Stressors like the COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying economic challenges have necessitated industry to turn to innovative tools and programs to become more focused on optimal performance while simultaneously minimizing risk.
One such program is Advancing Process Safety, a joint effort of AFPM and API that aims to help AFPM members continuously improve process safety performance by providing information, communications and collaboration.
According to Ryan Wong, advanced safety engineer for ExxonMobil Corp., AFPM's safety documents addressing knowledge sharing have assisted ExxonMobil in updating its HS&E procedures.
"Hazard identification documents help identify potential risks associated with work practices and safety practices," Wong said. "One company used the Hazard ID document to identify hazards throughout the job and in planning and execution. It was instrumental in helping create a new corporate-wide standard regarding live flare work."
Speaking on a panel titled "Ten Years of Advancing Process Safety: Industry Tools" at the recent 2020 AFPM Summit, Wong also lauded AFPM's document on managing valve leakage.
"One company used this to help get started in developing its own checklist to customize the practice share for its own needs," Wong said. "The AFPM process safety document gave [the company] a place to start."
Group effort
Shanahan Mondal, director of process safety and training for CVR Energy, cited another particularly helpful AFPM training tool titled "What went wrong?" in which workers share lessons learned as a result of a hazardous event.
In it, participants were given a picture of the area after the event, high-level details and "the cause" category descriptions.
"Usually you'll see some one-pagers or a summary from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board or a trade association that says, 'Here's an event and here's what went wrong. Take it back to your site and share the learning with your site,'" Mondal said. "But we took a different approach. We asked a group of participants in the regional network, 'If only given a picture, can you come up with the narrative of what went wrong? How did this process safety event unfold?'"
Participants then broke out into small groups to determine the inconsistencies that potentially caused the event.
"It's interesting because all the ways that the teams came up with could have happened, but there was only one way the industry event actually unfolded," Mondal said.
The learning, Mondal explained, was discovered by participants looking at the incident in reverse to determine what could have led to the incident. This approach enabled them to understand potential hazards and any gaps that could have been prevented but instead caused the incident to occur.
"This methodology was really well received at the Process Safety Regional Network," Mondal said, adding that one of the participants based in the Texas Gulf Coast region applied this methodology on a site safety day focused on hazard recognition.
"They actually took some of their specific process safety events and just shared a brief snippet -- a picture or a couple of bullets -- and asked the teams to come up with how this industry event unfolded," Mondal said.
He said the participants, especially the front-line employees, mentioned the exercise was "very engaging."
"Front-line employees play a big role in preventing these incidents from happening," Mondal said. "So the methodology of using an incident, dissecting it and looking at it in reverse was really effective at that site."
Wong noted that several companies have onboarded new process safety engineers with APFM's Process Safety Bulletin.
"Onboarding new employees with this information helps them become interested in learning more," he said. "People who share their experiences help others learn from their journey."
For ongoing industry updates, visit BICMagazine.com.
