United States Office of Solid Waste EPA 555-B-04-001 

Environmental Protection and March 2009 

Agency Emergency Response www.epa.gov/emergencies 

GENERAL GUIDANCE ON RISK 

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

FOR CHEMICAL ACCIDENT 

PREVENTION (40 CFR PART 68) 

Office of Emergency Management 
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT 

This document provides guidance to help owners and operators of facilities that 

manufacture, use, store or otherwise handle certain extremely hazardous chemicals to determine 

if they are subject to EPA’s Chemical Accident Prevention regulations at 40 CFR part 68 and, if 

so, to comply with those regulations. The discussion in this document is intended solely as 

guidance. The statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document contain 

legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation itself, nor does it change or 

substitute for those provisions and regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding 

requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community. This guidance does not confer legal 

rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public. 

While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this 

guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations, or 

other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in this 

document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be controlling. 

Interested parties are free to raise questions and concerns about the substance of this 

guidance. This is a living document and may be revised periodically without public notice. EPA 

welcomes public input on this document at any time. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

Page 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................... i
 

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL APPLICABILITY .......................................... 1-1
 

1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1-1
 

1.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................... 1-3
 

1.3 REGULATED SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLDS (§68.130) ................ 1-5
 

1.4 WHAT IS A PROCESS ................................................. 1-6
 

1.5 THRESHOLD QUANTITY IN A PROCESS ................................ 1-9
 

1.6 STATIONARY SOURCE .............................................. 1-15
 

1.7 WHEN YOU MUST COMPLY ......................................... 1-16
 

CHAPTER 2: APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAM LEVELS ............................. 2-1
 

2.1 WHAT ARE PROGRAM LEVELS? ...................................... 2-1
 

2.2 PROGRAM 1 ......................................................... 2-3
 

2.3 QUICK RULES FOR DETERMINING PROGRAM 1 ELIGIBILITY ............ 2-9
 

2.4 PROGRAM 3 ........................................................ 2-12
 

2.5 PROGRAM 2 ........................................................ 2-13
 

2.6 DEALING WITH PROGRAM LEVELS .................................. 2-15
 

2.7 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ........................... 2-18
 

2.8 EXAMPLE SOURCES ................................................ 2-21
 

CHAPTER 3: FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY .................................... 3-1
 

3.1 WHAT ACCIDENTS MUST BE REPORTED? .............................. 3-1
 

3.2 WHAT DATA MUST BE PROVIDED? ................................... 3-1
 

3.3 WHEN MUST ACCIDENTS BE REPORTED? .............................. 3-9
 

3.4 OTHER ACCIDENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ....................... 3-9
 

CHAPTER 4: OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS ................................. 4-1
 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 4-1
 

4.2 WORST-CASE RELEASE SCENARIOS .................................. 4-4
 

4.3 ALTERNATIVE RELEASE SCENARIOS ................................ 4-12
 

4.4 ESTIMATING OFFSITE RECEPTORS ................................... 4-20
 

4.5 EXAMPLES OF WORST CASE SCENARIOS ............................. 4-24
 

4.6 EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE RELEASES ............................. 4-26
 

CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................ 5-1
 

5.1 GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................ 5-1
 

5.2 HOW TO MEET THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ........... 5-1
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(Continued) 

Page 

CHAPTER 6: PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 2) .............................. 6-1
 

6.1	 ABOUT THE PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION PROGRAM ...................... 6-1
 

6.2	 SAFETY INFORMATION (§ 68.48) ...................................... 6-1
 

6.3	 HAZARD REVIEW (§ 68.50) ............................................ 6-7
 

6.4	 OPERATING PROCEDURES (§ 68.52) .................................. 6-13
 

6.5	 TRAINING (§ 68.54) ................................................. 6-18
 

6.6	 MAINTENANCE (§ 68.56) ............................................. 6-20
 

6.7	 COMPLIANCE AUDITS (§ 68.58) ...................................... 6-23
 

6.8	 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION (§ 68.60) .................................. 6-25
 

6.9	 CONCLUSION ...................................................... 6-28
 

CHAPTER 7: PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 3) .............................. 7-1
 

7.1	 PROGRAM 3 PREVENTION PROGRAM AND OSHA PSM .................. 7-1
 

7.2	 PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION (§68.65) .............................. 7-3
 

7.3	 PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS (§68.67) ................................. 7-6
 

7.4	 OPERATING PROCEDURES (§68.69) ................................... 7-9
 

7.5	 TRAINING (§68.71) .................................................. 7-10
 

7.6	 MECHANICAL INTEGRITY (§68.73) ................................... 7-10
 

7.7	 MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE (§68.75) ................................. 7-12
 

7.8	 PRE-STARTUP REVIEW (§68.77) ...................................... 7-13
 

7.9	 COMPLIANCE AUDITS (§68.79) ...................................... 7-13
 

7.10	 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION (§68.81) .................................. 7-13
 

7.11	 EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION (§68.83) .................................. 7-15
 

7.12	 HOT WORK PERMITS (§68.85) ....................................... 7-15
 

7.13	 CONTRACTORS (§68.87) ............................................ 7-16
 

APPENDIX 7A PHA TECHNIQUES .................................... 7-18
 

CHAPTER 8: EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................. 8-1
 

8.1	 NON-RESPONDING FACILITIES (§ 68.90(b)) ............................. 8-1
 

8.2	 ELEMENTS OF AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM (§ 68.95) .......... 8-2
 

8.3	 DEVELOPING AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
 

8.4	 INTEGRATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS .............................. 8-9
 

8.5	 HAVE I MET PART 68 REQUIREMENTS? ............................... 8-12
 

8.6	 COORDINATION WITH LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING ENTITIES
 

(§ 68.95(c)) ......................................................... 8-15
 

CHAPTER 9: RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................... 9-1
 

9.1	 ELEMENTS OF THE RMP ............................................. 9-1
 

9.2	 RMP SUBMISSION ................................................... 9-3
 

9.3	 ISSUES PERTAINING TO SUBMISSIONS OF AND ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED,
 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI), AND TRADE SECRETS ... 9-4
 

9.4	 RMP UPDATES, CORRECTIONS AND DE-REGISTRATIONS (§ 68.190) ...... 9-5
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(Continued) 

Page 

CHAPTER 10: IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 10-1
 

10.1 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ........................................... 10-1
 

10.2 REVIEWS/AUDITS/INSPECTIONS (§ 68.220) ............................ 10-2
 

10.3 RELATIONSHIP WITH TITLE V PERMIT PROGRAMS .................... 10-4
 

10.4 PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE .................................. 10-4
 

CHAPTER 11: COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC ............................. 11-1
 

11.1 BASIC RULES OF RISK COMMUNICATION ............................ 11-1
 

11.2 SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC ........ 11-5
 

11.3 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES AND TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13
 

11.4 FOR MORE INFORMATION ......................................... 11-19
 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A 40 CFR PART 68
 

APPENDIX B	 SELECTED 2002 NAICS CODES 

APPENDIX C	 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

APPENDIX D OSHA GUIDANCE ON PSM 

APPENDIX E	 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE FOR AMMONIA REFRIGERATION FACILITIES 

(FORTHCOMING) 

APPENDIX F	 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 

(FORTHCOMING) 

APPENDIX G SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE FOR WAREHOUSES AND CHEMICAL 

DISTRIBUTORS (FORTHCOMING) 

APPENDIX H SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE FOR PROPANE STORAGE FACILITIES 

(FORTHCOMING) 
LIST OF BOXES AND EXHIBITS
 

IN RMP GUIDANCE
 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

CHAPTER 1 

EXHIBIT 1-1 EVALUATE FACILITY TO IDENTIFY COVERED PROCESSES 

EXHIBIT 1-2 PROCESS 

EXHIBIT 1-3 STATIONARY SOURCE 

CHAPTER 2 

EXHIBIT 2-1 EVALUATE PROGRAM LEVELS FOR COVERED PROCESS 

EXHIBIT 2-2 PROGRAM LEVEL CRITERIA 

EXHIBIT 2-3 DEVELOP RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND RMP 

EXHIBIT 2-4 COMPARISON OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 

CHAPTER 3 

EXHIBIT 3-1 ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASSES 

CHAPTER 4 

EXHIBIT 4-1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHOOSING A MODELING METHOD 

EXHIBIT 4-2 POSSIBLE SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE ON MODELING 

EXHIBIT 4-3 REQUIRED PARAMETERS FOR MODELING WORST-CASE SCENARIOS 

EXHIBIT 4-4 REQUIRED PARAMETERS FOR MODELING ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS 

CHAPTER 5 

EXHIBIT 5-1 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTATION 

CHAPTER 6 

EXHIBIT 6-1 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION PROGRAM 

EXHIBIT 6-2 SAFETY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 6-3 CODES AND STANDARDS 

EXHIBIT 6-4 SAMPLE SAFETY INFORMATION SHEET 

EXHIBIT 6-5 HAZARD REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 6-6 SAMPLE CHECKLIST (EXTRACT) 

EXHIBIT 6-7 OPERATING PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 6-8 TRAINING CHART 

EXHIBIT 6-9 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 

EXHIBIT 6-10 SAMPLE AUDIT CHECKLIST FOR SAFETY INFORMATION AND HAZARD 

REVIEW 

EXHIBIT 6-11 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 6-12 SAMPLE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION FORMAT 

CHAPTER 7 

EXHIBIT 7-1 COMPARABLE EPA AND OSHA TERMS 

EXHIBIT 7-2 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM 3 PREVENTION PROGRAM 

EXHIBIT 7-3 PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 7-4 PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 7-5 OPERATING PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 7-6 MECHANICAL INTEGRITY CHART 

EXHIBIT 7-7 MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 7-8 PRE-STARTUP REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 7-9 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS 
LIST OF BOXES AND EXHIBITS 

IN RMP GUIDANCE 

(Continued) 

EXHIBIT 7-10 EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 7-11 HOT WORK PERMITS REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 7-12 CONTRACTORS CHART 

EXHIBIT 7A-1 APPLICABILITY OF PHA TECHNIQUES 

EXHIBIT 7A-2 TIME AND STAFFING FOR PHA TECHNIQUES 

CHAPTER 8 

EXHIBIT 8-1 FEDERAL GUIDANCE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RESPONSE 

EXHIBIT 8-2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS 

EXHIBIT 8-3 INTEGRATED CONTINGENCY PLAN OUTLINE 

EXHIBIT 8-4 SAMPLE INTEGRATION EFFORT 

CHAPTER 9 

EXHIBIT 9-1 RMP UPDATES, CORRECTIONS AND DE-REGISTRATIONS 

CHAPTER 11 

EXHIBIT 11-1 SEVEN CARDINAL RULES OF RISK COMMUNICATION 
LIST OF BOXES AND EXHIBITS 

IN RMP GUIDANCE 

(Continued) 

LIST OF BOXES 

INTRODUCTION 

GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

STATE PROGRAMS 

IF YOU ARE NEW TO REGULATIONS 

WHAT IS A LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE? 

CHAPTER 1 

STATE PROGRAMS 

Qs AND As: STATIONARY SOURCE 

AGGREGATION OF SUBSTANCES 

Qs AND As: PROCESS 

Qs AND As: STATIONARY SOURCE 

Qs AND As: COMPLIANCE DATES 

CHAPTER 2 

Qs AND As: PROCESS AND PROGRAM LEVEL 

Qs AND As: PUBLIC RECEPTORS 

Qs AND As: DETERMINING DISTANCES 

Qs AND As: ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS 

Qs AND As: ACCIDENT HISTORY 

Qs AND As: OSHA 

CHAPTER 3 

Qs AND As: PROPERTY DAMAGE 

Qs AND As: ACCIDENT HISTORY 

CHAPTER 4 

RMP OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS GUIDANCE 

Qs AND As: WORST-CASE AND MITIGATION 

HOW TO OBTAIN CENSUS DATA AND LANDVIEW 

HOW TO OBTAIN USGS MAPS 

Qs AND As: OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS 

EXAMPLES OF WORST CASE SCENARIOS 

EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE RELEASES 

CHAPTER 6 

Q AND A: MAINTENANCE 

Q AND A: AUDITS 

CHAPTER 7 

Qs AND As: IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM LEVEL 

Qs AND As: PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION 

Q AND A: “REVISING” A PHA 

Qs AND As: OFFSITE CONSEQUENCES 
LIST OF BOXES AND EXHIBITS
 

IN RMP GUIDANCE
 

(Continued) 

CHAPTER 8 

WHAT IS “RESPONSE”?
 

WHAT IS A LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE?
 

HOW DOES THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM APPLY?
 

PLANNING FOR FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
 

CHAPTER 10 

Qs AND As: DELEGATION 

Qs AND As: AUDITS 

CHAPTER 11 

WHAT DOES YOUR WORST-CASE “DISTANCE TO ENDPOINT” OR RELEASE DISTANCE
 

MEAN?
 

WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT WE COULD BE EXPOSED IF WE LIVE/WORK/SHOP/GO TO
 

SCHOOL X MILES AWAY?
 

IF THERE IS A WORST-CASE ACCIDENT, WILL EVERYONE WITHIN THAT DISTANCE BE
 

HURT? WHAT ABOUT PROPERTY DAMAGE?
 

HOW SURE ARE YOU OF YOUR ENDPOINT DISTANCES?
 

WHY DO YOU NEED TO STORE SO MUCH ON SITE?
 

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PREVENT RELEASES?
 

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PREPARE FOR RELEASES?
 

DO YOU NEED TO USE THIS CHEMICAL?
 

WHY ARE YOUR DISTANCES DIFFERENT FROM THE DISTANCES IN THE EPA LOOKUP
 

TABLES?
 

HOW LIKELY ARE THE WORST-CASE AND ALTERNATIVE RELEASE SCENARIOS?
 

IS THE WORST-CASE RELEASE YOU REPORTED REALLY THE WORST ACCIDENT YOU CAN
 

HAVE?
 

WHAT ABOUT THE ACCIDENT AT THE [NAME OF SIMILAR FACILITY] THAT HAPPENED
 

LAST MONTH?
 

WHAT ACTIONS HAVE YOU TAKEN TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN YOUR ACCIDENT
 

PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY PLANNING EFFORTS?
 

CAN WE SEE THE DOCUMENTATION YOU KEEP ON SITE?
 
INTRODUCTION 

WHY SHOULD I READ THIS GUIDANCE? 

If a tank, drum, container, pipe, or other “process” at your facility contains any of the 

extremely hazardous toxic and flammable substances listed in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 68.130 in an amount above the “threshold quantity” 

specified for that substance, you are required to develop and implement a risk 

management program under a rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). (See Appendix A of this document for the list of substances and the 

threshold quantity established for each substance.) The rule, “Chemical Accident 

Prevention Provisions” (part 68 of Title 40 of the CFR), applies to a wide variety of 

facilities that handle, manufacture, store, or use toxic substances, including chlorine 

and ammonia and highly flammable substances such as propane (flammable 

substances used solely as fuel or sold by retailers are not covered). This document 

provides technical guidance on how to determine if you are subject to part 68 and 

how to comply with part 68. The original compliance deadline for part 68 was June 

21, 1999, for facilities subject to the part by that date. For sources that first become 

subject to part 68 after June 21, 1999, you must be in compliance no later than the 

date on which you first have more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a 

process. 

The goal of part 68 and the risk management program it requires is to prevent 

accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the 

environment from short-term exposures and to mitigate the severity of releases that 

do occur. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA was required to issue a rule 

specifying the types of actions to be taken by facilities (referred to in the law as 

stationary sources) to prevent accidental releases of such hazardous chemicals into 

the atmosphere and reduce their potential impact on the public and the environment. 

Part 68 is that rule. 

In general, part 68 requires the following: 

� Covered facilities must develop and implement a risk management program 

and maintain documentation of the program at the site. The risk 

management program includes an analysis of the potential offsite 

consequences of a worst-case accidental release, a five-year accident history, 

a release prevention program, and emergency planning. 

� Covered facilities must develop and submit a risk management plan (RMP) 

to EPA no later than June 21, 1999, or the date on which the facility first has 

more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process, whichever 

is later. The RMP generally describes the facility’s risk management 

program. The RMP is available to federal, state, and local government 

agencies and the public, with some restrictions on the availability of the 

offsite consequence analysis sections of the RMP. 

� Covered facilities must implement the risk management program and update 

their RMPs periodically or when certain process or other changes occur, as 

required by the rule. 
Introduction -iiThe phrase "risk management program" refers to all of the requirements of part 68, 

which must be implemented on an ongoing basis. The phrase "risk management plan 

(RMP)" refers to the document describing the risk management program that you 

must submit to EPA. 

HOW DO I USE THIS DOCUMENT? 

This document is a technical guidance designed for owners and operators of sources 

covered by part 68. It will help you to: 

 Determine if you are covered by the rule; 

 Determine what level of requirements is applicable to your covered process(es); 

 Understand what specific risk management program activities must be 

conducted; 

 Select a strategy for implementing a risk management program, based on your 

current state of compliance with other government rules and industry standards 

and the potential offsite impact of releases from your process(es), and; 

 Understand the reporting, documentation, and risk communication components 

of the rule. 

This document provides guidance and reference materials to help you comply with 

EPA's chemical accident prevention regulations. It does not create any legally 

binding requirements on its own; its purpose is to help explain the requirements 

already established in part 68. It does not provide guidance on any other rule or part 

of the CAA. 

GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

EPA worked with industry representatives to develop supplemental guidance for industryspecific risk management programs for the following industries: 

 Propane storage facilities 

 Chemical distributors 

 Waste water treatment plants 

 Warehouses 

 Ammonia refrigeration 

Industry-specific guidance is either appended to this guidance or is contained in stand-alone 

documents that you can obtain from EPA's website at www.epa.gov/emergencies/rmp. If an 

industry-specific appendix or guidance document exists for your process(es), you should 

consider using it because it will provide more information that is specific to your process(es), 

including dispersion modeling and prevention program elements. 
-iii-	 Introduction 

STATE PROGRAMS


This guidance applies to 40 CFR part 68. You should check with your state government to determine 

if the state has its own accidental release prevention rules or has obtained delegation from EPA to 

implement and enforce an accidental release prevention program as a substitute for part 68 in your 

state. State rules may be more stringent that EPA’s rules. They may cover more substances or cover 

the same substances at lower thresholds. They may also impose additional requirements. For 

example, California’s state program requires a seismic study. See Chapter 10 for information on state 

implementation of part 68. Unless your state has been granted delegation, you must comply with part 

68 as described in this document even if your state has different rules under state law. 

WHAT DO I DO FIRST? 

Before developing a risk management program, you should do five things: 

(1)	 Determine which, if any, of your processes are covered by this program 

Only sources with a threshold quantity of a “listed” or “regulated” substance 

(see Appendix A) in a “process” need to comply with part 68. “Process” is 

defined by the rule in § 68.3 and does not necessarily correspond with an 

engineering concept of process. The requirements apply only to covered 

processes. See Chapter 1 for more information on how to determine whether 

you have one or more “processes” subject to the rule. 

(2)	 Determine the appropriate program level for each covered process 

Depending on the specific characteristics of a covered process and the 

results of the offsite consequence analysis for that process, it may be subject 

to one of three different sets of requirements (called program levels). See 

Chapter 2 for more information. 

(3)	 Determine EPA's requirements for the facility and each covered process 

Certain requirements apply to the facility as a whole, while others are 

process-specific. See Chapter 2 for more information. 

(4)	 Assess your operations to identify current risk management activities 

Because you probably conduct some risk management activities already 

(e.g., employee training, equipment maintenance, and emergency planning), 

you should review your current operations to determine the extent to which 

they meet the provisions of this rule. EPA does not expect you to redo these 

activities if they already meet the rule's requirements. See Chapters 5 to eight 

individually for guidance on how to tell if your existing practices can meet 

those required by EPA. 

(5)	 Review the regulations and this guidance to develop a strategy for 

conducting the additional actions you need to take for each covered 

process. Discuss the requirements with management and staff. 
Introduction 

March 2009

-ivThe risk management program takes an integrated approach to assessing and 

managing risks and will involve most of the operations of covered processes. 

Early involvement of both management and staff will help develop an 

effective program. 

FLEXIBLE NATURE OF REQUIREMENTS 

Finally, keep in mind that many part 68 requirements do not specify exactly what you 

must do to meet them; instead, they provide you with flexibility to develop an 

approach that makes sense for your facility. This allows you to tailor your program to 

fit the particular conditions at your facility. The degree of complexity required in a 

risk management program will depend on the complexity of the facility. For example, 

the operating procedures for a chemical distributor are likely to be relatively brief, 

while those for a chemical manufacturer will be extensive. Similarly, the length of 

training necessary to educate employees on such procedures will be proportional to 

the complexity of your operating procedures. And while a facility with complex 

processes may benefit from a computerized maintenance tracking system, a small 

facility with a simpler process may be able to track maintenance activities using a 

logbook. 

There is no one "right" way to develop and implement a risk management program. 

Even for the same rule elements, your program will be different from everyone else's 

programs (even those in the same industry) because it will be designed for your 

specific situation and hazards — it will reflect whether your facility is near the public 

and sensitive environmental areas, the specific equipment you have installed, and 

other relevant factors. 

WHERE DO I GO FOR MORE INFORMATION? 

EPA’s chemical accident prevention requirements were published in the Federal 

Register on January 31, 1994 (59 FR 4478) and June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31667). EPA 

has amended the rules several times. A consolidated copy of these regulations is 

available in Appendix A. 

EPA works with industry and local, state, and federal government agencies to assist 

sources in complying with these requirements. For more information, refer to 

Appendix C (Technical Assistance). Your local emergency planning committee 

(LEPC) also can be a valuable resource and can help you discuss issues with the 

public. 

Finally, if you have access to the Internet, EPA has made copies of the rules, fact 

sheets, and other related materials available at the home page of EPA's Office of 

Emergency Management at: www.epa.gov/emergencies/rmp. Please check the site 

regularly as additional materials are posted. 
-v- Introduction 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS


We have tried to make this document as clear and readable as possible, but if you have rarely dealt 

with regulations before, some of the language may seem initially odd and confusing. All regulations 

have their own vocabulary. A few words and phrases have very specific meanings within the 

regulation. Some of these are unusual, which is to say they are not used in everyday language. 

Others are defined by the rule in ways that vary to some degree from their everyday meaning. The 

following are the major regulatory terms used in this document and a brief introduction to their 

meaning within the context of part 68. They are defined in § 68.3 of the rule. 

“Stationary source” basically means facility. The CAA, and thus part 68, use the term “stationary 

source” and we explain it in Chapter 1. Generally, we use “facility” in its place in this document. 

“Process” is given a broad meaning in this rule and document. Most people think of a process as the 

mixing or reacting of chemicals. Its meaning under this rule is much broader. It basically means any 

equipment, including storage vessels, and activities, such as loading, that involves a regulated 

substance and could lead to an accidental release. Chapter 1 discusses the definition of process 

under this rule in detail. 

“Regulated substance” means one of the 140 chemicals listed in part 68. 

“Threshold quantity” means the quantity, in pounds, of a regulated substance which, if exceeded, 

triggers coverage by this rule. Each regulated substance has its own threshold quantity. If you have 

more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process, you must comply with the rule. 

Chapter 1 explains how to determine whether you have a threshold quantity. 

“Vessel” means any container, from a single drum or pipe to a large storage tank or sphere. 

“Public receptor” generally means any place where people live, work, or gather, with the exception 

of roads. Buildings, such as houses, shops, office buildings, industrial facilities, the areas 

surrounding buildings where people are likely to be present, such as yards and parking lots, and 

recreational areas, such as parks, sports arenas, rivers, lakes, beaches, are considered public 

receptors. Chapter 2 discusses public receptors. 

“Environmental receptor” means a limited number of natural areas that are officially designated by 

the state or federal government. Chapter 2 discusses this definition. 
Introduction	 -viWHAT IS A LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE?


Local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) were formed under the Federal Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986. The committees are designed to serve as a 

community forum for issues relating to preparedness for emergencies involving hazardous 

substances. They consist of representatives from local government, local industry, transportation 

groups, health and medical organizations, community groups, and the media. LEPCs: 

� Collect information from facilities on hazardous substances that pose a risk to the 

community; 

� Develop a contingency plan for the community based on this information; and 

� Make information on hazardous substances available to the general public. 

Contact the mayor's office or the county emergency management office for more information on your 

LEPC. 
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL APPLICABILITY 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this chapter is to help you determine if you are subject to Part 68, the 

risk management program rule. Part 68 covers you if you are: 

� The owner or operator of a stationary source (facility) 

� That has more than a threshold quantity 

� Of a regulated substance 

� In a process. 

The goal of this chapter is to make it easy for you to identify processes that are 

covered by this rule so you can focus on them. 

This chapter walks you through the key decision points (rather than the definition 

items above), starting with those provisions that may tell you that you are not subject 

to the rule. We first outline the general applicability provisions and the few 

exemptions and exclusions, then discuss which chemicals are "regulated substances." 

If you do not have a "regulated substance" at your site, you are not covered by this 

rule. The exemptions may exclude you from the rule or simply exclude certain 

activities from consideration. (Throughout this document, when we say "rule" we 

mean the regulations in part 68.) 

We then describe what is considered a "process," which is critical because you are 

subject to the rule only if you have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated 

substance in a process. The chapter next describes how to determine whether you 

have more than a threshold quantity. 

Finally, we discuss how you define your overall stationary source and when you 

must comply. These questions are important once you have decided that you are 

covered. For most facilities covered by this rule, the stationary source is basically all 

covered processes at your site. If your facility is part of a site with other divisions of 

your company or other companies, the discussion of stationary source will help you 

understand what you are responsible for in your compliance and reporting. Exhibit 

1-1 presents the decision process for determining applicability. 

STATE PROGRAMS 

This guidance applies to only 40 CFR part 68. You should check with your state government to 

determine if the state has its own accidental release prevention rules or has obtained delegation from 

EPA to implement and enforce part 68 in your state. State rules may be more stringent than EPA’s 

rules. Unless your state has been granted delegation, you must comply with part 68 as described in 

this document even if your state has different rules under state law. See Chapter 10 for a discussion 

of state implementation of part 68. 
Chapter 1


General Applicability 1-2


EXHIBIT 1-1


EVALUATE FACILITY TO IDENTIFY COVERED PROCESSES


No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Is your facility 

a stationary 

source? 

Do you have 

any regulated 

substances? 

Define your 

processes 

STOP! 

You are not covered 

by the rule 

Do you have any 

regulated substances above 

a threshold quantity in 

a process? 

You are 

subject to the 

rule 

Assign Program 

levels to covered 

processes 

(see Exhibit 2-1) 
Chapter 1 

1-3 General Applicability 

1.2	 GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The CAA applies the Risk Management Program rule to any person who owns or 

operates a stationary source. "Person" is defined to include: 

"An individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, political 

subdivision of a state, and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United 

States and any officer, agency, or employee thereof." 

The rule, therefore, applies to all levels of government as well as private businesses. 

CAA section 112(r)(2)(c) defines "stationary sources" as: 

"Any buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance emitting stationary 

activities 

� Which belong to the same industrial group, 

� Which are located on one or more contiguous properties, 

� Which are under the control of the same person (or persons under common 

control), and 

� From which an accidental release may occur." 

EPA has added some language in the rule to clarify issues related to transportation 

(see below). 

FARM USE OF AMMONIA (§68.125) 

The rule exempts ammonia when held by a farmer for use on a farm. This exemption 

applies to ammonia only when used as a fertilizer by a farmer. It does not apply to 

agricultural suppliers or the fertilizer manufacturer. It does not apply to farm 

cooperatives or to groups of farmers who buy, use, and sell ammonia. In the event 

that a farmer stores one or more other regulated substance above threshold 

quantities, that storage would be covered. 

FLAMMABLE FUELS (§68.126) 

The flammable substances listed in § 68.130 are excluded from coverage under part 

68 when they are used as a fuel or held for sale as a fuel at a retail facility. A retail 

facility is defined as a stationary source at which more than half of the income is 

obtained from direct sales to end users or at which more than one-half of the fuel 

sold, by volume, is sold through a cylinder exchange program. 

Unless your facility meets the definition of a “retail facility,” if you hold a listed 

flammable substance for purposes other than on-site use as fuel, you are potentially 

covered by part 68. For example, if you manufacture a listed flammable fuel, use it 

as a chemical feedstock, or store it in bulk for sale and do not meet the definition of a 

retail facility, you may be covered by the rule. If you store a listed flammable 
Chapter 1 

General Applicability 1-4 

substance for non-fuel use and also use some of it on-site as a fuel, the quantity used 

as a fuel is not covered; the quantity not used on site as a fuel is potentially subject to 

the rule. If you are a retailer who sells a flammable fuel and a listed toxic substance, 

the toxic substance is potentially subject to the rule, but the flammable substance is 

excluded from coverage. 

TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES 

The rule applies only to stationary sources. It does not apply to transportation, 

including storage incident to transportation. Transportation includes, but is not 

limited to, transportation subject to oversight or regulation under 49 CFR parts 192 

(Federal safety standards for transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline), 193 

(Federal safety standards for liquefied natural gas facilities), or 195 (Federal safety 

standards for transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline), or a state natural gas 

or hazardous liquid program for which the state has in effect a certification to DOT 

under 49 U.S.C. 60105. Storage of natural gas incident to transportation (i.e., gas 

taken from a pipeline during non-peak periods and placed in storage fields, then 

returned to the pipeline when needed) is not covered. Storage fields include, but are 

not limited to, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, aquifers, mines, or caverns. 

QS & As


STATIONARY SOURCE


Q. What does “same industrial group” mean? 

A. Operations at a site that belong to the same three-digit North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code prefix (which has replaced the old SIC codes) belong to the “same industrial 

group. In addition, where one or more operations at the site serve primarily as support facilities for 

the main operation at the site, the supporting operations are part of the “same industrial group” as the 

main operation. For example, if you manufacture chemicals (NAICS 325) and operate a waste 

treatment facility (NAICS 562) that handles primarily wastes generated by your chemical operations, 

the waste operation would be considered a support operation. If you operate a petrochemical 

manufacturing operation (NAICS 32511) next to your petroleum refinery (NAICS 32411), the two 

plants would be considered in different industrial groups and would require two RMPs unless the 

majority of the refinery’s production was used by the chemical manufacturing plant. 

Q. What does “contiguous property” mean? 

A. Property that is adjoining. Public rights-of-way (e.g., railroads, highways) do not prevent 

property from being considered contiguous. Property connected only by rights-of-way are not 

considered contiguous (e.g., two plants with a connecting pipeline). 

Q. What does “control of the same person” mean? 

A. Control of the same person refers to corporate control, not site management. If two divisions of a 

corporation operate at the same site, even if each operation is managed separately, they will count as 

one source provided the other criteria are met because they are under control of the same company. 
Chapter 1 

1-5 General Applicability 

Transportation containers used for storage not incident to transportation and 

transportation containers connected to equipment at a stationary source are 

considered part of the stationary source. Transportation containers that have been 

unhooked from the motive power that delivered them to the site (e.g., truck or 

locomotive) and left on your site for short-term or long-term storage are part of your 

stationary source. For example, if you have railcars on a private siding that you use 

as storage tanks until you are ready to hook them to your process, these railcars 

should be considered to be part of your source. If a tank truck is being unloaded and 

the motive power is still attached, the truck and its contents are considered to be in 

transportation and not covered by the rule. You should count only the substances in 

the piping or hosing as well as the quantity unloaded. Some issues related to 

transportation are still under discussion with DOT. 

RELATIONSHIP TO OSHA PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT STANDARD EXEMPTIONS 

The OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (29 CFR 1910.119) 

exempts retail facilities, substances used solely as a fuel if such substances are not 

part of a process containing another regulated substance, flammable liquids stored in 

atmospheric storage tanks, and remote oil and gas production. In addition, state and 

local governments are not subject to federal OSHA standards. 

EPA's Risk Management Program Rule has a different set of exemptions than the 

OSHA PSM standard; OSHA exempts some processes that EPA does not exempt, 

and vice versa. You should carefully evaluate the exemptions of the Risk 

Management Program rule to determine whether your process is covered, even if it 

qualifies for an OSHA PSM exemption. For example, the EPA rule exempts 

flammable substances used as fuel and fuels sold at retail facilities, but does not 

exempt non-fuel substances sold at retail facilities. The EPA rule does not exempt 

substances stored in atmospheric storage tanks, and it applies to state and local 

governments. If such governments own or operate a facility where there is more than 

a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process, they must comply with the 

rule. As discussed in Section 1.5, many oil and gas production facilities, as well as 

most retail gas stations and propane retailers are not subject to the rule because the 

flammable substances at these facilities are excluded from threshold determinations. 

1.3 REGULATED SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLDS (§68.130) 

The list of substances regulated under § 68.130 is in Appendix A. Check the list 

carefully. If you do not have any of these substances (either as pure substances or in 

mixtures above 1 percent concentration) or do not have them above their listed 

threshold quantities, you do not need to read any further because you are not 

covered. 

The list includes 77 chemicals that were listed because they are acutely toxic; they 

can cause serious health effects or death from short-term exposures. The list also 

covers 63 flammable gases and highly volatile flammable liquids. The flammable 

chemicals have the potential to form vapor clouds and explode or burn if released. 

The rule also covers flammable mixtures that include any of the listed flammables if 

the mixture meets the criteria for the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) 

4 rating (see Chapter 1, section 1.5). 
Chapter 1 

General Applicability 1-6 

1.4	 WHAT IS A PROCESS 

The concept of "process" is key to whether you are subject to this rule. Process is 

defined in 40 CFR §68.3 as: 

"Any activity involving a regulated substance, including any use, storage, 

manufacturing, handling, or on-site movement of such substances, or combination of 

these activities. For the purposes of this definition, any group of vessels that are 

interconnected, or separate vessels that are located such that a regulated substance 

could be involved in a potential release, shall be considered a single process." 

"Vessel" in §68.3 means any reactor, tank, drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, boiler, 

pipe, hose, or other container. 

EPA’s definition of process is identical to the definition of process under the OSHA 

PSM standard. Understanding the definition of process is important in determining 

whether you have a threshold quantity of a regulated substance and what level of 

requirements you must meet if the process is covered. 

What does this mean to you? 

� If you store a regulated substance in a single vessel in quantities above the 

threshold quantity, you are covered. 

� If you have interconnected vessels that altogether hold more than a threshold 

quantity of a regulated substance, you are covered. The connections need 

not be permanent. If two or more vessels are connected occasionally, they 

are considered a single process for the purposes of determining whether a 

threshold quantity is present. 

� If you have multiple unconnected vessels containing the same substance, you 

will have to determine whether they are co-located and thus considered a 

single process for purposes of the rule. 

A process can be as simple as a single storage vessel or a group of drums or 

cylinders in one location or as complicated as a system of interconnected reactor 

vessels, distillation columns, receivers, pumps, piping, and storage vessels. 

SINGLE VESSELS 

If you have only a single vessel containing a regulated substance, you need not worry 

about the other possibilities for defining a process and can skip to section 1.5. For 

the purposes of defining a threshold quantity, you need only consider the quantity in 

this vessel. 

INTERCONNECTED VESSELS 

In general, if you have two or more vessels that contain a regulated substance and are 

connected through piping or hoses for transfer of the regulated substance, you must 

consider the total quantity of the regulated substance in all the connected vessels and 
Chapter 1 

1-7 General Applicability 

piping when determining if you have a threshold quantity in a process. If the vessels 

are connected for transfer of the substance using hoses that are sometimes 

disconnected, you still have to consider the contents of the vessels as one process, 

because if one vessel were to rupture while a hose was attached or a hose were to 

break during the transfer, both tanks could be affected. Therefore, you must count 

the quantities in both tanks and in any connecting piping or hoses. You cannot 

consider the presence of automatic shutoff valves or other devices that can limit 

flow, because these are assumed to fail for the purpose of determining the total 

quantity in a process. 

Once you have determined that a process is covered (the process contains more than 

a threshold quantity of a regulated substance), you must also consider equipment, 

piping, hoses, or other interconnections that do not carry or contain the regulated 

substance, but that are important for accidental release prevention. Equipment or 

connections which contain utility services, process cooling water, steam, electricity, 

or other non-regulated substances may be considered part of a process if such 

equipment could cause a regulated substance release or interfere with mitigating the 

consequences of an accidental release. Your prevention program for this process 

will need to cover such equipment. If, based on your analysis, it is determined that 

interconnected equipment or connections not containing the regulated substance 

cannot cause a regulated substance release or interfere with mitigation of the 

consequences of such a release, then such equipment or connections could safely be 

considered outside the limits or boundaries of the covered process. 

In some cases, such as in a large refinery or multi-unit chemical plant, determining 

the boundaries of a process for purposes of the RMP rule may be complicated. In the 

preamble to the June 20, 1996 rule (61 FR 31668), EPA clearly stated its intent to be 

consistent with OSHA’s interpretation of “process” as that term is used in OSHA’s 

PSM rule. Therefore, if your facility is subject to the PSM rule, the limits of your 

process(es) for purposes of OSHA PSM will be the limits of your process(es) for 

purposes of RMP (except where the two rules’ applicability differ such as for retail 

facilities and atmospheric storage tanks). If your facility is not covered by OSHA 

PSM and is complicated from an engineering perspective, you should consider 

contacting your implementing agency for advice on determining process boundaries. 

CO-LOCATION 

The third possibility you must consider is whether you have separate vessels that 

contain the same regulated substance that are located such that they could be 

involved in a single release. If so, you must add together the total quantity in all 

such vessels to determine if you have more than a threshold quantity. This 

possibility will be particularly important if you store a regulated substance in 

cylinders or barrels or other containers in a warehouse or outside in a rack. In some 

cases, you may have two vessels or systems that are in the same building or room. 

For each of these cases, you should ask yourself: 

� Could a release from one of the containers lead to a release from the other? 

For example, if a cylinder of propane were to rupture and burn, would the 

fire spread to other propane cylinders? 
Chapter 1 

General A pplicability 1-8 

� Could an event external to the containers, such as a fire or explosion or 

collapse of collision (e.g., a vehicle collides with several stored containers), 

have the potential to release the regulated substance from multiple 

containers? 

You must determine whether there is a credible scenario that could lead to a release 

of a threshold quantity. 

For flammables, you should consider the distance between vessels. If a fire could 

spread from one vessel to others or an explosion could rupture multiple vessels, you 

must count all of them. For toxics, a release from a single vessel will not normally 

lead to a release from others unless the vessel fails catastrophically and explodes, 

sending metal fragments into other vessels. Co-located vessels containing toxic 

substances, however, may well be involved in a release caused by a fire or explosion 

that occurs from another source. You should assume such a fire or explosion could 

take place in determining whether separate vessels could be involved in a single 

release. In addition, a collapse of storage racks could lead to multiple vessels 

breaking open. 

If vessels are separated by fire walls or barricades that will contain the blast waves 

from explosions of the substances, you will not need to count the separated vessels, 

but you would count any that are in the same room. You may not dismiss the 

possibility of a fire spreading based on an assumption that your fire brigade will be 

able to prevent any spread. You should ask yourself how far the fire would spread if 

the worst happens — the fire brigade is slow to arrive, the water supply fails, or the 

local fire department decides it is safer to let the fire burn itself out. If you have 

separate vessels containing a regulated substance that could be affected by the same 

accident, you should count them as a single process. 

PROCESSES WITH MULTIPLE CHEMICALS 

When you are determining whether you have a covered process, you should not limit 

your consideration to vessels that have the same regulated substance. A covered 

process includes any vessels that altogether hold more than a threshold quantity of 

one of more regulated substances and that are interconnected or co-located. 

Therefore, if you have four storage or reactor vessels holding four different regulated 

substances above their individual thresholds and they are located close enough to be 

involved in a single event, they are considered a single process. One implication of 

this approach is that if you have two vessels, each containing slightly less than a 

threshold quantity of the same regulated substance and located a considerable 

distance apart, and you have other storage or process vessels in between with other 

regulated substances above their thresholds, the two vessels with the first substance 

may be considered to be part of a larger process involving the other intervening 

vessels and other regulated substances, based on co-location. 

Exhibit 1-2 provides illustrations of what may be defined as a process. 

DO NOT AGGREGATE QUANTITIES OF DIFFERENT SUBSTANCES 

OSHA aggregates different flammable liquids across vessels in making threshold 

determinations. OSHA also aggregates different flammable gases (but does not 
Chapter 1 

1-9 General Applicability 

aggregate flammable liquids with flammable gases). EPA aggregates neither. 

Therefore, if you have three co-located or connected reactor vessels each containing 

5,000 pounds of a different flammable liquid, OSHA considers that you have 15,000 

pounds of flammable liquids and are covered by the PSM standard. Under EPA's 

rule, you would not have a covered process because you do not meet the threshold 

quantity for any one of the three substances. OSHA, like EPA, does not aggregate 

quantities for toxics as a class (i.e., each toxic substance must meet its own threshold 

quantity). 

AGGREGATION OF SUBSTANCES 

A toxic substance is never aggregated with a different toxic substance to determine whether a 

threshold quantity is present. If your process consists of co-located vessels with different toxic 

substances, you must determine whether each substance exceeds its threshold quantity. 

A flammable substance in one vessel is never aggregated with a different flammable substance in 

another vessel to determine whether a threshold quantity is present. However, if a flammable 

mixture meets the criteria for NFPA-4 and contains different regulated flammables, it is the mixture, 

not the individual substances, that is considered in determining if a threshold quantity is present. 

1.5 THRESHOLD QUANTITY IN A PROCESS 

The threshold quantity for each regulated substance is listed in 40 CFR §68.130, in 

Appendix A. You should determine whether the maximum quantity of each 

substance in a process is greater than the threshold quantity listed. If it is, you must 

comply with this rule for that process. Even if you are not covered by this rule, you 

may still be subject to other reporting requirements, such as those under the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). 

QUANTITY IN A VESSEL 

To determine if you have the threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a vessel 

involved in a single process, you need to consider the maximum quantity in that 

vessel at any one time. You do not need to consider the vessel's maximum capacity if 

you never fill it to that level. Base your decision on the actual maximum quantity 

that you may have in the vessel. Your maximum quantity may be more than your 

normal operating maximum quantity; for example, if you may use a vessel for 

emergency storage, the maximum quantity should be based on the quantity that 

might be stored. 

"At any one time" means you need to consider the largest quantity that you ever have 

in the vessel. If you fill a tank with 50,000 pounds and immediately begin using the 

substance and depleting the contents, your maximum is 50,000 pounds. If you fill 

the vessel four times a year, your maximum is still 50,000 pounds. Throughput is 

not considered because the rule is concerned about the maximum quantity you could 

release in a single event. 
EXHIBIT 1-2


PROCESS


Schematic Representation Description Interpretation 

1 vessel 

1 regulated substance above TQ 

1 process 

2 or more connected vessels 

same regulated substance 

above TQ 

1 process 

2 or more connected vessels 

different regulated substance 

each above TQ 

1 process 

pipeline feeding multiple vessels 

total above TQ 

1 process 

2 or more vessels co-located 

same substance 

total above TQ 

1 process 

2 or more vessels co-located 

different substances 

each above TQ 

1 process 

2 vessels, located so they won’t be 

involved in a single release 

same or different substances 

each above TQ 

2 processes 

2 locations with regulated substances 

each above TQ 

1 or 2 processes 

depending on distance 

Flammable 

1 series of interconnected vessels 

same or different substances above TQs 

plus a co-located storage vessel 

containing flammables 

1 process 
Chapter 1 

1-11 General Applicability 

QUANTITY IN A PIPELINE 

The maximum quantity in a pipeline will generally be the capacity of the pipeline 

(volume). In most cases, pipeline quantity will be calculated and added to the 

interconnected vessels. 

INTERCONNECTED/CO-LOCATED VESSELS 

If your process consists of two or more interconnected vessels, you must determine 

the maximum quantity for each vessel and the connecting pipes or hoses. The 

maximum for each individual vessel and pipe is added together to determine the 

maximum for the process. 

If you have determined that you must consider co-located vessels as one process, you 

must determine the maximum quantity for each vessel and sum up the quantities of 

all such vessels. 

QUANTITY OF A SUBSTANCE IN A MIXTURE OR SOLUTION 

TOXICS WITH LISTED CONCENTRATION 

Four toxic substances have listed concentrations in the rule: hydrochloric acid — 37 

percent or greater; hydrofluoric acid — 50 percent or greater; nitric acid — 80 

percent or greater; and ammonia — 20 percent or greater. 

� If you have these substances in solution and their concentration is less than 

the listed concentration, you do not need to consider them at all. 

� If you have one of these four above their listed concentration, you must 

determine the weight of the substance in the solution and use that to 

calculate the quantity present. If that quantity is greater than the threshold, 

the process is covered. For example, aqueous ammonia is covered at 

concentrations above 20 percent, with a threshold quantity of 20,000 pounds. 

 If the solution is 25 percent ammonia, you would need 80,000 pounds of the 

solution to meet the threshold quantity; if the solution is 44 percent 

ammonia, you would need 45,455 pounds to meet the threshold quantity 

(quantity of mixture x percentage of regulated substance = quantity of 

regulated substance). 

Note that in a revision to part 68, EPA changed the concentration for hydrochloric 

acid to 37 percent or greater (see Appendix A). 
Chapter 1 

General Applicability 1-12 

QS & AS


PROCESS


Q. Do I have to do my hazard review, process hazard analysis, or other prevention activity on the 

whole process or can I break it into separate units? 

A. Once you have determined that you have a covered process, you can divide the covered process 

any way you want to implement the prevention program. If you have multiple interconnected storage 

and reactor vessels in your process, you may want to treat them separately when you conduct the 

hazard review or process hazard analysis, if only to make the analyses easier to manage. Storage and 

reactor vessels may require separate maintenance programs. You should do what makes sense for 

your process. 

Q. How far apart do separate vessels have to be to be considered different processes? 

A. There is no hard and fast rule for how great this distance should be before you do not need to 

consider the vessels as part of one process. Two vessels at opposite ends of a large warehouse room 

might have to be considered as one process if the entire warehouse or room could be engulfed in a 

fire. Two vessels separated by the same distance out of doors might be far enough apart that a fire 

affecting one would be unlikely to spread to the other. You may want to consult with your local fire 

department. You should then use your best professional judgment. Ask yourself how much of the 

regulated substance could be released if the worst happens (you have a major fire, an explosion, a 

natural disaster). 

TOXICS WITHOUT A LISTED CONCENTRATION 

For toxics without a listed concentration, if the concentration is less than one percent 

you need not consider the quantity in your threshold determination. If the 

concentration in a mixture is above one percent, you must calculate the weight of the 

regulated substance in the mixture and use that weight to determine whether a 

threshold quantity is present. However, if you can measure or estimate (and 

document) that the partial pressure of the regulated substance in the mixture is less 

than 10 mm Hg, you do not need to consider the mixture. Note that the partial 

pressure rule does not apply to toluene diisocyanate (2-4, 2-6, or mixed isomers) or 

oleum. 

EPA treats toxic mixtures differently from OSHA. Under the OSHA PSM standard, 

the entire weight of the mixture is counted toward the threshold quantity; under part 

68, only the weight of the toxic substance is counted. 

FLAMMABLES 

Flammable mixtures are subject to the rule only if there is a regulated substance in 

the mixture above one percent and the entire mixture meets the NFPA-4 criteria. If 

the mixture meets both of these criteria, you must use the weight of the entire 

mixture (not just the listed substance) to determine if you exceed the threshold 

quantity. The NFPA-4 definition is as follows: 
Chapter 1 

1-13 General Applicability 

"Materials that will rapidly or completely vaporize at atmospheric pressure and 

normal ambient temperature or that are readily dispersed in air, and that will burn 

readily. This degree usually includes: 

Flammable gases 

Flammable cryogenic materials 

Any liquid or gaseous material that is liquid while under pressure and has a flash 

point below 73 F (22.8 C) and a boiling point below 100 F (37.8 C) (i.e., Class 1A 

flammable liquids) 

Materials that will spontaneously ignite when exposed to air." 

FLAMMABLES NOT COVERED BY PART 68 (§68.115) 

The following flammables are not considered part of a "stationary source" and, 

therefore, any regulated substances contained in them need not be included in your 

calculations of threshold quantities: 

� Naturally occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs; and 

� Naturally occurring hydrocarbon transportation subject to oversight or 

regulation under 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195, or a state natural gas or 

hazardous liquid program for which the state has in effect a certification to 

DOT under 49 U.S.C. 60105. 

"Naturally occurring hydrocarbon reservoirs" include oil and gas fields, where the 

hydrocarbons occur in nature and from which they are pumped; they do not include 

natural formations, such as salt domes, where hydrocarbons are stored after they 

have been produced or processed. Transportation subject to DOT and/or state 

oversight or regulation refers to transportation in pipelines and liquefied natural gas 

facilities. 

You do not need to consider the following flammable substances when you 

determine the applicability of the rule: 

� Gasoline, when in distribution or related storage for use as fuel for internal 

combustion engines; 

� Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures prior to entry into a petroleum 

refining process unit (NAICS code 32411) or a natural gas processing plant 

(NAICS code 211112). Naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures include 

any of the following: 

� Condensate - hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that condenses 

because of changes in temperature, pressure, or both, and that remains liquid 

at standard conditions; 

� Crude oil - any naturally occurring, unrefined petroleum liquid; 
Chapter 1 

General Applicability 1-14 

� Field gas - gas extracted from a production well before the gas enters a 

natural gas processing plant (any processing site engaged in the extraction of 

natural gas liquids from field gas, fractionation of mixed natural gas liquids 

to natural gas products, or both); and 

� Produced water - water extracted from the earth from an oil or natural gas 

production well, or that is separated from oil or natural gas after extraction. 

EXCLUSION FOR FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES USED AS FUEL OR HELD FOR SALE AS 

FUEL AT RETAIL FACILITIES (§68.126) 

A flammable substance listed in Tables 3 and 4 of §68.130 is excluded from 

coverage when the substance is used as fuel at the source or held for sale as a fuel at 

a retail facility. Retail facilities include any stationary source where more than one 

half of the income (from fuel sales) is obtained from direct sales to end users or at 

which more than one-half of the fuel sold, by volume, is sold through a cylinder 

exchange program. 

EXCLUSIONS (§68.115) 

The rule has a number of additional exclusions that allow you to ignore certain items 

that contain a regulated substance when you determine whether a threshold quantity 

is present. Note that these same exclusions apply to EPCRA section 313; you should 

be familiar with them if you are subject to that provision. 

MANUFACTURED ITEMS & ARTICLES (§68.115(B)(3)) 

You do not need to include in your threshold calculations any manufactured item 

defined at §68.3 (as defined under 29 CFR 1910.1200(b)) that: 

� Is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, 

� Has end use functions dependent in whole or in part upon the shape or 

design during end use, and 

� Does not release or otherwise result in exposure to a regulated substance 

under normal conditions of processing and use. 

CERTAIN USES OF REGULATED SUBSTANCES (§68.115(B)(4)) 

You also do not need to include regulated substances in your calculation when in use 

for the following purposes: 

� Use as a structural component of the stationary source; 

� Use of products for routine janitorial maintenance; 

� Use by employees of foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items 

containing the regulated substances; and 
Chapter 1 

1-15 General Applicability 

� Use of regulated substances present in process water or non-contact cooling 

water as drawn from the environment or municipal sources, or use of 

regulated substances present in air used either as compressed air or as part of 

combustion. 

ACTIVITIES IN LABORATORIES (§68.115(B)(5)) 

If a regulated substance is manufactured, processed, or used in a laboratory at a 

stationary source under the supervision of a technically qualified individual (as 

defined by § 720.3 (ee) of 40 CFR), the quantity of the substance need not be 

considered in determining whether a threshold quantity is present. This exclusion 

does not extend to: 

� Specialty chemical production; 

� Manufacture, processing, or use of substances in pilot plant scale operations; 

and 

� Activities conducted outside the laboratory. 

1.6	 STATIONARY SOURCE 

The rule applies to "stationary sources" and each stationary source with one or more 

covered processes must file an RMP that includes all covered processes. 

SIMPLE SOURCES 

For most facilities covered by this rule, determining what constitutes a “stationary 

source” is simple. If you own or lease a property, your processes are contained 

within the property boundary, and no other companies operate on the property, then 

your stationary source is defined by the property boundary and covers any process 

within the boundaries that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated 

substance. You must comply with the rule and file a single RMP for all covered 

processes. 

MULTIPLE OPERATIONS OWNED BY A SINGLE COMPANY 

If the property is owned or leased by your company, but several separate operating 

divisions of the company have processes at the site, the divisions’ processes may be 

considered a single stationary source because they are controlled by a single 

company. Two factors will determine if the processes are to be considered a single 

source: Are the processes located on one or more contiguous properties? Are all of 

the operations in the same industrial group? 

If your company does have multiple operations that are on the same property and are 

in the same industrial group, each operating division may develop its prevention 

program separately for its covered processes, but you must file a single RMP for all 

covered processes at the site. You should note that this is different from the 

requirements for filing under CAA Title V, and EPCRA section 313 (the annual 
Chapter 1 

General Applicability 1-16 

toxic release inventory), where each division could file separately if your company 

chose to do so. 

OTHER SOURCES 

There are situations where two or more separate companies occupy the same site. 

The simplest of these cases is if multiple companies lease land at a site (e.g., an 

industrial park). Each company that has covered processes must file an RMP that 

includes information on its own covered processes at the site. You are responsible 

for filing an RMP for any operations that you own or operate. 

Another possibility is that one company owns the land and operates there while 

leasing part of the site to a second company. If both companies have covered 

processes, each is considered a separate stationary source and must file separate 

RMPs even if they have contractual relationships, such as supplying product to each 

other or sharing emergency response functions. 

If you and another company jointly own a site, but have separate operations at the 

site, you each must file separate RMPs for your covered processes. Ownership of 

the land is not relevant; a stationary source consists of covered processes located on 

the same property and controlled by the same person (or persons under common 

control). 

JOINT VENTURES 

You and another company may jointly own covered processes. In this case, the legal 

entity you have established to operate these processes should file the RMP. If you 

consider this entity a subsidiary, you should be listed as the parent company in the 

RMP. 

MULTIPLE LOCATIONS 

If you have multiple operations in the same area, but they are not on physically 

connected land, you must consider them separate stationary sources and file separate 

RMPs for each, even if the sites are connected by pipelines that move chemicals 

among the sites. Remember, the rule applies to covered processes at a single 

location. 

Exhibit 1-3 provides examples of stationary source decisions. 

1.7 WHEN YOU MUST COMPLY 

June 21, 1999 was the original compliance date for facilities that had covered 

processes as of that date. If the first time you have a covered process is after June 21, 

1999, or you bring a new process on line after that date, you must comply with part 

68 no later than the date on which you first have more than a threshold quantity of a 

regulated substance in a process. By that time you must have developed and 

implemented all of the elements of the rule that apply to each of your covered 

processes, and you must submit an RMP to EPA in the specified form and manner 

(see Chapter 9 for detailed information on submitting your RMP). 
Chapter 1 

1-17 General Applicability 

QS & AS


STATIONARY SOURCE


Q. I operate a single covered process on a site owned by a large company. I manufacture a 

regulated substance that I pipe to the other company for use in its processes. At what point do the 

piping and substance become part of the other company’s stationary source? 

A. The answer will vary. The company that owns and maintains the piping should probably 

consider it part of its stationary source. If, however, there is a point (e.g., a valve or meter) where the 

receiving company is considered to take ownership of the substance, then you may decide to divide 

the piping and its contents at that point. 

Q. The definition of process would seem to say that my process is part of the larger company’s 

process because they are interconnected. Why can’t the larger company just include my process in 

its RMP? 

A. Your process is not part of the larger company’s stationary source because it does not meet the 

statutory criteria for stationary sources. Although the process may be part of the same industrial 

group and is at the same location, it is not under control of the same person. Therefore, the process is 

a separate stationary source and must have a separate RMP. 
EXHIBIT 1-3 - STATIONARY SOURCE

Chapter 1 

1-19 General Applicability 

QS & AS


COMPLIANCE DATES


Q. What happens if I bring a new covered process on line (e.g., install a second storage tank) after 

submitting my original RMP? 

A. For a new covered process added after the initial compliance date, you must be in compliance on 

the date you first have a regulated substance above the threshold quantity. There is no grace period. 

You must develop and implement all the applicable rule elements and update your RMP before your 

process contains more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance. 

Q. What if EPA lists a new substance? 

A. You will have three years from the date on which the new listing is effective to come into 

compliance for any process that is covered because EPA has listed a new substance. 

Q. What if I change a process by adding new reactor vessels, but do not change the substances? 

A. Because increasing the number of reactor vessels is usually a major change to your process, you 

will have six months to update your RMP to reflect changes in your prevention program elements and 

report any other changes. 

Q. What if the quantity in the process fluctuates? I may not have a threshold quantity now, but I will 

intermittently exceed the threshold quantity. 

A. You do not need to comply with the rule and file an RMP unless you have more than threshold 

quantity in a process; however, once you have more than threshold quantity in a process, you must be 

in compliance immediately. In this situation, with fluctuating quantities, it may be prudent to file 

now, so you will be in compliance when your quantity exceeds the threshold. You may also want to 

consider a “predictive filing” (see Chapter 9 for more information on predictive filing). 
CHAPTER 2: APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAM LEVELS 

2.1	 WHAT ARE PROGRAM LEVELS? 

Once you have determined that you have one or more processes subject to this rule 

(see Chapter 1), you need to identify what actions you must take to comply. The rule 

defines three Program levels based on processes’ relative potential for public impacts 

and the level of effort needed to prevent accidents. For each Program level, the rule 

defines requirements that reflect the level of risk and effort associated with the 

processes at that level. The Program levels are as follows: 

Program 1: Processes which would not affect the public in the case of a 

worst-case release (in the language of Part 68, processes “with no public 

receptors within the distance to an endpoint from a worst-case release”) and 

with no accidents with specific offsite consequences within the past five 

years are eligible for Program 1, which imposes limited hazard assessment 

requirements and minimal prevention and emergency response requirements. 

Program 2: Processes not eligible for Program 1 or subject to Program 3 

are placed in Program 2, which imposes streamlined prevention program 

requirements, as well as additional hazard assessment, management, and 

emergency response requirements. 

Program 3: Processes not eligible for Program 1 and either subject to 

OSHA's PSM standard under federal or state OSHA programs or classified 

in one of ten specified North American Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes are placed in Program 3, which imposes OSHA’s PSM 

standard as the prevention program as well as additional hazard assessment, 

management, and emergency response requirements. 

If you assign a process to Program 2 or 3 when it might qualify for Program 1, the 

implementing agency may enforce all the requirements of the higher program levels. 

If, however, you are already in compliance with the prevention elements of Program 

2 or Program 3, you may want to assign it to Program 2 or 3 to inform the 

community of your prevention efforts. 

See Exhibit 2-1 for a diagram of the decision rules on determining Program level. 

KEY POINTS TO REMEM BER 

In determining program level(s) for your process(es), keep in mind the following: 

(1)	 Each process is assigned to a program level, which indicates the risk 

management measures necessary to comply with this regulation for that 

process, not the facility as a whole. The eligibility of one process for a 

program level does not influence the eligibility of other covered processes 

for other program levels. 
EXHIBIT 2-1


EVALUATE PROGRAM LEVELS FOR COVERED PROCESS

Chapter 2 

2-3 Applicability of Program Levels 

(2)	 Any process that meets the criteria for Program 1 can be assigned to 

Program 1, even if it is subject to OSHA PSM or is in one of the NAICS 

codes listed for Program 3. 

(3)	 Program 2 is the default program level. There are no "standard criteria" 

for Program 2. Any process that does not meet the applicability criteria for 

either Programs 1 or 3 is subject to the requirements for Program 2. 

(4)	 Only one Program level can apply to a process. If a process consists of 

multiple production or operating units or storage vessels, the highest 

Program level that applies to any segment of the process applies to all parts. 

Q & A


PROCESS AND PROGRAM LEVEL


Q. My process includes a series of interconnected units, as well as several storage vessels that are 

co-located. Several sections of the process could qualify for Program 1. Can I divide my process 

into sections for the purpose of assigning Program levels? 

A. No, you cannot subdivide a process for this purpose. The highest Program level that applies to 

any section of the process is the Program level for the whole process. If the entire process is not 

eligible for Program 1, then the entire process must be assigned to Program 2 or Program 3. 

2.2	 PROGRAM 1 

WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS? 

Your process is eligible for Program 1 if: 

(1)	 There are no “public receptors” within a “distance to an endpoint from a 

worst-case release” (see below explanation of these key terms); 

(2)	 The process has had no release of a regulated substance in the past five years 

where exposure to the substance, its reaction products, overpressures 

generated by explosion involving the substance, or radiant heat from a fire 

involving the substance resulted in one or more offsite deaths, injuries, or 

response or restoration activities for exposure of an environmental receptor; 

and 

(3)	 You have coordinated your emergency response activities with the local 

responders. (This requirement applies to any covered process, regardless of 

program level.) 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-4 

WHAT IS A PUBLIC RECEPTOR? 

The rule (§ 68.3) defines public as "any person except an employee or contractor of 

the stationary source." Consequently, employees of other facilities that may share 

your site are considered members of the public even if they share the same physical 

location. Being "the public," however, is not the same as being a public receptor. 

Public receptors include “offsite residences, institutions (e.g., schools and 

hospitals), industrial, commercial, and office buildings, parks, or recreational areas 

inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without restriction by the stationary 

source where members of the public could be exposed to toxic concentrations, 

radiant heat, or overpressure, as a result of an accidental release.” Offsite means 

areas beyond your property boundary and "areas within the property boundary to 

which the public has routine and unrestricted access during or outside business 

hours." 

The first step in identifying public receptors is determining what is “offsite.” For 

most facilities, that determination will be straightforward. If you restrict access to all 

of your property all of the time, “offsite” is anything beyond your property 

boundaries. Ways of restricting access include fully fencing the property, placing 

security guards at a reception area or using ID badges to permit entry. 

If you do not restrict access to a section of your property and the public has routine 

and unrestricted access to it during or after business hours, that section would be 

“offsite.” For example, if your operations are fenced but the public has unrestricted 

access to your parking lot during or after business hours, the parking lot is “offsite.” 

In the case of facilities such as hospitals, schools, and hotels that shelter members of 

the public as part of their function or business, the parts of the facility that are used 

to shelter the public would be “offsite.” 

Not all areas offsite are potential public receptors. The point of identifying public 

receptors is to locate those places where there are likely to be, at least some of the 

time, members of the public whose health could be harmed by short-term exposure to 

an accidental release at your site. The basic test for identifying a public receptor is 

thus whether an area is a place where it is reasonable to expect that members of the 

public will routinely gather at least some of the time. 

The definition of “public receptor” itself specifies the types of areas where members 

of the public may routinely gather at least some of the time: residences, institutions 

such as hospitals and schools, buildings in general, parks and recreational areas. 

There should be little difficulty in identifying residences, institutions and businesses 

as such, and virtually any residence, institution and business will qualify as a public 

receptor, even when the property is used only seasonally (as in a vacation home). 

Notably, a residence includes its yard, if any, and an institution or business includes 

its grounds to the extent that employees or other members of the public are likely to 

routinely gather there at least some of the time for business or other purposes (see 

discussion of recreational areas below). The only circumstances that would justify 

not considering such a property a public receptor would be where your facility owns 

or controls the property and restricts access to it, or no member of the public inhabits 
Chapter 2 

2-5 Applicability of Program Levels 

or occupies it at any time. Where a hospital, school, hotel or other entity that 

provides public shelter is itself subject to the part 68 rule, it will be its own public 

receptor except for those areas where members of the public are not allowed to go at 

any time. 

Buildings other than residences, institutions or businesses are also highly likely to 

qualify as public receptors since the function of most buildings is at least in part to 

shelter people. Accordingly, toll booth plazas, transit stations, and airport terminals 

would qualify as public receptors. For a building not to qualify as a public receptor, 

one of the circumstances mentioned above would have to apply. 

Every designated park or recreational area, or at least some portion thereof, is apt to 

be a public gathering place by virtue of facilities made available to the public (e.g., 

visitors’ center, playground, golf course, camping or picnic area, marina or ball field) 

or attributes that members of the public routinely seek to use (e.g., beach). It does not 

matter whether use of such facilities is seasonal; routine use for at least part of the 

year would qualify the area as a public receptor. 

At the same time, some portion of a designated park or recreational area may not be 

a public receptor. For instance, a large state or national park may include relatively 

inaccessible tracts of land that do not contain public facilities or receive routine use. 

Occasional hiking, camping or hunting in such areas would not qualify the areas as 

public receptors. 

An area need not be designated a recreational area to be one in fact. If an area is 

routinely used for recreational purposes, even if only seasonally, it is a recreational 

area for purposes of the part 68 rule. For example, a marina may not bill itself as a 

“recreational area,” but if a marina houses recreational boats, it qualifies as a public 

receptor. Further, if your facility or a neighboring property owner allows the public 

to make routine recreational use of some portion of land (e.g., a ball field or fishing 

pond), that portion of land would qualify as a public receptor. 

Roads and parking lots are not included as such in the definition of “public 

receptor.” Neither are places where people typically gather; instead they are used to 

travel from one place to another or to park a vehicle while attending an activity 

elsewhere. However, if a parking lot is predictably and routinely used as a place of 

business (e.g., a farmer’s market) or for a recreational purpose (e.g., a county fair), it 

would qualify as a public receptor. 

In general, farm land would not be considered a public receptor. However, if farm 

land, or a portion thereof, is predictably and routinely occupied by farm workers or 

other members of public, even if only on a seasonal basis, that portion of the land 

would be a public receptor. 

If you are in doubt about whether to consider certain areas around your facility as 

public receptors, you should consult with the relevant local officials and land owners 

and your implementing agency for guidance. 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-6 

QS & AS


PUBLIC RECEPTORS


Q. My processes are fenced, but my offices and parking lot for customers are not restricted. What is 

considered offsite? What is considered a public receptor? 

A. The unrestricted areas would be considered offsite. However, they would not be public receptors 

because you are responsible for the safety of those who work in or visit your offices and because 

parking lots are not generally public receptors. 

Q. What is considered a recreational area? 

A. Recreational areas would include land that is designed, constructed, designated, or used for 

recreational activities. Examples are national, state, county, or city parks, other outdoor recreational 

areas such as golf courses or swimming pools and bodies of waters (oceans, lakes, rivers, and 

streams) when used by the public for fishing, swimming, or boating. Public and private areas that are 

predictably used for hunting, fishing, bird watching, bike riding, hiking, or camping or other 

recreational use also would be considered recreational areas. EPA encourages you to consult with 

land owners, local officials, and the community to reach an agreement on an area’s status; your local 

emergency planning committee (LEPC) can help you with these consultations. EPA recognizes that 

some judgment is involved in determining whether an area should be considered a recreational area. 

Q. Does public receptor cover only buildings on a property or the entire property? If the owner of 

the land next to my site restricts access to the land, is it still a public receptor? 

A. Public receptors are not limited to buildings. For example, if there are houses near your property, 

both the houses and their yards are considered public receptors because it is likely that residents will 

be present in one or the other at least some of the time, and, in fact, people are likely to be in more 

danger if they are outside when a release occurred. The ability of others to restrict access to an area 

does not change its status as a public receptor. You need to consider whether that land is generally 

unoccupied. If the land is undeveloped or rarely has anyone on it, it is not a public receptor. If you 

are not sure of the land’s use of occupancy, you should talk with the landowner and the community 

about its status. Because it is the landowner and members of the local community who are likely to 

be affected by your decision, you should involve them in the decision is you have doubts. 

WHAT IS A DISTANCE TO AN ENDPOINT FROM A WORST-CASE RELEASE? 

In broad terms, the distance to an endpoint is the distance a toxic vapor cloud, fire, or 

explosion from an accidental release will travel before dissipating to the point that 

serious injuries from short-term exposures will no longer occur. The rule establishes 

"endpoints" for each regulated substance and defines the circumstances of a 

worst-case release scenario (e.g., release type, rate and duration, weather) (see 

Chapter 4 or the Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence 

Analysis for more information). You will have to define a worst-case release (usually 

the loss of the total contents of your largest vessel) for each Program 1 process and 

determine the distance to the endpoint for that release. (EPA has developed 
Chapter 2 

2-7 Applicability of Program Levels 

guidance for defining and analyzing worst-case releases; you may also conduct 

modeling on your own to determine the distance to the endpoint for worst-case 

releases.) Beyond that endpoint, the effects on people are not considered to be 

severe enough to merit the need for additional action under this rule. 

To define the area of potential impact from the worst-case release, draw a circle on a 

map, using the process as the center and the distance to the endpoint as the radius. If 

there are public receptors within that area, your process is not eligible for Program 1. 

Q & A


DETERMINING DISTANCES


Q. Our distance to the endpoint for the worst-case release is 0.3 miles. The nearest public receptor 

is 0.32 miles away. What tools are available to document that the public receptor is beyond the 

distance to the endpoint so we can qualify for Program 1? 

A. The results of any air dispersion model (from EPA’s guidance documents or other models) are 

not precise predictions. They represent an estimate, but the actual distances to the endpoint could be 

closer to or farther from the point of release. If your distance to the endpoint and distance to a public 

receptor are so close that you cannot document, using a USGS map, that the two points are different, 

it would be advisable to comply with the higher Program level. The most detailed maps available 

from the US Geological Survey (scale of 1:24,000) are accurate enough to map the distances you cite 

and document that the two points (which are about 100 feet apart) differ. GPS systems may also 

allow you to differentiate these points. 

ACCIDENT HISTORY 

To be eligible for Program 1, no release of the regulated substance from the process 

can have resulted in one or more offsite deaths, injuries, or response or restoration 

activities at an environmental receptor during the five years prior to submission of 

your RMP. A release of the regulated substance from another process has no bearing 

on whether the first process is eligible for Program 1. 

WHAT IS AN INJURY? 

An injury is defined as "any effect on a human that results either from direct 

exposure to toxic concentrations; radiant heat; or overpressures from accidental 

releases or from the direct consequences of a vapor cloud explosion (such as flying 

glass, debris, and other projectiles) from an accidental release." The effect must 

"require medical treatment or hospitalization." This definition is taken from the 

OSHA regulations for keeping employee injury and illness logs and should be 

familiar to most employers. Medical treatment is further defined as “treatment, 

other than first aid, administered by a physician or registered professional personnel 

under standing orders from a physician.” The definition of medical treatment will 

likely capture most instances of hospitalization. However, if someone goes to the 

hospital following direct exposure to a release and is kept overnight for observation 

(even if no specific injury or illness is found), that would qualify as hospitalization 

and so would be considered an injury. 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-8 

WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTOR? 

The environmental receptors you need to consider are limited to natural areas such as 

national or state parks, forests, or monuments; officially designated wildlife 

sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal wilderness areas. All of these 

areas can be identified on local U.S. Geological Survey maps. 

WHAT ARE RESTORATION AND RESPONSE ACTIVITIES? 

The type of restoration and response activity conducted to address the impact of an 

accidental release will depend on the type of release (volatilized spill, vapor cloud, 

fire, or explosion), but may include such activities as: 

� Collection and disposal of dead animals and contaminated plant life; 

� Collection, treatment, and disposal of soil; 

� Shutoff of drinking water; 

� Replacement of damaged vegetation; or 

� Isolation of a natural area due to contamination associated with an accidental 

release. 

Q & A


ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS


Q. Do environmental receptors include areas that are not Federal Class I areas under the CAA? 

A. Yes. The list of environmental receptors in Part 68 includes areas in addition to those that qualify 

as Federal Class I areas under CAA section 162. Under Part 68, national parks, monuments, 

wilderness areas, and forests are environmental receptors regardless of size. State parks, monuments, 

and forests are also environmental receptors. 

DOCUMENTING PROGRAM 1 ELIGIBILITY 

For every Program 1 process at your facility, you must keep records documenting the 

eligibility of the process for Program 1. For each Program 1 process, your records 

should include the following: 

� A description of the worst-case release scenario, which must specify the 

vessel or pipeline and substance selected for worst-case analysis, 

assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for selection. 

Assumptions may include use of any administrative controls and any passive 

mitigation that would limit the quantity that could be released; 
Chapter 2 

2-9 Applicability of Program Levels 

� Documentation of the estimated quantity of the worst-case release, release 

rate, and duration of release; 

� The methodology used to determine distance to endpoints; 

� Data used to determine that no public receptor would be affected; and 

� Information on your coordination with public responders. 

2.3	 QUICK RULES FOR DETERMINING PROGRAM 1 ELIGIBILITY 

You generally will not be able to predict with certainty that the worst-case scenario 

for a particular process will meet the criteria for Program 1. Processes containing 

certain substances, however, may be more likely than others to be eligible for 

Program 1, and processes containing certain other substances may be very unlikely 

to be eligible for Program 1 because of the toxicity and physical properties of the 

substances. The information presented below may be useful in identifying processes 

that may be eligible for Program 1. 

TOXIC GASES 

If you have a process containing more than a threshold quantity of any regulated 

toxic gas that is not liquefied by refrigeration alone (i.e., you hold it as a gas or 

liquefied under pressure), the distance to the endpoint estimated for a worst-case 

release of the toxic gas will generally be several miles. As a result, the distance to 

endpoint is unlikely to be less than the distance to public receptors, unless the 

process is very remote. In some cases, however, toxic gases in processes in enclosed 

areas may be eligible for Program 1. 

REFRIGERATED TOXIC GASES 

If you have a process containing anhydrous ammonia liquefied by refrigeration 

alone, and your worst-case release would take place into a diked area, the chances 

are good that the process may be eligible for Program 1, unless there are public 

receptors very close to the process. Even if you have many times the threshold 

quantity of ammonia, the process may still be eligible for Program 1. 

If you have a process containing ethylene oxide, anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, or 

methyl chloride liquefied by refrigeration alone, and the release would take place 

into a diked area, the process may be eligible for Program 1, depending on the size of 

the diked area, the quantity of the regulated substance, and the location of public 

receptors. 

The worst-case analysis for a process containing chlorine liquefied by refrigeration is 

unlikely to show eligibility for Program 1, unless your site is extremely remote from 

the public or the release would occur within an enclosure. 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-10 

QS & AS


ACCIDENT HISTORY


Q. What is the relationship between the accident history criteria for Program 1 and the five-year 

accident history? If my process is eligible for Program 1, do I still need to do a five-year accident 

history? 

A. The five-year accident history is an information collection requirement that is designed to 

provide data on all serious accidents involving release of a regulated substance from a covered 

process. 

In contrast, the Program 1 accident history criteria focus on accidents causing offsite harm of the 

most serious kind: death or injury of persons or significant harm to a public receptor. Onsite 

effects, shelterings-in-place, and evacuations that have occurred must be reported in the five-year 

accident history, but they are not considered in determining Program 1 eligibility. Therefore, it is 

possible for process to be eligible for Program 1 and still have experienced a release that must be 

reported in the accident history for the source. 

Q. A process with more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance had an accident with 

offsite consequences three years ago. After the accident, we altered the process to reduce the 

quantity stored on site, although the quantity still exceeds the threshold quantity. Now the worstcase release scenario indicates that there are no public receptors within the distance to an 

endpoint. Can this process qualify for Program 1? 

A. No, the process cannot qualify for Program 1 until five years have passed since any accident 

with consequences that disqualify a process for Program 1. 

TOXIC LIQUIDS 

The distance to an endpoint for a worst-case release involving toxic liquids kept 

under ambient conditions may be smaller than the distance to public receptors in a 

number of cases. If public receptors are not found very close to the process (within 

1⁄2 mile), the process may be eligible for Program 1. However, small-sized facilities 

are highly unlikely to meet to be eligible for Program 1 if they are in a developed 

area. Remotely located facilities or processes found near the center of large 

(acreage) sites are more likely to be eligible. 

Substances that are potential candidates to be in processes that are eligible for 

Program 1 are noted below. Generally, processes that contain toxic liquids at 

elevated temperatures, including the toxic liquids listed below, would be less likely 

to be eligible for Program 1 than those at ambient temperature, and processes in 

diked areas are more likely to be eligible for Program 1 than those in undiked areas. 

For processes containing toluene diisocyanate (including toluene 2,4-diisocyanate, 

toluene 2,6-diisocyanate, and unspecified isomers) or ethylene diamine, the worst­
Chapter 2 

2-11 Applicability of Program Levels 

case analysis of a spill of more than a threshold quantity into an undiked area under 

ambient conditions is likely to demonstrate eligibility for Program 1. If the area of 

the spill is diked, even processes containing very large quantities of these substances 

may be eligible for Program 1. In addition, processes containing the following toxic 

liquids under ambient conditions are likely to be eligible for Program 1 if a spill 

would take place in a diked area and public receptors are not close to the process: 

� Chloroform 

� Cyclohexylamine 

� Hydrazine 

� Isobutyronitrile 

� Isopropyl chloroformate 

� Oleum 

� Propylene oxide 

� Titanium tetrachloride 

� Vinyl acetate monomer 

WATER SOLUTIONS OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

The list of regulated substances includes several common water solutions of toxic 

substances. Processes containing such solutions at ambient temperatures may be 

eligible for Program 1 (depending in some cases on the concentration of the 

solution), if spills would be contained in diked areas and public receptors are not 

located close to the process (within 1⁄2 mile). As noted above, small-sized facilities 

in developed areas are highly unlikely to be eligible for Program 1; remotely located 

facilities or processes found near the center of large (acreage) sites are more likely to 

be eligible. 

Processes containing the following water solutions under ambient conditions may be 

eligible for Program 1, assuming diked areas that would contain the spill: 

� Ammonia in solution 

� Formaldehyde (commercial concentrations) 

� Hydrofluoric acid (concentration 50 to 70 percent) 

� Nitric acid (commercial concentrations) 

� Oleum 

FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES 

Many processes containing regulated flammable substances are likely to be eligible 

for Program 1, unless there are public receptors within a very short distance. If you 

have a process containing up to about 20,000 pounds (twice the threshold quantity) 

of a regulated flammable substance (other than hydrogen), your process is likely to 

be eligible for Program 1 if you have no public receptors within about 400 yards 

(1,200 feet) of the process. If you have up to 100,000 pounds in a process (ten times 

the threshold quantity), the process may be eligible for Program 1 if there are no 

public receptors within about 700 yards (2,000 feet). In general, it would be 

worthwhile to conduct a worst-case analysis for any processes containing only 

flammables to determine Program 1 eligibility, unless you have public receptors very 

close to the process. Consequently, you may have to conduct more worst-case 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-12 

analyses if you want to qualify processes for Program 1; for Program 2 and 3 

processes, you need analyze only one worst-case release scenario to cover all 

flammables. For Program 1, you must be able to demonstrate, through your 

worst-case analysis, that every process you claim is Program 1 meets the criteria. 

2.4 PROGRAM 3 

Any covered process that is not eligible for Program 1 and meets one of the two 

criteria specified below is subject to Program 3 requirements, which include risk 

management measures and requirements virtually identical to the OSHA PSM 

Standard. 

WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM 3? 

Your process is subject to Program 3 if: 

� Your process does not meet the eligibility requirements for Program 1, and 

� Either 

(a) Your process is subject to OSHA PSM (federal or state); or 

(b) Your process is in one of ten NAICS codes specified in part 68. 

WHAT IS THE OSHA PSM STANDARD? 

The OSHA Process Safety Management standard (codified at 29 CFR 1910.119) is a 

set of procedures in thirteen management areas designed to protect worker health and 

safety in case of accidental releases. Similar to EPA's rule, OSHA PSM applies to a 

range of facilities that have more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a 

process. All processes subject to this rule and the OSHA PSM standard (federal or 

state) and not eligible for Program 1 are assigned to Program 3 because the Program 

3 prevention program is virtually identical to the elements of the PSM standard. If 

you are already complying with OSHA PSM for a process, you probably will need to 

take few, if any, additional steps and develop little, if any, additional documentation 

to meet the requirements of the Program 3 prevention elements (see Chapter 8 for a 

discussion of differences between Program 3 prevention and OSHA PSM). EPA 

placed all covered OSHA PSM processes in Program 3 to eliminate the possibility of 

imposing overlapping, inconsistent requirements on the same process. 

WHAT ARE THE TEN NAICS CODES? (§ 68.10) 

Program 3 requirements are applicable to a covered process if the process is in one 

of ten manufacturing NAICS codes: 32211, 32411, 32511, 325181, 325188, 325192, 

325199, 325211, 325311, or 32532. These NAICS codes were selected based on an 

analysis of accidental release data and represent activities for which a relatively high 
Chapter 2 

2-13 Applicability of Program Levels 

proportion of sources reported releases. The following are the NAICS codes and the 

associated activity: 

NAICS Code Industry 

32211 Pulp mills 

32411 Petroleum refineries 

32511 Petrochemical manufacturing 

325181 Alkalies and chlorine manufacturing 

325188 All other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing 

325192 Cyclic crude and intermediate manufacturing 

325199 All other basic organic chemical manufacturing 

325211 Plastics material and resin manufacturing 

325311 Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing 

32532 Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing 

HOW DO I DEFINE A NAICS CODE FOR A PROCESS? 

Unless you have only one process, you probably have not previously needed to 

assign a NAICS code to each of your processes. If your covered process includes 

several industrial activities, you will need to determine the primary NAICS code for 

assigning Program level based on the primary activity of the process. If the process 

covers multiple industrial activities, you may list several NAICS codes for the 

process on the registration part of the RMP. Even if a process is considered a 

support activity for your main production (e.g., your warehouse or wastewater 

treatment system), you must assign it a separate, appropriate code (e.g., 56221 for 

waste treatment) to determine if it is subject to Program 3. 

This assignment does not affect your ability to consider such support processes as 

part of the same industrial group for purposes of defining your stationary source; the 

two decisions are separate. 

NAICS CODES FOR A PROCESS VS. PRIMARY FACILITY NAICS CODE 

For purposes of determining program levels, you must identify the applicable NAICS 

codes for each individual process. Unless you have only one process, there may not 

be a relationship between the covered process NAICS code(s) and your facility's 

primary NAICS code. The primary NAICS code for your facility may be similar to 

the NAICS codes that you determine for several if not all of your processes, but the 

primary NAICS code for the facility should not be used as a default value or to 

identify a NAICS code for a single process. The primary NAICS code for the 

facility is assigned based on the activity that contributes the largest percentage of 

your revenue and is the code you use when you complete Census forms. 

2.5 PROGRAM 2 

Program 2 is considered a default program level because any covered process that is 

not eligible for Program 1 or assigned to Program 3 is, by default, subject to Program 

2 requirements, including a streamlined accident prevention program. One or more 

processes at your facility are likely to be in Program 2 if: 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-14 

� You are a retailer and do not perform any chemical processing activities, 

such as an agricultural fertilizer retailer. 

� You are a publicly owned facility in a state that does not have a delegated 

OSHA program. 

� You use regulated acids in solution in activities that do not fall into one of 

the ten NAICS codes specified for Program 3. 

� You store regulated liquid flammable substances in atmospheric storage 

tanks for use as a feedstock or for sale to retailers. 

WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM 2? 

Your process is subject to Program 2 if: 

� Your process does not meet the eligibility requirements for Program 1; 

� Your process is not subject to OSHA PSM (federal or state); and 

� Your process is not categorized in NAICS code 32211, 32411, 32511, 

325181, 325188, 325192, 325199, 325211, 325311, or 32532. 

When determining what program level is appropriate for your covered process, keep 

in mind that if it does not meet the Program 1 criteria, if it is not covered by OSHA 

PSM, and it is not classified in the NAICS codes listed above, the process 

automatically is subject to Program 2 requirements. 

Exhibit 2-2 provides a summary of the criteria for determining Program level. 
Chapter 2 

2-15 Applicability of Program Levels 

EXHIBIT 2-2 

PROGRAM LEVEL CRITERIA 

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 

No accidents in the previous five 

years that resulted in any offsite: 

Death 

Injury 

Response or restoration 

activities at an 

environmental receptor 

The process is not eligible for 

Program 1 or subject to Program 3. 

Process is not eligible for Program 

1. 

No public receptors in worst-case 

circle. 

Process is subject to OSHA PSM. 

Emergency response coordinated 

with local responders. 

Process is classified in NAICS code 

32211 - Pulp Mills 

32411 - Petroleum Refineries 

32511 - Petrochemical 

Manufacturing 

325181 - Alkalies and Chlorine 

Manufacturing 

325188 - All Other Basic Inorganic 

Chemical Manufacturing 

325192 - Cyclic Crude and 

Intermediate Manufacturing 

325199 - All Other Basic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing 

325211 - Plastics Material and 

Resin Manufacturing 

325311 - Nitrogenous Fertilizer 

Manufacturing 

32532 - Pesticide and Other 

Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing 

2.6 DEALING WITH PROGRAM LEVELS 

WHAT IF I HAVE MULTIPLE PROGRAM LEVELS? 

If you have more than one covered process, you may be dealing with multiple 

program levels in your risk management program. 

If your facility has processes subject to different program levels, you will need to 

comply with different program requirements for different processes. Nevertheless, 

you must submit a single RMP for all covered processes. 

If you prefer, you may choose to adopt the most stringent applicable program level 

requirements for all covered processes. For example, if you have three covered 

processes, one eligible for Program 1 and two subject to Program 3, you may find it 

administratively easier to follow the Program 3 requirements for all three covered 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-16 

processes. Remember, though, that this is only an option; we expect that most 

sources will comply with the set of program level requirements for which each 

process is eligible. 

QS & AS


OSHA


Q. If my state administers the OSHA program under a delegation from the federal OSHA, does that 

mean that my processes that are subject to OSHA PSM under the state rules are in Program 3? 

A. Yes, as long as the process does not qualify for Program 1. Any process subject to PSM, under 

federal or state rules, is considered to be in Program 3 unless it qualifies for Program 1. 

Q. I am a publicly owned facility in a state with a delegated OSHA program. Why are my processes 

considered to be in Program 3 when the same processes in a state where federal OSHA runs the 

program are in Program 2? 

A. Federal OSHA cannot impose its rules on state or local governments, but when OSHA delegates 

its program to a state for implementation, the state imposes the rules on itself and local governments. 

Because these governments are complying with the identical OSHA PSM rules imposed by federal 

OSHA, they are subject to Program 3. In meeting their obligations under state OSHA rules, they are 

already substantially in compliance with the Program 3 prevention program requirements. State and 

local governments in non-state-plan states are not subject to any OSHA rules and must comply with 

Program 2. 

CAN THE PROGRAM LEVEL FOR A PROCESS CHANGE? 

A change in a covered process or in the surrounding community can result in a 

change in the program level of the process. If this occurs, you must submit an 

updated RMP within six months of the change that altered the program level for the 

covered process. If the process no longer qualifies as a covered process (e.g., as a 

result of a change in the quantity of the regulated substance in the process), you must 

update and re-submit your RMP within six months indicating that the process is no 

longer subject to any program level requirements. If it is your only covered process, 

you are no longer subject to the Part 68 regulations and will need to "deregister" 

your RMP (see Chapter 9 for more information). Typical examples of switching 

program levels include: 

MOVING UP 

From Program 1 to Program 2 or 3. You have a covered process subject to 

Program 1 requirements. A new residential development results in public receptors 

being located within the distance to the endpoint for a worst-case release for that 

process. The process thus is no longer eligible for Program 1 and must be evaluated 

to determine whether Program 2 or Program 3 applies. You must update and resubmit your RMP within six months of the program level change, indicating and 
Chapter 2 

2-17 Applicability of Program Levels 

documenting that your process is now in compliance with the new program level 

requirements. 

From Not Covered to Program 1, 2 or 3. You have a process that was not 

originally covered by part 68, but, due to a planned expansion in production, you 

plan to increase the amount of regulated substance in the process to a level that will 

exceed the threshold quantity for that substance. You must determine which 

program level applies and come into compliance with the rule by the time you 

increase the amount of regulated substance in the process to a level exceeding the 

threshold quantity. 

From Program 2 to Program 3. You have a process that involves a regulated 

substance above the threshold that is not in one of the ten NAICS codes specified for 

Program 3 and that had not been subject to OSHA PSM. However, due to one of the 

following OSHA regulatory changes, the process is now subject to the OSHA PSM 

standard: 

� An OSHA PSM exemption applicable to your process has been eliminated, 

or 

� The regulated substance has been added to OSHA's list of highly hazardous 

substances. 

As a result, the process becomes subject to Program 3 requirements and you must 

update and re-submit your RMP to EPA within six months, indicating and 

documenting that your process is now in compliance with the Program 3 

requirements. 

SWITCHING DOWN 

From Program 2 or 3 to Program 1. At the time you submit your RMP, you have 

a covered process subject to Program 2 or 3 requirements because it experienced an 

accidental release of a regulated substance with offsite impacts four years ago. 

Subsequent process changes have made such an event unlikely (as demonstrated by 

the worst-case release analysis). One year after you submit your RMP, the process 

has not experienced an accident for five years, so it is now eligible for Program 1. If 

you elect to qualify the process for Program 1, you must update and re-submit your 

RMP within six months of the program level change, indicating and documenting 

that the process is now in compliance with the new program level requirements. 

From Program 2 or 3 to Not Covered. You have a covered process that has been 

subject to Program 2 or 3 requirements, but due to a reduction in production, the 

amount of a regulated substance it holds no longer exceeds the threshold. Therefore, 

the process is no longer a covered process. You must update and re-submit your 

RMP within six months indicating that your process is no longer subject to any 

program level requirements. If this was your only covered process, you must 

“deregister” your RMP. 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-18 

2.7 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 

Regardless of the program levels of your processes, you must complete a five-year 

accident history for each process (see Chapter 3) and submit an RMP that covers all 

processes (see Chapter 9). Depending on the program level of each of your 

processes, you must comply with the additional requirements described below. 

Exhibit 2-3 diagrams the requirements in general and Exhibit 2-4 lists them in more 

detail. 

PROGRAM 1 

For each Program 1 process, you must conduct and document a worst-case release 

analysis. You must coordinate your emergency response activities with local 

responders and sign the Program 1 certification as part of your RMP submission. 

PROGRAMS 2 AND 3 

For all Program 2 and 3 processes, you must conduct and document at least one 

worst-case release analysis to cover all toxics and one to cover all flammables. You 

may need to conduct additional worst-case release analyses if worst-case releases 

from different parts of your facility would affect different public receptors. You 

must also conduct one alternative release scenario analysis for each toxic and one for 

all flammables. See Chapter 4 or the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance 

for specific requirements. You must coordinate your emergency response activities 

with local responders and, if you use your own employees to respond to releases, you 

must develop and implement an emergency response program. See Chapter 8 for 

more details. 

For each Program 2 process, you must implement all of the elements of the Program 

2 prevention program: safety information, hazard review, operating procedures, 

training, maintenance, compliance audits, and incident investigations. See Chapter 6 

for more details. 

For each Program 3 process, you must implement all of the elements of the Program 

3 prevention program: process safety information, process hazard analysis, standard 

operating procedures, training, mechanical integrity, compliance audits, incident 

investigations, management of change, pre-startup reviews, contractors, employee 

participation, and hot work permits. See Chapter 7 for more details. 
Chapter 2


2-19 Applicability of Program Levels


EXHIBIT 2-3


DEVELOP RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND RMP

Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-20 

EXHIBIT 2-4 

COMPARISON OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 

Worst-case release analysis Worst-case release analysis Worst-case release analysis 

Alternative release analysis Alternative release analysis 

5-year accident history 5-year accident history 5-year accident history 

Document management system Document management system 

Prevention Program 

Certify no additional prevention 

steps needed 

Safety Information Process Safety Information 

Hazard Review Process Hazard Analysis. 

Operating Procedures Operating Procedures 

Training Training 

Maintenance Mechanical Integrity 

Incident Investigation Incident Investigation 

Compliance Audit Compliance Audit 

Management of Change 

Pre-Startup Review 

Contractors 

Employee Participation 

Hot Work Permits 

Emergency Response Program 

Coordinate with local 

responders 

Develop plan and program and 

coordinate with local 

responders 

Develop plan and program and 

coordinate with local 

responders 

Submit One Risk Management Plan for All Covered Processes 
Chapter 2 

2-21 Applicability of Program Levels 

2.8 EXAMPLE SOURCES 

The six sources described in this section will be used in this document to highlight 

important stages in developing a risk management program. 

Source A 

A chemical distribution facility stores isopropylamine in 55-gallon drums inside a 

warehouse. The facility stores a total of 80 drums in close proximity to each other, so they are 

considered “co-located” and their contents are added together to determine if the applicable threshold 

quantity is exceeded. Since the total quantity in the co-located drums exceeds the applicable 

threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds, the warehouse is a covered process. 

The warehouse is located 50 yards inside the facility fence line and the nearest public 

receptor (another industrial facility) is 100 yards from the fence line. The distance to the 

overpressure endpoint for a worst-case release from a single 55-gallon drum is approximately 0.05 

miles or 88 yards. There is no public receptor within the distance to an endpoint from a worst-case 

release, and the process had no accidental releases of isopropylamine resulting in offsite impacts in 

the last five years. The process is eligible for Program 1. 

Source B 

An agricultural retailer located in a commercial area has a 200-ton tank of anhydrous 

ammonia and an 18,000-gallon propane tank. The retailer unloads both ammonia and propane from 

these bulk tanks into smaller tanks that are then transported to farms. The factory is not fenced. The 

facility is within 0.15 mile of residences and the business center of a small town. 

The facility has one covered process: the 200-ton tank of ammonia. Because propane is a 

flammable fuel and the facility is a retailer, the propane is not subject to part 68. A worst-case 

release analysis finds that the worst-case release of ammonia will potentially impact the residences 

and the business center of town. The facility is not subject to OSHA PSM, nor is the ammonia 

storage categorized in one of the ten listed NAICS codes for Program 3. As a result, the process is 

subject to Program 2. 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-22 

Source C 

A bulk products terminal has co-located petroleum product tanks containing 10,000,000 

pounds of a regulated flammable mixture in one area, and co-located chemical tanks containing 

500,000 pounds of toluene diisocyanate in another area. The facility serves as a wholesale supplier 

to industrial facilities in the surrounding area for these and other (non-regulated) petroleum and 

industrial chemical products. The facility is within 0.2 mile of another industrial facility. 

The facility has two covered processes: the flammable mixture tanks (Process A) and the 

toluene diisocyanate tanks (Process B). A worst-case release analysis finds that the worst-case 

release from Process A will potentially impact the adjacent industrial facility, but the worst case 

release from Process B will not impact any offsite receptors. Process A is subject to OSHA PSM, but 

Process B is not subject to OSHA PSM. Therefore, Process A is subject to Program 3 and Process B 

is eligible for Program 1. If Process B had been subject to OSHA PSM, it would also be subject to 

Program 3. 

Source D 

A metal products manufacturer stores hydrochloric acid (37 percent solution) and uses it in 

its plating process, which is connected to a storage tank that holds 50,000 pounds of the solution. 

Hydrochloric acid is delivered in tank trucks and unloaded into the storage tank. The manufacturer 

also operates a wastewater treatment plant that uses chlorine, supplied from five, interconnected oneton tanks, which are stored in a rack. The facility is in an industrial area and borders directly on 

another industrial facility, whose workers park in the area close to the fence line. In addition, a river 

borders one side of the facility. 

The facility has two covered processes: the 50,000-pound tank of hydrochloric acid at 37 

percent (Process A) and the process involving five interconnected one-ton tanks of chlorine in the 

wastewater treatment plant (Process B). A worst-case release analysis finds that the worst-case 

releases from both processes will potentially impact the bordering industrial facility and its workers. 

Process B is subject to the OSHA PSM standard, but Process A is not. Process A is also not 

categorized in one of the ten listed NAICS codes for Program 3. Therefore, Process B is subject to 

Program 3 and Process A is subject to Program 2. 
Chapter 2 

2-23 Applicability of Program Levels 

Source E 

An inorganic chemical manufacturer uses hydrofluoric acid in solution to manufacture 

fluoroboric acid at a site that is approximately 500 yards square. It also has a water treatment plant 

using chlorine. The manufacturer stores 10 tons of 70 percent HF solution, which is piped to the 

reactor vessels. The wastewater treatment plant stores an average of ten one-ton tanks of chlorine 

together on a rack. The plant is in an industrial area. The HF storage tank is 150 yards from the 

property boundary. The nearest neighboring building or workers are 300 yards away. 

The facility has two covered processes: the process involving the 10-ton tank of hydrofluoric 

acid at 70 percent (Process A) and process involving the ten co-located one-ton tanks of chlorine in 

the wastewater treatment plant (Process B). A worst-case release analysis finds that the worst-case 

releases from both processes will potentially impact the neighboring buildings and workers. Process 

B is subject to the OSHA PSM standard, but Process A is not. Process A activities are categorized in 

NAICS code 325188. Therefore, both processes are subject to Program 3. 

Source F 

A large chemical manufacturer operates a site that is approximately a half mile wide and two 

miles long, with a major river on one long side and a four-lane road on the other. There are industrial 

facilities on the other side of the road and river (a half-mile wide); neighboring facilities' fence lines 

abut the company's property boundary. The company maintains a 300-yard buffer zone on each 

narrow end of the facility and 50-yard buffer between its processes and the road and river. The 

company manufactures a variety of chemicals, including chloroform, chorine, epichlorohydrin, 

ethylene, HCl, hydrogen cyanide, TDI, methyl chloride, phosgene, and propylene, all of which are 

present above threshold quantities in process vessels and storage tanks. The TDI process and storage 

tanks are located at the center of the facility. The ethylene and propylene tanks are located 500 

yards from the river bank. A propane tank, used as a backup fuel source, is located just inside the 

buffer zone, 50 yards from the highway and 100-yards from the entrance of a facility across the 

highway. 

Although the facility has a number of separate production and storage units, several of the 

units with regulated toxic substances are considered to be co-located and, therefore, are one process. 

The propylene and ethylene tanks are far enough apart to be considered separate processes. A worstcase release analysis determines that both of these tanks have no public receptors within the distances 

to their endpoint. The TDI process is not co-located or interconnected to any other covered process. 

A worst-case release analysis determines that the TDI process’s worst-case release would reach its 

endpoint within the fenceline. None of these three processes has experienced a release of a regulated 

substance during the past five years that resulted in any offsite consequences. Each of these is, 

therefore, eligible for Program 1. The propane tank also is not co-located with any other covered 

vessel. Because it is used as a backup fuel for buildings on site, it is not subject to the RMP 

regulation. The other processes are subject to Program 3 because at least one of the production or 

storage units in each process is subject to OSHA PSM, and their worst-case scenarios would impact 

public receptors. 
Chapter 2 

Applicability of Program Levels 2-24 
CHAPTER 3: FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY 

The five-year accident history involves the reporting of significant accidental 

releases of one or more of the regulated substances from a covered process in the 

five years prior to the submission of an initial or updated Risk Management Plan 

(RMP). A five-year accident history must be completed for each covered process, 

including the processes in Program 1, and must include all accidental releases 

meeting specified criteria, as discussed below. 

Note that a Program 1 process may have had an accidental release that must be 

included in the five-year accident history, even though the release does not disqualify 

the process from Program 1. The accident history criteria that make a process 

ineligible for Program 1 (certain offsite impacts) do not include other types of effects 

that require inclusion of a release in the five-year accident history (on-site impacts 

and more inclusive offsite impacts). For example, an accidental release may have 

led to worker injuries, but no other effects. This release would not bar the process 

from Program 1 (because the injuries were not offsite), but would need to be 

reported in the five-year accident history. Similarly, a release may have resulted in 

damage to offsite foliage (environmental damage), triggering reporting, but because 

the foliage was not part of an environmental receptor (e.g., national park or forest), it 

would not make the process ineligible for Program 1. 

3.1	 WHAT ACCIDENTS MUST BE REPORTED? 

The five-year accident history covers only certain releases: 

�	 The release must be from a covered process and involve a regulated 

substance held above its threshold quantity in the process. 

�	 The release must have caused at least one of the following: 

�	 On-site deaths, injuries, or significant property damage (§68.42(a)); 

or 

�	 Known offsite deaths, injuries, property damage, environmental 

damage, evacuations, or sheltering in place (§68.42(a)). 

If you have had a release of a regulated substance from a process where the regulated 

substance is held below its threshold quantity, you do not need to report that release 

even if the release caused one of the listed impacts or if the process is covered for 

some other substance. You may choose to report the release in the five-year accident 

history, but you are not required to do so. 

3.2	 WHAT DATA MUST BE PROVIDED? 

The following information should be included in your accident history for every 

reported release: 

Date.	 Indicate the date on which the accidental release began. 
Chapter 3 

Five-Year Accident History 3-2 

Time.	 Indicate the time at which the release began. 

Release duration. Indicate the approximate length of time of the release in 

minutes. 

Chemical(s). Indicate the regulated substance(s) released. Use the name of the 

substance as listed in § 68.130 rather than a synonym (e.g., ethylene oxide rather 

than oxirane). If the release was of a flammable mixture, list the primary regulated 

substances in the mixture if feasible; if the contents of the mixture are uncertain, list 

it as a flammable mixture. 

Quantity released. Estimate the amount of each substance released in pounds. The 

amount should be estimated to two significant digits, or as close to that as possible. 

For example, if you estimate that the release was between 850 and 900 pounds, 

provide a best guess. We realize that you may not know precise quantities. For 

flammable mixtures, you may report the quantity of the mixture, rather than that of 

the individual regulated substances. 

Release event. Indicate which of the following release events best describes your 

accident. Check all that apply: 

�	 Gas Release. A gas release is a release of the substance as a gas (rather than 

vaporized from a liquid). If you hold a gas liquefied under refrigeration, 

report the release as a liquid spill. 

�	 Liquid Spill/ Evaporation. A liquid spill/evaporation is a release of the 

substance in a liquid state with subsequent vaporization. 

�	 Fire. A fire is combustion producing light, flames, and heat. 

�	 Explosion. An explosion is a rapid chemical reaction with the production of 

noise, heat, and violent expansion of gases. 

�	 Uncontrolled/Runaway Reaction. A release event caused by an uncontrolled 

chemical reaction that generates excessive heat, pressure, or harmful 

reaction products. Such events may involve highly exothermic chemical 

reactions, self-reactive substances (e.g., substances that undergo 

polymerization), unstable, explosive, or spontaneously combustible 

substances, substances that react strongly with water or other contaminants, 

oxidizers, peroxide-forming substances, or other types of chemical reactions 

that generate harmful products or byproducts. This category of release event 

may often occur in conjunction with one of the previous categories. In such 

cases, be sure to check this category in addition to any other applicable 

release event category (e.g., explosion). The burning of ordinary flammable 

substances is not typically included in this category. 

Release source. Indicate all that apply. 
Chapter 3 

3-3 Five-Year Accident History 

�	 Storage Vessel. A storage vessel is a container for storing or holding gas or 

liquid. Storage vessels include transportation containers being used for 

on-site storage. 

�	 Piping. Piping refers to a system of tubular structures or pipes used to carry 

a fluid or gas. 

�	 Process Vessel. A process vessel is a container in which substances under 

certain conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure) participate in a process (e.g., 

substances are manufactured, blended to form a mixture, reacted to convert 

them into some other final product or form, or heated to purify). 

�	 Transfer Hose. A transfer hose is a tubular structure used to connect, often 

temporarily, two or more vessels. 

�	 Valve. A valve is a device used to regulate the flow in piping systems or 

machinery. Relief valves and rupture disks open to release pressure in 

vessels. 

�	 Pump. A pump is a device that raises, transfers, or compresses fluids or that 

attenuates gases by suction or pressure or both. 

�	 Joint. The surface at which two or more mechanical components are united. 

�	 Other. Specify other source of the release. 

Weather conditions at time of event (if known). This information is important to 

those concerned with modeling the effects of accidents. Reliable information from 

those involved in the incident or from an on-site weather station is ideal. However, 

this rule does not require your facility to have a weather station. If you do not have 

an onsite weather station, use information from your local weather station, airport, or 

other source of meteorological data. To the extent possible, complete the following: 

�	 Wind Speed and Direction. Wind speed is an estimate of how fast the wind 

is traveling. Indicate the speed in miles per hour. Wind direction is the 

direction from which the wind comes. For example, a wind that blows from 

east to west would be described as having an eastern wind direction. You 

may describe wind direction as a standard compass reading such as 

"Northeast" or "South-southwest." 

You may also describe wind direction in degrees--with North as zero degrees 

and East as 90 degrees. Thus, northeast would represent 45 degrees and 

south-southwest would represent 202.5 degrees. Abbreviations for the wind 

direction such as NE (for northeast) and SSW (for south-southwest) are also 

acceptable. 

�	 Temperature. The ambient temperature at the scene of the accident in 

degrees Fahrenheit. If you did not keep a record, you can use the high (for 
Chapter 3 

Five-Year Accident History 3-4 

daytime releases) or low (for nighttime releases) for the day of the release. 

Local papers publish these data. 

�	 Stability Class. Depending on the amount of incoming solar radiation as 

well as other factors, the atmosphere may be more or less turbulent at any 

given time. Meteorologists have defined six atmospheric stability classes, 

each representing a different degree of turbulence in the atmosphere. When 

moderate to strong incoming solar radiation heats air near the ground, 

causing it to rise and generating large eddies, the atmosphere is considered 

unstable, or relatively turbulent. Unstable conditions are associated with 

stability classes A and B. When solar radiation is relatively weak, air near 

the surface has less of a tendency to rise and less turbulence develops. In 

this case, the atmosphere is considered stable or less turbulent with weak 

winds. The stability class is E or F. Stability classes D and C represent 

conditions of neutral stability or moderate turbulence respectively. Neutral 

conditions are associated with relatively strong wind speeds and moderate 

solar radiation. Exhibit 3-1 presents the stability classes associated with 

wind speeds, time of day, and cloud cover. 

�	 Precipitation Present. Precipitation may take the form of hail, mist, rain, 

sleet, or snow. Indicate "yes" or "no" based on whether there was any 

precipitation at the time of the accident. 

�	 Unknown. If you have no record for some or all of the weather data, indicate 

"unknown" for any missing item. We realize that you may not have weather 

data for accidents that occurred in the past. You should, however, collect 

these data for any future accidents. 

EXHIBIT 3-1
 

ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASSES
 

SURFACE WIND SPEED AT 

10 METERS 

DAY NIGHT 

Incoming Solar Radiation Thinly 

Overcast or 

$ 4/8 low 

cloud 

# 3/8 Cloud 

Meters per 

second 

Miles per 

hour Strong* Moderate Slight** 

< 2 <4.5 A A-B B 

2-3 4.5-7 A-B B C E F 

3-5 7-11 B B-C C D E 

5-6 11-13 C C-D D D D 

>6 >13 C D D D D 

* Sun high in the sky with no clouds. 

** Sun low in the sky with no clouds. 
Chapter 3 

3-5 Five-Year Accident History 

On-site impacts. Complete the following about on-site effects. 

�	 Deaths. Indicate the number of on-site deaths that are attributed to the 

accident or mitigation activities. On-site deaths means the number of 

employees, contract employees, offsite responders, or others (e.g., visitors) 

who were killed by direct exposure to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or 

overpressures from accidental releases or from indirect consequences of a 

vapor cloud explosion from an accidental release (e.g., flying glass, debris, 

other projectiles). You should list employee/contractor, offsite responder, 

and other on-site deaths separately. 

�	 Injuries. An injury is any effect that results either from direct exposure to 

toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressures from accidental releases 

or from indirect consequences of a vapor cloud explosion (e.g., flying glass, 

debris, other projectiles) from an accidental release and that requires medical 

treatment or hospitalization. You should list injuries to employees and 

contractors, offsite responders, and others separately. 

Medical treatment means treatment, other than first aid, administered by a 

physician or registered professional personnel under standing orders from a 

physician. 

Your Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (OSHA Form 300) and 

Injury and Illness Incident Report (OSHA Form 301) will help complete 

these items for employees. 

�	 Property Damage. Estimate the value of the equipment or business 

structures (for your business alone) that were damaged by the accident or 

mitigation activities. Record the value in American dollars. Insurance 

claims may provide this information. Do not include any losses that you 

may have incurred as a result of business interruption. 

Known offsite impacts. These are impacts that you know or could reasonably be 

expected to know of (e.g., from media reports or from reports to your facility) that 

occurred as a result of the accidental release. You are not required to conduct an 

additional investigation to determine offsite impacts. 

QS & AS
 

PROPERTY DAMAGE
 

Q. What level of offsite property damage triggers reporting? 

A. Any level of known offsite property damage triggers inclusion of the accident in the five-year 

accident history. You are not required to conduct a survey to determine if such damage occurred, but 

if you know, or could reasonably be expected to know (e.g., because of reporting in the newspapers), 

that damage occurred, you must include the accident. 
Chapter 3 

Five-Year Accident History 3-6 

�	 Deaths. Indicate the number of offsite deaths that are attributable to the 

accident or mitigation activities. Offsite deaths means the number of 

community members who were killed by direct exposure to toxic 

concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressures from accidental releases or 

from indirect consequences of a vapor cloud explosion from an accidental 

release (e.g., flying glass, debris, other projectiles). 

�	 Injuries. Indicate the number of injuries among community members. Injury 

means any effect that results either from direct exposure to toxic 

concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressures from accidental releases or 

from indirect consequences of a vapor cloud explosion from an accidental 

release (e.g., flying glass, debris, other projectiles) and that requires medical 

treatment or hospitalization. 

�	 Evacuated. Estimate the number of members of the community who were 

evacuated to prevent exposure that might have resulted from the accident. A 

total count of the number of people evacuated is preferable to the number of 

houses evacuated. People who were ordered to move simply to improve 

access to the site for emergency vehicles are not considered to have been 

evacuated. 

�	 Sheltered. Estimate the number of members of the community who were 

sheltered-in-place during the accident. Sheltering-in-place occurs when 

community members are ordered to remain inside their residence or place of 

work until the emergency is over to prevent exposure to the effects of the 

accidental release. Usually these orders are communicated by an emergency 

broadcast or similar method of mass notification by response agencies. 

�	 Environmental Damage. Indicate whether any environmental damage 

occurred and specify the type. The damage to be reported is not limited to 

environmental receptors listed in the rule. Any damage to the environment 

(e.g., dead or injured animals, defoliation, water contamination) should be 

identified. You are not, however, required to conduct surveys to determine 

whether such impact occurred. Types of environmental damage include: 

�	 Fish or animal kills. 

�	 Lawn, shrub, or crop damage (minor defoliation). 

�	 Lawn, shrub, or crop damage (major defoliation). 

�	 Water contamination. 

�	 Other (specify). 
Chapter 3 

3-7 Five-Year Accident History 

Initiating event. Indicate the initiating event that was the immediate cause of the 

accident, if known. If you conducted an investigation of the release, you should have 

identified the initiating event. 

�	 Equipment Failure. A device or piece of equipment failed or did not 

function as designed. For example, the vessel wall corroded or cracked. 

�	 Human Error. An operator performed a task improperly, either by failing to 

take the necessary steps or by taking the wrong steps. 

�	 Weather Conditions. Weather conditions, such as lightning, hail, ice storms, 

tornados, hurricanes, floods, or high winds, caused the accident. 

�	 Unknown. 

Contributing factors. These are factors that contributed to the accident, but were 

not the initiating event. If you conducted an investigation of the release, you may 

have identified factors that led to the initiating event or contributed to the severity of 

the release. Indicate all that apply. 

�	 Equipment Failure. A device or piece of equipment failed to function as 

designed, thereby leading to or worsening the accidental release. 

�	 Human error. An operator performed an operation improperly or made a 

mistake leading to or worsening the accidental release. 

�	 Improper Procedures. The procedure did not reflect the proper method of 

operation, the procedure omitted steps that affected the accident, or the 

procedure was written in a manner that allowed for misinterpretation of the 

instructions. 

�	 Overpressurization. The process was operated at pressures exceeding the 

design working pressure. 

�	 Upset Condition. Incorrect process conditions (e.g., increased temperature 

or pressure) contributed to the release. 

�	 By-pass Condition. A failure occurred in a pipe, channel, or valve that 

diverts fluid flow from the main pathway when design process or storage 

conditions are exceeded (e.g., overpressure). By-pass conditions may be 

designed to release the substance to restore acceptable process or storage 

conditions and prevent more severe consequences (e.g., explosion). 

�	 Maintenance Activity/ Inactivity. A failure occurred because of maintenance 

activity or inactivity. For example, the storage racks remained unpainted for 

so long that corrosion caused the metal to fail. 
Chapter 3 

Five-Year Accident History 3-8 

�	 Process Design. A failure resulted from an inherent flaw in the design of the 

process (e.g., pressure needed to make the product exceeds the design 

pressure of the vessel). 

�	 Unsuitable Equipment. The equipment used was incorrect for the process. 

For example, the forklift was too large for the corridors. 

�	 Unusual Weather Conditions. Weather conditions, such as lightning, hail, 

ice storms, tornados, hurricanes, floods, or high winds contributed to the 

accident. 

�	 Management Error. A failure occurred because management did not 

exercise its managerial control to prevent the accident from occurring. This 

is usually used to describe faulty procedures, inadequate training, inadequate 

oversight, or failure to follow existing administrative procedures. 

Whether offsite responders were notified. If known, indicate whether response 

agencies (e.g., police, fire, medical services) were contacted. 

Changes introduced as a result of the accident. Indicate any measures that you 

have taken at the facility to prevent recurrence of the accident. Indicate all that 

apply. 

�	 Improved/ Upgraded Equipment. A device or piece of equipment that did 

not function as designed was repaired or replaced. 

�	 Revised Maintenance. Maintenance procedures were clarified or changed to 

ensure appropriate and timely maintenance including inspection and testing 

(e.g., increasing the frequency of inspection or adding a testing method). 

�	 Revised Training. Training programs were clarified or changed to ensure 

that employees and contract employees are aware of and are practicing 

correct safety and administrative procedures. 

�	 Revised Operating Procedures. Operating procedures were clarified or 

changed to ensure that employees and contract employees are trained on 

appropriate operating procedures. 

�	 New Process Controls. New process designs and controls were installed to 

correct problems and prevent recurrence of an accidental release. 

�	 New Mitigation Systems. New mitigation systems were initiated to limit the 

severity of accidental releases. 

�	 Revised Emergency Response Plan. The emergency response plan was 

revised. 

�	 Changed Process. Process was altered to reduce the risk (e.g., process 

chemistry was changed). 
Chapter 3 

3-9 Five-Year Accident History 

�	 Reduced Inventory. Inventory was reduced at the facility to reduce the 

potential release quantities and the magnitude of the hazard. 

�	 Other. 

�	 None. No changes initiated at facility as a result of the accident (e.g., 

because none were necessary or technically feasible). There may be some 

accidents that could not have been prevented because they were caused by 

events that are too rare to merit additional steps. For example, if a tornado 

hit your facility and you are located in an area where tornados are very rare, 

it may not be reasonable to design a "tornado proof" process even if it is 

technically feasible. 

3.3	 WHEN MUST ACCIDENTS BE REPORTED? 

When an RMP is first submitted to EPA, it must contain a five-year accident history 

including all of the accidents that meet the reporting criteria discussed above and that 

occurred within five years of the date of the RMP is submitted. When an RMP is 

updated as required by section 68.190 of the rule, it must contain an updated fiveyear accident history including all of the accidents that meet the reporting criteria 

and that occurred within five years of the date on which the updated RMP is 

submitted. In addition, on April 9, 2004, EPA published a final rule that amended 

the accident history reporting requirement (and certain other provisions of the risk 

management program). Beginning on that date, if an accident occurs that meets the 

reporting criteria, it must be reported in the RMP five-year accident history within 

six months of the accident, as required by section 68.195 of the rule, unless it is 

included in an RMP update prior to that time. EPA took this action to require more 

timely reporting of significant accidents in RMPs so that government, industry and 

the public would be more quickly alerted to the possibility of similar accidents 

occurring elsewhere. 

3.4	 OTHER ACCIDENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

You should already have much of the data required for the five-year accident history 

because of the reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Emergency 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPCRA, and OSHA (e.g., 

log of work-related injuries and illnesses). This information should minimize the 

effort necessary to complete the accident history. 

At the same time, some of the information originally reported to response agencies 

may have been incomplete or inaccurate because it was reported during the release 

when a full assessment was not possible. It is imperative that you include the most 

accurate, up-to-date information possible in the five-year accident history. This 

information may not always match the original estimates from the initial reporting of 

the accident's effects. 

CERCLA Section 103(a) requires you to immediately notify the National Response 

Center if your facility releases a hazardous substance to the environment in greater 

than a reportable quantity (see 40 CFR part 302). Toxic substances regulated under 
Chapter 3 

Five-Year Accident History 3-10 

part 68 are also CERCLA hazardous substances, but most of the flammable 

substances regulated under part 68 are not subject to CERCLA reporting. Notice 

required under CERCLA includes the following information: 

�	 The chemical name or identity of any substance involved in the release 

�	 An indication of whether the substance is on the list referred to in Section 

302(a) 

�	 An estimate of the quantity of substance that was released into the 

environment 

�	 The time and duration of the release 

�	 The medium or media into which the release occurred. 

EPCRA Section 304 requires facilities to report to the community emergency 

coordinator of the appropriate local emergency planning committee (LEPC) and state 

emergency response commission (SERC) releases of extremely hazardous substances 

to the environment in excess of reportable quantities (as set forth in 40 CFR part 

302). All toxic substances regulated under part 68 are subject to EPCRA reporting; 

flammables regulated under part 68 are generally not subject to EPCRA reporting. 

The report required by EPCRA is to include: 

�	 Chemical name or identity of all substances involved in the accident 

�	 An estimate of the quantity of substances released to the environment 

�	 The time and duration of the release. 

The owner or operator is also required to release a Follow-up Emergency Notice as 

soon as possible after a release which requires notification. This notice should 

update the previously released information and include additional information 

regarding actions taken to respond to the release, any known or anticipated acute or 

chronic health risks associated with the release, and where appropriate, advice 

regarding medical attention necessary for exposed individuals. 

OSHA's Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, OSHA Form 300, is used for 

recording and classifying recordable occupational injuries and illnesses, and for 

noting the extent and outcome of each case. The log shows when the occupational 

injury or illness occurred, to whom, what the injured or ill person's regular job was at 

the time of the injury or illness exposure, the kind of injury or illness, how much 

time was lost, and whether the case resulted in a fatality, etc. The following are the 

sections of the illness/ injury log that are useful in completing the accident history. 

�	 Column B: Employee’s name 

�	 Column C: Job title 
Chapter 3 

3-11 Five-Year Accident History 

�	 Column D: Date of injury or onset of illness 

�	 Column F: Description of injury or illness 

�	 Columns G, H, I, K, L: Indicate whether a death occurred, whether injury 

resulted in lost workdays or restricted duty, and number of work days away 

form work or on restricted duty. 

�	 Column M: Indicates whether injury occurred or type of illness. 

PART 68 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION 

An incident investigation is a requirement of the rule (§68.60 and 68.81). For 

accidents involving processes in Program 2 or Program 3, you must investigate each 

incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic 

release of a regulated substance. A report, which includes the following information, 

should be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation: 

�	 Date of incident 

�	 Date investigation began 

�	 Description of the incident 

�	 Factors that contributed to the incident 

�	 Any recommendations resulting from the investigation. 

Because the incident investigation report must be retained for five years, you will 

have a record for completing the five-year accident history for updates of the RMP. 
    

     

   

   

                          

                         

                             

                               

                             

                                   

                                 

                           

                              

                           

                             

                      

                                   

                               

                             

                                 

                             

                         

                               

                             

                                   

                                   

   

Chapter 3

Five­Year Accident History 3­12

QS &AS
 

ACCIDENT HISTORY
 

Q. When does the five­year period to be reported in the accident history begin?

A. The five­year accident history must include information on all accidental releases from covered

processes meeting the specified criteria that occurred in the five years preceding the date of

submission of your initial RMP or your most recent update required under section 68.190, as well

as information provided to revise the accident history for any accidental releases that occur prior

to the next required update. For example, if an RMP is updated on June 21, 2009, the five­year

accident history must cover the period between June 21, 2004, and June 21, 2009. If a reportable

accident occurs two months later, the five­year accident history must cover the period between

June 21, 2004, and the date of the accident (see next question for further explanation).

Q. I recently submitted my five­year RMP update required by section 68.190 (b)(1) and included

my accident history for the previous five years. Two months later, we had another reportable

accident. Do I have to do anything to revise my RMP?

A. Yes. You must revise your accident history within six months of the date of the new accident to

include information about it. You do this by correcting section 6 of your RMP (the accident

history section) so that it includes all accident history information reported on the most recent

update, as well as the information about the new accident. You should also indicate the reason for

your correction (i.e., new accident history information) in the appropriate field in section 1 of

RMP*eSubmit. Facilities reporting under Programs 2 and 3 must also revise the incident

investigation information in their RMPs (section 7 or 8 of their RMP). Specifically, the date of

investigation (40 CFR 68.170(j)) and the expected date of completion of any changes (40 CFR

68.175(l)) should be revised. You do not need to update or correct any other section of the RMP,

unless you have taken actions (e.g., as a result of the accident) that trigger an update in accordance

with section 68.190.
Chapter 3 

3-13 Five-Year Accident History 

QS & AS
 

ACCIDENT HISTORY (CONTINUED)
 

Q. If a facility has recently changed ownership, is the new facility owner required to include 

accidents which occurred prior to the transfer of ownership in the accident history portion of the 

RMP submitted for the facility? 

A. Yes, accidents involving covered processes that occurred prior to the transfer of ownership 

should be included in the five-year accident history. You may want to explain that the ownership has 

changed in your Executive Summary. 

Q. If I have a large on-site incident, but no offsite impact, would I have to report it in the five-year 

accident history? 

A. It would depend on whether you have onsite deaths, injuries, or significant property damage. 

You could have a large accident without any of these consequences (e.g., a large spill that was 

contained); this type of release would not have to be included in the five-year accident history. 

Q. I had a release where several people were treated at the hospital and released; they attributed their 

symptoms to exposure. We do not believe that their symptoms were in fact the result of exposure to 

the released substance. Do we have to report these as offsite impacts? 

A. Yes, you should report them in your five-year accident history. You may want to use the 

executive summary to state that you do not believe that the impacts can be legitimately attributed to 

the release and explain why. 
CHAPTER 4: OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS


RMP OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS GUIDANCE 

This chapter is intended for people who plan to do their own air dispersion modeling. If you plan to 

do your own modeling, this chapter will provide you with the basic information you need to comply 

with the rule requirements; it does not provide modeling methodologies. For people who do not plan 

to do their own modeling, EPA has prepared a separate document, RMP Offsite Consequence 

Analysis Guidance, which provides simple methods and reference tables for determining distance to 

an endpoint for worst-case and alternative release scenarios. In conjunction with the National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA has also developed a software 

program, RMP*CompTM, that performs calculations described in the RMP Offsite Consequence 

Analysis Guidance. RMP*CompTM is available for free from the EPA Internet website at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/CeppoWeb.nsf/content/rmp-comp.htm. In addition, EPA has 

developed industry-specific guidance for several industries covered by part 68, which are appended 

to this document. In the appendices, EPA provides chemical-specific modeling for the applicable 

industries, using the methods described in the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance. 

4.1	 INTRODUCTION 

The offsite consequence analysis consists of two elements: 

� Worst-case release scenario analysis to identify the potential reach and 

effect of hypothetical worst-case accidental releases, as follows: 

� For a process to qualify for Program 1 (see Chapter 2), a worst-case 

release scenario analysis must be done for each toxic and flammable 

substance held above the applicable threshold quantity in the 

process. The process is eligible for Program 1 if there are no public 

receptors within the distance to an endpoint for any of the worst-case 

scenarios analyzed and the other Program 1 criteria are met (see 

Chapter 2). Consequently, for every Program 1 process, you must 

conduct a worst-case scenario analysis for each regulated substance 

above the threshold in the process. However, in your RMP the only 

worst-case scenario analysis you must report for a Program 1 

process is for the toxic or flammable substance that, if released 

under worst-case conditions, would potentially effect the largest 

geographical area around your facility. In the language of the rule, 

such a scenario results “in the greatest distance to an endpoint,” 

meaning that the dangerous effect of the toxic or flammable 

substance extends the longest distance before dissipating to 

relatively harmless levels. 

� If your site has Program 2 and/or Program 3 processes (processes 

that are not eligible for Program 1 — see Chapter 2), you must 

identify, analyze and report one worst-case scenario to represent all 

of the toxic regulated substances held above threshold quantities in 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-2 

Program 2 and/or 3 processes (i.e., the worst-case release of the 

toxic substance that results in the greatest distance to endpoint,), and 

one worst-case scenario to represent all of the flammable regulated 

substances held above threshold quantities in Program 2 and/or 3 

processes (i.e., the worst-case release of the flammable substance 

that results in the greatest distance to endpoint). 

� You may need to submit an additional worst-case analysis if a 

worst-case release from elsewhere at your facility could potentially 

affect public receptors different from those potentially affected by 

the initial worst-case scenario(s). 

� Alternative release scenario analysis to identify the potential reach and 

effect of hypothetical accidental releases under more realistic circumstances, 

for all Program 2 and Program 3 processes, as follows: 

� You must identify and analyze reasonable release scenarios that are 

more likely to occur than worst-case release scenarios and that reach 

an off-site endpoint, unless no such scenario exists. 

� In your RMP, you must report one alternative release scenario 

analysis for each regulated toxic substance held above the applicable 

threshold quantity in a Program 2 or 3 process, including the 

substance considered in a worst-case analysis. 

� In your RMP, you must also report one alternative release scenario 

representing all flammable substances held above the applicable 

threshold quantity in a Program 2 or 3 process. 

If the distance to the endpoint for your worst-case release just reaches your fence 

line, you may not have an alternative release scenario with a distance to an endpoint 

that goes beyond the fence line. However, you still must report an alternative release 

scenario. 

HOW SHOULD I CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS? 

As noted above, You may use EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance 

to carry out your consequence analysis. Results obtained using the methods in EPA's 

Guidance are expected to be conservative. Conservative assumptions have been 

introduced to compensate for high levels of uncertainty. EPA's guidance is optional, 

and you are free to use other air dispersion models, fire or explosion models, or 

computation methods provided that: 

� They are publicly or commercially available or are proprietary models that 

you are willing to share with the implementing agency; 

� They are recognized by industry as applicable to current practices; 

� They are appropriate for the chemicals and conditions being modeled; 
Chapter 4 

4-3 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

� You use the applicable definitions of worst-case scenarios; and 

� You use the applicable parameters specified in the rule. 

Complex models that can account for many site-specific factors may give less 

conservative estimates of offsite consequences than the simplified methods in EPA's 

guidance, particularly for alternative scenarios, for which EPA has not specified 

EXHIBIT 4-1


CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHOOSING A MODELING METHOD


Approach Examples Advantages Disadvantages 

Simple 

guidance 

EPA’s Offsite 

Consequence 

Analysis 

Guidance 

� Free 

� No computer requirements 

� Simple to use 

� Provides all data needed 

� Provides tables of distances 

� Eases compliance with rule 

� Conservative results 

� Few site-specific factors 

considered 

� Little flexibility in scenario 

development 

Simple 

computer 

models 

EPA models, 

such as 

RMP*CompTM 

� No/low cost 

� May be simple to use 

� Can consider some sitespecific factors 

� Some may not be simple to use 

� Likely to give conservative 

results 

� May not accept all of EPA’s 

required assumptions 

� May not include chemicalspecific data 

� May not address all 

consequences 

Complex 

computer 

models 

Commercially 

available 

models 

� May address a variety of 

scenarios 

� May consider many sitespecific factors 

� May be costly 

� May require high level of 

expertise 

Calculation 

methods 

“Yellow Book” 

(Netherlands 

TNO) 

� Low cost 

� No computer requirements 

� May require expertise to apply 

methods 

� May require development of a 

variety of data 

many assumptions. However, complex models may be expensive and require 

considerable expertise to use; EPA's optional guidance is designed to be simple and 

straightforward. You will need to consider the tradeoff in deciding how to carry out 

your required consequence analyses. Exhibit 4-1 provides additional suggestions on 

making this decision. 

Whether you use EPA's guidance or another modeling method, you should bear in 

mind that the results you obtain from modeling your worst-case or alternative 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-4 

scenarios should not be considered to predict the likely results of an accidental 

release. The worst-case assumptions are very conservative, and, regardless of the 

model used, you can expect very conservative results. Results from modeling 

alternative scenarios will be less conservative; however, you still must use 

conservative endpoints. 

In addition, results of an actual release will depend on many site-specific conditions 

(e.g., wind speed and other weather conditions) and factors related to the release 

(e.g., when and how the release occurs, how long it takes to stop it). You should 

make reasonable assumptions regarding such factors in developing your alternative 

scenarios, but the circumstances surrounding an actual release may be different. 

Different models likely will provide different results, even with the same 

assumptions, and most models have not been verified with experimental data; 

therefore, results of even sophisticated modeling have a high degree of uncertainty 

and should be viewed as providing a basis for discussion among the regulated 

community, emergency planners and responders, and the public, rather than 

predictions. Modeling results should be considered particularly uncertain over long 

distances (i.e., 10 kilometers or more). 

Exhibit 4-2 provides suggestions for assistance on modeling. 

WHEN DOES THE OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS (OCA) NEED TO BE REVISED? 

You’ll need to revise your OCA when a change at your facility results in the distance 

to an endpoint from a worst-case release rising or falling by at least a factor of two. 

For example, if you increase your inventory substantially or install passive 

mitigation to limit the potential release rate, you should re-estimate the distance at an 

endpoint. If the distance is at least doubled or halved, you must update and ressubmit the RMP. For most substances, the quantity that would be released would 

have to increase (or decrease) by more than a factor of five to double (or halve) the 

distance to an endpoint. Depending on the regulated substance, installation of 

passive mitigation systems such as containment dikes or enclosures can significantly 

affect the distance to an endpoint. 

4.2	 WORST-CASE RELEASE SCENARIOS 

This section describes the assumptions you must make and what you need to do to 

meet the requirements for worst-case scenario analysis under the rule. Exhibit 4-3 

summarizes the required parameters for the worst-case analysis. EPA has defined a 

worst-case release as the release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance from 

a vessel or pipe that results in the greatest distance from the point of release to a 

specified endpoint, beyond which serious injury is not expected to occur (§68.3). 

You must estimate the distance as follows: 

� Part 68, Appendix A lists the toxic endpoint you must use for each regulated 

toxic substance. For the worst-case analysis for toxic substances, you are 

required to estimate the air dispersion distance to the endpoint, using certain 

conservative assumptions concerning quantity released and release 

conditions. 
Chapter 4 

4-5 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

� A vapor cloud explosion is specified as the worst-case scenario for 

flammable substances. For the worst-case analysis for flammable 

substances, you need to estimate the distance to an overpressure endpoint of 

1 pound per square inch (psi) resulting from a vapor cloud explosion of a 

cloud containing the largest quantity of the regulated flammable substance 

from a vessel or process pipe line failure. 

EXHIBIT 4-2


POSSIBLE SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE ON MODELING


� You may be able to obtain modeling help from the implementing agency in your area; for example, 

local and state implementing agencies in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, and other “delegated” states (see 

Chapter 10) are prepared to provide assistance to regulated sources. If you are in another state, you 

may obtain help from the EPA regional office for your state. 

� If you use certain models, users’ groups may be a source of assistance; for example, there is an 

ALOHA model users’ group. 

� If you use a commercial model, you probably can request assistance from the model developer or 

distributor. 

� Publications of the Center for Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) 

may provide useful information on modeling; examples of such publications include: 

< Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and 

BLEVEs (1994), and 

< Guidelines for Use of Vapor Cloud Dispersion Models (1987). 

� EPA publications also may provide useful modeling information; examples include: 

< Workbook of Screening Techniques for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants, EPA450/4-88-009 (September 1988), and 

< Guidance on the Application of Refined Dispersion Models for Hazardous/Toxic Air Release, 

EPA-454/R-93-002 (May 1993). 

< Technical Background Document for Offsite Consequence Analysis for Anhydrous Ammonia, 

Aqueous Ammonia Chlorine, and Sulfur Dioxide EPA-550-B99-017. 

< EPA guidance is available at the Support Center for Regulatory Air Models: 

http://www.epa.gov/scram001// 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-6 

WORST-CASE RELEASES OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

For the worst-case release analysis for toxic substances, you need to use the 

assumptions discussed below, the properties of the substance, and an appropriate air 

dispersion model or EPA's optional guidance to estimate the distance from the 

release point to the point at which the concentration of the substance in air is equal 

to the toxic endpoint specified in the rule. Because the assumptions required for the 

worst-case analysis are very conservative, the results likely will also be very 

conservative. The endpoints specified for the regulated toxic substances are 

intended to be protective of the general public. These endpoints are concentrations 

below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for one-half to one 

hour without any serious health effects. In addition, the worst-case analysis is 

carried out using very conservative assumptions about weather and release 

conditions. The distance to the endpoint estimated under worst-case conditions 

should not be considered a zone in which the public would likely be in danger; 

instead, it is intended to provide an estimate of the maximum possible area that 

might be affected in the unlikely event of catastrophic conditions. Distances greater 

than about 10 kilometers are particularly uncertain. EPA intends the estimated 

distances to provide a basis for a discussion among the regulated community, 

emergency planners and responders, and the public, rather than a basis for any 

specific predictions or actions. 

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS 

Quantity. EPA has defined (§68.3) a worst-case release as the release of the largest 

quantity of a regulated substance from a vessel or process line (pipe) failure that 

results in the greatest distance to a specified endpoint. For substances in vessels, you 

must assume release of the largest amount in a single vessel; for substances in pipes, 

you must assume release of the largest amount in a pipe. The largest quantity should 

be determined taking into account administrative controls. Administrative controls 

are written procedures that limit the quantity of a substance that can be stored or 

processed in a vessel or pipe at any one time, or, alternatively, occasionally allow a 

vessel or pipe to store larger than usual quantities (e.g., during turnaround). You do 

not need to consider the possible causes of the worst-case release or the probability 

that such a release might occur; the release is simply assumed to take place. 

Release Height. All releases are assumed to take place at ground level for the 

worst-case analysis. This is a conservative assumption in most cases. Even if you 

think a ground-level release is unlikely at your site, you must use this assumption for 

the worst-case analysis. 

Wind Speed and Atmospheric Stability. Meteorological conditions for the 

worst-case scenario are defined in the rule as atmospheric stability class F (stable 

atmosphere) and wind speed of 1.5 meters per second (3.4 miles per hour). If, 

however, you can demonstrate that the minimum wind speed at your site (measured 

at 10 meters) has been higher than 1.5 meters per second, or that the maximum 

atmosphere stability has always been less stable than class F, you may use the 

minimum wind speed and most stable atmospheric conditions at your site for the 

worst-case analysis. To demonstrate higher minimum wind speeds or less stable 

atmospheric conditions, you will need to document local meteorological data from 
Chapter 4 

4-7 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

the previous three years that are applicable to your site. If you do not keep weather 

data for your site (most sources do not), you may call another nearby source, such as 

an airport, or a compiler, such as the National Weather Service, to determine wind 

speeds for your area. Exhibit 3-1 in Chapter 3 describes atmospheric stability classes 

in relation to wind speed and cloud cover. Your airport or other source will be able 

to give you information on cloud cover. A small difference in wind speed probably 

will not lead to a significant decrease in the distance to the endpoint. 

EXHIBIT 4-3


REQUIRED PARAMETERS FOR MODELING WORST-CASE SCENARIOS


Endpoints 

� For toxic substances, use the endpoint specified in part 68, Appendix A. 

� For flammable substances, use the endpoint of an overpressure of 1 pound per square inch (psi) for 

vapor cloud explosions. 

Wind speed/stability 

� Use wind speed of 1.5 meters per second and F stability class unless you can demonstrate that local 

meteorological data applicable to the site show a higher minimum wind speed or less stable atmosphere 

at all times during the previous three years. If you can demonstrate a higher minimum wind speed or 

less stable atmosphere over three years, these minimums may be used. 

Ambient temperature/humidity 

� For toxic substances, use the highest daily maximum temperature during the past three years and 

average humidity for the site. 

Height of release 

� For toxic substances, assume a ground level release. 

Topography 

� Use urban or rural topography, as appropriate. 

Dense or neutrally buoyant gases 

� Tables or models used for dispersion of regulated toxic substances must appropriately account for gas 

density. 

Temperature of released substance 

� For liquids (other than gases liquefied by refrigeration), use the highest daily maximum temperature, 

based on data for the previous three years, or at process temperature, whichever is higher. 

� Assume gases liquefied by refrigeration at atmospheric pressure are released at their boiling points. 

Temperature and Humidity. For the worst-case release of a regulated toxic 

substance, you must assume the highest daily maximum temperature that occurred in 

the previous three years (the highest temperature reached in the last three years) and 

the average humidity for the site. If you have not kept information on temperature 

and humidity at your site, you may obtain it from a local meteorological station. 

EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance assumes a temperature of 25°C 

(77°F) and 50 percent humidity. If you use the EPA's guidance for your offsite 

consequence analysis, you may use these assumptions even if the actual highest 

temperature at your site is higher or lower. If the temperature at your site is 

significantly lower, EPA's guidance may give overly conservative results, 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-8 

particularly for toxic liquids. Small differences in temperature and humidity are 

unlikely to have a major effect on results, however. 

Topography. Two choices are provided for topography for the worst-case scenario. 

If your site is located in an area with few buildings or other obstructions, you should 

assume open (rural) conditions. If your site is in an urban location, or is in an area 

with many obstructions, you should assume urban conditions. 

Gas or Vapor Density. For the worst-case analysis, you must use a model 

appropriate for the density of the released gas or vapor. Generally, for a substance 

that is lighter than air or has a density similar to that of air, you would use a model 

for neutrally buoyant vapors. The initial vapor density of a substance with respect 

to air can be estimated from its molecular weight, assuming air has a "molecular 

weight" of approximately 29. For a substance that is heavier than air (molecular 

weight greater than 29), you generally would use a dense gas model. There are cases 

where a dense gas model may be appropriate for a substance with molecular weight 

of 29 or less (e.g., release of a compressed gas as a cold vapor) or where a neutrally 

buoyant plume model may be appropriate for a substance with a higher molecular 

weight (e.g., release by slow evaporation, with considerable mixing with air). In 

addition, dense gases and vapors will become neutrally buoyant through mixing with 

air as they move downwind. If you can account for such conditions in modeling, you 

may do so. 

ESTIMATING RELEASE RATES 

Toxic Gases. Toxic gases include all regulated toxic substances that are gases at 

ambient temperature (temperature 25o C, 77o F). For the consequence analysis, the 

total quantity in the single largest vessel or process line is assumed to be released as 

a gas over a period of 10 minutes, except in the case of gases liquefied by 

refrigeration under atmospheric pressure. The release rate (per minute) for a gas (not 

liquefied by refrigeration) is the total quantity released divided by 10. Passive 

mitigation measures (e.g., enclosure) may be taken into account in the analysis of the 

worst-case scenario. A 10-minute release must be assumed for gases regardless of 

the model you use. 

Gases liquefied by refrigeration alone (not under pressure) and released into diked 

areas may be modeled as liquids at their boiling points, if the pool formed by the 

released liquid would be greater than one centimeter (0.39 inches) in depth. In this 

case, you may assume the liquefied gas is released from a pool by evaporation at the 

boiling point of the gas. If the refrigerated liquefied gas is not contained by passive 

mitigation, or if the pool formed would have a depth of one centimeter or less, you 

must treat the released substance as a gas released over 10 minutes. EPA's analysis 

indicated that pools of gas liquefied by refrigeration with a depth of one centimeter 

or less would evaporate so rapidly at their boiling points that treatment as gaseous 

releases over 10 minutes is reasonable. 

Toxic liquids. For toxic liquids, you must assume that the total quantity in a vessel 

is spilled, forming a pool. For toxic liquids carried in pipelines, you must assume 

that the largest quantity that might be released from the pipeline forms a pool. 

Passive mitigation systems (e.g., dikes) may be taken into account in consequence 
Chapter 4 

4-9 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

analysis. You must assume that the total quantity spilled spreads instantaneously to 

a depth of one centimeter (0.39 inches) in an undiked area or covers a diked area 

instantaneously. You estimate the release rate to air as the rate of evaporation from 

the pool. To estimate the evaporation rate, you need to estimate the surface area of 

the pool. You can take into account the surface characteristics of the area into which 

the liquid would be spilled; for example, some models for pool evaporation will take 

into account the type of soil if the spill will take place in an unpaved area. Your 

modeling also should consider the length of time it will take for the pool to 

evaporate. 

You may use any appropriate model to estimate the evaporation rate of a spilled 

regulated substance from a pool and estimate the air dispersion distance to the 

specified endpoint of the regulated substance. The release rate can then be used to 

estimate the distance to the endpoint. 

ESTIMATING DISTANCE TO THE ENDPOINT 

You may use any appropriate model, as discussed above, to estimate the distance to 

the endpoint specified in part 68 Appendix A for a release of a regulated toxic 

substance, using the required modeling assumptions. 

WORST-CASE RELEASES OF FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES 

For the worst-case scenario involving a release of a regulated flammable substance 

(a flammable gas or volatile flammable liquid), you must assume that the quantity of 

the flammable substance is released into a vapor cloud and that a vapor cloud 

explosion results. You must estimate the distance to an endpoint to an overpressure 

level of 1 pound per square inch (psi) from the explosion of the vapor cloud. 

� If the flammable substance is normally a gas at ambient temperature and 

handled as gas or liquid under pressure or if the flammable substance is a gas 

handled as a refrigerated liquid and is not contained when released or the 

contained pool is one centimeter or less deep, you must assume the total 

quantity is released as a gas and is involved in a vapor cloud explosion. 

� If the flammable substance is a liquid or a refrigerated gas released into a 

containment area with a depth greater than one centimeter, you may assume 

that the quantity that volatilizes in 10 minutes is involved in a vapor cloud 

explosion. 

As in the case of the worst-case release analysis for toxic substances, the worst-case 

distance to the endpoint for flammable substances is based on a number of very 

conservative assumptions. Release of the total quantity of a flammable substance in 

a vessel or pipe into a vapor cloud generally would be highly unlikely. Vapor cloud 

explosions are also unlikely events; in an actual release, the flammable gas or vapor 

released to air might disperse without ignition, or it might burn instead of exploding, 

with more limited consequences. The endpoint of 1 psi is intended to be 

conservative and protective; it does not define a level at which severe injuries or 

death would be commonly expected. An overpressure of 1 psi is unlikely to have 

serious direct effects on people; this overpressure may cause property damage such 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-10 

as partial demolition of houses, which can result in injuries to people, and shattering 

of glass windows, which may cause skin laceration from flying glass. 

To carry out the worst-case consequence analysis for flammable substances, you may 

use a TNT-equivalent model (i.e., a model that estimates the explosive effects of a 

flammable substance by comparison with the effects of an equivalent quantity of the 

high explosive trinitrotoluene (TNT), based on the available combustion energy in 

the vapor cloud - see Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud 

Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs (1994) for additional information). Such 

models allow you to estimate the distance to a specific overpressure level, based on 

empirical data from TNT explosions. If you use a TNT-equivalent model, you must 

assume that 10 percent of the flammable vapor in the cloud participates in the 

explosion (i.e., you assume a 10 percent yield factor for the explosion). You do not 

have to use a TNT-equivalent model; other models are available that take into 

account more site-specific factors (e.g., degree of confinement of the vapor cloud). 

Generally, however, a TNT-equivalent model is the simplest to use. 

NUMBER OF SCENARIOS 

The number of worst-case scenarios you must analyze depends on several factors as 

discussed below. You only need to consider the hazard (toxicity or flammability) for 

which a substance is regulated (i.e., even if a regulated toxic substance is also 

flammable, you only need to consider toxicity in your analysis; even if a regulated 

flammable substance is also toxic, you only need to consider flammability). 

PROGRAM 1 PROCESSES 

To demonstrate that a process is eligible for Program 1 (see Chapter 2), you must 

conduct a worst-case release analysis for every toxic and flammable regulated 

substance held in that process above the applicable threshold quantities. For the 

process to be in Program 1, that analysis must show that the distance to the specified 

endpoint for every regulated substance in the process is smaller than the distance to 

any public receptor. If you have several processes that may qualify for Program 1, 

you will have to conduct worst-case analysis for each process to determine which 

qualify. You will need to report in the RMP the worst-case results with the greatest 

distance to an endpoint for those processes you determine to be eligible for Program 

1. 

If the distance to the endpoint in the worst-case analysis is equal to or greater than 

the distance to any public receptor, the process would be in Program 2 or Program 3 

(discussed below). When you consider possible eligibility of your processes for 

Program 1, you may want to look particularly at processes containing only 

flammable substances, which are likely to have shorter worst-case distances than 

toxic substances. 

PROGRAM 2 AND 3 PROCESSES 

For all your Program 2 and 3 processes taken together, you must identify, carry out 

and report in the RMP one worst-case analysis for the regulated toxic substances and 

one worst-case analysis for the regulated flammable substances held above their 
Chapter 4 

4-11 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

threshold quantities in those processes. The basic purpose of the worst-case analysis 

is to identify the geographical areas and the public receptors and population within 

those areas that could be affected by a worst-case release. The release that results in 

the greatest distance to an endpoint would affect the largest geographical area and 

the greatest number of public receptors and people, so as a general matter only that 

release (and not others affecting a smaller area) needs to be reported. The reported 

scenario for toxic substances must be the scenario estimated to result in the greatest 

distance to a toxic endpoint; for flammable substances, it must be the scenario 

estimated to lead to the greatest distance to 1 psi overpressure for a vapor cloud 

explosion. Additional worst-case analyses must be reported for toxic or flammable 

substances if a worst-case release from a different location at the facility potentially 

would affect a somewhat different geographical area containing public receptors and 

people in addition to those affected by the scenario giving the greatest distance. 

IDENTIFYING THE "WORST" WORST-CASE SCENARIO 

Toxics. To determine the scenario that gives the greatest distance to an endpoint for 

processes containing toxic substances, you may have to analyze more than one 

scenario, because the distances depend on more than simply the quantity in a 

process. For toxic liquids, for example, distances depend on the magnitude of the 

toxic endpoint, the molecular weight and volatility of the substance, and the 

temperature of the substance in the process, as well as quantity. A smaller quantity 

of a substance at an elevated temperature may give a greater distance to the endpoint 

than a larger quantity of the same substance at ambient temperature. In some cases, 

it may be difficult to predict which substance and process will give the greatest 

worst-case distance. You also may need to carry out analyses of worst-case 

scenarios for locations at significant distances from each other to determine whether 

different public receptors might be affected by releases. 

Flammables. For flammable substances, the greatest quantity in a process is likely 

to give the greatest distance to the endpoint, but there may be variations, depending 

on heat of combustion and distance to the fence line. You may have to carry out 

several analyses to identify the scenario that gives the greatest distance to the 

endpoint. As in the case of toxic substances, you also may need to carry out analyses 

for locations far apart from each other to determine whether different geographical 

areas and thus public receptors might be affected. 

For both toxic and flammable substances, the worst-case distances should be 

considered only approximations. 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-12 

QS & AS


WORST-CASE AND MITIGATION


Q. At my facility, if the worst-case release scenarios for regulated toxic substances and the worstcase scenario for regulated flammable substances involve the same process, must I analyze both? 

A. Yes. If the worst-case release scenarios for regulated toxic substances and regulated flammable 

substances in Program 2 and 3 processes are associated with the same process, the two worst-case 

release scenarios must be analyzed separately. 

Q. What measures qualify as "passive mitigation"? 

A. Passive mitigation is defined in § 68.3 as "equipment, devices, or technologies that function 

without human, mechanical, or other energy input." Passive mitigation systems include building 

enclosures, dikes, and containment walls. Measures such as fire sprinkler systems, water curtains, 

valves, scrubbers, or flares would not be considered passive mitigation because they require human, 

mechanical, or energy input to function. 

Q. When analyzing the worst-case scenario for regulated toxic substances, must I anticipate a 

specific cause (e.g., fire, explosion, etc.) of the scenario? 

A. No. The worst-case analysis for a release of regulated toxic substances must conform to specific 

assumptions as identified in § 68.25(c) and (d). Anticipated causes of the release will not affect the 

analysis, and are not required. A specific cause may be considered in analyzing the alternative 

release scenarios although it is not a requirement. 

Q. Would all of the regulated substances stored in a salt dome be assumed to be released in the 

worst-case scenario? 

A. The worst case scenario for salt domes would be examined in a manner similar to that for 

underground storage tanks. Reservoirs or vessels sufficiently buried underground are passively 

mitigated or prevented from failing catastrophically. You should evaluate the failure of piping 

connected to underground storage for the worst-case and alternative scenarios. 

Q. Are valves in piping considered administrative controls? 

A. No, administrative controls are written procedures that limit the quantity stored or flowing 

through the pipes. Valves are considered active mitigation systems. 

4.3 ALTERNATIVE RELEASE SCENARIOS 

There are only a few required assumptions for the alternative scenario analysis. 

Exhibit 4-4 summarizes the required assumptions. 
Chapter 4 

4-13 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

EXHIBIT 4-4 

REQUIRED PARAMETERS FOR MODELING ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS 

Endpoints 

� For toxic substances, use the endpoints specified in part 68, Appendix A. 

� For flammable substances, use as the endpoints: 

< Overpressure of 1 pound per square inch (psi) for vapor cloud explosions, 

< Radiant heat of 5 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) (or equivalent dose) for 

fireballs or pool fires, or


< Lower flammability limit (LFL) for vapor cloud fires.


Wind speed/stability 

� Use typical meteorological conditions at your site. 

Ambient temperature/humidity 

� Use average temperature/humidity data gathered at your site or at a local meteorological 

station. 

Height of release 

� Release height may be determined by the release scenario. 

Topography 

� Use urban or rural topography, as appropriate. 

Dense or neutrally buoyant gases 

� Tables or models used for dispersion of regulated toxic substances must appropriately 

account for gas density. 

Temperature of released substance 

� Substances may be considered to be released at a process or ambient temperature that is 

appropriate for the scenario. 

ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS 

Your alternative scenario for a covered Program 2 or 3 process must be one that is 

more likely to occur than the worst-case scenario and that reaches an endpoint 

offsite, unless no such scenario exists. You do not need to demonstrate greater 

likelihood of occurrence or carry out any analysis of probability of occurrence; you 

only need to use reasonable judgement and knowledge of the process. If, using a 

combination of reasonable assumptions, modeling of a release of a regulated 

substance from a process shows that the relevant endpoint is not reached offsite, you 

can use the modeling results to demonstrate that a scenario does not exist for the 

process that will give an endpoint offsite. Even in that instance, you still must report 

an alternative scenario (i.e., one with an onsite endpoint) for Program 2 and 3 

processes. Alternative scenarios are not required for Program 1 processes. 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-14 

Release scenarios you should consider include, but are not limited to, the following, 

where applicable: 

� Transfer hose releases due to splits or sudden uncoupling; 

� Process piping releases from failures at flanges, joints, welds, valves and 

valve seals, and drains or bleeds; 

� Process vessel or pump releases due to cracks, seal failure, drain bleed, or 

plug failure; 

� Vessel overfilling and spill, or overpressurization and venting through relief 

valves or rupture disks; and 

� Shipping container mishandling and breakage or puncturing leading to a 

spill. 

For alternative release scenarios, you may consider active mitigation systems, such 

as interlocks, shutdown systems, pressure relieving devices, flares, emergency 

isolation systems, and fire water and deluge systems, as well as passive mitigation 

systems. Mitigation systems considered must be capable of withstanding the event 

that triggers the release while remaining functional. 

You should consider your five-year accident history and failure scenarios identified 

in your hazard review or process hazards analysis in selecting alternative release 

scenarios for regulated toxic or flammable substances (e.g., you might choose an 

actual event from your accident history as the basis of your scenario). You also may 

consider any other reasonable scenarios. 

The alternative scenarios you choose to analyze should be scenarios that you 

consider possible at your site. Although EPA requires no explanation of your choice 

of scenario, you should choose a scenario that you think you can explain to 

emergency responders and the public as a reasonable alternative to the worst-case 

scenario. For example, you could pick a scenario based on an actual event, or you 

could choose a scenario that you worry about, because circumstances at your site 

make it a possibility. If you believe that there is no reasonable scenario that could 

lead to offsite consequences, you may use a scenario that has no offsite impacts for 

your alternative analysis. You should be prepared to explain your choice of such a 

scenario to the public (as well as to the implementing agency), should questions 

arise. 

ALTERNATIVE RELEASES OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

To estimate distances to the endpoint for alternative releases of toxic substances, you 

need to identify reasonable scenarios for the regulated substances in covered 

processes at your site and model these scenarios using appropriate models. As noted 

above, for alternative release scenarios, you are permitted to take credit for both 

passive and active mitigation systems, if both are in place. Modeling alternative 

releases of toxic substances is discussed below. 
Chapter 4 

4-15 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

Although alternative scenarios are intended to be more likely than worst-case 

scenarios, the analysis of alternative scenarios should not be expected to provide 

realistic estimates of areas in which the public might be endangered in case of a 

release. The same conservative, protective endpoints are used for alternative release 

analysis as for worst-case analysis. These endpoints are intended to represent 

exposure levels below which most members of the public will not suffer any serious 

health effects. The endpoints are based on exposures for longer periods than may be 

likely in an actual release. In addition, modeling carried out to estimate distances to 

these endpoints, even when based on more realistic assumptions than used for the 

worst-case modeling, likely will provide results with a high degree of uncertainty. 

These estimated distances should not be considered a necessarily accurate prediction 

of the results of an actual release. 

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS 

Quantity. EPA has not specified any assumptions you must make concerning 

quantity released for an alternative release scenario. You could consider any 

site-specific factors in developing a reasonable estimate of quantity released (e.g., 

the quantity that could be released from a sheared pipe in the time it would take to 

shut off flow to the pipe). 

Release Height. You may assume any appropriate release height for your 

alternative scenarios. For example, you may analyze a scenario in which a regulated 

substance would be released at a height well above ground level. 

Wind Speed and Atmospheric Stability. You should use typical meteorological 

conditions at your site to model alternative scenarios. To determine typical 

conditions, you may need to obtain local meteorological data that are applicable to 

your site. If you do not keep weather data for your site (most sources do not), you 

may call another nearby source, such as an airport, or a compiler, such as the 

National Weather Service, to determine wind speeds for your area. Your airport or 

other source will be able to give you information on cloud cover. 

ESTIMATING RELEASE RATES 

Toxic Gases. To estimate a release rate for toxic gases, you may make any 

appropriate assumptions based on conditions at your site and use any appropriate 

model. EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance provides a simple 

equation and chemical-specific data for estimating the release rate of a gas from a 

hole in a vessel or pipe based on hole size, tank pressure, and chemical properties. 

The size of the hole might be estimated from, for example, the hole size that would 

result from shearing off a valve or pipe from a vessel. 

Tank or pipe damage or failure resulting in the release of a gas liquefied under 

pressure might be an appropriate alternative scenario at some sites. If such a release 

would be possible at your site, you may need to consider a model or method that will 

deal with this type of scenario. 

You also should consider the duration of the release. EPA does not require you to 

assume any specific time period for the release. You could estimate the release 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-16 

duration based on the length of time it would take to stop the release, or you could 

estimate a maximum duration based on a calculated release rate and the quantity in 

the tank or pipes. If you estimate that a release of toxic gas would be stopped very 

quickly, resulting in a "puff" rather than a plume, you may want to use a model that 

deals with puff releases. EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance is not 

appropriate for estimating distance to an endpoint for puff releases. EPA provides 

information on various other models, including those suitable for analysis of puff 

releases, at the Support Center for Regulatory Air Models: 

http://www.epa.gov/scram001//. 

You may consider both passive and active mitigation in estimating release rates. For 

gases, passive mitigation may include enclosed spaces. Active mitigation for gases 

may include an assortment of techniques including automatic shutoff valves, rapid 

transfer systems (emergency drainage), and water/chemical sprays. These mitigation 

techniques have the effect of reducing either the release rate or the duration of the 

release, or both. EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance includes 

methods of accounting for mitigation. You also may use your knowledge or other 

methods to account for mitigation. 

Toxic liquids. For alternative releases of toxic liquids, you may consider any 

scenario that would be reasonable for your site. For alternative release scenarios, you 

are permitted to take credit for both passive and active mitigation systems, or a 

combination if both are in place. For liquids, passive mitigation may include 

techniques such as dikes and trenches. Active mitigation for liquids may include an 

assortment of techniques including automatic shutoff valves, emergency drainage, 

foam or tarp coverings, and water or chemical sprays. These mitigation techniques 

have the effect of reducing either the quantity released into the pool or the 

evaporation rate from the pool. EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance 

discusses some methods of accounting for mitigation. 

ESTIMATING DISTANCE TO THE ENDPOINT 

For alternative releases, you may use any appropriate model (as discussed in 4.1) to 

estimate the distance to the specified endpoint for an alternative release of a 

regulated toxic substance. You may use site-specific conditions, including typical 

weather conditions, and consider any site-specific factors appropriate to your 

scenario. You must use the endpoints specified in part 68 Appendix A, as for the 

worst-case analysis. 

ALTERNATIVE RELEASES OF FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES 

Alternative release scenarios for flammable substances are somewhat more 

complicated than for toxic substances because the consequences of a release and the 

endpoint of concern may vary. For the worst case, the consequence of concern is a 

vapor cloud explosion, with an overpressure endpoint. For alternative scenarios 

involving fires rather than explosions, other endpoints than overpressure (e.g., heat 

radiation) may need to be considered. The rule specifies endpoints for fires based on 

the heat radiation level that may cause second degree burns from a 40-second 

exposure and the lower flammability limit (LFL), which is the lowest concentration 
Chapter 4 

4-17 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

in air at which a substance will burn. Some possible scenarios involving flammable 

substances are discussed below. 

� Vapor cloud fires (flash fires) may result from dispersion of a cloud of 

flammable vapor and ignition of the cloud following dispersion. Such a fire 

could flash back and could represent a severe heat radiation hazard to 

anyone in the area of the cloud. Vapor cloud fires may be modeled using air 

dispersion modeling techniques to estimate distances to a concentration 

equal to the LFL. 

� A pool fire, with potential radiant heat effects, may result from a spill of a 

flammable liquid. The endpoint for this type of fire, as listed in the rule, is a 

radiant heat level of 5 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) for 40 seconds; a 

40-second exposure to this heat level could cause second degree burns. 

� A boiling liquid, expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), leading to a 

fireball that may produce intense heat, may occur if a vessel containing 

flammable material ruptures explosively as a result of exposure to fire. Heat 

radiation from the fireball is the primary hazard; vessel fragments and 

overpressure from the explosion also can result. BLEVEs are generally 

considered unlikely events; however, if you think a BLEVE is possible at 

your site, you should estimate the distance at which radiant heat effects 

might lead to second degree burns, since that is the effect of concern 

underlying the rule’s endpoint for fires. The point of offsite consequence 

analyses is to determine how far away from the point of release effects of 

concern could occur, so you should estimate the distance for BLEVEs even 

though one would not last for 40 seconds. For BLEVEs, you would need to 

estimate the radiant heat level at which exposure for the duration of the 

BLEVE would cause second degree burns. You then would need to estimate 

the distance to that heat level. You also may want to consider models or 

calculation methods to estimate effects of vessel fragmentation, although you 

are not required to analyze such effects. 

� For a vapor cloud explosion to occur, rapid release of a large quantity of 

flammable material, turbulent conditions (caused by a turbulent release or 

congested conditions in the area of the release, or both), and other factors are 

generally necessary. Vapor cloud explosions generally are considered 

unlikely events; however, if conditions at your site are conducive to vapor 

cloud explosions, you may want to consider a vapor cloud explosion as an 

alternative scenario. The 1 psi overpressure endpoint still applies to a vapor 

cloud explosion for purposes of analyzing an alternative scenario, but you 

could use less conservative assumptions than for the worst-case analysis, 

including any reasonable estimate of the quantity in the cloud and the yield 

factor. A vapor cloud deflagration, involving lower flame speeds than a 

detonation and resulting in less damaging blast effects, is more likely than a 

detonation. You may assume a vapor cloud deflagration for the alternative 

scenario, if you think it is appropriate, and use the radiant heat endpoint 

(adjusted for duration). 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-18 

� A jet fire may result from the puncture or rupture of a tank or pipeline 

containing a compressed or liquefied gas under pressure. The gas can form 

a jet that discharges into the air in the direction of the hole; the jet then may 

ignite. Jet fires could contribute to BLEVEs and fireballs if they impinge on 

tanks of flammable substances. A large horizontal jet fire may have the 

potential to pose an offsite hazard. You may want to consider a jet fire as an 

alternative scenario, if appropriate for your site. 

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS 

Quantity. EPA has not specified any assumptions you must make concerning 

quantity released for alternative scenario analysis for flammable substances. You 

may consider any site-specific factors in developing a reasonable estimate of 

quantity released, as for toxic substances (e.g., the quantity that could be released 

from a ruptured pipe in the time it would take to shut off flow to the pipe). 

Release Height. You may assume any appropriate release height for your 

alternative scenarios for flammable substances. 

Wind Speed and Atmospheric Stability. Meteorological conditions may have little 

effect on some scenarios for flammable substances (e.g., vapor cloud explosions and 

BLEVEs), but may have a relatively large effect on others (e.g., a vapor cloud fire 

resulting from downwind dispersion of a vapor cloud and subsequent ignition). You 

should use typical meteorological conditions at your site to model appropriate 

alternative scenarios. To determine typical conditions, you may need to obtain local 

meteorological data that are applicable to your site, as discussed above. 

ESTIMATING RELEASE RATES 

Flammable Gases. To estimate a release rate for flammable gases, you may make 

any appropriate assumptions based on conditions at your site. You may consider the 

effects of both passive and active mitigation systems. The methods provided in 

EPA's RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance for rate of release of a gas from 

a hole in a vessel or pipe for toxic gases also can be used for flammable gases. 

Chemical-specific data are provided for flammable gases, to be used along with hole 

size and tank pressure to estimate release rates. 

Flammable liquids. For alternative releases of flammable liquids, you may 

consider any scenario that would be reasonable for your site. You are permitted to 

take credit for both passive and active mitigation systems, or a combination if both 

are in place, as for toxic liquids. You could consider release of the liquid into a pool 

and release to air by pool evaporation, if you consider this to be a reasonable 

scenario. 

If evaporation of a flammable liquid from a pool is an appropriate assumption for 

your alternative scenario, you can use any scientifically appropriate method to 

estimate the evaporation rate. 
Chapter 4 

4-19 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

ESTIMATING DISTANCE TO THE ENDPOINT 

You may use any appropriate model to estimate the distance to the specified 

endpoint for alternative scenarios for regulated flammable substances. Several 

possible consequences of releases of flammable substances are discussed below. 

Vapor cloud fire. You may use any appropriate model to estimate distances for a 

vapor cloud fire. The LFL endpoint, specified in the rule, would be appropriate for 

vapor cloud fires. You may use air dispersion modeling to estimate the maximum 

distance to the LFL. You may want to consider, however, whether it is likely that a 

flammable gas or vapor could disperse to the maximum distance to the LFL before 

reaching an ignition source. The actual dispersion distance before ignition might be 

much shorter than the maximum possible distance. 

Pool fire. Any appropriate model may be used for pool fires of flammable liquids. 

The applicable endpoint specified in the rule is the heat radiation level of 5 kW/m2

. 

BLEVE. If a fireball from a BLEVE is a potential release scenario at your site, you 

may use any model or calculation method to estimate the distance to a radiant heat 

level that can cause second degree burns (a heat "dose" equivalent to the specified 

radiant heat endpoint of 5 kW/m2 for 40 seconds). 

Vapor cloud explosion. If you have the potential at your site for the rapid release of 

a large quantity of a flammable vapor, particularly into a congested area, a vapor 

cloud explosion may be an appropriate alternative release scenario. For the 

alternative analysis, you may estimate any reasonable quantity of flammable 

substance in the vapor cloud. The endpoint for vapor cloud explosions is 1 psi, as 

for the worst case; however, a smaller yield factor may be used for the alternative 

scenario analysis. 

NUMBER OF SCENARIOS 

You are required to analyze at least one alternative release scenario for each listed 

toxic substance you have in a Program 2 or Program 3 process above its threshold 

quantity. If you have the same substance above the threshold in several processes or 

locations, you need only analyze one alternative scenario for it. You also are 

required to analyze one alternative release scenario representing all regulated 

flammable substances in Program 2 or 3 processes; you do not need to analyze an 

alternative scenario for each flammable substance above the threshold. For example, 

if you have five listed substances — chlorine, ammonia, hydrogen chloride, 

propylene, and acetylene — above the threshold in Program 2 or 3 processes, you 

will need to analyze one alternative scenario each for chlorine, ammonia, and 

hydrogen chloride (toxics) and a single alternative scenario to cover propylene and 

acetylene (flammable substances). 

No alternative scenario analysis is required for regulated substances in Program 1 

processes. If worst-case scenario analysis for a process shows no public receptors 

within the distance(s) to the applicable endpoint(s), and the process meets the other 

Program 1 criteria, you do not have to carry out an alternative scenario analysis for 

the process. 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-20 

In addition, no alternative scenario analysis is required for any process that does not 

contain more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance, even if you believe 

such a process is a likely source of a release. 

4.4 ESTIMATING OFFSITE RECEPTORS 

The rule requires that you include in your RMP an estimate of the residential 

populations within the geographical areas that could be affected by the hypothetical 

worst-case or alternative releases you have analyzed. The geographical area is the 

area within the circle defined by the endpoint for your worst-case and alternative 

release scenarios (i.e., the center of the circle is the point of release and the radius is 

the distance to the endpoint). In addition, you must report in the RMP whether 

certain types of public receptors and environmental receptors are within the circles. 

RESIDENTIAL POPULATIONS 

To estimate residential populations, you may use the most recent Census data or any 

other source of data that you believe is more accurate. You are not required to 

update Census data or conduct any surveys to develop your estimates. Census data 

are available in public libraries and in the LandView system, which is available on 

DVD (see box below). The rule requires that you estimate populations to two 

significant digits. For example, if there are 1,260 people within the circle, you may 

report 1,300 people. If the number of people is between 10 and 100, estimate to the 

nearest 10. If the number of people is less than 10, provide the actual number. 

Census data are presented by Census tract. If your circle covers only a portion of the 

tract, you should develop an estimate for that portion. The easiest way to do this is 

to determine the population density per square mile (total population of the Census 

tract divided by the number of square miles in the tract) and apply that density figure 

to the number of square miles within your circle. Because there is likely to be 

considerable variation in actual densities within a Census tract, this number will be 

approximate. The rule, however, does not require you to correct the number. 

OTHER PUBLIC RECEPTORS 

Other public receptors must be noted in the RMP (see the discussion of public 

receptors in Chapter 2). If there are any schools, residences, hospitals, prisons, 

public recreational areas or arenas, or commercial or industrial areas within the 

circle, you must report that. You are not required to develop a list of all public 

receptors; you must simply check off that one or more such areas is within the circle. 

Most receptors can be identified from local street maps. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS 

Environmental receptors are defined as natural areas such as national or state parks, 

forests, or monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, 

or areas; and Federal wilderness areas. Only environmental receptors that can be 

identified on local U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps (see box below) need to be 

considered. You are not required to locate each of these specifically. You are only 

required to check off in the RMP which specific types of areas are within the circle. 
Chapter 4 

4-21 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

If any part of one of these receptors is within your circle, you must note that in the 

RMP. 

Important: The rule does not require you to assess the likelihood, type, or severity 

of potential impacts on either public or environmental receptors. Identifying them as 

within the circle simply indicates that they could be adversely affected by the 

release. 

HOW TO OBTAIN CENSUS DATA AND LANDVIEW® 

Census data can be found in publications of the Bureau of the Census, available in public libraries, 

including County and City Data Book. 

LandView ® is a desktop mapping system that includes database extracts from EPA, the Bureau of 

the Census, the U.S. Geological Survey. These databases are presented in a geographic context on 

maps that show jurisdictional boundaries, detailed networks of roads, rivers, and railroads, census 

block group and tract polygons, schools, hospitals, churches, cemeteries, airports, dams, and other 

landmark features. LandView lets you determine the population within any radius, anywhere in the 

U.S. 

For PC and Mac. $129 for 2 DVD set, covers entire country 

U.S. Department of Commerce


Bureau of the Census


P.O. Box 277943


Atlanta, GA 30384-7943 


Phone: (301) 763-INFO (4636) (Customer Services -- orders)


Phone: (301) 763-1128 (Geography Staff -- content)


http://www.census.gov/geo/landview/


Further information on Census data is available at the Bureau of the Census web site at 

www.census.gov. 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-22 

HOW TO OBTAIN USGS MAPS 

The production of digital cartographic data and graphic maps comprises the largest component of the 

USGS National Mapping Program. The USGS's most familiar product is the 1:24,000-scale 

Topographic Quadrangle Map. This is the primary scale of data produced, and depicts greater detail 

for a smaller area than intermediate-scale (1:50,000 and 1:100,000) and small-scale (1:250,000, 

1:2,000,000 or smaller) products, which show selectively less detail for larger areas. 

To order maps, publications, and other miscellaneous products on paper and compact disc media 

from the USGS by mail, send your order form and payment to: 

USGS Information Services 

Box 25286 

Denver, CO 80225 

By fax, call 303-202-4693 and transmit the order form. 

To order digital maps, digital cartographic and geographic data, aerial photographs, and satellite 

imagery products from the USGS by mail, send your order form and payment to: 

USGS EROS Data Center 

47914 252nd Street 

Sioux Falls, SD 57198 

By fax, call 605-594-6589 and transmit the order form. 

Online, submit your order through the USGS on-line ordering site, The USGS Store at: 

http://store.usgs.gov/ 

For more information, visit the USGS Earth Science Information Center on the Internet at 

http://ask.usgs.gov, or for ordering assistance, call 1-888-ASK-USGS. For additional information, 

contact any USGS Earth Science Information Center or call 1-800-USA-MAPS. 
Chapter 4 

4-23 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

Qs and As


OFFSITE CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS


Q. How close must a stationary source be to a weather station for that station's data to be applicable 

to the stationary source? 

A. EPA has not set specific distance limits, but will allow owners and operators to use reasonable 

judgement in determining whether data from a weather station is applicable to the stationary source. 

Factors such as topography and distance between the stationary source and a weather station should 

be taken into consideration when evaluating the applicability of the weather station's data to the 

stationary source. 

Q. Must air dispersion models that are used to analyze worst-case release scenarios be able to 

account for multiple vessels and how those vessels could impact one another in the event of an 

accidental release? 

A. No. Models used for worst-case release scenario analysis do not need to consider compounding 

effects of accidental releases from multiple vessels because worst-case release is defined by the rule 

as a single vessel or process line failure that will result in the greatest distance to an endpoint. 

Q. If the estimated population changes, would the RMP have to be updated? 

A. No. Changes in U.S. Census data do not necessitate a correction or update of the RMP. 

However, all updates to the RMP should use the most recent U.S. Census data. 

Q. What if a flammable event has a different time duration than the 5 kw/m2

 for 40 seconds? 

A. EPA recognizes that flammable events may occur for a different amount of exposure time. 

Therefore, the owner or operator should determine the distance to an equivalent exposure - e.g. if the 

flammable event occurs for 20 seconds, determine the distance to an equivalent exposure level. 

Q. Could positive buoyancy models be used? 

A. Yes, provided there is a basis for use and the owner or operator explains the rationale for use of 

positive buoyancy models. 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-24 

4.5 Examples of Worst Case Scenarios 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE A 

Source A, a retail operation that supplies ammonia, has one covered process: a 200-ton ammonia 

storage tank. Source A carries out worst-case consequence analyses for this process, with the 

following results: For 400,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, the distance to the specified endpoint 

(0.14 mg/L) is estimated as more than 10 miles. 

Residences and a business center are located within 0.15 miles of the facility; therefore the regulated 

process is not eligible for Program 1. Source A must report the results of the worst-case analysis in 

the RMP. 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE B 

Source B is a medium-sized metal products manufacturer with two processes containing regulated 

toxic substances above their thresholds: a tank storing 50,000 pounds of 37 percent hydrochloric acid 

for use in plating processes and five interconnected, one-ton tanks of chlorine used in a wastewater 

treatment plant. Only one worst-case analysis is required for toxic substances for Program 2 and 

Program 3 processes; because of the greater toxicity and volatility of chlorine, Source B expects that 

a worst-case release of chlorine would result in the greatest distance to the endpoint. Source B does 

not believe the hydrochloric acid process would be eligible for Program 1 because of the proximity 

of public receptors (including workers at an adjacent industrial facility), and, therefore, only carries 

out the worst-case analysis for the chlorine process. A distance of 2.80 miles to the endpoint is 

estimated for a release of 2,000 pounds of chlorine. Since there are public receptors within that 

distance, Source B must report this worst-case analysis in the RMP. 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE C 

Source C is an inorganic chemical manufacturer with two covered processes: a tank containing 10 

tons of 70 percent hydrofluoric acid solution and ten one-ton tanks of chlorine on a rack for 

wastewater treatment. Source C must carry out one worst-case analysis for regulated toxic 

substances for Program 2 and Program 3 processes. Because the toxic endpoint of chlorine is lower 

than that of hydrofluoric acid, and because the release rate will probably be greater for a gas than a 

solution, Source C decides to carry out the analysis for chlorine as the required worst-case analysis 

for toxic substances. Source C believes the hydrofluoric acid process may be eligible for Program 1 

and, therefore, decides to do a worst-case analysis for this process as well. Results of the worst-case 

analyses for these two processes are: 

� 2.80 miles for 2,000 pounds of chlorine 

� 1 mile for 20,000 pounds of 70 percent hydrofluoric acid (released in a diked area) 

Homes and businesses are located less than a mile from either process; therefore, neither process is 

eligible for Program 1. Source C must report the results of the worst-case analyses for chlorine. 
Chapter 4 

4-25 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE D 

Source D is a large chemical manufacturer with 11 regulated substances above their threshold 

quantities, including three flammable substances and eight toxic substances. The processes 

containing flammable substances are: three 18,000-gallon tanks containing 26,000 pounds of 

ethylene, 66,000 pounds of propylene, and 65,000 pounds of propane; the propane, however, is used 

as a fuel and is not subject to the rule. The largest quantities of toxic substances in processes are: 

25,000 pounds of toluene diisocyanate (TDI), 100,000 pounds of chloroform, 25,000 pounds of 

anhydrous hydrogen chloride, 20,000 pounds of chlorine, 80,000 pounds of epichlorohydrin, 100,000 

pounds of methyl chloride, 10,000 pounds of hydrogen cyanide, and 1,000 pounds of phosgene. For 

the RMP, Source D has to report one worst-case analysis for flammable substances and one for toxic 

substances; however, Source D believes the processes containing flammable substances may be 

eligible for Program 1 and, therefore, chooses to carry out a worst-case analysis for each of these 

processes. In addition, Source D believes the processes containing TDI and chloroform may be 

eligible for Program 1, because of the low volatility of TDI and the relatively low toxicity of 

chloroform, and decides to carry out analyses to determine eligibility. Source D is not sure which of 

the other processes containing toxic substances will give the greatest distance to the endpoint; 

therefore, it conducts screening analyses for all these processes. The worst-case distances for vapor 

cloud explosions of the flammable substances are: 

� 0.24 miles for 26,000 pounds of ethylene; 

� 0.32 miles for 66,000 pounds of propylene. 

The worst-case distances to the endpoints for the toxic substances are: 

� 0.06 miles for 25,000 pounds of TDI; 

� 0.49 miles for 100,000 pounds of chloroform; 

� 4.8 miles for 25,000 pounds of hydrogen chloride; 

� 10 miles for 20,000 pounds of chlorine; 

� 2.2 miles for 80,000 pounds of epichlorohydrin; 

� 2.0 miles for 100,000 pounds of methyl chloride; 

� 5.2 miles for 10,000 pounds of hydrogen cyanide; and 

� 11 miles for 1,000 pounds of phosgene. 

The processes containing ethylene and propylene are located 500 yards (0.28 miles) from a river (0.5 

miles wide). The distance to the endpoint for these two processes does not extend beyond the river, 

which is not a recreational area; the processes are eligible for Program 1 (having met the other 

criteria). The distances to the endpoint for the TDI process do not reach public receptors in any 

direction; therefore, this process is also eligible for Program 1. 

Source D reports the worst-case analysis results for ethylene, propylene, and TDI to demonstrate 

eligibility for Program 1. Since propylene was the “worst” worst-case scenario for all regulated 

flammables at the facility, the source does not have to report any other worst-case scenario results 

for flammable substances. The source does report the results for phosgene as the required worst-case 

analysis for toxic substances. 
Chapter 4 

Offsite Consequence Analysis 4-26 

4.6 Examples of Alternative Releases 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE A 

Source A, a retail operation that supplies ammonia and propane, has one covered process: an 

ammonia storage tank containing 400,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia (a regulated toxic 

substance). The worst-case consequence analyses for this process indicated it is not eligible for 

Program 1. Source A must carry out and report an alternative scenario analysis for the process. Any 

reasonable and defensible scenarios can be analyzed for the process, provided they are more likely 

than the worst-case scenario and reach an off-site endpoint (unless no such scenario exists). The 

source must be able to explain its choice of scenarios. 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE B 

Source B is a medium-sized metal products manufacturer with two covered processes containing 

regulated toxic substances: a chlorine wastewater treatment plant with 10,000 pounds of chlorine and 

a tank containing 50,000 pounds of 37 percent hydrochloric acid. Because of the proximity of public 

receptors, neither of these processes is eligible for Program 1. Source B must carry out and report an 

alternative scenario analysis for each of the two regulated substances. Source B may analyze any 

scenarios that are reasonable for the site and processes, provided they are more likely than the worstcase scenario and reach an off-site endpoint (unless no such scenario exists). The source must be 

able to explain its choice of scenarios. 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE C 

Source C is an inorganic chemical manufacturer with two covered processes, one containing 20,000 

pounds of chlorine and the other containing 20,000 pounds of 70 percent hydrofluoric acid. Source 

C’s worst-case analyses indicated that these processes are not eligible for Program 1. Source C must 

carry out and report an alternative scenario analysis for each of these substances. The scenarios must 

be more likely than the worst-case scenario and reach an off-site endpoint (unless no such scenario 

exists). Within these constraints, the scenarios may be developed based on any reasonable and 

defensible assumptions. The source must be able to explain its choice of scenarios. 
Chapter 4 

4-27 Offsite Consequence Analysis 

EXAMPLE < SOURCE D 

Source D is a large chemical manufacturer with covered processes containing two regulated 

flammable substances and eight regulated toxic substances. The worst-case analyses showed that the 

processes containing the flammable substances (ethylene and propylene) are eligible for Program 1. 

For flammable substances, Source D need not carry out and report an alternative scenario analysis. 

The worst-case analyses showed that the process containing 25,000 pounds of the toxic substance 

toluene diisocyanate (TDI) also is eligible for Program 1; therefore, Source D does not need to carry 

out an alternative scenario analysis for TDI. Source D must carry out and report an alternative 

scenario analysis for each regulated toxic substance in a covered non-Program 1 process; thus, 

scenarios must be developed and analyzed for hydrogen chloride, chlorine, epichlorohydrin, methyl 

chloride, hydrogen cyanide, chloroform, and phosgene. If the substances are found in more than one 

vessel, the analysis should be conducted with respect to the vessel that presents the greatest relative 

risk of a release. Analyses of each vessel are not needed. Source D can develop any reasonable 

scenarios for these substances that are more likely than the worst-case scenario and reach an off-site 

endpoint (unless no such scenario exists), and must be able to explain its choice of scenario. 
CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

5.1 GENERAL INFORMATION (§68.15) 

If you have at least one Program 2 or Program 3 process (see Chapter 2 for guidance 

on determining the Program levels of your processes), the management system 

provision in § 68.15 requires you to: 

Develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk 

management program elements; 

Designate a qualified person or position with the overall responsibility for the 

development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program 

elements; and 

Document the names of people or positions and define the lines of authority through 

an organizational chart or other similar document, if you assign responsibility for 

implementing individual requirements of the risk management program to people or 

positions other than the person or position with overall responsibility for the risk 

management program. 

ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROVISION 

Management commitment to process safety is a critical element of any facility’s risk 

management program. Since the program requires ongoing implementation of 

accident prevention and emergency response measures, management commitment 

does not end when the risk management plan is submitted to EPA. For process safety 

to be a constant priority, facility personnel must remain committed to every element 

of the risk management program. 

By satisfying the requirements of this provision, you are ensuring that: 

— The risk management program elements are integrated and implemented on 

an ongoing basis; and 

— All groups within a source understand the lines of responsibility and 

communication. 

5.2 HOW TO MEET THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 

Sources covered by this rule are diverse, so you are in the best position to decide how 

to appropriately implement the risk management program elements at your facility. 

Therefore, the rule provides considerable flexibility in complying with its program 

requirements. 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME AS A SMALL FACILITY? 

As a small facility that must comply with this provision, you most likely have one or 

two Program 2 or 3 processes. To begin, you may identify either the qualified person 

or position with overall responsibility for implementing the risk management 

program elements at your facility. As a small facility, it may make sense and be 
Chapter 5 

Management System 5-2 

practical to identify the name of the qualified person, rather than the position. 

Recognize that the only element of your management system that you must report in 

the RMP is the name of the qualified person or position with overall responsibility. 

Further, changes to this data element in your RMP do not trigger a special update of 

your RMP (although such changes must be reflected in RMP updates submitted for 

other reasons - see Chapter 9 for more information on RMP updates). 

Identification of a qualified individual or position with overall responsibility 

may be all you need to do if the person or position named directly oversees the 

employees operating and maintaining the processes. You must define the lines of 

authority with an organizational chart or similar document only if you choose to 

assign responsibility for specific elements of the risk management program to 

persons or positions other than the person with overall responsibility. For a small 

facility, with few employees, it is likely that you will meet the requirements of this 

provision by identifying the one person or position with the overall responsibility of 

implementing the risk management program elements. If this is the case, you need 

not develop an organizational chart. 

Even if you meet the requirements of this section by naming a single person or 

position, it is important to recognize that the person or position assigned the 

responsibility of overseeing implementation must have the ability and resources to 

ensure that your facility and employees carry out the risk management program, 

particularly the prevention elements, on an continuing basis. Key to the effectiveness 

of the rule is integrated management of the program elements. 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME AS A MEDIUM OR LARGE FACILITY? 

As a medium or large facility you may have more personnel turnover than smaller 

sites. For this reason, it may make more sense at your facility to identify a position, 

rather than the name of the specific person, with overall responsibility for the risk 

management program elements. Remember that the only element of your 

management system that you must report in the RMP is the name of the qualified 

person or position with overall responsibility. Also note that changes to this data 

element in your RMP do not require you to update your RMP. 

As a relatively large or complex facility, you may choose to identify several people 

or positions to supervise the implementation of the various elements of the program; 

therefore, you must define the lines of authority through an organizational chart or 

similar document. Further, most large facilities already have likely developed and 

maintained some type of documentation defining positions and responsibilities. Any 

internal documents you currently have should be the starting point for defining the 

lines of authority at your facility. You may find that you can simply use or update 

current documents to satisfy this part of the management system provision. Exhibit 

5-1 provides a sample of another type of documentation you may use in addition to 

or as a replacement for an organization chart. 

Defining the lines of authority and roles and responsibilities of staff that oversee the 

risk management program elements will help to: 

— Ensure effective communication about process changes between divisions; 
Chapter 5 

5-3 Management System 

— Clarify the roles and responsibilities related to process safety issues at your 

facility; 

— Avoid problems or conflicts among the various people responsible for 

implementing elements of the risk management program; 

— Avoid confusion and allow those responsible for implementation to work 

together as a team; and 

— Ensure that the program elements are integrated into an ongoing approach to 

identifying hazards and managing risks. 

Remember that all of the positions you identify in your documentation will report 

their progress to the person with overall responsibility for the program. However, 

nothing in the risk management program rule prohibits you from satisfying the 

management provision by assigning process safety committees with management 

responsibility, provided that an organizational chart or similar document identifies 

the names or positions and lines of authority. 
Chapter 5 

Management System 5-4 

EXHIBIT 5-1 

SAMPLE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTATION 

Position Primary Responsibility Changes ResponsibilOperations Manager Developing OPs 

Oversight of operation On-the-job training On-the-job competency testing Process Safety Information Selecting participants for PHAs, incident investigations Develop management of change and pre-startup procedures 

New Equipment New Process Chemistry New Process Parameters New Procedures Change in Process Utilization 

Inform head Inform head Inform lead Inform hazmInform contr

Training Supervisor Develop, track, oversee operator

 training program Track competency testing Set up and track operator refresher training Set up training for maintenance Work with contractors 

New Equipment New Process Chemistry New Process Parameters New Procedures Change in Process Utilization New regulatory requirements 

Revise traincourses Revise mainneeded Inform other additional tr

Maintenance Supervisor Develop maintenance schedules 

Oversee and document maintenance Revise schedules as needed 

New Equipment New Process Chemistry New Process Parameters New Procedures Change in Process Utilization 

Inform operpotential proInform traintraining reviInform contrRevise sched

Hazmat Team Chief Develop and exercise ER plan 

Train responders Test and maintain ER equipment Coordinate with public responders Select participants in accident investigations 

New Equipment New Process Chemistry New Process Parameters New Procedures Change in Process Utilization New regulatory requirements 

Revise the EInform operproblems creWork with trevise trainin
5-5 

EXHIBIT 5-1 

SAMPLE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTATION 

Position Primary Responsibility Changes ResponsibilHealth and Safety Officer Oversee implementation of RMP 

Develop accident investigation procedures Oversee compliance audits Develop employee participation plans Conduct contractor evaluations Track regulations 

New Equipment New Process Chemistry New Process Parameters New Procedures Change in Process Utilization New regulatory requirements 

Inform all leand assign reEnsure that echanges and incorporated 
CHAPTER 6: PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 2) 

6.1 ABOUT THE PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION PROGRAM 

Most Program 2 processes are likely to be relatively simple and may be located at 

small businesses. EPA developed the Program 2 prevention program by identifying 

the basic elements that are the foundation of sound prevention practices — safety 

information, hazard review, operating procedures, training, maintenance, compliance 

audits, and accident investigation. By meeting other Federal regulations, state laws, 

industry codes and standards, and good engineering practices, you probably have 

already addressed most Program 2 prevention elements. 

As important as each of the elements is, you will not gain the full benefit from them 

unless you integrate them into a risk management system that you implement on an 

on-going basis. For example, your hazard review must be built on the safety 

information you compile; the results of the hazard review should be used to revise 

and update your operating and maintenance procedures; workers must be trained in 

these procedures and must use them every day. 

You will have substantially less documentation and record keeping responsibilities 

for a Program 2 process than you will for a Program 3 process. In addition, EPA has 

worked with various industry sectors to develop industry-specific model risk 

management programs for Program 2 and 3 processes (appended to this guidance). 

The industry-specific guidance helps by suggesting standard elements for the sector 

that EPA expects would be appropriate for particular businesses in the sector. If 

there is an industry-specific appendix for your sector, you should use that 

information to supplement this guidance. 

There are seven elements in the Program 2 prevention program, which is set forth in 

the Part 68 regulations at Subpart C.. Exhibit 6-1 of this guidance sets out each of 

the seven elements and corresponding section numbers. 

You must integrate these seven elements into a risk management program that you 

and your staff implement on a daily basis. Understanding and managing risks must 

be part of the way you operate. Doing so will provide benefits beyond accident 

prevention. Preventive maintenance and routine inspections will reduce the number 

of equipment failures and down time, and well-trained workers, aware of optimum 

operating parameters, will allow you to gain the most efficient use of your processes 

and raw materials. 

6.2 SAFETY INFORMATION (§ 68.48) 

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that you understand the safety-related 

aspects of the equipment and processes you have, know what limits they place on 

your operations, and adopt accepted standards and codes where they apply. Having 

up-to-date safety information about your process is the foundation of an effective 

prevention program. Many elements (especially the hazard review) depend on the 

accuracy and thoroughness of the information this element requires you to provide. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-2 

EXHIBIT 6-1 

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM 2 PREVENTION PROGRAM

 Number Section Title 

§ 68.48 Safety Information 

§ 68.50 Hazard Review 

§ 68.52 Operating Procedures 

§ 68.54 Training 

§ 68.56 Maintenance 

§ 68.58 Compliance Audits 

§ 68.60 Incident Investigation 

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 

You must compile and maintain safety information related to the regulated 

substances and process equipment for each Program 2 process. You probably have 

much of this information already as a result of complying with OSHA standards or 

other rules. EPA has limited the information to what is likely to apply to the 

processes covered under Program 2. Exhibit 6-2 gives a brief summary of the safety 

information requirements for Program 2. 

HOW DO I START? 

MSDSs. If you are subject to this rule, you are also subject to the requirements to 

maintain Material Safety Data Sheets under the OSHA Hazard Communication 

Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200). If you do not have an MSDS for a regulated 

substance, you should contact your supplier or the manufacturer for a copy. Because 

the rule states that you must have an MSDS that meets OSHA requirements, you may 

want to review the MSDS to ensure that it is, in fact, complete. Besides providing 

the chemical name, the MSDS for a regulated substance (or a mixture containing the 

regulated substance) must describe the substance’s physical and chemical 

characteristics (e.g., flash point, vapor pressure), physical hazards (e.g., 

flammability, reactivity), health hazards, routes of entry, exposure limits (e.g., the 

OSHA permissible exposure level), precautions for safe handling, generally 

applicable control measures, and emergency and first aid procedures. (See 29 CFR 

1910.1200(g) for the complete set of requirements for an MSDS.) 
Chapter 6 

6-3 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

EXHIBIT 6-2 

SAFETY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 

You must compile and 

maintain this safety You must update the safety 

information: You must ensure: information if: 

UMaterial Safety Data UThat the process is UThere is a major change at 

Sheets designed in compliance with your business that makes the 

UMaximum intended recognized codes and safety information inaccurate 

inventory standards 

USafe upper and lower 

parameters 

UEquipment specifications 

UCodes & standards used to 

design, build, and operate 

the process 

Maximum Inventory. You must document the maximum intended inventory of any 

vessel in which you store or process a regulated substance above its threshold 

quantity. If you are not sure of the capacity of the vessel, you can obtain this 

information from the manufacturer of the vessel. In some cases, this information will 

be attached to the vessel itself. 

You may want to check with any trade association or standards group that develops 

standards for your industry to determine if there are any limitations on inventories. 

For example, in some cases the maximum capacity of a tank may be 10,000 gallons, 

but an industry standard may recommend that the tank never be filled to more than 

85 percent capacity. If you follow the standard, your maximum inventory would be 

8,500 gallons. 

Storage and Process Limits. You must document the safe upper and lower 

temperatures and pressures, process flows (if applicable), and compositions (if 

applicable) for your process. 

Every substance has limits on the temperature and pressures at which it can be stored 

or used; these limits are determined by both the properties of the substance and the 

vessels it which it is kept. If you do not know these limits, you should contact your 

vendor, the substance manufacturer, or your trade association. They will be able to 

provide the data you need. It is important that you know these limits so you can take 

action to avoid situations where these limits may be exceeded. Many people are 

aware of the dangers of overheating their vessels, but extreme low temperatures also 

may pose hazards you should know about. 

If you are moving substances through pipes or hoses, you need to define safe 

temperatures and pressures for that movement; again, these limits will be determined 

by both the substance and the piping. For example, the substance may tolerate high 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-4 

pressures, but the pipes may have structural limits. To operate safely, you must have 

this information. The pipe manufacturer will be able to provide these data. 

If you are reacting chemicals, you need to understand whether the reaction will be 

compromised if you vary the temperature or pressure. Again, it is important to 

define both the upper and lower limits. Reactions may become unstable outside of 

their limits and compromise safety. Check with the substance manufacturer for 

information on this subject if you are uncertain about the limits for particular 

substances you are using. 

The requirement to compile and maintain information on process flows and 

compositions will apply to you if you transfer substances through piping or hoses 

and if you mix or react the substance. It is important in these cases that you 

understand the safe limits for flow and composition. The pipe or hose vendors will 

be able to provide you with the maximum flow rates that their products are designed 

to handle. You must also be aware of any hazards that could be created if your 

processes are contaminated; for example, if your substance or equipment could be 

contaminated by water, you must know whether that creates different hazards, such 

as corrosion. 

For many Program 2 processes, reacting or mixing will not be an issue, but if you are 

mixing or reacting regulated substances, you should understand what will happen if 

the composition varies. If you are uncertain about the effects of changing 

composition and do not have a chemist or chemical engineer on your staff, the 

substance manufacturer should be able to help you. 

Equipment Specifications. You must document the specifications of any 

equipment you use to store, move, or react regulated substances in a covered process. 

Equipment specifications will usually include information on the materials of 

construction, actual design, and tolerances. The vendor should be able to provide 

this information; you may have the specifications in your files from the time of 

purchase. Many vessels and other pieces of equipment provide specification data on 

an attached nameplate. You are not expected to develop engineering drawings of 

your equipment to meet this requirement, but you must be able to document that your 

equipment is appropriate for the substances and activities for which it is used, and 

you must know what the limits of the equipment are. 

Specifications are particularly important if your vessels or pipes are not specifically 

designed for your type of operation. Substances may react with certain metals or 

corrode them if water is introduced. You should be sure that the vessels you 

purchase or lease are appropriate for your operations. Understanding equipment 

specifications will help you when you need to buy replacement parts. Any such parts 

must be appropriate for your existing equipment and your use of that equipment. It 

is not sufficient to replace parts with something that "fits" unless the new part meets 

the specifications; substitution of inappropriate parts may create serious hazards. 

Codes and Standards. You must document the codes and standards you used to 

design and build your facility and that you follow to operate. These codes will 

probably include the electrical and building codes that you must comply with under 

state or local laws. Your equipment vendors will be able to provide you with 
Chapter 6 

6-5 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

information on the codes they comply with for their products. Exhibit 6-3 below 

lists some codes that may be relevant to your operation. Note that the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) codes may have been adopted as state or local codes. 

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is an umbrella standards-setting 

organization, which imposes a specific process for gaining approval of standards and 

codes. ANSI codes may include codes and standards also issued by other 

organizations. 

EXHIBIT 6-3


CODES AND STANDARDS


ORGANIZATION SUBJECT/CODES 

American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) 

Piping, Electrical, Power wiring, Instrumentation, Lighting, Product 

storage and handling, Insulation and fireproofing, Painting and coating, 

Ventilation, Noise and Vibration, Fire protection equipment, Safety 

equipment, Pumps, Compressors, Motors, Refrigeration equipment, 

Pneumatic conveying 

American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) 

Power boilers, Pressure vessels, Piping, Compressors, Shell and tube heat 

exchangers, Vessel components, General design and fabrication codes 

American Petroleum 

Institute (API) 

Welded tanks, Rotating equipment, Bulk liquid storage systems 

National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 

Fire pumps, Flammable liquid code, LNG storage and handling, Plant 

equipment and layout, Electrical system design, Shutdown systems, 

Pressure relief equipment, Venting requirements, Gas turbines and 

engines, Cooling towers, Storage tanks 

American Society for 

Testing Materials 

(ASTM) 

Inspection and testing, Noise and vibration, Materials of construction, 

Piping materials and systems, Instrumentation 

HOW DO I DOCUMENT ALL THIS? 

EPA does not expect you to develop piles of papers to document your safety 

information. Your MSDS(s) are usually three or four pages long. You only have to 

keep them on file, as you already do for OSHA. Equipment specifications are 

usually on a few sheets or in a booklet provided by the vendor; you need only keep 

these on file. You can probably document the other information on a single sheet that 

simply lists each of the required items and any codes or standards that apply. See 

Exhibit 6-4 below for a sample. Maintain that sheet in a file and update it whenever 

any item changes or new equipment is added. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-6 

EXHIBIT 6-4 

SAMPLE SAFETY INFORMATION SHEET 

PROPANE STORAGE 

MSDS Propane On file (1994) 

Maximum Intended Inventory 400,000 pounds 

Temperature Upper: max 110°F 

Lower: min -15°F 

Pressure Upper: 240 psi @ 110°F 

Lower: 35 psi @ -15°F 

Flow Rate Loading: 100 GPM (max) 

Unloading: 265 GPM (max) 

Vapor Piping 250 PSIG 

Liquid Piping and Compressor 

Discharge 

350 PSIG 

Safety Relief Valves Each relieves 9,250 SCFM/air 

RV 1 replaced 9/96 

RV 2 replaced 6/97 

RV 3 replaced 8/98 

Excess Flow Valve 3", closes at 225 GPM with 100 PSIG inlet 

2", closes at 100 GPM with 100 PSIG inlet 

2", closes at 34,500 SCFH with 100 PSIG inlet 

Emergency Shutoff Valve ESV 1 1/4", closes at 26,000 SCFH with 100 PSIG inlet 

ESV 2", closes at 225 GPM with 100 PSIG inlet 

Codes and Standards Designed under NFPA-58-1985 

Piping Design ASME B31-3 

Tank Design ASME NB# 0012 

The equipment specifications and list of any applicable standards and codes will 

probably meet the requirement that you ensure that your process is designed in 

compliance with recognized and generally good engineering practices. If you have 

any doubt that you are meeting this requirement, your trade association or 

implementing agency may be helpful in determining if there are practices or 

standards that you are not aware of that may be useful in your operation. 

After you have documented your safety information, you should double check it to 

be sure that the files you have reflect the equipment you are currently using. It is 

important to keep this information up to date. Whenever you replace equipment, be 
Chapter 6 

6-7 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

sure that you put the new equipment specifications in the file and consider whether 

any of your other prevention elements need to be reviewed to reflect the new 

equipment. 

UPDATING SAFETY INFORMATION 

The Part 68 rule also requires that you update your safety information whenever a 

major change occurs that makes the information inaccurate. Such changes can 

include changes in process design or operation that can significantly affect other 

portions of your risk management program. Before starting up a process after a 

major change, all relevant elements of the risk management program, including 

prevention program elements, must be reviewed and updated as appropriate. For 

example, a major change in process operation may require you to update your safety 

information, as well as your hazard review and operating procedures. Operators 

must be trained in any updated procedures before starting up the changed process. 

Additionally, a major process change could potentially require you to update your 

offsite consequence analysis if, for example, you substantially increase your 

regulated substance inventory or install a passive mitigation system. 

In updating safety information subsequent to a major process change, you should 

also determine whether new or revised information relevant to your process has 

become available. For example, since federal, state and industry standards are part 

of the safety information that must be compiled, any new or revised standards that 

are applicable to the change itself or to the changed process should be reflected in 

the update. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

MSDSs. MSDSs are available from a number of websites. Chemical 

manufacturers’ websites are often the best source of up-to-date MSDS information. 

Other on-line MSDS databases have multiple copies of MSDSs for each substance 

and can help you find an MSDS that is well organized and easy to read. EPA has not 

verified the accuracy or completeness of MSDSs on any website nor does it endorse 

any particular version of an MSDS. You should review any MSDS you use to ensure 

that it meets the requirements of OSHA’s hazard communication standard (29 CFR 

1910.1200). 

Guidance and Reports. Although the publications below target the chemical 

industry, you may find useful information in them: 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Documentation, Center for Chemical Process 

Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1995. 

� Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes I, II, and III, Frank P. 

Lees, Butterworths: London 1996. 

6.3	 HAZARD REVIEW (§ 68.50) 

For a Program 2 process, you must conduct a hazard review. EPA has streamlined 

the process hazard analysis (PHA) requirement of OSHA’s PSM standard to create a 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-8 

requirement that will detect process hazards at the simpler processes in Program 2. 

The hazard review will help you determine whether you are meeting applicable 

codes and standards; identify, evaluate and address the types of potential failures; 

and focus your emergency response planning efforts. Many Program 2 processes are 

covered by industry-specific risk management program guidance (appended to this 

guidance) that will help with this hazard review. 

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 

The hazard review is key to understanding how to operate safely on a continuous 

basis. You must identify and review specific hazards and safeguards for your 

Program 2 processes. EPA lists the types of hazards and safeguards in the rule. 

Exhibit 6-5 below summarizes things you must do for a hazard review. 

EXHIBIT 6-5


HAZARD REVIEW REQUIREMENTS


Conduct a review & 

identify... 

Use a guide for 

conducting the 

review. 

Document results & 

resolve problems. 

Update your hazard 

review. 

UThe hazards 

associated with the 

Program 2 process & 

regulated substances. 

UOpportunities for 

equipment 

malfunction or 

human error that 

could cause a release. 

USafeguards that 

will control the 

hazards or prevent 

the malfunction or 

error. 

USteps to detect or 

monitor releases. 

UYou may use any 

checklist (e.g., one 

provided in industryspecific risk 

management program 

guidance) to conduct 

the review. 

UFor a process 

designed to industry 

standards like NFPA58 or Federal /state 

design rules, check 

the equipment to 

make sure that it’s 

fabricated, installed, 

and operated 

properly. 

UYour hazard 

review must be 

documented and you 

must show that you 

have addressed 

problems. 

UYou must update 

your review at least 

once every five years 

or whenever there is 

a major change in the 

process. 

UIn the case of a 

major change, you 

must resolve 

problems identified 

in the new review 

before you startup the 

changed process. 

HOW DO I START? 

There are three possible approaches to conducting a hazard review; which you use 

depends on your particular situation. 

1. Processes designed to legal or industry-specific codes. If your process was 

designed and built to comply with a federal or state standard for your industry or an 
Chapter 6 

6-9 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

industry-specific design code, your hazard review may largely rely on the standard or 

code to identify hazards. The standard-setting organization has conducted a hazard 

review for that type of process, identified the hazards, and developed equipment and 

operating requirements to minimize the risks. You can use the code or standard as a 

checklist. You need supplement that checklist only to the extent you are aware of 

other hazards that the standard or code does not address. The purpose of your review 

is to ensure that your equipment meets the code, addresses any other hazards to the 

extent practicable and is being operated in appropriate ways. 

If you have a single vessel or other simple equipment, you can probably conduct the 

review relatively quickly. You will need a copy of the code or standards and 

someone who is familiar with both the requirements and your equipment to ensure 

that the person can reasonably assess your compliance. If you have an operating 

engineer, he or she may be able to conduct the review. If you do not have any 

technical staff, your vendor or trade association may be able to help you. If you seek 

outside help, however, work with whoever conducts the review so that you 

understand what they find. Also, to the extent the person conducting the review 

identifies hazards not addressed by the code or standard, you should address those 

hazards to the extent practicable. 

2. Industry checklist/industry-specific risk management program. If there is not 

a single code or standard you must meet, you may want to use a checklist developed 

by a third party, such as a national trade association. EPA has also developed 

supplemental guidance for industry-specific risk management programs for some 

industry sectors. These guidance documents are appended to this guidance, and 

include checklists that may provide an adequate basis for your review. 

If you use guidance provided by a trade association or EPA, it probably identifies 

what your hazards are and what types of equipment and procedures you should be 

using. Your job is to use the checklist to decide if you meet the requirements and, if 

you do not, whether you should. In some cases, your individual circumstances may 

make a checklist item unnecessary or may pose hazards not identified by the 

checklist that you should consider. 

As with an industry-specific standard, if you have an operating engineer or an 

operator knowledgeable about the equipment and process, he or she may be able to 

conduct the review. If you do not have any technical staff, your vendor or trade 

association may be able to help you. If you seek outside help, however, work with 

whoever conducts the review so that you understand what they find. 

If you use an industry standard or model, you may have to modify it to 

address site-specific concerns. Never use someone else's checklist blindly. You 

must be sure that it addresses all of your potential problems. 

3. Develop your own checklist. If you have no industry-specific standards or 

checklists, you will have to design your own hazard review. As discussed in the 

requirements section (Exhibit 6-5), the review must identify: 

� The hazards of the regulated substance and process; 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-10 

� Possible equipment failures or human errors that could lead to a release; 

� Safeguards used or needed to prevent failures or errors; and 

� Steps used or needed to detect or monitor releases. 

You will probably be able to define the hazards of the substance using the MSDS, 

which lists the hazardous properties of the substance. The hazards of the process (as 

opposed to the equipment) will be limited for many Program 2 processes. However, 

if you react or mix chemicals, if your process could be contaminated by water or 

other chemicals, or if you operate a process involving high temperatures or pressures 

or have other unique circumstances, you may have process hazards that you need to 

identify. Your safety information should help here. 

The next step may be to conduct a simplified "What If" process, where your 

technical staff ask "What if it stops or fails?" for each piece of equipment and "What 

if the operator fails to do this?" for each procedure. Most industry standards and 

codes consider these questions and provide responses in terms of design standards 

and operating practices. If you are doing this on your own, the important thing to 

remember is that you should not assume that an equipment failure or human error 

will not happen. Ask whether the safeguards that you think protect the equipment or 

operator are really adequate. In many cases, they may be adequate, but it is useful to 

ask, to force yourself to examine your own assumptions. 

From this exercise, you should develop a checklist of items that you need to 

consider. For example, if you have listed mixing tank pump failure as a possible 

problem, the checklist might then include the following items to check: pump 

maintenance plans, tank high-level alarms, overflow tanks. You would also want to 

ask what effect a power outage would have on the pump. You may want to consider 

the particular procedures that have to be followed for safe operation of the 

equipment and ask what would happen if an operator omits a step or does them out 

of order. Do your procedures address these possible problems? Would failure of the 

pump affect the safe operating limits you have documented in your safety 

information? 

When you finish the checklist, it is useful to show it to your operators. They are 

familiar with the equipment and may be able to point out other areas of concern. A 

review with your vendors or trade association may also help; their wider knowledge 

of the industry may give them ideas about failures you may not have experienced or 

considered. 

You may also use any of the other techniques described in Appendix 7-A to Chapter 

7. These techniques generally require more trained staff and more time; they are 

particularly appropriate for processes that involve reacting or manufacturing 

chemicals. 

NATURAL EVENTS AND OTHER OUTSIDE INFLUENCES 

Whichever approach you use, you should consider reasonably anticipated external 

events as well as internal failures. If you are in an area subject to earthquakes, 
Chapter 6 

6-11 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

hurricanes, or floods, you should examine whether your process would survive these 

natural events without releasing the substance. In your hazard review, you should 

consider the potential impacts of lightning strikes and power failures. If your 

process could be hit by vehicles, you should examine the consequences of that. If 

you have anything near the process that could burn, ask yourself what would happen 

if the fire affected the process. For example, if you have a propane tank and an 

ammonia tank at your facility and they are close to each other, when you look at the 

ammonia tank you should consider what a fire in the propane tank would do to the 

ammonia. These considerations may not be part of standard checklists or model 

programs. 

In addition, you may want to check with vendors, trade associations, or professional 

organizations to determine if there are new standards for safety systems or designs, 

or if there are detection or mitigation systems that may be applicable to your process 

that you should consider when you evaluate your existing equipment. If your 

equipment is designed and built to an earlier version of a standard, you should 

consider whether upgrades are needed. 

RESPONDING TO FINDINGS 

The person or persons who conduct the review should develop a list of findings and 

recommendations. You must ensure that problems identified are addressed in a 

timely manner. EPA does not require that you implement every recommendation. It 

is up to you to make reasonable decisions about which recommendations are 

necessary and feasible. You may decide that other steps are as effective as the 

recommended actions or that the risk is too low to merit the expense. You must, 

however, document your decision on each recommendation. If you are implementing 

a recommendation, you should document the schedule for implementation. If you 

are taking other steps to address the problem or decide the problem does not merit 

action, you should document the basis for your decision. 

DOCUMENTING THE REVIEW 

You should maintain a copy of the checklist or other documentation appropriate to 

the review method you used. For a checklist approach, the easiest way to document 

findings is to enter them on the checklist after each item. This approach will give 

you a simple, concise way of keeping track of findings, recommendations and 

conducting follow-up to resolve recommendations. You may also want to create a 

separate document of recommendations that require implementation or other 

resolution. Exhibit 6-6 is a partial checklist developed for a propane storage facility 

risk management program; it provides a sample of the level of detail needed in a 

checklist and a format for documenting your findings (if you are conducting a hazard 

review for a propane storage facility, do not use this checklist - use the complete 

checklist provided in the Supplemental Risk Management Program Guidance for 

Propane Storage Facilities (appended to this guidance). 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-12 

EXHIBIT 6-6 

SAMPLE CHECKLIST (EXTRACT)* 

Piping, Equipment, Container Appurtenances Yes/No/NA Comments/Follow-up 

1. On installations with stairways and ladders, are 

catwalks provided so personnel need not walk on any 

portion of the vessel? 

2. Is piping designed in accordance with ASME B31.3, 

1993 edition?

 Pump and compressor discharge and liquid transfer 

lines shall be suitable for a working pressure of 350 psi 

(3-2.8.2(a) of NFPA 58, 1995 edition) 

Vapor piping shall be suitable for a working pressure of 

250 psi (3-2.8.2(b of NFPA 58, 1995 edition) 

3. Is the capacity of the pressure relief devices designed 

as specified in 2-3.2 and 3-2.5 of NFPA 58, 1995 

edition? 

4. Are appropriate level gauges, temperature indicators, 

and pressure gauges installed on fixed ASME storage 

tanks as specified in 2-3.3.2(b), 2-3.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5 of 

NFPA 58, 1995 edition? 

5. Are appropriate hydrostatic relief valves installed 

between every section of liquid piping, which can be 

blocked by manual or automatic valves as specified in 2­

4.7 and 3-2.9 of NFPA 58, 1995 edition? 

6. Is appropriate corrosion protection installed as 

required by 3-2.12 of NFPA 58, 1995 edition? 

7. On installations with pumps, are they installed as 

specified in 3-2.13 of NFPA 58, 1995 edition? 

On installations with an automatic bypass valve, are they 

installed on the discharge of the pump as specified in 3­

2.13(b)(1) and 2-5.2 of NFPA 58, 1995 edition? 

* Note: Standard and code citations included in this sample are provided as examples. Industry codes 

and standards are revised on a periodic basis, and their requirements may change significantly from one 

edition to the next. In designing or implementing a checklist, you should consult the edition of the 

industry standard that applies to the relevant process (or process change), and incorporate the applicable 

requirements into your hazard review. 
Chapter 6 

6-13 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

UPDATES 

You must update the review every fifth year or whenever a major change in a 

process takes place, whichever occurs first. For most Program 2 processes, major 

changes are likely to occur infrequently. If you install a new tank next to an existing 

one, you would want to consider whether the closeness of the two creates any new 

hazards. Replacing a tank with an identical tank would not be considered a change. 

Replacing a tank with a new type of tank should trigger an update. Changing process 

composition or safe operating limits is considered a major change. Even if changes 

prove to be minor, you should examine the process carefully before starting. 

Combining old and new equipment can sometimes create unexpected hazards. You 

will operate more safely if you take the time to evaluate the hazards before 

proceeding. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Although the publications below target the chemical industry, you may find useful 

information in them: 

� Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd Ed. with Worked 

examples, Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of 

Chemical Engineers 1992. 

� Evaluating Process Safety in the Chemical Industry, Chemical 

Manufacturers Association. 

� Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes I, II, and III Frank P. 

Lees, Butterworths: London 1996. 

� Management of Process Hazards (R.P. 750), American Petroleum Institute. 

� Risk-Based Decision Making (Publication 16288), American Petroleum 

Institute. 

6.4	 OPERATING PROCEDURES (§ 68.52) 

Written operating procedures describe in detail what tasks a process operator must 

perform, set safe process operating parameters that must be maintained, and set 

safety precautions for operations and maintenance activities. These procedures are 

the guide for telling your employees how to work safely everyday, giving everyone a 

quick source of information that can prevent or mitigate the effects of an accident, 

and providing workers and management with a standard against which to assess 

performance. 

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 

You must prepare written operating procedures that give workers clear instruction 

for safely conducting activities involving a covered process. You may use 

standardized procedures developed by industry groups or provided in 

industry-specific risk management program guidance documents as the basis for your 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-14 

operating procedures, but be sure to check that these standard procedures are 

appropriate for your activities and modify them as needed. You must ensure that 

your operating procedures are updated, if necessary, whenever there is a major 

change and before you startup the changed process. Exhibit 6-7 briefly summarizes 

what your operating procedures must address. 

EXHIBIT 6-7


OPERATING PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS


Steps for each operating phase Other Procedures 

UInitial startup UConsequences of deviating 

UNormal operations USteps to avoid, correct deviations 

UTemporary operations UEquipment inspections 

UEmergency shutdown 

UEmergency operations 

UNormal shutdown 

UStartup following a normal or emergency shutdown 

or a major change 

Your operating procedures must be: 

� Appropriate for your equipment and operations; 

� Complete; and 

� Written in language that is easily understood by your operators [e.g., if your 

operators include persons whose primary language is Spanish, you should 

consider whether the instructions should be provided in Spanish as well as 

English]. 

The procedures do not have to be long. If you have simple equipment that requires a 

few basic steps, that is all you have to cover. 

HOW DO I START? 

If you already have written procedures, you may not have to do anything more. 

Review the procedures. You may want to watch operators performing the steps to be 

sure that the procedures are being used and are appropriate. Talk with the operators 

to identify any problems they have identified and any improvements they may have 

made or would suggest. When you are satisfied that they meet the criteria listed 

above, you are finished. You may want to check them against any recommended 

procedures provided by equipment manufacturers, trade associations, or standard 

setting organizations, but you are not required to do so. You are responsible for 

ensuring that the procedures explain how to operate your equipment and processes 

safely. 

If you do not have written procedures, you may be able to review your standard 

procedures with your operators and write them down. You also may want to check 
Chapter 6 

6-15 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

with equipment manufacturers, trade associations, or standard setting organizations. 

They may have recommended practices and procedures that you can adapt. Do not 

accept anyone else's procedures without checking to be sure that they are adequate 

and appropriate for your particular equipment and uses and are written in language 

that your operators will understand. You may also want to review any requirements 

imposed under state or federal rules. For example, if you are subject to federal rules 

for loading and unloading of hazardous materials, those rules may dictate some 

procedures. Copies of these rules may be sufficient for those operations if your 

operators can understand and use them. 

WHAT DO THESE PROCEDURES MEAN? 

The rule lists eight types of procedures. Not all of them may be applicable to you. 

The following is a brief description to help you decide whether you need to develop 

procedures for each item. If a particular element does not apply, do not spend any 

time on it. We do not expect you to create a document that is meaningless to you. 

You should spend your time on items that will be useful to you. 

Initial Startup. This item applies primarily to facilities that process or use 

substances and covers all the steps you need to take before you start a process for the 

first time. You should include all the steps needed to check out equipment as well as 

the steps needed to start the process itself. If you simply store a regulated substance, 

there is no startup. Warehouses, for example, will probably not have procedures for 

startup. Retailers who store a substance and download it should have procedures for 

checking out and loading the vessel for the first time for this item. 

Normal Operations. These procedures should cover your basic operations. If you 

are a warehouse, these would include stacking, moving, and repackaging, if you do 

that. For retailers, they would cover loading and downloading. For users, the 

procedures would include all the steps operators take to check the process and ensure 

that equipment is functioning properly and substances are flowing or mixing 

appropriately. These are your core procedures that you expect your operators to 

follow on a daily basis to run your processes safely. 

Temporary Operations. These operations are short-term; they will usually occur 

either when your regular process is shut down or when additional capacity is needed 

for a limited period. The procedures should cover the steps you need to take to 

ensure that these operations will function safely. The procedures will generally 

cover pre-startup checks and determinations (e.g., have you determined what the 

maximum flow rate will be). The actual operating procedures for running the 

temporary process must be written, and operators must be trained to use them, before 

the operation is put into place. 

This item may apply to most facilities. Even warehouses may need to consider 

procedures to ensure that if a new substance or product is brought into the warehouse 

for temporary storage, the necessary steps are taken before that storage occurs to 

ensure that it is safe (e.g., barrels are not stacked too high or located with 

incompatible substances). If it is possible that you will operate your process in a 

way that is not covered under normal operations, you should have procedures for 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-16 

temporary operations. If you will simply shutdown your process (e.g., stop 

unloading the substance), you can ignore this item. 

Emergency Shutdowns and Operations. These procedures cover the steps you 

need to take if you must shutdown your process quickly. For most Program 2 

facilities, these procedures will be brief because shutting a process down will be 

little different in an emergency than in ordinary circumstances; you will simply shut 

off the flow or stop any unloading or loading. For warehouses, they may not apply. 

If you have a more complex process (e.g., one that operates under high pressure or 

temperature), you will need procedures to ensure that you can shutdown safely. 

Normally you gradually reduce flows, depressurize, and lower temperatures. If you 

need to do any of these quickly, you must have procedures that identify the steps 

workers should take to carry out these operations safely. 

Normal Shutdown. These procedures apply mainly to facilities that process or use 

regulated substances. They may apply to you even if you only store a substance and 

you empty the tank for cleaning. These procedures probably will not apply to 

warehouses unless they repackage. 

These procedures should provide all the steps needed to stop a process safely. For a 

complex process or one that operates under extreme conditions, shutdown may take 

considerable time and may be hazardous. The procedures should set out the time 

that should be taken and the checks that must be made before proceeding to the next 

steps. 

Startup following a normal or emergency shutdown or a major change. These 

procedures may be similar to those for initial startup. Startup procedures following 

normal shutdown may include fewer equipment checks because you may not need to 

check equipment on a frequent basis. You should include all the steps your workers 

should take to ensure that the process can operate safely. Startup after an emergency 

shutdown will generally require more checks to ensure that valves that were closed 

are open and that they and other equipment are still functioning properly. These 

procedures will be limited if you only store a substance; they may not apply to 

warehouses in most instances. 

Consequences of Deviations. Your operating procedures should tell the workers 

what will happen if something starts to go wrong. For example, if the pressure or 

temperature begins to rise or fall unexpectedly or the flow rate from one feed 

suddenly drops sharply, the operator must know (1) whether this poses a problem 

that must be addressed, and (2) what steps to take to correct the problem or otherwise 

respond to it. Your safety information will have defined the safe operating limits for 

your substances and processes; the hazard review will have defined the possible 

consequences and the steps needed to prevent a deviation from causing serious 

problems. You should include this information in each of the other procedures 

(startup, normal operations, shutdowns), rather than as separate documents. 

If your substance is one that has a distinctive odor, color, or other characteristic that 

operators will be able to sense, you should include in your procedures information 

about what to do if they notice leaks. Frequently, people are the most sensitive leak 
Chapter 6 

6-17 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

detectors. Take advantage of their abilities to catch leaks before they become 

serious. 

Equipment Inspections. You should include steps for routine inspection and 

surveillance of equipment by operators as part of your other procedures. These 

inspections cover the items that operators should look for on a daily basis to be sure 

that the equipment is running safely (e.g., vibration checks). These inspections are 

not the same as those detailed checks that maintenance workers will perform, but 

rather are the "eyeball," "sound," and "feel" tests that experienced operators do, often 

without realizing it. Your operators, your vendors, and your trade association can 

help you define the things that should trigger concern: When is a small leak at a seal 

normal; when is it a cause of concern? How much vibration is normal? What does a 

smoothly running motor sound like? 

UPDATING PROCEDURES 

You must update your procedures whenever you change your process in a way that 

alters the steps needed to operate safely. If you add new equipment, you will need to 

expand your procedures or develop a separate set to cover the new items. Whenever 

you change your safety information you should review your procedures to be sure 

that they are still appropriate. Anytime you conduct a hazard review, check your 

operating procedures as you implement changes to address hazards. 

WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTS DO I HAVE TO KEEP? 

You must maintain your current set of operating procedures. You are not required to 

keep old versions; in fact, you should avoid doing so because keeping copies of 

outdated procedures may cause confusion. You should date all procedures so you 

will know when they were last updated. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Although the reports below target the chemical industry, you may find useful 

information in them: 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Fundamentals for General Plant Operations, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1995. 

� Guidelines for Safe Process Operations and Maintenance, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1995 

� Guidelines for Writing Effective Operating and Maintenance Procedures, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1996. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-18 

6.5 TRAINING (§ 68.54) 

Training programs often provide immediate benefits because trained workers have 

fewer accidents, damage less equipment, and improve operational efficiency. 

Training gives workers the information they need to understand how to operate 

safely and why safe operations are necessary. A training program, including 

refresher training, is the key to ensuring that the rest of your prevention program is 

effective. You already have some type of training program because you must 

conduct training to comply with OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 

1910.1200). 

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 

You must train all new workers in your operating procedures developed under the 

previous prevention program element; if any of your more experienced workers need 

training on these procedures, you should also train them. For workers already 

operating a process on June 21, 1999, you may certify in writing that the employees 

have the "required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out the duties and 

responsibilities as provided in the operating procedures" (§ 68.54(a)). This 

"grandfather clause" means that you do not need to conduct additional training for 

workers operating a process by June 21, 1999, who have the appropriate knowledge 

and skills to operate the process safely, in accordance with the operating procedures. 

This certification should be kept in your files; you should not submit it to EPA 

unless specifically requested by an EPA official. 

Any time operating procedures are revised, you must train everyone using the new 

procedures. At least once every three years, you must provide refresher training on 

the operating procedures even if they have not changed. The training must cover all 

parts of the operating procedures, including information on the consequences of 

deviations and steps needed to address deviations. 

You are not required to provide a specific amount of training or type of training. 

You should develop a training approach that works for you. If you are a small 

facility, one-on-one training and on-the-job training may work best. Larger facilities 

may want to provide classroom training or video courses developed by vendors or 

trade associations before moving staff on to supervised work. You may have senior 

operators present the training or use trainers provided by vendors or other outside 

sources. The form and the length of the training will depend on your resources and 

your processes. If you can teach someone the basics in two hours and safely move 

them on to supervised work, that is all right. The important thing is that your 

workers understand how to operate safely and can carry out their tasks properly. 

Find a system that works for you. Exhibit 6-8 lists things that you may find useful in 

developing your training program. 

You are also required to ensure that each worker trained has understood the training 

and is competent to operate the process safely. You may decide what kind or kinds 

of competency testing to use. Observation by a senior operator may be appropriate 

in many cases. If you provided classroom training, you may want to use both testing 

and demonstration or observation. You are required to report in the RMP on the 

type(s) of competency testing you use. 
6-19 

Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 

EXHIBIT 6-8 

TRAINING CHART 

UWho needs training? Clearly identify the employees who need to be trained and the subjects to be 

covered. 

UWhat are the 

objectives? 

Specify learning objectives, and write them in clear, measurable terms before 

training begins. Remember that training must address the process operating 

procedures. 

UHow will you meet the 

training objectives? 

Tailor the specific training modules or segments to the training objectives. 

Enhance learning by including hands-on training like using simulators whenever 

appropriate. Make the training environment as much like the working 

environment as you can, consistent with safety. Allow your employees to 

practice their skills and demonstrate what they know. 

UIs your training 

program working? 

Evaluate your training program periodically to see if your employees have the 

skills and know the routines required under your operating procedures. Make 

sure that language or presentation are not barriers to learning. Decide how you 

will measure your employees’ competence. 

UHow will your 

program work for new 

hires and refresher 

training? 

Make sure all workers – including maintenance and contract employees – receive 

initial and refresher training. If you make changes to process chemicals, 

equipment, or technology, make sure that involved workers understand the 

changes and the effects on their jobs. 

HOW DOES THIS TRAINING FIT WITH OTHER REQUIRED TRAINING? 

You are required by OSHA to provide training under the Hazard Communication 

Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200); this training covers the hazards of the chemicals and 

steps to take to prevent exposures. DOT has required training for loading and 

unloading of hazardous materials (49 CFR part 172, subpart H). Some of that 

training will likely cover items in your operating procedures. You do not need to 

repeat that training to meet EPA's requirements. You may want to integrate the 

training programs, but you do not have to do so. 

WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION DO I NEED TO KEEP? 

In the RMP, you are required to report on the date of the most recent review or 

revision of your training program. You are also required to report on the type of 

training required (e.g., classroom or on-the-job) and the type of competency testing 

used. You should keep on site any current training materials or schedules used. The 

rule does not require you to keep particular records of your training program. It is 

enough for you to have on site information that supports what is reported in the RMP 

and your implementation of the training program overall. You may want to keep an 

attendance log for any formal training courses and refresher training to ensure that 

everyone who needs to be trained is trained. Such logs will help you perform a 

compliance audit or demonstrate compliance with the rule although you are not 

required to keep logs for this rule. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-20 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Fundamentals for General Plant Operations, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1995. 

� Guidelines for Technical Planning for On-Site Emergencies, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1995. 

� Federally Mandated Training and Information (Publication 12000), 

American Petroleum Institute. 

6.6	 MAINTENANCE (§ 68.56) 

Preventive maintenance, inspection, and testing of equipment is critical to safe 

operations. Waiting for equipment to fail often means waiting for an accident that 

could harm people and the environment. Further, a thorough maintenance program 

will save you money by cutting down-time caused by equipment failures. Your 

hazard review and safety information will have identified equipment that is critical to 

safe operations. You should use that information to build your maintenance 

program. 

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 

You must prepare and implement procedures for maintaining the mechanical 

integrity of process equipment, and train your workers in the maintenance 

procedures. You may use procedures or instructions from equipment vendors, in 

Federal or state regulations, or in industry codes as the basis of your maintenance 

program. You should develop a schedule for inspecting and testing your equipment 

based on manufacturers' recommendations or your own experience if that suggests 

more frequent inspection or testing is warranted. Exhibit 6-9 briefly summarizes the 

elements of a maintenance program that would satisfy EPA's rule. 

HOW DO I START? 

Your first step will probably be to determine whether you already meet all these 

requirements. If you review your existing written procedures and determine that 

they are appropriate, you do not need to revise or rewrite them. If your workers are 

already trained in the procedures and carry them out, you may not need to do 

anything else. 

If you do not have written procedures, you will need to develop them. Your 

equipment vendors may be able to provide procedures and maintenance schedules. 

Using these as the basis of your program is acceptable unless your use varies from 

that contemplated by the vendor or manufacturer (see below). Your trade 

association may also be able to help you with industry-specific checklists. If there 

are existing industry standards, your trade association can provide you with the 

references. Copies of these may form the basis for your maintenance program. If 
Chapter 6 

6-21 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

there are federal or state regulations that require certain maintenance, you should use 

these as well. 

EXHIBIT 6-9


MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES


Written procedures Training Inspection & testing 

UYou may use UTrain process maintenance UInspect & test process 

procedures provided employees in process hazards equipment. 

by the vendor or trade and how to avoid or correct UUse recognized and generally 

association, etc., as the an unsafe condition. accepted good engineering 

basis for your UMake sure this training practices.

program. If you covers the procedures UFollow a schedule that matches 

choose to develop applicable to safe job the manufacturer’s 

your own, you must performance. recommendations or that prior 

write them down. operating experience indicates 

is necessary. 

You need to determine if procedures provided by vendors, manufacturers, trade 

associations, or others are appropriate for your operation. If your safety information 

indicates that you are operating in a standard way (e.g., using only parts designed for 

refrigeration service in your cold storage system), you may assume that these other 

procedures will work for you. If you are using equipment for purposes other than 

those for which it was designed, you need to decide whether your use changes the 

kinds of maintenance required. 

TRAINING 

Once you have written procedures, you must ensure that your maintenance workers 

are trained in the procedures and in the hazards of the process. As with the training 

discussed in the previous section, how you provide this training is up to you. We 

believe that you are in the best position to decide how to train your workers. 

Vendors may provide the training or videos; you may already provide training on 

hazards and how to avoid or correct them as part of Hazard Communication Standard 

training under OSHA regulations. You do not need to repeat this training to comply 

with this rule. 

If you hire contractors to do your maintenance, you should ensure that they are 

trained to carry out the procedures. Under the rule, any maintenance contractor is 

required to ensure that each contract maintenance worker is trained to perform the 

maintenance procedures developed by the facility. You can help this process by 

providing training or by developing agreements with the contractor that give you the 

assurance that only trained workers will be sent to your site. For any outside worker, 

you must ensure that they are informed of the hazards of your particular process. If 

you have standard equipment and hire contractors that specialize in servicing your 

types of processes, you can ensure their knowledge through agreements with the 

contractor. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-22 

INSPECTION AND TESTING 

You must establish a schedule for inspecting and testing equipment associated with 

covered processes. The frequency of inspections and tests must be consistent with 

manufacturer’s recommendations, industry standards or codes, good engineering 

practices, and your prior operating experience. In particular, you should use your 

own experience as a basis for examining any schedules recommended by others. 

Many things may affect whether a schedule is appropriate. The manufacturer may 

assume a constant rate of use (e.g., the amount of substance pumped per hour). If 

your use varies considerably, the variations may affect the wear on the equipment. 

Extreme weather conditions may also impact wear on equipment. 

Talk with your operators as you prepare or adopt these procedures and schedules. If 

their experience indicates that equipment fails more frequently than the manufacturer 

expects, you should adjust the inspection schedule to reflect that experience. Your 

hazard review will have identified these potential problem areas as well and should 

be used as you develop schedules. For example, if you determine that corrosion is 

one of the hazards of the process, your schedule must address inspections for 

corrosion and replacement before failure. Your trade association may also be able to 

provide advice on these issues. 

WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION MUST I KEEP? 

In the RMP, you are required to report on the date of the most recent review or 

revision of your maintenance procedures and the date of the most recent equipment 

inspection or test and equipment inspected or tested. You must keep on site your 

written procedures and schedules as well as any agreements you have with 

contractors. The rule does not require that you keep particular records of your 

maintenance program. It is enough for you to have on site information that supports 

what is reported in the RMP and your implementation of the maintenance program 

overall. For example, you may want to keep maintenance logs to keep track of when 

inspections and tests were done. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Codes and Standards: The following groups develop codes and standards that may 

help you determine the appropriate frequency and methods to use for testing and 

inspection: National Board Inspection Code, the American Society for Testing and 

Material, American Petroleum Institute, National Fire Protection Association, 

American National Standards Institute, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 

Guidance and Reports. Although the reports below target the chemical industry, you 

may find useful information in them: 

� Guidelines for Equipment Reliability Data with Data Tables, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1989. 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Documentation, Center for Chemical Process 

Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1995. 
Chapter 6 

6-23 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

� Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, 

and Alteration (API 510), American Petroleum Institute. 

� Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction (Std 653), American 

Petroleum Institute. 

Q & A


MAINTENANCE


Q. I use propane as a raw material in my manufacturing process. I lease the tank from the propane 

supplier. The supplier does all the maintenance. My staff never work on the equipment. What should 

I do? 

A. As part of your contract with the supplier, it would be helpful to gain an agreement, in writing, 

that the supplier will provide maintenance and trained maintenance workers that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 68.56. 

6.7	 COMPLIANCE AUDITS (§ 68.58) 

Any risk management program should be reviewed periodically to ensure that 

employees and contractors are implementing it properly. A compliance audit is a 

way for you to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of your risk management 

program. An audit reviews each of the prevention program elements to ensure that 

they are up-to-date and are being implemented and will help you identify problem 

areas and take corrective actions. As a result, you'll be running a safer operation. 

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 

At least every three years, you must certify that you have evaluated compliance with 

the prevention program requirements for each covered process. At least one person 

on your audit team must be knowledgeable about the covered process. You must 

develop a report of your findings, determine and document an appropriate response 

to each finding, and document that you have corrected any deficiency. 

You must review compliance with each of the required elements of the prevention 

program. Because Program 2 processes are generally simple, the audit should not 

take a long time. You may want to develop a simple checklist; Exhibit 6-10 provides 

a sample format. 

Once you have the checklist, you, your chief operator, or some other person who is 

knowledgeable about your process, singly or as a team, should walk through the 

facility and check on relevant items, writing down comments and recommendations. 

For example, you may want to talk with employees to determine if they have been 

trained and are familiar with the procedures. 

You must respond to each of the findings and document what actions, if any, you 

take to address problems. You should take steps to correct any deficiencies you find. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-24 

You may choose to have the audit conducted by a qualified outside party. For 

example, you may have someone from another part of your company do the audit or 

hire an expert in your process. If you do either of these, you should have an 

employee who works with or is responsible for the process work with the auditor, 

both to understand the findings and answer questions. 

Again, the purpose of the compliance audit is to ensure that you are continuing to 

implement a prevention program as required. Remember, the risk management 

program is an on-going process; it is not a set of documents that you develop and put 

on a shelf in case the government inspects your site. Indeed, government inspectors 

will expect your facility operators to be familiar with and implementing your 

accident prevention program. To be in compliance with (and gain the benefits of) 

the rule, procedures must be followed on a daily basis; documents must be kept up to 

date. Your compliance audit must check compliance with each prevention program 

element and indicate areas that need to be improved. You may choose to expand the 

scope to cover your compliance with other parts of the rule and the overall safety of 

your operation, but you are not required to do so. 

WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION MUST I KEEP? 

You must keep a written record of audit findings and your response to those findings 

and documents that deficiencies have been corrected. You must keep the two most 

recent audit reports, but you need not keep a report that is more than five years old. 

You may also want to keep a record of who conducted the audit, but you are not 

required to do this. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Guidelines for Auditing Process Safety Management Systems, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1993. 

Q & A


AUDITS


Q. Does the compliance audit requirement cover all of the Part 68 requirements or just the 

prevention program requirements? 

A. The compliance audit requirement applies only to the prevention programs under Subpart C. 

If you have a Program 2 process, you must certify that you have evaluated compliance with the 

Program 2 prevention program provisions at least every three years to verify that the procedures 

and practices developed under the rule are adequate and are being followed. You may want to 

expand your audit to check other part 68 elements, but you are not required to do so. 
6-25 

Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 

EXHIBIT 6-10 

SAMPLE AUDIT CHECKLIST 

FOR SAFETY INFORMATION AND HAZARD REVIEW


Element Yes/No/NA Action/Completion Data 

Safety Information 

MSDSs up-to-date and available to workers? 

Maximum intended inventory determined? 

Determined 

Safe upper and lower temperature? 

Safe upper and lower pressures? 

Safe process flow rates? 

Compositions? 

Equipment specifications 

Tanks? 

Piping? 

Pressure relief valves? 

Emergency shutoff valves? 

Gauges? 

Pumps? 

Compressors? 

Hoses? 

Hazard Review 

Has equipment been inspected to determine if 

it is designed, manufactured, installed, and 

operated according to industry standards and 

codes? 

Are the results of the inspections 

documented? 

Have inspections been conducted after every 

major change? 

6.8 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION (§ 68.60) 

Incidents can provide valuable information about site hazards and the steps you need 

to take to prevent accidental releases. Often, the immediate cause of an incident is 

the result of a series of other problems that need to be addressed to prevent 

recurrences. For example, an operator's mistake may be the result of poor training. 

Equipment failure may result from improper maintenance or misuse. Without a 

thorough investigation, you may miss the opportunity to identify and solve these 

problems. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-26 

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 

You must investigate each incident which resulted in, or could have resulted in, a 

catastrophic release of a regulated substance. A catastrophic release is one that 

presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the 

environment. If the incident meets the criteria for including in the five-year accident 

history section of your RMP, it warrants an incident investigation. Exhibit 6-11 

briefly summarizes the steps you must take for investigating incidents. You should 

also consider investigating minor accidents or near misses because they may help 

you identify problems that could lead to more serious accidents; however, you are 

not required to do so under part 68. 

EXHIBIT 6-11


INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS


UInitiate an investigation promptly. Begin investigating no later than 48 hours 

following the incident. 

USummarize the investigation in a report. Among other things, the report must identify the 

factors contributing to the incident. Remember 

that identifying the root cause may be more 

important than identifying the initiating event. 

The report must also include any 

recommendations for corrective actions. 

Remember that the purpose of the report is to 

help management take corrective action. 

UAddress the report’s findings and 

recommendations. 

Establish a system to address promptly and 

resolve the incident report findings and 

recommendations and document resolutions and 

corrective actions. 

UReview the report with your staff and 

contractors. 

You must share the report - its findings and 

recommendations - with affected workers whose 

job tasks are relevant to the incident. 

URetain the report. Keep incident investigation summaries for five 

years. 

HOW DO I START? 

You should start with a simple set of procedures that you will use to begin an 

investigation. You may want to assign someone to be responsible for compiling the 

initial incident data and putting together the investigation team. The investigation 

will proceed more smoothly if your team includes personnel who have been trained 

in accident investigation methods and your investigation procedures. If you have a 

small facility, your "team" may be one person who works with the local responders, 

if they were involved. 
Chapter 6 

6-27 Prevention Program (Program 2) 

The purpose of the investigation is to find out what went wrong and why, so you can 

prevent it from happening again. Do not stop at the obvious failure or "initiating 

event" (e.g., the hose was clogged, the operator forgot to check the connection); try 

to determine why the failure occurred. In many cases, the underlying cause will be 

what matters (e.g., the operator did not check the connection because the operating 

procedures and training did not include this step). If the accident occurred because 

of operator error, you should determine if the operator made the mistake because he 

or she had been trained inadequately or trained in the wrong procedures or because 

design flaws made mistakes likely. If you write off the accident as operator error 

alone, you miss the chance to take the steps needed to prevent such errors the next 

time. Similarly, if equipment fails, you should try to decide whether it had been used 

or maintained improperly. 

Remember, your goals are to prevent accidents, not to blame someone, and correct 

any problems in your prevention program. In this way, you can prevent recurrences. 

In some cases, an investigation will not take long. In other cases, if you have a 

complex facility, equipment has been severely damaged, or the workers seriously 

hurt, an investigation may take several days or weeks. You should talk with the 

operators who were in the area at the time and check records on maintenance 

(another reason for keeping logs). If equipment has failed in an unusual way, you 

may need to talk to the manufacturer and your trade association to determine if 

similar equipment has suffered similar failures. 

You must develop a summary of the accident and its causes and make 

recommendations to prevent recurrences. You must address each recommendation 

and document the resolution and any actions taken. Finally, you must review the 

findings with operators affected by the findings. 

WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION MUST I KEEP? 

You must maintain the summary of the accident investigation and recommendations 

and document resolutions and corrective actions. A sample format is shown in 

Exhibit 6-12 that combines all of these in a single form. Note that the form also 

includes accident data that you will need for the five-year accident history. These 

data are not necessarily part of the incident investigation report, but including them 

will create a record you can use later to create the accident history. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Although the reports below target the chemical industry, you may find useful 

information in them: 

� Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1992. 

� Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (NFPA 921), National Fire 

Protection Association. 
Chapter 6 

Prevention Program (Program 2) 6-28 

EXHIBIT 6-12 

SAMPLE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION FORMAT 

Ammonia Tank Release 

Date: May 15, 2003; 3 pm Substance: Ammonia Quantity: 2 tons 

Duration: 2 hours Weather: 82 F, 8 mph winds Date Investigation Started: 

May 16, 2003 

Description: Unloading hose split open and spilled substance; operator was in 

the main building and failed to notice spill for several minutes 

Findings Recommendations Actions 

Hose split because the pressure 

was too great 

Replace hose with higher 

pressure hose 

Revise procedures for checking 

on pressure 

Replaced hose as 

recommended; revised 

procedures; conducted training 

on new procedures 

Operator failed to stay at the 

tank during loading 

Conduct refresher training to 

stress necessity of remaining at 

the tank during loading 

Refresher training provided; 

safety meetings added and held 

on a monthly basis to review 

safety issues 

Tank required manual shutoff Determine if automatic shutoff 

valve is feasible 

Automatic shutoff valve 

installed 

6.9	 CONCLUSION 

Many of you will need to do little that's new to comply with the Program 2 

prevention program, because complying with other Federal rules, state requirements, 

and industry-specific codes and standards results in compliance with many Program 

2 elements. And if you've voluntarily implemented OSHA's PSM standard for your 

Program 2 process, you'll meet the lesser Program 2 prevention program 

requirements. No matter what choices you make in complying with the Program 2 

prevention program, keep these things in mind: 

� Integrate the elements of your prevention program. For Program 2 owners 

and operators, a major change in any single element of your program should 

lead to a review of other elements to identify any effect caused by the 

change. 

� Make accident prevention an institution at your site. Like the entire risk 

management program, a prevention program is more than a collection of 

written documents. It is a way to make safe operations and accident 

prevention the way you do business everyday. 

� Check your operations on a continuing basis and ask if you can improve 

them to make them safer as well as more efficient. 
CHAPTER 7: PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 3) 

Many of you will need to do little that is new to comply with the Program 3 

prevention program, because you already have the OSHA PSM program in place. 

Whether you're building on the PSM standard or creating a new program, keep these 

things in mind. 

� EPA and OSHA have different legal authority — EPA for offsite 

consequences, OSHA for on-site consequences. If you are already 

complying with the PSM standard, your process hazard analysis (PHA) team 

will have to consider whether new hazards could affect the public or the 

environment offsite. For example, protection measures that are suitable for 

workers (e.g., venting releases to the outdoors) may be the very kind of thing 

that imperils the public. 

� Integrate the elements of your prevention program. You must ensure that a 

change in any single element of your program leads to a review of other 

elements to identify any effect caused by the change. 

� Most importantly, make accident prevention an institution at your site. Like 

the entire risk management program, a prevention program is more than a 

collection of written documents. It is a way to make safe operations and 

accident prevention the way you do business everyday. 

7.1	 PROGRAM 3 PREVENTION PROGRAM AND OSHA PSM 

The Program 3 prevention program includes the requirements of the OSHA PSM 

standard. Whenever we could, EPA used OSHA's language verbatim. However, 

there were a few terms that EPA had to change to reflect the differences between its 

authority and OSHA's. For example, OSHA regulates to protect workers; EPA's 

responsibility is to protect public health and safety and the environment. Therefore, 

an "owner or operator" subject to EPA's rule must investigate any catastrophic 

release "that presents imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and 

the environment," but an OSHA "employer" would focus its concerns on the 

workplace. To clarify these distinctions, we deleted specific references to workplace 

impacts and "safety and health" contained in OSHA's PSM standards. We also used 

different dates and references where appropriate. Exhibit 7-1 compares terms in 

EPA's rule with their counterparts in the OSHA PSM standard. 

EXHIBIT 7-1


COMPARABLE EPA AND OSHA TERMS 


OSHA TERM EPA TERM 

Highly hazardous substance 

Employer 

Facility 

Standard 

Regulated substance 

Owner or operator 

Stationary source 

Rule or part 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-2 

There are twelve elements in the Program 3 prevention program. Each element 

corresponds with a section of subpart D of part 68. Exhibit 7-2 sets out each of the 

twelve elements, the corresponding section numbers, and OSHA references. Two 

OSHA elements are not included. Emergency response is dealt with separately in 

part 68; the OSHA trade secrets requirement (provision of trade secret information to 

employees) is beyond EPA's statutory authority. 

EXHIBIT 7-2 


SUMMARY OF PROGRAM 3 PREVENTION PROGRAM 


(40 CFR PART 68, SUBPART D)


SECTION TITLE OSHA PSM REFERENCE 

§ 68.65 Process Safety Information PSM standard § 1910.119(d). 

§ 68.67 Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) PSM standard § 1910.119(e). 

§ 68.69 Operating Procedures PSM standard § 1910.119(f). 

§ 68.71 Training PSM standard § 1910.119(g). 

§ 68.73 Mechanical Integrity PSM standard § 1910.119(j). 

§ 68.75 Management of Change PSM standard § 1910.119(l). 

§ 68.77 Pre-Startup Review PSM standard § 1910.119(I). 

§ 68.79 Compliance Audits PSM standard § 1910.119(o). 

§ 68.81 Incident Investigation PSM standard § 1910.119(m) 

§ 68.83 Employee Participation PSM standard § 1910.119(c). 

§ 68.85 Hot Work Permit PSM standard § 1910.119(k). 

§ 68.87 Contractors PSM standard § 1910.119(h). 

OSHA provided guidance on PSM in non-mandatory appendix C to the standard. 

OSHA has reprinted this appendix as PSM Guidelines for Compliance (OSHA 

3133). The OSHA guidance is reproduced, reordered to track part 68, in Appendix 

D. The remainder of this chapter briefly outlines the major requirements and 

provides a discussion of any differences between EPA and OSHA. In some cases, 

further guidance is provided on the meaning of specific terms. For more detailed 

guidance regarding PSM requirements, you should refer to the OSHA guidance in 

Appendix D. 
Chapter 7 

7-3 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

QS &AS


IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM LEVEL


Q. My process is a series of storage and process vessels, connected by piping, containing several 

regulated substances, with a few co-located tanks of other substances. Do I have to implement one 

prevention program to cover all aspects of the process even if different operators, different process 

chemistry, and different hazards are involved in various parts of the process? 

A. You should implement the program in the way that makes sense to you. For a complex process 

such as yours, you may need to divide the process into sections (e.g., production units for particular 

products, storage units) for the PHA and compliance audits, to keep the analyses manageable. 

Operating and maintenance procedures (and the training in these procedures) should be developed for 

operating units; combining procedures for different types of units into a single document may make 

them harder to use; training operators in procedures they do not need would waste time and perhaps 

confuse operators. You may want to collect and store process safety information by individual units 

to make it easier to use. Other parts of the program (contractors, employee participation, procedures 

for pre-startup, management of change, and hot work) are likely to be common to all parts of the 

process. In your RMP, you will report a single prevention program for each covered process, whether 

you divide up the process or not. 

Q. I have a tank with 1,000,000 pounds of toluene diisocyanate (TDI), which is covered under the 

RMP rule, but not under OSHA PSM. Considered by itself, the TDI would be Program 2 for EPA. 

The tank, however, is close to equipment that has chlorine above the applicable threshold and is 

subject to OSHA PSM and Program 3. Should the TDI tank be considered part of the same process 

as the equipment containing the chlorine? How does this affect the program level? 

A. If a release event involving one regulated substance, such as a fire, explosion, collapse or 

collision, could also involve the release of another regulated substance or interfere with mitigation of 

such a release, then both substances, and their associated vessels and equipment are considered part 

of a single process. When you do your PHA for the process, you must evaluate whether a release 

event involving the TDI tank could have such effects on the chlorine, or whether a release event 

involving the chlorine could affect the TDI tank. If a single release event could involve both the TDI 

and chlorine, then both are subject to both OSHA PSM and Program 3. 

7.2 PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION (§68.65) 

Exhibit 7-3 briefly summarizes the process safety information requirements. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-4 

EXHIBIT 7-3 

PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

 For chemicals, you must 

complete information on: 

UToxicity 

UPermissible exposure limits 

UPhysical data 

UReactivity 

UCorrosivity 

UThermal & chemical 

stability 

UHazardous effects of 

inadvertent mixing of 

materials that could 

foreseeably occur 

For process technology, you 

must provide: 

UA block flow diagram or 

simplified process flow 

diagram 

UInformation on process 

chemistry 

UMaximum intended inventory 

of the EPA-regulated 

chemical 

USafe upper & lower limits for 

such items as temperature, 

pressure, flows, or 

composition 

UAn evaluation of the 

consequences of deviation 

For equipment in the 

process, you must include 

information on: 

UMaterials of construction 

UPiping & instrument 

diagrams (P&IDs) 

UElectrical classification 

URelief system design & 

design basis 

UVentilation system design 

UDesign codes & standards 

employed 

USafety systems 

UMaterial and energy balances 

for processes built after June 

21, 1999 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Diagrams. You may find it useful to consult Appendix B of OSHA's PSM final rule 

(for example block flow and process flow diagrams), computer software programs 

that do P&IDs or other diagrams. 

Guidance and Reports. Various engineering societies issue technical reports 

relating to process design. Other sources you may find useful include: 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Documentation, Center for Chemical Process 

Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1995. 

� Emergency Relief System Design Using DIERS Technology, American 

Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1992. 

� Emergency Relief Systems for Runaway Chemical Reactions and Storage 

Vessels: A Summary of Multiphase Flow Methods, American Institute of 

Chemical Engineers, 1986. 

� Guidelines for Pressure Relief and Emergency Handling Systems, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 

1998. 

� Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes I, II, and III, Frank P. 

Lees, Butterworths: London 1996. 
Chapter 7 

7-5 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

QS & AS


PROCESS SAFETY INFORMATION


Q. What does “materials of construction” apply to and how do I find this information? 

A. You must document the materials of construction for all process equipment in a covered process. 

For example, you need to know the materials of construction for process vessels, storage vessels, 

piping, hoses, valves, and flanges. Equipment specifications should provide this information. 

Q. What does “electrical classification” mean? 

A. Equipment and wiring for locations where fire and explosion hazards may exist must meet 

requirements based on the hazards. Each room, section, or area must be considered separately. 

Equipment should be marked to show Class, Group, and operating temperature or temperature range. 

You must determine the appropriate classification for each area and ensure that the equipment used is 

suitable for that classification. The equipment covered includes transformers, capacitors, motors, 

instruments, relays, wiring, switches, fuses, generators, lighting, alarms, remote controls, 

communication, and grounding. Electrical classification will be included in equipment 

specifications. 

Q. What does “relief system design basis” mean? 

A. Relief systems include, but are not limited to, relief valves, relief headers, relief drums, and 

rupture disks. Design basis means documenting how the loads and sizes of the relief system, as well 

as inlet and outlet sizes, were determined. This includes a description of overpressure scenarios 

considered, the scenario that creates the largest load to be relieved, the assumptions used, and if the 

device meets a certain code. Relief devices on pressure vessels must conform to ASME codes. 

Industry codes (e.g., API RP 520) also provide guidance on scenarios that should be considered and 

on equations for sizing of devices. Scenarios you may need to consider include fire, blocked flow, 

control valve failure, overheating, power outage, tube rupture, and cooling water failure. For twophase flow, you should review AIChE publications from the Design Institute for Emergency Relief 

Systems (DIERS). 

Q. What do I have to do for material and energy balances? 

A. For new processes, you must document both material and energy inputs and outputs of a process. 

For example, you would document the quantity of a regulated substance added to the process, the 

quantity consumed during the process, and the quantity that remains in the output. This requirement 

will not generally apply to storage processes. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-6 

7.3 PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS (§68.67) 

Exhibit 7-4 provides a summary of the requirements for process hazard analyses 

(PHAs). 

EXHIBIT 7-4 

PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

Techniques must be one or


 The PHA must cover::
 more of: Other requirements:

UAnalysis must be done by a 

UIdentification of previous, 

UHazards of the process UWhat If 

team, one member of which 

potentially catastrophic 

UChecklist 

has experience with the


incidents


UWhat If/Checklist 

process, one member of 

UEngineering and 

UHazard and Operability Study 

which is knowledgeable


administrative controls


(HAZOP) 

about the PHA technique


applicable to the hazards


UFailure Mode and Effects 

UA system must be developed 

UConsequence of failure of 

Analysis (FMEA) 

for addressing the team’s


controls


UFault Tree Analysis 

recommendations and 

USiting 

UAppropriate equivalent 

documenting resolution and 

UHuman factors 

methodology 

corrective actions taken 

UQualitative evaluation of UThe PHA must be updated at 

health and safety impacts of least once every five years 

control failure UPHAs and documentation of 

actions must be kept for the 

life of the process 

EPA/OSHA DIFFERENCES 

If your Program 3 process is also subject to OSHA PSM, you can use the PHA 

conducted for OSHA PSM compliance as your initial process hazard analysis for 

EPA purposes, provided you conducted your initial OSHA PHA prior to May 26, 

1997 (the date by which all initial OSHA PHAs must have been completed). In such 

cases, you can also update and revalidate your PHA on OSHA’s schedule, but your 

update should consider offsite impacts. Likewise, any initial PHA performed after 

May 26, 1997 must consider offsite impacts in order for it to satisfy EPA’s 

requirements (see below). 

Offsite impacts. You should consider offsite impacts when you conduct a PHA 

under EPA's rule (except for an initial PHA where you are using the PHA conducted 

for OSHA PSM). If you are in the Program 3 prevention program because you must 

comply with the PSM standard, you may not have fully considered offsite 

consequences because the focus of PSM is worker protection. Practically speaking, 

there should be few instances where the scenarios considered for OSHA fail to 

address offsite impacts. A well-done PHA should identify all failure scenarios that 

could lead to significant exposure of workers, the public, or the environment. The 

only issue that may require further consideration for Part 68 purposes is whether any 
Chapter 7 

7-7 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

protection measures that are adequate for worker safety are inadequate for public and 

environmental safety. 

Consider two circumstances — one where OSHA’s PSM standard and EPA’s risk 

management program rule lead to the same result, and another where protecting 

workers could mean endangering the public and the environment. For flammables, 

any scenario that could affect the public almost certainly would have the potential to 

affect workers; measures taken to protect your employees likely will protect the 

public and the environment. For toxics under PSM, however, you may plan to 

address a loss of containment by venting toxic vapors to the outside air. In each 

circumstance, a PHA should define how the loss of containment could occur. 

However, for EPA, the PHA team should reassess venting as an appropriate 

mitigation measure. 

REJECTING TEAM RECOMM ENDATIONS 

You may not always agree with your PHA team's recommendations and may wish to 

reject a recommendation. OSHA's compliance directive CPL 2-2.45A(revised) states 

that you may decline a team recommendation if you can document one of the 

following: (1) the analysis upon which the recommendation is based contains 

relevant factual errors; (2) the recommendation is not necessary to protect the health 

of employees or contractors; (3) an alternative measure would provide a sufficient 

level of protection; or (4) the recommendation is infeasible. For part 68, you may 

also decline a recommendation if you can show that it is not necessary to protect 

public health and the environment. 

UPDATING AND REVALIDATING YOUR PHA 

For EPA and OSHA, you must update and revalidate your PHA at least once every 

five years. If your initial PHA was done for OSHA compliance, you may update and 

revalidate it every five years on the OSHA schedule, but make sure that your PHA 

update considers offsite impacts. 

You should also update or revalidate your PHA whenever there is a new hazard or 

risk created by changes to your process. Such changes might include introducing a 

new process, process equipment, or regulated substance; altering process chemistry 

that results in any change to safe operating limits; or other alteration that introduces 

a new hazard. You might, for example, introduce a new hazard if you installed a gas 

pipeline next to a storage tank containing a regulated substance. Other candidates 

could be making changes in process constituents that increase the possibility of 

runaway reactions or polymerization. Or you may have made major process changes 

in order to comply with a revision to an industry design code or standard that you are 

subject to (i.e., your facility may be required to comply with revised code 

requirements by a state law, local law or the language in the code itself). EPA also 

recommends that you consider revalidating your PHA whenever adjoining processes 

create a hazard. 

Remember that you have a general duty to prevent accidents and ensure safety at 

your source, which may require you to take steps beyond those specified in the risk 

management program rule. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-8 

Q & A 

“REVISING” A PHA 

Q. The rule states that I have to update my RMP whenever I revise a PHA. What constitutes a 

revised PHA? Every time I go through management of change procedures I make a notation in the 

PHA file for the process, but would that constitute a revised PHA if the change did not affect the 

validity of the PHA? 

A. All changes (except replacement in kind) are subject to the management of change of procedures. 

When processes undergo minor changes (e.g., minor rerouting of a piping run), information is 

typically added to a PHA file to reflect the change, even though the validity of the PHA is not 

affected by the modification. These minor changes and the addition of information about the change 

to the PHA file are not considered a 'revision' of the PHA under the part 68. Major changes that 

invalidate a PHA, leading you to 'update' or 'revalidate' the PHA so that it accurately reflects the 

hazards of the process, are considered a revision of the PHA under part 68. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Appendix 7-A of this chapter provides a summary of each of the techniques, a 

description of the types of processes for which they may be appropriate, and 

estimates about the time and staff required for each. 

Part 68 and OSHA PSM require that whichever technique or techniques you use, you 

must have at least one person on the PHA team who is trained in the use of the 

technique. Training on such techniques is available from a number of professional 

organizations as well as private companies. You may have staff members who are 

capable of providing this training as well. Many trade associations publish detailed 

guidance on methods for conducting a process hazard analysis. You might find the 

following documents useful. 

� Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd Ed. with Worked 

Examples, Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of 

Chemical Engineers 1992. 

� Evaluating Process Safety in the Chemical Industry, Chemical 

Manufacturers Association. 

� Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes I, II, and III, Frank P. 

Lees, Butterworths: London 1996. 

� Management of Process Hazards (RP 750), American Petroleum Institute. 

� Risk-Based Decision Making (Publication 16288), American Petroleum 

Institute. 
Chapter 7 

7-9 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

QS & AS


OFFSITE CONSEQUENCES


Q. What does EPA mean by “consider offsite consequences”? Do we have to do an environmental 

impact assessment (EIA)? 

A. EPA does not expect you to do an EIA. Potential consequences to the public and the environment 

are already analyzed in the offsite consequence analysis. In the PHA, EPA only expects you to 

identify any failure scenarios that could lead to public exposures and to examine whether your 

strategies are adequate to reduce the risk of such exposures. 

Q. If I need to revise a PHA to consider offsite consequences, when do I have to do that? 

A. In general, for a PHA originally completed to meet the requirements of OSHA PSM that did not 

consider offsite consequences, you should revise the PHA to consider offsite consequences when you 

update that PHA. Any PHA for an RMP- covered process completed or updated after August 19, 

1996, when part 68 was effective, should examine offsite consequences. 

7.4 OPERATING PROCEDURES (§68.69) 

Exhibit 7-5 summarizes what your operating procedures must address. Operating 

procedures must be readily accessible to workers who operate or maintain the 

process. You must review operating procedures as often as necessary to assure that 

they reflect current practices and any changes to the process or facility. You must 

certify annually that the operating procedures are current and accurate. 

EXHIBIT 7-5


OPERATING PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS


Steps for each 

operating phase 

UInitial startup 

UNormal operations 

UTemporary operations 

UEmergency shutdown 

UEmergency operations 

U Normal shutdown 

UStartup following a 

turnaround or 

emergency shutdown 

ULockout/tagout 

UConfined space entry 

UOpening process 

equipment or piping 

UEntrance into the facility 

Operating limits 

UConsequences of 

deviations 

USteps to avoid, 

correct deviations 

Safety & health 

considerations 

UChemical properties & hazards 

UPrecautions for preventing 

chemical exposure 

UControl measures for exposure 

UQC for raw materials and 

chemical inventory 

USpecial or unique hazards 

Safety 

systems & 

their 

functions 

UAddress 

whatever is 

applicable 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-10 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Chapter 7 of this document provides descriptions of each operating phase and when 

these phases may not apply to certain operations. 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Fundamentals for General Plant Operations, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1995. 

� Guidelines for Safe Process Operations and Maintenance, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1995. 

� Guidelines for Writing Effective Operating and Maintenance Procedures, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1996. 

7.5	 TRAINING (§68.71) 

You are required to train new operators on the operating procedures and cover health 

and safety hazards, emergency operations, and safe work practices applicable to the 

employee's tasks. At least every three years you must provide refresher training (you 

must consult with employees involved in operating the process to determine the 

appropriate frequency). Finally, you are required to determine that each operator has 

received and understood the training and keep a record for each employee with the 

date of the training and the method used to verify that the employee understood the 

training. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Fundamentals for General Plant Operations, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1995. 

� Guidelines for Technical Planning for On-Site Emergencies, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1995. 

� Federally Mandated Training and Information (Publication 12000), 

American Petroleum Institute. 

7.6	 MECHANICAL INTEGRITY (§68.73) 

You must have a mechanical integrity program for pressure vessels and storage 

tanks, piping systems, relief and vent systems and devices, emergency shutdown 

systems, controls, and pumps. Exhibit 7-6 briefly summarizes the other requirements 

for your mechanical integrity program. 
Chapter 7 

7-11 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Guidance and Reports. Other sources of guidance and reports you may find useful 

include: 

� Guidelines for Process Equipment Reliability Data with Data Tables, Center 

for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1989. 

� Guidelines for Process Safety Documentation, Center for Chemical Process 

Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1995. 

� Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, 

and Alteration (API 510), American Petroleum Institute. 

� Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction (Std 653), American 

Petroleum Institute. 

EXHIBIT 7-6 

MECHANICAL INTEGRITY CHART 

Written 

procedures 

UEstablish & 

implement 

written 

procedures to 

maintain the 

integrity of 

process 

equipment. 

Training 

UTrain process 

maintenance 

employees in an 

overview of the 

process and its 

hazards. 

UMake sure this 

training covers 

the procedures 

applicable to 

safe job 

performance. 

Inspection & 

testing 

UInspect & test 

process equipment. 

UUse recognized and 

generally accepted 

good engineering 

practices. 

UFollow a schedule 

that matches the 

manufacturer’s 

recommendations or 

more frequently if 

prior operating 

experience indicates 

is necessary. 

UDocument each 

inspection & test 

with: Date, inspector 

name, equipment ID, 

test or inspection 

performed, results. 

Equipment 

deficiencies 

UCorrect 

equipment 

deficiencies 

before further 

use of process 

equipment or 

whenever 

necessary to 

ensure safety. 

Quality 

assurance 

UEstablish a QA 

program for new 

construction & 

equipment, newly 

installed 

equipment, 

maintenance 

materials, and 

spare parts & 

equipment. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-12 

7.7	 MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE (§68.75) 

Exhibits 7-7 briefly summarizes EPA's MOC requirements. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Management of Change in Chemical Plants: Learning from Case Histories, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1993. 

� Plant Guidelines for Technical Management of Chemical Process Safety, 

Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical 

Engineers 1992. 

� Management of Process Hazards (RP 750), American Petroleum Institute. 

EXHIBIT 7-7


MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE REQUIREMENTS


MOC procedures 

must address: 

UTechnical basis 

for the change 

UImpact on safety 

and health 

UModifications to 

operating 

procedures 

UNecessary time 

period for the 

change 

U Authorization 

requirements for 

proposed change 

Employees 

affected by the 

change must: 

UBe informed of the 

change before 

startup 

UTrained in the 

change before 

startup 

Update process safety 

information if: 

UA change covered by 

MOC procedures results 

in a change in any PSI 

required under EPA’s 

rule (see § 67.65) 

Update operating 

procedures if: 

UA change covered 

by MOC procedures 

results in a change 

in any operating 

procedure required 

under EPA’s rule 

(see § 67.69) 
Chapter 7 

7-13 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

7.8	 PRE-STARTUP REVIEW (§68.77) 

You must conduct your pre-startup safety review for new stationary sources or 

modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough to require a 

change in safety information. You must conduct your pre-startup review before you 

introduce a regulated substance to a process, and you must address the items listed in 

Exhibit 7-8. 

EXHIBIT 7-8


PRE-STARTUP REVIEW REQUIREMENTS


Design Specifications 

UConfirm that new or 

modified construction 

and equipment meet 

design specifications. 

Adequate Procedures 

UEnsure that 

procedures for safety, 

operating, maintenance, 

and emergencies are 

adequate and in place. 

PHA/MOC 

Perform a PHA and 

resolve or implement any 

recommendations for new 

process. Meet 

management of change 

requirements for modified 

process. 

Training 

UConfirm that 

each employee 

involved in the 

process has been 

trained completely. 

7.9	 COMPLIANCE AUDITS (§68.79) 

You must conduct an audit of the process to evaluate compliance with the prevention 

program requirements at least once every three years. At least one person involved 

in the audit must be knowledgeable about the process. You must develop a report of 

the findings and document appropriate responses to each finding and document that 

deficiencies have been addressed. The two most recent audit reports must be kept 

on-site. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Guidelines for Auditing Process Safety Management Systems, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1993. 

7.10	 INCIDENT INVESTIGATION (§68.81) 

Exhibit 7-9 briefly summarizes the steps you must take for investigating incidents. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-14 

EXHIBIT 7-9 

INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS 

UInitiate an investigation 

promptly. 

Begin investigating no later than 48 hours following the 

incident. 

UEstablish a knowledgeable 

investigation team. 

Establish an investigation team to gather the facts, analyze the 

event, and develop the how and why of what went wrong. At 

least one team member must have knowledge of the process 

involved. Consider adding other workers in the process area 

where the incident occurred. Their knowledge will be 

significant and should give you the fullest insight into the 

incident. Ideally, employees who may serve as investigation 

team members should be trained in investigation techniques 

before an incident occurs. 

USummarize the investigation in a 

report. 

Among other things, the report must identify the factors 

contributing to the incident. Remember that identifying the root 

cause may be more important than identifying the initiating 

event. The report must also include any recommendations for 

corrective actions. Remember that the purpose of the report is to 

help management take corrective action. 

UAddress the team’s findings and 

recommendations. 

Establish a system to address promptly and resolve the incident 

report findings and recommendations; document resolutions and 

corrective actions. 

UReview the report with your 

staff and contractors. 

You must share the report - its findings and recommendations ­

with affected workers whose job tasks are relevant to the 

incident. 

URetain the report. Keep incident investigation reports for five years. 

You must investigate each incident which resulted in, or could have resulted in, a 

"catastrophic release of a regulated substance." A catastrophic release is one that 

“presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the 

environment.” Although the rule requires you to investigate only those incidents 

which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic release, EPA 

encourages you to investigate all accidental releases. Investigating minor accidents 

or near misses can help you identify problems that could result in major releases if 

left unaddressed. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1992. 

� Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (NFPA 921), National Fire 

Protection Association. 
Chapter 7 

7-15 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

7.11 EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION (§68.83) 

The rule requires you to consult with your employees and their representatives on the 

conduct and development of process hazards analyses and other required process 

safety management elements. Exhibit 7-10 briefly summarizes what you must do. 

EXHIBIT 7-10 

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS 

UWrite a plan. Develop a written plan of action regarding how you will implement 

employee participation. 

UConsult with 

employees. 

Consult your employees and their representatives regarding conducting 

and developing PHAs and other elements of process safety management 

in the risk management program rule. 

UProvide access to 

information. 

Ensure that your employees and their representatives have access to PHAs 

and all other information required to be developed under the rule. 

7.12 HOT WORK PERMITS (§68.85) 

Exhibit 7-11 briefly summarizes how to meet the hot work permit requirement. 

EXHIBIT 7-11


HOT WORK PERMITS REQUIREMENTS


UIssue a hot work permit. You must issue this permit for hot work conducted on or near a 

covered process. 

UImplement fire prevention and 

protection. 

You must ensure that the fire prevention and protection 

requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) are implemented before the 

hot work begins. The permit must document this. 

UIndicate the appropriate dates. The permit should indicate the dates authorized for hot work. 

UIdentify the work. The permit must identify the object on which hot work is to be 

performed. 

UMaintain the permit on file. You must keep the permit on file until workers have completed the 

hot work operations. 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Standard for Fire Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding Processes 

(NFPA 518), National Fire Protection Association. 

� Standard for Welding, Cutting and Brazing, 29 CFR 1910 Subpart Q. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-16 

7.13 CONTRACTORS (§68.87) 

Exhibit 7-12 summarizes both yours and the contractors' responsibilities where 

contractors perform maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or 

specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. 

EXHIBIT 7-12


CONTRACTORS CHART


You must... Your contractor must...

UEnsure training for its employees. The


a contractor, you must obtain and evaluate


UCheck safety performance. When selecting 

contractor must train its employees to ensure 

information regarding the safety performance that they perform their jobs safely and in


of the contractor.
 accordance with your source’s safety 

procedures. 

UProvide safety and hazards information. 

You must inform the contractor of potential UEnsure its employees know process hazards 

fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards; and of and applicable emergency actions. The


your emergency response activities as they
 contractor must assure that contract employees 

relate to the contractor’s work and the process. are aware of hazards and emergency 

procedures relating to the employees’ work. 

UEnsure safe practices. You must ensure that 

you have safe work practices to control the UDocument training. The contractor must


entrance, presence, and exit of contract
 prepare a record documenting and verifying 

employees in covered process areas. adequate employee training. 

UVerify that the contractor acts responsibly. UEnsure its employees are following your 

You must verify that the contractor is fulfilling safety procedures. 

its responsibilities. 

UInform you of hazards. The contractor must 

tell you of any unique hazards presented by its 

work or of any hazards it finds during 

performance. 

EPA/OSHA DIFFERENCES 

EPA has no authority to require that you maintain an occupational injury and illness 

log for contract employees. Be aware, however, that OSHA does have this authority, 

and that the PSM standard includes this requirement. (See 29 CFR 

1910.119(h)(2)(vi)). 
Chapter 7 

7-17 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION 

� Contractor and Client Relations to Assure Process Safety, Center for 

Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 

1996. 

� API/CMA Managers Guide to Implementing a Contractor Safety Program 

(RP 2221), American Petroleum Institute. 

� Improving Owner and Contractor Safety Performance (RP 2220), American 

Petroleum Institute. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-18 

APPENDIX 7-A


PHA TECHNIQUES


This appendix provides descriptions of each of the PHA techniques listed in the OSHA PSM 

standard and in EPA’s RMP rule at § 68.67. These descriptions include information on what each 

technique is, which types of processes they may be appropriate for, what their limitations are, and what 

level of effort is typically associated with each. This information is based on Guidelines for Hazard 

Evaluation Procedures, 2nd Ed., published by AIChE/CCPS. If you are interested in more detailed 

discussion and worked examples, you should refer to the AIChE/CCPS volume. 

Neither the information below nor the full AIChE/CCPS volume will provide you with enough 

information to conduct a PHA. The rule requires that your PHA team include at least one person trained 

in the technique you use. Training in PHA techniques is available from a number of organizations. If 

you must conduct multiple PHAs, you are likely to need to update your PHAs frequently, or you have a 

complex process that will take several weeks to analyze, you may want to consider training one or more 

of your employees. If you have a single process that is unlikely to change more than once every five 

years, you may find it more cost-effective to hire a trained PHA leader. 

DESCRIPTIONS OF TECHNIQUES 

CHECKLISTS 

Checklists are primarily used for processes that are covered by standards, codes, and industry 

practices — for example, storage tanks designed to ASME standards, ammonia handling covered by 

OSHA (29 CFR 1910.111), propane facilities subject to NFPA-58. Checklists are easy to use and can 

help familiarize new staff with the process equipment. AIChE/CCPS states that checklists are a highly 

cost-effective way to identify customarily recognized hazards. Checklists are dependent on the 

experience of the people who develop them; if the checklist is not complete, the analysis may not identify 

hazardous situations. 

Checklists are created by taking the applicable standards and practices and using them to 

generate a list of questions that seek to identify any differences or deficiencies. If a checklist for a 

process does not exist, an experienced person must develop one based on standards, practices, and 

facility or equipment experience. A completed checklist usually provides "yes," "no," "not applicable," 

and "need more information" answers to each item. A checklist analysis involves touring the process 

area and comparing equipment to the list. 

AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system a checklist will take 2 to 4 hours to 

prepare, 4 to 8 hours to evaluate the process, and 4 to 8 hours to document the results. For larger or more 

complex processes, a checklist will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 3 to 5 days to evaluate, and 2 to 4 days to 

document. 
Chapter 7 

7-19 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

WHAT-IF 

A What-If is a brainstorming approach in which a group of people familiar with the process ask 

questions about possible deviations or failures. These questions may be framed as What-If, as in "What 

if the pump fails?" or may be expressions of more general concern, as in "I worry about contamination 

during unloading." A scribe or recorder takes down all of the questions on flip charts or a computer. The 

questions are then divided into specific areas of investigation, usually related to consequences of interest. 

Each area is then addressed by one or more team members. 

What-If analyses are intended to identify hazards, hazardous situations, or accident scenarios. 

The team of experienced people identifies accident scenarios, consequences, and existing safeguards, 

then suggest possible risk reduction alternatives. The method can be used to examine deviations from 

design, construction, modification, or operating intent. It requires a basic understanding of the process 

and an ability to combine possible deviations from design intent with outcomes. AIChE describes this as 

a powerful procedure if the staff are experienced; "otherwise, the results are likely to be incomplete." 

A What-If usually reviews the entire process, from the introduction of the chemicals to the end. 

The analysis may focus on particular consequences of concern. AIChE provides the following example 

of a What-If question: "What if the raw material is the wrong concentration?" The team would then try 

to determine how the process would respond: "If the concentration of acid were doubled, the reaction 

could not be controlled and a rapid exotherm would result." The team might then recommend steps to 

prevent feeding wrong concentrations or to stop the feed if the reaction could not be controlled. 

A What-If of simple systems can be done by one or two people; a more complex process requires 

a larger team and longer meetings. AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system a What-If 

analysis will take 4 to 8 hours to prepare, 1 to 3 days to evaluate the process, and 1 to 2 days to document 

the results. For larger or more complex processes, a What-If will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 4 to 7 days 

to evaluate, and 4 to 7 days to document. 

WHAT-IF/CHECKLIST 

A What-If/Checklist combines the creative, brainstorming aspects of the What-If with the 

systematic approach of the Checklist. The combination of techniques can compensate for the weaknesses 

of each. The What-If part of the process can help the team identify hazards and accident scenarios that 

are beyond the experience of the team members. The checklist provides a more detailed systematic 

approach that can fill in gaps in the brainstorming process. The technique is generally used to identify 

the most common hazards that exist in a process. AIChE states that it is often the first PHA conducted 

on a process, with subsequent analyses using more detailed approaches. 

The purpose of a What-If/Checklist is to identify hazards and the general types of accidents that 

could occur, evaluate qualitatively the effects of the effects, and determine whether safeguards are 

adequate. Usually the What-If brainstorming precedes the use of the checklist, although the order can be 

reversed. 

The technique usually is performed by a team experienced in the design, operation, and 

maintenance of the process. The number of people required depends on the complexity of the process. 

AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system a What-If/Checklist analysis will take 6 to 12 

hours to prepare, 6 to 12 hours to evaluate the process, and 4 to 8 hours to document the results. For 

larger or more complex processes, a What-If/Checklist will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 4 to 7 days to 

evaluate, and 1 to 3 weeks to document. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-20 

HAZOP 

The Hazard and Operability Analysis (HAZOP) was originally developed to identify both 

hazards and operability problems at chemical process plants, particularly for processes using 

technologies with which the plant was not familiar. The technique has been found to be useful for 

existing processes as well. A HAZOP requires an interdisciplinary team and an experienced team leader. 

The purpose of a HAZOP is to review a process or operation systematically to identify whether 

process deviations could lead to undesirable consequences. AIChE states that the technique can be used 

for continuous or batch processes and can be adapted to evaluate written procedures. It can be used at 

any stage in the life of a process. 

HAZOPs usually require a series of meetings in which, using process drawings, the team 

systematically evaluates the impact of deviations. The team leader uses a fixed set of guide words and 

applies them to process parameters at each point in the process. Guide words include "No," "More," 

"Less," "Part of," "As well as," Reverse," and "Other than." Process parameters considered include flow, 

pressure, temperature, level, composition, pH, frequency, and voltage. As the team applies the guide 

words to each process step, they record the deviation, with its causes, consequences, safeguards, and 

actions needed, or the need for more information to evaluate the deviation. 

HAZOPs require more resources than simpler techniques. AIChE states that a simple process or 

a review with a narrow scope may be done by as few as three or four people, if they have the technical 

skills and experience. A large or complex process usually requires a team of five to seven people. 

AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system a HAZOP analysis will take 8 to 12 hours to 

prepare, 1 to 3 days to evaluate the process, and 2 to 6 days to document the results. For larger or more 

complex processes, a HAZOP will take 2 to 4 days to prepare, 1 to 3 weeks to evaluate, and 2 to 6 weeks 

to document. 

FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (FMEA) 

A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) evaluates the ways in which equipment fails and 

the system's response to the failure. The focus of the FMEA is on single equipment failures and system 

failures. An FMEA usually generates recommendations for increasing equipment reliability. FMEA 

does not examine human errors directly, but will consider the impact on equipment of human error. 

AIChE states that FMEA is "not efficient for identifying an exhaustive list of combinations of equipment 

failures that lead to accidents." 

An FMEA produces a qualitative, systematic list of equipment, failure modes, and effects. The 

analysis can easily be updated for design or systems changes. The FMEA usually produces a table that, 

for each item of equipment, includes a description, a list of failure modes, the effects of each failure, 

safeguards that exist, and actions recommended to address the failure. For example, for pump operating 

normal, the failure modes would include fails to stop when required, stops when required to run, seal 

leaks or ruptures, and pump case leaks or ruptures. The effects would detail both the immediate effect 

and the impact on other equipment. Generally, when analyzing impacts, analysts assume that existing 

safeguards do not work, AIChE states that "more optimistic assumptions may be satisfactory as long as 

all equipment failure modes are analyzed on the same basis." 

An FMEA requires an equipment list or P&ID, knowledge of the equipment, knowledge of the 

system, and responses to equipment failure. AIChE states that on average, an hour is sufficient to 

analyze two to four pieces of equipment. AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system an 
Chapter 7 

7-21 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

FMEA will take 2 to 6 hours to prepare, 1 to 3 days to evaluate the process, and 1 to 3 days to document 

the results. For larger or more complex processes, an FMEA will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 1 to 3 

weeks to evaluate, and 2 to 4 weeks to document. 

FAULT TREE ANALYSIS (FTA) 

A Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is a deductive technique that focuses on a particular accident or 

main system failure and provides a method for determining causes of the event. The fault tree is a 

graphic that displays the combinations of equipment failures and human errors that can result in the 

accident. The FTA starts with the accident and identifies the immediate causes. Each immediate cause 

is examined to determine its causes until the basic causes of each are identified. AIChE states that the 

strength of FTA is its ability to identify combinations of basic equipment and human failures that can 

lead to an accident, allowing the analyst to focus preventive measures on significant basic causes. 

AIChE states that FTA is well suited for analyses of highly redundant systems. For systems 

vulnerable to single failures that can lead to accidents, FMEA or HAZOP are better techniques to use. 

FTA is often used when another technique has identified an accident that requires more detailed analysis. 

The FTA looks at component failures (malfunctions that require that the component be repaired) and 

faults (malfunctions that will remedy themselves once the conditions change). Failures and faults are 

divided into three groups: primary failures and faults occur when the equipment is operating in the 

environment for which it was intended; secondary failures and faults occur when the system is operating 

outside of intended environment; and command faults and failures are malfunctions where the equipment 

performed as designed but the system that commanded it malfunctioned. 

An FTA requires a detailed knowledge of how the plant or system works, detailed process 

drawings and procedures, and knowledge of component failure modes and effects. AIChE states that 

FTAs need well trained and experienced analysts. Although a single analyst can develop a fault tree, 

input and review from others is needed 

AIChE/CCPS estimates that for a small or simple system an FTA will take 1 to 3 days to prepare, 

3 to 6 days for model construction, 2 to 4 days to evaluate the process, and 3 to 5 days to document the 

results. For larger or more complex processes, an FTA will take 4 to 6 days to prepare, 2 to 3 weeks for 

model constructions, 1 to 4 weeks to evaluate, and 3 to 5 weeks to document. 

Other Techniques 

The rule allows you to use other techniques if they are functionally equivalent. The AIChE 

Guidelines includes descriptions of a number of other techniques including Preliminary Hazard Review, 

Cause-Consequence Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, and Human Reliability Analysis. You may also 

develop a hybrid technique that combines features of several techniques or apply more than one 

technique. 

Selecting a Technique 

Exhibit 7A-1 is adapted from the AIChE Guidelines and indicates which techniques are 

appropriate for particular phases in a process's design and operation. 
Chapter 7 

Prevention Program (Program 3) 7-22 

EXHIBIT 7A-1 

APPLICABILITY OF PHA TECHNIQUES 

Checklist What-If What-IfChecklist HAZOP FMEA FTA 

R&D T

Design T T T

Pilot Plant Operation T T T T T T

Detailed Engineering T T T T T T

Construction/Start-Up T T T

Routine Operation T T T T T T

Modification T T T T T T

Incident Investigation T T T T

Decommissioning T T T

Factors in Selecting a Technique 

Type of process will affect your selection of a technique. AIChE states that most of the 

techniques can be used for any process, but some are better suited for certain processes than others. 

FMEA efficiently analyzes the hazards associated with computer and electronic systems; HAZOPs do not 

work as well with these. Processes or storage units designed to industry or government standards can be 

handled with checklists. 

AIChE lists What-If, What-If/Checklist, and HAZOP as better able to handle batch processes 

than FTA or FMEA because the latter do not easily deal with the need to evaluate the time-dependent 

nature of batch operations. 

Analysis of multiple failure situations is best handled by FTA. Single-failure techniques, such as 

HAZOP and FMEA, are not normally used to handle these although they can be extended to evaluate a 

few simple accident situations involving more than one event. 

AIChE states that when a process has operated relatively free of accidents for a long time, the 

potential for high consequence events is low, and there have been few changes to invalidate the 

experience base, the less exhaustive techniques, such as a Checklist, can be used. When the opposite is 

true, the more rigorous techniques are more appropriate. 

A final factor in selecting a technique is time required for various techniques. Exhibit 7A-2 

summarizes AIChE's estimates of the time required for various steps. The full team is usually involved in 

the evaluation step; for some techniques, only the team leader and scribe are involved in the preparation 

and documentation steps. 
Chapter 7 

7-23 Prevention Program (Program 3) 

EXHIBIT 7A-2 

TIME AND STAFFING FOR PHA TECHNIQUES 

Checklist What-If What-If 

Checklist 

HAZOP FMEA FTA 

Simple/Small System 

# Staff 1-2 2-3 2-3 3-4 1-2 2-3 

Preparation 2-4 h 4-8 h 6-12 h 8-12 h 2-6 h 1-3 d 

Modeling 3-6 d 

Evaluation 4-8 h 1-3 d 6-12 h 1-3 d 1-3 d 2-4 d 

Documentation 4-8 h 1-2 d 4-8 h 2-6 d 1-3 d 3-5 d 

Large/Complex Process 

# Staff 1-2 3-5 3-5 5-7 2-4 2-5 

Preparation 1-3 d 1-3 d 1-3 d 2-4 d 1-3 d 4-6 d 

Modeling 2-3 w 

Evaluation 3-5 d 4-7 d 4-7 d 1-3 w 1-3 w 1-4 w 

Documentation 2-4 d 4-7 d 1-3 w 2-6 w 2-4 w 3-5 w 

h = hours d = days (8 hours) w = weeks (40 hours) 
CHAPTER 8: EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM


If you have at least one Program 2 or Program 3 process at your facility, Part 68 

requires you to implement an emergency response program if your employees will 

respond to some releases involving regulated substances. An emergency response 

program consists of an emergency response plan, emergency response equipment 

procedures, employee training, and procedures to ensure the program is up-to-date. 

(See the box on the next page for more information on What is Response?) 

EPA recognizes that, in some cases (particularly for retailers and other small 

operations with few employees), it may not be appropriate for employees to conduct 

response operations for releases of regulated substances. For example, it would be 

inappropriate, and probably unsafe, for an ammonia retailer with only one full-time 

employee to expect that a tank fire could be handled without the help of the local fire 

department or other emergency responder. EPA does not intend to force such 

facilities to develop emergency response capabilities. At the same time, you are 

responsible for ensuring effective emergency response to any releases at your 

facility. If your local public responders are not capable of providing such response, 

you must take steps to ensure that effective response is available (e.g., by hiring 

response contractors). 

8.1	 NON-RESPONDING FACILITIES (§ 68.90(b)) 

EPA has adopted a policy for non-responding facilities similar to that adopted by 

OSHA in its Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) 

Standard (29 CFR 1910.120), which allows certain facilities to develop an 

emergency action plan to ensure employee safety, rather than a full-fledged 

emergency response plan. If your employees will not respond to accidental releases 

of regulated substances, you need not comply with the emergency response plan and 

program requirements provided you coordinate with local response agencies to 

ensure that they will be prepared to respond to an emergency at your facility. (You 

may want to briefly review the program design issues discussed in 8.2 prior to 

making this decision.) This will help to ensure that your community has a strategy 

for responding to and mitigating the threat posed by a release of a regulated 

substance from your facility. To do so, you must ensure that you have set up a way to 

notify emergency responders when there is need for a response. Coordination with 

local responders also entails the following: 

� If you have a covered process with a regulated toxic substance, your facility 

must be included in the community emergency response plan prepared under 

EPCRA regarding a response to a potential release. 

� If you have a covered process with a regulated flammable you must ensure 

that the local fire department is capable of responding to a potential release 

and aware of its responsibility to do so. 

Although you do not need to report on these coordination activities in your risk 

management plan, to document your efforts you should keep a record of: 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-2 

� The emergency contact (i.e., name or organization and number) that you will 

call for a toxic or flammable release, and 

� The organization(s) that you worked with on response procedures. 

What is “Response”? 

For purposes of Part 68, “response” has the same meaning as that term has under OSHA’s 

HAZWOPER Standard. OSHA defines emergency response as “a response effort by employees from 

outside the immediate release area or by other designated responders ... to an occurrence which 

results, or is likely to result, in an uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance.” The key factor 

here is that responders are designated for such tasks by their employer. This definition excludes 

“responses to incidental releases of hazardous substances where the substance can be absorbed, 

neutralized, or otherwise controlled at the time of release by employees in the immediate release 

area, or by maintenance personnel” as well as “responses to releases of hazardous substances where 

there is no potential safety or health hazard (i.e., fire, explosion, or chemical exposure).” Thus, if 

you expect your employees to take action to end a small leak (e.g., shutting a valve) or clean up a 

spill that does not pose an immediate safety or health hazard, this action could be considered an 

incidental response and you would not need to develop an emergency response program if your 

employees are limited to such activities. 

However, due to the nature of the regulated substances subject to EPA’s rule, only the most minor 

incidents would be included in this exception. In general, most activities will qualify as a response 

due to the immediacy of the dispersion of a toxic plume or spread of a fire, the volatilization of a 

spill, and the threat to people on and off site. As a result, if you will have your employees involved 

in any substantial way in responding to releases, you will need to develop an emergency response 

program. Your emergency response procedures need only apply to “response” actions; other 

activities will be described in your maintenance and operating procedures. 

The remainder of this chapter is applicable only to those facilities which will 

conduct at least some emergency response operations themselves. As noted above, 

you may want to review the next section before making a decision on whether your 

facility will take responsibility for conducting any response activities. 

8.2	 ELEMENTS OF AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM (§ 68.95) 

If you will respond to releases of regulated substances with your own employees, 

your emergency response program must consist of the following elements: 

� An emergency response plan (maintained at the facility) that includes: 

� Procedures for informing the public and emergency response 

agencies about releases, 

� Documentation of proper first aid and emergency medical treatment 

necessary to treat human exposures, and 

� Procedures and measures for emergency response. 
Chapter 8 

8-3 Emergency Response Program 

What is a Local Emergency Planning Committee? 

Local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) were formed under the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986. The committees are designed to serve as a 

community forum for issues relating to preparedness for emergencies involving releases of 

hazardous substances in their jurisdictions. They consist of representatives from local government 

(including law enforcement and firefighting), local industry, transportation groups, health and 

medical organizations, community groups, and the media. LEPCs: 

� Collect information from facilities on hazardous substances that pose a risk to the 

community; 

� Develop a contingency plan for the community based on this information; and 

� Make information on hazardous substances available to the general public. 

Contact the mayor's office or the county emergency management office for more information on 

your LEPC. 

� Procedures for using, inspecting, testing, and maintaining your emergency 

response equipment; 

� Training for all employees in relevant procedures; and 

� Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response 

plan to reflect changes at the facility and ensure that employees are informed 

of changes. 

Your plan must be coordinated with the community plan developed under the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, also known as 

SARA Title III). In addition, at the request of local emergency planning or response 

officials, you must provide any information necessary for developing and 

implementing the community plan. 

In keeping with the approach outlined in Chapter 6, EPA is not requiring facilities to 

keep specific records documenting training and maintenance activities related to 

emergency response programs. It is enough that facilities have on hand records 

sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the training and maintenance 

requirements. However, as noted above, facilities must maintain an on-site 

emergency response plan as well as emergency response equipment maintenance and 

program evaluation procedures. 

Although EPA's required elements are essential to any emergency response program, 

they are not comprehensive guidelines for creating an adequate response capability. 

Rather than establish another set of federal requirements for an emergency response 

program, EPA has limited the provisions of its rule to those the CAA mandates. If 

you have a regulated substance on site, you are already subject to at least one 

emergency response rule: OSHA's emergency action plan requirements (29 CFR 

1910.38). Under OSHA HAZWOPER, any facility that handles "hazardous 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-4 

substances" (a broad term that includes all of the CAA regulated substances and thus 

applies to all facilities with covered processes) must comply with either 29 CFR 

1910.38(a) or 1910.119(q). If you have a hazmat team, you are subject to the 29 

CFR 1910.119(q) requirements. If you determine that the emergency response 

programs you have developed to comply with these other rules satisfy the elements 

listed at the beginning of this section, you will not have to do anything additional to 

comply with these elements. Additional guidance on making this decision is 

provided in section 8.5. 

In addition, be careful not to confuse writing a set of emergency response procedures 

in a plan with developing an emergency response program. An emergency response 

plan is only one element of the integrated effort that makes up an emergency 

response program. Although the plan outlines the actions and equipment necessary 

to respond effectively, training, program evaluation, equipment maintenance, and 

coordination with local agencies must occur regularly if your plan is to be useful in 

an emergency: The goal of the program is to enable you to respond quickly and 

effectively to any emergency. The documents listed in Exhibit 8-1 may be helpful in 

developing specific elements of your emergency response program. 
Chapter 8 

8-5 Emergency Response Program 

Exhibit 8-1


Federal Guidance on Emergency Planning and Response


Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide (NRT-1), National Response Team, 2001. 

Although designed to assist communities in planning for hazmat incidents, this guide provides useful 

information on developing a response plan, including planning teams, plan review, and ongoing 

planning efforts. 

Criteria for Review of Hazardous Materials Emergency Plans (NRT-1A), National Response Team, 

May 1988. This guide provides criteria for evaluating response plans. 

Integrated Contingency Plan, National Response Team, (61 FR 28642, June 5, 1996). This provides 

guidance on how to consolidate multiple plans developed to comply with various federal regulations 

into a single, functional emergency response plan. 

Emergency Response Guidebook, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000. This guidebook was 

developed jointly by the US Department of Transportation, Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of 

Communications and Transportation of Mexico (SCT) for use by firefighters, police, and other 

emergency services personnel who may be the first to arrive at the scene of a transportation incident 

involving a hazardous material. It is primarily a guide to aid first responders in (1) quickly 

identifying the specific or generic classification of the material(s) involved in the incident, and (2) 

protecting themselves and the general public during this initial response phase of the incident. The 

ERG is updated every three to four years to accommodate new products and technology. The next 

version is scheduled for 2004. Copies are made available free of charge to public emergency 

responders through state emergency response coordinators. 

Response Information Data Sheets (RIDS), US EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Developed for use with the Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations 

(CAMEO) software, these documents outline the properties, hazards, and basic safety and response 

practices for thousands of hazardous chemicals. 

Finally, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that any release from your 

processes can be handled effectively. If you plan to rely on local responders for 

some or all of the response, you must determine that those responders have both the 

equipment and training needed to do so. If they do not, you must take steps to meet 

any needs, either by developing your own response capabilities, developing mutual 

aid agreements with other facilities, hiring response contractors, or providing support 

to local responders so they can acquire equipment or training. 

RELATIONSHIP TO HAZWOPER 

If you choose to establish and maintain onsite emergency response capabilities, then 

you will be subject to the detailed provisions of the OSHA or EPA HAZWOPER 

Standard. HAZWOPER covers preparing an emergency response plan, employee 

training, medical monitoring of employees, recordkeeping, and other issues. Call 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-6 

your state or federal district OSHA office for more information on complying with 

the HAZWOPER Standard. State and local governments in states without a 

delegated OSHA program are subject to HAZWOPER under EPA's 40 CFR part 311. 

How Does the Emergency Response Program Apply? 

The requirements for the emergency response program are intended to apply across all covered 

processes at a facility. Although certain elements of the program (e.g., how to use specific items of 

response equipment) may differ from one process to another, EPA does not intend or expect you to 

develop a separate emergency response program for each covered process. With this in mind, you 

should realize that your emergency response program will probably apply to your entire facility, 

although technically it need only apply to covered processes. 

For example, a facility may have two storage tanks, one containing slightly more than a threshold 

quantity of a regulated substance and one with slightly less. The facility is likely to adopt the same 

response approach (e.g., procedures, equipment, and training) for releases whether or not the process 

is “covered.” Similarly, a facility may have two adjacent flammables storage tanks, one containing a 

regulated substance above the threshold and the other containing another, unlisted flammable. The 

facility is likely to adopt the same approach for releases whether or not the process is “covered.” 

8.3	 DEVELOPING AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM 

The development of an emergency response program should be approached 

systematically. As described in section 8.2, all facilities complying with these 

emergency response program provisions will already be subject to OSHA 

HAZWOPER. As a result, you are likely to fall into one of two groups: 

� You have already met several federal requirements for emergency planning 

and are interested in developing an integrated program to minimize 

duplication (section 8.4). 

� You have a pre-existing emergency response program (perhaps based on an 

internal policy decision) and need to determine what additional activities you 

will need to conduct (section 8.5). 

STEPS FOR GETTING STARTED 

The following steps outline a systematic approach that can serve as the framework 

for the program development process in each of these cases. Following these initial 

steps will allow you to conduct the rest of the process more efficiently. 

Form an emergency response program team. The team should consist of 

employees with varying degrees of emergency response responsibilities, as well as 

personnel with expertise from each functional area of your facility. You should 

consider including persons from the following departments or areas: 

� Maintenance; 

� Operations or line personnel; 
Chapter 8 

8-7 Emergency Response Program 

� Upper and line management; 

� Legal; 

� Fire and hazmat response; 

� Environmental, health, and safety affairs; 

� Training; 

� Security; 

� EPCRA section 302 emergency coordinator (if one exists); 

� Public relations; and 

� Personnel. 

The membership of the team will need to be more or less extensive depending on the 

scope of the emergency response program. A three-member team may be 

appropriate for a small facility with a couple of process operators cross-trained as 

fire responders, while a facility with its own hazmat team and environmental affairs 

department may need a dozen representatives. 

Collect relevant facility documents. Members of the development team should 

collect and review all of the following: 

� Existing emergency response plans and procedures; 

� Submissions to the LEPC under EPCRA sections 302 and 303; 

� Hazard evaluation and release modeling information; 

� Hazard communication and emergency response training; 

� Emergency drill and exercise programs; 

� After-action reports and response critiques; and 

� Mutual aid agreements. 

Identify existing programs to coordinate efforts. The team should identify any 

related programs from the following sources: 

� Corporate- and industry-sponsored safety, training, and planning efforts; and 

� Federal, state, and local government safety, training, and planning efforts 

(see Exhibit 8-2). 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-8 

Exhibit 8-2


Federal Emergency Planning Regulations


The following is a list of some of the federal emergency planning regulations: 

� EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (SPCC and Facility Response Plan Requirements) 

- 40 CFR part 112.7(d) and 112.20-.21; 

� MM's Facility Response Plan Regulation - 30 CFR part 254; 

� RSPA's Pipeline Response Plan Regulation - 49 CFR part 194; 

� USCG's Facility Response Plan Regulation - 33 CFR part 154, Subpart F; 

� EPA's Risk Management Programs Regulation - 40 CFR part 68; 

� OSHA's Emergency Action Plan Regulation - 29 CFR 1910.38(a); 

� OSHA's Process Safety Standard - 29 CFR 1910.119; 

� OSHA's HAZWOPER Regulation - 29 CFR 1910.120; 

� OSHA’s Fire Brigade Regulation - 29 CFR 1910.156; 

� EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Contingency Planning Requirements - 40 

CFR part 264, Subpart D, 40 CFR part 265, Subpart D, and 40 CFR 279.52. 

� EPA's Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Requirements - 40 CFR part 

355. (These planning requirements apply to communities, rather than facilities, but will be 

relevant when facilities are coordinating with local planning and response entities). 

� EPA’s Storm water Regulations - 40 CFR 122.26. 

Facilities may also be subject to state and local planning requirements. 

Determine the status of each required program element. Using the information 

collected, you should assess whether each required program element (see section 

8.2) is: 

� In place and sufficient to meet the requirements of part 68; 

� In place, but not sufficient to meet the requirements of Part 68; or 

� Not in place. 

This examination will shape the nature of your efforts to complete the emergency 

response program required under the risk management program. For example, if you 

are already in compliance with OSHA's HAZWOPER Standard, you have probably 

satisfied most, if not all, of the requirements for an emergency response program. 

Section 8.6 explains the intent of each of EPA's requirements to help you determine 

whether you are already in compliance. 

Take additional actions as necessary. 
Chapter 8 

8-9 Emergency Response Program 

TAILORING YOUR PROGRAM TO YOUR HAZARDS 

If your processes and chemicals pose a variety of hazards, it may be necessary to 

tailor some elements of your emergency response program to these specific hazards. 

Unless each part of your program element is appropriate to the release scenarios that 

may occur, your emergency response program cannot be fully effective. Your 

program should include core elements that are appropriate to most of the scenarios, 

supplemented with more specific response information for individual scenarios. 

This distinction should be reflected in your emergency response plan, which should 

explain when to access the general and specific response information. To do this, 

you will need to consider the following four steps: 

� Identify and characterize the hazards for each covered process. The process 

hazards analysis (see Chapter 7) or hazard review (see Chapter 6), and 

offsite consequence analysis (see Chapter 4) should provide this information. 

� For each program element, compare the activities involved in responding to 

each type of accident scenario and decide if they are different enough to 

require separate approaches. For example, response equipment and training 

will likely be different for releases of toxic versus flammable gases. 

� For those program elements that may be chemical- or process-specific, 

identify what and how systems and procedures need to be modified. For 

example, if existing mitigation systems are inadequate for responding to 

certain types of releases, you will need to consider what additional types of 

equipment are needed. 

� Consider possible causes of emergencies in developing your emergency 

response program. You should consider both the hazards at your facility and 

in the surrounding environment. In making this determination, you should 

consider your susceptibility to: 

� Fires, spills, and vapor releases; 

� Floods, temperature extremes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and 

hurricanes; 

� Loss of utilities, including power failures; and 

� Train derailments, bomb threats, and other man-made disasters. 

8.4	 INTEGRATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS 

A number of other federal statutes and regulations require emergency response 

planning (see Exhibit 8-2). On June 5, 1996, the National Response Team (NRT), a 

multi-agency group chaired by EPA, published the Integrated Contingency Plan 

Guidance in the Federal Register (61 FR 28642). This guidance is intended to be 

used by facilities to prepare emergency response plans for responding to releases of 

oil and hazardous substances. The guidance provides a mechanism for consolidating 

multiple plans that you prepared to comply with various regulations into a single, 

functional emergency response plan or integrated contingency plan (ICP). 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-10 

The ICP guidance does not change existing regulatory requirements; rather, it 

provides a format for organizing and presenting material currently required by 

regulations. Individual regulations are often more detailed than the ICP guidance. 

To ensure full compliance, you will still need to read and comply with all of the 

federal regulations that apply. The guidance contains a series of matrices designed 

to assist you in consolidating various plans while documenting compliance with 

these federal requirements. 

The NRT and the agencies responsible for reviewing and approving plans to which 

the ICP option applies have agreed that integrated response plans prepared according 

to the guidance will be acceptable and the federally preferred method of response 

planning. The NRT anticipates that future development of all federal regulations 

addressing emergency response planning will incorporate use of the ICP guidance. 

As shown in Exhibit 8-3, the ICP format is organized into three main sections: an 

introductory section, a core plan, and a series of supporting annexes. The notice 

published in the Federal Register explains the intended structure of the ICP and 

provides detailed annotation. EPA's EPCRA/RCRA/Superfund Hotline can supply 

you with a copy and answer general questions about the guidance; for further 

information and guidance on complying with specific regulations, you should contact 

the appropriate federal agencies. 

AN APPROACH TO INTEGRATION 

Like many other facilities, you may have opted to develop and maintain separate 

documents and procedures for each federal emergency planning requirement. 

However, meeting the Clean Air Act emergency response requirements provides you 

with the opportunity to integrate several existing programs. Integrating the various 

emergency response efforts you conduct (both those mandated by management and 

by government) will increase the usefulness of your emergency preparedness 

activities and decrease the burden associated with maintaining multiple programs. 

Integration will improve your chances to respond effectively to a release by 

streamlining your training and eliminating overlaps and conflicts in the roles and 

responsibilities of your employees under different programs. However, it is 

important to note that, although you are encouraged to integrate your emergency 

response efforts, it is not a requirement of the Clean Air Act. 

If you have multiple emergency response programs, you should consider integrating 

them into a single program with procedures for responding to your most likely 

release scenarios. The ICP Guidance discussed above provides comparison matrices 

for a number of federal programs that will help you accomplish the following: 

� Distinguish the individual regulatory provisions with which you must 

comply, and 

� Identify where an integrated effort can meet the requirements of two or more 

regulations. 

The requirements of various emergency response programs may be similar, but the 

subtle differences between requirements will likely determine the degree to which 
Chapter 8 

8-11 Emergency Response Program 

Exhibit 8-3


 Integrated Contingency Plan Outline


Section I - Plan Introduction Elements 

1. Purpose and Scope of Plan Coverage 

2. Table of Contents 

3. Current Revision Date 

4. General Facility Identification Information 

a. Facility name 

b. Owner/operator/agent (include physical and mailing address and phone number) 

c. Physical address of the facility (include county/parish/borough, latitude/longitude, and directions) 

d. Mailing address of the facility (correspondence contact) 

e. Other identifying information (e.g., ID numbers, SIC Code, oil storage start-up date) 

f. Key contact(s) for plan development and maintenance 

g. Phone number for key contact(s) 

h. Facility phone number 

I. Facility fax number 

Section II - Core Plan Elements 

1. Discovery 

2. Initial Response 

a.	 Procedures for internal and external notifications (i.e., contact, organization name, and phone number 

of facility emergency response coordinator, facility response team personnel, federal, state, and local 

officials) 

b.	 Establishment of a response management system 

c.	 Procedures for preliminary assessment of the situation, including an identification of incident type, 

hazards involved, magnitude of the problem, and resources threatened 

d.	 Procedures for establishment of objectives and priorities for response to the specific incident, 

including: 

(1)	 Immediate goals/tactical planning (e.g., protection of workers and public as priorities) 

(2)	 Mitigating actions (e.g., discharge/release control, containment, and recovery, as appropriate) 

(3)	 Identification of resources required for response 

e.	 Procedures for implementation of tactical plan 

f.	 Procedure for mobilization of resources 

3. Sustained Actions 

4. Termination and Follow-Up Actions 

Section III - Annexes 

Annex 1. Facility and Locality Information 

a.	 Facility maps 

b.	 Facility drawings 

c.	 Facility description/layout, including identification of facility hazards and vulnerable resources and 

populations on and off the facility which may be impacted by an incident 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-12 

Exhibit 8-3 (continued) 

Annex 2. Notification 

a. Internal notifications 

b. Community notifications 

c. Federal and state agency notifications 

Annex 3. Response Management System 

a. General 

b. Command 

c. Operations 

d. Planning 

e. Logistics 

f. Finance/procurement/administration 

Annex 4. Incident Documentation 

a. Post accident investigation 

b. Incident history 

Annex 5. Training and Exercises/Drills 

Annex 6. Response Critique and Plan Review and Modification Process 

Annex 7. Prevention 

Annex 8. Regulatory Compliance and Cross-Reference Matrices 

integration is a feasible and beneficial undertaking (see Exhibit 8-4). To help you 

identify the relevant rules and regulations, the ICP Guidance provides 

section-by-section regulatory citations for each emergency response program 

element for each of the regulatory programs listed in Exhibit 8-2. 

8.5 HAVE I MET PART 68 REQUIREMENTS? 

EPA believes that the creation of multiple response plans to meet slightly different 

federal or state standards is counterproductive, diverting resources that could be used 

to develop better response capabilities. Therefore, as part of the overall effort to 

reduce the imposition of potentially duplicative or redundant federal requirements, 

EPA has limited its requirements for the emergency response program to the general 

provisions mandated by Congress, as described in Section 8.2. 

As a result, EPA believes that facilities subject to other federal emergency planning 

requirements may have already met the requirements of these regulations. For 

example, plans developed to comply with other EPA contingency planning 

requirements and the OSHA HAZWOPER rule (29 CFR 1910.120) will likely meet 

the requirements for the emergency response plan (and most of the requirements for 

the emergency response program). The following discussion presents some general 

guidance on what actions you need to take for each of the required elements. 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 

If you already have a written plan to comply with another planning regulation, you 

do not need to write another plan, but only add to it as necessary to cover the 

elements listed below. 
Chapter 8 

8-13 Emergency Response Program 

Exhibit 8-4 

Sample Integration Effort 

Written site evacuation procedures are required by several emergency planning regulations. 

In keeping with the spirit of the ICP Guidance, rather than preparing multiple sets of 

evacuation procedures (and possibly introducing dangerous errors as components are revised 

and updated), you may want to compile a single set of procedures that includes the specific 

elements mandated by all of the regulations. For example, If you have one or more adjacent 

operating areas that evacuate to the same location(s), this approach will be very effective. On 

the other hand, if you have widely separated operating areas with different evacuation routes 

and assembly points, integration will be less useful. 

Area Signal Escape Route Assembly Point Supervisor 

Shipping Room Horn Blue Front Gate Shipping Supervisor 

Control Room Horn Green Parking Lot Lead Operator 

Tank Farm Rad io Red Side Gate Inspector 

Keep in mind: At a minimum, your plan must describe: 

� Your procedures for informing the public and offsite emergency response 

agencies of a release. This must include the groups and individuals that will 

be contacted and why, the means by which they will be contacted, the time 

frame for notification, and the information that will be provided. 

� The proper first aid and emergency medical treatment for employees, first 

responders, and members of the public who may have been exposed to a 

release of a regulated substance. This must include standard safety 

precautions for victims (e.g., apply water to exposed skin immediately) as 

well as more detailed information for medical professionals. You must also 

indicate who is likely to be responsible for providing the appropriate 

treatment: an employee, an employee with specialized training, or a medical 

professional. 

� Your procedures for emergency response in the event of a release of a 

regulated substance. This must include descriptions of the actions to be 

taken by employees and other individuals on-site over the entire course of 

the release event: 

� Activation of alarm systems and interpretation of signals; 

� Safe evacuation, assembly, and return; 

� Selection of response strategies and incident command structure; 

� Use of response equipment and other release mitigation activities; 

and 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-14 

� Post-release equipment and personnel cleanup and decontamination. 

PLANNING COORDINATION 

If you have already coordinated with local response agencies on how to respond to 

potential releases of regulated substances and you have ensured an effective 

response, you do not need to take any further action. 

One of the most important issues in an emergency response program is deciding 

which response actions will be assigned to employees and which will be handled by 

offsite personnel. As a result, talking to public response organizations will be 

critical when you develop your emergency response procedures. Although EPA is 

not requiring you to be able to respond to a release alone, you should not simply 

assume that local responders will be able to manage an emergency. You must work 

with them to determine what they can do, and then expand your own abilities or 

establish mutual aid agreements or contracts to handle those situations that will be 

left to you. 

Keep in mind: Your coordination must involve planning for releases of regulated 

substances from all covered processes and must cover: 

� What offsite response assistance you will require for potential release 

scenarios, including fire-fighting, security, and notification of the public; 

� How you will request offsite response assistance; and 

� Who will be in charge of the response operation and how will authority be 

delegated down the internal and offsite chain of command. 

Coordination equivalent to that required for planning for extremely hazardous 

substances under EPCRA sections 302-303 will be considered sufficient to meet this 

requirement. A more detailed discussion of this element is provided in 8.6. 

EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT 

If you already have written procedures for using and maintaining your emergency 

response equipment, you do not need to write new procedures. 

Keep in mind: Your procedures must apply to any emergency equipment relevant to 

a response involving a covered process, including all detection and monitoring 

equipment, alarms and communications systems, and personal protective equipment 

not used as part of normal operations (and thus not subject to the prevention program 

requirements related to operating procedures and maintenance). The procedures 

must describe: 

� How and when to use the equipment properly; 

� How and when the equipment should receive routine maintenance; and 
Chapter 8 

8-15 Emergency Response Program 

� How and when the equipment should be inspected and tested for readiness. 

Written procedures comparable to those necessary for process-related equipment 

under the OSHA PSM Standard and EPA's Program 2 and 3 Prevention Programs 

will be considered sufficient to meet this requirement. 

EMPLOYEE TRAINING 

If you already train your employees in how to respond to (or evacuate from) releases 

of regulated substances, then you do not need a new training program. 

Keep in mind: Your training must address the actions to take in response to releases 

of regulated substances from all covered processes. The training should be based 

directly on the procedures that you have included in your emergency response plan 

and must be given to all employees and contractors on site. Individuals should 

receive training appropriate to their responsibilities: 

� If they will only need to evacuate, then their training should cover when and 

how to evacuate their location. 

� If they may need to activate an alarm system in response to a release event, 

then their training should cover when and how to use the alarm system. 

� If they will serve on an emergency response team, then their training should 

cover where emergency equipment is deployed, how to use emergency 

equipment and how the incident command system works. 

Emergency response training conducted in compliance with the OSHA HAZWOPER 

Standard and 29 CFR 1910.38 will be considered sufficient to meet this requirement. 

RESPONSE PLAN EVALUATION 

If you already have a formal practice for regular review and updates of your plan 

based on changes at the facility, you do not need to develop additional procedures. 

Keep in mind: You must also identify the types of changes to the facility that would 

cause the plan to be updated (e.g., a new covered process) and include a method of 

communicating any changes to the plan to your employees (e.g., through training). 

You may want to set up a regular schedule on which you review your entire 

emergency response plan and identify any special conditions (e.g., a drill or exercise) 

that could result in an interim review. 

8.6	 COORDINATION WITH LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING ENTITIES (§ 68.95(c)) 

Once you determine that you have at least one covered process, you should open 

communications with local emergency planning and response officials, including 

your local emergency planning committee (LEPC) if one exists. Because your LEPC 

consists of representatives from many local emergency planning and response 

agencies, it is likely to be the best source of information on the critical emergency 

response issues in your community. However, in some cases, there may not be an 
Chapter 8 

Emergency Response Program 8-16 

active LEPC in your community. If so, or if your state has not designated your 

community as an emergency planning district under EPCRA, you will likely need to 

contact local agencies individually to determine which entities (e.g., fire department, 

emergency management agency, police department, civil defense office, public 

health agency) have jurisdiction for your facility. 

KEY COORDINATION ISSUES 

If you have any of the toxic regulated substances above the threshold quantity, you 

should have already designated an emergency coordinator to work with the LEPC on 

chemical emergency preparedness issues (a requirement for certain facilities 

regulated under EPCRA). If you have not (or if your facility has only regulated 

flammable substances), you may want to do so at this time. The emergency 

coordinator should be the individual most familiar with your emergency response 

program (e.g., the person designated as having overall responsibility for this program 

in your management system — see Chapter 5). 

Involvement in the activities of your LEPC can have a dramatically positive effect on 

your emergency response program, as well as on your relationship with the 

surrounding community. Your LEPC can provide technical assistance and guidance 

on a number of topics, such as conducting response training and exercises, 

developing mutual aid agreements, and evaluating public alert systems. The 

coordination process will help both the community and the facility prepare for an 

emergency, reducing expenditures of time and money, as well as helping eliminate 

redundant efforts. 

You should consider providing the LEPC with draft versions of any emergency 

response program elements related to local emergency planning efforts. This 

submission can initiate a dialogue with the community on potential program 

improvements and lead to coordinated training and exercise efforts. In return, your 

LEPC can support your emergency response program by providing information from 

its own emergency planning efforts, including: 

� Data on wind direction and weather conditions, or access to local 

meteorological data, to help you make decisions related to the evacuation of 

employees and public alert notification; 

� Lists of emergency response training programs available in the area for 

training police, medical, and fire department personnel, to help you identify 

what training is already available; 

� Schedules of emergency exercises designed to test the community response 

plan to spur coordinated community-facility exercises; 

� Lists of emergency response resources available from both public and 

private sources to help you determine whether and how a mutual aid 

agreement could support your program; and 
Chapter 8 

8-17 Emergency Response Program 

� Details on incident command structure, emergency points of contact, 

availability of emergency medical services, and public alert and notification 

systems. 

Upon completion of your emergency response plan, you should coordinate with the 

LEPC, local response organizations, local hospitals, and other response organizations 

(e.g., state hazmat team) and offer them a copy of the plan. In some instances, only a 

portion of the plan may be of use to individuals or organizations; in such cases, you 

should consider making only that portion of the plan available. For instance, it may 

be appropriate to send a hospital only the sections of your plan that address 

emergency medical procedures and decontamination. 

You may also want to provide your LEPC and local response entities with a 

description of your emergency response program elements, as well as any important 

subsequent amendments or updates, to ensure that the community is aware of the 

scope of your facility response efforts prior to an emergency. Although the summary 

of your emergency response program will be publicly available as part of your RMP, 

this information may not be as up-to-date or as comprehensive. Remember, the 

LEPC has been given the authority under EPCRA and Clean Air Act regulations to 

request any information necessary for preparing the community response plan. 

Planning for Flammable Substances 

In the case of regulated flammable substances, the fire department with jurisdiction over your facility 

may already be conducting fire prevention inspections and pre-planning activities under its own 

authority. Your participation in these efforts (as requested) will allow local responders to gather the 

information they need and prepare for an emergency. If there is no local fire department, or if there 

is only a volunteer fire department in your area, you may need to contact other local response or 

planning officials (e.g., police) to determine how you can work with the community. 
                 

                             

                            

                            

      

                           

            

                             

                       

    

                               

                      

                      

                               

       

                     

                          

                     

                             

                       

                       

                         

                         

                     

                     

                         

                           

                            

                   

       

                             

                            

                             

  

                         

         

CHAPTER 9: RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN (PART 68, SUBPART G)

You must submit one risk management plan (RMP) to EPA for all of your covered

processes (§ 68.150). EPA has developed a system to submit your RMP via the

Internet (RMP*eSubmit) for your use. Your RMP is due no later than the latest of

the following dates:

•	 The date on which your facility first has a regulated substance above the

threshold quantity in a process; or

•	 Three years after the date on which a regulated substance is first listed by

EPA, if your facility has that regulated substance above the threshold

quantity.

You must fully update and resubmit all nine sections of your RMP at least every five

years. Under certain circumstances, RMPs must be updated and resubmitted before

their five­year anniversary (see 40 CFR §68.190(b)). Your five­year anniversary date

is listed in the notification letter or e­mail that was sent to you after you submitted

your last RMP.

The Agency has an Internet­based system, called RMP*eSubmit, for submitting a

new RMP or making changes or corrections to an existing RMP. RMP*eSubmit is

available on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) – the Agency's electronic

reporting site. If you are new to submitting RMPs, you should go to EPA’s public

Web site at www.epa.gov/emergencies/rmp to find instructions on how to obtain a

CDX account and register as an RMP submitter or certifier in CDX.

Facilities that submit RMPs and later change their process(es) in ways that make

them no longer subject to part 68 (e.g., switching to unregulated substances or

reducing inventories of regulated substances to less than threshold quantities) must

de­register their RMP within six months of making the change.

Finally, facilities submitting changes to their RMPs must identify the type of change

being submitted and the reason for the change (e.g., submission of an updated RMP

as a result of a process change at the plant). This information will help implementing

agencies understand the nature of the RMP submission being made.

9.1	 ELEMENTS OF THE RMP

The length and content of your RMP will vary depending on the number and program

levels of the covered processes at your facility. See Chapter 2 for detailed guidance

on how to determine the program levels of each of the covered processes at your

facility.

Any facility with one or more covered processes must include in its RMP:

•	 An executive summary (§ 68.155);
   

   

             

         

                        

                           

                         

                         

                   

                  

                               

                       

                         

                         

     

                                         

       

                                           

     

                               

                    

                         

                             

                       

                        

                        

                   

                        

                        

                       

                        

                       

                        

                         

      

                     

        

Chapter 9

Risk Management Plan 9­2

•	 The registration for the facility (§ 68.160);

•	 The certification statement (§ 68.185);

•	 A worst­case scenario analysis for each Program 1 process; at least one

worst­case scenario analysis to cover all Program 2 and 3 processes involving

regulated toxic substances; at least one worst­case scenario analysis to cover

all Program 2 and 3 processes involving regulated flammables (§ 68.165(a));

•	 The five­year accident history for each process (§ 68.168); and

•	 Information concerning emergency response at the facility (§ 68.180).

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

•	 At least one alternative release scenario analysis for each regulated toxic

substance in Program 2 or 3 processes and at least one alternative release

scenario analysis to cover all regulated flammables in Program 2 or 3

processes (§ 68.165(b));

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

(§ 68.170); and

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

(§ 68.175).

Subpart G of part 68 (see Appendix A) describes the data required for each of the

elements. RMP*eSubmit and its accompanying user’s manual contain more detailed

instructions. RMP*eSubmit is designed to limit the number of text entries. For

example, the rule requires you to report on the major hazards identified during a PHA

or hazard review and on public receptors potentially affected by worst­case and

alternative release scenarios. RMP*eSubmit provides a list of options for you to

check for these elements. Except for the executive summary, the RMP consists

primarily of yes/no answers, numerical information (e.g., dates, quantities, distances),

and a few text answers (e.g., names, addresses, chemical identity). Where possible,

RMP*eSubmit provides “pick lists” to help you complete the form. For example,

RMP*eSubmit provides a list of regulated substances and automatically fills in the

CAS numbers when you select a substance. The RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual and

on­line help screens explain each data element and provide guidance on acceptable

data entry. Access to both RMP*eSubmit and the RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual is

available free of charge – for further instructions visit EPA’s Web site at

www.epa.gov/emergencies/rmp.

9.2	 RMP SUBMISSION

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

EPA has made RMP*eSubmit available to complete and file your RMP.

RMP*eSubmit does the following:
   

   

             

                     

              

                        

     

                 

                         

   

                        

                               

                                

                           

                              

                     

   

   

                             

                              

                      

                                      

                     

           

                              

                        

         

                         

                       

                            

                           

            

                         

                       

           

Chapter 9

9­3 Risk Management Plan

•	 Provides a user­friendly, Web­based RMP Submission System;

•	 Performs data quality checks, accepts limited graphics, and provides on­line help

including defining data elements and providing instructions;

•	 Online reporting simplifies the process. It saves you time, and improves data

quality and security;

•	 EPA uses industry­standard technology, including encryption used by most

commercial banks, as well as stringent user ID and password protocols to protect

your information; and

•	 You will be able to access your RMP online at any time.

For a facility to submit their RMP, the certifier will be required to have a CDX

account. Some facilities may use CDX to report other data to the Agency, and if your

facility’s certifying official already has a CDX account, he/she can use it to obtain

access to RMP*eSubmit. If you are new to CDX, visit EPA’s public Web site at

www.epa.gov/emergencies/rmp, to learn how to obtain a CDX account and gain

access to RMP*eSubmit.

HARD COPY SUBMISSION

If you are unable to submit electronically you may fill out the Paper Submission form

available in the RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual and send it in with your RMP. See the

RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual for more information on the Paper Submission form.

If you submit on paper, you will need to use the official form. If you do not use the

official form, your RMP cannot be processed. You can download the RMP*eSubmit

User’s Manual free of charge at www.epa.gov/emergencies/rmp.

IMPORTANT REMINDERS

If you submit on paper, do not forget your certification letter. A certification letter is

required for all RMP submissions. See the RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual for more

information on the certification letter.

If you use the RMP*eSubmit system, you will certify your RMP electronically –

however, you will be required to submit a one­time Electronic Signature Agreement

form prior to the first time you submit an RMP using RMP*eSubmit. The CDX

system will guide you through the ESA process when you first register for CDX

access as an RMP certifying official.

EPA’s old PC­based electronic reporting software – RMP*Submit – will no longer be

available for download from the EPA Web site beginning in March 2009.

WHERE DO I SEND MY RMP?
   

   

                          

                       

                       

                               

                    

                       

          

         

     

     

                

          

    

    

      

        

             

          

         

                         

                              

                          

                             

                            

                       

                       

  

             

                             

                             

                          

                             

                           

                             

                            

                              

                     

                      

                                  

                                

                

Chapter 9

Risk Management Plan 9­4

If you use RMP*eSubmit, your RMP will be submitted over the Internet. The

process will require you to complete and mail a one­time Electronic Signature

Agreement to EPA prior to your first RMP submission using RMP*eSubmit.

If you submit a hard copy RMP, you must also include a certification letter (see the

RMP*eSubmit User’s Manual for more information on the certification letter).

After completing the certification letter and RMP forms, you should send them

together via certified mail to:

Risk Management Plan (RMP) Reporting Center

P.O. Box 1515
 

Lanham­Seabrook, Maryland 20703­1515
 

For courier and FEDEX packages, the address is:
 

Risk Management Plan (RMP) Reporting Center
 

c/o CSC
 

Suite 300
 

8400 Corporate Drive
 

New Carrollton, Maryland 20785
 

9.3	 ISSUES PERTAINING TO SUBMISSIONS OF AND ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED,

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI), AND TRADE SECRETS

WHAT SHOULD I DO ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

Only Federal agencies and their contractors at Federal facilities may make claims of

classified information. If you have such a claim, EPA urges you not to submit the

information you claim as classified as part of your RMP. If any classified

information is critical to the clarity and completeness of any part of the RMP, you

should submit that information separately, on paper, in an annex to the RMP. Any

annex marked as classified will be reviewed only by Federal and state representatives

who have received security clearances and are thereby authorized to review such

information.

WHAT SHOULD I DO ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI)?

Under CAA section 114(c), 40 CFR part 2 and part 68, you may claim some

information included in your RMP as CBI if you are able to show that the

information meets the substantive criteria set forth in 40 CFR 2.301. These criteria

generally require that the data be commercial or financial in nature, that they not be

available to the public through other means, that you take appropriate steps to prevent

disclosure, and that disclosure of the data would be likely to cause substantial harm to

your competitive position. Review of any CBI claims will be handled as provided for

in 40 CFR part 2. However, part 68 provides that certain RMP data elements may

not be claimed as CBI because they do not convey any business­sensitive

information. EPA has developed specific procedures for submission of CBI claims

for RMPs. See §§ 68.151 and 68.152 for details on what data may be claimed as CBI

and how to assert such claims. It is worth noting that few CBI claims have been

asserted since RMPs were first submitted in 1999.
   

   

                

                         

                   

            

                      

                             

                    

                     

          

                   

                       

                       

                     

                     

                  

                             

                   

         

             

                         

                                

                                 

                                

                             

                    

  

                       

                      

                             

                     

                           

                             

                       

                     

                         

                            

                               

Chapter 9

9­5 Risk Management Plan

In general the part 68 procedures provide that:

•	 Owners or operators must substantiate CBI claims at the time they make the

claim by providing documentation demonstrating that the claim meets the criteria

set forth in 40 CFR 2.301.

•	 Substantiating information may be claimed confidential by marking it as CBI.

Information that is not so marked will be treated as public and may be disclosed

without notice to the submitter. If substantiating information is claimed

confidential, the owner or operator must provide a sanitized and unsanitized

version of the substantiating information.

•	 The owner, operator, or senior official with management responsibility of the

stationary source must sign a certification that the signer has personally examined

the information submitted and that, based on inquiry of the persons who

compiled the information, the information is true, accurate, and complete, and

that those portions of the substantiation claimed as confidential would, if

disclosed, reveal trade secrets or other confidential business information.

If your RMP will include CBI, contact the RMP reporting center by phone at (301)

429­5018 or by e­mail at userrmp.usersupport@csc.com to obtain instructions on

how to complete your submission.

9.4 RMP UPDATES, CORRECTIONS AND DE­REGISTRATIONS (§ 68.190)

Whether and when you are required to fully update and resubmit, correct, or deregister your RMP is based on what changes occur at your facility. Please refer to the

Exhibit 9­1 and note that you are required to take action with regard to your RMP on

the earliest of the dates that apply to your facility. In some cases, changes at the

facility may require only a partial revision of the RMP or a simple correction of

administrative or emergency contact information. Exhibit 9­1 also covers these

situations.

Corrections to submissions made in hardcopy form or via the Agency’s previous

electronic reporting software (RMP*Submit) will need to be made in RMP*eSubmit.

Regardless of how you submitted your last RMP, all data for your current RMP will

be available via RMP*eSubmit, and can be corrected on­line as necessary.

CAN I FILE PREDICTIVELY?

Predictive filing is an option that allows you to submit an RMP that includes

regulated substances that may not be held at the facility at the time of submission.

This option is intended to assist facilities such as chemical warehouses, chemical

distributors, and batch processors whose operations involve highly variable types and

quantities of regulated substances, but who are able to forecast their inventory with

some degree of accuracy. Under § 68.190, you are required to update and resubmit

your RMP no later than the date on which a new regulated substance is first present
   

   

                            

                             

                         

                             

                          

           

                         

                             

                              

                           

                              

                     

                        

                           

                            

                    

Chapter 9

Risk Management Plan 9­6

in a covered process above a threshold quantity. By using predictive filing, you will

not be required to update and re­submit your RMP every time you receive a new

regulated substance if that substance was included in your latest RMP submission (as

long as you receive it in a quantity that does not trigger a revised offsite consequence

analysis as provided in § 68.36). RMP*eSubmit contains an option to indicate that

your RMP is a predictive filing.

If you use predictive filing, you must implement your Risk Management Program and

prepare your RMP exactly as you would if you actually held all of the substances

included in the RMP. This means that you must meet all rule requirements for each

regulated substance for which you file, whether or not that substance is actually held

on site at the time you submit your RMP. Depending on the substances for which

you file, this may require you to perform additional worst­case and alternative­case

scenarios and to implement additional prevention program elements. If you use this

option, you must still update and resubmit your RMP if you receive a regulated

substance that was not included in your latest RMP. You must also continue to

comply with the other update requirements stated in § 68.190.
   

   

   

       

                      

     

                        

          

                                   

                 

               

           

          

          

      

                   

              

                 

          

            

                 

           

             

             

                   

               

      

            

               

             

            

           

                

               

           

                 

             

                

       

  

           

               

         

         

         

             

               

               

               

  

               

                   

   

Chapter 9

9­7 Risk Management Plan

EXHIBIT 9­1
 

RMP UPDATES, CORRECTIONS AND DE­REGISTRATIONS
 

Change That Occurs Date by Which You Must Update, Correct or

De­register your RMP

No changes occur At least once every 5 years from its initial

submission or most recent update

A newly regulated substance is first listed by

EPA

Within 3 years of the date EPA listed the newly

regulated substance if your facility has more than a

threshold quantity of that substance in a process

A regulated substance first becomes present

above its threshold quantity in:

­ a process already covered; or

­ a new process

On or before the date the quantity of the regulated

substance exceeds the threshold in the process

A change occurs at your facility that requires a

revised PHA or hazard review

Within 6 months of the change

A change occurs at or near your facility that

requires a revised offsite consequence analysis

(e.g., you increase your inventory of a

regulated substance such that it increases the

distance to the endpoint by a factor of 2 or

more, or a new public receptor is constructed

near your facility)

Within 6 months of the change

A change occurs that alters the Program level

that previously applied to any covered process

Within 6 months of the change

An accidental release meeting the reporting

criteria of § 68.42 occurs at your facility

Add to and correct accident history information and

incident investigation data elements within 6 months

of the date of the accident (revising other RMP

sections is not required unless facility changes

resulting from an accident trigger a full update)

Facility emergency contact information

changes

Correct the emergency contact information within

one month of the change (revising other RMP

elements is not required).

Minor administrative change (i.e., correct a

clerical error or supply additional information)

Correct the information as soon as practicable

(revising other RMP elements is not required).

A change occurs that makes the facility no

longer subject to the requirement to submit an

RMP

Submit a de­registration letter to EPA within 6

months of the change, indicating that the RMP is no

longer required
   

   

   

                                   

                       

    

                       

           

                 

                              

                     

                      

                                 

             

                

                       

         

                   

                     

                      

                   

                            

                          

                 

                

                       

                        

                         

                            

                       

                            

                            

                      

                     

  

                             

     

                             

                        

                       

                   

Chapter 9

Risk Management Plan 9­8

HOW DO I DE­REGISTER?

If your facility is no longer covered by this rule, you must submit a letter to the RMP

Reporting Center within six months indicating that your stationary source is no

longer covered.

RECURRING ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Don’t forget that in addition to updating your RMP submission, the Risk

Management Program regulation contains various recurring implementation

requirements for covered facilities’ accident prevention and emergency response

programs. When you update your RMP, you should ensure that you are up to date

with implementation of these requirements and that your updated RMP reflects the

most recent information for your prevention and emergency response programs. The

following is a list of some key elements in your RMP that you should review, as well

as recurring prevention and emergency response program implementation

requirements that you should make sure are completed:

•	 Review and update your offsite consequence analyses (OCA) at least once every

5 years (40 CFR 68.36).

For your worst­case and alternate­case scenarios, you should review your

documentation to determine that the parameters and assumptions used in the

analyses are still appropriate. Such assumptions include the use of any

administrative controls or passive mitigation, the estimated quantity released, the

release rate, and the duration of release. The results of this review should be

documented and maintained as part of your RMP records. Any changes to the

scenarios resulting from this review, including changes in the distance­toendpoint, should be reported in your updated submission.

You should review the data used to identify and estimate population and

environmental receptors to be sure that it is current. For example, new

construction in your area may have resulted in public receptors closer to your

facility than was the case when you first conducted the OCA for your facility.

Also, you may have used Census data to estimate the residential population

within the distance to endpoint. If so, you should update this estimate based on

the latest Census data. Census data can be found in publications of the US

Census Bureau. These publications, including the County and City Data Book,

are available on the Census Bureau website (www.census.gov) and in public

libraries.

•	 For Program 2, review and update your hazard review at least once every 5 years

(40 CFR 68.50).

The review and any updates of the hazard review, as well as resolution of any

problems identified, must be documented. You should report the date of your

most recent hazard review update, and the completion date for any changes

resulting from the hazard review, in your RMP update.
   

   

                         

             

                         

                        

                      

                     

                            

       

                     

                    

                         

                       

               

                 

               

               

                

                   

                         

                  

                         

                

                                

                         

                       

      

                   

                        

                 

                          

                           

          

                            

                       

                     

      

                  

                             

                      

                        

                    

                            

Chapter 9

9­9 Risk Management Plan

•	 For Program 3, update and revalidate your process hazard analysis (PHA) at least

once every 5 years (40 CFR 68.67).

This revalidation must be conducted by a team with expertise in engineering and

process operations. The team must include at least one employee who has

experience and knowledge specific to the process being evaluated. Also, one

member of the team must be knowledgeable in the specific PHA methodology

being used. The revalidation is intended to assure that the PHA is consistent with

the current process.

To revalidate your PHA, you should evaluate your current process hazard

analysis for accuracy and completeness. This evaluation should include checking

that all modifications to your process are reflected in the PHA; evaluating the

process safety information to ensure that it is complete, current, and accurate;

verifying that operating procedures are adequate, up­to­date, and implemented;

documenting that PHA recommendations have been incorporated into equipment

design, process conditions, mechanical integrity, operating procedures, training,

and emergency response; verifying that recommendations have been

implemented; reviewing incident investigation reports. Updated and revalidated

PHAs completed to comply with OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standard

(29 CFR 1910.119(e)) are acceptable to meet this requirement as long as they

also considered hazards that could result in off­site consequences.

The revalidation and any updates of the process hazard analyses, as well as

resolution of any recommendations, must be documented. This documentation

must be retained as part of your RMP records for the life of the process. You

should report the date of your most recent process hazard update, and the

completion date for any changes resulting from the process hazard update, in

your RMP update.

•	 The Risk Management Program requires several aspects of your prevention

program to be periodically implemented or reviewed. The most recent dates for

these activities should be reported in your RMP update:

Training in operating procedures (40 CFR 68.54 and 68.71): For both Program 2

and 3, you are required to provide refresher training at least every three years,

and more often if necessary.

Compliance audits (40 CFR 68.58 and 68.79): For both Program 2 and 3, you are

required to audit your procedures and practices for compliance with the Risk

Management Program regulations at least every three years to verify their

adequacy and implementation.

Maintenance/Mechanical Integrity (40 CFR 68.56 and 68.73): For both Program

2 and 3, you are required to inspect and test your process equipment according to

the schedule that you have established based on good engineering practices.

Operating procedures (40 CFR 68.89): For Program 3 only, you are required to

certify annually that your operating procedures are current and accurate.

Management of change (40 CFR 68.75): For Program 3 only, you are required to
   

   

                       

                         

      

           

                       

                         

                         

                   

   

        

                       

                         

                         

                  

                   

                         

                   

                       

                        

                       

                    

                       

                      

                      

                       

  

Chapter 9

Risk Management Plan 9­10

update your process safety information and your procedures and practices for a

covered process in the event of any change to the process chemicals, technology,

equipment, or procedures.

• Correction of your five­year accident history.

You must submit a correction that revises your five­year accident history within

six months of an accidental release of a regulated substance from a covered

process that resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage on site, or

known off­site deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage,

or environmental damage.

• Verify your process information.

Although you have an ongoing responsibility to monitor whether changes to your

process or to the quantities stored or handled alter your program level eligibility,

your five­year update is an opportunity to verify that each covered process still

meets the eligibility criteria for its program level.

• Review your emergency response program or coordination with local officials.

If your employees will take part in responding to accidental releases, you are

required to periodically review and update, as appropriate, your emergency

response program and to notify your employees of any changes to your

emergency response plan (40CFR 68.95). You must include the date of your

most recent review of your emergency response program and most recent training

in your re­submission. You should contact your Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC) to verify whether your facility is currently included in the

community emergency response plan. You should also review and update your

procedures for notifying emergency responders in an emergency. These last two

steps are particularly important if your employees will not respond to accidental

releases.
CHAPTER 10: IMPLEMENTATION 

10.1 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The implementing agency is the federal, state, or local agency that is taking the lead 

for implementation and enforcement of part 68 or the state or local equivalent. The 

implementing agency will review RMPs, select some RMPs for audits, and conduct 

on-site inspections. The implementing agency should be your primary contact for 

information and assistance. 

WHO IS MY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY? 

Under the CAA, EPA will serve as the implementing agency until a state or local 

agency seeks and is granted delegation under CAA section 112(l) and 40 CFR part 

63, subpart E. You should check with the EPA Regional Office to determine if your 

state or county has been granted delegation or is in the process of seeking delegation. 

The Regional Office will be able to provide contact names at the state or local level. 

See http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/regions.htm for addresses 

and contact information for EPA Regional offices. 

IF THE PROGRAM IS DELEGATED, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? 

To gain delegation, a state or local agency must demonstrate that it has the authority 

and resources to implement and enforce a chemical accident prevention program that 

is at least as stringent as part 68. Some states and localities may choose to take 

delegation of the program for some, but not all, of the substances regulated under 

part 68. In the case of states and localities that take only “partial delegation” of the 

program, EPA is the implementing agency for the regulated substances not covered 

by the state or local program. 

When EPA determines that a state or local agency has the required authority and 

resources, EPA may grant the program full or partial approval depending on whether 

the state or local program covers all or just some regulated substances. For those 

regulated substances covered, if the state or local rules differ from part 68 (a state’s 

rules are allowed to differ in certain specified respects, as discussed below), EPA 

will adopt, through rulemaking, the state or local program as a substitute for part 68 

in the state or locality, making the state program federally enforceable. In most 

cases, the state or locality will take the lead in implementation and enforcement, but 

EPA maintains the ability to enforce the state or local rules which EPA adopted for 

that jurisdiction. Should EPA decide that it is necessary to take an enforcement 

action against a facility in a delegated state or locality, the action would be based on 

the state or local rule that EPA adopted as a substitute for part 68. Similarly, citizen 

actions under the CAA would be based on the state rules that EPA adopted. 

Although states and localities may choose to cover only a subset of part 68 regulated 

substances, they may not add or delete substances from the part 68 list of regulated 

substances; only EPA may determine the list of regulated substances for part 68 

purposes. States and localities that take delegation are also not free to modify the 

form and manner of RMP reporting (although they may add to RMP requirements). 

Any state or local program must require covered facilities to submit RMPs as 
Chapter 10 

Implementation 10-2 

provided by part 68, Subpart G. Consequently, even if you are located in a state or 

local jurisdiction that has taken delegation of the part 68 program, you will continue 

to file an RMP in the form and manner specified by EPA to the central location EPA 

designates. You should check with your state to determine whether you need to file 

additional data for state use or submit amended copies of the RMP with the state to 

cover state elements or substances. 

If your state or locality has been granted delegation, it is important that you contact 

your state or local implementing agency to determine if the state or locality has 

requirements in addition to those in part 68. State and local rules may be more 

stringent than part 68. This document does not cover state and local requirements. 

Qs & As


Delegation


Q. What states have been granted delegation? 

A. The following states have been granted full or partial delegation: 

Delaware Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi New Jersey 

North Carolina North Dakota Ohio South Carolina 

In addition, the following territories and local jurisdictions have been granted delegation: Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, Allegheny County (PA), Jefferson County (KY), and Forsythe County 

(NC). 

Check with your EPA Regional office contacts for a current list of states, territories, and counties 

granted or seeking delegation. 

Q. In what ways may state and local rules be more stringent? Does this document provide guidance 

on state and local differences? 

A. States and localities may impose more detailed requirements, such as requiring more 

documentation or more frequent reporting, specifying hours of training or maintenance schedules, 

imposing equipment requirements or call for additional analyses. Some states and localities are 

likely to cover at least some additional chemicals and may use lower thresholds. This document does 

not cover these differences. 

Q. Will the general duty clause be delegated? 

A. EPA is not delegating implementation and enforcement of the general duty clause (CAA section 

112(r)(1)). States, however, may adopt their own general duty clause under state law. 

10.2 REVIEWS/AUDITS/INSPECTIONS (§ 68.220) 

The implementing agency is required under part 68 (or a delegated state or local 

program) to review and conduct audits of RMPs. Reviews are relatively quick 
Chapter 10 

10-3 Implementation 

checks of the RMPs to determine whether they are complete and whether they 

contain any information that is clearly problematic. For example, if an RMP for a 

process containing flammables fails to list fire and explosion as a hazard in the 

prevention program, the implementing agency may flag that as a problem. The RMP 

data system will perform some of the reviews automatically by flagging RMPs 

submitted without necessary data elements completed. 

RMP audits are more comprehensive than reviews. Facilities may be selected for 

audits based on any of the following criteria, set out in §68.220: 

� Accident history of the facility 

� Accident history of other facilities in the same industry 

� Quantity of regulated substances handled at the site 

� Location of the facility and its proximity to public and environmental 

receptors 

� The presence of specific regulated substances 

� The hazards identified in the RMP 

� A plan providing for random, neutral oversight 

WHAT ARE AUDITS AND HOW MANY WILL BE CONDUCTED? 

Audits are relatively detailed reviews of RMPs to determine compliance with part 68 

and require revisions where necessary to ensure compliance. Audits help identify 

whether the underlying risk management program is being implemented properly. 

For example, the implementing agency may look for any inconsistencies in the dates 

reported for compliance with prevention program elements. If you reported that the 

date of your last revision of operating procedures was in June 2003 but your training 

program was last reviewed or revised in December 2001, the implementing agency is 

likely to ask why the training program was not reviewed to reflect new operating 

procedures. 

The agency may look at other items that could indicate problems with 

implementation. For example, if you are reporting on a distillation column at a 

refinery, but used a checklist as your PHA technique, or you fail to list an 

appropriate set of process hazards for the process chemicals, the agency may seek 

further explanations as to why you reported in the way you did. The implementing 

agency may compare your data with that of other facilities in the same industrial 

sector using the same chemicals to identify differences that may indicate compliance 

problems. 

If audits indicate potential problems, they may lead to requests for more information 

or to on-site inspections. If the implementing agency determines that problems exist, 

it may issue a preliminary determination listing the necessary revisions to the RMP, 

an explanation of the reasons for the revisions, and a timetable. Section 68.220 

provides details of the administrative procedures for responding to a preliminary 

determination. 

The number of audits conducted will vary from state to state and from year to year. 

Neither the CAA nor part 68 sets a number or percentage of facilities that must be 
Chapter 10 

Implementation 10-4 

audited during a year. Implementing agencies will set their own goals, based on their 

resources and particular concerns. 

WHAT ARE INSPECTIONS? 

Inspections are site visits to check on the accuracy of the data reported in RMPs and 

on the implementation of all part 68 elements, including risk management program 

requirements. During inspections, the implementing agency will probably review the 

documentation for rule elements, such as the PHA reports, operating procedures, 

maintenance schedules, process safety information, and training. Unlike audits, 

which may only focus on the RMP but may lead to determinations concerning 

needed improvements to the risk management program, inspections will focus on the 

underlying risk management program itself. 

Implementing agencies will determine how many inspections they need to conduct. 

Audits may lead to inspections or inspections may be done separately. Depending on 

the focus of the inspection (all covered processes, a single process, or particular part 

of the risk management program) and the size of the facility, inspections may take 

several hours to several weeks. 

10.3	 RELATIONSHIP WITH TITLE V PERMIT PROGRAMS 

Part 68 is an applicable requirement for purposes of the CAA Title V permit program 

and must be listed in a Title V air permit. You do not need a Title V air permit 

solely because you are subject to part 68. If you are required to apply for a Title V 

permit because you are subject to requirements under some other part of the CAA, 

you must: 

� List part 68 as an applicable requirement in your permit 

� Include conditions that require you to either submit a compliance schedule 

for meeting the requirements of part 68 by the applicable deadlines or 

include compliance with part 68 as part of your certification statement. 

You must also provide the permitting agency with any other relevant information it 

requests. 

The RMP and supporting documentation are not part of the permit and generally 

should not be submitted to the permitting authority unless specifically requested. 

If you have a Title V permit and it does not address the part 68 requirement, you 

should contact your permitting authority and determine whether your permit needs to 

be amended to reflect part 68. 

10.4	 PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 

Penalties for violating the requirements or prohibitions of part 68 are set forth in 

CAA section 113. This section provides for both civil and criminal penalties. EPA 

may assess civil penalties of not more than $32,500 per day per violation. Anyone 

convicted of knowingly violating part 68 may also be punished by a fine pursuant to 
Chapter 10 

10-5 Implementation 

Title 18 of the U.S. Code or by imprisonment for no more than five years, or both; 

anyone convicted of knowingly filing false information may be punished by a fine 

pursuant to Title 18 or by imprisonment for no more than two years. 

QS & AS


AUDITS


Q. If we are a Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) facility under OSHA’s VPP program, are we 

exempt from audits? 

A. You are exempt from audits that are based on the accident history of your industry sector or on 

random, neutral oversight. However, part 68 includes other criteria for deciding what facilities to 

audit that are not affected by a VPP rating. An implementing agency that is basing its auditing 

strategy on one of these other criteria may select your facility to audit, although EPA expects that 

VPP facilities will generally not be a high priority for audits unless they have a serious accident. 

Q. If we have been audited by a qualified third party, for ISO 14001 certification or for other 

programs, are we exempt from audits? 

A. No, but you may want to inform your implementing agency that you have gained such 

certification and indicate whether the third party reviewed part 68 compliance as part of its audit. 

The implementing agency has the discretion to determine whether you should be audited. 

Q. Will we be audited if a member of the public requests an audit of our facility? 

A. The implementing agency will have to decide whether to respond to such public requests. EPA’s 

intention is that part 68 implementation reflect that hazards are primarily a local concern. 
CHAPTER 11: COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC 

Once you have prepared and submitted your RMP, EPA will make it available to the 

public. CAA sections 112(r) and 114(c) require that RMPs be made available to the 

public, except for any classified or confidential business information contained in 

RMPs or the off-site consequence analysis (OCA) sections of RMPS (sections 2 

through 5). Members of the public may obtain copies of RMPs (without the OCA 

sections) by requesting them from EPA in writing (including by email). Members of 

the public may also read, but not copy, the OCA sections of RMPs in federal 

reading rooms. There is a monthly limit on the number of facilities for which any 

member of the public can view OCA in reading rooms. 

In view of the public’s access to RMPs, you should expect that your community will 

discuss the hazards and risks associated with your facility as indicated in your RMP. 

You will necessarily be part of such discussions. The public and the press are likely 

to ask you questions because only you can provide specific answers about your 

facility and your accident prevention program. This dialogue is a most important 

step in preventing chemical accidents and should be encouraged. You should 

respond to these questions honestly and candidly. Refusing to answer, reacting 

defensively, or attacking the regulation as unnecessary are likely to make people 

suspicious and willing to assume the worst. A basic fact of risk communication is 

that trust, once lost, is very hard to regain. As a result, you should prepare as early 

as possible to begin talking about these issues with the community, Local Emergency 

Planning Committees (LEPCs), State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), 

other local and state officials, and other interested parties. 

Another reason that the public and press may ask questions about your facility is the 

increased concern about domestic terrorism issues since September 11, 2001. The 

fact that your facility is regulated under the EPA Risk Management Program means 

that you probably store relatively large quantities of extremely toxic or flammable 

substances, and people may be concerned about security at your facility. 

Communication with the public can be an opportunity to develop your relationship 

with the community and build a level of trust among you, your neighbors, and the 

community at large. By complying with the RMP rule, you are taking a number of 

steps to prevent accidents and protect the community. These steps are the individual 

elements of your risk management program. A well-designed and properly 

implemented risk management program will set the stage for informative and 

productive dialogue between you and your community. The purpose of this chapter 

is to suggest how this dialogue may occur. In addition, note that some industries 

have developed guidance and other materials to assist in this process; contact your 

trade association for more information. 

11.1 BASIC RULES OF RISK COMMUNICATION 

Risk communication means establishing and maintaining a dialogue with the public 

about the hazards at your operation and discussing the steps that have been or can be 

taken to reduce the risk posed by these hazards. Of particular concern under this rule 

are the hazards related to the chemicals you use and what would happen if you had 

an accidental release. 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-2 

Many companies, government agencies, and other entities have confronted the same 

issue you may face: how to discuss with the public the risks the community is 

subject to. Exhibit 11-1 outlines seven “rules” of risk communication that have been 

developed based on many experiences of dealing with the public about risks. 

A key message of these "rules" is the importance and legitimacy of public concerns. 

People generally are less tolerant of risks they cannot control than those they can. 

For example, most people are willing to accept the risks of driving because they have 

some control over what happens to them. However, they are generally more 

uncomfortable accepting the risks of living near a facility that handles hazardous 

chemicals if they feel that they have no control over whether the facility has an 

accident. The Clean Air Act’s provision for public availability of RMPs gives public 

an opportunity to take part in reducing the risk of chemical accidents that might 

occur in their community. 

Exhibit 11-1: Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication 

1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner 

2. Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts 

3. Listen to the public’s specific concerns 

4. Be honest, frank, and open 

5. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources 

6. Meet the needs of the media 

7. Speak clearly and with compassion 

HAZARDS VERSUS RISKS 

Dialogue in the community will be concerned with both hazards and risks; it is 

useful to be clear about the difference between them. 

Hazards are inherent properties that cannot be changed. Chlorine is toxic when 

inhaled or ingested; propane is flammable. There is little that you can do with these 

chemicals to change their toxicity or flammability. If you are in an earthquake zone 

or an area affected by hurricanes, earthquakes and hurricanes are hazards. When you 

conduct your hazard review or process hazards analysis, you will be identifying your 

hazards and determining whether the potential exposure to the hazard can be reduced 

in any way (e.g., by limiting the quantity of chlorine stored on-site). 

Risk is usually evaluated based on several variables, including the likelihood of a 

release occurring, the inherent hazards of the chemicals combined with the quantity 

released, and the potential impact of the release on the public and the environment. 

For example, if a release during loading occurs frequently, but the quantity of 
Chapter 11 

11-3 Communication with the Public 

chemical released is typically small and does not generally migrate offsite, the 

overall risk to the public is low. If the likelihood of a catastrophic release occurring 

is extremely low, but the number of people who could be affected if it occurred is 

large, the overall risk may still be low because of the low probability that a release 

will occur. On the other hand, if a release occurs relatively frequently and a large 

number of people could be affected, the overall risk to the public is high. 

The rule does not require you to assess risk in a quantitative way because, in most 

cases, the data you would need to estimate risk levels (e.g., one in 100 years) are not 

available. Even in cases where data such as equipment failure rates are available, 

there are large uncertainties in using that data to determine a numerical risk level for 

your facility, because your facility is probably not the same as other facilities, and 

your situation may be dynamic. Therefore, you may want to assign qualitative 

values (high, medium, low) to the risks that you have identified at your facility, but 

you should be prepared to explain the terms if you do. For example, if you believe 

that the worst-case release is very unlikely to occur, you must give good reasons; 

you must be able to provide specific examples of measures that you have taken to 

prevent such a release, such as installation of new equipment, careful training of 

your workers, rigorous preventive maintenance, etc. You should also be able to 

show documentation to support your claim. 

WHO WILL ASK QUESTIONS? 

Your Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and other facilities can help 

you identify individuals in the following groups who may be reviewing RMP data 

and asking questions. Interested parties may include: 

(1)	 Persons living near the facility and elsewhere in the community or working 

at a neighboring facility 

(2)	 Local officials from zoning and planning boards, fire and police 

departments, health and building code officials, elected officials, and various 

county and state officials 

(3)	 Your employees 

(4)	 Special interest groups including environmental organizations, chambers of 

commerce, unions, and various civic organizations 

(5)	 Journalists, reporters, and other media representatives 

(6)	 Medical professionals, educators, consultants, neighboring companies and 

others with special expertise or interests 

In general, people will be concerned about accident risks at your facility, how you 

manage the risks, and potential impacts of an accident on health, safety, property, 

natural resources, community infrastructure, community image, property values, and 

other matters. Those individuals in the public and private sector who are responsible 

for dealing with these impacts and the associated risks also will have an interest in 

working with you to address these risks. 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-4 

WHAT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FACILITY IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC? 

As noted above, EPA is legally required to make RMPs available to the public, 

except for any CBI they may contain. Public access to the OCA sections of RMPs is 

restricted, but the public may still read, if not copy, those sections. Under the 

regulations governing public access to the OCA sections of RMPs (see 40 CFR Part 

1400), any member of the public may read those sections for up to 10 facilities per 

month, with no restriction on the geographical location of the facilities for which that 

information is sought. Any member of the public may also read the OCA sections of 

RMPs for any facility in or potentially affecting the jurisdiction of the local 

emergency planning committee in which that person lives or works. 

Even though most of the contents of RMPs are available to the public, it is likely that 

people will want additional information. People who request copies of RMPs will be 

aware that the RMPs they receive do not include the OCA sections. Interested 

persons may also know that you retain additional information at your facility (e.g., 

documentation of the results reported in the OCA sections of your RMP) and are 

required to make it available to EPA or its implementing agency during inspections 

or compliance audits. Therefore, they may request additional information. EPA 

encourages you to provide public access to additional information upon reasonable 

request. If EPA or its implementing agency were to request additional information, 

it would be available to the public under section 114(c) of the CAA, except for 

confidential business information and OCA information. 

The public may also be interested in other information relevant to risk management 

at your facility, such as: 

� Submissions under sections 302, 304, 311-312, and 313 of the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) reporting on 

chemical storage and releases, as well as the community emergency response 

plan prepared under EPCRA section 303 

� Other reports on hazardous materials made, used, generated, stored, spilled, 

released and transported, that you submitted to federal, state, and local 

agencies 

� Reports on workplace safety and accidents developed under the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act that you provide to employees, who may 

choose to make the information publicly available, such as medical and 

exposure records, chemical data sheets, and training materials 

� Any other information you have provided to public agencies that can be 

accessed by members of the public under the federal Freedom of Information 

Act and similar state laws (and that may have been made widely available 

over the Internet) 

� Any published materials on facility safety (either industry- or site-specific), 

such as agency reports on facility accidents, safety engineering manuals and 

textbooks, and professional journal articles on facility risk management, for 

example 
Chapter 11 

11-5 Communication with the Public 

11.2 SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC 

Smaller businesses may not have the resources or time to develop the types of 

outreach programs, described later in this chapter, that many larger chemical 

companies have used to handle public questions and community relations. For many 

small businesses, communication with the public will usually occur when you are 

asked questions about information in your RMP. It is important that you respond to 

these questions constructively. Go beyond just answering questions; discuss what 

you have done to prevent accidents and work with the community to reduce risks. 

The people in your community will be looking to you to provide answers. 

To help you establish a productive dialogue with the community, the rest of this 

section presents questions you are likely to be asked and a framework for answering 

them. These are elements of the public dialogue that you may anticipate. The person 

from your facility designated as responsible for communicating with the public 

should review the following and talk to other community organizations to determine 

which questions are most likely to be raised and identify other foreseeable issues. 

Remember that others in the community, notably LEPCs and other emergency 

management organizations are also likely to be asked these and other similar 

questions. You should consider the unique features of your facility, your RMP, and 

your historical relationship with the community (e.g., prior accidents, breakdowns in 

the coordination of emergency response efforts, and management-labor disputes), 

and work together with these other organizations to answer these questions for your 

situation and to resolve the issues associated with them. 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-6 

What does your worst-case “distance to endpoint” or release distance mean? 

The distance is intended to provide an estimate of the maximum possible area that might be affected 

by a catastrophic release from your facility. It is intended to ensure that no potential risks to public 

health are overlooked, but the distance to an endpoint estimated under worst-case conditions should 

not be considered a “public danger zone.” 

In most cases, the mathematical models used to analyze the worst-case release scenario as defined in 

the rule may overestimate the area that would be impacted by a release. In other cases, the models 

may underestimate the area. For distances greater than approximately six miles, the results of toxic 

gas dispersion models are especially uncertain, and you should be prepared to discuss such 

possibilities in an open, honest manner. 

Reasons that modeling may underestimate the distance generally relate to the inability of some 

models to account for site-specific factors that might tend to increase the actual endpoint distance. 

For example, assume a facility is located in a river valley and handles dense toxic gases such as 

chlorine. If a release were to occur, the river valley could channel the toxic cloud much farther than 

it might travel if it were to disperse in a location with generally flat terrain. In such cases, the actual 

endpoint distance might be longer than that predicted using generic lookup tables. 

Reasons that the area may be overestimated include: 

C For toxics, the weather conditions (very low wind speed, calm conditions) assumed for a 

worst-case release scenario are uncommon and probably would not last as long as the time 

the release would take to travel the distance estimated. If weather conditions are different, 

the distance to endpoint would be much shorter, because the release would be dispersed, 

and in the process diluted, more quickly. 

C For flammables, although explosions can occur, a release of a flammable is more likely to 

disperse harmlessly or burn. If an explosion does occur, however, debris from the blast 

could affect an even broader area than would be indicated by the distance to endpoint for 

the flammable substance. 

C In general, some models cannot take into account other site-specific factors that might tend 

to disperse the chemicals more quickly and limit the distance. 

Note: When estimating worst case release distances, the rule does not allow facilities to take into 

account active mitigation systems and practices that could limit the scope of a release. Specific 

systems (e.g., monitoring, detection, control, pressure relief, alarms, mitigation) may limit a release 

or prevent the failure from occurring. Also, if you are required to analyze alternative release 

scenarios (i.e., if your facility is in Program 2 or Program 3), these scenarios are generally more 

realistic than the worst case, and you can offer to provide additional information on those scenarios. 
Chapter 11 

11-7 Communication with the Public 

What does it mean that we could be exposed if we live/work/shop/go to school 

X miles away? 

(For an accident involving a flammable substance): 

The distance means that people who are in that area around the facility could be hurt if the contents 

of a tank or other vessel exploded. The blast of the explosion could shatter windows and damage 

buildings. Injuries would be the result of the force of the explosion and of flying glass or falling 

debris. 

(For an accident involving a toxic substance): 

The distance is based on a concentration of the chemical that you could be exposed to for an hour 

without suffering irreversible health effects or other symptoms that would make it difficult for you to 

escape. If you are within that distance, you could be exposed to a greater concentration of the 

chemical. If you were exposed to higher levels for an extended period of time (10 minutes, 30 

minutes, or longer), you could be seriously hurt. However, that does not mean that you would be. 

Remember, for worst case scenarios, the rule requires you to make certain conservative assumptions 

with respect to, for example, wind speed and atmospheric stability. If the wind speed is higher than 

that used in the modeling, or if the atmosphere is more unstable, a chemical release would be 

dispersed more quickly, and the distances would be much smaller and the exposure times would be 

shorter. If the question pertains to an alternative release scenario, you probably assumed typical 

weather conditions in the modeling. Therefore, the actual impact distance could be shorter or longer, 

and you should be prepared to acknowledge this and clearly explain how you chose the conditions 

for your release scenario. 

In general, the possibility of harm depends on the concentration of the chemical you are exposed to 

and the length of time you are exposed. 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-8 

If there is a worst-case accident, will everyone within that distance be hurt? 

What about property damage? 

It is important to remember that worst-case scenarios are very unlikely. In general, even if a very 

large accidental release did occur, not everyone within the circle defined by the worst-case distance 

to endpoint would be hurt. 

In analyzing the potential consequences of a worst-case release, we look at two types of chemicals ­

toxics and flammables. Releases of flammables do not usually lead to explosions; released 

flammables are more likely to disperse without igniting. If the released flammable does ignite, a fire 

is more likely than an explosion, and fires are usually concentrated at the facility. 

For an explosion, everyone within the distance-to-endpoint circle would certainly feel the blast wave 

since it would move in all directions at once. However, while some people within the circle could be 

hurt, it is unlikely that everyone would be since some people would probably be in less vulnerable 

locations. Most injuries would probably be due to the effects of flying glass, falling debris, or 

impact with nearby objects. 

For toxic chemicals, whether someone within the circle is hurt by a release depends on many factors. 

First, the released chemicals would usually move in the direction of the wind (except for some dense 

gases, which may be constrained by terrain features to flow in a different direction). Generally, only 

people downwind from the facility would be at risk of exposure if a release occurred, and this is 

normally only a part of the population inside the circle. If the wind speed is moderate, the 

chemicals would disperse quickly, and people would be exposed to lower levels of the chemical. If 

the release is stopped quickly, they might be exposed for a very short period time, which is less 

likely to cause injury. However, if the wind speed is low or the release continues for a long time, 

exposure levels will be higher and more dangerous. The population at risk would be a larger 

proportion of the total population inside the circle. You should be prepared to discuss both 

possibilities. 

Generally, it is the people who are closest to the facility — within a half mile or less — who would 

face the greatest danger if a large accident occurred. 

Damage to property and the environment will depend on the type of chemical released. In an 

explosion, environmental impacts and property damage may extend beyond the distance at which 

injuries could occur. For a vapor release, environmental effects and property damage may occur as a 

result of the reactivity or corrosivity of the chemical or toxic contamination. 
Chapter 11 

11-9 Communication with the Public 

How sure are you of your endpoint distances? 

Perhaps the largest single difficulty associated with hazard assessment is that different models and 

modeling assumptions will yield somewhat different results. There is no one model or set of 

assumptions that will yield “certain” results. Models represent scientists’ best efforts to account for 

all the variables involved in an accidental release. While all models are generally based on the same 

physical principles, dispersion modeling is not an exact science due to the limited opportunity for 

real-world validation of results. No model is perfect, and every model represents a somewhat 

different analytical approach. As a result, for a given scenario, people can use different consequence 

models and obtain estimates of the distance to the toxic endpoint that in some situations might vary 

by a factor of ten. Even using the same model, different input assumptions can cause wide variations 

in the predictions. It follows that, when you present a single value as your best estimate of the 

endpoint distance, others will be able to claim that the answer ought to be different, perhaps greater, 

perhaps smaller, depending on the assumptions used in modeling and the choice of model itself. 

You therefore need to recognize that your estimated distance lies within a considerable band of 

uncertainty, and to communicate this fact to those who have an interest in your results. A 

neighboring facility handling the same covered substances as you do may have come up with a 

different result for the same scenario for these reasons. 

If you use EPA’s RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance or one of the industry-specific 

guidance documents that EPA has developed, you will be able to address the issue of uncertainty by 

stating that the results you have generated are conservative (that is, they are likely to overestimate 

distances). However, if you use other models, you will have to provide your own assessment of 

where your specific estimate lies within the plausible range of uncertainties. 

Why do you need to store so much on-site? 

If you have not previously considered the feasibility of reducing the quantity, you should do so when 

you develop your risk management program. Many companies have cited public safety concerns as 

a reason for reducing the quantities of hazardous chemicals stored on-site or for switching to nonhazardous substitutes. If you have evaluated your process and determined that you need a certain 

volume to maintain your operations, you should explain this fact to the public in a forthright manner. 

As appropriate, you should also discuss any alternatives, such as reducing storage quantities and 

scheduling more frequent deliveries. Perhaps these options are feasible - if so, you should consider 

implementing them; if not, explain why you consider these alternatives to be unacceptable. For 

example, in some situations, more frequent deliveries would mean more trucks carrying the 

substance through the community on a regular basis and a greater opportunity for smaller-scale 

releases because of more frequent loading and unloading. 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-10 

What are you doing to prevent releases? 

If you have rigorously implemented your risk management program, this question will be your 

chance, if you have not already done so, to tell the community about your prevention activities, the 

safe design features of your operations, the specific activities that you are performing such as 

training, operating procedures, maintenance, etc., and any industry codes or standards you use to 

operate safely. If you have installed new equipment or safety systems, upgraded training, or had 

outside experts review your site for safety (e.g., insurance inspectors), you could offer to share the 

results. You may also want to mention state or federal rules you comply with. 

What are you doing to prepare for releases? 

For such questions, you will need to talk about the coordination that you have done with the local 

fire department, LEPC, or mutual aid groups. Such coordination may include activities such as 

defining an incident command structure, developing notification protocols, conducting response 

training and exercises, developing mutual aid agreements, and evaluating public alert systems. This 

description is particularly important if your employees are not designated or trained to respond to 

releases of regulated substances. 

If your employees will be involved in a response, you should describe your emergency response plan 

and the emergency response resources available at the facility (e.g., equipment, personnel), as well 

as through response contractors, if appropriate. You also may want to indicate the types of events 

for which such resources are applicable. Finally, indicate your schedule for internal emergency 

response training and drills and exercises and discuss the results of the latest relevant drill or 

exercise, including problems found and actions taken to address them. 

Do you need to use this chemical? 

Again, if you have not yet considered the feasibility of switching to a non-hazardous substitute, you 

should do so when you develop your risk management program. Assuming that there is no 

substitute, you should describe why the chemical is critical to what you produce and explain what 

you do to handle it safely. If there are substitutes available, you should describe how you have 

evaluated such options. 
Chapter 11 

11-11 Communication with the Public 

Why are your distances different from the distances in the EPA lookup 

tables? 

If you did your own modeling, this question may come up. You should be ready to explain in a 

general way how your model works and why it produces different results. EPA allows using other 

models (as long as certain parameters and conditions specified by the rule are met) because it 

realizes that EPA lookup table results will not necessarily reflect all site-specific conditions. 

In addition, although all models are generally based on the same physical principles, dispersion 

modeling is not an exact science due to the limited opportunity for real-world validation of the 

results. Thus, the method by which different models combine the basic factors such as wind speed 

and atmospheric stability can result in distances that readily vary by a factor of two (e.g., five miles 

versus ten miles). The introduction of site-specific factors can produce additional differences. 

EPA recognizes that different models will produce differing estimates of the distance to an endpoint, 

especially for releases of toxic substances. The Agency has provided a discussion of the 

uncertainties associated with the model it has adopted for the OCA Guidance. You need to 

understand that the distances produced by another model lie within a band of uncertainty and be able 

to demonstrate and communicate this fact to those who are reviewing your results. 

How likely are the worst-case and alternative release scenarios? 

It is generally not possible to provide accurate numerical estimates of how likely these scenarios are. 

EPA has stated that providing such numbers for accident scenarios rarely is feasible because the data 

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

data are available, there are large uncertainties in applying the data because each facility’s situation 

is unique. 

In general, the risk of the worst-case scenario is very low. Although catastrophic vessel failures have 

occurred, they are rare events. Combining them with worst-case weather conditions makes the 

overall scenario even less likely. This does not mean that such events cannot or will not happen, 

however. 

For the alternative scenario, the likelihood of the release is greater and will depend, in part, on the 

scenario you chose. If you selected a scenario based on your accident history or industry accident 

history, you should explain this to the public. You should also discuss any steps you are taking to 

prevent such an accident from recurring. 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-12 

Is the worst-case release you reported really the worst accident you can 

have? 

The answer to this question will depend on the type of facility you have and how you handle 

chemicals. EPA defined a specific scenario (failure of the single largest vessel) to provide a 

common basis of comparison among facilities nationwide. So, if you have only one vessel, EPA’s 

worst case is likely to be the worst event you could have. 

On the other hand, if you have a process which involves multiple co-located or interconnected 

vessels, it is possible that you could have an accident more severe than EPA’s worst case scenario. 

If credible scenarios exist that could be more serious (in terms of quantities released or 

consequences) than the EPA worst case scenario, you should be ready to discuss them. For example, 

if you store chemicals in small containers such as 55-gallon drums, the EPA-defined worst-case 

release scenario involves a release from only one container, but a fire or explosion at the facility 

could release larger quantities if multiple containers are involved. In this case, you should be ready 

to frankly discuss such a scenario with the public. If you take precautions to prevent such scenarios 

from occurring, you should explain these precautions also. If an accidental release is more likely to 

involve multiple drums than a single drum as a result, for example, of the drums being stored closely 

together, then you must select such a scenario as your alternative release scenario so that information 

on this scenario is available in your RMP. 

Chemical manufacturers may want to talk about releases that could result from runaway reactions 

that could continue for several hours. This type of event could result in longer exposure times. 

What about the accident at the [name of similar facility] that happened last 

month? 

This question highlights an important point: you need to be aware of events in your industry (e.g., 

accidents, new safety measures) for two reasons. First, your performance likely will be compared to 

that of your competitors. Second, learning about the circumstances and causes of accidents at other 

facilities like yours can help you prevent such accidents from occurring at your facility. 

If information is available on accidents that happen at facilities similar to yours (e.g., from reports, 

case studies, journal articles, or other sources), you should be familiar with and have evaluated 

whether your facility is at risk for similar accidents. You should take the appropriate measures to 

prevent the accident from occurring and be prepared to describe these actions. If your facility has 

experienced a similar release in the past, this information may be documented in your accident 

history or other publicly available records, depending on the date and nature of the incident, the 

quantity released, and other factors. If you have already taken steps specifically designed to address 

this type of accident, whether as a result of this accident, a prior accident at your facility, or other 

internal decision-making, you should describe these efforts. If, based on your evaluation, you 

determine that the accident could not occur at your facility, you should discuss the pertinent 

differences between the two facilities and explain why you believe those differences should prevent 

the accident from occurring at your facility. 
Chapter 11 

11-13 Communication with the Public 

What actions have you taken to involve the community in your accident 

prevention and emergency planning efforts? 

If you have not actively involved the community in accident prevention and emergency planning in 

the past, you should acknowledge this as an area where you could improve and start doing so as you 

develop your risk management program. The emergency response provisions of part 68 require you 

to coordinate with your LEPC and/or local fire department, depending on whether your facility holds 

toxics and/or flammable substances. More generally, you may want to become an active participant 

in the LEPC, SERC, and regional mutual aid organizations serving your area. Other opportunities 

for community involvement are fire safety coordination activities with the local fire department, 

joint training and exercises with local public and private sector response personnel, the 

establishment of green fields between the facility and the community, and similar efforts. 

When discussing accident prevention and emergency planning with the community, you should 

indicate any national programs in which you participate, such as the Chemical Manufacturers 

Association’s Responsible Care program or Community Awareness and Emergency Response 

program or OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program. If fully implemented, these programs can help 

improve the safety of the facility and the community. You may have future plans to participate in 

areas described previously or have new initiatives associated with the risk management program. Be 

sure you ask what else the community would like you to do and explain how you will do it. 

Can we see the documentation you keep on site? 

If the requested information is not confidential business information, EPA encourages you to make it 

available to the public in a reasonable manner. (Since the OCA sections of your RMP are available 

to the public on a restricted bases, it makes sense that the documentation underlying those sections 

be made available in a manner that reflects its sensitivity.) Although you are not required to provide 

this information to the public, refusing to provide it simply because you are not compelled to is not 

the best approach. If you decide not to provide any or most of this material, you should have good 

reasons for not doing so and be prepared to explain these reasons to the public. Simply taking a 

defensive position or referring to the extent of your legal obligations is likely to threaten the 

effectiveness of your interaction with the community. Offer as much information as possible to the 

public; if particular documents would reveal proprietary information, try to provide a redacted copy, 

summary, or some other form that answers the community’s concerns. You may want to work with 

your LEPC on this issue. You should also be aware that information that EPA or the implementing 

agency obtains as part of an inspection or investigation conducted under section 114 of the Clean Air 

Act would be available to the public under section 114(c) of the Act to the extent it does not reveal 

confidential business information or OCA information. 

11.3 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES AND TECHNIQUES 

Although this section is most applicable to larger companies, small businesses may 

want to review it and use some of the ideas to expand their communications with the 

public. To prepare for effective communication with the community, you should: 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-14 

(1)	 Adopt an organizational policy that includes basic risk communication 

principles (see exhibit 11-1) 

(2)	 Assign responsibilities and resources to implement the policy 

(3)	 Plan to use "best communication practices" 

ADOPT AN ORGANIZATIONAL COMM UNICATIONS POLICY 

An organizational policy will support communication with the public on your RMP 

and make it an integral part of management practices. Otherwise, breakdowns are 

likely to occur, which could cause mistrust, hostility and conflicts. 

A policy helps to establish communication as a normal organizational function and 

to present it as an opportunity rather than a burden or threat. The policy can be 

incorporated in an organization's policies, an approach taken by many companies 

who belong to the Responsible Care program of the Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (CMA). These companies have adopted CMA's Codes of Management 

Practices, which contain risk communication principles and practices. 

Remember that what you communicate is more important than the type of 

communication policy or program you use, and what you actually do to maintain a 

safe facility is more important than anything you say. Your company’s safety and 

prevention steps in your risk management program should serve as the core elements 

of any risk communication program. 

ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES 

A policy is only a paper promise until it is regularly and effectively implemented. 

Thus, you should follow up your communication policy by (1) having top 

management participate at the outset and at key points throughout the 

communication process, and (2) assigning communication responsibilities within 

your organization and providing the necessary resources. 

Experience has demonstrated that assigning responsibility to knowledgeable 

managers, plant engineers, and staff and encouraging participation by employees, 

(most of whom are likely to be community residents) is a good communications 

practice. Delegating communication functions to outside technical consultants, 

attorneys, and public relations specialists has repeatedly failed to impress the 

community and even tends to incur mistrust. (However, if you hired a firm with 

acknowledged expertise in dispersion modeling, you may want them on hand to help 

respond to technical questions.) 

Communications staff will need work time and resources to prepare presentation 

materials, hold meetings with interested persons in the community, and do other 

work necessary to respond to questions and concerns and maintain ongoing dialogue. 

A training program in communication skills and incentives for good performance 

also may be advisable. 
Chapter 11 

11-15 Communication with the Public 

Organizations have a legitimate interest in preventing disclosure of confidential 

business information or statements that inadvertently and unfairly harm the 

organization or its employees. Thus, you should assure that your risk communication 

staff is instructed on how to deal with situations that pose these problems. This may 

mean that you have an internal procedure enabling your staff to bring such situations 

to top management and legal counsel for quick resolution, keeping in mind that 

unduly defensive or legalistic responses that result in restricting the amount of 

information that is provided can damage or destroy the risk communication process. 

Your communication staff may find the following steps helpful in addressing the 

priority issues in the communication process: 

Prior to RMP Submittal 

� Enlist employee support for, and involvement in, the communication process 

� Build on work you have done with your LEPC, fire department, and local 

officials, and gain their insights 

� Incorporate technical expertise, management commitment, and employee 

involvement in the risk communication process 

� Use your RMP's executive summary to begin the dialogue with the 

community; be sure you have taken all of the steps you present 

� Taking a community perspective, identify which data elements need to be 

clarified, interpreted, or amplified, and which are most likely to raise 

community concerns; then compile the information needed to respond and 

determine the most understandable methods (e.g., use of graphics) for 

presenting the information 

At Submittal 

� Review the RMP to assure that you are familiar with its data elements and 

how they were developed. In particular, review the hazard assessment, 

prevention, and response program features, as well as documentation of the 

methods, data, and assumptions used, especially if an outside consultant 

performed the analyses and developed these materials. You have certified 

their accuracy and your spokesperson should know them intimately, as they 

reflect your plan 

� Review your performance in implementing the prevention and response 

programs and prepare to discuss problems identified and actions taken 

� Review your performance in investigating accidents and prepare to discuss 

any corrective actions that followed 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-16 

Other Steps 

� Identify the most likely concerns about risks identified in the RMP but not 

fully addressed, consult with management and safety engineering, and 

determine additional measures the organization will take to resolve these 

concerns 

� Avoid misrepresentations and minimize the roles of public relations 

specialists 

� Identify "best communication practices" (as described in the next section) 

and plan how to use them 

USE "BEST COMM UNICATION PRACTICES" 

Many facilities already have gained considerable experience in communicating with 

the public. Lessons from their experiences are described below. However, the value 

of these best practices and your credibility will depend on your facility's possession 

and ongoing demonstration of certain essential qualities: 

� Top management commitment (e.g., owner and facility manager) to 

improving safety 

� Honesty, openness, and concern for the community 

� Respect for public concerns and perceptions 

� Commitment to maintaining a dialogue with all sectors of the community, to 

learning from this dialogue, and to being prepared to change your practices 

to make your facility more safe 

� Commitment to continuous improvement through internal procedures for 

evaluating incidents and promoting organizational learning 

� Knowledge of safety issues and safety management methods 

� Good working relationships with the LEPC, fire department, and other local 

officials 

� Active support for the LEPC and related activities 

� Employee support and commitment 

� Continuation of commitment despite potential public hostility or mistrust 

Another note: Because each facility and community involves a unique combination 

of factors, the practices used to achieve good risk communication in one case do not 

necessarily ensure the same quality result when used in another case. Therefore, 

while it is advisable for you to review such experience to identify "best 

communication practices," you should carefully evaluate such practices to determine 
Chapter 11 

11-17 Communication with the Public 

if they can be adapted to fit your unique circumstances. For example, if your facility 

is in the middle of an urban area, you probably will use different approaches than 

you would use if it were located in an industrial area far from any residential 

populations. These practices are complementary approaches to delivering your risk 

management message and responding to the concerns of the community. 

With these cautions in mind, a number of "best" practices are outlined below for 

consideration. First, you will want to establish formal channels for 

information-sharing and communication with stakeholders. The most basic 

approaches include: 

� Convene public meetings for discussion and dialogue regarding your risk 

management program and RMP and take steps to have the facility owner or 

manager and all sectors of the community participate, including minorities 

and low-income residents 

� Arrange meetings with local media representatives to facilitate their 

understanding of your risk management program and the program summary 

presented in your RMP 

� Establish a repository of information on safety matters for the LEPC and the 

public and, if electronic, provide software for public use. Some 

organizations also have provided computer terminals for public use in the 

community library or fire department 

Other, more resource-intensive activities of this type to consider include: 

� Create and convene focus groups (small working groups) to facilitate 

dialogue and action on specific concerns, including technical matters, and 

take steps to assure that membership in each group reflects a cross section of 

the community and includes technically trained persons (e.g., engineers, 

medical professionals) 

� Hold seminars on hypothetical release scenarios, prevention and response 

programs, applicable standards and industry practices, analytic methods and 

models (e.g., on dispersion of airborne releases, health effects of airborne 

concentrations), and other matters of special concern or complexity 

� Convene special meetings to foster dialogue and collaborations with the 

LEPC and the fire department and to establish a mutual assistance network 

with other facility managers in the community or region 

� Establish hot lines for telephone and e-mail communications between 

interested parties and your designated risk communication staff and, if 

feasible, a web site for posting useful information 

In all of these efforts, remember to use plain language and commonly understood 

terms; avoid the use of acronyms and technical and legal jargon. In addition, 

depending on your audience, keep in mind that the preparation of multilingual 

materials may be useful or even necessary. 
Chapter 11 

Communication with the Public 11-18 

Secondly, you may want to initiate or expand programs that more directly involve 

the community in your operations and safety programs. Traditional approaches 

include: 

� Arrange facility tours so that members of the public can view operations and 

discuss safety procedures with supervisors and employees 

� Schedule drills and simulations of incidents to demonstrate how prevention 

and response programs work, with participation by community responders 

and other organizations (e.g., neighboring companies) 

� Conduct a “Safety Street” - a community forum generally sponsored by 

several industries in a locality, where your representatives present facility 

safety information, explain risks, and respond to public questions (see 

Section 11.4 for a reference to more information on this program) 

� Periodically reaffirm and demonstrate your commitment to safety in 

accordance with and beyond regulatory requirements and present data on 

your safety performance, using appropriate benchmarks or measures, in 

newsletters and by posting the information at your web site 

� Publicly honor and reward managers and employees who have performed 

safety responsibilities in superior fashion and citizens who have made 

important contributions to the dialogue on safety 

If community interest is significant, you may also want to consider the following 

activities: 

� Invite public participation in monitoring implementation of your risk 

management program elements 

� Invite public participation in auditing your performance in safety 

responsibilities, such as chemical handling and tracking procedures and 

analysis and follow-up on accidents and near misses 

� Organize a committee comprised of representatives from the facility, other 

industry, emergency planning and response organizations, and community 

groups and chaired by a community leader to independently evaluate your 

safety and communication efforts (e.g., a Community Advisory Panel). You 

may also want to finance the committee to pay for an independent 

engineering consultant to assist with technical issues and learn what can be 

done to improve safety, and thereby share control with the community 

Your communication staff should review these examples, consider designing their 

own activities as well as joint efforts with other local organizations, and ultimately 

decide with the community on which set of practices are feasible and can best create 

a healthy risk communication process in your community. Once these decisions are 

made, you may want to integrate the chosen set of practices in an overall 

communication program for your facility, transform some into standard procedures, 

and monitor and evaluate them for continuous improvement. 
Chapter 11 

11-19 Communication with the Public 

OTHER COMM UNICATION OPPORTUNITIES 

By complying with the RMP rule and participating in the communications process 

with the community, you should have developed a comprehensive system for 

preventing, mitigating, and responding to chemical accidents at your facility. Why 

not share this knowledge with your staff, others you do business with (e.g., 

customers, distributors, contractors), and, perhaps through industry groups, others in 

your industry? If you transfer this knowledge to others, you can help improve their 

chemical safety management capabilities, enhance public safety beyond your 

community, and possibly gain economic benefits for your organization. 

11.4	 FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Among the numerous publications on risk communication, the following may be 

particularly helpful: 

� Improving Risk Communication, National Academy Press, Washington, 

D.C., 1989 

� "Safety Street" and other materials on the Kanawha Valley Demonstration 

Program, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA 

� Community Awareness and Emergency Response Code of Management 

Practices and various Guidance, Chemical Manufacturers Association, 

Arlington, VA 

� Communicating Risks to the Public, R. Kasperson and P. Stallen, eds., 

Kluwer Publishing Co., 1991 

� "Challenges in Risk and Safety Communication with the Public,” S. Maher, 

Risk Management Professionals, Mission Viejo, CA, April 1996 

� Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practices, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, on the World Wide Web at 

atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080 

� Risk Communication about Chemicals in Your Community: A Manual for 

Local Officials, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

EPCRA/Superfund/RCRA/CAA Hotline 

� Risk Communication about Chemicals in Your Community: Facilitator's 

Manual and Guide, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

EPCRA/Superfund/RCRA/CAA Hotline 

� Chemicals, the Press, and the Public: A Journalist's Guide to Reporting on 

Chemicals in the Community, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

EPCRA/Superfund/RCRA/CAA Hotline