Although the RMP Prevention Plan requirements for Program 2 and 3 very much mirror OSHA’s PSM requirements, the emergency response program requirements found in 68.95 Emergency Response Program go above and beyond the requirements of 1910.119(n) Emergency planning and response. OSHA’s 1910.119(n) Emergency planning and response directs us to comply with 1910.38 and 1910.120. And although EPA enforces 1910.120 on those not covered by OSHA, the RMP emergency response program section (68.95) has a couple of requirements that we will NOT find in 1910.120(q)(2). Here is what 68.95 states and what our Emergency Response Plan (ERP) may be missing if we use ONLY 1910.120(q)(2) as our guidance for our emergency response plan:
§ 68.95 Emergency response program.
(a) The owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. Such program shall include the following elements:
(1) An emergency response plan, which shall be maintained at the stationary source and contain at least the following elements:
(i) Procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases;
(ii) Documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposures; and
(iii) Procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental release of a regulated substance;
(2) Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance;
(3) Training for all employees in relevant procedures; and
(4) Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes.
Notice that those who fall under RMP must have “procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases“. Now most can just dial 911 to inform their “local emergency response agencies“, but how many facilities have “procedures for informing the public… about accidental releases“? I know the fallback for most facilities is that “we let the local emergency response agencies do those notifications”. This may be all well and good, but unless this is SPELLED OUT in the emergency response plan (ERP), then there are no “procedures” in place for this requirement. And a word of caution, MAKE CERTAIN the “local emergency response agencies” know without a doubt it is their role and responsibility to make these notifications. Of course, this means that for ALL releases, your plan will call for the “local emergency response agencies” to be involved, which may not be the actual desire of the business!
The next specific ERP requirement that we will NOT find in 1910.120(q)(2) is “Documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposures“. This ERP requirement begins with “proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment” for those chemicals used in the covered process. I suggest cutting and pasting information from WISER or the CDC on emergency care for your covered chemical(s). But then, of course, those who will be providing care to those who came into contact MUST be trained on these medical care procedures! And don’t forget to have procedures to treat burns, especially if your covered process contains flammable liquids/gasses!!!
The next one is the biggest problem for most ERPs… “Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance“. Yes, this is requiring our plans to have written procedures for the use, inspection, testing, and maintenance of all our response equipment. This includes EVERYTHING our ER teams would use, as well as any fixed active and passive mitigation that we claim will mitigate a release. Most already have those fixed mitigation systems(s) that we use to mitigate a release in the MI program; however, very few will have written procedures for the use, inspection, testing and maintenance for the following items:
- Level A Suits,
- SCBAs,
- Color Metric Tubes and Pumps,
- Firefighting Turn Out Gear,
- Wind Socks,
- Decon Equipment,
- Hand-held meters, etc.
Click HERE to see my article “Emergency Response Equipment Maintenance” for more equipment that would fall under this ERP requirement.
For example, does our plan call out the pressure test frequency established by the maker of the Level A suit used by the ERT? Does our plan contain (or even reference) the pressure testing procedures to be used? Each manufacturer may have some different aspects to testing their suits, from the frequencies of the tests to the pressures used during testing. Our ERP is required to contain these procedures, then we would need documentation to demonstrate we are following the procedures and meeting the frequencies. Here is a trick question for you… if you change the brand of LEVEL A suit does this require a MOC? This is a fun debate to have with fellow PSM Managers, as I would say without hesitation that if the brand had a different inspection frequency and different test procedures and this required us to revise our ERP (and possible our CMMS) I would argue that YES a MOC needs to manage this change (e.g. update the ER procedures and the PM system for the Work Order schedules for the new suits). In fact, some manufacturers REQUIRE their testing system be used, which would require some additional updates and equipment.
How about our SCBAs? Many facilities will have an inspection form, but a form is just a form and is NOT a “procedure”. How many actually have written procedures on how to inspect the SCBAs? These written procedures should meet or exceed the manufacturers requirements and for that, I always just cut and paste the procedures from the owner’s manual into my ERP. But keep in mind if I have two different brands or types of Supplied Air Respirators that are used for “emergencies” then I will need procedures for each brand AND type. Most response teams will use SCBAs, but many facilities that have a response team also have “Escape Packs” for non-responders to use. These 10-minute escape packs MUST also have procedures for their use, inspection, testing, and maintenance. Again, those who utilize these use, inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures MUST be trained on them and we MUST verify their knowledge of this training. As for those emergency escape packs that are available for everyone to use… ANNUAL TRAINING is required for these respirators, including that office personnel who we always say are NOT in our respiratory protection program!!!!!
Last but not least, 68.95 requires us to have “procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes“. This one is really tricky as almost all facilities state, “we use our MOC process to inform employees of changes to our EAP/ERP”. Unfortunately, although a great plan, most facilities do NOT do a MOC when they update their EAP/ERP, so claiming the MOC program as the means to “ensure that employees are informed of changes” falls flat on its face. Many plans we review do NOT contain “procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan“. In order to comply we need to establish the EAP/ERP as a document that falls under MOC (just like SOPs and Maintenance Procedures) and establishes a frequency for the plan to be reviewed, regardless of any changes that may have occurred. Who will perform this review? Keep in mind this plan must ALSO comply with 1910.120(q), which requires us to list our PPE inventory. So any change to our PPE inventory numbers, brands, styles, make/model of respirator face pieces, would need to go through a MOC. Think about the ramifications of changing to a multi-use respirator face piece (one that can be used with SCBA and as an APR). This simple change would impact the respirator program, the ERP; as well as require ERT members to be fit tested again. This needs a MOC to manage this change as it can impact many different users, different programs which different people who are in different departments, etc manage.
So as we can see, there are some significant differences between the “emergency response plan” requirements found in 1910.120(q)(2) and 68.95. If our process falls under BOTH PSM and RMP, we need to ensure that our plan meets the requirements of BOTH standards. Although 1910.120 has been around MUCH longer and is a “baseline” for many ERPs, we can not overlook these specific RMP requirements for our Emergency Response Plan.