MANAGING HEALTH,

SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENT RISK IN
PLANT TURNAROUND

Name
Luqman bin Osman

Matric Number
MK1622030T

Course
Master of Oil and Gas Engineering

Subject
KOGE 11203 Project Management and Economics in Oil and Gas

Lecturer
En. Zakariah Aris
Abstract
A plant turnaround maintenance plays a key role in asset management in the process-based
industries. It is an essential activity which involves a lot of maintenance work and renewal of
the certificate of fitness of the respective equipment. This is important to ensure the plant can
maintain its consistency in production capacity and to ensure the plant equipment is fit for the
purpose. With the introduction of a lot of people within a short period of time to complete the
work, the workers, asset and environment are prone to expose from maintenance hazard.
Aside from achieving a successful turnaround maintenance, management of health, safety
and environment (HSE) is also crucial to prevent unwanted event such as loss of life, injury,
property damage and many more. In this paper, an analysis and HSE lesson learnt of the
recent turnaround maintenance of a petrochemical plant in Labuan is discussed. It offers a
proper in sight in how to manage the HSE and provides essential key lesson learnt for a proper
initiation, planning, execution and termination of a turnaround. The findings and lesson learnt
is expected to be utilized for the improvement of HSE management of a turnaround
maintenance.

1|Page
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 4

2.1 Turnaround Maintenance and the importance of HSE .................................. 4

2.2 Phases of a Turnaround ................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 Initiation ....................................................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Preparation.................................................................................................... 5

2.2.3 Execution ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2.4 Termination ................................................................................................... 6

2.3 HSE Management System ............................................................................. 6

3.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 8

4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 8

4.1 Summary of worklist ..................................................................................... 8

4.1.1 Confined Space Activity ............................................................................. 9

4.1.2 Hot Work Activity ........................................................................................... 9

4.2 Manpower and Manhour ............................................................................. 10

4.3 HSE Key Performance Indicator .................................................................. 11

4.3.1 HSE Lagging Indicator ...................................................................................11

4.3.2 HSE Leading KPI ...........................................................................................12

5.0 LESSON LEARNT AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................... 14

5.1 Leadership .........................................................................................................14

5.2 Competency ......................................................................................................14

5.3 Job Hazard Analysis............................................................................................15

7.0 REFERENCE .................................................................................................... 17

2|Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION

A turnaround (TA) is a hazardous event. It introduces a large number of people into a confined
area, to work under pressure of time with hazardous material and equipment. In recognition
of the greater risk of loss, a contractor or the facility owner must implement a lot of control
measure associated with the work carried out base on the risk assessment that has been done
before commencing the TA. Throughout history, industrial incidents such as Bhopal in India,
Macondo incident, BP Texas incident and many more process-based industry incident have
catch global attention on the importance of managing Health, Safety and Environment (HSE).

Figure 1: Types of plant where accident occur

Source: Okoh & Haugen, 2013

Later after these major incidents, government and different regulatory agency around
the world have start established management system with regards to HSE. Hydrocarbon and
chemical-based process industry handling hazardous substance have inherently big potential
for major accident. Therefore, safety barriers are usually installed to control the risk associated
with such industrial facitlities (Sklet, 2006). Aside from that, a proper HSE management (HSE-
MS) related to people also important, a proper procedure must be in place as a safe system

3|Page
of work. These system be it the HSE-MS and the safety barrier might degrade or failed due to
maintenance (Okoh and Haugen, 2013). Turnaround maintenance may cause major accidents
by triggering unwanted events, hence one of the objective of this paper is to enhance HSE
management covering both process-based safety and people safety through lesson learnt
from case study of the recent plant TA in one of Petrochemical plant in Labuan, Sabah. It will
also discuss the outcome of the HSE performance of on one of the contractor that join the TA
and discuss what can be improved for the next TA.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Turnaround Maintenance and the importance of HSE

Maintenance is an important activity in all industrial applications where major accidents may
occur. This is certainly the case in offshore and onshore petroleum facilities, where re and/or
explosion may put many lives at risk. It is a crucial event in asset management in continuous
process-based industries where the event will be done in high pressure environment. A
successful TA depends on the integrated planning stages where on that stage

TA is carried out to perform servicing, internal inspection, replacement, regulatory

inspection by the regulatory agency which is the Malaysian Department of Safety and Health
(DOSH) and maintenance on equipment or units which cannot be carried out when the plant
is in online condition. Besides that, the main objective of TA is to renew the equipment
Certificate of Fitness. For that reason, a TA will require a lot of manpower, machineries and
other physical resources during its execution in a temporary basis and very limited timeframe.
Hence safety in the plant turnaround is a critical aspect that needs full attention by all including
management, leaders, supervisors and all other parties that involves directly with the TA or
indirectly. Several investigations revealed that 30%-40% of all accidents and precursor events
in the chemical process industry are maintenance related (Okoh and Haugen, 2013). Hale et
al (1998) have reported that between 30-40% of the maintenance related accident, 17% of
these happen during the preparation of the site for maintenance, 76% of the accident happen
during the execution of the maintenance, 7% during or soon after hand over to production
and at least another 8% happen in other phases (Start-up, shutdown and normal operation)
due to technical failure. It is therefore, HSE plays a major role in the TA for maintaining a
safe TA by thorough risk assessment and implementing practical control measure during the
activity. During normal operation, only few experience operator present, in TA, the situation

4|Page
is reverse, a large number of strangers enter the plant using unfamiliar and inherently
hazardous procedure and equipment. Under this condition, the potential for accidents rises
almost exponentially.

2.2 Phases of a Turnaround

A TA is an engineering event with relatively short duration with a cyclical process of four
processes which is the initiation, preparation, execution and termination. Each of the phase
have its own sets of critical issue and activity.

2.2.1 Initiation

This phase characterized by defining objectives, setting policy and appointing the necessary
personnel to set up the preparation team and gather basic data

2.2.2 Preparation

This is the major phase of the cycle. It is also known as integrated planning. The project
management team is mobilized wo work over a long period of time to specify, schedule,
resource and cost the large volume of tasks required to perform the event. The manpower
usually consist the department or discipline lead such as

a) QAQC lead
b) HSE lead
c) Scheduler
d) Planner
e) TA manager
f) Superintendant
g) Cost and contract engineer

During this period there is a lot of uncertainty because it will involve some prediction of
unknown condition of the plant items. A lot of guesswork and technical assessment will be
carried out example of it, the estimation of insulation volume that will involved in the TA, the
estimation of scaffolding platform that are required to perform the work and many more.
Contingency plan is a must as some item can only be known after opening of the respective

5|Page
equipment. Example of situation the rubber lining can only be known to be repair or not only
after the opening of the respective vessel. The final act of preparation is to communicate the
requirement of the TA to every single person at any level that involve directly or indirectly
with the TA.

2.2.3 Execution

During this phase, what have been plan and prepare are tested against reality. Execution is
the stage where a large number of task are done by a large number of people of many skills
and disciplines in a limited space and time at different level simultaneously. The effective
control and coordination of work is of paramunt importance. Lennahan (2008) break the
execution phase into sub phases as follows

a) Shutting down the plant by removing the inventory, decontaminate, cooling and
isolating.
b) Opening the plant up by physically disconnecting the item and removal of covers
c) Inspecting the plant through the use of approved NDT methods or visual inspection
d) Installation of new items, overhaul of existing items and removal of redundant items
e) Boxing the plat up
f) Plant testing (i.e air leak test)
g) Starting the plant up
h) Plan clean up and final inspection

2.2.4 Termination

For termination phase, there are two separate element in it, the first is ensuring that the plant
is handed back in a fit condition and the second is the de-briefing and demobilization of every
member of the TA organization.

2.3 HSE Management System

There is a lot of method or technique in managing HSE. One can subscribe standard, in
Malaysia context we have the MS1722 Occupational safety and Health management system.
The modern management system are including HSE management system is closely linked to

6|Page
the quality management system principle. The principle is represented by Plan-Do-Check-Act
cycle.

Figure 2 : Shows the Deming cycle as a spiral of continuous improvement

Source : Duijm et al. 2008

The implementation of HSE management system have its own constraint and different party
have their own goals. Industry point of view is different from authorities point of view.
According to Duijm et al. 2008, industry have the main objective of competitive production
where management effort is primarily aimed at maximizing net benefit related to the primary
process. HSE is looked as a constraint and not as the main objective. As for authorities,
maximizing HSE is the primary objective and the constraint of this objective is the competitive
production.

Figure 3 : Comparison of focus area and methods for HSE management by industry
and supervising authorities
Source : Duijm et al. 2008

7|Page
3.0 METHODOLOGY

The methodology that being used for this writing are

I) Interview of workers and management to get input from their thoughts

II) Database analysis
III) Site observation throughout the TA period
IV) Analysis of others associated journal

4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Summary of worklist

In the planning phase the main contractor was received the worklist from the client and do
the planning from the respective worklist. A total of 344 work has been received from client
to service provider.

WORKLIST SUMMARY (By Percentage)

4.1 12.5 24.1
5.8
1.2
8.1
14.5
5.5
8.4
12.5

0.9
2.3

DOSH Non-DOSH MOC

Defect (Others) Piping replacement Small bore
Valve replacement (HW) Valve replacement (CW) Compensator replacement
Steam trap replacement (HW) Steam trap replacement (CW) Painting

Figure 4 : Shows the worklist summary

From the above graph, DOSH work is the prominent one with 24.1% and the least one is work
related to Management of Change (MOC) with 0.9% from the total percentage of work

8|Page
received from the client. DOSH related works are mainly confined space activity involving
static equipment where the equipment certificate of fitness need to be renew.

4.1.1 Confined Space Activity

Confined space activity is one of the hazardous activity in this TA. From the worklist received,
a total of 56 confined space entry (CSE) activity has been identified which are mainly came
from DOSH equipment, Non-DOSH equipment and MOC related activity.

2%

DOSH
41%
Non-DOSH
57%
MOC

Figure 5: Shows the distribution of CSE activity of WSSB

4.1.2 Hot Work Activity

Hot work activity can be defined as any operation that has the potential to produce spark.
There are 105 works from the work list received involves hot work activity such as grinding,
welding and cutting. Most of the hot work comes from small bore piping replacement activity,
27.6% and then followed by activity involving DOSH equipment 23.8%.

9|Page
 19.0
23.8

18.1 6.7

2.9

1.9

27.6

DOSH Non-DOSH MOC Small bore Others Valve replacement Steam trap replacement

Figure 6 : Shows the distribution of Hot work

4.2 Manpower and Manhour

The data cycle of manpower and manhour reporting is from 6.00 a.m to 6.00 a.m next day
(24 hours interval)

MANPOWER TREND
900
799 795
800 756 758
716

700
632 629
614
581
600

496
500
409 419
382
400 353 352
377
358
333 330 325 314 319
298
300 275 282 279 276
264
243 238
202
200
103 104
100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

ACTUAL PLAN

Figure 7 : Shows the manpower trend throughout P1 Minor TA 16 from day 1 to day 33
10 | P a g e
There are many deviations of actual manhour from the targeted manhour. From day 1 to day
4 the contractor is still idling because there is a hiccup during shutdown of the plant. On day
6 to 15 the subcontractor of the main contractor has lost the targeted manhour because of
one of its subcontractor. To increase financial benefits of the project, the subcontractor holds
the mobilization of its manpower, they dont want the manpower in standby mode. But
because of that, the manpower will have difficulties to enter the plant as it takes time to
process the workers pass as it involve a lot of process such as to ensure the worker have valid
medical check-up, to ensure the worker have the required competency (i.e scaffolder
certificate, Authorised entrant and standby person for confined space and many more). From
day 17 to 26 there is an increase of manpower this is because the contractor must catch up
with the required progress, so they add up the manpower. From day 27 to 33 the manpower
still high because of the delayed work.

4.3 HSE Key Performance Indicator

4.3.1 HSE Lagging Indicator

The key performance indicator (KPI) of the TA are as follow :

NO INDICATOR TARGET ACTUAL

LAGGING KPI
1 Fatality 0 0
2 LTI 0 0
3 RWC / MTC 0 0
4 First aid 0 0
5 Near miss 0 6
6 Property damage 0 0
7 Occupational illness 0 0
8 Minor fire 0 0
9 Major fire 0 0
10 Loss of primary containment 0 0
11 Chemical / oil Spill 0 2
12 Zeto rules violation 0 1

11 | P a g e
 13 Regulatory violation 0 0
14 HSE non-compliances 0 2

Out from the 6 near miss happen, 4 of it are of falling object. The reason why most of the
falling object happen is the failure to secure material while working at height. All immediate
action has been implemented and action to prevent the re-occurrence of the incident has been
taken.

4.3.2 HSE Leading KPI

The leading KPI for the main contractor

NO INDICATOR TARGET ACTUAL

LEADING KPI
1 HSE training 100% 100%
2 Participation of contractor SHO in daily
100% attendance 96.9%
TA HSE meeting
3 Participation of contractor in TA HSE tier
100% attendance 100%
1 audit
4 UAUC submission 165 314

For induction, the main contractor sent all our personnel for briefing before entering the plant.
A total of 842 application has been made to client. Among the training attended are

a) HSE briefing
b) Work Leader training
c) PTW training
d) Environment training

12 | P a g e
 Below are the data for the unsafe act and unsafe condition (UAUC) of the main contractor.

DAILY UCUA SUBMISSION

30

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

TARGET ACTUAL

Figure 8 : Shows the actual vs targeted submission of UAUC

From day 1 execution to day 4, there was no UAUC submitted. This is because on the 9th
October, it is the starting of equipment shutdown and WSSB workers still not start their work.

2.53

97.47

open close

Figure 9 : Shows the number UAUC closure status

13 | P a g e
It has been observed that the report from observer are too general so the contractor are
having problem in closing the reported unsafe act and unsafe condition.

DISTRIBUTION OF UAUC CATEGORY

18.7 19.4

21.6

40.3

Other Unsafe act Unsafe condition Zeto / HSE violation

Figure 10 : Shows the distribution of UAUC category

From the UAUC recorded, unsafe condition is highly observed which is 40.3% and the least
one is Zeto / HSE violation which is 18.7%.

5.0 LESSON LEARNT AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Leadership

During the TA, it has been observed that there is poor leadership in the contractor project
management team especially supervisor level. A lot of bypassing of procedure have been
observed. In TA context, Leadership is the ability of the TA manager, engineer and supervisor
to inspire confidence and support and influence the team to accomplish the objectives of the
TA (Ghazali & Shamim, 2015). In HSE context, the leaders should able to instil safety culture
and behaviour among the TA workers.

5.2 Competency

14 | P a g e
For this TA, the work leader is really experience in handling technical work, but current
management styles that involve English as communication media in the Job Hazard Analysis
(JHA) and other documentation makes it difficult to implement the procedure. By right, after
the morning toolbox meeting, a pre-job meeting on site must be conducted where the content
of the JHA is read out to communicate the hazards associated to the work. But almost all work
leader cannot understand English. For new diploma holder that want to be work leader, they
lack of experience handling permit to work (PTW).

5.3 Job Hazard Analysis

A job hazard analysis (JHA) is tools that focus on job step as a way to identify hazards before
they occur. If focus on the workers, the task, the environment and the tools. In any plant, a
JHA is currently one of the most important site risk management tools for high risk task using
a simple and structured approach to identify hazards related to each step in an activity (Zheng
et al. 2017). During TA the type of JHA use is the generic type instead of the conventional per
equipment type. There are pro and contra using each type of JHA approach. For generic type
it eases the planner during integrated planning, but the problem comes during execution. The
work leader will have difficulties because they always forgot some important JHA to be
attached to the PTW. When doing tier-1 HSE inspection there will always a finding where
there will be insufficient of attachment document on the PTW. Aside from that, to cover the
deficiency, a JHA summary might be an effective tool to cover the deficiency on hazard
communication. The summary must be in a language that the work leader can read and
understand.

15 | P a g e
6.0 CONCLUSION

There were a lot of deficiency in the TA and there were also a lot of opportunity of
improvement to be done. Among of it are as mentioned above. Contractor selection also a
main important thing. HSE planning should also start as early as possible. The significance of
managing HSE risk during TA has been discussed in this article. Investment for managing HSE
risk during plant shutdown is very essential as it helps to enhance TA workflow and in the
same time fulfil all the HSE requirement. This paper has contributed an insight on the proper
way of tackling current issue of HSE management during a TA. To prevent an unwanted event
during TA, a management must focus on the proper selection of contractor and subcontractor.
Aside, from that management must lead by example to nurture a safety culture among the
workers. There is some limitation in the study which need to be address. The observation
approach only provides surface information regarding on what happen on site. This only gives
a surface picture and provides surface insight in the management of HSE. To give a detail and
deep insights a proper methodology of data collection should be use such as the distribution
of questionnaire, and involves a more harmonic sample population with a proper sampling
system. To develop a more detail conceptual framework on managing HSE during plant TA, a
detail empirical study is recommended is recommended to be carried out. After establishment
of the management framework, field test should be conducted to test whether the framework
helps in improving the HSE management and lead to successful TA execution (within budget,
on-time and carried out in a safely manner) or not.

Before carrying out the research, it is advised that the researcher exploit previous
accidents database of the plant to narrow out the root cause contributor of an unwanted
incident as part of the input in developing conceptual framework of TA HSE management.
Though the paper discusses only observation data, it can help the industry player especially
in the process based industry a key insight on what is the key factor that drag the project
slow in term of HSE perspective. Furthermore, it help to tackle out problem from the root level
as detail observation with regards to HSE has been made especially the current level of the
authorised work leader.

16 | P a g e
7.0 REFERENCE

Ahmad, S. I., Hashim, H., & Hassim, M. H. (2014). Numerical Descriptive Inherent Safety
Technique (NuDIST) for inherent safety assessment in petrochemical industry. Process
Safety and Environmental Protection, 92(5), 379389.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.03.009

Albury, N. S. (2011). Emergency Response Procedures. Western AG Supplies PTY LTD, 32.

Alexander, D. (2012). Principles of Emegency Planning and Management. Retrieved from

www.dunedinacademicoress.co.uk

Amaran, S., Sahinidis, N. V., Sharda, B., Morrison, M., Bury, S. J., Miller, S., & Wassick, J. M.
(2015). Long-term turnaround planning for integrated chemical sites. Computers and
Chemical Engineering, 72, 145158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.08.003

Aminbakhsh, S., Gunduz, M., & Sonmez, R. (2013). Safety risk assessment using analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects.
Journal of Safety Research, 46, 99105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2013.05.003

Amir-Heidari, P., Maknoon, R., Taheri, B., & Bazyari, M. (2017). A new framework for HSE
performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Science, 100, 157167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001

Antonio, S. (2010). Reliability and Maintenance Conference and Exhibition 2010, (May).

CCPS. (2011). Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, (January 2011), 44. Retrieved
from
http://www.aiche.org/sites/default/files/docs/pages/CCPS_ProcessSafety_Lagging_201
1_2-24.pdf

Center for Chemical Process Safety. (2009). Appendix I: Listing Process Safety Consider
(Based of Potential Metrics To on the Risk Based Process Safety Elements). Guidelines
for Process Safety Metrics, 32. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470579817

Chakraborty, S., & Dixit, S. (1992). Developing a turnaround strategy-A case study
approach. Omega, 20(3), 345352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(92)90039-A

Chemweno, P., Pintelon, L., Van Horenbeek, A., & Muchiri, P. (2015). Development of a risk
assessment selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making: An analytic
network process (ANP) approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 170,
663676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.03.017

Conference, A. I. (2004). Center for Chemical Process Safety Emergency Planning

Preparedness , Prevention & Response.

Cornelissen, P. A., Van Hoof, J. J., & De Jong, M. D. T. (2017). Determinants of safety
outcomes and performance: A systematic literature review of research in four high-risk

17 | P a g e
 industries. Journal of Safety Research, 62, 127141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.06.009

Crowl, D. A., & Louvar, J. L. (2011). Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with
Applications. Pearson Education.

Department Of Occupational Safety And Health, Ministry Of Human Resource, M. (2017).

Guidelines On Ergonomics Risk Assessment At Workplace. Retrieved from
http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/en/competent-person-form/occupational-
health/guidelines/ergonomic/2621-01-guidelines-on-ergonomics-risk-assessment-at-
workplace-2017/file

Dosh. (2007). Guidelines for Public Safety and Health At Construction Sites.

Dowd, D., & Daher, E. (2012). Safety KPIs during Shutdown Turnaround - What to Measure
and How to Impact the Overall Economics. SPE Middle East Health, Safety, Security,
and Environment Conference and Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.2118/152011-MS

Duijm, N. J., Fivez, C., Gerbec, M., Hauptmanns, U., & Konstandinidou, M. (2008).
Management of health, safety and environment in process industry. Safety Science,
46(6), 908920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.003

Elhdad, R., Chilamkurti, N., & Torabi, T. (2013). An ontology-based framework for process
monitoring and maintenance in petroleum plant. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 26(1), 104116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2012.10.001

Ethylene, G., Abb, B., & The, S. (n.d.). Turnaround optimisation, 12.

Ghazali, Z., & Halib, M. (2011). The Organization of Plant Turnaround Maintenance in
Process-Based Industries: Analytical Framework and Generic Processes. Journal of
International Business Management & Research, 2(3), 3043. Retrieved from
http://eprints.utp.edu.my/7143/

Ghazali, Z., & Halib, M. (2011). Towards an alternative organizational structure for plant
turnaround maintenance: An experience of PETRONAS gas Berhad, Malaysia. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 26(1), 4048.

Ghazali, Z., & Shamim, A. (2014). Managing People in Plant Turnaround Maintenance: The
Case of Three Malaysian Petrochemical Plants. PLATFORM - A Journal of Engineering,
Science and Society, (December), 4257.

Ghazali, Z., & Shamim, A. (2014). Managing People in Plant Turnaround Maintenance: The
Case of Three Malaysian Petrochemical Plants. PLATFORM - A Journal of Engineering,
Science and Society, (December), 4257.

Hafizah, N., Khan, L., Ghazali, Z., & Shahrul, A. (2014). The Role of Leadership and Leaders
Behavioral Characteristics on Employees Safety Behavior in Plant Turnaround
Maintenance of PETRONAS Petrochemical Companies in Malaysia. Global Business and
Management Research: An International Journal, 6(3), 256262. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3d
7581d7-2949-4032-b248-11ddc5bca1a5@sessionmgr4002&vid=0&hid=4109

18 | P a g e
Hale, A. R., Heming, B. H. J., Smit, K., Rodenburg, F. G. T., & van Leeuwen, N. D. (1998).
Evaluating safety in the management of maintenance activities in the chemical process
industry. Safety Science, 28(1), 2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00061-
1

Hameed, A., & Khan, F. (2014). A framework to estimate the risk-based shutdown interval
for a processing plant. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 32(1), 18
29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.07.009

Hare, J. A., Johnson, M. P., & Fullam, B. (2009). Learning From Process Safety Incidents ,
(155), 104112.

Hazardous, C. (2014). PETRONAS TECHNICAL STANDARD Classification of Chemicals

Hazardous to Health, (September).

Herv, B. (2010). The oil & gas engineering guide.

Holdsworth, R. (2003). Practical applications approach to design, development and

implementation of an integrated management system. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
104(13), 193205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2003.08.001

Khan, F., Hashemi, S. J., Paltrinieri, N., Amyotte, P., Cozzani, V., & Reniers, G. (2016).
Dynamic risk management: a contemporary approach to process safety management.
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 14, 917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2016.07.006

Kidam, K. Bin. (2012). Process Safety Enhancement in Chemical Plant Design by Exploiting
Accident Knowledge. Retrieved from
https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi:443/handle/123456789/7289

Kilang, P., & Jentera, D. A. N. (2017). FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ( EXEMPTION OF

CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS FOR UNFIRED PRESSURE VESSEL ) ORDER 2017,
(September).

Kim, Y. (2014). METHODS TO IMPROVE PROCESS SAFETY PERFORMANCE THROUGH

FLANGE CONNECTION LEAK PREDICTION AND CONTROL, (August).

Landucci, G., Argenti, F., Spadoni, G., & Cozzani, V. (2016). Domino effect frequency
assessment: The role of safety barriers. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 44, 706717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.03.006

Landucci, G., Lovicu, G., Barontini, F., Guidi, L., & Nicolella, C. (2014). Safety issues related
to the maintenance operations in a vegetable oil refinery: A case study. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 30(1), 95104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.05.005

Learman, S. (2009). a Process Engineer S Guide To the Pressure Equipment Directive,

(April).

Lee, K., Kwon, H. myun, Cho, S., Kim, J., & Moon, I. (2016). Improvements of safety
management system in Korean chemical industry after a large chemical accident.

19 | P a g e
 Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 42, 613.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.08.006

Li, W., Zhang, L., & Liang, W. (2016). Job hazard dynamic assessment for non-routine tasks
in gas transmission station. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 44,
459464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.10.018

Maizura, N. O. R., & Yusoff, B. (1996). Occupational Safety And Health In Malaysia.

Malmn, Y., Nissil, M., & Virolainen, K. (2011). Shutdowns and Management of Change,
(156), 192197.

Management, C. (2016). PETRONAS TECHNICAL STANDARDS CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT,

(February), 148.

Manager, S. P. (n.d.). Best Practices for the Planning and Execution of Turnaround Projects
in the Oil and Gas Industry.

Mannan, S. (2014). Lees Process Safety Essentials. Lees Process Safety Essentials.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-85617-776-4.00023-3

Morrish, C. (2017). Incident prevention toolsincident investigations and pre-job safety

analyses. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 27(4), 635640.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.009

Mulla, M. Al. (2007). Effect of ISO Certification on the Safety Performance Level of
Petrochemical Industries in Arabian Gulf Countries.

Mullen, S. (2013). Emergency Planning Guide for Utilities, Second Edition.

https://doi.org/10.1201/b13734

Natti, S. (2008). Risk Based Maintenance Optimization Using Probabilistic Maintenance

Quantification Models of Circuit Breaker, (December), 131.

Okoh, P., & Haugen, S. (2014). A study of maintenance-related major accident cases in the
21st century. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 92(4), 346356.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.03.001

Okoh, P., & Haugen, S. (2013). Maintenance-related major accidents: Classification of

causes and case study. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26(6),
10601070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.04.002

Okoh, P., & Haugen, S. (2013). The influence of maintenance on some selected major
accidents. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 31(May 2016), 493498.
https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1331083

Podgrski, D. (2015). Measuring operational performance of OSH management system - A

demonstration of AHP-based selection of leading key performance indicators. Safety
Science, 73, 146166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.018

20 | P a g e
Raoufi, M., & Fayek, A. (2009). Process Improvement for Power Plant Turnaround Planning
and Management. Webmail.Iasdm.Org, 3(3), 2009.
https://doi.org/10.7492/IJAEC.2014.014

Richardson, J. P., El-halwagi, M., & Uster, H. (2015). FACILITY SITING AND LAYOUT
OPTIMIZATION FOR RISK REDUCTION OF, (August).

Said, S. M., Said, F., & Halim, Z. A. (2016). The determinants of industrial accidents in the
Malaysian manufacturing sector The determinants of industrial accidents in the
Malaysian manufacturing sector. African Journal of Business Management, Vol.
6(5)(May 2016), 19992006. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2439

Saleh, J. H., Marais, K. B., & Favar, F. M. (2014). System safety principles: A
multidisciplinary engineering perspective. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 29(1), 283294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.04.001

Sheikhalishahi, M., Pintelon, L., & Azadeh, A. (2017). An integrated approach for
maintenance planning by considering human factors: Application to a petrochemical
plant. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 109, 400409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.04.016

Shin, I. J. (2014). Loss prevention at the startup stage in process safety management: From
distributed cognition perspective with an accident case study. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 27(1), 99113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.11.003

Sklet, S. (2006). Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 19(5), 494506.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.12.004

Specification, T. (2004). Petronas Technical Standards Technical Specification Hydrostatic

Pressure Testing of New Pipelines, (December), 158.

U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D. C. (2001). DOE HANDBOOK HUMAN FACTORS /

ERGONOMICS HANDBOOK FOR THE DESIGN FOR EASE OF MAINTENANCE U . S .
Department of Energy. Test, (February).

Van Der Westhyssen, J. (2014). Optimizing value extraction from turnarounds. Procedia
Engineering, 83(m), 477483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.081

Van Horenbeek, A., & Pintelon, L. (2014). Development of a maintenance performance

measurement framework-using the analytic network process (ANP) for maintenance
performance indicator selection. Omega (United Kingdom), 42(1), 3346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2013.02.006

Victor, H., & Myra, a. (2013). Integrate Health , Safety , and Environment into Engineering
Projects, (April), 5055.

Vinnem, J. E., Bye, R., Gran, B. A., Kongsvik, T., Nyheim, O. M., Okstad, E. H., Vatn, J.
(2012). Risk modelling of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore

21 | P a g e
 petroleum installations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 25(2),
274292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.11.001

Vinnem, J. E., Haugen, S., & Okoh, P. (2016). Maintenance of petroleum process plant
systems as a source of major accidents? Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 40, 348356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.01.021

Wang, Y., Tian, M., Wang, D., Zhao, Q., Shan, S., & Lin, S. (2012). Study on the HSE
management at construction site of oil and gas processing area. Procedia Engineering,
45, 231234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.149

Weber, M. (2006). Some Safety Aspects on the Design of Sparger Systems for the. Process
Safety Progress, 25(4), 326330. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs

Zheng, W., Shuai, J., & Shan, K. (2017). The energy source based job safety analysis and
application in the project. Safety Science, 93, 915.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.009

Safety Lifecycle Management In The Process Industries. (n.d.).

Creedy_-_Industrial_Process_Safety_for_SSS_110526. (n.d.).

22 | P a g e