Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371 DOI 10.1007/s13273-017-0040-7

REVIEW Paper

Chemical management policies and a distribution model for chemical accidents Min-Kyeong Yeo1, Taek-Hyeon Han1, Soon Seok Kim1, Jin Ah Lee1 & Hyung-Geun Park1 Received: 3 November 2017 / Accepted: 19 November 2017 Ⓒ The Korean Society of Toxicogenomics and Toxicoproteomics and Springer 2017

Abstract This study compares and evaluates do-

mestic and overseas chemical substance management systems, and compares domestic risk management systems and overseas cases regarding issues and vulnerabilities to propose a plan for improving these issues. The Chemical Substance Control Act is a more powerful law than the chemical substance control acts of other countries, but it requires a seamless system and information sharing between managing government agents to correct overlaps in the reporting system for chemical substance management. A comparison of chemical substance dispersion models finds that ALOHA, from the United States, fails to include environmental factors such as topographical changes and atmospheric conditions and does not consider the reactions of chemical substances in the atmosphere or the variables involved in granular chemical substances and mixtures. The Korean model (KORA) has the advantage of automatically completing risk assessments and scenarios for each accident type. However, it has the inconvenience of requiring users to directly input the target of protection in the event of a chemical accident. Overall, a chemical substance risk management system must include information about the toxicity of chemical substances and environmental factors. Keywords: Chemical management, Risk management, Chemical substance control act, Chemical substance dispersion models

1Department

of Environmental Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Kyung Hee University, 1732 Deogyeong-daero, Giheunggu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 17104, Republic of Korea Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M. K. Yeo ( [email protected])

Introduction Various chemical substances are used in daily life and different industries, and the amount of their use increases continually. However, accidental releases of chemical substances at business sites can cause death, damage to facilities, and serious environmental pollution1-3. Major chemical leaks have shown the importance of chemical substance management plans and preventive measures against accidents. The workers at business sites and local residents living near those sites must share information about the chemical substances used there, and preparations must be made for accident prevention and evacuations when an does accident occur. Typically, government actions after chemical substance leakage accidents have been the same. For example, after the dioxin accident at Seveso, Italy, in 1976, the European Union (EU) enacted the Seveso Directive in 1982 to prevent similar disasters3. This directive has been continually supplemented and strengthened: the 1996 Seveso II Directive minimized accident risks by stipulating that a certain distance be maintained between facilities that handle toxic substances and residential areas and that land usage plans be thoroughly managed. The 2012 Seveso III Directive further strengthened the rights of residents, giving them the right to receive information about toxic substances that could leak from nearby industrial facilities and the right to sue if they did not receive the proper information4. After the world’s worst chemical accident, a leak of methyl isocyanate from Union Carbide, a U.S. company, in Bhopal, India, in 1984, the United States enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act. The damage from the accident was greater than it might have been because local residents had not

362

been given any information about the toxic chemical substances being handled and produced nearby, and the area was heavily populated at the time of the accident. In Korea, national interest in preventing chemical accidents increased after the hydrofluoric acid leak in Gumi in 2012. As a result, the Chemical Substance Control Act was enacted, and enforcement began in 20152. The Chemical Substance Control Act, through which the government regulates chemical substances, differs from existing laws because it evaluates and manages the risks to the ecosystem and humans from any leak of a chemical substance to the environment. The Toxic Chemicals Control Act, on the other hand, emphasizes the usage and storage of chemical substances. Establishing the target at risk in a chemical substance leak is difficult because of a shortage of suitable models for the scope of chemical substance dispersion when a leak occurs. This lack of models could have a serious effect on the success of risk management. Therefore, this study compares and evaluates domes­ tic and overseas chemical substance management systems, and compares domestic risk management systems and overseas cases regarding issues and vulnerabilities to propose a plan for improving these issues. Comparing the different chemical substance disper-

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

sion models used following a toxic chemical substance leak revealed problems with the risk evaluations from those models. This study proposes a plan for improvement. Comparative evaluation of domestic and overseas chemical substance control systems Chemical Substance Control Act of Korea

The Chemical Substance Control Act of Korea strengthens the standards for handling toxic chemical substances to protect citizens, assets, and the environment by preventing chemical accidents and systematically managing chemical substances2. The Chemical Substance Control Act stipulates the systematization of safety management, such as statistical surveys about chemical substances, standards for handling toxic chemicals, and defining new placement, facility, and management standards every 2 years2,5,6. Furthermore, the toxic chemical management system is being strengthened, along with the designation and management of accident-prone substances, through the implementation of a toxic chemical substance business approval system, which requires that an Over-theCounter (OTC) Impact Assessment Report and a Risk Management Plan (RMP) be written and submitted (Figure 1). In addition, countermeasures are required,

Figure 1. Chemical management system in Korea. CSA: Chemical Safety Agency, IA: Inspection Agency, EA: Environmental Agency7.

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

363

Figure 2. OTC Impact Assessment Report in Korea8.

such as an obligation to immediately report chemical accidents upon occurrence and dispatch a field coordinator6,7. The OTC Impact Assessment is an accident prevention system that encourages operators of facilities that handle toxic chemical substances to secure sufficient safety in advance by considering the scope of an accident’s influence at the facility design and installation stage. Operators must submit an OTC Impact Assessment that evaluates their facility’s influence on nearby residents and the environment6. Writing the OTC Impact Assessment Report requires operators to conduct a basic assessment, analyze potential risks in the process, deduce accident scenarios (Figure 2), and select a worst case accident scenario and an alternative accident scenario8. The public receptor and sensitive receptor are assessed within the scope of influence for each scenario

to analyze risk regarding the accident’s influence and potential, and then a safety security plan is proposed according to the analyzed risk3. An RMP is intended to prevent chemical accidents at business sites that handle accident-prone substances and to encourage operators to take action and manage risk. Those who handle more than a designated amount of an accident-prone substance are required to prepare an RMP every five years and to offer residents relevant information at least once a year. The whole program consists of the accident prevention program, the OTC Impact Assessment, and an emergency action program6,10. As of 2017, 97 accident-prone substances had been registered, including chemical substances likely to cause chemical accidents through acute toxicity or strong explosiveness and substances that could cause large-scale damage if a chemical accident occurred9,10.

364

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

Figure 3. Procedures for establishing land use plans in the United Kingdom. HSE; Health Safety Executive, PA: local planning authorities16.

Overseas chemical substance control systems

The United States revised the Clean Air Act after an explosion at a petrochemical plant in Texas in 19891, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 68 (chemical accident prevention provision) based on that Clean Air Act Amendment 112(r). This provision required business sites with a certain amount of regulated substances to prepare an RMP every 5 years and submit it to the EPA11. The RMP contains a risk evaluation, accident prevention program, and emergency countermeasure program that includes 5 years of accident cases and OTC risk analyses categorized into worst-case accident scenarios and alternative accident scenarios12,13. In Europe, various evaluation techniques have been established so that each country can perform an environmental influence assessment when a chemical accident occurs. The United Kingdom implemented the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) as its safety control system reflecting the EU’s Seveso II Directive14. COMAH Schedule 1 targets business sites with a certain amount of toxic substances and requires them to submit a safety report every 5 years. The report requires the submission of evidence sup-

porting the existence of a safety management system and an assessment of the business site’s risks. The results are included in the content provided externally and reviewed by competent authority institutions14,15. Furthermore, the United Kingdom enforces a land use planning (LUP) system that restricts the locations of facilities that handle toxic substances by evaluating the influence of a potential accident. Figure 3 shows the planning procedure, which establishes boundaries through a risk analysis and evaluates the risk of hazards16,17. The Czech Republic uses a hazard and vulnerability index to evaluate the environmental effects on water, land, and living organisms when a chemical accident occurs. The accident’s severity is determined by calculating a hazard risk index and environmental vulnerability index18,19. In Sweden, the Environment-Accident Index (EAI) is used to predict the hydroecological influence of an inflow of chemical substances. The EAI is determined by scoring the acute toxicity to the hydroecology, the chemical substance’s volume, concentration, viscosity, solubility, and the status of the nearby environment20,21. Spain’s Environmental Risk Analysis calculates and evaluates an environmental risk index by multiplying accident frequency and the environmental effects

- ‌Prioritization of materials and facilities - ‌Identify first managed sites - ‌Screening tools for potential accident effects

- ‌Determine the index based on the score corresponding to each data - ‌The index is classified into three grades, and further analysis is decided - ‌Calculating environmental risk index by multiplying accident frequency and effect based on accident scenarios - ‌Determine risk level through index - ‌Acute toxicity to aquatic organisms - ‌Amount of chemicals stored / transported - ‌Concentration, viscosity and solubility of chemical substances - ‌Characteristics of the surrounding environment - ‌Material information - ‌Leak volume - ‌Control system - ‌Vulnerable receptors - ‌Pathway of exposure - ‌Accident frequency EnvironmentalAccident Index

Environmental Risk Analysis

Sweden

Spain

Environmental effect

- ‌Assessment of toxicity index based on chemical toxicity and environmental vulnerability - ‌Determine accident severity rating with evaluated toxicity index - ‌LC50, LD50 data of chemical substances - ‌Physical properties of chemicals - ‌Leakage of material

Water environment (Surface water, groundwater) Soil environment Biological environment Aquatic ecosystem

Required data Evaluation environment

The Chemical Substance Control Act in Korea requires an OTC Impact Assessment Report and RMP as a way of preventing chemical accidents and minimizing their damage. The Korea Off-Site Risk Assessment Supporting Tool (KORA), a general-purpose program, has been developed to help business owners prepare those documents more efficiently and conveniently. KORA is based on the items required in the reports and follows the OTC Impact Assessment Report procedure. It includes general matters about the business site and information about the toxic chemicals being handled, facility processes and equipment, the region around the business site, the protection targets, and climate information, as shown in Figure 4. Moreover, risk is analyzed after selecting scenarios based on the risk factors for the target facilities. Worst-case accident types evaluate the potential scope of influence on the regions

Name

Dispersion model for toxic chemical substances

Nation

Thus, European countries have developed environmental impact indexes that enable screening when a chemical accident occurs, and they have established various action plans for using the index on site. On the other hand, although Korea performs initial risk evaluations for chemical substances, those evaluations focus on risks to the human body and environment. It has a shortage of evaluation techniques that can practically assess the influence of a leak when a chemical accident occurs. Therefore, Korea must design an impact evaluation technique that suits the country’s circumstances and develop a method that can quickly and easily screen the environmental impact of a spill.

Table 1. The effect assessment for chemical accidents in the Czech Republic, Sweden, and Spain3.

Leak Source = (Physical-Chemical Characterization Score × 2) + Amount of Release (Eq. 2)

Hazard and Vulnerability Index

 nvironmental Risk Index E = Frequency × Environmental Impact Score (Eq. 1)

Czech

Method

Utilization plan

when considering accident scenarios3 (Table 1, Eq. 1). The environmental impact score is calculated by adding the scores for each component, leak source, amount of release, presence of a control system, leak route, vulnerable receptors, etc. The leak source score is calculated by doubling the weight of the toxicity of the handled substance (1-10 points), volatility according to the physiochemical characteristics (1-5 points), absorbency (0-2 points), bioaccumulation (0-2 points), and biodegradability (0-2), and then adding the leak score (Eq. 2). The accident frequency differs according to the quantitative risk analysis. If a quantitative risk analysis cannot be performed, a differential score is assigned according to accident frequency (1-5 points) to calculate the risk index3.

- ‌Use as a tool to support the implementation of accident prevention programs

365

- ‌Identification of possible accidents to the environment - ‌Check risk ranking

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

366

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

Figure 4. KORA program flowchart.

around the business site, and a suitable alternative scenario is applied to propose a plan to secure the safety of the business site22. The risk management planning system in Korea has benchmarked the RMP from the United States and is similar to related systems. The United States includes the OTC Impact Assessment Report in the RMP and determines the end distance of release from regions around the business site by evaluating the potential risks of substances and analyzing the worst-case and alternative release scenarios. The prepared RMP is submitted online through an electronic submission system (RMP*eSubmit) provided by the EPA. Similar to Korea’s KORA program, the EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States have jointly developed the Areal Location of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) program, which is a convenient model that evaluates quantitative risk by showing the dispersion of toxicity from the area of a leak’s influence23. Figure 5 shows the configuration of the ALOHA program, in which the location of the business site, information on chemical substances, atmospheric conditions and climate data, leak risk factor facilities (direct leak, puddle, tank, gas pipes), and scenarios by accident type (leak, fire, explosion) are entered to show (on a map) the expected range of damage in regions near the business site. Korea’s KORA and the United States’ ALOHA share similarities; they are both tools for analyzing the OTC

Impact Assessment. But each has its own advantages and disadvantages. KORA’s advantage is that it automatically evaluates risk according to the circumstances entered for each item and completes scenarios for each accident type, but it remains difficult for the general public to use because it requires professional knowledge and discretion (information on chemical substances, manual designation of protection targets, etc.). The existing ALOHA program requires higher expertise because it was built from a U.S.-based database24. Moreover, it has some limitations in analyzing the OTC Impact Assessment Report because environmental factors (geographic changes, stable atmospheric conditions, and low wind velocity) and chemical substance variables (chemical reactions, granular chemical substances, and mixtures) are not considered, as explained on the first screen of the ALOHA program. Evaluating the dispersion of leaked chemical substances through environmental media is important when analyzing a chemical substance’s OTC impact. The dispersion and flow of chemical substances must be assessed in light of both the dispersion model and a receptor model for the atmosphere. Among the dispersion models, the Gaussian plume model comes with the disadvantage of being unable to consider chemical reactions, instead assuming a normal status in which the amount of release and climate conditions do not change over time. The Lagrangian model is divided into the Lagrangian particle dispersion model, which

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

367

Figure 5. ALOHA program flowchart.

considers pollutants released into the air as particles and calculates the concentration by tracking their location, and the back trajectory model, which back tracks the movement of pollutants using wind direction and velocity25. The CALPUFF model developed by the U.S. EPA considers the amount of wind over time, changes in wind velocity, wind direction, regional differences in wind velocity, and changes in puff release over time. However, it fails to consider chemical reactions in the atmosphere, making it unfit for substances that are reactive in the ozone26. On the other hand, the receptor-oriented model evaluates a pollutant’s contribution to overall pollution after analyzing its characteristics at the target, and it has the advantage of being able to verify a secondary source. However, it requires much time and expense because the pollutants must first be measured and analyzed27. Although ALOHA is being applied to domestic cases to analyze the effects of chemical substances (BTX, hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, etc.) released from business sites (semiconductors and petrochemistry), the program must be improved to achieve higher precision and consider various environmental variables for a more realistic assessment28-31.

Chemical substance management system improvement plan through a comparison of domestic and overseas chemical substance management systems

Domestic and overseas chemical substance management systems (Table 2) all face the issue of redundancy in the content that must be written. The main contents of the RMP, process safety report, and safety improvement plan differ in name only. A considerable portion of the content written in the RMP and process safety report can be connected together. Some of the content regarding process safety materials in the risk management plan and process safety report are repetitive aside from “plan for installing local ventilation system” and “emission treatment design standard and itemization”. Most of the content in the process safety management report that is submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is also included in the risk management plan that is submitted to the EPA, and since this information can be shared with the EPA, the process safety management report does not need to be submitted to the OSHA35,36. The RMPs in the United States and the EU’s Seveso III Directive require only short answers and simple numbers for the presented items, which contrasts with

European Union

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Substances (77 types) Combustible Substances (63 types) ① Basic status ② Toxic substance ③ ‌Combustible substance ④ ‌5-year accident cases ⑤ ‌Prevention programs 2 and 3 ⑥ ‌Emergency countermeasure program - ‌Short answers - ‌Simple numbers - ‌Data entry Online entry and submission Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy Target Sectors (7) High-Pressure Gas Hazardous Risk Substances (51 types) Facilities ① Process ① ‌Process safety ‌ safety data ② Process ‌ risk evaluation data ③ Safe ② ‌Safety evaluation ‌ operations plan ④ Emergency ③ ‌Safe operations ‌ action plan plan ④ ‌Emergency action plan How to Prepare2

Submission In-person visit Method2

Ministry of Employment and Labor

Ministry of Environment Accident Prone Substance (97 types) ① ‌Process safety data ② ‌Safety evaluation ③ ‌Safe operations plan ④ ‌Emergency action plan Descriptive Managing Institution Target Substance Main Content

Risk Management Plan6

Process Safety Report32

Safety Improvement Plan33

Risk Management Plan12,34

Overseas Korea

Table 2. Comparison of domestic and overseas chemical substance management systems.

Single Substances (48 types) Substance Groups (21 types) ① ‌Chemical accident reporting system ② Land use plan ③ ‌Accident prevention policy and safety related system ④ ‌Risk indication system through GHS ⑤ ‌Provide citizens with information during LUP and COMAH implementation ⑥ ‌Strengthen accident investigation -M ‌ ajor corporations: Fault approach -S ‌ mall/medium corporations: Simple record of basic status Online entry and submission

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

Seveso Ⅲ Directive34

368

the descriptive reports required in Korea. In exchange for submitting a simple report, companies in the United States and EU must generate detailed supporting data and store them at their business sites13. Therefore, Korea should improve its system to simplify chemical substance management reports, as in the United States and EU, while strengthening the content and management of data stored at the actual business sites. In addition, some items in the OTC Impact Assessment Report and RMP (required by the Chemical Substance Control Act) are repeated in the process safety report required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Table 3). Those redundancies should be eliminated through information sharing between agencies3. Second, in terms of the effectiveness of legal sanctions for chemical substance management in Korea and other countries (Table 4)6,37-40, the Chemical Substance Control Act in Korea charges a fine if the RMP is not submitted or if it contains false information, and penalizing provisions are in place for a failure to submit the reports required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, and Safety Control of Dangerous Substances Act. However, no direct penalizing provisions are in place for failure to submit an OTC Impact Assessment Report. LUP in Europe has similarly indirect penalizing provisions. Although the systems used in Korea and the United Kingdom are similar in their use of indirect regulations, the land use plan in the United Kingdom includes 48 single substances and 21 substance groups41, whereas more than 930 substances are subject to reporting via an OTC Impact Assessment Report in Korea42. Also, the OTC Impact Assessment report in Korea is submitted at a different time in the LUP process than in the United Kingdom. Thus, the Korean chemical substance management system is a stronger system than the one used in the United Kingdom. Third, improvements must be made to the risk analysis method used for the OTC Impact Assessment Report. Domestic circumstances must be reflected in plans that objectively assess the number of residents and workers at risk in an accident, in addition to accident frequency. Therefore, an analysis method more stringent than the low-level quantitative risk analysis technique must be proposed, or a different alternative altogether must be presented. Moreover, because the OTC Impact Assessment Report focuses on a chemical’s influence on the human body6,8, a detailed impact assessment plan must also be established for the environment. The domains of the OTC Impact Assessment Report must be expanded to achieve the goal of resident protection through legislation and public notice amendments.

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

369

Table 3. Comparison of report items for chemical substance management in Korea8,9,35. OTC Impact Assessment Report8

Process Safety Report35 1. Business Overview 2.1 Toxic/Risk Substance Data 2.2 ‌List and Itemization of Toxic/ Risk Facility 2.3 Process Diagram 2.4 Building Facility Placement 2.5 ‌Explosion Risk Regions and Electrical Single Line Diagram 2.6 ‌Safety Design and Installation Guidelines 3. Process Risk Evaluation 4. Safe Operations Plan

Ⅰ. 1. Business ‌ Site and Handling Facility Overview Ⅰ. 2. List ‌ of Toxic Chemical Substances and Amount Handled Ⅰ. 3. List ‌ and Itemization of Handling Facilities Ⅰ. 4. Process ‌ Information and Operational Procedures Ⅰ. 5. ‌Handling Facilities and Nearby Region Location Information Ⅱ. 4. Safety Security Plan

Ⅱ. 1. Process Risk Evaluation Ⅰ. 4. Process ‌ Information and Operational Procedures Ⅱ. 4. Safety Security Plan

5. Emergency Action Plan

Risk Management Plan9 1. Business Site and Handling Facility Overview 2. ‌List of Toxic Chemical Substances and Volume Handled 3. ‌List of Handling Facilities, Status of Control Facilities, and Equipment in Possession 4. ‌Matters Regarding Process Safety of Facilities Handling Accident-Prone Substances 3. ‌List of Handling Facilities, Status of Control Facilities, and Equipment in Possession 4. ‌Matters Regarding Process Safety of Facilities Handling Accident-Prone Substances 4. ‌Matters Regarding Process Safety of Facilities Handling Accident-Prone Substances 4. ‌Matters Regarding Process Safety of Facilities Handling Accident-Prone Substances 6. ‌Education/Training for Chemical Accidents and Self-Inspection Plan 11. ‌Action Plan for Minimizing, Eliminating, and Restoring Damage from Chemical Accidents 12. ‌Other Matters Related to Safety Management of Accident Prone Substances 7. ‌Emergency Contact System and Safety Management Organization Upon Chemical Accident 8. ‌Emission/Leakage Scenarios and Emergency Action Plan for Chemical Accidents

Table 4. Comparison of domestic and overseas penalizing provisions upon failure to submit OTC Impact Assessment Report6,37-40. Legislation

System Name

Penalizing Provision

Chemical Substance Control Act6

OTC Impact Assessment Report

Chemical Substance Control Act6

Risk Management Plan

Occupational Safety and Health Act37 High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act38

Process Safety Report

Safety Control of Dangerous Substances Act39 Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 199040

Prevention Provisions

Those who use or handle toxic chemical substances without receiving approval for a toxic chemical substance business or receiving approval through false means will be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 100 million won. Those who fail to submit a Risk Management Plan or submit one through false means will be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 100 million won. Fine of up to 10 million won upon failure to submit a Process Safety Report Those who fail to submit a Safety Improvement Plan will be subject to imprisonment for up to 1 year or a fine of up to 10 million won. Fine of up to 15 million won upon failure to submit Prevention Provisions. Those who operate toxic substance facilities without permission or use more than the approved volume of toxic substances will be charged a fine of £20,000 upon a summary indictment or fine upon prosecution.

Safety Improvement Plan

Land Use Plan

370

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

Conclusion

References

This paper has compared and analyzed domestic and overseas chemical substance management systems. The chemical substance management system, which arose in reaction to accidents, has developed through historical lessons from chemical accidents and system supplementation. The Chemical Substance Control Act in Korea is a strict chemical substance management system, but it has issues with redundancy in the reporting system, lacking a seamless system and information sharing between managing agencies. Thus, there is strong demand to reform reporting requirements. The system has also been criticized because it evaluates only the simple risk of chemical substances when an accident occurs, but it fails to evaluate ordinary toxicity through continuous monitoring. Moreover, assessing chemical effects on environmental media, the human body, and ecosystems requires a chemical substance dispersion model. However, ALOHA, the dispersion model proposed by the U.S. EPA, fails to include environmental factors such as topographical changes and atmospheric conditions and does not consider chemical reactions in the atmosphere or variables affecting granular chemical substances and mixtures. The Korean KORA model has the advantage of evaluating risk and automatically completing scenarios for each accident type, but because users must directly enter information about chemical substances and the protection target, data errors and a lack of professional discretion can occur. A risk assessment’s conclusions can be skewed if data are entered into the program by a user who does not have a proper understanding of a chemical substance’s toxicity. This stage is significant. Risk management based on risk assessment results must be accompanied by long-term monitoring. Therefore, a more advanced chemical substance management system that includes information on the toxicity of chemical substances and environmental factors must be used for chemical substance risk management.

1. ‌Ministry of Environment. The casebook of hazardous chemical substance accident. Ministry of Environment of Republic of Korea, ME report, 125-138 (2007). 2. ‌Kim, J. C. A Study on the Full Amendment of “Toxic Chemicals Control Act” into “Chemicals Control Act”. Korea Environmental Law Association 36:3-42 (2014). 3. ‌Korea Environment Institute. Improvement measures for chemical accident policies in the chemicals control act and measures to support the industry (I). KEI Report 17-254, 1-167 (2016). 4. ‌Kim, D. S. Implication on the Scope and Standard of the Public Information through Legal Analysis on the Seveso Directive (III). Korean Journal of International Economic Law 14:59-99 (2016). 5. ‌Yoon, C. S. et al. Comparison between the Chemical Management Contents of Laws Pertaining to the Minis­ try of Environment and the Ministry of the Employment and Labor. J Environ Health Sci 40:331-345 (2014). 6. ‌Laws and provisions of Chemical control Act, http:// www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=152068&ef Yd= 20150101#0000 7. ‌Ministry of Environment. White Paper of Environment. Ministry of Environment of Republic of Korea, ME Report, 225-226 (2017). 8. ‌National Institute of Chemical Safety. Impact assessment report of OTC for writer’s education teaching materials. NICS Report, 10 (2015). 9. ‌National Institute of Chemical Safety. Key info guide for accident preparedness substances. NICS Report, 3 (2017). 10. ‌US EPA, www.epa.gov/rmp 11. ‌National Institute of Chemical Safety. Development of Implementation Measures of Korean Risk Management Plan. NICS Report, 33-60 (2014). 12. ‌US EPA. Risk Management Plan RMP*eSUBMIT Users’ Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA report 540-B-14-001 (2014). 13. ‌National Institute of Chemical Safety. Development of Implementation Measures of Korean Risk Management Plan. NICS Report, 69-77 (2014). 14. ‌Korea Labor Institute. Review of the european chemical accident prevention system. Monthly labor review. KLI Report 104:38-39 (2013). 15. ‌National Emergency Management Agency. Investigation of the Appropriate Safety Distance Regulations of hazardous Material Facilities. NEMA Report, 20-21 (2008). 16. ‌Health and Safety Executive. The UK Approach to Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Chemical Major Hazard Installations, http://ispc.gencat.cat/web/.content/ home/ms_-_institut_de_seguretat_publica_de_catalunya/ 04_recerca_i_cooperacio_internacional/3_grups_de_ recerca/documents/hselup.pdf 17. ‌European Commission (DG Environment). Final Report Annex 3: Methods for Assessing Environmental Consequences (Task 3) Development of an Assessment

Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), which is funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2016R1A2B4016442). Conflicts of Interest Min-Kyeong Yeo, Taek-Hyeon Han, Soon Seok Kim, Jin Ah Lee, and Hyung-Geun Park declare that they have no conflict of interest. Human and animal rights The article does not con-

tain any studies with human and animal and this study was performed following institutional and national guidelines.

Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

Methodology under Article 4 of Directive 2012/18/EU on the Control of Major-accident Mazards involving Dangerous Substances (070307/2013/655473/ENV. C3). AMEC report, 7-13 (2014). 18. ‌Vojkovská & Danihelka. “Methodics for Analysis Impacts of Accidents with Participation Hazardous Substance in Environment”, H&V index. Vysoká škola báňská - Technical University of Ostrava. 15-41 (2002). 19. ‌E uropean Commission (DG Environment). Final Report Annex 3: Methods for Assessing Environmental Consequences (Task 3) Development of an Assessment Methodology under Article 4 of Directive 2012/18/EU on the Control of Major-accident Mazards involving Dangerous Substances (070307/2013/655473/ENV. C3). AMEC Report, 13-16 (2014). 20. ‌Andersson, Å. S. Development of an Environment-Accident Index- A Planning Tool to Protect the Environment in Case of a Chemical Accident. 1-10 (2004). 21. ‌E uropean Commission (DG Environment). Final Report Annex 3: Methods for Assessing Environmental Consequences (Task 3) Development of an Assessment Methodology under Article 4 of Directive 2012/18/EU on the Control of Major-accident Mazards involving Dangerous Substances (070307/2013/655473/ENV. C3). AMEC Report, 28-34 (2014). 22. ‌KORA program and manual, http://nics.me.go.kr 23. ‌ALOHA software, https://www.epa.gov/cameo/aloha-software 24. ‌Park, B. S., Jung, E. & Kim, S. H. The explanation for writing support program of off-site risk assessment and risk management plan on the chemicals control Act. BSC Report 311-15-015, 1-23 (2015). 25. ‌Weil, J. C., Sykes, R. I., Venkatram, A. 1992 Evaluating air quality models: review and outlook. J Appl Meteor 31:1121-1145 (1992). 26. ‌Rood, A. S. Performance evaluation of AERMOD, CALPUFF, and legacy air dispersion models using the Winter Validation Tracer Study dataset. Atmos Environ 89:707-720 (2014). 27. ‌Lee, J. B., Kim, S. D., Baek S. O., Kim, D. S. & Choi, G. C. in Atmospheric Environment (eds Jeong, W. Y.) 278-296 (Donghwa technique, Paju-si, 2016). 28. ‌Lee, D. H. et al. Offsite risk assessment on flammable hazard site. Korean J Hazard Mater 3:52-58 (2015). 29. ‌Yoon, Y. H., Park, K. S., Kim, T. O. & Shin, D. M. Offsite risk assessment of incidents in a semiconductor facility. Korean J Hazard Mater 3:59-64 (2015). 30. ‌Park, K. S. Offsite risk assessment on toxic release.

371

KIGAS 21:9-16 (2017). 31. ‌Jung, Y. K. et al. A study on the simplified estimating method of off-site consequence analysis by concentration of hydrochloric acid. J Korean Soc Saf 32:52-58 (2017). 32. ‌Occupational safety and health act, http://www.law.go. kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EC%82%B0%EC %97%85%EC%95%88%EC%A0%84%EB%B3%B4 %EA%B1%B4%EB%B2%95%EC%8B%9C%ED%9 6%89%EA%B7%9C%EC%B9%99 33. ‌High-pressure gas safety control act, http://www.law. go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EA%B3%A0% EC%95%95%EA%B0%80%EC%8A%A4%EC%95% 88%EC%A0%84%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%AC%EB %B2%95%EC%8B9C%ED%96%89%EA%B7%9C% EC%B9%99 34. ‌Compliance in Advance and Supporting System. Comparison of chemical accident response and management correction at Korea and overseas. BSC Report 311-17-016 (2016). 35. ‌Ministry of Employment and Labor Reserved. Regulations on submission, review, confirmation and evaluation of the implementation status and process safety reports. MOEL Report 2014-64 (2015). 36. ‌Ministry of Employment and Labor Reserved. A study on the risk assessment of hazardous substances such as hydrofluoric acid and the strengthening of regulations such as PSM system. MOEL report (2013). 37. ‌Occupational safety and health act, Article 72, http:// www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=115322 #0000 38. ‌High-pressure gas safety control act, Article 40, http:// www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB% A0%B9/%EA% B3%A0%EC%95%95%EA%B0%80%EC%8A%A4% EC%95%88%EC%A0%84%EA%B4%80%EB%A6% AC%EB%B2%95 39. ‌Act on the safety control of hazardous substances, Article 36, http://www. law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0 %B9/%EC%9C%84%ED%97%98%EB%AC%BC%E C%95%88%EC%A0%84%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%A C%EB%B2%95 40. ‌U K, “Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990”, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990 /10/crossheading/contraventions-of-hazardous-substances-control (1990). 41. ‌HSE. The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015. Health and Safety Executive, HSE report (2015). 42. ‌National Institute of Environmental Research, http:// ncis.nier.go.kr/ghs/