Safety audit effectiveness

This safety audit is used for identifying inputs and material flows, processes and intermediates, and final products - but with special attention paid to human-material/process/equipment interactions that could result in (a) sudden and accidental releases/spills, (b) mechanical failure-based injuries, and (c) physical injuries - cuts, abrasions, and so on, as well as ergonomic hazards. Additional sources of adverse effects/safety problem areas are records/ knowledge of in-plant accidents/near misses, equipment failures, customer complaints, inadequate secondary prevention/safety procedures and equipment (including components that can be rendered non-operable upon unanticipated events), and inadequacies in suppliers of material and equipment or maintenance services. 

Frank Lees [17] has cataloged and presented a number of checklists in Hazard Identification and Safety Audit. Lees states One of the most useful tools of hazard identification is the checklist. Like a standard or code of practice, a checklist is a means of passing on hard-won experience. It is impossible to envisage high standards in hazard control unless this experience is effectively utilized. The checklist is one of the main tools available to assist in this. 

Identification can be as simple as asking what-iP questions at design reviews. It can also involve the use of a checklist outlining the normal process hazards associated with a specific piece of equipment. The major weakness of the latter approach is that items not on the checklist can easily be overlooked. The more formalized hazard-assessment techniques include, but are not limited to, hazard and operability study (HAZOP), fault-tree analysis (FTA), failure mode-and-effect analysis (FMEA), safety indexes, and safety audits. 

The first task, hazard identification, is crucial in process system safety analysis, because the effectiveness of the other two tasks depends on it. The traditional methods for identifying hazards during the 1960 s (including process reviews , codes of practice , checklists , and safety audit ) were no longer considered adequate in the 1970 s. There was a need for a technique which could anticipate hazardous problems, particularly in areas of novelty and new technology where past experience was limited. 

ABSTRACT Safety development is the important guarantee of sustainable development of human society. Safety audit could help enterprises especially mining companies to implement the safety responsibility effectively and establish a long-term mine safety production mechanism. This research is based on the theoretical framework of the establishment of safety audit and the discussion of operation of practical safety audit cases. 

Governments receive the public s tax, so they have a responsibility to protect the public interest. Due to safety and public properties of the external effect , it is difficult for the market mechanism to achieve optimal allocation of resources in mine safety production the public began to demand the government from the perspective of the public interest for the mine production safety management. Safety responsibility will be the government s fiduciary duty. It is entrusted with the responsibility to expand the field of mine safety. Safety audit will become an important element of the audit. 

Safety audit as a special supervision and evaluation of the enterprise safety in production of the independent auditing activities, actively and effectively carry out mine safety audit work, to play the role of audit supervision and inspection, contribute to the promotion of mines to implement the main responsibility for production safety, serious implementation of the laws and regulations of production safety, ensure the safety of the necessary inputs production, the implementation of various safety measures, improve the conditions for safety production. 

Perform safety audits, performance assessments, and inspections using the hazard analysis results as the preconditions for operations and maintenance. Collect data to ensure safety policies and procedures are being followed and that education and training about safety is effective. Establish feedback channels for leading indicators of increasing risk. 

Moses, Leon N., and Ian Savage. 1992. The Effectiveness of Motor Carrier Safety Audits. Accident Analysis and Prevention 24(5) 479-4%. 

Safety audits must meet this definition to be effective A safety audit is a stractured approach to provide a detailed evaluation of safety effectiveness, a diagnosis of safety problems, a description of where and when to expect trouble, and guidelines concerning what should be done about the problems. 

Success of a safety auditing program can only be measnied in the terms of the change it effects on the overall culture of the operation, and enterprise that it andits [p. 36]. 

To those who make audits or are responsible for their being made, I offer this self-review outline. It asks the questions that I believe should be resolved to make safety audits more effective. 

Safety auditing, as we will develop it in this work, is a structured and detailed approach to reducing and controlling the seriousness of accidents. And, safety auditing is a method whereby management can receive a continuing evaluation of its safety effectiveness [p. xiii]. 

In Safety Audits, A Guide for the Chemical Industry, issued by the Chemical Industries Association Limited, it is implied that the major objective of a safety audit is to determine the effectiveness of a company s safety and loss prevention measures. It is also proposed that whatever the objectives, it is important that they be clearly defined. 

In Chapter 24, Measurement of Safety Performance, it is said that precise and certain measures of safety, health, and enviromnental performance are difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, audits can be highly effective measures of the quality of hazards management in place if they are well conceived and well done. I suggest keeping in mind the observation made by Kase and Wiese concerning the purpose of a safety audit ... 

There are a variety of numerical scoring systems for the elements reviewed when safety audits are made. The scorings are subjective assessments that are eventually translated into a finite score. My experience has been that the final score often did not relate to the accident experience that eventually evolved. Nevertheless, safety audits, properly conducted, provide highly effective, qualitative performance measures. 

It is my belief that the paramount purpose of a safety audit is to provide an assessment of the quality of safety in place, which is a reflection of the organization s culture. Thus, the audit report must contain assessments of the effectiveness of the policies, standards, procedures, and systems which should be in place. Hazards noted—physical or operational — are to be viewed as being representative of possible deficiencies in management systems. 

A management that wants to achieve a culture change is best served if the deficiencies noted and the proposals for improvement made in audit reports principally effect safety management systems. Successes of safety audits are determined by how they affect the organization s culture. (See Chapter 22, On Safety, Health, and Environmental Audits. )... 

The suspension is effective 15 days from the service date of the notice unless the carrier demonstrates, within 10 days of the service date of the notice, that the comphance review or safety audit contains material error. 

Internal safety system audits should take place every 6 months by a trained team of internal accredited auditors. The audit is not merely a safety inspection. A safety audit provides the means for a systematic analysis of each elanent of a loss prevention program to determine the extent and quality of the controls. It is a critical examination of all, or part, of a total safety operating system, and it is a management tool that measures the overall operating effectiveness of a company s safety and health program. 

We found relatively little meaningful information in the published literature about the safety impacts of the British privatization and restructuring experience on the nuclear power sector, with the exception of the safety audit reports discussed in the next chapter. Hood (1997) notes that in the U.K., there was some stinging criticism of privatization, based on anecdotal evidence to the effect that increased commercial pressures were in some way incompatible with... 

Due to the effective and implementation dates with this new rule, this rule change will only affect carriers that must go through a new entrant safety audit after December 16, 2009, and consider violations of the 16 essential regulations that occurred after February 17, 2009. 

Audits of the plant operation from a criticality safety viewpoint must be made to ascertain that procedures are being followed, and that process conditions have not changed so as to affect the nuclear criticality safety. These audits should be conducted by individuals knowledgeable in the process and nuclear criticality safety and who, to the extent possible, are not Immediately responsible for the operation. Action necessary to correct nonstandard conditions found during such an audit should be timely to make the audit effective. 

However, there is clearly a cost implication in carrying out this work. Is it cost-effective to insist on a Road Safety Audit if the audit turns out to be a substantial part of the overall cost It could be argued that there should be a cut-off based on the cost of scheme. Experience has shown that safety issues are identified even on very small schemes, and a cost cut-off of, say, 20 000 would miss some of these schemes. 

---