Auditing process safety management in four levels

Abstract

An audit must have a defined structure, an understood purpose, and enough details to assure completeness. It should be divided into discrete levels with specific topics so that the auditor can fully identify and understand the degree to which each facility or company complies with the requirements. Each of these levels should also be designed to analyze different types of information, implementation actions, and infrastructure. This article proposes and discusses a four‐level approach to conduct a comprehensive and complete audit. The four levels are as follows: Recognition and acknowledgment of the need to comply with a specific set of rules or regulations, An implementation strategy and infrastructure, Evidence of compliance, and Quality assessments. The content and purpose of each level as well as the interaction between levels is discussed and explained in this article. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2009

The Process Safety Audit - a False Sense of Security?

“…Several commentators within the process safety community, Eames 6 and Sepeda 7 continue to see a role for audit albeit re-purposed or else as a complement to other assessment tools. This is in contrast to several observers outside of the process safety community that see deep rooted problems with auditing often related to inadequate PSM system implementation.…”

Integrate plant reliability efforts with mechanical integrity

“…This proposed approach combines existing PR efforts with several PSM elements. The basic steps are: (1) refer to the PHA “tolerable risk” assessments to identify safety‐critical equipment; (2) ensure accurate and up‐to‐date PSI; (3) establish an MI Program structure; (4) establish PM programs for inspections and tests; and (5) create maintenance‐specific procedures. The next step is to establish an MI QA Program to sustain these combined equipment reliability and integrity efforts.…”

“…The next step is to establish an MI QA Program to sustain these combined equipment reliability and integrity efforts. An effective MI QA Program “audits” to ensures that the equipment is properly: (1) designed (via the PSI), (2) fabricated as designed (via PSI and MI), and (3) installed as designed (via the PSSR). In addition, the MI QA Program ensures that the equipment is operated and maintained as designed by trained personnel, PMs are performed on schedule, and that equipment that does not meet its inspection criteria is repaired or replaced (via OPs, MOPs, and training).…”

“…A PSM model showing 12 key PSM system elements is shown in Figure 1. These 12 elements essentially capture the 20 key pillars of the PSM Model described by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) [1, 2]. A business' PSM model, whether it has “elements” or “pillars” cannot be designed without accurate and up‐to‐date process safety information (PSI).…”

“…The MI QA program also ensures that the equipment is operated and maintained as designed by trained personnel. Some benefits include being able to: (1) share and document best MI and PM practices between different sites; (2) focus limited PM‐related resources on the process safety‐critical equipment; and (3) help monitor the essential reliability efforts to ensure continued safe operation. © 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2011…”