Chris Laibe, inFRONT
Our industry suffers from 110 deaths a year, which is higher than any other industry in the U.S. That’s why best-in-class facilities are on a constant quest to ensure operations result in no harm to people or the environment. To achieve this, significant resources and attention must be allocated to both process safety and people safety. However, for decades investment in process safety dramatically outpaced investment in people safety. Process safety is a complex intersection of the production, maintenance and safety functions that greatly benefit from automation. In contrast, the comparatively smaller challenge of counting staff on-site in an emergency has traditionally been deemed “good enough” because the job gets done and people are counted in an orderly drill. To grasp this point, consider more than half of all downstream facilities still use manual, paper-based systems to account for their staff in emergencies. That means they rely on a formalized game of “telephone” to determine if everyone is safe.
Events over the past several years show the overhang of risk that has accrued from the lack of investment in people safety. Below are notable examples from our experiences in emergency situations:
- Badge system inaccuracies — A chemical plant suffered a fatality, in part, because the badge system failed to deliver a timely report of people on-site after an explosion. The victim was previously thought to be accounted for but was discovered hours later on the scene.
- Pen and paper inefficiencies — During a refinery fire, a supervisor was unable to use the paper sign-in sheet that contained the names of operators in the stricken unit because rain made the ink unreadable.
- Lack of real-time communication — During a shift change, hundreds of people entered a facility unaware there was an active sheltering incident underway because there was no sustained method of notification.
- Phone-tree inaccuracies — A refiner, using a phone-tree method of accounting for personnel, accounted for more people than were actually on-site because personnel were unable to reach their assigned assembly point and reported to an alternate location.
In order to avoid tragedies that result from these and other defects in the emergency response process, companies need innovative solutions. However, new technology calls for investment, and therein lies the rub. In most cases, the temptation is to use the facility’s badge access control system, an existing tool on-site, to help out. The most prevalent of these systems has the ability to set up devices in safe shelters so staff can account for themselves by presenting their badges to these devices. This takes some of the variability out of the process but, in the end, it amounts to using a security system to perform a safety function. This results in a rigid process that doesn’t react well to the changing circumstances. These systems also do not offer data to support post-incident analysis, which leaves the facility in the dark on improvement opportunities. Having emergency response teams and emergency operations center commanders dabbling in the security system also distracts the security team from their mission. Ultimately, these systems don’t give safety users the basic tools they need.
These obstacles have given rise to a new category of products that are dedicated to safety managers’ missions to continually improve emergency response capabilities. Technologies are refining the pace and accuracy of emergency mustering exercises by 90 percent in downstream facilities through rich, accurate and safety-specific data to emergency responders during and after the incident. This puts the facility on a continuous improvement journey that empowers safety professionals to achieve their mission of returning all employees home safely to their families at the end of each shift.
For more information, visit http://infrontusa.com/allclear or call (800) 256-2003.
