Category: PSM Templates (Page 3 of 3)

PHA Template Revisions

The Template What-If / Checklist worksheet used to guide PHA Studies has been modified.

  1. The Identification and Review of Past Incidents section has been renumbered with some new questions concerning the performance of the Incident Investigation element added before the example / industry What-If incident questions.
  2.  We’ve added a new 57-question Revalidation Considerations Checklist to the current list of What-If questions. This new section is to be used as an additional check on PHA revalidations.

These changes are available immediately to anyone using the Google Shared Drive.

Note: These additions are partially based on an EPA-provided example of typical questions asked during a PHA revalidation. It has always been our practice to FULLY revalidate the PHA by reviewing all the previous answers; however, during a revalidation, this new section should help highlight areas of the existing PHA study that demand extra attention.

Why we changed the name of our element “Guidelines” to “Written Plans”

In mid-february we changed every reference to Guideline in the example templates to Written Plan. This change was made to the Google Drive and logged on 2/3/17.

Although I have used the term guideline for a very long time, it was really just out of habit – it’s not an accurate reflection of the intent of those documents.

First: Where did this Guideline idea come from?

Well, it all started back in the Employee Participation element which requires you to have a document that explains how you intend to comply with certain requirements.

1910.119(c)(1) – Employers shall develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by this paragraph.

Over time we realized that these written plans of action were very useful and wrote them for every single PSM/RMP element. For whatever reason, the very first program I ever worked on called this the “Guideline for Employee Participation” and I just stuck with that wording for well over a decade.

Ok, so why call it a Written Plan rather than a Guideline?

Well, let’s look at definitions:

A dictionary definition of guideline is:

“General rule, or piece of advice”

The word plan defined in that same dictionary:

“a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something;”

“an intention or decision about what one is going to do.”

The word plan is really what we are going for: A decision about what the facility is going to do. The intent of these documents, whether they are called Written Plan or Guidelines, was always to document the detailed plan that the facility intended to follow in achieving compliance.

Anything else?

Actually, yes. Over the years we had to explain the above to several different inspectors: our Guidelines were actually our written plans. Frankly, it just got annoying explaining the same concept over and over again – especially when they had a point: Rightly understood the documents really are the written plan and general guidance usually used the guidelines terminology such as the IIAR Compliance Guidelines and the CCPS Guidelines for Safe Process Operations and Maintenance.

Do I have to change my documents if I use the templates?

Well, no you never really have to update your program to reflect our changes. That said, Should you? Yes, you should make the change whenever you update your program to the latest templates.

Incident and Citations leads to SOP Template Improvements

My favorite part of PSM/RMP implementation has always been Incident Investigations. Not because of any morbid curiosity, but simply because it’s where we learn how to improve our processes and the PSM/RMP programs we use to control them.

A friend and colleague of ours, Bryan Haywood of SAFTENG.net recently posted an EPA Citation Summary regarding a release of NH3 that hospitalized a facility worker.

Here’s a portion of the summary:

On April 22, 2016, maintenance work was performed at the Facility. Specifically, a maintenance worker replaced a belt on a spiral freezer. The worker utilized a written standard operating procedure (“SOP”) in performing the work. To safely perform the belt replacement maintenance the worker turned off the spiral freezer, which was in defrost mode at the time. The defrost cycle was interrupted when the freezer power was turned off. According to Respondent and the spiral freezer manufacturer, the spiral freezer requires routine and uninterrupted defrosting for proper performance.

Upon completion of the maintenance work, the worker restored power to the spiral freezer, which returned to a defrost mode. The following day, April 23, 2016, the spiral freezer was re-started and returned to use. Workers operating the spiral freezer were unaware of the interruption to the defrost cycle due to the belt replacement that occurred the previous day.

During the loss of power, caused by the maintenance work, and subsequent interruption of the defrost cycle, gas built up in the ammonia system relating to the spiral freezer. Soon after the spiral freezer was returned to service, hydraulic hammering, caused by the built-up gas, began in the ammonia piping related to the spiral freezer. The hammering weakened the weld on an end cap to the point where it failed. The end cap of a 16″ ammonia pipe fell off onto the protective floor spilling ammonia into a production area where employees were present. Ammonia alarms sounded and the Facility was evacuated.

Upon mustering at designated points outside the Facility (per the Facility emergency plan) it was determined that one employee was missing. Pursuant to the emergency plan predesignated workers entered the Facility to search for the missing worker who was found unconscious near the ruptured ammonia pipe.  The emergency plan identified that Facility emergency responders needed self-contained breathing apparatus (“SCBA”) equipment to enter the Facility during releases of ammonia. SBCA equipment was available for all emergency responders at the Facility. One employee, an emergency responder, however, only put on an air purifying respirator (“APR”) to enter the building.

Eight employees were sent to the hospital of whom seven were released after observation and/or treatment for non-serious injuries. One employee, who was directly adjacent to the ammonia spill, required hospitalization. Doctors induced a coma and the worker was attached to a ventilator to provide breathing assistance for several weeks. The employee was subsequently released from the hospital.

 

Among other things that could have prevented this release scenario are two that the EPA didn’t cite: Training and Communication.

Training: A basic understanding of how refrigeration systems operate should have ensured that the facility didn’t restart this unit until it was equalized to the system.

Communication: It’s very possible the people that restarted the system were completely unaware of the work that had been done and of the possible effects of the prolonged shutdown

 

That said, there are always changes that can be made to procedures to add further administrative controls to situations like these. Due to this ongoing issue, we’ve decided to improve the existing Air Unit RESOP template by making the following changes:

  1. In the Startup phase, we’ve changed the wording of the step that opens the suction valves to include a warning that if these valves are closed, they should be opened SLOWLY
  2. In the Startup phase, we’ve modified the step that enables the “Run” or “Auto” mode in the control computer to check first that the unit Coil Pressure is within 30PSIG of the desired Suction Setpoint before allowing the Control Computer to take control.
  3. In the Shutdown phase, we’ve advised that if the unit is in the Defrost mode, the Defrost operation be allowed to conclude before stopping the unit with the Control Computer.

All future SOPs written based on these templates will use these modifications. If you have a program written with older versions of these templates, consider the following steps:

  • Discuss this issue with your Operating staff so they understand the possible ramifications of an ill-timed shutdown or an improper startup.
  • Consider updating your SOPs to include these changes or having your PSM Service Provider make these changes for you.

As always, if you are using these templates (or a program based on them) the updated AU RESOP template is on the Google Shared Drive with a 042017 revision date for your convenience.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if we can be of any assistance with these revisions.

— Link to PDF of original CAFO

Additional Templates – ITR-PSSR & ITPMR PDF Forms

Many of the readers of this website have PSM/RMP programs written using our Open-Source PSM templates. The members of our community have read-only access to the Google Drive templates directory where the newest revisions and updates to those documents are housed. While we’ve kept a “Change Log” in the root directory of that shared drive for a long time, we’ve recently decided to make a blog post about every template change to raise awareness of these changes and assist those of you who want to continue updating your program. What follows is our first blog post along those lines:

PDF “Form” versions of commonly used MI & PSSR Forms

Back in July of 2016 we first introduced documents to our PSM Template system called ITR-PSSR forms. These “Inspection Test Reports for Pre-Startup Safety Reviews” provided a standard format for new equipment documentation and safety checklists that replaced the B109 form that some people use. Unique forms were provided for common subsystems and equipment, such as:

  • Ammonia Pumps
  • Air Units
  • NH3 Detectors
  • Evaporative Condensers
  • Heat Exchangers
  • Machine Rooms
  • Piping Sections
  • Purgers
  • Pressure Vessels
  • Compressors
  • Ventilation Systems

In September of 2016, we provided PDF versions of these as “PDF Forms” that were usable for data entry. At some point, those files were apparently removed or lost. I recreated those PDF forms today for all the ITR-PSSR Forms.

I also converted each of the ITMPR forms. These “Inspection Test & Preventative Maintenance Reports” form the basis of our Mechanical Integrity program documentation. Both the ITPMR and ITR-PSSR forms are now on the Google Drive in their respective PSM element folder. The revision dates of the PDF reflect the revision date of the original Word document.

Can I use these in my program?

If you use our templates, or we wrote the program for you in the last two years using these templates, then the answer is Yes, but how easily depends on the age of your program.

If your program is newer than September 2016: Those of you who use our PSM/RMP templates to create their own programs – or those of you who have a program we created post September 2016, can drop these updated forms directly into your program.

If your program is older than September 2016: If your program was created before September of 2016, the ITR-PSSR forms can be added to your program as alternate PSSR documentation. Your MI documentation were called ITR forms at the time – not ITPMR. To replace the ITR forms with the updated ITPMR forms you can do one of two things:

  1. Replace every mention of ITR with ITPMR in each of your element guidelines/written plans, SOPs, MI schedules, etc.

OR

  1. Write a memo / Letter to File explaining that ITR and ITPMR mean the same thing in your program and can be used interchangeably.

Regardless of the age of your program, make sure you conduct a brief training with your operators on these new forms before your implement them.

Here’s a list of the updated files that now have PDFs available on the Google Drive:

Newer posts »