Safety system concept systems

The visualization system should not only show the integrity status of technical parts of the SCE/ SBS, but contain the names and duties of responsible personnel in the case of abnormal process conditions. Specific human activities are seen as operational barriers and as an integral part of the safety system. Automatic systems such as Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) are an exception and may be seen as an SBS without an operational barrier element. The proposed concept of the visualization system is based on the generic accident model shown in Figure 1 and separates SCS and SBS (Fig. 10). 

While this outlines the concept, such real time simulation generally is not practical for determining the reliability of safety systems. 

Other possible preliminary safety analysis methods are concept safety review (CSR), critical examination of system safety (CE), concept hazard analysis (CHA), preliminary consequence analysis (PCA) and preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) (Wells et al., 1993). These methods are meant to be carried out from the time of the concept safety review until such time as reasonably firm process flow diagrams or early P I diagrams are available. 

Another interesting development is the use of the concept of internal control systems for application in other certification systems that work with smallholders such as Fairtrade and Utz Kapeh certifications. There is also interest in further developing the concept for wider application as a generic management system or total quality management system able to meet additional demands placed on the producer group, such as requirements for food safety systems (Pyburn 2004). 

Apostolakis, G. The Concept of Piobability in Safety Assessments ofTechnological Systems, Science, 1359 (December 7, 1990). 

One of the most critical steps in establishing the appropriate role and settings of the individual safety systems will be the risk assessment analysis, the process in which engineers consider and analyse all possible conditions in order to select the most appropriate safety concept, which ensures safe operation under all possible circumstances and scenarios (see Section 13.4). 

One documented method uses process safety barriers identification for metrics selection. This concept uses a combination of lagging and leading indicators associated with process safety barriers and incident escalation controls to evaluate the process safety system performance. The basis for this method is documented in the U.K. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) publication HSG254 and illustrated by Figures 4.1-4.3. The strength of this technique arises from using the combination of indicators that provides multiple perspectives for judging the surety of a barrier or escalation control. For example, this basic concept was adopted and modified by BP to focus upon three information sources to assess key control barriers as summarized below ... 

SAFETY DESIGN CONCEPT SPECMC TO NUCLEAR HEAT UTILIZATION SYSTEMS... 

NTSHIHARA, T., et al.. Safety Considerations and Countermeasures Against Fire and Explosion at an HTGR-Hydrogen Production System (Proposal of Safety Design Concept), (3rd JAERI Symp., Oarai, 1996), Proc. JAERI-Conf 96-010, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (1996) 264-271. 

The transfer of the experimental result to a safety technical concept depends on the individual substance and the desired handling. In most cases the possible alternatives are limited to mitigating measures such as the installation of pressure relief systems. 

To achieve the goals set at the end of the last chapter, a new theoretical underpinning is needed for system safety. Systems theory provides that foundation. This chapter introduces some basic concepts in systems theory, how this theory is reflected in system engineering, and how all of this relates to system safety. 

The key to having a cost-effective safety effort is to embed it into a system engineering process starting from early concept development and then to design safety into the system as the design decisions are made. Costs are much less when safety is built into the system design from the beginning rather than added on or retrofitted later. 

To provide cost-effective safety engineering, the system and safety analysis and design process needs to consider the humans in systems—including those that are not directly controlling the physical processes—not separately or after the fact but starting at concept development and continuing throughout the life cycle of the system. 

The safety system consists of 4 divisions and the 2 out of 4 logic is employed. As for consideration for common mode failures, some hard-wired back-up countermeasures were installed based on the defense-indepth concepts. Figure 2 and 3 show the configuration of RPS (Reactor Protection System) and LSF (Lngineering Safety Features), respectively. 

The following discussions will be limited to a generalized or typical presentation reeaizlng that variations in equipment exist between reactors. However, where system concepts vary from reactor to reactor, each concept will be discussed. Instrumentation will be presented according to the classifications as defined in Section II-A (Page 11). Particular attention is given to the whole system. e. power supply, transducer, the instrument Itself, control function (safety circuit monitoring or readout device ) and pertinent comment. ... 

There are three separate and complete safety circuits at each production reactor. Figures 3 and k, I ical Block Diagram of the Hiree Seifety Circuits at the six old reactors and at the K Reactors respectively show the system concept of the present safety circuits. 

The safety case concept requires that operators demonstrate that the systems and processes they have adopted ensure that their facility is sufficiently safe for all those people who are possibly impacted by their activities (workers and contractors at their facility, passengers and customers, people who live and work in surrounding areas). Most safety case regulations require the demonstration to take the general form of showing that risk is as low as reasonably practicable, or ALARP (or that risk has been reduced so far as practicable - SFAP). Clearly, safety cases are an example of the broad trend towards risk-based regulation (Hood et al. 2004). 

As to new safety system elements, we don t have any. But we do try different things. You know that we use a lot of chemicals and we are reexamining our permissible exposure levels because we are determined to do better than the world standards. You ll be interested in this one new approach we re taking—we are addressing the gap between theory and reality, trying to do a better job of incorporating elements in our environmental, health, and safety systems within the concept of operational excellence. [Editorial note Wow ]... 

Participating in the design process presents opportunities for upstream involvement by safety professionals, using system safety concepts. 

---