October 28, 2007

Recent Advances in Process Safety

From the Center for Chemical Process Safety

Presented by:

Tim OvertonThe Dow Chemical Company

Presented to:

57th Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference.

October 28, 2007

About CCPS

� Corporate membership organization

� Operated by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

� Mission to eliminate catastrophic process safety incidents by:

• Advancing state-of-the-art in process safety technology & management practices

• Serving as the premier resource for PS

information

• Fostering PS in engineering education

• Promoting PS as a key industry value

October 28, 2007

CCPS Members

� Collaborate on projects to develop guideline books and other resources

� Form valuable networks of expert practitioners

� Leverage efforts to advance process safety practices

� Champion improved process safety around the world

October 28, 2007

More than 100 members worldwide

IntelioMosaicJohnson&Johnson Johnson PolymerKBR Korea Gas Safety Corp.LanXessLubrizolLyondellMarsulexMerckMonsantoNalcoNOVAOccidentalOlinPetronasPfizerPioneerPPGPrimatechProcter and GambleReliance Industries

3MABB LummusAbbott Laboratories ABS GroupAcuTechAdvanticaAIG Marine & EnergyAir Products & ChemicalsAKZO Nobel ChemicalsAlbemarleArkemaBakerRiskBasell North AmericaBayer Mat’l ScienceBoeringer-IngleheimBPBraskemBristol-Myers SquibbBuckman LaboratoriesCelanese ChemicalChevronChevronPhillips Chem.

Ciba Specialty Chem.CognisConocoPhillipsContra Costa Cty HSDCrodaCYTECDegussaDNVDow ChemicalDow CorningDuPont CompanyEastman ChemicalEli LillyEmerson Process MgmtExxonMobilFluor EnterprisesFM GlobalFormosa PlasticsGE Advanced Mat’lsGulf PetrochemicalHoneywellHusky EnergyInt’l Specialty Products

RhodiaRisk Reliability & Safety EngRohm and Haas Santos, Ltd.SartomerSchering-PloughScientific Protein LabsServatisShell SinopecSIS-Tech SolutionsSolutiaStarr TechSuncorSunocoSyncrude Canada SyngentaTNO US Chem. Safety BoardUS EPA/OEMVertellusWashington Sav. River Co.Wyeth

October 28, 2007

Industry’s Wake-up Call

October 28, 2007

Some BP-TC Issues

� Wrong metrics

� Negative culture

� Fewer resources without off-setting efficiencies

� Siting of temporary structures

� Pre-Startup Safety Review

� Management of Change

� Not a complete list

October 28, 2007

Premonition?

� The work to be discussed today was planned before any causal data from Texas City were known

October 28, 2007

Today’s Focus

� Metrics

� Culture

� Risk-Based Process Safety

� Other Topics

October 28, 2007

CCPS Metric Project

� Project Authorized and initiated in 2006

� Original charter called for CCPS committee to develop a guideline book on how companies could develop and implement an effective metric program (leading, lagging, etc.)

� Tim Overton ask to serve as chair

� In first meeting, committee decided that the “breakthrough” opportunity would be to develop a common industry lagging metric (similar to the OSHA I/I metric) to measure changes in industry performance and company-to-company benchmarking.

October 28, 2007

Process Safety Metrics

� Advisory Board members insisted that we keep list of metrics short and that we seek broad participation and buy-in by any means necessary

October 28, 2007

Team Members

Organization

Husky Oil

INEOS

JLM Consulting

Nalco

Lyondell

MKOCPSC

Monsanto

Nova

NPRA

OGP

OSHA

Reliance

PPG Industries

Rohm & Haas

Shell

SIS-Tech

Solutia

Suncor

UK HSE

US Chemical Safety Board

USW

Valero

Wharton

Organization

3M

ABS Consulting

ACC

Acutech

Air Products

Albemarle

API

Bayer Material Science

BP

Braskem

CCPS

Chevron Phillips Chem.

CONCAWE

Contra Costa CHD

Dow

DuPont

Eli Lilly

EPA

EPSC

Exxon-Mobil

Henkel

Honeywell Specialty Mat.

October 28, 2007

Problems with Current Metrics

� ACC & API PSCM metrics :

• high threshold for fires/explosions - many relevant events not counted

• low number of reported events - most companies unable to discern a statistical shift in performance

• 40 CFR 355.40 list has no consistency in terms of relative severity from a process risk perspective

(e.g. TQ of 10 lbs chloroform too low, TQ of 5,000 lbs. HCL too high)

• 5000 lbs. of flammables too high

� CONCAWE LOPC metrics

• does not differentiate based upon relative hazard (toxicity/flammability) of the material released

October 28, 2007

CCPS PS Metrics Project

� Three Working Groups

• Common Industry-Wide Lagging Metric

• Near-Miss or Other Lagging Metrics

• Leading Metrics

� Deliverables

• Pamphlet with Recommendations in the three areas mentioned above (Leading metrics, Lagging Metrics, Near Miss reporting) - by EOY 2007

• Guideline Book - by EOY 2008

October 28, 2007

Proposed Common Lagging Metric

Process Safety Incident = any release of material or energy from a chemical process unit which resulted in:

• An employee lost time injury,

• Fires or Explosions resulting in $25,000 of direct cost to the company, or

• A chemical release from the primary containment (i.e., vessel orpipe), excluding releases to a designed control device specifically designed for that event (e.g., flare or scrubber), greater than the chemical release threshold quantities described below:

Material Hazard classification as defined by United Nations Dangerous Goods definitions:

"Process Safety incident TQ”

All TIH Class A materials 5 kg (11 lbs.)

All TIH Class B materials 25 kg (55 lbs.)

All TIH Class C materials 100 kg (220 lbs.)

All TIH Class D materials 200 kg (440 lbs.)

All "Packing Group I" materials & 500 kg (1100 lbs.)

Div. 2.1 (Flammable Gases)

All "Packing Group II" materials 1000 kg (2200 lbs.)

All "Packing Group III" materials & 2000 kg (4400 lbs.)

Div. 2.2 (Nonflammable Gases)

October 28, 2007

Table 1: Process Safety Incidents & Severity Categories

Significant community evacuation

OR national media coverage

OR Environmental remediation required and cost in excess of $2.5 MM. Federal government investigation and oversight of process.

OR other significant community impact

Chemical release with potential for significant on-site or off-site injuries or fatalities - see Note 4

Resulting in direct cost >$10M

Off-site fatality or multiple on-site fatalities associated with a process safety event.

4

(27 points used in severity rate

calculations for each of the attributes which

apply to the incident)

Substantiated shelter-in-place.

OR

Environmental remediation required and cost in between $1MM - 2.5 MM. State government investigation and oversight of process.

OR Regional media coverage.

Chemical release with potential for injury off site or flammable release resulting in a vapor cloud entering a building or potential explosion site (congested/confined area) with potential for damage or casualties if ignited - see Note 3

Resulting in $1M-10M of direct cost.

On-site fatality - employee or contractors associated with a process safety event; multiple lost time injuries or one or more serious offsite injuries associated with a process safety event.

3

(9 points used in severity rate

calculations for each of the attributes which

apply to the incident)

Minor off-site impact with precautionary shelter-in-place

OREnvironmental remediation required with cost less than $1MM. No other regulatory oversight required.

OR Local media coverage

Chemical release outside of containment but retained on company property OR flammable release without potential for vapor cloud explosives - see Note 2

Resulting in $100K-1M of direct cost.

Lost time injury to employee or contractors associated with a process safety event

2

(3 points used in severity rate

calculations for each of the attributes which

apply to the incident)

Short -term remediation to address acute environmental impact.

No long term cost or company oversight.

Examples would include spill cleanup, soil and vegetation removal.

Chemical released within secondary containment, to a control device (e.g., flare or scrubber), or contained within the unit - see Note 1

Resulting in $25,000 to $100,000 of direct

cost

OSHA recordable injury to employee or contractors (or equivalent*)

associated with a process safety event

1

(1 point used in severity rate

calculations for each of the attributes which

apply to the incident)

Does not meet or exceed Level 1 thresholdDoes not meet or exceed Level 1 threshold

Does not meet or exceed Level 1 threshold

Does not meet or exceed Level 1 threshold

0

Community/environment impactPotential chemical impactFire or Explosion

(including

overpressure)

Safety/Human HealthSeverity Level

October 28, 2007

Recommendations

All companies and trade associations will be encourage to report:

Total Count of Process Safety Incidents: The count of all incidents which meet the definitions of a Process Safety incident described within this document.

Process Safety Severity Rate: The cumulative severity-weighted rate of process safety incidents per the formula described within this document.

Total severity score for all PS incidents x 200,000

Total employee, contractor & subcontractor work hours

October 28, 2007

Comparison to ACC PSCM and Severity Metric

Existing ACC PSCM / Severity Metrics

� EPA CERCLA Table

Proposed CCPS PS Metrics

� TQs based upon UN Dangerous Goods categories

Examples:

October 28, 2007

Process Safety Culture

To Establish a Positive, Strong Culture:

� Maintain Sense Of Vulnerability

� Combat Normalization Of Deviance

� Establish an Imperative for Safety

� Perform Valid/Timely Hazard/Risk Assessments

� Ensure Open and Frank Communications

� Learn and Advance the Culture

www.aiche.org/ CCPS/ PSCulture.aspx

October 28, 2007

Definition of Culture

The product of individual and group values, attitudes, competencies and

patterns of behavior that determine the commitment to, and the style and

proficiency of an organization's health and safety programs

October 28, 2007

Process Safety Culture

� Ensures the evaluation of and nurturing

of process safety culture

� The combination of group values and

behaviors that determines the manner in which process safety is managed and

executed

� A sound process safety culture refers to attitudes and behaviors that support the goal of safer process operations.

October 28, 2007

Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety

� CCPS process safety management book

� First CCPS management book since 1994

� Recognizes changes and learning of last 10-15 years

� Designed to meet the needs of the next 10-15 years

� Published April 2007

� Close to selling out second printing

October 28, 2007

Motivation of “RBPS”

� Fewer resources

� Momentum in process safety improvement slowing

October 28, 2007

Twenty Process Safety Elements in Four Groupings

� Commit to Process Safety

� Understand Hazards and Evaluate Risk

� Manage Risk

� Learn from Experience

Plan

Do

Study

Act

October 28, 2007

Guidelines for Risk-Based Process Safety

� Incorporates significant learning from BP Texas City (BP, Baker Panel, and CSB)

� Adds critical elements missing from prior PS management frameworks

• e.g. culture, management review

� Fits level of effort to level of risk

� Helpful tools:

• Checklists

• Experience-based productivity tips

• Suggested performance metrics

October 28, 2007

G/L for RBPS

� Process Knowledge

Management

� Hazard Identification and

Risk Analysis

� Stakeholder Outreach

� Workforce Involvement

� Process Safety

Competency

� Standards, Codes,

Regulations, and Laws

� Process Safety Culture

CCPS Elements

Co

mm

it t

o P

rocess S

afe

ty

Un

ders

tan

d

Hazard

& R

isk

October 28, 2007

G/L for RBPS

� Potential to overfill not

identified

� Actual start-up procedure

different than written

� Training insufficient and

out of date

� Failures at all levels

Texas City Failure

� Process Knowledge

Management

� Hazard Identification and

Risk Analysis

� Stakeholder Outreach

� Workforce Involvement

� Process Safety

Competency

� Standards, Codes,

Regulations, and Laws

� Process Safety Culture

CCPS Elements

Co

mm

it t

o P

rocess S

afe

ty

Un

ders

tan

d

Hazard

& R

isk

October 28, 2007

■ Incident Investigation

■ Management Review and

Continuous Improvement

■ Auditing

■ Measurement and Metrics

■ Conduct of Operations

■ Emergency Management

■ Management of Change

■ Operational Readiness

■ Training and Performance

Assurance

■ Contractor Management

■ Asset Integrity and Reliability

■ Safe Work Practices

■ Operating Procedures

CCPS Elements

Man

ag

e R

isk

Learn

Fro

m

Exp

eri

en

ce

G/L for RBPS

October 28, 2007Lack of review

Open audit items

Use of OII to measure P.S.

Start up without authorization

Ignored trailer siting

Supervisor left site

Wrong contractor trailer siting

Instrument out of service

Not followed

Not correct and not followed

Texas City Failure

■ Incident Investigation

■ Management Review and

Continuous Improvement

■ Auditing

■ Measurement and Metrics

■ Conduct of Operations

■ Emergency Management

■ Management of Change

■ Operational Readiness

■ Training and Performance

Assurance

■ Contractor Management

■ Asset Integrity and Reliability

■ Safe Work Practices

■ Operating Procedures

CCPS Elements

Man

ag

e R

isk

Learn

Fro

m

Exp

eri

en

ce

G/L for RBPS

October 28, 2007

RBPS Element Structure

� Describe the management system

• X.1 Element Overview

• X.2 Key Principle and Essential Features

• X.3 Possible Work Activities

� Ideas for Improvement

• X.4 Examples of Ways to Improve Effectiveness

� Metrics and Management Review

• X.5 Element Metrics

• X.6 Management Review

October 28, 2007

Possible Work Activities

� Options for implementing essential features of each element appropriate for different risk situations

� Example (contractor mgmt., page 382)

• “Retain records of training given, including means used to confirm understanding”:

• (low risk) Records retained informally

• (med risk) Records retained for duration of contract, then disposed of

• (high risk) Auditable records maintained as required to support programmatic needs

October 28, 2007

Possible Work ActivitiesAnother Example (MOC, page 437)

� MOC reviews should be performed by qualified personnel. Depending on risk:

a. (low) Anyone can do it, based upon prior MOC awareness training provided

b. (low-med) Specific persons are designated as reviewers

c. (med-high) Specific job functions are specified as reviewers

d. (high) Reviewer qualifications are specified, and designated personnelare approved

October 28, 2007

Examples of Ways to Improve Effectiveness

� Effectiveness is combination of performance and efficiency

� Practical ideas for improvement of both performance and efficiency presented in every element chapter

� Examples (Hazard Analysis, page 236):• Manage analysis depth based on

risk ranking

• Comply with existing standards instead of independent analysis

• Review all high consequencescenarios

October 28, 2007

We’ve received our wake up call

� Let’s go to work!

October 28, 2007

Information

� CCPS website: www.ccpsonline.org

� Culture: www.aiche.org/ CCPS/

PSCulture.aspx

� Metrics: www.aiche.org/ccps/

activeprojects/Pj192.aspx

� RBPS: www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/

WileyTitle/productCd-0470165693.html

October 28, 2007

Thank You!