INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HAZARD

MANAGEMENT (CHX-473)
Submitted by –
Anant Khurana (15106062)
Kishan Nathani (15104072) Submitted To-
Rajneesh Kumar (15104093) Dr. Deepak Sahu
Shaurya Ghildiyal (15104098) (Department of Chemical Engineering )
Divyansh Sharma (15104092)
1
LOPA is a semi-quantitative tool. As a risk
assessment methodology, LOPA uses order of
magnitude categories for initiating event frequency,
consequence severity, and the likelihood of failure of
independent protection layers (IPLs) to estimate risks.

Objectives of LOPA are to determine if risks can be

tolerated by asking:
 Are there sufficient layers of protection
against an accident scenario?
 Are supplementary independent protection
layers needed?

2
 Risk Matrix
 Risk Graph
 Quantitative
W3 W2 W1
C1 a - -
1 - -
P1 1 a -
F1 2 1 -
P2 1 1 a
C2 3 2 1
P1 2 1 1
F2 4 3 2
P2 3 2 1
5 42 3
F1 3 3 2
C3 6 5 4
F2 4 3 3
7 6 5
C4 h 4 3
8 7 6

3
  Drive the consequence Intolerable Risk
and/or frequency of
potential incidents to an
tolerable risk level

Risk = frequency * consequence

Tolerable Risk
4
 Process Deviation
 Initiating causes
◦ Equipment failures
 instrumentation
 pumps
 compressors
◦ human errors
◦ loss of mechanical integrity
 Initiating cause frequency

5
 Based on detailed description of hazard
scenario.
 Examine safety, environmental, and
economic risks.
 Often considers the possibility of escaping
the incident and the frequency of exposure
to the potential incident.
 Assessment may be qualitative or
quantitative (consequence modeling)

6
 Incident Frequency = Initiating Cause Frequency
 Consequence = Scenario Consequence

Initiating Consequence
Cause

Unmitigated Risk

IS IT TOLERABLE?
7
 Compare unmitigated risk to risk tolerance.
 If unmitigated risk is greater than risk
tolerance, independent protection layers are
required.

8
 COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE

 Independent PLANT EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Protection Layers are

often depicted as an MITIGATION
Mechanical Mitigation Systems
onion skin. Fire and Gas Systems

 Each layer is PREVENTION

Safety Critical Process Alarms
independent in terms Safety Instrumented Systems

of operation.
Basic Process Control Systems
 The failure of one Non-safety Process alarms
Operator Supervision

layer does not affect Process Design

the next.

9
 Sufficiently independent so that the failure
of one IPL does not adversely affect the
probability of failure of another IPL
 Designed to prevent the hazardous event,
or mitigate the consequences of the event
 Designed to perform its safety function
during normal, abnormal, and design basis
conditions
 Auditable for performance

10
 IPLs can provide
◦ Prevention (active – lower probability)
 Alarm with operator response
 Safety Instrumented System
◦ Mitigation (active – lower probability/consequence)
 Pressure relief valve
◦ Protection (passive – lower consequence)
 Dikes
 Mechanical design
 Barricades

11
 IPL1 IPL2 IPL3

Mitigated Risk =
Unmitigated Risk = reduced frequency * same
frequency * consequence consequence
PFD1 PFD2 PFD3

Key:
Thickness of arrow represents frequency of Impact frequency
the consequence if later IPLs are not Event
successful 12
 IPL1 IPL2 IPL3 Mitigated Risk = reduced
Unmitigated
Risk frequency * same consequence
Scenario
Consequence

Preventive Preventive Preventive

Feature Feature Feature
Success
Safe Outcome
REDUCE
Initiating Event Success FREQUENCY
Safe Outcome
TO ACHIEVE
Success Safe Outcome
Failure TOLERABLE
RISK
Failure
Consequences
Failure exceeding criteria

Key:
Thickness of arrow represents frequency of Impact frequency
the consequence if later IPLs are not Event
successful 13
 PFD=0.1 PFD=0.01 PFD=0.1 Mitigated Risk = reduced
Unmitigated
Risk frequency * same consequence
Scenario
Consequence

Preventive Preventive Preventive

Feature Feature Feature

Frequency = 0.9/yr
Success = 0.9 Safe Outcome
Initiating Event
Frequency = 1/yr Success = 0.99 Frequency = 0.099/yr
Safe Outcome
Success=0.9
Frequency = 0.0009/yr
Failure = 0.1
Safe Outcome
Failure = 0.01
Frequency = 0.0001/yr
Failure= 0.1 Consequences
exceeding criteria

Key:
Thickness of arrow represents frequency of Impact frequency
the consequence if later IPLs are not Event
successful
 IPL1 IPL2 CMS1

Mitigated Risk =
Mitigated Risk = reduced frequency *
Unmitigated Risk = reduced frequency * same reduced consequence
frequency * consequence PFD1 PFD2 consequence PFDN

Key:
Thickness of arrow represents frequency of Impact frequency
the consequence if later IPLs are not Event
successful 15
 Unmitigated PFD=0.1 PFD=0.1 PFD=0.01 Mitigated Risk = reduced
Risk frequency * reduced consequence
Different Scenario
Consequence Occurs

Preventive Preventive Mitigative

Feature Feature Feature

Frequency = 0.9/yr
Success = 0.9 Safe Outcome
Initiating Event
Frequency = 1/yr Frequency = 0.09/yr
Success = 0.9
Safe Outcome

Success= 0.99 Frequency = 0.0099/yr

Failure = 0.1 Mitigated Release,
tolerable outcome
Failure = 0.1
Frequency 0.0001/yr
Failure = 0.01 Consequences
exceeding criteria
Key:
Thickness of arrow represents frequency of Impact frequency
the consequence if later IPLs are not Event
successful
“A man is rich in proportion to the number
of things he can afford to let alone.”
Henry David Thoreau

Industry will be judged on how it balances the

preservation of life and the environment with the
need for revenue and profits.

Thank You!.

17