• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
1.1 intro process_safety

1.1 intro process_safety






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    1.1 intro process_safety 1.1 intro process_safety Presentation Transcript

    • 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: BrightSparklers, 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 OSHAs 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 Triangle2. 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 ComparisonINVENTORY 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 Cloud1. 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 Cloud4. Vapor Cloud Size impacts on: – probability of finding ignition source – likelihood of generating any overpressure – magnitude of overpressure5. 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.
    • ImpactSpherical Tank Failure (F4) Cylindrical tank flew as missiles Bullet Tank Area Nearby Houses
    • Dust Explosion Dust is suspended inCombustible 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 ExplosionFebruary 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 RiskRisk = Severity x Likelihood Severity• Probability of Fatality• Monetory Losses• Environmental ImpactLikelihood• 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 RangeDescription Category Environmental, Safety and Health Result CriteriaCatastrophic I • Death, permanent total disability • Loss of exceeding $1M • Irreversible severe environmental damage that violates law or regulationCritical 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 regulationMarginal 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 accomplishedNegligible 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 RangesDescription Level Specific Individual Item Fleet or InventoryFrequent A Likely to occur than 10-1 in that life Continuously experiencedProbable 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 lifeOccasional 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 lifeRemote 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 lifeImprobable 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 CategoriesRisk 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 MatrixRisk = Probability of occurrence x Consequence of occurrence 44
    • Guidelines for Risk MitigationRisk 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 CriteriaINTOLERABLE REGION(Risk cannot be justifiedon any ground)1 X 10-3 TOLERABLE only if risk reduction is impracticable, or its costs isALARP REGION (Risk is grossly disproportionate to theundertaken if benefit is improvement gained.desired) TOLERABLE if cost of reduction would exceed the1 X 10-6 improvement gained BROADLY ACCEPTABLE REGION Page 50
    • Reasonably Practicable“Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than “physically possible” andimplies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk isplaced 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, therisk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom theduty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was notreasonably 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?????