the clean air act section 112(r) risk management plans: compliance requirements and alternatives

The Clean Air Act Section 112(r) Risk Management Plans: Compliance Requirements and Alternatives

David Reed

Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Ac t Amendments of 2990 included significant compliance provisions for facilities to manage chemical process risk. The regulation promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as the “Risk Manage- ment Plan” rule, will require a substantial fiscal, experiential, and human resource investment for installations that are required to comply. Primarily, most milita y installations that have to comply will do so for water disinfection or propane storage. In addition to regulato y liability, Section 112(r) rules also have a significant public afairs and facility security aspect. This article reviews the regulation to point out compliance challenges and presents methods for reducing or eliminating the need to be subject to the rule by employing safer, smarter business practices. 0 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA-90) included a new air quality regulatory concept to address the concern of Congress that a large- scale airborne release of a toxic chemical can occur and could have a catastrophic effect on the surrounding community. Known as Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (see Exhibit 1 for a complete citation) and titled ”Accidental Release Prevention” (more commonly referred to as the risk management (RM) plan regulation), this rule is designed to ensure that facilities are actively engaged in both preventing and preparing for large- scale releases of toxic chemicals or flammable substances. The rule was created in light of major chemical accidents such as the Bhopal, India release of methyl isocyanate; the Flixborough, England cyclohexane ex-

David A. Reed, Ph.D., works for the US. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Directorate of Environmental Health Engineering. Dr. Reed and his associates are currently engaged in actingas the military services technical leads on the Risk Management Plan regulations, as well as the Army technical experts on air pollution prevention, Title111 of the Clean Air Act Amendments, medical waste incineration, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 1998

0 1998 John Wiley 8. Sons, Inc. CCC 1048-4078/98/090369-10

69

David Reed

plosion; and the Seveso, Italy release of dioxin. Traditionally, this type of regulation was considered to be within the purview of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and, in fact, the Rh4 requirements complement (but do not overlap) the existing EPCRA framework. Toxic chemicals such as chlorine, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, and nitric acid exist in reportable quantities at many military installations. Flammable substances such as methane or propane are also expected to be found in reportable quantities at many installations. Primarily, water treatment and propane storage have been determined to be affected processes at military installations.

Personnel implementing the regulation must understand that the rule has a unique chemical list, threshold methodology, and definitions. Neither the CAAA-90 Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) chemical

Exhibit 1. RM Regulatory References

The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, is codified in the U.S. Code at 42 USC Section 7401 et. seq. Section 112(r) from the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 may be found at USC Section 7412. The EPA Risk Management Regulation is codified in 40 CFR Section 68 (July 1,1998). The EPA List of Substances Regulated under the rule was published in the January 31,1994 Federal Reg- ister (59 Fed. Reg. Section 4478). The EPA Final Risk Management Regulation was published in the June 20, 1996 FederalRegister (51 Fed. Reg. Section 31667).

list nor the EPCRA lists apply to this rule. Because of the unique chemical list, specific procedures, and the number of individual requirements, significant compliance activities are associated with the development and maintenance of an installation RM program.

DEFINITIONS RM Program and Plan

Federal facilities that produce, process, handle, or store a listed toxic chemical or flammable substance in quantities exceeding the rule’s thresholds are required to develop an RM program and subsequently submit an RM Plan to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The plan is a summary of an installation’s RM program and will be due on or before 21 June 1999. As a summary of an existing program, it is imperative that the program be in place before submitting the plan.

70 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 1998


Covered Process The RM regulation applies only to installations that have covered

processes. It is important to note that the traditional Clean Air Act terms "major, minor, and area source" are not pertinent to this regulation. Identification of a covered process is based on the RM list of regulated substances that identifies the threshold quantities for the toxic and flammable chemicals addressed by the rule. The key point to "covered process," however, is that it is based on the amount of an RM-listed substance that could conceivably be involved in a single catastrophic release. As such, installationwide inventories requiring tallies of all occurrences of the listed substances are not needed under this rule. From the final chemical list rule:

Process means any activity involving a regulated substance including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or on-site movement of such substances, or combination of these activities. For the purposes of this definition, any group of vessels that are interconnected, or separate vessels that are located such that a regulated substance could be involved in a potential release, shall be considered a single process. J l , - j [

The EPA has issued intevpretive guidance to indicate that public roadways do not constitute public receptors.

Public, Public Receptor, and Offsite The terms public, public receptor, and offsite are unusually defined in

comparison with traditional environmental regulations. This has a unique impact, especially for military installations. For any facility, the public is defined in the regulation as "any person except employees or contractors at the stationary source." A public receptor is defined in the regulation as:

Public receptor means offsite residences, institutions (e.g./ schools, hospitals), industrial, commercial, and office buildings, parks, or recreational areas inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the stationary source where members of the public could be exposed to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressure, as a result of an accidental release.

However, for military installations, it is important to note that depen- dents, retirees, and members of the public that can be routinely found on the installation are considered "the public." The EPA has issued interpre- tive guidance to indicate that public roadways do not constitute public receptors. Finally, the law gives the term offsite the following definition:

Offsite means areas beyond the property boundary of the stationary source, and areas within the property boundary to which the public has routine and unrestricted access during or outside business hours.

Offsite areas can include family housing, shopping, public dining facilities, museums, and chapels. These all can be considered as having

~ ~ ~~ -

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 1998 71

David Reed

the potential to trigger higher compliance requirements under this regulation.

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 112(r), as codified in 40 CFR Section 68 (July 1, 1998), can

consist of more than 120 individual requirements for a single covered process (depending on the Program Level (discussed below)) arranged in five major sections. In addition, the requirements call for a complete RM Plan update every five years. The detail of a Program Level 3 report is shown in Exhibit 2, which depicts a Table of Contents for an RM report for a single Program Level 3 chlorine process. Further details of the compliance requirements can be found in the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) publication: ”Technical Compliance Guide for Clean Air Act Section 112(r) Risk Management Program” (available at no charge from the author via email

I

F

The Management at [email protected]). Program answers the question “Who is RM Planning Sections responsible and how is The RM regulation is systematically arranged into five major sec- the responsible person tions, each with an individual purpose that reflects the whole. The five managing the program?” major sections of an RM program are the Hazard Assessment, Manage-

ment Program, Emergency Response Program, Prevention Program, and the RM Plan submission. The Hazard Assessment is primarily designed to determine the potential impact of a release on public and environmental receptors. In essence, the Hazard Assessment examines the question ”How big could the problem be if we had an accident?” The Management Program is designed to ensure that a chain of command exists from the ”owner/operator” (commander for military installations) to the process operators. The regulation requires that lines of authority be documented and suggests the equivalent of an organizational chart. The Management Program answers the question “Who is responsible and how is the responsible person managing the program?” The Emergency Response Program and the Prevention Program are where the hands-on risk management occurs. These two programs answer, respectively, ”What is being done to prepare for an accident and what is being done to prevent one?” The fifth major part of the RM regulation is the submission of the RM Plan to EPA. Because the submission of the RM Plan to EPA is not required until 21 June 1999, this is not discussed in the context of this article.

1

Program Levels The regulation is divided into three compliance levels based on

risk to the public and compliance with existing standards. A Program Level 1 RM process is relatively innocuous in terms of compliance requirements, and, if a facility must comply with the RM regulation, this is the desired program to be within. A Program Level 1 process is one that has no accidents for the previous five years, has response activities coordinated with local responders, and does not impact a



I t is EPA’s intention that the information submitted to i t should become part of a database accessible to the public via the Internet.

public receptor under the conditions of EPA’s predefined worst-case release scenario.

Program Levels 2 and 3 processes must comply with more stringent requirements. The primary difference between these two levels concerns the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) standard. EPA essentially incorpo- rated the PSM requirements into the RM rule. Covered processes that fall into certain Standard Industrial Classification codes, OY must comply with the PSM standard, must comply with Program Level 3. Otherwise, non-Program Level 1 processes are considered Program Level 2.

Our experience is that the OSHA qualification is the primary reason for a covered process to be classified into the higher level. Processes that are not Program Level 1 and for which PSM is not applicable must comply with RM Program Level 2. Program Level 2 is frequently described as being a ”watered- down PSM.” Because of the structure of the OSHA regulation and EPA’s use of it as a criterion for Program Level 3 eligibility, there is effectively no way to switch an RM covered process between these two Program Levels.

Public Affairs It is EPA’s intention that the information submitted to it should

become part of a database accessible to the public via the Internet. Because this information includes the identity of the substance, its location, the population potentially affected under worst-case release conditions, and the sensitive public receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing areas, etc.), security concerns have been debated among industry representatives and some public interest groups that state that public access will lead to improved compliance. Regardless of the outcome of this particular debate, a significant public affairs component exists.

cost The cost for having RM compliance work performed can vary consid-

erably depending on the program level(s) of the covered process and the current status of OSHA PSM. In addition, for a typical facility that has two water treatment operations using one-ton cylinders of chlorine and two propane tanks in excess of 10,000 pounds each with no PSM program, typical costs have been observed to be between $50,000 and $100,000 depending on particular circumstances. In addition to the high cost of RM planning, personnel should be aware that we have either directly observed or received information that indicates that RM planning cost quotes have been overinflated. We are not certain whether these actions were a deliberate attempt to overcharge or if they were due to a misunderstanding of the regulation. Regardless, we have prepared and distributed to the Army a brief memorandum discussing rationales being employed to overcharge for RM planning and their approximate costs.

Federal Facilities Environmental Journ.al/Aufumn 1998 73

David Reed

Security Security is an important issue in RM planning. As mentioned above,

the submission requirements to EPA will require that the covered process(es) be identified and the quantity of the substance(s) stated. Additionally, an estimate of the population and list of public receptors (e.g., residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, shopping centers, etc.) within a circle with the location of the process at its midpoint and a radius defined by the distance to the EPA-predefined endpoint must also be given. This information has the potential to be misused by persons intent on causing harm. EPA is reviewing how to restrict the instant and anonymous access that the Internet provides, but as yet, no resolution has been reached. Any federal facility performing RM planning should ensure that its security concerns are addressed by appropriate personnel.

REDUCING REQUIREMENTS Ethical Responsibility

The purpose of the RM regulation is to reduce the risk of a major catastrophic accident by employing sound and accepted business practices for safe operation. The rule is extensive, cumbersome, and detailed; however, it is each facility’s responsibility to assess any planned changes to operations with respect to safety. Changes made to allow the facility to avoid regulation should be made in the direction of increased safety, not greater hazard.

, -A fl J l

For water disinfection, many alternatives to chlorine (an RM- regulated substance) exist. Alternative Materials

Substitution of a material should be considered as an alternative to RM compliance if the substitute is: 1) adequate to the purpose, 2) not also on the RMP list of regulated substances, and 3) safer to be used. There are very few alternatives for the flammable substances when they are being used for fueling vehicles (such as forklifts) or for building heat. Switch- ing to natural gas is a potential option for the latter, but this canbe a costly and time-consuming effort.

For water disinfection, many alternatives to chlorine (an RM-regulated substance) exist. It should be noted that many operators in the field will call any form of chlorination, including chlorine compounds such as sodium hypochlorite (bleach) by the term “chlorine.” The RM list of regulated substances regulates only pure chlorine, usually sold for water treatment as a compressed liquid in 150 or 2,000 pound cylinders as well as rail cars.

An ideal water treatment system must eliminate all potential patho- gens in the water, be safe to use, introduce no toxic compounds to the water, and meet all current and future regulations. Technologies that can meet these requirements have been developed, but may be expensive and time-consuming to install and operate. Regardless, they may be considered viable if increasing public safety and avoiding the cost of compliance with the RM regulations are included in the cost/benefit analysis. Recently (July 1998) the U.S. Army Forces Command

74 Federal Facilities Environmental Joumal/Autumn 2998


(FORSCOM) requested Pacific Northwest National Laboratories to prepare a document comparing disinfection technologies. The document, Disinfection Technologies for Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment: Alter- natives to Chlorine Gas, listed seven alternate technologies/materials including: sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, mixed oxidant generation, chlorine dioxide, chloramination, ozone, and ultraviolet

Exhibit 2. Program Level 3 Table of Contents for Chlorine Water Treatment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Background Information lnstallation Background Information Risk Management Program Team .... Personnel Contacted .................................................................... 4

Installation Covered Chemicals and Processes ....................................................... 5

Public Receptors and Circles of Concern .................................................................. 5

Risk Management Program Current Status and Future Work .............................. 5

Installation Risk Management Plan Submission ..................................................... 5

APPENDICES

A Risk Management Program for the Fort XXXXXX Wastewater Plant ...... A-1 Risk Management Plan Executive Summary and Registration .. A-2 A1

A2 Management System ........

A8 Process Hazard Analysis .. A9 Operating Procedures .......

........................................................... A-51

A18 Contractors .......................... A19 Supplemental Information

.......................................................... A-67

B Material Safety Data Sheet tor Chlorine ............................

D EPA RMP Data Elements and Instruction .................................................... D-1 E EPA Section 112 (r) Final Rule ......................................................................... E-1

C Fort XXXXXX Risk Management Plan Submission ........................... c-1

F Time frames for Risk Management Program Actions ..... F-1

Federal Facilities Environmental JournallAutumn 1998 75

David Reed

Flammable substances such as propane can be reduced in quantity to below the threshold, or the distance of the blast circles can be lowered simply by better invent0 y management.

light. Exhibit 3 is taken from this report (which can be obtained at no charge from Ms. Rochelle Williams at FORSCOM via email at: [email protected] .mil).

Better Inventory Management Many installations store large quantities of materials because of habit,

concern about rapid deployment, or perceived difficulties with the logistics system. Flammable substances such as propane can be reduced in quantity to below the threshold, or the distance of the blast circles can be lowered simply by better inventory management. Many installations require that propane tanks be filled on a monthly basis or always be full above a certain percentage. Many of these tanks can provide a reliable supply to customers continuously without being full. An examination of tank usage and filling schedules can lead to many being removed from RM program regulation or reduced from Program Level 2 to Program Level 1. The USACHPPM has initiated this investigation for many tanks throughout the Army and is surprisingly successful at reducing RM requirements through better propane supply management.

Many chlorination systems, especially those using 150-pound cylinders, can be converted to just-in-time delivery and remain under threshold. The chlorine content of sixteen 150-pound cylinders is below the RM threshold of 2,500 pounds for this substance, and it is not common to see this many used at once for disinfection. It is common, however, to see a storeroom with more than sixteen 150-pound cylinders. (For example, we are aware of one case in which over 100 chlorine cylinders were stored outside, in an open wooden shed, between acetylene and hydrogen tanks-a prime opportunity for Risk Management principles!) Depend- ing on the requirements of the system examined, it may be possible to store backup cylinders (16 or less) in an area away from the chlorination feed system such that all of the cylinders cannot be involved in a single catastrophic accident. An evaluation should be conducted to determine if additional movement of cylinders would result in greater risk.

Improved Storage Facilities Improved or an increased number of storage facilities for RM-regu-

lated substances can reduce the inventory in any one place to below threshold. A situation in which this can increase safety and reduce liability would be where large quantities of materials are stored in a single place even though they are subsequently distributed to many places. Distributed storage can reduce the potential for transportation- related accidents as well as reducing the amount that could be involved in a single release.

Better Modeling One of the requirements for allowing a regulated process to be

considered Program Level 1 is the demonstration through worst-case- release modeling that no public receptors will be impacted by the release. If a situation exists where the modeling only slightly overlaps public



NaOCl/On- site NaOCl

Good

Poor -

Exhibit 3. Performance of Disinfection Technologies on Key Characteristics

Ca(OC1)2 MIOXfm

Good Good

Poor Good

Baseline

c102

Good

Good

Fair

Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Chloramines 0 3

Poor Very Good

Poor Very Good

Poor Good

Alt. I

Yes- THMs and H.4A5

Yes- Yes,but THMs and less THMs HAAS than C12 than C12

Chlorite/ chlorate produced

than C12

Low (for on-site) - medium

Minimal

All sizes

Low Low

Moderate3 Moderate

Small - All sizes Medium (cost)

Low

Medium

Moderate Low

Medium Medium Medium Effective Medium - only for must have residual residual purposes

Medium Medium Medium Low (cost) None High

uv

Disinfection Capability:’ Bacteria Good Very Good

Viruses Poor Fair

cysts Poor Poor I Poor I Fair No effect

Generation of Hazardous Disinfection By-products

Yes - THMs and HAAS

None Yes, but less THMs

Yes, Bromine

Insig. levels THMs formed

Persistent residual Good Good IGood IGood- (longer

than C12)

Fair Very Good None (good for I I waste waterj

None [good for waste water)

Safety Concerns High

Minimal

All sizes

Low

Minimal

Small - Medium

High’

Complexity of Operationsh4aintenance

Size Applicability Medium

Moderate LOW lHigh Moderate Relative Cost

Long Term Applicability For:’

Potable Water

Low

Low (safety issues)

Medium - must have residual

Medium High Waste-water

1 . Still may require filtration prior to discharge of wastewater.

2. Depending on method used to generate chlorine dioxide, safety concerns can range from high to moderate.

3. Handling of CA(OCI), is generally more labor-intensive than liquid (i.e., NAOCI)

4. From USEPA Wastewater Disinfection Manual ( 1 986) and communications with equipment manufacturers/vendors.

5. Ability to meet upcoming standards.

Sources: Snowden-Swan, Leslie; Piatt, John; Lesperance, Ann; Disinfection Technologies for Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment: Alternatives to Chlorine Gas; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Prepared for U.S. Army Forces Command; July 1998.

Federal Facilities Environmental JournallAutumn 1998 77

David Reed

areas, a better model may reduce the size of the circle and allow the process to be considered Program Level 1. EPA lookup tables, provided to support the regulation in the Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance (available off the World Wide Web from EPA’s Chemical Emergency Planning and Preparedness homepage at http: //www.epa.gov/ swercepp/), can sometimes be more conservative than more accurate modeling. Note that EPA has announced that this guidance will be updated in the near future and will include specific tables for propane and chlorine. Caution should be exercised, however, that the model used is correct for the given application. Justification should be prepared for any model used, especially for models less familiar to the public or emergency responders.

Summary For facilities that have to comply, the RM regulation will require

extensive experiential, fiscal, and human resources. Safe alternatives to compliance requirements exist and should be explored seriously by federal facility personnel. These alternatives may require more time to implement than is available before the 21 June 1999 deadline. Neverthe- less, with the extensive updating requirements within the regulation, RM program maintenance costs may greatly impact an alternative technology cost/benefit analysis. In addition to removing enforcement liability, a technology change provides a demonstration to the public that safety concerns are being addressed. 0


the clean air act section 112(r) risk management plans: compliance requirements and alternatives

Documents