409 items found for ""
Blog Posts (148)
- 5 Facets of an Efficient Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
Updated November 2024 — Authored by Carolyn Bott — A Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) will prove to be the cornerstone of Process Safety Management (PSM) at any operating facility with the correct tools and the right leaders. Although there are many variables concerning PHAs, the process can be simplified and impactful results can be attained. In this blog, we delve into the 5 facets of an efficient process hazard analysis (PHA). Process Hazard Analysis Scope A well-defined scope for a Process Hazard Analysis is critical to identify potential safety and environmental hazards in a facility. Having a clear and defined Process Hazard Analysis scope does the following: Sets the boundaries of the analysis - This assures all necessary elements are included and relevant risks are identified and assessed Enables the Process Hazard Analysis team to focus on specific areas of concern and analyze them in detail - This reduces the potential for error and minimizes both the time and resources needed Ensures that all stakeholders are aware of the objectives and outcomes of the PHA Standard for Approaching a Process Hazard Analysis Different companies may have their own specific Process Hazard Analysis standards, specific to their operations and the risks involved. These standards typically outline essential measures to perform a thorough PHA, including: Qualifications and training required for team members Selection of appropriate methodologies Level of detail required in the analysis Documentation requirements for the study Frequency of review Ongoing monitoring requirements ensuring the safety and efficiency of operating processes Adherence to these standards is typically required by regulatory bodies and industry best practices. A standard can ensure all relevant factors are considered and a thorough analysis is conducted. Following a standard also facilitates communication and collaboration among stakeholders, enhances consistent decision-making across sites, and promotes continuous improvement in a site’s process safety. Process Hazard Analysis Team An effective Process Hazard Analysis team is composed of individuals with diverse expertise, including engineers, operators, maintenance personnel, and safety professionals. The team: Shall have expertise in engineering and process operations Shall include at least one employee who has experience and knowledge specific to the process being evaluated One member of the team must be knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used Must be able to work collaboratively to identify hazards, evaluate risks, and develop appropriate risk management strategies Effective communication and teamwork are vital for a successful and efficient PHA. The proficiency of the PHA leader or facilitator has a substantial impact on the team and the outcome of the PHA. A facilitator leans on their own risk management experience and is responsible for guiding the team through the identification and evaluation of all credible process hazards. The leader continuously assesses the team’s dynamic and intervenes when necessary to ensure the group remains on task to complete the PHA efficiently with impactful results. A company can utilize in house experts or hire a third-party to shepherd their Process Hazard Analysis needs – Process Safety Consulting Process Hazard Analysis Techniques & Tools Methodologies The methodology selected must be appropriate to the complexity of the process and site standards. One or more of the following methods, as appropriate, may be used to determine and evaluate the hazards of the process being analyzed: What-if Checklist What-if Checklist Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) Fault tree analysis An appropriate equivalent methodology For more info on choosing a risk assessment methodology, check out our webinar that examines the advantages and limitations of various methodologies: Choosing a Risk Assessment Methodology Tools Computer-based systems are used to document Process Hazard Analysis discussions in an organized manner and provide consistency throughout the analysis. Examples of PHA documenting software include: Sphera® PHA-Pro® PrimaTech PHAWORKS RA® aeShield® aeFacilitator® Using appropriate software eases the execution of risk studies. Process Hazard Analysis Review Cycle All Process Hazard Analyses must be updated and revalidated every five years. The periodic review should reflect any changes in the process or surrounding environment that may impact safety. An alternate approach to managing PHA updates is to incorporate them into the study file as changes occur. This method is often called an Evergreen PHA or Continuous PHA Revalidation. An efficient and effective PHA can enhance the safety of processes, reduce the risk of accidents and incidents, improve compliance with regulations and standards, and ultimately support the organization's goals and objectives. Ensuring these five (5) components are in place can help companies have an efficient PHA to identify and mitigate risks before they become safety incidents. The Takeaway | 5 Facets of an Efficient Process Hazard Analysis Summarized Clear and well-defined scope that is relevant to the system being analyzed Systematic and structured approach Multi-disciplinary team of subject matter experts who can identify and evaluate potential hazards from different perspectives Use of appropriate techniques and tools to evaluate and prioritize risks Periodic reviews and updates If you need more guidance for your Process Hazard Analysis, please feel free to reach out to aeSolutions to speak with one of our PHA experts about our capabilities.
- ISS Source - Functional Safety Assessment Stage 1 Can Discover Critical Flaws Early
October 2024 - Imagine discovering a critical flaw in your safety system design before your plant goes operational. This scenario, while nerve-wracking, underscores the importance of early intervention in the design phase. This article explores the following topics: How FSA Stage 1 can discover critical flaws early How FSA Stage 1 can reduce incidents The process steps for FSA Stage 1 How FSA Stage 1 can help prevent costly fixes How FSA Stage 1 can help prevent unknown renewable energy risks by Chris Powell, PE, CFSE , SIS Group Manager at aeSolutions . Read the full article here: Functional Safety Assessment Stage 1 can Discover Critical Flaws Early (ISSSource.com)
- Protecting Personnel and Plant with Facility Siting
The Value of Facility Siting Studies Updated November 2024 - Process industry history is sprinkled with catastrophic incidents that acted as drivers of regulatory change, such as the 1974 Flixborough explosion , the 1984 Bhopal toxic release disaster , and the 2005 Texas City Refinery flammable material release and explosion . Lack of process safety management, damage, and deaths were the commonalities among these incidents. The OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard and EPA Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations were promulgated in response to these types of devastati ng accidents. These regulations were supplemented in the US by industry standards such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practices 752, 753, and 756, and with guidance developed by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). These standards and guidance documents became the consensus industry practices for performing facility siting (FS) studies . Facility siting studies analyze potential toxic, fire, and explosion hazards to personnel from releases of hazardous chemicals. From a regulatory perspective, facility siting is required in the US by OSHA PSM and EPA RMP for facilities that meet the qualifying definition. A checklist is often utilized during Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs) to meet the regulatory requirements for facility siting; however, a facility siting study provides a more detailed analysis of specific facility siting concerns and should be referenced during PHA scenario development. Facility Siting | A Commitment to Your Team & Your Community Irrespective of regulation, it is best practice to conduct a facility siting study to understand the implications of a release of hazardous materials at your facility. While PHAs develop hazard scenarios that could potentially result in loss of containment, a FS study assumes a release has occurred and evaluates the outcomes accordingly. aeSolutions utilizes the following general approach to performing a facility siting study: Identify chemicals of concern Collect information on site-specific conditions (e.g., equipment and process data, building construction and occupancy data, equipment and building locations on the facility) Identify potential hazard event scenarios from a review of PHAs, incident investigation reports, discussions with experienced personnel, and other pertinent sources of information Identify and classify occupied buildings Perform the hazardous material release consequence analysis Perform the risk analysis if a risk-based approach is used Package the results in a way that the results can be understood and review the results with the client Discuss with the client options to reduce risk For the consequence analysis, software can be used to model the discharge, dispersion, and impacts of an accidental release of flammable or toxic material. Limiting the analysis to the consequence analysis, the facility siting study results are consequence-based , which provides a measure of the severity of the hazard. Taking the assessment, a further step, a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) can apply release event frequencies and appropriate probabilities, such as probability of ignition and vulnerability of people to the various effects, to quantify the risk associated with a release scenario. A consequence-based facility siting study is simpler and requires less resources to perform, but the results of a consequence-based FS study may set a higher bar to address and necessitate additional action or protection at a facility. A risk-based QRA requires more expertise and resources to perform the study, but the benefit gained is that the study often finds that the event likelihood of many scenarios is so low that the hazard meets the company risk criteria and additional means of protection that a consequence-based study concludes is needed are not required after all (i.e., less resources spent on addressing facility siting study results). The Takeaway | Facility Siting Studies Conducting a facility siting with a practical approach to study methodology and risk mitigation can balance the cost and course of action to protect personnel and facility assets. This enables company leaders to better make reasonable decisions on how to protect their employees. For instance, relocating all personnel to blast resistant modules can become expensive and may not be necessary in all cases; an alternative combination of innovative solutions may accomplish the risk reduction. Protection can come in different forms, such as increasing airflow through a building for preventing flammable vapor or gas accumulation or utilizing shelter-in-place for toxic concerns. Facility siting requires a pragmatic evaluation of the nature and level of hazard and what would be best for personnel and the plant. Facility siting regulations and standards have improved significantly since the Flixborough, Bhopal, and Texas City Refinery catastrophic incidents and continue to evolve to ensure toxic, fire, and explosion hazards are appropriately mitigated in the future. Ultimately, a detailed facility siting study can help you understand the hazards of potential releases, how those hazards can impact occupied buildings, and most importantly, determine effective solutions to protect your valued workforce.
Other Pages (261)
- Pharmaceutical Company Required Toxic & Combustible Gas Detection System
Pharmaceutical Company Required Toxic & Combustible Gas Detection System A large-scale pharmaceutical manufacturing facility needed to develop and implement a gas detection system at their site to mitigate risk to personnel and equipment from a potential combustible or toxic gas leak. The project progressed from the assessment stages of developing a gas detection philosophy to ultimately integrating an industrially designed GDS 1400 MK II panel for the gas detection control and alarm system. Challenge This pharmaceutical facility had a large number of uncommon toxic and combustible gases and vapors. The gas detection philosophy document needed to account for the physical properties of the gases present at the site. The previously developed gas detection philosophy document did not account for the required gas detection alarm levels and sensor ranges. It also did not account for the limitations of the available detection technologies. Additionally, the document needed to describe how to address cross-sensitivity when multiple gases are present in the same area. Solution We developed a gas detection philosophy in compliance with the latest industry standards. The document addressed all of the following: • The physical characteristics of the gases and vapors at the facility • Industry-recognized exposure levels for the gases • Preferred gas detection technologies • Minimum requirements for gas detection including leak sizes • Addressed gas detection cross sensitivities aeSolutions designed and provided a comprehensive gas detection system to monitor all of the toxic and combustible gases and alert personnel to the hazards. Once established, the gas detection philosophy was used as the basis for integrating the GDS 1400 MK II gas detection control and alarm system. This unit utilizes the Siemens Simatic PCS7 series hardware/software platform and interfaces to the facility’s building management system and fire alarm panel. Its SIL 3-capable logic solver was scalable to a large I/O count, which ended up totaling 650 I/O counts distributed among seven (7) remote I/O panels for the large number of chemicals. The following were delivered: • Gas Detection Philosophy Document • Gas Detection Plot Plan and placement within the client 3D model • GDS 1400 MK II Gas Detection System • Specified and procured all of the gas detectors • Interface with building management system for HVAC control (e.g., overriding the HVAC control to dilute and/or remove explosive gases from the facility) • Interface with Fire Alarm panel for mass notification messaging • Interface with process control system for process shutdowns, where applicable Results The pharmaceutical company now has a scalable gas detection system capable of reducing the risk to personnel and equipment and complying with their corporate safety program requirements. The system also provides long term data collection of gases that have been measured in the facility. Learn more about how aeSolutions could help you with a similar project Industry: Pharmaceuticals Geography: Southeast Unit Operation: GDS 1400 MK II, Gas Detection System, PCS7, SPHA I/O, FGS Take a look at our Success Stories page for more ways aeSolutions has helped our clients. Previous Story Next Story
- Functional Safety Assessments (FSA) : Terms and Acronyms
Acronyms & Terms Glossary <- More Definitions Functional Safety Assessments (FSA) Functional Safety Assessments (FSA) are a part of the safety lifecycle of a process that ensures the system meets the specified level of safety, typically performed by a senior engineer. The goal of an FSA is to determine how confident you are that our functional safety system will consistently achieve the risk reduction that's required. Performing an FSA is a mandatory requirement of many international standards that govern functional safety. An FSA is carried out in five (5) stages throughout the SIS lifecycle: - Stage 1: After the hazard and risk assessment has been carried out, the required protection layers have been identified and the safety requirement specification has been developed. - Stage 2: After the safety instrumented system has been designed. - Stage 3: After the installation, pre-commissioning and final validation of the safety instrumented system has been completed and operation and maintenance procedures have been developed. - Stage 4: After gaining experience in operating and maintenance. - Stage 5: After modification and prior to decommissioning of a safety instrumented system. aeSolutions’ experienced professionals can help you decide when conducting each FSA stage is appropriate for your facility, and then can help you plan and execute it. Our Services Control System Migrations | Procurement Specification & Vendor Selection aeSolutions discusses the complexities of control system migrations with a focus on procurement specifications and vendor selection. Leverage Unplanned Shutdowns to Enhance Safety Testing | ChemicalProcessing.com Discover how unplanned shutdowns can facilitate proof testing of safety instrumented functions, improving safety protocols and minimizing do ISS Source - Functional Safety Assessment Stage 1 Can Discover Critical Flaws Early Imagine discovering a critical flaw in your safety system design before your plant goes operational. This scenario, while nerve-wracking, un
- Inherently Safer Design (ISD) : Terms and Acronyms
Acronyms & Terms Glossary <- More Definitions Inherently Safer Design (ISD) A way of thinking about the design of chemical processes and plants that focuses on the elimination or reduction of hazards, rather than on their management and control. Our Services Control System Migrations | Procurement Specification & Vendor Selection aeSolutions discusses the complexities of control system migrations with a focus on procurement specifications and vendor selection. Leverage Unplanned Shutdowns to Enhance Safety Testing | ChemicalProcessing.com Discover how unplanned shutdowns can facilitate proof testing of safety instrumented functions, improving safety protocols and minimizing do ISS Source - Functional Safety Assessment Stage 1 Can Discover Critical Flaws Early Imagine discovering a critical flaw in your safety system design before your plant goes operational. This scenario, while nerve-wracking, un