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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Process Safety Progress 1995-10, Vol.14 (4), p.232-237
Hauptverfasser: Remson, Andrew C., Farmer, Jill H., King, C. Stephen
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