Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Process Safety Management and Risk Management Program (PSM/RMP) Audits: Are You Prepared?

View through CrossRef
In June 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated 40 CFR Part 68, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs (RMP) Under Clean Air Act, Section 112 r (7), commonly called the RMP rule. Much of the RMP rule was already required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910.119 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (the PSM Standard), which had been issued four years earlier. Because both of these regulations include anhydrous ammonia at a threshold level of 10,000 lbs., many refrigerated warehousing and manufacturing facilities are subject to them. Since the two regulations have the same threshold quantity for ammonia, facilities that are subject to RMP are also subject to PSM. While the focus of the two regulations differs, there are many common requirements, as shown in Table 1, Comparison of Process Safety Management and Risk Management Program Requirements. Both rules require the development of extensive accident prevention programs, which include Process Hazard Analyses, operation and maintenance procedures, training, and emergency response plans. The RMP rule also requires Offsite Consequence Analyses and a Plan summary submittal to the EPA before a process starts up and at five-year intervals thereafter. The Program 3 Prevention Program required to satisfy RMP, is almost identical to a PSM program. Most subject facilities, therefore, use their PSM Program to serve as their RMP Prevention Program. In Florida, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) took delegation of the RMP rule from the EPA and is the enforcing agency in this state. Since the summer of 2000, the DCA has been auditing RMP facilities for compliance with the rule, and their list of audit subjects has included several citrus manufacturing facilities. The DCA staff has been performing very thorough audits, looking closely at all of the RMP Prevention Program, or PSM Program, elements and evaluating their implementation status at each site. The DCA typically cites RMP Prevention Program deficiencies in the following areas: Mechanical Integrity, Standard Operating Procedures, Process Hazard Analysis, training records, incident investigation reporting, compliance audits, and emergency response planning. Although Florida does not have a State-OSHA program, the DCA is, effectively, serving in this function as they audit the PSM programs of refrigerated facilities throughout the state. Facility owners should therefore ensure that their PSM/RMP Prevention Programs are well developed and well implemented prior to a DCA audit. Paper published with permission.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Title: Process Safety Management and Risk Management Program (PSM/RMP) Audits: Are You Prepared?
Description:
In June 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated 40 CFR Part 68, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs (RMP) Under Clean Air Act, Section 112 r (7), commonly called the RMP rule.
Much of the RMP rule was already required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910.
119 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (the PSM Standard), which had been issued four years earlier.
Because both of these regulations include anhydrous ammonia at a threshold level of 10,000 lbs.
, many refrigerated warehousing and manufacturing facilities are subject to them.
Since the two regulations have the same threshold quantity for ammonia, facilities that are subject to RMP are also subject to PSM.
While the focus of the two regulations differs, there are many common requirements, as shown in Table 1, Comparison of Process Safety Management and Risk Management Program Requirements.
Both rules require the development of extensive accident prevention programs, which include Process Hazard Analyses, operation and maintenance procedures, training, and emergency response plans.
The RMP rule also requires Offsite Consequence Analyses and a Plan summary submittal to the EPA before a process starts up and at five-year intervals thereafter.
The Program 3 Prevention Program required to satisfy RMP, is almost identical to a PSM program.
Most subject facilities, therefore, use their PSM Program to serve as their RMP Prevention Program.
In Florida, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) took delegation of the RMP rule from the EPA and is the enforcing agency in this state.
Since the summer of 2000, the DCA has been auditing RMP facilities for compliance with the rule, and their list of audit subjects has included several citrus manufacturing facilities.
The DCA staff has been performing very thorough audits, looking closely at all of the RMP Prevention Program, or PSM Program, elements and evaluating their implementation status at each site.
The DCA typically cites RMP Prevention Program deficiencies in the following areas: Mechanical Integrity, Standard Operating Procedures, Process Hazard Analysis, training records, incident investigation reporting, compliance audits, and emergency response planning.
Although Florida does not have a State-OSHA program, the DCA is, effectively, serving in this function as they audit the PSM programs of refrigerated facilities throughout the state.
Facility owners should therefore ensure that their PSM/RMP Prevention Programs are well developed and well implemented prior to a DCA audit.
Paper published with permission.

Related Results

Implementation guide for process safety management
Implementation guide for process safety management
AbstractA general guide how to implement process safety management (PSM) is missing in the literature. This article provides general procedure to implement PSM which any industry i...
Factors Influencing Patient Safety Management Behaviors in Nursing Students
Factors Influencing Patient Safety Management Behaviors in Nursing Students
The objective of this study is to identify the critical thinking Disposition, problem-solving processes, safety motivation, patient safety management knowledge, attitudes towards p...
Off‐site consequences: Life after risk management plans, Part I—public response
Off‐site consequences: Life after risk management plans, Part I—public response
AbstractMany environmental and facility managers view the submittal and public availability of their facilities' risk management plans (RMPs) as discrete events and give little tho...
Meta-analysis on the relevance of Public Service Motivation (PSM) for public sector employees
Meta-analysis on the relevance of Public Service Motivation (PSM) for public sector employees
As there are very few conceptual papers to discuss the current relevance of Public Service Motivation (PSM) to public sector employees, the objective of the paper is to explore the...
Auditing Safety and Environmental Management Systems Programs
Auditing Safety and Environmental Management Systems Programs
Abstract As a result of the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo incident on April 20, 2010, the Department of the Interior adopted the Safety and Environmental Management S...
Evaluating Effects of Culture and Language on Safety
Evaluating Effects of Culture and Language on Safety
This paper (SPE 54448) was revised for publication from paper SPE 48891, prepared for the 1998 SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Beijing, 2–6 November. Original m...
Evidence of public service motivation of social workers in China
Evidence of public service motivation of social workers in China
To investigate how generalizable public service motivation (PSM) observed in Western society is to China and examine the instrumentality of public service motivation, two studies w...

Back to Top