Safety management system third-party

A good practice many facilities have adopted is the use of a standard protocol for performing self- and third-party audits of their process safety management system or RMP prevention program performance. This chapter provides some examples of ... 

In Poland it is possible to differentiate two approaches to this system the first one is based on the requirements stated in PN-N-18001 standard and the second one is covered in OHSAS 18001 standard. PN-N-18001 was created just a few month after OHSAS 18001 in spite of the fact that the most of the countries had already withdrawn their ovm nationwide standards. This standard is published by Polish Committee for Standardization and is only known in Poland. Therefore, foreign companies incorporated outside the Polish borders do not respect its certificates. In spite of this fact, it often happens that Polish companies apply for this certification as the Polish standard is well-recognized by national control and research institutions. The difference between these two standards relies mainly on paying attention to employees and their participation in design, implementation, maintenance and improvement of safety management system in PN-N-18001 whereas OHSAS is more focused on third parties. 

All documents created for a project should be reviewed by an independent person from the creator of the document. At certain stages of the lifecycle, the standard recommends that a functional safety assessment be performed by an assessment team that contains at least one senior, independent, competent person. This independent person can be an employee of the company or a contracted third-party, as long as the reviewer understands the process hazards, the company s management system, the full SIS lifecycle, and the fundamentals of appropriate design, installation, operation, maintenance, testing, and reliability. This person should not be part of the project team, report to project team management or plant operations, and should have the authority to prevent the project from proceeding if deviations are not addressed. 

An integrated control/safety system with same operating system may have systematic design and common cause errors. Another important point here is that, third-party certificate of compliance of the equipment is not really sufficient, especially for end-user who has the ultimate responsibility with the plant operating company s management, not the vendor. International standards call for compliance of SIS logic solvers to lEC 61508. Such third party certification does not cover ... 

It has to be acknowledged that third-party assessment does involve additional cost for perhaps little significant added value in terms of actual safety integrity. Provided that the self-assessments are conducted under a formal quality management system, with appropriate audits, and provided also that competency of the assessors in risk assessment can be demonstrated by the organization, then there is no reason why such assessment should not be both credible and thus acceptable to clients and regulators. 

A system must be in place to ensure that all accidents involving damage to vehicles, property or third parties will be reported immediately to management. Not all road vehicle accidents are classed as Road Traffic Act accidents and therefore (currently) non-reportable to the Health and Safety Executive, and best practice demands that this distinction should be ignored in any case. 

Induction training at the site should include any hazards with residual risks uncontrolled, and the necessary precautions required for the workplace. Worker training should include the safe systems of work to be followed and the precautions designed to prevent injury to third parties. Those supervising the work should have been trained in safety management and supervision, with particular reference to working in co-operation with others likely to be affected by the work. 

A number of interesting questions arise when we compare rating systems based on third-party verification such as ISRS with the Safety Element Method. In each of the two cases, a different set of motivational factors at the management level applies ... 

Obviously, any system needs to be reviewed from time to time. Safety and health programs are no different. And, there are many ways you can go about this. From a hazard standpoint, employers need to review injury records and hazard reports for any trends. These are great indicators of what may need improvement in your program. Also, audits are critical. Usually, these should be conducted at least annually, to get the big picture of how you are performing. So the audits work in conjunction with your smaller routine continuous improvement elements. You can conduct these internally or bring in an outside third party or mix it up from year to year. Regardless of what process you choose, top management needs to be involved in the audit and made aware of the results or scorecard. 

---