Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fire Process Safety Newsletter 4th Quarter 2012
Fire Process Safety Newsletter 4th Quarter 2012
NEWSLETTER
4th Quarter 2012
Recognizing Process Hazards
and Latent Conditions
Table of Contents
Figure 1
11
13
Team Members
14
th
4 Quarter 2012
Figure 2
Figure 3 highlights the second focus area - potential
escalation of the process safety consequences. If
there is a gas release in the area, ignition
prevention measures could stop the scenario from
escalating into a fire or explosion.
One such
measure is by installing electrical equipment that
could be a source of ignition in electrically classified
enclosures with purge systems. These purge
systems act as safeguards that prevent the gas
from entering and coming into contact with the
electrical equipment that may result in an ignition.
However, those safeguards have to be maintained
in an asset integrity program and checked on
through routine operator duties. An inadequate
purge by itself is not a problem. But it is a latent
condition that could combine with a gas release
from another source leading to a fire or explosion.
th
4 Quarter 2012
Figure 3
Another
common
safeguard
that
requires
stewardship from design and installation through
operation and maintenance is a Pressure Relief
Device (PRD). In the picture below (Figure 4), there
appears to be a bushing and a reduced pipe size
attached to the flange on the outlet of the
conventional, spring loaded relief valve.
This
restriction in the outlet piping could prevent the
device from effectively relieving the pressure from
the system it is protecting during a future and
uncertain overpressure scenario. Luckily, in this
instance, the Pre-Startup Safety Review did catch
this installation error before the system was placed
in service.
Figure 5
So in review, what can be done to identify these
types of issues / conditions?
Challenge/verify
safeguards
the
effectiveness
of
Mike Kelly
Figure 4
Figure 5 is an example of the last focus area
category, which is identifying a hazard indicative of
a broader cultural issue. In this case, piping
th
4 Quarter 2012
Inherent Hazards in
Hydrostatic Testing
procedure, assemble the equipment correctly and
ensure personnel are out of the line of fire.
Figure 1
Figure 2
th
4 Quarter 2012
Lessons Learned
This incident illustrates the importance of
understanding the hazards inherent with
hydrostatic tests and how failure to take
preventive measures can result in serious
incidents. Frequently performed tasks that seem
routine can lead to a false sense of vulnerability.
This is why its imperative that each task be
analyzed through a robust job safety analysis,
including use of the Hazard Identification Tool.
Figure 1
th
4 Quarter 2012
Organizational Capability
Process Safety Program Proof of Concept Underway
critical process safety competencies (e.g., incident
investigation & reporting, measurement and
metrics, hazard identification and risk analysis,
management of change, emergency management,
and auditing) for the individuals in the program.
The basis of the competency development will build
on established internal & external training courses,
th
4 Quarter 2012
Ellen Leonard
Ellen Leonard
th
4 Quarter 2012
Categorize
Leak Sources
Verify/Review
F&GS Sensor
Placement
Drwg Review
F&GS Sensor
Placement in 3D
Model
Model Review
Comments
PFD, H&M
Bal., P&ID,
Area Class.
etc
Identify Leak
Sources
3D Model Review
Issued For
Construction 2-D
Extraction from 3D
Model
operational
and
Figure 1
th
4 Quarter 2012
APPROX. 15'-0"
A new Chevron Engineering Standard (FPM-DC1501-B) will provide guidance when siting
flammable and toxic gas detectors. It is anticipated
this new standard will be released in December,
2012.
Column 2B
Figure 2
Bernard Leong
th
4 Quarter 2012
Before
During
After
10
th
4 Quarter 2012
Figure 1
Reasonableness Determining whether risks have
been reduced as low as is reasonable involves an
assessment of the risk to be avoided, an
assessment of the sacrifice (in money, time and
effort) involved in taking measures to avoid that
risk, and a comparison of the two. The greater the
11
th
4 Quarter 2012
Technical
Analysis
Performance
Data
Improvement
Approach
Judgement
Approach
Practical Tests
Comparison
with Codes
and Standards
etc.
Audit against
good practice
Rod Travis
12
th
4 Quarter 2012
Answer on page 15
13
th
4 Quarter 2012
CTN 842-4082
CTN 954-6925
Tim Blackford
CTN 954-6987
John Edmed
CTN 545-5177
Glenn Kent
CTN 842-3926
Mike Kelly
CTN 954-6080
Bernard Leong
CTN 954-6345
Steve Kovach
CTN 954-6195
James Mansingh
CTN 954-6238
Jesse Meyer
CTN 842-5538
Justin Schmeer
CTN 954-6340
Allen Pendergrass
CTN 954-6018
Arturo Seyffert
CTN 842-6272
CTN 842-4082
CTN 842-4224
Gonzalo Garcia
CTN 546-6960
Carlos Adams
CTN 954-6321
Francois Joseph
CTN 954-6976
Angela Barrow
CTN 372-5562
Wilbert Lee
CTN 842-4111
Sarah Dabney
CTN 954-6947
Mark Meyer
CTN 954-6102
Kelly Doughty
CTN 842-0605
Chris Robinson
CTN 842-4865
Lindsay Hamilton
CTN 842-3947
Jim Salter
CTN 842-4105
Sahika Korkmaz
CTN 842-9463
Rod Travis
CTN 216-5151
Sharon Light
CTN 372-1987
Lisa Veltman
CTN 954-6186
Sue McDonald
CTN 954-6193
Esau Perez
CTN 954-6346
Laurie Rittenour
CTN 842-8266
Michele Seger
CTN 954-6038
Todd Wilhite
CTN 842-0426
Jason York
CTN 954-6882
CTN 954-6185
Robert Dayton
CTN 954-6375
Theo Dekoker
CTN 954-6031
Marine Julliand
CTN 372-6727
Michelle Lizio
CTN 954-6292
Ty Walraven
CTN 954-6091
CTN 954-6108
Administrative Assistant
Cindy Roseberry
CTN 954-6043
th
4 Quarter 2012
15