Did OSHA Get The 14 Elements of PSM Correct? Part 4

In Parts 1 through 3 of this series of articles, it was proposed that instead of a listing of activities or programs, OSHA’s 14 elements of PSM should be processes or performance criteria to achieve.

While OSHA proclaimed that the PSM Standard was a performance-based standard, the 14 elements can really be characterized as activities or programs to implement for a process safety management system.?OSHA’s elements of PSM were pulled together by “benchmarking” the program elements from about 20 companies as well as those in industry standards (AIChE CCPS, API RP754). But the “benchmarking” effort copied a series of programs/activities without capturing the purpose of each of those programs or what the objective that the program is to accomplish.

Meanwhile, since the promulgation of OSHA‘s Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard (PSM) in 1992, the refining, oil production, and chemical processing industries continue to experience significant / catastrophic incidents.?Learnings from these incidents as well as numerous audits lead to the answer of what really needs to be achieved to have process safety.

These series of articles intend to make a case for the 14 elements to be processes or performance criteria to achieve.

In Parts 1 through 3 of this series, the following elements examined:

• Training: The real objective is Competency Assurance and training is but one of many tools to accomplish that objective.
• Incident Investigation: The real objective is Learning From Incidents, and incident investigations are but one of many tools to accomplish that objective.
• Process Hazard Analysis: The real objective is to identify Critical Barriers wherein their integrity and reliability is managed such that the Risk is low as reasonably practicable.
• Compliance Audit:?It’s not just Compliance but achieving operational excellence.?The Audit is one of many tools to get Assurance that you are managing the Risks and discover when the means to managing a risk is defective or deficient – before it results in a significant/catastrophic incident.

In Part 4 of this series, let’s examine the Employee Participation element (29CFR1910.119 (c)):?Employers shall develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by this paragraph.

Prescriptive requirements are listed for employee participation and, technically, all that’s needed to comply is to address the following:

• A written plan of action
• Consult with employees and their representatives.?
• Providing employees and their representatives access to process hazard analyses and to all other information.

Note that these requirements list the actions required solely by the Employer – nothing for the employees on how and where they should be involved in the PSM program.

When auditing this element for compliance, the facility/operation most likely presents a stack of policies/procedures, and documents that may have the following:

• The policy/procedure outlining that employees are invited to participate in PHA’s, incident investigations, and other PSM activities.
• Safety Committees with meeting minutes

The actions taken can seem perfunctory, in that the employee is invited to a PSM activity (e.g.?PHA) and subsequently just sits through the exercise.?Management and technical staff generally lead and govern the activity and the employees are “passengers” for the ride.

It would seem that OSHA’s intent is for the employees to have “buy-in” to the efforts of a process safety program.?The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) champions this in their September 2019 Safety Digest: The Importance of Worker Participation, stating: “Worker engagement is key to an effective process safety program….employees who are so often in direct contact with the hazards -- and have the experience and knowledge to help prevent them.”?But note where the CSB says “engagement” and OSHA says “participation”.

Employee “buy-in” and “ownership” are not synonymous.?“Buy-in” involves understanding how to do the job, whereas, in having “ownership”, the employee knows why the job exists – how their part/effort determines the operation’s success. In both cases, the employee does the job, but with ‘ownership,’ the employee sees the bigger picture, and is engaged on how to do it.

Notice what is missing in OSHA’s 14 Elements for Process Safety – Leadership Engagement.?In order to achieve not just employee “participation” but, more importantly, employee “ownership”, the organization needs its’ leaders/managers/supervisors to be Empowering Leaders. Empowering Leaders champion three values: Cooperation, Collaboration, and Co-creation.

• employees know their ideas are welcomed, and that they possibly will be used to make improvements.
• allowing employees to hold themselves able to take responsibility for their results.
• Align the workforce with a vision of where the facility/operation is going and making sure each employee sees where they fit in the picture. Employees aren’t going to feel compelled to accomplish something unless they are emotionally engaged.

The CSB September 2019 Safety Digest: The Importance of Worker Participation, noted “that lack of worker participation was a factor in several major incidents investigated by the CSB because workers and their representatives were not engaged to help identify hazards and reduce risks” (emphasis added).?The digest discusses four incidents that led to a total of 13 employee deaths, and many injuries.?The CSB investigations “found that worker participation programs were inadequate, despite the existence of federal regulations and industry standards”.

For success in managing Risks in a Process Safety program, employees need to be engaged in a collaborative effort with Leadership in developing the various aspects of the process safety program and then own the efforts to be employed, as well as accountable for the results.?The organizations’ Leaders are Engaged in a collaborative effort with the Employees having Ownership.