One of EPA’s most often cited issues with a facilities Risk Management Plan (RMP) revolves around “updates to the plan”. Most, but not all, know that the plan has to be updated every five years; but did you know there were other triggers that require a RMP to be updated more often than every five years. Here are the changes that would REQUIRE an UPDATE to an RMP:
68.190 Updates
(a) The owner or operator shall review and update the RMP as specified in paragraph (b) of this section and submit it in the method and format to the central point specified by EPA as of the date of submission.
(b) The owner or operator of a stationary source shall revise and update the RMP submitted under §68.150 as follows:
- At least once every five years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update required by paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this section, whichever is later. For purposes of determining the date of initial submissions, RMPs submitted before June 21, 1999 are considered to have been submitted on that date.
- No later than three years after a newly regulated substance is first listed by EPA;
- No later than the date on which a new regulated substance is first present in an already covered process above a threshold quantity;
- No later than the date on which a regulated substance is first present above a threshold quantity in a new process;
- Within six months of a change that requires a revised PHA or hazard review;
- Within six months of a change that requires a revised off site consequence analysis as provided in §68.36; and
- Within six months of a change that alters the Program level that applied to any covered process.
(c) If a stationary source is no longer subject to this part, the owner or operator shall submit a de-registration to EPA within six months indicating that the stationary source is no longer covered.
68.195 Required corrections.
The owner or operator of a stationary source for which a RMP was submitted shall correct the RMP as follows:
(a) New accident history information—For any accidental release meeting the five-year accident history reporting criteria of §68.42 and occurring after April 9, 2004, the owner or operator shall submit the data required under §§68.168, 68.170(j), and 68.175(l) with respect to that accident within six months of the release or by the time the RMP is updated under §68.190, whichever is earlier.
(b) Emergency contact information—Beginning June 21, 2004, within one month of any change in the emergency contact information required under §68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator shall submit a correction of that information.
So with all these REQUIRED updates how would anyone keep on top of it? Although I do not have official numbers from EPA, I have seen numerous NOV’s and my own data from auditing indicate that the “Emergency Response Contact” update within 30 days appears to cause the most problems. In today’s economy people change quite often and at large industrial facilities it seems those who had a full-time emrgency response leader were most impacted these last 2-3 years. These full-time ER Leader roles were heavily hit with the downturn in the economy and thus left a lot of larger facilities out of compliance after their ER Leader was laid off. But there is a way to ensure this does not happen to anyone!
I have written for years about using our MOC process to manage changes to key personnel in roles that could impact the PSM/RMP management systems. This article is a perfect example of how doing an MOC on personnel changes could prevent this oversight from becoming an NOV from EPA. By requiring an MOC to be done for changes in these critical PSM/RMP roles AND incorporating some specific questions on the MOC review form to catch this change and to trigger an UPDATE to the RMP within 30 days.
I have also seen facilities be successful by managing these specifics in their RMP “Management Program” (68.15). Without a doubt, our “Emergency Response Leader” should be listed in this management program. The only problem with this method is that many facilities have these management programs, but it is not something they use on a day to day basis, so it may not be as effective as the MOC option.
But let’s be honest, those facilities that struggle to do MOC on physical changes to their process equipment, will really struggle with the idea of doing an MOC when certain people change their role or leave the facility. But if they can find this discipline within them, it will save them $$$ and eliminate any open doors that may lead EPA to issue an NOV.