Document omgZk81B5MmKdEqzpdMZ7GdjD

ABD00086690 13526 - - -Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 7 Idanday,'March 13, 1995 H Proposed Ru.es VmONUQnAM>R0TECTK)N -- darttfyjw tWW.di^ -:^>Tg>Al'hgstekraYflimui MdJTfTrrmil S'. - AGENCY - -* 934-3X58 by March 27'. regulatory actions relevant to the sectio inf"""--pT-r^-m FPA.pronn)gntH thp 40 CFR Part 68 in dovftlnpmg tfro Ust ofRegulated Substances and .prevention regulations isoootainedln - Thresholds for Accidental Release t- tA-i-73j FRUsise-aj.; Docket No. A-91-73, This, docfcelis Prevention on.January 31; 1994 (59 FR/ BJH206O-AO26 . -available for public inspection and copying between 8:80 a.m. and 5:30 4478). The list of regulated substances z - end thresholds will determine which.-H Accidental ftotene Prwtntion ` ' Mondayd^ughlrriday ftnapt sources must comply with the-aeddem^ Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under Clean Air Act Section I12(rjf7) ' government holidays) at fbe address . listed above. A.reasonable fee may be; charged for copying. TOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Dr prevention regulations. - :V CAA section 112(1) contains the ,,'.o ' statutory authority for EPA to approve iy and delegate specific Federal authorities AGENCY: Environmental -Prolection '-.Lyse D. Helsing at1202) 260-6128, to states. EPA promulgated a rule under^ Agency. ChemicalEmergency Preparedness and section 112(1) on November 26,1993 f5&' ACTION: Supplemental notice of Prevention Office (5101),U.S.: FR 62262) that addresses the-approv&Lof proposed rulemaking. - Environmental Protection Agency, 401 both state programs for section 112 that`s M Street, SW, WashingtonDC 20460, or minor the Federal requirements and 4 SUMMARY: On October 20.1993, EPA ' -the faiffynry Plimningm'il programs that differ from Federal * proposed risk management program Community Right-Id Know HotSrie at 1- .requirements. Approval of state rules regulations.-mandated under the 800-535-0202. -2 . . ..addressing section 112(r) requirements accidental release provisions of the is addressed in the section 112(11 Rile. ",;|j Qean Air Act (CAA). Hie purpose of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: -Certain other regulatory actions,that fz proposed rule is.to reduce.the number and severity of chemical accidents. L Introductionand Beckywiad A. Statutory Authority -predate the October 20,1993. NPRM ares -relevant to today's supplemental notice. '4 Based on information presented during . . Relationship otSctioa.ll2U)toOtiKr Specifically, section U2(r) is addressed s public hearings and in comments on the proposed rule, EPA is requesting additional comment on the following regulatory options and issues:. . approaches for inO'easing compliance flexibility and decreasing cost while still ensuring preparedness by tiering the regulatory requirements to take into .Requirement* of theClaen AirAct . C. Summary of the Proparod Risk Management Rrogrem Rale*v Q. Discussion of Issues and Approach** A Approaches for Tiering the Regulatory Requirements' ^ .. B Hexeril Assessment - ' C Accident Information Repotdug D Public Participation in.CAA title V, operating permits, and the subsequent rulemaking in 40 CFR part 70 (part 70) published on July 10, "i; 1992 (57 FR 32250). Section 112(r)listed substances-are "regulated air pollutants." and the accident preventionregulations developed under section 112(r)(7)are "applicable requirements';; consideration differences between X. Inberentiy-Safer Approaches for the purposes ofCAA title V and part ^ various types, classes, and kinds of F Implementation and Integration of. 70. sources, devices, andsystems; the . hazard-assessment approaches (including worst-case scenarios): accident information reporting: public participation in risk management ' program and plan oversight; inherently safer approaches for sources' design and Section ttKr) with State Programs . IQ Requmd Analyses A Executive Order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C.Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership . D. Paperwork Reduction Act . C "Summary of the Proposed Risk- .* Management Program fiule '.The proposed rule would require - sources to: ... ., 'Register with EPA not later than three years after publication ofihe final operations; and the implementation of L Introduction and Background rule; CAA section 112(r) regulations, including methods of integrating these requirements into the title V permitting requirements and the codificationof approved state section 112(r) requirements. PATES: Comments: Comments must be submitted on orbefore May 12,1995. Hearings: The Agency willhold a A. Statutory Authority v -Develop and implement arisk management program that includes a ' This supplemental notice of proposed -. hazard assessment, preventionprogram: L? rulemaking is being issued under . and emergency response program.-and. sections H2(r) and 301(a)(1) ofthe maintain on-site documentation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 program's implementation. The hazard U.S.C. 7412(r)ahd 7601(a)(1)). assessment would include offsite . B, Relationship ofSection 112(r]to Other Requirements of the Clean Air Act consequence-analyses and a five-year accident history; . * Develop and submit to Federal, - hearing on.Maxch 31 from 9 a.m. until The Dean Air Act Amendments of' Ttete^andlocalauthoritiesaxisk. - ' 4 p.m. 1990 amend CAA-section 212 and add maaagementplan fRMP) that ADDRESSES: Comments: Written a new paragraph (r). The intent of CAA documents the risk management - comments may be mailed or submitted section 112(r) is to-prevetttsccidenial - program; This plan will be available to to: U.S. Environmental-Protection releases to the air and Tnrnimi>. die the public; and-' Agency, Attn; Docket (A-91-73),Room - consequences of releases by ftraging Update the risk management * ' 1500, 401 M Street. SVV, Washington, preventive measures on chemicals that programand plan as required by rule,` DC 2046Q. Comments must be submitted pose the greatest risk to the public and audit, or process or chemical changes at in duplicate. Comments .may also be the environment. For a summary ofdie . "the source.' faxed to the docket at 202-26&-4400, as statutory requirements ofsectkax'Tl2(r) : The risk management program 'v' Long as faxes are followed by hard and reiatpd-statutory provisioas^eee.the . addresses the general-requirements of copies. . notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) CAA section H2(r)(7)(BI for regulations 'Hearings: The.hearing-will be held at (58 FR 54X90; October'20rl993). ` -to provide for accidental release the EPA Auditorium, 401M Street/SW, Since.theOctober.2Q, 1993,notice,-' detection.andprevention. Therisk * Washington,'DCJ>eople who-wantto - * -the-f^viroiuaentalffretaction.Agency .; .^management plaii; referred to as the' ABD00086691 Federal Register 7 Vol 60, /-Mooday.March 13, M95/ Proposed Rates. ' 13527 RMP in this notice, addresses tbs requirements are appropriate for each . Under the r'jrmmnn swum Initiative specific requirements of CAA section type-of source covered and eliminate (CSIkthe Agency is working with a 1 l2(r)(7HB) for pisn that provides duplicative coverage where possible. breed cross section of stakeholders to governments] entities and the public -Commenters argued,that CAA section examine regulations affecting six with infazmstian on tbe hazards found 112(r)(7)(B)(IJ allows EPA to take into industryaectors. These sectors are st sources end the source's plans for differences in size, operations, - petroleum refining, -jT--til-finishing, iron addressing the hazards. These hazards processes, class and categories of and steel, automobile manufacturing. - would be identified and addressed through Implementation of the risk sources, and voluntary actions. Commenters. particularly states, electronics and computers, and printing. Under CS1, the Agency end-stakeholders management program elements. Therefore, the RMP would summarize the results ofhazard assessments and the implementation of the risk management program requirements. The proposed rule also contains a system to . audit the RMPs. including oiteria for selecting sources for audits. - were concerned about whether the final. rule can be implemented effectively Substantial requirements imposed on lower risk sources may undermine the program becauseimplementing agencies and the public will .find it more difficult to identify and focus on tbe most serious risks. Resources spent on - together will be looking for approaches that provide more environmental protection at less cost for these industry sectors. The tiering approaches discussed in this notice incorporate -these CSI principles. Discussion of Issues and Approaches II. Discussion ofIssues end Approaches unproductive regulatory requirements bettermight be used toanalyze and . The CAA mandates that each source with mom than ^threshold quantity of During public hearings on tbe develop new acadest prevention a regulated substance develop and proposed rule, in comments provided - technologies. -. implement-e risk management plan the* on the proposed rule, and through T Commenters have stated thatibased . includes an offsite consequence - additional sources, EPA has learned that on.their experience implementing analysis, a five-year aeddeht history, a six areas of the proposed rule need similar accident prevention rules in -prevention program, and an emergency clarification end further comment.prior . . New ferseyt.Cafifomia. and Delaware, response program. Under its proposed to development ofe final rule.. In . . and implementing-tbe OSHA PSM mle. EPA wouldTequire tbesubniissidri addition to theregulatory provisions standard, the rule would impose of an RMP that summarizes each of foe and alternatives in the proposed rule, EPA is requesting comment on substantially higher costs-ta-affected .sources than PA had originally, elements listed. The risk management '* program specifies tbe activities required regulatory options under consideration in the following areas: approaches for tiering the regulatory requirements to take into consideration differences . between various types, classes,,and kinds of sources, devices end systems; the hazard assessment approaches estimated. These commenters argued that the costs of the rule should reasonably be related to benefits obtained. Commenters noted that EPA is required under CAA section 112(rHr)(C) to consider-the.effects on smallbusinesses. . for each of the broad elements. The original proposal would require every source affected bytire rule to complete all specified activities and'submit an ' RMP EPA is proposing today to create the following three tiers of risk mflnog^mpTTt pmgw^mr- (including worst-case scenarios); accident information reporting; public participationin risk management ~ program and plan oversight; inherently safer approaches for design and operation, -and the implementation of section 112(r) regulations including methods of integrating these requirements into the title V permitting requirements. All regulatory provisions ' and alternatives under the proposed rule remain as options for the final rule, EPA will consider carefully comments already submitted. Therefore, commenters on this notice should not duplicate comments already submitted.' but should focus on .the issuesin this notice. . In light of data andinformation supplied by commenters during the initial comment period and developed byERA subsequent topublicatian of the ; initial-proposed rofe.EPA believes-that it .wouldhe-unreasonable to apply the proposed rule prevention program to eU sources subject to part 68. EPA is considering a tiered approach to achieve theprogram objectives of ensuring that the effort is appropriate to the potential risk and recognizing tbe prevention steps that sourees.are already required to take under other regulatory programs.. EPA believes a tiered implementation framework-may be a reasonableway to reduce the cost without sacrificing accident prevention benefits. EPA is proposing the-use of three 'Tieril. Ahrief Ri^P would demosstrato . nd.ceitifythctiheaouice's"Worst- - -case release Would not reach*any ... ,, publicnr environmental receptorsof. .concern." . Tier 2; A streamltaedririttnanagematt program would require sources to; . conduct an offsite consequence anafyris,.document a five-year,. . -accident history, implement ' - prevention steps. have an emergency . .resptmse.plan<aziid sutoxh-anithS^ .. The mle would not require specific. 'steps to comply with the prevention-. . and emergency rehouse programs. Tier 3; The fidl riskmanagement - program and plan would be that,. described in tbe-proposed rak -.' " A. Approaches for Tiering the . . tiers, representing increasing levels of In addition to the approachin tbe - ' Regulatory Bequircments _ effort, ta defining requiremests-far--' -proposed- rule, EPAhas-developed two. Many comroentera aakedfore tiered ~ sources. The.tiers would epplyto ... alternative approacbestoassigning' approach (i.e:, spplying-different" different categories antidssses of sources to the-tiereina-weytbat takes*. - requirements to different sources). -saurces.bued an their potential risk and into consideration risk as wall as - Commenters have presented several' steps already being tritea. In light of the differences between types, classes, and- reasons why a tiered approach is various comments summarized above, kinds of sources.^- needed: -r. - EPA does not believe that thethirdtier, - - Approach 1 - Sources that could meet: - Commenters stated thatt if a source which would be the proposed - .the requirements of Tier 1 would cannotcauseoQhteimpacts. the source - prevention program- and would entail - - comply with Tier 1. manufactures.. should nothave to meet the. the greatestlevel of effort emong the with 200 or more full-time employees requirements of themie. alternatives discussed belowshould - i(FTEs) producing pulp (SIC axle Commenters stated that the.ruie apply to alieotuces^B'A solicits' 26li),-chlar`alkaiis <28I2)>industrial * should be.streamlined to ensure that the commentson-this pcsirion-r:. inorganics, not elsewhere classified ABD00086692 43528 Federal,Register / ~Vol -80*"No. '48 -7 -'Mondayr-March 13. M995 / Proposed .Rules (nee) (2819). plastics and resins paragraph statement (see rule text), and D*C>c(nE)3. (282T),industiial organics, nec (2869), maintainrecords ofcompliance with whereD is the distance in meters to a nitrogen fertilizers (2873),-*griculturel then requirements. ' 1 psi overpressure. C is a constant for chemicals, nee (2879),and petroleum The.provisions described above' damages associated with 1 psi' '* refineries (2911) would comply with would satisfy each element of section overpressures or 0 15, n is a yield factor Tier 3 requirements; all other sources . 112(r)(7)(B)(ii) while recognizing that it of the vapor cloud explosion derived .. would comply with Tier 2 is reasonable for this class of sources,to from the mechanical yield of the .requirements. In addition, eight years be addressed in a simple manner The . combustion and is assumed to be 10 after the effective date of the rule, hazard assessment element of the percent (or 01) and E is the energy sources in SIC codes 2812.2819, program would be satisfied byverifying content of the explosive part of the 2869,2873. and 2911 with-20 to 99 that there-were no receptors within the cloud in Joules. E can be calculated FTEs would be required to meet Tier potential impact zone of the worst-case from the mass of substance in kilograms 3 requirements.. . accidental release and by the absence of times the heat of combustion (he) in Approach 2: Sources that.could meet . any significant accidental release within Joules per kilogram as follows: .... . . the requirements of Tier 1 would the previous five years. In addition. EPA E=messxhc comply with Tier 1; other sources with fewer than 100 full-time employee&.(FTs) would comply with .Tier 2 requirements; all other sources would comply with Tier 3 requirements. . . Discussion of Tier Requirements proposes that, in lieu of obtaining a Combining these two equations gives. - professional survey; ah owner or D 015 x (01 x mass x hc)| * operator,could rely on visual - approximations oflbe distances surrounding the source to public and ~ . If distances to receptors are greater,than' the distance given by the calculation method, then a source could be eligible environmental receptors for comparison to the distance generated by the worst- for Tier 1 EPA has received a study addressing' - Tier 1 (No Impact Tier). A source in Tier 1 would be a source that is subject to part 68 because it has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated . substance, but that does not pose a risk to public or environmental receptors. A source would be eligible for Tier 1 if the case release. The prevention program. would not require additional prevention activities because the characteristics of the process are such that there are no potential public or environmental. -- impacts. A standardized RMP ensures that local emergency planners and the the potential consequences of accidental releases from oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) sources that may provide a more suitable method for ' calculating impact distances from these sources than the general formula presented above. The study. Hazard. owner or operator can demonstrate that, state know that the source has been Assessment ofEB-P Facilities Potentially in a worst-case release, there are no assessed by the owner or operator Subject to the EPA's Risk Management ' public and environmental receptors of EPA believes thatTier 1 will be most Program Regulations;was submitted by * concern within the impact distances suitable for operations that handle. the American Petroleum Institute m- specified.by rule. Sources would not be flammable substances or.explosivB ' January 1995 and is available in the '- r eligible for Tier 1 if they have had a substances in locations that are - docket (see ADDRESSES section ofthis ' significant accidental release (as defined' relatively distant from the public. In rule). Generally the studyympqfts`to in the proposed rule) in the previous lieu of presenting a distance table for . ; show that given'the compcsitidhf-cff.^^r'-" five years. To ensure that emergency explosives in this part, EFA would produced'hydrocarbons atlhe soixrce - responders are aware of the hazards at allow a source to be eligible for Tier 1 and certain physical characteristics-of < the sites, sources that exceed a if it maintained a distance to the public an E&P sotirce, such as operating phase threshold only for flammable or and environmental receptors consistent and piping size, one may estimate the- - explosive regulated substances (i.e., with'27 CFR part 55 or. 30 CFR parts 56. potential impact distances for vapor V ' . they have no listed toxics above the 57,-or 77 These regulations, cloud explosions and radiant heat '' threshold quantity) would need to post promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, effects of an accidental release. EPA is v - a sign at ali normal access routes that Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the announcing the availability of.this study warns the public and emergency Mine Safety and Health Administration and seeks comment on whether EPA. responders about the hazard (fire or . (MSHA) incorporate the American Table should: allow E&P sources to use the ' explosion) and lists an emergency ofDistances (ATD). The distances results of the study to determine worst- '- contact telephone number. The owner identified in the ATD are more . case release impact distances. ' or operatorof a source eligible'for Tier conservative than the EPA listing ' For listed toxic substances. EPA is 1 that handles a regulated toxic criteria and should, therefore, protect . proposing that sources use the lookup substance would need to show that the the public and the environment from .tables discussed in SectionB below.:.,;. local emergency response plan prepared . the effects that caused EPA to list.. .. under the Emergency Planning and explosives. Community Right-io-Know Act of 1986 "Based ontheknown properties of Sources would use the lookup tableslo-. > determine the impactdistance for their: worst-case releases. If A source can.,-_X. - (EPCRA) section 303,42 U.S.C. 11003, specifically addresses their source. For regulated substances that are not flammable substances and explosives, it demonstrate that there arenopublicbr- is possible to juse conservative assumptions and calculate the . .. environmental receptors-of concern-^.- within the distance; the-source^wonld"-: extremely hazardous substances (EHSs). mmrimnm distance at which an under EPCRA, the owner-or operator of overpressure or heat effect of concern be eligible for Tier l.; - -- - EPA seeks comment on whetherTier.- - the source would need to certify that can be detected. Distances for potential 1 is appropriate for the sources r;. -- - ' source emergency response pluming . impacts of accidental releases for - discussed above. In particular, EPA and measures have been coordinated flammable substances and-processes.. seeks comment.on.whether Tier-l-ts- ^ with local first responders. EPA requests - -could be determined-by consulting - - appropriate for sources that have toxic >*: comments,onthis approach. Sources distance tables or derived using the regulated substances present in more - meeting these.criteria would be required following calculationmethod described - than a threshold quantity Should^. %>:>-' to register, submit an RMP consisting of. in Flammable:Gases end Liquids and _ sources be allowed to determine that;.*. the registration and standard one-*. - Their Hazards: they have no offsite impacts for toxics-- r ABD00086693 -Federal Register'? Vtfl.-80, Monday, March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13529 based on rite-specific analyses rather release, and a description of employee activities) and on whether there are then the lookup tables? Is the criterion training measures regarding emergency additional governmental regulations and of no significant accidental release in situations. EPA requests comment on . industry or third-party'standards which .the previous five years appropriate as a whether Tier 2 sources should be fulfill the mandate el a prevention conditian for Ttei*! eligndlity? Are required to exercise the emergency program under section 112(r).. additional response'preparedness -* response program under proposed Tier.3--Full Rule. Tier 3 sources activitiesnecessary beyond what has 68.45 or whether a streamlined would be required to comply with the .beo9 specified for sourcesin tins tier7 . response program would be sufficient. detailed prevention program of the rule, Tier. 2 (Streamlined Program).'Sources, EPA notes that, for both Tier 2 and Tier as finalized. The RMP would address would be required'toregisterwitb EPA,. 3 (described below), compliance with ' ' hazard assessment, the prevention - conduct ehazard assessment, develops other Federal contingency and: program; and the emergency response five-year acridofi history; prevention emergency response planning program. EPA intends that the final program, and emergency response requirements (ag., RCRA, OPA-80) prevention program willhe the OSHA program, and. submit an RMP, would be considered adequate to meet PSM standard plus the requirement for summarizing these elements! - the emergency response requirements of a management system. The rule would not specifytire . prevention program in detail/hut a the rule. Q*A asks for comment on what other Federal emergency response Discussion of Assignment to Tiers source's program wouhThave to cover measures would satisfy the ._ Sources would be eligible for Tier l the statutory elements of training, maintenance, safety precaution, and monitoring. The prevention program V section of the RMP would describe the steps the source takes to train employees and maintain the facility, the safety precautions used, and / monitoring. Sources may be able to meet these requirements through compliance with other, already existing Federal regulations. For example, almost all sources are subject to OSHA regulations. The Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) requires.training on hazards and preventive actions. OSHA has numerous rules related to safety precautions. Certain industries (e.g.f requirements of section . 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(HI).-In particular, does HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120) fulfill . the requirement for ** response program providing for specific actions * *. * 'so as to protect human health and the environment*'? If a source is specifically addressed in an emergency plan under EPCRA section 303, should that ntisfy the response program element of the CAA? Should EPA require that the LEPC meet the membership, planning process, and public availability requirements of EPCRA sections 301,303 and 324 for a source to rely an an EPCRA local emergency plan? based on a demonstration and certification of no impact on public or environmental receptors. All other sources would be allocated to either' Tier 2 orTier 3 Tier 2 is a default-tier for those sources not specifically _ .; assigned to Tier 3. .. EPA's preferred approach would.' assign sources in specific four-digit SIC codes to Tier 3. To identify such SIC codes. EPA analyzed itsARIP database for the period from 1987 through 1993 . EPA believes that SIC codes in which ' more than 10 sources with 100 or more, full-time employees reported regulated substance releases (not limited to' accidental releases under part 8) and . handlers of anhydrous ammonia and . The streamlined approaches under more than 20 percent of such sources * LPG) have specific OSHA standards. Tier 2 fulfill the statutory provisions of had releases that had impacts onsite or Propane handlers are also generally .. section 112(r)(7KBHii). while exercising offsite would be candidate SIC codes for subjectto state and local laws based on the disostion granted under section Tier 3 during the initial - NFPA-58, a storage and handling'. 112(r)(7)(B)(i) to recognize ongoing of part 68. EPA also considered the !' standard for propane. Sources could cite prevention activities at classes of compliance with these standards as part . sources. Requirements for,hazard quantities released and the number of . sources In the SIC code as reported In " of their description of their prevention assessments and response programs for ~ Census data. EPA used some Judgment steps. Sources that are in compliance sources would be similar to those in the. when looking at SIC codes in Census with the OSHA process safety original proposal as modified by other data because the Census reports only the management (PSM) standard or with portions of today's notice. The five-year one -SIC code per source that represents chemical and refinery industry accident history-would be based on the the greatest financial activity even when standards would be able to cite proposed rule. The prevention program many SIC codes apply. Thus, the Census compliance with these because they would place less burden on sources that ' may be likely to understate the total parallel EPA's proposed prevention are subject to other governmental or number of sources in a 4-digit SIC code, program. industrial programs or that seem to especially in the chemical industry. . One mandated prevention element present s lescertisk of a significant because sources in industries not usually addressed in regulations, accidental release than other sources, "typically involve many different . except OSHA PSM,is maintenance. based on public data and inferences operations. EPA believes that chemical Sources would be required to describe drawn from such data. The RMP will releases that are not accidental releases how they maintain a safe facility; EPA fulfill the right-to-knaw aspects of and releases in which workers were, would not, however, specify section 112(r) by requiring a source to injured should be included in an maintenance steps. EPA emphasizes - * summarize data about its hazard that, under CAA section H2(r)(l), all assessment, prevention, and response analysis of accidental releases for the purposes of section 112(r) because all, - sources alreadyare required to identify program activities and make this such releases may indicate a failure of' ; their hazards and design and maintain information available to the public EPA . company safety practices. EPA requests a safe facility and would continue to be seeks comments on the proposed Tier 2 . comments on this conclusion and data subject to this general duty under' requirements. Specifically. EPA seeks Indicating that this assumption is valid today's proposed rule. The response program'would * . comment an whether additional, (or not) for the groups discussed below specific prevention activities should be Based on the analysis described document procedures for informing the required to address safety precautions, above, EPA identified eight four-digit - public and local entities about maintenance, monitoring, and training SIC codes that have e release history- accidental releases, procedures to be {e-g./any particularrequirements of the that supports requiring sources in such used on rite to respond to an accidental. proposed rule targeted at these codes to implement a Tier 3 program. - ABD00086694 13530 . - - federal Register / -VoL 60, No. 48 / Monday, MarchT13.1995. / Proposed Rules These SIC codes are: 2611 (pulp mills), the number offacilities reporting toxic not had a significant accidental release 2812 (chlor-alkali), 2819 (industrial ' releases.'Three groups (industrial * inorganics nec), 2821 (plastics and innywirt' twAitri|) gtgwiW, and in the past five years? The Agency requests wwnmMt OB the pwwTrig^ and resins), 2869 (industrial organics nec), had pinrn than ten compliance burdensthat would be 2873 (introgen fertilizer), 2879 facilities reporting toxic releases, while . placed On iTTgilpmowtiTig agendas *nd (agricultural chemicals noc), and 2911 two groups (Cblar-elkaii end nitrogen sources by a site-specific (refineries), in all of these industries, the fertilizer) had mare than 30 percent of approach. Should proximity to number offacilities reporting releases - `the SIG code reporting releases. EPA ripWfiran* numbers ofpeople (eithef was more than 20 percant of the number -may review this determination baaed on residential population, workers, or other in each SIC code using Census data. data gathered during the eight-year people) be used (alone, or in Four industrial categories that EPA period. The full program would be conjunction with other criteria- does not believe would be appropriate >hased in to allow these sources to discussed above) to qualify a source for under the accident history criteria for potential Tier 3 treatment? Should EPA Tier 3 are 2865 (cyclic cudae). 3312 governmental agencies and larger* structure the audit provisions of *' (steel mills), 2816 (industrial inorganic industry dirwng initial implwmimtutinn proposed $ 68JJ0 to allow far pigments), and 4911 (electric utilities). of the foil program: the phase in would implementing agencies to require Tier 2 Less than 20 percent of the releases also ease the cost burden on these sources to undertake mare spedfic reported from cyclic exude sources and smaller by giving them more prevention-activities if as audit' steel mills had impacts. In the cyclic time to implement the program. EPA uncovers inadequate risk management crude industrial category, while 16 would calculate full-time employees programs? Are there additional . sources reported releases based an the definition in 40 CFR 372.3. industries (two-digit or four-digit SIC (approximately 25 percent of the SIC Full-time employees would include codes) that should not be eligible for code), only three sources had releases ^ inn on site. * Tier 2 under either approach? Under with impacts. The largest release at 11 EPA also requests comment an a approach 2, are there sources with mare of the cyclic crude sources exceeded second approach to tiering. EPA would than 100 FTEs that should be eligible for 1,000 pounds, and three of these sources include in Tier 3 allsources with more Tier 2 because of industryspecific . had'largest releases exceeding 10,000 than 100 FTEa. Larger sources not mnfidflTtift or the simplidty and nature pounds. Given the size oireleases from eligible for Tim* 1 would be subject to of their processes? BA believes the cyclic crude sources, EPA requests - Tier3 because of the size of their preferred approach is the most comments on whether they should be operations and the likelihood that they appropriate level far national required to meet Tier 3 requirements. In have larger quantities of regulated . - EPA notes but state the steel mill sector, while 18 sources reported releases (approximately 14 substances on site, as well as because of implementing agenda* have the thwiy tnrhniral mpahlUtina to imdwrtalra authority under the CAA to impose--, percent of the industry), only 3 had the program relative to most small -mare: impacts. However, six of these sources, minnihrhinimi and imn.nnmnhph>rCTg, Qualified ThirtfParty. EPA Is tweHng reported releases exceeding 10,000 EPA does not favor this approach, comments an whether provisions pounds. The industrial inorganic however, because many of these-large- shouldhe made to employ-a**qualified pigment industry was just below (he sources do not have a significant record third party," under implementing ; candidate SIC code criteria far facilities " of accidental releases. - flgetriry aymsoght^rr reporting releasesand percentage, of - EPA requests comment cm the two ~ regulated sources in achieving and impact releases. While nearly half the alternatives or on other aiteria for maintaining compliance with fr* RMP industry reported releases, only two placing sources in tiers under the risk rule. In raising this issue, EPA is . facilities had releases that were mare management program. EPA may adopt, mgmnt nf the Matirmnl than 1000 pounds, and none had in whole or in part, any or all of the Performance Review recommendations releases that exceeded 10,000 pounds. approaches to eligibility far Tier 2 in the to OSHA on the use of third pazties,.and Although there were a high number of final rule. The first approach focuses on . gmrwing wtliawna "qimUfiaH thftH releases reported by electric utilities, industry segments that have a history of parties*' to frmHtaIn wmptiawno Wltli * only about 2 percent of the industry releases from a number of sources. This otherregulations, to audit the accounted for the reported releases. approach would remove-from Tier 3 performance ofregulated third parties; EPA would initially limit Tier 3 to - individual sources that may have had a and Verify emnpHawffw t*+nR rm a sources in the eight categories with 100 history of accidents, but are part of periodic Such nwngwmftiitg or more full-time employees because sectors that have not had numerous -thereby, assist both the regulated these sources have the most significant accidents. It would also remove from nommimity-anH regulating accident histories. However, certain Tier 3 entire sectors based on an in ensuring compliance with * smaller sources also have accident accident history.which in the future - regulations.- EPA requests comments' histories that would support eventual may change. Should a change occur, whether to use qualified third paxties'for- Tier 3 treatment EPA conducted an ' EPA would revise the rule toinclude this program as well as specific ' --``"j analysis of sourceswith 20-99 full-time - these sectors in Tier 3: Should such / * Buggestionstm how appropriately to employees and identified five categories sources and segments be exempt from inrhiriw qualified third'parties in the - that, based on accident history, would adopting process Safety tnBTiagmnant present rulemaking. - become Tier 3 sources 8 years after principles until problems in the One way to incorporate "qualified promulgation: 2812,2819,2869,2873, industry become pervasive? In addition third party" review into the RMP tiering and 2911. The flammable substance to placing sources in Tier 3 based on. framework might be to assign certain accident history for refineries with 20- industry segment, should a source be.' sources that part-iripnta in the Voluntary- 99 full-time employees supports placed in-Tier3 if it has had one or Protection Program (VFP) to Tier2. The eventually requiring these sources to - more significant accidental releases in a VPP is a voluntary program sponsored ' comply with Tier 3. Thefbur other five-yearperiod?-Gonverely, should a by OSHA and industry thatrecognizes '- industries all had a significant - sourcein an industry segment in Tier 3 strong safety practices, including . s. -- percentage of impact releases relative to be allowed to move to Tier 2 if it has process safetymanagement Within - ABD00086695 /Federal Register 7 Vol 60, No. :48 7 '"Mondayr-March 13, 1995 1 Proposed Rules 13531 VPP, "Star**-rating indicates the and, therefore, would provide no useful release rather than a "puff release. . hipest levelaf-worker safety practices infonnatiaDto thepublic arihe source.' 'Tberefare.-for madwlmg purposes, die wbileT^Marit" rating indicate* sound * Cammenten-stated that fidhzre to 'release rate (per minute) to tneedr for account for at least well-designed : gases would be the quantity released practices withspecific qualifications.' passive mitigation systems reduces the divided by 10.'Liquids would be One comments' suggested that EPA incentive for installation of assumed to form a pool in 10 minutes, should integrate Star and Merit status systems.' with the release rate to the air into the risk management program. It is * Commenters argued thatEBA ' determined by volatilization rate. This. not dear whether Star ana Merit ratings should spedfy in the final rule certain ' -approach to liquid releases differs from are relevant to protecting the public and methodological assumptions that that of the Technical Guidance, which the environment from accidental - sources would use to analyze release specifies an'instantaneous release. releases because the VPP only directly ' scenarios. - - -Alternatively, the Technical Guidance measures worker safety impacts. EPA - Several commenters argued that the couldbe used; but no time frame would invites comment on whether a source -worst-case meteorological conditions be specified; the liquid quantity would that obtains Star rating ore Merit rating - .defined in the proposed rule {F stability be assumed to form a pool for - without qualifications related to process and 1.5 meters/second wind speed) calculation of the volatilization rate. -safety management should-be eligible far Tier 2 even when iti* part of an industry sector that otherwise.is subject to Tier 3. Should implementing agencies were too conservative. * Commenters expressed concern that the results of the offsite consequence analyses would be difficultto compare EPA requests comments on the appropriate release duration and justificationfor its basis. EPA is considering the revision of and the public rely an Star or Merit . - between sources without specification proposed 68.15(c) to incorporate the statuses a good indicator that the source of the assumption*. - effects of passive mitigation systems, poses a lesser risk of a significant Commenters for hut not active mitigation systems, into accidental release than cuter sources in ofwhat EPA expects sources to do to : the worst-case release scenario,if sudx the same industry sector? define offsite populations and. systems are capable of withstanding Comments on other types of"qualified thirdparty" options to environmental impacts. destructive events (e.g., fires, Clarification of the Purpose of Worst- explosions.iloods, hurricanes, and ' facilitate responsible self-enforcementof Case Analyses. Sources and the public, -earthquakes). Passive systems would the RMP rule will also be useful, seed to assess and understand the include dikes, catch basins, and drains - particularly ss they relate to subsectors extent oftheimpact associated with an for liquids, and enclosures farboth of regulated sources which have - uncontrolled major accident. EPA does liquids and gases. Q>A requests . demonstratedthe capacttyfor not intend thatworst-case analyses ' comment on its definition of'-`passive - establishing and enforcing voluntary safety procedures, or to subsectors in should be usedas-the sole or primary basis foremergencyplanning or . mitigation system" and requests... examples ofother such devices. which the regulated sources or their accident prevention actions. The results Scenarios involving passive mitigation associations have indicated an interest of the worst-case analyses, in . systems that have connections to the .-.-j > in developing such capacity. Comments combination with other more likely environment (such as a rainwater drain -. v from state and local officials, emergency release scenario-assessments,:as valve) would have to assume failure of-- v- responders, and the public regarding the .contained in the RMP, should be'used thatconnection..The threat.afnatural: use of third party arrangements are to build a dialogue and a working disasters would he specific to.certain : - sought. partnership between the source and the geographic regions, and sources could. ` B. Hazard Assessment \. publict-iespause agencies, workers, and certify that their passive mitigation various levels ofgovernment for meets or exceeds local natural disaster EPA received substantial comments chemical accident prevention, response, design standards as capable cT on hazard assessment topics,during the and.preparedness.- withstanding destructive natural events. four public hearings, the comment period, and a one-day forum on worst- Worst^Case Release Definition Underground storage tanks might also be considered a passive mitigation case scenarios. Commenters made the following main points: Commenters questioned the EPA is considering alternatives to the definition of worst-case release in proposed 68.3..HJA is proposing to system for liquids to the degree that overlying-soiis would reduce the volatilization rate to th*air inthe event. intended use of the worst case, arguing redefine a worst-case release as the of a worst-case accidental release'. that EPA failed to provide a clear release of the largest quantity of a However, overlying soil is not likely to , description of its purpose. regulated substance resulting from a. contain hfyb-pressure gas releases. EPA Commenters questioned whether vessel or process piping failure. The requests comment on this issue.' EPA would require sources to conduct worst-case analysis would involve a 10- Incorporation of passive mitigation separate analyses for each hazard for minute release under worst-case . measures into the worst-case release substances that are both flammable and meteorological conditions (F stability .. analysis could be left to implementing toxic. Commenters suggested that the and 1.5 meters per second wind speed) agency discretion. Such discretion ' . number of assessments could be limited and would consider passive mitigation - would result in an increased " by analyzing only the substance that has measures. administrative burden on that agency the potential for the most serious offsite The 10-minute release time is used in and cross-jurisdictional differences in. impacts. the Technical Guidance' for Hazards . the.methodology.usedfor worst-case : Commenters stated that, although Analysis. EPA believes that this release - analyses. EPA is considering allowing the proposed definition of worst case as duratibn is reasonable and accounts for the incorporation of active mitigation instantaneous loss of the total contents comments arguing that an - measures in the hazard nMowmwntt for - of a process may be possible for sources "instantaneous" release is not realistic.. more likely accidental release scenarios. that have simple systems, instantaneous As desaibed in the Technical Guidance, EPA seeks comment on several / loss of the total process contents is not - a 10-minute release is intended to possible ways to define-therelevant ?r' technically feasible for complex systems represent modeling of a-continuous ` ' quantity of regulated substance in a ABD00086696 13532 Federal Register f .VoL .60, -Ncl48 / Monday,. Match 13, 1905 /.Proposed Rales vessel or process piping for a waist-case quantity for the worst-case release . (for tOXkCS. fhmwi nH pmwnft One alternative would scenario ana site-specific or industry-, be to ftofiiw rti* pwHty ma tKft . .. spedficbesis. fanpbghanting agency /' maximum poesQde vessel inventor;; discretionwouldresult in an increased explosives) would not all be described. EPA would require more likely release scenarios per hazard category for withoutregard for operational practices administrative m th* flammable* and explosives, but per mirf mnhYi|f implementing agency cross- substance for listed toxics. Toxic quantity would represent^physical maximum,but would exaggerate the ' potential worst case far sources that ' never operate at the physical maximum inventory of the-vesseLThe process piping failure scenario would assume that the inventory contained in vessels or other w0**06* on . jurisdictional differences in the . methodology used for the worst case analyaea. EPA also requests comment cm whether the scenarioshould consider. the additional amountofsubstance that : could potentially drain or flow from process equipment intaccpnected with the failed vessel or pipeline. substances each have different exposure concentrations of concern, but flammablesmnd explosive* can be treated uniformly within hazard categories. EPA seeks comment an whether a tftvfa substance wwiM be considered representative ofall toxic substances at a source or in a process. side of the piping failure location would be released through the pipe break at full pipe flow. Applicability of the Hazard Assessment Requirements HazardAssessment Methodology end - -. A second, preferred alternative would . A wirntwr nf mnwimteK atmlad that EPA intends to develop "lookup" be to require that the determination of multiple analyses of rimilar substances tables for all listed substances to assist the worst-case release scenario be based would not improve the information : soutlbs in determining tire impact on themaximum possible vessel provided to the public. 17A is distances far theirrelease scenarios. The invntniy imUa *Kwfw am intirmol administrative controls {written proposing tire following requirements for subetances and processes affected by tables will specify potential impact distances far releases of substances procedural restrictions) that restrict inventories to than the maximum. The operational limit would be described in the worst-case release the rule: A single want-case release would be analyzed far ftmwwHU* cm truly qno under conditions that are relevant to dispersion. Sources will only have to define their release scenarios and' . . develop the <wfawuHH,'iirfi as release analysis in the RMP. Exceedance of any would be analyzed far other more likely administrative control on vessel scenarios as vndl;- inventory would be a violation of - A-single wont-case release scenario 68.15 (failure to perform a worst-case would be analyzed far all exploaves cm analysis) wtlttag the oriTmwigtrarivft site; only one explosive1substance control was revised and the worst-case would be analyzed for other mere likely .analysis updated to reflect any changes . scenarios as wall; end in the analysis. An exceedance would .A single worst-case release scenario also result in a violation of $ 68.50 imlgK the RMP was updated within the tiTnftfrwTTUMg set OUt in that Adoiowledgement of such administrative controls would reflect the efforts of sources that have would be analyzed far all tome substances at the source; other more - likely release scenarios would be analyzed for each toadc substance covered bytherula. rate, needed to use the tables. The tables will provide impact distances that sources can then map. For explosives, die American Table ofDistances will''' serve as the lookup table. For toxics and flammables,tire lookup tables wfll-be' developed and made available far" public review and comment prior to tire publication of the final rule. The tables, imd f^nrnpnyiTig gwiitimfii, wffl represent a revision ofthe Technical' Guidance for Hazards Anafysi&'The '' ^ tables will providedistance* under ` varying conditions, including worst' intentionally reduced inventories of The appropriate h*mu d category would - case. In developing the *bW, EPA will regulated substances for process safety be the hazardfor which the regulated select one level of concern value for reasons. EPA seeks comment on substance was listed. This proposal -each toxic substance. EPA seeks further whether administrative controls are would reduce to a maximum of three comment on whetherit should use a sufficiently reliable or whether a the number of worst-case analytes. single endpoint to tire extent possfbVtp mechanical control should be required required of each somce in the RMP.. develop tin tables f&g^ the 1/10IDLH- in addition to the administrative Additional screeaing.analyaes to nntess one does not exist for a - control. determine the appropriate worst-case substance), or a hierarchy of endpoints . A third alternative for defining the scenario may be necessary, but only one (e.g., ERPG-3; if one does not exist, then relevant quantity would be to base the quantity on historic or projected worst-case release scenario would be reported for each hazard category. the 1/10IDLH; and finally toxirfty data if no other value is available). Far " maximum operating inventories without. Sources would, within the constraints of flammables. should EPA use . regard for administrative controls. The the worst-case release definition, overpressure or both overpressure and maximum operating inventory would be describe the greatest offsite imparts radiant heat effects as endpoints? EEA. specified in the RMP. Exceedance of the presented by potential catastrophic . requests comment on the lookup table maximum operating inventory also accidents involving regulated toxic, approach. The tables and the would be a violation of 68.15 and' flammable, and explosive substances. methodology used to develop them will 68.50 as described above..EPA doe6 not The potential worst-case imparte of be made available for public review arid: favor this third alternative because it substances and processes not described comment does not believe that historic or in the RMP would be less than those The purpose of providing lookup - projected operating practices represent described. As an alternative, EPA could tables is three-fold First if each source thfl TTunoTmiTTi possible amnmit ofa require analysis of only one worst-case conducts its own dispersion modeling, chemical that could be stored in a vessel scenario by each stationary source. This the results will be extremely difficult to ltnlwa there is a Specific mawngwnmt approach would require the analysis of compare among sources; different' operational restriction at the source. the scenario rtu** presents the worst models and rtiffawmt assumptions EPA la also considering providing the . offsite p>nia>qiiimi>mt. a significant produce widely varying results. Swramri, implementing agency with the drawback to a one-scenario analysis is became ofthe differences fax models and discretion to determine the appropriate that the different types of worst-case .. the import of changing assumptions. ABD00086697 -Federal Register / Vol. GO, No. 48 /-Monday, .March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13533 (e.g.,.8 different windspeed), the results EPA has proposed that sources EPArequests comments an the use of - of dispersion modeling ere best used to . analyze both potential human health all or part of Appendix I of the NOAA provide a general idee of impact; models impacts and environmental impacts in ^Guidance for Facility and Vessel - - do not have e level.ofpredictive hazard assessments and consider such Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and mppimtythal cmrafiahly differentiate . impacts in designing prevention and 'Sensitive Environments (69 FR14714, between, for example, a release with a response programs. `The environment** March 29,1994) far determination of four-mile zone and one .with e five-mile is specifically mentioned twice in ' sensitive environments. Appendix Mists zone.-Third, dispersinn modeling it - section 112(r)(7)(B) as a receptor to be the fallowing sensitive environments expensive, especially for sources that protected by emergency response -and identifies responsible Federal - are outside of the ehemicafiadustry. measures. First, section 112(r)(7)(B)(i) agencies: wetlands (as defined in 40 Given that the results of sophisticated states thatregulations under CFR part 230.3); critical habitat for modeling may not be more accurate subparagraph B "shall include designated or proposed endangered/ than results derived from simple tables, - procedures and measures far emergency threatened species; habitat used by EPA decided that a simpler approach -response after an accidental release of a designated or proposed endangered/ that would.provide comparable data regulated substance in order to protect threatened species or marine mammals; - among sources was preferable. Sources tmman health end tho environment.** national marine sanctuaries; national that wish toconductxnore sophisticated Second,' under the response program: parks; Federal wilderness areas; modelingmay, but would not be - provisions of the risk management plan, national estuary program arras; near required to do so, under the rule; For the plan must address "specific actions coastal watera program areas; clean sources that want to do modeling, a to be taken in response to an accidental lakes program critical areas; national number of models available in the release of a regulated substance so as to monuments; Tatiana) recreational areas; public domain exist; EPA has published protect human health and the national preserves; national wildlife" guidance an the use of these models. An environment** Also, a third reference to refuges; coastal barrier resource system; alternative approach would be to limit "the environment" is ambiguous and national river reach designated as use of the lookup tables to Tier 2 may refer not only to response -recreational: Federal or state designated sources end require Tier 3 sources to ' measures, but alk> to other aspects of - wild and scenic rivers; national* conduct air dispersion modeling. EPA risk management plans (CAA conservation areas; hatcheries; requests comments an this alternative. 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)).* waterfowl management areas; cultural - Offsite Consequence Analysis The structure of the CAA's.acddental release provisions integrates the EPA agrees with commenters that assessment of potential hazards and the further direction is necessary with prevention of accidents with response respect to assessments of potentially planning to prevent potentially affected populations and the hazardous conditions from resulting in environment Section 68.15(e)(3) of the accidents and ensure that the response proposed rule requires an analysis of measures are adequate in the event of an populations within diatanraa of. accidental release. EPA supports this potential exposure. The preamble to the . integrated approach to planning with proposed rule specified that sensitive respect to accidents. EPA believes it is ' populations potentially affected by a reasonable for sources to address not . release should be identified. Although . only human health impacts, but also much of this information is readily gnviTnrymwntftl impart* in the hazard available, identification of some assessment. In light of the mandatory resources; areas of critical environmental concern; and the - national forest system. Accidental - releases of volatile substances may not represent a major threat to of the sensitive environments listed above. For - example, wetlands, national marine sanctusries.national monuments,^ national estuary program areas,near - coastal waters program areas.-mnd clean-- lakes program critical arras meynot be -* * threatened by accidental releases to the f-- air. They- could, however, be threatened by volatile tiquidTeleases. In addition, - deposition of listed substances from' sensitive populations, such as day care CAA language requiring that the accidental releases of toxics to the air centers and nursing homes, could environment be addressed as a receptor could also represent a threat to these require considerable effort, especially where the vulnerable zone crosses several jurisdictions. In addition, sources in the same area would be required to duplicate each other's efforts. To limit the effort required to define far purposes of emergency response, "EPA invites comments on this approach. EPA recognizes that one ofthe concerns of commenters about addressing the environment in a hazard assessment was that the proposed rule discussion of environmental impacts sensitive environments. EPA requests comment on whether these, and other, specific sensitive environments should be removed from consideration for identification of sensitive^environments. C. Accident Information Reporting . offsite populations, EPA is proposing was not specific enough. Consequently, The-proposed rule addresses.. -- . that offsite populations be defined using EPA would revise 68.15(e)(4) of the- emergency notification ( 68.45(b)) and * available Censusdata. Information on proposed rule to require identification self-investigation of accidental releases the number of children and people over of sensitive environments (rather than ( 68.40). However, other than the five- - 65 may be considered a proxyior analysis of potential environmental. year accidenthistory in the RMP and- ?; - . sensitive populations. With the dumagft) within j^tgpninBj emergency reporting under the - assistance of the Bureau of the Census by.the worst-case and more likely Comprehensive Environmental - >. and NOAA, EPA is developing a accidental release scenario analyses. In Response, Compensation, and Liability geographic information system, addition, EPA would revise. Act (CERCLA) and EPQIA,sources are LandView, that will facilitate analysis of $ 68.15(h)(3)(v) to require sources to list not required to report any accident data resident populations. In addition, EPA tho Mndtiwt *nvimnm<mt within fh or results of accident investigations. may require sources to identify public accidental release scenario radii in the Certain accidental release information arenas or institutions that are . RMP. To identify receptors, the source that otherwise is not available could be. potentially affected. These arenas or could call the appropriate-state or useful to states and EPA to learn which institutions would be limited to those Federal agencies to determine if any . types of sources ere having problems, identified on available street maps or sensitive environments were within the understand more about accident causes, Census TIGER files. impact Hi<t<inrwc track trends in chemical accidents and ABD00086698 U3S34 SriaA Register 1 VoL kB0, -/ MWay^MarchTi H& /; Proposed Boh* |HwentiQP activities,monitorthe -,^,r .-or.EPCELA section 304. For.pnrposes of specify tire steps, but would provide -. piogieas of tbe risk management CERQA section lOlf16)(H), pert 68 is program, focus futureprevention . not a central regulation, and the BMP is could be made. The source could activities. nd avoid orenegnbuinn of - -*not apeonk allowing the accidental, describe hs community outreach efforts iiiiluiliii mm Trim nr nhmwnnrr' releaaa-ofany-spedfic quantity of a during tire planning process m oossite EPAie evaluating how such regulated substance. records that would be available to the. Acddeatal release mformatinaneeds might be metso as to impose a minimal burdenon sources and avoid . redundancy. approach would be to require submission of infanuation on . any accidental release of a regulated . substance if tbe release resultsin death, injury, evacuation,property ibmige, on nfficitn amtipmmflntkl {wjmM, If D. Public Paiticipatian public or oonld summarize these activities in tire RMP. Shmtariy. a A number of cummenters have asked . source could maintain a record on site that EPA raquirvsduicas toinvolve the of community outreach actions taken public in development and review of aftersubmittal of tbe RMP. EPA would tbe risk mazugamoit program. Several provide guidance on ways such a mrnTTimtaw tttca iAemKfiaA troy ppinlfc riwiwuxiIrtinnHMtMhaiwMl, Cff . al iuttSpK yuiMir involvement is example, sources could choose to notify appropriate, ineludingat the outsat of the public through* general chcubrtion source udi an accident is the planning process, upon completion - newspaper that tire RMP was available subject to the QSHA PSM requirements of the process ***"<* analysis (PHAk and make copies available; the source or Tier 3 requirements descrinad above, pnor to.auhmitul ofthe RMP, prior to could publish the RMP in. a newspaper then tbe owner or operator could submit RMP revisions, after an accident, after or on electronic bulletin boards: or the to EPA and the staten copy of the . an during source could hold a public meeting on *rriAnwit investigation report generated. laqiwiw Grille involving Hinw outside the RMP or use local TV public service under 29 CFR 1910.119(mHD or-40 CFR' theplanL 68.40. For sources not subject to these . ErA believes that.the public is a key requirements, or alternatively ell stakeholder in preventing ffawritrai. sources, owners,or operators could accidents and tnat sources have tire - >n target a Ineal mtAimm at to broadcast logistics far upcoming m--fHngc. EPA nqUeStS wiwm<mt oh ' -whether pnblicparticipatiau activities - submit an accidental release information survey form to collect a brief, but accurate description of tbe event and its consequences, the substance mnunt released, root. causes, initiating-events and * contributing factors causing tbe release, and fhnwgac or jwUgntifll changas at the source to prevent e recurrence. EPA requests specific inCnrmfttinn on the responsibility to make tire public aware of the hazards nciriiK< aritti potential accidental releases. EPA is to . encouraging public involvement. EEA's favored approach would encourage mww>t to * gxoups, primarily tVn irx-ni emergency pluming committees (LEPCs), as a conduit for rMwmnniottiftwt between SOUTC0 and the public. Many sources covered should be lmated to Tier 3 sources.: Another suggested approach fag public participation was to allowtire public, by petition, to trigger audits of completed. . RMPs bythe implementing agency. EPA does not favor this approach because it could generate an excessive burden for implementing agencies. E. Inherently Safer Approaches .. types of questions that should be included. IS'A also seeks on which apHdents should be reported (e.g. should any investigated deviation be reported?), reporting triggers threshold quantities or reportable quantities released),whether reporting formats can be used to streamline or eliminate duplicative reporting, and if the submission of these data raises liability concerns. Another approach EPA is considering under part 66 are already obligated to ' The manufacture, processing, and use participate on. and perform emergency of chemicals is mhensxtiy risky. EPA preparedness and planning activities believes that fulfillment of tbe risk with their LEPCs under EPGRA. In areas management- program requirements , where there is no functioningi-EPC or its equivalent, sources, local first mtaik ongoing attention to 'u|||t|^;----idwitifiratinn. hiiTBwt antlyra wA responders, citizens, and others need to- management fasawamani.' reduction and develop and support the LPC or its control, or lnnirattrm), mil pnKlrr- : equivalent. Q'A expects sources to work outreach. This process should lead to with the LEPC the development continuous improvement tire . of the RMP. as well as after its evolution of safer sources through a: * submission. Similarly. EPA expects tbe wide range of actions involving would be to have EPA request public to contact the LOO for reduction of the inherent risk and - information developed under existing information from the source whenever it control or mitigation of tire hazards. regulations, such as OSHA PSM has questions or concerns. EPA notes During the propoaed rule hearings., accident investigation requirements or that the RMP is not a one-time several presenters aigued.that, like : EPGRA section 304 follow-up notices. document; the RMP reflects tbe risk pollution prevention, accident Underthis &pproach. sources-would not managftmwit program at tl SOUTCB and prevention could be more successful if ' need to develop any new infomutian will-change as activities at the source the program were to foens on the ; for EPA. but could provide EPA with change-Sources, therefore, should be. elimination of hazards to make documents prepared under other involved in a rrmtimnwg dialogue with processes inherently safer rather than on regulations- EPA could supplement the LEPC abont the prevention and an attempt to control or mitigate such information as necessary by . emergency response programs as they existing hazards. It-was suggested that r undertaking surveys to acquire specific evolve to address changes at tire source. sources be-required toexamine different data on accidents based on these ' - EPA prefers tins approach because, just approaches or technologies through a existing documents. EPA requests as one size of risk management program process of technology options analysts' comment on this approach. Specifically. is not appropriate for all sources, a rigid fTQA),ora "state-of-the-art" search and EPA seeks information cm what the set of pyblic participation requirements analysis of safety alternativesas appropriate wiHankm for obtaining would not be reasonable for all sources. required by. New jersey in its'Toxics data on accidents would be. A-second approarirwould require a Catastrophe Prevention Act regulations,- The approach outlined above would source to take steps to involve the to find, and adopt, inherently safer - " not affecta source's current obligations public indiscussions enneenuag the chemical pathways and processing - to report releases of certain regulated content of its RMP and'describe those .. techniques, in addition to TOA and substances under.CERCLA section 103 steps in the RMP. EPA would not.. ........ state-of-the-art searches, tbe Center for" ABD00086699 . Fdal / VoL 60,'No. 40 / Monday/March 13,1995 / Proposed Rules 13535 Chemical Process Safety has published develop comprehensive Saar RMP, ceahemstirely to indicate mitt a guideline containing a hit coordination and miagratiao of roctitm complianceplan and schedule of evaluating the inherent safety of 112fr) with state and local poropam* compliance itsintent to amply with processes (Cmdefines far rngfwiring' mandated under the CAA. EFCRA.and such requirement.'* Thus the preamble Design faTrocare Safety. CCPS.1M3). ether epvmwnaenUl statutes and set forth the view that all that was Comments* suggested that CTA phnrming and safety program* under required of apart 70 source with respect formalize tbs search -for alternative . OSHA and other agendaa. . to 112(rJ was a statement in its permit technologies by making TQAcr similar The way* in which state and lore? application that it ha* registered tire reviews a required part ofPHAs and by organisations era, or could became. requiring sourcesto document and - in tb* wnpUnmrrtrtjft-w mu4 RMP or haa submitted a schedule to do -so. By stating explicitly that sectioo share the results in the RMP. integration of suction 112fr) ere 112tri requirements were not to be Such costly analyses are probably hast described in more derail below. About implemented or enforced primarily conducted during tire design ofnew 15 percent ofthe sources subject to the thmiqgh |htjwmihU processes, when, according to industry section 112(r) requirements will abusdy defined a narrow role forthe permit ~ commenters, they often are already part have arwill need to get operating one of ensuring submittal oftire RMP. of the design process to identify cost- permits from state air permitting but not ensuring the quality of the RMP effective approaches to improving . -authorities underpert 70 by the time the or the implementation or enfbrceinott of safety. In addition. If alternative RMPs are due. in the final part 68 rule. section H2(r) regulations in any . technologies are discovered, whether for EPA intends to clazify fhe ' particular way. The preamble also did new or costing processes, farther -responsibilities of sourcessubfoct to* not say what conditions must be in the analysts is necessary to determine part 70 permitting requirements and , pwimtt to eesue compliance with whether risks are inadvertantlybeing aection ltZffl, the air permitting apphbfale 112(r) requirements (even transferred by the new technology from authority wfth zaspect to section llZCrl. though the paeemble-went cm to provide -, one location to another. Adoption of and state or local agendas who alectlo that the RMP itself need sot be ntdodad new-technologies without such analyses implement section 112(r) far all other inatitie Vpermit). Finally, the may inadvertantly impose greater sources. Q>A worked closely with and preamble wassilent on the issue of individual or societal risk. EPA directiy involved several state and local recognizes, however, that -there are TfpfBgnm nffiriah m/I - might have in >h* many opportunities to make processes emergency response and prevention timplwnjwtiwg in tenting inherently-safer without large-scale adoption ofnew technologies. There .wif compliance with section S12fr) opportunitiesmay become apparent through the PHA.'Same sources have already performed sndi analyses and prepare approaches detailed in the following sections. These approaches best reflect the concerns of the states ' view was necessarily preliminary, since it was developed before any part 66 rulemaking that . have successfully taken action to make aboutair pesmit program could darify how the permitmust' their processes inherently safer. implementation and *>^b foj assure compliance with `applicable -i Consequently. EPA does not favor . ' comprehensive participationin requirements'* relative to section inclusion of gspecificrequirementin rJMmifllseadtf piwwph>t .w . %e pert 20 preamble doesnotproclude ' the Initial program for n aaalysis.of the preperedpess^end response-altha kale part 66 rulemaking faun clarifying and '? inherent safety of processes or for - and local level -- . . - T adoption ofnew technologies. EPA. however, strongly encourages industry ' to consider inherently safer approaches when appropriate and includes of any studies Applicable Requirements and . Permitting AutWtty Raspohrihiltfres for Section 112(r) .permitting authorities (e^. a . -`-completeness review -dftbe BMP) wilh-_ respect to igqdfgaeptatiop ofsection. *7' 112(rJ requirements through part 78' . Under CAA section 504(a) and SWs permits. and actions it takes in RMP updates. implementing regulations ($ 706(a)(1)), Today's proposal would go beyond ~ . EPA is considering further study of this . Part TOjKininttimwl erntNin wutitiww thepart 7Dpreenibfe, prindrpaffyby issue with all stakeholders and requests sufficient to assure compliance with ah setting forth the part 70 nreesores rtiTrimppt on this i ~CAA applicable requirements. Part 70 necessary to "assure cuniphaace with**;. F. implementation oarflntegiutfun of Section U2fr) With State Programs - Section 112trJ places responsibility on sources to prevent accidents and share information about their accident ' ~ prevention efforts. However. EPA / believes, and Congress intended, that . successful chemical emergency prevention, preparedness, and response' efforts require active stats tad local defines "applicablerequirement" to applicable section 112(r) requirement*.' include-any standard orrequirement of - la-addition, today** proposal would. - sectionT12. and mclodes any establish tinrits onthe responsibltitire of ww|MWBwytf eniifiiiiiiiig TriiUwt -lhernrpemrittingauthority fassuring " prevention under sectian.ll2{r)(7). . .. complience with section 112&) within - 7. in the preambleto part 70 (57PH the part 70 program as opposed to tire'. 32Z7S, July 21.7992), EPA statedits----- greater responsibilitiesenvTssoned ler; ; ^ belief that section ll2(r)waa not- anxmplemeattmgagency. ;.s . ^ ..." intended to M implemented cr enforced primarily through part 70penniU.EPA . "Applicable Requirements"ida Part 70.. . ated tire provisions of section Sources- , -i.-- involvement The legislative'history and 112(rX71(Fl, which provides that. One principsil objective oftire CAA section I12fr} requirements .- notwithstanding title V.tto sourcemust regulations proposed today is to dhufly'' support and build onthe existing state, obtain a permit solely became it is ,'.lbe mm^iwmww^t flf pCt TO pglUUt* ' and local infrastructure by requiring subject to the of rectum * with impact to socticn 772W that RMPs be tostates sad 112frh The pert 70 preamble staredthat `-`appHc^le requirements.** EPA also local planning entities. {See. og^ S. Rep. it was sufficient for a part 70 source- ^ - intends torevise the defimtxnHzrpmt ^ No. 226, lour Congress, 1st session,*! subject to 112(rHn^fadicsteinlts -- '70 Of M^ipHc^e veqnxrement* refative-' 193 and 22S.) EPA encourage* end - - permit feprphrstinn) tintit hre cxvapliod ' to section7T2(i). Tbis'deSnitkm win-"' supports any state m local efforts to- - wlth-any inrpiiniimint in m^iitiT sir ' mchide'the^requirement*oTpart^B,* ABD00086700 13536 . Federal-Register V TVoL <60.-Jfe.- 4a./rMonday,-Marth 13, -1995"/-Proposed Rules when,promulgated, to which pail 70. - .The completeness review of this RMP terms applicable to all part 70 sources sources are subject EPA expects to .would be independent of the subject toll2(r). EPA believes these define this term to mean $68:10 to completeness determination for the standard terms would live on in the *68^8 or specific provisions.within permit application. While the RMP may permit after submittal of the RMP, and ' those mtions- The part 70 rulemaking be submitted with the permit there would be no reason to change would be.done as part of the phase 11 application, in most situations the RMP them after an RMP is submitted or - rulemaking addressing'remainingissues .will be submitted separately on its owzi . revised. raised by the part 70 litigants. This deadline, since ahnoslall permit rulemaking is expected to be proposed * applications will have been submitted this fall and finalized in early 1096. . well in advance of the RMP deadline. EPA is not proposing any specific requirements for part 70 permit applications beyond those already EPA does notbelieve that each permit Accordingly, if another state or local - required in 70.5, particularly the must restate every requirement in agency has received 112(1) delegation as ' requirements that sources must dte aod section 112(r) .or pan 68 as a permit the implementing agency for section describe all applicable requirements, condition to comply with the pan 70 112(r),EPA presumesthatagency,- certify compliance with those applicable requirement definition. The - . under * cooperative agreement-with the requirements, or submit compliance permit could instead meet this .permitting authority; could determine schedules as necessary. Sources that requirement by containing a set of - completeness of the RMP. In this * k, ' submit applications after promulgation standard conditions that require situation, the stateshould establish -of part 68 would cite and describe part compliance by the source with - * appropriate procedures to ensure review -68 as the applicable requirement, certify applicable section 112(r) requirements. of the plan for completeness. Far compliance (or that the source will These permit conditions are proposed example, the agreement could specify comply in the future), end submit a in 68:58 and would require that each that the permit authority would not be compliance schedule for meeting permit contain, at 6 irtinirmim obligated to review the RMP.for section 112(r) deadlines. Sources that conditions that require source action completeness and could write the handle greater than threshold quantities consistent with the following: permit to require submittal of the RMP of section 112(r) regulated substances . (1) Registration with the implementing agency (EPA or the appropriate state or local agencies) and submittal.of an RMP, or a revised plan, to the part 70 permitting authority or other state or local agency designated by the state for this purpose, by the deadline under this part and certification upon submission that the plan Is complete and accurate: (2) Submittal of any additional '; information required for completeness (3) Annual certification bf implementation of the risk management program as described by the RMP; and (4) If the permit is issued prior to the RMP submittal date, a compliance schedule for submittal of the RMP. onlyto the state or local-implementing should be able to identify themselves as agency, rather than to the permitting potentially subjectto sectionT12(r) in authority. Or, the state might decide that their initial part 70 applications. EPA is .the permitting authority should retain not requiring that the RMP be submitted the responsibility to review the RMP for with the permit application. Given the completeness, even if another state or local agency has been designated as the implementing agency. EPArequests comment oh this approach*nd whether a designated agency should also include EPA, provided that EPA and the expected promulgation date of part 68. and the three-year compliance date for submittal Of the RMP, EPA expects submittal of permit applications and issuance of most permits will occurlong beforethe submittal deadline for RMPs permitting agency agree that EPA (with the possible exceptioh of part 70 should take on the completeness review responsibility as the implementing .... agency. The proposed permit conditions programs with source-category limited interim approvals where it could take five years from interim approval to issue all permits). EPA also believes it is not necessary should ensure a complete RMP to require submittal of the RMP as a submittal, because failure to comply permit revision at the submittal - . with these conditions would be deadline for the RMP. EPA is concerned enforceable as a permit violation. Other that permitting authorities may be " In addition.the RMP would be a permit conditions-would call for the required by state law or regulation to*' reporting and recordkeeping source to submit a compliance schedule process the application and to requirement under part 70. There is no . if it has not yet completed its RMP; to incorporate RMP information in the * requirement to include the RMP in the provide any information requested to *' permit if the RMP were included as part permit determine the RMP's completeness, and ,, of the formal permit application. This * EPA proposes that a "complete" RMP to revise, update, and resubmit existing result obyiously would not be desired. would be one certified by the source to RMPs according to part-68 criteria. For - The purpose of reviewing the RMP for' - contain all necessary elements in... example, when a source covered.by completeness is to obtain a complete " sufficient detail to meet part 68. The' section 112(r) and part 70 revises its - RMP. not to initiate any'forin'ufpeimiV'.' necessary elements of an RMP are process to add or eliminate a regulated - - - action. EPA'seeks comment, however ' contained in proposed 68.50, and new substance, the.source would need to ..... on whether it should require fhe'RMP 68.13 and 68.14. As general criteria, .prepare a revised RMP according to - v- as part of the permit epplication, or as^ * for completeness, an RMP would need 68.50(h) and submit it to the air - an addendum to the application bf to, ' to address all aspects of the three main permitting agency within 6 months. allow the permitting authority the elements of the risk management Failure to do so would potentially be a option to ask for the RMPln either form program, i.e., hazard assessment, violation of both parts 68 and 70. - for permit applications after'the date ' ' prevention program, andemergency- Further, thepermit would require a plans must be submitted. response program. EPA intends to issue- - certification of the source's guidance to assist -sources and - implementation ofitsriak management Role of Part 70 Permitting Authority-.- permitting authorities in determining program^esdescribed by the RMP. With Under today's proposal the part 70 - completeness ofRMPs, including a . - ; the possible exception of the . * . - permitting authority or the designated checklist addressingthe required* >. elements of an RMP; - compliance schedule, EPA believes agency (for completeness review) would " these permit conditions will be standard' be responsible for ABD00086701 .... ----------------- Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 48 /Monday. March T3, 1S95 7 Proposed Rules 13537 (1) Verifying that an KMP was sobmittad of part 70sources are subject to ll2(r). statutory and regulatory authority to when required and that it is complete, EPA solicits comments op other - determine whether a source is subject to i.e., it contains the elements required possible rioarilinor iin qqs part 68. This authority may be vested in under 68.50,68.13. or 68.14; year, orby permit renewal. ; an emergency response agency. Third, (2) Verifying that the source has The permitting authority or many permitting authorities mayface submitted an annual certification that designated agency must be able to resource or budget constraints if it is properly implementing a-risk determine ifa sourcB ttsubjaot to the * additional workload were taken on to management progtain as required by- requirement toaubmft an RMP. EPA implement section 112{r) requirements. part 68 and as descxfbed byihe-RMP; .. believes that this capabsKtyis already This might require an adjustment in lee (3) Taking-enforcement actum ' required under pari 70 since;*under that schedules, because there fa no reason to (including penalties} fcrfailure to regulation, a permitting authority must assume a deaeese in other workload submit a complete RMP revised plan, - or the animal certification; and (4) Incorporating and enforcing permit conditions specifying a compliance be able to ask bar any specific information that may, he necessary to imjilimMmt fTxi eXUCSC& ftthnf applicable requirements ar to determine the costs..States may wish to consider raising title V fees for all sources, raising permit fees only far sources subject to both pete 70 and 68, orimposing a See schedule for submittal ofa complete applicability ofsoch requirements . RMP. { 70-5(c)(5lJ. Thus, Ifa source fails to These four tasks am the extent of the responsibilities of the permitting authority, unless it is granted delegation under section 112(1) as the V implementing agency. Teaks (1) and (2) could be transferred to another state or local agency designated by the state under a cooperative agreement.. The first task of the permitting authority or designated agencywould be to determine if tbs RMP is complete. The permit would require the source to submit the RMP by the part 68 deadline; part 68 would require the source to certify as to the BMP's completeness. If the RMP or any revisions were determined to be incomplete, the permitting authority or designated agency would notify the source that the submittal was incomplete, state the deficiencies, and.give the source a deadline to submit the requested mention whether it is subject to 112(r) in its permit application, the permitting authority must have the authority to ask for rwfnwMtirm an theapplication to ` determine section 122(r} applicability. This nfnrmrtinw mint be in - - permit applications due before the . promulgation of part 68. since the permitting authority or designated agency must determine which permits wifi require reopening after pertGfi is. promulgated ifstandard peanil . conditions reflecting part 66 are not added. EPA believes this approach is sufficient and is prepared to rely on the resourcefulness ofpermitting authorities in identifying sources subject to 112(r), but solicits comment on whetherEPA should make move specific demands of. permitting authorities in determining, .-applicability, with-respect to section 112(r) requirements. The implementing agency will have information and/or revise the RMP. EPA the-authority under 6&A0 to require requests comment on the definition ofa revisions to the RMP. Permitting complete KMP. authorities may find, as a result of the The obligation to submit an RMP to completeness review or during regular the permitting authority designated part 70 inspections, that revisions are agencyis a reporting requirement ofa; neceasaiy-The permitting authority permit, but.the contentsoftfaeRMP-ase /should share with the not permit' terms or conditions. Under implementing agency far appropriate - today's rale, the completeness action. The agency determination required under proposed *Km<y abn share frrrm fiMP 68.58(b)(1) is independent of the reviews and source audits with the completeness detemrinstion required by permitting authority. EPA requests CAA section 502(bft6}.-It is not comment onwhethertbe permitting necessary for the. permitting authority to authority should be sble-to require on all sources subject to pert 68 to provide resources for state and local program implementation. Permitting authorities may be limited act the amount of fees collectable for permit activities. EPA requests cremnent on resource reductions in other programs that may be necessary tercomplete the responsibilities described in this notice Fourth, some permitting agendas may need to obtain technical training in the implementation of section 112fr) requirements. EPA intends to provide training end technical assistance to implementing agendas and permitting. authorities. ----- Given these expectations, EPA fa prepared to presume that approved part 70 pannft programs are adequate to . carry out tire additional section 112tr) ~ requirements proposed todsy, unlessthe Agency receives specificmfoemstien to; ` the contrary. EPA also assumesthat if modification* to state pert 7t> penult program* are necessary. they can be with witwim*! burden. - Finally, under the GAA provisums, " permitting authority liability would generally be determined by state law. ' Congress'sintent in starting section 1 112(r)-wasnot teexpand liability Ids. ./ any government entity. Liability .' / associated with implementation of. section ll2fr) is addressed below. . Incorporation ofPart 68 Requirements Into Part 70 Permits According to the CAA. oBcrport 68 - provide public notice ofcompleteness sources to make revisions to an RMP requirements are promulgated, existing findings. The permitting authority may. whenever the permitting authority sources have three years to comply with however, wish to document and provide determines revisions are necessary. these requirements. New sources / the public with a notice ofcompleteness in light of the possibility that st iaast constructed after promulgation of pari - -. findings using electronic bulletin boards some permitting authorities may need to 68 must comply by three years after or other mechanisms, series expand their capabilities to meet these - . promulgation except that sources ' comments on this approach. EPA also new responsibilities, states should constructed later than 3 years-after seeks comment on whether it should. . reexamine several aspects of.tbeir . promulgation must comply upon - establish deadlines far the current part 70 program. First, states startup. However, until the riak ; determination ofcompleteness by the . shouldassess whether they have . management program rule fa permitting authority. EPA could select adequate legal authority to review RMPs promulgated, the only applicable the 60-day deadline used for part 70 for completeness, or to require their requirement for sources is the List of application completeness; however. submission if not part of a pTM*t Regulated Substances and their EPA is aware that some states may find . application. Second, states should .Thresholds rule under section ll2fr)t3)-\ this deadline too short ifa high number determine if they have adequate (5). Thus,-EPA expects that whena ABD00086702 13538 Federal Register /VoL 60.*Nos'48 j Monday, March.13, 1995 / Proposed Rules source subsoils a part 70 application - - John Seitz. Director of the Office ofAir authorities would be unable to assure before part 68 is final, it would identify Quality Planning and Standards compliance with the requirements of to the permitting authority those (OAQPS). to EPA Regional Air Division part 68-as required unless another state activities at the source that are subject Directors (available in the docket). In or Federal implementing agency agrees to the part 68 requirementsaccording to that memorandum, EPA required part to become the designated agency for that the list rule criteria, bat-state that the . 70 permitting authorities to obtain legal state and is willing to certify for the air risk management program requirements . authority sufficient to: (1) Determine permitting authority that the RMP is are not yet applicable to it This whether a source is obligated to register complete. Such a program may fall short identification is consistent-with the and submit an RMP; (2) secure of ymmma) title V statutory requirement in 70.5(c)(5) for the verification from part 70 sources that requirements of assuring compliance - permit application to include specific any required submittal was prepared with all applicable requirements. The information necessary to determine nri submitted; (3) nhtain annual Agency requests comment on whether whether the source is subject to .. certifications from sources that the plan the permitting agency may be able to applicable requirements. isbeing implemented; and (4) include satisfy title V by certification by the Permits issued before promulgation of as apermit condition a compliance - part 68 will presumptively need to be schedule for submitting a planlfthe . A second approach at the opposite - - reopened at the lime of promulgation-of source-fails to submit the plan when end of the spectrum would require part 68 and revised within Id.months to originally duB..Unlike4oday`s proposal, permits to address all the hazard - include the part 68 permit requirements. this option does not require the assessment,-prevention program, and Alternatively.-the permitting authority permitting authority to determine emergency response program activities could place the standard part 68 permit completeness ofthe plan. It does not under part 68. in addition to the conditions in a permit issued before make specific requirements with respect registration, RMP submission, program - promulgation of part 68 and make the to the content of pan. 70 permits. This implementation and plan revision conditions effective upon promulgation option would not rely significantly on requirements. Each requirement in part of part 68. Unlike most MACT part 68-to expand or clarify the April 13 68 would be specified as a permit gtanriwrdft, EPA believes the part 68 guidance. condition.-For example, the permit - permit requirements will be essentially An advantage of this approach is that' would include a requirement for pre standard conditions with little source- it imposes no additional expectation on startup safety reviews.of all process to-source variation. Consequently, part 70 agentias-or sources subject to changes or that accidental release incorporating part 68 requirements -both part 68 and part 70 beyond the mitigation equipment at the source (e g- (unless they were included during April 13,1993, policy memorandum. spray,curtains) be tested monthly. Upon initial permit issuance) should require .Therefore, permitting authorities would part 68 promulgation, all existing only the part 70 administrative not be expected to reassess current legal permits at part 70 sources would need amendment process. As proposed in the .-authority.-resources or fee structure for ; i to be reopened to add-permit conditions part 70 revisions for MACT standards, adequacy in implementing section relative to section 112(e). -The permitting the permitting authority or designated 112(r). . authority-would need to examine, agency should provide to the public a However, the April 13 policy - carefully each-RMP-and risk--- - list of sources whose permits ore guidance was prepared before the risk ' management program at each permitted proposed to be reopened; Public . management-program rule was proposed source to makesure it is-complete-end' comment on the list of sources could and before public comments were. .to craft the permit conditions specific ti help the permitting authority identify received indicating that the relationship - each source and then issue a new - other sources subject to section 112(r). between part 70 and part 68 was not permit Permitting authorities would be Reopened and reissued permits would dear. Further, the April 13 criteria do expected to perform periodic - - include all permit requirements of .not account for implementation ofthe inspections of each permitted source to 68.58. including a compliance ` risk management program by the source vexify-whether the risk management - schedule for submittal of the RMP (as opposed to implementation of the program was being implemented as... - according to part 68 deadlines. After plan) and there is no review of the RMP described by the RMP. to examine, part 68 is promulgated, part 70 permits by the permitting authorityto ensure program implementation to verify. .. .- and applications will be required to that the plan contains the elements compliance with permit conditions.-an contain compliance schedules which, in required by.part 68, Consequently, in a to determine whether the RMP heeded part, require the submittal of a complete June 24,1994, memorandum (available to be revised as a result of permit > RMP. in the docket) from John Seitz and Jim conditions or changes at the source. * Makris, Director ofthe Qwwriiqi^ Solicitation of Comment on Alternatives . Emergency Preparedness and .. . This approach would be consistent. . with approaches for implementation-ai Although no specific alternatives are Prevention Office (CEPPO), toPA emission standards or other air.toxics* proposed, EPA seeks comment on two Regional Division Directors, EPA. V . -provisions under titles IBand .V.-of the other approaches for the definition of . indicated that the "approval criteriain..' ' -Clean Air Act because it would -. applicable requirements, permitting the April 13 memorandum * * *-may--r- consolidate.the.essential elements of*} authority responsibilities, and permit . mot be sufficient toensure compliance . source's compliance requirements inti content with respect tosectionH2(r). with all 'applicable requirements', -permit and would ensure the full EPA will consider various alternatives established in the risk management - involvement ofthe permitting authorit offered by commenters between these program rule.*'. By not requiring a in chemical accidentprevention. ]! als two approaches as alternatives to the review of the RMP. for completeness or - would provide significant enfoxcemen' approach described above. setting forthstandud permit conditions leverage through the;permit and throu; The first option places no additional . that would assure compliance with part inspections to ensure compliance with responsibilitieson the permitting 68, the permitting authority's role in the source's risk management, program authority beyond those set forth in . implementing section U2{f) relies . and with the part 68-requirements.-..-:. EPA's guidance contained in an April mainly-on the certification of submittal . Thisapproach still doesnot cail for 13,1993, policy memorandum from of the RMP by.the source. Air permitting the permitting authority to perform -: ABD00086703 Federal Register- / ;Val. 60,-No. 48 7^ Monday,-March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 1353! audits or to examine the quality of the plans when necessary to ensure whether* minimum number of reviews RMP or.prograzn, which EPA believes is compliance with the requirements of . and audits-should be established and. ii the responsibility of the implementing part 68. so, the minimum number. Tier and the agency. It does, however, impose In the proposed rule, "implementing basis for the minimum number and Tiei considerable resource and expertise agency'* was not defined. EPA is and the tools and training that should h burden on the permitting authority. EPA proposing to define implementing developed to assist implementing does not believeJt,is appropriate to agency as the state or local-agency that agendas with audits at sources. indude risk management program . obtains delegation for an accidental State and local involvement in the elements as permit conditions since release-prevention program under implementation of the section ll2(r) these elements will be highly source* subpart B ofpart 63 under section requirements for all sources is critical to specific and subject to change as the 112(1)."The implementing agency could, the success of the accident prevention source develops and implements its but is not required to be the state or program. In addition, air pollution program. The pegnxit-would need to be. local air-permitting authority. EPA control, worker safety, pollution . changed every timelhe.prpgram orplan .encourages the permitting authority to prevention, and public safety goals can changed This approach appears to go. . . assess its capabilities with respect to- '.. .. be achieved most effectively only well beyond the seed for part 70 "Carrying out the-duties-of-tbe through the directinvolvement of state permits to assure compliance -with implementing agencyand,-if .. - and local officials. EPAexpects that _ ' . applicable section 112(r) requirements- appropriate, seek delegation for part70 . SERCs, LEPCs, and other state and local and duplicates otherlocahstate, and sources^ Ifa state or local agency does emergency preparedness and response Federal efforts. .--,* not take delegation, EPA would assume organizations will make full use of the There may be alternatives to the two - the responsibility for implementation of chemical emergency prevention, extremes described in this section and section I12(r). ' preparedness, and response information to the proposed approach. EPA requests EPA is alsoproposing that ** in the RMP. regardless of which agency comment on other alternatives. EPA also implementing agencies develop their- is implementing the section H2(r) requests that if other approaches are own scheme to prioritize RMP reviews, requirements. offered, commenters address the ' audits, and source inspections - A streamlined and cohesive section advantages and disadvantages of the criteria as proposed in $ 68.60. EPA Tl2(r) program will be best achieved if approach with respect to the parts 68 would not specify the number of a state or local agency takes delegation and 70 programs and to the overall inspections, reviews, or audits to be to be the implementing agency for all: chemical emergency prevention, completed. Alternatively, EPA could section 112(r) sources. The use of tiered preparedness, andresponse effort. require that an implementing agency approaches to implement the 112{r) Implementation of Section 112(rJ for All Sources ` ..................... review all RMPs within five years of program would assist states by enabling submission, or that no less than all Tier them to focus tbeir-greatest accident -3 submissions be reviewed end audited-- prevention efforts on those sources that'r Congress intended a Federal-state within five years-of submission, orthat -pose the greatest potential riik to the partnership in implementing-all of - a certain percentage (for example,-!^ community. These approecfaesattempt -- section 112, including section 112(r). percent of all plans or only those in - * - to minimize the additional effort needed The implementstiopenvisioned by........ certain tiers),be reviewed and audited - -`by states to cover all-eection-112(r) - Congress for accident prevention -' -' -within fiveyears of-mibmissios. In . - sources. Table lbelow shows the kinds - focuses on coordination and sharing of addition, while paper reviews of the of effort and expertise-necessary for accident prevention information among RMPs are important, it is critical that review and audit of RMPs. If a state or. various state and local agencies within implementing agencies perform audits - local organization has the resources and the same state. Implementation of section H2(r) means that the at facilities to examine and'compare. expertise and is willing to becomean- actual prevention practices at the source implementing agency for part 70: r implementing agency-takes - responsibility for the compliance and with infonnation contained in the RMP. sources, EPA encourages it to consider EPA recognizes that this effort'can becoming an implementing agency for enforcement of section H2(r) requirements. Further,-section consume considerable resources and require particular expertise for all 112(r) sources, since the organization', would have had the experience of 112(r)l7)(B)(iu) indicates that EPA shall implementing agencies. EPA plans to dealing with the most complex RMPs, - establish, by rule, an auditing system to issue guidance for implementing reviews, and audits of part 70 sources. ; review regularly and, if necessary, agencies on review and audit criteria EPA believes that divided require revision in RMPs. Although and to develop training-for inspections, implementation of I12(r) for-part 70 - permitting authorities are responsible reviews, and audits. In addition, EPA sources and non-part 70 sources, " for assuring part 70-source compliance ' would propose that implementing " * between EPA and state and local with part 68 requirements, EPA believes agencies make use of safety audits. agencies, could cause considerable ' that the implementing agency should .performed by sources, as required by confusion for the regulated community ~ take responsibility for RMP reviews and OSHA PSM (29 CFR part 19l0.119(o)) ` and lead to ineffective and * ' audits. Consequently, EPA believes the and proposed^ 68.3B, as part of this uncoordinated chemical accident. ''^1 implementing agency must: (1) Receive inspection process. The implementing prevention. Implementation for all *^ - part 68 registrations; (2) inspect sources agency can use this infonnation not sources by one state organization could for compliance, regulatory development, only to determine whether the source is serve to bring the state and local and enforcement; (3) receive, review* making progress toward accident coordination needed to achieve broad and periodically audit RMPs according prevention, but also to offer-assistance environmental, worker, and public , to 68.60; and (4) require revision of to sources. EPA requests comment on _ safety.goals, - ABD00086704 13540 federal Register / "VoL 60, No. 48 t Monday; ;Maix 13,. 1995 / "Proposed Rules Table i---Costs to implementing Agency Risk management program and pan activity National annuafaed implementation costs gwn) Until 1999 > 1999 to 2004 * -Yearly after 2004 Approach 1 .* Proposed rule Approach 1 Proposed rule Approach 1 Proposed rule- RMP fihfig ......` . .1.3. - ' - *33 - 13 1-6 13. 03 05 05 05 05 05 038 038 .1U -0.4 0.15 0.15 036 036 035 035 . .05- U 05 05 13 05* 15 2.6 25 .35. 5.4 25 43 [Note that the columns do not add to the total because EPA-orty actMBes inckjdng leyisliation and regional oversight are not included m the table.-Ai costs are annualized and decounted at a 4 percent rata. Approach 1 refers to the Tiering section. It asstfnes accident history 6 used to segregate sources into tiers.-The ntiai review and audtis of Tier 2 sources-should take 1 hour and 2 hours, respectively and that all Tier 2 manufacturers would be audtted every 10 years. Non-manufacturers would be audfted every 10 or 20 years. These figires a/efikety to be upperbound estimates; actual coats w* very based on the degree of selective program oversight necessary and cost savings as experience is gained.] State orlocal organizations that want . implementing agency. EPA is requesting substances handled at the source. to hirnmn an agency for - that states that provide comments on section 112(r) can. seek delegation under hit T>iViw> <twlirah> (fthty plan to* Sources could be required to submit a fee to the implementing agency with section 112(1). Section 112(1) contains " implement the program, and if so, theirregistration or with their RMP. the processes for.(l) formally whether an agency that currently is e EPA seeks comment on these transferring implementation and membm of the SERC, or if the SERC approaches, particularly with respect to. enforcement responsibility from EPA to - itself will take responsibility. the experience of states that have tried a state or local agency; (2) transferring responsibility for ensuring source' EPA recognizes that states have or are developing user-fee systems.- concerns about resources, availability of * Finally,states have raised concerns compliance with section 112 expertise, and possible liability about possible liability-associated with requirements to an agency other than associated with accidental release the section 112(r) program. Section the permitting authority; and (3) prevention. EPA plans-to develop 112(r); unlike other CAA requirements - allowing states to implement and guidance and training and provide that deal primarily with chronic enforce their own toxics requirements in assistance to states to help build hazards, involves acute hazards with the. lieu of Federally promulgated section expertise and to illustrate how effective potential fair catastrophic accidents 112 requirements. EPA's implementing programs can be developed and resulting in immediate deaths and regulations for section 1120) outline implemented. EPA seeks input on the injuries. Generally, the liability of state several mechanisms far approval of state 'types of training and technical and local entities for their in - and local air tones programsand far assistance states and local agencies will handlingsection 112(r) infannation delegation of federal authoritieslo state need to promote efficient and effective would be controlled by state law or local agencies (58 FR 62262; implementation ot section 112(r) roncaming governmental immunity As November 26.1993). Permitting regulations for all sources. The model the CAA and the legislative history of... authorities with approved part 70 RMPs being developed for specific section 112(r) make dear. Congress did ' programs are well equipped to seek industry sectors end guidance not intend to create new liability for.. - delegation as the implementing agency to help sources comply with the governmental entities when it enacted for part 70 sources, since the state's permit program contains adequate accidental release prevention rBqnimwmntc alert aw dwagned tp the accident prevention provisions... Specific language in section 112(r)(l) authorities, adequate resources for minimithfl>mrrff>D pn Ktate. was included to provide liability implementation, and an expeditious programs. EPA seeks input on the types protection to governments and to avoid ' compliance schedule as required under of guidance in support of program arguments from industry that the fifing section 112(11(5). implementation that would be most of plans with emergency planners Each state,has the flexibility to place usehil to states. somehow immunized a company from the program-in an appropriate agency.. EPA agrees that Congress did not . Liability. Section 112(r)(l) states that. including with the air permitting agency provide funding for implementation of "Nothing in fection 112(r)l shall be if it so desires. A state may want to consolidate both its occupational safety and process safety management programs in its worker safety agency. . Some states may wish to have an agency that is currently a member of the SERC, but not the air permitting authority, non-part 70 sources. EPA is exploring .the possible expansion of CAA section 105 grants to fund state programs that will cover non-part 70 112(r) sources. State and local organizations may also wish to consider opportunities for collecting fees specifically for section interpreted, construed, implied, or applied to create any liability or basis for compensation for bodily injury or any other injury or property damages to any person which may result from acadental release of such substances ' The Environment and Public Works * serve as the implementing agency; provided it .can meet the approval criteria of section 112(1) and coordinate its activities with other affected state/ local programs, in states where the SERC itself is a state agency, the state may want the SERC to be the 112(r) activities, similar toTee-based systems used f6r funding EPCRA activities Some states have established "polluter-pays" type fee systems thatare based on multiples ofthe threshold quantity of extrexnely'bazarddus substances or section 112(r)(3) regulated Committee inserted the above-quoted provision into the Senate's version of . the CAA Amendments explicitly "" because of EPA's concern that the general duty dause and other portions of the accident prevention provisions would create some governmental ABD00086705 Federal Register I Vo\. 60, -No* .48 J :-Monday,.'March .23,11995 / Proposed Rules 13541 liability in the event of an accidental It* attorneygeneral, lacks sufficient or loan programs orthe rights and release. (S. Rep. No. 228,101st Cong., sovereign immunity to ensure state and obligations of recipients thereof; or 1st sess,, at 210 (1989).) EPA expressed local agendas-will not be subject to concern that liability in.the event of an liability for bodily,injury or property accident would shift toihe government damage in the event of an accidental if a source identified a potential event . - release, then EPA encourages the state in a hazard assessment-and the'Agency to enact legislation specifically failed to require the source to remove or providing immunity for state and local reduce the hazard, {id.) Another fear agencies carrying out functionsunder (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. .. Under the terms of the Executive Order 12866..it has been determined was that an.owner or operator would . section 112(r). Of course, even with -thatthis'ruleis a "significant regulatory argue that the Agency's failure to. sovereign immunityirom tort suits, action." require a heard to be addressed would EPA; states, end local entities may EPA prepared a draft regulatory be a defense for-a-souroe inarliability- remain-subject to FOIA suits, penalties impact-analysis for the proposed list' . suit for. injuries or-damages caused to a forviolation of trade secret protections rule and an addendum to the analysis third party, (Id.) To-.prevent either.. under section 124(c), or mandatory duty for the proposed risk management result, the Environment and Public. . Works Committeeincluded in the precursor of section- 112(r)(l) virtually identical language to that quoted above. suits (such as EPA's failure to .promulgate regulations or.act on listing petitions) that mayallow.for attorney's fees. -.. . .. ir'-. . . program rule. EPA has prepared a revised economic impact analysis (ELA) for the risk management program rule to reflect the final list rule.the impacts of .(Id.) - State and local agencies are encouraged to work with their attorneys general to determine the extent of their - sovereign immunity under state law. Under common law orstatute, nearly all - states have retained some immunity from tort suit. One common law theory of sovereign immunity that may apply in several states would be the immunity that extends to purely governmental activities, as distinguished from . m. Required Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4,1993), EPA must determine 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 the options being considered in this notice, and comments on the draft regulatory impact analysis. The revised ELA.is available in the docket. -- In developing its supplementalnotice, EPA considered creating three tiers far risk management program requirements described above. EPA analyzed the three options for assigning sources to the tiers, approaches 1 and 2 described in . Section HA above and the application of proprietary activities. Emergency economy of$100 million ormore or the proposed rule to all sources as prevention and response activities adversely affect in e material way the approach 3. Total nnil costs and would be examples of traditional economy, e sector of the economy, benefits for each approach are presented u governmental activities under this .. productivity,'competition, jobs, the in Table 2i This:table does not include-' -. theory. Another immunity theory that - environment, public health or safety, or . projected costs or benefits associated may apply provides immunity for state,'local; oitiribal government or ' with three issues upon which EPA is-.: discretionary activities (activities that communities; taking comment in notice: -public involve judgment). Other-states may (2) Create a serious inconsistency-of T participation, ecddentreportiag, and-'-^ have enacted specific legislation that otherwise interfere with an action taken inherently safer approaches twaim " * prevents governments from being sued' or planned by another agency; EPA's preferred approaches on these for activities connected to emergency - (3) Materially alter the budgetary issues would impose no additional ` V- response. If a state, in the judgment of impact of entitlements, grants, user fees. requirements on sources.: "u Approach Table 2.---Total Annualized Costs and Benefits Number of sources . Annoa) benefits of programs 1 --------------- ----3_________ 49,200 (Tier 1)__ __ 72.100 (Tier-2). 1.300 (Tier 3). 49,200 (Tier 1)....... ........................ 57.100 (Tier 2). 16.300 (Tier 3). 422.600 (Tier 3)...; .. $104 million .................... ............... $121.5 million. STW mJIfinn $696 million .i____________ ' $299triRotv- - 7 ' . Based on the final list and thresholds,EPA estimates that approximately . 122,600 sources would be affected by " * the proposed rule. The primary cost for Tier 2 was assumed to be the RMP. Tier 3 costs are strongly influenced by the tiering assumptions and by whether sources are expected to be covered by . the OSHA PSM standard. The analysis assmned that a source in compliance with the OSHA PSM standard for a process would incur no additional costs to comply with many elements of EPA's prevention program. In addition;-for ~ some prevention program elements (e.g., training), some sources were assumed to be in compliance because of current activities; the only additional cost for these sources was documentation for the element. Large chemical companies and all refineries were assumed to-be . complying with industry, standards that are the equivalent of the prevention program. These sources-were assumed to/trearno additionalctists for some elements of the prevention program '(for processes not covered by Because 0>A-will require sources to submit, in the RMP. information on . . . their hazards and steps being taken to .. reduce risks, EPA expects that sources. .. and processes currently implementing -PSM under OSHA.or industry standards will take additional steps to ensure that, their PSM programs are effective. . .. Specifically, the EIA essumed-that. ABD00086706 13542 Fedaal. Register / VoL f>0, -No. -48 / Monday. March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules sources covered fay other-programs benefit state and Federal OSHA - benefits to the source. Industry would providemote program oversight, inspectors. commenters an the rule noted that when would more training Based on an industry study, the the public distrastsa source, the public refresher training, cod carry out mare analysis estimated that the - has resisted permit changes or zoning mwiwtwra'nrs* activities; sources were of the'EPA standard in accident variances that the source needs to also assumedto implement more capital redoctionwould be 50 percent. improve operations. Better information . improvements. EPA notes that because Accident reduction from the EPA - and the-public-industry dialogue that of a lade of data, the E1A made a number standard applies to processes not. of assumptions cm which the cost covared by the OSHA standard and to fallows can make It easier for sources to gain public support for needed changes. estimates are based. For example, the the 20 percent of actadents not Government agencies and public analysis assumed the number of listed : toxic substances at large chemical prevented by the OSHA standard. ERA -estimates that the minimi. interest groups can target.tbeir efforts at those sources that pose the greatest companies ranged bom 4 to 12; the . benefits of the rule will range from potential risk, rather than assuming that analysis also assumed that the number $121.5 million to $299 million, all sources pose a high level of risk or of covered processes was equal to the . depending on the approach. misdirecting their efforts toward sources number of substances. EPA reeks The quantifiable benefits are probably . that have effective safety programs. rywmnwnta and any data commenters understated. Although the ELA assigns a may be able to provide cm whether there value to the likelihood of a Bhopal-scale Regulatory FlexibilityAct assumptions are reasonable. accident occurring in the U.S. in any In accordance with.the Regulatory The draft.RIA prepared far the proposed list rule based its benefits calculations on the assumption that manufacturers and certain other sources would have two significant.releases per year. Many commenters stated that this assumption was not justified, based on existing accident data. Consequently, the benefits analysis has been revised to reflect actual accident data and is based on EPA databases, other accident databases, end searches of newspaper ' reports. Based on these data, the annualized cost of all U.S. accidents involving listed toxic substances was estimated at $245 million; the anniialiT-ftri cost of all accidents involving listed flammables was estimated at $767 million. The costs of accidents includes deaths, injuries, evacuations, property damage, lost business, environmental damage, and litigation. single year, the analysis did not attempt Flexibility Act of 1980, Federal agencies to assign values to other catastrophic must evaluate the effects of the rule os accidents that-have occurred elsewhere bmH entities and wonwina alternatives'-* in the world, but have not as yet that may reduce the effects. EPA has occurred in the U.S. For example, the prepared an en&fysis.of die effects cn 1984 explosion at a LPG gas terminal in tmall tmtiHaa, available os Chapter 8 of Mexico City killed mare than 400 the EIA. EPA believes that the rule as -people offsite; an explosion in proposed in 1993 would create a severe, Flndxstmgh, England, damaged more adverse effect on manufacturers. -than 1,000 buildings Similar For the smallest . sources exist in the U.S. and have the manufacturers, the initial costs of the ' potential to have catastrophic initial proposed rule could equal their with offsite impatfs. Because of the annual net income; for chemical difficulty of assigning probabilities and companies with 20 to 99 employees, the values to such incidents, the ELA does initial cost of the proposed rule would not include them among the approach their annual net incomes. The quantifiable benefits, but these sources initial proposed rule imposes lower - are covered by the proposed rule, and costs on non-manufacturers and. compliance with the rule will reduce therefore, is less likely to create as the likelihood of such catastrophic adverse impact on them. The tiering accidents.. approach considered in thisnotice Other, intangible benefits are also would reduce, the impact on small attributable to the rule. For example, the businesses significantly. Under the definition of offsite populations, using tiering approach, the impact an small Benefits attributable to the risk Census data, will assist both sources business would be small The tiering management program rule are affected and the public to identify areas where approach would also substantially by two factors: The extent to which environmental justice concerns need to reduce the impact on small other, similar rules already provide the be addressed. The process hazard communities. benefit and the expected effectiveness of analysis is-likefy to identify areas where these rules when fully implemented. pollution prevention steps can be Most-of the processes covered by EPA's implemented, which may produce cost C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership rule are also covered by the OSHA PSM savings and reduce potential health The Clean-Air Act requires EPA to rule. When OSHA adopted the PSM effects offsite. develop chemical accident prevention . standard, it estimated, based on Most importantly, the information regulations under section 112(rH7) that anecdotal evidence, that by 1997 the available in the RMP will have an include release prevention and response standard would prevent 00 percent of intrinsic value to the public. EPA has provisions, including RMPs. As the accidents at OSHA-covered sources. not attempted to measure the value of discussed above. Congress intended the \ EPA believes that the risk management this information, but experience with states to play a key role in implementing program rule will increase compliance EPCRA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) - the rule. Both state and local agencies with the OSHA standard and cause data indicates that such information are mandated to receive the RMPs. This many OSHA- and EPA-affected sources creates many benefits. The simple interrelationship of Federal, state, and. to achieve a higher level of safety requirement to make information public local agencies is a continuation of the because of the public availability of the under TRI has stimulated industry to philosophy developed under EPCRA, . RMP and the reviews and audits that take steps to reduce emissions to avoid where each level of government is seen will be conducted by- implementing publicconcern and assure the local as a stakeholder with important roles to agencies. The RMP submission will communitythat the source is a good play. To consult in a regular and provide implementing agency officials neighbor. The public benefits from the meaningful way with state, local, and with a better basis for identifying and reduced risk; the source benefits from tribal officials in the development of the targeting problem sources; EPA expects better relations with the community. risk management program rule, EPA has that the RMP information will also The latter can have direct, economic met with state and local officials. Before ABD00086707 i federal itggister/ VoL-60. ^0. 46Monday / Proposed Rales * 13S42 . the proposed rale was drafted, EPA ^nlUrtinn in conducted focusgroups with state and this proposal. local officials in three states that had TicV matM^mert program fawt- EPA . listefSubjacri in TO XXXPari 8*. invited these states and several othazs to - Environmental protection. Chemicals, attend a two-day seminar to elicit further information. EPAbas held ' HUMiiigi n~ffti ftatrrr i in 1*T~ - dining the rale-making process, working throoghtts Regionsandthrough associations ofelate officials likely to be ' involved in irnplwMffptiqg die role.Is addition, a large number of state and local *gwnp*g attended tbe Jour public bearings and submitted comments on - Dried: Frinrey 28. 1925. Cmel M. Brvirmr,^ . AAminietrrrtrrf For tbe reasons eat out in tbe preamble, tbe proposal -pofalisbed co* October 20,1993 (SB FR 54190) is amended** art forth below. * tbe proposed rule. During tbe development of tbe implementation and integration provisions (68.58}. EPA consulted with state and local air and PART 8-<AMENDE(q 1. Urn authority citation for pert 68 continues to read as follows: emergency planning agencies. EPA will seek further input bom states during development tsftbe final rule. `Authority: 42 UJSLC/7412{r). 7603 . 2.' Section 683 as proposed is now emended by writing the introductory D. Paper*t*k RedactionAct text, adding five definitions and revising The information collection requirements in this notice have been, one proposed definition "Worst case - release" to read asfoliows: submitted for approval to tbe Office of Management and Badge! (QMB) under tbe Paperwork Redaction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etsec. Ad Information Cotiection Request document has been prepared by EPA {EPA No. 1656JJ2) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, information Policy Branch; EPA. 401 M Street. SW {Mail Code 2136), 684 OeftnMon*. - . As used in this part, all terms net defined shall have the meaning given to them by tin Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 ef set/.). For purposes of 6858 of Bus pert, terms sut as "permitting authority,'* "applicable requirement" end "source" have die ih no Washington. DC 20460 or by calling given to them in part70.ofthis chapter (202) 260-2740. unless otherwise defined in this section. This ooUectioa of information hes an . * * estimated reporting burden avenging 3 Covered process means a process that to 4 hours per response forTier 1.16 to has a regulated substance present in 30 hours per response former 2. and for- more a threshold quantity as Tier 3 10 to 88 bourn per response for determined under 68.115. non-chemical manufacturers and 392 to. . '3720 hours per response for chemical Designated agencymeans the state or manufacturers. There is no annual local agency designated by the air recordkeeping burden for Tiers 1 and 2; permitting authority as ihie agency in Tier 3 there is an estimated annual responsible for the review of sn RMP for recordkeeping burden per respondent completeness. averaging 11 hours (for the non- Full-time employee means 2400 chemical industry) to 1000 hours (for hours per year of foil-time equivalent the chemical industry). These estimates employment. A source would calculate indude time for reviewing instructions, the number offoil-time employees by searching existing data sources, totaling tbe hours worked during the gathering end maintaining the data calendar year by all employees, _ needed, and completing mid reviewing including comma employees, and the collection ofinformation. / dividing that total by 2,000 hours. Send comments regarding tbe burden implementing agency means the state estimate or any other aspect of this nr tnraii gwry thnrt nKtmio* AUg*wi collection of information, including for an accidental release prevention suggestions for reducing this burdezrto program under section 112(1) ofCAA Chief. Information Policy Branch; EPA. which is subpart of part 63. The 401 M Street. SW (Mail Code 2136). - implementing agency may, but is not Washington. DC20460; and to tbe requited to be/the state or local air Office of Information and Regulatory .permitting agency. If a state or local Affairs. Office of Management and agency does not take delegation. EPA Budget. Washington. DC 20503. -will be the implementing agency for that "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.** The . state. final Rule will respond to any OMB or Mitigation means activities. - . public comments on the information technologies or equipment that are - designed to capture or control sntaatanoes after they are released to the environment or open foes of contaimnant Passive mitigation means equipment, derices ortechnologies that function without human, mechanical or other enetgy input . * . W&rst case release means the release of the hugest quantity of a regulated. substance respiting bom a vessel or process tine failure. 3. Section 66.10 as proposed is revised to raed as follows; 88.10 AppBcabUty. {a) T^ier 2-The owner or operatorof a stationary source with a covered process that meets die eligibility criteria of 68.13 shall comply with 68.12-- 68.13 no later than (three years from the date of final rule pnhlintinnj. Alternative 1 for paragraphs fbX ld . and (db lb) "Tier Z. Except as provided In paragraphs (a), (cj. and (d) of this section; the owner or operator ofa stationary source with a covered process shall comply with 68.12 and 68J4 no later than 1threeyears after the date-of final rule publication). ' (c) Tier 3. Except as provided in . paragraph {a) of this section, the owner or operator ofa statiatary source with 100 or more full-time employees shaB comply with 66.12 and 68.15 through , 66.55 no later than fthree years from the date of final rule publication) for any covered process in Standard Industrial .. Classification Code 2611,2812,2819, ' 2821.2888,2873.2879,r 2911. For all other covered processes at the stationary ` source, the owner or operator shall - comply with 68.12 and 68.14. fdj Deferred Tier3, Except as . provided in paragraph (a) of 1 section, the owner or operator ofa - stationary source that has 20 or more , full-time employees and a covered process in Standard Industrial Classification Code 2812.2819.2869, 2873, or 2911 shall: (1) Comply with 68.12 and 68.14 no later than Ithree years frnm !>>g date of final rule publication); and - (2) Comply with 68.12 and 68.15 ; through 66.55 no bler than Jeighl years from the date of final rule publication). Alternative 2 for paragraphs (b) and (c): (b) Tier 2. Except as provided in paragrephsfa) end Tc) of thxs.sectioa. the owner or operator of a stationary eernree with a coveted"process shall comply with 68.12 and 68.14 no later than . (three years after die date of final rale . publication). -. (c) Tier 3."Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a stationary source with".' ABD00086708 13544 Federal Register / Vdl. 60, No/'-48 7 Monday, March 13,1995 7 Proposed Rules a covered-process shall comply-with (A) A copy of the registration required (B) Tte following statement: 68.12 arul 68.15 through 68.55 no by 68.12 (this copy may be before the '' B*sedonthecriteriaui40a:R68.13(b)U). -tatar than (three years from.the date of - certification required by 68.12(b)(6)); the worst case accidental release far the . final rule publication] if the stationary (B) The following statement: : source described on the attached form source has 100 or more full-time. Based on the criteria in 40 CFR 88.13(a)(1). (registration) presents so potential-far public employees. *. - . ; the worst case accidental release for the or environmental impact within . . 4. Section 68.13 is proposed to be .. added to subpart B to read as follows: * source described on the attached form * kilometers ofthe source given the nature of (xegiftraticm).ptesents no potential for public . tbe process and the chemicals stored-at the . or environmental impact given the nature of source. For tbe past 5 yean, this source has 68.13 No impact sources (Her 1). the process and tbe chemicals stored at-the * (a) Sources that exceed a threshold quantity oniyforflammable or explosive` source. For the past 5 yean.-thia source has not had a significant accidental release, as defined in 40 CFR ft8J. No additional ' not had a significant accidental release, as defined in 40 CFR 68.3. No additional measures are necessary to prevent public and environmental impacts from accidental . regulated substances, measures are necessary to prevent public and releases. In the event ofan accidental release (1) Eligibility. Hie- owner or operator . environmental from accidental of the regulated substance indicated on the of a stationary source that is subject to this part and that does not exceed the threshold quantity for a toxic substance shall comply with paragraph (a)(2) of releases. In the event of a fire or a release of the regulated substance indicated on tbe registration, entry within (distance for given quantity of regulated substance under American Table of Distances or paragraph registration, emergency response should be conducted acconUng to the emergency response plan-under42 VS.C. 11003. which is available at (location). Therefore, public emergency responders should not enter this this section ifthe source has not had (a)(1)(H) of this section] of the source may area except as provided underthat plan.-The significant accidental release for 5 years pose a danger to public emergency undersigned certifies that, tojhe best of my and: - responders. Therefore, public emergency knowledge, information, andfrelief formed . (1) For a source that exceeds the responders should not enter this mrea except - after reasonable inquiry, the information threshold for an explosive regulated substance, the source is subject to 27 CFR part 55 or 30 CFR parts 56,57. or 77 and the distance from the process to a public or environmental impact is no as arranged with tbs contact person indicated . on the registration. The undersigned certifies that to the best of my knowledge, inhumation, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, tbe information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. submitted is true, accurate, and complete. (Signature). and * (ii) The owner or operator shall maintain for five-years documentation closer than the distance to inhabited. (Signature}. of the determination of eligibility, under buildings provided is the American Table of Distances (27 CFK 55.218) for the quantity of explosives in the process; or (ii) For a source that exceeds the (iii) The owner or operator shall maintain for five years documentation of the determination of-eligibility under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and a copy of the risk management plan under . paragraph (b)(1) of this section and a - copy of the risk management plan undei paragraph (b)(2)(i) of-this section. - 5. Section 88.14 is.proposed to be added to subpart B to read as follows: threshold for a flammable regulated substance.the distance from the point of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. (b) Sources that exceed a threshold 68.14 Streamlined risk management program (Tier 2). release under the worst case release scenario to a public or environmental impact is greater than the-distance as calculated using the following formula for the maximum quantity present in the process: Distance (meters) = 0.15 x (o.l x mass xhc),/3 where mass is the quantity offlammable substance in kilograms, and be is the heat of combustion in )oules per. kilogram. (2) Program and plan requirements, (i) The owner or operator shall place a sign at all normal access routes that'warns quantityfor toxic regulated substances. (1) Eligibility. The owner or operator of a stationary source that exceeds the threshold-quantity for a toxic substance shall comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section if: ' (i) The stationary source has not bad a significant accidental release in the last five years, ~ (ii) The stationary source can demonstrate the lookup-table distance for a worst-case release is less than the distance to a public or environmental receptor; and (iii) The emergency response plan under 42 U.S.C. 11003 addresses (a) The owner or operator of e_,. stationary source eligible for this pari. . .shall comply with 68.15. (b) The owner or operator of a ,, stationary source shall establish a prevention program which includes safety precautions and maintenance;. ' monitoring.and employee training ' measures to be usedthe source to prevent accidental releases. .The prevention program shall identity other federal accident prevention requirements to which the source is subject, including national voluntary standards and measures required by 42 the public and emergency responders appropriate response to an accidental concerning the hazard presented by the release at the source. * ' U.S.C 74l2(r)(l). - (c) The owner or operator of a - regulated substance at the site and (2) Plan and program requirements, (i) stationary-source shall prepare an- provides an emergency contact The owner or operator of a stationary / emergency response program which -telephone number. Such sign shall be in ' source that meets the eligibility criteria - . documents specific actions to be taken- English and any other language' . of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall in an emergency response to an . commonly spoken as a primary submit the following as a risk . accidental release, including: language in the area. management plan to the implementing (1) Procedures forinfonning the public (ii) The owner or operator shall . - agency, the State Emergency Response and local entities about accidental - submit the following as a risk Commission (if the implementing 'releases; ' management plan to the implementing agency is not a member of such (2) Procedures to be used on site to agency, the State Emergency Response Commission), and the Local Emergency respond to an accidental release: Commission (if the implementing Planning Committee with jurisdiction and agency is not a member of such for the ares where the source is located: . (3) A description of the employee - Commission), the Local Emergency (A) A copy of the registration required - training measures used to educate Planning Committee with jurisdiction by 68.12 (this copy may be before the employees regarding emergency for the area where the source is located: certification required by 68.12(b)(6)); situations. ABD00086709 Federal Register V Vol --60. No. 48 / Monday,.March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rubs 13545 (d) Tbeowner.oroperator ofa of. risk manageznent.program . (ii) An application-for a permit stationary source shall submit a risk requirements described in this part and revision to permit Tfiw{|^nn management plan summarizing as described by the submitted RMP or meeting paragraphs (a) (1) through (7) of paragraphs (a) through (c) of.this section to the irhplementiiig agency. the State Emergency Response Commission (if the implementing agency is not a member of gnrh fYimmigginn). and the Loieal Emergency Planning Committee with jurisdiction forthe area where the; source is located. The owner oroperator shall retain a copy of the risk . management plan for 5 years. revised plan. (4) For part 70 perntits'that are issued prior to the deadline required for registering and submitting the RMP and do not contain permit conditions meeting the provisions of paragraphs (a) (1) through (3) of this section, the source no later than 13 yearsfrom the effective date ofthefinal rulej;shall submit an application for a permit revision this section wWe h-k conditions are . already contained within the pert 70 permit (b) The permitting authority must, at - a minimum perform the following tasks to meet 70.4(bX3)(i) of this chapter with respect to part 70 sources subject to section 112(r) of CAA and this part (1) Verify that an RMP or a revised 6.Section 68.58 is proposed to be added to subpart B to read as follows: 6&58 pewntt content and efrpenwKBnfl authority requirements. consistent with 70.7 of this chapter to establish conditions consistent with .these requiredin paragraphs (a)(1) - through (3) of this section. (51 For part 70 permits-issued on or plan is submitted when required by this part, and that it is complete. Le., it containsthe elements required under 68.50.68.13. or 68.14: (a) The requirements in this section afterthe deadline required for (2) Verify that the source has .apply to sources subject to both part 68 registering and submitting the RMP. the submitted an annual certification that it and. part 70 of this Chapter. Each part 70 source shall register and submit any ' is properly implementing a risk permit shall contain conditions plan required by this pet nolater than* management program, as required by requiring the following provisions, for 13 yearsfrom the effective date ofthe this part and as described by the any activity and/oremission unit. finalJiilej, applicable RMP: subject to this part: (1) By the deadlines set out in this . part, the source shall register and submit an RMP or revised plan and .shall certify upon submission that such . plan is accurate and complete. (6) For new emissions units or activities at previously permitted part 70 sources which become subject to this part after (the effective date ofthefinal rvleJ. the source shall submit an application for permit revision (3) Take enforcement action (including penalties) an sources that foil to submit a complete plan or a revised plan, an annual certification, or . accidental release report as.required by Submission of the plan by deadlines ' consistent with the provisions of 70.7 this part required under this part shall satisfy the of this chapter upon startup of such reporting requirements of 40 CFR units and/or activities or no later than 70.6(a){3)(u)(A). (3 years from the effective date of the (2) The source shall submit any final rule], whichever is later. additional information requested by the (7) If a previously permitted part 70 permitting authority or other designated - source has not submitted an RMP as stole or local agency necessary to required. then the source shall provide: determine completeness of the RMP. (i) A compliance plan, including a (4) Incorporate and enforee-permit conditions that specify a compliance schedule for submittal of a complete RMP, for permits issued prior to . reporting deadlines of this pert or if a put 70 sOurce subject to-this part fails - to submit a complete plan as required. (3) The source shall annually certify compliance schedule for the submittal IFR -Doc. Filed 3-10-05; 6-.A5 aral compliance with, and implementation - of the required plan:-and eiUJNQ coot MW 10 p