Introduction to Process

Safety
Introduction to Process
Safety

Topic 1.

In Memories…
 In Memories: Bhopal, 1984
• Release of Toxic Gas
– 40 tons Methyl Isocynate escape from Union
Carbide Plant
– Immediate cause : 500L seepage
– Erupts and release fumes
• Aftermath
– 3000 died : respiratory failure
– Thousands more died in weeks that followed
– 500,000 suffer
– USD470mil spent

3
 In Memories : PEMEX, 1984

• Pemex is a liquid petroleum gas ( LPG) distribution plant.

• Pemex is located a few km. north of Mexico City (Pop = 16MM).
• Plant was 25 years old and built to 1950 API standards of the U.S.
• 15 of 48 Vessels BLEVE In Domino Fashion
• 550 people killed., 2,000 people receive severe burns, 7,231
people classed as injured.
 In Memories: Chernobyl, 1986

• 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor, Ukrain

• Large area of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus evacuated, 336,000
people resettled.
• Fewer than 50 direct death but, thousands of cancer related
cases
• Severe damage to the environment
In Memories: Piper Alpha, 1988

 World’s most famous oil rig

disaster in North Sea 1988
 167 out of 229 people died
 initial explosion followed by a
fierce fire which, in turn,
triggered off a further series of
explosions
 “Jump and try or fry and die.”
 Flames could be seen 100km
away
 Cause of death 109 out of 137
recovered bodies inhalation of
smoke & fire. Few died of burns.

6
In our backyards: Bright
Sparklers, 1991
• On 7 May 1991 at about 3.45 p.m.
fire ignited from product testing
activities.
• Fire spread, causing an explosion,
which caused the rockets to fly
everywhere, spreading the fire to
other places and buildings
• The fire and explosion destroyed
the entire factory.
• 23 people lost their lives and 103
others sustained injuries
 More Recent: BP Texas City Refinery (2005)

• Vapour Cloud Explosion

• March 23, 2005, killing 15 workers and injuring more
than 170 others
• On October 30, 2009 the OSHA imposed an $87 million fine on the
company for failing to correct safety hazards revealed in the 2005
explosion. The fine was the largest in OSHA's history, and BP announced
that it would challenge the fine
More Recent: Imperial Sugar, Georgia, USA, (2008)

• February 7, 2008
• Sugar dust explosion
• 14 deaths and injuring 38 others, including 14
with serious and life-threatening burns.
 More Recent: Deepwater Horizon, USA (2010)

• Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically

positioned submersible offshore oil drilling rig, owned
by transocean, built by Hyundai, leased to BP
• April 20, 2010, blowout turned fireball, killed 11
• Sank on April 20. Oil gushing into the sea causing
massive pollution
 More Recent: Fukushima Daiichi, Japan (2011)

• March 11, 2011. Nuclear meltdown following

earthquake and Tsunami
• 6 reactors designed by GE
• Full meltdown of reactor 1,2,3
• No immediate deaths due to direct radiation
• at least six workers exceeded lifetime legal limits for
radiation
• more than 300 received significant radiation doses
• Impacted Japan’s Energy Policy
 More Recent: Thai Petrochemical (2012)

• May 12, 2012

• Explosion when workers were cleaning chemical tank
at a synthetic rubber plant
• 12 dead, more than 100 injured
 More Recent: Iran Petrochemical (2012)

• Friday August 3, 2012

• Fire at Imam Khomeini Petrochemical Complex,
Southwestern City Mahshahr
• At least 6 dead, dozens injured
• Gas Leak
 In Our backyard: Petronas Gas (2012)

• Explosion at PETRONAS Plant in Paka

– May 10, 2012, Gas Processing Plant, GPP3 area 2.
– 2 dead 23 injured
• Suspected gas leak to storm water drain
 In our backyard: Petronas Carigali (2012)

• Fire at Tukau B Drilling Platform, 31 nautical

miles from Miri.
• June 12, 2012, 9.20 am
• 16 people were working, 5 injured (various
degree of burn). Living quarters in Tukau A
 In Our Backyard: MISC (2012)

• MV Bunga Alpinia 3, Ship carrying Ammonia in filling

operations at Petronas Methanol, Labuan
• 26th July 2012, Early morning Explosion
• Source of ignition: suspect lightning strike during
thunderstorm, 2.30 am.
• 29 crews, 5 dead (1 immediately found, 2 found dead
the next day, 5th body found dead 30/7.)
 So much for statistics !!!

What shall we do about it ???

Introduction to Process
Safety

Topic 2.

Hazard in Process Industries

 Hazards in Process Industries

• There are Three Major Hazards: Fire,

Explosion, Toxic Release
• Fire
– Impacts on plant, people and environment
– May also followed by toxic release
• Explosion
– Same as fire but more severe
• Toxic Release
– Impacts of people and environment. e.g. Bhopal
 The Fire Triangle

2. Oxidizers* (the
1. Fuels
molecule contain
oxygen atoms) • Liquids - gasoline,
acetone, ether,
• Gases - oxygen,
pentane;
nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Solids - plastics,
• Liquids - hydrogen
wood dusts, fibers,
peroxide (H2O2),
metal particles,
nitric acid (HNO3)
flour;
• Solids - ammonium
Ignition • Gases - acetylene,
nitrate (NH4NO3).
Source propane, carbon
monoxide, H2

3. Ignition Sources
• Sparks, flames, static electricity, heat.
 Distance of Effect Comparison

INVENTORY UVCE BLEVE FIRE

(tons)

1 120 18 Distance
2 150 36 in Meters
5 200 60
10 250 90 20
20 310 130 30
50 420 200 36
100 530 280 50
200 670 400 60
500 900 600 100
1000 1150 820 130
 Pool Fire
• Liquid spilled onto the ground
spreads out to form a pool.
• Volatile liquid (e.g. petrol)
evaporate to atmosphere and
soon form flammable mixture
with air.
• Upon ignition, a fire will burn
over the pool.
• The heat vaporizes more fuel
and air is drawn in round to the
side to support combustion.
• Danger to people is by direct
thermal radiation and burn.
 Jet Fire

• High pressure release of gas from a vessel or pipeline ignites

almost immediately.
• This give rises to a giant burner of flame length tens of meters.
• Danger from thermal radiation and also impingement on adjacent
pressurized vessel, such as LPG vessel, heating the content
followed by pressure build up causing ‘boiling liquid expanding
vapor explosion’ (BLEVE).
• Sometimes called Torch Fire
 Flash Fire

• Fire due to vapour cloud below explosive limit

• Resulting from spillage of relatively volatile (e.g.
propane, butane, LPG) material due to rapid
evaporation
• People at risk from thermal radiation effects.
• Usually unexpected event and short duration
 Vapor Cloud Explosion

• Cloud will spread from too rich, through flammable range to too
lean.
• Edges start to burn through deflagration (steady state
combustion).
• Cloud will disperse through natural convection.
• Flame velocity will increase with containment and turbulence.
• If velocity is high enough cloud will detonate.
• If cloud is small enough with little confinement it cannot explode.
Factors Favoring Overpressures of Vapor Cloud

1. Confinement
– Prevents combustion products escaping, giving higher local
pressures even with deflagration.
– Creates turbulence, a precursor for detonation.
2. Cloud composition
– Highly unsaturated molecules are bad due to high flammable
range, low ignition energy, high flame speed etc.
3. Weather
– Stable atmospheres lead to large clouds.
– Low wind speed encourages large clouds.
Factors Favoring Overpressures of Vapor Cloud

4. Vapor Cloud Size impacts on:

– probability of finding ignition source
– likelihood of generating any overpressure
– magnitude of overpressure
5. Source
– flashing liquids seem to give high overpressure
– vapor systems need very large failures to cause UVCE
– slow leaks give time for cloud to disperse naturally without
finding an ignition source
– high pressure gives premixing required for large combustion
– equipment failures where leak is not vertically upwards
increases likelihood of large cloud
 Flixborough, England
• Company: Flixborough Works of Nypro Limited.
• June 1974.
• Product: cyclohexane – highly flammable
• 6 reactors in series, total capacity 120 tons.
• Fire and explosion – over than 10 days
• 28 people died & 36 others were injured.
• 53 civilians were reported injury
• Damage: entire plant, 1821 nearby houses &
167 shops and factories.

28
 Phillips Pasadena, USA

• 23rd Oct. 1989, Vapour Cloud explosion

• 23 Deaths 130 Injuries, Loss US$ 500 Millions
BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour
Explosion)

• When BLEVE is initiated, the

liquid boils off rapidly
producing a reaction which
turns parts of the ruptured
vessel into rockets which can
travel 2500 ft or more.
• The liquid can take fire if it is
flammable and burning
material can spread over a
large area. If the gas or
liquid mixes with air a vapour
cloud explosion can occur.
 The Tragedy Of San Juanico,
PEMEX, Mexico City, 19 Nov 84
• Pemex is a liquid
petroleum gas ( LPG)
distribution plant.
• Pemex is located a few
km. north of Mexico
City (Pop = 16MM).
• Plant was 25 years old
and built to 1950 API
standards of the U.S.
• LPG gas is used for
• 15 of 48 Vessels BLEVE in domino heating and cooking in
fashion almost every
• 550 people killed. household.
• 2,000 people receive severe burns.
• 7,231 people classed as injured.
 Impact

Spherical Tank Failure (F4)

Cylindrical tank flew as missiles

Bullet Tank Area Nearby Houses

 Dust Explosion
Dust is suspended in
Combustible dust the air at a proper
concentration

CAUSES OF
DUST
EXPLOSION

There is an
oxidant (typically
There is an atmospheric
ignition source oxygen)
The dust is
confined

*If any of these five conditions is missing there can be no dust

explosion
 Imperial Sugar Explosion

February 7, 2008 in Port Wenworth, Georgia, USA. 13 people killed and 42 injured
 Hazard from Toxic Substances
• Source of Toxicants
– Toxic Release
– Fire and Explosion leading to release of toxicants
• Route of Entry
– Injection: through cuts or hypodermic needles into the
skin, usually cause highest blood level concentration.
– Inhalation: through mouth/nose into the lungs
– Ingestion: through mouth into stomach and gastrointestinal
tract,
– Dermal (Skin) absorption: through skin membrane

35
 Toxicants
• Agents
– Chemicals: organic solvent, pesticides, lead etc
– Physical (dusts, fibers, noise, and radiation) agents,
e.g. Asbestos
– Carcinogenic, terratogenic, mutagenic
• Toxicity is a property of toxicant that describe
its effect on biological organism.
– Very Toxic > Toxic > Harmful
• Toxic Effect
– Reversible vs irreversible
– Acute Vs Chronic
– Local Vs Systemic
 The Bhopal Tragedy
• 40 tons Methyl Isocynate escape
• Immediate cause : 500L seepage
• Erupts and release fumes
• 3000 died : respiratory failure
• 500,000 suffer aftermath
• USD470mil spent

37
Introduction to Process
Safety

Topic 3.

RISK & RISK RANKING

 Definition of Risk

Risk = Severity x Likelihood

Severity
• Probability of Fatality
• Monetory Losses
• Environmental Impact

Likelihood
• Chance of failure
• Probability

39
 Risk is expressed in as Rating
• Rating is typically
– simple to use and understand
– Not require extensive knowledge to use
– Have consistent likelihood ranges that cover the full
spectrum of potential scenarios

• In applying risk assessment

– Clear guidance on applicability is provided
– Detailed descriptions of the consequences of
concern for each consequence range should be
described
– Have clearly defined tolerable and intolerable risk
levels

40
 Example of a Severity Range
Description Category Environmental, Safety and Health Result Criteria
Catastrophic I • Death, permanent total disability
• Loss of exceeding $1M
• Irreversible severe environmental damage that violates law
or regulation
Critical II • Permanent partial disability, injuries or occupational illness
that may result in hospitalization of at least 3 personnel
•Loss exceeding $200K but less than $1M
•Reversible environmental damage causing a violation of law
or regulation
Marginal III •Injury or occupational illness resulting in one or more loss of
workdays
•Loss exceeding $10K but less than $200K
•Mitigatible environmental damage without violation of law
or regulation where restoration activities can be
accomplished
Negligible IV Injury or illness not resulting in a lost work day
Loss exceeding $2K but less than $10K
Minimal environmental damage not violating law or
regulation 41
 Example of Likelihood Ranges
Description Level Specific Individual Item Fleet or Inventory
Frequent A Likely to occur than 10-1 in that life Continuously
experienced
Probable B Will occur several times in the life on an Will occur frequently
item, with probability of occurrence less
than 10-2 but greater than 10-3 in that life

Occasional C Likely to occur some time in the life of an Will occur several
item, with a probability of occurrence times
less than 10-2 but greater than 10-3 in
that life
Remote D Unlikely but possible to occur in the life Unlikely but can be
of an item with a probability of reasonably expected
occurrence less than 10-3 but greater to occur
than 10-6 in that life

Improbable So unlikely, it can be assumed occurrence Unlikely but possible

may not be experienced, with a
probability of occurrence less than 10-6 42
 Example Risk Ranking Categories
Risk Rank Category Description

I Unacceptable Should be mitigated with engineering

and/or administrative controls to a
risk ranking of III or less within a
specified period such as 6 months
II Undesirable Should be mitigated with engineering
and/or administrative controls to a
risk ranking of III or less within a
specified period such as 12 months
III Acceptable Should be verified that procedures or
with Controls controls are in place
IV Acceptable as is No mitigation required
43
Sometimes presented as Risk Matrix

Risk = Probability of occurrence x Consequence of occurrence

44
 Guidelines for Risk Mitigation

Risk Level Action Required

A Risk Mitigation required to risk level C or D

B Risk Mitigation required to risk level C or D

C Risk Mitigation to risk level D is optional

D No further Risk Mitigation required

45
 Can we accept risks

• Risk cannot be eliminated entirely.

• Every chemical process has a certain amount of
risk associated with it.
• At some point in the design stage someone needs
to decide if the risks are “tolerable".
• Each country has it owns tolerability criteria.
• One tolerability criteria in the UK is "as low as
reasonable practicable" (ALARP) concept
formalized in 1974 by United Kingdom Health and
Safety at Work Act.

Page 46
 A risk is Acceptable When:
• it falls below an arbitrary defined probability
• it falls below some level that is already tolerated
• it falls below an arbitrary defined attributable fraction of total
disease burden in the community
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved when
the ‘costs of suffering’ are also factored in
• the opportunity costs would be better spent on other, more
pressing, public health problems
• public health professionals say it is acceptable
• the general public say it is acceptable (or more likely, do not say it
is not)
• politicians say it is acceptable.
 Acceptable Risks
• 1 in 1000 as the ‘just about tolerable risk’ for any
substantial category of workers for any large part of a
working life.
– Same as dying due to road traffic accidents (1998)
• 1 in 10,000 as the ‘maximum tolerable risk’ for
members of the public from any single non-nuclear
plant.
• 1 in 100,000 as the ‘maximum tolerable risk’ for
members of the public from any new nuclear power
station.
• 1 in 1,000,000 as the level of ‘acceptable risk’ at which
no further improvements in safety need to be made.
– Same as the chance of being electrocuted at home
The Magic Number !

1 x 10 -6
 ALARP Criteria
INTOLERABLE REGION
(Risk cannot be justified
on any ground)
1 X 10-3
TOLERABLE only if risk reduction
is impracticable, or its costs is
ALARP REGION (Risk is grossly disproportionate to the
undertaken if benefit is improvement gained.
desired)
TOLERABLE if cost of
reduction would exceed the
1 X 10-6 improvement gained

BROADLY ACCEPTABLE
REGION

Page 50
 Reasonably Practicable

“Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than “physically possible” and

implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is
placed in one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble,
involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other;
and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the
risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the
duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not
reasonably practicable”
Edward Vs National Coal Board [1949]
 Conclusion

• Yes, we need to do something…

• The issue is how to make the plant safe for the
workers and the surrounding community and
environmentally benign?????