PSM Practices Survey Results

In our July 2000 newsletter, we asked our readers to participate in a survey to poll their views about practices in their company or facility. Survey forms were submitted electronically and anonymously to the AcuSafe News editor. We collected survey results through the end of August 2000; a total of 22 people participated.

All responses were rated on a scale of 1 - 5 with responses equivalent to the following;

1. How do you rate the overall quality of your PSM program?	2.94
Written documentation of the program	3.23
Implementation of the program	2.90

2. How do you rate the quality of each PSM element?
Process Safety Information	2.95
Process Hazard Analysis	3.19
Operating Procedures	2.77
Training	3.18
Employee Participation	3.57
Contractors	3.10
Pre-Startup Safety Review	3.14
Mechanical Integrity	2.50
Hot Work Permit	4.14
Management of Change	3.14
Incident Investigation	3.36
Emergency Planning and Response	3.50
Compliance Audits	3.50

Overall, the results suggest that respondents feel that their programs are compliant with existing law, but that there is room for improvement. One interesting finding is that the implementation scores were somewhat less than the scores for the written program, and the overall rating for the program mirrored the implementation scores. This may be a lesson for some facilities that running the program means more than keeping a binder on a safety department shelf. It is exciting to see, though, that the scores were pretty close.

The two elements with the highest scores were Hot Work Permits and Employee Participation, while the three lowest scores were Mechanical Integrity, Operating Procedures, and Process Safety Information. The low scores are consistent with the Chemical Safety Board 600K Report, as reported last month. According to the CSB, among cases where the cause was known, 42% were as a result of general equipment failure, while 19% were from unintentional human error, 11% to deliberate/intentional acts, and under 2% to weather-related phenomena. These results are perhaps unsurprising since these are the areas that involve the most ongoing work and require vigilance in maintaining these systems. The rest of the CSB 600K incidents were a result of unspecified other causes. A few respondents also commented that the challenges in their existing program was in handling incident investigations, including "near miss" situations.

It is encouraging to note the praise of the Hot Work Permit Programs. Hot Work Permit operations have historically been a leading cause of loss (See for example Mark Cooper, Cutting and Welding: Hot Work! in AcuSafe under Primers, Guides, and Talks). One respondent was also very positive about his/her program, suggesting that overall PSM improvement may just be a matter of time, "Since we're in New Jersey, we have had our own PSM program since 1988 and through annual self- and state-audits, have continued to refine it over the years. While you never reach perfection, there is a point at which you can say that you have a solid effective program in place."


		AcuSafe Home Page -> September Newsletter
		PSM Effectiveness/Practices Poll Results Show Room for Improvement