2018 RETA Breeze May- June

PSM/RMP Compliance Audits: Who Should Perform Them?

by William Lape

“ e gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable.” When compliance audits are conducted by facility personnel who work with the programs on a daily basis, or by the consultant who created the program in the rst place, there is o en the tendency to overlook de ciencies that have become commonplace. is leads to ongoing de ciencies that may start o as minor, but may grow into a larger, more systemic failure of the management system. e EPA has published new rules under 40 CFR Part 68 that are due to become e ective in 2019. ese rules call for audits to be conducted by third parties under certain circumstances, such as a er an RMP reportable accident. While I would argue that these third parties are o en de cient in their knowledge of the covered process and hence would struggle to comply with the existing regulations, there is a valid argument that they do o er up a “fresh set of eyes.” Assuming that third party audit requirements are not triggered, how does a facility choose who to audit their program? Viable options o en present themselves in corporate level subject matter experts. ese subject matter experts are knowledgeable in the covered process, but care should

be taken to ensure that they have been trained on proper techniques to audit not only the paper programs, but also the implementation of those programs. Another option is to retain the services of a consultant. However, care must be taken to ensure that they are knowledgeable in the covered process. A consultant whose experience is in oil and gas will not be able to audit an ammonia refrigeration program without a signi cant amount of preparation. Conversely, an auditor who is knowledgeable in ammonia refrigeration will struggle with auditing an oil or gas program. If a facility chooses to audit their own programs, care must be taken to ensure that the lead auditor is as removed from the day to day implementation of the programs as possible. It is also imperative that facility level auditors be trained in the proper audit techniques. is is most o en the de ciency found when reviewing past audits done internally. Bill Lape is Director of EHS Programs and Compliance for Dean Foods. e opinions expressed within are solely his and do not necessarily re ect the opinions, policy or position of Dean Foods Company or its a liates. Bill is a Certi ed Industrial Refrigeration Operator and a member of the National Board of Directors of the Refrigerating Engineers and Technicians Association.

When facilities are due for a PSM/ RMP compliance audit they o en ask themselves, “Can we have someone from the facility do it and save the costs of the audit?” 29 CFR 1910.110(o) and 40 CFR Part 68.58 & 68.79 specify that “ e employer (owner or operator) shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section (subpart) at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this standard (subpart) are adequate and are being followed” and that “ e compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the process.” is language indicates that as long as someone who is knowledgeable in the process takes part in conducting the audit, then it can be done by anyone, including facility personnel. However, is this really the best option? When deciding upon who is to conduct a compliance audit to ensure that the facility is fully implementing the PSM/ RMP requirements, we have to consider the fact that a “fresh set of eyes” may reveal de ciencies that might otherwise be overlooked due to the “normalization of deviance,” which was rst coined by sociologist Diane Vaughan in her book, e Challenger Launch Decision. is book was written about her study of the culture at NASA immediately prior to the Challenger disaster. e normalization of deviance is de ned as:

RETA.com 9