Safety management file

The typical incident report will be maintained in the technical report system, unless the team chairman or legal council recommends that it is inappropriate for this incident. The original signed incident report is filed in the technical report system. Copies are sent to the affected plant manager, production superintendent, second-level supervisor, process safety manager, the investigation team chairman, and others as deemed appropriate by the chairman. 

Organizational behavior is the quality of the safety management system, namely, system files and their implementation status which run a direct result of habitual behavior of the members of the organization. The run behavior of organizational behavior is the root cause of the accident. From the point of view of the coal mine roof accident, organizational behavior errors include two aspects, one is roof safety procedures are not perfect, the other is a point of order problems in the implementation process. 

PSSR (conducted before the modifications are commissioned) is also a part of the MOC procedure. Any new items identified during the PSSR may require further rounds of review and approvals by the reviewers. Completed MOC is an important part of process safety management it needs to be filed in the facility s process safety and project files, and stored for the lifetime of plant operations. These forms are required for future MOC audit and also are useful during future PHA studies. CCPS (1995) and CCPS (2007) presented MOC process and useful check lists. Note that a proper MOC procedure could have avoided the Flixborough incident outlined in Section 3.2 (CCPS, 2007). 

The resolutions, which were filed by the AFL-CIO Reserve Fund, call on the board of directors at Marathon Oil, Valero, Tesoro, and ConocoPhillips to disclose the board s oversight of process safety management, staffing levels, and the inspection and maintenance of refineries and other equipment. A similar proposal was also filed at Sunoco but was withdrawn when company officials agreed to comply with the request. 

Beyond that it will depend on what kind of shape your compliance program is in. If you have adequate safety management controls in place and have been following them, you won t need to do much. Just make sure you have all required records available when the investigator arrives. Make sure you are up to date with the filing of paperwork, and review the regulations and your compliance program so you will be prepared to respond to questions. 

Suppose a safety manager collected data from accident reports involving back injuries. Over a three-year period, 300 reports were filed, of which 18 involved back injuries. Using the simple event formula, the probability of randomly selecting a report for which a back injury was recorded from the 300 reports filed is determined by ... 

The original copy of this form shall be retained by the Department Manager or Supervisor. The Engineer-in-charge and the Safety Manager wiU retain copies. The company s file retention policy shall apply. 

In the performance of hot work in the workplace, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, requires the following The employer shall issue a hot work permit for hot work operations conducted on or near a covered process (including confined spaces). The permit should document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a), Fire Prevention and Protection, have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations it should indicate the dates authorized for the hot work and it should identify the object on which hot work is to be performed. The permit must be kept on file until completion of the hot work operations. 

The positions interviewed in the 2013 data collection were captain, first officer, chief engineer, deck foreman, ROV supervisor, surveyor, mooring supervisors/controllers and marine representative for the operator (oil company). Interviews were transcribed from audio files, as all interviews were recorded. The quotes used in this article are all translated from Norwegian. Observations with conversations in between interviews were conducted over a period of around 14 hours daily. Observational notes were taken at the time the observation was made or shortly thereafter and included in a field log as documentation. As the observations, participation and interviews that form the empirical basis of this article were made and conducted in 2009 and 2013, respectively, comparisons allow for discussion on developments in both operational practices and safety management. 

Documentation stands for documentation approaches, which are used to generate the required artifacts as safety evidences. Documentation has direct impact on the assess-ability of artifacts. Good documentation helps to deliver sufficient and convincing evidences without too much effort. Our SLCM incorporates the documentation approaches by providing the related templates. In order to support the functional safety management our SLCM also provide mechanism to specify the designations of artifacts (e.g. file name). 

From a regulatory point of view, for this project the general standard EC 60601-1 is applicable, whereas general requirements of 60601-1 may be overwritten or bypassed by specific requirements in the standards for a specific product (EC 60601-2-XX). The analysis of the standards as well as the existing risk management file (as required by EC 14971) and other available documentation delivers the following functions to be considered safety-critical ... 

If the injury were serious, the worker usually lost many days from the job. Then a replacement had to be hired and trained. Meanwhile, additional work inundated the supervisor, safety manager, and personnel department as they investigated the incident, then prepared and filed the necessary reports. In some instances a hefty compensation award had to be provided. Obviously, if injuries of this sort happened too frequently, insurance costs would increase. 

One of the companies that I worked with perceived that they had a problem with vehicular accidents. Various safety management personnel decided to profile a typical motor vehicle incident. They obtained vehicular accident files for a two-year period and examined the following parameters ... 

Wlien a contractor/subcontractor is hired to perform work in a potentially hazardous area on one of your facilities or that of a client, the project manager shall provide the contractor/subcontractor a copy of the contractor site safety rules checklist for completion. The form and any other rules specific to that site must be signed, dated, and returned prior to any work being performed at a particular site. An executed copy will be made a part of the project file. 

Once filed, an NDA undergoes several layers of review (Figure 4.12). A primary review panel generally consists of a chemist, microbiologist, pharmacologist, biostatistician, medical officer and biopharmaceutics scientist. Most hold PhDs in their relevant discipline. The team is organized by a project manager or consumer safety officer (CSO). The CSO initially forwards relevant portions of the NDA to the primary review panel member with the appropriate expertise. 

Once the NDA has been filed, the sponsor must monitor the progress of the NDA review in order to detect problems or concerns at the earliest possible moment. This monitoring or tracking must be carried out with great sensitivity. If contacts are too frequent or poorly timed they can quickly become an annoyance, which can hamper further communications. The project manager or consumer safety officer is the usual point of contact. If there is difficulty with a particular review, then the reviewer should be contacted (with consideration, obviously, for the reviewer s time). 

Some environmental and worker safety laws carry not only corporate or civil but also personal criminal liability. Usually this applies only in extreme cases of willful neglect or intentional falsification of records, but it is there to put some teeth into the laws. These penalties are usually reserved for top-management levels but could apply to a rank-and-file worker if it was determined that he or she deliberately did not follow a clear procedure and that there was an intent to enforce penalties for not following the procedure. In other words, if it is management s intent to look the other way in the case of employee misconduct, then management, not the employee, is at fault and is therefore liable. 

---