Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Process Safety - only for chemical industries?
By the name process safety, one may think it is only for chemical industries and not for others. In a broader sense, process can be a system. Then OHSAS 18001 / IS 18001 will come into picture. Simplified, it is PDCA cycle i.e Plan, Do, Check and Act. We have to list out steps involved in all activities and then plan for improving the system to eliminate / minimize hazards. If we are thorough, we can even apply this process safety for our body function. The thought process will extend to all fields and there are no boundaries where we can not apply process safety. Better luck.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Size does matters in safety implementation
I feel that small is better. All safety professionals know that ‘smaller the better’ in terms of chemical storage / inventory. The same is applicable even in safety management, particularly in organizations where management thinks safety means it is for safety department. Though the role of safety officer is to advise, in many organizations he has to perform many roles as that of hazard identification, rectification, testing / coordination for testing of equipment / machinery as per statutory requirement, in-service inspection, HAZOP and other safety studies, safety education, awareness and promotional activities like training, campaigns, competitions, etc. It is not possible for safety officer to do single handedly unless otherwise sufficient support is available. Apart from these, if the organization is certified for compliance with ISO / OHSAS, then he has to do documentation / internal audits / coordinate with external auditors. Many companies mention these types of requirements while inviting resume for safety officer / manager post. Obviously, safety becomes only ceremonial function after sometime as the safety officer will be exhausted, frustrated and burnout takes place. Though managements can claim that there is no dearth of resources for safety, at implementation level all this talk remains only in paper. Though managements take credit for good safety, they point fingers to safety officer when some incident takes place. They do not realize that nothing can happen / be done overnight. Whatever good we see today is the result of hard work by the people for many years earlier and what ever bad we see today is also because of the bad work by us or our colleagues in earlier years. Therefore, CMD can’t say that today he deserves accolades for his good work when he hardly assumed the post only in the last one or two years.
I am impressed by OHSAS 18001:2007 where safety officer role is advising and monitoring and safety implementation, accident investigation, carrying out safety studies, etc are in the hands of shop floor manager and his team. But, in reality this is not the case.
I feel that the requirement of a safety officer for every thousand employees (OFET) (500 or more is taken as one thousand) mentioned in legislation or as decided by the regulator is not enough. The second part of the previous statement is generally applied by regulators only in hazardous chemical operations i.e. even if a hazardous chemical installation has less than 1000 employees, say 200, the factory inspector asks for employing safety officer. But, otherwise, factory inspector generally does not asks for safety officer if it meets OFET rule.
As I said earlier, safety officer is over loaded with so many functions to perform and his request for supporting staff will fall into deaf ears of the management. Though, safety professionals feel that the profession is noble, nobody can work without payment as it will not feed them and therefore they can’t risk their job by persistent request for additional staff (technical / supporting).
I feel that safety officer is required for every 250 employees and again if there are a number of departments / sections within the organization, then for every four departments one safety officer is required. Of course, this number varies. For effective safety implementation, the safety officer should spend more time in the shop floor, observe for unsafe acts / conditions, conduct detailed studies and advise management for better safety. In big size organizations, safety officers recruited as per OFET rule can’t do justification. Further, as the organization is bigger (no. of employees and / or departments), number of works taken for repairs / modifications will be more and it is not possible for safety officer to study each and every job to advice in the permit. This leads to scribbling the advice with his knowledge about the job in particular area and with or without visit / discussion and eventually, deterioration of safety occurs.
People may argue that safety is the responsibility of the manager of the section / department and safety officer has to only advise. But, really is it so. Any work related to safety, even procurement of PPE is delegated (proper word is dumped / thrown) to the safety officer.
Therefore, organizations bigger in size by workforce / departments, should divide entire organization into few groups based on production / function line and safety officer(s) should be employed for each group i.e. treat each group as one unit of the organization and have a corporate office for all groups together though the groups are located within the same outer boundary. If the organization is spread to different locations in the city or cities or countries, then multiple corporate offices can be formed and are linked for monitoring. This can be viewed in the form of a spider web (or solar system) with the ultimate monitoring agency at the center.
The above structure will definitely help the organization to save resources ultimately and for this full commitment from the top management is required.
I am impressed by OHSAS 18001:2007 where safety officer role is advising and monitoring and safety implementation, accident investigation, carrying out safety studies, etc are in the hands of shop floor manager and his team. But, in reality this is not the case.
I feel that the requirement of a safety officer for every thousand employees (OFET) (500 or more is taken as one thousand) mentioned in legislation or as decided by the regulator is not enough. The second part of the previous statement is generally applied by regulators only in hazardous chemical operations i.e. even if a hazardous chemical installation has less than 1000 employees, say 200, the factory inspector asks for employing safety officer. But, otherwise, factory inspector generally does not asks for safety officer if it meets OFET rule.
As I said earlier, safety officer is over loaded with so many functions to perform and his request for supporting staff will fall into deaf ears of the management. Though, safety professionals feel that the profession is noble, nobody can work without payment as it will not feed them and therefore they can’t risk their job by persistent request for additional staff (technical / supporting).
I feel that safety officer is required for every 250 employees and again if there are a number of departments / sections within the organization, then for every four departments one safety officer is required. Of course, this number varies. For effective safety implementation, the safety officer should spend more time in the shop floor, observe for unsafe acts / conditions, conduct detailed studies and advise management for better safety. In big size organizations, safety officers recruited as per OFET rule can’t do justification. Further, as the organization is bigger (no. of employees and / or departments), number of works taken for repairs / modifications will be more and it is not possible for safety officer to study each and every job to advice in the permit. This leads to scribbling the advice with his knowledge about the job in particular area and with or without visit / discussion and eventually, deterioration of safety occurs.
People may argue that safety is the responsibility of the manager of the section / department and safety officer has to only advise. But, really is it so. Any work related to safety, even procurement of PPE is delegated (proper word is dumped / thrown) to the safety officer.
Therefore, organizations bigger in size by workforce / departments, should divide entire organization into few groups based on production / function line and safety officer(s) should be employed for each group i.e. treat each group as one unit of the organization and have a corporate office for all groups together though the groups are located within the same outer boundary. If the organization is spread to different locations in the city or cities or countries, then multiple corporate offices can be formed and are linked for monitoring. This can be viewed in the form of a spider web (or solar system) with the ultimate monitoring agency at the center.
The above structure will definitely help the organization to save resources ultimately and for this full commitment from the top management is required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)