Leading Utilities Are Embracing Process Safety Management

Municipal water and wastewater utilities are foundational to public health and environmental protection. As these facilities modernize—incorporating new energy systems, automation, and advanced chemical processes—the complexity of operations continues to grow. With this complexity comes a renewed focus on the principles of Process Safety Management (PSM): identifying, assessing, and controlling the risks inherent in high-energy or hazardous systems. By adopting the Management of Change (MOC) process, the municipal sector reflects a culture of professional responsibility to its employees and the community.

Why the Shift Is Happening

Recent incidents across North America and abroad have demonstrated that even well-run utilities can experience serious events when process modifications are not adequately reviewed.

• In a recent case, a hydrogen-sulfide gas leak at a sewer facility in Trinity County, Texas, killed three workers performing maintenance repairs. The incident occurred in August 2025 and underscored the hazards of confined-space and gas system work when process changes are not properly controlled. [1]

• A separate chemical feed explosion at a water treatment plant in Noblesville, Indiana, in August 2025 injured several personnel during a transfer operation between a tanker truck and the facility. Early reports suggest the event was linked to an incompatible chemical transfer. [2]

These examples reinforce the importance of evaluating any change to a PSM-covered process through a MOC process to maintain both safety and reliability.

What Progressive Utilities Are Doing Differently

Leading municipal utilities are managed by professionals committed to safe, reliable, and efficient operations. They recognize that strong process safety practices are an integral part of that commitment.

By looking to the chemical process sector, these professionals see a proven model for managing change, controlling hazards, and protecting both workers and the community. The AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) provides well-established guidelines for Risk-Based Process Safety (RBPS), which many municipal utilities are now adapting to their own environments.

A Comprehensive MOC Lifecycle

Where hazardous processes or chemicals in hazardous quantities exist, these utilities are implementing a structured Management of Change procedure to ensure alterations to the process are properly defined, evaluated, and verified before returning to service. A comprehensive MOC process typically includes the following phases:

Initiation → Scoping → Change Design → Impact Analysis → Approvals → Implementation → PSSR (Pre-Startup Safety Review) → Close-Out

Each phase provides a deliberate checkpoint:

  1. Initiation – capture the reason for change and its objectives.
  2. Scoping – identify the affected systems, equipment, and personnel.
  3. Change Design – document the technical and engineering details.
  4. Impact Analysis – assess effects on safety, environment, and operations.
  5. Approvals – ensure cross-disciplinary review and accountability.
  6. Implementation – execute under controlled, authorized conditions.
  7. PSSR – verify readiness before re-introducing energy or chemicals.
  8. Close-Out – confirm that procedures, drawings, and training are current.

The MOC process provides clarity, traceability, and assurance.

Why It Matters

When the MOC process is integrated into daily operations, it creates a framework for continuous reliability improvement. Utilities adopting PSM software such as FACILEX® MOC report measurable benefits:

  • Improved coordination between engineering, maintenance, and operations.
  • Clear visibility of pending and completed changes across the organization.
  • Faster, more confident approvals with full audit trails.
  • Strengthened compliance with internal and external safety standards.
  • Fewer unplanned outages and reduced operational risk.

These are the hallmarks of a mature, self-learning organization—one that treats safety and reliability as two sides of the same coin.

A New Standard of Leadership

The emergence of Process Safety Management within municipal utilities marks a major step forward in public infrastructure governance. It shows that leadership within these organizations are committing to operational excellence, environmental responsibility, and community trust.

Footnotes

[1] Houston Chronicle. Three workers die in Trinity County after hydrogen sulfide leak at sewer facility (Aug 2025). https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/trending/article/trinity-sewer-facility-leak-21019400.php

[2] Newsweek. Chemical Explosion at Noblesville Water Treatment Plant Injures Workers (Aug 2025). https://www.newsweek.com/noblesville-indiana-chemical-explosion-water-plant-2110430

Share:

More Posts

Workflow Is Not a Strategy: Why Management of Change Must Be Designed as a Lifecycle

Over the past two decades, many organizations have invested heavily in digital Management of Change (MOC) systems. Most of these systems share a common design philosophy: they treat MOC as a workflow—a predefined sequence of steps that moves a change request from initiation to approval and closure.
This approach is appealing to IT teams because workflows are easy to automate, measure, and control. However, it fundamentally misrepresents the nature of Management of Change.
MOC is not a linear process. It is a lifecycle-based business process that must adapt to technical complexity, organizational context, and evolving risk. When organizations attempt to force MOC into rigid workflow structures, they inadvertently create systems that are efficient in appearance but ineffective in practice.
To support modern process safety, MOC must be architected as a configurable lifecycle embedded within an integrated risk-based process safety framework—not as a static workflow engine.

Why Management of Change Must Be Rebuilt for Modern Industry

Management of Change (MOC) is one of the most critical controls in process safety management, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood. While regulatory frameworks such as OSHA 1910.119 define what must be addressed, they do not define how organizations should design, execute, and govern change in complex industrial environments.
Most MOC systems in use today were not designed for the realities of modern operations. They evolved from paper-based processes and early digital document management tools that prioritized compliance over risk intelligence, traceability, and integration.
To meet the demands of contemporary industrial operations, MOC must be fundamentally rethought—not as a form, a workflow, or a compliance exercise, but as a lifecycle-based business process embedded within an integrated process safety ecosystem.

AI Governance Starts Long Before AI Is Introduced

Artificial intelligence governance is often discussed as a new discipline—one that emerges only after AI tools are deployed. Policies are drafted, oversight committees formed, and ethical frameworks debated. While these steps are important, they miss a critical reality:
AI governance does not begin with AI. It begins with how information has been governed for years.

Automation Before AI: Lessons from Asset-Intensive Industries

As artificial intelligence gains momentum across industries, many organizations are eager to move directly from manual work to AI-enabled solutions. In asset-intensive and regulated environments, this leap often ends in frustration. The issue is not ambition, it is sequencing.
Organizations that succeed with AI consistently share one characteristic: they automated their information and business processes before attempting to make them intelligent. Those that skip this step discover that AI struggles to add value on top of fragmented, inconsistent, or poorly defined processes.