Risk Management Programs under 

Clean Air Act Section 112(r)

Guidance for Implementing Agencies

February 1998 

FOREWORD 

EPA will be proposing changes to its rules in 40 CFR part 68 (risk management 

program requirements) and also those in part 63, subpart E (delegation of Clean Air Act 

programs to State and local agencies). Although these rules are not yet final, some of these 

proposed changes are indicated in this guidance. In the meantime, the existing rule is in 

effect. 

EPA also expects to modify the contents of this guidance as we gain experience with 

specific State and local agencies carrying out implementation activities. For the most up-todate information, contact the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline at 

(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 TDD (800) 553-7672; Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, 

EST, or visit the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) home 

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

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW 

Background 1

Risk Management Plans 2

Who Is Covered? 3

The Rule, Related Statutes, and Regulations 4

The OSHA PSM Standard 5

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 5

Title V 6

CAA Section 112(l) 6

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 7

Integrated Contingency Plans (ICPs) 7

Confidential Business Information in RMPs 7

CHAPTER 2: BUILDING A SECTION 112(r) IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 

Implementation Activities 9

Building an Implementation Program 13

Propane Retailers and Users 13

Drinking Water Systems and POTWs 13

OSHA PSM Facilities 14

Targeted Sectors 15

CAA Section 507 - Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) 15

Hazard Assessment and Emergency Response 15

Funding 16

EPA Grant Programs 16

Other Funding Sources 17

CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE SECTION 112(r) 

PROGRAM 

Why Adopt a State Risk Management Program? 19

Implementation Approaches 20

Informal Agreements 20

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 21

Formal Delegation 21

Delegation under CAA Section 112(l) 22

State Rules 22

Authority Retained by EPA 24

Demonstration of Resources 24

The Section 112(l) Approval Process 27

Selecting an Implementing Agency 27
Table 3-1: Part 63, Subpart E Requirements 29

Table 3-2: Part 70.11, Requirements for Enforcement Authority 30

Table 3-3: CAA section 112(r) and Part 68 Elements 31

Exhibit 1: Governor’s Letter 32

Exhibit 2: Attorney General’s Certification and Statement 33

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Estimates of Sources by State A-1

Appendix B: Checklist for State Program Submittal B-1

Appendix C: Cost of an Implementation Program C-1

Appendix D: Part 68 Program Levels and Requirements D-1

Appendix E: RMP*Submit and RMP*Info E-1
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW 

This publication provides guidance on developing accidental release prevention 

programs under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although the rules 

published under section 112(r) are part of the CAA, they are related to and 

build on activities conducted under the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) standards. 

Regulatory requirements by themselves will not ensure safety. Accident 

prevention requires a State/local/Federal/industrial partnership and a focus at 

the local level (where the risks and the solutions are). This chapter provides a 

brief history of the section 112(r) rules and places them in the context of other 

environmental programs. Chapter 2 describes the activities that are part of an 

implementation program and details possible approaches for building an 

implementation program. Chapter 3 discusses approaches for developing 

implementation partnerships among EPA, States, and local governments, 

including the requirements for delegation. 

BACKGROUND 

After the 1984 chemical tragedy at Bhopal, India, EPA and other stakeholders 

began programs to improve emergency planning at the local level. In 1986, 

Congress adopted many aspects of these programs as the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). As its title indicates, EPCRA 

has two major concerns: improved emergency planning at the local level, 

where emergency response occurs, and improved information to the public 

about hazardous chemicals in the community. 

EPCRA focuses on understanding hazards and planning for emergencies to 

ensure that when an accidental release occurs, the local responders will be able 

to take quick, effective actions to protect public health and the environment. 

EPA recognized, however, that for hazardous gases and liquids that rapidly 

become gases when released, emergency response was not enough. These 

hazardous substances move quickly into the community when an accident 

occurs; emergency response actions can limit the release, but may not be 

sufficient to protect the public. Public and environmental protection demands 

that these accidents be prevented or, if they do occur, that there be no adverse 

consequences. In 1986, EPA began a prevention program to work with 

industry and others to identify ways to improve safety practices. Congress, in 

1990, included prevention requirements in its amendments to the Clean Air Act 

to address the dangers of hazardous chemicals released to air. 

1
Chapter 1 

Overview 

Under CAA section 112(r), EPA must adopt regulations for the prevention and 

detection of accidental releases of chemicals and response to releases that 

occur. On June 20, 1996, EPA published its final rule on accidental release 

prevention. The regulations (40 CFR part 68) require covered facilities to 

develop and implement a risk management program that includes analyses of 

offsite consequences of accidental chemical releases to the air, a five-year 

accident history, a prevention program, and an emergency response program. 

In addition, the facility must submit a risk management plan (RMP) that 

describes its hazards and prevention activities and indicates its compliance with 

the regulations. 

Although the primary responsibility for accident prevention is the facility’s, 

government agencies and the public have important roles to play in accident 

prevention. The mandates of the CAA focus on the facility, but Congress 

recognized the critical interests and influence of the community when it made 

the RMPs available to the States, local planners and responders, and the public. 

If chemical accidents are to be prevented, it is vital that the State and local 

governments and the public become involved in implementation of the rule and 

work with industry to ensure the protection of public health and the 

environment. 

RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The RMPs, which must be submitted to a central location specified by EPA 

prior to June 21, 1999, will provide new information that will help government 

agencies and the public understand the hazards at facilities and the steps being 

taken to address those hazards. Under EPCRA, facilities submit to the State 

and local community annual inventories of hazardous chemicals they handle, 

produce, or store. The RMPs will add considerably more information about 

these processes. The offsite consequence analyses will present information on 

the areas that could be seriously affected by accidental releases. The five-year 

accident history will provide, in a single record, a review of each facility’s 

accidents, which will help communities identify facilities with continuing 

problems and allow them to track progress in accident prevention. The 

prevention program information will include data on process hazards that could 

lead to accidental releases as well as information on steps being taken to 

control the hazards. 

EPA will make all RMPs available electronically on the Internet. Government 

agencies and the public will be able to review RMPs for all facilities. RMPs 

will be useful to local emergency planners and responders because the plans 

2
Chapter 1

Overview

will provide new information on potential hazards and facility capabilities to 

detect and mitigate releases. In addition, the community will be able to review 

RMPs from facilities in other parts of the country that handle a chemical and 

use the same types of processes as local facilities. This ability will allow 

communities to compare safety records and practices within an industry. They 

may learn that their local facilities are using practices that are typical for their 

industry or that exceed industry standards. If their local facilities seem to be 

using different controls and safety practices, the community will have a starting 

point to discuss possible improvements with the facility. 

The availability of RMPs will place considerable responsibility on both the 

facility and government agencies to develop ways to communicate risk 

information to the public. The offsite consequence analysis data will provide 

information on areas around facilities that could be affected by an accidental 

release; the data, however, will not address the likelihood that the releases or 

the impacts will occur. In many cases, particularly for the mandated worst-case 

release scenario, the likelihood will be very low. The prevention program data 

will reflect the processes and hazards at a specific site. Similar processes and 

hazards at other sites filing RMPs may require different levels of control based 

on site-specific factors, such as distance to the public. It will be important for 

government agencies and the facilities to reach a common understanding of 

what the data do and do not mean and explain that to the public. State and 

local agencies need to work with facilities and the public to ensure that the 

information is interpreted reasonably. The modeling information for worstcase and alternative release scenarios should be viewed as the basis for 

discussion among interested parties, rather than a precise prediction of potential 

accident effects. 

WHO IS COVERED? 

The CAA states that the risk management program regulations cover the owner 

or operator of a stationary source with more than a threshold quantity of a 

section 112(r) regulated substance in a process. The section 112(r) chemicals 

and thresholds overlap with chemicals listed under other rules, but are not 

identical to those on any other list. The section 112(r) list includes 77 acutely 

toxic chemicals listed on the EPCRA extremely hazardous substance (EHS) 

list, but also includes 63 flammable gases and liquids. The thresholds generally 

are higher than the EPCRA thresholds. Section 112(r) thresholds are 

determined by process, not by site; consequently, sources may list more than a 

section 112(r) threshold quantity in EPCRA reports, based on maximum 

quantity on site, and not be subject to section 112(r). The section 112(r) 

3
Chapter 1 

Overview 

chemical list and corresponding thresholds for each chemical are published at 

40 CFR 68.130, Tables 1 and 2 (toxic substances) and Tables 3 and 4 

(flammable substances) and are available on the Chemical Emergency 

Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) website: 

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

The CAA specifically covers any facility with a section 112(r) substance above 

the section 112(r) threshold in a process, regardless of whether the owner or 

operator is a State, its political subdivision, the Federal government, or a 

private entity. EPA expects that the rule will cover all petroleum refineries, 

many chemical manufacturers (mostly manufacturers of basic chemicals), food 

processors and distributors who have ammonia refrigeration systems, other 

manufacturers such as pulp and paper mills and primary and secondary metal 

manufacturers, propane and agricultural retailers, chemical wholesalers, 

drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, electric utilities, and Federal 

installations, such as military bases and Department of Energy facilities. EPA 

estimates that about 64,000 facilities will be subject to the rule. Appendix A 

provides State-by-State estimates of the number and type of these facilities. 

THE RULE, RELATED STATUTES, AND REGULATIONS 

The section 112(r) rule requires covered facilities to develop and implement a 

risk management program to prevent accidental releases of regulated 

substances. The specific steps required for the prevention program depend on 

the level of risk posed by a process and the complexity of the process. The rule 

establishes three program levels, with different required elements; Appendix D 

presents a table that outlines the requirements for each program level. Program 

1 covers a limited number of processes that pose comparatively low risks to the 

public. Program 2 processes are mainly at retail facilities, at public drinking 

water or wastewater treatment plants in States that do not have delegated 

OSHA programs, at facilities that use propane as a fuel, and other facilities not 

eligible for Program 1 or subject to Program 3. Program 3 processes are in 

certain industrial sectors with substantial accident histories or are subject to the 

OSHA process safety management (PSM) standard. Program 3 processes are 

mainly at manufacturing facilities, plants with cold storage systems, utilities, 

and public drinking water or wastewater treatment plants in States that have 

delegated OSHA programs. (Federal OSHA rules do not apply to State and 

local employees; OSHA rules in States with delegated programs do apply to 

State and local employees). 

4
Chapter 1

Overview

The rule is related to a number of Federal and State programs, either because it 

builds upon them (e.g., EPCRA and OSHA) or because the other programs are 

part of the CAA. This section discusses the relationships among these 

programs. 

THE OSHA PSM STANDARD 

EPA has adopted the OSHA PSM standard as its prevention program for 

processes in Program 3. Processes in Program 3 already are subject to the PSM 

standard or are in industrial sectors with a high incidence of accidental releases. 

For a process already in compliance with OSHA PSM, an owner or operator 

generally will not need to take additional steps or create new documentation to 

comply with EPA’s Program 3 prevention program. Compliance with the 

OSHA standard, however, is not sufficient to meet all risk management 

program elements, which cover areas that are not part of the OSHA PSM (e.g., 

the hazard assessment). If the process is in one of the Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) code categories set out in § 68.10(d) (see Appendix D), the 

owner or operator must implement the same prevention program as if the 

process was subject to the PSM standard. 

Adopting the PSM standard language will make compliance with this rule 

easier for sources because it will eliminate the potential for conflicting Federal 

requirements applying to the same regulated community. EPA and OSHA are 

working together to interpret and enforce the PSM and chemical accident 

prevention programs consistently. 

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT (EPCRA) 

The Congressional intent of section 112(r) is to prevent and minimize the 

consequences of an accidental release of a section 112(r) listed substance or 

any other extremely hazardous substance. The RMP documents compliance 

with the section 112(r) regulations. In requiring that RMPs be made available 

to State and local entities and the public, Congress also established a “right-toknow” provision in CAA section 112(r). 

Local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) and State emergency response 

commissions (SERCs) should integrate EPCRA activities with the risk 

management program rule requirements to the extent possible. Granted that 

LEPCS have different capabilities and resource levels, whenever possible 

LEPCs should play a central role to maximize the benefits obtained from RMP 

data. RMP information, which EPA will make available electronically, will 

5
Chapter 1 

Overview 

help emergency planners and should support an expanded prevention-related 

dialogue between source owners and operators and the public. 

Many facility owners and operators will be familiar with the hazards associated 

with section 112(r) listed chemicals due to EPCRA reporting requirements. For 

example, all section 112(r) listed substances are substances for which OSHA 

requires a material safety data sheet (MSDS) under the Hazard Communication 

Standard. Therefore, many facilities already must report the hazards associated 

with section 112(r) listed substances in the annual inventories filed under 

EPCRA section 312. Furthermore, most regulated refineries and chemical 

plants meet the separate EPCRA section 313 (toxic release inventory) 

thresholds for substances common to the EPCRA section 313 and CAA section 

112(r) lists; facilities in these sectors must report annual air emissions under 

EPCRA section 313. 

TITLE V 

In Title V of the CAA, section 502(b)(5)(A), Congress says that a permitting 

authority must have the authority to “assure compliance by all sources required 

to have a permit under this title with each applicable standard, regulation or 

requirement under this Act.” The section 112(r) rule is an “applicable 

requirement.” The requirements for a permitting authority related to part 68 are 

set out in § 68.215. In general, the permitting authority must ensure that 

permits include conditions relative to part 68 compliance and must ensure that 

the RMP is submitted and complete. The permitting authority may ensure 

compliance through audits or checks of some RMPs; the authority may 

designate another State agency to conduct these checks or, with EPA’s 

concurrence, may develop a written agreement with EPA to have EPA serve 

this function. The designated agency is not necessarily the implementing 

agency for section 112(r). 

CAA SECTION 112(l) 

CAA section 112(l) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, set out a process for State 

or local agencies who wish to seek delegation from EPA to implement and 

enforce the section 112(r) regulations. Chapter 3 discusses this delegation 

process. 

6
Chapter 1

Overview

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPS) 

State Implementation Plans address the control of substances for which there 

are national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs). There is no relationship 

between the section 112(r) program and SIPs. The CAA specifically bars EPA 

from listing a substance under section 112(r) if it has a NAAQS, except for a 

few substances, such as sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, that are mandated for 

listing in section 112(r). 

INTEGRATED CONTINGENCY PLANS (ICPS) 

Although the section 112(r) rules cover far more than emergency response, the 

rules, as mandated by the CAA, include requirements for an emergency 

response program and plan. In 1996, the National Response Team issued 

guidance for the development of an integrated contingency plan, also known as 

“one plan.” The guidance is intended to help facilities subject to multiple 

Federal contingency planning requirements to develop a single plan that will 

satisfy all Federal requirements. A plan developed using the ICP guidance will 

meet the emergency response plan requirements of the section 112(r) rule. 

Copies of the ICP guidance are available from the hotline or the CEPPO 

website ((800) 424-9346; http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/). 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION IN RMPS 

Under the CAA, facilities may claim some limited RMP data as confidential 

business information (CBI). Facilities will be required to submit to EPA both 

“sanitized” RMPs (with CBI data omitted) and “unsanitized” versions (with all 

data reported). 

EPA will make sanitized versions of the RMPs available to the public, States, 

and local governments by including them in RMP*Info (see Appendix E). 

Should States or LEPCs want to obtain the unsanitized version from EPA, they 

may do so by filing a written request with EPA for the information. EPA will 

respond to such requests consistent with 40 CFR 2.301(h)(3), which governs 

disclosures to States and local agencies having duties or responsibilities under 

the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. A State or local 

government may, under this provision, obtain CBI from EPA under two 

circumstances: (1) it provides EPA a written opinion from its chief legal 

officer or counsel stating that the State or local agency has the authority under 

applicable State or local law to compel the business to disclose the information 

directly; or (2) the businesses whose information is disclosed are informed and 

7
Chapter 1 

Overview 

the State or local government has shown to an EPA legal office’s satisfaction 

that its use and disclosure of the information will be governed by State or local 

law and by “procedures which will provide adequate protection to the interests 

of affected businesses.” 

Notwithstanding the foregoing process, State and local governments may 

always obtain the unsanitized versions of the RMP by enacting regulations to 

require sources in their jurisdiction to submit the CBI directly to State and local 

entities. EPA encourages those State and local authorities wishing to receive 

the unsanitized RMPs to use their own authority to require such information, 

rather than seeking it under EPA’s disclosure regulations. 

8
CHAPTER 2: BUILDING A SECTION 112(r) 

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES 

There are many different ways Regions, States, and local agencies can work 

together to implement section 112(r). One size definitely does not fit all for 

section 112(r) implementation. States may implement all or parts of the 112(r) 

program (e.g., for selected facilities, selected functions, by program level, by 

industry) under a number of options discussed in Chapter 3. Implementation 

activities include outreach, technical assistance, training, reviews of RMPs, 

audits of RMPs, and inspection of risk management programs at facilities. A 

list of RMP implementation products being developed by EPA, and their 

current status, is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/. State 

programs to protect public health and safety already include many oversight 

activities that are essential to an effective section 112(r) implementation 

program. 

Outreach. Facilities, local agencies, and the public need to be informed about 

the section 112(r) regulations and the information that will be available. 

Through EPCRA section 312 reports, stakeholders already have information on 

the facilities that are likely to be covered by this rule. This information can be 

used to target both covered facilities and affected communities for outreach. 

Examples of outreach activities are: 

• Contacting facility owners and operators with covered processes and 

letting them know about the program and the deadlines. 

• Arranging public meetings to begin or continue a dialogue between the 

communities and local industry subject to the risk management 

program. This action can help regulated industries and the community 

work together to understand accident risks and consequences, plan for 

the best disposition of response resources, and cooperate in chemical 

accident prevention. 

• Setting up a State or local hotline to answer questions from the public 

and industry. EPA has an EPCRA hotline (1-800-424-9346), and it is a 

resource frequently used by various stakeholders to help them keep 

current on EPCRA and section 112(r) compliance issues. Setting up a 

hotline as a section 112(r) resource for the community is useful both to 

answer questions and to determine which issues most confuse people. 

The most frequently asked questions can be the basis for directing 

9
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

further outreach efforts such as a question-and-answer document that 

applies to industries in a Region, State, or locality. Agencies also can 

use EPA’s hotline and documents by building computer links between 

their own home pages and Chemical Emergency Preparedness and 

Prevention Office home page (http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/). 

Technical Assistance. Facilities, State and local agencies, and the public are 

likely to need information about the program, rule interpretations, and 

submission guidelines. The implementing agency is responsible for providing 

this assistance to covered facilities, but other agencies may be able to provide 

technical support to community stakeholders. (State-subsidized or Statefunded programs for specific chemical users may have restrictions on how 

these funds can be used.) Examples of activities that meet various stakeholder 

needs for technical assistance are:

 • Preparing fact sheets on a range of subjects related to compliance. For 

example, many of the industry sectors subject to this rule consist 

primarily of small businesses that may not have a regulatory support 

staff. These sectors may be uncertain whether the section 112(r) rule 

applies to their processes. Fact sheets targeted to a specific sector can 

explain the rule requirements for that sector quickly and answer sectorspecific questions. Fact sheets developed by one EPA Region or State 

should be shared to help other agencies; EPA will develop a website or 

bulletin board to facilitate the sharing of such information. 

• Identifying technical expertise. Local fire marshals already have 

process knowledge concerning ammonia and propane storage 

operations. In a State that implements Federal OSHA requirements, 

someone already has substantial chemical process knowledge. Where a 

State has instituted a chemical risk management program, there likely 

will be facility inspectors with sector-specific knowledge. Trade 

associations may keep a list of technical experts, and these experts may 

form the core of the technical assistance support. 

Training. Facilities and any agency taking part in the program could benefit 

from training on particular topics related to section 112(r). EPA will provide 

some training (including train-the-trainer courses), so Regions, States, or local 

groups could then present the training locally. Not only will implementation 

program staff get a useful learning experience, but in taking the training back to 

10
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

Regions and localities, there is a chance to establish a true partnership with 

industry sectors in your jurisdiction. Other examples of training initiatives are: 

• Developing or disseminating a home study course. Without incurring 

the cost of travel, environmental management staff (especially at small 

businesses) can use the material to learn about the risk management 

program and test their knowledge of compliance issues. This may be a 

good way for implementation staff to get up to speed, too. There are 

several courses to build upon. For example, EPA continues to give its 

chemical safety audit course. U.S. OSHA offers a one-week overview 

course on chemical processing industries. Anyone can copy those 

materials freely for use in a course developed to suit the processes and 

industries in a State and its localities. 

• Finding out what other training is available for owners and operators in 

the area and posting the information electronically or on an office public 

bulletin board. In addition to the training described above, some 

industry organizations may offer training on process safety management 

for facilities in their sector. A number of organizations, such as the 

American Institute of Chemical Engineers and the Chemical 

Manufacturers Association, have videos that can help people understand 

some of the technical aspects of the EPA rule (e.g., safe handling of 

flammables). 

RMP Reviews. In subpart G, the risk management program rule specifies what 

information the source must include in its risk management plan (RMP). The 

RMP submission system that EPA is developing will check each RMP filed to 

ensure that all the required data elements have been completed; any RMP that 

is not complete will not be accepted. Agencies may want to review the 

executive summary and check registration data, with data submitted to the State 

under EPCRA section 312 to identify any discrepancies. Agencies also may 

want to review RMPs to identify internal inconsistencies in data submitted, 

facilities with potential problems based on their accident histories, and unusual 

data (e.g., failure to list appropriate hazards under the prevention program). 

Review of an RMP does not constitute approval of an RMP. Implementing 

agencies are not required to “approve” RMPs. 

RMP Audits. Under the CAA and § 68.220, RMPs are subject to audit to assess 

whether the plans are adequate or need revision to comply with the rule. The 

implementation program must include some audits. No minimum number or 

11
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

percentage of RMPs has been set. States are not required to audit all RMPs, 

although some may elect to do so. Congress considered a requirement that 1.4 

percent of the RMPs be audited annually, but dropped that provision. Each 

implementing agency will have to decide what is a reasonable level of auditing, 

based on local needs and resources. 

Section 68.220 provides criteria for selecting stationary sources for audits. An 

audit may be a paper review and does not necessarily require on-site 

inspection, although the two may be combined. Audits of RMPs are reviews of 

the contents of the RMP to determine whether it indicates a complete risk 

management program and appears to reflect adequate compliance (as opposed 

to review, which may simply determine whether all required data have been 

reported). An example of the kinds of issues to evaluate in an audit is whether 

dates listed for activities seem to be internally consistent (e.g., date of the last 

review of prevention elements is before the date reported for the most recent 

major change). An audit also could focus on accident histories and offsite 

consequence analyses results and whether these reflect reasonable results. 

Audits could be useful in comparing the accident history with the accidents 

reported to the SERC and LEPCs under EPCRA section 304. Audits also may 

compare practices among facilities within the same industry sector to determine 

if particular facilities within the State seem to be meeting industry standards. 

As a result of an audit, which may be combined with an inspection, a facility 

may be required to revise its RMP and correct deficiencies in its underlying 

program. For example, if an audit indicated that a facility had not reviewed 

and updated operating procedures after a change and that such updates were 

needed, the facility could be required to update the procedures, retrain workers 

in the new procedures, and submit a revised RMP indicating the new 

information. 

An implementing agency may audit all or a part of the covered sources in a 

State or Region to help identify potential problems. It may target some 

industry sectors or chemicals. This is a good way to enhance partnerships with 

industries; audits will help industry better understand what the agency is 

looking for and how well they are meeting compliance objectives. 

Inspections. Inspections complement RMP audit activities and are valuable for 

evaluating compliance with the substantive elements of the section 112(r) rule. 

Many State and Regional programs for the protection of public health and 

safety already include on-site inspections. For example, water permitting 

12
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

agencies visit treatment plants; fire inspectors check on propane distributors. 

With proper training, it may be highly efficient to have these regulators and 

inspectors add section 112(r) compliance elements to their inspection checklist. 

Further, if inexperienced inspectors partner with an experienced inspector as a 

team leader, this can be an efficient way to educate others and expand the pool 

of technical experts available to industry and the community. This approach 

means the implementing agency may not need to conduct inspections that 

other authorities are performing already. (Again, there may be restrictions on 

how funds in existing State programs may be used.) 

BUILDING AN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 

EPA is striving for a common-sense implementation of the section 112(r) rule 

that builds upon existing health and safety programs already in place in a State 

or Region. This section discusses some sectors where existing programs can be 

used as a basis for implementing some or all of the elements of an 

implementation program. 

PROPANE RETAILERS AND USERS 

In all of the States but one, propane use is subject to State laws based on 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 58. This standard will 

help many facilities comply with the section 112(r) prevention program 

requirements. (The facility also must meet the hazard assessment, emergency 

response, and RMP requirements.) EPA’s model risk management program 

for propane is based on NFPA-58. The State fire marshal and local fire 

departments may want to add section 112(r) requirements to their regular fire 

inspections. After having received appropriate training in the model risk 

management program for propane facilities and technical support from EPA, 

local inspectors then would check for elements of the program as part of 

routine inspections. If problems exist, the fire inspectors could work directly 

with the facility to resolve them. If the facility refuses to address problems, the 

fire department could refer the problem to the implementing agency for 

appropriate action. 

DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS AND POTWS 

State water authorities issuing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) and other water quality permits probably inspect wastewater and 

drinking water treatment facilities to look at discharges into surface water or 

underground injection wells and test water quality. States that have delegation 

13
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

of the pretreatment program may be able to work with their local wastewater 

treatment facilities to include some section 112(r) inspection elements in their 

annual inspection of regulated facilities. Model risk management programs are 

being developed for drinking water systems and wastewater treatment systems. 

With training, and presuming no funding restrictions exist for State inspection 

programs, water quality facility inspectors could add section 112(r) 

requirements to their inspection protocols. Again, if a State inspector identifies 

problems with section 112(r) compliance, the inspector could work with the 

facility to resolve the problems, using referral to the implementing agency as a 

backup if the facility refuses to take the steps the inspectors believe are needed 

to protect the community. 

OSHA PSM FACILITIES 

EPA’s Program 3 prevention program (40 CFR part 68 subpart D) largely 

includes the same requirements as the PSM standard, so that oversight under 

the PSM standard should serve many section 112(r) compliance objectives. 

(See Appendix D.) For example, in a State with a delegated OSHA program, 

the State OSHA already is overseeing the Program 3 prevention program for 

facilities subject to both sets of requirements. 

There are some differences, however, between the EPA and OSHA programs. 

For example, although the prevention requirements of Program 3 are 

substantially the same as the PSM standard, the two programs vary slightly to 

address the different statutory authority of EPA and OSHA. Further, EPA’s 

risk management program rule covers elements beyond the PSM standard, such 

as an accident history and offsite consequence analysis. The chemical lists that 

trigger PSM and section 112(r) applicability are substantially similar, but not 

identical. Finally, EPA’s rule covers some processes (all Program 2 processes 

and some Program 3 processes in specific SIC codes) that OSHA PSM does 

not. 

Despite the differences, the State OSHA program already has the authority to 

oversee compliance with the Program 3 prevention elements for most 

processes. It generally will be preferable for this agency to work with the 

implementing agency through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to 

ensure that actions are not duplicated and are consistent. 

14
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

TARGETED SECTORS 

Targeting particular industrial sectors of facilities based on past accident 

history can be a good way to start building an implementation program. For 

example, if reports under EPCRA section 304 or 313 reveal large air releases 

from certain sectors of the chemical manufacturing industry, focusing 

compliance efforts on that industrial sector may have the most potential for 

chemical accident prevention and air emissions reduction in that Region or 

locality. There are many criteria set out in § 68.220(b) to target a facility 

sector. 

CAA SECTION 507 - SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SBAP) 

CAA section 507 requires States to establish a small business stationary source 

technical and environmental compliance assistance program. This program can 

be a key link for working with small businesses. The program includes 

mechanisms for collecting and coordinating information on compliance 

methods and technologies for small businesses; mechanisms for assisting small 

businesses with accident prevention and detection; a State ombudsman to help 

small businesses; a compliance assistance program; mechanisms for ensuring 

that small businesses are informed of their rights and obligations under the Act; 

and procedures to consider small business requests. Small businesses are 

defined as facilities with 100 or fewer employees that are not major sources. 

More information is available at the SBAP home page: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap/. 

HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The offsite consequence analysis and emergency response sections of the 

section 112(r) rule are likely to be of particular interest to local responders. 

Local response organizations may want to serve as the reviewer of these 

analyses and facility response plans. EPA is providing guidance on the offsite 

consequence analysis and the rule in general and will provide guidance for 

local agencies on how to interpret and use this information. Having LEPC 

member agencies serve as primary reviewer of these parts of the RMP will 

enhance local planning efforts, encourage more contacts between the 

community and industry, and provide local agencies with a general 

introduction to the risk management program rule. 

15
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

FUNDING 

State or local agencies seeking to implement all or part of the CAA section 

112(r) program will need to identify funding sources. A number of potential 

options are available to support some or all of your implementation activities. 

EPA GRANT PROGRAMS 

The EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office funds 

technical assistance grants (TAG) to help States and local agencies develop 

chemical accident prevention programs as well as to integrate their chemical 

accident prevention activities with related activities under EPCRA, pollution 

prevention, and other environmental and safety programs. Examples of 

projects that will be considered for an award include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• Development of a comprehensive implementation strategy for an 

accidental release prevention program which includes how CAA section 

112(r) will be integrated with other State and local programs, possible 

funding mechanisms, how the information will be managed, and 

enforcement approaches. (EPA will accept proposals that include an 

incremental approach to implementing a CAA section 112(r) program. 

More comprehensive programs will be eligible for more funding.) 

• Development of legislative authority, regulations, and/or documentation 

needed for full or partial delegation of a State or local accident 

prevention program under CAA section 112(r). (The TAG program will 

not fund projects intended to set up a CAA Title V permitting program.) 

• Development of guidance and/or training materials to assist States 

and/or LEPCs and other agencies in reviewing risk management plans 

and using information in the risk management plans to protect public 

health and the environment. 

• Development of innovative local approaches to including facility audits 

and inspections within existing LEPC activities. 

• Development of a local or Statewide risk communication project to 

prepare communities to use, understand, and act upon information 

available under EPCRA and CAA section 112(r). 

16 
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

Check the CEPPO website (http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/) for current information 

on the grant program. 

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 authorizes EPA to make matching grants 

to States for programs to promote the use of source reduction techniques by 

businesses. If a State gets funding under this Act, it can use the money to make 

specific technical assistance (including expert technical advice) available to 

businesses seeking information about source reduction opportunities. Pollution 

Prevention Act grants will primarily be useful as funding sources to support 

technical assistance and outreach projects, such as hotlines, training courses, 

workshops, websites, and printed informational materials. Further information 

on pollution prevention grants can be obtained from the grant program website 

at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home/grants.htm. 

Under CAA section 105, EPA provides grants to cover up to three-fifths of the 

cost of planning, developing, establishing, carrying out, improving, or 

maintaining programs that address the prevention and control of air pollution. 

Further information on section 105 grants can be obtained from EPA’s Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw). 

OTHER FUNDING SOURCES 

States and local agencies also may seek to support a section 112(r) program 

through fees or appropriations from the State legislature or local authorities. 

States that have accident prevention programs under State laws generally have 

supported these programs through fees on the regulated community. The fees 

have been assessed per source, per process, per chemical, or per quantity of 

chemical. Use of permit fees collected under CAA Title V is limited to 

carrying out the requirements of § 68.215, which provides the responsibilities 

of the air permitting authorities in relation to part 68. Appropriations from the 

State or local general fund may be another possible source of funding to 

support some or all parts of a section 112(r) program. 

17
Chapter 2 

Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program 

18 
CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSHIPS FOR 

THE SECTION 112(r) PROGRAM 

EPA is ready to be an implementation partner in coordinating Federal and State 

chemical accident prevention program requirements, in obtaining program 

delegation, and in developing resources to fund State or local programs. EPA 

is willing to enter into cooperative agreements with States and localities for 

section 112(r) implementation, including written memoranda of understanding 

describing, for example, when EPA will intervene to inspect a facility or 

initiate enforcement action. EPA also is willing to entertain appropriate 

informal agreements with State entities. EPA and the States can work together 

through workshops, seminars, and pilot studies designed to foster local 

program implementation and to build a support network. In other words, our 

approach is flexible. We want to keep as much of the section 112(r) program 

as possible in the localities where chemical accident prevention problems and 

solutions will arise. 

EPA will provide needed technical support and grants to assist State and local 

agencies to begin implementing all or part of the section 112(r) program, will 

be the implementing agency for any State that does not obtain section 112(l) 

delegation for part 68 provisions, and will publish general technical guidance to 

help States, localities, and sources understand or comply with the risk 

management program rule. 

EPA is working with industry groups to develop model programs for industries 

with many small businesses and with well-understood processes and practices. 

Right now, documents under development include industry-specific guidance 

for ammonia refrigeration, propane handling, warehouses, chemical 

distributors, wastewater treatment, and water treatment. These models can be 

used to help build programs for specific industry sectors. 

WHY ADOPT A STATE RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM? 

Many benefits are accrued when the section 112(r) program is implemented at 

the State and local level. For example, there are increased prospects of 

identifying the most probable high risk or high consequence accidents that may 

happen in a community and spreading response resources appropriately. 

Preventing the accident before it happens can help avoid the property and 

health damage, business shut-downs, higher insurance rates, and other costs 

that come when there is no effective accident prevention program. 

19
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

Further, accident prevention, pollution prevention, environmental protection, 

and worker and public health and safety requirements are best integrated at the 

community level. In all likelihood, State regulatory agencies already have 

established partnerships and close working relationships with sources in their 

jurisdiction. Further, where State and local, publicly owned sources are 

covered by the risk management program rule, implementation at the State and 

local level can serve to enhance compliance that otherwise may require 

increased Federal coordination and involvement. 

IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES 

As discussed in Chapter 2, there are many ways to build a section 112(r) 

implementation program. With the flexibility of the final 112(r) rule, State and 

local agencies have several implementation options. States may select any 

State or local agency to implement this program, including an air permitting 

authority. State and local agencies can take on some or all of the 

implementation activities for some or all of the covered facilities. Multiple 

agencies may want to participate. For example, the State environmental 

agency may want to provide technical assistance and training while other State 

and local agencies, such as State OSHA, the fire marshals, and LEPCs focus on 

auditing, inspections, and RMP reviews. The State Emergency Response 

Commission (SERC) provides the ideal situation for multi-agency involvement. 

EPA is willing to work with States and local agencies to develop an approach 

that is tailored to the specific situations in the area. Arrangements between 

EPA and State and local agencies may be informal or formal. 

INFORMAL AGREEMENTS 

Informal agreements may be verbal or written, but would impose no legally 

binding responsibilities. (Ultimately, of course, it is better for all involved 

parties when issues and/or agreements are clearly stated in writing. Some 

Regions may prefer that even informal agreements be written.) Such 

agreements may be particularly appropriate in the early stages of building an 

implementation program, when State or local agencies need to determine 

whether they have the capabilities to fulfill certain roles. Informal agreements 

may be between the EPA Region and State and local agencies or they may be 

between the State and local agencies, with only one State agency working 

directly with the Region. Such agreements would not change the requirements 

for facilities under section 112(r). 

20
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) 

When a State or local agency is certain that it will be able to carry out specific 

functions, it should formalize responsibilities by developing a Memorandum of 

Agreement with EPA, specifying the role and responsibility of EPA and the 

agency. The Region will discuss the details of particular components with the 

individual State to tailor the MOA to the specific needs and aspects of the State 

program. Generally, a State official and the Regional Administrator negotiate 

the MOA, with the Region exercising discretion in deciding whether it or the 

State drafts the document. If there is a lead State agency responsible for 

coordinating implementation activities, it should sign the MOA and execute a 

Memorandum of Understanding with any other State entity that may have a 

necessary implementation role. 

There are many advantages to an MOA. In complying with the MOA terms, a 

State can demonstrate its commitment to the section 112(r) program and earn 

political support among its citizens. Regional and State staff should recognize 

the MOA as a flexible way to “customize” the division of the State and Federal 

responsibility. As with informal agreements, such agreements would not 

change the requirements for facilities under section 112(r). 

FORMAL DELEGATION 

Formal delegation is the way Congress has provided for a State to take over 

primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement of the accident 

prevention programs under section 112(r). A formal delegation may be full or 

partial. Full delegation means the State takes over the entire section 112(r) 

program for all covered sources. Partial delegation means the State takes the 

entire section 112(r) program for Title V permitted sources only, or takes the 

entire program for some discrete universe of sources covered by the section 

112(r) rule. In other words, under partial delegation, a State may request 

implementation authority for a defined universe of sources, but may not take 

less than the entire section 112(r) program for that defined universe. Title V 

funds are available only to pay for implementing § 68.215 of the section 112(r) 

rule. 

Under the formal delegation process, a State adopts a chemical accident 

prevention program under State law and submits it to EPA for approval. EPA 

adopts the State rules, which then become Federally enforceable in that State. 

Because the CAA provides specific requirements for delegation, the details of 

how to gain delegation are described in the next section. 

21
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

DELEGATION UNDER CAA SECTION 112(l) 

Section 112(l) of the CAA establishes the framework for formal delegation — 

whether full or partial. Section 112(l) allows EPA to approve a State’s program 

for implementing and enforcing an accident prevention rule or program that is 

at least as stringent as the Federal section 112(r) program. EPA can approve 

a State request for delegation when: 

• The authorities in the State program are adequate to ensure compliance 

by all sources within the State; 

• The State demonstrates that it has adequate authority and adequate 

resources to implement the program; and 

• The State’s schedule for implementing the program is sufficiently 

expeditious. 

STATE RULES 

In 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, EPA has issued regulations to define the 

delegation process provided in section 112(l) and identify the elements that a 

State request must address. Under part 63, subpart E, a State has three options, 

in terms of the rules it adopts to implement section 112(r): 

• Adopt the Federal rule. 

• Adopt the Federal rule and make adjustments. 

• Adopt a program that differs from the Federal rule. 

Adopting Part 68. If a State adopts part 68 and wants delegation authority to 

implement it as the State’s own program, it must comply with §§ 63.91 and 

63.95 to request approval. If there is no chemical accident prevention program 

in the State, this is the most direct approach to establishing one and has the 

secondary benefit of ensuring that the State program is “at least as stringent” as 

EPA’s. 

Adopting Part 68 with Some Adjustments. The CAA allows a State to adopt 

requirements that are more stringent than EPA’s. For example, a State could 

adopt part 68 as its own, but add a few specific requirements aimed at an 

industry sector with an unusually high incidence of accidental releases. States 

choosing to take this option must make all the showings in §§ 63.91 and 63.95, 

and some others as specified under § 63.92. Section 63.92 describes allowable 

adjustments to the section 112(r) rule and further requirements that must be 

met. Chief among these other requirements are demonstrations that the State 

22
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

rules are at least as stringent as EPA’s with respect to applicability, level of 

control for each affected source, compliance and enforcement measures, and 

compliance assurance for each covered source. Table 3-1 describes the 

approval criteria for State programs also subject to § 63.92. 

Adopting a Program Entirely Different From Part 68. Substituting a State rule 

or program for EPA’s section 112(r) rule requires the most showings, but it is 

an available option. For example, a State may have a full chemical accident 

prevention program which it is confident will meet the same elements of the 

Federal rule and is at least as stringent. States choosing this option must make 

all the showings in §§ 63.91 and 63.95, and some others specified in § 63.93. 

Where § 63.92 establishes what showings a State must provide to make 

adjustments to the part 68 programs, § 63.93 sets out similar requirements 

where the State wants to substitute its own program elements for some or all of 

the section 112(r) rule elements. Table 3-1 describes the approval criteria for 

State programs also subject to § 63.93. 

A State program that simply adopts part 68 (either by reference or adopting part 

68 verbatim into State law) requires the fewest showings, and a program that 

differs from part 68 requires the most. A State program, however, must be as 

stringent as part 68; it must cover the same processes with at least the same 

level of requirements. A State may add sources or requirements, but it may not 

exclude sources covered by EPA or reduce requirements for covered sources. 

Every State seeking delegation authority for the section 112(r) program must 

address the elements in §§ 63.91 and 63.95, and must submit: 

• A letter from the State Attorney General addressing the State’s legal 

authorities to enforce the program for which it seeks delegation (see 

Exhibit 2 for an example); 

• Copies of all statutes and regulations pertaining to the program; 

• A schedule for ensuring expeditious implementation and a plan for 

expeditious compliance; and 

• Documents that demonstrate the State’s compliance authority. 

Table 3-1 describes the approval criteria that apply to any State program for 

which section 112(l) delegation is sought. 

One of the elements every State must address according to § 63.91 is to have at 

least the same legal authorities as 40 CFR 70.11 requires. Table 3-2 describes 

the requirements of § 70.11. 

23
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

EPA is in the process of amending 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. This guidance 

reflects some of the amendments that will be proposed. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to eliminate the requirements in existing § 63.95 for registration and 

submission of the RMP and documentation of coordination with the SERC, 

LEPC, and Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Registration and 

submission of the RMP will be handled by EPA. Although EPA encourages 

States to coordinate activities with the SERC and LEPCs, the Agency is 

proposing that this coordination should not be a requirement for delegation. 

Up-to-date information about the part 63 revisions is available on EPA 

websites: http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/ and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw. 

AUTHORITY RETAINED BY EPA 

Certain section 112(r) authorities and program requirements will not be 

delegated to States. For example, although a State may require sources to 

submit RMPs to the implementing agency, that requirement will not replace the 

part 68 requirement that the RMP must be submitted to a central location in the 

form and manner EPA specifies. Therefore, subpart G of part 68 is not 

available for delegation. Also, the General Duty clause (CAA section 

112(r)(1)) is non-delegable; the order authority in CAA section 112(r)(9) is not 

a required part of the program. 

In setting up the RMP*Submit and RMP*Info (see Appendix E), EPA will try 

to accommodate additional State data elements if practicable. However, State 

authorities should be prepared to handle data elements and filing requirements 

at variance with the Federal 112(r) program rule. Table 3-3 describes what 

authorities will and will not be delegated for section 112(r) and part 68. 

DEMONSTRATION OF RESOURCES 

Among the core elements of a delegation request is a clear demonstration that 

the State has adequate resources to implement and enforce the program for 

which it seeks delegation. Demonstrating adequate resources for running a 

successful 112(r) program means the State shows clearly that it has both the 

funding and a staff that is large enough and has the appropriate qualifications to 

implement the program being proposed. That program must include: 

Reviews of the RMPs;

An audit and inspection strategy; and 

Technical assistance.

24
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

The first step a State may want to take is to estimate the number and type of 

facilities in the State that are subject to the rule. This information will help 

determine the qualifications needed for staff members and will provide a 

framework for decisions about the level of effort the State intends for RMP 

review and audits, on-site inspections, and technical assistance. 

Level of Effort. There are no hard-and-fast rules for what constitutes an 

adequate level of effort as this is likely to vary among States based on the 

number and type of facilities. Congress originally considered requiring that 1.4 

percent of facilities be audited every year, but dropped that requirement when it 

passed the Clean Air Act amendments. Some States with existing accident 

prevention programs audit and inspect every facility once every three to five 

years, but that level of effort is not required under section 112(r) regulations. 

Each State must determine what constitutes an adequate level of effort to 

ensure compliance by its regulated community. Implementing agencies may 

want to develop a program that increases the level of effort over time; for 

example, the implementing agency may propose to start with a small number of 

annual audits, but over the first five to ten years of the program, increase the 

number until all RMPs are audited over a five-year RMP cycle. 

RMP*Submit (see Appendix E) will review each RMP for basic adequacy — 

are all the required elements complete? — and will reject any RMP that is not 

complete. States will need to define additional reviews they will do. These 

may include checks of the RMP for internal inconsistencies and unusual 

entries. It will probably be possible to do many of these reviews using the 

RMP database; if a State or local implementing agency intends to use the 

database to do reviews, staff capable of using the systems should be included in 

the staffing plan. 

States should develop an audit and inspection strategy that is tailored to the 

particular universe of facilities covered by the rule in the State. The State 

should define, using numbers or percentages, how many facilities they expect 

to audit and inspect each year and provide the basis for selection, using the 

criteria in § 68.220. In general, audits and inspections will take longer for 

chemical manufacturing and petroleum refining facilities than they will take for 

drinking water systems and retailers. 

Implementing agencies also are required to provide technical assistance. The 

State or local agency will need to define what the technical assistance will 

consist of (e.g., workshops, training courses, hotlines, consultations) and who 

will deliver the services. 

25
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

Adequate Staff Resources. The level of effort the State proposes will dictate the 

level of staffing required. The kind of staff expertise needed to implement and 

enforce the 112(r) program depends on the nature of the covered facilities 

within the State. For example, if a State has a substantial number of large 

chemical manufacturing sources with Program 3 processes, the 112(l) 

delegation request should show that the State has sufficient qualified staff to 

carry out the number of audits and inspections proposed for this industrial 

sector. If the majority of covered sources in the State are Program 2 propane 

retailers and public systems, with few Program 3 sources, the required staff 

expertise may be met through fire safety training and water treatment experts. 

In documenting staff resources, the State must show that the staff it has are 

adequate, in terms of both numbers and qualifications, to fulfill the 

implementation strategy proposed. If the State will need to hire additional 

staff, particularly if the new staff have high levels of expertise, the State also 

may need to document that it can, in fact, hire such staff (i.e., that it has the 

authorization to hire additional staff at the appropriate level and that the salaries 

it can offer are sufficient to attract people with the needed level of expertise). 

If the State intends to use contractors to perform some of the functions, it must 

document that appropriate contractors are available and willing to provide the 

services at the rate the State is proposing to pay. Similarly, if the State plans to 

use local officials to carry out some functions, it must document that these 

officials have agreed to perform the tasks and have the necessary expertise. 

In addition to the auditing and inspection staff, the State should identify 

administrative and enforcement staff needed, such as data management 

personnel and attorneys. If the State implementing agency is relying on the 

agency’s general counsel or the State attorney general’s office to provide 

program advice and enforcement support, the State must document the 

commitment of these offices to provide the level support the State is proposing 

to use. 

Appendix C provides some cost estimates for implementing CAA section 

112(r) programs. EPA plans to develop a spreadsheet that states will be able to 

use to estimate needed resources for varying levels of effort. Check the 

CEPPO home page (http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/) for a copy that will be 

downloadable. 

Adequate Funding Resources. The key to demonstrating adequate resources is 

ensuring that funding is sufficient to acquire the kind and number of experts 

needed to carry out the audit and inspection strategy. Title V permit fees are 

26
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

not available for implementing and enforcing the 112(r) program. Therefore, 

the State should have a mechanism such as a dedicated fee structure or 

appropriation from an identified revenue stream as the funding source for the 

112(r) program. 

THE SECTION 112(l) APPROVAL PROCESS 

The State Governor or the Governor’s designees generally should initiate the 

approval process. As Table 3-1 indicates, part 63 indicates what elements must 

be addressed and what documents must be submitted as part of a request for 

delegation authority under section 112(l). EPA staff are not as familiar as State 

personnel with State statutes and regulations, so the State’s application should 

be clear and complete. Exhibits 1 and 2 provide sample letters from the 

governor and Attorney General. Section 112(l) documents provide guidance 

for a complete submittal. 

Part 63 also sets out the time lines for EPA review and approval, and the 

process for public review and comment. If EPA disapproves a State program, 

we will notify the State of any revisions or modifications it can make to obtain 

the approval. The State then can revise its request and resubmit its rule or 

program according to part 63. Appendix B is a checklist that States can use to 

help ensure a complete and clear application. 

SELECTING AN IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

A State that goes through the request and approval process and receives 

delegation under section 112(l) and part 63, subpart E, will be the 

“implementing agency” for section 112(r). This means that the State will have 

primary authority and responsibility to carry out all the elements of the section 

112(r) rule for covered sources in the State — including on-site inspections, 

record keeping reviews, audits, enforcement, and all other delegable part 68 

elements. A State has the flexibility to select any of its agencies to implement 

the risk management program, including the State environmental agency, the 

emergency management agency, or a State OSHA program. Of course, the 

selected agency must have the legal authority, resources, and expertise to 

implement the program; and the State must maintain enforcement 

responsibility. 

A State may select multiple implementing agencies to handle separate parts of 

the program. States choosing this approach must be sure either that each 

27
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

agency has the legal authority to enforce the rule or that all enforcement actions 

can be carried out by one of the agencies or the State attorney general’s office. 

A single State or local agency could be the implementing agency. Three States 

— New Jersey, Delaware, and Nevada — are considering requesting section 

112(l) delegation and taking this approach. The single implementing agency 

option promotes consistent implementation and enforcement of the risk 

management program. 

An approach like the one described in Chapter 2, where many entities could be 

involved in implementing various elements of the program or in industry 

sectors, is also an option. However, a State should still appoint a lead or 

coordinating agency. (In many States, the SERC could serve as the lead or 

coordinating agency.) This agency should coordinate the program across all 

State agencies involved in implementing the section 112(r) rule to ensure 

consistency in interpretation and enforcement strategies. This agency also 

should oversee the application process by assembling the documentation and 

serving as the focal point for communication with EPA Headquarters or 

Regional offices. 

28
Table 3-1: Part 63, Subpart E Requirements 

All States seeking section 

112(l) delegation must 

submit under... 

§ 63.91(b) •Attorney General’s or General Counsel’s written finding that your State or agency has the necessary legal 

authority to implement and enforce your program; to assure compliance by all sources. At a minimum, must 

have the following legal authorities: 40 CFR § 70.11 authority; and authority to request information from 

regulated sources, to inspect the source and its records, and to enforce the program. 

•Documents. State statutes, regulations, and other documents that contain statements of authority to 

implement and enforce your program. 

•Demonstration that your State has adequate resources to implement and enforce the program. This includes a 

narrative describing your program’s scope, coverage, structure, and processes; the organization and structure of 

the agencies that will administer your program; and of staff who will implement the program. 

•A plan for expeditious compliance. 

•Demonstration of adequate legal authority to assure compliance. 

State wanting to adopt part 

68 without changes, with 

adjustments, or to substitute 

its program for part 68 must 

meet § 63.91 and under... 

§ 63.95(b) •Demonstrate the State’s authority and resources to implement and enforce regulations at least as stringent as 

the 112(r) regulations. 

•Describe procedures for reviewing any RMP and providing technical assistance to covered sources. 

•Demonstrate the State’s authority to enforce all prevention program requirements, including an RMP auditing 

strategy. 

•Comply with §§ 63.92 or 63.93 (whichever is appropriate). 

State wanting to adopt part 

68 with adjustments must 

meet §§ 63.91 and 63.95, 

and under... 

§ 63.92(b) •Demonstrate that the public within the State has had adequate notice and opportunity to submit written 

comment on the State rule. 

•Demonstrate that the State’s adjustments to part 68 result in requirements that are unequivocally no less 

stringent than the Federal rule regarding applicability, level of control for each affected source, compliance and 

enforcement measures, and compliance schedule. 

•Demonstrate that the adjustment either: adds a design, work practice, operational standard, or other such 

requirement; adds more information to record keeping and reporting requirements; adds an earlier date for 

compliance than does part 68; or makes any adjustment allowed in part 68. 

State wanting to substitute 

its program for part 68 must 

meet §§ 63.91 and 63.95, 

and under... 

§ 63.93(b) •Supply detailed documentation that the State’s authorities are no less stringent than the criteria in part 68 

regarding applicability, level of control for each affected source, compliance and enforcement measures, and 

compliance schedule. 

29
Table 3-2: Part 70.11, Requirements for Enforcement Authority 

State seeking to administer the 112(r) 

program must have the legal authority 

to... 

•Restrain or enjoin a person immediately (by order or suit in court) from engaging in any activity that 

presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment, 

in violation of a permit. 

•Seek injunctive relief in court to enjoin any violation of any program requirement without the 

necessity of a prior permit revocation. 

•Assess or sue in court to recover: 

–Civil penalties of at least $10,000 per day per violation against any person for violation of any 

applicable requirement, permit condition, fee or filing requirement; and any duty to allow or carry out 

inspection, entry, or monitoring activities, or any regulation or orders issued by the permitting 

authority. 

–Criminal fines of at least $10,000 per day per violation against any person who knowingly violates 

any applicable requirement, permit condition, or fee or filing requirement; makes a false material 

statement, representation, or certification in any notice or report required by a permit; or renders 

inaccurate any required monitoring device or method. 

30
Table 3-3: CAA section 112(r) and Part 68 Elements 

112(r)(1) - General Duty Clause Will not be delegated. 

112(r)(9) Order authority Not required as part of the program. 

Part 68, Subparts A-E All elements or equivalent must be included in State program. 

State rule elements must be at least as stringent. 

Applicability of rule and Program levels must be at least as stringent. 

Part 68, Subpart F State program must include all chemicals at thresholds no higher than EPA’s. 

Threshold determinations must be at least as stringent as EPA’s. 

Petition process is not required in State program. 

Part 68, Subpart G RMP will not be delegated. 

States may adopt separate reporting, but are not required to do so. 

Part 68, Subpart H 68.200 (record keeping) and 68.220 (audits) must be part of a State program. 

68.210 and 68.215 are not part of State section 112(r) programs (but States must comply with 68.215 for Title V 

sources). 

31
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

Exhibit 1

GOVERNOR'S LETTER 

A letter from the Governor transmits the State's application for approval of its chemical accident 

prevention program and acts as a formal request for EPA approval. The letter to EPA should 

include a reference to the Federal statute, a request for approval of the State program, and the 

Governor's signature. The letter is a formal tool to designate the responsible lead State agency. 

Sample Letter 

Ms. Jane Jones 

Regional Administrator 

Region XI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Dear Ms. Jones: 

In accordance with section 112(l) and section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as amended, I 

am forwarding an application for approval of the Chemical Accident Prevention Program of 

(State) . I believe you will find it contains the provisions necessary to implement an effective 

Chemical Accident Prevention Program. 

Should you require further information, please contact (Director) of (Lead Agency) 

. Thank you for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Jane Smith 

Governor 

32
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

Exhibit 2

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT 

States applying for program approval must submit an Attorney General (AG)'s statement that 

certifies that the statutes and regulations of the State provide adequate authority to carry out the 

technical requirements in a "no less stringent" manner and for adequate enforcement of these 

requirements. All statutes and regulations cited by the AG must be fully effective by the time the 

program is approved. In addition, if the State has any authority over Indian lands, or agreements 

with a Tribe or Tribes to do so, this must be described. The AG’s statement certifies to State 

authorities only. The requirement that the State have the authority to carry out the technical 

requirements and enforce those requirements does not change if certain aspects of the State 

program are implemented by local government agencies. The AG’s statement must be signed by 

the State AG or the attorney for those State or interstate agencies that have independent legal 

counsel. This provision allows the following persons to sign the AG’s statement: (1) the State or 

an attorney in his/her office who is authorized to sign for the AG; or, (2) a Deputy or Assistant AG 

if authorized to do so. Authorization should be in writing, case law, or statute. An independent 

counsel for the State may submit the "no less stringent" certification in place of the AG provided 

that the independent counsel has full authority to represent independently the State agency in court 

on all matters pertaining to the State program. 

Where a State has incorporated by reference any Federal regulation, the AG should demonstrate 

the authority to adopt State regulations in this manner. The AG should cite the State statutes and 

regulations, listing the comparable CFR cite and date of incorporation. If the State's incorporation 

is intended to include any EPA revisions that may occur in the future, then the AG should cite 

State authority both to promulgate and to enforce regulations in this manner. The State should note 

that the AG’s statement includes a certification that State statutes and regulations shall be fully 

effective by the time the program is approved. When a State adopts the Federal regulations by 

reference, the following standard phrase can be included in the AG’s statement to demonstrate that 

the State has no less stringent requirements: "The State has adopted the Federal regulations by 

reference and therefore meets the no less stringent criterion for 40 CFR § 68." This statement is 

sufficient for demonstrating adequate stringency and will save States from writing lengthy and 

unnecessary justifications of how the Federal regulations (adopted by reference) meet the Federal 

objectives. 

Sample Attorney General's Certification. Following is a suggested format for the State Attorney 

General's certification. The certification consists of two parts: (1) the Attorney General's letter of 

certification and (2) the Attorney General's statement. A form letter that certifies to the State's 

complete authorities is provided below. 

33
Chapter 3 

Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program 

Exhibit 2 (continued) 

Sample Letter 

Ms. Jane Jones 

Regional Administrator 

Region XI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Dear Ms. Jones: 

I hereby certify pursuant to my authority as [insert official title] and in accordance with 

sections 112(l) and 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and 40 CFR Part 68 that in my 

opinion the laws of the (State) provide adequate authority to (1) carry out the "no less 

stringent" technical requirements submitted by the (Lead Agency) , (2) adequately enforce 

compliance with such program, and (3) regulate, at a minimum, the same chemical accident 

prevention universe as the Federal program. I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the 

application submitted by (Lead Agency) is legally accurate. The specific authorities provided 

are contained in statutes or regulations lawfully adopted at the time this statement is signed and 

which will be effective by the time the program is approved, [or are provided by judicial decisions 

issued at the time this statement is signed]. 

Seal of Office 

Signature 

34
APPENDIX A

ESTIMATES OF SOURCES BY STATE

Table A-1 presents the universe estimates by State and Region, combining some sectors: SIC 

codes 28, 2911, and 2611, the sectors most likely to be OSHA PSM; all other manufacturers; 

all cold storage facilities (food processors, food wholesalers, and refrigerated public 

warehouses); propane retailers and users; and electric utilities. All of these numbers are 

estimates. Actual numbers may vary considerably. 

For manufacturers: 

• The “other manufacturer” estimates are based on TRI data for regulated substances, 

adjusted for non-compliance; compliance levels are generally assumed to be 70 

percent. 

• Estimates for SIC codes 26 (pulp and paper) and 28 (chemicals) are based on the 1992 

Census of Manufacturers, the most recent Census numbers; in most cases, all facilities 

or all facilities with more than nine employees are assumed to be covered. 

• SIC code 2911 (petroleum refining) is based on DOE/Energy Information Agency 

information; all refineries are assumed to be covered. 

For cold storage systems: 

• Specific food processors (e.g., meat, dairy, vegetables, beverages) are assumed to have 

ammonia refrigeration systems; all facilities in these sectors with more than 100 

employees, based on 1992 Census of Manufacturers data, are assumed to be covered. 

• Approximately ten percent of food distributors are assumed to have large refrigeration 

systems; 1992 Census data were used. 

• An estimated 85 percent of food warehouses are assumed to be covered for 

refrigeration; estimates are based on USDA State figures. 

Estimates for propane retailers and handlers were developed from industry information and 

Texas and New Jersey data; the estimates are distributed among States based on propane 

consumption per State. 

Agricultural retailer (ammonia) total estimates are based on industry information and 

distributed among States where ammonia use as a fertilizer is expected. 

Drinking water site estimates are based on the EPA Office of Water methodology for 

estimating the number of sites for systems of certain sizes and EPA data on the number of 

systems. POTW numbers are based on EPA data. These national numbers were distributed 

among the States based on population. 

Electric utilities numbers are taken from the Directory of Electric Utilities, assuming that any 

system that produces more than 10 megawatts of power is subject to the rule. 

A-1 
Federal facilities are not included in the list; States should probably assume that any large 

military installation and large DOE facility will be covered. 

Table A1: Universe by State and Sector 

State 28/29/ 

2611 

Other 

Mfr 

Cold 

Storage 

Ag 

Retail 

Propane Util Public Wholesale Total 

CT 30 170 60 0 190 22 91 24 590 

MA 40 320 150 0 290 36 168 37 1040 

ME 1 40 50 0 210 14 34 3 350 

NH 4 50 20 0 310 6 32 8 430 

RI 10 6 20 0 60 61 27 7 140 

VT 0 20 20 0 220 12 16 3 290 

NJ 185 210 12 0 530 27 40 97 1100 

NY 110 330 570 0 850 53 503 124 2540 

PR 51 30 - - - - - - 80 

VI 1 0 - - - 1 - - 2 

DE 10 20 20 0 50 12 20 4 140 

MD 30 70 90 0 315 18 140 16 680 

PA 205 370 320 0 740 55 335 60 2085 

VA 66 140 120 0 570 16 183 23 1120 

WV 21 30 20 0 100 13 51 9 240 

AL 96 125 90 0 640 14 120 17 1100 

FL 163 130 320 0 1040 56 390 80 2180 

GA 146 180 170 0 980 20 200 47 1740 

KY 63 90 60 0 680 26 107 17 1040 

MS 27 80 60 0 515 16 75 10 780 

NC 123 260 140 0 1480 21 199 42 2270 

SC 61 150 60 0 510 22 100 22 930 

TN 51 150 110 0 460 9 146 29 960 

A-2 
State 28/29/ 

2611 

Other 

Mfr 

Cold 

Storage 

Ag 

Retail 

Propane Util Public Wholesale Total 

IL 206 390 290 1030 975 65 330 80 3360 

IN 102 240 110 630 910 38 161 31 2220 

MI 103 350 190 0 1470 74 265 48 2500 

MN 32 170 140 670 1310 80 128 21 2550 

OH 214 470 220 280 1520 52 310 62 3130 

WI 47 150 300 0 1170 55 142 26 1890 

AR 43 100 85 0 430 19 69 11 760 

LA 108 60 90 0 230 35 120 39 680 

NM 12 20 20 0 220 13 47 9 340 

OK 45 60 60 150 440 27 91 27 900 

TX 302 350 360 670 1860 112 520 155 4330 

IA 40 130 140 950 1230 103 79 16 2690 

KS 33 60 60 300 560 89 71 15 1190 

MO 110 160 140 350 1490 80 148 33 2510 

NE 10 40 90 530 400 63 45 9 1190 

CO 22 80 80 200 450 34 104 21 990 

MT 5 10 20 0 120 5 24 4 190 

ND 3 4 20 160 175 17 18 6 400 

SD 0 10 30 200 310 23 20 3 600 

UT 25 50 50 0 100 17 54 12 310 

WY 14 3 5 0 170 7 13 9 220 

AZ 15 110 60 0 260 18 117 16 600 

CA 367 960 770 0 1100 66 876 141 4280 

NV 8 5 20 0 100 17 42 4 200 

HI 12 10 40 0 90 13 33 4 200 

A-3 
State 28/29/ 

2611 

Other 

Mfr 

Cold 

Storage 

Ag 

Retail 

Propane Util Public Wholesale Total 

AK 10 1 8 0 30 50 17 2 120 

ID 10 30 50 0 100 2 32 5 230 

OR 22 110 90 0 210 6 87 13 540 

WA 81 100 180 200 390 14 151 18 1130 

A-4 
APPENDIX B

CHECKLIST FOR STATE PROGRAM SUBMITTAL

1. Does the State have statutory authority to adopt: 

a. EPA’s list of substances and thresholds? 

b. Accident prevention regulations that are at least as stringent as EPA's? 

c. State regulations to incorporate any changes or additions to EPA's accident 

prevention regulations? 

d. Provisions to impose on facilities in violation of the regulations civil and 

criminal penalties equal to those specified in 40 CFR 70.11? 

2. To which State agency will the program be delegated? 

a. Is the statutory authority of the agency sufficient for it to implement the risk 

management program? 

b. How will that agency/office coordinate with the State air permit program? 

c. How will the agency/office coordinate with the SBAP? 

3. If all or part of the program will be delegated to local agencies: 

a. Which local agencies will be responsible for implementation? 

b. Are the legal authorities available to the local agencies sufficient to carry out 

their role? 

4. What strategy will the State use to develop its auditing program? 

a. What criteria will the State use to select facilities for audits? 

b. How many (number or percentage) facilities will the State audit annually? 

c. If local authorities will conduct some or all audits, what strategy must they use 

to audit? 

d. What mechanism does the State have to ensure that local authorities conduct 

the required number or percentage of audits annually? 

B-1
5. Based on the number of facilities potentially covered and the auditing and inspections 

which are anticipated: 

a. Specify the number and type of staff the program will need for inspection, data 

management, enforcement, and program management. 

b. Specify the number of staff having the required expertise for all categories that 

are currently available to work on this program. 

c. Specify plans for hiring or training staff to make up for any shortfall. 

6. Based on the staffing requirements: 

a. Estimate the annual budget requirements for the office implementing the 

program. 

b. Specify how continued funding to meet the budget requirements will be 

accomplished. 

c. If the program will be funded by State-specific fees, what legislation was 

adopted to collect the fees? 

d. If the program will be funded by grants or general revenues, provide 

information on why these sources of funding will continue to be available at an 

adequate level. 

7. If all or part of the program will be delegated to local authorities: 

a. Specify the staff and financial resources that will be needed at the local level. 

b. Specify the degree to which qualified staff are already available to local 

authorities. 

c. If local authorities will need to hire staff, specify their plans for doing so. 

d. Specify the State's mechanism for overseeing the local program to ensure that 

adequate staffing and resources are available. 

e. If the State will not fund local programs, specify how such programs will be 

funded, including the legal authorities local agencies may use to impose fees or 

raise taxes to cover the costs. 

B-2
8. Provide an implementation schedule that includes: 

a. Milestones for completing regulations (if needed), staffing, data management 

systems, and training. 

b. Schedule for any elements to be phased in and date of complete 

implementation. 

B-3
B-4
APPENDIX C 

COST OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

The cost of implementation will vary considerably depending on the number and type of 

facilities and the level of effort the implementing agency and cooperating agencies undertake. 

The information in this appendix is intended to provide estimates for types of activities to 

allow agencies to begin to estimate resource needs. The cost estimates presented for staff 

include wages, benefits, and a minimal overhead charge (17 percent). Because at least some 

of the staff may be dedicated to this program, the real cost of their time will be higher because 

the full cost of overhead would be incurred. 

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COSTS 

Technical assistance. In developing its economic analysis for the final rule, EPA assumed 

that technical assistance involved primarily answering questions from facilities and other 

agencies. Non-manufacturing sources were assumed to require 0.5 hours per facility; 

manufacturers and State and local agencies were assumed to require one hour per facility or 

agency. These numbers were considered averages if all facilities and agencies sought 

assistance; some facilities and agencies will take more time and may make multiple calls; 

others will never seek assistance. Some of these calls will be handled by EPA’s hotline staff 

and, consequently, will not impose a cost on the implementing agency. 

Training. Training courses for inspectors were assumed to take 10 days; courses on model 

RMPs probably will be considerably less extensive. Some model RMP training may be 

provided on videotape, which could substantially reduce the cost. The 10-day training course 

is based on OSHA’s current inspector course for PSM; because the section 112(r) rule 

includes other requirements and different prevention programs, the section 112(r) course 

might need to be longer. The 10-day course, however, covers compliance issues that may not 

be needed for all agencies taking part in implementation. The degree to which a long 

inspector course is necessary also will depend on the expertise of the staff who will be serving 

as inspectors. If the staff are experienced in industrial processes, the course could be 

considerably shorter. 

Developing and presenting a 10-day training course was estimated to cost approximately 

$28,000; this cost covers course development and presentation, materials, and administrative 

costs (registration, facility rental, equipment). 

If EPA provides this inspector course, the only cost to the trainees’ agencies will be for the 

trainees’ travel, room and board, and salaries. EPA’s analysis assumed these costs would 

average $4,200 per trainee. If training is obtained from private sources, the course fees also 

will have to be considered. Generally, private groups providing training charge $300 to $500 

per day of training. 

C-1
Workshops for facilities were assumed to last 4.5 days (similar to the Chemical Safety Audit 

training). The cost of developing and presenting a workshop such as this was estimated to be 

$20,000. Using an EPA course (with appropriate modifications for the specific States) could 

significantly reduce this cost. 

Other types of training may be needed, but in general these training courses probably will be 

shorter. For example, workshops on the RMP data may be presented to LEPCs and the 

public. Attorneys working on the program may require training on the rule and compliance 

issues. (The “rule of thumb” for training courses is that they require four hours of 

development time for each hour of training.) 

RMP Review. Because RMPs will be submitted electronically, RMP reviews for 

completeness will be conducted automatically by EPA’s submission system. These reviews 

may not need to be repeated by the implementation program. The reviews, which simply 

check to see that all RMP data have been submitted, may not require more than 0.25 to 0.5 

hours per facility for simple facilities if done by an individual; facilities with multiple 

processes could take longer. 

Audits. Audits are paper reviews of the adequacy of the RMP; audits may or may not be 

associated with on-site inspections discussed below. Some of the auditing function may be 

done by computer (e.g., checks for internal consistency of the numbers). EPA’s analysis 

estimated the time for reviews to vary from 1 hour for most non-manufacturers to 12 hours for 

large complex chemical manufacturers. Additional time will be needed when problems are 

identified and RMPs need to be revised. In that case, the facility will have to be notified and 

problems discussed. If this process is being handled by the implementing agency, these 

discussions will have to be documented and responses may need to be in writing. 

Enforcement attorneys may be involved in this process; their time is not included in the 

estimate. 

Inspections. The time required for on-site inspections will vary both by type of facility and 

the scope of the inspection. The average time for inspection of a simple facility may be no 

more than eight hours, including preparation time and report writing. For large chemical 

companies or refineries, a minimum of 80 hours may be required. In some cases, when the 

entire complex facility is inspected, inspections have taken teams of inspectors as much as 

four to six weeks (there are relatively few facilities of this size nationally). 

Other Support. The implementing agency probably will require at least one to three senior 

staff to act as managers of the program, at least some portion of a staff attorney’s time, and 

some administrative support to implement the program, develop budgets, oversee compliance 

and enforcement actions, report to senior management and legislative bodies, and track 

documentation. If enforcement actions will be handled by the attorney general’s office, some 

support from that office will be needed. Computer support may also be required if the 

implementing agency creates a separate system to cover its RMPs and activities. 

C-2
Agencies working with the implementing agency will have lesser support requirements, but 

will probably still need to document their activities to provide information to the 

implementing agency. 

TOTAL COSTS 

Total cost for an implementation program will depend on the types of facilities covered and 

the level of effort. A program that covers primarily simple facilities (retailers, public 

facilities, utilities) will have lower costs because training, technical assistance, audits, and 

inspections will take less time. A program with a high concentration of chemical 

manufacturers and petroleum refineries will have much higher costs because of the time 

required for training inspectors, audits, and inspections for complex facilities with multiple 

processes. 

EPA has not specified a level of effort in regard to audits and inspections. Congress 

considered, but did not adopt, a level of 1.4 percent of facilities audited in a single year. This 

percentage would mean almost 1,000 audits per year nationally. Because inspections require 

much more time, the level of inspections is likely to be lower. 

States with existing accident prevention programs have generally run more intensive 

programs. New Jersey and Delaware inspect each facility at least once every three to five 

years. The Delaware program spends an average of $1,800 per facility per year. Assuming a 

less intensive program (fewer audits and inspections), EPA’s economic analysis estimated a 

per facility cost at between $85 and $275 per year. 

C-3
C-4
APPENDIX D

PART 68 PROGRAM LEVELS AND REQUIREMENTS

Table D- 1 

Program Eligibility Criteria 

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 

No offsite accident history. Process is subject to OSHA 

PSM. 

No public receptors in 

worst- case circle. 

The process is not eligible 

for Program 1 or subject to 

Program 3. 

Process is in SIC code: 

2611 - Pulp Mills 

2812 - Clor-Alkali 

Manufacturers 

2819 - Industrial Inorganics 

2821- Plastics and Resins 

2865 - Cyclic Crudes and 

Intermediates 

2869 - Industrial Organics 

2873 - Nitrogen Fertilizer 

Manufacturers 

2879 - Agricultural 

Chemicals 

2911 - Petroleum Refineries 

Emergency response 

coordinated with local 

responders. 

Note: EPA will revise part 68 to reflect the shift to the new North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes. Check the hotline or the CEPPO home page for up-todate information on the changes (http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/). 

D-1
Table D-2 

Comparison of Program Requirements 

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 

Hazard Assessment 

Worst-case analysis Worst-case analysis Worst-case analysis 

Alternative releases Alternative releases 

5-year accident history 5-year accident history 5-year accident history 

Document management 

system 

Document management 

system 

Prevention Program 

Certify no additional 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 Develop plan and program 

Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary 

D-2
Table D-2 

Comparison of Program Requirements 

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 

Risk Management Program 

Registration Registration Registration 

Worst-case data Worst-case data Worst-case data 

Alternative release data Alternative release data 

5-year accident history 5-year accident history 5-year accident history 

Prevention program data Prevention program data 

Emergency response 

program data 

Emergency response 

program data 

Emergency response 

program data 

Certification Certification Certification 

D-3
D-4
APPENDIX E

RMP*SUBMIT AND RMP*INFO

EPA is developing databases to collect RMPs and make them available to States, local 

agencies, and the public. RMP*Submit will be a software tool that sources can use to 

complete their RMPs and file them with EPA. RMP*Info will be a database of all RMPs; 

RMP*Info will be available through the Internet. 

RMP*SUBMIT 

RMP*Submit will provide RMP facilities with an automated tool for submitting RMPs. 

RMP*Submit will do the following: 

• Provide a user-friendly, PC-based RMP Submission System available on diskettes and 

via the Internet; 

• Require electronic submission on diskette; however, an "electronic waiver" is available 

for facilities that are unable to comply; 

• Use a standards-based, open systems architecture so private companies can create 

compatible software; 

• Perform data quality checks, accept limited graphics, and provide on-line help 

including defining data elements and instructions; and 

• Accommodate, as appropriate, additional State chemicals (i.e., those listed under State, 

but not Federal EPA risk management program regulations) and lower thresholds. 

The software will run on Windows 3.1 and above. There will not be a DOS or MAC version. 

RMP*INFO 

The RMP access system, named RMP*Info, will provide the public easy access to RMPs. 

RMP*Info will do the following: 

• Establish a central system (RMP*Info) to provide access to RMPs for all stakeholders; 

however, a decision has not yet been made on whether the offsite consequence 

analysis data will be available on the Internet; 

• Make RMP*Info available through EPA's EnviroFacts, a relational database that 

provides access to seven EPA program databases; 

E-1
FOR MORE INFORMATION. . .

• Make RMP*Info available to the public on January 4, 1999, noting that it will not be 

complete until sometime after June 21, 1999; 

• Allow RMP*Info to contain historical records for 15 years; 

• Ensure that RMP*Info provides search, report, and help features; 

• Automatically notify State and local implementing agencies when an RMP in their 

jurisdiction has been updated; and 

• Develop a technical assistance help line that will distribute RMP*Info data on 

diskettes and paper for those who do not have Internet access. 

STATE DATABASES 

EPA also plans to make the full RMP database, in database format, available to States and 

local agencies. States and local agencies will obtain a password from EPA and then will be 

able to download the RMP database from the Internet. In this way, States will be able to gain 

access to the RMP database as frequently as they want to obtain up-to-date information and 

will be able to analyze the data in any way they need. 

TIMELINE 

1. April 5-9, 1998 — The first demonstration of the RMP*Submit and RMP*Info prototype at 

the 1998 Hazardous Material Spills Conference (http://www.nrt.org/nrt/hazmat98.nsf).

 2. August 1998 — The final method and format for RMP submissions will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

3. January 4, 1999 — RMP*Submit diskettes and paper forms will be available to the 

regulated community. 

4. June 20, 1999 — Deadline for compliance with the Risk Management Program. 

5. After June 21, 1999 — RMP*Info will be available. All RMP data will be available on the 

Internet. 

E-2