Work Permit Auditing Standard

Transcription

1 Valero CTEMS Standard Effective Date: Approved Awaiting Implementation 1/1/2012 CTEMS Section Standard Owner: Corporate Safety Director 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1.1 This standard defines the minimum requirements and supervisory oversight necessary for auditing refinery work permitting processes. 1.2 This standard applies to all Valero refining operations where work permitting is required by site procedures. The purpose is to: Establish responsibilities and accountabilities for work permit auditing. Recognize opportunities for improvements associated with work permit procedures and processes. Establish uniform work permit auditing processes across Valero refining operations. Establish effective key performance indicators for work permitting that will drive continuous improvement and change. NOTE: The is designed to work in conjunction with the corporate work permitting standards for general work, hot work, line break and confined space entry, and the Job Safety Analysis Standard to provide redundant pre/post job hazard analysis systems. 2.0 REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Monthly Permit QA/QC Documentation Reviews In an effort to understand the trend associated with permit performance, each site will attempt to conduct documentation reviews on 100% of the permits issued at the site by unit/area using the form in Appendix 8.1 or a site equivalent The QA/QC documentation reviews shall be conducted as follows: Approximately 100% of the permits issued in each unit/area shall be QA/QC reviewed by frontline operations supervision on a daily or weekly basis at the sites discretion. The objective is to have a manageable monthly roll-up of the reviews by unit/area Deficiencies shall be documented and communicated by frontline supervision to the personnel on all crews/shifts involved in permitting in the areas where the deficiencies were found.

2 Those with maintenance related deficiencies shall be passed on to frontline maintenance supervision for review with all maintenance and contractor work crews involved Each front line supervisor responsible for permitting shall summarize the permit reviews documented on the Monthly Permit QA/QC forms for their area and forward that information to the Complex Managers (or equivalent) and the site Safety Department for inclusion in the sites metrics as defined in section NOTE: Sites can modify this model for QA/QC review based on their organizational structure as long as an attempt at 100% permit review, documentation and communication requirements are met and frontline supervision is involved. 2.2 Work Permit Field Audits Work Permit Field Audits shall be performed on an average of 10% of the work permits written for each permit type, each month, using the form in Appendix 8.2 or a site equivalent. NOTE: Sites should estimate the number of audits required for anticipated workloads during T/A s and projects and adjust as necessary The site shall establish a field audit participation schedule that ensures maximum involvement from site management and employees. 3.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Corporate Safety Director CTEMS Owner of the corporate 3.2 Site Operations Directors Manage the permit QA/QC Documentation review process at the site. 3.3 HSE Directors/Safety Managers Gap assess site work permit auditing process against the requirements in this standard and implement changes in site procedures as appropriate Own the written work permit auditing processes at their respective sites. Manage the site safety metrics in line with this standard

3 4.0 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 4.1 Site Metrics Permit QA/QC Metric The site Safety Department shall develop a monthly Key Performance Indicator (KPI) and tracking system based on the results of the supervisory Permit QA/QC Documentation Reviews (Appendix 8.1 or equivalent). The metrics shall include at a minimum: % reviewed by site % compliant by site %review by unit/area % compliant by unit/area % compliant by line item The KPI summaries shall be published site wide and posted on intranet pages, bulletin boards, control room, etc. to drive continuous improvement Work Permit Field Audits The site Safety Department shall develop a monthly KPI and tracking system based on the site Work Permit Field Audits (Appendix 8.2 or equivalent).. The metrics shall include at a minimum: % reviewed by site % compliant by site % compliant by unit/area % compliant by permit type Three least compliant areas Communication of Audit Results Audit results should be communicated to ensure site wide visibility and shall be forwarded to the Corporate Safety Department on a monthly basis. 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION

4 This standard should be implemented upon publication through the development of site specific procedures. It will be issued as approved awaiting implementation and auditable six months after the final implementation date. 6.0 DEFINITIONS None 7.0 REFERENCES AND LINKAGES 29 CFR Permit Required Confined Spaces 29 CFR Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals 29 CFR (a) Fire Prevention and Protection 29 CFR The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) CTEMS Standard General Work Authorization and Permitting Standard CTEMS Standard Hot Work Permitting Standard CTEMS Standard Line Break Permitting Standard CTEMS Standard Confined Space Entry Permitting Standard CTEMS Standard Job Safety Analysis Standard 8.0. APPENDICES 8.1 Monthly Permit QA/QC Documentation Review 8.2 Work Permit Field Audit

5 Appendix 8.1 Monthly Permit QA/QC Documentation Review Each permit should be evaluated for the following criteria and documented on this form. (Use a tally system on this form. If evaluating multiple permits). Shift: Unit/Area: Dept. Manager: Month/Year: Supervisor: Permit Type: Criteria 1. Permit has valid start and stop times. (duration) 2. Work scope is clearly defined and documented on the permit. Number of Permit Reviewed Number with Deficiencies 3. Permit is clear as to who or what groups have authority to work under it. (maintenance crafts and/or contractors) 4. Permit authorizations are signed by both operations and maintenance and are legible. 5. Precautions identified on the permit are adequate for the work scope and hazards involved. 6. PPE is identified on the permit and is adequate for the hazards of the process and the work being performed. 7. Gas testing is adequately documented. 8. Permit closures are signed by both operations and maintenance and are legible. 9. Equipment has been properly turned over to operations following maintenance work and the permit adequately reflects the state of the equipment and the work area. TOTALS

6 Appendix 8.2 Work Permit Field Audit AUDITOR S NAME: DATE: Line Breaking Evaluation Job Audited: Area 1. Was a joint job site review (in the field) conducted when the permit was issued? 2. Was the permit properly completed and at job site? 3. Did the safe guards listed cover the anticipated hazards of the process and the work? 4. Was the related equipment properly isolated, locked out and blinded? 5. Was the proper personal protective equipment being used? 6. Was the affected area barricaded with caution tape with the purpose of the barrier identified? 7. Did the employees on the job know location of safety showers/eye wash fountains in case of an emergency? Confined Space Evaluation Job Audited: Area 8. Was a joint job site review (in the field) conducted when the permit was issued? 9. Was the permit properly completed and at job site? 10. Did the safe guards listed cover the anticipated hazards of the process and the work? 11. Was the related equipment properly isolated, locked out and blinded? 12. Was the proper personal protective equipment being used? 13. Was the entry attendant assigned, available and trained per site specific procedures? 14. Was the attendant in constant communication with entrants? 15. Was oxygen/toxic/flammable testing equipment available, operable and calibrated? 16. Were oxygen, toxicity and flammability tests documented on the permit? 17. Are trained rescue team members available with appropriate resources and equipment? Hot Work Evaluation Job Audited: Area 18. Was a joint job site review (in the field) conducted when the permit was issued? 19. Was the permit properly completed and at job site? 20. Did the safe guards listed cover the anticipated hazards of the process and the work? 21. Were all flammable/combustible materials removed, covered or wetted? 22. Were fire watch personnel trained, assigned and available where required? 23. Was fire watch maintained for 30 minutes after the completion of the hotwork? 24. Was the proper fire extinguisher available? 25. Was the proper personal protective equipment used? 26. Was the affected area barricaded with caution tape with the purpose of the barrier identified? 27. Was oxygen/toxic/flammable testing equipment available, operable and calibrated? 28. Were sparks and slag properly controlled/contained? Work Authorization Permit Job Audited: Area 29. Was a joint job site review (in the field) conducted when the permit was issued? 30. Was the permit properly completed and at job site? 31. Did the safe guards listed cover the anticipated hazards of the process and the work? 32. Were safety precautions, including the use of PPE, being followed as indicated on permit and are the precautions identified adequate for the work scope and hazards involved? 33. If required, had gas testing been adequately documented?

7 Lock Out/Tag Out Evaluation Machine/Equipment Involved: Area Authorized Employees Involved: 34. Was the lockout/tagout walked down as part of the joint job site review? 35. Were all procedural steps followed? 36. Are the correct locks being used? 37. Was the proper equipment locked-out in accordance to the EIL and Safe Work Permit? 38. Was the EIL checklist properly completed and signed? 39. Were tags installed and properly completed? 40. Were keys under the exclusive control of the personnel working on the equipment? 41. Was the equipment tried and verified to be de-energized prior to starting work? Blinding Evaluation Job Audited: Area 42. Was the blind installation walked down as part of the joint job site review? 43. Were all procedural steps followed? 44. Were blind lists used and properly completed? 45. Did the blind list accurately reflect the location of the blinds identified in the field? 46. Had the blind locations been properly identified by operations? 47. Had maintenance indicated their acknowledgement of the proper blind locations? Permit Audit Follow-up 48. Were the permit deficiencies and positive results discussed with the personnel involved? Corrective Actions/Comments Log No.

8 Revision Log Revision Date Revision No. Revision Summary Initial Version