United States i
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of So(id Waste
and Emergency Response
(5104)
EPA 559^8-002
February 1998
www.epa.gov/ceppo/
vvEPA
Management Programs
under Clean Air Act Section
Guidance for
Implementing Agencies
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
> Printed on recycled paper
-------
-------
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-to-date
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 piri, EST, or visit
the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) home page:
http://www.epa.gov/peppo/. ,
-------
-------
Table of Contents
CHAPTER!: OVERVIEW
Background
Risk Management Plans
Who Is Covered?
The Rule, Related Statutes, and Regulations
- The OSHAPSM Standard
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Title V
., CAA Section 112(1) ' /
State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
Integrated Contingency Plans (ICPs) ' •
Confidential Business Information in RMPs ,' •
CHAPTER 2: BUILDING A SECTION 112(r) IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Implementation Activities
Building an Implementation Program
Propane Retailers and Users
Drinking Water Systems and POTWs ; •'
OSHAPSM Facilities
Targeted Sectors
CAA Section 507 - Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP)
Hazard Assessment and Emergency Response
Funding
EPA Grant Programs
Other Funding Sources . •
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
7
9
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
17-
CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE SECTION 112(r) PROGRAM
Why Adopt a State Risk Management Program?
Implementation Approaches
Informal Agreements
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Formal Delegation
Delegation under CAA Section 112(1)
State Rules
Authority Retained by EPA
Demonstration of Resources
The Section 112(1) Approval Process
Selecting an Implementing Agency
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
24
24
27
27
-------
Table 3-1: Part 63, Subpart E Requirements
Table 3-2: Part 70.11, Requirements for Enforcement Authority
Table 3-3: CAA section 112(r) and Part 68 Elements
Exhibit 1: Governor's Letter
Exhibit 2: Attorney General's Certification and Statement
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Estimates of Sources by State
Appendix B: Checklist for State Program Submittal
Appendix C: Cost of an Implementation Program
Appendix D: Part 68 Program Levels and Requirements
Appendix E: RMP*Submit and RMP*Info
29
30
31
32
33
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-l
-------
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.
-------
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.
i
EPA will make all RMPs available electronically on the Internet. Government
agencies and the public win be able to review RMPs for all facilities. RMPs will
be useful to local emergency planners and responders because the plans 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
-------
Chapter 1
Overview
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 worst-case 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) 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/.'
-------
Chapter 1
Overview
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 QSHA 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).
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
-------
Chapter 1
Overview
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.
V ' • . ' •
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 COMMUNE 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-to-know"
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 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
-------
Chapter 1
Overview
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.
TfTLEV
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(1)
CAA section 112(1) 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.
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
-------
Chapter 1
Overview
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 haying 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 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.
-------
Chapter 1
Overview
-------
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, arid 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 cari 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 andf 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 usefulboth to answer
questions and to determine which issues most confuse people. • The most
frequently asked questions can be the basis-for directing further outreach
efforts such as a question-and-answer document that applies to industries
-------
Chapter 2
Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program
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 State-funded 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 sector-specific 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 Regions
and localities, there is a chance to establish a true partnership with industry sectors
in your jurisdiction. Other examples of training initiatives are:
10
-------
, Chapter 2
Building a Section H2(r) Implementation Program
* 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 but 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 peoplejinderstand 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
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
11 ; / ' '.
-------
Chapter 2
Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program
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 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,
12
-------
Chapter 2
Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program
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 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
13
-------
Chapter 2
Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program
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.
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
14
-------
. Chapter!
Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program
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 pritaary 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.
FUNDING
1 • • y -, ,
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
' , 15 ' " '
-------
Chapter 2
Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program
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).
Check the CEPPO website (http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/) for current information
on the grant program.
The PoUution 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. PoUution
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
16
-------
Chapter!
Building a Section 112(r) Implementation Program
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 fpr 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(1)
.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.
Further, accident prevention, pollution prevention, environmental protection, and
worker and public health and safety requirements are best integrated at the
• 19
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
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).
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
20
-------
Chapter 3
Implementation Partnerships for the Section Il2(r) Program
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
MO A, 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.
t
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.
DELEGATION UNDER CAA SECTION 112(1)
/*."'' * - , .
Section 112(1) of the CAA establishes the framework for formal delegation —
, whether full or partial. Section 112(1) allows EPA to approve a State's program
21
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) 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(1) 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 Pan 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 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.
22
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
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(1) 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.
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,
23
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section ,112(r) Program
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.
AUTHORTTY 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)(l)) 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*Subrnit 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.
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
24
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
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 riiay
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.
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
. ' . 25 . • ' •'•''•'
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
the State. For example, if a State has a substantial number of large chemical
manufacturing sources with Program 3 processes, the 112(1) 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 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.
26
-------
, Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
THE SECTION 112(1) 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(1). 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(1) 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. v
SELECTING AN IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
A State that goes through the request and approval process and receives
delegation under section 112(1) 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 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, 3hd Nevada— are considering requesting section 112(1)
delegation and taking this approach. The single implementing agency option
27
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
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 programmer 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
-------
. Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
All States seeking section
1 12(1) delegation must
submit under...
State wanting to adopt part
.68 without changes, with
adjustments, or to substitute
.its program for part 68 must
meet § 63.91 and under...
State wanting to adopt part
68 with adjustments must
meet §§63.91 and 63.95,
and under... -
State wanting to substitute
its program for part 68 must '
meet §§ 63,91 and 63.95,
and under...
Table 3-1; Part 63, Subpart E Requirements
§63.91(b)
§ 63.95(b)
§ 63.92(b)
§.63.93(b)
•Attorney General's or General Counsel's written finding that your State or agency has the necessary legal
authority to implement and enforce ypur program; to assure compliance by all sources. At a minimum, must
have the following legal authorities: 40 CFR § 70.1 1 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.
•Demonstrate the State's authority and resources to implement and enforce regulations at least as stringent as
the 11 2(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).
•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.
•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
-------
Chapter 3
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
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 endangermenl 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 tiling 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
-------
Chapters
Implementation Partnerships for the Section 112(r) Program
Table 3-3: CAA section 1 1 2(r) and Part 68 Elements
1 12(r)(l) - General Duty Clause
112(r)(9) Order authority
Part 68, Subparts A-E
Part 68, Subpart F
Part 68, Subpart G
Part 68, Subpart H
Will not be delegated. .-.''•
Not required as part of the program.
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. • .
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.
RMP will not be delegated. . '
States may adopt separate reporting, but 'are not required to do so. .
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 1 12(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
prevendon 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(1) 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
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Jane Smith
Governor
(Director) of (Lead Agency)
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.put 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 19 the State's
complete authorities is provided below. *
33
-------
Chapters
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(1) 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-l presents the universe estimates by State and Region, combining some sectors: SIC
codes 28, 2911, and 2611, the sectors most likely to be QSHA PSM; all other manufacturers; all
cold storage facilities (food processors, food wholesalers, and refrigerated public warehouses);
propane retailers and users; and electric utilities. AH 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 USD A 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-l
-------
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
CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
NJ
NY
PR
VI
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
ISC
TN
28/297
2611
30
40
1
4
10
0
185
110
51
1
10
30
205
66
21
96
163
146
63
27
123
61
51
Other
Mfr
170
320::;
40
50 "••;;.;
6
20 :
210
330
30
0
20
70
370
140
30
125
130
180
90
80
260
150
150
Cold
Storage
60
150
50
20
20
20
12
570
-
-
20
9G
320
120
20
90
320 ~~
170
ea
60
140
60
110
Ag
Retail
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Propane
190
290
210
310
60
220
530
850
-
-
50
315
740
570
100
640
1040
980
680
515
1480
510
460
Utii
22
36
14
6
61
12
27
53
-
1
12
18
55
16
13
14
56
20
26
16
21
22
9
Public
91
168
34
32
27
16
40
503
-
20
140
335
183
51
120
390
200
107
75
199'
100
146
Wholesale
24
37
3
8
7
3
97
124
-
-
4
16
60
23
9
17
80
47
17
10
42
22
29
Total I
590
1040
350
430
140
-290
1100
2540
80
2
140
680
2085
1120
240
1100
2180
1740
1040
780
2270
930
960
A-2
-------
1 State
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Wl
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
IA
KS
MO
NE
GO ,
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
AZ
CA '
NV
HI
2B&9f
2811
2D6
102
103
32
214
47
43
?Q8
12
4S
302
40
33
110
*B-
22
5
3
0
25
14
15
367
8:
}2
Other
Mfr
390
240
350
-170
470
150
100
60
20
60
350
--
130
60 ,- ,
160
4O
80
10
,4
10
50
3
110
960
5
10
Cold
Storage
290
110
19O" X
140
220
300
85
90
20
60
360
"
140
60 "
140
90
80'
20
20
30
50
5
60
770'
20
40 '
Ag
Retaii
1030
630
O
670
,280
0
0
O
0
150 "
670
950
30Q
350
530
20D i
0
16:0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0 ,
Propane
375
910
1470
1310
1520 •
1170
'
430
230
220
440
1860
t
1230
560
1490
400
450
120
175
310
100
170
260
110O
100
90
Ut!l
65
38
74
80
52
55 '
19
35
13
27
112
103
89
80
"63
34
5
17
23
17'
7
18
66 ,
7
13
Public
330
161
265
128
310
142
-
69
*2Q
47
91
520
79
71 ,
148
45
1Q4'"
24
ts
20
54
13
117
876
42
33
Wholesale
80
31
48
21
62
26
11
39
9
27
155
16
15
33
•9
21
4
6
3
12
9
i
16
141
4
4
Total I
3360
2220
2500
2550
3130
1890
760
680
340
900
4330
2690
, 1190
2510
1190
890
190
• 400
600
310
220
600
4280
200
200
,A-3
-------
State
AK
ID
OR
WA
28/297
2611
10
10
22
81
Other
Mfr
1
30
110
100
Cold
Storage
8
50
30
180
Ag
Retail
0
0
o •
200
Propane
30
100
21Q
390
Util
SO
2
6
14
Public
17
32
S7
151
Wholesale
2
5
13
18
Total
120
230
S40
1130
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
CHECKLIST FOR STATE PROGRAM SUBMITTAL
3.
4.
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?
' " ' • - '
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?
If all or part of the program wfll 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?
f ''••*,,.
, 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-l
-------
6.
7.
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.
Based on the staffing requirements: N
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.
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.
d.
e.
If local authorities will need to hire staff, specify their plans for doing so.
Specify the State's mechanism for overseeing the local program to ensure that
adequate staffing and resources are available.
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 tb 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 tb 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 pairt 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 inspectorcourse, 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-l
-------
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.)
i
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
No offsite accident history.
No public receptors in worst-
case circle.
Emergency response
coordinated with local
responders.
Program 2
The process is not eligible for
Program 1 or subject to
Program 3.
•
- -
Program 3
Process is subject to OSHA
PSM.
Process is in SIC code:
2611 -Pulp Mills
28 12 -Clor- Alkali
Manufacturers
2819 - Industrial Inorganics
282 1 - Plastics and Resins
2865 - Cyclic Crudes and .
Intermediates
2869 - Industrial Organics
2873 - Nitrogen Fertilizer
Manufacturers
2879 - Agricultural
Chemicals
29 1 1 - Petroleum Refineries
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-to-
date information on the changes (http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/).
D-l
-------
1 Table D-2
Comparison of Program Requirements
Program 1
Program 2
Program 3
Hazard Assessment
Worst-case analysis
5-year accident history
Worst-case analysis
Alternative releases
5-year accident history
Document management
system ' '
Worst-case analysis
Alternative releases
5-year accident history
Document management
system
Prevention Program
Certify no additional steps
needed
Safety Information
Hazard Review
Operating Procedures
Training
Maintenance
Incident Investigation
Compliance Audit
»
Process Safety Information
Process Hazard Analysis
Operating Procedures
Training
Mechanical Integrity
Incident Investigation
Compliance Audit
Management of Change
Pre- Startup Review
Contractors
Employee Participation
Hot Work Permits
i
| Emergency Response Program
f~~ ' '
j Coordinate with local
j responders
i
j Executive Summary
Develop plan and program
Executive Summary
Develop plan and program
Executive Summary
D-2
-------
Table D-2
Comparison of Program Requirements
Program 1
Program!
Programs
Risk Management Program
Registration .
Worst-ease data
5-year accident history
Emergency response program
data
Certification
Registration
Worst-case data
Alternative release data
5-year accident history
Prevention program data
Emergency response program
data
Certification
Registration
Worst-case data
Alternative release data
5-year accident history
Prevention program data
Emergency response program
data
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*SUBMFT
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*lNFO ,
I • • •
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-l
-------
• 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
------- |