- 0.1 Who is responsible for process safety management?
- 0.2 What is asset integrity process safety management?
- 1 What are the responsibilities of process safety management?
- 2 How is process safety managed in industry?
- 3 Why asset integrity management?
- 4 What is the difference between asset integrity and asset management?
- 5 What is the responsibility of process manager?
- 6 What are the roles and responsibilities of a process manager?
- 7 What is the difference between safety and process safety?
- 8 What is the process safety management policy?
- 9 Who needs PSM?
Who is responsible for process safety management?
Under PSM, employers must consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazard analyses and on the development of the other elements of process management, and they must provide to employees and their representatives access to process hazard analyses and to all other
What is asset integrity process safety management?
Physical Asset Integrity Management (AIM) is a widely known and well-defined process that, if applied in the correct way, can offer asset owners and operators the ability to manage risk and assure the integrity of assets throughout their life cycle.
What are the responsibilities of process safety management?
What is Process Safety Management? – Process Safety Management, or PSM, is an OSHA standard that requires employers to identify, evaluate, and control the hazards associated with the highly hazardous chemicals used in their processes. A key provision of the standard requires employers to conduct a thorough risk analysis of the entire operating process.
Process Safety Information Employers must develop written safety information before conducting a PHA.
Process Hazard Analysis Employers must identify, evaluate, and control hazardous processes.
Operating Procedures Employers must develop and implement written operating procedures.
Incident Investigation Thorough investigations must be completed anytime there is an incident associated to the process.
Management of Change Changes to a process must be evaluated to determine if there will be any impacts on the health and safety of employees.
Mechanical Integrity Process equipment must be designed and installed correctly.
Employee Participation The employer must involve workers in PSM programs.
Trade Secrets Employers must provide all information necessary to comply with PSM standards, regardless of the trade secret status of the information.
Compliance Audits Audits must be conducted and reported at reasonable intervals.
Training Employers must train employees on hazards and procedures.
Contractors All contractors working on or near highly hazardous chemicals must be trained on emergency procedures and other relevant aspects of the PSM program.
Hot Work Hot work permits must be issued for any hot work operations taking place near the process.
Pre-Startup Safety Review The PSSR must be conducted for new and modified facilities before operations can begin.
Emergency Planning and Response Employees must be trained on emergency planning and response procedures.
OSHA inspectors will look for these 14 elements when reviewing your PSM program. Together, they help to reduce the likelihood and severity of an unwanted release or exposure. As you can see, process safety management can be a huge undertaking. The PHA alone can be a tedious and time-consuming process.
What is the relationship between asset integrity and process safety?
Detailed Offering – There is often confusion about the difference between Process Safety and Asset Integrity. Basically they are one in the same thing: they both focus on the prevention and mitigation of unintentional releases of potentially dangerous materials or energy.
- In simple terms PS/AI management can be described as the establishment of a series of barriers, each of which can prevent the realization of a hazard and an incident.
- These barriers can be ‘hard’ (i.e.
- Valves, vessels, alarms), ‘system’ (i.e.
- Procedure, permits, rules), or ‘soft’ (i.e.
- People, behaviours, attitudes, competence, experience, commitment).
Many people, including leaders, find the concept of Process Safety and Asset Integrity difficult, especially when compared to occupational safety, which can be visually more identifiable. Our Risk Dimensions team has encountered this over many years and has delivered innovative solutions to clients in a number of locations.
Process Safety/Asset Integrity handbooks for leaders Major Accident Hazard Diagrams Innovative training in holistic Process Safety/Asset Integrity management PS/AI system development Root cause review and analysis of PS/AI incidents and near-hits Participation in Asset Integrity baseline assessments and Process Safety Integrity reviews
The financial benefit of robust Process Safety/Asset Integrity management should not be forgotten. The often-quoted statement that ‘safety is good business’ is equally relevant here. A plant or process with sound integrity achieved by good design, construction and commissioning, which is well-inspected and maintained and responsibly operated will reap financial awards.
Who is responsible for safety compliance?
NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only. August 11, 1976 Honorable Lawton Chiles United States Senate Washington D.C.20510 Dear Senator Chiles: This is in response to the communication from your office, dated July 16, 1976, referring to 198 10, Mr.
- Artis A. King, Lake Worth, Florida.
- The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (copy enclosed) assigns the responsibility for compliance with safety and health standards to the employer and contains no sanctions which OSHA can enforce against the employee.
- The employer provides supervision and instructions to his employees to ensure that work is completed in a timely and proper manner.
This same supervision should ensure that employees have, and use, safe tools and equipment. In many companies, adherence to safety and health rules is a condition of employment. Employee disregard for these rules is treated with the usual management practice for each company.
Under the Act, and its standards, personal protective equipment must be used when there is reasonable probability of injury that can be prevented by such protective equipment. Employees, when not subject to such probable injury or illness, are not required to be so protected. I am enclosing a copy of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards applicable to general industry.29 CFR 1910.132(a), page 23670, outlines the general requirements for personal protective equipment.29 CFR 1910.135, page 23673, provides specific requirements for occupational head protection.
If I may be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Pursuant to your request, the enclosures are herewith returned. Sincerely, Bert M. Concklin Deputy Assistant Secretary Enclosures
How is process safety managed in industry?
International process safety management (PSM) – Process Safety Management (PSM) is a part of safety management, which focuses on the concerns of major hazards impacting safety, environmental damage and business losses. Oil & gas, process and chemical companies are significant users of PSM methods, particularly where there are hazardous processes or large inventories of flammable or toxic materials.
Regulators expect operators of volatile plants to implement measures to ensure that their plants are operated and maintained in a safe manner. PSM techniques are numerous – from process screening and concept selection, through hazard identification, consequence evaluation, risk assessment, ALARP study, pre-start-up action response auditing, to inspection and auditing during operation.
The major aim of PSM is to develop plant systems and procedures to prevent unwanted releases, which may ignite and cause toxic impacts, local fires, or explosions in plants – affecting nearby communities. In addition, PSM can also address issues related to the Operability, Productivity, Stability, and Quality output of processes, leading to the specification of safeguards against undesirable events.
What is the role of asset integrity?
Asset Integrity Management (AIM) is a term used to describe the practice of managing an asset (power plant, oil rig, refinery, etc) to ensure its ability to perform its function effectively and efficiently is maintained. Well run AIM strategies ensure that the people, systems, processes and resources that enable an asset to deliver its function are in place over the life cycle of the asset, while simultaneously maintaining health and safety and environmental legislation.
AIM applies to the entirety of an asset’s operation, from its design phase to its decommissioning and replacement. The primary industry sector served by AIM is upstream oil and gas. This is owing to the escalating worldwide demand for energy, which has resulted in the oil and gas sector increasing investment into this area to extend the operational service life of existing rigs.
However, the AIM process can be implemented for any asset of high value, including oil refineries, electrical power generation plants and chemical processing plants,
Why asset integrity management?
Asset integrity management Avoiding failures in the operational phase
Assets must perform effectively and efficiently to ensure safe and reliable operation and achieve your objectives. Asset integrity management ensures you have the business processes, systems, tools, competence and resources you need to ensure integrity throughout the asset lifecycle. Design, operational, and technical integrity must all be managed effectively to control costs.
DNV can support you to develop, optimize and implement an effective asset integrity management system for all asset types, including down-hole, wellhead, subsea, pipelines, topside process, load-bearing structures, and floaters. We understand the challenges your industry faces and are actively involved in development of asset integrity standards and guidelines.
Maintenance plans Work processes Condition monitoringAnalysis of plant performance as part of Root Cause assessment.
The work can relate to all phases of the asset lifecycle including development, implementation, operation, training and verification. It can include:
Technical integrity analysisDevelopment and optimization of maintenance, inspection and testing (MIT) plansCondition assessmentLifetime extension of ageing assetsBarrier managementSafety risk management.
What is the difference between asset integrity and asset management?
The Bottom Line: Which do you need? – These two terminologies are often used interchangeably, even though most often than not, people are looking for an Asset Integrity Management (AIM) solution. This is because an Asset Integrity Management (AIM) solution is a must when it comes to operational excellence and safety.
- While, on the other hand, an Asset Performance Management solution comes with some “nice-to-have” functionalities, that are often outside of the business needs, scope or budget.
- Asset Integrity Management will help upkeep the integrity of your equipment, making sure it is up and running safely and as it should.
Asset Performance Management will help you find the best way in which to use your equipment within the larger system, ultimately assessing that asset’s performance. The verdict is that an Asset Integrity Management (AIM) solution is a must-have, You need it to ensure that throughout the lifecycle of your equipment, it will function effectively and efficiently.
- Asset Integrity Management is what helps you prevent unplanned shutdowns, equipment failure, and deferred production,
- It protects your assets, people, and the environment from major hazards.
- This is a practice that you need to have in place already before starting your operations, as it is a critical part of your processes.
Asset Performance Management will add to this, helping you overview and improve your processes. However, Asset Performance Management is also something you can think about integrating down the line, as often you will find that all your needs and requirements will be met by a good Asset Integrity Management (AIM) solution,
What is the process manager responsible for?
A process manager is the person responsible for the end-to-end execution of the process and has operational control, facilitates the daily activities, and provides insight into where improvement is needed to enhance performance.
What is the responsibility of process manager?
Process Manager Responsibilities: Analyzing the efficiency and costs of existing business processes. Identifying areas of improvement. Creating and presenting process improvement reports. Overseeing the implementation of new business processes.
What are the roles and responsibilities of a process manager?
What’s it all about then? – The Process Manager (sometimes known as a Process Development Manager) is responsible for taking a product through from original idea to production line, ensuring that all technical standards are achieved and that the product makes a suitable profit for the company.
- You may also have a role in analysing current production and making recommendations for improvements, which may involve the company investing in new equipment to improve bottom line profits.
- In some instances the title of Process Manager reflects a team -leading role, while at other times you may be more “hands on” and your title is a recognition of your seniority in the company and the importance of your role.
For the hands-on side of things please check out the Process Technologist link elsewhere on this site – otherwise keep reading!
What are the three key ISO standards for asset management?
Buy ISO 55000 – The IAM sells ISO 55000 to Members at the lowest possible price, courtesy of BSI. The package of all three standards, ISO 55000, 55001 and 55002, in paper format is available to buy from the IAM shop. Buy print copy Each standard can also be purchased individually at the BSI shop,
What are the two key processes in managing asset risk?
This white paper discusses the experience of implementing a risk management process within an Asset Management organization. It discusses three important subjects that need to be considered while implementing risk management – the different perspectives between day-to-day operations and risk-based asset planning, asset risk versus business risk, and the n-to-n relationship between issues and risks.
- This paper has been shaped around a real case Example 1.
- INTRODUCTION OF RISK MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND Case Example: A fieldworker is doing some inspection work around a Mid Voltage station and stumbles over some loose stones in the pavement around the station.
- Question: Is this a risk? Before we continue exploring this case, some definition and context is needed.
A generic definition of risk management is: Risk = Likelihood * Impact When talking about risk management within the context of asset management, we have to narrow the scope. Our specific focus on risk within the asset management process is the connection between Business Risk and Decision Risk.
Figure 1. Risk Management within Asset Management We define risk management as managing potential events that could have a negative impact on the business objectives related to the assets or management of those assets.1 Case example text can be recognized in this document by the red font color. The risk management process within asset management is part of the core decision-making process and consists of two steps.
The first is the identification of issues and the second is the determination and analysis of risks. Other steps in the core decision-making process include the design of solutions, the selection of the optimal portfolio, and the contracting of work packages from the selected portfolio.
- In a best practice asset management process, all of these process steps are strongly connected to each other.
- This is called the “line of sight” of asset management processes, meaning that you’re able to relate your work packages back to projects/programs to solutions to risks. Figure 2.
- Core decision-making process within asset management The different perspectives between the day-to-day operations and the (risk-based) asset planning process.
Many mistakes have been made in implementing risk management by not understanding that day-today operations and (risk-based) asset planning operate in different time periods. The best way to explain this is with the example of our stumbling fieldworker.
- The fieldworker realizes after he had stumbled that he had a narrow escape from a serious injury.
- He could have broken a leg or even worse! This must be a safety risk.
- The first thing he does is enter the incident in the issue register and ask the risk analyst to undertake an analysis of the incident to find out whether this is a high-ranked risk or a medium to small risk.
He then waits on the outcome of the risk analysis before he takes any further action. This is not a fictitious example; it is a real case from a utility in the early implementation stage of a risk-based asset planning process. The mistake which was made was not having a clear understanding of the different focus of day-to-day operations versus that of risk-based asset planning.
- Risk management as part of the risk-based asset planning process should focus on threats in the future.
- Day-to-day operations should focus on actions in the here and now.
- Once he understood the focus of each, the fieldworker would have acted differently.
- A good practice process would lead to the following occurrence.
The fieldworker realizes after stumbling over the stones that this is a safety issue. He immediately starts repairing the loose stones in the pavement. At the end of the day, he is back at the office and books his working hours. When this year’s budget was created, a portion was allocated to “small repair and maintenance work”.
The time he spent in the repair of the pavement is charged against this account. The company also wants him to track safety incidents, so he reports the incident in the safety incident tracking system. The risk analyst periodically looks at all systems which track incidents and sees the new safety incident report.
He enters this issue in the issue register (or updates an existing one). He also collects other information which is reported in other maintenance and failure systems and enters these in the issue register. Because there are several similar incidents reported, he decides to perform analysis on the available data.
- He suspects that the current policy is not sufficient and needs to be updated.
- This might have an impact on civil maintenance and budgets for next year. Figure 2.
- Different perspectives between day-to-day operations and risk-based asset planning process The key message here is to understand the different perspectives between day-to-day operations and the risk-based asset planning process and to keep these processes separated from each other.
Not separating these processes will lead to resistance especially in the day-to-day operational process, where people will consider the risk management process as additional bureaucracy not adding any value. ASSET RISK VERSUS BUSINESS RISK Another topic over which confusion often occurs is the difference between Asset Risk and Business Risk.
Asset Risk refers to the functional failure of assets. However, particularly in the area of maintenance management, these functional failures are considered to be a business risk. This is not the case as can be explained by further exploring our example. The risk analyst starts evaluating the entered issue in the issue register which describes the incident of the fieldworker.
The analyst looks at the description of the issue and assumes that this is a safety risk. He takes the existing risk matrix of the company and starts thinking about the stones in the pavement. The function of the stones in the pavement is to provide a smooth path for fieldworkers to be able to safely walk around the Mid Voltage station.
- This function has been disturbed.
- Due to this a severe safety incident almost occurred.
- He has a look at the risk matrix: the impact of this functional failure, in this case, is low.
- The frequency was at least once this year.
- It appears that the overall risk assessment tells him that this is a low risk and therefore acceptable.
Since it falls within the pre-established risk tolerance, it will not lead to any action. The mistake in the methodology described is that the risk analyst began his risk analysis by focusing on the asset and the functional failure of the asset. First, he focused on the incident which occurred, rather than potential future risks.
In addition, he didn’t consider a future threat impacting business objectives, rather he focused on component failure which is typically what you would do when assessing maintenance policy. What he should have done is define hypotheses of events that could cause threats in the future. These threats should be evaluated on the level of risk and eventually mitigating actions should be derived.
In our case study this would occur as follows: The risk analyst starts evaluating the entered issues in the issue register. He does some reporting on geographical analysis and some reporting on asset analysis. From the analysis, he discovers that several issues have been reported regarding Mid Voltage stations.
- Several leaking roofs of Mid Voltage stations have been reported over the past three months.
- Also, several complaints have been reported regarding painting of doors and window casings.
- The analyst also had a look in the workflow system and discovered that actual maintenance spend on Mid Voltage station is far behind the expected realization.
He formulates two hypotheses of potential threats; – D elays in maintenance cause a major short circuit leading to a blackout of a city with 100,000 citizens having more than 4 hours loss of electricity supply – I ncorrect maintenance (i.e., the wrong maintenance policy) of Mid Voltage stations cause a major short circuit leading to a blackout of a city with 100,000 citizens having more than 4 hours loss of electricity supply.
- Both potential threats are evaluated with the risk matrix and lead to the conclusion that these are severe risks and mitigating actions need to be taken.
- This case demonstrates the skill set needed for a risk analyst – the ability to look beyond the functional failure of a component and the capability to translate leading indicators into the root causes and hypotheses of actual threats.
Figure 4. Asset Risk versus Business Risk Figure 5. From Issue to R isk Companies who have successfully implemented risk management typically started by forming a risk expert group which has the task of reviewing risks and making decisions. This group needs to be very disciplined in the beginning and stick to a fixed agenda which contains three steps – issue analysis including formulation of threats, risk analyses of the formulated threats, and specification of mitigation activities.
- RISK MITIGATING STRATEGIES Figure 5.
- Risk Mitigating Strategies IMPLEMENTING RISK MANAGEMENT In conclusion, this white paper discusses concepts regarding the implementation of risk management within asset management.
- First, risk management within asset management has been defined.
- Then, three important topics have been addressed regarding implementing risk management.
Recognizing the different perspectives between risk-based asset planning and day to day operations Recognizing the difference between Asset Risks and Business Risks The pitfalls of the n-to-n relation between issues and risks In our experience, creating a risk expert group with a fixed agenda and with structured preparation and discipline to stick to the agenda is a good way to implement a sound risk management process.
For more information on our viewpoints, case studies, etc. regarding risk management please contact us at: [email protected]
What is the difference between asset safety and asset liquidity?
1 However, these terms are not synonyms: Safety refers to the probability that the (issuer of the) asset will pay the promised cash flow, and liquidity refers to the ease with which an investor can sell the asset, if needed.2 Mixing up these terms can lead to false conclusions and misguided policy recommendations.
Should HR be responsible for safety?
In many ways, the way you recruit and hire sets the tone for workers in terms of your company culture. Are people being recruited and hired who are capable and have the capacity, with training, to do the job? Do you stress to them how important safety is for your organization? Are hires those who show that they are aligned with your culture of safety? Depending on your company size, this may or may not be part of HR’s responsibilities directly.
Culture: ensuring values are upheld and making sure safety is taken as seriously as productivity and results are; Policies and procedures: are the policies and procedures upheld? This can make or break any safety program! Communication: one of the most critical components is transparent communication and collaboration to make all of this possible. High-performing cultures have a way for people to speak up to support safety, and HR clearly has a connection to this. Proper monitoring and updating of a safety program: While starting or re-launching a safety program means you have good intentions, HR is critically important in monitoring and ensuring what should happen, does happen, when it comes to injury prevention efforts,
A safe workplace is one of the first things people can take for granted, unfortunately, despite how important it is. In a society that’s all about “me,” this can be even more challenging, explains Price; but it’s HR’s role to continue to show how safety and health goals do benefit each individual person.
And HR can help build awareness that it’s up to each employee to take responsibility for their own safety. “There’s so many reasons why people choose to work, and why they choose not to work. Now more than ever, the individual’s needs should be at the forefront of leadership’s mind, because a company is comprised of a collection of individuals,” says Price.
In turn, it’s also HR’s role to show the importance of how safety policies and procedures impact co-workers in a company, the company as a whole, and even the community. HR needs to be a champion of safety in the workplace and they need to be one of the leaders of safe workplace initiatives.
“And that’s partly because it’s in our job description, and partly because it’s not,” says Price. “What I mean by this is that ‘human resources,’ by definition, means we are tasked with making sure the humans that show up to our workplace are adequately selected and trained, It means we ensure that have adequate work space, and that they are adequately informed of the mission and goals.
And, it means we ensure they are aware of what they are individually responsible for, and collectively responsible for, in the organization,” says Price. “Safety falls under almost all, if not all, of those categories,” he says. HR’s role is to ensure that the organization invests in a proactive safety culture; that investment, when done right, will prevent injuries, incidents, and other issues.
A key piece of this is training and development that helps workers to be safe. “Like anything, training is a muscle that allows you, over time, to grow in your confidence to exercise those things,” says Price, who says that training is what will help workers trust in their plan, no matter what happens on a job site or no matter what emergency takes place.
“You can have a plan. You can put it on the company intranet. You can share it with your employees, but when you train on it, that gives people the right applied knowledge, and it gives you confidence,” he says. “For health and safety, so often it’s about having confidence in what you’re going to do.” The “well-being” of an employee is connected to their health and to their safety.
“Today, health branches out to not just be our physical health, but it also includes mental health as well. Work is more stressful these days. We take our job home with us at night. We package it up and put it in our pocket with our cellphones and laptops. It’s harder to stay disconnected and recharge,” explains Price.
The idea of “health,” in many ways, has changed for workers, and the role of HR has evolved alongside it, too. For example: who is more likely to get injured on the job: someone who’s well-rested, alert, and engaged? Or, someone who is fatigued, complacent, and going through the motions? This example is meant to show how connected an employee’s well-being is to health and to safety, too.
“HR has sort of a role, at times, where if no one else knows where to put it, it winds up on HR’s desk,” says Price with a laugh. “The idea often is, ‘HR can do it,'” he says. It might be planning the company picnic, or cleaning out the fridge, or another taskbut when it comes to more serious matters—such as active shooter training or what to do if there is an earthquake—HR really has to be the champion around these issues, too.
“We’re the ones committed to creating a safe environment, and that’s really no matter what that means. “That’s a safe environment where everyone has been communicated with: why the workplace should be safe, how workers should be behaving to ensure its safe, and what to do if and when certain situations arise.” “Right now, we’re seeing more and more instances that are calling our attention to the idea of, ‘Just how safe is the workplace?'” says Price.
- As workplace fatalities are on the rise, it’s just as important as ever.
- It’s important that we have the responsibility of getting you home safely to your family every night.” Keeping this is mind, now is a great a time as ever for leaders to re-assess their processes and to make sure your safety programs goes beyond the basics,
“One employee lost to gunfire is too much. One employee lost to harassment is too much. One employee lost in a fire or chemical spill or injured on the job—or anything that could have been prevented—is one person too many,” adds Price. iReport is the easiest, most affordable way to have a world-class, collaborative safety program.
What is the difference between safety and process safety?
One of the most important roles that chemical engineers can play is improving safety. A good example of this is the IChemE Safety Centre (ISC) which sets up a new impetus and framework for process safety. Despite the good work of chemical engineers in mitigating dangerous events, they still occur.
Often the reason given for these incidents is a lack of understanding of what process safety is and how it differs from occupational safety. For example people often use this to explain why the BP Texas City refinery explosion and fire, which sadly killed 15 people and injured 180 more, occurred. It has been suggested that there was too great a focus on reducing the high number of occupational safety incidents, rather than the more infrequent but much more serious process safety incidents.
I have put together this list of ten differences between process and occupational (personal) safety to help dispel this (however it should be noted that this list is my opinion and there is a lot of overlap between process and occupational safety – hence the confusion!): 1.
Process safety incidents happen at a lower frequency Process safety incidents happen at a lower frequency ; occupational safety incidents happen at a higher frequency. This is often a problem as a proactive approach to safety means that you may focus on the highest occurrences of incidents, rather than focus on the most serious ones.2.
Process safety prevents hazardous releases Process safety includes the prevention of unintentional releases of chemicals, energy or other hazardous materials; whereas occupational safety generally refers to classic health and safety, normally associated with the prevention of trips, slips and falls.
Here is a great YouTube video explaining this:,3. Process safety protects everyone Process safety protects workers and the public alike; occupational safety protects workers. The consequences of not implementing process safety can be far reaching, affecting people living locally to the site or even consumers.
Negligence can have a wide impact,4. Process safety considers humans, the environment and business Process safety considers the consequences of accidents at the human, environmental and business level; occupational safety considers consequences at a human level only.5. Process safety is more expensive to implement; occupational safety is normally cheaper. Because of the scale of investment required to guarantee process safety the costs can seem high, however as I discussed in my blog ‘ When 99.9 per cent just isn’t good enough ‘ the price of not paying these costs is not worth considering.
It is estimated that the cost of poor hydrocarbon process safety from 1974 to 2013 was US$ 34 billion,7. Process safety is misunderstood Process safety can be complicated to understand by people external to it and needs clear and concise communication to succeed; occupational safety is easier to understand because it affects us all.
Whilst to become an expert in either process or occupational safety requires specialist training, understanding the importance of occupational safety is easy, we are all taught at a young age not to run with scissors! Understanding the details of process safety often requires complex technical knowledge that we as chemical engineers need to work hard to translate to ensure it is understood.8.
- Process safety deals with major hazards Process safety addresses major hazards that are more likely to result in major incidents with big consequences ; occupational safety addresses incidents involving personal safety at an individual level with small consequences.
- Process safety deals with mitigating big incidents such as fire, explosions, pollution etc.
whereas process safety mitigates small incidents such as cuts and broken bones.9. Process safety needs high level support Process safety needs to focus on educating your boss ; occupational safety needs to focus on educating your staff. Unlike occupational safety where operators and workers can bring about change, process safety is reliant on your boss and board understanding its importance and implementing the improvements required to guarantee culture changes.10.
- Process safety should be discussed by all Process safety should be on the agenda at all board meetings; occupational safety needs to be on the agenda at team meetings.
- When process safety is not routinely discussed it leaves open the chance that it is forgotten or important aspects are missed.
- Ensuring that it is discussed at the highest level means that this cannot be the case.
And one similarity: Process and occupational safety are both important! If anyone wants to discuss this further I would like to point you in the direction of LinkedIn, where some IChemE members have been participating in a very interesting and long-term discussion on process safety.
What is the process safety management policy?
The major objective of process safety management (PSM) of highly hazardous chemicals is to prevent unwanted releases of hazardous chemicals especially into locations that could expose employees and others to serious hazards.
What is the difference between process control and process safety?
Differences Between a SIS and a BPCS – ProcessOperations.com very clearly defines these two systems as follows: “Process control systems (PCS) are active, or dynamic. They have analog inputs and analog outputs, perform math and number crunching, and have feedback loops.
- Process controls act positively to maintain or change process conditions.
- They are there to help obtain best performance from the process and often are used to push the performance to the limits that can safely be achieved.
- Hence, most failures in these systems are inherently self-revealing.
- PCS must be flexible enough to allow frequent changes.
Process parameters (e.g. set points, PID settings, MAN/AUTO, etc) require changing. Portions of the system may also be placed in bypass, and the process may be controlled manually. They are not built with safety in mind and are not dedicated to the task.
Because they are operating at all times they are not expected to have diagnostic routines searching for faults. Safety systems, however, are just the opposite of process control systems. They are dormant, or passive. They sit there doing nothing and hopefully will never be called into action. An example would be a pressure relief valve.
Normally the valve is closed. It only opens when the pressure reaches the set value. If the pressure never exceeds that value, the valve never operates. Many failures in these systems may not be self-revealing. If the relief valve is plugged, there is no immediate indication.
A PLC could be hung up in an endless loop. Without a watchdog timer, the system would not be able to recognize the problem. There is a need for extensive diagnostics in dormant, passive safety-related systems. Safety systems should be incorruptible – need to be kept to a fixed set of rules and access for changes carefully restricted.
And they must be highly reliable and be able to respond instantly when a hazardous situation develops.” A common question people ask is, “Can I program a BPCS to perform safety functions?” The answer is absolutely “yes.” But try to ask a BPCS manufacturer the following question: “Assuming that I write perfect bug-free code, can you guarantee with measurable certainty that your control system will consistently perform my safety functions on demand?” The answer you will likely receive is, “No.” A key difference between process and safety control is the fact that you need to know, with measurable certainty, that the safety system will respond when required to,
Who needs PSM?
Get Help from a Trusted Safety Consultant in Texas – After reading this guide, it should now clear that process safety management standards are not something OSHA takes lightly. Luckily, you don’t have to face compliance challenges on your own. Utilizing a safety company provides you with the resources necessary to control, manage, and eliminate all occupational safety and health hazards.
Is PSM part of OSHA?
What is the Process Safety Management standard? – Highly hazardous chemicals are found in numerous industries. These include toxic chemicals, reactive chemicals, and flammable liquids and gases. If not managed safely during manufacture, transport, storage, and use, these chemicals can cause disastrous incidents with extremely dangerous-and sometimes fatal-consequences.
- Examples of such incidents include toxic chemical releases, runaway chemical reactions, major fires, and devastating explosions, all of which can injure or kill workers, contractors, emergency responders, and members of the public.
- Recognizing the dangers associated with highly hazardous chemicals, Congress mandated (by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) that OSHA set requirements for the management of highly hazardous substances to prevent and mitigate hazards associated with catastrophic releases of flammable, explosive, reactive, and toxic chemicals that may endanger workers.
As a result, OSHA developed the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (issued in 1992), which covers the manufacturing of explosives and processes involving threshold quantities of flammable liquids and flammable gasses (10,000 lbs), as well as 137 listed highly hazardous chemicals.
- The PSM standard ( 29 CFR 1910.119 ) requires employers to implement safety programs that identify, evaluate, and control these hazards.
- Unlike some of OSHA’s standards, which prescribe precisely what employers must do to comply, PSM is a “performance-based” standard-it outlines key features of safety programs for controlling highly hazardous chemicals, and employers have the flexibility to tailor their safety programs to the unique conditions at their facilities.
Specifically, the requirements of the standard, or process safety elements, are:
- Employee Participation
- Process Safety Information (PSI)
- Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
- Operating Procedures
- Pre-startup Safety Review (PSSR)
- Mechanical Integrity (MI)
- Hot Work Permit
- Management of Change (MOC)
- Incident Investigation
- Emergency Planning and Response
- Compliance Audits
- Trade Secrets