See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328760951

Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Abadan Refinery’s Sandblasting Unit

Using FMEA Method

Conference Paper · July 2012

CITATIONS
READS
4
3,376

3 authors:

Fereshteh Jaderi
Nader Nabhani
Sustainable Development and Environmental Economics Office, Department of Envi…
Petroleum University of Technology
14 PUBLICATIONS 150 CITATIONS
37 PUBLICATIONS 250 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Elham Sa’idi
NIOPDC
5 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

catalyst prepration to reforming process View project

Three dimensional risk assessment modeling based on Hazid method in Siri gas compression unit View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fereshteh Jaderi on 06 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Conference on Chemical, Environmental Science and Engineering (ICEEBS'2012) July 28-29, 2012 Pattaya (Thailand)
Risk Assessment and Risk Management
of Abadan Refinery’s Sandblasting Unit
Using FMEA Method
Nader Nabhani, Fereshteh Jaderi and Elham Sa’idi
Abstract—Risk is present in all human endeavors. Evaluation
and risk management is the fourth step of health, safety and
environmental management system (HSEMS). The objective of this
article is the identification and evaluation of risks for all activities,
products and services based on the calculated risks.There are more
than seventy methods for risk assessment. Five important
characteristics considered to select a suitable analysis method are:
Complexity and measurement of system, kind of process, kind of
operation, nature of potential of hazard and notice to condition and
accident. This article focuses on an effective assessment and risk
management on Abadan Refinery’s sandblasting unit. With respect to
five mentioned characteristics, failure mode & effect analysis
(FMEA) method is applied to give us the accurate results. We
determine risk levels using qualitative and quantitative approaches.
The risk priority number (RPN) is calculated for three aspects of
health, safety and environmental risks. We observe that the FMEA
method is useful by comparing revised RPN with the old one for each
item and the results show that the health risks are more dangerous in
our case study. Thus, some corrective action is considered.
Keywords— FMEA, risk assessment, risk management, sand
blasting.
I. I 0B NTRODUCTION
R
ISK is pervasive. It is universal experience and
inescapable. We all face risk – some people more
frequently and more willingly than others. While some worry
constantly about risk, others cheerfully seek it out. Risk
surrounds us, but we are not always fully conscious of it, nor
do we consistently respond to it wisely or effectively. There
are all stories about risk, either as consequences of events that
have happened or as possibilities for the future. They are also
stories about attempts to manage risks. Yet the word ‘risk’ is
rarely mentioned openly. The risk perspectives exist, but are
communicated implicitly rather than explicitly. This implicit
treatment of risk in replicated in every area of life. Each of us
is constantly surrounded by, and caught on with,
circumstances involving risks. Are such attitudes towards risk
reasonable and, since the case study of this article is concerned
Nader Nabhani is with the Petroleum University of Technology, Bowardeh
Shomali, Abadan, IRAN, (corresponding author to provide phone: +98-611-
5122342; fax:+98-611-5551321;e-mail:nabhani@put.ac.ir).
Fereshteh Jaderi.( e-mail:fereshtehjaderi@yahoo.com).
Elham Sa’idi is with the Petroleum University of Technology, Bowardeh
Shomali, Abadan, IRAN, (e-mail:Elham.saidi@ait.put.ac.ir).
17
with risk assessment and risk management, the risk awareness
situation should be different in a HSE article [1]. Risk
assessment and risk management are relatively new terms that
can be used to describe decision making in the field of
environmental and related public health protection.
The refinery industries represent a significant contribution
in the world economy. They introduce a wide variety of
products. A typical oil refinery has various unit processes and
the flow of intermediate products between the inlet crude oil
feedstock and the final products. All units of a refinery are
concerning with hazardous conditions. Refinery’s accident is
often due to unexpected interaction between operators and
equipments. A suitable study of risk can prevent many of these
accidents.
The main goal of all industries should be reaching to a
safety system that protects human and financial sources. For
reaching a safe system the HSEMS should be installed. As
shown in figure [1], the focus is on step four, i.e. evaluation
and risk management. Risk assessment is the first step in a risk
management process. Many different methods of risk
assessment exist, that on the FMEA method is focused in this
article.
Objective of this article is to identify, assess and control the
health, safety and environmental risks on Abadan refinery’s
sandblasting, so with a correct planning the high level risks
will be deleted, reduced or controlled. We want to reduce the
high level risks of sandblasting and to see how choosing a
proper approach for risk assessment can be effective. The
essential steps of Hazard Management are shown in figure 2.
II. M ETHODOLOGY
1B
There are more than seventy methods for risk assessment.
Some common methods are: William fine, ROLLIN
GERONSIN, Hazop study, FTA, ETA, FMEA, PHA,
HAZAN, Chazop, What if …? Analysis, etc. Five important
characteristics considered to select a suitable analysis method
are: Complexity and measurement of system, kind of process,
kind of operation, nature of potential of hazard and notice to
condition and accident. This article focuses on an effective
assessment and risk management on Abadan refinery’s
sandblasting unit. With respect to five mentioned
characteristics failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)
method is applied to give us the accurate results. The basic
steps to using the FMEA Worksheet are: 1) Identify all failure
 Fig. 2 The essential steps of Hazard

Management System (HSEMS) [2]

Fig .1 The Model Health, Safety and Environmental

(1-10), and D is check-up difficulty range (1-10)

calculation of RPN, which is defined as

the failure. The most important parameter for FMEA is the
the risks. 5) Create an RPN (risk priority number) and rank
failure (severity, occurrences, and detection). 4) Eliminate
modes. 2) Consider the root causes .3) Assess the risk of the
Recov

RPN=S*O
Where S is risk range (1-10), O is failure probability

International Conference on Chemical, Environmental Science and Engineering (ICEEBS'2012) July 28-29, 2012 Pattaya (Thailand)
Identi
Mitiga

Evalua
Preve

(
1

Table I.
Result table of Health assessment

Raw Function Failure mode Effect Cause of failure S O D RPN Recommendation action S O D RPN

1 Height Falling Death Not fixing before Repairing stair, Using protection
10 8 9 720 8 7 9 392
work tools like harness and safety belt
Making a place in each step, caring
2 Object Falling Injury Carelessness 8 5 8 320 6 3 8 90
the persons of above step
pollution air & Respiratory
3 Exposure Unsuitable mask 9 8 4 288 Using the spatial respiratory mask 6 6 4 108
metallic dust problems
Over weighting
Manual picking of Using wheeler equipment and
4 Falling or collision Injury and Lack of 7 8 3 168 5 5 3 50
objects pulley
balance
Fellness at equilevel
Separating apart of
5 Injury Carelessness 5 4 3 60 Auditing and notice to HSE laws 5 2 3 20
surface levels

Working without
Collision of metallic Wearing and high Blindness and
6 suitable PPE and 9 7 3 179 Using a suitable mask and glass 9 5 3 90
particles speed of equipment injury of eye
in a bad direction
 Fig .3 Result of Health

8
Table II .

0
Result table of Safety assessment

International Conference on Chemical, Environmental Science and Engineering (ICEEBS'2012) July 28-29, 2012 Pattaya (Thailand)
Failure Cause of Recommendation

RPN
Raw

Function Effect S O D S O D RPN

mode failure action

Throwing Working in
Collision Injury of
1 of a bad 8 9 3 216 Using the safety glass 5 9 2 90
to body eye
particles direction

Working Using the especial ear

Presence Audiometri
2 Noise with the old 6 5 2 60 plug and ear muff 4 3 1 12
of human c problems
equipment during the work

Hedging
injury or Wearing On time inspection and

Revised
Initial RPN
3 the clams collision 9 9 3 243 4 5 1 20
drenching and oldness exchange of old clams
of tubes
1

figure (3).
FMEA method and the results are shown in table (I) and
The results of the safety risks of sand blasting using

The health risks of sand blasting are studied using

Table III .
Result table of Safety assessment
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Failure Cause of
Raw

Function Effect S O D RPN Recommendation action S O D RPN

mode failure

Throwing Collisio
Working in a
1 of n to Injury of eye 8 9 3 216 Using the safety glass 5 9 2 90
bad direction
particles body

Presence Working with

Audiometric Using the especial ear plug
2 Noise of the old 6 5 2 60 4 3 1 12
problems and ear muff during the work
human equipment

Hedging
injury or Wearing and On time inspection and
3 the clams collision 9 9 3 243 4 5 1 20
drenching oldness exchange of old clams
of tubes
 International Conference on Chemical, Environmental Science and Engineering (ICEEBS'2012) July 28-29, 2012 Pattaya (Thailand)

The risks are ranked according to their RPN. The degree of

Table IV. confidence is 90 % at this method and highest RPN is 1000.
Risk score So the corrective actions are required for risks with RPN
Ranking Level of Required corrective action higher than 100.
Raw

of RPN risk 1000*90 % = 900 1000-900 = 100

Immediately corrective action are required. Also corrective actions should be considered for hazards
1 200-1000 High Action should be stopped to reduced that have at least one 10 at their S, O or D.
hazard.
The hazards are scored according to the table (IV). Note
that risks with at least one 10 at their S, O or D are considered
Compulsory necessary attention should be
2 100-200 Moderate as high risk regardless of their RPN.
done at the earliest possible time.
The results of our case study are brought at table (V) and
Hazard Should be eliminated early but according to it; there were 7 high risks, 3 moderate and 2 law
3 0-100 Low
situation is not Compulsory. risks before we exert recommendations and they reduce to 1
high, 2 moderate and 9 law risks after doing the corrective
actions.

IV. CONCLUSION
The most recognized high level risks are related to health
part of HSE and its RPN is 720. The main source of health
hazards are because of the following reasons:
Abrasive blasting can generate large quantities of dust,
which may be toxic. Abrasive blasting results in high
concentrations of respirable dust. (Dust which is small enough
to be inhaled into the lungs.)
Correct Safety Training for Sandblasting should include: 1)
Fig .4 Result of Safety assessment Safe Work Procedures 2) Manual handling 3) Use of plant and
equipment 4) Correct fitting, use, storage and maintenance of
respiratory equipment. 5) Wet down dry materials and
Table V. surfaces before you work with them or before you sweep
Result them. This will reduce some dust. 6) Do not use disposable
High Moderate Low dust masks if the dust has any silica. Disposable masks do not
Risk protect you from silica. They do not form a snug seal with
level
your face. 7) For abrasive blasting, replace silica sand with
safer materials. The U.S. government's National Institute for
number Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) says do not use
H S E H S E H S E
sand or any abrasive with more than 1% crystalline silica in it.
Before corrective action 3 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 Specular hematite, crushed glass, some slags, or steel grit and
After corrective action 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 3 2 shot may be good substitutes. (Use of some slags and steel grit
may increase worker exposures to some toxic metals.) 8)
When doing abrasive blasting with any material that may
250 contain silica, you need to use a type CE abrasive blasting
respirator (positive pressure/pressure demand, with an APF of
200 1,000 or 2,000). This respirator provides air from outside the
blasting area. Respirators must not be the main way you
150 reduce exposures. Some recommendations are:
Initial RPN • Dress with Safety in Mind
100 • Use the Right Materials for Sand Blasting
Revised RPN
• Keep the Right Distance and Movement.
50
REFERENCES
0 [1] Peter J. Edwards and Paul A. Risk Management in Project Organization.
Bowen, 2004
1 2 3 [2] G A.Erison, Hazard Analysis Technology for System Analysis, John
Wiley and Sons, 2002.
Fig .5 Results of Environmental [3] D.y.Smith and K.G.L. Simpson, Functional Safety, Second Edition,
assessment 2006.
Some risks of sandblasting are directly related to [4] E&P FORUM -Guidelines for the Development and Application of
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Systems - Report No.
environment that are shown in table (VI) and figure (5). 6.36/210

20
View publication stats