N

W

LETTER

EPA Region 10
CAA 112(r) Update

Vol. I No. I
September, 1997

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

INSIDE

RMP Implementation Workgroup

Formed 	1

Variety of Guidances in
Development and Review

Phases	1

Status ofRMP*Submit and

RMP*Info	/

	2

Where to Get More Information

	2

Litigation Status	2

State 112(r) Contacts	3

ISO 14001 - An Option for the

RMP Rule?	3

New Approved Q & A's	4

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

RMP Implementation
Workgroup Formed

The RMP Implementation Workgroup has been
created under the Accident Prevention
Subcommittee, one of seven subcommittees under
the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. The
purpose of this workgroup is to address the
technical and practical issues associated with RMP
implementation, a process that must be completed
by 1999. The workgroup will identify these issues
and then form subgroups charged with proposing
appropriate tools and activities to resolve the issues.
The Federal Register Notice announcing this group

was published on 	. Staff from EPA

Region 10 are on the workgroup.

At a minimum the Workgroup plans to address the
following topics: implementation guidance, audit
protocol and guidance, general guidance for
industry, offsite consequence guidance, RMP*Info
and RMP*Submit, training, model RMP guidances,
and guidance for LEPCs.

The workgroup began meeting in July and will
complete its work by December 1998. Information
on workgroup activities can be found in the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/swercepp. Public comments
are welcome and encourage on all workgroup

Variety of Guidances in
Development and Review
Phases

EPA is required by statute to develop guidelines to
assist sources in the preparation of their risk
management plans and programs. EPA is
developing model risk management plans and
programs for a variety of industry sectors. The
model guidances (and anticipated release dates) in
development by EPA and trade associations target
the following industries and/or processes: ammonia
refrigeration (late spring, 1998), propane distributors

and users (December, 1997), warehouses (early
spring, 1998), chemical distributors (early spring,
1998), and POTW (late 1998).

EPA has provided comments and review on model
guidance for 1) drinking water systems being
developed by the American Water Work
Association Research Foundation (due December,
1997); 2) exploration and production wells being
developed by the American Petroleum Institute; and
3) agricultural retailers initiated by the Fertilizer
Institute.

Status of RMP*Submit and
RMP*lnfo

1. Summary of the recommendations in the

Electronic Submission Workgroup Final Report

- Based on its analysis, the Workgroup offers the

following recommendations for the RMP

Submission System (which the Workgroup named

RMP* Submit):

•	develop a user-friendly PC-based system
available on diskettes and via the Internet;

•	mandate that RMPs be submitted electronically
and provide an "electronic waiver" for facilities
that are unable to comply;

•	use a standards-based open systems architecture;

•	ensure that RMP*Submit can perform data quality
checks, accept limited graphics, allow use of
model plans, and provide on-line help including
defining data elements and instructions;

•	automatically notify State Implementing Agencies
when an RMP in their jurisdiction has been
updated;

•	accommodate additional State chemicals and
lower thresholds if, during the development

-------
2 September

EPA Region 10 CAA I I2(r) Update

phase, it is found to be technically feasible to
program into the software.

For the RMP Access System (named RMP*Info)
the Workgroup offers the following
recommendations:

Where to Get
More Information

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

(800)424-9346 or (703)412-
9810.

Visit the 112(r) CEPPO Home
Page at
www. ep a. g o v/ swercepp/acc-
pre. html

Contact your EPA Region 10
representative, Melanie Hoff, at

(360)753-9477 or

hoff .melanie@ ep amail .epa.gov

•	establish a central system (RMP*Info) to provide
access to RMPs;

•	make all RMP data (with the exception of the
offsite consequence analysis (OCA)) available
unrestricted on the Internet (a decision has not yet
been made on how to make the OCA data
available to the public);

•	make RMP*Info available through EnviroFacts;

•	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;

•	provide direct access to RMP data for State and
local Implementing Agencies;

•	make RMPs available through multiple mediums
such as the Internet, diskette, and paper; and

•	ensure that RMP*Info provides search, report,
and help features.

The complete Workgroup final report is at
http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/pubs/rmp-rprt.html.

2.	Security Study - Recent national events has
raised concern about the public availability of the
off-site consequence analysis data. EPA is
undertaking a 'security study' to analyze the
potential impact of misuse of the OCA data.

3.	The NEW "Electronic Submission Software
Development" Webpage is up. EPA has created
a new	Webpage
(http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/rmp-dev.html)

devoted entirely to the development of the
Electronic Submission Software.

4.	Decision on Software Platform. EPA has

decided to develop RMP*Submit to run on a 386 or
higher Windows PC only. This means
RMP*Submit will not run on a DOS PC or a
Macintosh computer. This decision was based on
cost. We estimated that it would cost less to do
data entry for the facilities who use DOS or
Macintosh (we estimated 10% of facilities) than to
develop a new system for them. We looked into
cross-platform products such as FileMaker Pro, but
because the RMP*Submit development contract
does not currently have this expertise, it could cause
a delay in the schedule. Commercial software
vendors will be able to develop software for the
Macintosh market.

Litigation Status

Under the Clean Air Act, a party may challenge a
rule by filing a petition for review in the appropriate
Federal court within 60 days of the rule being
published. After EPA promulgated the List and
Threshold rule in 1994 and the Risk Management
Program rule in 1996, various parties filed petitions
for review of each rule. EPA has reached
settlements with all parties challenging the List and
Threshold rule and is in negotiation with the parties
that challenged the Risk Management Program rule.
The status of these cases is summarized below.

List Rule Litigation:

American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, No. 94-1273
(DC Cir.) & consolidated cases

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the General
Electric Company (GE), and the Institute of Makers
of Explosives (IME) filed petitions for review of the
List Rule in 1994. Each of the litigants focused on
different aspects of the rule: API focused primarily
on the coverage of regulated flammable substances
and the definition of stationary source; GE focused
on the criteria used for listing regulated toxic
substances, setting thresholds, and the process for
petitioning to list or delist chemicals; and IME
focused on the coverage of explosives.

In March, 1996, EPA reached settlements with API
and IME that led to proposed amendments to the
List Rule in April, 1996. EPA agreed to propose
deleting explosive substances from the List based
on IME establishing that Federal regulation of
explosives under other programs protected the
public from the hazard for which explosives were
listed and based on a voluntary industry program to
conduct right-to-know outreach and to better
coordinate with emergency responders. In settling
the API case, the parties worked together to better
define rule provisions affecting flammable mixtures
so that the rule did not cover sources that EPA had
not originally intended to cover, such as gasoline
stations and oil and gas wells. In the course of
settling the API case, API developed additional
research related to the hazards associated with oil
and gas exploration and production to better
characterize the type of risk presented by such
sources.

In April, 1997, EPA reached a settlement with GE
that resolved the remaining challenge to the List
Rule. EPA agreed to propose to vacate the listing
for hydrochloric acid solutions with

-------
3 September

EPA Region 10 CAA I I2(r) Update

State Il2(r)
Contacts

Al ASKA

Mike Byington, Alaska State
Emergency	Response

Commission
(007)428-702 I

John Stone, Alaska Dept. of
Environmental Conservation,
4 I O WlLLOGHBY AVE., SUITE
105, Juneau, AK ooboi-
l 7Q5

(Q07I4G5-5 I 03
Idaho

BILL BI SHOP, IDAHO STATE
Emergency	Response

Commission, P.O. Box 83720,
440 Guard St., Boise, ID
83720

(208)334-3263

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

(208)373-0457
Oregon

Jim Mazza, Oregon Dept. of
State Police, 5Q5 Cottage
St. NE, Salem OR 073 1 o
(503)378-20 1 I X 230

John Kinney, Oregon Dept. of
Environmental Quality, Air
Quality Division, 8 1 1 Sw Sixth
Ave., Portland, OR Q7204
(503)-2 2Q-S8 I 9

Washington

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

concentrations of hydrogen chloride from 30% up
to 37%. The GE case raised issues that potentially
affected the entire list; by this settlement, EPA has
ensured that the compliance date of June 21, 1999
will not be impacted for the highest concentrations
of hydrochloric acid and for all other chemicals.
EPA intends to analyze the chemical properties of
hydrochloric acid and how they relate to the listing
and threshold criteria for the program.

Risk Management Program Rule Litigation

Chlorine Institute v. EPA, No. 96-1279 (DC Cir.) &
consolidated cases

Negotiations are ongoing with the six parties that
filed petitions for review of this rule (Chlorine
Institute, American Petroleum Institute, Fertilizer
Institute, National Propane Gas Association,
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration, and
Chemical Manufacturers Association). Petitioners'
issues include challenges to the offsite consequence
analysis provisions, trade secret and confidential
business	information protection,

transportation-related concerns, and various
industry-specific issues, including matters related to
model plans.

ISO 14001 - An Option for
the RMP Rule?

(Note: This summary is based on a paper entitled:
"Use of an ISO 14000 Option in Implementing
EPA's Rule on Risk Management Programs for
Chemical Accidental Release Prevention," Irv
Rosenthal and Donald F. Theiler. Presented for
discussion at a Roundtable sponsored by the
Wharton School of the Univ. Of PA, The LaFollette
Institute of the Univ. Of WI, the PA Dept. Of
Environmental Protection and the WI Dept. Of
Natural Resources with the support of EPA's
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office and EPA Regions III and IV.)

Introduction

Section 112(r) of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAA) sets forth a series of
requirements aimed at preventing and minimizing the
consequences associated with chemical accidental
releases. These requirements are the basis of EPA's
rule on "Risk Management Programs for Chemical
Accidental Release Prevention" (the Rule)
promulgated on June 20, 1996. The Rule applies to
facilities (both public and private) that manufacture,
process, use, store, or otherwise handle regulated
substances at or above specified threshold quantities
ranging from 500-20,000 pounds. EPA estimates
that approximately 66,000 facilities nationwide will
be regulated under the Rule. Some of these facilities

are large, while a great number are small- to
medium-size facilities, such as propane distributors
and users, drinking water chlorination plants, and
ammonia refrigeration facilities.

The Rule requires all regulated facilities to prepare
and execute a risk management program which
contains the following elements:

•	A hazard assessment to determine the
consequences of worst case scenario and other
accidental release scenarios on public and
environmental receptors and provide a summary
of the facility's five year accident history of
accidental releases.

•	An accidental release prevention program
designed to detect, prevent and minimize
accidental releases.

•	An emergency response program designed to deal
with any accidental release in order to protect
both human health and the environment.

•	A risk management plan (RMP) which
summarizes the facility's risk management
program and which must be submitted to a central
point that will be designated by EPA. All RMPs
will be made available to appropriate State and
local agencies and the public.

Description of the Pilot Study Context

Monitoring how well firms implement the Rule may
represent difficulties since it is commonly accepted
that in the absence of detailed specifications or
measurable performance criteria, agency oversight,
monitoring and enforcement of compliance is
resource intensive. No resources have been
explicitly provided in the CAA to the States or the
federal government to implement the program. To
date, few states have been willing to step forward
and accept delegation of the program and the federal
government is then faced with the difficult problem
of how to implement an effective program.
However, compliance can be enhanced under such
conditions if information is available to the public at
risk.

Under the Rule, EPA assumes responsibility for the
task of collecting and making the information
contained in the RMP publicly available by
electronic access. However, making information and
data submitted by regulated firms publicly
available does not in itself result in both parties being
on an equal footing in regard to risk information.

-------
4 September

EPA Region 10 CAA I I2(r) Update

The Focus of the Proposed ISO 14001 Study

The pilot project will focus on determining whether
it is possible to develop an ISO 14001 option that
will enhance implementation of the EPA Rule and be
acceptable to industry, the public, and the
implementing agency. It is expected that the ISO
option will be attractive primarily to larger facilities
and some moderate-size companies. It includes
specific actions and agreements for both the facility
and the implementing agency, and incentives/benefits
for all three stakeholders: facilities, implementing
agencies and local communities.

Regulated firms that wish to use the ISO option in
implementing the Rule would agree to take the
following actions:

1.	Adoption of all Rule requirements as specific
objectives with time lines and annual ISO 14001
audit of its performance against these
objectives.

2.	Registration under ISO 14001.

3.	Timely correction of deficiencies noted in
annual ISO audit report.

4.	Communication of its RMP to the local
community before submission to EPA.

5.	Agreement to hold open meetings to discuss the
audit and surveillance reports.

The implementing agency would agree that if a firm
met these conditions it would be entitled to the
following considerations:

1.	Expedited approval of facility's RMP if no
objections have been submitted by potentially
affected local communities.

2.	ISO facilities would be deemed low priority for
RMP audits and inspections.

3.	Resources would focus on monitoring
performances of ISO registrars/auditors.

4.	Actions on agency findings of facility program
deficiencies would be limited to requiring RMP
compliance provided the facility has been
making timely correction of deficiencies noted
in its annual ISO audit report.

5.	RMP/ISO facilities would be provided with
positive public recognition.

The proposal should provide incentives to all three
stakeholders. It allows the regulated facility more
flexibility in designing a compliance program tailored
to its own needs with a minimum of formal
implementing agency oversight and involvement, and
should result in better relations with the facility local
community. It provides agencies with an
implementation strategy which allows the available
agency resources to be focused on regulated
facilities that are more likely to be out of compliance
and covers the 'better' facilities through the less
resource intensive review of registrars in order to
ensure that they have a high degree of competence

and diligence in regard to their reviews of major
accident prevention programs. It provides better
information and a meaningful opportunity for inputs
on the RMPs by the local community in which the
regulated facilities are located, and assures the
community that this information and compliance
with the EPA Rule has been reviewed by an
independent party.

Region III and the State of Delaware have indicated
an interest in working with EPA/CEPPO in the
development and conduct of a pilot project to test
the ISO 14001 Option for Implementing EPA's
Major Accident Prevention Rule.

New Approved Q & A's

Five to six newly approved Q & A's are featured in
each update issue.

Question: The list of regulated toxic substances
at 40 CFR Section 68.130 includes both
"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 clear that
the listing for "ammonia (cone 20% or greater)"
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 is
subject to threshold determination for "ammonia
(cone 20% or greater)" under 40 CFR Section
68.115.

( CAA Q&A Database, July 1997)

-------
¦ 5 September

Question: Under the risk management program
regulations at 40 CFR Part 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)

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 Eire 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 NFPA 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)

Question: Are the risk management program
requirements under 40 CFR Part 68 applicable

EPA Region 10 CAA M2(r) Update

to federal facilities?

Answer: Yes. The requirements at 40 CFR Part 68
are applicable to 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(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)

Question: The list of regulated substances
under the chemical accident prevention
provisions of 40 CFR Part 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 FR4479; January 31, 1994). EPA was
required by CAA Section 112(r)(3) 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

-------
¦ 6 September

flammable gases and volatile
flammable liquids were listed on
the basis of flash point and boiling
point criteria used by the National
F ire 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)

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)

EPA Region 10 CAA M2(r) Update

-------