Slaying the dragons that sabotage protection measures to feed on the ash of your plant

被引:0
|
作者
Chastain-Knight, Denise [1 ]
机构
[1] Exida Engn LLC, 80 North Main St, Sellersville, PA 18960 USA
关键词
hazard identification and risk analysis; measurement and metrics; safety instrumentation systems;
D O I
10.1002/prs.12274
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
Dragons are legendary winged monsters that breathe fire and feed on ash. Or so we think. This is a tale of three dragons that have evolved to hide in plain sight and quietly feed on the underpinnings of protection layers, eroding the effectiveness of process safety mitigation measures. These dragons are mischievous and feed off process upsets, near misses, and accidents. The Invisible Dragon roams around the plant breaking devices and causing people to make mistakes that set off alarms and causes safety instrumented systems (SIS) trips to initiate. Its special joy is creating initiating events that were not considered in the design. Tiny and Giant Dragons specialize in defeating the SIS protection layers, so that all three dragons can feed on the ash of an accident. The Tiny Dragon baits SIS designers with devices having extremely low failure rate data causing the humans to believe safety instrumented functions (SIF) are more reliable than they actually are. The Giant Dragon works alongside the Tiny Dragon to further undermine the SIS with its song of near perfect proof testing. This paper will illustrate the impacts of underestimating SIF demand rate, using overly optimistic failure rate data, and overestimating proof test coverage. We will discuss techniques to identify and correct these issues and suggest metrics to monitor SIS performance thus slaying the dragons.
引用
收藏
页码:272 / 280
页数:9
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [21] Urgent measures to improve the physical protection system of an older nuclear power plant
    Schier, HK
    PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS: EXPERIENCE IN REGULATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONS, 1998, : 293 - 297
  • [22] EFFECTS OF SIGNIFICANT LIMITING QUANTITIES ON LABOR REQUIREMENT FOR PLANT-PROTECTION MEASURES
    BACKES, D
    MOSER, E
    LANDTECHNIK, 1981, 36 (11): : 526 - 530
  • [24] ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION MEASURES IN AN ORGANIC SYNTHESIS PLANT (GRACE-REXOLIN)
    THEDE, L
    KEMISK TIDSKRIFT, 1974, 86 (09): : 54 - 56
  • [25] Specification of Chemical Properties of Feed Coal and Bottom Ash Collected at a Coal-fired Power Plant
    Ma C.-J.
    Kim J.-H.
    Kim K.-H.
    Tohno S.
    Kasahara M.
    Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment, 2010, 4 (2) : 80 - 88
  • [26] FEED YOUR PLANT LIQUID FERTILIZER .1. PRESCRIPTION FOR NUTRIENT-DEFICIENT WASTEWATER SYMPTOMS
    BROSMAN, DR
    WATER & WASTES ENGINEERING, 1978, 15 (05): : 89 - &
  • [27] Plant protection product losses via tile drainage: A conceptual model and mitigation measures
    Kobierska, Florian
    Koch, Ulrike
    Kasteel, Roy
    Stamm, Christian
    Prasuhn, Volker
    AGRARFORSCHUNG SCHWEIZ, 2020, 11 (06): : 115 - 123
  • [28] Regional monitoring for disease prediction and optimization of plant protection measures: The IPM wheat model
    Verreet, JA
    Klink, H
    Hoffmann, GM
    PLANT DISEASE, 2000, 84 (08) : 816 - 826
  • [29] Organic plant protection measures against olive moth (Prays oleae Bern.)
    Rojnic, I. Dminic
    Radovcic, H.
    Godena, S.
    Damijanic, K.
    VIII INTERNATIONAL OLIVE SYMPOSIUM, 2018, 1199 : 433 - 438
  • [30] Determination of risk reduction measures for protection of the natural home as typical management task in approval procedure for the plant protection products
    Streloke, M.
    Fischer, R.
    Kula, C.
    Pucelik-Guenther, R.
    Smith, B.
    JOURNAL FUR VERBRAUCHERSCHUTZ UND LEBENSMITTELSICHERHEIT-JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FOOD SAFETY, 2007, 2 (01): : 78 - 82