SharePoint Delivers a Foundation for Process Safety Information Management

Effective electronic document management underpins every element of risk-based process safety management, ensuring that critical information remains accurate, accessible, and actionable. By understanding what information must be included, maintaining records through the lifecycle of the process, and leveraging electronic platforms like SharePoint, facilities can ensure that PSI supports informed decision-making and sustained operational integrity.
SharePoint Delivers a Foundation for Process Safety Information Management

Process Safety Information (PSI) is the cornerstone of any effective Process Safety Management (PSM) program. For processes covered under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119—those involving highly hazardous chemicals (HHCs) at or above threshold quantities—maintaining comprehensive and accurate PSI is not just a regulatory requirement; it’s essential for protecting personnel, assets, and the environment.

In this post, we’ll explore the key elements of PSI, the expectations for maintaining records, and how leveraging modern document management tools—like Microsoft SharePoint—can ensure PSI remains accurate, accessible, and current throughout the facility lifecycle.

What is Process Safety Information?

PSI includes the technical data and documentation that define the physical and chemical hazards of the processes and materials used in a PSM-covered process. It serves as the foundation for conducting Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs), Management of Change (MOC), Operating Procedures, and Training Programs.

Key Categories of PSI:

  1. Hazards of Chemicals Used in the Process
    • Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
    • Toxicity, reactivity, corrosivity, flammability
    • Permissible exposure limits (PELs), threshold limit values (TLVs)
  2. Technology of the Process
    • Process flow diagrams (PFDs)
    • Piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs)
    • Maximum intended inventory
    • Safe upper and lower operating limits
    • Consequences of deviations
  3. Equipment Information
    • Design codes and standards
    • Materials of construction
    • Relief system design and design basis
    • Electrical classification
    • Ventilation system design
    • Safety systems (e.g., interlocks, alarms, emergency shutdown systems)

Record Retention and Maintenance

While OSHA 1910.119 does not prescribe specific timeframes for retaining PSI records, best practices indicate that records should be:

  • Maintained for the life of the process or facility, especially when used to support PHAs, MOC decisions, or mechanical integrity programs.
  • Updated as part of MOC procedures when changes occur in process chemicals, technology, or equipment.
  • Periodically reviewed to ensure accuracy, particularly prior to PHAs, audits, and major maintenance turnarounds.

Outdated or missing PSI can lead to flawed hazard assessments, inaccurate procedures, and compromised operational safety.

Why Electronic Document Management is Essential

Traditional PSI systems—such as paper records or loosely organized shared drives—are prone to issues like version control errors, accessibility problems, and inconsistent updates. To address these challenges, implementing an electronic document management system (EDMS) is now recognized as a best practice.

Microsoft SharePoint: A Strategic Platform for PSI

Microsoft SharePoint offers a secure, flexible, and enterprise-grade solution to manage and distribute PSI. Key benefits include:

  • Centralized storage with role-based access
  • Version control and audit trails to track document history
  • Metadata tagging and searchability for faster retrieval
  • Automated review and approval workflows
  • Integration with Microsoft 365 apps for seamless collaboration

By adopting SharePoint, organizations can ensure that PSI is not only compliant but also actionable, reducing administrative burden while supporting safe operations.

Conclusion

An effective PSI management strategy is essential for compliance and risk reduction in PSM-covered processes. By understanding what information must be included, maintaining records through the lifecycle of the process, and leveraging electronic platforms like SharePoint, facilities can ensure that PSI supports informed decision-making and sustained operational integrity.

Don’t let critical safety information become obsolete or inaccessible. A modern, electronic approach to PSI management is not just recommended—it’s essential for regulatory compliance and process safety excellence.

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.