U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

Special Report: Risk

Management Planning for

Hazardous Materials: What It 

Means for Fire Service Planning

USFA-TR-124/January 2003

U.S. Fire Administration Fire Investigations Program

T

he U.S. Fire Administration develops reports on selected major fires throughout the country. 

The fires usually involve multiple deaths or a large loss of property. But the primary criterion 

for deciding to do a report is whether it will result in significant “lessons learned.” In some 

cases these lessons bring to light new knowledge about fire--the effect of building construction or 

contents, human behavior in fire, etc. In other cases, the lessons are not new but are serious enough 

to highlight once again, with yet another fire tragedy report. In some cases, special reports are developed to discuss events, drills, or new technologies which are of interest to the fire service.

The reports are sent to fire magazines and are distributed at National and Regional fire meetings. The 

International Association of Fire Chiefs assists the USFA in disseminating the findings throughout the 

fire service. On a continuing basis the reports are available on request from the USFA; announcements of their availability are published widely in fire journals and newsletters.

This body of work provides detailed information on the nature of the fire problem for policymakers 

who must decide on allocations of resources between fire and other pressing problems, and within 

the fire service to improve codes and code enforcement, training, public fire education, building 

technology, and other related areas.

The Fire Administration, which has no regulatory authority, sends an experienced fire investigator 

into a community after a major incident only after having conferred with the local fire authorities 

to insure that the assistance and presence of the USFA would be supportive and would in no way 

interfere with any review of the incident they are themselves conducting. The intent is not to arrive 

during the event or even immediately after, but rather after the dust settles, so that a complete and 

objective review of all the important aspects of the incident can be made. Local authorities review 

the USFA’s report while it is in draft. The USFA investigator or team is available to local authorities 

should they wish to request technical assistance for their own investigation.

For additional copies of this report write to the U.S. Fire Administration, 16825 South Seton Avenue, 

Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727. The report is available on the Administration’s Web site at http://

www.usfa.dhs.gov/

U.S. Fire Administration

Mission Statement

As an entity of the Department of Homeland 

Security, the mission of the USFA is to reduce life and economic losses due to fire 

and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support. 

We serve the Nation independently, in coordination with other Federal agencies, 

and in partnership with fire protection and 

emergency service communities. With a 

commitment to excellence, we provide public education, training, technology, and data 

initiatives.

TAble oF ConTenTS

RISK MANAGEMENT PLANNING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chemical Complex in Pasadena, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Community Awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

EPA’s Risk Management Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Disseminating Information of RMPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

OSHA’s Process Safety Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

EPA’s Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEPCS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Harford County, MD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Goochland County, VA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Cuyahoga County, OH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

THE FIRE SERVICE: ACTIVE LEADERSHIP WITH LEPCs FOR RISK MANAGEMENT 

PLANNING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Hospitals and LEPCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1

Special Report: 

Risk Management Planning for 

Hazardous Materials: 

What It Means for Fire Service Planning

On April 16, 1947, a fire broke out in the cargo hold of a French cargo ship moored in the harbor of Texas City, TX. Despite the efforts of her crew and of the local fire department, the fire 

spread to the cargo of 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, resulting in a catastrophic 

explosion that killed the ship’s crew, the firefighters and several bystanders. The explosion destroyed 

or severely damaged buildings throughout the city, and generated a small tidal wave that brought 

further devastation. The ensuing fire spread to a nearby chemical plant, refineries, and other ships in 

the harbor. Explosions from these fires occurred on April 17, destroyed two more ships plus several 

warehouses, and spawned even more fires in the city. When the incident was over, more than 600 

people were dead or missing, and 2,000 people were injured. The harbor in Texas City was all but 

destroyed.

It is the perception of many that significant chemical accidents do not occur anymore. While it is 

true that chemical accidents of the type and magnitude of Texas City happen only rarely, hazardous 

materials incidents – some of them serious – occur dozen of times a week in the United States. 

While no comprehensive recent data are available, an analysis of data from multiple Federal databases 

over a five-year period (1988-1992) indicates that an average of at least 19 known chemical incidents occurred daily. (There were probably more unreported.) There is no indication that this trend 

may have decreased in the past 10 years: in fact, the most recent Toxics Release Inventory Overview 

published by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that there were 23, 484 facilities reporting chemical releases in the year 2000. Table 1 illustrates the types of releases and the quantity of 

materials released.

Table 1. Toxics Release Inventory Data Overview, 20001

Release Pounds Percent of National Total

Onsite air emissions 1,904,406,293 26.8

Onsite surface water 255,348,200 3.7

Onsite underground discharge 279,036,646 3.9

Onsite land 4,131,402,086 58.2

Offsite landfill/surface impoundments 321,110,621 4.5

Other offsite 203,978,233 2.9

Total 7,029,282,079 100.0

1 Information courtesy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information 2000 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Public Data Release Report, EPA-260-S-02-001, May 2002.
2 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

An important fact to note about this data is that it represents only a portion of all releases nationwide. 

As the report states, “The [reporting] program does not cover all sources of releases and other...

activities of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals.” One of the challenges currently faced by local 

fire and rescue departments in risk management planning; trends and information on hazardous 

material incidents are difficult to track because many chemical release reports and national databases 

are temporarily off-line, out of concern over potential terrorist interest in the information.

The Federal government monitors chemical safety, but does so in a fragmented way. Over a dozen 

agencies gather data, enforce regulations, and administer programs related to hazardous chemicals, 

and each does so for different purposes and constituencies. The agencies themselves acknowledge 

that there are overlaps, inefficiencies, and gaps in the laws and regulations that govern hazardous 

materials safety.2

Through exact data on chemical releases is difficult to come by, it has been estimated that an average 

of 60,000 accidents involving chemicals occur in this country every year, and cause over 200 deaths 

and many injuries. As a Board Member of the U. S. Chemical Safety Hazard Investigation Board noted 

recently, “...that chemical accidents occur too often and cause unnecessary deaths, injuries, and 

disruption-surely is true.”3 Managing this risk at the local level and in conjunction with the sources 

of risk needs to be a priority.

Fire departments, in addition to being first responders to a chemical accident, are an important part 

of the planning process. Fire departments are responsible for performing hazardous materials risk/

hazard assessments, capability assessments, and detailed response planning. To that end, this report is 

intended as a source of information about hazards in the community that need to be considered by 

the fire service in response planning. Further, it is intended to be a vehicle to identify responsibilities in planning for a collaborative response between facility-based technical response teams and the 

local fire service. The information provided can be used as a tool for properly incorporating individual facility risk management plans and information into an overall community response plan.

RISK MAnAGeMenT PlAnnInG

Quantities of chemicals are stored in every community. At industrial sites, dry cleaning businesses, 

service stations, swimming pools, manufacturing plants and other fixed-site facilities, hazardous 

materials present a real and present danger that must be managed responsibly. Hazardous materials also pass through our cities and towns on trucks, trains, and ships, as well as via pipelines. The 

fire service prepares for potential incidents involving hazardous materials by training in hazardous 

materials incident response, acquiring personal protective equipment, and having special foams and 

containment supplies at their disposal.

Some communities plan containment and evacuation strategies in advance. Many jurisdictions maintain local inventories on the high-risk facilities where hazardous materials are located, as well as the 

types and quantities of chemicals stored. Such planning is even more critical now as the United 

States examines the potential for the offensive use of chemicals by terrorist, along with other terrorist threats. Our vulnerability to acts of terrorism, and how we would respond if one were to occur, 

refocuses our attention on preparing for hazardous materials incidents-only now we must consider 

scenarios where chemical releases are planned, not just accidental.

2 EPA Report Number 550-R-93-002, December 1993.

3Investigations and News” at www.chemsafety.gov/news/2000.
USFA-TR-124/January 2003 3

The fire service and other community stakeholders need to assess their risk from dangerous chemicals if they have not already done so. They should determine the potential likelihood and severity of 

a large-scale hazardous materials incident (accidental as well as covert), and set forth measures for 

responding to and mitigating the incident and its impact. In essence, communities are advised to 

engage in “risk management” (that is, activities that involve the evaluation or comparison of risks 

and the development of approaches that can change the probability or consequences of a deleterious 

action). Risk management encompasses the entire process of identifying and evaluating risks along 

with the identification, selection, and implementation of control measures that might alter risk.4 

The process can be carried out for all types of risks and threats, from natural disasters to bombings, 

and is inherently related to emergency management planning. For the purpose of this report, risk 

management planning is presented in the context of chemical incidents and the impact they can have 

on communities.

Risk evaluation and disaster planning are tedious and time-consuming tasks. One must dissect 

potential emergencies and then detail what resources would be needed, in what configuration, and 

under whose command and control. Short-staffed first responder agencies often struggle just to stay 

on top of immediate service demands, so setting aside time to hammer out strategies and tactics for 

potential events in the future is a challenge. However, when leaders do make risk assessment and 

response planning a priority, the benefits to the community and its first responders are significant.

For communities located in non-industrial, suburban, or rural areas, the level of risk from hazardous materials may appear to be practically nil. However, farms, neighborhood swimming pools, 

and even country clubs store chemicals that may, depending on the time of year, exceed Threshold 

Quantity (TQ)5

 levels. There are many common and potentially dangerous chemicals used in these 

facilities, including ammonia, chlorine, and propane. Rail lines and highways enable other hazardous materials to appear, if only temporarily.

Hazardous materials accidents can occur anywhere. Response planning therefore, is necessary not 

only in urbanized areas, but in less populated areas, too. A situation in Pasadena, Texas, demonstrates 

why communities, and the fire departments that protect them, need to be involved in risk management planning for chemical accidents.

Chemical Complex in Pasadena, Texas

On October 23, 1989, an explosion and ensuing fire raced through the 800-acre Phillips Petroleum 

Houston Chemical Complex in Pasadena, Texas, a city located about 10 miles southeast of Houston. 

These events resulted in 23 dead, 1 missing, more than 100 injured, and extensive damage to the 

manufacturing facility as well as nearby structures.

The explosion, which measured 3.5 on the Richter scale, is believed to have been caused by a failure 

in either a line or valve that carried ethylene or isobutane (or both), to a polyethylene reactor. The 

reactor was supposed to have been shut down by a contractor for routine maintenance; however, 

post-incident investigators determined that one or more valves may have been accidentally left open, 

thereby allowing the substances contained in the lines to leak. The line was reported as being 

4

 Risk Management Practices in the Fire Service, United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, December 1996.

5

 EPA has established a list of toxic, flammable, and explosive chemicals, and their respective threshold quantities, over 

which, a facility must meet certain accident prevention regulations.
4 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

approximately 10 inches in diameter and possibly carrying as much as 700 pounds per square inch 

of pressure. It is not known if a mechanical failure occurred or whether human error was a factor. 

Regardless, a vapor cloud developed very quickly after a failure in the line, which sent workers running. The reactor ignited the vapor cloud and caused an explosion. It was estimated that workers 

had between 60 and 90 seconds to evacuate before the explosion occurred.6

Repairs to facilities were estimated at more than $500 million in costs, and took over two years to 

complete. Following the explosion, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated 

the incident, finding more than 500 violations and assessing a penalty of $5.7 million. A copy of 

OSHA’s report, “The Phillips 66 Company Houston Chemical Complex Explosion and Fire,” details 

the investigation and penalties. This incident was one of the precipitating accidents that led to the 

OSHA rules for “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals.”7

Located in one of the world’s largest petrochemical processing centers, the emergency agencies in 

the Houston area had recognized the high risk presented by the petrochemical processing plants. 

In 1955, the Houston Ship Channel Industries Disaster Aid Organization was formed; in 1960, it 

was renamed Channel Industries Mutual Aid (CIMA). The purpose of CIMA was and is to unite all 

emergency response organizations and equipment (municipal and industrial) lining the Houston 

Ship Channel. The mutual aid assistance provided through CIMA can be used either for natural or 

person-caused events. As part of its emergency response plan, CIMA has created a centralized dispatch center for the radio network, an alarm list database for its members, and technical committees. 

When the Phillips Plant explosion occurred in 1989, more than 80 member organizations of CIMA 

responded to the emergency. While there was a large loss, the emergency response agencies helped 

prevent additional casualties and even larger losses.

Most emergency agencies are not as well prepared as were those in the Houston-Pasadena area. 

Many local fire departments have facility site plans that are out of date. Many departments do not 

have mutual aid plans for disasters where large volumes of apparatus will be needed. At the time 

of the Phillips plant explosion, local environmental planning committees (LEPCs) – to be discussed 

later – had access only to basic information regarding the facilities in their response areas; and even 

that basic information was very limited.

Indeed, industries affected by EPA’s regulation were only required to disclose certain, limited information. Communities had enough information to plan emergency response plans to sites, but 

lacked other important information-including the extended hazards and worst-case scenarios.

Community Awareness

While the Phillips Plant explosion was dramatic, the United States fortunately has not been subjected to a disaster on the same scale as the toxic release in Bhopal, or petroleum plant explosions 

in Mexico City (both are discussed later in this report). Still, for many years emergency responders 

have sought additional information regarding sources of hazardous materials. They want to know 

what potential hazards are stored in their first-due area, and how their response could be affected by 

6 For further information see the “Phillips Petroleum Chemical Plant Explosion and Fire, Pasadena, Texas.” Technical 

Report Series 035, United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1990.

7CFR 29 Part 1910.119 “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals; Explosives and Blasting Agents,” 

Section I Title I.
USFA-TR-124/January 2003 5

incidents involving hazardous materials. While large, industrial facilities obviously contain hazardous material, the exact types and quantities often are not common knowledge. The general public 

tends not to consider that the neighborhood pool, local quarries, and even hardware stores contain 

hazardous materials. Five-gallon containers of chlorine, one-gallon containers of muriatic and other 

acids, other types of corrosives, and even paint thinner are common chemicals found in these types 

of establishments.

To help protect the public from these hazards, Congress has passed laws and Federal agencies have 

enacted standards that seek greater health protection from the risks of toxic chemicals. Three items 

in particular strengthen the hand of local government: being informed about the hazardous materials risks in their area, knowing how they are characterized, and knowing what industry is doing to 

ensure safety. These regulations and standards also help affected industries to meet their health and 

safety goals regarding safe storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials.

In the next section, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Risk Management Program and the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act are described. These two EPA initiatives 

and their related requirements and regulations give fire departments, planning agencies, industry, 

and citizen groups opportunities for cooperation that should be used to advantage. A corollary 

standard implemented by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration – the Process Safety 

Management (PSM) of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, Explosives, and Blasting Agents – protects 

employees from chemical accidents. There are parts of the standard that all but invite fire service 

involvement with the industrial facility.

When communities develop and implement a risk management program, the very process engenders communication among citizens, businesses, and local government. Representatives from these 

groups have the opportunity to work together to reduce the risks presented by the presence of 

hazardous materials. This knowledge and awareness also helps public safety agencies, as well as the 

public, to be better prepared in the event of an emergency.

EPA’s Risk Management Program8

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in December 1970 to reduce environmental 

risks to U. S. citizens. Among its responsibilities was implementation and oversight of the provisions 

of the Clean Air Act, first adopted in 1963 and amended several times.

On December 4, 1984, a cloud of toxic material was accidentally released from a chemical manufacturing facility in Bhopal, India. The release killed more than 3,000 people and injured more 

than 10,000. Just two weeks earlier, several explosions destroyed a petroleum plant in Mexico City, 

claiming more than 500 lives. In November 1990, partly in the wake of the Bhopal and Mexico City 

incidents, Congress enacted some of the most far-reaching revisions ever made to the Clean Air Act. 

In these amendments [Section 112 (r)], Congress included regulations governing the prevention of 

and response to the accidental release of chemical agents. The final version of the 1990 Clean Air 

Act amendments was not published until June 20, 1996, after protracted debate and heavy lobbying 

by both environmentalists and industry. Included in the amendments is a regulation that requires 

facilities designated to develop and implement Risk Management Programs.

8 Federal regulations pertaining to the EPA’s Risk Management Program can be found under Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, “Protection of Environment,” Chapter I, “Environmental Protection Agency,” Subchapter J.
6 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

The EPA Risk Management Program is an important ally for local communities that are concerned 

about the risks presented by chemical facilities in their area. One of the primary objectives of the 

program is to make information about chemical facilities available to State and local governments 

and to the public. The goal is to increase communications between facilities and the public so that, 

should an accident occur, all stakeholders are prepared to respond in a way that reduces the number 

of injuries and deaths.

EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) requirements apply to owners and operators of stationary 

sources that have more than a given threshold quantity of regulated substances. EPA estimates that 

nearly 66,000 facilities nationwide are affected by the new regulation. The most obvious industries 

involved are chemical plants, oil refineries, and other chemical manufacturers.

However, EPA estimates that the new rule will also cover many facilities not currently regulated under 

OSHA’s Process Safety Management standard, including 30,000 propane distributors and over 7,000 

public and private drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. EPA has identified 77 acutely 

toxic chemicals and 63 flammable and explosive substances that are subject to the requirements of 

the Program. Maximum Threshold Quantity (TQ) levels are listed. The TQs for toxic materials range 

from 500 to 20,000 pounds, depending on the material. For flammable materials, the TQ is 10,000 

pounds. The facilities include chemical and other manufacturers, cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems, and Federal facilities.

EPA’s Program requires all “covered sources” – those locations to which the law applies-to prepare a 

written plan that includes public notification, emergency medical treatment for persons exposed to 

released agents, and procedures for emergency response. The latter aspect has the most applicability 

to the fire service.

EPA designated three tiers of requirements, in other words, the level of compliance is scaled: the 

higher the risk of off-site impact, the more rigorous the requirements. These tiers are designated 

as Programs 1, 2, and 3. Program designation is based on “the potential for offsite consequences 

associated with a worst-cast accidental release, accident history, or compliance with the prevention 

requirements under OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standard.”9

Sources that, in the case of an accident, would have no impact on the public or the environment 

have minimal requirements and are designated as Program 1. Depending on the substance, covered 

sources that have the potential to affect the public or the environment face stricter requirements 

and are designated as either Program 2 or 3. Program 3 facilities are subject to OSHA’s Process 

Safety Management Standard, either under State or Federal OSHA programs or in the specified North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. The following must be included in a covered source’s RMP.

• Executive summary

• Registration for the facility

• Certification statement

• A worst-case scenario for each Program 1 process; at least one worst-case scenario to cover 

all Program 2 and 3 processes involving regulated toxic substances; at least one worst-case 

scenario to cover all program 2 and 3 processes involving regulated flammable materials

9

 40 CFR Part 68: Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs. Clean Air Act, Section 112 

(r)(7); Environmental Protection Agency.
USFA-TR-124/January 2003 7

• The five-year accident history for each process

• A summary of the emergency response program for the facility

Any facility with at least one covered process in Programs 2 or 3 must also include:

• At least one alternative release scenario for each regulated toxic substance in Program 2 or 

3 processes, and at least one alternative release scenario to cover all regulated flammable 

materials in Program 2 or 3 processes

• A summary of the prevention program for each Program 2 process

• A summary of the prevention program for each Program 3 process

All affected facilities were required to file a Risk Management Plan with the EPA by June 20, 1999.

Disseminating Information of RMPs

Many individuals in the law enforcement and national security communities as well as the fire 

service have voiced concern about how publicly accessible the RMP information should be. While 

adequate disclosure is a goal, so too, is keeping certain information away from would-be terrorists. 

As part of the Freedom on Information Act, the EPA is required to release the information it receives 

from chemical sources to the general public. Originally, most of that information was going to be 

available for public review on the Internet.

Various agencies and organizations, however, lobbied EPA and Congress to limit the information 

posted on the Internet. Behind the debate was concern that terrorists could potentially access this 

information and determine which facilities have the most hazardous chemicals, and which pose the 

greatest risk to the public. The commander of the Hazardous Materials Division of the Chicago Fire 

Department and chairman of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) Hazardous Material 

Committee stated that posting worst-case scenarios on the Internet would have been a “roadmap for 

terrorists.”

After much discussion, EPA decided against making sensitive, off-site consequence data available on 

the Internet. Officials concluded that offering this information on the Internet could create more 

potential harm than it would do good. The worst-case scenario data is still available, but through a 

more easily controlled medium.

OSHA’s Process Safety Management10

While EPA mandates that affected industries and facilities develop RMPs, OSHA has its own standard that regulates chemical processes. The Process Safety Management (PSM) or Highly Hazardous 

Chemicals, Explosives, and Blasting Agents standard was developed to manage hazards associated 

with facilities that store and use such agents. The goal of the standard, like other OSHA regulations, 

is to protect workers by “preventing or minimizing the consequences of chemical accidents involving highly hazardous chemicals.” 11

10 Federal regulations pertaining to OSHA’s Process Safety Management can be found under Title 29 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. “Labor,” Part 1910, section 1910.119.

11 29 CFD 1910.119: Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals; Explosives and Blasting Agents. RIN 

1218-AB20; Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor. Summary.
8 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

Like RMP, PSM applies to sources where processes meet or exceed threshold quantities of highly 

hazardous chemicals (HHCs). While the list of HHCs share several chemicals in common with those 

listed under RMP, the programs differ in the threshold quantities for the chemicals found on both 

lists. The OSHA list is shorter, and the TQ ranges from 100 to 15,000 pounds. It is important to 

pint out, however, that this is not a shortcoming in OSHA’s program. The regulation also applies to 

facilities where 10,000 or more pounds of flammable liquids and gases exist, as well as to the process 

activities associated with the manufacture of explosives or pyrotechnics.

While EPA’s RMP allows relatively few exceptions (transportation and storage activities incidental to stationary sources, naturally occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs, and activities on the Outer 

Continental Shelf), there are numerous possible exceptions to PSM. Retail facilities, facilities with 

hydrocarbon fuels used solely for workplace consumption, and sites where flammable liquids are 

kept at temperatures below their boiling points are among the sources subject to exemption from 

the PSM standard.

Those sources that are regulated by the PSM standard must compile process safety information, which 

includes hazard information, technology information and equipment information on each covered 

process. Since the objective of this program is to increase employee safety, receiving vital input on 

hazards from potential accident victims is essential. The PSM standard explicitly requires employee 

involvement in the development of a written plan of action, and detailing employee participation 

in the process hazard analyses. The standard also guarantees employees access to all information 

required under the standard. OSHA does not require facilities to disclose the details of their PSM 

plan to the public; rather, these plans are designed to protect employees who, in some cases, can be 

required to sign a non-disclosure agreement if the information in a PSM plan is proprietary.

Employees whose job includes operating a covered process must be trained on all operating procedures of that process. This training must emphasize employee safety and health hazards, safe 

work practices, and emergency operations. Also, facilities must develop emergency action plans 

that include training employees on procedures for handling minor releases. Further, the standard 

mandates documented refresher training every three years for each employee at a covered source. 

Employers must certify that they have evaluated compliance with process safety requirements at least 

every three years. These requirements should be of interest of the fire service. Fire departments can 

be excellent sources for the emergency action plans and training on minor releases that employees 

are required to have.

The PSM standard requires a safety review of newly constructed or renovated facilities that are considered covered sources. Safety reviews ensure that construction and equipment are designed in accordance with specifications. Safety reviews are also performed “to assure that adequate safety, operating, 

maintenance, and emergency procedures are in place.” Moreover, PSM requires that facilities perform 

investigations of incidents within 48 hours of their occurrence. Investigative teams must be created 

following an actual catastrophic release, or a release that could have had the potential to be catastrophic. 

These teams must consist of individuals who are knowledgeable in the involved process. The team is 

required to develop a written report, which must be retained for at least five years.

EPA’s Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

In 1984, two international incidents involving hazardous materials (the catastrophic event in Bhopal 

and the disaster in Mexico), prompted the United States to draft additional legislation aimed toward 

preventing chemical accidents.
USFA-TR-124/January 2003 9

Congress adopted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 

which requires facilities to disclose information on chemical processes to the public. The Act itself 

is a part of Title III of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA).

SARA amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA--better known as Superfund) by adding new enforcement tools, and by increasing State 

involvement and the focus on health problems caused by hazardous waste sites. One of the key 

provisions of CERCLA was to create a tax on chemical and petroleum industries. The monies collected are used to support a fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. 

In addition, CERCLA established guidelines concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, 

and established liability of those responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites. SARA also 

encouraged greater citizen participation in the decision to clean up sites.

EPCRA was designed to help communities prepare for and respond to chemical accidents. EPCRA 

required each State to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC); the SERC then 

was required to divide its respective State into Emergency Planning Districts (EPD). EPCRA also 

mandated that communities develop Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) for each EPD, 

comprised of representatives from local government, the fire service, law enforcement, the local 

community, and industry.

The LEPCs are able to develop emergency response plans for large-scale incidents, and to maintain 

records of hazardous chemical inventories. Certain businesses are required to submit either a list of 

hazardous substances or Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to the LEPC and to local fire departments 

regarding the hazardous materials that are used, processed, stored, or manufactured at their facilities. 

Emergency response plans are based on this information. LEPCs will be further discussed under the 

Local Response section.

THe IMPoRTAnCe oF lePCS

As noted previously, LEPCs are mandated by EPCRA, and play a valuable risk management planning 

role in the community. Currently, there are over 3,900 LEPCs across the country. Depending on the 

State in which they are located, LEPCs can be organized into partnerships of more than one municipality, city, county, parish, or tribe. For example, Oregon has a Statewide LEPC and two tribal LEPCs. 

Each one of these LEPCs share several characteristics with the others, but also possesses unique traits 

based on the needs and resources of the community it serves.

LEPCs address issues and devise response plans that build on the framework of local, State, and 

Federal laws and regulations. At the local level, the LEPC performs the frequent reevaluation that is 

necessary to ensure that a community’s response plan is up to date and appropriate for the hazards 

that the community may face. In most locations, the LEPC comprises a broad variety of individuals 

to make sure that response planning takes into account the various issues and concerns that may be 

raised in an actual emergency. Drawing on their respective expertise and experience, these individuals work to create realistic scenarios and then devise appropriate emergency response plans. By 

modifying generic high-level State and Federal guidance to meet community-specific needs, LEPCs 

play an important role in the emergency response and risk management hierarchy.12

12 Environmental Protection Agency. “LEPCs and Deliberate Releases: Addressing Terrorist Activities in the Local Emergency 

Plan.” EPA 550-F-01-005. May 2001.
10 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

Harford County, MD

Harford County, MD, is a rural county located northwest of Baltimore. Volunteers provide all emergency services in the County, although the Emergency Operations Center and 9-1-1 are staffed with 

paid employees. The LEPC is comprised of 20-30 members who meet once a month, eleven months 

of the year, to review hazardous materials incidents, SARA Title III Reports, and Chemical Stockpile 

Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) updates. The LEPC has the full support of the County 

Executive and the community, who take an active interest in the Committee’s mission.

Harford County, in addition to having several farms and a major interstate highway in the middle, is 

home to the US Army’s Aberdeen proving Ground (APG), and the Soldier, Biological, and Chemical 

Command. Chemical and biological weapons have been tested, stored, or destroyed there--a situation not faced by many other LEPCs. The LEPC has dealt with this challenge by building a good 

working relationship with the APG; a representative from the APG sits on the committee.

Harford County also has a law that requires that any hazardous material released into the environment 

be reported. Chapter 146 of the Harford County Code, “The Hazardous Materials Law,” requires that 

9-1-1 must be called any time a hazardous material is released into the environment. Failure to do 

so will result in the issuance of a Notice of Violation that may require the violator to appear before 

the LEPC. In addition to the hearing, a fine of up to $1,000 may be assessed.13

Goochland County, VA

Located between Richmond and Charlottesville, VA, Goochland County also is a rural county. The 

many farms in the county are being joined by rapidly growing and expanding bedroom communities. Six volunteer fire/rescue companies, which provide advanced life support care, serve the county. 

The volunteer corporations rely on neighboring Henrico county for a hazardous materials team.

The Goochland County LEPC not only must address the issue of numerous tanker trucks passing 

through the county on an interw highway, but it must operate in relative obscurity as well. Because 

of the county’s small tax base, the LEPC receives relatively little funding and has learned to improvise 

to be effective.

One of the key innovations of the Goochland LEPC was the Short-Term Alternate Refugee (STAR) 

program. As is common across the county, the County’s emergency shelters are in designated schools, 

but because of the rural nature of the county, the school-based shelters are remote and difficult to 

access for many residents. The STAR program provides multiple alternate temporary shelters for 

evacuees. This not only protects the citizens, but also encourages them to evacuate in the event of 

an emergency.

Cuyahoga County, OH

Cuyahoga County is the largest county in Ohio, with approximately 1.4 million people and 59 local 

political jurisdictions. The LEPC that serves Cuyahoga County is one of 87 in the State. Ohio has 

chosen to make counties the geographical focus for its local right-to-know requirements, and they 

are the central resource points for response planning for hazardous substance spills, accidents, and 

releases. The Cuyahoga County LEPC was formed in 1987 and consists of 24 members representing 

different community interests. The Cuyahoga County committee’s primary responsibilities include

13Harford County LEPC “The Right-to-know, A Guide for Business.” http://www.co.ha.md.us/lepc/Download/RightToKnowGuide.pdf
USFA-TR-124/January 2003 11

• Processing data for annual chemical inventories for over 3,000 facilities,

• Planning for emergency response to emergency releases of hazardous substances,

• Receiving emergency notifications when hazardous substance releases occur,

• Providing information about local chemical inventories and emergency releases to the public, and 

• Coordinating training and exercises for emergency response.14

To create, implement, and monitor emergency response policies, the Cuyahoga County LEPC works 

with the County Division of Emergency Services, the Cuyahoga Emergency Management Advisory 

Board, and the Board of Cuyahoga County Commissioners, as well as individual commercial contacts. 

In 1994, the county LEPC introduced its Chemical Accident Prevention and Chemical Emergency 

Preparedness Program (CAPCEP), which provides a technical advisor to work directly with facilities 

that handle hazardous substances.

Since 1987, the Cuyahoga County LEPC has received thousands of annual chemical inventories, 

completed planning requirements for over 300 facilities storing hazardous substances, and processed over 1000 emergency release notifications. In addition to planning and response, however, 

the Cuyahoga County LEPC has played an active role in community education and exercise planning. 

In the past two years, it has tested the county's hazardous materials emergency response plan through 

large-scale exercises at two local sites that store dangerous materials: the Praxair Distribution Center 

in North Royalton and the National Aeronautics and Space.

Administration Glenn Research Center in Brook Park. Though hypothetical and not necessarily representative of incidents that may occur at the selected sites, the exercises have allowed practice of the 

field coordination, mutual aid response, and hazard mitigation skills necessary in case of an actual 

emergency substance release.15

These are just three of the, 3900 LEPCs located throughout the country. Because procedures and 

policies vary from place to place, local first responders should familiarize themselves with the LEPC 

in their area and seek to become active participants in the RMP process. Regardless of how an LEPC 

is set up, it is critical that fire departments maintain open and constant lines of communication.

THe FIRe SeRVICe: 

ACTIVe leADeRSHIP WITH lePCs FoR RISK MAnAGeMenT PlAnnInG

Fire departments are a critical element of Local Emergency Planning Committees. In fact, they are 

in an excellent position to lobby for an LEPC if one has not been established, and to help ensure 

that facilities are meeting the requirements of EPA’s RMP. In the event of an accidental release at a 

covered facility, local fire departments are likely to be intimately involved in the primary emergency 

response. (As noted earlier, a required element of a RMP is a summary of the emergency response 

plan for sources of hazardous materials.)

14 Cuyahoga County, OH LEPC Organizational Web site: http://lepc.cuyahogacounty.us/ Accessed: September 24, 2002

15 Cuyahoga County, OH LEPC Press Releases. http://lepc.cuyahogacounty.us/05242001.htm and http://lepc.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf/

NASA051702.PDF Accessed: September 24, 2002
12 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

According to the Code of Federal Regulations:

a) The owner or operator must attempt to make the following arrangements, as appropriate 

for the type of waste handled at his facility and the potential need for the services of these 

organizations:

1) Arrangements to familiarize police, fire departments, and emergency response teams with 

the layout of the facility, properties of hazardous waste handled at the facility and associated 

hazards, places where facility personnel would normally be working, entrances to roads 

inside the facility, and possible evacuation routes;

2) Where more than one police and fire department might respond to an emergency, agreements designating primary emergency authority to a specific police and a specific fire 

department, and agreements with any others to provide support to the primary emergency 

authority;

3) Agreement with State emergency response teams, emergency response contractors, and 

equipment suppliers; and

4) Arrangements to familiarize local hospitals with the properties of hazardous waste handled 

at the facility and the types of injuries or illnesses which could result from fires, explosions, 

or releases at the facility.

b) Where State or local authorities decline to enter into such arrangements, the owner or operator 

must document the refusal in the operating record.16

LEPCs are an important coordination tool for local fire department response planning, and an important source of information through their risk management planning efforts. Within the risk management plans, fire departments will be able to find detailed information on the types and quantities 

of hazardous materials, as well as facility plans for dealing with an accident, should one occur. It is 

important to remember that much of the information contained in risk management plans is sensitive; as a result, it may be ‘locked down’ by the facilities owner or the LEPC.

Local fire departments should be involved in the process to develop an emergency response plan. 

Should the local department determine that a release at a facility is outside its expertise or beyond 

the capability of its staffing, mutual aid agreements should be incorporated into the emergency 

response plan (as in Houston). Since many large industrial facilities have their own, in-house, fire 

departments/brigades, these agencies should take the lead in developing the response plan. Their 

personnel are likely to have the training and familiarity with the facility necessary to quickly mitigate 

an incident. Having access to a facility’s RMP will facilitate how emergency responders prepare, act 

upon, and critique incidents involving hazardous materials facilities.

By creating a blueprint for meeting with all the businesses in a department’s response area, fire 

departments not only protect citizens and augment the department’s information for response planning, but they also educate local business owners and citizens about their responsibility to protect 

the public.

16 40 CFR Chapter I Part 265, Section 265.37 “Arrangements with local authorities” http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html
USFA-TR-124/January 2003 13

Close coordination with managers and operators of facilities that contain hazardous chemicals and 

biological materials is even more critical in light of our vulnerabilities to acts of domestic and 

foreign terrorism. The increased threat to domestic security has increased the need for responders 

to be aware of the possible targets in their response areas. Responders must also monitor changes 

made at a facility, such as increased security and any impact that has on fire department access, and 

incorporate those changes into their response plans.

Fire departments should be cognizant of transient hazards in their area. Transportation risk is half of 

the risk data that, combined with RMP information, drives response capability planning, including 

number of personnel on a shift, analyzing the adequacy of response times, and addressing mutual 

aid response concerns. All communities have roads passing through their area. These roads, whether 

small two-lane streets or large eight-lane highways, provide major routes for tankers. While it may 

be impossible for fire departments to be aware of every single tanker that passes through their area 

and the cargo that the tanker is carrying, departments should make an effort to become familiar 

with the type of tankers typically passing through their response area. Personnel could then be 

briefed or trained on hazardous materials responses involving the chemicals most likely to be found 

in a truck accident. Underground gas lines are present in our everyday lives and run through our 

communities; we seldom give them a second thought. Awareness and training on the challenges 

present in a gas line rupture, along with awareness of who owns the right-of-way of the line, where 

the shut-offs are located, and contact information for the corporation that owns the line are invaluable in preparing for a response. Departments can find information about transient hazards in their 

area through locally or federally commissioned Commodity Flow Surveys. For example, the United 

States Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics conducts a commodity flow 

survey every four years. This survey contains a wide variety of information on methods of hazardous 

materials transportation, and identifies State-to-State flow, individual State information, a National 

summary, and a report on exports. The reports for 1997 and 1993 can be found at http://www.bts.

gov/ntda/cfs/prod.html

Fire departments should incorporate the information from an RMP into their response scenarios (e.g. 

mutual aid agreements), training schedules, and personnel apparatus deployments. Departments 

should familiarize themselves with covered facilities in their first-due response areas by touring the 

facility and perhaps training with their facilities’ in-house fire department or brigade. Familiarity 

with the facility, through yearly tours and thorough pre-plans, can help to produce a successful emergency response to a covered facility. Response plans and procedures should be updated annually.

Fire departments should also consider applying the risk management planning model to other hazards in their area, such as high-rise occupancy or a small biotech company. While no law mandates 

that these types of facilities follow the same standard set forth by the EPA or OSHA, modifying the 

RMP guidelines provides an excellent framework for creating an all-hazards emergency plan. Just 

because a facility is not required to file under the community Right-to-Know Act does not mean that 

there are not chemical or biological hazards contained in the structure. Small companies can grow 

to a point where they become a covered source or process. They are then required to change their 

status and implement an RMP.

The existence of fire department and environmental agency hazardous materials teams ensures 

that well-trained professionals will be available to respond to a large hazardous materials incident. 

However, it is vital that firefighters and other first responders not rely solely on the presence of the 

team. First responders will still arrive first to the scene and may often have to wait from ten minutes 
14 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

to over two hours for the closest Hazmat team to arrive. At least another half hour will be added 

to that time for the team to perform its size-up, prepare decontamination showers, and suit up a 

primary and back up crew for entry. Decisions made and information gleaned by first-in units are 

essential. Therefore, fire department personnel, regardless of location or rank, should receive at a 

minimum Hazardous Materials-First Responders training. This course, while not a substitute for 

detailed Hazardous Materials Technician training, at least provides all first responders with the training necessary to make a basic evaluation of the scene. Familiarity with the use of the North American 

Emergency Response Guidebook and the type of information contained on a standard Material Safety 

Data Sheet is also necessary.

Hospitals and LEPCs

Several communities have developed emergency response plans that delineate responsibility for 

patients affected by bioterrorism. In addition, hospitals throughout the country are updating their 

decontamination systems as a means of preparing for a potential chemical weapons attack. The 

plans and procedures created for these WMD scenarios could be incorporated into any community 

response plan for any chemical release from a facility. An RMP could include a list of primary care 

facilities, their patient capacity for contaminated victims, decontamination capabilities, and a listing 

of other public health facilities in the area that could be utilized. This section of the plan also could 

show a list of medical resources from the county, State, and/or Federal level, including contact information. It is important to foster contacts and enhance relationships with these resources before an 

event occurs, rather than waiting until a crisis. For example, State and Federal representatives can be 

invited to participate in community response drills or asked to attend planning meetings.

It is also important for local emergency responders to become familiar with the roles of hospitals 

in the event of a chemical accident. While emergency responders have ample practice in transporting patients to hospitals, and interfacing with them in a standard patient-care capacity, a chemical 

accident at a processing facility may necessitate a change in the normal routine. EMS providers and 

transportation agencies should provide drivers with the list of designated decontamination and care 

facilities, along with a hard copy of emergency procedures for dealing with contaminated victims. 

These procedures should be practiced through full-scale exercises using as many potential responders as possible.

Resources

Several resources are available to local fire departments to assist them in the creation and application 

of a Risk Management Plan. While some of these resources are aimed at the LEPC, they provide useful information to the fire service as well.

The United States Fire Administration’s Web site (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov) provides several major fire 

reports concerning incidents in facilities covered under SARA Title III. In addition, the Web site 

provides links to reports by Fire Officers at the Executive Fire Officer Institute that discuss incidents 

in the creation and implementation of an RMP.

In addition, the USFA administers the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The purpose of the 

program is to award one-year grants directly to fire departments of a State to enhance their abilities 

with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. This program seeks to identify departments that lack 

the basic tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and their firefighting personnel. Through this program, departments lacking appropriate equipment necessary 
USFA-TR-124/January 2003 15

for responses to a chemical accident could apply for a grant. For 2002, grants were available in the 

areas of Firefighter Operations and Firefighter Safety; Fire Prevention; Emergency Medical Services, 

and Firefighting Vehicles. More information on this grant program can be found at http://www.usfa.

dhs.gov/fireservice/grants/afgp/index.shtm

The EPA provides several pamphlets and guides concerning chemical safety on its Web site (http://

www.epa.gov). Included is Chemical Safety in Your Community: EPA’s New Risk Management Program, 

May 1999. This pamphlet provides a summary of the Risk Management Program and a list of important links to other RMP sites.

The Environmental Health Watch (http://www.ehw.org) provides a “report card” on chemical accidents 

for the LEPC. Under number 4, Emergency Response Planning, the EHW provides a 13-point list of 

steps to be taken by the LEPC in planning its emergency response.

There are also several Web sites providing information (on) LEPCs. Among these are the LEPC 

Information Exchange (http://www.lepcinfoexchange.com/), LEPC/SERC Net (http://www.rtk.net/lepc/), 

the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Database (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/lepcdb.nsf/

HomePage?openForm), and the LEPC Web Network (http://www.lepcweb.com/).

Finally, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) addresses RMP in NFPA 1500--Standard on 

Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program. It provides a template for the creation of a 

Risk Management Plan. The sample plan is comprehensive, covering not only the Federal regulations 

governing information sharing and planning, but also the training and capabilities necessary on the 

part of the fire department. Copies of this standard are available from the NFPA at www.nfpa.org