Lists, safety events

It is difficult to identify effective lagging indicators for use with process safety. The most obvious problem is that major PSIs do not occur frequently enough to develop a statistically significant trend such as that shown in Figure 2.3. If many facilities and companies pool their data it may be possible to that some trending results can be developed. However, such results are always open to doubt, not least because different organizations define terms differently. For example, the Baker report (Baker, 2007) provides a list of events that fall under the term fire. That list includes a fault in a motor control center. It is questionable as to how many organizations would call such an event a fire unless it resulted in actual flames. 

Create a Safety Analysis Table (SAT) that lists undesirable events that could affect a component such as a pressure vessel. Such events include overpressure, low pressure (vacuum), a leak, liquid overflow, high... 

Safety and Quality Team Engineers prepare weekly nuclear safety report that provides staff of the various departments and site management, with general comments concerning site nuclear safety level indicators related to the management of equipment unavailability and a list of event reports that are issued or will be issued. 

All carriers with less than three inspections involving a violation of the Unsafe Driving BASIC are removed from the carrier list. The remaining carriers are placed into one of five safety event group categories. 

A Tier 2 Process Safety Event (T-2 PSE) is a LOPC with lesser consequence. A T-2 PSE is an unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material, including nontoxic and nonflammable materials (e.g. steam, hot condensate, nitrogen, compressed CO2 or compressed air), from a process that results in one or more of the consequences listed below and is not reported in Tier 1 ... 

In this study detailed fault trees with probability and failure rate calculations were generated for the events (1) Fatality due to Explosion, Fire, Toxic Release or Asphyxiation at the Process Development Unit (PDU) Coal Gasification Process and (2) Loss of Availability of the PDU. The fault trees for the PDU were synthesized by Design Sciences, Inc., and then subjected to multiple reviews by Combustion Engineering. The steps involved in hazard identification and evaluation, fault tree generation, probability assessment, and design alteration are presented in the main body of this report. The fault trees, cut sets, failure rate data and unavailability calculations are included as attachments to this report. Although both safety and reliability trees have been constructed for the PDU, the verification and analysis of these trees were not completed as a result of the curtailment of the demonstration plant project. Certain items not completed for the PDU risk and reliability assessment are listed. 

In a somewhat arcane context. Chapman and Morrison, in the scientific journal Nature, have provided a list of comparative risks of death in the United States (Table 15.4) from a number of causes. The purpose of their paper was to assess the hazard of an asteroid or comet impact on the earth. Such an event does not immediately come to mind when considering the safety of medicines, but according to their estimates the chances of being killed by an asteroid/comet impact are about the same as dying in an air accident, which... 

Safety-related changes to the PI that may be made by the sponsor without prior approval are those that reduce the patient population or add a warning, precaution, contraindication or adverse event. They must be notified to the TGA within 5 days of implementation and the date of each safety-related change must be listed in the PI in addition to the TGA approval date. 

The objective of performing a HAZOP or What-If review is to identify and develop credible process upset scenarios or causes which could adversely impact safety, health, environment, quality, productivity or public perception of the company. Obviously a multitude of events both common (line rupture) and very farfetched could be identified (meteor striking facility). The aim is to identify events that have a very real possibility of occurring at the facility. Although all such far fetched events may be listed, it is generally not practical or necessary to do so. 

Given below is a short reminder list of basic safety principles and specific warnings about hazards that can occur in a physical chemistry laboratory. Items 1 and 2 are crucially important. Knowing how to respond effectively in the unlikely event of a serious accident is essential. Safety infonnation should be displayed prominently in the laboratory— find it and read it before beginning any experimental work. 

The data sheet is called the package insert in Japan, as it can be found in the drug packaging. The data sheet is drafted by the company and checked and completed by the authorities after the NDA review and the recommendation for approval. The content has been defined by the MHLW notification, and was revised in May 1997. Besides general information on the product, the most important entries are warnings, precautions and contraindications, and a list of adverse events quantitatively reported. These entries will be revised if necessary, with the safety data regularly analyzed for the periodic safety update report however, an ad hoc revision is made at any time in case of serious events. 

However, the key institution for facilitating communications with the public is the Blue Grass Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office, funded by DOD and operated by a contractor (not, however, the systems contractor, Bechtel National, Inc.). The Outreach Office publishes fact sheets and newsletters, maintains a mailing list of 2,800, participates in local events such as the annual Safety Fair, operates a speakers bureau, and facilitates public meetings. Most important, it supports the Kentucky Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) and a CAC subsidiary, the Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board (CDCAB). 

IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health levels indicate that exposure to the listed concentrations of airborne contaminants is likely to cause death, immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects, or prevent escape from the contaminated environment. IDLH levels are established to ensure that the worker can escape from the contaminated environment in the event of a failure of respiratory protection. An indication of "10% LEL" indicates that, for safety considerations, the IDLH was based on an atmospheric concentration of ten percent of the lower explosive limit even though toxicological impacts might not appear until higher concentrations are reached. 

---