1.CCPS RBPS
1.CCPS RBPS
1.CCPS RBPS
CCPS/AIChemE
What is PSM?
• A management system that is focused on prevention ,
mitigation , response and restoration from catastrophic
releases of chemicals or energy from a facility
RBPS
• The application of management principles and systems to
the identification, understanding and control of process
hazards to prevent process safety incidents
What is PSM?
E4 Workforce Involvement.
E5 Stakeholder outreach.
WHAT IS PROCESS SAFETY CULTURE
"How we do things,"
"How we behave when no one is watching."
Process Safety Culture
• O-rings failed
• Technical failure
• O-Ring Erosions Previous warnings 1985
• Untested conditions (Low Temperatures)
• Pressure to launch
• Miscommunication
Known Potential Problems
• Very low ambient temperatures recognized as concern by Tiokol Co.
– O-ring performance at this temperature not understood
• NASA officials pressured Tiokol Co. to withdraw its concerns (take off
Engineering hat and wear management hat)
• Upper officials at NASA were unaware of these discussions and
ignorantly approved launch
Lessons Learned
• Communication is key
• Only operate in tested conditions
• Safety over schedule
Pillar 1: Commit To Process safety
E4 Workforce Involvement.
E5 Stakeholder outreach.
What Is Standards ?
E4 Workforce Involvement.
E5 Stakeholder outreach.
Trained vs Competent
• Trained
- Have received instruction or drill
• Competent:
Determine
minimum Process Maintain and Gain ownership and
Safety Competency develop skills commitment
standards
Continually
Recruit workers Analyse skill gaps
development
Pillar 1: Commit To Process safety
E4 Workforce Involvement.
E5 Stakeholder Outreach.
Workforce Involvement
Consultation
E4 Workforce Involvement.
E5 Stakeholder Outreach.
Who is the Stakeholder ?
people and organizations who may affect, be affected by, or perceive
themselves to be affected by, the decision or activity
STAKEHOLDERS EXAMPLES
• Project managers, representing the business and shareholders
• Local authority regulators. Environmental protection officers. The NGOs
for public participation processes
• Design engineers of relevant disciplines. Frequently, these will be process
engineers, control and instrumentation specialists, electrical engineers
• Process and environmental safety officers. Fire prevention officers
• Commissioning engineers, Production managers
• Union or staff representatives. Safety officers
• Design contractors and equipment suppliers
• Risk insurance companies.
What should the company do towards Stakeholder ?
License To Operate
3- HSE MS
License To Operate
B. Process Technology.
C. Process Equipment.
2/18/2021 61
A- Process Chemical Hazards
Information Shall Consist of at least the following:
• Toxicity information
• Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL)
• Physical Data
• Reactivity Data
2/18/2021 63
C- Process Equipment
• Materials of construction,
• Piping and Instrument diagrams (P&IDs),
• Hazardous Area Classification
• Relief system design and design basis,
• Ventilation system design,
• Design codes and standards employed,
• Material and energy balances for processes
• Safety systems (e.g., interlocks, detection, or
suppression systems)
2/18/2021 64
Pillar 2: UNDERSTAND HAZARD AND RISK
License To Operate
Economic
Social Impact
Key terms
Process hazard
analysis (PHA)
A systematic analysis of the
hazards (and their potential
causes and consequences)
relevant to a particular process.
This may use one or more
specific techniques such as
HAZOP, What-if or FMEA.
Why use of risk assessment?
PHA is the Core of the PSM.
• Identifies hazards
proportionality
– Determined within
ranges.
Quantitative (QRA)
– Fully calculated based
on data (objective).
PHA tools or techniques
Qualitative Quantitative (FERA)
• HAZID * Flare radiation and vent dispersion analysis
• HAZOP * FTA (SIL Verification)
• what-if/checklist * ETA (probability analysis)
• checklist analysis * Modelling (consequence analysis)
• what-if analysis
• FMEA
Semi-Quantitative
# FMECA
# LOPA (SIL assessment)
Technique Selection
Hazards/ Affected
previous
potential people
incident
risk level
Qualitative Semi-Quantitative Quantitative
For less complex and low risk For less complex installation For complex and high risk
installation with clear and smaller workforces installation (offshore, refinery) ,
standards and benchmarks for regulatory requirement (safety
design and risk reduction case), design (ISD, layout,
fire/blast wall), SIL verification
straightforward, requires less requires more detailed data for
data, easily lead mng. to take modeling
action
Experience/ judgment based accepted based numerical Full quantification using known
estimation of frequency and values where frequency and data, equations PFD to get
severity (words or numerical) severity are quantified realistic/meaningful numerical
with no quantitative meaning , within ranges. estimation
eg. Low, medium, high
If not adequate use SQ. If not adequate use QRA. it is more objective than Q
e.g. HAZOP e.g. Adding SIS interlock to e.g. to establish probability of
avoid H-C carry over to flare failure of safety critical
elements
PHA timing
change is easy
change is
difficult
HAZARD & RISK
• if risk assessment is to be done during the study, the team needs an agreed
approach covering:
1. whether all problems will be assessed (time-consuming) or only the high-
severity ones.
2. how it will be done (Some companies choose to assess the risk at three
stages: Unmitigated; After safeguards; After actions).
3. when it will be done.
RISK RANKING MATRIX
Frequency of severity
occurrence
(1) catastrophic (2) critical (3) marginal (4) negligible
(A) frequent 1A 2A 3A 4A
(B) probable 1B 2B 3B 4B
(C) occasional 1C 2C 3C 4C
(D) remote 1D 2D 3D 4D
(E) Improbable 1E 2E 3E 4E
2/18/2021 82
RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
2/18/2021 83
EXAMPLE
Threat Example Barrier Example Top Event Example Barrier Example Consequence Example
Over pressure Design standard Loss of containment F&G detection Explosion
Construction standard Alarm Death
hydrotest Blowdown
layout Active protection
Pressure alarm Passive protection
Pressure shutdown EER
SRV
Maintenance
inspection
fire from ice
Valero McKee refinery- Texas 2007
• Occurred after water leaked through a
valve, froze, and cracked an out-of-service
section of piping, causing a release of high-
pressure liquid propane
• Seriously burned three people, shut down
a major oil refinery for two months, and
contributed to gasoline shortages hundreds
of miles away in Denver
• Incident could have had worse impact of
chlorine release if LPG spheres would have
been damaged
Exercise/Bowtie analysis
• Watch video clip
• Build a bowtie diagram, by identifying the threats,
consequences and barriers
ALARP
(as low as is reasonably practicable)
Broadly
acceptable
individual risks
Semi-Quantitative
# FMECA
# LOPA (SIL assessment)
Checklist
• using a list of prepared questions about the Design &
Operation of the facility.
“ Yes” or “No”.
• Used to Identify common hazards Through Compliance with
established Practices & Standards.
NOT helpful in identifying new hazards.
Checklist Questions
Is process equipment properly supported?
Are the procedures complete?
Is it possible to distinguish between different alarms?
Is pressure relief provided?
Is the vessel free from external corrosion?
Are sources of ignition controlled?
Is lube oil provided?
Is alignment completed?
What-If/Checklist
Structured Brainstorming
PHA tools or techniques
Qualitative Quantitative (FERA)
• HAZID * Flare radiation and vent dispersion analysis
• HAZOP * FTA (SIL Verification)
• what-if/checklist * ETA (probability analysis)
• checklist analysis * Modelling (consequence analysis)
• what-if analysis
• FMEA
Semi-Quantitative
# FMECA
# LOPA (SIL assessment)
HAZID
• Multidisciplinary team approach.
• Brainstorming process structured by keywords
• By walkthrough or table desk using software.
• Identifies process and non-process hazards
(manual handling, transport)
• Feed the risk assessment process.
• Top-down study (consequence driven)
HAZID
• Done at conceptual study feasibility for a new project
• Has standard guidewords
• Not focus on process
• It is risk assessment without P&ID
• Need layout, PFD, process simulation, technical report about wells, reservoir,
fluids.
• Focus on transportation, plane, ship traffic , backfire, earthquake, flooding,
lightning, heavy rain, soil problem, fishing people closed to platform, high
way (flare) , pipe corrosion allowance in crowded area.
THE REQUIRED INFORMATION
• PLOT PLAN
• Basis of design: P, T, Q, composition (wax, asphaltine, sand)
• Process description: flow direction
• Operating philosophy: how to operate
• Isolation philosophy: DBB, spec blind, single
• Maintenance philosophy: how to isolate, vent, drain .
• Sparing philosophy:
• Control philosophy: by SIS, HIPPS, SRV
• Emergency shut down and blowdown philosophy :
HAZID
Some HAZID actions
• Confirm checking the percentage of LEL% before attempting to start the
flare after blow off
• Consider installing thermos-couple to detect flare pilot blow off.
• Consider install gas detection system
• Provide inspection plan for all equipment
• Confirm that electrical equipment are EX type in skimmers area
• Consider installing standard road crossings for underground piping
• Consider installing Cathodic Protection for storage tanks
• Consider installing drainage network
• fix evaporation pond lining problem
Some HAZID actions
• Provide hazardous area classification map
• Survey earthing cables inside the facility
• Remove unused cables and repair damaged cable trays
• install a flame arrestor on the open vents on storage tanks
• Review changing top loading to skimmers to available nozzle.
• Expedite asbestos removal by specialist company
• Identify required emergency lighting
• Install automatic F.F system for tanks
• Install the required walkways
HAZOP ASSUMPTIONS
1. The design is final so the HAZOP is not a design review, but it will review
design elements
2. That most problems are missed due to the complex nature of the system,
rather than the lack of knowledge of the design team.
3. Problem can only arise when there is a deviation from the expected
norm.
HAZOP IS ASSURANCE
Team Size
• A HAZOP team usually consists of 5 – 8
plus a facilitator and scribe.
2/18/2021
113
Core Members
• Independent HAZOP Chairman / Leader / Facilitator
• HAZOP Secretary / Scribe / recorder
• Process Designer Engineer / Project Engineer / Project Manager - ensure that the
objectives of the project are recognized throughout the study. These may include
commercial as well as technical constraints on the plant;
• Independent Process Engineer - provide expertise on the process design and intended
operation of the plant.
• Operations and/or Maintenance Engineer- experience of operating issues on similar
equipment.
• Instrument (Control Systems) Engineer - has a far wider involvement in the plant design
and operation than the other 'specialist' engineers.
• Process Safety Engineer - For many studies the process safety engineer is included in
2/18/2021
the core team.
114
PART-TIME MEMBERS
• Vendor's Representatives
• Machinery Specialists
• Civil/Structural Engineers
• Specialist Engineers (piping, instrumentation, electrical,
corrosion, etc)
2/18/2021
11
SCRIBE
• Typing
• Scribe and leader could be one person (not recommended)
• preferable to be process eng.: As he get hard copy of P&ID, design intent description,
open soft copy (layout, P&ID)
• hear from leader only
• Issue the draft report to the leader
• Remind the leader if forgot any guide word in any node
• Take side notes if required
• Help in nodes determination
• Prepare software
• Prepare documents
• Prepare TOR
HAZOP SOFTWARE
• SDS
• Process Flow Diagrams (PFD)
• Plot layout
• Process description including all operating cases
• Safety philosophy OPTIONAL
• operating procedures
• the reports of earlier hazard studies
• 11 operating range (envelope)
intended
PHA Techniques
2/18/2021 120
HAZOP Guidewords (IEC 61882)
PARAMETER GUIDEWORD EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL CAUSES
Flow No/Less Closed block valve, XXV or control valve fails closed, blocked filters, blocked outlets
from vessels, HP/LP interfaces, equipment failure (sparing), hydrate/wax blockages,
ice (low points and dead legs) diverted flow, turndown.
More Control valve fails open, blowby, HP/LP interfaces, added flow.
Reverse/ Misdirected Compressors or pumps stop, suction design pressure, HP/LP interfaces, low
upstream pressure, high downstream pressure.
Pressure High Fire, blocked in volume (piping/solar radiation, heaters/heating medium), high P
across XXV’s, high P across control valves.
Low Blowdown, low pressure trips (start-up overrides), de-pressuring/re-pressuring
before/after maintenance.
Temperature High Compressor discharge, blocked pump discharge, blocked in volume (piping/solar
radiation, heaters/heating medium), high flaring rates (including radiation effects),
steam.
Low High P across control valves, blowdown temperatures, low climatic
temperatures/freezing.
Level High Blocked liquid outlet (gas and liquid relief).
Low Low points, blocked bridles, draining.
121
HAZOP Guidewords (IEC 61882) - Continued
PARAMETER GUIDEWORD EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL CAUSES
Composition Change Water, CO2, H2S, sand
Corrosion More Under insulation, low points, acid gases, water
Erosion More Flowlines, velocities, high P across control valves, sand
Services Failure Air, hydraulics, electrical power, control valves, XXV’s, motors.
Start-up and Problems and High P across XXV’s, low temperatures across control valves, gas source availability,
Shutdown Requirements ESD, trips.
Maintenance and Problems and High operating pressures, double block and bleed valves, single block valves, leak
Inspection Requirements testing, de-pressuring, draining, purging, man-entry/spading, location of check valves,
location of purge points, re-pressuring.
Environmental Leaking valves, power consumption.
Other Any other issues or concerns.
122
HAZOP WORKSHOP
2/18/2021 123
SIL Selection and Verification Process
HAZOP
SIFs Identification
SIL Determination
SIL Verification
Cause 1
Cause 2
Fault/Failure
Cause 3 or top event
Cause 4
Cause 5
FTA
• used to determine the probability of occurrence for an
undesirable event.
2/18/2021
130
FTA
Why FTA is Carried Out?
2/18/2021
131
FTA
AND GATE
X X
FTA
OR GATE
+
Event Tree Analysis (ETA)
Can be fully quantified:
Useful for MAH assessment
• Top down approach, Start with the initiating or top event
(disaster).
• Draw a “tree”.
• For each mitigating control (component) draw potential success or
failure as a “branch”.
• Determine the probability of a “safe” outcome.
Used to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures that will
operate after the event
ETA
Outcome1
Safe/danger
Outcome 2
Fault/Failure Outcome 3
or top event
Outcome 4
Outcome 5
Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)
PHA tools or techniques
Qualitative Quantitative (FERA)
• HAZID * Flare radiation and vent dispersion analysis
• HAZOP * FTA (SIL Verification)
• what-if/checklist * ETA (probability analysis)
• checklist analysis * Modelling (consequence analysis)
• what-if analysis
• FMEA
Semi-Quantitative
# FMECA
# LOPA (SIL assessment)
FMEA vs FMECA
A FMEA becomes a FMECA (Failure Modes and Effects and
Criticality Analysis) when a Criticality Ranking is included for
each failure mode and effect.
2/18/2021 138
What can FMECA be used for?
Is an Engineering analysis
• Thoroughly Analyzes product Designs or Manufacturing
processes.
• Early in the product development process.
• Finds and corrects weaknesses before the product gets into
the hands of the customer.
2/18/2021 139
FMEA
• For PHA purposes, usually it is conducted at the Equipment
level, e.g., valves, pumps, lines, etc.
• For RCM purposes, usually it is conducted at the equipment
Component level, e.g., motor, shaft, impeller, casing, seal,
bearings, etc. for a pump, ensuring product operation is safe
and reliable with good interfaces between adjacent
components.
2/18/2021 140
What can FMECA be used for?
Failure Mode
Failure Causes
Consider Safegaurds
FMEA
Effect
the consequence of the failure on the system or end user.
2/18/2021 145
FMEA
Controls
“Controls” are the methods or actions currently planned, or are
already in place, to reduce or eliminate the risk associated with
each potential cause.
• Controls can be the methods to Prevent or Detect the cause
during product development, or actions to detect a problem
during service Before it becomes catastrophic.
2/18/2021 146
Detection rating
1 Detected by self test.
2 Easily detected by standards visual inspection or ATE.
3 Symptom can be detected. The technician would know exactly what the source of the
failure is.
4 Symptom can be detected at test bench. There are more than 2-4 possible candidates
for the technician to find out the sources of failure mode.
5 Symptom can be detected at test bench. There are more than 5-10 possible candidates
for the technician to find out the sources of failure mode.
6 Symptom can be detected at test bench. There are more than 10 possible candidates
for the technician to find out the sources of failure mode.
7 The symptom can be detected, and it required considerable engineering
knowledge/resource to determine the source / cause.
8 The symptom can be detected by the design control, but no way to determine the
source / cause of failure mode.
9 Very Remote. Very remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential
cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode. Theoretically the defect can be
detected, but high chance would be ignored by the operators.
10 Absolute uncertainty. Design Control will not and /or cannot detect a potential
cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode; or there is no Design Control.
FMECA/ pressure switch
FMECA/ Tank level switch high
High
level
Sensor
trips
inlet
feed
Hierarchy of Control Barriers
• According to sequence
• According to type or form
• According to 3 Ps
Mitigation
Active vs Passive
• Active is a device or system that changes from one state into
another in response to a change in process activity. For example,
a pressure relief device is an active IPL (Independent Protection
Layer).
• Passive can achieve its risk reducing function without the
requirement to take any action or change the state of the system.
For example, Tank Dikes (Berm Wall).
Hierarchy of Control Barriers According to
sequence
Loss
EER
F&G
LAYERS OF PROTECTION
The LOPA “Onion”
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE
operation.
PREVENTION
• The failure of one layer Safety Critical Process Alarms
Process Design
• Cheaper, safer plants, or wealth and safety at work: (1984) IChemE
• Improving Chemical Engineering Practices: (1989)
• Critical Aspects of Safety and Loss Prevention (1990)
• Plant Design for Safety – a user-friendly approach (1991)
• Lessons from Disaster – How Organisations Have No Memory and
Accidents Recur (1993) IChemE
• Learning from Accidents (1994/2001)
• Dispelling Chemical Engineering Myths (1996)
• Process Plants – a handbook for inherently safer design (1998)
• What Went Wrong? Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters (1998)
• Still Going Wrong: Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters and How They Could Have Been
Avoided (2003)
• Hazop and Hazan 4th ed (1999)
• By Accident… a Life Preventing them in industry (2000)
• An Engineer's View of Human Error 3rd ed (2001) IChemE,
• What Went Wrong?: Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters and How They Could Have Been
Avoided 5th ed (2009) Butterworth-Heinemann/IChemE
• Trevor Kletz, Paul Chung, Eamon Broomfield and Chaim Shen-Orr (1995) Computer Control and
Human Error IChemE,
• Inherently Safer Design 2nd ed, 2010
Hierarchy of Risk Controls – Trevor Kletz
Inherent safety
Build safety in at design stage.
Elimination
Remove a hazard, minimise inventories.
Substitution
Lower hazard alternative.
Engineering controls
Segregation/spacing of process plant.
Administrative controls
Procedural/behavioural.
Could a better design have helped?
How could a
better design Would it be possible
have avoided to eliminate the
this disaster hazard altogether?
or reduce its
impact?
• Position risers inside jacket structure
• Location of boat landing on lee side of
platform
• Larger separation distance between platforms
• Consider subsea isolation valves to reduce
hydrocarbon inventory during release
• Relocation and fire proofing of risers to
prevent escalation
• Improved availability of evacuation means
Inherently safer design – what is it?
• The intent of inherently safer design is to eliminate a hazard
completely or reduce its magnitude significantly
• Thereby eliminating / reducing the need for safety systems
(‘engineered controls’) and procedures (‘administrative
controls’)
• This hazard elimination or reduction would be accomplished
by means that were inherent in the design and process and
thus permanent and inseparable from them
EMSMS
Paste not
powder
Stages of safety
Appraise Select Define Execute Operate
Effectiveness in Risk
Reduction
Inherent Safety
Engineered
Safety
Procedural
Safety
Safety
instrumentation
system (SIS)
The system for connections and
equipment that operates
automatically the process
controls, for example valves that
maintain the process in the SOE.
loss of the safety envelope can be detected
by:
• product out of specification;
• Product quantity;
• feedstock raw material consumption;
WHAT IS OPERATING PROCEDURES
• No outcome.
• Major disaster.
ALARMS
Importance of responding to alarms
• Operators should be trained, confident to take the
required actions in the event of an alarm activating
• Should reduce unplanned downtime, increase levels of
process safety, improve operator effectiveness and
process performance
Alarms
• Assist the operator to identify abnormal, hazardous and
unsafe plant conditions.
• Operators must be able to identify, understand and respond
to alarms appropriately.
Permit-to-work
system
A formal, documented procedure that
forms part of a safe system of work. It is
commonly used for high-risk work and it
documents measures to reduce risks, such
as isolations. It is used to ensure that the
correct precautions are in place and that
all those who need to know about the
work are informed.
Purpose of PTW
• part of SSOW.
• Used in high-risk activities. !
• Communicates hazards and controls to user.
• Links to:
‒ risk assessment and task/JSA (used to identify hazards
and plan precautions);
‒ method statement (procedures).
Key features of a PTW
• Assesses and controls interfaces with adjacent plant and
workers (SIMOPS). !
• Usually contains:
‒ scope of work (job, equipment, location)
‒ duration of work (date and time the permit validity);
‒ identification of hazards (RA);
‒ isolations (LOTO);
‒ links to other permits;
‒ Controls (PPE), emergency controls and specific controls (gas test);
‒ permit acceptance and cancellations.
‒ clearance/return to service
Interfaces with adjacent plant/ SIMOPS
continue
Electronic PTW
Competence
• Workers carrying out shift handovers must:
- have the right level of technical knowledge, expertise;
- be able to communicate effectively.
Shift handover requirements
Shift handover must be:
• given the highest priority;
• conducted face to face;
• using accurate verbal and written communication (handover log);
• based on information needs of incoming staff (eg. sprinkler system
was not working or critical spares shortage);
• given as much time as necessary.
Information shared at shift handover
• operational status;
• emergency situations or incidents;
• Safety issues (safety system not operating/bypassed);
• maintenance activities underway/planned;
• PTW details, especially those still open;
• operational issues for the incoming shift (eg production
plans);
• planned receipt of hazardous material;
• any drills or exercises planned;
• physical demonstration of plant state (Piper alpha)
Pillar 3: MANAGE RISK
E8 Operating procedures.
E9 Safe Work Practices.
E10 Asset Integrity & Reliability.
E11 Contractor Management.
E12 Training.
E13 Management Of Change.
E14 Operational Readiness.
E15 Conduct Of Operation
E16 Emergency Management.
Key terms
ATEX
ATMOSPHERE EXPLOSION
hazard location Suitable equipment
(area classification)
Selection of equipment for the operating
environment
should Consider :
• flammable atmospheres (vapour or dust) ATEX .
• wet conditions;
• harsh environments (eg salty atmospheres); Indoor &
• corrosive chemicals. outdoor
Asset integrity through the lifecycle
Phases
1. Design
4. Operations
Safety and integrity.!
Operate within design intent;
2. Procurement, installation and maintenance and inspection.!!!!
testing 5. Modifications
Build completed correctly, FAT. !! Planned and assessed first.!!!!!
3. Commissioning 6. Decommissioning
standards checked and signed off, Safe removal from operations.!!!!!!
SAT.!!!
Maintenance documentation
• Condition monitoring.!
Continue
Reasons for performance standards
Performance
standards (PS) FARSI
A model for
an agreed standards against performance
which actual performance is standards,
measured. Various models are
stand for
used for setting performance
standards eg, ‘FARSI’ model.
SCE Functionality
• what task is suppose to do – to what
standards – how performance can be
measured
• eg fire fighting system functionality: the
required water flow rate to extinguish
flammable events through cooling and
smothering fires.
SCE Availability
• The time the SCE is available to perform
under the expected conditions
Eg.
• After completion:
‒ review performance, including accident history.
Handover plant, equipment and building
from contractor to client
• Information handed over includes:
‒ as-built drawings.
‒ operation and maintenance manuals;
‒ layout plans, including location of services;
‒ design specifications;
Siting of contractor accommodation
Siting of contractor accommodation
Process operators should evaluate all newly sited structures
under MOC and include in the PHA.
Temporary accommodation
should be based on exclusion
zones for areas where explosions
are possible.
All occupied trailers should be
located outside of vulnerable
areas.
Pillar 3: MANAGE RISK
E8 Operating procedures.
E9 Safe Work Practices.
E10 Asset Integrity & Reliability.
E11 Contractor Management.
E12 Training & Performance Assurance.
E13 Management Of Change.
E14 Operational Readiness.
E15 Conduct Of Operation
E16 Emergency Management.
Training & Performance Assurance
• Each employee involved in operation must be trained in
process and operating procedures.
• Training on safety and health hazards of the process,
emergency operations including shutdown, and safe
work practices that apply to the employee's job tasks.
2/18/2021 236
Refresher Training
• Refresher training shall be provided at least every three
years, and more often if necessary, to each employee
involved in operating a process to assure that the
employee understands and adheres to the current
operating procedures of the process.
• Training Documentation
2/18/2021 237
PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE
• Poor Change Control is the major cause in over 20% of major process
incidents, and a contributing cause to many more
• Catastrophic MOC incidents:
– 1974 Flixborough (Nypro): 28 deaths
– 1984 Bhopal India (Union Carbide): +22000 deaths
– 1989 Pasadena Texas (Phillips Petroleum): 23 deaths and 132 injuries
– 1990 Cincinnati Ohio (BASF): 2 deaths
– 2000 Mina Ahmadi Refinery (KNPC): 5 deaths
– 2005 Texas City Refinery (BP): 15 fatalities (all contractors) and
170 injuries
Management Of Change !
Management of change (MOC)
a management control approach to make sure that proposed changes are
properly addressed and authorised to avoid a large potential consequences .
2/18/2021 243
Temporary Changes
Limited
Not intended to be permanent
Consider time limit
Include operational test
Emergency Change
• Responsible to confirm
– Basis for change (standards, codes)
– Hazards are controlled to ALARP
– Safeguards & design input
– Scope of training for affected personnel
Pillar 3: MANAGE RISK
E8 Operating procedures.
E9 Safe Work Practices.
E10 Asset Integrity & Reliability.
E11 Contractor Management.
E12 Training & Performance Assurance.
E13 Management Of Change.
E14 Operational Readiness.
E15 Conduct Of Operation
E16 Emergency Management.
focuses on ensuring the safe start-up of processes. This element
addresses startups from all types of shut down conditions and
considers the shut down duration.
• Heaters drying.
• Verification of mechanical completion (Vessel internals)
• Communications
• Required training
• Safety, operating, maintenance, and emergency procedures
are in place and are adequate;
2/18/2021 255
Pre-Start Up Safety Review (PSSR)
The reactor and the pipe which ruptured were believed to have
reached a temperature greater than 1400ºF.
Accident 1
1 fatality and 46 injuries
Previous temperature deviations had occurred, but the system
had not been shut down.
Last barrier
Development of an emergency plan
• Sometimes a legal requirement (eg MAPP).
• Identify foreseeable scenarios (hazard) and response (control).
• Select people (on-site and off-site) to develop the plan in steps.
• Determine resources needed (roles, responsibilities).
• Evaluate external emergency response. !
• Consider on-site and off-site medical response.
• Identify if an off-site plan is needed. !!
emergency plan
Foreseeable emergencies
Off-site !
• Regulators.
• Local authorities and councils.
• Water companies and authorities.
• Utility companies.
• Emergency services including the police and fire service.
Required Resources examples!
• Emergency control room ECC.
• First aid equipment.
• AED and evacuation chair.
• Spill and release response kits.
• Telephone and radios.
• Site maps and drain plans.
• SDS.
• Computer and printer.
• F&G system
• Medical system
• Drawings
• alarm system,
• emergency lighting
Availability of external emergency
response (including medical)
• in case of :
‒ isolated location;
‒ long response times.
‒ special hazards, eg chemicals
So may need:
- Adequate on-site emergency first aid.
- Advanced trauma care
- Rescue team with BA
On-site and off-site plans
• Trainer-led exercise.
• Many scenarios can carried out in accelerated time.
• Discuss possible actions as per roles.
• Respond ‘in theory’.
• Identify gaps or deficiencies.
Practical testing of response
• Fire/emergency evacuation drill:
‒ trigger alarm;
‒ test workers and response team, roll-call and fire
wardens.
• Response team drill:
‒ practical false scenarios; e.g. tanker spillage
‒ led by trainer;
‒ test actual response; e.g. wear BA
‒ Improve skills and confidence
• Full-site response drill: !
‒ full-site evacuation and test.
Process Safety Competency of response
team and commanders
• Incident commanders need:
• leadership experience under pressure;
• knowledge of plant; !
• good communications skills. !!
• Response team members:
• Site experience.
• practical skills:
‒ first aid, fire-fighting, rescue, BA, etc.
Incident command system ICS
organization Chart
Provision of information to the public !
Serious
Causes of chemical process incidents
1. Management system failures After 1980
2. Technology failures
Before 1980
3. Human failures
4. External circumstances and natural phenomena
Immediate and root causes
PSI (KPI, KLI): Checks to determine how well the site is managing PS.
Leading and lagging PSI
http://www.aiche.org/sites/default/files/docs/pages/leading-indicator-
survey_0.pdf
Pillar 4: LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE
A systematic, proactive,
objective, critical evaluation of
how well an organisation’s PSM
elements are performing against
identified standards by examining
evidence.
Auditing compliance
What is the 1st thing you will consider
while planning for the new year?
Audits:
• To comply with external certification
bodies (OSHA PSM, EPA RMP, CCPS) and
internal best practice or HSE system;
• check controls are in place and working;
• identify areas continual improvement.
• A report of audit findings shall be
developed to the management
Audit Frequency
Done by the top management against standards (e.g. OSHA PSM) to ensure
its effectiveness and take strategic decisions to fill the gap between day-to-
day work activities and periodic formal audits and assessing opportunities for
improvement and the need for changes to the PSM System, including the
policy and objectives.