposed amendments to the List Rule (59 FR 4478; January 31,
1994) include exemptions for regulated substances in gasoline that is in distribution or
related storage for use as fuel for internal combustion engines* and for regulated
substances in naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to processing (61 FR
16598,16604; April 15,1996). Would these proposed exemptions apply to regulated
toxic substances as well as regulated flammable substances?
Answer: The proposed exemption from threshold determination for regulated substances in
gasoline or in naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures is relevant only to regulated
flammable substances. These exemptions have been proposed under 40 CFR 68.115 (b)(2),
which specifically relates to "concentrations of a regulated flammable substance in a mixture."
Any regulated toxic substance (i.e., hydrogen sulfide) which is present in gasoline or in
naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures must be considered when determining whether a
threshold amount of that substance is present in a process at a stationary source.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
EL A. 3. Question: If a stationary source comprises multiple processes, some of which
are affected by the proposed List Rule amendments (61 FR 16598; April 15,1996), is
the Stay of Effectiveness (61 FR 31730; June 20,1996) applicable to the entire source?
Answer: No. The stay of effectiveness is applicable only to those processes which would be
affected by the proposed List Rule amendments. The regulatory language of the stay (40 CFR
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 14 of 46
68 2(a)) clearly indicates that it applies to certain, specific provisions of Part 68. If there is a
process at a stationary source which is subject to the risk management program requirements
because of provisions that are not specifically stayed, the owner or operator of that source
must comply wittuhe applicable Part 68 regulations.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
n. B. Applicability - Exemptions
n. B. 1. Question: Are there any overall industry exemptions from the Accidental
Release Prevention provisions and Risk Management Program regulations?
Answer: The only overall exemption is ammonia used as an agricultural nutrient, when held by
farmers. Otherwise owners and operators of stationary sources are subject to 112(r) if any
process at the stationary source contains a regulated substance in excess of the applicable
threshold quantity (40 CFR 68.10).
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
EL B. 2. Question: Propane is listed as a regulated flammable substance (40 CFR
68.130). If a process contains propane which is used exclusively as a fuel, is that process
subject to the risk management program requirements of 40 CFR Fart 68, or is there a
fuel use exemption similar to that provided by OSHA?
Answer: There is no exemption for regulated flammable substances used as fuel. If a process
at a stationary source contains more than a threshold amount of propane or any other
regulated substance, that process is subject to the risk management program regulations. In
the proposed rule to establish the list of regulated substances (58 FR 5102, 5120; January 19,
1993), EPA proposed an exemption from threshold determination for flammable substances
used solely for facility consumption as fuel. In a subsequent supplemental notice (59 FR 4500;
January 31, 1994), EPA requested comment on whether flammable substances, when used as
a fuel, posed a lessor intrinsic hazard than the same substances handled otherwise. The Agency
received no data justifying a different level of hazard for flammables used as fuel. Additionally,
the Agency has considerable accident data for propane that illustrates its potential to affect
nearby offsite populations (61 FR 31702), The Agency published its final position for not
having such an exemption as part of the RMP final rule on June 20, 1996, EPA is currently
developing a model risk management program to assist propane retailers and users in
compliance with the Risk Management Program Rule.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
H. B. 3. Question: Is gasoline exempt from the requirements of 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: Gasoline, although not specifically listed as a regulated substance under 40 CFR
68.130, may contain one or more regulated flammable substances. On April 15, 1996 (61 FR
16598), EPA proposed to modify the List Rule such that a regulated flammable substance
contained in gasoline to be used as fuel for internal combustion engines would not be counted
toward the threshold quantity for that substance. According to the proposed amendment, for
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 15 of 46
example, if a refinery had a quantity of butane in a storage vessel and had a separate quantity
of gasoline (containing butane) to be used as fuel in an internal combustion engine, only the
pure butane in the storage vessel would need to be evaluated to see if the i0,000-pound
threshold was exceeded for that process, and the amount of butane in the gasoline could be
discounted,
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
n. B, 4. Question: Are motor fuels exempt from threshold determinations?
Answer: The proposed amendments to the List Rule (61 FR 16598, 16604; April
15, 1996) include a proposed exemption from threshold determination for regulated
flammable substances in gasoline, when in distribution or related storage for use as fuel for
internal combustion engines. Accordingly, the List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds
for Accidental Release Prevention Stay of Effectiveness final rule (61 FR 31730; June 20,
1996) suspends the applicability of the 40 CFR Part 68 regulations in relation to regulated
flammable substances in gasoline, as described above, until December 1997.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
H. B. 5. Question: Under 40 CFR Part 68, for the purpose of determining whether more
than a threshold amount of a regulated substance is present at a stationary source,
certain exemptions may apply. One such exemption is provided for "activities in
laboratories" (40 CFR
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section I I2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 16 of 46
TSCA definition, A technically qualified individual, from this TSCA definition, is "a person or
persons (I) who, because of education, training, or experience, or a combination of these
factors, is capable of understanding the health and environmental risks associated with the
chemical substance which is used under his or her supervision, (2) who is responsible for
enforcing appropriate methods of conducting scientific experimentation, analysis, or chemical
research to minimize such risks, and (3) who is responsible for the safety assessments and
clearances related to the procurement, storage, use, and disposal of the chemical substance as
may be appropriate or required within the scope of conducting a research and development
activity,"
(CAA Q& A Database, May 1997)
IL C. DOT Transportation Regulations
EL C. 1. Question: Why have transportation activities been exempted from compliance
with the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68? Why do these
regulations apply only to stationary sources?
Answer: While EPA agrees that industry, local planners, and first responders need to
recognize the public safety hazards associated with transportation, the Clean Air Act directs
EPA to focus on stationary sources. Transportation-related chemical safety is the
responsibility of the Department of Transportation.
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
D. C. 2. Question: Are chemicals in tank cars subject to threshold determinations?
Answer: Yes, if the tank car is no longer in transportation in commerce (61 FR 16601; April
15, 1996). The definition of stationary source does not apply to transportation, including
storage incident to transportation (40 CFR 6S.3).
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
H. C. 3. Question; Would the risk management program regulations cover the loading
and unloading of transportation containers?
Answer: The definition of stationary source includes transportation containers that are no
longer under active shipping papers and transportation containers that are connected to
equipment at the stationary source for the purposes of temporary storage, loading, or
unloading (40 CFR 68.3),
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996).
IL C. 4. Question: How might the proposed List Rule Amendments (April 15,1996; 61
FR 16597) affect the definition of stationary source, as related to the transportation
exemption?
Answer: The April 15,1996, proposed amendments to the List Rule include modifications to
the definition of "stationary source" to clarify that it excludes all transportation and storage
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 1 12(r) - FT... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 17 of 46
incident to transportation. The proposed amended definition specifies that transportation
includes, but is not limited to, transportation in pipelines subject to oversight or regulation
under 49 CFR Part£ 192, 193, or 195, or a state natural gas or hazardous liquid program for
which the state has in effect a certification to the Department of Transportation under 49
U.S.C. 60105.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
in. Program Level Screening
UL 1. Question: The preamble of the Risk Management Program final rule (61 FR
31670) states that Program 3 applies to processes in certain SIC codes. It also states that
Program 3 applies to any process subject to the OSHA Process Safety Management
(PSM) standard, unless the process is eligible for Program 1. If a process meets the
requirements of Program 1, but is also in SIC code 2611 (one of those identified for
Program 3 applicability), is that process subject to the Program 1 or Program 3
requirements?
Answer: The Program 1 eligibility criteria are found at 40 CFR 68. 10(b), If a process meets
the criteria for Program 1, that process is subject only to the Program 1 requirements,
regardless of the applicable SIC code or whether the process is subject to OSHA's PSM.
Program 3 requirements do not apply to processes which meet the Program 1 eligibility
criteria (40 CFR 68. 10(d)).
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
2. Question: The preamble to the final Risk Management Program Rule (61 FR
31668; June 20, 1996) states on page 31702 that EPA "recognizes that the full PSM
standard is not appropriate for propane retailers," and "has assigned propane retailers
and users to Program 2."* Will processes containing propane always be subject to
Program 2 requirements?
Answer: No. A process containing propane may be subject to the Program 1 requirements if
that process meets the Program 1 eligibility criteria, listed at 40 CFR 68, 10(b). The preamble
to the Risk Management Program Rule (61 FR 3 1668, 3 1676) states that "ail retailers are in
Program 2, unless they can meet Program 1 criteria." Propane retailers generally will not have
any Program 3 processes because Program 3 requirements are only appEcable to processes in
SIC codes 2611, 2812, 2819, 2821, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2879, or 2911 or processes covered by
OSHA's PSM standard (40 CFR 68, 10(d)). Retailers are specifically exempted from OSHA's
PSM (61 FR 31676; June 20, 1996).
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
DI. 3. Question: If a stationary source has several processes that are covered under 40
CFR Part 68, and some of those processes have had an accidental release within the
past five yean (effectively making those processes ineligible for Program 1 status), are
the individual processes from which no accidents have occurred also ineligible for
Program 1 status?
Monday, October 13, 1997 451 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 18 of 46
Answer: No. Eligibility determinations for Program 1 status are made separately for each
process. If any individual process meets all of the criteria listed at 40 CFR 68.10(b), that
process is eligible fgr Program 1 status,
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
HL 4. Question: A process covered under 40 CFR Part 68 is eligible for Program 1
requirements if it meets all of the criteria listed at 40 CFR 68.10(b). Those criteria
include a requirement that the process cannot have had an accidental release of a
regulated substance that led to ofTsite death, injury, or environmental response or
restoration activities within five years prior to the risk management plan (RMP)
submission. If there is an accident that results in serious offsite consequences from a
previously identified and documented Program 1 process, when will the process lose its
Program 1 status? Must the RMP be revised to reflect the change in status and
requirements for that process?
Answer: The process in this scenario will lose its Program 1 status immediately, and the
owner or operator will hive to comply with the requirements of the new program level
applicable to the process (40 CFR 68.10(e)). The owner or operator will be required to revise
and update the RMP to reflect that change within six months of the incident (40 CFR
68.i90(bX7)).
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
DL 5. Question: The eligibility criteria for Program 1 status under 40 CFR Part 68
include a requirement that the process must not have had an accidental release
resulting in serious ofTsite consequences for the past five years (40 CFR 68.10(b)(l)).
Can a newly-constructed process that has no accident history qualify for Program 1
status?
Answer: Yes. A covered process is eligible for Program 1 provided:
(1) the process has not had an accidental release of a regulated substance which resulted in
offsite death, injury, or response or restoration activities at an environmental receptor in the
five years prior to the submission date of the RMP;
(2) there are no public receptors within the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint
associated with a worst-case release scenario; and
(3) emergency response procedures have been coordinated with the local emergency planning
committee and response organizations (40 CFR 68.10).
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
HL 6. Question: If a stationary source comprises some covered processes that meet the
eligibility requirements for one of the three programs (i.e., Program 1, 2, or 3) and some
processes that are subject to a different program, must the owner or operator of the
source submit multiple risk management plans (RMPs)?
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 19 of 46
Answer: No. Although a stationary source may have processes in one or more of the three
programs (61 FR 31670, June 20, 1996), the owner or operator must submit a single RMP
that includes the information required by 40 CFR 68.155 through 68.185 for all covered
processes at that-source (40 CFR 68.150(a)). That RMP will contain relevant information on
each covered process,
(CAA Q£A Database, January 1997)
HL 7. Question: A covered process that is ineligible for Program 1 will be subject to
Program 3 requirements if the process is to one of nine specified standard industrial
classification (SIC) codes, or is subject to the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM)
standard (40 CFR Part 68.10(d)). When determining Program 3 applicability for a
particular process, should the owner or operator use the primary SIC code that
describes the stationary source's main business?
Answer: No, The owner or operator must determine the individual SIC code for each covered
process to determine whether Program 3 applies (6i FR 31670; 6/20/96). The assigned SIC
code should reflect the activity of the process, and will not necessarily be the same as the
source's overall primary SIC code.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
DDL 8. Question: If five years have passed since the last accident involving a covered
process, and that process meets the other two requirements identified under 40 CFR
68.10(b) for Program t eligibility, could that process become a Program 1 process even
if it had previously been identified as a Program 2 or 3 process?
Answer: Yes. The status of a particular process can change over time. Any process that meets
all of the criteria listed at 40 CFR 68,10(b) is eligible for Program 1 status, regardless of the
prior status of that process. If the owner or operator chooses to change Program levels, he
must file an updated RMP to reflect this change in program level within six months of
becoming eligible for Program 1 (See 40 CFR 68.190(b)(7)).
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
DDL 9, Question: The risk management program regulations in 40 CFR Part 68 are
applicable to owners or operators of stationary sources at which more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance is present in a process (40 CFR Section 68.10(a)). Are
all covered processes subject to identical risk management program requirements?
Answer: No. To ensure that individual processes are subject to requirements commensurate
with their size and process type, EPA has classified them into three categories, or "programs."
Program 3 processes are subject to the most comprehensive requirements and comprise
relatively complex chemical processing operations in specified Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes and processes already subject to the OSHA process safety
management (PSM) standard. Program 2 processes are subject to a streamlined version of the
requirements, and include generally less complex operations that do not involve chemical
processing. Program 1 processes, subject to minimal requirements, are those from which a
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 20 of 46
worst-case release would not affect the public. Further, since the RMP rule requirements are
performance based, owners or operators of stationary sources with processes in Programs 2
or 3 have flexibilitvjinder the rule to tailor their programs to best meet their own risk
management needs.
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
EU. 10. Question: A facility performed a worst-case release scenario and determined
that there are no pubic receptors within the endpoints. There are several residences
located just outside the endpoint. In reviewing the five year accident history, there were
several releases of a regulated substance, in which the residences were notified by the
facility of the releases and informed they should she!ter-in-place. Do these releases
disqualify the facility from being a Program 1 facility?
Answer: No, these releases do not disqualify the facility from Program 1 eligibility,
Evacuations and sheltering-in-place were not included in the eligibility for Program 1 because
EPA was concerned that they could create a disincentive to report releases and might
encourage sources and local emergency officials to take more chances during an event when
there may be potential exposures that do not rise to the endpoint specified in this rule but
would otherwise be worthy of precautionary actions by the source or by local officials.
If local emergency planners, first responders or the public have concerns about processes in
Program 1 because of a past evacuation or sheltering-in-place event, then mechanisms under
EPCRA could be used to gather more information from the source about its prevention
program (such as EPCRA sections 302(b)(2) [designation of a facility if it does not already
handle extremely hazardous substances listed under section 302] and 303(d)(3) [provision of
information to the emergency planning committee]} and involve the source in emergency
planning. Sources and local first responders should be discussing evacuation and
sheltering-in-place criteria and decisions as part of emergency response planning (61 FR
31675-6; June 20, 1996).
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
IV. A. Hazard Assessment; OCA
IV. A. 1. Question; Under the hazard assessment requirements of 40 CFR Fart 68,
Subpart B, an owner or operator must analyze worst-case release scenarios and more
likely alternative release scenarios, and must document a five-year accident history. If a
regulated substance exhibits characteristics of both toiicity and flammability, should
owners and operators consider both impacts when performing the hazard assessment?
Answer; No. Owners and operators are only required to analyze a regulated substance for the
hazard for which it is listed. For example, ammonia is listed as a regulated toxic substance,
thus the worst-case release scenario must be modeled as a toxic release. However, to make
the public and first responders aware of additional hazards, an owner or operator may want to
consider the impact associated with an explosion or fire involving a listed toxic substance. As
part of the Program 2 hazard review (40 CFR 68.50) and Program 3 process hazard analysis
(40 CFR 68.67), however, all hazards of a regulated substance should be considered.
Monday, October 13, 1997 451 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Ac* - Section L I2(r) - Fr.. - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 21 of 46
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
FVLB. Hazard Assessment - Worst-Case Release Scenario
IV. B. L Question: The preamble to the Risk Management Program Rule (61 FR 31668;
June 20,1996) states that "one worst-case release scenario will be defined to represent
all toxics, and one worst-case release scenario will be defined to represent all flammables
held above the threshold at the source" (61 FR 31671). The preamble language further
specifies that owners and operators of stationary sources need only "report one
worst-case release scenario for all flammables and one worst-case release scenario for all "
toxics at the source" (61 FR 31683). These general discussions do not address any
differences among Program 1,2, and 3 requirements. Are the worst-case release
analysis requirements for Program 1 processes different than those for Program 2 and 3
processes? Mast a worst-case release scenario analysis be completed and reported for
each Program 1 process?
Answer: Yes. The regulations at 40 CFR 68.25(a)(l) state that one worst-case release
scenario must be analyzed and reported in the risk management plan for each Program 1
process. In order for any process to be eligible for Program 1 requirements, it must be
demonstrated that a worst-case release from that process would not affect any public receptor
(40 CFR 68.10(b)(2)). For Program 2 and 3 processes, a single worst-case release scenario
analysis may be reported to represent all regulated toxic substances, and a single worst-case
release scenario analysis will be acceptable to represent all regulated flammable substances.
Additional worst-case release scenarios must, however, be analyzed and reported for Program
2 and 3 processes if worst-case releases from other covered processes potentially affect public
receptors different from those affected by the first worst-case release scenario (40 CFR
68.25(aX2)).
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6,1996)
IV. B. 2. Question: The owner or operator of a stationary source covered by the risk
management program regulations must conduct a worst-case release scenario analysis
as part of the required hazard assessment (40 CFR 68.25). The worst-case release iis
defined as the release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance from a vessel or
process line failure that results in the greatest distance to an endpoint (40 CFR 68.3). If
a release from the process containing the largest quantity of a regulated substance
would result ut * shorter distance to an endpoint than a release from a smaller process,
which scenario should be considered the worst-case release?
Answer: The worst-case release is the scenario that results in the greatest distance to an
endpoint beyond the stationary source boundary (40 CFR 68.25(h)), EPA recognizes that
there could be release scenarios in which a smaller process could generate a greater distance
to an endpoint than a release from the largest vessel or pipeline (61 FR 3I682;june 20, 1996).
The regulatory language at 40 CFR 68.25(h) clarifies that a scenario involving a smaller
quantity of regulated substance handled at a higher process temperature or pressure, as well as
a scenario involving a smaller quantity located closer to the stationary source boundary may,
in fact, result in the worst-case release.
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr.. - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 22 of 46
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
TV. B. 3. Question! The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the risk
management program regulations must analyze the worst-case release scenario
involving a Program 2 or 3 process containing a regulated flammable substance and the
worst-case release scenario involving a Program 2 or 3 process containing a regulated
toxic substance (40 CFR 68.25). If the worst-case release scenarios for a regulated toxic
substance and for a regulated flammable substance involve the same process, must both
scenarios be analyzed?
Answer: Yes. If the worst-case release scenarios for a regulated toxic substance and for a
regulated flammable substance in Program 2 and 3 processes are associated with the same
process, the two worst-case release scenarios must be analyzed separately.
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
IV. B. 4. Question: A stationary source subject to the risk management program
regulations at 40 CFR Part 68 comprises multiple Program 2 and Program 3 covered
processes. The owner or operator must do a single worst-case release analysis to
represent toxic regulated substances and a single worst-case release analysis to
represent flammable regulated substances (40 CFR 68.25(a)(2)). Could the worst-case
scenario for a toxic substance involve a Program 2 process while the worst-case scenario
for a flammable substance involves a Program 3 process, and vice versa?
Answer: Yes. For the purpose of the hazard assessment requirements of 40 CFR Part 68,
Subpart B, no distinction is made between Program 2 and Program 3 processes. The
worst-case release scenario for toxic substances can be represented by either a Program 2 or a
Program 3 process, and the worst-case release scenario for flammable substances can also be
represented by either a Program 2 or a Program 3 process.
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
IV. B. 5. Question: Performance of the hazard assessment required under 40 CFR Part
68, Subpart B, includes analysis of both worst-case release scenarios (40 CFR 68.25)
and alternative release scenarios (40 CFR 68.28). In each of these analyses, passive
mitigation systems may be taken into consideration. If a tank has a "double wall," does
that qualify as "passive mitigation"?
Answer No. Passive mitigation is defined at 40 CFR 68.3 as "equipment, devices, or
technologies mat function without human, mechanical, or other energy input." Passive
mitigation systems include building enclosures, dikes, and containment walls (61 FR 31683;
June 20, 1996), but a double wall of a tank is not considered to be passive mitigation. In
general, passive mitigation serves to minimize potential adverse effects after the loss of
containment, whereas a precaution such as a double wall of a tank serves to prevent the loss
of containment in the first place,
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 23 of 46
IV. B. 6. Question: A refinery uses a special proprietary additive to their hydrofluoric
acid (HF) aJkylation process. This HF additive has shown in tests to significantly reduce
aerosol forms of HF during accidental releases, and therefore reduce the distance
traveled by HF releases. The additive is present at all times during the alkylatton
process. Can the refinery claim that this HF additive is a passive mitigation technique
and use it as such in their development of their worst-case scenario numbers?
Answer: Passive mitigation systems are defined as those systems that operate without human,
mechanical, or other energy input and would include building enclosures, dikes, and
containment walls. In this case, the HF additive would not actually be considered passive
mitigation; rather, the presence of the additive could be better reflected in the worst case and
alternative release scenarios. The owner or operator could show that with the HF additive, the
HF that they have on site is not a pure substance (toxic mixture criteria would apply) and in
the event of an accidental release, the HF does not behave as a pure material, and the
dispersion results reflect this difference. The owner or operator could highlight these
differences and demonstrate how the process may be safer as a result. EPA recognizes and
encourages prevention through these and other passive or inherently safer process techniques.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. B. 7. Question: When selecting the worst-case release scenario for Program 2 and 3
processes as required by 40 CFR 68.25, a stationary source owner or operator must
analyze the release scenario that results in the greatest distance to an endpoint Does the
"greatest distance to an endpoint" refer to the greatest total distance from the process
(e.g., vessel or pipeline), or to the distance beyond the stationary source boundary?
Answer: The greatest distance to an endpoint will ultimately refer to the distance beyond the
stationary source boundary. When selecting a worst-case release scenario, the stationary
source owner or operator must first evaluate potential releases from all Program 2 and 3
covered processes. Each release is modeled as a circle, with its center at the process and with
a radius equaling the distance to the endpoint concentration (Response to Comments
document, Ch. 5, pg. 5-109), The owner or operator must then choose the scenario that
results in the greatest distance to an endpoint (40 CFR 68.25(a)(2)). If a scenario with a
smaller overall distance to an endpoint, however, could result in a greater distance to aa
endpoint beyond the stationary source boundary (e.g., the process is very close to the facility
boundary), it must be chosen as the worst-case release scenario (40 CFR 68.25(h)).
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
TV. B. 8. Question: Under the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68,
if a Program 1 process contains a threshold amount of both a regulated toxic substance
and a regulated flammable substance, should a worst case release scenario be analyzed
for each of the substances in the process?
Answer: Yes, a worst case release scenario must be analyzed for each regulated toxic and
flammable substance above the threshold. This analysis will serve two purposes: 1) to
demonstrate that no release from that process would reach a public receptor as required in 40
CFR68;lO(b)(2); and 2) to determine the one "worst" worst case release scenario that results
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 24 of 46
in the greatest distance to an endpoint, which must be reported in the RMP,
(CAA Q& A Database, May 1997)
IV. B, 9. Question: As a part of the hazard assessment requirements under 40 CFR Part
68, Subpart B, I must analyze worst-case release scenarios and document certain
analyses in my risk management plan (RMP). How many worst-case release scenarios
must be analyzed, and how many analyses must be specifically documented in the
RMP?
Answer: In order to accurately determine which worst-case release scenarios should be
specifically documented in the RMP, the owner or operator may need to analyze the
worst-case release scenario (i.e., determine the scenario with the greatest distance to an
endpoint) for every covered process. If any particular covered process contains more than one
regulated substance in excess of a threshold quantity, worst-case release scenarios involving
each of those substances may need to be analyzed.
erefore be reported in the RMP for each
Program 1 process (40 CFR 68.25(aXl)). If a Program 1 process contains more than one
regulated substance in excess of the appropriate threshold quantity, the documented analysis
should be for the release scenario involving the substance that would result in the greatest
distance to an endpoint.
For Program 2 and 3 processes, a single worst-case release scenario analysis may be
documented to represent the worst of all scenarios (i.e., the scenario resulting in the greatest
distance to an endpoint) from covered processes containing regulated toxic substances, and a
single worst-case release scenario analysis may be documented to represent the worst of all
scenarios involving regulated flammable substances. Additional worst-case release scenarios
must, however, be analyzed and reported for Program 2 and 3 processes if worst-case releases
from other covered processes potentially affect public receptors different from those affected
by the "worst" worst-case release scenarios (40 CFR 68,2S(aX2)(iii)).
(CAA Q& A Database, May 1997)
IV. B. 10. Question: For the purpose of analyzing the worst-case release scenario
required as part of the hazard assessment at 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B, the worst-case
release quantity is identified as the greatest amount held in a single vessel or pipe,
taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity (40 CFR
68.25(b)). Why did EPA choose to allow consideration of administrative controls when
determining the worst-case release quantity?
Answer: EPA's decision to allow administrative controls to be considered when determining
the worst-case release quantity was based on the historical reliability of such controls and the
role that such a provision could play in encouraging their further use. This approach
acknowledges the efforts by sources to increase process safety by intentionally reducing the
inventory of regulated substances (e.g., vessels kept at half capacity to allow for process
upsets, emergency shutdowns, and deinventorying or maintenance turnarounds) (61 FR
31682; June 20, 1996), Since the worst case scenario assessment implies that this kind of an
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 25 of 46
event could occur at any time, the scenario must account for the maximum amount contained
at any one time, including amounts potentially added to the vessel inventory during an
emergency or shutdown.
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
IV. B. 11. Question; When analyzing the worst-case release scenario for a process
containing a regulated toxic substance, must an owner or operator anticipate a specific
cause (e.g., fire, explosion, etc.) of the selected worst-case release scenario?
Answer: No. The worst-case release scenario analyses for releases of regulated toxic
substances must conform to specific assumptions as identified at 40 CFR 68 25(c) and (d).
For example, a vessel or pipe containing a regulated toxic substance that is normally a gas at
ambient temperature and is handled as a gas or as a liquid under pressure must be assumed to
release its entire contents over a ten-minute period for gases or instantaneously for liquids in a
worst-case release scenario (40 CFR 68.25(c)(l)). Anticipated causes of the release will not
affect the analysis, and are not required. However, a specific cause may be considered as part
of the alternative release scenario although it is not a requirement,
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
IV. C. 1. Hazard Assessment: Alternative Release Scenario
IV. C. 1. Question: As part of the hazard assessment, owners and operators of Program
2 and Program 3 covered processes must identify and analyze alternative release
scenarios (40 CFR 68.28). What criteria should be used when selecting an alternative
release scenario?
Answer: The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the risk management
program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68 must analyze one alternative release scenario to
represent all flammables in a covered process and one alternative release scenario for each
toxic in a covered process. The owner or operator must chose a scenario that is more likely to
occur than the worst-case release scenario and that will reach an endpoint off site (40 CFR
68.28 (b)). Even if no alternative release scenario reaches an off-site endpoint, the source is
still required to perform an alternative release scenario that is more likely to occur than the
worst-case scenario. When selecting an alternative release scenario, the source shall consider
releases that have been documented in the five-year accident history, or Mure scenarios
identified through the process hazard analysis or hazard review (40 CFR 68.28). Sources
should consider several types of events listed under 40 CFR 68.28(b)(2), where applicable.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IV. D. Hazard Assessment - Modeling
IV, D. 1. Question: An endpoint u needed for analysis of offsite consequences of
potential accidental releases of regulated substances. The endpoint to be used for each
regulated toxic substance is provided in Part 68, Appendix A, and if the Emergency
Response Planning Guideline level 2 (ERPG-2) developed for the substance by this
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section I I2(r) - Fr. - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 26 of 46
American Industrial Hygiene Association, unless an ERFG-2 has not been developed for
the substance. Why were ERPG-2 values selected instead of ERPG-3?
Answer: EPA based'its decision to utilize ERPG-2 values as the toxic endpoints for offsite
consequence analyses on comments received from the public and the regulated community.
The Agency's focus was on exposure resulting in serious, irreversible health effects, which is
best represented by the ERPG-2 values. ERPG-3 values, which represent lethal exposure
levels, were rejected on the basis that they are not protective enough of the public in
emergency situations. For toxic substances which have no ERPG-2 values, the endpoint to be
used is the level of concern (LOG), as identified in the Technical Guidance for Hazards
Analysis (December 1987), updated where necessary to reflect new toxicity data (61 FR
31672; June 20, 1996). LOCs are intended to be protective of the general public for exposure
periods of up to an hour. These levels have been peer reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory
Board, and are widely accepted by the emergency response planning community.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
IV. D. 2. Question: When evaluating the worst-case release scenario for spills of liquid
to lie substances, the owner or operator should assume that the maximum quantity
within the vessel or pipe was released instantaneously to form a liquid pool (40 CFR
68.25(d)(l)). For regulated toxic substances that are normally gases at ambient
temperature,, the worst-case release is assumed to occur over a ten minute period (40
CFR 68.25(c)(l)). For regulated toxic gases that are liquefied by refrigeration, should
the worst-case release be evaluated as a liquid or gas release?
Answer: The worst-case release scenario for gases handled as refrigerated liquids at ambient
pressure may be evaluated as either a liquid or a gas, depending on containment. If the
released substance is not contained by passive mitigation systems or if the contained liquid
pool formed would have a depth of one centimeter or less, the owner or operator must
assume that the substance is released as a gas in 10 minutes (40 CFR 68.25(c)(2)(i)). If the
released substance is contained by passive mitigation systems and forms a liquid pool with a
depth greater than one centimeter, the substance may be evaluated as a liquid and assumed to
form an instantaneous pool (40 CFR 68.25(c)(2)(ii)).
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
IV. D, 3. Question: What atmospheric conditions must a source assume when
performing the ofTsite consequence analyses required under 40 CFR Fart 68, Subpart B?
Answer. For the worst-case release analysis, 15 meters per second wind speed and F
atmospheric stability class must be assumed, unless the stationary source owner or operator
can demonstrate that local meteorological data applicable to the stationary source show a
higher minimum wind speed or less stable atmosphere at all times during the previous three
years (40 CFR 68.22(b)). For releases of regulated toxic substances, the owner or operator
must also use the highest daily maximum temperature and the average humidity for the site
during the past three years. Owners and operators using the RMP Offsite Consequence
Analysis Guidance will assume 25 degrees Celsius and SO percent humidity (40 CFR. 68.22(c)),
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 27 of 46
For the alternative release scenario, the owner or operator should use the typical
meteorological conditions (i.e., wind speed and atmospheric stability) for the stationary source
(40 CFR 68.22(b)), as well as typical temperature and humidity data gathered at the stationary
source or at a loca| meteorological station (40 CFR 68.22(c)). Owners and operators using the
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance will assume 3 meters per second wind speed, D
atmospheric stability class, 25 degrees Celsius and 50 percent humidity.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. D. 4. Question: For the purpose of the ofTsite consequence analyses required under
40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B, there are several instances in which data gathered at a local
meteorological station may be used to establish the modeling parameters of wind speed,
atmospheric stability, temperature, and humidity for the stationary source. How close
must a stationary source be to a weather station in order for that station's data to be
applicable to the stationary source?
Answer: EPA has not set specific distance limits, but will allow owners and operators to use
their best judgement to determine if the data from a weather station should reasonably apply
to the stationary source. Factors such as topography and distance between the stationary
source and a weather station should be taken into consideration when evaluating the
applicability of the weather station's data to the stationary source.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IV. D. 5. Question; Must air dispersion models that are used to analyze worst-ease
release scenarios under 40 CFR Section 68.25 be able to account for multiple vessels and
how those vessels could impact one another in the event of an accidental release?
Answer: No, Models used for worst-case release scenario analysis do not need to consider
compounding effects of accidental releases from multiple vessels because the worst-case
release is based on a single vessel or process line failure that will result in the greatest distance
to an endpoint (40 CFR 68,3).
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
IV. D. 6. Question: Under the hazard assessment requirements of 40 CFR Part 68,
Subpart B, an owner or operator is required to analyze a worst-case release scenario
and more likely alternative release scenarios. Has EPA developed any air dispersion
models for conducting these evaluations? Is EPA's TScreen model an appropriate
technique?
Answer: EPA has developed the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance document
which provides technical guidance and reference tables for worst-case and alternative release
scenario assessments. Stationary source owners and operators may, however, use any
generally recognized, commercially or publicly available air dispersion modeling techniques,
provided the modeling parameters specified in the rule are used (61 FR 31672; June 20,
1996).
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 28 of 46
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has prepared a publicly available modeling
tool called TScreen that can assist owners and operators with consequence assessments (61
FR 31684; June 207 1996). TScreen can be used to simulate a release and to calculate the
dispersion characTeristics and pollutant concentrations of the resulting plume. TScreen can be
downloaded from EPA's Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System. EPA has also
developed an emergency response model called Area! Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres
(ALOHA). ALOHA can be used to plot the area downwind of a release where concentrations
may exceed a user-set threshold level. ALOHA is available from the National Safety Council.
(Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance, Exhibit A-l)
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
IV. E. Hazard Assessment; Populations Affected
IV. E. 1. Question: A process covered under 40 CFR Part 68 is eligible for Prop-am 1
requirements if it meets all of the criteria listed at 40 CFR 68.10(b). One of those
criteria is that the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release
assessment is less than the distance to any public receptor. Are roads covered as "public
receptors"?
Answer: No. Public receptor is defined at 40 CFR 68.3 to include "offsite residences,
institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals), industrial, commercial, and office buildings, parks, or
recreational areas inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the
stationary source where members of the public could be exposed to toxic concentrations,
radiant heat, or overpressure, as a result of an accidental release." Roads are not included as
public receptors. Another criterion for Program 1 eligibility, however, is the requirement that
emergency response procedures have been coordinated between the stationary source and
local emergency planning and response organizations (40 CFR 68.10(b(3)). Although roads
surrounding a stationary source need not be addressed as public receptors, they should be
considered when coordinating with emergency planners and responders,
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. E. 2. Question: As part of the hazard assessment under 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B,
a source is required to estimate in its risk management plan (RMP) the population
within a circle that has its center at the process and its radius equal to the distance to
the endpoint concentration (40 CFR 68.30). If the estimated population changes, would
the RMP have to be updated?
Answer: No. Changes in U.S. Census data do not necessitate the revision of the RMP.
However, all updates to the RMP should utilize the most recent U.S. Census data.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. E. 3. Question: When analyzing off-site consequences for the purpose of a
wont-case or alternative release scenario under the risk management program
regulations (40 CFR Part 68), are areas occupied solely by employees at the source
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 1 L2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 29 of 46
considered to be public receptors?
Answer: No. Such areas at the stationary source are not to be included as public receptors.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IV. E. 4. Question: A process covered under 40 CFR Fart 68 is eligible for Program 1
requirements if it meets all of the criteria listed at 40 CFR 68.10(b). One of those
criteria is that the distance to a toiic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release
assessment is less than the distance to any public receptor. Are areas to which hunters
and fishermen have access considered "public receptors"?
Answer. Yes, except as noted below. The definition of "public receptor" at 40 CFR 68,3
includes "areas ... occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the stationary
source where members of the public could be exposed to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or
overpressure, as a result of an accidental release." The "public" is defined in 40 CFR 68.3 as
including any person other than employees of the stationary source and contractors on-site.
Therefore, unless the hunters or fishermen are employees of the stationary source or
contractors on-site, such persons would be members of the public for purposes of 40 CFR 68
and areas to which they have unrestricted access would be public receptors.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IV. E. 5. Question: A process covered under 40 CFR Part 68 is eligible for Prop-am 1
requirements if it meets ail of the criteria listed at 40 CFR 68.10(b). One of those
criteria is that the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release
assessment is less than the distance to any public receptor. If a stationary source has a
baseball field on site to which non-employees have unrestricted access, does that field
constitute a "public receptor"?
Answer: Public receptor is defined at 40 CFR 68.3 to include "oflsite residences, institutions
(e.g., schools, hospitals), industrial, commercial, and office buildings, parks, or recreational
areas inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the stationary
source where members of the public could be exposed to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or
overpressure, as a result of an accidental release." Areas within a facility boundary are
considered " offsite1* if the public has routine and unrestricted access during or outside normal
business hours (40 CFR 68.3). A baseball field to which the public has unrestricted access U
therefore considered to be a public receptor if people using the field could be exposed to toxic
concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressure as a result of an accidental release.
( CAA Q&A Database, Juty 1997)
IV. F. Hazard Assessment; Environmental Impact
IV. F. 1. Question: The Risk Management Program rule requires owners or operators of
covered processes to define in the risk management plan (RMP) the potential offsite
public and environmental receptors within the impact range of identified worst case
and alternative release scenarios. What is the definition of "environmental receptor"?
Monday, October 13, 1997 4,51PM,
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr . - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 30 of 46
What data sources are acceptable for identification of environmental receptors?
Answer: "Environmental receptor" is defined at 40 CFR68.3 as "natural areas such 35
national or state j$rks, forests, or monuments, officially designated wildlife sanctuaries,
preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal wilderness areas" which could be exposed to an
accidental release. A stationary source owner or operator may rely on information provided
on local U.S. Geological Survey maps or on any data source containing U.S.G.S. data to
identify these environmental receptors (61 FR 31720; June 20, 1996), Habitats of endangered
and threatened species are not included in the definition of "environmental receptor" because
information about the locations of these habitats is often not publicly accessible. Natural
resource agencies will have access to submitted RMPs, and will be able to raise concerns with
local officials about potential harm to critical habitats, as necessary. EPA hopes that
potentially affected environmental receptors that are not specifically included will become the
subject of dialogue on environmental risks between stationary sources and the environmental
community.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
IV. F. 2. Question: Are wetlands included in the definition of "environmental
receptors"?
Answer: No. EPA has defined environmental receptors as natural or state parks, forests, or
monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal
wilderness areas, that are easily identified on local U.S. Geological survey maps (40 CFR
68.3). Therefore, wetlands would not be reported in the hazard assessment under 40 CFR.
68.33. However, under the five-year accident history at 40 CFR 68.42 any known damage to
a wetland would be reported as environmental damage.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IV. F. 3. Question: A process covered under 40 CFR Part 68 is eligible for Program 1
requirements if it meets ail of the criteria listed at 40 CFR 68.10(b). One of those
criteria is that the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release
assessment is less than the distance to any public receptor. Are rivers that are used for
recreation covered as "public receptors"?
Answer: The final rule defines public receptor to mean "offsite residences, institutions (e.g.
schools, hospitals), industrial, commercial, and office buildings, parks, or recreational areas
inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the stationary source
where members of the public could be exposed to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or
overpressure, as a result of an accidental release" (40 CFR 68.3). A river would be included in
this definition since it is likely to be used for recreational purposes where members of the
public may be present.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IV. F. 4. Question: For the worst-case and alternative release scenarios of an
underground storage tank, should I consider any impact on groundwater, drinking
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 31 of 46
water or soil?
Answer: No. As part of the worst-case and alternative release scenarios, you need to define
the offsite impactsTo the environment (40 CFR 68.33) by listing the environmental receptors
that are withing your impact zone. "Environmental receptor" is defined at 40 CFR 68.3 as
"natural areas such as national or state parks, forests, or monuments; officially designated
wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal wilderness areas" which could be
exposed to an accidental release. You only need to list the environmental receptors, not
speculate what specific damage could occur as a result of an accidental release.
You should, however, consider impacts on groundwater, drinking water or soil in both the
accident history for Program 1 eligibility criterion (40 CFR 68.10(bXl)) and the five-year
accident history required as part of the hazard assessment (40 CFR 68.42), For Program 1
eligibility, you must not have had an accidental release of a regulated substance in the past five
years that caused any "response or restoration activities for an exposure of an environmental
receptor." An accidental release that led to response or restoration of soil or groundwater of
an environmental receptor, such as a park, would make a process ineligible for Program 1. For
the hazard assessment five-year accident history, environmental damage is not limited to the
defined environmental receptors. Events where there is any known environmental impact of
any kind (e.g. fish or animal kills, lawn, shrub, or crop damage) must be included in the; history
(61 FR 31710; June 20, 1996). Therefore, any known damage to groundwater or soil must be
reported in the five-year accident history.
( CAA Q&A Database, My 1997)
IV. G. Hazard Analysis - Five-vear AccidenlHistory
IV. G. 1. Question: Should the owner or operator include accidental releases from
processes containing listed substances below the threshold quantity in the five-year
accident history required under the hazard assessment provisions of 40 CFR Part: 68,
Subpart B, and in the incident investigation requirements under 40 CFR Part 68,,
Subparts C and D?
Answer: No. The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the risk management
program regulations must include in the five-year accident history only those accidents from
covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage on site, or
known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage or
environmental damages (40 CFR 68.42(a)). "Covered process" is defined as a process that has
a regulated substance present in more than a threshold quantity (40 CFR68.3). Because the
accident history is, by statute, an aspect of the hazard assessment, and the hazard assessment
provisions apply only to covered processes; EPA believes that requiring the accident history
to address accidental releases from processes not covered by this rule would be inconsistent
with the structure of Part 68 (61 FR 31697; June 20, 1996). The incident investigation
provisions (40 CFR 68.60 and 68.81) are part of the Program 2 and Program 3 prevention
programs. Similarly, these provisions apply only to accidental releases from a covered process
that resulted in or could reasonably have resulted in a release that posed serious danger to
public health or the environment.
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 32 of 46
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
TV. G. 2. Question: Under the hazard assessment requirements of 40 CFR Part 68,
Subpart B, an owner or operator must document a five-year accident history including
all accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, or
significant property damage on site, or known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations,
sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage (40 CFR 68.42(a)). If it
is known that an accidental release from a covered process within the last five years has
resulted in the death of livestock at a neighboring farm, must that event be reported in
the five-year accident history?
Answer: Yes. The five-year accident history, required as a part of the hazard assessment under
40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B, must include all accidents resulting in any offsite property or
environmental damage of which the stationary source owner or operator has knowledge. The
death of animals offsite due to an accidental release of a regulated substance from a covered
process could be considered either environmental or property damage. Such an accident
would therefore need to be included in the five-year accident history and documented as a
known oflsite impact under 40 CFR 68.42(b)(7),
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. G. 3. Question: Program 1 eligibility under 40 CFR 68.10(b) Is contingent upon the
process not having had eo accidental release of a regulated substance that led to offsite
death, injury, or response and restoration activities at an environmental receptor within
five years prior to the risk management plan submission. Additionally, as part of the
hazard assessment required under 40 CFR 68.42(a), sources are required to document
all accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in onsite or offsite deaths,
injuries, property damage, evacuations, sheltering in place, or environmental damage
Why are there differences in the accident history elements required for determining
Program 1 eligibility and the hazard assessment?
Answer: The two accident histories serve different purposes. The purpose of the Program 1
eligibility criterion (40 CFR 68.10(b)( 1)) is simply to ensure that the process in question has
had no releases of a regulated substance that resulted in oflsite impacts; onsite impacts are not
relevant. In addition to meeting the accident history criterion, Program 1 sources must be
located such that there are no public receptors within the distance to a toxic or flammable
endpoint The accident history acts as a confirmation that releases from Program 1 processes
do not have the potential for offsite impact.
The five-year accident history under 40 CFR 68.42, required as part of the hazard assessment,
provides data on all serious accidental releases from covered processes at the stationary
source. Since releases with onsite impacts indicate safety problems that could lead to releases
with offsite impacts, EPA requires these accidents to be reported in the five-year accident
history.
Together, the accident history criterion for Program 1 eligibility and the five-year accident
history required as part of the hazard assessment provide owners and operators an
opportunity to demonstrate to the community ongoing excellence in accident prevention.
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPACEPPO Clean Air Act - Section i 12(r) - Fr. - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 33 of 46
These accident history requirements also provide an incentive to search for and implement
ways, such as inventory reduction, to reduce the potential for offsite impacts associated with
large scale accidental releases (61 FR 31675, June 20, 1996),
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. G. 4. Question: The hazard assessment requirements under 40 CFR Part 68,
Subpart B include provision of a five-year accident history, as specified at 68.42. When
does the five-year period begin?
Answer: The five-year accident history must include ail accidental releases from covered
processes meeting the criteria specified at 40 CFR 68.42 which have occurred within five
years prior to the date of the risk management plan (RMP) submission. For example, if an
RMP is submitted on June 1, 1999, the five-year accident history must cover the period:
between June 1, 1994 and June 1, 1999, to the extent that information prior to August 19,
1996 (the effective date of the rule) is known.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. G, 5. Question: Under the hazard assessment requirements of 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart B, an owner or operator must document a five-year accident history including
all accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, or
significant property damage on site, or known ofTsite deaths, injuries, evacuations,
sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage (40 CFR 68.42(a)). For
purpose of the five-year accident history, has EPA defined the term "injury11?
Answer: The definition of "injury" is borrowed from OSHA regulations regarding employee
injury and illness lop. EPA interprets the term "injury" to include any effect on a human from
a release of a regulated substance that requires medical treatment or hospitalization. Medical
treatment includes any treatment, other than first aid, administered by a doctor or registered
personnel under the supervision of a doctor (see definitions 40 CFR 68.3).
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IV. G. 6. Question: Under the hazard assessment requirements at 40 CFR Part 68,
Subpart B, the owner or operator of a covered stationary source must document a
five-year accident history that includes all accidental releases from covered processes
that resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage on site, or known ofTsite
deaths injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental
damage (40 CFR Section 68.42(a». What constitutes "significant property damage on
site?"
Answer: The owner or operator of a stationary source must determine whether on-site
property damage as a result of an accidental release from a covered process was "significant"
The owner or operator should be able to document such a decision.
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
V. Prevention Program
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 34 of 46
V. 1. Question: Do owners or operators of Program 1 processes have to complete a
process hazard analysis?
Answer: No. The*Program 1 requirements do not include a process hazard analysis (40 CFR
68.12(b)). Program 3 processes require completion of a process hazard analysis (40 CFR
68.12(d)(3)) while Program 2 processes must complete a hazard review which is similar to a
process hazard analysis.
(CAA Q& A Database, August 1996)
V. 2, Question: When must a stationary source owner or operator begin conducting
incident investigations as required under 40 CFR 68.60 (for Program 2 processes) or 40
CFR 68.81 (for Program 3 processes)?
Answer: Owners and operators of stationary sources that contain covered processes have until
June 21, 1999, to come into compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 68. The
stationary source must have a program in place for investigating accidents by the compliance
deadline.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
V. 3. Question: The prevention program requirements under 40 CFR Part 68, Subparts
C and D, include hazard reviews and process hazard analyses. Is a hazard review
synonymous with a process hazard analysis (PHA)?
Answer: No. A hazard review is different from a PHA. A hazard review is part of the Program
2 prevention program (40 CFR 68,50), The hazard review must identify the hazards
associated with the process and regulated substances, opportunities for equipment
malfunctions or human errors, safeguards needed to control the hazards or prevent equipment
malfunction or human error, and any steps used or needed to detect or monitor releases. A
PHA is a requirement of the Program 3 prevention program (40 CFR 68.67). It involves the
rigorous step-by-step examination of processes, process equipment and controls, and
procedures to identify each point at which a mishap may occur (e.g., a valve failing, a gauge
malfunctioning, human error) and examines the possible consequences of the mishap (58 FR
54196; October 20,1993). To complete a PHA owners or operators may use a "what if'
analysis, a checklist, a hazard and operability study (HAZOP), t failure mode and effects
analysis, or a fiutl tree analysis (40 CFR 68.67(b)).
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
V. A. Prevention Program - OSHA PSM
V. A. 1. Question: Would a stationary source that is in compliance with OSHA's
process safety management (PSM) standard already be in compliance with EPA's risk
management program regulations?
Answer: A process that is subject to OSHA's PSM, unless it meets the criteria for Program I
eligibility, will be subject to Program 3 requirements under EPA's Risk Management Program
Monday, October 13, 1997 4;51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 35 of 46
Rule. The prevention program requirements for Program 3 processes under 40 CFR 68.65 -
68,87 are almost identical to the requirements of OSHA's PSM. Thus, a source owner or
operator responsible for a process that is in compliance with OSHA's PSM should already be
in compliance wiih the Program 3 prevention program requirements (61 FR 31687; June 20,
1996). The owner or operator of the stationary source would still need to develop a
management system, conduct a hazard assessment, develop and implement an emergency
response program, and submit a risk management plan.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
V. A. 2. Question: If a stationary source includes processes that are subject to both the
OSHA process safety management (PSM) standard and the Program 3 risk
management program requirements, what must the owner or operator of the stationary
source do to demonstrate compliance under 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: A source owner or operator responsible for a process in compliance with the OSHA
PSM standard should already be in compliance with the Program 3 prevention program
requirements of 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart D (61 FR 31687; June 20 1996). The owner or
operator must demonstrate such compliance .by providing the information required under 40
CFR 68.175 in the Risk Management Plan for each Program 3 process. In addition, the owner
or operator must complete the hazard assessment and emergency response program
requirements of 40 CFR part 68,
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
V. A. 3. Question: The Program 3 prevention program requirements under 40 CFR
Part 68 are almost identical to the requirements of OSHA's process safely management
(PSM) standard. OSHA exempts certain industries from the PSM standard. Why does
EPA not exempt those same industries from the CAA 112(r) risk management program
requirements?
Answer: EPA and OSHA have separate legal authority to regulate chemical process safety to
prevent accidental releases, EPA has no statutory authority to exempt a source that has more
than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process from the requirements of the
Risk Management Program rule (61 FR 31688; June 20, 1996). In addition, since OSHA's
focus is on accidents that affect the workplace, while EP A's primary aim is to ensure that
sources implement process safety management in a way that protects not only workers, but
also offsite persons and environmental receptors, certain OSHA exemptions would simply not
be appropriate for EP A's purposes. For example, OSHA exempted "remote" processes at
which no employees are present; however, EPA protects the public and environmental
receptors which may be located near these processes.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
V. A. 4. Question: Under OSHA's Process Safety Management Standard, an exemption
is provided for atmospheric storage of flammable*. Has EPA included this exemption
under the risk management program regulations?
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 36 of 46
Answer: No. There is no exemption from the risk management program requirements for
atmospheric storage of flammable substances because the list of regulated flammable
substances at 40 CFR 68.130 includes only flammable gases and highly volatile flammable
liquids. EPA considers these substances to be intrinsically hazardous, regardless of storage
conditions and, therefore, does not believe that it is appropriate to provide an exemption for
such tanks (61 FR 31702; June 20, 1996).
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
V. A. 5. Question; Owners and operators of stationary sources with Program 2 or
Program 3 covered processes must perform compliance audits as part of the prevention
program requirements under 40 CFR 68,58 (for Program 2 processes) and under 40
CFR 68.79 (for Program 3 processes). Do these audits cover all of the Part 68
requirements, or just the prevention program requirements?
Answer: The compliance audit provisions of 40 CFR 68.58 and 68.79 apply only to the
requirements of the prevention programs under Subparts C and D, respectively. The owner or
operator of a stationary source with a Program 2 or Program 3 process must certify that he or
she has evaluated compliance with the applicable prevention program provisions at least, every
three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the rule are adequate
and are being followed (40 CFR 6S.58(a) and 68.79(a)).
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
V. A. 6. Question: Under the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Fart 68,
sources with Program 2 and Program 3 covered processes are required to develop
prevention programs that include personnel training. Will compliance with the training
requirements under OSHA's Process Safety Management standard (PSM) satisfy the
training requirements under 40 CFR Sections 68.54 and 68.71?
Answer: Yes. The training requirements for Program 3 processes at 40 CFR 68.71 have been
adopted verbatim from the OSHA PSM with minor wording changes to address statutory
differences (61 FR 31712; June 20, 1996). EPA anticipates that sources whose processes are
already in compliance with OSHA PSM will not need to take any additional steps to comply
with the Program 3 Prevention program (61 FR 31673; June 20, 1996).
The training requirements for Program 2 processes at 40 CFR Section 68.54 is a streamlined
version of the OSHA PSM training requirements. The primary difference is that the OSHA
documentation requirements have been omitted from the Program 2 training requirements (61
FR 31711; June 20, 1996). Additionally, training conducted to comply with other Federal or
state rules or industry-specific standards or codes may be used to demonstrate compliance
with the Program 2 training requirements (40 CFR Section 68.54(c)).
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
VL Emergency Response Program
VL 1. Question: A number of federal statutes and regulations require emergency
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 37 of 46
response planning (e.g.f risk management planning under the Clean Air Act Section
112(r)» contingency planning under RCRA, and facility response planning under the Oil
Pollution Act), On_ June 5,1996, the National Response Team (NUT), published the
Integrated Contingency Plan ("One Plan") Guidance (61 FR 28642), providing a
mechanism by which a facility may consolidate multiple emergency response plans into
one functional plan. Is a facility required to integrate its emergency response plans?
Must a facility use the Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) format specified in the
guidance?
Answer: Adherence to the ICP guidance is not required, but the NRT believes that a single
functional plan is preferable to multiple plans. The ICP is intended to streamline the
emergency planning process of those facilities that may be subject to one or more federal
emergency planning regulation (the ICP does not address state emergency planning
requirements). While not affecting the substantive requirements of these federal regulations,
the NR.T developed a mechanism by which the components of the emergency plans may be
incorporated into a single document.
The guidance provides a sample format for an ICP. The plan is divided into three parts: an
introductory section, a core plan, and a series of supporting annexes. The steps necessary to
initiate, conduct, and terminate an emergency response action are found in the core plan. The
annexes provide detailed support information based on the procedures detailed in the core
plan. Because the core plan is designed to provide only the most essential response steps, the
core plan should frequently reference the annexes. The annexes may further reference other
plans (e.g., area contingency plans under OP A, local emergency planning committee plans
under EPCRA) to facilitate their integration with the facility's ICP. If a facility submits an ICP
for review and approval by a federal agency, the plan should cross-reference existing
emergency response regulatory requirements and their location in the plan.
Though the NRTs ICP guidance represents the federally preferred method of response
planning, a facility is not required to implement the format outlined in the guidance. The NRT
is aware that alternate formats exist and others will likely be developed; however, the NRT
anticipates that future federal emergency response planning regulations will incorporate use of
the ICP guidance. Additionally, developers of state and local requirements will be encouraged
to be consistent with the ICP guidance.
(September 1996, Monthly Hotline Report)
VL 2. Question; The National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan guidance,
or "One Plan," provides a format for consolidating multiple emergency response plans
required under RCRA, OPA, SFCC, DOT, OS HA, and CAA 112(r). Will an Integrated
Contingency Flan satisfy all of the risk management program requirements under 40
CFR Part 68?
Answer: No. An Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) does not include all of the 40 CFR Part
68risk management program requirements. An ICP can, however, be used to satisfy the
emergency response plan requirements of 40 CFR Section 68.95(a)(l) for Program 2 and
Program 3 processes (61 FR 31673; June 20, 1996).
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PNf
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 1 L2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 38 of 46
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
VI. 3. Question: Are exercises required as a part of the emergency response program
requirements under 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart E?
Answer: The owner or operator of a stationary source with Program 2 or Program 3
processes must develop and implement an emergency response program as described at 40
CFR Section 68.95, Although there is no specific requirement to perform emergency response
"exercises," exercises are a good tool for training and testing emergency response plans. In
addition, training for all employees in relevant response procedures is required (40 CFR
Section 68.95(a)(3)).
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
VH Risk Management Flan (KMP)
VTL 1. Question: Will an electronic "form" be issued for submission of RMPs?
Answer: The Agency is working toward developing a process for 'non-paper1 submission and
receipt of RMPs (61 FR 31695, June 20, 1996). It has not been decided yet whether an
electronic form will be issued as part of that process.
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
VIL 2. Question: Is classified information exempt from inclusion in the risk
management plan (RMP) under 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: Yes. Part 68 does not require disclosure of classified information in violation of
federal laws, regulations, or executive orders (61 FR 31695; June 20, 1996). The regulations
clearly state that the RMP will exclude classified information (40 CFR 68.150(d)). Classified
data or information excluded from the RMP may, however, be made available in a classified
annex to the RMP for review by federal and state representatives who have received the
appropriate security clearances. "Classified information" is defined as any information or
material that has been determined by the United States Government, pursuant to an executive
order, statute, or regulation, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons
of national security (40 CFR 68.3).
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
VIL A. RMPIans - Registration / RMPlan Submission
VIL A. 1. Question: When must the risk management plans (RMPs) required under 40
CFR Part 68, Subpart G, initially be submitted?
Answer: For chemicals currently listed as regulated substances at 40 CFR68.130, compliance
with the risk management program requirements (including submission of RMPs) is required
by June 21, 1999, or the date on which a regulated substance first becomes present above a
threshold quantity in a process, whichever is later (40 CFR 68.10(a)). For substances
subsequently added to the list, the due date for RMP submission will be three years after the
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section I I2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 39 of 46
date on which the regulated substance is first listed (40 CFR68.10(a)(2)).
(CAA Q&A Database, September 6, 1996)
VTI. A. 2. Question: When must the risk management plans (RMFs) required under 40
CFR Part 68, Subpart G, be submitted?
Answer: For chemicals currently listed as regulated substances at 40 CFR68.130, compliance
with the risk management program requirements (including submission of RMPs) is required
by June 21, 1999, or the date on which a regulated substance first becomes present above a
threshold quantity in a process, whichever is later (40 CFR 68.10(a)).
For substances subsequently added to the list, the due date for RMP submission will be three
years after the date on which the regulated substance is first listed (40 CFR68.10(a)(2)).
The owner or operator of a covered stationary source must revise and update the RMP within
five years of the original submission or most recent update, whichever is later (40 CFR
68,190(bXl)). The RMP must also be revised and updated no later than the date on which a
new regulated substance is first present in an already covered process above a threshold
quantity (40 CFR 68.190(b)(3)) or the date on which a regulated substance is first present
above a threshold quantity in a new process (40 CFR 68.190(b)(4)). Revised and updated
RMPs are also due within six months of a change that requires a revised process hazard
analysis or hazard review '40 CFR 68.190(b)(5)) or a revised oflsite consequence analysis (40
CFR 68.190(b)(6)), or a change that alters the program level that applied to any covered
process (40 CFR 68.190(b)(7)).
(CAA Q&A Database, October 1996)
VTL A. 3. Question: The owner or operator of a stationary source that is subject to the
risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68 is required to prepare and
submit a risk management plan (RMP) by June 21,1999. Is any form of
pre-registration required?
Answer: No, The Agency has determined that since the first RMP need not be submitted until
June 21, 1999, an earlier pre-registration requirement would impose an unnecessary additional
burden on stationary source owners and operators (61 FR 31698; June 20, 1996). To limit the
number of filings made for individual sources, the registration component has been
incorporated as part of the RMP (40 CFR 68.160).
( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
VTL A. 4. Question: The owner or operator of a stationary source that has processes
covered by the risk management program regulations of 40 CFR Part 68 must submit a
single risk management plan (RMP) that includes the information required by 40 CFR
Sections 68.155 through 68.185 for all covered processes. The first submissions an: due
by June 21,1999, and are to be made in a format and to a location that will be specified
by EPA prior to that date (40 CFR 68.150). May a stationary source owner or operator
submit his or her RMP before the compliance deadline?
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section I I2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 40 of 46
Answer: Owners and operators of stationary sources with covered processes are encouraged
to begin developing and implementing their risk management programs, establishing a
dialogue with their communities, and sharing information with state and local emergency
management agencies. EPA is preparing general guidance to assist in compliance with the risk
management program requirements. Risk management plans that meet all regulatory
requirements cannot be completed, however, until EPA has specified the format of the RMPs
and the method by which they should be submitted. A 35-member work group comprising
members of state and local governments, industry, environmental groups, and others has been
formed to design an RMP format and to determine the manner of submission. EPA hopes to
begin accepting RMPs by January 1999.
After the method and format for RMP submission have been established, RMPs may be
submitted at any time. This submission is not, however, a one-time paperwork exercise. The
risk management program regulations mandate ongoing attention to risk management and
communication, and RMPs must be revised at least once every five years (40 CFR 68.190(b)).
(CAAQ& A Database, July 1997)
VULEnforcement
VITL 1. Question; Does EPA have enforcement authority for the risk management
program regulations?
Answer: Yes. Under 113 of the CAA, the Agency has the authority to bring administrative
and judicial actions against violators. Judicial actions can be civil and criminal in nature.
Section 113(aX3) authorizes the Agency to order violators to comply with the risk
management program regulations. Under Section 113(b), the Agency may initiate civil judicial
enforcement for violations of the Risk Management Program to assess penalties up to $25,000
per day for each violation. Under 1 i3(c), the Agency may seek criminal penalties for knowing
violations of the risk management program, Under Section 113(d) the Agency may assess
administrative civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each violation. Administrative
actions initiated under section 113(d) cannot exceed $200,000 unless approved by the
Department of Justice. In addition, to the authority to bring administrative and judicial actions
against violators, the Agency may issue orders under CAA 112(r)(9) and CAA 303 when
there is an imminent and substantial threat of an actual or potential release.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
IX. Implementation
DC. 1. Question: Can a state air permitting agency unilaterally assign to EPA the
implementation and enforcement of the requirements of 40 CFR Part 68.2l5(e)?
Answer: No, such reassignment of responsibilities can only be achieved by the state entering
into a written agreement with the Administrator under which EPA will implement and enforce
the verification and oversight requirements of 40 CFR 68.215(e) (40 CFR 68.215(d)).
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 41 of 46
DC. 2. Question; What is a management system (40 CFR 68.15(a))? How comprehensive
must it be? Is there a standard format?
Answer: The management system required under Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 68 is essentially a
system defined by facility managers for integrating the implementation of the risk management
program elements and assigning responsibility for that implementation (58 FR 54196; October
20, 1993). The extent of the management system will depend on the size and complexity of
the source. At many small sources, the appointment of a person or position that has the
overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk
management program elements, as required under 40 CFR 68,15(b), may satisfy the
management system requirement. For larger sources, separate divisions may be responsible for
overseeing different elements of the risk management program.
The management system should document the integration of your operations. For example, if
process equipment is changed, process safety information must also be changed, training may
need to be revised, and both operators and maintenance staff must be informed. Some basic
questions you should ask yourself are: Do you (corporate) know who is in charge of
implementation? Do your employees involved in implementation understand what their roles
are, whom they report to, and whom they need to talk to when they make changes or
problems arise? The management system is a way to ensure that each department involved in
the process understands its responsibilities and who should be contacted when changes or
other concerns arise.
There is no standard format for the management system. It should be designed to ensure that
each person knows what his/her responsibilities are and the lines of authority. This system can
be documented by an organization chart, but other methods can be used as well. The rule
provides you with the flexibility to design and manage your management system in whatever
way works best for you. You are not required to submit the management system to EPA.
EPA is developing general guidance on RMP implementation that will discuss management
systems in further detail. In addition, you may want to consider guidance produced by private
parties, such as the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) who has a Process Safety
Documentation guidebook for sale that might be helpful if your management system is
complex. (To order: call l-800-AICHEME, $120, 1995, 386 pages, 0-8169-0625-4.)
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
EC. A. Implementation - Interaction with CAA Title V Programs
DC A. 1. Question: Under the CAA, air permitting authorities must ensure that sources
are in compliance with applicable requirements to issue a permit Do the CAA 112(r)
provisions constitute applicable requirements for Title V air permits?
Answer: Yes. Section 112(r) is an applicable requirement for CAA Title V air permits under
40 CFR Parts 70 or 71. The permit conditions and the actions that owners and operators and
air permitting authorities must take to ensure compliance are identified at 40 CFR 68.215.
(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act . Section I L2(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 42 of 46
DC. A, 2* Question: Do the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68
place additional requirements on stationary sources that are currently in compliance
with all other provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA)?
Answer: Yes. Owners and operators of stationary sources who meet the applicability criteria
at 40 CFR 68,10 must comply with the risk management program regulations of 40 CFR Part
68, in addition to other CAA requirements. If a source is subject to both 40 CFR Part 68 and
Part 70 or 71, the Part 70 or 71 permit for the stationary source must provide assurance of
compliance with 112(r) (40 CFR 68.215),
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
IX. B. Audits
IX. B. 1. Question: How often must owners or operators of stationary sources subject to
the risk management program regulations perform compliance audits?
Answer: The regulations at 40 CFR 68.58(a) and 68.79(a) state that owners or operators must
certify that they have evaluated compliance with the applicable prevention program provisions
at least once every three years to verify that established procedures and practices are adequate
and are being followed.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
DC. B. 2. Question: What criteria will be used to select stationary sources for periodic
compliance audits of risk management plans (RMFs) submitted under 40 CFR Part 68,
Subpart G?
Answer: The implementing agency will, according to the regulations at 40 CFR 68.220(b),
select stationary sources for audits based on any of the following criteria: (1) accident history
of the stationary source; (2) accident history of other stationary sources in the same industry;
(3) quantity of regulated substances present at the stationary source; (4) location of the
stationary source and its proximity to the public and environmental receptors; (5) the presence
of specific regulated substances; (6) the hazards identified in the RMP; and (7) a plan
providing for neutral, random oversight.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
DC. B. 3. Question: Witt risk management plan (RMP) submissions be subject to audits?
If so, who will conduct the audits?
Answer Yes; According to 40 CFR 68,220(a), the implementing agency will periodically
audit RMPs in order to review their adequacy, and may require revisions of RMPs as
necessary to ensure compliance. The implementing agency is the state or local agency that
obtains delegation for an accidental release prevention program under 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart E. If no state or local agency is granted delegation, EPA will be the implementing
agency (40 CFR 68.3),
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 43 of 46
IX, B, 4. Question: The regulatory text at 40 CFR 68,79(a) regarding compliance audits
under the Program 3 prevention program refers to the provisions of "this section."
Similar language-Mi the regulatory text at 40 CFR 68.58(a) regarding compliance audits
under the Progrim 2 prevention program refers to the provisions of "this subpart." Is
the reference in 40 CFR 68.79(a) a misprint?
Answer: Yes. The text at 40 CFR 68.79(a) states that the owner or operator must certify that
he has evaluated compliance with the provisions of "this section" at least every three years to
verify that the procedures and practices developed under "this standard" are adequate and are
being followed. The word "section" should, in fact be read as "subpart," and the word
"standard" should be read as "rule," The compliance audit provisions of 40 CFR 68.58 and
68,79 apply to ail the requirements of the prevention programs under 40 CFR Part 68,
Subparts C and D, respectively. EPA intends to publish a correction to the reference to
"section" in 40 CFR 68,79(a) so that it will read as "subpart" in order to maintain consistency
with the compliance audit provisions of the PSM rule, 29 CFR 1910.119.
(C AA Q& A Database, May 1997)
X. Miscellaneous
X. 1. Question: What is the statutory authority and the regulatory source for the risk
management program regulations which are codified at 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: The risk management program regulations were promulgated pursuant to the 112(r)
accidental release prevention provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, The
regulatory sources for the Part 68 requirements are the Risk Management Program final rule,
which was signed on May 24, 1996, and published in the Federal Register on June 20, 1.996
(61 FR 31668), and the List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds final rule, published in
the Federal Register on January 31, 1994 (59 FR 4478).
(C AA Q& A Database, September 6, 1996)
X. 2. Question: Docs the new Risk Management Program final rule change or affect the
January 31,1994, List of Regulated Substances and Threshold Quantities final rule?
Answer The new Risk Management Program final rule does not alter the 1994 List Rule. On
April 15, 1996, however, EPA published proposed amendments to the List Rule (61 FR.
16598). On the same day that the Risk Management Program final rule was published in the
Federal Register, EPA published a stay of certain provisions of 40 CFR Part 68 that are being
addressed in the proposed List Rule amendments. The stay provisions are set forth in 40 CFR
68.2 and discussed in 61 Federal Register 31730 (June 20,1996).
(CAAQ& A Database, August 1996)
X. 3. Question: Will the Chemical Safety Audit Program continue, and if so, in what
format?
Answer: Yes. The Chemical Safety Audit (CSA) program was designed to identify the causes
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 44 of 46
of accidental releases, heighten awareness of the need for chemical safety among chemical
handlers, and establish a database for the assembly and distribution of chemical safety
information. Since the focus of the CSA program and the risk management program
regulations are similar, the CSA program will provide support services for the implementation
of the 40 CFRPart 68 regulations. For facilities subject to the risk management program
regulations, the CSA program will provide training and compliance assistance. For facilities
that are not subject to the risk management regulations, the CSA program will continue
unchanged.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
X. 4. Question: What is the distinction between a. "process" and a "covered process"
under the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Part 68?
Answer: "Process" means any activity involving a regulated substance, including any use,
storage, manufacturing, handling, or on-site movement of such substances, or combination of
these activities. A "covered process" is a process that contains a regulated substance in excess
of a threshold quantity (40 CFR 68.3).
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
X. 5. Question: How do tbe requirements of Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code relate
to the risk management program regulations at 40 CFR Fart €8?
Answer: The requirements of Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code, or any other federal, state
or local laws or regulations or industry consensus standards can play a significant role in the
risk management program (RMP) requirements under 40 CFR Part 68. The RMP rule requires
that owners or operators of processes handling more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance must implement a risk management program that includes an accidental release
prevention program (Programs 2 or 3). Owners or operator of covered processes have
flexibility such that compliance with existing codes, laws, standards, etc. (especially under
Program 2) can be used to demonstrate that the owner or operator is in compliance with
certain requirements under 40 CFR Part 68, without having to create duplicate elements. For
example, NFPA 58 is a standard issued by the National Fire Protection Association for the
Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases. This standard specifies certain
equipment, designs, maintenance and training for the storage of liquefied petroleum gases. An
owner or operator of a liquefied petroleum gas process could certify that they are in full
compliance with the NFPA 58 training requirements to satisfy the RMP requirements rather
than developing a new, and potentially duplicateve, training program. Note that the owner or
operator must ensure that the elements required by the other regulations, laws, standards or
codes fully satisfy the RMP requirements and that the owner or operator is in compliance with
these other requirements.
(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)
X. 6. Question: The regulatory text of the June 20,1996, Bisk Management Program
Rule (61 FR 31668) does not include Subpart F. What is the content of Subpart F and
when was it promulgated?
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section 112(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 45 of 46
Answer: Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 68 consists of the regulations concerning the list of
regulated substances, threshold quantities, and threshold determination that were originally
promulgated in tha-List Rule (59 FR 4478; January 31, 1994) as Subpart C. The June 20,
1996, rule redesignated the original Subpart C as Subpart F, amended Subpart A and added
Subparts B, C, D, E, G, H, and Appendix A (61 FR 31717; June 20, 1996). In Subpart F the
original section numbers of the former subpart C (68,100-68.130) remained unchanged.
(CAA Q& A Database, May 1997)
X. 7. Question: How do the Clean Air Act (CAA) risk management program
requirements differ from the hazardous chemical reporting requirements under the
Emergency manning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)?
Answer: The hazardous chemical reporting requirements under EPCRA 311 and 312 (40 CFR
Part 370) are separate and distinct from those under CAA 112(r) (40 CFR Part 68). EPCRA
hazardous chemical inventory reporting (on Tier I or Tier Q forms) applies to all hazardous
chemicals, as defined by OSHA, with certain exemptions (40 CFR 370.2). Information
reported under the hazardous chemical inventory regulations includes the types and amounts
of hazardous chemicals, location and storage information, and facility contact information.
The CAA risk management program rule applies to a distinct set of regulated substances listed
at 40 CFR 68.130. The risk management program requirements go beyond emergency
planning and reporting; they require a holistic approach to accident prevention and mitigation.
Elements required under the risk management program regulations vary for individual
stationary sources, but generally include a hazard assessment, a prevention program, an
emergency response program, and a management system.
(CAA Q&A Database, May 1997)
X. 8. Question; Section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act of 1990 ai amended required the
President to establish a Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board whose
responsibilities would include investigating chemical accidents and providing Congresi
and Federal and state authorities with recommendations to improve chemical safety.
Due to lack of funding, however, the Board was never established. Have OSHA and
EPA inherited the Board's authority?
Answer*. No. In January 199S the Administration decided not to form the independent
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and instead asked EPA and OSHA to
investigate, using their own existing authorities, major chemical accidents at fixed faculties to
determine probable root cause and make recommendations to enhance chemical safety and
prevent recurrence. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Air Act (sections 114
and 307), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(section 104) provide the primary authority for accident investigation.
(CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)
||EPA Homepage |[OSWER Homepage ||CEPPO Homepage ||SearehEPA||
Monday, October 13, 1997 4:51 PM
-------
EPA/CEPPO Clean Air Act - Section L 12(r) - Fr... - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 46 of 46
[[Comments to EPAI[Comments to CEPPO IIEPCRA Hotline ||
Maintained by the Ch^mieaJ Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO), Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
URL:http://www.epa.gov/$wercepp/pubi/caa-fa
-------
RMP PROGRAM SELECTION
Fact Sheet
APPLICABILITY -
First Rule - A stationary source must have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance in a process. If not, the process is not subject to this regulation. A list of the
regulated substances and their threshold quantities may be found in Section 2.
EXEMPTIONS/PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Substances not covered!
* Ammonia held by fanners for agricultural use
* Regulated substances in gasoline used for fuel
* Crude oil prior to refining
• Explosives
PROGRAM SELECTION
Program 1 process (Must meet ALL of the following);
* Applicable process - see First Rule above
* No significant releases from the process in the last 5 years
* Worst-case release scenario shows no public receptors
* Emergency response coordinated with responding agency
Program 2 process - Not Program 1 or Program 3
Program 3 process
Applicable process - See First Rule above
AND
A. Be in one of the following SIC codes:
Pulp Mills-2611
Oiler-alkali - 2812
Industrial Inorganics - 2819
Plastics and Resins - 2821
Cyclic Cnides - 2865
Industrial Organics - 2869
Nitrogen Fertilizers - 2873
Agricultural Chemicals - 2879
Petroleum Refineries - 2911
OR
B. Be subject to the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) Regulation
NOTES:
A. An applicable facility process that has an SIC code shown above or is- subject to OSHA
PSM is a Program 3 process.
B. If a Program 2 or Program 3 process also meets Program 1 requirements, it can be
selected as Program 1.
-------
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Worst-case Offsite Consequence Analyses
Worksheet
Toxic gas release in an enclosed space: Northern Kentucky, sewage disposal facility, urban
(hills, some structures), 1 ton of chlorine gas
AssignmentJu Calculate release rate
As specified on page 6 ofRMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance, toxic gas release rates
are calculated as 10-tninute releases (for liquified refrigerated gases released into passive
mitigation, see page 7),
1. Unmitigated releases (including unmitigated refrigerated gases)
(page 6)
10
Release rate (QR) in Ib/mifl = quantity released {Q$)Jn
10 min
2. Releases into enclosed spaces is passive mitigation (page 7)
QR = QS x 0.55 mitigation factor
10
Calculate: te/min (QR) = lb (QS) x 0.55
10
QR » Ib/min
-------
Assignment 2: Calculate distance to endpoint (Reference Tables 1-8, pages 24-31)
1. Identify the proper table.
Density: buoyant (Tables 1-4) or dense (Tables 5-8).
Note: The density of toxic gases can be found in Exhibit B-l,
Data for Toxic Gases, page 83,
10 min (required) Release time: 10 minutes (Tables 5 and 7) or 60 minutes (Tables
6 and 8).
Topography: rural (Tables 5 and 6) or urban (Tables 7 and 8).
Reference table to use.
2. Find the distance to endpoiat.
Chlorine toxk endpoint (from Appendix A, page 151).
Identify the closest listed release rate (on the left side of the table).
Identity the closest listed endpoint (across the top of the table).
Find the miles to endpoint: Track the release rate to the endpoint
to find distance to endpoint.
-------
Assignment 3 L Identify receptors
L Identify the environmental receptors.
a. Plot distance to endpoint for the USGS map that has been provided for this
exercise.
1) With an instructor's help, identify the sewage disposal facility on the
USGS map; then place the clear plastic protective cover on the map with
the dot on the cover centered on the sewage disposal facility.
2) Find the section marked 10 (for 1/10 inch increments) on the triangular
ruler that has been provided.
3) With the ruler, measure 1 mile of the mileage scale on the USGS map to
the nearest 1/10 inch.
4) Multiply the measured distance (from the USGS map) by the number of
miles to endpoint (from the last page).
Calculate:
inches to endpoint = in/mi x mites to endpoint
5) Find the compass and set the distance from the compass point to the tip
of the marker to match the calculated distance above,
6) Draw a circle with the compass, using the dot on the protective cover over
the sewage disposal facility as the center point.
b. Show which of the following receptors are located within the circle by placing t
check mark by the appropriate receptor (these receptors are found in the Risk
Management Plan Data Elements).
Environmental receptors
National or state parks, forests, or monuments
Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuge*
Federal wilderness areas
-------
2, Identify the public receptors
a. Plot distance to endpoint for the street map that has been provided for this
exercise.
1) With an instructor's help, identify the sewage disposal facility on the
street map; then place the clear plastic protective cover on the map with
the dot on the cover centered on the sewage disposal facility,
2) Find the mileage scale on the back of the street map (it is the second
scale).
3) Using the section marked 10 (for 1/10 inch increments) on the triangular
ruler, measure 1 mile of the mileage scale on the street map to the nearest
1/10 inch.
4) Multiply the measured distance (from the street map) by the number of
miles to endpoint (from the last page).
Calculate:
inches to endpoint = in/mi x miles to endpoint
5) Find the compass and set the distance from the compass point to the tip
of the marker to match the calculated distance above.
6) Draw a circle with the compass, using the dot on the protective cover over
the sewage disposal facility as the center point.
b. Show which of the following receptors are located within the circle by placing a
check mark by the appropriate receptor.
Public receptors
Schools Residences
Hospitals Prisons
Recreational areas or arenas
Major commercial, office, or industrial areas
-------
Assignment 4: Calculate affected population
1. Using the street map, identify the three counties within the distance-to-endpomt circle.
County County
County
Note: Each of these counties represents about 1/3 of the area covered by the circle.
2, Calculate the affected population for each county.
a. First, calculate square miles affected as follows:
Miles2 = *R2 = 3.14 x (distance to endpoint)2
Calculate:
miles2 = 3.14 (T) x mi (radius) x mi (radius)
b. To find the miles2 per county, divide the answer by 3.
Calculate:
miles2/county = miles2
c. Determine the population by calculating the affected population in each county,
and then adding all these populations together.
1) To calculate affected populations in each county, multiply the miles3
affected in the county by the population density per square mile (see
attached fact sheet). .
County 1
Calculate:
affected pop. — miles2/county X pop. density
-------
Countyg
Calculate;
affected pop. - milesVcounty x pop, density
County 3
Calculate:
affected pop. = milesVcounty x pap. density
3. Determine the total affected population by adding the affected populations of die three
counties.
Calculate:
affected pop. = pop. County 1 4- pop. County 2
•f pop. County 3
Answer: affected population
-------
1992 Populations for Selected Counties
County
Hamilton, OH
Boone, KY
Campbell, KY
Kenton, KY
Contra Costa, CA
Square
Miles
407
246
152
163
720
Population
872,026
63,107
85,034
143,550
840,585
Population
par sq. mi.
2,140
256
561
883
1,167
From: 1994 County and City Data Book, 12th Edition, Statistical Compendia Branch, Data
User Services Division, Bureau of the Census
5/1/97
RMP
-------
RMP - Release Scenarios and Analyses
Program 1 Processes
• One worst-case release scenario analysis for each Program 1 process
• Alternative release scenario analyses are not required
Program 2 and 3 Processes
* One worst-case release scenario analysis for toxics
• One worst-case release scenario analysis for flammables
* Additional worst-case release scenario analyses if the releases affect different public
receptors
• An alternative release scenario for gacfr toxic
* One alternative release scenario for the flammables
Note: The analyses only consider substances in amounts above their threshold quantity,
5/1/97 , RMP
-------
TOXIC A
Facility Boundary
%
!
FLAMMABLE C ^
'
Prob. 1
-------
TOXIC A
TOXIC C
Facility Boundary
Prob. 2
-------
TOXIC A
TOXIC B .- .... D .
Facility Boundary
^////)^/////////////////////////////////////S//
2
TOXIC C \ \ ^
!
Prob. 3
-------
TOXIC A
\
FLAMMABLE B
FLAMMABLE C
Facility Boundary
•
Prob. 4
-------
FLAMMABLE A
Facility Boundary
FLAMMABLE C
Prod. 5
-------
TOXIC A
Facility Boundary
FLAMMABLE B
Prob, 6
-------
Facility Boundary
x///////////////////////////
1
^//////////////////////////////^
Prob. 7
-------
RMP - Release Scenario Answers
Problem 1
Worst-case relqajg
Toxic A
Flammable C
Problem 2
Worst-case release
Toxic A
Toxic C
Problem 3
Worst-case release
Toxic A
Problem 4
Worst-case release
Toxic A
Flammable B
Problem 5
Worst-case releagg
Flammable A
Toxic B
Toxic D
Toxic E
Problem 6
Worst-case releqjg
Toxic A (pgm 1)
Toxic A (pgm 3)
Flammable B
Toxic C
Problem 7
Worst-case release
Toxic A
Alternative release
Alternative releagg
Toxic C
Toxic D
Alternative release
Toxic A
Toxic B
Toxic C
Alternative release
Toxic A
Flammable B
Alternative release
Flammable A
Toxic B
Alternative release
Toxic A (pgm 3)
Flammable B
Toxic C
Toxic D
Alternative release
Toxic A
Toxic B
Toxic C
-------
»EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5104}
550-F98-002
January 1998
www.epa, gov/ceppo
Risk Management
Program:
RMP*Submit™
RMP*lnfo™
CLEAN AIR ACT Section 112(r)
FACTSHEET
ection 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (C AA)
Amendments of 1990 requires EPA to publish
regulations focusing on the prevention of chemical
accidents. These new regulations build on both the
chemical safety work begun under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), and the Process Safety Management
regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), A milestone in legislation,
EPCRA helps local communities prepare for and
respond to chemical accidents. It requires
communities to develop emergency response plans,
based on information from industry concerning
hazardous chemicals. Under the C AA requirements,
stationary sources (facilities) must identify and assess
their chemical hazards and carry out certain activities
designed to reduce the likelihood and severity of
accidental chemical releases. Once information about
chemicals is openly shared, industry, government, and
die community can work to reduce the risk to public
health and the environment On June 20,1996, EPA
published the final rule for CAA §112(r), otherwise
called the Risk Management Plan Rule (RMP Rule)
(40CFRpart68).
An estimated 64,000 facilities are subject to the RMP
Rule based on the quantity of regulated substances
they have onsite. These facilities are required to
implement a Risk Management Program and submit a
summary of the program (called the risk management
plan, or RMP) to a central location specified by EPA
by June 20,1999, The RMP data will assist state and
local governments responsible for chemical
emergency preparedness and prevention. The data
gathered will also be useful to environmental groups,
community organizations, and the public in under-
standing the chemical risks in their communities.
EPA will use the RMP data to set priorities, target
resources, and measure the success of the Risk
Management Program (e.g., through the reduction of
severe accidents). In addition, EPA hopes the
availability of this information will stimulate the
dialogue between industry and the public to improve
accident prevention and emergency response practices
at the local level.
In October 1996, EPA convened a workgroup to
examine the technical and practical issues associated
with creating a national electronic repository of
RMPs. The workgroup membership consisted of the
following stakeholder groups: state and local
government, industry, environmental and pubic
interest groups and EPA. The workgroup was charged
with recommending how the regulated community
would submit their risk management plans, as well as
how 1PA, state and local governments, and the public
would have access to this information. The
workgroup decided on an electronic submission
system, named RMP* Submit They also chose an
Internet-based public access system called RMP*Info.
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
-------
RMP* Submit
RMP*Info
ENVIROFACTS
RMP*Submit will provide RMP facilities with an
automata! tool for submitting RMPs. Here are the
Electronic Submission Workgroup's
recommendations:
* Develop a user-fiiendly, PC-based RMP
Submission System available on diskettes and via
the Internet;
• Require electronic submission on diskette;
however, an "electronic waiver" is available for
facilities that are unable to comply;
• Use a standards-based, open systems architecture
so private companies can create compatible
software;
• Perform data quality checks, accept limited
graphics, and provide on-line help including
defining data elements and instructions; and
• Accommodate, as appropriate, additional state
chemicals (i.e., those listed under state, but not
federal EPA risk management program
regulations) and lower thresholds.
The software will run on Windows 3.1 and above.
There will not be a DOS or MAC version.
TIMELINE
1. April 5-9, 1998— The first demonstration of the
RMP*Submit and RMP*Info prototype at the
1998 Hazardous Material Spills Conference
(www.nrt,org/nrt/hazmat98.nsf)
2, August 1998 —The final Method and Format for
RMP submissions will be published in the
Federal Register.
3, January 4, 1999—RMP*Submit diskettes and
paper forms will be available to the regulated
community.
4. June 20, 1999—deadline for compliance with
the Risk Management Program.
5. After June 21, 1999 — RMP*Info will be
available.
The RMP Access System, named RMP* Info, will
provide the public easy access to RMPs. To
accomplish this, the Workgroup offered the following
recommendations:
•* Establish a central system (RMP*Info) to provide
access to RMPs for all stakeholders;
+ All RMP data will be available on the Internet.
However, a decision has not yet been made on
whether or not the Offsite Consequence Analysis
data will be available on the Internet;
* Make RMP*Info available through EPA's
EnviroFaets, a relational database that provides
access to seven EPA program databases;
+ Make RMP*Info available to the public on
January 4, 1999, with the caveat that it will not
be complete until sometime after June 21,1999;
* Allow RMP*Info to contain historical records for
fifteen years;
* Ensure that RMP*Info provides search, report,
and help features;
+ Automatically notify State and local
Implementing Agencies when an RMP in their
jurisdiction has been updated; and
+ Develop a Technical Assistance help line that
will distribute RMP* Info data on diskettes and
paper for those who do not have Internet access.
FOR MORE INFORMATION.
Contact the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Hotline
(800) 424-9346 or (703)412-9810
TDD (800) 553-7672
Monday-Friday, 9am to 6pm, EST
Visit the CEPPO Home Page:
http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5104)
November 1997
550-F-97-010
&EPA
LandView™ III
FACTSHEET
LandView™ HI is an innovative "Community Right-To-Know" software
tool and the most recent in a series of electronic tools developed by
EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
(CEPPO), It enhances community-based environmental protection by placing
a wealth of important environmental information at the fingertips of local
decisionmakers and the public. LandView™ HI provides database extracts
from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Census, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of
Transportation, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These
databases are presented in a geographic context on maps that contain
jurisdictional boundaries, detailed networks of roads, rivers, and railroads,
census block group and tract polygons, schools, hospitals, churches,
cemeteries, airports, dams, and
other landmark features.
LandView software performs
display, query, and analysis of
maps and data.
ORIGIN
The need for LandView
originated during the Midwest
Floods of 1995. Nine states
were severely affected and EPA
recognized the need for an
easy-to-use tool to visualize
and identify hazardous
chemical sites and other
facilities from each of the major regulatory databases.
LandView™ m grows out of an ongoing joint venture among EPA, Bureau of
the Census, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
develop a software tool to assist in planning for and responding to chemical
accidents.
tn
wayv
from
information
source of federaJ data cur-
Powof o*^ 8t:fH>:
developed mparttiEfrBhip
rftware to;flt:yo«rowBi;I;
.
can ba cc pisd and dietrib-
'
C/!«mtca/ Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
Printed on recycled paper
-------
Land view III
November iyy/
The software in LandView is an adaptation of MARPLOT®, a
mapping component of the CAMEO® system (Computer-Aided
Management of Emergency Operations), The Bureau of Census
needed to display a detailed network of the country's physical
features (TIGER/Line files) and related demographic information.
Census's collaboration with EPA and NOAA resulted in LandView
I. LandView HI is a continuation of this collaboration and is being
released as a Windows and Macintosh version with an expanded
set of EPA and federal databases.
Whafs In LandView?
LandView contains the following information for the entire United
States, its territories, and Puerto Rico.
» Air quality information and point sources for pollutants
identified through the Clean Air Act taken from the Aerometric
Information Retrieval System (AIRS);
» Information on the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and
major generators of hazardous waste taken from the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Biennial Reporting
System (BRS);
• The National Priority List and other sites taken from the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLB);
• Facilities holding NPDES permits for discharging wastewater
under the dean Water Act taken from the Permit Compliance
System (PCS); and
* Facilities reporting yearly estimates of emissions to air, water, and
land for over 300 toxic chemicals taken from the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI).
New In LandView III
The new datasets in LandView HI include:
• An index of watershed indicators (EPA Office of Water (OW));
• Air pollution non-attainment areas (EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning, and Standards (OAQPS));
• Schools, religious institutions, cemeteries, hospitals (US
Geological Survey (USGS));
• Dams (US Army Corps of Engineers);
• Nuclear Sites (Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC));
• Airports and runways (US Department of Transportation (DOT));
• Canada and Mexico boundaries and major roads;
* Expanded Bureau of Census data on income, poverty, education, housing.
J urisdicttenal Bodriclart^
Minor Civi! Divisions
'Stock Groicipak.;;^!
Population by Race
Waste¥imt8r;Dtschargas::
Shows Census;boundaries,EPAsitesr
patterns based;on; database attribtJtes:!:: \\
Printed on recycled paper
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
-------
LandView III
November 1997
LandView III: Now Even Easier to
Use
LandView is designed to be a self-taught, easy-to-use system on
standard IBM-compatible or Macintosh PCs with a CD-ROM
reader and VGA color graphics. The new interface is more
user-friendly and allows for more powerful query functions.
HELP screens are available on the system along with an
electronic user's manual to help new users get started.
LandView III makes it easier to import new sets of information.
LandView HI can use dBase/Foxpro database files, as long as
the file has fields for latitude and longitude.
Availability:
LandView HI is available on CD-ROM from the Bureau of
Census. Questions about purchasing LandView HI or Census
data should be directed to:
Bureau of Census
Census webpage:
(301)457-4100
www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger
Users can download (via the Internet) the software and one
county of information from RTKNet1 http://rtk.nel/landview
Contacts:
For questions about LandView HI, the EPA databases in
LandView and emergency planning regulations, please contact
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Hotline:
Monday through Friday - 9 am to 6 pm 1ST
(800) 424-9346
(703) 412-9810
(800) 535-7672 TDD
For more information on the emergency planning,
preparedness, and prevention programs mentioned in this
factsheet, please visit the CEPPO website afc
http://www.epa.gov/ceppo
Current
Applications
Community Rfght-To-Know
LandView llf is now the tioat aimple and
rapitfway^tftlo^tearu:! !tfentW!-^;:i::i^i
important • eftYfrOfiitiBntBJ irtfoirtiattcin: on
potential risfe in a community.: PoDutant
infonrnation and contact information is is
ibcatibM•I:X::
Emergency Planning
Witfc tte-r^ea
expanded set of informcitidn is how
available toplamiersias they work 1o:
identify'the/potentW bazaiclsi in itfisif
Risk Mansgem«nt
:uaed in local facilities. LandView Jilwitf
:j96^a|Eti9ittli;Me^Wr«:^^ftJiDiCiBtii-;:^
^f&irJpiitltiHitHlaj.
.Wil I BifiiiriMi jiV^iSbMirtilfwiiiltKiHaKs;:;; i
W*bj
*.teM«iiW^bfi.::i:i-|ii;!;;in;:H:;
LandView ij! has been providBd to over
• 1 00;
"country • to •
redeveio ping underuti R^ed induatnaf arid
1 RTKNet
-------
LandView III
November iyy/
Other Landview Maps
lit Ul *tf U\>
4 • i:
'-.iK
1 •= '.XII y* .
I..I1
» t.n k* > *
f. IlfMC
Xta
^.
-
a
rt
^2?
.
*
*
•' »ri ..51
^:V^i
i -:&'"•*•
/3.;^
•«1
-•wi.r -.
%^
!fl.
Landview HI has the capacity to display
multiple layers of information to help
emergency planners understand where
environmentally significant facilities are
located in relation to the different parts of an
area. In this picture, Prince William County,
Virginia is displayed with different "layers"
of information such as airports, Superfund
sites (S), wastewater discharge facilities (W),
hospitals, major roads, and many others.
Depending on the emergency planner's
needs, he or she can choose to display layers
pertinent to their planning and response
work and then zoom in on the map to view
more details.
FJ- _fi_| "jty Ijji_____
xx^
::-..<-.x:;-.x:-;x;:>:->-x;:::>:vc;- ^v•.xx•::^l'^^!|.x•x:•;x•c;»:*•^>*:^:•.x:^::^•»pvv2;!~K
rSS^§SSM5SS^f^t^^^^=
k-xtx^x^:X5i:Xxv>;x-xx;:-xj.;:c:V\<.:x:;xN\iy^^
Ks-N j^csx*»xyo^»>x»x>N^>yA>\.VjJ^^
^ < •*•. *%• fl f 4**> >.I1J»"|*' .!• « «; f«-•• < 4^1 f « • *%
If a spill or accident should occur at a
hazardous waste facility, emergency
responders must be prepared to initiate
emergency procedures and evacuate workers
at the facility. In this picture, LandView HI
displays a zoomed-in section of Prince William
County, Virginia, and the Willow Refinery,
which is a hazardous waste facility. LandView
HI provides emergency planners with a map of
this facility and its surrounding features such
as the elementary school and hospital nearby.
With this information in hand, emergency
planners can plan for possible evacuation at
the elementary school and any other
potentially affected areas, and they could also
identify that a nearby hospital may be
available in an emergency or might be affected.
Emergency planners can also use LandView
HI to learn about the demographics (such as
age, income, minority population) of a
particular area and display the results on a
map. For example, emergency planners can
use Census data by correlating demographic
statistics from census block groups with the
locations of environmentally significant
facilities. In this picture, emergency planners
can show how the hazardous waste facilities
(H) and Superfund sites (S) are situated in
relation to the minority (non-white)
populations in Prince William County.
Printed on recycled paper
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
------- |