EPA Has Updated Their OPA90 FRP Plan Review Checklist
John K. Carroll III
Associate Managing Director at Witt O'Brien's, LLC, Part of the Ambipar Group
(This article was written without AI tools, i.e., ChatGPT.)
?
Witt O’Brien’s manages hundreds of Facility Response Plans (FRPs) a year, from coast to coast and in the U.S. territories. As such, we have a solid view of trends and new elements the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects to see in FRPs and uses to review and evaluate them. For the better part of the past ten years, the EPA has used the same national EPA FRP review checklist. Before rolling out their standardized checklist, each region had its own templates and tools. Though these were similar, there were enough nuances between them to cause plan reviews to come back with different outcomes depending on where an FRP was submitted.
Recently, we’ve noticed that EPA is using an updated FRP checklist. It, too, is similar to the prior version, but there are differences worth pointing out. We don’t think it’s being used everywhere (yet), but we’ve seen it in enough places to believe all EPA regions are using it.
If you’d like a copy of the old or new FRP checklist, email [email protected].
________________________________________________________________
Please join Witt O'Brien's for our 9th Annual Agency Led FREE Compliance Workshop on September 10th through 13th (In-Person and Virtual).
Topics: SPCC Plans, FRPs, and the EPA’s new Hazardous Substance Worst-Case Discharge Rule
To learn more and RSVP,?click here!
________________________________________________________________
After comparing the two documents, we have found the following changes:
Section A Changes
Explanation: Other than the last item, the changes are all to the Response Plan Cover Sheet. Our recommendation is that you keep your current template as is. Nothing here is worth changing other than adding the first item if it’s not already there (most plans already include it). The last item is not new, rather it’s a wording change that explains the item differently.
?
Section E Changes
领英推荐
Explanation: The first item is a good addition. Companies will likely secure 1,000’ of boom to meet the first-hour planning requirements. However, under the rule, alternatives can be used for inland operations. This new line adds a reminder that if you do use alternatives, you must note it appropriately in the FRP. (I wrote about this last year; click here.) I am not sure why the second item was removed, so don’t change your template. If you don’t have it, continue to note “none.”
?
Section R Changes
Explanation: This change is just a wording change that explains the item differently.
?
Section S Changes
Explanation: These two changes make complete sense. In fact, I’m not sure why they were ever included in the Drainage Diagram requirements. That said, until it is confirmed that this new checklist is to be used everywhere, we recommend adding it to both diagrams to be safe.
?
For a complete listing of archived articles and compliance insights, click here. Past articles cover training requirements, clarification on additional unclear elements within the above rules, and much more.
We are here to help solve your compliance questions and challenges. If you need compliance assistance or have a question, please email John K. Carroll III ([email protected]), Associate Managing Director – Compliance Services, or call +1 954-625-9373.
?
Witt O’Brien’s:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Personal Note: Struggling with suicidal thoughts or know someone who is displaying worrisome characteristics? If yes, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) has excellent resources to help: a crisis hotline (simply call/text 988), a counselor directory, resources to navigate, etc. Click here to go to their website.
?