Loading...
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 problem 3 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.