N

W

LETTER

EPA Region 10
CAA 112(r) Update

Vol. I No. 2
October, I 997

Latest News on the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements of the Clean Air Act

INSIDE

List Rule Change for

Hydrochloric Acid	1

One-Day RMP Course Being

Offered	1

Letter to LEPC Listserv from Jim
Makris, Director, CEPPO,

EPA	2

Excerpt from EPA's CEPP

Annual SERC Letter 	3

For More Information	3

Status ofRMP*Submit and

RMP*Info	4

State 112&) Contacts 	5

EPA Region 10 CAA
112(r) Update

EPA Region 10, WA Ops Office

The Update is a monthly
newsletter on issues relating

to the Accidental Release
Prevention Requirements of
the Clean Air Act.

To automatically receive a
copy via the post or E-mail,
send a message to
hoff.melanie@epamail. epa.go
v or call Melanie Hoff at
360-753-9477

List Rule Change for
Hydrochloric Acid

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took
final action to modify the list of regulated substances
and threshold quantities authorized by section 112(r)
of the Clean Air Act. The final rule on HC1
solutions (under the Amendments to the List of
Regulated Substances and Thresholds for
Accidental Release Prevention) was published on
8/25/97; 62 FR 45130. The rule vacated the listing
and related threshold for hydrochloric acid solutions
with less than 37% concentrations of hydrogen
chloride.EPA is vacating the listing and related
threshold for hydrochloric acid solutions with less
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 the rulemaking. The action
implements, in part, a settlement agreement between
EPA and the General Electric Company (GE) to
resolve GE's petition for review of the rulemaking
listing regulated substances and establishing
thresholds under the accidental release prevention
regulations.

One-Day RMP Course
Being Offered

The Environmental Response Training group has
developed a U.S. EPA approved one day Risk
Management Programs training course.

The course was developed with CEPPO
Headquarters and Regional staff review and
approval. It is administered and taught through the
Environmental Response Training Program (ERTP)
which covers more than twenty training courses,
including the Chemical Safety Audits (CSA) course.

ERTP is managed by the U.S. EPA Environmental
Response Team and staffed by Halliburton NUS.

The Risk Management Programs course covers the
following:

•	Risk management programs regulations -
including the proposed modifications and the
latest answers to the Frequently Asked
Questions

•	Hazard analysis techniques using the EPA
RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance

•	Release prevention and emergency response -
including passive and active prevention
techniques and emergency response integrated
contingency plans

•	Risk management plan (RMP) data elements -
including a case study of an actual RMP made
available by Region 9.

This course is intended for Federal, State and local
enforcement personnel, government facilities
personnel (ie. water treatment plant employees, etc.),
RMP users including SERC and LEPC members,
and local emergency management and response
personnel.

Enforcement personnel and users can use the course
to see how to review and verify RMPs and see how
to use them to help develop and refine their state and
local emergency management plans. Government
facilities personnel will see how to develop RMPs to
meet EPA requirements.

Since students may need review or development
skills (or both), they will be shown how to determine
program applicability, how to determine program
levels, how to develop and review hazard
assessments (without using computers or

-------
2 September

EPA Region 10 CAA I I2(r) Update

computer-based air release models), and how to
create, review and verify risk management plans.

The course is provided free of charge to Federal,
State and local governmental personnel (including
SERC and LEPC members). Private industry
personnel are allowed to attend, but, only on a space
available basis. Space for private industry
personnel is sometimes available, however,
historically, they have been less than 5% of our
attendees. Private industry attendees will be charged
a fee of $ 125.00 for the course. This fee is paid
directly to the EPA.

The Risk Management Programs training course is
now ready for delivery. ERTP normally delivers its
courses through EPA Regional Training
Coordinators in each EPA Region. The CSA
course is delivered once in each region per year,
through these coordinators with the aid of regional
CEPP and CSA staff.

Courses are now being scheduled in EPA Region
10. If you are interested in attending a course or
scheduling one in your area, call Melanie Hoff (see
sidebar). To date, courses are being scheduled for
April 23, 1998 in Juneau, AK and May 8, 1998 in
Portland, OR. Course deliveries in each EPA
Region are limited. Contact Melanie soon to
indicate your interest and help get the courses
effectively scheduled in EPA Region 10.

Letter to LEPC Listserv
from Jim Makris, Director,
CEPPO, EPA

In response to the recent E-mails on the roles of
LEPCs and the risk management program, EPA
would like to comment. We appreciate all those
whose comments brought this issue to our attention.

EPA believes that chemical hazards are primarily a
local concern. When a chemical is accidentally
released, it is facility workers, local firefighters and
other responders, and citizens living nearby whose
lives and health are potentially at risk. Of course,
the other side of this coin is that it is workers and
citizens who benefit economically from having the
facility located in their community. The Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986 (EPCRA, also known as SARA Title III) set
up local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) to
deal with emergency planning and provide
information about chemical hazards in the
community. EPCRA required that LEPCs have a
broad-based membership (including, at a minimum,
representatives from elected State and local officials;
law enforcement, civil defense, firefighting, first aid,
health, local environmental, hospital, and
transportation personnel; broadcast and print media;
community groups; and facility owners and

operators). LEPCs can (and should) include
representation from local EMAs. One task for the
LEPC is to develop a comprehensive emergency
response plan. (A few States require LEPCs to
develop a contingency plan for each facility in the
planning district; this goes beyond, without
replacing, the EPCRA requirement for one
comprehensive community plan.) EPA has
consistently noted the advantages associated with
such a broad-based LEPC membership: all people
involved in understanding, preventing, and
responding to chemical releases should be involved
in developing a plan.

In addition to this planning requirement, EPCRA
also gave LEPCs community right-to-know
responsibilities. Specifically, LEPCs are to receive
information (MSDSs, a list of MSDSs, and Tier I or
II inventory forms) about OSHA hazardous
chemicals in the community. There are several
hundred thousand OSHA hazardous chemicals.
LEPCs are to designate a coordinator for
information and set up procedures for responding to
public requests for information about chemical
hazards in the community. Many LEPCs have
developed the capability to manage information
electronically. Finally, the plans prepared by LEPCs
designate a community emergency coordinator who
is to be notified when accidental releases occur in
the

community.

EPA recognizes the great variety among LEPCs
throughout the country. Some are more active,
some less active. Some have more members than
others. In many cases, it is the energy and
commitment of only one person that makes an
LEPC effective. Granted this variety, EPA notes
that it is not accurate to say that the LEPCs* only
requirement under EPCRA is to prepare a plan for
specific facilities.

EPA believes that information available in risk
management plans (RMPs) prepared under the
accident prevention provisions of Clean Air Act
§112(r) will prove helpful to LEPCs and other
agencies (e.g., EMAs) at the local level. In fact, the
primary purpose of CAA §112(r) is to prevent
accidental chemical releases and reduce their
severity. CAA goes beyond the planning for
responses that was emphasized in EPCRA. The
best way to minimize threats to human health and the
environment from accidental chemical releases is to
prevent releases from occurring. RMPs will include
a description of potential offsite consequences
related to a release under a worst-case scenario and
alternate scenarios for the covered chemicals) at a
facility. LEPCs and other local agencies will also
find in RMPs a description of accidental releases
during the previous five years. And RMPs will
include a summary of the response program at a
facility, both internal preparations and existing

-------
3 September

EPA Region 10 CAA M2(r) Update

For More Information

Contact the Emergency
Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Hotline at

(800)424-9346 or
(703)412-9610.

Visit the 112(r) CEPPO

Home Page at
www. ep a. g ov/ swercepp/acc-
pre. html

Contact your EPA Region
10 representative, Melanie

Hoff, at (360)753-9477 or

lio££. melanie@ epamail. epa.^ ov

agreements with LEPCs and other interested groups
in the community. This information about hazards
assessment and the response program should prove
helpful to local officials, planners, and responders,
as they try to understand chemical hazards and
develop emergency plans. The RMP also describes
the accident prevention program at a facility.

Recognizing that CAA §112(r) and its regulations do
not impose any requirements on LEPCs and other
local government organizations, EPA nevertheless is
convinced that LEPCs and local citizens will find
this accident prevention information helpful in their
efforts to protect human health and safety. It will
ensure that LEPCs have the most current data on
risk in the community and will keep the planning for
response and risk reduction relevant. It will help to
show cooperation between government and industry
and may overcome attitudes of "gotcha" and
encourage attitudes of "we are all in this together."
It may also enhance the SERC/LEPC structure.
EPA will continue to do what it can to ensure that
LEPCs, EMAs, CAPs, and other similar local
organizations know about RMPs and their potential
usefulness at the local level, and to make specific
RMPs available to LEPCs and other similar local
organizations.

EPA would like to work with local EMAs and other
State and local agencies on RMP implementation.
We welcome your suggestions on how to build a
stronger we partnership.

James (Jim) L. Makris, Director

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC

Excerpt from EPA's CEPP
Annual SERC Letter

Chemical Accident Prevention — Risk Management
Programs — We published the final risk
management program regulation in June 1996.
Facilities covered by the regulation must submit risk
management plans (RMPs) no later than June 1999.
These RMPs will contain much information that will
be useful to you and the LEPCs in your State. For
example, the RMPs include a description of off-site
consequences associated with releases under
scenarios using worst case assumptions and
alternate scenarios. This information will
complement the EPCRA information LEPCs have
been using to develop community plans. RMPs also
will describe facility emergency response programs,
more information that LEPCs can use to improve
local preparedness. And the RMPs will describe the

steps facilities are taking to prevent accidental
chemical releases. I urge you to work with your
LEPCs to ensure that they engage facilities in
discussions about accident prevention. In a few
years, thanks to the steps you and LEPCs are about
to take with respect to accident prevention, our
citizens will gradually become familiar with, and
expect to see practiced, some fundamental steps
that industry and local officials can take to prevent
accidental releases.

In September 1996, we established the Accident
Prevention Subcommittee, a 12-member advisory
committee specifically focused on CAA 112(r)
issues. In turn, the Accident Prevention
Subcommittee created the Electronic Submission
Workgroup to make recommendations to EPA on
how RMPs should be submitted, and how RMPs
should be made available to all stakeholders. In
June, the Electronic Submission Workgroup
completed its work with a Final Recommendations
Report. The report recommends that RMPs be
submitted electronically (using a PC-based software
program, named RMP*Submit) and will be made
electronically available to States and local
communities, and to all members of the public
(using an Internet-based system named RMP*Info).
Small businesses without access to computers can
get an "electronic waiver" to submit their RMP in
paper. We thank the six States who participated on
the Electronic Submission Workgroup (California,
Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, and
Texas). We will continue to work with all of you to
ensure that RMP*Info is useful to you and your
LEPCs.

At the NGA SERC conference we distributed draft
implementation guidance for CAA 112(r) and invited
comments from all the States. The Accident
Prevention Subcommittee has also established an
RMP Implementation Workgroup to provide
stakeholder advice on a variety of topics (e.g.,
implementation guidance for States, LEPCs, and
industry; training; audit protocol; outreach;
emergency planning; and model RMP guidances).
If you are interested in electronically receiving
regular updates on the work of the RMP
Implementation Workgroup, send an e-mail to
shanahan.karen@epamail.epa.gov requesting to
be added to the e-mail list for the Accident
Prevention Subcommittee and its workgroups.
Please include your name, address and phone
number.

Finally, having reported on what we at CEPPO have
been doing with respect to RMP implementation, let
me ask for your help in making the RMP program
effective in your State. We all know that chemicals
pose a threat to local people and that the costs
associated with chemical accidents (health and
environmental costs, as well as the costs of
responding during an accident) are born at the local

-------
4 September

EPA Region 10 CAA I I2(r) Update

level. People tend to hold local
and State officials responsible
when something goes wrong. For
these reasons, I believe that
activities to prevent chemical
accidents also are best
accomplished at the local and
State levels. We are prepared to
provide training, guidance, and
technical assistance to you. We
have recommended close to $1.5
million during the current fiscal
year in grants for States to
undertake activities related to
implementing the RMP program.

We do not believe in a "one size
fits all" approach to RMP
implementation. We at EPA will
work with you as you develop a
program that meets your needs
and protects your citizens.

I am currently aware of some
States that are passing their own
accident prevention legislation,
others that will initially implement
an RMP program for some
industry sectors within the State
while EPA implements the
program for the remaining sectors,
and others that will undertake
some implementation activities
while EPA undertakes
complementary activities. I also
am aware that some local
governments plan to seek
delegation for their own RMP
program, regardless of what the
State does.

RMP implementation at the local
and State levels complements
EPCRA implementation. The
State agency that will implement
the RMP program should and
indeed may already be a member
of the SERC. If not, I urge that
you take whatever steps are
necessary to include that agency
on the
SERC.

Changes to the RMP Universe —
In April 1996 we proposed to
modify the list of regulated
substances covered under the
RMP regulation. Specifically, we
proposed to remove Division 1.1
explosives from the list. This
proposed change results from a
settlement with the Institute of

Makers of Explosives (IME). IME member
companies are already regulated by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and have
agreed to post "Danger" signs at normal access
routes, and to immediately notify LEPCs and other
bcal authorities of the type, quantity, and location of
Division 1.1 commercial explosives at any new
temporary storage or manufacturing job sites. In
addition, for new or existing Division 1.1
commercial explosives storage or manufacturing
locations (excluding temporary sites), the member
companies will notify LEPCs and other local
authorities of the type, quantity,
and location of the explosives on site, prepare
emergency response plans, provide these plans to
the local emergency responders, and respond to
reasonable requests for information from said
authorities. We believe making this additional
information about explosives available to emergency
planners and responders will effectively close a gap
in available right-to-know information, while allowing
existing laws and regulations to prevail. The final
action on this proposal is to be published by
December of
this year.

Jim Makris, Director, Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office

Status of RMP*Submit and
RMP*lnfo

a joint program to investigate major chemical
accidents and releases to determine probable root
causes and contributing

factors. Each joint investigation of major accidents
generally results in a public report that conveys the
joint investigation team's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations to improve
chemical safety and prevent future accidents. EPA
Administrator Carol M. Browner and Secretary of
Labor Alexis M. Herman have sent the report to
Congress in support of the
joint agency investigation process.

Propane & Gasoline Q & A's

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 a
10,000-pound threshold and is therefore potentially
subject to CAA §112(r).

Decision on format for graphics for RMP
Submission: GIF and JPEG. Graphics will be
accepted (for the January 1999 version) in GIF and
JPEG. We are requiring that graphics be sent in
these two formats for several reasons: 1) GIF and
JPEG are Internet standard graphics formats; 2)
there are free utilities available to create files in GIF
and JPEG; 3) it will be easier for users of RMP*Info
to only have to work with two standard graphics
formats rather that have to use multiple viewers to
see the graphics files; and 4) to avoid doing any file
conversions because industry indicated during the
Electronic Submission Workgroup process that they
did not want EPA doing any conversion of the data
they submit.

Press Release: OSHA/EPA
Accident Investigation

A report that details the efforts underway between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration to
work together on chemical accident investigations is
available from EPA's

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office (CEPPO). EPA and OSHA have developed

-------
5 September

EPA Region 10 CAA I I2(r) Update

State 112(r) Contacts

Al ASKA

Mike Byington, Alaska
State Emergency
Response Commission
(007)428-702 I

John Stone, Alaska
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, 4 l o
Willoghby Ave., Suite
l 05, Juneau, AK
qqbo l -1 7Q5
(007)4-05-5 I 03

Idaho

Bill Bishop, Idaho State
Emergency Response
Commission, P.O. Box
83720, 440 GUARD
St., Boise, ID 83720
(203)334-3203

Tim Teater, Idaho Dept.
of Environmental
Quality, i 4 i o North
Hilton, Boise, ID
83 70S

(208)373-0457
ORFGON

Jim Mazza, Oregon Dept.
of State Police, 5Q5
Cottage St. NE, Salem
OR Q73lo

(503)378-20 1 I X 230

John Kinney, Oregon
Dept. of Environmental
Quality, Air Quality
Division, 8 l l Sw Sixth
Ave., Portland, OR
07204

(503)-220-S8 I O

Washington

Peter Lyons,

Washington Dept. of
Ecology, Air Quality,
300 Desmond Dr., SE,
Lacey, WA 08503
(300)407-7530

(CAA Q&A Database, August 1996)

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 stationaiy 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 Part 68.
Although this process 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).

If butane and propane are present in a mixture in the
process, then the threshold quantity must 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
§68.115(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)

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 Part 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 lesser
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)

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 31668, 31676)
states that "all 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 applicable
to processes in SIC codes 2611, 2812, 2819, 2821,
2865, 2869, 2873, 2879, or 2911 or processes
covered by OSUA'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)

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
Division 1.1 explosives from the list of regulated
substances, clarifying threshold determinations for
regulated flammable substances in a mixture,

-------
6 September

EPA Region 10 CAA I I2(r) Update

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)

Question: The proposed amendments to the
List Rule (59 FR 4478; Januaiy 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
inamixtuie." Any regulated toxic substance (ie., 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)

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 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 10,000-pound threshold was
exceeded for that process, and the amount of butane
in the gasoline could be discounted.

(CAA Q&A Database, January 1997)

-------