25th Center for Chemical Process Safety
International Conference
Part of the 5th Global Congress on Process Safety
March 21-24, 2010 San Antonio, TX
Call for Papers Now Closed
Registration will open December 2009
CCPS International Conference Chair: Don Connolley, CCPSchair@aiche.org, 409-949-3139
Conference Oversight: Roxy Schneider, roxys@aiche.org, 646-495-1372
Session Topics and Session Chair Contacts:
LOPA Bloopers and Outtakes
Over the past ten years, the use of LOPA and other semi-quantitative single event risk assessment methodologies has advanced and become wide spread. The biggest challenge with these methods is the use and availability of frequency data and safeguard availability. General guidance is available in publications by CCPS and others, but there are many anecdotal stories of misapplication. How often does an operational procedure fail? How effective is a particular safeguard? If one check valve is not effective, how about two, or three? This session will present the most current industry guidance on frequency assessment and safeguard availability followed by a practical sharing and discussion of experiences and solutions to more effectively apply these methods. This call is for an initial presentation on the current state and additional panel members who can participate and moderate the follow-up discussions
Chair: Jim Muoio, jim.muoio@lyondellbasell.com, 713-309-2408
Consequence Modeling
For many years, consequence models have been used within companies to provide an understanding of the potential consequence of hazardous chemical activities. This session solicits presentations on how consequence models are currently being used in developing, supporting and enhancing process safety practices. Presentations on new uses, lessons learned about the advantages or disadvantages of specific models and the practical application of results will be considered. Presentations could include topics such as:
- Unique application of a consequence model,
- Benefits or issues with selecting and using specific models,
- Comparisons of results between models or between different types of assessments (e.g., security versus emergency management),
- Examples of how results were used as the basis to develop or improve a program, and
- How these consequences were communicated to stakeholders.
Chairs: Toni Wenzel, AJWENZEL@sunocoinc.com, 610-833-3451 and John Herber, jmherber@x-tet.com, 651-303-0767
Case Histories of Risk Assessment and Problem Solving
“For all those who think that knowing is better than not knowing” L. Lauden
Quantitative Risk Assessments often prove to be the tool of last resort to help help bring clarity and objectivity to complex risk issues needed to make informed decisions. Risk Assessments are used to compare against criteria (internal or governmental) to determine if risks are tolerable, are used to evaluate potential risk reduction options to help determine the amount of risk reduction benefit that can be derived, and are used to help set budget priorities.
Papers submitted to this session will focus on how risk assessment is used to help decision makers make informed decisions. Papers should include specific case studies illustrating the use of risk assessment techniques and application experience within a given organization to evaluate and manage their risk exposure. Emphasis should be on how results have been taken from a risk study and translated into practical solutions.
Chairs: Jatin Shah, jshah@bakerrisk.com, 952-944-5580 and Sara Saxena, Sara.Saxena@bp.com
Improving Process Safety Regulations, Steve Arendt:
It has been 18 years since the OSHA PSM standard was adopted and 11 years since the EPA RMP rule was created. A lot of experience has occurred - some good; some not so good - but all have been opportunities for learning. In addition, new process safety regulations and implementation lessons have been generated around the world. Most conclude that the regulations in the U.S. have had an extremely positive influence on process safety. Yet, some industries, companies, and plants face process safety performance challenges as evidenced by accidents recurring with apparently similar root causes. In addition, OSHA enforcement initiatives reveal numerous common, in some cases chronic, process safety compliance issues.
As a portion of its program at 2010 Global Process Safety Congress, CCPS is sponsoring a ½-day interactive panel/audience discussion session regarding how the U.S. process safety regulations should be improved. The panel will include process safety experts from a wide variety of stakeholders, including OSHA, EPA, CSB, industry and labor, as well as the international perspective.
We need your help in focusing the discussion on topics of interest to you regarding process safety performance. In particular, we want your questions, discussion suggestions, and areas for regulatory improvement.
Please submit your brief items regarding the following categories by October 5, 2009 to the email address given the end of the category list.
- Use of performance-based versus prescriptive regulatory language
- Covered process issues - too little, too much, gaps, new frontiers
- The most valuable - and the least valuable - specific requirements
- Requirements for which the state-of-the-practice has surpassed the regulatory language
- Requirements are too difficult to achieve the way they are presently written
- Requirements with too great variability in outcome - "quality" requirements are needed
- Which can be changed to be more economical WITHOUT significant process safety performance losses
- Enforcement challenges
- Relationships to voluntary process safety programs - performance differences
- Compliance and enforcement strategies – which have worked; which have not
- Other issues you think will be of interest to the panel/audience
Chair: Steve Arendt, SArendt@absconsulting.com, 865-671-5812
Inherently Safer Design/Inherently Safer Technologies
Inherent safety (IS) is the modern term for eliminating hazards rather than accepting and managing them. Engineering is the traditional realization of this concept, as its core function is the application of science, technology, and mathematics to develop and implement practical solutions that are safe and efficient.
Currently there is much interest across industry, academia, advocacy groups and governments in mandating IS to achieve process safety and security goals. There is much debate as to what comprises IS, how and when it is best applied, who/how to judge this creative process, how and whether it differs from traditional engineering, and what role it should have in the chemical industry to achieve process safety and security goals.
This session will present three papers of realistic scenarios and case histories that demonstrate various perspectives and views of IS and its application. A facilitated panel discussion exploring the proper role of IS and audience questions session will follow the presentations.
Chairs: Eric Freiburger, FreibuE@NOVAChem.com, 412-490-6309, and Cheryl Grounds, Cheryl.Grounds@bp.com, 281-366-4740
Learning from the Past
Learning from all process safety sources of experience is vital for sustainable process safety performance and continuous improvement. Past process safety incidents and near-misses provide valuable learning opportunities. Companies normally assess these incidents and translate the lessons into actionable programs that improve process safety practices and culture.
However, because of recurrent industry accident and PSM compliance "root cause themes", it is becoming evident that we need to expand our sources of learning to those available outside our plant, company, and even industry because we cannot wait to only learn from our own mistakes.
Moreover, the ability of a process safety leader to integrate the significance of weak accident warning signs to catalyze "early prevention" is an emerging necessary skill. Such weak signals include: repeat root causes for accidents and near-misses, recognizing that seemingly non-relevant accidents may have important lessons, chronic audit problems, poor leading metrics trends, increasing unsafe behaviors, and lackluster safety culture.
This session seeks presentations on innovative programs, actual examples and guidance on effective practices for plant and organizational learning that results in a brighter and better process safety radar screen to warn against and preempt a slide towards a catastrophic process safety accident.
Chairs: Toni Wenzel, AJWENZEL@sunocoinc.com, 610-833-3451 and Steve Arendt, SArendt@absconsulting.com, 865-671-5812
Process Safety into the Future
The introduction of Risk Based Process Safety has taken process safety management into a new realm. As we continue to move forward, new and innovative approaches are needed to continue the progression of process safety management. Papers submitted to this session should focus on the next generation of process safety and where it will lead into the future. Topics may include experience and examples of new tools and ideas that are currently being utilized.
Chair: Mikelle Moore, mcmoore@buckman.com, 901-272-6405