GOVERNMENT & POLICY NEIGHBORS Homes and chemical companies are close in Pasadena, Texas, outside Houston.
THE VANISHING RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Once viewed as away to enhance chemical plant safety these plans are now impossible for the public to find JEFF JOHNSON, C&EN WASHINGTON
R
ISK MANAGEMENT PLANS WERE
meant to be a road map for commiinities, a guide to give the public new tools to protect itself from chemical accidents. But the road map is essentially unavailable. The fear of terrorism, along with government foot-dragging, has made it virtually impossible for an individual or a researcher to examine ariskmanagement plan. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, risk management plans (RMPs) were required by 1999 for some 15,000 facilities that make or use large quantities of specific toxic and flammable chemicals. These facilities had to put together accident-prevention programs and emergency plans; report on fiveyear accident histories; and calculate the impact of a hypothetical accident, both the size of the potential chemical plume and the number of people put at risk. The plans give key information to emergency planners,firedepartments, and residents living near a plant, but, by singling out companies with the greatest potential to endanger a community through an industrial accident, RMPs also provide HTTP://PUBS.ACS.ORG/CEN
potential terrorist targeting information. This dichotomy was discovered long before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. And as a result, the law was modified several years ago so public access to the most damaging information—the plant-specific worst-case accident scenarios—was greatly restricted (C&EN, July 13,2000, page 16). But in a post-Sept. 11 world, fear of terrorism has mushroomed again, as have restrictions on RMP data. Right after the attack, the Environmental Protection Agency removed all general RMP data from the Internet, including even names of companies that prepared them. EPA has not determined when or if any RMP data will be back up on the Web. All RMP information has gone into a regulatory black hole—available only to government officials, local emergency planners, companies, and whomever else these parties decide to give it to. AN INDIVIDUAL supposedly can get the data at 50 federal reading rooms—one per state—but the bureaucratic hurdles are so high that almost no one is using them. As a result, the reams of data collected
may never be used by anyone but a select few, some fear. Others say that is just fine. "This information is only useful to groups that want to scare the public about chemical risks or those who might use it when selecting targets," says Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "I certainly would not want this information publicly available on facilities in my neighborhood," she adds, criticizing even the few newspaper articles that have presented some of the data to the public. Logomasini urges that EPA close the 50 reading rooms. She adds that Congress should reform this right-to-know law so only local emergency planners can see the data. Her views are largely shared by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which pushed for restrictions on RMP data for years and recently urged that the reading rooms be closed, at least as a temporary measure. However, a mix of national and local community groups and some emergency planners are saying that the RMPs can in fact make plants more secure from terrorist attacks by leading to better emergency planning and inherently safer manufacturing processes. The terrorist solution is much more than more guards, barbed wire, and dogs, they say "If RMPs can be a road map for terrorists, they can also be a road map for communities to target hazardous risk reduction efforts on companies that use the largest amounts of toxic and flammable chemicals," says Paul Orum, director of the Working Group on Community RightTo-Know. Orum argues that RMPs present away to sort out which facilities EPA and the public should focus on with respect to security and safety issues. But, he says, EPA has not used the data, and the public can no longer get the plans. "People are not going to drive hundreds of miles to get to a reading room," Orum says, and statistics from EPA and the Department of Justice, both ofwhich oversee the reading rooms, bear him out. Only 33 people have visited the nation's reading rooms, and 25 of them were in Washington, D.C. Avisitor is only allowed to see 10 RMPs per month, cannot make copies but can take hand notes, and cannot do computer searches of material. The federal government will not even supply a list of companies thatfiledRMPs. C & E N / F E B R U A R Y 2 5 , 2002
27
GOVERNMENT & POLICY Appointments to see the material must be made in advance, and with only one read ing room per state, viewers could face a long commute. (Drum's group has put a searchable data base of summaries of each company's RMP on its website—without the accident his tories or scenarios. Orum wants to see the data made readily available and used to push industry toward safer chemicals and less dangerous processes. "What a company doesn't have or does n't do, can't be a terrorist's target," he says. "Let's use the road map, fix the problem." Some members of Congress have talked about introducing legislation to shut down
Sheridan
Rosenthal
Orum's website. On the other hand, one Senate bill, S. 1602, would tie security to process safety by offering an option to re duce terrorist risk by cutting use and han dling of toxic chemicals rather than by beefing up security. The approach and the Senate bill are opposed by chemical industry trade asso ciations ACC and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association. They say companies are doing this already and see the bill or the use of RMPs to push safer processes as yet another regulatory incursion into manufacturing, which is their domain. This is a long-running argu ment (C&EN, Nov. 26,2001, page 19). "It is a societal issue, a political fight without a simple solution," warns Isadore (Irv) Rosenthal, a member of the Chemi cal Safety & Hazard Investigation Board and the retired health and safety director for Rohm and Haas. "The community has a right to be protected against terrorism, and it also has the right to be aware of what measures it can take to protect itself from risk of chemical accidents," he says. He also argues that hazard reductions can backfire—smaller quantities of toxic
chemicals stored on-site can lead to more chemical transportation, upping the odds of highway accidents, for instance. Stressing that the solution is political, Rosenthal says communities must press hard if they want access to RMPs; Orum counters that communities would if they knew what was in the plans. EMERGENCY PLANNERS appear to be of two minds. As one Texas official put it when arguing for both limiting RMP ac cess and lowering overall risk: "If they re ally wanted to tear us up down here, ter rorists could just go along the Houston Ship Channel and throw a mortar on us, ζ plant after plant. The Coast Guard ζ could blow 'em out of the water, but 2 that'd be long after the fact. I just ξ don't know if terrorists are aware » we are here. I'd like to keep it that ο way" The RMP law is a small part of the 1990 Clean Air Act and the last in a string of chemical right-toknow laws passed in response to the 1984 Bhopal, India, chemical acci dent, when a leak of methyl isocyanate killed thousands of people. RMPs continue the right-to-know concept that it is better to shine a bright public light on industry behavior than to spend endless years in fights between com panies and regulators. Although sometimes painful, the ap proach works—just look at the industrial emissions cuts reported annually in the Toxics Release Inventory, the granddaddy of right-to-know laws. With RMPs, Congress sought to use community knowledge and the power that comes with it to do what federal and state regulators could never do: prod the tens of thousands of small and large companies that handle dangerous chemicals in the U.S. to use them more safely and to pre pare for a chemical accident. Along with requiring companies to de velop emergency and accident-prevention plans and accident histories, companies were to prepare "off-site consequence analysis"—in other words, what might hap pen should a plant-specific accident occur. The analysis is a mathematical calcula tion of how far the chemical plume from a hypothetical accident would travel into the community and how many people could be injured. It is based on weather
conditions and how much of a regulated chemical the plant stores and uses. The analysis includes a worst-case sce nario, a purely hypothetical projection based on the loss of all of a regulated chem ical stored on-site in 10 minutes with no ac cident controls. Because they have the potential to pro vide useful information to terrorists, worstcase scenarios have been kept off the In ternet from the beginning, but the risk calculation has helped many local groups and local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) focus their resources on the com panies with the biggest potential for dis asters, as well as safety improvements. Some 4,000 LEPCs operate in the U.S. They were mandated by the 1986 amend ments to the Superfund law and are made up of state and local community members, emergency personnel, firefighters, and oth ers. All committee members are volunteers, and their resources and interests vary wide ly across the country, but they are on the front lines in using RMPs. Tim Gablehouse is chairman of the LEPC that covers most of Denver and a member of the Colorado LEPC. He ap plauds RMPs and says they began to in duce companies to cut use and storage of toxic chemicals going back to the mid1990s, when companies first started pre paring the plans. "The regulated community responds to reporting thresholds," Gablehouse says, "and in our part of the world, we saw a great deal of quantity reductions from the rule." A SIMILAR POINT is made by Diane Sheri dan, who serves as a facilitator for eight chemical industry community advisory panels in East Harris County, outside Houston. The panels were created by com panies to act as advisers, and Sheridan has led company-community-LEPC R M P workshops since the plans were first being prepared (C&EN, March 1,1999, page 35). Sheridan says companies immediately be gan to cut chemicals—primarily chlorine— to limit RMP reporting requirements. The reductions have continued in some cases, she says, because some community adviso ry panels require companies to prepare risk reduction reports. The interaction and pres sure have led to less on-site storage and in some cases process changes. "RMPs can do this, but not by them selves," Sheridan says. "There need to be
In a post-Sept. 11 world, fear of terrorism has mushroomed again, as have restrictions on RMP data. 28
C&EN
/
FEBRUARY
25,
2002
HTTP://PUBS.ACS.ORG/CEN
frequent discussions between plant managers and the com Facilities Facilities 5,000 5,000 Γ munity. Some community groups just keep the pressure 4,000 4,000 up all the time. However, with J 3,000 I I the changes in R M P avail | 2,000 1 1 1 ability, the average person is just cut out. The RMP may be •••! 1.000 M L only one of many tools, but it 0 0 0 is a very dramatic tool to get 8 12 16 20 24 >25 10 102 103 104 105 10* >106 attention." Endpoint distance (miles from plant) Residents within worst-case plume Gablehouse urges EPA to WORST CASE Company RMP data show that the chemical plume from a plant disaster put the general R M P data could expose thousands of residents to hazardous chemicals and that most of the danger back on the Internet but con tinue to keep off the off-site would lie within 2 miles of the facility. consequence information. and to challenge the status quo toward safe Gablehouse adds that RMPs should be Use ofthe data to reduceriskwould have ty, and so we are going to have to figure out used to help prepare for a terrorist attack to be encouraged by the LEPCs, and the other ways to do that and to stimulate and and not be seen as something that may en study found that most LEPCs lack suffi maintain interest in this data," an EPA courage it. cient technical expertise even to do hazard spokesperson says. "Whether it is a criminal act, a terror reduction work. But nearly all the study's One plan EPA is considering to bring ist act, an equipment failure, or a pure ac recommendations were directed to EPA new light to RMPs is aprogram to use third cident, the need for the community to re and urged the agency to more actively di parties to audit RMPs. EPA and most spond is based on the quantity of material rect and help LEPCs in implementing the states have not thoroughly evaluated RMP that is released," Gablehouse says. "We RMP program. quality need to address that at least equally to en Indeed, nearly everyone interviewed by hanced security' I don't believe anything The proposal would work like this: A C&EN argued that EPA has dropped the out there at the moment adequately ad company arranges for a third-party audit in ball when implementing the program or dresses plant security Instead, I think it is spection and agrees to correct deficiencies encouraging use of the data for research much more practical to focus on how we and disclose the results to EPA. The agency purposes. For instance, the agency has nev reduce the consequence of an event, re would offer some incentive in return. er issued a required regulation to allow ap gardless of its cause." PatrickJ. McNulty, a senior research fel proved, outside researchers to use the low at the Wharton School, organized pi worst-case scenarios and other offlot audits in Delaware and Pennsylvania. site consequence data. Using insurance and engineering company Researchers at the W h a r t o n auditors, he says, the pilot found that thirdSchool at the University of Penn party audits worked. sylvania have issued one report us EPAis particularly interested in using in ing accident data and have another surance companies' auditors because they one in the works, but that's about it, do similar reviews and have a stake in risk except for one EPA report issued a reduction. Also, EPAmay roll the audits in year and a half ago. to security evaluations and inherent safe Ironically, at the end of the EPA ty assessment. report, the agency notes that "the ACC recently proposed similar outside full value in this database can only be audits for terrorist security evaluations. realized if it is made available to or Scott However, their audit results would not nec Mattison ganizations with the willingness and essarily be made public. capability to rigorously analyze the However, any such program to elimi Transparency is the sticking point for data and publish the results." nate risk turns on the abilities of the local PriscillaJ. (Sally) Mattison, staff attorney EPA officials today strongly disagree emergency planning committee. And most with Clean Air Council, a Philadelphiawith the criticisms. LEPCs are severely underfunded, inactive, based public interest group that recently "RMPs are living documents," says an and struggling to meet the basic require ran a community review of the EPA audit EPA official, wishing not to be quoted by ments of the law, according to a recent proposal. name. "The world is a safer place because study by the National Institute for Chem "People want to be involved in the au of the R M P program, and this will con ical Studies in Charleston, W Va. dit process," Mattison says, "but the big tinue. Frankly though, the decisions to question is public availability of the audit Mark Scott, president of the institute, keep the worst-case scenarios off the In results. The fear is that a company will al says the report found a wide quality vari ternet did some harm." ance in LEPCs, with some excellent and low the audit to move forward, learn about some nonexistent. He argues that R M P a problem, and then sit on the results, and EPA WANTED to put the material on the information is only valuable to the extent hope they don't get audited again." Web but lost in a battle with the Depart that it is being used. "It is not enough to col ment of Justice and the chemical industry EPA plans to issue a proposal within lect RMPs, put them in place, and say, '^fou three months, opening a new front in a "What we lost was the opportunity to come and read them if you want to/ " very long debate. • make people nervous enough to inquire
_:
HTTP://PUBS.ACS.ORG/CEN
Hill.-
C&EN
/ FEBRUARY
25, 2002
29
