Process Safety Management failures rarely trace back to a missing document. They trace back to a Process Hazard Analysis that no longer matches the equipment, a Management of Change that got skipped under schedule pressure, or a Mechanical Integrity gap nobody flagged because the paperwork said the inspection was current.
This isn't a document review performed from a desk. Every PSM engagement includes field verification: walking the actual process, checking Mechanical Integrity records against what's actually installed, and confirming Management of Change actually happened the way the paperwork says it did.
A Process Hazard Analysis that no longer matches the equipment actually installed
Management of Change steps skipped under schedule pressure, with nobody flagging it
Mechanical Integrity inspections marked current on paper without field verification
Pre-startup safety reviews treated as a signature requirement instead of a real check
“PSM failures rarely trace back to a missing document. They trace back to the distance between the binder and the actual process.”— PSM Practice Principle
Closing that distance requires someone who's worked inside high-hazard operations, not just audited them.
The same principle applies here as everywhere else: a program that exists on paper protects the company in an audit. A program that exists on the floor protects the people running the process.
Every PSM engagement follows the same sequence, from the paper program to what's actually running:
Audit each of the 14 PSM elements against actual facility conditions, not just the written program.
Prioritize findings by consequence, not by which element is easiest to fix.
Establish the ownership and cadence needed to keep MOC, MI, and PHA current after we leave.
This is a complete PSM engagement, not a paper review. Specifically, that includes:
Element-by-element gap audit across all 14 PSM elements
Field verification of Mechanical Integrity and Process Hazard Analysis currency
Management of Change process review and, where needed, redesign
A prioritized corrective action plan tied to consequence severity
Support preparing for a PSM compliance audit or inspection
Yes. Recommissioning after an extended shutdown is one of the higher-risk points in a facility's life, since equipment, procedures, and personnel may all have changed since the PSM program was last current.
29 CFR 1910.119, covering the 14 required elements from process safety information through emergency planning and compliance audits.
Yes, most engagements start with an element-by-element gap audit, and the scope of any rebuild is based on what that audit finds.
PSM is a distinct regulatory framework, 29 CFR 1910.119, covering highly hazardous chemical processes specifically. It requires different expertise than a general safety program audit, particularly around Process Hazard Analysis and Mechanical Integrity.
Yes, RMP and PSM overlap significantly, and most engagements address both where applicable.
Management of Change. It's the element most often skipped under schedule pressure, and the one most likely to create the conditions for a serious incident.
Yes, PHA facilitation is available as part of the engagement or as a standalone service for facilities that need a fresh PHA cycle.
Every engagement starts with a direct conversation, not a proposal. Tell us what's happening and we'll tell you what we'd actually do about it.