Design changes - no compromise for safety

Operating facilities, in order to increase capacities, try to carry out modifications in the equipment, replace some, change process parameters, etc. This can also be done through bypassing of safety systems, to achieve quick gains. While doing all these, if the consequences on safety of the personnel, environment and property are not analyzed, then it is likely that some foolish action will lead to total closure of the plant one day. Any change proposal should undergo HAZOP/WHAT IF/ETA/FTA studies. The design should be carried out only by experienced persons and safety studies should be carried out by safety professionals. If it is done by some entry level person and is endorsed by higher ups without review, we may be inviting the disaster.

Even though the safety studies will be time consuming, it is worth doing before carrying out changes rather than repenting later. Top management should recognize this and support the safety programmes. Else, shortsightedness will shut the plant at a later date. Though, it is easy to blame safety department at that time for not doing their job, one should introspect whether the advise of safety officer was given due importance or not.

Management of change is an important activity and shall be followed by all facilities, irrespective of their size, nature of work and product.

Hi-Tec - by how much?

Some product advertisements mention about manufacturing through computer based technology. Some bill boards for spectacle shops mention about computerized checkups and tests.Some new plants are known as hi-tech facilities.
In all these, what we understand is that they use some software or some techniques that run on computers. However, unless rigorous checks are not made to the software before its use, hi-tec can lead to complex problems, which we can't understand. For this, the programmer should understand fully the requirement, which should be specified by the engaging agency in clear terms. If there is no clarity in specifications and the understanding of the same by programmer is not checked, glitches may come later, which may develop in to unimaginable proportions.
What we start with hi-tec, also can become low-tec after sometime, when changes are made but not tested fully.
Management of change, i.e checking the modifications in an existing procedure for achieving the desired output, if not done properly can manage us later.
Some plant facilities started on PLC based operations initially will be suspended and reverted to manual mode because of the glitches. This is because of lack of clarity in what we want, what we conveyed to the developers/suppliers, and what we got. Hardware problems also can lead to similar situation. Sometimes, because of the complex operations involved in operating PLC based plants and poor training, managers revert to manual operations.
If we are overconfident that nothing will happen because a plant is hi-tec and leave the caution to the air, then also we may find surprises.
Hi-tec will be safe only when we address above issues.

Manage Change before it manages you

I read above quotation somewhere and noted in a pocket diary. Today, while going through the book I found this again.
Many changes take place everywhere and we carry out those changes most of the times to meet immediate requirement rather than analyzing for hidden dangers (or side effects). My colleague's brother who was a scientist during his government service used to say, 'what is temporary today is permanent'.
Safety professionals will be facing problems in convincing the shop floor managers to carryout proper hazard analysis and many times, the reply will be that they need clearance to execute so and so job and later it will be removed or it will be taken up for study.
There were a number of examples listed by reputed safety professional Trevor Kletz in his books like, What Went Wrong, Still Going Wrong, Learning from Disasters, etc, where many incidents took place because of improper or no evaluation of hazards.  Management of change is an important aspect in industries without which, we may end up with unforeseen events.
Sometimes, even shop floor workers too will find safety department an obstacle to their production job because of questions raised on safety, though, if something wrong occurs, it is the safety professional who will be questioned for not being authoritative or not active.
Hence, whatever be the nature of change or modification proposed, let it be process parameters, raw materials, equipment, or its accessories, auxiliary services, supports, or even operators, one should carry out a detailed analysis for hazards, impact on operation due to lack of knowledge/training/behavior, etc and then only proceed if satisfied with the results.

Change of guard - impact on safety policies

Changes are imminent - whether it is the top man or at different levels. Every time, organizational change occurs particulary at top level, it is certain that the new management will review policies in all respects. People want to leave their imprint by thinking differently and this is one of the reason for shuffling of positions in any organization.
Depending upon the knowledge, experience, interests and targets of the person taking charge,  and also the advise provided by down under, unless otherwise it is one-man army as in small organizations, the policy shift can be either good or bad to the organization (and to the subordinates?). It may take sometime to see the results of these changes.
As per rules, whenever the occupier or safety in-charge changes, this information needs to be informed to regulators immediately. And, it is better if regulators keep a watch on the affairs of such organization(s) for a reasonable period, to ensure that the safety issues continue to get top priority inspite of the changes in the organization.

Management of Change (MOC) ?

When plants run for sometime, engineers will find that something is not working as required or they may feel that something else can give better results or some problems will necessiate to modify flowsheet, etc. When shopfloor engineers and supervisors go for implementation of the proposed change, they think that they are doing the right thing to improve. However, the possibility of unexpected events because of the change are normally not studied or anticipated.
Further they think that involving safety department is a waste of time or their work will be delayed because of possible discussions. Therefore they carryout changes without following the established safety procedures. Sometimes, there works give the desired results and therefore makes them to think that they are in right direction ALWAYS. This will set in wrong notions, disregard for safety procedures and will set a bad example for the others to follow the same methods.
Ultimately, a day will come when something goes wrong and blame game starts. Safety department says they are not aware of the change and plant executives say that safety department is not doing its job of surveillance and monitoring. If people do unsafe jobs and then wait for others to point out, then nobody can help. Safety departments are for providing advise and also monitor to caution the mangements. However, if people do works by hiding the information, they are doing so at their own peril.
So, change management should first be applied to persons' attitudes and understanding of safety procedures and then established MOC in the system will be followed by these people with complete understanding and regard for system.