Process Safety Management Enforcement Trends and Best Practices

Transcription

1 Session No. 721 Process Safety Management Enforcement Trends and Best Practices Jonathan Zimmerman, M.S., CSP, CHMM EHS Manager Kellogg s Cincinnati, Ohio Bryan Haywood, M.S. Founder and President Safteng.net Milford, Ohio Introduction Chemical safety and process safety continue to garner significant media attention around the United States as chemical and process safety events continue to occur. OSHA s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard and EPA s Risk Management Program (RMP) standard provide a framework for preventing unwanted release of highly hazardous chemicals. It is also important to note that these are performance standards, meaning that regulated processes are told what the goal (unwanted release) is, not how to meet it. OSHA began a PSM National Emphasis Program (NEP) for Petroleum Refineries in June of 2007 and later implemented an additional PSM National Emphasis Program for Chemical Facilities in November of Enforcement data shows key trends and areas where both EPA and OSHA focus their efforts. This paper will review the key enforcement trends for PSM and RMP regulated processes, provide some best practices for ensuring process safety is a way of life, and review actual and potential regulatory activity resulting from Executive Order Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. OSHA and EPA PSM and RMP Enforcement Trends Most Cited OSHA PSM Elements February 26, XXXXXXXX (Includes specific PSM standards cited 100 times by both Federal and State-Plan) Table 1 Citations Sorted by Frequency Cited Element (X)(X)(X)(X) Description Frequency j2 Written MI procedures 1231 e1 Perform an initial process hazard analysis 913 l1 Written procedures to manage changes 848 d3ii Document that equipment complies with RAGAGEPs 719 c1 Written plan of action regarding employee participation 673

2 f1 Develop and implement written operating procedures 671 j5 Correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits 620 g1i Trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures 598 e5 Establish a system to promptly address the PHA team's findings and recommendations 588 N Emergency planning and response (.38 and.120) 527 f3 Annual certification of Operating Procedures 511 j4i Inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment 480 g3 Training documentation (means used to verify) 442 o1 Certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years 416 f1i Steps for each operating phase 397 d3ib Piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's) 376 f4 Develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations (LOTO, PRCS, LB, Controlled Access) d3i Information pertaining to the equipment in the process 360 j4iv Document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment 319 d Complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis j4iii Frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and RAGAGEPs 294 j4ii Inspection and testing procedures shall follow RAGAGEPs 266 g2 Refresher training 256 j3 Training for process maintenance activities 255 h2i Obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract employer's safety performance and programs 248 e3v Facility siting 234 c2 Consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the 228 other elements of process safety management Promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the 226 o4 findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected e3i PHA shall address the hazards of the process 224 f1id Emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner 220 e6 At least every five (5) years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis, the process hazard analysis shall be updated and revalidated 196 d2i Information concerning the technology of the process 187 d3id Relief system design and design basis 185 f1ii Operating limits 182 e3vi Human factors 180 e3iii Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases 153 m1 Investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted 151 in a catastrophic release h2v Periodically evaluate the performance of contract employers in fulfilling their obligations 146 i1 l4 e3iv Perform a PSSR for new facilities and for modified facilities when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the PSI If a change covered by this paragraph results in a change in the PSI, the PSI shall be updated accordingly PHA shall address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls

3 h2iv f1iiib l3 h2ii Develop and implement safe work practices to control the entrance, presence and exit of contract employers and contract employees in covered process areas Precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE Operators, maintenance, and contract employees whose job tasks will be affected by a change shall be informed of, and trained in, the change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process Inform contractors of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process d2ie Evaluation of the consequences of deviations, including those affecting the safety and health of employees 119 f1ib Normal operations 117 d2id Safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows 115 or compositions l5 Change results in a change in the operating procedures or practices required by paragraph (f) of this section, such procedures or practices shall be updated accordingly f1iv Safety systems and their functions 114 m5 Establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident report findings 110 h2iii Explain to contract employers the applicable provisions of the emergency 106 TOTAL 17,006 Note: the 17,006 PSM citations represent 85% of all OSHA PSM citations (20,100) Table 2 Citations Sorted by PSM Element PSM Inspection History Summary (February 26, XXXXXXXXXX) 1 Total Number of PSM Inspections 2. 3,721 Total Number of Violations..20,100 Total Initial Penalty...$93 Million Total Number of CHEM NEP Inspection (Opened Nov to 2/26/14). 890 Total Number of Refinery NEP Inspections (opened as of 4/4/2013).. 74 Data Source: OSHA Office of Statistics Includes Federal and State-Plan states 2 Defined as an inspection that included at least 1 PSM violation

4 Top Three (3) Best Practices Permit to Work System for Contractors Car Seal Program MOC for Personnel Changes Permit to Work System for Contractors Contractors tend to have a safety disadvantage due to their ever changing working environment. One week they are working in ABC Chemical Plant and the next they are working in XYZ Chemical Plant. Both of these plants have different safety and emergency response procedures with different phone numbers, different evacuation areas, different alarms, and much more. Even within the same facility, different units will have different alarms, different chemical hazards, different PPE requirements, and numerous other safe work practices. This is a lot to keep straight from plant to plant and unit to unit on a DAILY basis. Keeping in mind that almost all businesses train their contractors on an annual basis. A Contractor Work Permit provides a DAILY REFRESHER training for these workers as well as provides a HAZARD ASSESSMENT based on the current working conditions and the work the contractor will be conducting. Like other permit processes the daily Contractor Work Permit must be kept at the site of the work being performed. This permit reviews required safety equipment, emergency procedures, other required permits, and safe work practices such as lockout. The work permit process also fulfills the safe work practices of controlling the entrance, presence and exit of contract employers and contract employees in covered process areas. ( (h)(2)(iv) Car Seal Program Although this program may be unheard of by many safety professionals, it is VITAL in process safety management. In fact, in some circumstances, it is even REQUIRED by ASME Section VIII, Appendix M. The program is essential when we have control devices, valves for example, that we need to ensure are NOT deviated from their SAFE position. SAFE could mean that the device is either required to stay open (car seal open) or stay closed (car seal closed) depending on the application. Of course the program can be applied to any type of control device, even electrical disconnects that when turned off would shut down essential ventilation systems. Typical examples where car seals should be applied include: Valves before Pressure Relief Valve Trees Valves at site glasses and level sensors that control material flow Valves for cooling loops on equipment Mistakes made in the implementation and management of car seal programs that can lead to compliance issues with OSHA s The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tag out) standard. It is not unusual to find tag out tags being used in a car seal program and this is a clear violation of (c)(5)(ii) Lockout devices and tag out devices shall be singularly identified; shall be the only devices(s) used for controlling energy; shall not be used for other purposes. A car seal program can add a lot of safety to a PSM/RMP process, but only when it is developed, implemented, and managed properly. We will discuss the do s and don ts of the program.

5 Management of Change (MOC) for Personnel Changes MOC for personnel changes is a hotly debated topic in process safety circles; even OSHA and EPA are getting into the debate with their recent Request(s) for Information on their PSM Standard and RMP Rule 1. Clarifying Paragraph (l) of the PSM Standard with an Explicit Requirement that Employers Manage Organizational Changes The existing standard does not explicitly state that employers must follow management-of-change procedures for organizational changes, such as changes in management structure, budget cuts, or personnel changes; however, as noted in a March 31, 2009, Memorandum for Regional Administrators from Richard Fairfax, it is OSHA's position that paragraph (l) covers organizational changes if the changes have the potential to affect process safety. Since the original promulgation of the PSM rule, it has become well established in the safety community that organizational changes can have a profound impact on worker safety and, therefore, employers should evaluate organizational change like any other change. Illustrating the significant hazards that organizational changes can produce, the CSB identified a lack of organizational management of change as a significant factor behind the 2005 BP Texas City Refinery accident that killed 15 workers and injured over 170 others (CSB Report No ITX). 2. Require Owners and Operators To Manage Organizational Changes In its RFI, OSHA notes that while the PSM standard requires employers to establish and implement written procedures to manage change, including all modifications to equipment, technology, procedures, raw materials, and processing conditions other than replacement in kind, the standard does not explicitly require employers to follow management-of-change procedures for organizational changes, such as changes in management structure, budget cuts, or personnel changes. However, OSHA highlights a policy interpretation indicating that it is OSHA's view that the PSM standard does cover organizational changes if the changes have the potential to affect process safety. Additionally, OSHA notes the 2005 BP Texas City Refinery accident, where the CSB identified a lack of organizational management of change as a significant causal factor in the accident. The RMP rule contains management of change requirements for Program 3 processes (see 68.75) that are virtually identical to the PSM standard. Therefore, EPA is also interested in receiving public comment on whether the RMP rule's management of change requirements should be expanded to include management of organizational changes. There are distinct advantages to doing MOCs on personnel changes; here are two examples: 1. One of EPA s top cited RMP deficiencies is not updating the emergency contact information in the RMP within 30 days of the change. 2. Both PSM and RMP require the ESD procedures to assign shutdown responsibilities to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner if is not uncommon for us to see four operators listed in the ESD procedures, but recent staffing changes took a shift down to three (3) and thus the ESD procedures is now not accurate and in some cases would not have been able to be executed in a timely manner. UPDATE on Executive Order On August 1, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order 13650, entitled Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. The Executive Order directs the Federal Government to

6 improve operational coordination with state and local partners; improve Federal agency coordination and information sharing; modernize policies, regulations, and standards; and work with stakeholders to identify best practices. The Executive Order working group includes representatives from: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Working Group has implemented the following actions since the release of the EO: Strengthening Community Planning and Preparedness Assisted First Responders Upgraded Emergency Planning and Response Tools Identified Planning and Preparedness Funding Sources Enhancing Federal Operational Coordination Launched Regional Pilot Coordinated a pilot in New York-New Jersey where a multiagency Federal, State, and local government team was created to coordinate chemical facility preparedness planning and response activities. Engaged Chemical Safety Board (CSB) to Improve Coordination - Chemical Safety Board (CSB) to identify possible updates to existing memoranda of understanding between CSB and EPA, OSHA, and ATF and continue the discussion on improving information sharing and collaboration. Improving Data Management Shared Data to Identify Potentially Noncompliant Facilities DHS and EPA adopted new data-sharing procedures to identify facilities that have not yet filed required Top-Screen information with DHS or a required RMP with EPA. Updated Online System to Assist Facility Compliance The EPA Substance Registry Services (SRS) assists facilities that possess chemical substances to determine their regulatory requirements by providing information about chemical substances tracked or regulated by EPA or other sources. Updated Online System for Facility Data Facility Registry Service (FRS) integrates facility data from across nearly 90 different Federal and State systems, allowing users to compare facilities between systems, including chemical data and compliance history. Tested New Emergency Planning and Response Tools EPA Region 8 tested a new system called ER Planner that aggregates chemical facility and infrastructure data and displays it on an interactive Geographic Information System (GIS) application.

7 Modernizing Policies and Regulations Gathered Public Input on Policy Revisions The Working Group issued a Solicitation of Public Input on Options for Policy, Regulation, and Standards Modernization in January 2014 and collected stakeholder input through a docket and public meetings. Requested Public Input for OSHA Rulemaking OSHA published a Request For Information in the Federal Register on December 9, 2013 Clarified Existing OSHA Requirements for Ammonium Nitrate EPA, OSHA, and ATF Published Ammonium Nitrate Safety Advisory in August 2013 EPA published Interim Chemical Accident Prevention Advisory Design of LPG Installations at Natural Gas Processing Plants in January EPA expanded its inspector training curriculum to include advanced process safety training courses in several key areas, including petroleum refineries, ammonia refrigeration systems, mechanical integrity codes and standards, root cause investigation, and human error prevention. In FY 2014, DHS conducted over 100 CAVs to assist CFATS-regulated facilities in understanding and responding to their CFATS regulatory requirements, such as how to complete a Top-Screen, SVA, or SSP. Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback and Developing Best Practices Launched an Online Best Practice Repository Working Group gathered stakeholder input through listening sessions, webinars, public dockets, and meetings, engaging nearly 1,800 participants across the country, and generating input from over 25 States. Conclusion Compliance with OSHA s PSM and EPA s RMP regulations is an important consideration for any facility that utilizes a highly hazardous chemical. Citations, penalties, and inspections are increasing in frequency and this fact conveys the importance of identifying enforcement trends and best practices to comply with the required elements of a PSM/RMP program. These best practices can be viewed as either icing on the cake or fundamental needs of a functioning process safety management system, but where ever you stand in your views, we hope you will embrace these practices and give them serious consideration. We believe they are of such importance to a functioning process safety program that we actually believe these are a requirement for our processes. Bibliography United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Enforcement and Compliance History Online. United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2014). Office of Statistics. United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2014). Injury and Illness Prevention Programs.

8 United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2014). Request for Information on Potential Revisions to Process Safety Management Standard. Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group. (2014). Executive Order Progress Report.