Human Factors consideration for Process Safety in a global economy Chan KengYong, Han Xiao Feng , Do

1
(No Transcript)
2
Human Factors consideration for Process Safety in
a global economyChan Keng-Yong, Han Xiao Feng ,
Doug Skoyles, Jim LongAir Products Chemicals
Inc.For Presentation at21th Annual CCPS
International ConferenceFlorida, 26 April 2006
3
The concept of safety is not well developed in
Asia

• Safety process in the West is mature
• in Asia it is about 20-30 years behind
• Rate of improvement is extremely fast
• Asia is on track to do in 5-10 years what the
  West took 30-40 to achieve
• Impressive performance, but fraught with danger
• Overwhelming volume of information, procedures,
  etc, coupled with trying to keep pace with the
  rate of change leads to
• confusion ? errors ? incidents
• Change Management is critical for success

4
Process Safety- the poor relation

• Local focus is on worker safety
• Government driven
• Programs well developed to support this
• Western companies coming in also focus on this
• Government driven
• Building blocks for the entire safety process
• Process Safety is easy to import
• SWAT teams come in to carry out assessments
• Goal to meet own company process safety or
  technical risk requirements
• Developing a Process Safety culture has not been
  a priority

5
Process Safety - the current situation

• Process safety is understaffed in Asia and lacks
  experience
• Process safety degrees only recently introduced
  in some countries
• No Asian process safety institutes or
  organizations
• Few trained specialists / little training for
  general process engineers
• Imported Process Safety cannot keep up with
  industrial growth
• We need to accelerate the
  development of local capability

6
Western practices versus Asian reality in
Process Safety
7

• All have an impact when considering Human Factors
  both in
• the practice of Process Safety methodology
• and
• developing local capability

8
The Management Factor

• Process safety is mandated and controlled by
  government
• Government defines the what, the how, and the who
  - namely
• Comprehensive Standards
• Procedures
• Required to employ government-approved
  engineering companies (Design Institute)
• Local management can delegate the entire process
• The Western company/partner propagates this by
  the swat team approach to Process Safety

9
More on the Management Factor

• Focus of owner is to minimize non-profitable
  activities.
• Currently
• Higher value or priority is attached to worker
  safety
• Process safety has no value beyond getting
  approvals and permits
• Accountability is diffuse
• Operators can be held accountable
• Design Institutes vs. Owner

10
Managements Beliefs

• Approvals and Permits is adequate for Process
  Safety
• Levering relationships is seen as the way deal
  with Process Safety
• Everything can be negotiated

11
Hazard Review MOC What Happens?

• Intent is half-baked !
• Merely a paper-work process to meet the safety
  management system requirements (proclaim we have
  the system in place!)
• Quality is a challenging issue
• Only do when told no need to develop process
  safety hazards recognition and awareness
• MOC only initiate when change/job is completed
• No execution or follow-through (merely sign off
  the MOC or issue the PHA report)
• More meaningless paper work
• Failure to appreciate and deliver the intent can
  lead to serious process safety incidents

12
Delivering the Intent the greatest hurdle

• In Asia process safety hazard recognition and
  awareness is at best different at worst very
  limited
• A ride in a taxi from Pudong Airport to Shanghai
  will immediately tell you that!
• Some often asked questions
• Why do you want to install a relief valve the
  process runs at atmospheric pressure?
• Why do you want to install an interlock? The
  operator will respond to the alarm
• Why consider this? Our operating instructions
  tells us to do it this way.
• Deal with Hazard Recognition first!

13
The second Hurdle Western attitudes

• Failure to accept that human factor
  considerations are different in Asia and need to
  be taken into account
• No place for the Western know best mentality
• Force-feeding causes resentment Remember
• Process safety was not developed in a think tank
• Learning from mistakes was one of the key drivers
• Appreciate that Asia is doing in a few years what
  the West took decades to achieve
• Build on what they have

14
???? / ????

• Chinese and Westerners should lever each others
  strengths

15
The Issue of Language

• Use of outside translators the way to
  confusion!
• Limited technical knowledge
• Get the context wrong
• Use of English
• To much jargon and acronyms
• Limits participation
• Provides an excuse for not participating
• Both approaches
• Barriers to conveying process safety philosophy
• Slow up an already long process

16
Ways of dealing with the Language barrier

• Ensure that all the process safety information
  is available in both languages
• You will still need foreign input
• All participants need to have full access
• Manage the language barriers
• Start with 1 hour per review session
• Carry out a information gathering session
  separate from discussing hazards
• Keep dictionaries available
• Increase amount of pre-work- the written word is
  more often understood than the spoken
• Find an experienced Chinese/English speaking
  process safety engineer

17
Learning from two similar plants first in
Singapore, second in Japan

• Time to carry out plant safety review
• Singapore 52 man weeks
• Japan 27 man weeks
• Approach
• Singapore (second language English!)
• Full participation by local team from the
  beginning
• Japan
• Worked on first pass of the review with a single
  engineer from the plant
• Collaboratively engaged the site team to evaluate
  the review

18
Practical steps to managing the Human Factor
differences

• Focus on hazard recognition
• Focus on inclusion rather than speed
• Get the process safety information in order and
  in both languages
• Develop a step-by-step introduction to all
  aspects of the process safety process
• Use the simplest approach possible
• Prepare a draft for review with site team
• Slowly decrease the amount of preparation

19
Process Safety Information

• PIDs only used to design and construct plant
  they then become a redundant document
• Priority is to get them to as built quality
  install PID management
• Educate the engineers to the value of these items
• Avoid using sketches rather use existing PIDs
• Equipment drawings not respected - deliberately
  incorrect information, drawings lost
• Prioritize the update strategy
• Limited or out of date written procedures
• Get the local engineers to
• develop process descriptions
• update operating procedures

20
Hazard review - an example of using a staged
approach

• Start with a simple introduction on purpose and
  method.
• Start with simple what if approach using
  PIDs and process safety information.
• Focus on getting the local team talking about to
  how they run the plant- this will get
  participation!
• Focus on coaching hazard recognition- dont
  expect participation
• Do not expect to get solutions suggested- do not
  force this!

21
Use of Hazop only when successful with the
simple approach

• Start at the beginning again!

22
Summary

• Five key points
• Change Management
• Prepare a detailed plan
• Identify the differences in Human Factor
  conditions
• Adapt the approach to manage and use the local
  set of Human Factors
• Address the Hazard Recognition Gap
• Dont rely on local team
• Carry on with the Swat team approach
• Focus on participation and coaching

23
Thank you!
24
tell me more
www.airproducts.com