When an incident occurs, a process safety management (PSM) program is often scrutinized. PSM program failures can have significant contractual and legal implications.
Proponents of process safety may at times be mischaracterized as dogmatic, or having a point of view that is purported as authoritative without an adequate basis. A key question underlying this criticism raised by process safety skeptics is whether process safety incidents are truly preventable. This article aims to address this key philosophical (and contractual) question regarding whether catastrophic events are foreseeable and within the control of a facility’s operations — two key elements of a force majeure claim (the so-called “Act of God”). The article will further discuss how the elements in a process safety management (PSM) program can help facilities identify, evaluate, and control process hazards and their associated risks, and whether shortcomings in a PSM program can impact the foreseeability and controllability of process hazards, which may be relevant in the evaluation of force majeure events.
Dogma and process safety
Dogma, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, is a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative, without adequate grounds (1). It is a concept that is frequently encountered in discussions involving specific subjects — particularly within the scope of politics and religion. However, in the parlance of process safety, it is possible for skeptics to view its proponents as being dogmatic. These criticisms focus on the fact that while progress has been made in the adoption of process safety principles, serious catastrophic incidents continue to occur globally. This issue is particularly relevant in the U.S. today as regulators consider potential changes to, and expansion of, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) PSM Standard (2). Resistance to these changes typically references the significant resources necessary for the implementation of a PSM program without demonstrated effectiveness of risk mitigation in a particular application (3). As a result, advocates that argue for further expansion and adoption of process safety principles may encounter criticism that they argue from an authoritative point of view without adequate supporting bases (i.e., dogma)...
Would you like to access the complete CEP Article?
No problem. You just have to complete the following steps.
You have completed 0 of 2 steps.
-
Log in
You must be logged in to view this content. Log in now.
-
AIChE Membership
You must be an AIChE member to view this article. Join now.
Copyright Permissions
Would you like to reuse content from CEP Magazine? It’s easy to request permission to reuse content. Simply click here to connect instantly to licensing services, where you can choose from a list of options regarding how you would like to reuse the desired content and complete the transaction.