LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROCESS EQUIPMENT FAILURES IN THE CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v75.5184Keywords:
Accident prevention, equipment failure, hierarchy of controls, lessons learnedAbstract
Process equipment failures play significant roles in most accidents that occur and recur in the chemical process industry (CPI). In this study, 50 equipment comprehensive accident investigation reports, extracted from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) and U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were analyzed to generate lessons learned. Based on the analysis, the synergy between major hazards i.e. fire, explosion, and toxic release has resulted in catastrophic accidents in the CPI. The emphasis on procedural equipment failure prevention does not provide sufficient hierarchy of controls in the CPI. Balance and integrated accident prevention is required to solve human unreliability that often leads to improper problem-solving, inappropriate actions, and ill-timed responses. To minimize losses, facilities and equipment should be designed and prepared for the worst-case scenario. Moreover, occurrence and recurrence of the accidents could be prevented using inclusive and updated communication systems through cooperation between various governmental agencies, industry players, and the public to disseminate lessons learned and promote safety in the industry.
Â
References
(1) Prem, K. P., Ng D., and Mannan, M.S. 2010. Harnessing database resources for understanding the profile of chemical process safety incidents.J Loss Prevent Process Ind. 23(4): 549-560.
(2) Lindberg,A. K., Hansson, S. O., and Rollenhagen, C. 2010. Learning from accidents – What more do we need to know? J Saf Sci. 48(6): 714-721.
(3) Kletz, T. A. 2009. Accident reports may not tell us everything we need to know. J Loss Prevent Process Ind. 22(2): 162-168.
(4) Jacobsson, A., Sales, J., and Mushtaq, F. 2010. Underlying causes and level of learning from accident reported to the MARS database. J Loss Prevent Process Ind. 23(1): 39-45.
(5) CCPS. 1998. Guidelines For Design Solutions For Process Equipment Failures. Center for Chemical Process Safety, AICheE.
(6) Kletz, T.A., and Amyotte, P. 2010. Process Plant – A Handbook For Inherent Safer Design. CRC Press.
(7) Lees, F.P. 1996. Loss Prevention In The Process Industries. Butterworth Heinemann.
(8) Kidam, K., and Hurme, M. 2012. Origin of equipment design and operation errors. J Loss Prevent Process Ind. 25: 937-949.
(9) Amyotte, P. R., MacDonald, D. K., and Khan, F.I. 2011. An analysis of CSB investigation reports concerning the hierarchy of controls. J Process Saf Progress. 30(3):261–265.
(10) CSB. 2013. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Retrieved from www. csb.gov/investigations/completed-investigations
(11) NTSB. 2013. National Transportation Safety Board. Retrieved from www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports.
(12) Kidam, K. 2012. Process Safety Enhancement In Chemical Plant Design By Exploiting Accident Knowledge. PhD thesis. Aalto University School of Chemical Technology.
(13) Antaki, G. 2005. Fitness-For-Service And Integrity Of Piping, Vessels And Tanks. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
(14) Santamaria Ramiro, J.M., and Brana Aisa, P.A. 1998. Risk Analysis And Reduction In Chemical Process Industry. Blackei Academic & Profession, Thomson Science
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of articles that appear in Jurnal Teknologi belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions, or any other reproductions of similar nature.
