Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Sanjeev Saraf Leave a Comment

CSB: To Investigate Or Not To Investigate

CSB: To Investigate Or Not To Investigate

Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is not meeting its statutory mandate by investigating major chemical accidents.

CSB’s Statutory Mandate

The Clean Air Amendment Act (CAAA) of 1990 directs CSB to

(1) investigate and report on the cause or probable cause of any accidental chemical releases from stationary sources resulting in a fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damages;

(2) make recommendations to reduce the likelihood or consequences of accidental chemical releases and propose corrective measures; and

(3) establish regulations for reporting accidental releases

In fairness, CSB is limited by resources (budget and number of investigators). In 2007, there were 920 incidents and it is not realistic to expect that the CSB can investigate all these incidents with a budget of $10-million and limited resources. CSB investigated five of these incidents and did not meet its statutory mandate of investigating all major incidents.

Before discussing CSB’s budget or strategy, I would like to revisit CSB’s statutory mandate from the perspective of preventing incidents in the future. Will investigating every major incident indeed help accident prevention in the future?

CSB Is Not the CSI of Chemical Industry

Everyone agrees that the main objective of CSB is to reduce chemical accidents in the future. Presumably CSB is achieving this goal of accident prevention by:

  • Identifying  learning from the incidents it investigates.
  • Educating manufactures and regulators on these learning  to avoid similar errors in the future

If you agree with the above, then CSB does not have to investigate all the incidents. CSB can focus on incidents that represent opportunity for the MOST learning. By investigating enough representative incidents, the safety board can now reach meaningful conclusions on preventing certain category of accidents.

Rather than focusing on CSB’s statutory mandate or budget, more relevant questions for meeting CSB’s objectives of accident prevention are:

  • Can CSB justify the accidents it plans to investigate based on “learning potential”? What are CSB’s criteria for screening incidents for investigation?
  • What accident model is being used by CSB to “learn” from incidents?
  • How is the knowledge from incident investigations converted to future accident prevention strategies?

Merely increasing CSB’s budget is not a complete solution.

Consider this, how has the information generated from CSB investigations benefited the process industries? Can CSB confirm any incidents that have been prevented as a result of its investigation insights?

Don’t get me wrong I would much rather see money being spent on CSB than on Government motors…but I believe a careful evaluation of CSB’s objectives is needed for judiciously deciding the next steps.

Filed Under: Articles, on Risk & Safety, Operational Risk Process Safety

« Technological Inheritance Effect on Failure Rate, Defect Elimination and Reliability Effects
Expanding your Opportunities »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Photo of Sanjeev SarafArticles by Sanjeev Saraf
in the Operational Risk, Process Safety article series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Posts

  • How to Reduce Maintenance Cost The Right Way
  • Significance Over Success. Innovation Over Change. Anticipation Over Agility
  • Maintenance Planning and Scheduling for World Class Reliability and Maintenance Performance
  • Self-Discipline Part 1
  • Is Safety Training Helpful?

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.