Recently OSHA has “requested information” regarding certain aspects of their Process Safety Management standard. In this effort, OSHA has suggested that the standard is revised to clarify certain aspects and to include some items they feel are needed. In the public posting, OSHA stated they are considering adopting management-system elements from safety standards that other federal agencies promulgated since 1992. For example, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s (BSEE) Revisions to Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS II) final rule (78 FR 20423; 04/05/2013), which revised a number of requirements in 30 CFR 250, Subpart S, contains management-system elements not included in the PSM standard. BSEE describes two of the main additional elements as follows:
- Developing and implementing a stop work authority that creates procedures and authorizes any and all offshore industry personnel who witness an imminent risk or dangerous activity to stop work.
- Developing and implementing an ultimate work authority that requires offshore industry operators to clearly define who has the ultimate work authority on a facility for operational safety and decision-making at any given time.
The “ultimate work authority” (UWA) and the “stop work authority” (SWA) are programs I can agree with. Here is what the standard states regarding these two items:
§250.1930 What must be included in my Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) program for SWA?
(a) Your SWA procedures must ensure the capability to immediately stop work that is creating imminent risk or danger. These procedures must grant all personnel the responsibility and authority, without fear of reprisal, to stop work or decline to perform an assigned task when an imminent risk or danger exists. Imminent risk or danger means any condition, activity, or practice in the workplace that could reasonably be expected to cause:
(1) Death or serious physical harm; or
(2) Significant environmental harm to:
(i) Land;
(ii) Air; or
(iii) Mineral deposits, marine, coastal, or human environment.
(b) The person in charge of the conducted work is responsible for ensuring the work is stopped in an orderly and safe manner. Individuals who receive a notification to stop work must comply with that direction immediately.
(c) Work may be resumed when the individual on the facility with UWA determines that the imminent risk or danger does not exist or no longer exists. The decision to resume activities must be documented in writing as soon as practicable.
(d) You must include SWA procedures and expectations as a standard statement in all Job Safety Analyzes (JSAs).
(e) You must conduct training on your SWA procedures as part of orientations for all new personnel who perform activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Additionally, the SWA procedures must be reviewed during all meetings focusing on safety on facilities subject to this subpart.
§250.1931 What must be included in my Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) program for UWA?
(a) Your SEMS program must have a process to identify the individual with the UWA on your facility(ies). You must designate this individual taking into account all applicable United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations that deal with designating a person in charge of an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facility. Your SEMS program must clearly define who is in charge at all times. In the event that multiple facilities, including a MODU, are attached and working together or in close proximity to one another to perform an OCS operation, your SEMS program must identify the individual with the UWA over the entire operation, including all facilities.
(b) You must ensure that all personnel clearly know who has UWA and who is in charge of a specific operation or activity at all times, including when that responsibility shifts to a different individual.
(c) The SEMS program must provide that if an emergency occurs that creates an imminent risk or danger to the health or safety of an individual, the public, or to the environment (as specified in §250.1930(a)), the individual with the UWA is authorized to pursue the most effective action necessary in that individual’s judgment for mitigating and abating the conditions or practices causing the emergency.
I know most process safety professionals will agree with these concepts; as many of us have been using “work permits” within our process safety programs for years. But this BSEE standard requires “written programs” that require management to identify an individual who controls the “ultimate work authority”. The program “must clearly define who is in charge at all times”. When we look at well-implemented “permit to work” programs, we see these efforts; yet the current PSM standard does not require a “permit to work” process. Those who have implemented a full-blown “permit to work” process have done so on their own and usually out of their own learnings in how valuable these work permits are at CONTROLLING WORK and the hazards associated with the work. Now keep in mind, this is an ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL that can be compromised; but by calling out specific individuals who are RESPONSIBLE for the EXECUTION of the work in a safe manner, we tend to have a higher degree of compliance. Just look at the confined space standard and the requirement that an “entry supervisor” is responsible for determining if acceptable entry conditions are present at a permit space where entry is planned, for authorizing entry and overseeing entry operations, and for terminating entry as required by this section. This was done because of the level of risk associated with entering a permit-required confined space is so high. However, history (especially most recent history) has shown us that working within the battery limits of a PSM (or RMP) covered process also carries very high risks, yet when we look at the “requirements” that one has to meet to comply with this high-risk work within a PSM-covered process we have NOTHING REQUIRED by OSHA or EPA. We see this all the time with one specific activity that is so vaguely mentioned in both PSM and RMP that we estimate only 1% of covered processes have a written program and/or a permit to work to cover the high-risk activity. What is this activity???? Process Opening, or more commonly called “Line Break”. Both standards (1910.119(f)(4) and Part 68.69) briefly mention the requirement for a written procedure, but neither calls for a “permit” to be part of this procedure/program. Hell, we even get push back with our expectation that OSHA/EPA require a “written program” for this activity, much less the acceptance that this activity should be done in a VERY CONTROLLED working environment (i.e. under a permit to work). So I FULLY support OSHA in their efforts to add these two concepts to the PSM standard and I hope EPA follows suit for those facilities that may fall under RMP and not PSM.