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 vul-
nerabilities to propose a plan for improving these is-
sues. 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 govern-
ment 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 en-
vironmental 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 ad-
vantage 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 acci-
dent. 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, Giheung-
gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 17104, Republic of Korea
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
M. K. Yeo ( bioclass@khu.ac.kr)
Introduction
Various chemical substances are used in daily life and
different industries, and the amount of their use in-
creases continually. However, accidental releases of
chemical substances at business sites can cause death,
damage to facilities, and serious environmental pollu-
tion1-3.
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 pre-
vention and evacuations when an does accident occur.
Typically, government actions after chemical sub-
stance leakage accidents have been the same. For ex-
ample, 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 sub-
stances and residential areas and that land usage plans
be thoroughly managed. The 2012 Seveso III Direc-
tive further strengthened the rights of residents, giving
them the right to receive information about toxic sub-
stances 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. compa-
ny, in Bhopal, India, in 1984, the United States enact-
ed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know 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 acci-
dent.
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 sys-
tems, and compares domestic risk management sys-
tems and overseas cases regarding issues and vulnera-
bilities to propose a plan for improving these issues.
Comparing the different chemical substance disper-
Figure 1. Chemical management system in Korea. CSA: Chemical Safety Agency, IA: Inspection Agency, EA: Environmental
Agency7.
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 improve-
ment.
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 environ-
ment by preventing chemical accidents and systemati-
cally managing chemical substances2.
The Chemical Substance Control Act stipulates the
systematization of safety management, such as statis-
tical 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 busi-
ness approval system, which requires that an Over-the-
Counter (OTC) Impact Assessment Report and a Risk
Management Plan (RMP) be written and submitted
(Figure 1). In addition, countermeasures are required,
Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371
Figure 2. OTC Impact Assessment Report in Korea8.
such as an obligation to immediately report chemical
accidents upon occurrence and dispatch a field coordi-
nator6,7.
The OTC Impact Assessment is an accident preven-
tion system that encourages operators of facilities that
handle toxic chemical substances to secure sufficient
safety in advance by considering the scope of an acci-
dent’s influence at the facility design and installation
stage. Operators must submit an OTC Impact Assess-
ment that evaluates their facility’s influence on nearby
residents and the environment6. Writing the OTC Im-
pact Assessment Report requires operators to conduct
a basic assessment, analyze potential risks in the pro-
cess, deduce accident scenarios (Figure 2), and select
a worst case accident scenario and an alternative acci-
dent scenario8.
The public receptor and sensitive receptor are as-
sessed within the scope of influence for each scenario
363
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 pro-
gram6,10. 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
Figure 3. Procedures for establishing land use plans in the United Kingdom. HSE; Health Safety Executive, PA: local planning au-
thorities16.
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 regu-
lated substances to prepare an RMP every 5 years and
submit it to the EPA11. The RMP contains a risk eval-
uation, accident prevention program, and emergency
countermeasure program that includes 5 years of ac-
cident 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 en-
vironmental 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-
Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371
porting the existence of a safety management system
and an assessment of the business site’s risks. The re-
sults 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 haz-
ards16,17.
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 calcu-
lating a hazard risk index and environmental vulnera-
bility 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 multiply-
ing accident frequency and the environmental effects
Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371 365

when considering accident scenarios3 (Table 1, Eq.

potential accident effects

- ‌Use as a tool to support
1). The environmental impact score is calculated by

materials and facilities

the implementation of

- ‌Identify first managed

possible accidents to
adding the scores for each component, leak source,

accident prevention
Utilization plan

- ‌Check risk ranking

- ‌Screening tools for

amount of release, presence of a control system, leak

the environment
- ‌Identification of

- ‌Prioritization of
route, vulnerable receptors, etc. The leak source score
is calculated by doubling the weight of the toxicity of

programs
the handled substance (1-10 points), volatility accord-

sites
ing to the physiochemical characteristics (1-5 points),
absorbency (0-2 points), bioaccumulation (0-2 points),
and biodegradability (0-2), and then adding the leak

- ‌Determine risk level through index

score (Eq. 2). The accident frequency differs according

- ‌Determine accident severity rating

- ‌Determine the index based on the

score corresponding to each data
- ‌The index is classified into three
to the quantitative risk analysis. If a quantitative risk

- ‌Calculating environmental risk

based on chemical toxicity and

frequency and effect based on

index by multiplying accident
grades, and further analysis is
with evaluated toxicity index
- ‌Assessment of toxicity index
analysis cannot be performed, a differential score is

environmental vulnerability
assigned according to accident frequency (1-5 points)
to calculate the risk index3.

Method

accident scenarios
 nvironmental Risk Index
E
= Frequency × Environmental Impact Score (Eq. 1)
Leak Source

decided
= (Physical-Chemical Characterization Score × 2)
+ Amount of Release (Eq. 2)
Thus, European countries have developed environ-

- ‌Characteristics of the surrounding environment

mental impact indexes that enable screening when a
chemical accident occurs, and they have established

- ‌Concentration, viscosity and solubility of

- ‌Amount of chemicals stored / transported
Table 1. The effect assessment for chemical accidents in the Czech Republic, Sweden, and Spain3.

various action plans for using the index on site. On the

- ‌LC50, LD50 data of chemical substances

other hand, although Korea performs initial risk evalu-

- ‌Acute toxicity to aquatic organisms

ations for chemical substances, those evaluations focus
- ‌Physical properties of chemicals

on risks to the human body and environment. It has a

Required data

shortage of evaluation techniques that can practically

assess the influence of a leak when a chemical acci-

- ‌Pathway of exposure
- ‌Material information

- ‌Vulnerable receptors
dent occurs. Therefore, Korea must design an impact
chemical substances
- ‌Leakage of material

- ‌Accident frequency
evaluation technique that suits the country’s circum-

- ‌Control system
stances and develop a method that can quickly and
easily screen the environmental impact of a spill. - ‌Leak volume

Dispersion model for toxic chemical substances

The Chemical Substance Control Act in Korea requires
an OTC Impact Assessment Report and RMP as a way
Water environment

Aquatic ecosystem

of preventing chemical accidents and minimizing their

Soil environment
environment

(Surface water,
Evaluation

Environmental

damage. The Korea Off-Site Risk Assessment Sup-

groundwater)

environment

porting Tool (KORA), a general-purpose program, has

Biological

been developed to help business owners prepare those

effect

documents more efficiently and conveniently. KORA

is based on the items required in the reports and fol-
lows the OTC Impact Assessment Report procedure.
Environmental-
Accident Index

Environmental

It includes general matters about the business site and

Risk Analysis
Vulnerability

information about the toxic chemicals being handled,

Hazard and
Name

facility processes and equipment, the region around

Index

the business site, the protection targets, and climate in-

formation, as shown in Figure 4. Moreover, risk is an-
alyzed after selecting scenarios based on the risk fac-
Sweden
Nation

tors for the target facilities. Worst-case accident types

Czech

Spain

evaluate the potential scope of influence on the regions

366
Figure 4. KORA program flowchart.
around the business site, and a suitable alternative sce-
nario 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. Simi-
lar to Korea’s KORA program, the EPA and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Unit-
ed 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, at-
mospheric conditions and climate data, leak risk factor
facilities (direct leak, puddle, tank, gas pipes), and sce-
narios by accident type (leak, fire, explosion) are en-
tered 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
Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371
Impact Assessment. But each has its own advantag-
es and disadvantages. KORA’s advantage is that it
automatically evaluates risk according to the circum-
stances 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 data-
base24. Moreover, it has some limitations in analyzing
the OTC Impact Assessment Report because environ-
mental factors (geographic changes, stable atmospheric
conditions, and low wind velocity) and chemical sub-
stance variables (chemical reactions, granular chemical
substances, and mixtures) are not considered, as ex-
plained on the first screen of the ALOHA program.
Evaluating the dispersion of leaked chemical sub-
stances 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 disper-
sion 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
Figure 5. ALOHA program flowchart.
considers pollutants released into the air as particles
and calculates the concentration by tracking their loca-
tion, 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 recep-
tor-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 cas-
es to analyze the effects of chemical substances (BTX,
hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, etc.) released
from business sites (semiconductors and petrochemis-
try), the program must be improved to achieve higher
precision and consider various environmental variables
for a more realistic assessment28-31.
367
Chemical substance management system
improvement plan through a comparison of domestic
and overseas chemical substance management
systems
Domestic and overseas chemical substance manage-
ment 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 improve-
ment 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 manage-
ment 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 Seve-
so III Directive require only short answers and simple
numbers for the presented items, which contrasts with
 368 Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371

the descriptive reports required in Korea. In exchange

③ ‌Accident prevention policy and safety related system

‌ mall/medium corporations: Simple record of basic

for submitting a simple report, companies in the Unit-

⑤ ‌Provide citizens with information during LUP and

ed States and EU must generate detailed supporting
data and store them at their business sites13. Therefore,
Korea should improve its system to simplify chemical

④ ‌Risk indication system through GHS

substance management reports, as in the United States
① ‌Chemical accident reporting system
Seveso Ⅲ Directive34

‌ ajor corporations: Fault approach

⑥ ‌Strengthen accident investigation
and EU, while strengthening the content and man-
agement of data stored at the actual business sites. In

COMAH implementation

Online entry and submission

Substance Groups (21 types)
Single Substances (48 types)

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
② Land use plan
European Union

(Table 3). Those redundancies should be eliminated

Overseas

through information sharing between agencies3.

status
Second, in terms of the effectiveness of legal sanc-
-M

tions for chemical substance management in Korea and

-S

other countries (Table 4)6,37-40, the Chemical Substance

Combustible Substances (63 types)

Control Act in Korea charges a fine if the RMP is not

⑤ ‌Prevention programs 2 and 3
Risk Management Plan12,34

⑥ ‌Emergency countermeasure
U.S. Environmental Protection

submitted or if it contains false information, and penal-

Online entry and submission
Toxic Substances (77 types)

izing provisions are in place for a failure to submit the

③ ‌Combustible substance
④ ‌5-year accident cases

reports required by the Occupational Safety and Health

Act, High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, and Safe-
② Toxic substance

- ‌Simple numbers
- ‌Short answers

ty Control of Dangerous Substances Act. However, no

① Basic status

- ‌Data entry

direct penalizing provisions are in place for failure to

program

submit an OTC Impact Assessment Report.

Agency

LUP in Europe has similarly indirect penalizing

provisions. Although the systems used in Korea and
Industry, and Energy
Table 2. Comparison of domestic and overseas chemical substance management systems.

Safety Improvement

the United Kingdom are similar in their use of indi-

② ‌Safety evaluation
High-Pressure Gas

③ ‌Safe operations
Ministry of Trade,

① ‌Process safety

rect regulations, the land use plan in the United King-

④ ‌Emergency
action plan

dom includes 48 single substances and 21 substance

Plan33

groups41, whereas more than 930 substances are sub-

Hazardous Risk Substances (51 types) Facilities

plan
data

ject to reporting via an OTC Impact Assessment Re-

port in Korea42. Also, the OTC Impact Assessment
report in Korea is submitted at a different time in the
Ministry of Employment and Labor

LUP process than in the United Kingdom. Thus, the

Korean chemical substance management system is a
Process Safety Report32

stronger system than the one used in the United King-

action plan
risk evaluation

dom.
operations plan
Korea

safety data

Third, improvements must be made to the risk anal-

ysis method used for the OTC Impact Assessment
Target Sectors (7)

④ Emergency

Report. Domestic circumstances must be reflected in

plans that objectively assess the number of residents
① Process
② Process
③ Safe

and workers at risk in an accident, in addition to acci-

dent frequency. Therefore, an analysis method more
‌
‌
‌
‌

stringent than the low-level quantitative risk analysis

Substance (97 types)

② ‌Safety evaluation
Risk Management

technique must be proposed, or a different alternative

③ ‌Safe operations
① ‌Process safety

altogether must be presented. Moreover, because the

Accident Prone

Submission In-person visit

④ ‌Emergency
action plan
Environment
Plan6

OTC Impact Assessment Report focuses on a chemi-

Descriptive
Ministry of

cal’s influence on the human body6,8, a detailed impact

plan
data

assessment plan must also be established for the envi-

ronment. The domains of the OTC Impact Assessment
Report must be expanded to achieve the goal of resi-
Institution
Managing

Substance

Method2
Prepare2

dent protection through legislation and public notice

Content

How to
Target

Main

amendments.
Mol Cell Toxicol (2017) 13:361-371
Table 3. Comparison of report items for chemical substance management in Korea8,9,35.
Process Safety Report35 OTC Impact Assessment Report8
1. Business Overview Ⅰ. 1. Business
‌ Site and Handling
Facility Overview
2.1 Toxic/Risk Substance Data Ⅰ. 2. List
‌ of Toxic Chemical
Substances and Amount
Handled
2.2 ‌List and Itemization of Toxic/ Ⅰ. 3. List
‌ and Itemization of
Risk Facility Handling Facilities
2.3 Process Diagram Ⅰ. 4. Process
‌ Information and
Operational Procedures
2.4 Building Facility Placement Ⅰ. 5. ‌Handling Facilities and Nearby
Region Location Information
Ⅱ. 4. Safety Security Plan
2.5 ‌Explosion Risk Regions and
Electrical Single Line Diagram
2.6 ‌Safety Design and Installation
Guidelines
3. Process Risk Evaluation Ⅱ. 1. Process Risk Evaluation
4. Safe Operations Plan Ⅰ. 4. Process
‌ Information and
Operational Procedures
Ⅱ. 4. Safety Security Plan
5. Emergency Action Plan
Table 4. Comparison of domestic and overseas penalizing provisions upon failure to submit OTC Impact Assessment Report6,37-40.
Legislation System Name
Chemical Substance OTC Impact Assessment Report
Control Act6
Chemical Substance Risk Management Plan
Control Act6
Occupational Safety and Process Safety Report
Health Act37
High-Pressure Gas Safety Safety Improvement Plan
Control Act38
Safety Control of Dangerous Prevention Provisions
Substances Act39
Planning Land Use Plan
(Hazardous Substances)
Act 199040
369
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
Penalizing Provision
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.
370
Conclusion
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 report-
ing 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 evalu-
ates 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 con-
sider chemical reactions in the atmosphere or variables
affecting granular chemical substances and mixtures.
The Korean KORA model has the advantage of eval-
uating 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 man-
agement system that includes information on the tox-
icity of chemical substances and environmental factors
must be used for chemical substance risk management.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the
Basic Science Research Program of the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF), which is funded by the Min-
istry 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
References
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 con-
trol 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 Environ-
ment. Ministry of Environment of Republic of Korea,
ME Report, 225-226 (2017).
8. ‌National Institute of Chemical Safety. Impact assess-
ment 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 Manage-
ment Plan. NICS Report, 69-77 (2014).
14. ‌Korea Labor Institute. Review of the european chemi-
cal accident prevention system. Monthly labor review.
KLI Report 104:38-39 (2013).
15. ‌National Emergency Management Agency. Investiga-
tion 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 Con-
sequences (Task 3) Development of an Assessment
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-Ac-
cident Index- A Planning Tool to Protect the Environ-
ment 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/alo-
ha-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 concentra-
tion 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. Com-
parison of chemical accident response and manage-
ment correction at Korea and overseas. BSC Report
311-17-016 (2016).
35. ‌Ministry of Employment and Labor Reserved. Regu-
lations on submission, review, confirmation and eval-
uation 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, Arti-
cle 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/cross-
heading/contraventions-of-hazardous-substances-con-
trol (1990).
41. ‌HSE. The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regula-
tions 2015. Health and Safety Executive, HSE report
(2015).
42. ‌National Institute of Environmental Research, http://
ncis.nier.go.kr/ghs/