Chemical Safety

in Your Community:

EPA’s New Risk Management Program

Guides to Chemical

Risk Management

EPA 550-B-99-010

May 1999
2

The Current Status of the Risk Management

Program Rule

As of the publication date of this backgrounder, key elements of EPA’s Risk Management Program Rule are still not

final. Public access to the offsite consequence analysis data

continues to be debated. EPA has not officially decided on

how it will respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The agency has said that while the offsite consequence

analysis data will not be distributed to the public on the

Internet, it will supply paper copies of the data upon request. Also, EPA intends to increase the reportable quantity of hydrocarbon fuels (i.e., propane). Concurrently, the

U.S. Court of Appeals granted an interim stay of the Risk

Management Program Rule as it applies to facilities using

propane in a process. For the most current information,

see http://www.epa.gov/ceppo.

For More Information

The National Safety Council is maintaining the Chemical Emergency Management Web site at www.nsc.org/

xroads.htm as a resource supplement to this series of publications. The site is a directory of Risk Management Program-related links to organizations, regulations, chemicals,

rules, and regulations involved in emergency management

and the safe handling of chemicals. A selection of articles

and papers written about the Risk Management Program

Rule and local efforts to identify and analyze risk in the

community is also included. The site will be constantly expanding as industry and communities develop new information required under the Risk Management Program Rule.

Other Publications in this Series

Other documents in the Guides to Environmental Risk

Management Series are listed below:

❏ New Ways to Prevent Chemical Accidents

❏ How Safe Am I? Helping Communities Evaluate

Chemical Risks

❏ What Makes a Hazard Hazardous: Working with

Chemical Information

❏ Evaluating Chemical Hazards in the Community:

Using an RMP’s Offsite Consequences Analysis

These documents can be downloaded for free from the

Chemical Emergency Management Web site at www.nsc.org/

xroads.htm.

About this Document

The Environmental Health Center produced this guide

under cooperative agreement CX 826604-01-0 with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. It is part of a series of

publications on the Risk Management Program Rule and

issues related to chemical emergency management.

Permission to reproduce this guide is

granted with the accompanying credit line:

“Reproduced from Guides to Environmental Risk Management, Chemical Safety in

Your Community: EPA’s New Risk Management Program with permission from the

National Safety Council’s Environmental

Health Center, May 1999.”

May 1999
3

By June 21, 1999, an estimated 66,000 facilities—including chemical plants, oil

refineries, propane retailers,

fertilizer warehouses, ammonia users, and water

treatment plants—must

comply with the Risk Management Program Rule (RMP

Rule). These facilities are required to identify their hazardous chemicals, analyze

the potential risks of these

chemicals to the surrounding community, develop

an emergency response

program, and submit a summary of their risk management program to the U.S.

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). EPA will then

distribute this information,

making public a new generation of right-to-know information about hazardous

chemicals and community

hazards.

Though the RMP Rule applies nationwide, the main

effect will be at the local

level. Using this powerful information, local authorities

and communities will be able

to identify chemical hazards

and risks and improve public safety.

Journalists reporting on

the publicly available risk

management information

will stimulate communities

to learn more about the

chemical hazards in the

community. Related stories

can help communities evaluate the potential for exposure to risk. And public

dialogue with local industries

can promote facility safety,

encourage accident prevention initiatives, and improve

emergency response plans.

Bhopal: The Trigger

Human error, equipment

failure, and natural disasters can all cause chemical

accidents. The danger to the

public from an unplanned release of a toxic chemical is

illustrated by the 1984

Bhopal, India, tragedy.

There, a release of 40 tons

of highly poisonous methyl

isocyanate (MIC) killed more

than 2,000 people and injured 170,000, leaving thousands more to die later.

Another release involving

the same chemical occurred

months later in Institute,

West Virginia, sending more

than 100 residents to the

hospital.

As a result of Bhopal and

similar incidents, Congress

enacted a law to help inform

communities of chemical

hazards and aid their emergency planning. The law,

known as the Emergency

Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),

was passed as part of the

1986 amendments to the

Superfund hazardous waste

cleanup program.

Setting The Stage: The

Emergency Planning

and Community Rightto-Know Act

EPCRA created State

Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and Local

Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to implement the act. SERCs are

appointed by the governor

and consist of state emergency, environmental, and

health agencies; public interest associations; and others

with emergency management experience. LEPCs,

whose makeup is specified by

the law, typically consist of—

❏ Representatives of elected

state and local officials

❏ Law enforcement officials, civil defense workers, and firefighters

❏ First aid, health, hospital,

environmental, and transportation workers

❏ Representatives of community groups and the

news media

❏ Owners and operators of

industrial plants and

other users of chemicals,

such as hospitals, farms,

and small businesses

Participation of the news

media is specified by law. In

practice, however, very few

journalists actually sit on an

LEPC, believing that such

participation represents a

conflict of interest. This

same infrastructure will be

leveraged to implement the

Risk Management Program.

(See Key Events Related to

the Risk Management Program Rule.)

About 868,000 facilities

that have more than 400 extremely hazardous substances listed by EPCRA

report information about

their chemical inventories to

LEPCs, SERCs, and local fire

departments. Under EPCRA,

facilities are required to file

reports if the quantities of

the hazardous chemicals exceed specified thresholds. In

1987, EPCRA launched another important right-toknow program, called the

Toxics Release Inventory,

that reports emissions of

hazardous substances into

the environment.

EPCRA’s reporting requirements and emergency

planning and notification

provisions established a

coordinated effort among

EPA, state governors, SERCs

and LEPCs, owners and operators of regulated facilities,

and local fire departments.

LEPCs receive chemical

inventory information,

analyze the hazards, and

Chemical Safety in Your Community:

EPA’s New Risk Management Program
4

develop local emergency response plans. They are responsible for disseminating

this information to the public and serving as a focus for

community awareness and

action.

EPCRA extended right-toknow beyond the workplace

and into the community.

This information has stimulated communication between industries and communities and encouraged

industries to store smaller

inventories of hazardous substances, discharge less, and

substitute less-hazardous

chemicals. In addition, the

availability of public information about hazardous

chemicals has encouraged

investigative reporting and

community activism, often

combining chemical hazard

issues with related issues,

such as environmental justice and children’s health.

Picking Up Where

EPCRA Left Off: The

Risk Management

Program

In 1990, Congress took

additional measures to

protect communities from

hazardous chemicals by including accident prevention

and emergency preparedness measures in the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAA). Section 112(r) of the

CAA authorizes EPA to create regulations that prevent

and prepare for accidental

releases. On June 20, 1996,

EPA issued the RMP Rule (40

CFR 68). Its primary goal is

to protect communities from

releases of toxic or flammable chemicals that are

prone to cause immediate,

serious harm to public and

environmental health.

Like EPCRA, the RMP

Rule contains important

right-to-know provisions.

The RMP Rule requires facilities to provide EPA with a

summary of their risk management programs if more

than a specified threshold

amount can be released by

an incident involving one

process. A process is defined

as manufacturing, sorting,

distributing, handling, or using a regulated substance.

Chemicals in transit, including pipelines, are excluded.

Key Events Related to the Risk Management

Program Rule

1983 The OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR

1910.1200) provides employees a right-to-know about the

hazards of chemicals to which they are exposed.

1984 In Bhopal, India, a release of 40 tons of highly toxic methyl

isocyanate kills more than 2,000 people; thousands more

die later.

1985 In Institute, West Virginia, a release involving methyl

isocyanate sends more than 100 people to the hospital.

1985 EPA creates its Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program

and urges a voluntary program to develop plans that address

potential hazardous chemical emergencies at facilities.

1986 Congress enacts EPCRA to provide the public with information

about the amounts of hazardous chemicals present and

discharged from fixed-site facilities. The law establishes the

infrastructure of SERCs and LEPCs to develop emergency

response plans for each community and fosters chemical

emergency management dialogue between industry and local

communities.

1990 Congress enacts the Clean Air Act Amendments. Section 112(r)

includes requirements for establishing the Risk Management

Program Rule to (1) prevent and prepare for accidental

releases of chemicals that could cause immediate, serious

harm to human health and the environment and

(2) communicate hazard information to the public.

1992 The OSHA Process Safety Management Standard is released.

This standard is designed to prevent or minimize the

consequences of a catastrophic release of toxic, reactive,

flammable, or highly explosive hazardous chemicals from a

process. It serves as a model for Risk Management Program

Rule requirements.

1994 EPA publishes its List of Regulated Substances and

Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention, identifying

the Risk Management Program’s regulated substances and

threshold quantities. Amendments were published in 1996,

1997, and 1998.

1996 EPA releases the Risk Management Program Rule

requirements under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act.

Facilities are given three years to comply. This rule also

establishes the obligation to create an independent

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to

investigate the causes of major chemical accidents and

provide industry with information about conditions that

compromise safety.

1999 Under Clean Air Act section 112(r), RMPs must be

submitted to EPA before June 21, 1999.
5

Summary of Key RMP Requirements

❏ Develop and implement a risk management program,

consisting of the following:

n Hazard assessment program

w identity of listed substances and quantities

stored on site

w five-year history of accidental releases

w worst-case release scenario analysis with effect

on the community

w alternative release scenario analysis (only by

some facilities)

n Accidental release prevention program

n Emergency response program

❏ Submit written RMP to EPA before June 21, 1999

❏ Revise RMP at least every 5 years

EPA will distribute a

summary of each facility’s

risk management program,

known as a risk management

plan, or RMP, to state and

local agencies involved with

emergency planning and response. These programs will

include an accident prevention program, a hazard assessment (which includes an

offsite consequence analyses), and an emergency response program. The RMPs

will provide state and local

agencies with additional information about chemicals

and facilities regulated by

EPCRA. Since the RMP Rule

regulates some chemicals

not regulated by EPCRA,

state and local agencies will

have access to information

about additional chemicals

The general public will be

given ready access to some—

but not all—RMP information through the Internet

and other means, including

SERCs and LEPCs. Information made available to communities enables them to

learn more about local

chemical hazards and the

extent to which risk of exposure to these hazards is reduced through a facility’s risk

management program.

(OSHA’s) standard: Process

Safety Management of Highly

Hazardous Chemicals (29 CFR

1910.119). This regulation, often

referred to as the PSM Standard,

was published in 1992. Although

both regulations are designed to

minimize the potential for and

extent of accidental releases,

there are differences in the

chemicals and facilities they

regulate. The RMP Rule will expand the number of facilities required to have an accident

prevention program and will

make information about those

programs readily available to the

community for the first time.

The accident prevention program of many RMPs contains information on the types of

hazards that may be created,

process controls that prevent or

minimize releases, mitigation

systems used to lessen the effect of releases, and monitoring

Reducing Risk:

Accident Prevention

as the Key

The accident prevention

requirements of the RMP Rule

are based on the requirements

of the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration’s

Facilities that have more than specified threshold quantities of any of 77 acutely

toxic substances or 63 flammable substances must submit an RMP. All of the

listed substances can form gas or vapor clouds that may travel offsite and have

dangerous consequences if more than the threshold quantity is released. Not

all of the covered substances are regulated by EPCRA. Initially, 44 percent of

the 66,000 facilities affected by the Risk Management Program Rule were

propane distributors and users. This number could change dramatically if proposed legislation to exempt propane from the RMP or an EPA proposal to raise

the reporting threshold for hydrocarbon fuels become effective.

Types of Facilities Regulated by the

Risk Management Program Rule
6

and detection systems.

Worker training, process

maintenance, compliance

audits, and incident investigation information is reported also.

In addition, RMPs include

a summary of the accident

history for the past five years

of process operation. Past

behavior is a useful indicator of the facility’s safety culture and commitment to

accident prevention.

Identifying Hazards:

The Offsite

Consequence Analyses

The RMP must include an

offsite consequence analysis

(OCA) of potential chemical

accidents. Two scenarios are

required of most facilities: a

worst-case and an alternative case scenario. The main

purpose of the analysis is to

identify vulnerable populations in residences, schools,

businesses, and other facilities (public receptors) and

vulnerable parks, wildlife

preserves, and other natural

areas (environmental receptors). Identifying the scope

and needs of the vulnerable

areas is key to planning community response to an incident (see map above).

The OCA simulates a release and estimates how far

away from the release

people or property could be

harmed—a “distance to

endpoint.” The area that is

vulnerable to damage from a

release will often be represented by a circle with its

center at the point of release

and its radius equal to the

distance to endpoint. Distances to endpoint estimations can be either calculated from acceptable air

dispersion models or obtained from a lookup table

prepared by EPA.

All facilities must prepare

worst-case scenarios. Worstcase scenarios assume that

the total quantity of the substance is quickly released,

that atmospheric conditions

will maximize the effect of

the event, and that no

mitigation or response actions are taken. Worst-case

scenarios can predict spectacularly long distances—

more than 25 miles in some

cases. However, worst-case

scenarios represent a highly

unlikely chain of events. Although catastrophic releases

have occurred, they are very

rare. Combining these failures with worst-case weather

conditions makes the overall scenario even less likely.

But such events can and may

indeed happen.

Many facilities must also

prepare alternative release

scenarios, which are based

on more credible, realistic

factors. For example, the

scenario can assume that

mitigation measures (e.g.,

dikes, shut-off valves, fire

sprinklers) operate as designed and environmental

conditions are typical, rather

than the worst possible. The

scenario may even be based

on the facility’s accident history. Alternative release scenarios represent more likely

events, providing more practical information to emergency planners and the

public.

Preparing for

Accidents: Emergency

Response Programs

Despite prevention measures, accidents do happen.

Therefore, the RMP Rule requires facilities to have an

emergency response program if their worst-case release scenario can have an

offsite consequence.

The emergency response

program must include a plan

for informing the public and

local emergency response

agencies about accidental

releases. The plan must be coordinated with the community emergency response

plan. In addition, the emergency response program must

also include procedures for

the use, inspection, testing,

and maintenance of emergency response equipment, as

well as training for employees

in relevant procedures.

Facilities whose employees will not respond to accidental releases do not need

to develop an emergency response program if they take

certain measures: Facilities

must notify emergency responders when there is a

need for response. Facilities

with regulated flammable

substances must coordinate

response actions with the

Areas at Risk Identified in Hypothetical

Worst-Case and Alternative Scenarios
7

local fire department. Facilities with regulated toxic substances must be included in

the community emergency

response plan.

The emergency response

provisions of the RMP Rule

build on EPCRA’s emergency

planning provisions, encouraging facilities to coordinate

their plans with community

emergency planners and responders.

Balancing Right-toKnow and Security:

Risk Management

Planning in the

Information Age

The Clean Air Act mandated that EPA make RMP information readily available

to the public. Through public disclosure, Congress intended to save lives, reduce

accidents, limit pollution,

and protect property.

Initially, EPA planned to

post all of the data on the

Internet—freely available to

all. However, on November 5,

1998, EPA announced it

would not include the OCA

portion of the RMP data in the

online database because this

particular information could

be used by terrorists to identify mass casualty targets.

The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)

took the lead role to prevent

the distribution of OCA data

on the Internet. CMA asserted that a database of

chemical inventories and

OCAs universally available

on the Internet could make

chemical facilities ready targets for terrorists. James

Solyst, CMA Team Leader for

Information Management/

Right-to-Know, remarked

that while the CMA supports

the RMP Rule, “... making

the worst-case scenario data

available via the Internet is

a bad idea, given the times

in which we live.” Solyst

continued that putting this

data on the Internet “... will

increase the risk of terrorist

attacks.” The Federal Bureau

of Investigation supported

CMA’s position and helped

persuade EPA to reverse its

earlier policy of free Internet

access.

In contrast, public interest

groups argued that full disclosure remains the best option

to safeguard the public. Paul

Orum, Coordinator of the

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, asserted

“... the need to reduce real

hazards (chemicals) in the

community cannot be accomplished by withholding

data from the public. Broad

distribution and public

awareness of worst-case hazards through the Internet is

the only effective way to motivate companies.”

Obtaining OCA data will

be a challenge. Public interest organizations that maintain right-to-know Web sites

such as the Environmental

Defense Fund (Chemical

Scorecard) and the Unison

Institute (RTKNET) have not

indicated whether they will

distribute the data themselves.

Having RMP data not only

on the public record, but also

easily accessible and searchable online, would have

provided reporters an opportunity to develop local stories. Nevertheless, there are

alternative sources for locating this essential hazard information. As of May 1999,

all RMP data is still subject

to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)—although

congressional initiatives

maybe underway to block

this avenue. (For more information on the debate, see

Writing a Story: Questions to Think About

❏ How effectively has the LEPC or other emergency management

organizations developed and tested emergency plans required under

EPCRA?

❏ How will local chemical emergency planning and response organizations use RMP information to improve safety (e.g., through emergency response, hazard reduction, or zoning restrictions)?

❏ Who would be affected by a release? How would these vulnerable

populations know that an emergency is occurring and how to

respond?

❏ How will local officials and the public perceive the risk of accidental

releases? What factors will they consider to determine risk from the

chemical hazards reported on the RMP?

❏ Has the public’s perception of the facility’s safety and environmental

record led them to trust the facility?

❏ Are local facilities with chemical inventories prepared for a major

release? Have they developed emergency response plans? Are the

plans current and have exercises been conducted to test them? Has

the facility communicated with neighbors and developed working

relationships with community response organizations?

❏ How many affected facilities are there in the community? What is

their accident release history?

❏ Has the facility changed its operations to improve prevention and

response as a result of the need to complete the RMP? Are they

undertaking any hazard reduction actions to lower the quantity and

number of chemicals? Has the facility improved accident prevention

design and procedures? How does a facility’s program compare with

others in its industrial classification?
8

The National Safety Council

Environmental Health Center’s April 1999 issue of Environment Writer at the

NSC EHC Web site) LEPCs

or SERCs are another

source. So are the regulated

facilities; many, in fact, have

already been communicating their RMPs in a variety

of public forums. CMA is recommending that its members share RMP data with the

community.

Informing the public

about risks they face is

something many reporters

consider a key part of their

job. They are often the translators through which technical information is compiled,

interpreted, and relayed to

a broader public. RMP data

should provide local journalists with the raw material for

many stories. Open information was a key to the strategy Congress and EPA

envisioned for improving

public safety.

Funding: The

Perennial Problem

Although EPCRA established the infrastructure and

mandate to conduct local

emergency planning, the

availability of resources to

support these efforts sometimes limits a community’s

ability to prepare for emergency responses. Similarly,

the RMP Rule gives emergency management groups

information that better enables them to protect the

public. However, the lack of

direct federal funding to support these activities may

hamper their ability to use

the information.

Many state and local governments see EPCRA and

the RMP Rule as positive additions to their public safety

efforts and are incorporating them into their programs. Others just do not

have the resources to implement another requirement

in an already over-burdened

agency. Some implementing

agencies address the funding issue by charging facilities fees for EPCRA

activities to offset the operational costs. Others rely on

industry contributions.

Implementing the

Rule: Variations from

State to State

EPCRA gives states flexibility in the structure and

operation of the SERCs and

LEPCs. For example, California has 5 LEPCs, while New

Jersey has 587. Just as structure and resources vary, so

does effectiveness. Although

some SERCs and LEPCs

have established excellent

working relationships with

the facilities that report to

them and the community

they serve, others have had

less success.

Many RMP Rule programs

will actually be administered

and enforced by state and

local agencies. These agencies must request and be

delegated from EPA the right

to implement the Risk Management Program within

their jurisdictions. Otherwise, EPA remains responsible for implementing the

rule. As of April 1999,

Florida, Georgia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands

had been delegated responsibility for managing the

Risk Management Program.

Twelve other states and two

counties are also seeking delegation to manage their own

programs. Check EPA’s Web

site or the Right-to-Know

Hotline for the most current

information.

Both EPCRA and the RMP

are “minimum rules.” Implementing agencies have the

option of adding reporting

requirements, chemicals,

and threshold quantities.

California’s Office of Emergency Services, for example,

has already indicated that it

intends to modify the RMP

Rule to be consistent with its

own requirements.

Evaluating Risk: It’s

Up to Local

Communities

The RMP offers communities information on chemical hazards; the frequency

and severity of previous

chemical releases; and the

measures taken to either prevent, minimize, or respond

to an accidental release. It

does not provide information

on the risks these chemicals

present to the community;

that is, the probability of an

accident occurring, its potential effect, and what the event

would mean to the community.

EPA believes that identifying risk is best left to stakeholders in the community:

Preventing accidental releases of hazardous

chemicals is the shared

responsibility of industry,

government, and the

public. The first steps toward accident prevention are identifying the

hazards and assessing

the risks. Once information about chemicals is

openly shared, industry,

government, and the

community can work together toward reducing

the risk to public health

and the environment.

EPA, Risk Management

Planning: Accidental Release

Prevention—Final Rule:

Clean Air Act Section 112(r),

Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, 550-F96-002, May 1996

Determining the likelihood of these scenarios is difficult because the data

needed (e.g., rates for equipment failure and human error) are not usually available.

Even when data are available,

significant uncertainties

remain in applying the data

because each facility’s situ-
9

ation is unique. The probability of an event occurring

is only part of the risk equation. How right-to-know information is communicated

will affect the community’s

perception of the risk posed

by accidental chemical releases. The perception of

risk will be shaped by the

community’s ability to understand the nature of potential hazards; facilities’

ability to control, mitigate,

and respond to those hazards; and, the community’s

ability to manage emergencies. A community’s reaction to perceived risk is

tempered by other factors,

such as local industry’s relationship with the community and socioeconomic

factors that are important to

the community.

In collaboration with

LEPCs and SERCs, a number

of industries are launching

public risk communication

and education programs to

help explain RMP data and to

initiate discussions about risk

within the community. (See

reference section pages

10–11 under Journalism, for

more information on model

programs conducted in

Kanawha Valley, West Virginia, and Augusta, Georgia).

Journalists are a primary

source of information that

the community will rely on

to determine risk. The story

is not only about worst-case

scenarios, but also about

more probable outcomes.

The story includes what facilities are doing (or failing

to do) to prevent accidents

and the capabilities of facilities and communities to respond to an incident. The

probability of chemical accidents occurring compared to

the probability of other catastrophic events (such as an

earthquake) also puts the

story into perspective.

Annotated List of RMP Links and Documents

References and links to documents or Internet sites

should not be construed as an endorsement of the views

contained therein.

Federal Information

EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office

http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/acc-pre.html

EPA’s web page for Chemical Accident Prevention and

Risk Management Planning provides very useful, comprehensive information. Examples of available information include fact sheets, questions and answers, newsletters, links

to non-EPA sites, the Clean Air Act section 112(r) legislation, the List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for

Accidental Release Prevention, the Risk Management Program Rule regulations, technical guidance documents, and

many other resources. EPA will maintain an online database of all RMPs—in RMP*Info. However, RMP*Info will not

contain the OCA data.

EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Superfund,

and EPCRA Hotline

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline

This site provides information on how to contact the EPAsponsored Hotline that addresses the Risk Management Program Rule. Other information resources are also provided,

including up-to-date information on several EPA programs,

including the RMP Rule.. Many related documents, including those listed on the EPA site above, can be ordered by

calling (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, D.C., area.

Nonprofit Organizations

National Safety Council

http://www.nsc.org/xroads.htm

The Environmental Health Center’s Crossroads Chemical Emergency Management page is designed to expand and

strengthen the network of organizations involved in emergency planning and response, chemical safety, and hazardous chemical rules and regulations. This Web page will

continually evolve to feature a comprehensive risk communication repository focusing on the Risk Management

Program Rule. Additional useful resources not included in

this document can be found at this Web site.

RMP Background and Rule Summary Information

http://process-safety.tamu.edu/Symposiums/mkopsc-1998/

Papers/Makris.htm

A history of the evolution of the Risk Management Program Rule is provided by Jim Makris, Director, EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office in his

presentation, “EPA Perspective on Advances in Process

Safety.” The presentation was made at the First Annual Symposium of the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center,

“Beyond Regulatory Compliance, Making Safety Second

Nature,” on March 30–31, 1998. Access other presentations

from the symposium and links provided by the host’s home

page.
10

Position Papers

Too Close To Home: A Report on Chemical Accident Risks in

the United States

http://www.pirg.org/enviro/toxics/home98/

U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG). 1998.

Too Close To Home: A Report on Chemical Accident Risks

in the United States. Using non-RMP right-to-know data,

U.S. PIRG presents a national overview and ranking of U.S

areas vulnerable to the effects of chemical disasters and

recommends ways to significantly reduce chemical accidents and toxic pollution.

Responsible Care

® Program

http://204.146.87.27/cmawebsite.nsf/pages/responsiblecare

This Chemical Manufacturers Association web page provides information about the association’s Responsible Care®

Program. Safety Street and other materials on the Kanawha

Valley Demonstration Program may also be available by

calling (703) 741-5000.

CMA, House Leaders Want Chemical Disaster Scenarios Offline

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ew/issues/ew99apr.htm

Davis, Joseph A. CMA, house leaders want chemical disaster scenarios offline, Environment Writer 11, no. 1 (April

1999).

Journalism

The Augusta Chronicle

http://www.augustachronicle.com/

(Note: The Augusta Chronicle’s web page provides a search

function. Entering “worst-case scenario” provides links to many

article summaries, some of which are listed below.)

Planning for the Worst

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/101097/met_risk.html

Gourley, Meghan. 1997. Planning for the worst, Augusta

Chronicle. October 10, 1997. Ms. Gourley wrote several

articles about a model effort to hold a public presentation

of RMP information. This article includes a description of

some scenarios and provides maps showing worst-case and

alternative scenarios from each.

Richmond Industries to Develop Disaster Scenarios

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/081597/

met_disaster.html

Pavey, Robert. 1997. Richmond industries to develop

disaster scenarios, Augusta Chronicle (August 15, 1997).

Who Gets Polluted? The Movement for Environmental Justice

http://www.majbill.vt.edu/geog/3104/justice.htm

Rosen, Ruth. 1994. Who gets polluted? The movement

for environmental justice. Dissent (Spring 1994), 223–230.

The Charleston Gazette

Ward, Ken, Jr. 1994. Many ounces of prevention noted.

The Charleston Gazette (June 14, 1994), 4B. This article is

a commentary on a trial “Safety Street” meeting in Kanawha

Valley, West Virginia

Ward, Ken, Jr. 1994. Disaster possibilities follow set guidelines. The Charleston Gazette (June 6, 1994), 6A. Mr. Ward
11

reports on RMPs provided by 12 industries in Kanawha Valley, West Virginia. (Kanawha’s hazard assessment project

served as a national model for establishing the Risk Management Program Rule.) Ward’s series, “In Harm’s Way?,”

was based on RMPs and interviews with plant managers,

engineers, and other chemical industry experts

Sources of Environmental Data

EPA’s Envirofacts Warehouse

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html

Information from completed RMPs will be made available to the public through the Envirofacts Warehouse database, a single point of access to selected EPA data.

Environmental Defense Fund

http://www.scorecard.org/

The Environmental Defense Fund’s “Chemical Scorecard”

can be used by the public to identify which chemical hazards are located in the community, their known or suspected

effects, and actions the public can take.

Right-to-Know Network (RTK NET)

http://www.ombwatch.org/rtknet/

RTK NET provides access to numerous databases, text

files, and conferences on the environment, environmental

“toxics,” housing, and sustainable development. LEPC

information is also available. RTK NET provides information

about specific LEPCs in its database at http://www.rtk.net/

www/data/lepc.html and information about SERCs in its

database at http://www.rtk.net/www/lepc/webpage/states.html.

Be advised: not all servers are recognized by the host.

Organizational Contacts

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact: Carole Macko, Communications Team Leader,

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office

Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW 5104

Washington, DC 20461

Phone: (202) 260-7938

E-mail: macko.carole@epamail.epa.gov

Chemical Manufacturers Association

Contact: James Solyst, Team Leader, Information

Management/Right-To-Know

Address: Chemical Manufacturers Association

1300 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: (703) 741-5233

E-mail: jim_solyst@mail.cmahq.com

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Position: Paul Orum, Coordinator

Address: Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

218 D Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003

Phone: (202) 544-9586

Web site: www.rkt.net/wcs

E-mail: orump@rkt.net

Printed on

Recycled Paper
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTER

A Division of the National Safety Council

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW • Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20036

www.nsc.org/ehc.htm

(202) 293-2270

May 1999

The Environmental Health Center (EHC) is a division of the National

Safety Council, an 85-year-old nonprofit, nongovernmental organization. The National Safety Council is a national leader on accident prevention and home, workplace, auto, and highway safety issues.

The National Safety Council established EHC in 1988 to undertake

environmental communications activities aimed at helping society and

citizens better understand and act knowledgeably and responsibly in

the face of potential environmental health risks. Since that start, EHC

has built a strong record of effective, nonpartisan communication on

environmental health risks and challenges.