PSM's most common struggle: Implementing mechanical integrity
Most companies have found that of the 14 OSHA PSM elements, Mechanical Integrity (MI) presents the greatest implementation challenge. Although maintenance departments have successfully installed, repaired, and replaced plant equipment for decades, many of these same maintenance departments have stru...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Process Safety Progress 1995-10, Vol.14 (4), p.232-237 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 237 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 232 |
container_title | Process Safety Progress |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Remson, Andrew C. Farmer, Jill H. King, C. Stephen |
description | Most companies have found that of the 14 OSHA PSM elements, Mechanical Integrity (MI) presents the greatest implementation challenge. Although maintenance departments have successfully installed, repaired, and replaced plant equipment for decades, many of these same maintenance departments have struggled with OSHA's PSM requirements. One major challenge is prioritizing resources. Opportunities to improve will always exist; however, it is often difficult to effectively allocate money and manpower. Another challenge is simply getting organized. The MI program should be supported by appropriate, useful procedures; but given the multifaceted and ever‐changing nature of maintenance, what procedures should be written? How detailed should the procedures be? With nearly 3 years of PSM enforcement complete, an analysis of OSHA's MI citations helps to provide insight to these challenges. This paper presents ideas for implementing MI in a manner that meets OSHA's expectations while contributing to safe, effective maintenance in PSM‐covered processes. In particular, the paper presents ideas for developing MI programs that effectively prioritize company resources, with appropriate inspection/test/preventive maintenance and quality assurance (QA) activities. This paper also presents ideas for developing a list of mechanical integrity procedures to address OSHA's requirements as well as the type of information to include in those procedures. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/prs.680140405 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16991547</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>16991547</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4165-cfaa1b43cc4bebfa2deeaf71cb68b0b9467ad20e0467fd94bba4c246b2d1a5353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhCMEEqVw5B4ucEqxE8dJkDhABaVSKX0hjpbtbIIhL2xX0H9PqlQVJ047K32zOxrHOcdogBHyrxttBjRGmCCCwgOnh0MSeWGCg8NWI0q9OPSjY-fEmA-EUEzjpOfczpbPV8Yta2NdWZdlXbnG6nWeF3DjjsumgBIqq6rcLUG-80pJXriqspBrZTenzlHGCwNnu9l3Xh8fVsMnb_IyGg_vJp4kmIaezDjHggRSEgEi434KwLMIS0FjgURCaMRTHwFqRZYmRAhOpE-o8FPMwyAM-s5Fd7eNqZiRyrZhZF1VIC3DceD7pGUuO6bR9dcajGWlMhKKgldQrw3DNEm2jbSg14FS18ZoyFijVcn1hmHEtkW2u2H7Ils-6vhvVcDmf5jNFsu_zt0nZSz87J1cfzIaBVHI3qYjNkkWczJfTdl98AseQIbF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>16991547</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>PSM's most common struggle: Implementing mechanical integrity</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Remson, Andrew C. ; Farmer, Jill H. ; King, C. Stephen</creator><creatorcontrib>Remson, Andrew C. ; Farmer, Jill H. ; King, C. Stephen</creatorcontrib><description>Most companies have found that of the 14 OSHA PSM elements, Mechanical Integrity (MI) presents the greatest implementation challenge. Although maintenance departments have successfully installed, repaired, and replaced plant equipment for decades, many of these same maintenance departments have struggled with OSHA's PSM requirements. One major challenge is prioritizing resources. Opportunities to improve will always exist; however, it is often difficult to effectively allocate money and manpower. Another challenge is simply getting organized. The MI program should be supported by appropriate, useful procedures; but given the multifaceted and ever‐changing nature of maintenance, what procedures should be written? How detailed should the procedures be? With nearly 3 years of PSM enforcement complete, an analysis of OSHA's MI citations helps to provide insight to these challenges. This paper presents ideas for implementing MI in a manner that meets OSHA's expectations while contributing to safe, effective maintenance in PSM‐covered processes. In particular, the paper presents ideas for developing MI programs that effectively prioritize company resources, with appropriate inspection/test/preventive maintenance and quality assurance (QA) activities. This paper also presents ideas for developing a list of mechanical integrity procedures to address OSHA's requirements as well as the type of information to include in those procedures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1066-8527</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1547-5913</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/prs.680140405</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers</publisher><subject>BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, APPLIED STUDIES ; CHEMICAL PLANTS ; ENERGY PLANNING AND POLICY ; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ; HEALTH AND SAFETY ; INDUSTRIAL PLANTS ; MAINTENANCE ; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ; PERSONNEL ; QUALITY ASSURANCE ; SAFEGUARDS ; SAFETY STANDARDS ; TESTING ; TRAINING ; US OSHA</subject><ispartof>Process Safety Progress, 1995-10, Vol.14 (4), p.232-237</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1995 American Institute of Chemical Engineers</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4165-cfaa1b43cc4bebfa2deeaf71cb68b0b9467ad20e0467fd94bba4c246b2d1a5353</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fprs.680140405$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fprs.680140405$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/183224$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Remson, Andrew C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farmer, Jill H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, C. Stephen</creatorcontrib><title>PSM's most common struggle: Implementing mechanical integrity</title><title>Process Safety Progress</title><addtitle>Proc. Safety Prog</addtitle><description>Most companies have found that of the 14 OSHA PSM elements, Mechanical Integrity (MI) presents the greatest implementation challenge. Although maintenance departments have successfully installed, repaired, and replaced plant equipment for decades, many of these same maintenance departments have struggled with OSHA's PSM requirements. One major challenge is prioritizing resources. Opportunities to improve will always exist; however, it is often difficult to effectively allocate money and manpower. Another challenge is simply getting organized. The MI program should be supported by appropriate, useful procedures; but given the multifaceted and ever‐changing nature of maintenance, what procedures should be written? How detailed should the procedures be? With nearly 3 years of PSM enforcement complete, an analysis of OSHA's MI citations helps to provide insight to these challenges. This paper presents ideas for implementing MI in a manner that meets OSHA's expectations while contributing to safe, effective maintenance in PSM‐covered processes. In particular, the paper presents ideas for developing MI programs that effectively prioritize company resources, with appropriate inspection/test/preventive maintenance and quality assurance (QA) activities. This paper also presents ideas for developing a list of mechanical integrity procedures to address OSHA's requirements as well as the type of information to include in those procedures.</description><subject>BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, APPLIED STUDIES</subject><subject>CHEMICAL PLANTS</subject><subject>ENERGY PLANNING AND POLICY</subject><subject>HAZARDOUS MATERIALS</subject><subject>HEALTH AND SAFETY</subject><subject>INDUSTRIAL PLANTS</subject><subject>MAINTENANCE</subject><subject>OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE</subject><subject>OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY</subject><subject>PERSONNEL</subject><subject>QUALITY ASSURANCE</subject><subject>SAFEGUARDS</subject><subject>SAFETY STANDARDS</subject><subject>TESTING</subject><subject>TRAINING</subject><subject>US OSHA</subject><issn>1066-8527</issn><issn>1547-5913</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhCMEEqVw5B4ucEqxE8dJkDhABaVSKX0hjpbtbIIhL2xX0H9PqlQVJ047K32zOxrHOcdogBHyrxttBjRGmCCCwgOnh0MSeWGCg8NWI0q9OPSjY-fEmA-EUEzjpOfczpbPV8Yta2NdWZdlXbnG6nWeF3DjjsumgBIqq6rcLUG-80pJXriqspBrZTenzlHGCwNnu9l3Xh8fVsMnb_IyGg_vJp4kmIaezDjHggRSEgEi434KwLMIS0FjgURCaMRTHwFqRZYmRAhOpE-o8FPMwyAM-s5Fd7eNqZiRyrZhZF1VIC3DceD7pGUuO6bR9dcajGWlMhKKgldQrw3DNEm2jbSg14FS18ZoyFijVcn1hmHEtkW2u2H7Ils-6vhvVcDmf5jNFsu_zt0nZSz87J1cfzIaBVHI3qYjNkkWczJfTdl98AseQIbF</recordid><startdate>199510</startdate><enddate>199510</enddate><creator>Remson, Andrew C.</creator><creator>Farmer, Jill H.</creator><creator>King, C. Stephen</creator><general>American Institute of Chemical Engineers</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199510</creationdate><title>PSM's most common struggle: Implementing mechanical integrity</title><author>Remson, Andrew C. ; Farmer, Jill H. ; King, C. Stephen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4165-cfaa1b43cc4bebfa2deeaf71cb68b0b9467ad20e0467fd94bba4c246b2d1a5353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, APPLIED STUDIES</topic><topic>CHEMICAL PLANTS</topic><topic>ENERGY PLANNING AND POLICY</topic><topic>HAZARDOUS MATERIALS</topic><topic>HEALTH AND SAFETY</topic><topic>INDUSTRIAL PLANTS</topic><topic>MAINTENANCE</topic><topic>OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE</topic><topic>OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY</topic><topic>PERSONNEL</topic><topic>QUALITY ASSURANCE</topic><topic>SAFEGUARDS</topic><topic>SAFETY STANDARDS</topic><topic>TESTING</topic><topic>TRAINING</topic><topic>US OSHA</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Remson, Andrew C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farmer, Jill H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, C. Stephen</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Process Safety Progress</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Remson, Andrew C.</au><au>Farmer, Jill H.</au><au>King, C. Stephen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>PSM's most common struggle: Implementing mechanical integrity</atitle><jtitle>Process Safety Progress</jtitle><addtitle>Proc. Safety Prog</addtitle><date>1995-10</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>232</spage><epage>237</epage><pages>232-237</pages><issn>1066-8527</issn><eissn>1547-5913</eissn><abstract>Most companies have found that of the 14 OSHA PSM elements, Mechanical Integrity (MI) presents the greatest implementation challenge. Although maintenance departments have successfully installed, repaired, and replaced plant equipment for decades, many of these same maintenance departments have struggled with OSHA's PSM requirements. One major challenge is prioritizing resources. Opportunities to improve will always exist; however, it is often difficult to effectively allocate money and manpower. Another challenge is simply getting organized. The MI program should be supported by appropriate, useful procedures; but given the multifaceted and ever‐changing nature of maintenance, what procedures should be written? How detailed should the procedures be? With nearly 3 years of PSM enforcement complete, an analysis of OSHA's MI citations helps to provide insight to these challenges. This paper presents ideas for implementing MI in a manner that meets OSHA's expectations while contributing to safe, effective maintenance in PSM‐covered processes. In particular, the paper presents ideas for developing MI programs that effectively prioritize company resources, with appropriate inspection/test/preventive maintenance and quality assurance (QA) activities. This paper also presents ideas for developing a list of mechanical integrity procedures to address OSHA's requirements as well as the type of information to include in those procedures.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>American Institute of Chemical Engineers</pub><doi>10.1002/prs.680140405</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1066-8527 |
ispartof | Process Safety Progress, 1995-10, Vol.14 (4), p.232-237 |
issn | 1066-8527 1547-5913 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16991547 |
source | Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, APPLIED STUDIES CHEMICAL PLANTS ENERGY PLANNING AND POLICY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HEALTH AND SAFETY INDUSTRIAL PLANTS MAINTENANCE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY PERSONNEL QUALITY ASSURANCE SAFEGUARDS SAFETY STANDARDS TESTING TRAINING US OSHA |
title | PSM's most common struggle: Implementing mechanical integrity |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T21%3A20%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PSM's%20most%20common%20struggle:%20Implementing%20mechanical%20integrity&rft.jtitle=Process%20Safety%20Progress&rft.au=Remson,%20Andrew%20C.&rft.date=1995-10&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=232&rft.epage=237&rft.pages=232-237&rft.issn=1066-8527&rft.eissn=1547-5913&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/prs.680140405&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E16991547%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=16991547&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |