Title III
- -
- - - --
- - --
-- - - - -
-- -
- --
- - .- .
FROM:
Donald Rectenwald, Coordinator
Salina-Saline County
Emergency Preparedness Department
RE:
Title III - Community Right To Know - Saline County
July 17, 1987 the State of Kansas's State Emergency Response
Commission designated each County in the State as an Emergency
Planning District. A letter from the State Commission was
sent to the County Commissioners to set up an Emergency
Planning Committee and to designate who the Local Chairman
would be by September 15, 1987.
The Local Emergency Planning Committee must include local
officials, Police, Fire, Emergency Preparedness, Public Health
professionals, Environmental, Hospital and Transportation
officials as well as representatives of facilities subject to.
the Emergency Planning requirements, community groups and the
Media.
The local committee must establish rules, give public notice
of its activities and establish procedures for handling public
requests for information. The Local Committee's primary respon-
sibility will be to develop an emergency response plan by
October 17, 1988.
In developing this plan, the local committee is to evaluate
available resources for preparing for and responding to a
chemical accident. The plan must include:
A.
Identification of facilities and extremely hazardous
substances and transportation routes in our area.
Emergency response procedures on site and off-site.
B.
C.
Designation of a Community Coordinator and facility
coordinator to implement the plan.
Emergency notification procedures.
D.
E.
Methods for determining the occurrence of a release
and the probable affected area and population.
Description of community and industry emergency
equipment and facilities and the identity of persons
responsible for them.
F.
G.
H.
Evacuation plans
Description and schedules of a training program for
Emergency Response personnel.
Methods and schedules for exercising Emergency Response plans.
1.
Title III has 4 major sections.
301-303 - Emergency Planning.
304 - Emergency Notification.
311-312 - Community Right to Know Reporting Requirements.
313 - Toxic Chemical Release Reporting.
Our main concern will be Section 301-303 and 304.
and Saline County will be responsible for 311-312
require submitting a form and paying a fee to the
is paid to the Local Committee.
In dealing with the nine items the plan must include, we have identified
facilities and received copies of Material Safety Data sheets which
identified their chemicals. We still have facilities that haven't sent
all their data sheets to us and the fire departments.
Facilities in Salina
and 313. These sections
State of Kansas. No fee
A planning meeting has been set up by the State of Kansas for January 25-29,
1988. This was previously set up for Nov. 9-13, 1987.
Training for First Responders has been set up for Feb. 8-12, 1988, at EPA
in Kansas City, Kansas. There is no charge for the school except food and
lodging. The goal is to send training officers of the various response
agencies and have them come back and train their departments. We have 9
slots reserved for the class. The State of Kansas has received FE~deral
funds and it is for training only.
Since this program was implemented in August of this year there isn't any
money budgeted for this program and I know we will need financial assistance
for procurement of clothing and equipment to handle chemical accidents. We
will need to have chemicals to neutralize chemicals and I question how we
will charge this back to the one who caused the accident. Legislation will
be needed to make this program work.
Captain Scott from the Salina Fire Department and myself are reviE~wing data
we have received from Orange County, California as they have a program
similar to what we are looking at. Once we have reviewed all the data, we
wouù.a~ like to meet with you.
If you have any questions please contact me.
s~--æ-erely.. ~'
:, ) ,) / / //'
!\:YrPIU¿c.t '¡ J :/~'-é-'{.?' /vc.C'~-1v(
~~nald H. Réctenwald, Coordinator
P.S. Due to Federal regulations I will no longer be classified as Chairman
as my agency could loose Federal funding but will continue working as I have
been. Dana Morse is now Chairman, who is my immediate supervisor.
DHR/md
cc: Dana Morse
County Commissioners
See
Chem1.cals
IMPLEMENTATION
Right-To-Know
Reporting Facilities
Information
302
Filing fee
$6.
304
311
Filing fee $40.
10.
each MSDS
312
Filing fee $10.
each page $15.
313
Filing fee
$325.
List of 407
Extremely hazardous
(Based on toxicity)
As above in 302 and
700+ hazardous sub-
stances defined by
C.E.R.C.L.A.
Any chemical or mix-
ture that exhibits
hazardous properties
defined under OSHA-
23 hazard categories
As above in 311
List of 328
Toxic chemicals
All with storage in
excess of Threshold
Planning Quantities
(FR Vol. 51, No 221 Pg 41510)
Discharges from any facility
in excess of Threshold
Reporting Quantities
All facilities regulated under
OSHA Hazard Communication
Program (unless othérwise
exempted)
As above in 311
Manufacturing facilities
SIC Code 20-39
with 1) 10 or more employees I
and 2) use greater >than lO,OOOlb~
or 3~ manufacture greater than
75,0001bs.
Letter with name
of facility and
location
(notification)
Discharge report:
name, location,
material, etc.
(To DEP Comm.
Center)
Copies of all MSDSs,
or list of chemicals
a) Annual Tier I
report by hazard
category
b) Annual Tier II
report by chemic
(on reques t i
al
-
Annual Envj.ronmental
Toxic Substances
Emjssions Inventory
by Chemical
~overnor "'
___=I_-
State Emergency
nespunse Coínmisn lon
I
r-'--""--------.'
1~lI\crgcllcy neGponGc
PlannIng
Sec ]01
I I) I}!!) t-- Cull1mUlÜca lions
~ Center 1- - - -
I Ilece 1. ve Sec 30"
Spill Notific~tlons
Sec 305
Emergency
Response 1'rulnlng
1~lIIergf'.ncy
Planning Distrlct
I
See )03
~_._J I
Local
E/II.er. Hesp.
Pliln.Comm.
~T- J I;;-!~II-_I=--I r _J~ ~.-'-I .
Loc Gov' tl Emq. Hesp. ~ ~ub.l.ic Hed.l.a gtc:f
K1\NS1\S IHPJ.I~'.mN'1'1\'J'ION Olõ' '1'IIE I~HI~HGJmCY
PL1\NNING 1\ND COHHlINI'rY HIGII'r-'1'O-I<NOW
1\c'r Of \ 906
KDIIE - KansaG Dcpartmcnt o[ IIca,lth
and I~nv 1 ronmenl:
DEl' - oj vision of ~:mcrgency Prcparp.dneu6
1\djutant General '0 Department
I
See )02 See 311/312
\
Notificntlon
Threshold
Planning ('1'.1'.Q.)
Quantity
-Facllitles:
1\11 in exceSG of:
'1' . P . Q .
-Chernlcals;
Lint of 407
C)(tremely
hazardous
chemicals"
--1 nforma tion:
Ñ~\ïiïe::, nd Lôca lion
---I
Community
night-lo-Know
See 313
Haterial
Sa~~\:y
Oa ta'
Shee t UISOS)
and
Inventories
Environmental
Emissions
Inv<.Úitory
I
I
-facilities: -Facilities:
SIC Code 20-39 SIC Co(~O-
\o110SI11\, Pt 1900 \01/>10 emplo)
Regulated lIazardous and: l)use
Chemicals 10:000 Ihs:
-Chemicals: 2) manufactt
Cficmicals defined as >"5,000 lbs.
having hazardous proper--;Chemlcals:
t.tes under 05111\ Hazard List of 320
Communica U.on Program Toxic chemic
(~9 CfR, Pt 1900.1200) -Information
- I nforma tion: Env irolllllcn t.
31J-Elther HSDSls EmissJons
ot' 1 is t oJ: I nven tory b:
chemlctlls Chemical
SALINA - SALINE COUNTY
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DEPARITMENT
~55 N. TENT' .0. BOX 1465. PHONE 913-827-0326
SAL A, KANSAS 67402-1465
=- --,'.~ '\J~Q
~-~ ~- ~..-':. -~ " -ç:..Cr()
. - ---/ ~.~ <öl
,: :~: .,:. ? \) \<j \
. :.,." '~....' \)~C ('(.\\;tt. ~.
-== \ çQ'~ \')p
\ ",\~ç",""
- \ ~-J \t'.~\." December 30, 1987
.\;\. :t:¿:HH> \ \;\
TO:
Bill Harris, Acting City Manager
FROM:
Donald Rectenwald, Coordinator
\','<:.-J ~.<.:.../:::;i::.'
RE:
Funding - Title III
As per our phone call relating to funding I contacted our
State office and visited with Colonel Gar Weed. He
advised me there is a hazardous materials bill in Congress
that if passed will funnel funds down to State and Local
governments. He is looking into the matter and will advise
me but at the present time there isn't any funding except
for training purposes only. He also, advised that the
Environmental Protection agency will provide some reim-
bursement to local governments for cleanup of spills, etc.
but they have some stipulations that will have to be met.
One is having a plan for the area of concern. This is
what we are working on.
I contacted Ron Smith from the State Environmental Health
Department in Topeka and if we had an illegal dump of
chemicals or hazardous waste in Salina or Saline County
the City or County could dispose of the products under
the Superfund in Kansas if it was an accident on the
highway or within a business the generator of the product
would be responsible for the cleanup and disposal of the
product.
-
- - --
-- - - --
-- -
- --
1987
LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES FOR BUSINESS IN THE Title III SALINE COUNTY PLANNING DISTRICT
L. L. (Sparky) Hensley
Beechcraft Emer. Coord.
John F. Pfeiffer
Exide(Genera1 Battery)
Safety & Health Supervisor
Larry Arnold
Garrison Grain Company
Erwin I. Mitchell
Garrison Grain Company
Gerald McGuire
Mid-America Pipeline Co.
Division Manager
2656 Scanlan Salina, KS 67401 827-9684
413 E. Berg Rd Salina, KS 67401 825-6276
101 1st. St. New Cambria 67470 825-5039
7342 E. Schilling Rd.
Kipp, Kansas 67401 536-4252
Box 1336
67460(316)241-6674
McPherson, KS
Wenda 1 B. North
Mid-America Pipeline Co. Box 1336 McPherson, KS
(24 hour emergency telephone - (918)584-4471)
67460(316)834-2232
Saline Valley Terminal
Safety Coordinator 511 N. Santa Fe Salina, KS 67401 827-4484
Western Star Mill 316 N. Santa Fe Salina, KS 67401 825-1541
Research Products Box 1460 Salina, KS 67401 825-2181
Edward Himburg
Darrell Yost
Jim Allen
The following companies have MSDS forms for all products and chemicals in the Emergency Preparedness office.
Beech Aircraft Coorporation
Exide Battery Corporation
Koch Materials Company
Mid-America Pipeline
Research Products
Saline Valley Terminal
Western Star Mill
Dennis Carlson
Roy Allen
Vi Justus
Dana Morse
Darrell Wilson
John Woody
Gerald Smyth
Chairman
Donald H. Rectenwald
Dave Robertson
Jerry Scott
Joe Knott
Warren Griffin
Rex Snavely
Jack Hinnenkamp
Darvin Carlson
Dave Foor
Carl Garten
Wilma Ray
John Wachholz
Ben Nwaosu
Chuck Stillwagen
TITLE III, PUBLIC LAW 99-499
LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE
SALINE PLANNING DISTRICT
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
City Commissioner
County Administrator
Sheriff
Police Chief
Asst. Coordinator EP
Coordinator EP
Fire Chief
Fire Dept.. Capt. Inspect.
EMS Director
Environmental Health
Saline County
Asbury Hospital Asst. Adm.
St. John's Hospital
Maintenance Supply
Saline County Engineer
KSAL News Director
Extension Service
Red Cross
Audobon Society
KinQ ~hpmi~Al- ~hpmiA~
--g --------, -------
County Weed Dept.
300 W. Ash
j88 ti: *~R
300 W. Ash
. 251 N~rth 10th.
255 North 10th.
255 North 10th.
255 North 10th.
222 W. Elm
222 W. Elm
222 W. Elm
300 W. Ash
400 S. Santa Fe
139 North Penn
300 W. Ash
Box 80
300 W. Ash
Box 1461
2075 Shalimar Dr
If.lf. n""..."""
--~- --"-J
300 W. Ash
Salina, KS
827-1961
827-1961
823-2277
825-0833
825-5488
825-0571
827-0326
827-0326
827-0411
827-0411
827-0411
Salina. KS
Salina, KS
Salina, KS
Salina, KS
Salina. KS
Salina, KS
Salina. KS
Salina. KS
Salina, KS
Salina, KS
Salina, KS
Salina, KS
827-9376
827-4411
Salina. KS
Salina. KS
827-5591
823-2327
823-1111
827-3651
827-3644
825-7742
I
Salina. KS
Salina. KS
Salina. KS
Salina. KS
Q"l-f....a VC!
~~~~..... 4'"
o'}c__n'}c~
U'J-U'JU
Salina. KS
827-3131
3. Tasks of the Planning Team
¡ I
3.1
Introduction
:::JJ
The major tasks of the planning team in
completing hazardous materials planning
are:
0
Review of existing plans, which
prevents plan overlap and incon-
sistency, provides useful infor-
mation and ideas. and facilitates
the coordination of the plan with
other plans;
0
Hazards analysis, that includes
hazards identification. vulnerabil-
ity analysis, and risk analysis;
c.
0
Assessment of preparedness,
prevention, and response capa-
bilities, that identifies existing
prevention measures and re-
sponse capabilitie8 (including
mutual aid agreements) I and as-
sesses their adequacy;
0
Completion of hazardous mate-
rials planning that describes the
personnel, equipment. and pro-
cedures to be used in case of
accidental release of a hazard-
ous material; and
0
Development of an ongoing
program for plan implementa-
tion/maintenance, training, and
exercising.
This chapter discusses the planning tasks
that are conducted prior to the! prepara-
tion of the emergency plan. Chapters 4
and 5 provide guidance on plan format
and content. Chapter 6 discusses the
team's responsibilities for conducting in-
ternal and external reviews. exercises. in-
cident reviews. and training. This chapter
begins with a discussion of the organiza-
tional responsibilities of the planning
team.
II
3.2
Review of Existing Plans
::J
Before undertaking any other work, steps
should be taken to search out and review
all existing emergency plans. The main
reasons for reviewing these plans are (1)
to minimize work efforts by building upon
or modifying existing emergency planning
and response information and (2) to en-
sure proper coordination with other re-
lated plans. To the extent possible. cur-
rently used plans should be amended to
account for the special problems posed
by hazardous materials. thereby avoiding
redundant emergency plans. Even plans
Page 19
that are no longer used may provide a
useful starting point, More general plans
can also be a source of information and
ideas. In seeking to identify existing
plans. it will be helpful to consult clrganiza-
tions such as:
0
State and local emergency man-
agement agencies;
0
Fire department~;
0
Police departments;
0
State and local environmental
agencies;
When reviewing the existing plans. of local
industry and industrial associaticJns. the
planning team should obtain a copy of the
CAER program handbook produced by
CMA. (See Section 1.5.4.) Tl"le hand-
book provides useful information and en-
courages industry-community c:oopera-
tion in emergency planning.
0
State and local transportation
agencies;
0
State and local public health
agencies;
0
Public service agencies;
In addition to the above organizations.
planning teams should coordinate with the
RRTs and OSCs described in Section
1.4.1. Communities can contact or obtain
information on the RRT and OSC covering
their area through the EPA Regional office
or USCG district office. (See Appendix F
for a list of these contacts.)
0
Volunteer groups, such as the
Red Cross;
0
Local industry and industrial as-
sociations; and
0
Regional offices of Federal agen-
cies such as EPA and FEMA.
. 3.3 Hazards Analysis: II
Hazards Identification, Vulnerability Analysis, Risk Analysis
A hazards analysis is a critical component of planning for hazardous materials retleases.
The information developed in a hazards analysis provides both the factual basi~) to set
priorities for planning and also the necessary documentation for supporting ha:zardous
materials planning and response efforts.
There are several concepts involved in analyzing the dangers posed by hazardous materi-
als. Three terms - hazard. vulnerability, risk - have different technical meanings but
are sometimes used interchangeably. This guidance adopts the following definitions:
0
Hazard. Any situation that has the potential for causing injury to life. or damage
to property and the environment.
0
Vulnerability. The susceptibílity of life. property, and the environment to injury or
damage if a hazard manifests its potential.
0
Risk. The probability that injury to life, or damage to property and the E3nviron-
ment will occur.
A hazards analysis may include vulnerability analysis and risk analysis. or it may simply
identify the nature and location of hazards in the community. Developing a complete
hazards analysis that examines all hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks may be neither possi-
ble nor desirable. This may be particularly true for smaller communities that have less
expertise and fewer resources to contribute to the task. The planning team must deter-
mine the level of thoroughness that is appropriate. In any case, planners should ask local
facilities whether they have already completed a facility hazards analysis. Title III requires
facility owners or operators to provide to local emergency planning committees informa-
tion needed for the planning process.
Page 20
C"
C"
I
I.
('
"
As important as knowing how to perform a hazards analysis is deciding how dEltailed an
analysis to conduct. While a complete analysis of all hazards would be informative. it may
not be feasible or practical given resource and time constraints. The value of a limited
hazards analysis should not be underestimated. Often the examination of only major
hazards is necessary, and these may be studied without undertaking an elabc)rate risk
analysis. Thus, deciding what is really needed and what can be afforded is an important
early step in the hazards analysis process. In fact, the screening of hazards arid setting
analysis priorities is an essential task of the planning team.
The costs of hazards analysis can and often should be reduced by focusing on the haz-
ards posed by only the most common and/or most hazardous substances. A small num-
ber of types 'of hazardous materials account for the vast majority of incidents and risk.
The experience from DOT's Lessons Learned is that the most prevalent dangers from
hazardous materials are posed by common substances. such as gasoline. other flamma-
ble materials, and a few additional chemicals. The CEPP technical guidance presents a
method that may be used to assist in ranking hazards posed by less prevalent but ex-
tremely hazardous substances, such as liquid chlorine, anhydrous ammonia. and hydro-
chloric and sulfuric acids.
r>
\(;
A hazards analysis can be greatly simplified by using qualitative methods (i.e., analysis
that is based on judgmen~ rather than measurement of. quantities involved). Smaller com-
munities may find that their fire and police chiefs can provide highly accurate assess-
ments of the community's hazardous materials problems. Other. larger communities
may have the expertise and resources to utilize quantitative techniques but may decide to
substitute qualitative methods in their place should it be cost effective to do S().
Simple or sophisticated, the hazards analysis serves to characterize the nature of the
problem posed by hazardous materials. The information that is developed in thE~ hazards
analysis should then be used by the planning team to orient planning appropriate to the
community's situation. Do not commit valuable resources to plan development until a
hazards analysis is performed.
3.3.1 Developing the Hazards Analysis
The procedures that are presented in this section are intended to provide a simplified
approach to hazards analysis for both facility and transportation hazards. Communities
undertaking a hazards analysis should refer to CEPP technical guidance for fixed facilities
and to Lessons Learned and Community Teamwork for transportation.
The components of a hazards analysis include the concepts of hazard. vulnerability. and
risk. The discussion that follows summarizes the basic procedures for conducting each
component.
~ A. Hazards Identification
The hazards identification provides information on the facility and transportation situations
that have the potential for causing injury to life, or damage to property and the! environ-
ment due to a hazardous materials spill or release. The hazards identificatiC)n should
indicate:
0
The types and quantities of hazardous materials located in or transported
through a community;
Page 21
0
The location of hazardous materials facilities and routes; and
(~,.
0
The nature of the hazard (e.g.. fire, explosions) most likely to accompany haz-
ardous materials. spills or releases.
To develop this information, consider hazardous materials at fixed sites and those that are
transported by highway, rail, water, air, and pipeline. Examine hazardous materials at:
0
Chemical plants;
0
Refineries;
0
0
Industrial facilities;
Petroleum and natural gas tank farms;
Storagë facilities/warehouses;
0
0
Trucking terminals;
0
0
Railroad yards;
Hospital. educational. and governmental facilities;
Waste disposal and treatment facilities;
0
0
Waterfront facilities. particularly commercial marine terminals;
0
Vessels in port;
('~,~,;
0
Airports;
0
Nuclear facilities; and
For individual facilities. consider hazardous materials:
0
Major transportation corridors and transfer points.
0 Production;
0 Storage;
0 Processing;
0 Transportation; and
0 Disposal.
Some situations will be obvious. To identify the less obvious ones, interview fire and
police chiefs, industry leaders. and reporters; review news releases and fire and police
department records of past incidents. Also, consult lists of hazardous chemicals that
have been identified as a result of compliance with right-to-know laws. (Title III of SARA
requires facility owners and operators to submit to the local emergency planning ccmmit-
tee a material safety data sheet for specified chemicals. and emergency and hazclrdous
chemical inventory forms. Section 303 (d) (3) of Title III states that U upon request from
the emergency planning committee, the owner or operator of the facility shall promptly
provide information... necessary for developing and implementing the emergency plan. ")
Use the CEPP technical guidance for help in evaluating the hazards associated with air-
borne releases of extremely hazardous substances.
\
Page 22
(
The hazards identification should result in compilation of those situations that pose the
most serious threat of damage to the community. Location maps and charts are an
excellent means of depicting this information.
~ B. Vulnerability Analysis
The vulnerability analysis identifies what in the community is susceptible to damage should
a hazardous materials release occur. The vulnerability analysis should provide informa-
tion on:
0
The extent of the vulnerable zone (i.e., the significantly affected area) fclr a spill
or release and the conditions that influence the zone of impact (e.g., size of
release, wind direction);
0
The population, in terms of size and types (e.g., residents, employees, sensi-
tive populations - hospitals, schools, nursing homes, day care centers), that
could be expected to be within the vulnerable zone;
0
The private and public property (e.g.. homes, businesses, offices) that may be
damaged, including essential support systems (e.g., water, food, power', medi-
cal) and transportation corridors; and
0
The environment that may be affected, and the impact on sensitive natur:al areas
and endangered species.
(
Refer to the CEPP technical guidance or DOT's E:mergency Response Guidebook tC) obtain
information on the vulnerable zone for a hazardous materials release. For Information on
the population, property, and environmental resources within the vulnerable zone, con-
sider conducting:
0
A windshield survey of the area (i.e.. first hand observation by driving through
an area);
0
Interviews of fire, police, and planning department personnel; and
0
A review of planning department documents, and statistics on land use, popula-
tion, highway usage, and the area's infrastructure.
The vulnerability analysis should summarize information on all hazards determined to be
major in the hazards identification.
~ C. Risk Analysis
The risk analysis assesses the probability of damage (or injury) taking place in the com-
munity due to a hazardous materials release and the actual damage (or injury) that might
occur, in light of the vulnerability analysis. Some planners may choose to analyze worst-
case scenarios. The risk analysis may provide information on:
0
The probability that a release will occur and any unusual environmental condi-
tions, such as areas in flood plains, or the possibility of simultaneous emElrgency
incidents (e.g., flooding or fire hazards resulting in release of hazardous materi-
als) ;
0
The type of harm to people (acute, delayed, chronic) and the associated high-
risk groups;
0
The type of damage to property (temporary, repairable, permanent); and
Page 23
0
The type of damage to the environment (recoverable, permanent).
('~'
Use the Chemical Profiles in the CEPP technical guidance or a similar guide to obtain
information on the type of risk associated with the accidental airborne release of ex-
tremely hazardous substances.
Developing occurrence probability data may not be feasible for all communitie~¡. Such
analysis can require specialized expertise not available to a community. This is e:specially
true of facility releases which call for detailed analysis by competent safety enginl3ers and
others (e.g., industrial hygienists) of the operations and associated risk factors of the
plant and engineering system in question (refer to the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers' Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures). Transportation release analysis
is more straigl!tforward, given the substantial research and established techniques that
have been developed in this area (refer to Community Teamwork and Lessons Li;larned).
Communities should not be overly concerned with developing elaborate quantiti:itive re-
lease probabilities. Instead, occurrence probabilities can be described in relative terms
(e.g., low, moderate, high). The emphasis should be on developing reasonaible esti-
mates based on the best available expertise.
3.3.2 Obtaining Facility InformatIon
The information that is needed about a facility for hazards analysis may already be assem-
bled as a result of previous efforts. As indicated in Section 1.4.1, industry is required by
TItle III of SARA to provide inventory and release information to the appropriate em'ergency
planning committee. Local emergency planning committees are specifically entitled to
any information from facility owners and operators deemed necessary for developing and
implementing the emergency plan. The EPA Administrator can order facilities to comply
with a local committee's requests for necessary information; local planning committees
can bring a civil suit against a facility that refuses to provide requested information, Some
State and local governments have adopted community right-to-know legislation. These
community right-to-know provisions vary, but they generally require industry anld other
handlers of hazardous materials to provide information to State or local authoritiesl and/or
the public about hazardous materials in the community. Wisconsin. for example, requires
all hazardous materials spills to be reported to a State agency. Such requiremel1ts pro-
vide a data base that the planning team can use to determine the types of relea~;es that
have occurred in and around the community.
(',
Requesting information from a facility for a hazards analysis can be an opening lor con-
tinuing dialogue within the community. The information should be sought in such a way
that facilities are encouraged to cooperate and participate actively in the planning process
along with governmental agencies and other community groups. Respecting a CCJmmer-
cial facility's needs to protect confidential business information (such as sensitive process
information) will encourage a facility to be forthcoming with the information neces:sary for
the community's emergency planning. The planning team can learn what the facility is
doing and what measures have been put in place to reduce risks, and also identi:fy what
additional resources such as personnel, training, and equipment are needed in the com-
munity. Because facilities use different kinds of hazard assessments (e.g., HAZOP,
Fault-tree analysis), local planners need to indicate specifically what categories of infor-
mation they are interested in receiving. These categories may include:
0
Identification of chemicals of concern;
Page 24
F¡~'
G¡"
I
\
\
The type of plan envisioned in the sample
outline would affect all governmental and
private organizations involved in emer-
gency response operations in a particular
community. Its basic purpose would be to
provide the necessary data and documen-
tation to anticipate and coordinate the
many persons and organizations that
would be involved in emergency response
actions. As such. the plan envisioned in
this sample outline is intended neither to
be 8 "hip-pocket" emergency response
manual, nor to serve as a detailed Stan-
;dardOperatlng Procedures -(SOP) manual'
- for each .of. the many agencies and organI-
zations involved in emergency response
actions. although it could certainly be
used as a starting point for such manuals.
Agencies that want to develop an SOP
manual could begin with the information.
contained under the appropriate function
in Plan Section C of this sample outline. If
it is highly probable that an orgarllz8tion
will be involved in a hazardous materials
incident response, then a more highly de-
tailed SOP should be developed.
. .
Exhibit 4
SAMPLE OUTLINE OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PU~N
(NOTE: Depending upon local circumstances, communities will develop some sections of
the plan more extensively than other sections. See page 39 for how the sample outline
relates to SARA TItle III requirements.)
A. Introduction
1 . Incident Information Summary
2. Promulgation Document
3. Legal Authority and Responsibility for Responding
4. Table of Contents
5. Abbreviations and Definitions
6. Assumptions/Planning Factors
7. Concept of Operations
a. Governing Principles
b. Organizational Roles and Responsibilities
c. Relationship to Other Plans
8. Instructions on Plan Use
a. Purpose
b. Plan Distribution
9. Record of Amendments
B. Emergency Assistance Telephone Roster
C. Response Functions-
1 . Initial Notification of Response Agencies
2. Direction and Control
-These" Response Functions" are equivalent to the" functional annexes" of a multi-haz-
ard emergency operations plan described ín CPG ~ -8.
(continued on next page)
Page 37
Exhibit 4 (Continued)
SAMPLE. OUTLINE OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY F)LAN
c:.
Communications (among Responders)
Warning Systems and Emergency Public Notification
Public Information/Community Relations
Resource Management
Health and Medical Services
Response Personnel Safety
Personal Protection of Citizens
a. Indoor Protection
b. Evacuation Procedures
c. Other Public Protection Strategies
10. Fire and Rescue
11. Law Enforcement
12. Ongoing Incident Assessment
13. Human Services
14. Public Works
15. Others
D. Containment and Cleanup
1. Techniques for Spill Containment and Cleanup
2. Resources for Cleanup and Disposal
E. Documentation and Investigative Follow-up
F. Procedures for Testing and Updating Plan
1 . Testing the Plan
2. Updating the Plan
G. Hazards Analysis (Summary)
H. References
1. Laboratory, Consultant, and Other Technical Support Resources
2. Technical Library
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
f.
\
Page 38
APPENDIX A
IMPLEMENTING TITLE III: EMERGENCY PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY RIGHT - TO-KNOW:
SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 1986
This appendix includes a detailed sum-
mary of Title III of SARA. The material
printed in italics indicates how informa-
tion generated by compliance with Title
III can be of use to local emergency
planning committees. Exhibit 5 is a list
of key dates relative to Title III imple-
mentation. Exhibit 6 is a graphic repre-
sentation of the flow of information re-
quired by Title III. Exhibit 7 summa-
rizes ways in which Title III information
can be used by local emergency planning
committees. Exhibit 8 identifies various
lists of chemicals mentioned in Title III
and indicates the purpose(s) of each
list.
On October 17. 1986, the President
signed the" Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986" (SARA) into
law. One part of the new SARA provisions
is Title III: the" Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986."
Title III establishes requirements for Fed-
eral, State, and local governments. and
industry regarding emergency planning
and community right-to-know reporting
on hazardous chemicals. This legislation
builds upon the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program (CEPP) and nu-
merous State and local programs aimed
at helping communities to meet their re-
sponsibilities in regard to potential chemi-
cal emergencies.
Title III has four major sections: emer-
gency planning (§ 301-303), emergency
notification (§ 304), community right-to-
know reporting requirements (§ 311,
31 2), and toxic chemical release reporting
-- emissions inventory (§ 313). The sec-
tions are interrelated in a way th2lt unifies
the emergency planning and community
right-ta-know provisions of Title III. (See
Exhibit 6.)
In addition to increasing the public's
knowledge and access to information on
the presence 01 hazardous chemicals in
their communities and releases of these
chemicals into the environment, the
community right-to-know provisions of
Title III will be important in pr4~paring
emergency plans.
This appendix includes a summary of
these four major sections, followed by a
discussion of other Title III topics of inter-
est to emergency planners.
Sections 301-303: Emergency
Planning
The emergency planning sections! are de-
signed to develop State and local govern-
ment emergency preparedness and re-
sponse capabilities through better coordi-
nation and planning. especially at the local
level.
Title III requires that the Governor of each
State designate a State emergt~ncy re-
sponse commission (SERC) by April 17,
1987. While existing State organizations
can be designated as the SERC, the com-
mission should have broad-based repre-
sentation. Public agencies and depart-
ments concerned with issues retlating to
the environment. natural resources.
emergency management. public: health,
occupational safety, and transportation all
have important roles in Title III 8lctivities.
Page A-I
Various public and private sector groups
and associations with interest and exper-
tise in TItle III issues can also be included
on the SERC.
The SERC must designate local emer-
gency planning districts by July 17. 1987,
and appoint local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs) within one month af-
ter a district is designated. The SERC is
responsible for supervising and coordinat-
ing the activities of the LEPCs, for estab-
lishing procedures for receiving and proc-
essing public requests for information col-
lected under other sections of TItle III, and
for reviewing local emergency plans.
The LEPC must include elected State and
local officials, police, fire, civil defense.
public health professionals, environ-
mental, hospital. and transportation offi-
cials as well as representatives of facili-
ties, community groups, and the media.
Interested persons may petition the SERC
to modify the membership of an LEPC.
No later than September 17. 1987, facili-
ties subject to the emergency planning re-
quirements mt,'st notify the LEPC of a rep-
resentative who will participate in the plan-
ning process as a facility emergency co-
ordinator.
FaciUty emergency coordinators will be
of great service to LEPCs. For exam-
ple, they can provide technical assis-
tance, an understanding of facility re-
sponse procedures, information about
chemicals and their potential effects on
nearby persons and the environment,
and response training opportunities.
CEPP experience revealed that, as a re-
sult of CMA's CAER initiative, there al-
ready exist a large number of plant
managers and other faciUty personnel
who want to cooperate with local com-
munity planners.
_X"""'iiJ>~-'":$(Ø;""~""~".':'i>."'"~W~.'ØIS<
The LEPC must establish rules, give public
notice of its activities, and establish pro-
cedures for handling public requests for
information.
(
The LEPC' s primary responsibility will be
to develop an emergency response plan
by October 17. 1988. In developing this
plan, the local committee will evaluate
available resources for preparing for and
responding to a potential chemical acci-
dent. The plan must include:
.
Identification of facilities and ex-
tremely hazardous substances
transportation routes;
.
Emergency response procedures,
on site and off site;
.
Designation of a community coordi-
nator and facility coordinator(s) to
implement the plan;
.
Emergency notification procedures:
.
Methods for determining the occur-
rence of a release and the probable
affected area and population:
("
.
Description of community and indus-
try emergency equipment and facili-
ties, and the identity of persons re-
sponsible for them;
.
Evacuation plans;
.
Description and schedules of a train-
ing program for emergency re-
sponse to chemical emergencies:
and
.
Methods and schedules for exercis-
ing emergency response plans.
To assist the LEPC in preparing and re-
viewing plans, Congress required the Na-
tional Response Team (NRT). composed
of 14 Federal agencies with emergency
preparedness and response responsibili-
ties, to publish guidance on emergency
planning. This Hazardous Materials Emer-
gency Planning Guide is being published
by the NRT to fulfill this requirement.
Page A-2
The emergency plan must be reviewed by
the SERC upon completion and reviewed
annually by the LEPC. The Regional Re-
sponse Teams (RRTs). composed of Fed-
eral Regional officials and State represen-
tatives, may review the plans and provide
assistance if the LEPC so requests.
The emergency planning activities of the
LEPC and facilities should initially be fo-
cused on, but not limited to, the ex-
tremely hazardous substances published
as an interim final rule in the November
17, 1986, Federal Register. The list in-
cluded the threshold planning quantity
(TPQ) for each substance. EPA can re-
vise the list and TPQs but must take into
account the toxicity. reactivity, volatility.
dispersability, combustibility, or flamma-
bility of a substance. Consult EPA Re-
gional offices for a copy of the TItle III
(Section 302) list of extremely hazardous
substances.
(
Any facility that produces, uses, or stores
any of the listed chemicals in a quantity
greater than the TPQ must meet all emer-
gency planning requirements. In addition,
the SERC or the Governor can designate
additional facilities, after public comment,
to be subject to these requirements. By
May 17, 1987, facilities must notify the
SERC that they are subject to these re-
quirements. If, after that time, a facility
first begins to produce, use, or store an
extremely hazardous substance in an
amount exceeding the threshold planning
quantity, it must notify the SERC and LEPC
within 60 days.
Each SERC must notify EPA Regional of-
fices of all facilities subject to Title III plan-
ning requirements.
In order to complete information on
many sections of the emergency plan,
the LEPC will require data from the fa-
cilities covered under the plan. Title III
provides authority for the LEPC to se-
cure from a facility information that it
needs for emergency planning and re-
sponse. This is provided by S~:ction 303
(d)(3), which states that:
. Upon request from the emerg/!ncy plan-
ning committee, the owner or operator
of the facility shall promptly provide in-
formation to such committee necessary
for developing and impleme.rating the
emergency plan. "
Within the trade secret restrictions con-
tained in Section 322, LEPCs should be
able to use this authority to selr:ure from
any facility subject to the plarming pro-
visions of the law information needed
for such mandatory plan COlttents as:
facility equipment and emergency re-
sponse capabilities, facility emergency
response personnel, and faciUty evacu-
ation plans.
Some of the facilities subject to Section
302 planning requirements mj:JY not be
subject to Sections 311-12 reporting re-
quirements, which are curremly limited
to manufacturers and importE'rs in SIC
codes 20-39. LEPCs may UJ;e Section
303(d)(3) authority to gain information
such as name(s), MSDSs, and quantity
and location of chemicals prej~ent at fa-
cilities subject to Section 302.
Section 304: Emergency Notification
If a facility produces, uses, or stores one
or more hazardous chemical, it must im-
mediately notify the LEPC and the SERC if
there is a release of a listed hazardous
substance that exceeds the reportable
quantity for that substance. Substances
subject to this notification reqLlirement in-
clude substances on the list of extremely
hazardous substances published in the
Federal Register on November 17, 1986.
and substances subject to the emergency
notification requirements of CERCLA Sec-
tion 103(a).
Page A-3
Information included in this initial noti~
fication (as well as the additional infor-
mation in the follow-up written notice
described below) can be used by the
LEPC to prepare and/or revise the
emergency plan. This information
should be especially helpful in meeting
the requirement to list methods for de-
termining if a release has occurred and
identifying the area and population most
likely to be affected.
The initial notification of a release can be
by telephone, radio, or in person. Emer~
gency notification requirements involving
transportation incidents may be satisfied
by dialing 911 or, in the absence of a 911
emergency number. calling the operator.
This emergency notification needs to in-
clude: the chemical name; an indication
of whether the substance is an extremely
hazardous substance; an estimate of the
quantity released into the environment:
the time and duration of the release; the
medium into which the release occurred;
any known or anticipated acute or chronic
health risks associated with the emer-
gency and, where appropriate. advice re~
garding medical attention necessary for
exposed individuals; proper precautions,
such as evacuation: and the name and
telephone number of a contact person.
Section 304 also requires a follow-up writ-
ten emergency notice after the release.
The follow-up notice or notices shall up-
date information included in the initial no-
tice and provide additional information on
actual response actions taken, any known
or anticipated data on chronic health risks
associated with the release. and advice
regarding medical attention necessary for
exposed individuals.
The requirement for emergency notifica-
tion comes into effect with the establish-
ment of the SERC and LEPC. If no SERC
is established by April 17. 1987. the Gov-
ernor becomes the SERC and notification
should be made to him/her. If no LEPC is
established by August 17. 1987 10::81 no-
tification must be made to the apprl:)priate
local emergency response perc.¡onnel,
such as the fire department.
(~.'"
Sections 311-312: Community Right-
to-Know Reporting Requirements
-
As noted above, Section 303(d)(3) gives
LEPCs access to information from fa-
cmties subject to Title III plannillg re-
quirements. Sections 311-12 provide
information about the nature, qul.Jlntity,
and location of chemicals at mallY fa-
cilities not subject to the S,~ction
303 (d) (3) requirement. For thi~. rea-
son, LEPCs will find Sections 3.11-12
information especially helpful whe.rz pre-
paring a comprehensive plan for the en-
tire planning district.
There are two community right-to-know
reporting requirements. Section 311 re-
quires a facility which must prepare or
have available material safety data. sheets
(MSDSs) under the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) hazard
communications regulations to submit
either copies of its MSDSs or 81 list of
MSDS chemicals to the LEPC, thE! SERC,
and the local fire department. Currently,
only facilities in Standard Industriall Classi.
fication (SIC) Codes 20-39 (manufactur-
ers and importers) are subject t'o thes~
OSHA regulations.
The initial submission of the MSDSs or list
is required no later than October 17,
1987, or 3 months after the f2lcility is
required to prepare or have avaii¡able an
MSDS under OSHA regulations. A revised
MSDS must be provided to update an
MSDS which was originally subnnitted if
significant new information regarding a
chemical is discovered.
(
¿
EP A encourages LEPCs and fire depart-
ments seriousLy to consider contacting
Page A-4
facmties prior to the deadline of Octo-
ber 17, 1987 to request the submission
of lists rather than MSDS forms. In
communities with a large number of
facmties, handling large numbers of
chemicals, and in communities with
limited capabmties to store and manage
the MSDSs, the list of MSDS chemicals
from the facmty would be more useful
than the forms themselves, and likely to
be more easily produced.
LEPCs also have the option of using the
chemical names provided to develop
additional data on each of the
chemicals, using a variety of data
sources, including several on-line data
bases maintained by agencies of the
Federal government.
Specific MSDSs could be requested on
chemicals that are of particular con-
cern. In general every MSDS will
provide the LEPC and the fire
departments in each community with the
following information on each of the
chemicals covered:
(
.
The chemical name;
.
Its basic characteristics, for example:
0
toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity,
known health effects, including
chronic effects from exposure,
basic precautions in handling,
storage, and use,
basic countermeasures to take in
the event of a fire, explosion, leak,
and
0
0
0
0
basic protective equipment
minimize exposure.
In any case, these data should be useful
for the planning to be accomplished by
the LEPC and first responders,
especially fire departments and hazmat
teams. Both hazards analysis and the
development of emergency counter-
measures should be facilitated by the
availability of MSDS information.
""'-">$^ .. .. Ø»:=:Z~~:~~~::::~:«>$»;:~<-:<-:<-~::::~~øxø;::=:;::;:<"ØW$X<:*
If the facil.ity owner or operator chooses to .
submit a list of MSDS chemicals. the list
must include. the chemical name or
common name of each substaince and
any hazardous component as provided on
the MSDS. This list must be orgl:mized in
categories of health and physical hazards
as set forth in OSHA regulations or as
modified by EPA.
If a list is submitted, the facility must pro;..-
vide the MSDS for any chemical on the list
upon the request of the LEPC. Under
Section 311. EPA may establish threshold
quantities for hazardous chemic~lls below
which no facility must report.
The reporting requirement of Se(:tion 31 2
requires facilities to submit an emergency
and hazardous chemical inventor( form to
the LEPC, the SERC. and the local fire
department. The hazardous chemicals
covered by Section 312 are the same
chemicals for which facilities are required
to submit MSDS forms or thel list for
Section 311.
Under Sections 311-1 2. EP A may
establish threshold quantities for
hazardous chemicals below which no
facility is subject to this requireml:lnt. See
the proposed rule in the January 27, 1987
Federal Register. The Final Rule will be
published before October 1987.
The inventory form incorporates Sl two-tier
approach. Under Tier I, facilities must
submit the following aggregate
information for each applicable OSHA
category of health and physical hazard:
to
.
An estimate (in ranges) of the
maximum amount of chemicals for
each category present at t~le facility
at any time during the preceding
calendar year;
.
An estimate (in ranges) of the
average daily amount of chemicals
in each category; and
.
The general location of hazardous
chemicals in each category.
Page A-5
TIer I information shall be submitted on or
before March 1 . 1988 and annually
thereafter on March 1.
The public may also request additional
information for specific facilities from the
SERC and LEPC. Upon the request of the
LEPC. the SERC. or the local fire
department. the facility must provide the
following TIer II information for each
covered substance to the organization
making the request:
.
The chemical name or the common
name as indicated on the MSDS;
.
An estimate (in ranges) of the
maximum amount of the chemical
present at any time during the
preceding calendar year;
.
A brief description of the manner of
storage of the chemical;
.
The location of the, chemical at the
facility; and
.
An indication of whether the owner
elects to withhold information from
disclosure to the public.
The information submitted by facilities
under Sections 311 and 312 must
generally be made available to the public
by local and State governments during
normal working hours.
As in the case of the MSDS data, this
Section 312 information may be useful
for LEPCs interested in extending the
scope of their planning beyond the
facilities covered by Section 302, and
for reviewing and updating existing
plans. Section 312 information about
the quantity and location of chemicals
can be of use to fire departments in the
development of pre-fire plans. Section
312 data may be of limited use in the
initial planning process, given the fact
that initial emergency plans are to be
completed by October 17, 1988,
but they will be useful for the subse-
quent review and update of plans. Fa-
ciUty owners or operators, at the request
of the fire department, must ail()w the
fire department to conduct an on-site
inspection and provide specific informa-
tion about the location of haz(Jrdous
chemicals.
(" ,
Section 313: Toxic Chemical REllease
Reporting
Section 313 of TItle III requires EPA to
establish an inventory of toxic c:hemical
emissions from certain facilities. :=acilities
subject to this reporting requirem4~nt must
complete a toxic chemical release form (to
be prepared by EPA by June 1987) for
specified chemicals. The form must be
submitted to EPA and those State officials
designated by the Governor on or before
July 1. 1988. and annually theretafter on
July 1. reflecting releases during each
preceding calendar year.
The purpose of this reporting reQ1:Jirement
is to inform government officials and the
public about releases of toxic ci1emicals
into the environment. It will also assist in
research and the development of
regulations. guidelines, and standards.
The reporting requirement applies to
owners and operators of facilities that
have 10 or more full-time employees. that
are in Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) Codes 20 through 39. ,:snd that
manufactured. processed. or ()therwise
used a listed toxic chemical in EtXCess of
specified threshold quantities. The SIC
Codes mentioned cover basically all
manufacturing industries.
Facilities using listed toxic chemicals in
Quantities over 10. 000 pounds in a
calendar year are required to submit toxic
chemical release forms by July 1 of the
following year. Facilities manufal:turing or
processing any of these chemicals in
excess of 75.000 pounds in 1~~87 must
report by July 1 ,1988. Facilities
manufacturing or processing in øxcess of
50,000 pounds in 1988 must report by July
Page A-6
, . '989. Thereafter, facilities
manufacturing or processing more than
25,000 pounds in a year are required to
submit the form. EPA can revise these
threshold quantities and the SIC
categories involved.
The list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting consists initially of chemicals
listed for similar reporting purposes by the
States of New Jersey and Maryland.
There are over 300 chemicals and
categories on these lists. EPA can modify
this combined list. In adding a chemical
to the combined Maryland and New Jersey
lists, EPA must consider the following
factors:
(1 )
Is the substance known to cause
cancer or serious reproductive or
neurological disorders, genetic
mutations, or other chronic health
effects?
(2)
Can the substance cause
significant adverse acute health
effects as a result of continuous
or frequently recurring releases?
(
(3)
Can the substance cause an
adverse effect on the environment
because of its toxicity,
persistence, or tendency to
bioaccumulate?
Chemicals can be deleted if there is not
sufficient evidence to establish any of
these factors. State Governors or any
other person may petition the EPA
Administrator to add or delete a chemical
from the list for any of the above reasons.
EPA must either publish its reasons for
denying the petition, or initiate action to
implement the petition within 180 days.
Through early consultation with States or
EPA Regions, petitioners can avoid
duplicating previous petitions and be
assisted in locating sources of data
already collected on the problem of
concern and data sources to support their
petitions. EPA will conduct information
searches on chemicals contained in a
petition. focusing on the effects the
Page A-7
petitioners believes warrant addition or.
deletion.
The toxic chemical release form includes
the following information for released
chemicals:
.
The name, location, and type of
business;
.
Whether the chemical is
manufactured, process4:td. or
otherwise used and the general
categories of use of the chemical;
An estimate (in ranges) of the
maximum amounts of the toxic
chemical present at the facility at
any time during the preceding year;
.
.
Waste treatment and disposal
methods and the efficiency of
methods for each wastestn:lam;
.
The quantity of the chemical
entering each envirl:Jnmental
medium annually; and
.
A certification by a senior official that
the report is complete and 2lccurate.
EPA must establish and maintain a
national toxic chemical inventory based on
the data submitted. This information must
be computer accessible on a national
database.
In generaL these Section 313 reports
appear to be of limited vaLue in emer-
gency pLanning. Over time, however
they may contain information that can
be used by local planners in developing
a more complete understanding of the
total spectrum of hazards that a given
facility may pose to a community.
These reports will not be available to
States until July 1, 1988. These reports
do not go to the LEPCs directly but they
are likely to become available if the
LEPCs request them from the States.
"
Other Title III Provisions
In addition to these four major sections of
Title III, there are other provisions of
interest to local communities 0
Preemption
Section 321 stipulates that (with the
exception of the MSDS format and
content required by Section 311) Title
III does not preempt any State and local
laws. In effect, Title III imposes
minimum planning and reporting stan-
dards where no such standards (or less
stringent standards) exist. while
permitting States and localities to
pursue more stringent requirements as
they deem appropriate.
Trade Secrets
Section 322 of TItle III addresses trade
secrets and applies to Section 303 emer-
gency planning and Sections 311, 312,
313 regarding planning information,
community. right-to-know reporting
requirements, and toxic chemical release
reporting. Any person may withhold the
specific chemical identity of an extremely
hazardous substance or toxic chemical for
specific reasons. Even if the chemical
identity is withheld, the generic class or
category of the chemical must be
provided. Such information may be with-
held if the facility submits the withheld in-
formation to EPA along with an explanation
of why the information is a trade secret.
The information may not be withheld as a
trade secret unless the facility shows
each of the following:
.
The information has not been
disclosed to any other person other
than a member of the LEPC, a
government official, an employee of
such person or someone bound by a
confidentiality agreement, and that
measures have. been takl3n
protect the confidentiality;
to
(s..,.
.
The information is not required to be
disclosed to the public undt3r any
other Federal or State law;
.
The information is likely to cause
substantial harm to the competitive
position of the person; and
.
The chemical identity could not
reasonably be discovered by anyone
in the absence of disclosure.
Even if information can be legally withheld
from the public, Section 323 requires it
not to be withheld from health
professionals who require the information
for diagnostic purposes or from local
health officials who require the information
for assessment activities. In these cases,
the .person receiving the information must
be willing to sign a confidontiality
agreement with the facility.
Information claimed as trade secret and
substantiation for that claim mlJst be
submitted to EPA. People may challenge
trade secret claims by petitionin~J EPA,
which must then review the claim 2lnd rule
on its validity,
(
EPA will publish regulations governing
trade secret claims. The regulations will
cover the process for submis¡~ion of
claims, petitions for disclosure, and a
review process for these petitions.
Enforcement
Section 325 identifies the following en-
forcement procedures:
.
Civil penalties for facility owners or
operators who fail to comlJly with
emergency planning requirements;
.
Civil, administrative. and criminal
penalties for owners or operators
who fail to comply with thE~ emer-
gency notification requirements of
Section 304:
Page A-8
.
Civil and administrative penalties for
owners or operators who fail to com-
ply with the reporting requirements
in Sections 311-313:
.
Civil and administrative penalties for
frivolous trade secret claims; and
.
Criminal penalties for the disclosure
of trade secret information.
In addition to the Federal government,
State and local governments and individ-
ual citizens may enforce the provisions of
TItle 1\1 through the citizen suit authority
provided in Section 326.
Training
Section 305 mandates that Federal
emergency training programs must
emphasize hazardous chemicals. It also
authorizes the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to provide
$5 million for each of fiscal years 1987,
1988, 1989, and 1990 for training grants
to support State and local governments.
These training grants are designed to
improve emergency planning,
preparedness. mitigation, response, and
recovery capabilities. Such programs
must give special emphasis to hazardous
chemical emergencies. The training
grants may not exceed 80 percent of the
cost of any such programs. The
remaining 20 percent must come from
non-Federal sources. Consult FEMA and/
or EPA Regional offices for a list of training
courses.
Review of Emergency Systems
Under Section 305, EPA has initiated a
review of emergency systems for
monitoring, detecting, and preventing
releases of extremely hazardous
substances at representative facilities that
produce, use, or store these substi:inces.
It also is examining public alert sy:~tems.
EPA will report interim findings to the
Congress no later than May 17, 19137 and
issue a final report of finding:s and
recommendations to the Corigrelss by
April 17, 1988.
The report must include EPA's findings
regarding each of the following:
.
Status of current techncllogical
capabilities to 1} monitor, detect,
and prevent significant releases of
extremely hazardous substances; 2)
determine the magnitude and
direction of the hazard posied by
each release; 3) identify specific
substances; 4) provide data on the
specific chemical composition of
such releases; and 5) determine
relative concentrations of the
constituent substances;
.
Status of public emergency alert
devices or systems for effective
public warning of accidental mleases
of extremely hazardous substances
into any media; and
.
The technical and ec:::momic
feasibility of establishing,
maintaining, and operatinçl alert
systems for detecting releasl3s.
The report must also include EPA's
recommendations for the followinçl:
.
Initiatives to support development of
new or improved technolol~ies or
systems that would assist thE~ timely
monitoring, detection, and
prevention of releases of extremely
hazardous substances; and
.
Improving devices or systems for
effectively alerting the public in the
event of an accidental release.
Page A-9
EXHIBIT 5
KEY TITLE III DATES
(~.
The following is a list of some key dates relative to the implementation of the U Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986."
November 17, 1986
November 17, 1986
January 27, 1987
March 17, 1987
April 17, 1987
May 17, 1987
June 1, 1987
July 17, 1987
August 17, 1987
(or 30 days after
designation of
districts, which-
ever is sooner)
September 1 7, 1987
(or 30 days after
local committee is
formed, whichever
is earlier)
October 17. 1987
March 1, 1988
April 17, 1988
July 1, 1988
(and annually
hereafter)
October 17. 1988
.
EPA publishes interim final List of Extremely
Hazardous Substances and their Threshold Planning
Quantities in Federal Register (§ 302 (a) (2-.3»
.
EPA initiates comprehensive review of emelrgency
systems (§ 305(b})
EPA publishes proposed formats for emergency
inventory forms and reporting requirements in Federal
Register (§ 311-12)
.
.
National Response Team publishes guidance for
preparation and implementation of emergency plans
(§ 303(f})
.
State Governors appoint SERCs (§ 301 (a»
Facilities subject to Section 302 planning requirements
notify SERC (§ 302 (c))
.
.
EPA publishes toxic chemicals release (i.e,. emissions
inventory) form (§ 302(c»
.
SERC designates emergency planning districts
(§ 301 (b»
SERC appoints members of LEPCs (§ 301 (I::»
('-
.
.
Facility notifies LEPC of selection of a facility
representative to serve as facility emergency
coordinator (§ 303(d)(1)}
.
MSDSs or list of MSDS chemicals submitted to SERC,
LEPC, and local fire department (§ 311 (d»
.
Facilities submit their initial emergency inventory
forms to SERC. LEPC. and local fire department
(§ 312(a)(2»
~
Final report on emergency systems study due to
Congress (§ 305 (b»
.
Facilities to submit initial toxic chemical release forms
to EPA and designated State officials (§ 31:1 (a»
.
LEPCs complete preparation of an emergency plan
(§ 303(a»
Page A-IO
_-L<-;1'-z.L / '7 ¿.) (,..
ATTACKMENT C
'.
FORM A
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
1. TIME REPORTED TO YOU:
2. PERSON CALLING:
Name
a.m.
p.m.
Date
Incidence
Occurred: TIME:
a.m.
p.m.
.t)à te .
Title or Position
3. REPRESENTING:
Organization
( )
Call Back Number
4.
5-.
INCIDENT MODE: MOTOR CARRIER ( ) RAIL ( ) STORAGE ( ) PIPELINE (" ) OTHER ( )
INCIDENT LOCATION: CITY:.
COUNTY:
6. EXACT LOCATION OF AREA INVOLVED:
7. WHAT HAPPENED?
8. CARRIER NAME:
9. NAME OF PLACARD/s APPLIED:
TRUCK/TRAILER or RAILWAY CAR NO.
10. NAME/S OF COMMODITY:
11. MANUFACTURER AND/OR SHIPPER:
12. PHYSICAL FORM: LIQUID (
13. EXPLOSION ( ) FIRE ( )
14. EMERGENCY CREWS ON SCENE:
SOLID ( ) GAS ( ) QUANTITY RELEASED:
SPILL ( ) INJURIES ( ) OTHER ( )
FIRE ( ) POLICE ( ) SHERIFF ( ) HWY. PATROL (
AMBULANCE ( ) EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS( ) OTHER (
15. WEATHER CONDITIONS: WIND; DIRECTION
SPEED
RAIN
EV ACUA TED
SNOW
16.
IS THE INCIDENT AREA SECURED?
17. BOUNDARIES OF EVACUATED AREA:
18. REPORT TAKEN BY:
Name
Title or Position
-
Re.poJt;t .:the. -<-nCÁ.de.nt by ~e.te.phone. and ~he.n ma.il. :tfU4 c.ompte;te.d óoJun :to Ka.f7v5M D;'v~;'on 06
EmVtge.nc.y Pfte.paJte.dHU,f¡, P. O. Box C-300, Tope.b.:z., KS 66601 .the. ne.x.t WoftfUng day {¡oUow..{.ng
:the. -i.nCÁ.de.nL REPORT INCIDENT IMMEDIATELY TO THE
KANSAS VI VISION OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
COMM. CENTER. PHONE: 1-800-572-4337 aft
913-233-7560 aft
913-296-3176
-.
NOTIFICATION:
TIME
Ks. Dept. Health & Environment 862-9360
INDIVIDUAL
Radiation Control
X285
Geology - Spills
.X2l9
Pesticide
X294
64TH ANNUAL
CONGRESS OF C [TIES
AND EXPOSITION 1987
DECEMBER 12-16, 1987
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGBT-TO-KNOY ACT OF 1986
(Title III of the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (PL99-499)
J. Martin Thrasher
Environmental Affairs Administrator
Environmental Services Division
Department of Utilities
City of Colorado Springs
P. O. Box 1103
Colorado Springs, CO 80947
(303) 636-5594
I.
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF SARA-TITLE III
A.
B.
Community Right-to-Know
Emergency Planning
II.
SUBTITLE A - EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION
A.
Section 301 State Commissions, Planning Districts, and Local
Committees.
1.
State Emergency Response Commission (April 17, 1987)
a.
Designate emergency planning districts (July 17, 1987).
Appoint local planning committees (August 17, 1987).
Supervise local committees.
Handle information requests.
b.
c.
d.
2.
Local Emergency Response Committees
a.
b.
Prepare emergency plan required by Section 303.
Handle information requests.
B.
Section 302 Covered Substances, Facilities and Notification.
1.
Covered Substances - 406 listed "extremely hazardous substances."
2.
Covered Facilities - Containing "threshold planning quantity" of
any covered substance.
3.
Notification - State Commission by May 17, 1987.
Page (2)
C.
Section 303 Emergency Response Plans.
Local Committee to prepare plan by October 17, 1988 to include:
1.
2.
3.
a.
Identification of "covered facilities" in the district;
transportation routes for "extremely hazardous substances";
and, facilities contributing to or exposed to additional
risk due to proximity to "covered facilities."
b.
Methods and procedures for responding to an "extremely
hazardous substance" release.
c.
Designation of community and facility emergency coordina-
tors responsible for implementing the plan.
d.
Procedures for notification of the public and persons
designated in the plan of a release.
e.
Means for determining if a release has occurred and the
area likely to be affected.
f.
Description of emergency equipment and facilities in the
community and at "covered facilities," and identification
of persons responsible for them.
g.
h.
Evacuation plans and alternative traffic routes.
Training programs and schedules for training emergency
response and medical personnel.
i.
Methods and schedules for exercising the plan.
State Commission to review local plans.
Covered Facility Notifications.
a.
"Covered facilities" under Section 302 notify local
committee of "facility emergency coordinator."
b.
Purpose - Participate in emergency planning process.
c.
September 17, 1987.
Page (3)
D.
E.
Section 304 Emergency Notification.
1.
Covered Facilities: Those that release a listed "extremely
hazardous substance" if the release also requires a report
under Section 103(a) of CERCLA; or, if the release occurs in
excess of a quantity which the administrator (by regulation)
requires notice, is not federally-permitted, and occurs in a
manner that would require a Section 103(a) CERCLA notice if
the substance were listed under CERCLA. Also, those that
release a substance reportable under Section 103(a) of
CERCLA even though it is not a listed "extremely hazardous
substance." This is the only section which applies to trans-
portation incidents.
2.
Obligation: Report to the Local Commi ttee and State C~)mmission
eight items:
a.
b.
Chemical name or identity of released substance.
Yhether the substance is a listed "extremely hazardous
substance."
Estimated quantity released.
Time and duration of release.
Media subject to the release.
Known or anticipated chronic or acute risks associated
with the release and advice regarding medical attention
needed by individuals exposed.
Precautions taken to respond to the release.
Name and telephone number of persons who can be contacted
for further information.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
(File a supplemental written report that contains all the above
information and additional data regarding:)
i.
Ac t ions taken to respond to and con tain the releaSE!.
Known or anticipated chronic or acute health risks.
Advice regarding appropriate medical attention for exposed
individuals.
j .
k.
3.
Time: Reporting requirement starts on June 1, 1987. Oral
report immediately after release; written report as soon as
practicable after release.
Section 305 Emergency Training and Emergency Systems.
1.
$5 million appropriation to FEMA to support training gt.ants.
2.
EPA report to Congress re:
systems.
leak detection and prevention
Page (4)
III.
SUBTITLE B - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Section 311 Material Safety Data Sheets.
A.
B.
C.
1.
Obligated Facilities: Those required under OSHA to prepare
or have MSDSs available.
2.
Obligation: Provide list of all chemicals for which an MSDS
is available or a copy of MSDSs to State Commission, Local
Committee, and local fire department.
3.
Time:
(a)
October 17, 1987, for substances present in
quantities greater than or equal to 10,000
pounds and for all listed "extremely hazardous
substances."
(b)
October 17, 1988, for substances present in
quantities between 500-10,000 pounds.
(c)
October 17, 1989, for all substances for which
no MSDSs or lists were previously submitted.
Section 312 Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Formls.
1.
Obligated Facili ties: Those required under OSHA to pre~pare
or have MSDSs available.
2.
Obliga t ion:
Submit annual Tier I data form relating to
emergency information and hazardous chemical
inventory to State Commission, Local Com-
mittee, and local fire department.
(a)
(b)
Submit Tier II data form requiring more
detailed information upon request of any
of the three agencies.
3.
Time: March 1, 1988, for the first report, and annually by
March 1, thereafter. At any time for requested Tier II data.
Section 313 Toxic Chemical Release Forms.
1.
Obligated Facilities: Those in SIC codes 20-39 with 10 or more
full-time employees that manufacture, process or use listed
"toxic chemicals" in amounts equal to or more than:
Page (5)
IV.
a.
10,000 pounds for a chemical used.
75,000 pounds for a chemical manufactured or processed for
the report due July 1, 1988.
50,000 pounds for a chemical manufactured or processed for
the report due July 1, 1989.
b.
c.
d.
25,000 pounds for a chemical manufactured or processed for
the reports due July 1, 1990, and thereafter.
2.
Obligation: ',1ri tten report annually to EPA and designa,ted state
official of the quantity of the "toxic chemical" at the facility,
waste treatment methodology and efficiency, and quantity released
to each environmental media.
3.
Time:
July 1, 1988, and annually thereafter.
SUBTITLE C - GENERAL PROVISIONS
A.
Section 321 Relationship to Other Law - No preemption of state or
local law.
B.
Section 322 Trade Secrets.
1.
Only trade secret claim allowed is specific chemical identity
of substance.
2.
Claim made to and decided by EPA.
c.
Section 323 Provision of Information to Health Professionals,
Doctors, and Nurses - Chemical identity must be provided if
needed.
D.
Section 324 Public Availability of Plans, Data Sheets, Forms, and
Followup Notices.
1.
All information to be available to the public.
2.
Upon facility request, the "location" of any specific chemical
on Tier II inventory shall not be disclosed.
3.
Local planning committee to publish annual notice in local
paper of availability of information.
Page (6)
E.
F.
Section 325 Enforcement.
1.
Section 302 Emergency Planning - EPA may order complial1lce wi th
notification requirements; order enforceable in U.S. District
Ct.; court may assess $25,000 per day per violation.
2.
Section 304 Emergency Notification.
a.
Class I Administrative Penalty - Failure to notify, $25,000
per violation.
b.
Class II Administrative Penalty ~ Failure to notify, $25,000
per day per violation; $75,000 per day per violation for
subsequent violations.
c.
Criminal Penalty - Knowing and willful failure to notify,
$25,000 and two years; $50,000 and five years for ~:ubsequen t
violations.
3.
Sections 312 and 313 reporting violations - $25,000 per day per
violation (does not apply to governmental entities).
4.
Sections 311, 322, and 323 reporting violations - $10,000 per
day per violation (does not apply to governmental entities).
5.
Section 322 frivolous trade secret claim - $25,000.
6.
Section 322 knowing and willful disclosure of trade sec:ret
information - $20,000 and two years.
7.
Section 323 refusal to provide information to health pro-
fessional - Action may be taken by health professional in
federal district court to compel disclosure.
Section 326 Civil Actions.
1.
Citizen Suits.
a.
Against facility owners and operators - Failure to provide
mandatory information.
b.
Against EPA - Failure to perform mandatory duties.
c.
Against EPA,State Governor, State Emergency Response
Commission - Failure to provide mechanism to provide public
access to information.
d.
Against State Governor, State Emergency Response Commission -
Failure to respond within 120 days to request for Tier II
information.
. .
Page (7)
v.
~ B.
2.
State Emergency Response Commission, Local Planning Committee
Suits - Against facilities for failure to provide the name for
a facility emergency coordinator (303(d)) or Tier II information.
G.
Section 327 Exemption - Except for Section 304, emergency release
notifications, SARA-Title III does not apply to transportation or
storage incident to transportation.
H.
Section 328 Regulations - EPA to promulgate implementing regulations.
I.
Section 329 Definitions.
J.
Section 330 Authorization and Appropriations - No federal funds have
been appropriated for state or local implementation.
CONCLUSION
A.
Does anybody know this statute exists?
Is all this information of any real value to anyone?
c.
Yhere will the money come from to implement this program?
,
S PIE GEL & lVlc 0 I ARM I D
1350 NEW YORK AvENUE N W
WASHING.TON. DC 20005,4796
TEI.E:PHONE 12021 679-4000
TEI.!:COPIER 1202J 679,4001
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGBT-TO-KNOW:
An Opportunity for Local Governments
Prepared by Rena Steinzor, Esq.
and Bradley R. Carlson
Spiegel & McDiarmid
1350 New York Ave. N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005-4798
(202) 879-4000
for the
National League of Cities
December 1987
Io
OVERVIEW
The threat to the public of serious accidents involving
hazardous substances motivated Congress to pass the federal
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA). This law was designed to foster a public awareness of
the dangerous substances which are used and produced in local
communities and to establish local emergency preparedness.
programs to plan for potential accidents causing the rele~ase of
toxics into the environment.
Few people dispute that EPCRA is well-intended. After
all, planning for potential chemical emergencies and prov'iding
the public with accurate information on the risks posed by toxic
industr ial emissions is a laudable goal for both governme!nt and
industry. But as the task of implementing this far-reaching
program begins to unfold, many local government officials, and
industry leaders are expressing serious reservations abou,t the
feasibility of the program. In fact, some state and local
governments are protesting what they see as the overwhelnling and
unwarranted burden imposed by EPCRA which is compounded by the
absence of any meaningful federal aid to localities for carrying
out the program.
- 2 -
There is no question that much of this negative press is
warranted. But there is also no question that EPCRA is here to
stay. One way or another local government will have to respond
to the program--both as it exists on paper and as it will be
carried out in reality.
Although local governments' concern about EPCRA is
reasonable and understandable, the fact is that despite its
flaws, EPCRA presents local government not only with an important
challenge, but also with an unprecedented opportunity. The
implications of the law go far beyond effective emergency
planning. The information the law can generate can be used by
local governments for long-term environmental planning, waste
minimization, and safety prevention programs that could provide
many benefits for human health and the environment.
Some of these goals may seem like expendable luxuries
for local governments increasingly strained in providing even
basic services to their citizens. But a look at the events that
inspired the passage of EPCRA proves that emergency planning and
safety enforcement are not dispensable. Because these jclbs are
not being done at the federal level, local governments must
either do them on or run increasing risks that a disaster could
occur in their communities.
This paper will examine the motivations behind EPCRA,
and then discuss some practical suggestions for how local
governments could use the information the law can generate.
II..
WHY EPCRA
A.
Bhopal, India: The Worst Chemical Accident in History
In the early morning hours of December 3, 1984, a large
cloud of a lethal toxic gas called methyl isocyanate (MIC) was
released from a pesticide production plant owned by Union
Carbide. This disastrous accident, the worst in history, was the
major event precipitating passage of EPCRA and contains several
lessons for local governments wishing to improve their emergency
preparedness status.
Within minutes of the MIC release, which was caused by a
runaway reaction in a tank used to store the hazardous chemical,
tens of thousands of Bhopal residents awoke with burning eyes,
sore throats, and shortness of breath; hundreds of others died in
their sleep. Interestingly, none of the 120 workers present in
the plant at the time of the release was killed. Although the
plant's warning siren failed to sound until some two hours after
the release began, the plant was equipped with gas masks for
workers to use in the event of such an accident. But because of
the delayed alarm, some residents of the community around the
- 3 -
plant ran toward the plant to help respond to what they thought
was a routine fire, not realizing that the cloud they saw on the
horizon was poison and not smoke, and were killed as they came
within range of the gases. Bhopal therefore was a situation
where the community, and not the workforce within the plant, was
put at risk.
Now, three years after the accident, an estimated 3000
people have died as a direct result of the Union Carbide chemical
release. More than 200,000 were injured, many of whom will
suffer from the effects of the gas for the rest of their lives,
exhibiting lung deterioration, blindness, sterility, mental
retardation, and kidney and liver damage. The effects of the
accident may be passed on to future generations in the form of
birth defects and health problems that cannot presently be
foreseen.
In the wake of the Bhopal disaster, many have be!en quick
to assess blame, while others have attempted to draw universal
lessons on how to avoid the problem in the future. The
assessments and predictions take on special urgency beca~lse many
factories in the United States have similar features to the
Bhopal plant, including a plant virtually identical to the Bhopal
facility which is located in Institute, West Virginia. In fact,
a month after the disaster, Congressmen studying the accident and
its implications for American industry revealed that a Union
Carbide safety audit conducted before Bhopal showed that the
Institute facility was vulnerable to a runaway reaction disaster.
Clearly, the absence of an adequate alarm systeD~, the
failure to alert local authorities as soon as the leak began, and
the failure to keep local officials apprised of the potential for
toxic chemical releases make Union Carbide primarily responsible
for the disaster. Many lives could have been saved had 1:hese
actions been taken.
Many people, including Bhopal victims, also believe that
the Indian government is at fault for allowing the Union Carbide
pesticide production plant to be built near such a densely
populated area. They conclude from the Bhopal experience that
the responsibility of community safety cannot be entrustl!d
entirely to industry and wonder how many similar problem3 exist
in American industry.
B.
The Potential for Serious Chemical Accidents in America
Over the past three years, one of the central
realizations that has frightened those who have studied the
potential for a second Bhopal in this country is that Union
Carbide's pesticide plant was quite sophisticated and was
regarded by Carbide as a technological showplace. Union Carbide
- 4 -
had a relatively good safety record among the larger chemical
companies. Ironically, even after the Bhopal disaster, when
Union Carbide's Institute, West Virginia plant was under intense
scrutiny by government and industry officials and the company was
sparing no expense to reassure a troubled community, the
unthinkable happened: a toxic leak sent more than 135 people to
the hospital.
Given the company's reputation, and the undeniable fact
that serious management problems contributed to the Bhopal
disaster, people fear that other segments of the industry--
including small and mid-size chemical companies--are in even more
perilous situations with respect to community safety and
contingency plans. According to an EPA report released in 1985,
there were 6928 accidents involving toxic chemicals during the
five year period between 1980 and 1985 (and the list is
incomplete). The reported accidents involved 135 deaths, 1500
injuries, and the evacuation of more than 217,000 people.
More than a dozen chemical releases causing injury or
discomfort were documented in Linden, New Jersey alone during an
18-month period in 1984 and 1985.
Chemical emergencies are not the only dangers posed by
toxic releases. The long-term effects of continuous chemical
releases must also be considered a threat to public health.
Another survey of 80 large chemical companies conducted by a
Congressional subcommittee found that thousands of tons of
cancer-causing agents and other very hazardous materials are
being released into the atmosphere from hundreds of facto,ries in
the United States. In Parkersburg, West Virginia, for example, a
million pounds of a government-listed carcinogen (vinyl c:yanide)
are released into the air each year from a chemical plant owned
by the Borg-Warner Corporation.
C.
The Lessons of Bhopal and Institute
The lessons the Congress drew from the Bhopal disaster
and its subsequent investigations of chemical plant safety in the
United States were twofold: first, we have done relatively little
to either prepare for or prevent accidents, and second, despite
an elaborate federal regulatory scheme, toxic emissions from
American manufacturing facilities (especially air emissic)ns)
remain a major threat to human health.
The members of Congress who sponsored EPCRA decided that
the best way to respond to these dual problems was to require
industry to disclose specific information to local communities
around its facilities and then count on community concern, even
outrage, to foster fundamental changes in industrial behéLvior.
It remains to be seen whether this vision of a renewed grassroots
- 5 -
consciousness--an Earth Day II--can be translated into effective
- 5 -
consciousness--an Earth Day II--can be translated into efí:ective
programs at the local level.
The information that will be provided by EPCRA is
clearly substantial and potentially significant. On the other
hand, it may not be possible for many local governments tC) make
much use of it unless they can get the resources to hire t~xperts
to interpret the information and use it on their behalf. The
only way to get such resources is to persuade decisionmakers in
local government that there is a need not only for emergency
planning but also for longer range controls on routine toxic
emissions. And this persuasion in turn depends on at least some
preliminary data indicating that there is a problem in the
community. To avoid a Catch 22--no way to use the information
until information is uncovered indicating that a problem ,exists--
local governments must approach EPCRA implementation
strategically and shrewdly.
III.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OP EMERGENCY PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY RIGBT-TO-KNOW
Local governments will receive three basic types of
information under EPCRA:
*
The identity and amount of hazardous
chemicals routinely used by industrial
plants, as well as safety information
about such substances.
*
Nature and scope of toxic emissions into
air, soil and water.
*
Immediate notification of emergency
releases.
In a little-noticed, but extremely important prclvision,
Congress also gave emergency planning committees the authority to
in effect subpoena any other information from industrial
facilities within their jurisdiction. Section 303(d)(3) of EPCRA
reads:
Upon request from the [local] emergency
planning c0m8ittee, the owner or operator of
the facility shall promptly provide
information to such committee necessary for
developing and implementing the emergency
plan.
This provision essentially means that local committees
have the legal authority--enforceable if necessary by citizens I
suits--to ask the companies using hazardous chemicals in their
communities to turn over any information which may prove useful
- 6 -
in the development of emergency preparedness plans. It
establishes an authority to obtain information from private
industry which is potentially as significant as the Freedom of
Information Act has been in allowing private citizens to obtain
information from the government.
What kind of information could be obtained by this
authority? Almost every manufacturing facility of any
significant size has spent large sums of money performing its own
internal safety audits. Although such studies are undoubtedly
written carefully, often under the supervision of corporate
counsel, experience has shown that they contain surprising and
useful admissions about a plant's weak spots and problems. For a
whole variety of reasons, chemical and other industrial
facilities constantly monitor and analyze their safety situation,
frequently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in the
process. The Union Carbide safety audit of its Institute~, West
Virginia facility, for example, predicted the runaway reaction
which later occurred in Bhopal.
Once a local government has obtained information
indicating that a safety problem exists, it may be in the!
position to insist that industry help formulate (and pay for) a
coherent emergency response plan, as well as to encourage!
industry to improve internal safety practices.
As for the other information that will be generalted by
EPCRA automatically, including annual toxic emissions
inventories, local governments should keep two additional points
in mind.
First, the management of such information will depend on
the development of efficient computer data bases. Local
government has a tremendous stake in working with the developers
to identify their needs and ensure that software is designed
accordingly.
In addition to EPCRA, the Superfund Amendments êLnd
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) dramatically expanded health
research programs conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is run out of the Center for
Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. For example, ATSDR is
preparing 200 toxic profiles of the most dangerous substêLnces
typically found at Superfund sites. The agency is also required
to conduct health studies at National Priorities List fac:ilities.
All of this new research should help local governments dE!termine
priorities among the potential health hazards posed by tc)xic
emissions in their communities.
Beyond emergency planning, other uses of EPCRA
information include:
IV.
- 7 -
*
Wiser zoning decisions. A major cause of
the high death toll in Bhopal was the
dense population of the urban slums that
were located literally at the gates of
the facility. American industry is
understandably frustrated about its
inability in some instances to persuade
local zoning boards of the need for
buffer zones around particularly
hazardous facilities. EPCRA information
could prove of substantial assistance in
the zoning process.
*
Waste minimization. Local governments
are becoming increasingly concerned about
their ability to site new hazardous and
solid waste disposal facilities
sufficient to keep up with the massive
amounts of waste generated each year by
industry. EPCRA information could help
encourage waste minimization by local
industries, especially if local
government is able to compare waste
emissions practices among similarly
situated facilities and put pressure on
those who are performing poorly.
More effective safety regulations. EPCRA
information could help state and local
regulatory agencies to target limited
resources on the most pressing
environmental and health problems in the
community on the basis of systematic
information indicating the actual levels
of toxic emissions.
*
SUMMARY
The secret to EPCRA's success at the local level. is to
leverage the information it can provide into a communi ty-'wide
consensus that more effective emergency planning and pollution
control is necessary. Local governments can achieve this.
important result if they develop wise strategies for using
manageable amounts of initial information to build a cons~ensus
that more information is necessary, and that effective ac:tion
must be taken to improve industry and government's performance.