Tag: RMP (Page 5 of 5)

Why we changed the name of our element “Guidelines” to “Written Plans”

July 28, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

In mid-february we changed every reference to Guideline in the example templates to Written Plan. This change was made to the Google Drive and logged on 2/3/17.

Although I have used the term guideline for a very long time, it was really just out of habit – it’s not an accurate reflection of the intent of those documents.

First: Where did this Guideline idea come from?

Well, it all started back in the Employee Participation element which requires you to have a document that explains how you intend to comply with certain requirements.

1910.119(c)(1) – Employers shall develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by this paragraph.

Over time we realized that these written plans of action were very useful and wrote them for every single PSM/RMP element. For whatever reason, the very first program I ever worked on called this the “Guideline for Employee Participation” and I just stuck with that wording for well over a decade.

Ok, so why call it a Written Plan rather than a Guideline?

Well, let’s look at definitions:

A dictionary definition of guideline is:

“General rule, or piece of advice”

The word plan defined in that same dictionary:

“a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something;”

“an intention or decision about what one is going to do.”

The word plan is really what we are going for: A decision about what the facility is going to do. The intent of these documents, whether they are called Written Plan or Guidelines, was always to document the detailed plan that the facility intended to follow in achieving compliance.

Anything else?

Actually, yes. Over the years we had to explain the above to several different inspectors: our Guidelines were actually our written plans. Frankly, it just got annoying explaining the same concept over and over again – especially when they had a point: Rightly understood the documents really are the written plan and general guidance usually used the guidelines terminology such as the IIAR Compliance Guidelines and the CCPS Guidelines for Safe Process Operations and Maintenance.

Do I have to change my documents if I use the templates?

Well, no you never really have to update your program to reflect our changes. That said, Should you? Yes, you should make the change whenever you update your program to the latest templates.

Yet another sign!

May 8, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

Many, moons ago when I was a volunteer firefighter, we came up with a slogan for our crew: Perfection is Our Goal. Excellence will be Tolerated.

Today, I turned that into a PSM sign if you are interested.

Spring 2017 Newsletter and PSM class reminder.

May 5, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

Spring 2017 Newsletter and PSM class reminder.

Outsourcing your Contractor Selection Process – Can it be done?

April 11, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

Over the past few years we’ve seen an increase in the number of companies that use a 3^rd party service to qualify their contractors. Often, these services screen the prospective contractor for their safety record / programs, insurance history / coverage, and financial stability. It’s common to see facilities believe that these contractor qualification services are covering their PSM/RMP Contractor obligations, but this is rarely the case. Let’s review the PSM/RMP requirements regarding Contactors – starting with the facility obligations – to see why:

1910.119(h) Contractors.

1910.119(h)(1) Application. This paragraph applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. It does not apply to contractors providing incidental services which do not influence process safety, such as janitorial work, food and drink services, laundry, delivery or other supply services.

This section covers which contractors are covered under the PSM/RMP rules. Since nearly all of these Contractor Qualification services cover all contractors, you are usually well covered here.

1910.119(h)(2) Employer responsibilities.

1910.119(h)(2)(i) The employer, when selecting a contractor, shall obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract employer’s safety performance and programs.

Every Contractor Qualification service we’ve seen covers this area quite well – in fact, it’s the reason these services exist. 1910.119(h)(2)(ii) The employer shall inform contract employers of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor’s work and the process.

1910.119(h)(2)(iii) The employer shall explain to contract employers the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan required by paragraph (n) of this section.

Here we get our first compliance issue. Contractor Qualification services do not possess this information and cannot provide it to the contractor. Let me quote the 2009 Petroleum NEP to show you why this MUST be done by the facility itself:

Compliance Guidance: To assist in determining the applicable known potential fire, explosion or toxic release hazards that the host employer must inform the contract employers about, CSHOs should examine the host employer’s PHA. The PHA must identify the hazards of the process – 1910.119(e)(1) and (e)(3)(i). At a minimum, the hazards identified in the employer’s PHA which are applicable to the contractor’s work must be passed (“informed”) from the host employer to the contract employer – 1910.119(h)(2)(ii). In turn, the contract employer must then instruct its employees on the known potential fire, explosion or toxic release hazards of the process (1910.119(h)(3)(ii)), including, at a minimum, those hazards identified in the host employer’s PHA which are applicable to the contractor’s work.

As you can see, this requires a deliberate and thoughtful analysis of the work the contractor will do and the hazards present by that work – and the area of the process they will be working on. A cookie-cutter Contractor Qualification service cannot provide this service so you need to make sure your program does.

1910.119(h)(2)(iv) The employer shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent with paragraph (f)(4) of this section, to control the entrance, presence and exit of contract employers and contract employees in covered process areas.

Again, a Contractor Qualification service cannot provide this service – this is a facility level requirement that establishes and implements the procedures required under the Operating Procedures element.

1910.119(h)(2)(v) The employer shall periodically evaluate the performance of contract employers in fulfilling their obligations as specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section.

1910.119(h)(2)(vi) The employer shall maintain a contract employee injury and illness log related to the contractor’s work in process areas.

While a Contractor Qualification service can maintain some general information on the contractor in general such as injury rate and accident history, it will not know about the specific performance of a contractor at your facility – at least not as well as your own people will.

Next, we move on to the PSM/RMP responsibilities of the Contractor…

1910.119(h)(3) Contract employer responsibilities.

1910.119(h)(3)(i) The contract employer shall assure that each contract employee is trained in the work practices necessary to safely perform his/her job.

1910.119(h)(3)(ii) The contract employer shall assure that each contract employee is instructed in the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job and the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.

1910.119(h)(3)(iii) The contract employer shall document that each contract employee has received and understood the training required by this paragraph. The contract employer shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the contract employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.

While a Contractor Qualification service can certainly request this documentation, what’s usually acceptable to the Contractor Qualification service is a generic “statement” on training, not the very specific training required based on the information provided under 1910.119(h)(2)(ii-iii).

1910.119(h)(3)(iv) The contract employer shall assure that each contract employee follows the safety rules of the facility including the safe work practices required by paragraph (f)(4) of this section.

A Contractor Qualification service can certainly ask the contractor to provide a pledge that they will follow the safety rules / practices at the facility, but this can only really be proven through direct on-site examination of the contractor on a regular basis.

1910.119(h)(3)(v) The contract employer shall advise the employer of any unique hazards presented by the contract employer’s work, or of any hazards found by the contract employer’s work.

A Contractor Qualification service will ask the contractor to provide this information, but very often the nature of the work (and the tools used to perform it) change during the project. Again, only direct on-site examination of the contractor on a regular basis can ensure that the contractor is compliant with this requirement.

I hope this review has helped you understand how Contractor Qualification services can be useful to meet some PSM/RMP obligations, while showing you how they cannot replace your entire PSM/RMP Contractor element.

Additional Templates – ITR-PSSR & ITPMR PDF Forms

March 24, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

Many of the readers of this website have PSM/RMP programs written using our Open-Source PSM templates. The members of our community have read-only access to the Google Drive templates directory where the newest revisions and updates to those documents are housed. While we’ve kept a “Change Log” in the root directory of that shared drive for a long time, we’ve recently decided to make a blog post about every template change to raise awareness of these changes and assist those of you who want to continue updating your program. What follows is our first blog post along those lines:

PDF “Form” versions of commonly used MI & PSSR Forms

Back in July of 2016 we first introduced documents to our PSM Template system called ITR-PSSR forms. These “Inspection Test Reports for Pre-Startup Safety Reviews” provided a standard format for new equipment documentation and safety checklists that replaced the B109 form that some people use. Unique forms were provided for common subsystems and equipment, such as:

Ammonia Pumps
Air Units
NH3 Detectors
Evaporative Condensers
Heat Exchangers
Machine Rooms
Piping Sections
Purgers
Pressure Vessels
Compressors
Ventilation Systems

In September of 2016, we provided PDF versions of these as “PDF Forms” that were usable for data entry. At some point, those files were apparently removed or lost. I recreated those PDF forms today for all the ITR-PSSR Forms.

I also converted each of the ITMPR forms. These “Inspection Test & Preventative Maintenance Reports” form the basis of our Mechanical Integrity program documentation. Both the ITPMR and ITR-PSSR forms are now on the Google Drive in their respective PSM element folder. The revision dates of the PDF reflect the revision date of the original Word document.

Can I use these in my program?

If you use our templates, or we wrote the program for you in the last two years using these templates, then the answer is Yes, but how easily depends on the age of your program.

If your program is newer than September 2016: Those of you who use our PSM/RMP templates to create their own programs – or those of you who have a program we created post September 2016, can drop these updated forms directly into your program.

If your program is older than September 2016: If your program was created before September of 2016, the ITR-PSSR forms can be added to your program as alternate PSSR documentation. Your MI documentation were called ITR forms at the time – not ITPMR. To replace the ITR forms with the updated ITPMR forms you can do one of two things:

Replace every mention of ITR with ITPMR in each of your element guidelines/written plans, SOPs, MI schedules, etc.

Write a memo / Letter to File explaining that ITR and ITPMR mean the same thing in your program and can be used interchangeably.

Regardless of the age of your program, make sure you conduct a brief training with your operators on these new forms before your implement them.

Here’s a list of the updated files that now have PDFs available on the Google Drive:

Why OSHA’s Statute of Limitations doesn’t really matter in PSM/RMP

March 10, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

You may have recently heard a headline that OSHA is losing their right to cite you for something that happened more than six months ago. I’ve heard a disturbing amount of people tell me that this means that many PSM issues can be ignored, because – as long as they “get away” with it for six months – they are uncitable. From the vantage point of safety, this is absurd thinking. Taking such a risk, simply because you are unlikely to be caught, would be the equivalent of not wearing your seatbelt because you aren’t particularly likely to get in a car accident in any given drive. The difference is that when things go wrong in Process Safety, the results are usually far worse than the average car accident.

That said, let’s set aside SAFETY for a second, and look at where this idea comes from:

The Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970 states in 29USC658(c) that “No citation may be issued under this section after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation.”

Years ago, however, OSHA proposed and published a rule stating that “ongoing obligations” required some records to be kept longer – specifically injury and illness records. They stated, in part: “The OSH Act’s statute of limitations does not define OSHA violations, or address when violations occur, nor does the language…preclude continuing recordkeeping violations.” OSHA has actually issued several citations for items that were past the six month statute of limitations, in once case for an ongoing MOC violation that occurred over twelve years ago.

OSHA lost several court cases with this “ongoing violation” issue. The House recently passed a CRA resolution to throw out this rule. Assuming the CRA continues, OSHA will not only continue to lose in court, but they will be barred from issuing a “substantially similar” rule in the future. This has led to a widespread belief that PSM violations that occurred over six months ago will no longer be citable. While that may be technically true, the reality is that they will still be citable as long as OSHA does the legwork to write the citations correctly.

For my example, let me use one of the most common problems I see in Compliance Audits: A recommendation (from PHA or former Compliance Audit) from well over a year ago regarding the identification of surface corrosion on ammonia piping that recommends an increased frequency of inspections and/or remediation of the protective coating.

If that recommendation was unaddressed, in the past OSHA would often cite the PHA or Compliance Audit element from which the recommendation came. Assuming that they are now limited to six months, and the recommendation is older than that, OSHA can NO LONGER cite you for that violation.

Super. Congratulations… But, if OSHA could cite you for not following up on the recommendation, then it’s likely because the pipe is still showing signs of corrosion. That being the case, they CAN cite you for a 1910.119(j)(5) deficiency because the pipe IS rusted during the inspection.

Put a simpler way – they can use the violation from the past to lead them to a violation occurring in-the-moment. Nearly ALL PSM citations can be rewritten to in-the-moment violations.

Furthermore, although the old recommendation can’t be used for a citatable situation directly, it is PROOF POSITIVE that the employer was AWARE of the hazard.

Worse yet, most EPA violations are only subject to the 28USC2462 five-year statute of limitations. It’s not like an OSHA CSHO or AD can’t pick up a phone and call the local EPA office.

TLDR: The end result of OSHA losing their ability to cite for something in PSM that happened over six months ago: Nothing, really.

How to get Willful OSHA Citations & Fines

February 16, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

The incident we are discussing today is from a recent ruling in the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit where they recently denied a petition for review in the case of “DANA CONTAINER, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR.” While this particular citation concerns “Permit Required Confined Spaces,” the lessons are applicable to all OSHA rules.

The case arose after toxic fumes in a large container knocked out a man who was working inside it. From the ruling:

In the cold early morning hours of January 28, 2009, one of Dana’s supervisors, Bobby Fox, was on the third shift along with former employee Cesar Jaimes. Fox was working on a trailer and encountered a problem with a clogged valve just as he was about to begin the mechanical cleaning process. Disregarding the safety rules, he entered the tank prior to cleaning it, without attaching himself to the retrieval device or following the entry permit procedures. After a short while, Jaimes looked inside, saw Fox unconscious in a pool of chemical sludge, and called the Summit Fire Department. The firefighters hoisted him out, rinsed off the chemical residue, and transported him to the hospital. Fox was diagnosed with “Syncope and Collapse, Toxic Effect of Unspecified Gas, Fume, or Vapor” (i.e., fainting).

While the employee was rescued by the local fire department, his employer, Dana Container, was cited for Willful violations by OSHA and has been fighting those citations – through an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), then the OSHA Review Commission and now through the Circuit Court.

Here is a proven three-step plan to get Willful OSHA citations

1) Have a supervisor break the rules: The employer tried to prove that the unsafe actions were “unpreventable employee misconduct” such that the employer was unaware of the issue. OSHA is required to prove that the employer knew about the problem.

In this case, the supervisor’s knowledge can be imputed to the employer… This path for imputing knowledge is common in employment law. When an employee is acting within the scope of her employment, her knowledge is typically imputed to the employer… Conduct is “within the scope of employment when [it is] ‘actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the [employer],’ even if it is forbidden by the employer.” Here, Fox knew that he was violating the rules when he entered the dirty tank in order to kick loose a stuck valve so that he could then drain the tank. His act was in furtherance of Dana’s tank cleaning business.

2) Have a track-record of failing to follow your own safety programs: OSHA was able to show that the employer should have been able to foresee the supervisor misconduct because they knew (or should have known) there were long-standing issues with their program:

There was evidence showing that nearly all of the tank entry permits at Dana’s Summit facility contained errors or omissions. Some indicated that the entries had exceeded the maximum duration of 20 minutes by over an hour. Others had other flaws: for example, they lacked the requisite air monitoring results; they failed to show the duration for which the permit was valid; they indicated that employees had not reviewed material safety data sheets (or had no information about review); and they failed to name either the entrant or the entry attendant. Whether these errors and omissions occurred because the employees were violating entry procedures or if they reflected only recording problems, there is no evidence that the Facility Manager followed up on the deficiencies. The Commission was therefore justified in concluding that there was a failure to enforce Dana’s safety program… The Commission was entitled to find that the uncorrected permit violations exhibited a pattern of disregard for the rules at Dana. Even in the face of a robust written program, lax disregard of the rules can send a message to employees that a company does not make safety a priority. In such an environment, conduct such as Fox’s is reasonably foreseeable… Dana’s effort to persuade us that the Commission erred by rejecting the “unpreventable employee misconduct” defense also falls short. To use the defense an employer must show that it took steps to discover violations of its safety rules and that it effectively enforced the rules when violations were discovered.

3) Have a shaky track record on enforcement of your own policies: Dana cited a OSHA Review Commission case holding that an employer can demonstrate that the willful conduct of its supervisory personnel should not be imputed to the employer if the employer can demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the standard.

The Commission…found that although, on the one hand, Dana had work rules that were communicated to its employees and had submitted evidence of three instances of disciplinary action, on the other hand the facility manager had never disciplined an employee for improperly completing permits or for the violations apparent on the face of the permits. The Commission concluded that Dana had therefore failed to take action when violations of safety rules were plain, as would have been required in a good faith effort.

Working backwards, you can avoid willful citations by:

Establishing clear, compliant policies on OSHA rules.
Requiring Supervisors to be responsible for the implementation of our policies, the enforcement of those policies and the documentation of our adherence to those policies.
Requiring the Safety Department to periodically audit the compliance to our policies of field supervisors and personnel.

P.S. Bonus: It’s never a good idea to get in the news:

“A local TV news crew broadcast the rescue that morning, and OSHA inspector Jami Bachus happened to see it before heading to work. She volunteered to inspect Dana’s facility and did so, arriving at the Summit station within three hours of the accident.”

Why does my PSM program make me review the PHA during any equipment/facility MOC?

February 13, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

Nearly two years ago, I changed the Management of Change Written Plan template in my PSM programs to make a few changes:

Removed the “minor change” and “major change” categories.
Explicitly require a Process Hazard Analysis review during all equipment/facility MOC’s.
Explicitly require a Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) before startup for all equipment/facility MOC’s and suggesting that it be conducted by someone other than the person that performed the MOC procedure.

These changes are related and they were made for a few reasons, which broadly break into three categories:

PSM Guidance History
Lessons Learned from Audits, Citations, and Incidents
Plan Simplification

PSM Guidance History: There are two main ongoing issues with the NH3 refrigeration industry’s understanding of MOC. The first is the fiction that there are “minor” and “major” categories of changes in the PSM/RMP rules. It seems that the example written plan provided in the first edition of the IIAR Compliance Guidelines has been so internalized into our industry that people have stopped looking at the actual regulations or guidance documents from OSHA & the EPA. Essentially, the IIAR guidance splits changes into either “minor” or “major” based on whether they invalidate the PHA. If they do invalidate the PHA, they are “major” changes, and if they don’t, they are “minor” changes. This (arguably useful) fiction is NOT present in the PSM/RMP MOC rules.

Here’s the relevant IIAR guidance on “minor” changes:

“When processes undergo minor changes (e.g., minor rerouting of a piping run), information is typically added to a PHA file to reflect the change, even though the validity of the PHA is not affected by the modification.”

Here’s the relevant IIAR guidance on “major” changes:

“A major change is a modification which has significant impact on process conditions or system parameters and was not addressed by a previous Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) study.”

If that’s your policy, then the IIAR is already telling you that the PHA should be reviewed during the change. Why? How could you possibly know if the change “was not addressed by a previous PHA study” or whether the “Validity of the PHA is not affected by the modification” without reviewing the PHA?

Since the IIAR guidance (and experience) tell us we have to review the PHA as part of the change, there is little benefit to the IIAR scheme of “minor” and “major” changes. You can’t justifiably determine which category the change falls into until after you’ve reviewed the PHA. Unfortunately, that’s not what was happening…

Lessons Learned: PSM covered facilities have a LONG history of failing to properly manage changes. You would be stunned to see some of the changes that occur in covered processes without undergoing an adequate MOC procedure – or without any MOC at all. We’ve seen entire machine rooms added with no PHA review because the facility felt that the change was a “minor” change. The reality of implementing the IIARs guidance was that people were deciding if a change was “minor” or “major” based on their gut feeling of the size/complexity of the change – They weren’t actually reviewing the PHA to make this determination. The IIAR scheme acted as a “shortcut” for many facilities as they tried to jam ever larger & more complex changes into the “minor” category.

Furthermore, we found that almost none of these poorly performed MOC procedures were being caught by the facility. Since one person was in charge of (and administering) the entire program, there was essentially NO oversight. Adding the PSSR at the end of the equipment / facility MOC procedure provided a degree of oversight.

Simplification: Removing the “minor” and “major” categories meant that all equipment / facility changes followed the same procedural steps. Each equipment / facility change now requires the “Responsible Person” to review the relevant PHA section(s). Please note that this is not a full-scale team-based exercise – it’s the “Responsible Person” reading through the relevant section(s) and making a determination based on their expertise. Obviously, as in all other cases, if the “Responsible Person” is encouraged to seek any operational or engineering expertise they might lack. If the PHA section(s) appears unaffected by the change, then that’s the end of the issue until the regularly scheduled PHA revalidation. If, however, the PHA section(s) appears to be affected, then they need to be revalidated by a team meeting the requirements of 1910.119(e) & 40CFR§68.75.

Also, added at this time were individual component PSSR sheets. That is, for each common type of equipment in an NH3 refrigeration system, a sheet was created that allowed you to quickly document the Pre-Startup Safety Review. These sheets covered various required PSI items as well as IIAR Bulletin 109 items that have been commonly requested and IIAR Bulletin 110 inspection & maintenance items. Since, this PSSR is required (by the Written Plan) for every equipment / facility change, they provide a oversight function as well as meeting the regulatory requirements.

—

All of these changes are made to improve the MOC & PSSR process.

To meet the requirements of the MOC element 1910.119(l)(2)(ii) you have to “assure that the following considerations are addressed prior to the change: …Impact of change on safety and health.” If you haven’t read this OSHA MOC guidance recently, I highly commend it to you:

An MOC procedure is required anytime a change per the requirements of 1910.119(l) is considered. An MOC procedure is a proactive management system tool used in part to determine if a change might result in safety and health impacts. OSHA’s MOC requirement is prospective.

The standard requires that an MOC procedure be completed, regardless of whether any safety and health impacts will actually be realized by the change. The intent is, in part, to have the employer analyze any potential safety and health impacts of a change prior to its implementation. Even if the employer rightly concludes there would be no safety and health impacts related to a change, 1910.119(l)(1) still requires the employer to conduct the MOC procedure.

The MOC requirements are important because many large incidents have occurred in the past when changes have been made and the employer either did not consider the safety and health impacts of the change, or did not appreciate (wrongly concluded) the potential consequences of the change before it was too late. Therefore, it is not only required, but important that the employer conducts an MOC procedure on each change, even those changes the employer believes will have no safety or health impacts. (OSHA, Refinery PSM NEP, 2007)

It is the word prospective in the above text that is most important. You can think of the dictionary-like definition of “a study that starts with the current condition and follows it into the future.” You could also think of those men and women who panned for gold in the western territories of the US during the 19th century. Like them, you are looking through a lot of mundane things to find the rare oddity – that unique nugget – that can cause trouble. In an MOC the nugget is a hazard that needs a safeguard – either a new one, or one you already have but haven’t yet applied to the discovered hazard.

Where do you document the hazards you’ve found and the safeguards you’ve put in place? The Process Hazard Analysis!

OSHA replaces the ChemNEP inspection protocol

January 22, 2017 / Brian D. Chapin

Since 2011, Ammonia Refrigeration facilities with 10,000lbs. or more of Anhydrous Ammonia have been subject to ChemNEP inspections under CPL 03-00-14. OSHA has replaced this program with a new program that makes some changes:

Merges the Petroleum and Chemical NEPs into a single Program1
Targets EPA Risk Management Program level 1 & 2 as well as Program 3
Requires “State Plan” adoption

The details of the new program are posted in the new CPL 03-00-021 which is available on the OSHA website or, if you use our templates, in the References section of the Google Drive shared folders. Here are some highlights of the new inspection program:

Ammonia Refrigeration (as the sole HHC) is a “Category 1” facility which is supposed to represent 25% of all PSM inspections.
If you have an additional covered chemical such as chlorine, the facility may also fall under “Category 4” which is supposed to represent 40% of all PSM inspections.
Directs OSHA CSHOs to access the facility’s EPA RMP database information before the inspection.
Inspection must include the host employer AND the contract employer
Inspection should review ALL OSHA inspection history and abatement verification – must review last six years worth.
Inspections will request documents are provided:

Documents Requested Prior to Identifying the Selected Unit(s):

* OSHA 300 logs for the previous three years for the employer and the process-related contractors.

* All contract employee injury and illness logs as required by 1910.119(h)(2)(vi).

* A list of all PSM-covered process/units in the complex.

* A list of all units and the maximum intended inventories of all chemicals (in pounds) in each of the listed units.
* A summary description of the facility’s PSM program.

* Unit process flow diagrams.

* Process narrative descriptions.

* Host employer’s program for evaluating contract employer’s safety information.

* Host employer’s program/safe work practices for controlling the entrance/exit/work of contractors and their workers in covered process areas.

* Emergency Action Plan; and Emergency Response Plan if the facility is also required to comply with 29 CFR 1910.120(q).

* Host employer’s program for periodically evaluating contractor performance.

Documents Requested After the Selected Units are Identified:

* Piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) including legends.

* Unit electrical classification documents.

* Descriptions of safety systems (e.g., interlocks, detection or suppression systems).

* Design codes and standards employed for process and equipment in the Selected Unit(s).

* A list of all workers (i.e., hourly and supervisory) presently involved in operating the Selected Units(s), including names, job titles, work shifts, start date in the unit, and the name of the person(s) to whom they report (their supervisor).

* The initial process hazard analysis (PHA) and the most recent update/redo or revalidationfor the Selected Unit (s); this includes PHA reports, PHA worksheets, actions to address findings and recommendations promptly, written schedules for actions to be completed, and documentation of findings and recommendations.

* Safe upper and lower operating limits for the Selected Unit(s).

* A list by title and unit of each PSM incident report; all PSM incident reports for the Selected Unit.

* Contract employer’s safety information and programs (this will be requested from the host employer after it is determined which contractor(s) will be inspected).

* Contractor employer’s documentation of contract workers’ training, including the means used to verify employees’ understanding of the training (this will be requested from the respective contractor employer(s) after it is determined which contractor(s) will be inspected).

* Other documents as specified in the Dynamic Lists.

During the walk-around, the CHSO is to observe potential hazards including, but not limited to, pipe work at risk of impact, corroded or leaking equipment, unit or control room siting and trailer location, relief devices and vents that discharge to atmosphere, and ongoing construction and maintenance activities; and solicit input from workers / worker representatives / contract employees.
Inspections are focused on Dynamic List questions just like the ChemNEP. Failure to correctly address the questions from the list may broaden the inspection to areas outside the questions. When CSHOs expand the inspection beyond the Dynamic List, they can pull questions from:

* Prior ChemNEP Dynamic List questions
* Old Petroleum NEP (CPL 03-00-010) questions
* CPL 2-2.45 PQV (CPL 2-2.45a) questions
* CCPS Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition

Note that this guidance specifically includes the CCPS book “Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition” which focuses on PHAs. We have long counseled using the CCPS guidance to better understand what a successful PSM program looks like from both a design perspective as well as an implementation one.

Coupled with the EPA’s announcement that they have begun implementing their enforcement initiative, there has never been a better time to consider a thorough 3rd party Compliance Audit.

Merry Christmas from the EPA!

December 22, 2016 / Brian D. Chapin

Note: See December 2019 Update.

Yesterday the EPA released their long-awaited changes to the RMP rule which will take effect in roughly 60 days. (Don’t worry too much – the earliest actual compliance date for the new requirements is an additional year away and many of them are four years away.)

While the rule isn’t *official* until it’s published in the Federal Register, they have provided the prepublication version with commentary on their website. The document itself is 372 pages long which is impressive considering the original rule is 17 pages. UPDATE: Federal Register publication link.

Here’s part of what the EPA had to say about changes to the rule:

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to Executive Order 13650, is amending its Risk Management Program regulations. The revisions contain several changes to the accident prevention program requirements including an additional analysis of safer technology and alternatives as part of the process hazard analysis for some Program 3 processes, third-party audits and incident investigation root cause analysis for Program 2 and Program 3 processes; enhancements to the emergency preparedness requirements; increased public availability of chemical hazard information; and several other changes to certain regulatory definitions and data elements submitted in risk management plans. These amendments seek to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sources.

I have created a 55 page summary that lists:

What the new text says.
What the new text means.
What you must do (and when you must do it!) to become compliant.

You can download that document in Microsoft Word (so you can make your own personal notes) at this link: 40CFR68 – 2016 Amendments BDC 122116.

Obviously, there are going to be many changes required to your element guidelines and practices. RC&E will be updating our template program to become compliant with the new requirements in the first quarter of 2017 and will make these updated documents available to our clients as they are completed.

Updated link to the EPA documents: Click Here

Link to our summary: 40CFR68 – 2016 Amendments BDC 122116

Updates: