EPCC-01: ADU, Gas Plant, MS Block,

RFCC, Sulfur Block, Utilities and Offsite

N A F T E C .S P A

Page 1 of 6
6897-04-41-SILS-01 Rev 0

Project: REHABILITATION AND ADAPTATION PROJECT, ALGIERS

REFINERY, ALGERIA

Owner: NAFTEC Spa

PMC: Engineers India Limited

Package No. EPCC-01

Package Title: ADU, Gas Plant, MS Block, RFCC, Sulfur Block,
Utilities and Offsite

Annexure: I
Section: 16.2
Discipline: POSD
Title: Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Specifications

0 12.03.2009 Issued For FEED Package ACS VR NRK

Rev. Prepared Checked Approved

Date Purpose
No by by by

EPCC-01_SA_SafetyIntegrity Level (SIL) Specifications

 EPCC-01: ADU, Gas Plant, MS
Block, RFCC, Sulfur Block, Utilities
and Offsites
N A F T E C .S P A

Page 2 of 6
6897-04-41-SILS-01 Rev 0

INDEX

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................3

2.0 DANGEROUS FAILURE CLASSIFICATION ................................................................... 3

Demand rate....................................................................................................................... 3
Personnel health and safety consequences ................................................................... 3
Table-1: Reduction of personnel health and safety consequences.............................. 4
Economic consequences ................................................................................................. 5
Environmental consequences.......................................................................................... 5

3.0 INPUTS REQUIRED FOR SIL CLASSIFICATION STUDY.............................................. 6

EPCC-01_SA_SafetyIntegrity Level (SIL) Specifications

 EPCC-01: ADU, Gas Plant, MS Block,
RFCC, Sulfur Block, Utilities and Offsite

N A F T E C .S P A

Page 3 of 6
6897-04-41-SILS-01 Rev 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The methodology adopted for the SIL/IPF classification study is based upon guidelines provided
by the following documents.
♦ IEC-61508
♦ IEC-61511
The classification methodology comprises “Classification of IPF dangerous failures” (failures
when a genuine demand exists)
The classification of IPF dangerous failures takes into account:
♦ Consequences related to personnel health and safety
♦ Consequences related to production and equipment loss
♦ Consequences related to the environmental impact

The IPF classification methodology is based on the risk assessment matrix presented in the
document.

2.0 DANGEROUS FAILURE CLASSIFICATION

Demand rate
The first step in determining the demand rate is to determine the cause(s) of the demand on the
IPF. The second step is to determine the rate at which the demand is placed on the IPF. The
IPF classification methodology quantifies the demand rate in terms of ranges:

Demand Rate
Category (Interval between
demands)
D0 Negligible
D1 > 20 years
D2 4 to 20 years
D3 6 months to 4 years
D4 < 6 months

Personnel health and safety consequences

The IPF methodology determines personnel health and safety consequences as one of six
categories:

EPCC-01_SA_SafetyIntegrity Level (SIL) Specifications

 EPCC-01: ADU, Gas Plant, MS
Block, RFCC, Sulfur Block, Utilities
and Offsites
N A F T E C .S P A

Page 4 of 6
6897-04-41-SILS-01 Rev 0

Category Consequence
S0 No injury or health effect
S1 Slight injury or health effect
S2 Minor injury or health effect
S3 Major injury or health effect
S4 One to three fatalities
S5 Multiple fatalities

The following are considered while determining personnel health and safety consequences:
• Potential for human injury if the IPF fails upon occurrence of a hazardous situation
• Exposure of personnel in the area affected by the hazardous situation
• Possibility of the potential casualties avoiding/escaping the hazarding situtation. (This
considers the means of warning the person and the possibility of his escape).
The resulting risk reductions are concluded as in Table-1.

Table-1: Reduction of personnel health and safety consequences

Exposure
F1 Very rare (< 10 man-minutes per day)
F2 Occasional (< 6 man-hours per day)
F3 Frequent to continuously (> 6 man-hours per day)
Possibility of averting danger
P1 In almost all circumstances
P2 In some circumstances
P3 Little or none
Reduction in personnel heath & safety consequences
P3 -1 0 0
Possibility of
P2 -1 -1 0
averting danger
P1 -2 -1 -1
F1 F2 F3
Exposure

The resulting reduction will be deducted from the S-consequence category found. If the result of
the classification is S0, the IPF is not required for personnel health and safety reasons.

EPCC-01_SA_SafetyIntegrity Level (SIL) Specifications

 EPCC-01: ADU, Gas Plant, MS
Block, RFCC, Sulfur Block, Utilities
and Offsites
N A F T E C .S P A

Page 5 of 6
6897-04-41-SILS-01 Rev 0

Economic consequences

The IPF methodology determines economic consequences as being one of six categories:

Category Consequence
L0 No loss
L1 Slight loss
L2 Minor loss
L3 Local loss
L4 Major loss
L5 Extensive loss

Environmental consequences

The IPF methodology determines environmental consequences as being one of six categories:

Category Consequence Description

E0 No Effect No environmental damage; no financial consequences.
E1 Slight Effect Local environmental effects.
Within the boundary fence and within systems.
Negligible financial consequences.
E2 Minor Effect Contamination sufficiently large to damage the
environment or single complaint
Single instance of exceeding statutory or prescribed limits
No permanent effect on the environment
E3 Local Effect Limited discharge of known toxicity
Repeated exceeding of statutory or prescribed limits
Affecting neighborhood beyond the boundary fence.
E4 Major Effect Severe environmental damage
The company is required to take extensive measures to
restore the contaminated environment to its original state.
Extended violation of of statutory or prescribed limit.
E5 Massive Effect Persistent severe environmental damage or severe
nuisance extending over a large area.
Loss of commercial, recreational use or nature
conservancy resulting in major financial consequences.
Constant and high violation of statutory or prescribed
limit.
If the result of the classification is E0, the IPF is not required for environmental protection.

EPCC-01_SA_SafetyIntegrity Level (SIL) Specifications

 EPCC-01: ADU, Gas Plant, MS
Block, RFCC, Sulfur Block, Utilities
and Offsites
N A F T E C .S P A

Page 6 of 6
6897-04-41-SILS-01 Rev 0

3.0 INPUTS REQUIRED FOR SIL CLASSIFICATION STUDY

♦ Cause & Effect matrices
♦ Process Description
♦ P&I Diagrams
♦ Plant layout
♦ HAZOP study report

Apart from the above, the following inputs may be required from NAFTEC during the
classification study on case to case basis:
• Approximate cost impact due to plant shutdown or equipment
maintenance/replacement
• Approximate cost impact for bringing robustness in the IPF (to avoid spurious trips)
• Approximate impact from environmental release

EPCC-01_SA_SafetyIntegrity Level (SIL) Specifications