Facilities system safety

In the late 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), aware of system safety efforts in the DOD and NASA communities, made the decision to hire William G. Johnson, retired manager of the National Safety Council, to develop a system safety program for the AEC. 

Thus the goals of the AEC effort were to improve the overall safety effort by  

Developing a new approach to system safety that incorporated the best features of existing system safety efforts 

Providing a common approach to system safety and safety management to be used throughout the AEC and by AEC contractors 

In 1973 a revised management oversight and risk tree (MORT) manual was published by the AEC. Even though Johnson borrowed heavily from existing DOD and NASA programs, his MORT program bore little resemblance to programs based on MIL-STD-882 (Johnson 1973). 

---

Facility System Safety (FSS), which is the application of system safety concepts to the facility acquisition process, has recently gained acceptance throughout the Department of Defense and most recently within the Department of Army with the conception of SAFEARMY 1990. The Army s goal is to fully integrate the total system safety, human factors, and health hazard assessments into continuous comprehensive evaluation of selected systems and facilities. The Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center (CRDEC) has mandated appropriate levels of system safety throughout the lifecycle of facility development for many reasons. These include ... 

Optimum safety and health are required to prevent personal injury to chemical surety agents. Facility System Safety is one avenue used to achieve optimum safety and health in operations that deal with these agents. 

Facility System Safety Overview. The process of applying system safety to the facility acquisition process can be divided into the following tasks ... 

NASA-STD-8719.7, January 1998. Facilities System Safety Handbook—NASA Standard. Washington, DC NASA. 

Significant programs initiated or developed in the 1980s include the facility system safety efforts of the Naval Facilities Command and the US. Army Corps of Engineers and initiatives in the petrochemical industry. 

US ACE-sponsored facility system safety workshops initiated (1988)... 

U.S. Army, (undated). Facility System Safety Manual. Washington, D.C Hq, USAGE. Draft. 

FACILITY SYSTEM SAFETY Military Construction Programs... 

During the mid-1980s the US. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and the Naval Facilities Command (NAVFAC), with input from the other services, initiated efforts to develop facility system safety programs that would provide safety input early in the life cycle of major military construction projects. 

The general approach was to tailor MIL-STD-882B requirements to provide a simple, usable, effective approach to facility system safety. Basic definitions, tasks, risk assessment methods, and hazard ansilyses were straight from the standard. 

Few individuals at the installation level or at COE district level have any system safety experience. Most architect and engineer contractors have no system safety experience. Until more government and contractor personnel are trained, the effort will probably have to rely on the services of specialized facility system safety subcontractors and consultants. 

Another evolving approach to facility system safety is the HazOps effort being developed by the chemical industry. This effort is being promoted by individual chemical and petrochemical companies and by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. 

In summary, the broad HazOp effort of the chemical industry is a facility system safety effort. It is one of the first such efforts to originate in the private sector. A sharing of information between the HazOp advocates and those promoting facility system safety should be mutually beneficial. 

Discuss the risk categories used in the facility system safety effort. 

Outline the composition of a typical facility system safety working group. 

Following is an example of a typical risk assessment effort it uses the approach proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for its facility system safety program. 

An element of the facility system safety effort not found in MIL-STD-882B and not typical of other programs is the control rating code (CRC). 

Figure 11-1 (top) Hazard discovery form. Part I (bottom) Parts II and III. (Source US. Army Facility System Safety Manual. Draft.)... 

The facility system safety risk assessment process works such that if the initial risk assessment produces a RAC of 1 or 2, some type of control must be applied. After this control is applied, a second risk assessment or controlled RAC is determined. First, the control rating code is evaluated to ensure that the CRC rules have been met and then to ensure that the controlled RAC is 3 or 4. If the CRC rules are met and the controlled RAC is 3 or 4, the corrective action is taken and the risk has been reduced to an acceptable level. However, if the CRC rules have not been met and/or the RAC remains at 1 or 2, other controls must be applied and the reassessment cycle is repeated. If other controls are not available, then risk acceptance decisions must be made by the appropriate level of management, and risk acceptance decisions must be documented (Fig. 11-4). 

The initial risk categorization process and the use of control rating codes are not addressed in MIL-STD-882B and are believed to be unique to the facility system safety effort. 

This particular analytical technique can be used to aid in preparing preliminary hazard lists (PHLs), conducting preliminary hazard analyses (PHAs), subsystem hazard analyses (SSHAs), or system hazard analyses (SHAs). The ETBA may be helpful in performing operating hazard analyses (OHAs) and accident analyses and in other situations. The ETBA seems to be particularly well-suited to facility system safety programs. 

The risk assessment code (RAC) matrix and the hazard severity and probability indices and definitions used in this study were taken from EMX-XXXX (the Facility System Safety Manual). 

Facility System Safety Workshop 5-day course developed for and taught to DOD... 

Overview of Facility System Safety for the Architect/Engineer 3-day course developed for DOD and private industry... 

U.S. Army. Facility System Safety Manual Washington, DC HQ Safety, USACE. Draft. U.S. Department of Defense. 1984 (updated by Notice 1,1987). System Safety Program Reqmrements. MIL-STD-882B. Washington, DC Department of Defense. 

Figure 36-5. Example of a fault tree. (From Facility System Safety Program Manual, HNDP 385-3-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, Huntsville, AL, October 1985.)...

NASA-STD-8719.7, the Facilities System Safety Handbook, defines acceptable risk as follows Loss of life as a result of hazards in this facility is unlikely. Hazards may result in ... 

---