hEX_21_10

We have reduced the size, lowered the weight, shortened the time of installation, removed any type of risk, reduced any maintenance intervention, avoided 70% of the components and saved tons of CO2. We have also eliminated the possibility of improving it.

www.cortemgroup.com

LifEx, the shift in the new lighting paradigm.

On August 24, the UK government announced that businesses will have an additional year to apply new product safety markings for most products placed on the market in England, Scotland and Wales. Recognising the impact of the pandemic on businesses, the government said it had decided to extend the deadline to apply the UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) marking to 1 January 2023.

The UKCA marking is replacing the product safety labelling that the UK previously used while a member of the EU, such as the CE mark and ATEX. The previous deadline was 1 January 2022.

The government said it would continue to engage with manufacturers to ensure they understand what they need to do to get ready, including through a new series of webinars. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has already run several webinars in the last few months and said it had engaged extensively through trade associations.

The new deadline means that any existing products that carry the CE mark can continue to be placed onto the GB market until the end of 2022 (alongside new products that carry the UKCA mark), giving manufacturers time to move existing stock and transition to the new regime. From 1 January 2023, this will no longer be the case and companies must be prepared so that they can continue placing goods onto the GB market.

In terms of ATEX, this means that any Ex-rated product not carrying the UKCA and not supported by a UKCA Ex Certificate (sometimes referred to as UKEX) issued by a UK Approved Body, then it cannot be placed on the GB market from 2023.

Further information on UKCA/UKEX, including what manufacturers need to do between now and the final 1 January 2023 deadline, can be found on the Hazardex website under the UKCA section on the ‘Industry News’ tab.

…Alistair Hookway, Editor, Hazardex alistair.hookway@imlgroup.co.uk

Having a safety plan that starts at the onset of a capital project may take more time, effort, and investment early on in the project lifecycle, but the savings later on are well worth it.

risk in several areas, the range and flexibility of connected interfaces introduce a new set of risk issues.

online registration forms will be considered for free supply of printed issues, web site access and online services. Annual subscription for non-qualifying readers is: UK £147; EU £215.25; Airmail £315 and single copy price is £23.10 plus P&P.

When it comes to industrial alarm annunciators, many facilities suffer from issues relating to obsolescence management.

Hazardex content is the property of the publishers or relevant content providers. The publishers and sponsors of this magazine are not responsible for the results of any actions or omissions taken on the basis of information in this publication. In particular, no liability can be accepted in respect of any claim based on or in relation to material provided for inclusion.

In this IChemE Safety Centre ‘Safety Lore’, key learning points from two incidents are discussed and suggestions are made to highlight what can be done to achieve good process safety outcomes.

While I4.0 sees reduced

Afire on an offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico killed five people and injured six others on August 22. PEMEX, which operates the platform, said that the blaze occurred on the E-Ku-A2 platform in the Ku-Maloob-Zaap oil field. The oil company said on August 23 that two people remain missing.

In a statement, PEMEX said that the fire on the E-Ku-A2 offshore platform, located in the Bay of Campeche, occurred at 16:30 local time. Valves were closed immediately, and the platform’s emergency plan was activated, the company said.

One of the people who died during the incident was an employee at PEMEX while the other four were contractors from an oil company called Cotemar. Among those injured and missing were further contractors from Cotemar and workers from condition and monitoring firm Bufete de Monitoreo de Conditions e Integridad (BMCI). PEMEX said that all six injured people were treated in hospital with one in a serious condition.

The oil company’s CEO, Octavio Romero, visited the E-Ku-A2 platform on August 24 to carry out an inspection and damage assessment tour.

PEMEX confirmed that the fire arose while the Cotemar and BMCI contractors carried out scheduled preventive maintenance tasks.

On August 30, PEMEX said that 125 wells which had been closed due to the incident were back in operation. In all, there was a deferred production of 1.6 million barrels as a result of the fire and resulting closure of the wells.

The search for the missing people is continuing, PEMEX said in August, while the company is also working to stabilise the integrity of the platform’s facilities. PEMEX is continuing to assess the amount of damage from the fire and said it would conduct a root cause investigation immediately.

The oil company added sincere condolences to the relatives of the deceased and said it would provide support to the workers affected by the incident. PEMEX added that the incident did not occur due to a lack of investment in maintenance of its facilities, since the company has actually increased the budget for the platform. PEMEX said the safety of its workers and facilities is a priority for the company, even on top of production.

China’s first offshore CO2 storage project officially launched

OnAugust 28, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) announced the launch of China’s first offshore carbon dioxide storage demonstration project which will permanently store more than 1.46 million tons of carbon dioxide in the submarine reservoirs of the South China Sea.

The project is located in the Pearl River Mouth Basin and is an environmental protection project supporting the development of the Enping Gas & Oilfield Group, CNOOC has said. “After the implementation of the carbon dioxide storage project, it is estimated that about 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide can be stored each year, and the accumulated storage of carbon dioxide is more than 1.46

million tons. This is equivalent to planting nearly 14 million trees,” Zhang Wei, Deputy General Manager and Chief Engineer of CNOOC Shenzhen Branch, said.

Since the beginning of 2021, CNOOC has carried out research on key technologies related to geological oil reservoirs, well drilling and completion, and engineering integration that are suitable for offshore carbon dioxide storage. “The carbon

dioxide associated with the development of the oilfields will be sealed in a saltwater layer at a depth of 800 metres. The saltwater layer has a dome-like structure and is covered with a thick protective layer of mud. The injected carbon dioxide is sealed under the dome, effectively preventing gas from overflowing,” Zhang Wei said.

Previously, carbon dioxide storage experiments in China were concentrated in areas on land. The successful implementation of the carbon dioxide storage project in the Enping Oilfield Group should open up new industries and businesses in China relating to carbon dioxide storage, CNOOC said.

Article provided by PCEC

The E-Ku-A2 platform after the incident – Image: PEMEX

Fire on PEMEX offshore platform kills five and injures six, two people still missing

Image: CNOOC

Construction of Nord Stream 2 pipeline completed, Gazprom says

Russian energy company Gazprom has announced that construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was completed on September 10. The pipeline, which will transport gas from Russia to Germany, has caused controversy with critics saying it will increase Western Europe’s reliance on Russian gas.

The completion of the 1,200-kilometre long Nord Stream 2 pipeline was announced by the head of Gazprom’s management board, Alexei Miller. The $11 billion project, which could double Russia’s gas exports to Europe, has previously drawn criticism

from the US and Ukraine. Nord Stream 2 would mean around 55 billion cubic metres of additional gas travelling from Russia, under the Baltic Sea, and into Germany and the rest of the EU. The route would see Ukraine miss out on valuable transit royalties which it currently earns from any Russian gas travelling through the country.

Progress on the project was stopped in 2019 after sanctions were imposed on German construction companies and vessels involved in the project by then President Donald Trump. Construction resumed in 2020 with Russia using its own pipeline-laying ships.

Announcing completion of the project in a statement, Nord Stream 2 said that the sections of the pipeline laid from the German shore and Danish waters have been connected in a so-called above water tie-in. The opposing pipe strings were lifted from the seabed by the lay barge Fortuna and the pipe ends were cut and fitted together. The welding to connect the two lines took place on a platform located above the water on the side of the vessel. Then the connected pipeline was lowered to the seabed as one continuous string.

The Nord Stream 2 website said the required pre-commissioning activities will be carried out with the goal to put the pipeline into operation before the end of this year. Russia’s Foreign Ministry and state-owned Gazprom have said that Nord Stream 2 won’t begin pumping commercial gas until a German regulator gives approval. Certification is expected to take up to four months with checks set to be conducted by Germany’s Economics Ministry and Gazprom itself.

EU leaders, including Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, recently met for discussions on Nord Stream 2 and pledged to ensure that natural gas would continue to flow through Ukraine despite the completion of Nord Stream 2, an apparent attempt to allay fears of Russia using the

On September 6, 2021, specialists on the laybarge Fortuna welded the last pipe of the two strings of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline – Image: © Nord Stream 2 / Axel Schmidt

Avondale firefighters said the workers, who were employed at Danny’s Truck Wash where the incident occurred, were likely exposed to residual chemicals that were still inside an empty tank that they had been assigned to cleaning.

Local police said that one worker had entered the tank and collapsed, falling unconscious shortly afterwards. The second worker then entered the tank to assist his colleague, however he also fell unconscious. Both men, whose identities were not released, were pronounced dead at the scene.

A Hazmat team was called to the site and extracted the two bodies while wearing full protective equipment. Four of the firefighters suffered heat-related injuries while extracting the bodies and required treatment at a nearby hospital.

Representative image: Shutterstock

Chemical incident at commercial truck washing company kills two workers in US

Wood pellet plant blast injures four in US

Anexplosion at a wood pellet manufacturer in the state of Georgia, US injured four people on September 2. The incident happened at a plant belonging to Hazlehurst

Wood Pellets near the town of Hazlehurst. Two of the injured were airlifted to hospital.

All four of the injured were employees

of Hazlehurst Wood Pellets. Two suffered extensive burns according to local officials and required an airlift to hospital, while the other two injuries were relatively minor. The Jeff Davis County Sheriff’s Office said that the incident occurred around 16:30 local time and that fire officials were also called to the scene.

The local fire chief told local news outlets that the cause of the blast is still unknown, however it is likely that some wood pellets overheated and the product on it ignited. Fire crews remained at the site until the following day in order to monitor for hot spots and prevent any reignition.

Fire Chief Wasdin added that firefighters were able to contain the resulting fire because Hazlehurst Wood Pellets had invested in a new suppression system just last year. Wasdin added that the system did what it was supposed to and therefore saved lives of both employees and firefighters.

FOR ALL OF YOUR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Representative image: Shutterstock

Canadian chemical plant explosion kills one, seriously injures another

An explosion at a chemical plant in Toronto, Canada killed one person and seriously injured another on September 8. Emergency services were called to the Siltech chemical plant at around 10:00 local time and pronounced one person dead at the

scene while another was rushed to hospital in a critical condition.

Acting Toronto Fire Chief Jim Jessop told reporters that several other people were treated and assessed at the scene having suffered chemical burns. Jessop

added that hazardous materials crews were working with Siltech to ensure the site was made safe. The cause of the blast is unknown, Jessop said, adding that the significant chemical fire took a while to extinguish. Some news reports have said the blast happened after a chemical spill ignited, however these reports have not been confirmed.

Canada’s Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development was notified of the explosion and has assigned an inspector to open an investigation into the incident alongside the Office of the Ontario Fire Marshall. Several roads in the area of the plant remained closed for several hours after the incident with air monitoring being conducted to ensure there was no spread of toxic fumes.

According to its website, Siltech develops, manufactures, and markets a line of organo-functional silicone compounds and related specialties. It has two plants in Canada, and both are equipped with large-scale, high-temperature and pressure reactors, thin film evaporators and other equipment required in such unit processes as equilibration, hydrosylilation, quaternization, amidation, phosphation, and esterification.

Hazardous materials incident kills two workers at US manufacturing plant

Two people were killed following a hazardous materials incident in North Carolina, US on September 12. Emergency responders attended a plant belonging to Valley Proteins at around 13:30 local time and pronounced two workers as dead at the scene.

Firefighters and a Hazmat team attended the scene and helped the evacuation of a building at Valley Proteins, a company that collects and recycles animal processing waste from the food industry. The North Carolina OSHA Emergency Response Team also attended the scene.

Other employees who worked at

Valley Proteins told local media that the two dead workers may have been exposed to hydrogen sulphide. The two men, aged 48 and 51, were found unresponsive at the scene by colleagues who then alerted emergency services. Employees reportedly wear hydrogen sulphide monitors which begin beeping if the chemical is detected in the air.

One of the men who died had worked at the Valley Proteins plant for 13 years, while the second man had worked there for less than a month.

In a statement released on September 13, Valley Proteins said the accident may have occurred due to a lack of following company safety procedures which both employees had been trained in.

The local sheriff’s office is investigating the incident and is working alongside other agencies to determine the cause. On September 14, OSHA compliance officers investigating the incident said the deaths most likely occurred because the two men had been in a confined space.

Representative image: Shutterstock

Representative image: Shutterstock

The first interim report on the investigation into the July 27 explosion at a chemical waste incineration plant in Leverkusen, Germany says that a chemical reaction was likely to have been the cause. The Cologne District Government made the announcement at a meeting of the City Council of Leverkusen on August 30, citing the first interim report on the investigation into the causes behind the incident.

“The results of this interim report match our previous findings,” explains Currenta Managing Director Hans Gennen. “They are an important part of the investigation by the investigative and supervisory authorities, which we will fully support,” Gennen continued.

The authors of the report consider it likely that storage of the waste liquid above the so-called “self-explosion temperature” of the stored material led to self-heating effects. As a result, there was an exponential increase

in temperature and pressure in tank 3 of the disposal centre in Bürrig. The report says “the whole process went so quickly that the safety devices were no longer able to dissipate the pressure. When the pressure was above the design pressure of the container, it exploded.”

On July 27, 2021 at 09:3, the pressure exceeded the tank’s load limit. According to the appraisers, the explosion caused the waste liquid and the heating oil previously pumped into the tank to be mixed with the ambient air and ignited immediately. Following these two explosions, there was then a fire in the tank farm.

In order to provide a better overview of the incident, Currenta has published a new website which provides detailed data, facts, and images of the incident for all interested parties. The information page is divided into three areas: what happened, what Currenta is doing, and how to proceed. The information provided is continuously checked and updated by Currenta. You can view the website at: www.currenta-infobuerrig.de

First interim report into July chemical explosion that killed seven in Leverkusen reveals likely cause

09:15

Three ambulances and two rapid response vehicles attended the scene and treated several people after they were exposed to noxious fumes or

chemicals, local emergency services said. Five people were taken to hospital for medical treatment while four others received treatment at the scene.

A spokesperson for the 2 Sisters Food Group told the media that the factory was evacuated as per emergency protocols and that the fire brigade made sure the factory was made safe to re-enter. The factory is now back to normal operation.

Local MP Rhun ap Iorwerth tweeted: “I wish those affected a full recovery and I’m grateful to the emergency services for their response. I’ll be contacting 2Sisters to learn about the circumstances, and the measures that will be put in place to ensure the safety of all those working at the plant and in community.”

According to its website, the 2 Sisters Food Group started in the early 1990s and has a UK presence in poultry, chilled and bakery food categories. Its customers include Aldi, Asda, Co-op, KFC, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Morrison’s, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose.

IMX Interface Series

Widest Approval Narrowest Housing

News Extra 10 Representative image: Shutterstock . Global approval for every device. UL, FM, ATEX, Nepsi, Kosha, Imetro & IEC-EX . Minimum space requirement 6.25mm per signal channel . Maximum accuracy, best overall performance of any 12.5mm Interface device . Widest supply range, 10-30Vdc . Cabinet Condition Monitoring, Temperature, Humidity, Ambient Light & Door Opening.

UK food manufacturer fined after workers exposed to sulphur dioxide

AUK-basedfood manufacturing company has been fined £300,000 after employees were exposed to sulphur dioxide (SO2) gas released as a result of poor planning and unsafe systems of work during the commissioning and operation of a new potato processing line.

Lincoln Magistrates’ Court heard that AH Worth Ltd (formerly known as QV Foods Ltd), based in Holbeach in Lincolnshire, purchased a new potato processing line in 2018. The purchased line dipped cut potatoes into a substance (Microsoak) to prevent them browning. The purchase, installation and commissioning work was poorly planned, the UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) said in a statement.

During commissioning, the Microsoak gave off sulphur dioxide gas that affected workers in the packhouse. The company made modifications to the line to attempt to cure the problem, but it caused the nozzles on the line to repeatedly block up and more sulphur dioxide to be given off. A maintenance engineer attempting to unblock the nozzles on the 11 June 2018 was badly exposed to the sulphur dioxide.

The factory had to be evacuated and other workers in the vicinity were also affected. The maintenance engineer and another worker were so badly affected that they were not able to return to work due to the effects of the gas on their lungs.

An investigation carried out by the HSE found that the work should have been properly planned mindful of the risks involved. There should have been adequate flows of information between QV Foods Ltd and the contractors involved. Commissioning should have been properly planned. When they started to have problems, they should have stopped

and properly evaluated the solutions before going ahead and modifying the line. The maintenance workers and those on the line should have been provided with adequate information, instruction and training about the new line and what to do. There should have been a safe system of work in place for unblocking the nozzles and the workers should have been provided with additional PPE.

AH Worth Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in that it failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of its employees. The company were fined £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £9924.90 with a victim surcharge of £170.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Mr Martin Giles said: “This was a tragic and wholly avoidable incident, caused by the failure of the company to plan properly for the introduction of new plant and equipment. It made alterations to the new plant without adequate thought and planning, failed to implement safe systems of work and failed to react adequately when things started to go wrong”

Coal mine explosion kills 12 in Colombia

Acoalmine explosion in the Boyacá region of Colombia killed 12 workers on August 24. Colombia’s National Mining Agency (ANM) said that 13 people were initially trapped by a blast at La Carbonera coal mine, however 12 lost their lives while one was seriously injured.

La Carbonera mine is located near the town of Tópaga, around 140 miles north of Colombia’s capital Bogotá. ANM ordered an immediate suspension of all mining activity at the mine after it was notified of an explosion. In a statement, the agency said that the explosion likely involved methane gas and possibly coal dust.

“Once the call for help was received, the ANM activated the emergency care protocol and carried out the displacement of rescuers and equipment from the Nobsa Mining Safety and Rescue point to attend to the emergency,” reported Juan Miguel Durán, President of the National Mining Agency. “The rescue team worked on the ventilation installation to improve atmospheric conditions and search and rescue efforts with the support of respiratory equipment,” Durán added.

The rescue operation was carried out in

conjunction with other relief organisations, including the mine operator, Tópaga Mayor’s Office, local police, the Red Cross, and Civil Defense.

The ANM said that a security measure had been placed on La Carbonera mine in 2019 which prohibited any coal extraction work taking place. In a follow-up statement following the blast, the agency said that its technical findings from a site visit showed that permissible limit values for polluting gases in the mine were not being met, which is why all work was suspended. The order was reiterated last year, however the order was breached and mining continued.

The ANM says that in many cases, security and safety measures are often ignored and miners continue to carry out mining activity in risky conditions, ignoring the ANM’s ban. The agency added that in 2021, about 60% of fatalities in Colombian mines occurred during illicit mining. The ANM’s President Durán said: “The ANM deeply regrets the events recorded in these emergencies, takes the corresponding actions and calls on all miners in the country to abide by all the safety protocols required so that these accidents can be avoided.”

Image: ANM Colombia

Series of explosions at ammunition depot kills 15, injures 98 in Kazakhstan

Anarms depot explosion in southern Kazakhstan killed 15 people and injured 98 others on August 26. Kazakhstan’s Emergency Ministry confirmed the death toll after further bodies were found amongst the rubble

following search and rescue efforts on August 30. One person remains missing, the ministry said.

The incident happened at a military facility in the Zhambyl region. Kazakhstan’s

Defence Minister Nurlan Ermekbaev told journalists that the cause of the initial explosion remains unknown and that an investigation was already underway.

In addition to the 15 people killed, 98 people were injured with around half of those being employees of the Kazakh Emergency Ministry who were injured while fighting a large fire caused by the blasts.

The site of the explosions is reported to have been a storage area in the military facility where “engineering explosives” were housed. According to some reports, around 500 tonnes of explosives were stored at the site.

Local villages were evacuated following the blasts with around 1,200 local residents moved to safe areas after debris from the explosions was found up to a mile away from the military base.

A day of national mourning was held on August 29 for the military personnel and rescuers who died during the incident.

Representative image: Shutterstock

Newresearch conducted by RenewableUK into the total size of the pipeline of floating offshore wind projects worldwide shows that it currently stands at over 54GW if all are fully constructed. The pipeline includes projects from an early stage of development through to those which are fully operational.

Over half of this is in Europe (30.9GW),

with the UK leading the world at 8.8GW. Ireland has 7.7GW in the pipeline, Sweden 6.2GW and Italy 3.7GW. Norway, Spain and France are also planning to deploy floating wind at scale.

The world’s first floating wind farm, Hywind, has been operating in Scottish waters since 2017 and a second floating project, Kincardine, is almost fully operational. The UK Government also recently announced a dedicated budget of £24 million to support floating projects in the next CfD auction which opens in December. A significant number of floating wind farms are expected to come forward as a result of the ongoing ScotWind leasing process by Crown Estate Scotland which has received over 70 applications overall to install up to 10GW of new fixed-foundation and floating wind capacity. The Crown Estate confirmed in July that 300MW of new floating projects have been given the green light to progress to the next stage

of assessment in the Celtic Sea (between southwest England, Wales and Ireland).

The most important global players in floating wind outside Europe are Australia at 7.4GW, South Korea on 7.1GW and the USA which has a pipeline of 5.5GW. Taiwan has 1.5GW and Japan 1.3GW. China and Saudi Arabia are also planning projects.

Michael Matheson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport in the Scottish Government, said: “Scotland’s huge deep water potential means we expect floating offshore wind will be vital in our transition to a net zero economy. Scotland is already leading the world in floating wind and we’ll do everything in our power to maintain our support and ensure we remain at the forefront of this innovative technology. The ongoing ScotWind leasing process has the potential to transform the energy sector in Scotland, including the transfer of oil and gas workers into renewables and into floating offshore wind in particular - we need to make the most of it”.

The data shows a major global surge in floating wind deployment between 2025 and 2030 – Source:

UK leads the world in floating offshore wind as global supply reaches 54GW

Fire forces closure of key UK electricity cable as prices hit record high

Afire at a facility in Kent in the early hours of September 15 forced the shutdown of a key electricity cable that imports power from France into the UK. In a statement, National Grid said that a fire at its IFA interconnector site in Sellindge, between Ashford and Folkestone, had been evacuated and that emergency services were in attendance. The shutdown of the cable put further pressure on the UK wholesale energy market which experienced record high prices in September.

National Grid added that the IFA interconnector would continue to be out of service due to the fire and planned maintenance. Following an initial review, the utility said that the fire means half of the cable’s capacity, 1000MW, will be unavailable until March 27, 2022. This is in addition to the other 1000MW of power that is offline due to planned maintenance until September 25. The IFA2 interconnector, National Grid’s second electricity interconnector linking the UK and France, is operating as normal at full capacity, the utility company said.

There were no reports of injuries as a result of the first which broke out at just after midnight on September 15. Kent Fire and Rescue Service said that a total of 12 fire engines attended the scene and managed to extinguish the blaze by around 09:00 local time.

Both IFA interconnectors are joint ventures between the French Transmission Operator RTE and National Grid. The first IFA was commissioned in 1986 while construction on IFA2 began in 2018 before reaching full flow capacity in January 2021.

The closure of the IFA interconnector comes at a difficult time for the UK. National Grid had been importing electricity from France in September after UK prices hit a record high on the wholesale energy market. The rising prices were the result of a global gas market surge which had raised the cost of running gas power plants, a series of power plant outages, and low wind speeds.

According to The Guardian, the market price at a major UK electricity auction cleared at a record price of £2,500 per megawatt-hour for the hours of peak demand on September 16, compared with a typical baseload price of about £40/MWh throughout 2019 and 2020.

As of September 16, National Grid said that its investigation into the fire was ongoing and that it would update the market with “any changes as necessary”.

MIPC® helps experienced engineers stay on-site and on top of the latest industry developments and good practice in primary containment of hazardous substances.

Using a blend of live, online classes, one-to-one sessions with expert tutors, and e-learning, enhanced by a mentor’s support and guidance, EEMUA’s Mechanical Integrity Practitioner Certificate course delivers in-depth training to engineers where they work – to give professionals the flexibility to learn on-site or on-call.

Appointments for induction to suit your schedule from November 2021 Learning starts in January 2022. Registration open now

For more information please contact EEMUA online-learning@eemua.org

(0)20 7488 0801

The IFA2 interconnector (pictured) is operating as normal at full capacity – Image: National Grid

When managing real pressure is your job…

OnJanuary 28, 2021, six people died and 12 others were hospitalised after a liquid nitrogen leak occurred at a poultry plant in the state of Georgia, US. The incident happened at a plant belonging to the Foundation Food Group in Gainesville, around 60 miles (97km) north of Atlanta. Less than two months later, on March 11, workers at the Gainesville plant were again subjected to a chemical release after an ammonia leak occurred.

A refrigeration company, firefighters, and local officials attended the Foundation Food Group plant on March 11 after concerns were raised by a local workers advocacy group about an ammonia leak that had reportedly occurred. At the time, officials said that that there was no immediate evidence of an ammonia leak and no hazards were found at the scene. A local police chief added that it was unclear whether an ammonia release had happened earlier in the day.

The Foundation Food Group released a statement following the site visit, saying that the professional refrigeration company and officials found no actionable levels of ammonia and the plant had been cleared of any potential risk to employees.

However, on September 14, the US Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Foundation Food Group $154K in penalties for exposing workers to safety hazards in relation to the March incident. The poultry company is already facing $595,474 in penalties for the January incident after OSHA said the six deaths and multiple serious injuries were “entirely avoidable.”

In relation to the March 11 ammonia release, OSHA said its investigation had identified 23 safety and health violations at the facility. OSHA cited Foundation Food Group Inc. for exposing workers to dermal and respiratory hazards associated with the potential unexpected release of anhydrous ammonia and for failing to install a system that protected employees.

In addition, OSHA found Foundation Food Group failed to:

• Guard horizontal shafts on conveyors, which exposed workers to caught-in hazards.

• Provide adequate training and ensure workers used locks to isolate hazardous energy while servicing conveyors.

• Label electrical breakers, cover unused openings in electrical boxes, and use electrical devices as designed, which exposed workers to electrical-shock hazards.

• Provide fall protection while working from

equipment at heights over 4 feet.

• Require employees use eye protection while working with compressed air.

• Provide adequate hearing protection, testing, and training for employees exposed to high levels of noise.

• Maintain drainage in areas of wet processes, exposing employees to slip hazards.

The agency proposed $154,674 in penalties.

“There is no situation where employees should be expected to risk serious injury or death, especially on the heels of a tragic incident that took the lives of six co-workers,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jim Frederick. “Foundation Food Group has again flouted their responsibility to assess workplace hazards and ensure measures are taken to protect employees. This is unacceptable and OSHA will continue its mission to hold employers accountable.”

Foundation Food Group Inc. provides fully cooked and precooked poultry products to food service and retail clients, and national restaurant chains.

Families of those who died in the January liquid nitrogen release have field lawsuits against the company that made the liquid nitrogen system, Germany-based Messer Group, as well as a Messer employee that had been at the site just a week before the fatal incident. The suits claim that Messer and the worker are at fault for failing to sufficiently test, inspect, repair, or shut down the system before the leak occurred.

Baking factory explosion injures two in US

explosion at a small baking company in Savannah, Georgia injured two people in the morning of September 14. The Savannah Fire Department said it responded to reports of a small explosion in the flour mixing room at a plant.

The two injured people were team members at Derst Baking which owns the plant. Their injuries were said to be minor and both received treatment at the scene. A wall

at the site was reported to have suffered extensive damage as a result of the blast.

A fire that started after the explosion was promptly extinguished by the facility’s fire suppression system, authorities said.

The Savannah Fire Department said the cause of the blast is unknown, although it was likely that flour dust had combusted. An investigation into the incident has begun.

US poultry plant fined for second chemical leak just two months after previous incident killed six

An

Performance-based risk inspections on Gulf of Mexico facilities result in several recommendations

TheUS Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement announced on September 15 that it had recently concluded two weeks of performance-based risk inspections offshore and compiled 15 findings and associated recommendations focused on dropped object prevention programs, hazard hunts, cargo and pipe handling, and associated training programs.

BSEE inspectors visited 20 different facilities between June 1 and June 11. BSEE engineers, inspectors, and Safety and Environmental Management System specialists scrutinised the extensive inspection data, compiled the findings, conclusions, and associated recommendations and shared them with the participating operators, safety organisations and through a BSEE Safety Alert.

Among the 15 findings and conclusions

BSEE found that:

• Operators practiced good barrier management while lifts were taking place and in the presence of moving equipment on the rig floor; however, on lifts not associated with the rig floor, and work above decks on production facilities, restricted access areas need improvement.

• Most operators did not have specific training requirements for the prevention of dropped objects for the offshore personnel at the facilities.

• While all the facilities had an established

Management of Change (MOC) program, there were no recent MOCs associated with mounting new fixtures to existing structures or equipment.

• Operators completed Job Safety Analyses (JSA) for operations; however, multiple gaps were identified.

BSEE also recommended operators and contractors:

• Conduct focused “Hazard Hunts” to reduce the likelihood of a dropped object incident.

• Develop a “prevention of dropped objects” strategy and action plan to identify and assess individual work areas and activities for dropped object potential.

• Establish regular inspection frequencies of areas for identifying any potential dropped objects and record the results within a work order register.

• Evaluate all lifting JSAs to ensure they address the control of objects with the potential to fall.

Added in March 2018, PBRIs are one of two components that make up BSEE’s RiskBased Inspection Program. The second is the Facility Based Risk Inspection, which focuses on risk at a specific facility, whereas PRBIs focus on reducing the likelihood of events and compliance issues on the entire Outer Continental Shelf.

“Risk-based inspections are a vital component

of BSEE’s overall inspection program, ensuring safe and environmentally sustainable operations offshore,” said BSEE Gulf of Mexico Region Director Lars Herbst. “These riskbased inspections focus on specific high-risk operations and help reduce the likelihood of future incidents on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

The RBI program supplements the annual inspection program and allows BSEE the opportunity to be more targeted in reducing offshore operational dangers. By focusing on higher risk facilities and operations, BSEE can more efficiently and effectively manage inspection resources. The program employs a systematic approach, using both a quantitative risk model as well as subjective performance and risk related intelligence information to identify higher-risk facilities or operations on which to focus inspections and resources.

Conducted at least quarterly, BSEE has performed 11 performance-based risk inspections and 13 facility-based risk inspections since 2018.

Overall, the objective and scope of the BSEE risk-based inspection program is to assist BSEE with the development of inspection tasks and techniques to enhance its focus on offshore oil and gas facilities that exhibit a number of distinguishing risk factors, to minimize redundant inspection efforts and cost, and to encourage continuous improvements in risk management for offshore operations.

Good Practice Guidance for Electrical, Control and Cyber Security in Industrial Engineering – Improving efficiency and safety

• Practical guidance for everyday and irregular situations and tasks

• Verified and developed from contributions by the industry, for the industry

• Readily accessible for all in the industry – wherever they are, whatever time they have

• FREE task and procedure checklists

• E-learning for professional development

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials visited Japan in the week beginning September 6 to officially launch a multi-year review of the planned treated water release at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. It is the Agency’s first mission as part of its review and monitoring assistance to support Japan before, during and after the discharge of treated water, which is expected to start in 2023.

The IAEA team headed by Lydie Evrard, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, met with Japanese officials in Tokyo and agreed on an initial mission schedule and other arrangements for the implementation of the Agency’s multi-year review and monitoring of the safety of the planned treated water release. The IAEA team also travelled to the Fukushima Daiichi site on September 8 to gain an updated understanding of the situation by observing on-site activities and visiting key locations that will feature within the review project.

Japan is expected to start discharging the treated water in 2023. In line with the commitment of Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi to provide IAEA support before, during and after the water discharge, the first of a series of IAEA preparatory technical on-site review missions will take place later this year. The IAEA’s special Taskforce for the water

disposal will meet in the coming weeks to prepare the reviews.

“I welcome Japan’s invitation for the Agency to conduct the first technical review by the end of this year. With this invitation Japan demonstrates that it supports the IAEA’s presence during the entire operation to discharge the treated water,” IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said.

During its visit to Japan, the IAEA team met with senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority. They agreed on the three main parts of the IAEA review:

- Safety related aspects

- Regulatory activities

- Environmental monitoring

The Agency’s assistance to Japan will consist of reviews and monitoring to help confirm that the operation to discharge the water over the coming decades is consistent with international safety standards. This review will be based in particular on material submitted by Japan, and on-site technical missions to Japan.

“This project will be the first of its kind for the Agency, considering the technical specificities, the duration of the release and the level of international regional interest and scrutiny that the plan will receive,”

said Deputy Director General Evrard. “Our primary objective will be to review the implementation of the project, from the perspective of safety and transparency. We will ensure that our review is comprehensive and objective and the results are conveyed clearly to the international community. Our visit and the meetings this week were very productive and confirmed that all parties are committed and dedicated to the mission.”

Japan’s decision to release the treated water into the sea was announced in April this year. Shortly thereafter, Japan requested the assistance of the IAEA to ensure that the discharge takes place in line with the international safety standards, which constitute a global reference for protecting people and the environment and contribute to a harmonised high level of safety worldwide.

The Terms of Reference of the technical assistance to be provided by the IAEA in the coming years was agreed in July. Under the agreement, the IAEA will examine key safety elements of Japan’s discharge plan, including:

- The radiological characterization of the water to be discharged

- The safety related aspects of the water discharge process and its roadmap

- The assessment of the radiological environmental impact with regard to the protection of people and the environment

- The regulatory control including authorization, inspections and review and assessment

- The environmental monitoring associated with the discharge

An IAEA Taskforce, including internationally recognised experts from Member States, chaired by the IAEA coordinating Director, has been set up to oversee the programme of technical assistance and review the plans and actions related to the treated water discharge.

Since 2011, the Agency has provided technical assistance to further support Japan’s efforts at Fukushima Daiichi in areas such as radiation monitoring, remediation, waste management and decommissioning.

The IAEA team met with senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority – Image: IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency visits Japan to begin monitoring and review of Fukushima water release

First UK trial of hydrogen blended gas hailed a success

The results of the first phase of a green energy project that could help the UK cut its carbon emissions and open the door to a low-carbon hydrogen economy were published on September 8. HyDeploy, the first project in the UK to blend hydrogen into a natural gas network, has been hailed a success by its organisers and partner organisations after the first stage of the programme was completed.

As the first ever live demonstration of hydrogen in homes, HyDeploy aims to prove that blending up to 20% volume of hydrogen with natural gas is a safe and greener alternative to the gas we use now. The project is providing evidence on how customers don’t have to change their cooking or heating appliances to take the blend, which means less disruption and cost.

The first phase of the project started

in October 2019, when the UK Health & Safety Executive gave permission to run a live test of blended hydrogen and natural gas on part of the private gas network at Keele University campus in Staffordshire.

The result of the phase were published in the ‘HyDeploy Carbon Savings Report’, which says the project has successfully developed the safety case and delivered a hydrogen blend via the gas network into customers’ homes.

HyDeploy said hydrogen produces no carbon dioxide when used, making it a viable alternative for heating homes and businesses to achieve the Government’s target of Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050, unlike natural gas, which is responsible for over 30% of carbon emissions.

Steve Fraser, Chief Executive of

Cadent, a partner in the project, said: “Importantly customers experienced no disruption and felt positively towards using hydrogen blends and the trial. Blending hydrogen into the natural gas network is a critical stepping-stone in helping the UK reach Net Zero by 2050.”

Gas safety checks were carried out in the homes and buildings in the trial area. Laboratory tests were carried out on a range of gas appliances, as well as extensive research on the effect of hydrogen on the different materials found in the gas network and the appliances.

The success of the trial at Keele University has paved the way for a larger pilot project at Winlaton, near Gateshead where 668 houses, a school and some small businesses have been receiving hydrogen blended gas on a network operated by Northern Gas Networks (NGN) since early August 2021.

Video Tutorials Available:

www.beka.co.uk

> Displays text and graphics

> Incorporates operator push buttons

> Modbus, legacy & BEKA protocol

> RS232 and RS485 ports

> Up to 8 variables on each of 11 standard screens

> Galvanic isolator for hazardous area applications

> Field or panel mounted versions

Atthe beginning of September, the annual Management Committee meeting of the international IECEx System took place. It was not surprising that, regardless of the global progress of vaccinations against COVID-19, this conference had to be organised as a virtual event – for the second time in a row. It is astonishing how professional and efficient international organisations like IECEx became adopted to such circumstances.

The work must go on, however, and so we switched almost all of our main activities to “remote” mode. The ongoing success of the IECEx system, expressed in continuously growing numbers of test reports, factory assessment reports and certificates, proves that all of our emergency activities have been effective and efficient. The only slight exception is the IECEx Personnel Competency Scheme (ExPCC) where the number of certificates stagnated during the last 18 months. However, this can be easily explained by the fact that practical skills are an important element of the examination process, and such special experiences are hard to test on a remote basis.

All delegates of the ExMC meeting were convinced that the number of certified persons will increase quickly once travel restrictions are removed. The “soft” aspects of safety like knowledge, practical skills

New IECEx hydrogen working group

and experience, have become even more important for the IECEx System, as indicated by the rapidly growing number of Recognized Training Providers (RTP). At the time of the ExMC meeting, 33 organisations from all continents granted with this status, as well as the next candidates, have all sent their application to the IECEx office in Sydney.

An interesting topic at the meeting was the presentation of the new ISO standards for the hydrogen value chains (I wrote about these documents in an earlier Hazardex column). During the discussion it became obvious that the matter has a growing relevance in many countries, which is why a new working group was established with the terms of reference: “To consider the business case for integrating Standards (including ISO and IEC), associated with the Hydrogen Economy into the IECEx System for reporting to the IECEx Executive and if accepted prepare IECEx Scheme documents for approval by the ExMC”.

I feel honoured to be appointed as the convenor of this group, which will start with its activities this autumn. Some readers with experience in hazardous areas may be asking: what will the new content be given that IECEx equipment certificates for products with explosion group IIC have been available for many years? Beside Acetylene and Carbon Disulphide, Hydrogen belongs to this category. The answer can be given based on a NASA report: “Review of Hydrogen Accidents and Incidents in NASA operations” from 1979 by P.M. Ordin. Hydrogen has been used as a propellant in the space industry for many decades. Systematic evaluation of causes of accidents has revealed high statistical significance. The following failure categories could be identified as major issues:

Operational and work area deficiencies –26%: Accidents due to inadequate working conditions during installation, maintenance, fabrication and cleaning, as well as a lack of training, specific instructions or both.

Procedural deficiencies – 25%: Accidents due to failure to follow established procedures or to prepare proper procedures. Design deficiencies – 22%: Accidents due to inadequate component or system designs, including failure to specify safety devices, omission of other essential information, failure to determine stress and fatigue, errors in material selection.

Planning deficiencies – 14%: Accidents due to failure to prepare test plans or to prepare hazard studies. Malfunctions – 8%: Accidents due to anomalies, such as components in the system that failed to function as intended.

So, more than 90% of the accidents and incidents were caused by organisational deficiencies. The author of the report took the conclusion that safety strategies should aim in two directions:

• To minimise potential human errors.

• To develop systems that remain robust in the event of human error.

Therefore, the major effort of the new IECEx working group should be spent on the search for hydrogen specific training and qualification needs. This could be a new unit of competency for the ExPCC system or new programs for the service facility scheme (ExSFC). Based on the new standards for assemblies (IEC 60079-46) and for non-electrical equipment (ISO/IEC 80079-36 ff.) there could be also a need for special equipment/assembly certificates.

It is true that for many decades there has been a large volume of hydrogen produced for industrial applications. Suitable equipment is available, and the safety concepts are sufficiently safe. However, there is a big difference between the current hydrogen production in large centralised and closed process plants like refineries and the new decentralised applications for hydrogen as an energy carrier: the public access by laypersons and other people who are not competent in the handling of a hazardous substance like hydrogen. Therefore, it makes sense to modify and extend the established safety concepts.

Every two months, Prof. Dr. Thorsten Arnhold, IECEx Chairman 2014-2019, provides an update on developments within the organisation.

Leveraging process safety to optimise capital project risk reduction and cost

While the sustainable energy market boom is attracting most international headlines, the petrochemical market, which supports nearly 2 million jobs worldwide, continues to quietly expand to meet growing demand (Figure 1). The petrochemical market forms a key part of Europe’s economy with new facilities such as the INEOS Project One in Lillo, Antwerp that is being called the most energy-efficient ethylene cracker in Europe.

Capital projects supporting this ongoing expansion and renewal can be as complex as a greenfield processing facility or as simple as a new building or operational debottlenecking. Process safety is one of many areas to be addressed within the lifecycle of a capital project, however it is still all too common for process safety reviews to be

conducted only once the design and site layout have reached a mature state. At this advanced stage of design, mitigating hazards and risks is either difficult, costly, time consuming or a combination of all three due to the high level of rework with risk mitigation associated with efforts such as relocating hazards and populations to safer locations, adding layers of protection to design systems, and ensuring the buildings are robust enough to protect personnel from the identified hazards.

One way to mitigate this is to utilise stage gate process safety reviews throughout the design phases that align with the overall project stage gate schedule so they provide timely results and recommendations that can flow into the design process prior to the next stage.

The CCPS book ‘Integrating Process Safety into Engineering Projects’ covers in detail the proactive implementation of

process safety activities at the optimal time as well as conducting reactive reviews to provide assurance nothing significant has been missed. Through the early application of process safety design reviews, capital projects can optimise designs that meet geographic constraints and corporate safety goals around optimising risk reduction while minimising project and facility lifetime cost impacts.

In short, having a safety plan that starts at the onset of a capital project may take more time, effort, and investment early on in the project lifecycle, but the savings in preventing costly schedule impacts, cost increases, and frustration later in the project are well worth the investment.

Capital project stages

The main capital project stages are presented in Figure 2. The terminology may differ between publications and

companies, for example Front End Loading (FEL) may also be referred to as Front End Engineering Design (FEED).

The objectives of each stage from the business perspective can be described as follows, noting that for smaller or expedited projects, two or more of the design phases may be combined.

1. Appraise FEL-1: A range of development options are identified and commercial viability is evaluated.

2. Select FEL-2: Selection for the site layout based on evaluation of threats and uncertainties.

3. Define FEL-3: Development of a basic design including preliminary plot plans and equipment layout drawings; preliminary process flow diagrams (PFDs); heat, material, and energy balance sheets (HMBs); and

equipment data sheets.

a. This stage also improves on cost and schedule and the project typically receives financial approval.

4. Detailed Design: Detailed engineering of option chosen in FEL. Procurement of materials and equipment commences.

5. Construction: Facility is built, precommissioning is completed, and operational readiness is performed.

6. Startup/Commissioning: Facility and documentation is handed over to the operations company / team from the project team.

7. Operation: Facility handed over completely to operations team, normal operations continue, and project closed.

8. End of Life: Facility is decommissioned or repurposed.

At the onset of the Appraise FEL-1 phase, a safety plan should be created that lays out the strategy and schedule of process safety activities over the project lifecycle. This plan should be a living document, updated as needed throughout the project lifecycle as project clarity is established. Process safety studies are often viewed as negatively impacting each phase of a project in terms of cost and schedule. Effectively managing this misguided perception is essential for seamless integration between the owners of the technical safety plan and the engineering design.

Technical safety studies in capital projects

Depending on the capital project specifics, there is a range of technical safety studies commonly used to identify hazards as well as assess and mitigate risk throughout the

Image: Shutterstock

project lifecycle. The following paragraphs provide an overview of a stage gate review process for optimising key aspects of the site safety plan including site layout and spacing, fire protection (passive and active), emergency response, occupied building siting, and future construction and turnaround planning. Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis, e.g., PHA/HAZOP/ LOPA, is not specifically addressed as the hazard review has become an expected deliverable.

Many of these technical safety studies are interconnected and each has an optimal time in the project lifecycle to be performed to the level of detail best suited to available project data. As later phases introduce increasingly detailed levels of engineering data, several of these studies should be revisited and documented to reflect the accumulative level of detail.

Figure 1 – Production of Key Thermoplastics, 1980-2050 – Source: IEA, Production of key thermoplastics, 1980-2050, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/production-ofkey-thermoplastics-1980-2050

Site layout and spacing

Site layout and spacing is undertaken in the very earliest stage of capital projects, Appraise FEL-1, when conceptual and feasibility reviews are ongoing. Multiple locations and layouts are reviewed to minimise both risks and costs to the project. At this stage, previous lessons learned with regards to layout and spacing should be reviewed and should cover environmental factors such as weather and sensitive areas, topography, access, and exposure of neighbouring populations. Focus should be placed on inherently safer design (ISD) and lessons learned from historical incidents.

Once Appraise FEL-1 is complete, the refinement of the site layout and spacing naturally embeds within the review of other technical safety studies. Significant changes after this are likely to have significant cost and schedule impacts.

Fire protection (passive and active)

Passive and active fire protection

reviews are likely to include Fire and Gas Detection (F&G), Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA), and Fire Water (FW) analyses. Preliminary fire protection studies are typically experience and best practice based, drawing on available industry guidance and corporate philosophy documents. Paired with the most recent plot plans and preliminary risk analysis studies, preliminary fire protection studies should be conducted during Select FEL-2.

At this stage, general design considerations and philosophy documents are reviewed to develop a cost-effective fire protection strategy that includes a preliminary layout of detection, passive fire proofing, and active water spray and drainage systems. Firewater systems should be designed during FEL-2 based on maximum demand calculations and be verified during later project stages; however, defining at this stage allows for supply, distribution, pumps, fixed/mobile systems, foam, drainage requirements, etc. to be

estimated for purposes of preliminary layout and cost analysis.

During the Detailed Design phase of the project, the F&G, FHA, and FW studies (collectively the Fire Protection study) should be updated to reflect the detailed engineering design information. At this phase of the project, the philosophy documents and the proposed location and types of equipment (detectors, monitors, deluge, foam systems, etc.) are finalised. A desktop fire scenario review should be conducted based on information from the quantitative risk assessment (QRA) to determine and validate maximum firewater demands to finalise the design for the firewater system.

Emergency response plan

A detailed emergency response plan (ERP) is an essential technical safety study and requires input from a wide variety of supporting technical safety studies, as shown in Figure 3. Reliance on input from other safety studies means the establishment of an ERP in the FEL stages of a project is not a good use of resources due to the ongoing adaptations to the project data. However, by the detailed design phase, project data has reached a stage at which an ERP can usefully be developed.

During the Operations phase, the ERP should be revisited; typically on a 5-year revalidation cycle or when changes occur.

Figure 2 – Typical capital project stages

Figure 3 – Example ERP key components and supporting studies

Occupied building siting

Occupied building siting is part of the risk analysis, which should first be reviewed during Appraise FEL-1 in conjunction with the site layout and spacing review. The conceptual risk assessment at this phase should be a high-level review that involves the evaluation of significant Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) issues that could impact the project. In addition to reviewing layout and spacing, this also includes addressing key issues such as location, technology, process units, etc. with the ultimate outcome being a risk ranking of available options.

Typically, at Select FEL-2, general plot plans are available but fluctuating to address identified issues in early technical safety studies. In addition, general unit information in the form of material lists and block flow diagrams is available but detailed engineering process data is not yet available. Preliminary risk analysis is conducted using industry experience with similar units and is typically looking at order of magnitude and catastrophic risk drivers.

normal operations during the Operational phase of the project.

As with the ERP, the QRA should be subject to review and revalidation both on a periodic basis and as part of a Management of Change process to reflect site expansion/demolition, staffing changes, process changes, etc. throughout the facility lifecycle.

Future construction and turnaround planning

Once the QRA is “finalised” in terms of the model (site layout, input data, estimated occupancy, etc.), it can be applied to construction and turnaround risks.

Conducting technical safety studies early, based on the available details, and throughout the capital project process ensures changes in design are more palatable and cost efficient. Embedding the safety plan within the overall stage gate review process achieves the overall goal of minimising risk while controlling costs and schedule impacts ensuring successful project implementation. As stated earlier, having a safety plan that starts at the onset of a capital project may take more time, effort, and investment early on in the project lifecycle, but is well worth the investment.

By

Define

FEL-3, a plot layout has been selected, preliminary equipment layout drawings and equipment lists are available, as well as preliminary process data and piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs). With the availability of this information, the preliminary risk assessment should be conducted at the transition between the Select FEL-2 and Define FEL-3 stages with the preliminary QRA occurring in the Define FEL-3 stage. The preliminary QRA is based on information detailed enough that initial “what-if” mitigation exercises can be undertaken, and safeguards planned for prior to detailed engineering.

The preliminary QRA can then be easily updated during the Detailed Design to accommodate new information as it becomes available. This phase of the project should identify and address potential issues with selected plant layout, location of occupied buildings, hazard resistance of key occupied buildings, and mitigation system design. At this point, refinement of the QRA is such that only minor changes should be needed to reflect

During the Construction and Commissioning stages, different units will come online in sequence with a higher-than-normal operations population distribution. Also, depending on the capital project location, hazards from existing neighbouring facilities may be present and pose similar/unique site challenges. A properly conducted QRA can accommodate these various configurations to provide a picture of risk during the Construction phase of the capital project. Special care should be taken to ensure that temporary work locations such as portable buildings and blast resistant modules (BRMs) are included in the analysis to ensure construction teams are protected to an acceptable risk level.

When conducting turnarounds during the Operation stage, the hazard profile at the facility changes (i.e., units taken down) and populations increase. In addition, temporary buildings are often located both near and far-field to accommodate turnaround populations. In a turnaround QRA, the focus is on ensuring that personnel are located in areas that are within acceptable risk criteria and that risks, where possible, are minimised to ensure safe turnaround operations.

Conclusion

As the petrochemical industry continues to expand to meet increasing societal demand for products and the drive for more efficient and sustainable operations, capital projects large and small continue apace.

Robert Magraw is the Operations Manager of BakerRisk Europe Ltd. He has an extensive career of over thirty years in safety and risk management, including twelve years in the oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors and over eighteen years in the nuclear industry. His main areas of technical practice currently include PHA, SIS/SIL, QRA, audit, insurance risk engineering, and management system development. He was previously head of environment, health, safety, and quality for an international nuclear services company. He also managed the corporate HSE management system and assurance program for a major international nuclear business with a global portfolio of nuclear and non-nuclear operations. Mr. Magraw is a member of IChemE Hazards Technical Committee and the European Process Safety Centre Technical Steering Group. He is also a TUV certified functional safety engineer.

About the author

MAXIMUM

Pressure ranges from -1…1000 bar

Accuracy class 0,05 %FS

Event-controlled or interval-based recording

Up to 57,000 measuring points

ATEX option available

Adapting your safety approach for smart manufacturing

Industry 4.0 (I4.0), also known as the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), is a major paradigm shift as the convergence of enterprise IT and operational technology enables systems and devices to exchange and interpret shared data on a global scale. By combining the strengths of the physical and virtual worlds, cyber-physical systems, have the potential to significantly enhance industry performance, facilitate new products and spark innovative business models as the real systems can be modelled using digital twins in multiple ways.

A digital twin receives continuous, real-time data from a product or asset to create a virtual representation of that physical object. As the object can be virtually monitored 24/7 this enhances situational awareness. For example, the digital twin can be used to monitor and model simultaneously, predicting changes in a system’s dynamics based on real-time sensor data. Alternatively, it can model future scenarios, such as a system failure or even simply to predict maintenance requirements.

In today’s I4.0 domain, digital twins operate in parallel to the real-world factory, where

thousands of sensors constantly collect and process data, either locally or on a larger scale.

Specific benefits of the digital twin approach include:

• Constant monitoring - to determine if a machine is about to fail, so any potential issue can be mitigated without interrupting function. This can be modelled on the digital twin in real-time to assess the size of a problem.

• Data monitoring and analysis - to make iterative improvements to operations, increase efficiency and reduce costs in real-time. For example, a programmed robot that is operated in a specific sequence could be constantly modelled in parallel to reduce cycle times.

• Ability to plan - probably one of the greatest uses of the digital twin.

Asset administration shell (AAS) is a term coined by ‘Plattform Industrie 4.0’ in Germany. Every I.40 asset is allocated an AAS, which exchanges asset-related data between assets and production orchestration systems or engineering tools. As the AAS contains all of the information

and functionalities of an asset, it acts as a link between I4.0 objects, allowing for the use of many different communication channels and applications.

The AAS can be used for:

• Non-intelligent and intelligent products

• Covering the complete lifecycle of products, devices, machines and facilities

• Allowing for integrated value chains

• Serving as the digital basis for the development of autonomous systems and AI

While I4.0 and skill-based production introduce new opportunities for increased productivity and radical innovation, the implementation of new technologies must also maintain the overall trustworthiness of production lines. Trustworthiness requirements are valid for every type of manufacturing facility, but the extent of the requirements increases with the I4.0 maturity level of the system. Specifically, safety and reliability are prerequisites for all manufacturing systems, irrespective of their maturity level. However, if the system is upgraded to include connectivity, to assure its overall trustworthiness the aspects

of security and privacy must also be considered.

For systems that incorporate adaptive and smart features, resilience becomes vital and is added to the list of trustworthiness requirements. Trustworthiness within the collaborative infrastructure along the value chain is a prerequisite for stable operations.

Changing risk profile

While I4.0 sees reduced risk in several areas, the range and flexibility of connected interfaces introduce a new set of risk issues. As production facilities become more complex, operators must manage a rapidly evolving system that incorporates multiple interdependencies, while minimising downtime. It is therefore vital to consider the shifting landscape of risk, which is why I4.0 requires a new risk management approach that is customised to each individual actual use case.

As the increased flexibility created by these interdependent and dynamically changing I4.0 systems introduces new complexities and challenges, there is a shift from static risk assessment to one of dynamic risk. Analysing and assessing the underlying physical and cyber risks to humans, property, and the environment is therefore a challenging task.

Addressing safety and security is not just a legal obligation for system designers, integrators, system owners and operators, it also directly impacts their ultimate I4.0 mission to minimise downtime and maximise system availability. However, tackling safety

issues by using a conventional static risk assessment approach, including existing tools such as Sistema, would require timeconsuming reiterations for every changing condition, which could potentially result in operational downtime.

Machinery safety standards define a set of general physical hazards that are used during type certification. However, current standards, such as ISO 12100 - Safety of machinery - General principles for design - Risk assessment and risk reduction, have not been designed around the concept of machine connectivity and interoperability. While hazards depend on the intended use and other limits of the machine in the physical world, conventional safety concepts do not consider the sources and effects of cyber threats that could create new hazards. Another limit related to hazards is that safety measures are designed to protect only human health using a “worst-case” approach. Figure 1 highlights the differences between I3.0 and I4.0 with regard to risk assessment.

Risk management in context

Given the connective complexity of interacting assets, applying worst-case assumptions can have an extremely negative impact on productivity and efficiency - preventing manufacturers from reaping the benefits.

In practice, when a machine operates in an application-specific context, its limits and applicable hazardous situations may differ significantly from those considered under worst-case and stand-alone

scenarios. Additional hazardous situations may also arise from machine-to-machine interaction. They can be related to human health, property and environment, as well as to undesired operational downtime or bottlenecks - the main concern for system owners and operators.

To give an example, an automated guided vehicle (AGV) navigating towards a machine in an operating area with a human presence represents a “collision risk”. This risk may be mitigated by using three safety measures incorporated in AGV design (according to ISO 3691-4 - Industrial trucks — Safety requirements and verification — Part 4: Driverless industrial trucks and their systems):

1. Personnel detection system

2. Speed control system

3. Braking system control

In current practice, speed limitations due to a human presence are therefore applied even if there are no humans in the actual AGV operating area.

Likewise, in a confined area, with no human presence allowed, an AGV making its final approach to a machine for docking may pose a collision risk between two industrial assets. This unsafe docking event risk may be mitigated by using two safety measures incorporated in AGV design:

1. Speed control system

2. Parking braking system control

Although there is no risk for humans in a confined area, the measures are necessary to protect industrial assets from expensive

Figure 1 – Safety paradigm shift I.30-I4.0

damage. The use of a context-sensitive safety approach could achieve the goal of property protection combined with higher system efficiency.

A third scenario example looks at process optimisation, where operational downtime and bottlenecks may not pose a risk to humans, property and the environment, but they can affect system performance. AGVs with different maximum rated speeds, navigating in line, one after the other, are limited by the maximum speed of the first in line. If lane width and clearance distances from adjacent obstacles are deemed safe, i.e. no human can step into the AGV’s path without being detected, the system can change to parallel navigation. Such contextsensitive safety can enable higher speeds, improve navigation flexibility and increase efficiency.

These scenarios demonstrate the need for adaptive production systems capable of monitoring and recognising hazardous situations during runtime, to ensure that residual risks are handled within current practices. In addition to the limitations of the conventional (I3.0) worst-case approach, system operators should also be aware of real-world situations where safety installations may be either consciously manipulated or inadvertently modified, as these can cause serious accidents.

Adaptive safety

To meet the new needs of I4.0, a new event-triggered, dynamic risk assessment and automated validation of safety measures approach is required. This would assist system designers and operators to navigate complex risk landscapes, in both virtual simulations and real-world applications. This requires a continuous and holistic risk assessment to ensure stable operations, increased productivity and reduce downtime in a smart manufacturing environment. This necessitates a digital representation of the physical manufacturing system, using digital twins and asset administration shells. These so-called cyber-physical systems combine the strengths of the physical and virtual worlds and have the potential to significantly enhance industrial performance as the systems can be modelled using the digital twin in multiple ways.

While digital twins and AAS help manufacturers optimise performance and accurately predict business obstacles, they are also faced with the challenge of navigating a complex new risk landscape. Effective safety and security are key challenges as this can build trust with asset owners and operators, but it is becoming increasingly impossible to apply existing risk assessment criteria to a dynamic I4.0 operating environment that is characterised

by multiple interactions and data flows. It is therefore vital that the digital twins have customised safety and security profiles. A safety profile should be modelled to describe asset safety from a general and an application-specific perspective. These profiles should then be processed by an inference engine against actual application constraints to define limits and risk-mitigation capabilities in a real-world application, thereby providing automated risk evaluations at runtime.

Paul Taylor is the Business Development Director for Industrial Services at TÜV SÜD, a global product testing and certification organisation. TÜV SÜD’s Machinery Safety Division is the official partner of the Process and Packaging Machinery Association on regulatory affairs.

About the author

Image: Shutterstock

FOR OFFICES, CRANE CABINS AND TLQ’S

THE ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND IN THE WORLD...

Cygnus 1 Intrinsically Safe Ultrasonic

Thickness Gauge is certified to Class 1, Div 1 (“Zone 0”) for ATEX, IECEx and CSA-US, safe for measuring remaining metal thickness in hazardous/potentially explosive atmospheres.

This easy-to-use, tough gauge employs the MultipleEcho technique to give accurate measurements without removing protective coatings.

• Use in Zone 0, Zone 1 hazardous areas

• No plant shutdown or hot work permit necessary

• Approved for use in mines

• Echo strength indicator to aid measurement

• Stable calibration, linear accuracy, no zero adjustment

• Self-verification of the measurements to ensure maximum accuracy

Why is line voltage versatility important for geared motors?

Technical specifications are fundamental for choosing the right gear unit. The more clearly defined, the better. Here, Marek Lukaszczyk, European marketing manager at motor and drive manufacturer, WEG, explains why plant operators must analyse the line voltage versatility of a geared motor before a purchase.

Gears are an important component in drive trains and are used alongside electric motors to set machines and systems in motion. Operators must consider several essential aspects to ensure the technology guarantees high plant availability and an optimum costto-benefit ratio.

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a geared motor, engineers must analyse the key technical criteria of the gearbox and its areas of application. For example, for applications in challenging locations, such as heavy-duty industries like oil and gas and chemical, specialised designs are required to ensure motors can operate efficiently.

If the motor needs to operate in hazardous areas, for instance, the use of suitable integral motors that comply with Directive 2014/34/EU (ATEX) is essential. Similarly, if a gear unit is set to be used in an industry like cement processing, which is synonymous with dirt and dust, the design must be able to withstand the harsh nature of this environment.

The value of versatility

Another important specification is the line voltage versatility of a geared motor. A geared motor that is powered with a three-phase power supply from the grid must tolerate a certain amount of variation in the voltage and be able to handle changes in voltage without sustaining damage.

However, there is no global standard line voltage for motors, as it varies depending on the country. For example, in Germany it is 400 V at a frequency of 50 Hz, while in the United States it is 480 V at 60 Hz. Therefore, when purchasing a geared motor worldwide, plant managers should use a switchable integral motor that is suitable for most world voltages, ranging from 110–690 V – 50/60 Hz.

Versatile motors are available which cover a range of line voltages for use in major markets. Thanks to the large voltage range and simple voltage switching in the terminal box, these motors offer the flexibility required to be used globally for a variety of line voltages (110 V to 690 V) and frequencies (50 Hz and 60 Hz).

Several asynchronous motors are limited in voltage switching due to their winding design, this can reduce the expense. For plant operators, this means that a suitable motor must be used and stocked for any level deviating from the international standard IEC 60038, the standard which defines a quantity of line voltages from the low-voltage range for

use in power supply systems.

More power, more speed

Geared motors are also often used in speedcontrolled drive trains. In frequency inverter operation, a gear unit used in combination with an integral motor offers double the speed and double the power, with constant torque.

This is because a stator winding, which produces the rotating magnetic field, allows a constant torque to be maintained over the entire speed range of the motor up to 120 Hz. The winding also ensures that these motors can be operated at double power using an inverter. This saves costs, space and weight, as the same power can be achieved with a smaller motor.

Technical requirements are fundamental for choosing the right gear unit. The more clearly defined, the better, therefore plant operators must analyse the line voltage versatility of a geared motor before a purchase.

About the author

Marek Lukaszczyk is WEG Marketing Manager for Europe and Middle East region, a position he has held for over a decade. Responsible for developing and managing marketing initiatives to drive the company’s revenue growth, Marek leads marketing strategy development and execution of marketing plans with partners and country directors across the European and MENA sales territory. Before this role, Marek held the post of Export Marketing Manager at WEG’s headquarters in Brazil running the export marketing department, supporting branches, distributors and supporting the rollout of the company’s new corporate identity.

Key lessons from incidents related to alarm management

Alarm systems are important in monitoring the condition of the plant. Alarms assist personnel to maintain a system or process within a safe operating envelope. The objective of alarm management is to provide operators with a consistent and reliable action event notification interface that supports their efforts to operate the process while ensuring they are not overwhelmed safely and efficiently with unnecessary information.

In this Safety Lore written by the IChemE Safety Centre (ISC), key learning points from two incidents are discussed and suggestions are made using the ISC framework to highlight what can be done to achieve good process safety outcomes. The ISC framework is not a management system and does not seek to create a management system, but simply provides a framework to view process safety across an organisation.

Case Study 1 – Gas plant

A major explosion and subsequent fire occurred in a gas plant. Two people died and eight were injured in the incident. The plant had been suffering from operational upsets following pigging of the upstream gas pipelines. A warm liquid (“lean oil”) system failed, allowing a metal heat exchanger to

become intensely cold and therefore brittle. When operators tried to reintroduce warm lean oil, the vessel fractured and released a large quantity of gas which found an ignition source and exploded.

Key learning points

The direct cause of the incident seemed to be loss of lean oil flow leading to a significant reduction in temperature of a heat exchanger. On the day, the lean oil recovery system which extracts Liquified Petroleum Gas from the condensate stream had tripped and the plant operators were struggling to restart production. It was common that many process alarms were active at one time, many of them considered to be nuisance alarms. There was lack of identification of safety critical alarms. That resulted in slow response to the loss of oil flow.

Operators were expected to deal with at least three or four hundred alarms a day. A past incident occurred in the plant where investigators revealed that for a 12-hour shift, 8500 alarms went off, which means 12 alarms every 60 seconds. Operators followed a practice to silence the audible alarms and switching the visual ones from flashing to steady state. In addition to that, the display could only contain a certain number of alarm signals. Once that number

was exceeded, existing alarms would be hidden by a new page of alarms, making it impossible for operators to follow-up on the current situation.

Case Study 2 – Oil refinery

A lightning strike started a fire on the crude distillation unit. The ensuing plant disturbances and power interruptions affected the vacuum distillation, alkylation units as well as the fluidised catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) where the explosion occurred, resulting in the release of 20 tonnes of flammable hydrocarbons from the outlet pipe of the flare knock-out drum of the FCCU. Twenty-six people were injured in the incident, and the explosion caused significant production loss.

Key learning points

In terms of alarm management, the large number of control room alarms during the process upset conditions and made it difficult for operators to assess and reflect on what was happening. As the investigation revealed, too many poorly categorised alarms overwhelmed the operators as the process upset developed. Observations from the distributed control system alarm records indicated that during the incident, alarms were being presented to operators at the rate of one every two to three seconds. In the last ten minutes before the explosion

the two operators had to recognise, acknowledge, and take appropriate action on 275 alarms.

Alarms going off this frequently resulted in operators cancelling them because of their nuisance value without necessarily recognising what they meant. As most alarms were assigned the same high priority, virtually all were presented on the area alarm summary and the operators were unable to tell which alarms were critical to safety and which were not. There was no philosophy for determining what priority an alarm should have and no control was exercised over the number of alarms in the system. The use and configuration of alarms should be such that safety critical alarms, including those for flare systems, are distinguishable from other operational alarms; alarms are limited to the number that an operator can effectively monitor; and ultimate plant safety should not rely on operator response to a control system.

Each alarm should have a clearly defined purpose, such as safety, equipment failure, abnormal process conditions or product quality. The correct number of alarms should be determined by operability criteria. Preferably, there should be as few safety critical alarms as possible. These should be limited to those situations where a wider knowledge of the process conditions is required than can be provided by any automatic protection system.

The ISC believes that leadership across six key functional elements is vital to achieve good process safety outcomes. These elements are:

• systems & procedures

• engineering & design

• assurance

• knowledge & competence

• human factors

• culture

In the ‘What can I do’ section below you can see how each of these elements plays a part.

What can I do? Management

• • • The use and configuration of alarms should be such that: safety critical alarms are distinguishable from other operational alarms; alarms are limited to the number that an operator can effectively monitor; ultimate plant safety should not rely on operator response to a control system alarm; and alarms must have a specific action required.

• • Make sure that the company has an alarm philosophy in place and keep it up-to-date.

• • Make sure to implement lead process safety metrics to measure the performance of the alarm system together with regular audits taken place.

• • Display systems should be designed to provide an overview of the condition of the process including, where appropriate, mass, and volumetric balance summaries.

• • • Make sure that alarms are prioritised and there is adequate time for the operator to respond with defined prioritisation rules (based on the potential consequences if the operator fails to respond in the correct time). It is best to prioritise proportionately, e.g. 5% high priority, 15% medium, and 80% low.

• • • Improving alarm management has to continue through the life-cycle of the plant via the Management of Change and the plant Safety Management System to maintain control and ownership.

• • • Investigate all incidents or near misses where operators missed alarms or initiated an incorrect response.

• • Ensure new alarms or modification of existing systems are covered in Management of Change.

• • Make sure that there are enough operators and supervisors to manage upsets properly, and that they are there when needed.

• • • Set up clear roles and responsibilities for normal and abnormal conditions and have a thorough training system in place to ensure that supervisors and operators have the adequate level of competency.

Process Engineer/Supervisor

• • • Check if operators experience being overwhelmed by alarm ‘floods’; if there are nuisance alarms, e.g. are large numbers of alarms acknowledged in quick succession, or if audible alarms are regularly turned off.

• • • Make sure that the operator training covers the topic of how to handle alarm floods and if operators know what to do with each alarm.

• • • Ensure that operators report all upsets in the process and that those events are investigated.

• • • Make sure that operators understand and follow the alarm prioritisation and action rules.

•

• • • Make sure that there are enough operators to manage upsets properly, and that they are available when needed.

• • Track alarm data and metrics, and review to see where alarms can be rationalized.

• • • Make sure that you know what to do with each alarm and have a clear

• understanding of alarm prioritisation.

About the authors

The IChemE Safety Centre is a notfor-profit multi-company, subscription based, industry consortium, focused on improving process safety. We share, analyse and apply safety related thinking. Contact us at safetycentre@icheme.org

• • • Check if the control room displays are well laid out and easy to understand; support is available, written or on-screen.

• • • Make sure that operators understand and follow the alarm prioritisation and action rules.

•

• • • Make sure that your roles and responsibilities are communicated clearly both for normal

• and abnormal conditions and that you are trained what to do in such circumstances.

The information included is given in good faith but without any liability on the part of the IChemE or the IChemE Safety Centre

Operator

Retrofitting obsolete alarm annunciators

Whenit comes to industrial alarm annunciators, many facilities suffer from issues relating to obsolescence management. As many former alarm system manufacturers are no longer in business, sites haven’t updated the original systems that were installed decades ago. Here Gary Bradshaw, Director of critical alarm specialist Omniflex, describes his experiences retrofitting alarm annunciators at a nuclear power plant in the Northwest of England.

When working for Londex in the 1980s, I installed my first alarm annunciator system for a new nuclear facility in the Northwest of England. During this time, there was a requirement for hard-wired, panel-based alarm annunciators featuring coloured-inscribed warning lights and the

ability to monitor specific conditions from different areas in the facility. However, during the 1990’s, with the establishment of PC-based SCADA systems, these hardwired systems fell out of favour.

The golden age of digitalisation meant that industries could streamline their workspaces, getting rid of bulky annunciators and switch to compact, computer-based alternatives. Annunciator manufacturers like Londex, Babcock, Clifford and Snell and Highland either went into administration or were taken over by other companies.

Yes, increased capabilities of PCbased systems led to more efficient monitoring and reporting across a range of communication points. However, many companies overloaded their systems

with alarms, leaving facilities reliant on complex displays full of complicated visualisations to warn them of imminent danger. This can be overwhelming for operators to look at, making it difficult to identify and act on critical alarms. In fact, this very problem is renowned for being a contributing factor to several high-profile incidents, including Buncefield and the fire at the oil refinery at Milford Haven.

Fast forward 30 years, the UK’s nuclear sector is rediscovering the importance of hard-wired alarm annunciators for monitoring their critical alarms. But, due to the disappearance of the original manufacturers, it’s difficult to ensure their existing hardwired alarm annunciator systems are fully supported and have spares available.

The UK’s nuclear sector is rediscovering the importance of hardwired alarm annunciators for monitoring their critical alarms. Heysham nuclear power station – Image: Shutterstock

So, what options are available to these companies and how can retrofitting alarm systems save time and money?

Keeping it simple

The key for any annunciator is to keep it simple. Imagining a car dashboard, every time you experience an oil failure or engine malfunction a light flashes immediately to notify the driver of a potential problem. This means that as soon as you are able, you can pull over and address the issue to save from lasting engine damage.

The same principle should apply in any industrial facility. When specific abnormal conditions occur, for instance if there is a radiation leak or an unexpected temperature change, operators must be notified immediately so they have time to prevent dangerous events from happening.

It is easy to assume your existing old alarm system is working adequately so why would you want the inconvenience of upgrading your annunciators and spend the time and money replacing them?

Well, because many of these systems were first installed decades ago and companies often now find themselves unable to purchase spare parts or get any support. What’s more, many older systems were made before IEC61508 SIL requirements were introduced, meaning that many companies could be operating without meeting the correct SIL compliance standard.

This is why companies should seek help to retrofit modern SIL rated alarm annunciator

systems. Not only can companies upgrade their existing alarm systems at minimal cost and disruption, but they maximise the safety of the facility.

On the nuclear site in the Northwest of England, existing Londex alarm annunciators have been replaced by SIL rated alarm annunciator systems. It is a testament to this customer that they still see the importance of hardwired alarm annunciators for plant safety after 30 years.

Keeping low costs

From my initial experiences in the 1980’s whilst working with Londex, it became clear that senior staff at industrial plants were concerned about installation costs and downtime associated with installing new systems. They saw it as more costeffective to hire staff to physically monitor the conditions in a facility rather than having functioning alarm annunciators networked to a digital system.

But retrofitting a new alarm system needn’t be costly or inconvenient for operators. Experts can design and manufacture a system that will be made to replace obsolete alarm systems from any manufacturer. By using the existing wiring and panel space, the new system will minimise any disruption and keep installation costs low. What’s more, all the new alarm systems will be engineered and tested off-site to help reduce installation time and disruption to a plant’s productivity.

The importance in digitalising data from communication points around a facility, which was realised in the 90s, mustn’t be understated. Alarm annunciators should give local visual indication and sound

audibly around a facility to notify operators of an abnormal occurrence. In addition, these alarms would benefit from being logged either on a web-based server or a local SCADA system. This will then provide historical pre and post alarm logged data which is imperative for auditing and compliance purposes.

What’s more, thanks to the modularity of modern alarm annunciator systems, adding in mobile phone connectivity is easy. In the event a facility is unmanned – which may now become more likely in a postpandemic world – alarms can be sent via SMS and email to the relevant personnel so a resolution can be reached efficiently.

Not providing the correct critical alarm information quickly and with a clear message to the operators has resulted in detrimental cost, loss of life and environmental damage in the past. With so much at stake, it’s vital that mission-critical industries like the petrochemical, oil and nuclear sector take action to replace their outdated and obsolete alarm annunciator systems.

Gary Bradshaw is Director at Omniflex, a global specialist in remote monitoring, protection and critical alarm systems. Having qualified as an engineer at GEC Switchgear, he went on to establish the Conlog brand in the UK and was later part of the management buyout by Omniflex in 1997. Over more than twenty years, Gary has grown the business from a start-up to a leading remote monitoring brand across many industrial sectors.

About the author

ADIPEC 2021

TheAbu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference (ADIPEC) is taking place on 15-18 November 2021 at the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre (ADNEC) in the United Arab Emirates.

Hosted by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), ADIPEC is one of the world’s most influential meeting places where oil, gas and energy companies and professionals will convene in-person, safely and securely, to engage and identify the opportunities that will unlock new value in an evolving energy landscape.

The exhibition provides opportunities for buyers and sellers to meet, learn, network, do business and discover new products, solutions and technologies from over 2,000 exhibiting companies, which includes over 51 NOCs, IOCs and IECs as well as 26 international country pavilions, providing an environment for trade across the industry’s full value chain.

The conference programmes provide both strategic and technical insights as more than 1,000 leading Ministers, CEOs, policy makers and influencers debate and share their insights on the latest developments that shape the industry across the strategic programme and over 800 technical experts from around the world, deliver 127 sessions across 4 days of business critical knowledge-exchange.

ADIPEC brings together professionals with real buying power, in 2018 $17.99 billion of business was concluded onsite at the event. With 82% of attendees being either a decision maker, purchaser or influencer, the event delivers real business opportunities.

Co-located alongside ADIPEC, the Offshore & Marine Zone is one of the world’s foremost meeting places for the offshore, marine, maritime, shipping and logistics sector to understand the latest developments in technology, meet new buyers and develop new business opportunities.

Focusing on marine services, logistics, transportation of freight in a cleaner, greener more sustainable and environmentally safer way, ADIPEC’s specialist offshore & marine section covers the entire value chain for seaborne operations including offshore construction, services to support EPIC projects, from vessel management and transportations services to start up and commissioning.

The dedicated Digitalisation In Energy Zone will be a global showcase of the technological solutions that can help the oil, gas and energy industry unlock untapped value and opportunities as digitalisation becomes more deeply integrated into all aspects of operations. As the oil, gas and energy community continues to focus on identifying the most effective solutions to reconfiguring their

businesses to deliver clean energy solutions for their customers, the need to harness the digitalisation solutions required to meet these obligations will become more prevalent and important than ever.

Also co-located alongside ADIPEC 2021 is the newly launched Smart Manufacturing Zone which will provide a unique platform for the manufacturing industry to gain insights into the energy transition and identify the challenges and opportunities for manufacturing in the drive to net zero carbon energy. In the age of the Industry 4.0, the impact of smart technologies is changing the way manufacturing companies operate. Today, they must focus on creating agile, adaptive and intelligent processes enabling them to pivot and adapt to the constantly changing conditions and making manufacturing smarter and greener. The Smart Manufacturing Zone invites buyers and sellers to meet, learn, network and discover new products, solutions and technologies from exhibitors across core event sectors, including Materials Management 4.0, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), Supply Chain and Logistics, Computer-aided Manufacturing, and many more.

ADIPEC 2021 will also play host to the 11th edition of The ADIPEC Awards 2021. Over 700 entries from more than 50 countries were judged by the Technical Committee and Selection Committee. With the UAE celebrating its Golden Jubilee, The ADIPEC Awards continues to honour projects, innovators and ideas at the forefront of the energy industry’s transformation as it responds to the accelerating demand for sustainable energy. Now in its 11th year, The ADIPEC Awards has evolved to embrace and recognise feats in Digitalisation, Sustainability, Research, Innovation, Partnerships, Young Talent and more. The winners of The ADIPEC Awards represent the industry’s best in class, handpicked by a Jury of global energy leaders. Winners will be announced at the Awards ceremony on 15 November 2021 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Due to health and safety regulations, it is MANDATORY to register in advance and print your badge at home.

For more information, visit: www.adipec.com

2021 AFPM Summit

Date: 5-6 October 2021

Location: Online

The 2021 American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) Summit is taking place virtually due to the COVID-19 situation in New Orleans and the effects of Hurricane Ida on Louisiana. The Summit: Excellence in Plant Performance blends AFPM’s traditional refining and petrochemical manufacturing technical curriculum with new creative opportunities including cross-disciplinary learning and discussion focused on tangible takeaways that drive excellence in plant performance. Topics and

themes throughout the conference will highlight emerging process technologies, process safety, improved reliability and operations, mechanical integrity, training, leadership, and culture.

The Summit delivers technical sessions dedicated to improving plant-wide performance in the refining and petrochemical industries. Join dedicated industry subject matter experts virtually to discover the latest strategies and emerging innovations, and find immediate solutions to implement at the site level.

Who should attend? Engineers and other

personnel in the following disciples: FCC Technologists & Supervisors, Maintenance and Reliability, Operational Excellence, Rotating Equipment, Fixed Equipment, Inspection, Turnaround Planning & Management, Contractors, Technology Licensing, Project Engineering, Operations, Operations Engineers & Supervisors, and Technology Support.

https://www.afpm.org/ events/292d4d00000599

Hazardex 2021 Conference & Exhibition

Date: 6-7 October 2021

Location: Majestic Hotel, Harrogate, UK

Following a hugely successful 2020 Hazardex Conference & Exhibition, the eagerly anticipated 2021 edition will be taking place on October 6 and 7 at the Majestic Hotel in Harrogate, Yorkshire, UK. After the tumultuous past 18 months, the 2021 Hazardex Conference & Exhibition will provide the perfect platform for the high hazard industries to once again come together for a two-day event consisting of a quality conference programme, an array of hazardous industry exhibitors, and the widely reputable Hazardex Awards for Excellence hosted during a Gala Dinner.

The annual Hazardex International Conference & Exhibition is widely recognised as the most important global event specific to hazardous area operations across all major industries. The event brings together the international process safety community on an annual basis to review best practice and the latest research in those areas

key to managing process safety effectively.

The 2020 edition of the event marked a return to the event’s original home of Harrogate in North Yorkshire. The Majestic Hotel, now a Double Tree by Hilton establishment, offers impressive facilities and accommodation which were praised by visitors, exhibitors, and speakers alike.

The main focus of the two-day event is the Conference with contributions from regulators, high hazard industry association leaders, top industry executives and process safety experts providing topical discussion and insights into a range of process safety-related topics. As always, the 2021 Conference will be made up of eminent speakers including senior figures from the UK Health & Safety Executive, UK Petroleum Industry Association, Chemical Business Association (CBA), Tank Storage Association (TSA), IECEx, plus many more.

The free-to-attend Exhibition is another important element of the event with leading hazardous area

sector companies displaying the latest products and services to the assembled professional audience.

As always, the first night of the two-day event will play host to a drinks reception, Gala Dinner, and the prestigious 2021 Hazardex Awards for Excellence. These provide an ideal opportunity for networking with both speakers and exhibitors, as well as event attendees such as senior engineers and safety managers from the high hazard and process industries and those from government agencies, regulators and certification bodies.

Book Delegate places and register for the Exhibition now!

www.hazardex-event.co.uk

CCPS - Middle East Process Safety Conference & Exhibition

Date: 24-26 October 2021

Location: Virtual, Online

Due to the ongoing global public health concerns and in consultation with CCPS regional corporate members and stakeholders, the CCPS-MEPSC 2021 Conference has been scheduled for October 24-26 and will be held virtually.

Organized by AIChE’s Center for Chemical

Process Safety, CCPS-MEPSC is the Middle East conference for stakeholders in the process industries who recognize the business value of process safety and have committed to process safety as a strategic priority and core value in all of their operations. Focusing on operational excellence through effectively managing risk and reliability, this event aims to define, through collective industry experience, the engineering practices and leadership traits that drive the industry to a zero-harm culture.

https://www.mepsc.org/

Protect Control Systems in All Environments with Vortec Enclosure Coolers

To combat system failure, it is crucial that electrical cabinets are equipped with an enclosure cooling system. Vortec’s line of enclosure coolers protect your control systems by preventing overheating and keeping dust and dirt out. The cold air, generated from compressed air, keeps the enclosure slightly pressurized to keep dirt out. And with no moving parts, there is little to no maintenance.

These solutions are available for all environments, IP 54, IP 66, Zones 1 & 21, 2 & 22. For Hazardous Locations, the ATEX and ProtEX Vortex A/C models use a mechanical thermostat, eliminating the risk of sparks; and due to the pressurization of the enclosure, hazardous gases are kept away from the electronic components

sales@vortec.com www.vortec.com

1-513-613-3223

ATEX Certified Humidity/Moisture and Temperature Sensors

ROTRONIC Intrinsically Safe sensors and measurement transmitters with analogue outputs are suitable for use wherever there is a risk of explosion due to dust or gas in the environment. HygroFlex5-EX transmitters and probes from ROTRONIC conform to the latest international ATEX standards. The transmitter is Intrinsically Safe (secondary side), there are two channel outputs, the housing is heavy duty. Interchangeable probes are available for all applications, including those at pressure and low dew point.

Video Tutorials Available For Hazardous Area Modbus Displays

BEKA associates have introduced three short video tutorials to assist the development of hazardous area applications using their BA484D and BA488C intrinsically safe serial text displays. These instruments display process variables, text and simple graphics in a hazardous area using either standard screens or a custom screen.

The Modbus protocol allows the BEKA display to be easily interfaced with the vast range of process instrumentation having a Modbus port. Most applications can be satisfied by one of the nine standard display screen formats which include process data, units of measurement and tag identification in a format for one, two, three or four variables with optional bar-graphs or design and create a custom screen.

Both serial text displays have IECEx and ATEX Group II Category 1G (Ex ia IIC T5) certification and are ideal for simple machine and process control applications. Similar certification for North America is also available. The instruments include push-buttons which may be used for returning operator acknowledgements and contacts are provided for external push-button inputs.

The field mounting BA484D has an IP66 GRP enclosure and has been certified for use in both flammable gases and combustible dusts. The panel mounting BA488C has an IP66 front panel and has been certified for use in flammable gases.

Technical datasheet available

Tel: 01293 571000

Email: instruments@rotronic.co.uk

Web: www.rotronic.co.uk

Video Tutorials Available: www.beka.co.uk

View the videos here: https://www.beka.co.uk/videos.html

> Displays text and graphics

Telephone : +44 (0) 1462 438301

Email : dave.turner@beka.co.uk

> Incorporates operator push buttons

> Modbus, legacy & BEKA protocol

> RS232 and RS485 ports

> Up to 8 variables on each of 11 standard screens

> Galvanic isolator for hazardous area applications

> Field or panel mounted versions

> Intrinsically safe Ex i or general purpose models

Automation and process technology in a single system: with PC-based Control

With a comprehensive range of components for explosion protection and the common interfaces in TwinCAT, Beckhoff offers the possibility to integrate automation and process technology in a system without barriers into Zone 0/20. The range extends from the narrow, intrinsically safe EtherCAT Terminals from the ELX series and the high-grade Control Panels and Panel PCs from the CPX series through to EtherCAT, the fast process technology fieldbus, and the TwinCAT control software with specific process technology interfaces. This allows users to directly connect intrinsically safe field devices and to realise integrated control architectures with barrier-free process technology.

TwinCAT 3: with process technology interfaces Complete EX range: from Panels and Panel PCs to the I/Os