Industry Process Safety

This chapter deals with the issue of process safety in industrial companies and major accident prevention. In the present-day technologically advanced world, industrial accidents appear ever more frequently, and the field of major accident prevention has become a dynamically developing discipline. With accelerating technical progress, risks of industrial accidents are to be reduced. In the first part, possible approaches to quantitative risk assessment are presented; and continuing it focuses on the system of risk management in industrial establishments. This chapter aims at providing experiences, knowledge, as well as new approaches to the prevention of major accidents caused by the implementation of the Seveso III Directive.

Irrationality of Attitudes toward Safety under Complexity and Uncertainty Leading to Asymmetry of Information

This study investigated how complexity and uncertainty, the probability of accidents, and the probability of financial trouble affected individuals’ recognition of validity of irrational risk-seeking decisions. As a result of conducting a multiple regression analysis on the validation score for irrational risk-seeking alternative obtained by a questionnaire survey, we found that the validity score for an irrational risk-seeking alternative was higher when both complexity and uncertainty were high than when both complexity and uncertainty were low, which means that high complexity and high uncertainty in the situation of decision making more readily leads to an irrational risk-seeking behavior that might trigger a major accident. Beyond complexity and uncertainty, the damage of major accident α, the decrease of the probability of major accidents and the increase of the probability of financial trouble (economic factor) were also found to promote the choice of irrational risk-seeking alternatives. Some implications for safety management under high complexity and uncertainty are discussed.

Modelling and Analysis of On-Site Emergency Plan of a Major Accident Hazard in a LPG Bottling Plant

As an organization there is a range of responsibilities and legislation that require you to have a plan to ensure the safety of employees, customers and stakeholders who may be on site when an emergency occurs. Equally important is the ability of facility to react quickly to an emergency, saving time and money in restoring normal business. A well thought out, coordinated response helps prevent personal injury, property damage, and lessen the resulting hazard. When an organization plans on how it will respond to an emergency threatening its operations, it is more likely to survive the incident. During a large-scale disaster, local response agencies may be overwhelmed and unable to immediately respond to the organization site. The modelling and analysis of threats in a plant is not just for post hazard analysis, it includes all the working procedures when a hazard occurs.

Assurance and Verification of Safety Critical Elements in Asset Management

Safety Critical Elements (SCEs) are the equipment and systems that provide the foundation of risk management associated with Major Accident Hazards (MAHs). A SCE is classified as an equipment, structure or system whose failure could cause or contribute to a major accident, or the purpose of which is to prevent or limit the effect of a major accident. Once the SCE has been ascertained, it is essential to describe its critical function in terms of a Performance Standard. Based on the Performance Standard, assurance tasks can be stated in the maintenance system to ensure that the required performance is confirmed. By analyzing the data in the maintenance system, confidence can be gained that all the SCEs required to manage Major Accidents and Environmental Hazards are functioning correctly. Alternatively, corrective actions can be taken to reinstate the integrity of the systems if shortcomings are identified. This paper shall detail out how the MAH and SCE Management process is initiated to follow the best industry practices in the identification and integrity management of major accident hazards as well as safety critical equipment. The tutorial shall describe in detail the following important stages:Identification of Major Accident HazardsIdentification of Safety Critical Equipment, involved in managing Major Accident HazardsDefine Performance Standards for these Safety Critical EquipmentExecution of the Assurance processes that maintain or ensure the continued suitability of the SCE Equipment, and that these are meeting the Performance StandardsVerification that all stages have been undertaken, any deviations being managed and thus that Major Accident Hazards are being controlled.Analyze and Improve Through the diligent application of these stages, it is possible to meet the requirements for MAH and SCE Management process giving a better understanding and control of risks in the industry.

Self-Verification Programme – A Success Story of Major Accident Risk Management via Bowtie Barrier Model

bp's Wells Organization manages its operational risks through what is known as the ‘Three Lines of Defense’ model. This is a three-tiered approach that starts with self-verification as the first line of defense which Wells assets apply to prevent or mitigate operational risks. The second line is conducted by its Safety and Operational Risk function using deep technical expertise. The third line of defense is provided by Group Audit. This paper will discuss the Wells self-verification programme evolution from its first implementation; results, lessons learned, and further steps planned as part of the continuous improvement cycle will be also shared. The company's Wells organization identified nine major accident risks which have the potential to result in significant HSE impacts. Examples include loss of well control, offshore vessel collision and dropped objects. The central Risk team developed bowties for these risks, with prevention barriers on cause legs and mitigation barriers on consequence legs. Detailed risk bowties are fundamental to Wells self-verification, adding technical depth to allow more focused verification to be performed when compared with the original bowties, as verification is now conducted using checklists targeting barriers at their component level – defined as critical tasks and equipment. Barriers are underpinned by barrier enablers – underlying supporting systems and processes such as control of work, safe operating limits, inspection and maintenance and others. Checklists are standardized and are available through a single, global digital application. This permits the verifiers, typically wellsite leaders, to conduct meaningful verification conversations, record the resulting actions, track them to closure within the application and gain a better understanding of any cumulative impacts, ineffective barriers and areas to focus on. Self-verification (SV) results are reviewed at rig, region, Wells and Upstream levels. Rigs and regions analyze barrier effectiveness and gaps and implement corrective actions with contractors at the rig or region level. Global insights are collated monthly and presented centrally to Wells leadership. Common themes and valuable learnings are then addressed at functional level, shared across the organization or escalated by the leadership. The self-verification programme at the barrier component level proved to be an effective risk management tool for the company's Wells organization. It helps to continuously identify risks, address gaps and learn from them. Recorded assessments not only provide the Wells organization with barrier performance data, but also highlight opportunities to improve. Leadership uses the results from barrier verification to gain a holistic view of how major accident risks are managed. Programme evolution has also eliminated duplicate reviews, improved clarity of barrier components, and improved sustainability through applying systematic approach, standardization, digitization and procedural discipline.

Self-Verification Program in bp: Success Story of Major Accident Risk Management via Bowtie Barrier Model

Summary bp’s (“the company’s”) wells organization manages its operational risks through what is known as the “three lines of defense” model. This is a three-tiered approach; the first line of defense is self-verification, which wells assets apply to prevent or mitigate operational risks. The second line of defense is conducted by the safety and operational risk function using deep technical expertise. The third line of defense is provided by group audit. In this paper, we discuss the wells self-verification program evolution from its first implementation and share case studies, results, impact, lessons learned, and further steps planned as part of the continuous improvement cycle. The company’s wells organization identified nine major accident risks that have the potential to result in significant health, safety, and environment (HSE) impacts. Examples include loss of well control (LoWC), offshore vessel collision, and dropped objects. The central risk team developed bowties for these risks, with prevention barriers on cause legs and mitigation barriers on consequence legs. Detailed risk bowties are fundamental to wells self-verification, adding technical depth to allow more focused verification to be performed when compared with the original bowties, because verification is now conducted using checklists targeting barriers at their component level, defined as critical tasks and equipment. Barriers are underpinned by barrier enablers (underlying supporting systems and processes) such as control of work, safe operating limits, inspection and maintenance, etc. Checklists are standardized and are available through a single, global digital application. This permits the verifiers, typically wellsite leaders, to conduct meaningful verification conversations, record the resulting actions, track them to closure within the application, and gain a better understanding of any cumulative impacts, ineffective barriers, and areas to focus on. Self-verification results are reviewed at rig, region, wells, and upstream levels. Rigs and regions analyze barrier effectiveness and gaps and implement corrective actions with contractors at the rig or region level. Global insights are collated monthly and presented centrally to wells leadership. Common themes and valuable learnings are then addressed at the functional level, shared across the organization, or escalated by the leadership. The self-verification program at the barrier component level proved to be an effective risk management tool for the company’s wells organization. It helps to continuously identify risks, address gaps, and learn from them. Recorded assessments not only provide the wells organization with barrier performance data but also highlight opportunities to improve. Leadership uses the results from barrier verification to gain a holistic view of how major accident risks are managed. Program evolution has also eliminated duplicate reviews, improved clarity of barrier components, and improved sustainability through applying a systematic approach, standardization, digitization, and procedural discipline.