The Value of Safety Valuable Risk Assessment · Rotary Kiln 3.300 t/d Bag filter 300t 100 t...

IV INTERNATIONAL OSH CONFERENCE 2018 - PRISTINA, KOSOVO PRISTINA 1-3 NOVEMBER 2018

The Value of Safety; Valuable Risk Assessment

The Value of Safety

Valuable Risk Assessment

Pristina, 1-3 November 2018 Dr. Georgios Panopoulos, CEO



Why Safety?



The Value of Safety

Or

Safety is a Value



Common sense, 2500 years now

Protagoras from Abdera, the pre-Socratic philosopher (stochastic) introducing his work quoted: “Man is the measure of all things, of things which are that they are and of things which are not that they are not”. So in our case the VALUE of safety depends on the way the man, the societies measure it and can differ and indeed differs from society to society, sector to sector, organisation to organisation.

Abdera 490 – 420 BC



SAFETY CRITERIA

• Moral

• Legal

• Economical

Last decade Organizations focus on Sustainability



COMMUNICATING VESSELS PRINCIPLE



Communicating Parameters & Partners

Parameters • Financing • Taxation • Licensing • Deadlines • Penalties • Development • Sustainable

development • Politics • Profit • Sustainable profit • Ethics • Other business

Partners (stakeholders) • Investors • Local societies • State • Politicians • Organised

communities • Operators • Contractors • Insurers • Employees • Other businesses



ECONOMICS OF SAFETY

8

X Number of Accidents Safety Performance

Y

CO

ST

AC1

SC1

SP1/IR1

PC1

Traditionally, SC =PC + AC

Prevention Cost (PC)

SCmin

Safety Cost (SC)

Accident Cost (AC)

MfwnAC1

Management Failure

without Accident

Cost (MFwAC) (1)

Returns Cost (RC) (2)

New SCmin

Then, SC =PC + AC + MFwAC (1)

(1) G. D. Panopoulos 2004

(2) G. D. Panopoulos 2009



THE STORY (THE SEQUENCE)

• Once upon a time …



PRELIMENARY PHASE (LEVEL 0)

People decided to build a new plant. They defined then the minimum safety standards to follow, determining the risk inherent to the operation phase, or the selection of the equipment and technology determined itself the risk to be inherited.

Specifications for main equipment, design factors, technology, etc. are the result of a thorough Risk Assessment already performed by the industry, since main equipment, design philosophy etc. have been assessed by manufacturers, practice and law.



RISK ASSESSMENT - LEVEL 0

Level 0 Design basis, core specifications, selection of land/location



DESIGN PHASE (LEVEL 1) Developing (Detailing) the design, specific safety studies are carried out to assess and/or quantify associated risks and confirm design and design specs as well as operational needs.

• Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP)

• Hazard Identification (HAZID)

• ATEX (explosive atmospheres)

• Safety Integrity Level (SIL)

• Quantitative Risk Assessment

• Health and Safety File (HSF)

• Stress analysis

• Fire study

• Earthquake study

• Signing and labeling study




Level 0 Design basis, core specifications, selection of land

LEVEL 1 Safety Studies, Quantitative and Qualitative Risk assessment



ROUTINE OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (LEVEL 2)

Considering:

• Safety Studies findings and recommendations;

• Operational philosophy;

• Management systems in place;

• Staffing;

• Works given out/outsourced (contractors)

• and the alike,

then a Plant’s Qualitative Risk Assessment is prepared and it is incorporated into the OPS manuals and the management procedures.






LEVEL 2

Qualitative RA for the routine status of the Plant, incorporated into the Ops manuals and Management Systems procedures



ROUTINE & NON-ROUTINE OPERATION & MAINTENANCE WORKS (LEVEL 3)

Based on the standard stuff, confirm/revise Plant’s RA on spot for the particular:

• Systems included

• Personnel

• Environment

• Equipment

• Layout – alignment

• Procedure to be followed

• Weather, time schedule, … ; and

prepare for that work a specific RA based on the method statement and vice versa.






LEVEL 2

Qualitative RA for the routine status of the Plant, incorporated into the Ops manuals and Management Systems procedures

LEVEL 3

Qualitative Work Specific RA, based and interlinked with the particular work and its specific method statement, together with the standard system in place (e.g. PtW, LoTo, etc)



REVIEW PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

It should be borne in mind that reducing the risks from an existing plant ALARP may still

result in a level of residual risk which is higher than that which would be achieved by

reducing the risks ALARP in a similar, new plant.

Factors which could lead to this difference include (holistic approach) :

• practicability of retrofitting a measure on an existing plant,

• the extra cost of retrofitting measures compared to embedded them in a new plant,

• the risks involved in installation of the retrofitted measure; and

• the projected lifetime of the existing plant .

THE CONCEPT

250 t

800 t/h

`

1.000 t/h

250 t/h

22.500 t

22.500 t

400 t/h

375 t/h

7.500 t 7.500 t.

250 t/h

480t/h

(bauxite)

270t 250 t

187,2t/h 45 t/h 1,2 t/h 3,6 t/h

25t

Vertical Raw mill

280 t/h HGG: 50,16GJ/h

150 t/h60t/h

Coal Pet

Coke

Bag filter

High Temp 120 t/h

100m3

213 t/h

Reclaimer 60 t/h

230 t/h BF dust Raw coal

100t 150 m3

5 stages 15 t/h

ILC Preheater

9,6t/h x 1,05

5,2t/h x 1,05

25t/h

150/250t/h Storage

Bauxite ILS Limestone

150t/h 3000 t 3.000t 1.000 t

600t/h

480t/h

30m3

(clinker) 600t/h 3x300t/h 480 t/h

3-300t/h

250t/h

300t/h

to trucks

25m3

600 t 600 t

200t/h

HGG: 30,16GJ/h

3.000bags/h (50kg)

4.000bags/h (25kg)

6.000 t 6.000 t 6.000 t

100 t

fly ash fly ash

Grate Cooler

Clinker storage

Vertical Coal mill

Bag

Filter

Rotary Kiln 3.300 t/d

Bag filter

300t 100 t

corrective material

truck hopper

IBAU (CC)

7.000 t

Limestone Flysch Iron corrective silo

500 t 270 t

Raw

limestone

(quarry)Raw clayhopper

(quarry)

100 t

Coal storage

IV 32,5 N

6.000 t

Raw coal

150 m3

Pozollan

5.000 t 5.000 t

Pulverized coal

100 t

Pulverized coal

100 t

Packing Plant Palletizing Plant

100 pallets/h

I 42,5 N

1.000 t

I 42,5 R II 32,5 N

100t

Pallet storage

5.000 pallets (two rows)

Lignite

3x7.000t

Gypsum

Clinker Limestone Gypsum Pozzolan

40.000 t

fly ash

Off standard

clinker silo

Grinding aid

20m3

THE DESIGN MANAGEMENT OF INHERENT OPERATIONAL & EMERGING RISKS

Concept Preliminary design

Basic design

Detail design

FEED Construction Testing & commissioning

Hand over

O&M Decommissioning



CONSTRAINTS

• LOCAL MARKET

• COUNTRY COULTURE

• COUNTRY SAFETY CULTURE

• PLANING (including design and time schedule)

• BIDDING – FAIR PRICE

• REQUIRED INVESTMENT

• BIDDING – UNDERSTANDING THE H&S REQ’S

• OWNER / OPERATOR

• OURSELVES (END CLIENT/USER)

EBRD 20140205 - THE REGION.ppt





BASIC STRUCTURE OF A RA

CONDITION/ EQUIPMENT/

ACTIVITY

SAFETY MEASURES

(CONTROLS)

LIKELIHOOD ”L“

(of a specific outcome)

SEVERITY “S”

(of that specific outcome)

OTHER FACTORS

“OF” (e.g.

exposure)

RISK “R”

R= LX S (X OF)

MITIGATION L’ S’ OF’ R’ (residual

risk)

P(Ai) is the likelihood (probability) of an event Ai, where i=1,2,3,…n n

SP(Ai) =1 i=1

P(Bj) is the likelihood (probability) of a possible outcome , where j=1,2,3,…m The total assessed likelihood L or calculated probability of a specific outcome is given below

n

P(Bj) = SP(Bj/Ai) i=1

Whilst the L of a specific outcome of a specific event is P(Bj) = P(Bj/Ai)



ASSESS (SEMI QUANTIFY) LIKELIHOOD

Likelihood Assessment “Quantification”

The likelihood the hazard to occur is almost zero Very unlikely 1

The likelihood the hazard to occur is small Unlikely 2

The likelihood the hazard to occur is medium Likely 3

The likelihood the hazard to occur is large Very likely 4

The likelihood the hazard to occur is almost certain Certain 5



ASSESS (SEMI QUANTIFY) SEVERITY

Severity Assessment “Quantification”

Insignificant outcome, may be required first aid treatment on

site, continue working. Negligible 1

Injuries that may require medical treatment. Absence from

work no more than 3 days Low 2

Injuries that require medical treatment and/or hospitalization.

Absence from work more than 3 days. 3rd degree incapability Critical 3

Serious injuries that require medical treatment and

hospitalization. Absence from work for a long period. 2nd

degree incapability.

Severe 4

One or more deaths or 1st degree incapability. Catastrophic 5



RISK and RATING POLICY

Severity

Likelihood

1 2 3 4 5

5 5 10 15 20 25

4 4 8 12 16 20

3 3 6 9 12 15

2 2 4 6 8 10

1 1 2 3 4 5



ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable)

INTOLERABLE REGION

ALARP REGION

ACCEPTABLE REGION

- 12

e.g. 10

-9

e.g. 10

-6

e.g. 10



ASSESS RISK (R=L X S)

Risk Assessment Result “Quantification”

Acceptable (tolerable) risk, no additional measures

are required Trivial 1-2 1

Acceptable (tolerable/ALARP) risk with control

measures in place Low 3-5 2

Negotiable (ALARP) risk; additional measures are

required due in a flexi time not exceeding e.g. one

year.

Medium 6-10 3

Unacceptable (ALARP/Intolerable) risk, control

measures to be implemented in short term e.g.

three 3 months

High 12-15 4

Unacceptable (intolerable) risk; stop working until

control measures are in place mitigating risk to a

lower rate

Very High 16-25 5



Risk Assessment Approach

• Position (person)

• Activity

What about a more recent approach

of JRA review at spot?



Risk Assessment in Construction

Case study: scaffold or …, risk assessment



BASIC STRUCTURE OF A RA in CONSTRUCTION connected to a works specific method statement

CONDITIONS/ EQUIPMENT/ MATERIIALS/

ACTIVITY

SAFETY MEASURES (CONTROLS)

LIKELIHOOD ”L“

(of a specific outcome)

SEVERITY “S”

(of that specific outcome)

OTHER FACTORS “OF”

(e.g. exposure)

RISK “R” R= LX S (X

OF)



Safety

is an element of civilisation

Η ασφάλεια

είναι πολιτισμός

Management Force Group

The Value of Safety Valuable Risk Assessment · Rotary Kiln 3.300 t/d Bag filter 300t 100 t...

Documents

Transcript of The Value of Safety Valuable Risk Assessment · Rotary Kiln 3.300 t/d Bag filter 300t 100 t...