SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  52
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
Introduction to Process
        Safety
Introduction to Process
        Safety




        Topic 1.

     In Memories…
In Memories: Bhopal, 1984
• Release of Toxic Gas
  – 40 tons Methyl Isocynate escape from Union
    Carbide Plant
  – Immediate cause : 500L seepage
  – Erupts and release fumes
• Aftermath
  –   3000 died : respiratory failure
  –   Thousands more died in weeks that followed
  –   500,000 suffer
  –   USD470mil spent




                                                   3
In Memories : PEMEX, 1984




• Pemex is a liquid petroleum gas ( LPG) distribution plant.
• Pemex is located a few km. north of Mexico City (Pop = 16MM).
• Plant was 25 years old and built to 1950 API standards of the U.S.
• 15 of 48 Vessels BLEVE In Domino Fashion
• 550 people killed., 2,000 people receive severe burns, 7,231
  people classed as injured.
In Memories: Chernobyl, 1986




• 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor, Ukrain
• Large area of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus evacuated, 336,000
  people resettled.
• Fewer than 50 direct death but, thousands of cancer related
  cases
• Severe damage to the environment
In Memories: Piper Alpha, 1988

 World’s most famous oil rig
  disaster in North Sea 1988
 167 out of 229 people died
 initial explosion followed by a
  fierce fire which, in turn,
  triggered off a further series of
  explosions
 “Jump and try or fry and die.”
 Flames could be seen 100km
  away
 Cause of death 109 out of 137
  recovered bodies inhalation of
  smoke & fire. Few died of burns.

                                      6
In our backyards: Bright
Sparklers, 1991
• On 7 May 1991 at about 3.45 p.m.
  fire ignited from product testing
  activities.
• Fire spread, causing an explosion,
  which caused the rockets to fly
  everywhere, spreading the fire to
  other places and buildings
• The fire and explosion destroyed
  the entire factory.
• 23 people lost their lives and 103
  others sustained injuries
More Recent: BP Texas City Refinery (2005)




• Vapour Cloud Explosion
• March 23, 2005, killing 15 workers and injuring more
  than 170 others
•   On October 30, 2009 the OSHA imposed an $87 million fine on the
    company for failing to correct safety hazards revealed in the 2005
    explosion. The fine was the largest in OSHA's history, and BP announced
    that it would challenge the fine
More Recent: Imperial Sugar, Georgia, USA, (2008)




• February 7, 2008
• Sugar dust explosion
• 14 deaths and injuring 38 others, including 14
  with serious and life-threatening burns.
More Recent: Deepwater Horizon, USA (2010)




• Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically
  positioned submersible offshore oil drilling rig, owned
  by transocean, built by Hyundai, leased to BP
• April 20, 2010, blowout turned fireball, killed 11
• Sank on April 20. Oil gushing into the sea causing
  massive pollution
More Recent: Fukushima Daiichi, Japan (2011)




• March 11, 2011. Nuclear meltdown following
  earthquake and Tsunami
• 6 reactors designed by GE
• Full meltdown of reactor 1,2,3
• No immediate deaths due to direct radiation
• at least six workers exceeded lifetime legal limits for
  radiation
• more than 300 received significant radiation doses
• Impacted Japan’s Energy Policy
More Recent: Thai Petrochemical (2012)




• May 12, 2012
• Explosion when workers were cleaning chemical tank
  at a synthetic rubber plant
• 12 dead, more than 100 injured
More Recent: Iran Petrochemical (2012)




• Friday August 3, 2012
• Fire at Imam Khomeini Petrochemical Complex,
  Southwestern City Mahshahr
• At least 6 dead, dozens injured
• Gas Leak
In Our backyard: Petronas Gas (2012)




• Explosion at PETRONAS Plant in Paka
  – May 10, 2012, Gas Processing Plant, GPP3 area 2.
  – 2 dead 23 injured
• Suspected gas leak to storm water drain
In our backyard: Petronas Carigali (2012)




• Fire at Tukau B Drilling Platform, 31 nautical
  miles from Miri.
• June 12, 2012, 9.20 am
• 16 people were working, 5 injured (various
  degree of burn). Living quarters in Tukau A
In Our Backyard: MISC (2012)

• MV Bunga Alpinia 3, Ship carrying Ammonia in filling
  operations at Petronas Methanol, Labuan
• 26th July 2012, Early morning Explosion
• Source of ignition: suspect lightning strike during
  thunderstorm, 2.30 am.
• 29 crews, 5 dead (1 immediately found, 2 found dead
  the next day, 5th body found dead 30/7.)
So much for statistics !!!

What shall we do about it ???
Introduction to Process
        Safety




          Topic 2.

Hazard in Process Industries
Hazards in Process Industries

• There are Three Major Hazards: Fire,
  Explosion, Toxic Release
• Fire
  – Impacts on plant, people and environment
  – May also followed by toxic release
• Explosion
  – Same as fire but more severe
• Toxic Release
  – Impacts of people and environment. e.g. Bhopal
The Fire Triangle

2. Oxidizers* (the
                                            1. Fuels
   molecule contain
   oxygen atoms)                            • Liquids - gasoline,
                                               acetone, ether,
• Gases - oxygen,
                                               pentane;
   nitrous oxide (N2O)
                                            • Solids - plastics,
• Liquids - hydrogen
                                               wood dusts, fibers,
   peroxide (H2O2),
                                               metal particles,
   nitric acid (HNO3)
                                               flour;
• Solids - ammonium
                           Ignition         • Gases - acetylene,
   nitrate (NH4NO3).
                           Source              propane, carbon
                                               monoxide, H2


          3. Ignition Sources
          • Sparks, flames, static electricity, heat.
Distance of Effect Comparison

INVENTORY   UVCE   BLEVE   FIRE
   (tons)

    1       120      18           Distance
    2       150      36           in Meters
    5       200      60
   10       250      90      20
   20       310     130      30
   50       420     200      36
  100       530     280      50
  200       670     400      60
  500       900     600     100
  1000      1150    820     130
Pool Fire
•    Liquid spilled onto the ground
    spreads out to form a pool.
•    Volatile liquid (e.g. petrol)
    evaporate to atmosphere and
    soon form flammable mixture
    with air.
•    Upon ignition, a fire will burn
    over the pool.
•    The heat vaporizes more fuel
    and air is drawn in round to the
    side to support combustion.
•    Danger to people is by direct
    thermal radiation and burn.
Jet Fire




• High pressure release of gas from a vessel or pipeline ignites
  almost immediately.
• This give rises to a giant burner of flame length tens of meters.
• Danger from thermal radiation and also impingement on adjacent
  pressurized vessel, such as LPG vessel, heating the content
  followed by pressure build up causing ‘boiling liquid expanding
  vapor explosion’ (BLEVE).
• Sometimes called Torch Fire
Flash Fire




• Fire due to vapour cloud below explosive limit
• Resulting from spillage of relatively volatile (e.g.
  propane, butane, LPG) material due to rapid
  evaporation
• People at risk from thermal radiation effects.
• Usually unexpected event and short duration
Vapor Cloud Explosion




• Cloud will spread from too rich, through flammable range to too
  lean.
• Edges start to burn through deflagration (steady state
  combustion).
• Cloud will disperse through natural convection.
• Flame velocity will increase with containment and turbulence.
• If velocity is high enough cloud will detonate.
• If cloud is small enough with little confinement it cannot explode.
Factors Favoring Overpressures of Vapor Cloud

1. Confinement
  – Prevents combustion products escaping, giving higher local
    pressures even with deflagration.
  – Creates turbulence, a precursor for detonation.
2. Cloud composition
  – Highly unsaturated molecules are bad due to high flammable
    range, low ignition energy, high flame speed etc.
3. Weather
  – Stable atmospheres lead to large clouds.
  – Low wind speed encourages large clouds.
Factors Favoring Overpressures of Vapor Cloud

4. Vapor Cloud Size impacts on:
   – probability of finding ignition source
   – likelihood of generating any overpressure
   – magnitude of overpressure
5. Source
   – flashing liquids seem to give high overpressure
   – vapor systems need very large failures to cause UVCE
   – slow leaks give time for cloud to disperse naturally without
     finding an ignition source
   – high pressure gives premixing required for large combustion
   – equipment failures where leak is not vertically upwards
     increases likelihood of large cloud
Flixborough, England
•   Company: Flixborough Works of Nypro Limited.
•   June 1974.
•   Product: cyclohexane – highly flammable
•   6 reactors in series, total capacity 120 tons.
•   Fire and explosion – over than 10 days
•   28 people died & 36 others were injured.
•   53 civilians were reported injury
•   Damage: entire plant, 1821 nearby houses &
    167 shops and factories.




                                                     28
Phillips Pasadena, USA




•   23rd Oct. 1989, Vapour Cloud explosion
•   23 Deaths 130 Injuries, Loss US$ 500 Millions
BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour
              Explosion)

               •   When BLEVE is initiated, the
                   liquid boils off rapidly
                   producing a reaction which
                   turns parts of the ruptured
                   vessel into rockets which can
                   travel 2500 ft or more.
               •   The liquid can take fire if it is
                   flammable and burning
                   material can spread over a
                   large area. If the gas or
                   liquid mixes with air a vapour
                   cloud explosion can occur.
The Tragedy Of San Juanico,
         PEMEX, Mexico City, 19 Nov 84
                                       • Pemex is a liquid
                                         petroleum gas ( LPG)
                                         distribution plant.
                                       • Pemex is located a few
                                         km. north of Mexico
                                         City (Pop = 16MM).
                                       • Plant was 25 years old
                                         and built to 1950 API
                                         standards of the U.S.
                                       • LPG gas is used for
• 15 of 48 Vessels BLEVE in domino       heating and cooking in
  fashion                                almost every
• 550 people killed.                     household.
• 2,000 people receive severe burns.
• 7,231 people classed as injured.
Impact




Spherical Tank Failure (F4)
                              Cylindrical tank flew as missiles




     Bullet Tank Area               Nearby Houses
Dust Explosion
                                              Dust is suspended in
Combustible dust                               the air at a proper
                                                 concentration


                          CAUSES OF
                            DUST
                          EXPLOSION

                                                      There is an
                                                   oxidant (typically
    There is an                                      atmospheric
  ignition source                                      oxygen)
                             The dust is
                              confined


 *If any of these five conditions is missing there can be no dust
 explosion
Imperial Sugar Explosion




February 7, 2008 in Port Wenworth, Georgia, USA. 13 people killed and 42 injured
Hazard from Toxic Substances
• Source of Toxicants
  – Toxic Release
  – Fire and Explosion leading to release of toxicants
• Route of Entry
  – Injection: through cuts or hypodermic needles into the
    skin, usually cause highest blood level concentration.
  – Inhalation: through mouth/nose into the lungs
  – Ingestion: through mouth into stomach and gastrointestinal
    tract,
  – Dermal (Skin) absorption: through skin membrane




                                                             35
Toxicants
• Agents
  – Chemicals: organic solvent, pesticides, lead etc
  – Physical (dusts, fibers, noise, and radiation) agents,
    e.g. Asbestos
  – Carcinogenic, terratogenic, mutagenic
• Toxicity is a property of toxicant that describe
  its effect on biological organism.
  – Very Toxic > Toxic > Harmful
• Toxic Effect
  – Reversible vs irreversible
  – Acute Vs Chronic
  – Local Vs Systemic
The Bhopal Tragedy
•   40 tons Methyl Isocynate escape
•   Immediate cause : 500L seepage
•   Erupts and release fumes
•   3000 died : respiratory failure
•   500,000 suffer aftermath
• USD470mil spent




                                      37
Introduction to Process
        Safety




        Topic 3.

  RISK & RISK RANKING
Definition of Risk

Risk = Severity x Likelihood
 Severity
• Probability of Fatality
• Monetory Losses
• Environmental Impact

Likelihood
• Chance of failure
• Probability


                               39
Risk is expressed in as Rating
• Rating is typically
  – simple to use and understand
  – Not require extensive knowledge to use
  – Have consistent likelihood ranges that cover the full
    spectrum of potential scenarios

• In applying risk assessment
  – Clear guidance on applicability is provided
  – Detailed descriptions of the consequences of
    concern for each consequence range should be
    described
  – Have clearly defined tolerable and intolerable risk
    levels


                                                          40
Example of a Severity Range
Description    Category Environmental, Safety and Health Result Criteria
Catastrophic       I     • Death, permanent total disability
                         • Loss of exceeding $1M
                         • Irreversible severe environmental damage that violates law
                         or regulation
Critical          II     • Permanent partial disability, injuries or occupational illness
                         that may result in hospitalization of at least 3 personnel
                         •Loss exceeding $200K but less than $1M
                         •Reversible environmental damage causing a violation of law
                         or regulation
Marginal          III    •Injury or occupational illness resulting in one or more loss of
                         workdays
                         •Loss exceeding $10K but less than $200K
                         •Mitigatible environmental damage without violation of law
                         or regulation where restoration activities can be
                         accomplished
Negligible        IV     Injury or illness not resulting in a lost work day
                         Loss exceeding $2K but less than $10K
                         Minimal environmental damage not violating law or
                         regulation                                                    41
Example of Likelihood Ranges
Description   Level Specific Individual Item                        Fleet or Inventory
Frequent      A      Likely to occur than 10-1 in that life         Continuously
                                                                    experienced
Probable      B      Will occur several times in the life on an     Will occur frequently
                     item, with probability of occurrence less
                     than 10-2 but greater than 10-3 in that life

Occasional    C      Likely to occur some time in the life of an Will occur several
                     item, with a probability of occurrence      times
                     less than 10-2 but greater than 10-3 in
                     that life
Remote        D      Unlikely but possible to occur in the life     Unlikely but can be
                     of an item with a probability of               reasonably expected
                     occurrence less than 10-3 but greater          to occur
                     than 10-6 in that life

Improbable           So unlikely, it can be assumed occurrence Unlikely but possible
                     may not be experienced, with a
                     probability of occurrence less than 10-6                     42
Example Risk Ranking Categories
Risk Rank      Category                  Description

    I       Unacceptable    Should be mitigated with engineering
                            and/or administrative controls to a
                            risk ranking of III or less within a
                            specified period such as 6 months
   II       Undesirable     Should be mitigated with engineering
                            and/or administrative controls to a
                            risk ranking of III or less within a
                            specified period such as 12 months
   III      Acceptable      Should be verified that procedures or
            with Controls   controls are in place
   IV       Acceptable as is No mitigation required
                                                              43
Sometimes presented as Risk Matrix

Risk = Probability of occurrence x Consequence of occurrence




                                                           44
Guidelines for Risk Mitigation

Risk Level                  Action Required

    A         Risk Mitigation required to risk level C or D

    B         Risk Mitigation required to risk level C or D

    C          Risk Mitigation to risk level D is optional

    D            No further Risk Mitigation required




                                                              45
Can we accept risks

• Risk cannot be eliminated entirely.
• Every chemical process has a certain amount of
  risk associated with it.
• At some point in the design stage someone needs
  to decide if the risks are “tolerable".
• Each country has it owns tolerability criteria.
• One tolerability criteria in the UK is "as low as
  reasonable practicable" (ALARP) concept
  formalized in 1974 by United Kingdom Health and
  Safety at Work Act.

                                                    Page 46
A risk is Acceptable When:
• it falls below an arbitrary defined probability
• it falls below some level that is already tolerated
• it falls below an arbitrary defined attributable fraction of total
  disease burden in the community
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved when
  the ‘costs of suffering’ are also factored in
• the opportunity costs would be better spent on other, more
  pressing, public health problems
• public health professionals say it is acceptable
• the general public say it is acceptable (or more likely, do not say it
  is not)
• politicians say it is acceptable.
Acceptable Risks
• 1 in 1000 as the ‘just about tolerable risk’ for any
  substantial category of workers for any large part of a
  working life.
   – Same as dying due to road traffic accidents (1998)
• 1 in 10,000 as the ‘maximum tolerable risk’ for
  members of the public from any single non-nuclear
  plant.
• 1 in 100,000 as the ‘maximum tolerable risk’ for
  members of the public from any new nuclear power
  station.
• 1 in 1,000,000 as the level of ‘acceptable risk’ at which
  no further improvements in safety need to be made.
   – Same as the chance of being electrocuted at home
The Magic Number !




1 x 10        -6
ALARP Criteria
INTOLERABLE REGION
(Risk cannot be justified
on any ground)
1 X 10-3
                                     TOLERABLE only if risk reduction
                                     is impracticable, or its costs is
ALARP REGION (Risk is                grossly disproportionate to the
undertaken if benefit is             improvement gained.
desired)
                                     TOLERABLE if cost of
                                     reduction would exceed the
1 X 10-6                             improvement gained



  BROADLY ACCEPTABLE
  REGION

                                                                  Page 50
Reasonably Practicable




“Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than “physically possible” and
implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is
placed in one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble,
involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other;
and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the
risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the
duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not
reasonably practicable”
                                    Edward Vs National Coal Board [1949]
Conclusion

• Yes, we need to do something…
• The issue is how to make the plant safe for the
  workers and the surrounding community and
  environmentally benign?????

Contenu connexe

Tendances (20)

transportation of hazardous substances nm
transportation of hazardous substances nmtransportation of hazardous substances nm
transportation of hazardous substances nm
 
Chemical handling.ppt
Chemical handling.pptChemical handling.ppt
Chemical handling.ppt
 
Confined Space Ppt
Confined Space PptConfined Space Ppt
Confined Space Ppt
 
Bleve
BleveBleve
Bleve
 
Bleve
BleveBleve
Bleve
 
On site and offsite emergency plans on chemical
On site and offsite emergency plans on chemicalOn site and offsite emergency plans on chemical
On site and offsite emergency plans on chemical
 
Classification of hazardous area for lighting
Classification of hazardous area   for lightingClassification of hazardous area   for lighting
Classification of hazardous area for lighting
 
Gas Tester Training
Gas Tester TrainingGas Tester Training
Gas Tester Training
 
Hazardous Chemical handling
Hazardous Chemical handlingHazardous Chemical handling
Hazardous Chemical handling
 
A real-world introduction to PSM’s 14 Elements
A real-world introduction to PSM’s 14 ElementsA real-world introduction to PSM’s 14 Elements
A real-world introduction to PSM’s 14 Elements
 
Chemcial handling
 Chemcial handling Chemcial handling
Chemcial handling
 
Fire & safety
Fire & safetyFire & safety
Fire & safety
 
Hazop Study
Hazop StudyHazop Study
Hazop Study
 
Chemical safety
Chemical safety  Chemical safety
Chemical safety
 
Process Safety Management
Process Safety ManagementProcess Safety Management
Process Safety Management
 
Hazardous chemicals handling
Hazardous chemicals handlingHazardous chemicals handling
Hazardous chemicals handling
 
Basic fire warden
Basic fire wardenBasic fire warden
Basic fire warden
 
Fire Safety Dip. OSH
Fire Safety Dip. OSHFire Safety Dip. OSH
Fire Safety Dip. OSH
 
Hazardous Area Classification
Hazardous Area ClassificationHazardous Area Classification
Hazardous Area Classification
 
BREATHING APPARATUS
BREATHING APPARATUSBREATHING APPARATUS
BREATHING APPARATUS
 

En vedette

Process Safety Kpi
Process Safety KpiProcess Safety Kpi
Process Safety KpiArthurGroot
 
Process Safety Management System
Process Safety Management SystemProcess Safety Management System
Process Safety Management SystemACM Facility Safety
 
Process Safety Management in Design, Construction & Commissioning | Lalit K...
Process Safety Management in Design, Construction &  Commissioning | Lalit  K...Process Safety Management in Design, Construction &  Commissioning | Lalit  K...
Process Safety Management in Design, Construction & Commissioning | Lalit K...Cairn India Limited
 
The mexico city explosion of 1984
The mexico city explosion of 1984The mexico city explosion of 1984
The mexico city explosion of 1984Mohit Nayal
 
Bow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk Management
Bow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk ManagementBow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk Management
Bow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk ManagementArthurGroot
 
Bow tie Analysis
Bow tie AnalysisBow tie Analysis
Bow tie AnalysisJaafar Mohd
 
The bow tie method
The bow tie methodThe bow tie method
The bow tie methodJohn Baker
 
Bow tie concepts training solutions
Bow tie concepts training solutionsBow tie concepts training solutions
Bow tie concepts training solutionsJ.K.M Nair
 
Bow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value Creation
Bow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value CreationBow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value Creation
Bow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value CreationDaud' O. Shittu
 
Bowties - a visual view of risk
Bowties - a visual view of riskBowties - a visual view of risk
Bowties - a visual view of riskPaul McCulloch
 
Process Safety Competency rev 5
Process Safety Competency rev 5Process Safety Competency rev 5
Process Safety Competency rev 5Gerald Burch
 
Industrial hazards and safety measures
Industrial hazards and safety measuresIndustrial hazards and safety measures
Industrial hazards and safety measuresBiocon ltd
 
OSHA PSM Regulations
OSHA PSM RegulationsOSHA PSM Regulations
OSHA PSM Regulationssanjeev saraf
 
What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?
What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?
What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?Amor Group
 
Explosion Protection in the Food Industry
Explosion Protection in the Food IndustryExplosion Protection in the Food Industry
Explosion Protection in the Food IndustryTeresa Long
 
Phillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy Presentaiton
Phillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy PresentaitonPhillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy Presentaiton
Phillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy PresentaitonBrandon Thomson
 

En vedette (20)

Process Safety Kpi
Process Safety KpiProcess Safety Kpi
Process Safety Kpi
 
Process Safety Management System
Process Safety Management SystemProcess Safety Management System
Process Safety Management System
 
Process Safety Management in Design, Construction & Commissioning | Lalit K...
Process Safety Management in Design, Construction &  Commissioning | Lalit  K...Process Safety Management in Design, Construction &  Commissioning | Lalit  K...
Process Safety Management in Design, Construction & Commissioning | Lalit K...
 
The mexico city explosion of 1984
The mexico city explosion of 1984The mexico city explosion of 1984
The mexico city explosion of 1984
 
Bow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk Management
Bow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk ManagementBow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk Management
Bow Tie methodology for Operational Safety & Risk Management
 
Bow tie Analysis
Bow tie AnalysisBow tie Analysis
Bow tie Analysis
 
The bow tie method
The bow tie methodThe bow tie method
The bow tie method
 
PERUMIN 31: Bow-tie Risk Analysis
PERUMIN 31: Bow-tie Risk AnalysisPERUMIN 31: Bow-tie Risk Analysis
PERUMIN 31: Bow-tie Risk Analysis
 
Bow tie concepts training solutions
Bow tie concepts training solutionsBow tie concepts training solutions
Bow tie concepts training solutions
 
Bow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value Creation
Bow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value CreationBow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value Creation
Bow Tie Analysis; A tool for Risk Management and Value Creation
 
Bowties - a visual view of risk
Bowties - a visual view of riskBowties - a visual view of risk
Bowties - a visual view of risk
 
Process Safety Competency rev 5
Process Safety Competency rev 5Process Safety Competency rev 5
Process Safety Competency rev 5
 
Machinery safety inspection
Machinery safety inspectionMachinery safety inspection
Machinery safety inspection
 
Industrial hazards and safety measures
Industrial hazards and safety measuresIndustrial hazards and safety measures
Industrial hazards and safety measures
 
OSHA PSM Regulations
OSHA PSM RegulationsOSHA PSM Regulations
OSHA PSM Regulations
 
Ech 5511 ergonomic control
Ech 5511 ergonomic controlEch 5511 ergonomic control
Ech 5511 ergonomic control
 
What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?
What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?
What if Process Safety risks were as visible as Health and Safety Risks?
 
Process safety management system
Process safety management systemProcess safety management system
Process safety management system
 
Explosion Protection in the Food Industry
Explosion Protection in the Food IndustryExplosion Protection in the Food Industry
Explosion Protection in the Food Industry
 
Phillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy Presentaiton
Phillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy PresentaitonPhillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy Presentaiton
Phillips 66 Business Policy & Strategy Presentaiton
 

Similaire à Introduction to Process Safety Hazards and Disasters

DES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copy
DES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copyDES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copy
DES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copyandy tegart
 
gas pollution by Coal natural fire
gas pollution by Coal natural fire gas pollution by Coal natural fire
gas pollution by Coal natural fire Rohan Wankhede
 
3. global effect of air pollution
3. global effect of air pollution3. global effect of air pollution
3. global effect of air pollutionKæsy Chaudhari
 
Global warming ppt
Global warming pptGlobal warming ppt
Global warming pptqudsia bano
 
Ch 15.1 part 1 for online
Ch 15.1 part 1 for onlineCh 15.1 part 1 for online
Ch 15.1 part 1 for onlineGonzalezHFS
 
Itft ecological balance
Itft ecological balanceItft ecological balance
Itft ecological balanceitft
 
Ch 13 nuclear energy
Ch 13 nuclear energyCh 13 nuclear energy
Ch 13 nuclear energyTadviDevarshi
 
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptxChernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptxClavitaRods
 
Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]
Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]
Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]Abhishek Kumar Pandey
 
Chernobyl_Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl_Disaster.pptxChernobyl_Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl_Disaster.pptxssuser29c482
 
Facts behind Chernobyl
Facts behind ChernobylFacts behind Chernobyl
Facts behind ChernobylGreg Lipka
 
CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE
CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE
CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE Gaurav Ghankhede
 
Global warming & Various Aspects
Global warming & Various AspectsGlobal warming & Various Aspects
Global warming & Various AspectsAbhishek Mahajan
 

Similaire à Introduction to Process Safety Hazards and Disasters (20)

DES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copy
DES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copyDES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copy
DES - Coal Fire Presentation[1] copy
 
Chemace
ChemaceChemace
Chemace
 
Combustible Dust
Combustible DustCombustible Dust
Combustible Dust
 
Bubble Power
Bubble PowerBubble Power
Bubble Power
 
Chemical Disaster.pptx
Chemical Disaster.pptxChemical Disaster.pptx
Chemical Disaster.pptx
 
gas pollution by Coal natural fire
gas pollution by Coal natural fire gas pollution by Coal natural fire
gas pollution by Coal natural fire
 
Chemace
ChemaceChemace
Chemace
 
Chemace
ChemaceChemace
Chemace
 
3. global effect of air pollution
3. global effect of air pollution3. global effect of air pollution
3. global effect of air pollution
 
Global warming ppt
Global warming pptGlobal warming ppt
Global warming ppt
 
Ch 15.1 part 1 for online
Ch 15.1 part 1 for onlineCh 15.1 part 1 for online
Ch 15.1 part 1 for online
 
Itft ecological balance
Itft ecological balanceItft ecological balance
Itft ecological balance
 
Ch 13 nuclear energy
Ch 13 nuclear energyCh 13 nuclear energy
Ch 13 nuclear energy
 
Nuclear disasters
Nuclear disastersNuclear disasters
Nuclear disasters
 
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptxChernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.pptx
 
Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]
Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]
Coal seam fire and spontaneous heating [recovered]
 
Chernobyl_Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl_Disaster.pptxChernobyl_Disaster.pptx
Chernobyl_Disaster.pptx
 
Facts behind Chernobyl
Facts behind ChernobylFacts behind Chernobyl
Facts behind Chernobyl
 
CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE
CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE
CLASS 8 NCERT CHAPTER 6 COMBUSTION AND FLAME BY GAURAV GHANKHEDE
 
Global warming & Various Aspects
Global warming & Various AspectsGlobal warming & Various Aspects
Global warming & Various Aspects
 

Introduction to Process Safety Hazards and Disasters

  • 2. Introduction to Process Safety Topic 1. In Memories…
  • 3. In Memories: Bhopal, 1984 • Release of Toxic Gas – 40 tons Methyl Isocynate escape from Union Carbide Plant – Immediate cause : 500L seepage – Erupts and release fumes • Aftermath – 3000 died : respiratory failure – Thousands more died in weeks that followed – 500,000 suffer – USD470mil spent 3
  • 4. In Memories : PEMEX, 1984 • Pemex is a liquid petroleum gas ( LPG) distribution plant. • Pemex is located a few km. north of Mexico City (Pop = 16MM). • Plant was 25 years old and built to 1950 API standards of the U.S. • 15 of 48 Vessels BLEVE In Domino Fashion • 550 people killed., 2,000 people receive severe burns, 7,231 people classed as injured.
  • 5. In Memories: Chernobyl, 1986 • 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor, Ukrain • Large area of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus evacuated, 336,000 people resettled. • Fewer than 50 direct death but, thousands of cancer related cases • Severe damage to the environment
  • 6. In Memories: Piper Alpha, 1988  World’s most famous oil rig disaster in North Sea 1988  167 out of 229 people died  initial explosion followed by a fierce fire which, in turn, triggered off a further series of explosions  “Jump and try or fry and die.”  Flames could be seen 100km away  Cause of death 109 out of 137 recovered bodies inhalation of smoke & fire. Few died of burns. 6
  • 7. In our backyards: Bright Sparklers, 1991 • On 7 May 1991 at about 3.45 p.m. fire ignited from product testing activities. • Fire spread, causing an explosion, which caused the rockets to fly everywhere, spreading the fire to other places and buildings • The fire and explosion destroyed the entire factory. • 23 people lost their lives and 103 others sustained injuries
  • 8. More Recent: BP Texas City Refinery (2005) • Vapour Cloud Explosion • March 23, 2005, killing 15 workers and injuring more than 170 others • On October 30, 2009 the OSHA imposed an $87 million fine on the company for failing to correct safety hazards revealed in the 2005 explosion. The fine was the largest in OSHA's history, and BP announced that it would challenge the fine
  • 9. More Recent: Imperial Sugar, Georgia, USA, (2008) • February 7, 2008 • Sugar dust explosion • 14 deaths and injuring 38 others, including 14 with serious and life-threatening burns.
  • 10. More Recent: Deepwater Horizon, USA (2010) • Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned submersible offshore oil drilling rig, owned by transocean, built by Hyundai, leased to BP • April 20, 2010, blowout turned fireball, killed 11 • Sank on April 20. Oil gushing into the sea causing massive pollution
  • 11. More Recent: Fukushima Daiichi, Japan (2011) • March 11, 2011. Nuclear meltdown following earthquake and Tsunami • 6 reactors designed by GE • Full meltdown of reactor 1,2,3 • No immediate deaths due to direct radiation • at least six workers exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation • more than 300 received significant radiation doses • Impacted Japan’s Energy Policy
  • 12. More Recent: Thai Petrochemical (2012) • May 12, 2012 • Explosion when workers were cleaning chemical tank at a synthetic rubber plant • 12 dead, more than 100 injured
  • 13. More Recent: Iran Petrochemical (2012) • Friday August 3, 2012 • Fire at Imam Khomeini Petrochemical Complex, Southwestern City Mahshahr • At least 6 dead, dozens injured • Gas Leak
  • 14. In Our backyard: Petronas Gas (2012) • Explosion at PETRONAS Plant in Paka – May 10, 2012, Gas Processing Plant, GPP3 area 2. – 2 dead 23 injured • Suspected gas leak to storm water drain
  • 15. In our backyard: Petronas Carigali (2012) • Fire at Tukau B Drilling Platform, 31 nautical miles from Miri. • June 12, 2012, 9.20 am • 16 people were working, 5 injured (various degree of burn). Living quarters in Tukau A
  • 16. In Our Backyard: MISC (2012) • MV Bunga Alpinia 3, Ship carrying Ammonia in filling operations at Petronas Methanol, Labuan • 26th July 2012, Early morning Explosion • Source of ignition: suspect lightning strike during thunderstorm, 2.30 am. • 29 crews, 5 dead (1 immediately found, 2 found dead the next day, 5th body found dead 30/7.)
  • 17. So much for statistics !!! What shall we do about it ???
  • 18. Introduction to Process Safety Topic 2. Hazard in Process Industries
  • 19. Hazards in Process Industries • There are Three Major Hazards: Fire, Explosion, Toxic Release • Fire – Impacts on plant, people and environment – May also followed by toxic release • Explosion – Same as fire but more severe • Toxic Release – Impacts of people and environment. e.g. Bhopal
  • 20. The Fire Triangle 2. Oxidizers* (the 1. Fuels molecule contain oxygen atoms) • Liquids - gasoline, acetone, ether, • Gases - oxygen, pentane; nitrous oxide (N2O) • Solids - plastics, • Liquids - hydrogen wood dusts, fibers, peroxide (H2O2), metal particles, nitric acid (HNO3) flour; • Solids - ammonium Ignition • Gases - acetylene, nitrate (NH4NO3). Source propane, carbon monoxide, H2 3. Ignition Sources • Sparks, flames, static electricity, heat.
  • 21. Distance of Effect Comparison INVENTORY UVCE BLEVE FIRE (tons) 1 120 18 Distance 2 150 36 in Meters 5 200 60 10 250 90 20 20 310 130 30 50 420 200 36 100 530 280 50 200 670 400 60 500 900 600 100 1000 1150 820 130
  • 22. Pool Fire • Liquid spilled onto the ground spreads out to form a pool. • Volatile liquid (e.g. petrol) evaporate to atmosphere and soon form flammable mixture with air. • Upon ignition, a fire will burn over the pool. • The heat vaporizes more fuel and air is drawn in round to the side to support combustion. • Danger to people is by direct thermal radiation and burn.
  • 23. Jet Fire • High pressure release of gas from a vessel or pipeline ignites almost immediately. • This give rises to a giant burner of flame length tens of meters. • Danger from thermal radiation and also impingement on adjacent pressurized vessel, such as LPG vessel, heating the content followed by pressure build up causing ‘boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion’ (BLEVE). • Sometimes called Torch Fire
  • 24. Flash Fire • Fire due to vapour cloud below explosive limit • Resulting from spillage of relatively volatile (e.g. propane, butane, LPG) material due to rapid evaporation • People at risk from thermal radiation effects. • Usually unexpected event and short duration
  • 25. Vapor Cloud Explosion • Cloud will spread from too rich, through flammable range to too lean. • Edges start to burn through deflagration (steady state combustion). • Cloud will disperse through natural convection. • Flame velocity will increase with containment and turbulence. • If velocity is high enough cloud will detonate. • If cloud is small enough with little confinement it cannot explode.
  • 26. Factors Favoring Overpressures of Vapor Cloud 1. Confinement – Prevents combustion products escaping, giving higher local pressures even with deflagration. – Creates turbulence, a precursor for detonation. 2. Cloud composition – Highly unsaturated molecules are bad due to high flammable range, low ignition energy, high flame speed etc. 3. Weather – Stable atmospheres lead to large clouds. – Low wind speed encourages large clouds.
  • 27. Factors Favoring Overpressures of Vapor Cloud 4. Vapor Cloud Size impacts on: – probability of finding ignition source – likelihood of generating any overpressure – magnitude of overpressure 5. Source – flashing liquids seem to give high overpressure – vapor systems need very large failures to cause UVCE – slow leaks give time for cloud to disperse naturally without finding an ignition source – high pressure gives premixing required for large combustion – equipment failures where leak is not vertically upwards increases likelihood of large cloud
  • 28. Flixborough, England • Company: Flixborough Works of Nypro Limited. • June 1974. • Product: cyclohexane – highly flammable • 6 reactors in series, total capacity 120 tons. • Fire and explosion – over than 10 days • 28 people died & 36 others were injured. • 53 civilians were reported injury • Damage: entire plant, 1821 nearby houses & 167 shops and factories. 28
  • 29. Phillips Pasadena, USA • 23rd Oct. 1989, Vapour Cloud explosion • 23 Deaths 130 Injuries, Loss US$ 500 Millions
  • 30. BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) • When BLEVE is initiated, the liquid boils off rapidly producing a reaction which turns parts of the ruptured vessel into rockets which can travel 2500 ft or more. • The liquid can take fire if it is flammable and burning material can spread over a large area. If the gas or liquid mixes with air a vapour cloud explosion can occur.
  • 31. The Tragedy Of San Juanico, PEMEX, Mexico City, 19 Nov 84 • Pemex is a liquid petroleum gas ( LPG) distribution plant. • Pemex is located a few km. north of Mexico City (Pop = 16MM). • Plant was 25 years old and built to 1950 API standards of the U.S. • LPG gas is used for • 15 of 48 Vessels BLEVE in domino heating and cooking in fashion almost every • 550 people killed. household. • 2,000 people receive severe burns. • 7,231 people classed as injured.
  • 32. Impact Spherical Tank Failure (F4) Cylindrical tank flew as missiles Bullet Tank Area Nearby Houses
  • 33. Dust Explosion Dust is suspended in Combustible dust the air at a proper concentration CAUSES OF DUST EXPLOSION There is an oxidant (typically There is an atmospheric ignition source oxygen) The dust is confined *If any of these five conditions is missing there can be no dust explosion
  • 34. Imperial Sugar Explosion February 7, 2008 in Port Wenworth, Georgia, USA. 13 people killed and 42 injured
  • 35. Hazard from Toxic Substances • Source of Toxicants – Toxic Release – Fire and Explosion leading to release of toxicants • Route of Entry – Injection: through cuts or hypodermic needles into the skin, usually cause highest blood level concentration. – Inhalation: through mouth/nose into the lungs – Ingestion: through mouth into stomach and gastrointestinal tract, – Dermal (Skin) absorption: through skin membrane 35
  • 36. Toxicants • Agents – Chemicals: organic solvent, pesticides, lead etc – Physical (dusts, fibers, noise, and radiation) agents, e.g. Asbestos – Carcinogenic, terratogenic, mutagenic • Toxicity is a property of toxicant that describe its effect on biological organism. – Very Toxic > Toxic > Harmful • Toxic Effect – Reversible vs irreversible – Acute Vs Chronic – Local Vs Systemic
  • 37. The Bhopal Tragedy • 40 tons Methyl Isocynate escape • Immediate cause : 500L seepage • Erupts and release fumes • 3000 died : respiratory failure • 500,000 suffer aftermath • USD470mil spent 37
  • 38. Introduction to Process Safety Topic 3. RISK & RISK RANKING
  • 39. Definition of Risk Risk = Severity x Likelihood Severity • Probability of Fatality • Monetory Losses • Environmental Impact Likelihood • Chance of failure • Probability 39
  • 40. Risk is expressed in as Rating • Rating is typically – simple to use and understand – Not require extensive knowledge to use – Have consistent likelihood ranges that cover the full spectrum of potential scenarios • In applying risk assessment – Clear guidance on applicability is provided – Detailed descriptions of the consequences of concern for each consequence range should be described – Have clearly defined tolerable and intolerable risk levels 40
  • 41. Example of a Severity Range Description Category Environmental, Safety and Health Result Criteria Catastrophic I • Death, permanent total disability • Loss of exceeding $1M • Irreversible severe environmental damage that violates law or regulation Critical II • Permanent partial disability, injuries or occupational illness that may result in hospitalization of at least 3 personnel •Loss exceeding $200K but less than $1M •Reversible environmental damage causing a violation of law or regulation Marginal III •Injury or occupational illness resulting in one or more loss of workdays •Loss exceeding $10K but less than $200K •Mitigatible environmental damage without violation of law or regulation where restoration activities can be accomplished Negligible IV Injury or illness not resulting in a lost work day Loss exceeding $2K but less than $10K Minimal environmental damage not violating law or regulation 41
  • 42. Example of Likelihood Ranges Description Level Specific Individual Item Fleet or Inventory Frequent A Likely to occur than 10-1 in that life Continuously experienced Probable B Will occur several times in the life on an Will occur frequently item, with probability of occurrence less than 10-2 but greater than 10-3 in that life Occasional C Likely to occur some time in the life of an Will occur several item, with a probability of occurrence times less than 10-2 but greater than 10-3 in that life Remote D Unlikely but possible to occur in the life Unlikely but can be of an item with a probability of reasonably expected occurrence less than 10-3 but greater to occur than 10-6 in that life Improbable So unlikely, it can be assumed occurrence Unlikely but possible may not be experienced, with a probability of occurrence less than 10-6 42
  • 43. Example Risk Ranking Categories Risk Rank Category Description I Unacceptable Should be mitigated with engineering and/or administrative controls to a risk ranking of III or less within a specified period such as 6 months II Undesirable Should be mitigated with engineering and/or administrative controls to a risk ranking of III or less within a specified period such as 12 months III Acceptable Should be verified that procedures or with Controls controls are in place IV Acceptable as is No mitigation required 43
  • 44. Sometimes presented as Risk Matrix Risk = Probability of occurrence x Consequence of occurrence 44
  • 45. Guidelines for Risk Mitigation Risk Level Action Required A Risk Mitigation required to risk level C or D B Risk Mitigation required to risk level C or D C Risk Mitigation to risk level D is optional D No further Risk Mitigation required 45
  • 46. Can we accept risks • Risk cannot be eliminated entirely. • Every chemical process has a certain amount of risk associated with it. • At some point in the design stage someone needs to decide if the risks are “tolerable". • Each country has it owns tolerability criteria. • One tolerability criteria in the UK is "as low as reasonable practicable" (ALARP) concept formalized in 1974 by United Kingdom Health and Safety at Work Act. Page 46
  • 47. A risk is Acceptable When: • it falls below an arbitrary defined probability • it falls below some level that is already tolerated • it falls below an arbitrary defined attributable fraction of total disease burden in the community • the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved • the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved when the ‘costs of suffering’ are also factored in • the opportunity costs would be better spent on other, more pressing, public health problems • public health professionals say it is acceptable • the general public say it is acceptable (or more likely, do not say it is not) • politicians say it is acceptable.
  • 48. Acceptable Risks • 1 in 1000 as the ‘just about tolerable risk’ for any substantial category of workers for any large part of a working life. – Same as dying due to road traffic accidents (1998) • 1 in 10,000 as the ‘maximum tolerable risk’ for members of the public from any single non-nuclear plant. • 1 in 100,000 as the ‘maximum tolerable risk’ for members of the public from any new nuclear power station. • 1 in 1,000,000 as the level of ‘acceptable risk’ at which no further improvements in safety need to be made. – Same as the chance of being electrocuted at home
  • 49. The Magic Number ! 1 x 10 -6
  • 50. ALARP Criteria INTOLERABLE REGION (Risk cannot be justified on any ground) 1 X 10-3 TOLERABLE only if risk reduction is impracticable, or its costs is ALARP REGION (Risk is grossly disproportionate to the undertaken if benefit is improvement gained. desired) TOLERABLE if cost of reduction would exceed the 1 X 10-6 improvement gained BROADLY ACCEPTABLE REGION Page 50
  • 51. Reasonably Practicable “Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than “physically possible” and implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other; and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable” Edward Vs National Coal Board [1949]
  • 52. Conclusion • Yes, we need to do something… • The issue is how to make the plant safe for the workers and the surrounding community and environmentally benign?????