EPA has issued two letters that better clarify what the “Third Party Audit” requirements changed from the proposed to final rule and what the third-party audit requirements actually are. Here’s what EPA said:
In response to comments, EPA changed the third-party audit criterion for determining the implementation to be based on conditions at the facility that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance, rather than on non-compliance. An implementing agency may determine that a third-party audit is necessary following inspections, audits, or facility visits, if conditions are observed at the facility that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance.
Other changes to this provision of the final rule include:
- allows third-party audit teams to be comprised of third-party auditor personnel as well as other personnel, including facility staff;
- revising the proposed auditor qualification criteria by REMOVING the Professional Engineer (PE) requirement;
- ELIMINATING the requirement to submit all auditor reports and third-party audit findings response reports to implementing agencies; and
- REDUCING the required timeframe for independence from three (3) years, to two (2) years.
- In an effort to reduce the burden for facility owners and operators and to increase the availability of potential independent third-party auditors, EPA REDUCED the timeframe that limits the relationship between the owner/operator and the third-party auditor from three (3) years to two (2) years, and provides that retired employees may qualify as independent third parties.
CLICK HERE for this letter
What are the third-party audit requirements?
This provision requires an independent third-party to conduct a compliance audit at a facility if
- there has been a reportable accident, or
- if an implementing agency determines that a third-party audit is necessary, based on information about the facility or about a prior third-party audit at the facility.
The final rule contains criteria for auditor competence and independence.
The owner or operator must also engage a third-party auditor, and complete the audit within twelve (12) months of when:
- an implementing agency determines that conditions at the facility could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance; or
- when a previous third-party audit failed to meet the competency or independence criteria specified in the rule.
The third-party audit may be conducted by a third-party auditor or a team of auditors led by a third-party auditor. This final rule requirement brings a level of independence to the audit process while the audit team flexibility provides due consideration to a facility’s professional personnel involvement in the audit. The team must be led by an independent third-party but may include experts from the company who understand the chemical plant design and processes.
The benefit of the third-party audit is to provide the owners and operators information to determine whether or not facility procedures and practices to comply with the prevention program requirements of the RMP rule, are adequate and being followed.
EPA notes that some qualifying facilities are already required to conduct compliance audits every three years. The rule does NOT change the requirement that RMP facilities regularly conduct RMP compliance audits. It does, however specify that, in specific situations, those audits be performed by a third-party or a team led by a third-party (pursuant to the schedule in §68.58(h) and/or 68.79(h) of the rule).
CLICK HERE for this letter