Importance of Process Safety Information (PSI) and Implementation of Design Best Practices for Upstream Safety Management Program

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandipan Laskar
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Abdul Aziz ◽  
A. Mohd Shariff ◽  
R. Rusli

Author(s):  
Martha Mead Ira

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3.26) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Noor Diana Abdul Majid ◽  
Dzulkarnain Zaini ◽  
Azmi Mohd Shariff

A report published on 25 April 2016 stated that OSHA has issued 14 serious violations after an investigation conducted in a variety of industries including manufacturing, water treatment and oil and gas that violated OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) standard. One of the violations is related to the 29 CFR 1910.119(c)(2) which is employers did not consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of the OSHA’s PSM elements which are process safety information (PSI), process hazard analyses (PHA), training (TNG), mechanical integrity (MI), management of change (MOC), pre-start up safety review (PSSR), contractors (CON), incident investigations (II), emergency planning and response (EPR), compliance audit (CA) and trade secret (TS). 29 CFR1910.119(c)(2) is one of the requirements in the OSHA’s PSM employee participation element. However, companies are still struggling to comply with this regulation due to unclear coverage and the implementation method for achieving compliance. Thus, this paper presents a framework and work-aid tool developed based on OSHA’s PSM 29 CFR 1910.119(c) which are helpful to the industries as they provide structured technique to plan and implement an employee's participation management system to achieve compliance in implementing the OSHA PSM employee participation element.  


Author(s):  
Kuok Ho Daniel Tang

Asset integrity is closely intertwined with process safety where the latter is often perceived to be equivalent or a subset of the former. In Malaysia, the requirements for offshore process safety are set by Petronas assuming exclusive rights to petroleum in the nation. It imposes and enforces these requirements on oil and gas companies entering into its production sharing contracts via the common law. Process safety management in Malaysia is strongly influenced by the US OSHA 3132 with elements comprising process safety information, process hazard analysis, operating procedures, employee participation, training, contractors, pre-startup safety review, mechanical integrity, hot work permit, management of change, incident investigation, emergency planning and response as well as compliance audits. These elements are largely included in the Mandatory Control Framework of Petronas and the trio of design, technical and operating integrity adopted in the process safety management of other oil and gas companies. These management practices align with the reiterative plan-do-check-act model. Process safety performance is also gauged with indicators suggested by international institutions such as the American Petroleum Institute. On top of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1996 for onshore processes, this study deems that establishing statutory law for offshore installations will be beneficial to propel offshore safety in Malaysia to a greater height.


Author(s):  
Steven J. Tyler

Developing an effective Process Safety Management Program involves the same four elements necessary for developing any other major piece of work. Proper fulfillment of any program relies on proper usage of all four of these elements. These elements are: planning, organizing, implementing and controlling. Planning sets the stage for the process by identifying the current status and establishing how progress will be checked. Organizing defines the resources that will be used in order to establish the program. Implementing is working with the people selected for the program and ensuring that all tasks associated with the program are fulfilled. Controlling is making adjustments to the original plan in order to achieve the desired results. Although identifying objectives is one phase of the planning process, it is necessary to first talk about this regulation and what it means for the ammonia refrigeration industry. Paper published with permission.


1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
William W. Doerr ◽  
Kumar Bhimavarapu

Abstract In response to major chemical and nuclear accidents that have occurred during the past two decades, the U.S. government has promulgated two regulations aimed at protecting workers, the community, and the environment from accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. These regulations are the US Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s [OSHA] Process Safety Management [PSM] Standard and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA] Risk Management Program [RMP]. The applicability for each regulation is discussed with a review of what is affected, who is responsible, when is compliance required, and how is compliance manifested. In addition, the recent ANSI/ISA S84.01 standard for the process industries introduces additional or new responsibilities that are not featured explicitly in either the OSHA or EPA regulations. The pooling of the requirements from these US regulations and voluntary ANSI/ISA standard establishes the requirements for an integrated risk program [IRP]. The objective of an integrated risk program is compliance, reduction in resource requirements, and improvement of productivity at a plant. The general requirements for an IRP are summarized showing the area of regulatory overlap.


Author(s):  
Hanida Abdul Aziz ◽  
Azmi Mohd Shariff

The growth of process industries and global economies are dependent on technology advances and innovations. However, the effects of these advancements often lead to more complex processes and comparatively severe operating conditions such as high pressure, temperature and reactive chemical with exotic chemistry. With the rapidly increasing scale and complexity of the process, it is becoming harder to control accidents in process plants. In most of the past situations, it appears that accidents could not be controlled solely by engineering practices and traditional occupational safety but should be immersed with safety management programs specifically Process Safety Management (PSM) to enhance the effectiveness of technical solutions. This paper addressed PSM program as stipulated by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119. The PSM standard was implemented following a number of disasters, including accidents in Bhopal, India (1984) and Pasadena, Texas (1989). In Malaysia, Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards (CIMAH) 1996 Regulation which has the requirements attribute to PSM standard also discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document