“Bureaucracy and compliance now seem less about managing the safety of the workers we are responsible for, and more about managing the liability of the people they work for.” — Sidney Dekker
One of the foundations of process safety is that we learn from experience. Because relevant experience comes from making mistakes and facing failures, the experience from which we learn is often the experience of others. In their 1932 book, Human Engineering, Harry Myers and Mason M. Roberts documented some valuable advice: “You must learn from the mistakes of others—you will never live long enough to make them all yourself.”
It is for this reason that a successful process hazard analysis (PHA) depends on a diverse team; a diverse team brings diverse experience to the study. It is also for this reason that OSHA and the EPA both require that the documentation developed in a required PHA be readily available to employees. It’s so everyone can learn from the study.
In some organizations, though, that is not what happens.
The Regulatory Requirements
OSHA spells out the regulatory requirements for a PHA in the Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(e). In 1910.119(e)(4), the standard defines the requirements for a team and in 1910.119(e)(5), the standard defines the required documentation and communication specifically associated with the PHA.
More importantly, because some employers are not good at sharing documentation with their employees, either negligently or willfully, the PSM Standard includes a paragraph that addresses Employee participation, 29 CFR 1910.119(c). In 1910.119(c)(3), it says “Employers shall provide to employees and their representatives access to process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under this standard.” [Emphasis added.]
The EPA’s Risk Management Planning (RMP) Rule, 40 CFR 68, mirrors these requirements. Identical requirements for a team are in 68.67(d). Identical requirements for PHA documentation are in 68.67(e). Although the EPA does not list employee participation as high as OSHA (eleventh instead of first), it still requires in 68.83(f) that employees and their representatives have access to the PHA and all other information developed under the RMP rule.
These are the requirements for PSM-covered processes and processes covered under Program 3 of the RMP Rule. Safety information cannot be kept secret from employees. Not some employees—all employees are to have access to this information, along with their representatives.
Not All Processes Are Covered
Many processes are not covered by PSM or RMP. To be covered, there must be more than the threshold quantity (TQ) of flammable materials (the TQ for listed flammables is 10,000 pounds) or more than the TQ of any listed toxic material, for which the TQ ranges from as little as 100 pounds to as much as 20,000 pounds. However, many processes don’t use listed materials, or use them but manage to stay below the TQ.
So, then what?
When it comes to process safety documentation of processes that are not covered by PSM or RMP, there is no regulatory requirement to make it available to employees. But why keep it secret? The more everyone knows about the hazards in the workplace, the more likely they are to avoid or minimize those hazards. By sharing what each person knows, every employee has the opportunity learn from the experience of others.
And Yet…
Some organizations are reluctant to share process safety information with their employees, and when not compelled by regulation to share the information, choose not to.
That’s not really fair. Organizations don’t make choices. Individuals within organizations make choices, so it is individuals within organizations that choose not share safety information with employees, usually on the advice of counsel. The problem with counsel, however, is that it is not their role to make the workplace safer. Their role is to minimize liability. “Liability”, as in a legal responsibility. American lawyers are trained to practice law in an adversarial system of justice. An adversary is “an enemy who actively and continuously resists or fights you.” Unfortunately, anyone who is not an attorney’s client is potentially an adversary, an enemy. Including employees and their representatives.
When employees are potential enemies, improving safety is no longer a mutual objective. It becomes too easy to see it as a weapon in a war against enemies. Sun Tzu observed, “All warfare is based on deception.” The essential tool of deception is secrecy.
On the other hand, the essential tool of process safety is knowledge. Safety and secrecy are at odds with one another.
Choose Safety
Despite fears that safety information will “fall into the wrong hands,” a knowledgeable workforce will do more to improve the safety of the workplace than an ignorant workforce. As a safety professional, the need to make the workplace safer has to outweigh the need to defend against disclosure. That doesn’t automatically mean that safety professionals should defy secrecy policies, but it does mean that when secrecy policies impede improving safety, safety professionals must work harder to find ways to challenge those policies.
Choose safety. Workers’ lives depend on it.
