GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Advancing Process Safety in the Petroleum Refining &

Petrochemical Industry

Lara Swett
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
1667 K St., NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006
lswett@afpm.org

Ron Chittim
American Petroleum Institute (API)
1220 L Street, Northwest, Washington, DC 20005
Chittim@api.org

Jerry Forest
Celanese
1601 W. LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75234
Jerry.Forest@Celanese.com

Prepared for Presentation at
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
2013 Spring Meeting
9th Global Congress on Process Safety
San Antonio, Texas
April 28 May 1, 2013


UNPUBLISHED



AIChE shall not be responsible for statements or opinions contained
in papers or printed in its publications
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

Advancing Process Safety in the Petroleum Refining &
Petrochemical Industry



Lara Swett
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
1667 K St., NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006
lswett@afpm.org

Ron Chittim
American Petroleum Institute (API)

Jerry Forest
Celanese

Keywords: AFPM, API, Advancing Process Safety, APS, Event Sharing, Hazard Identification,
Regional Networks, 754 Metrics, Training and Certification, Site Assessments

Abstract

In April of 2012, AFPM (American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers) and API (American
Petroleum Institute) launched six new programs to further advance process safety improvements
in the refining and petrochemical industry. The programs are industry event sharing, hazard
identification documents, process safety regional networks, process safety training &
certification, process safety performance metrics and process safety site assessments. Active
industry participation in the programs currently exceeds 95% of the U.S. refining capacity and
includes several petrochemical companies. This paper will provide background on why these
programs were developed, review each program in detail, explain how industry is utilizing each
program and how knowledge is being shared across the industry at the site and company levels.

1. Background and Program Development

The petroleum refining and petrochemical manufacturing industry is committed to protecting the
health and safety of our workers, contractors and neighbors as well as the environment in which
they operate. For decades, industry has worked together to develop safe work practices and
standards aimed at reducing risks of major industry hazards and process safety incidents.
Despite these efforts, process safety incidents occur. As a result, there has been increased focus
and attention on process safety by industry, government, Non-governmental Organizations
(NGOs) and the media.

In 2010, a group of refining and petrochemical industry executives belonging to the then NPRA
(now AFPM) tasked process safety professionals within their companies to develop a working
group to explore ways to collectively improve process safety performance across the entire
refining and petrochemical industry. The goal was to develop programs that would create a
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
significant improvement in process safety performance. Shortly after work began, API was asked
to join the effort to leverage the strengths and resources of both organizations to successfully
develop and implement the programs. Over a two year period, the group developed a suite of six
programs currently being utilized by the petroleum refining and petrochemical industry.
Together these programs are called the Advancing Process Safety Programs.

1.1 Program Development and Governance

Several factors at the outset of this project were essential to the development of the Advancing
Process Safety Programs and led to its successful launch in April 2012. These contributing
factors fostered the development and completion of high quality programs in a condensed time
frame.

1.1.1 Executive Leadership

The industry leaders that initiated this project played an integral role in development of the
programs. They provided clear guidance on program development, provided industry resources,
gained support from their peers, and took steps to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the
programs to achieve process safety performance improvements across the entire U.S. refining
and petrochemical industry. Their oversight and support illustrated how leadership commitment
can enhance the process safety culture.

1.1.2 Clear Guidance

Guiding principles were developed by the executive leadership at the outset of the project and
are the corner stone of each program.

Guiding Principles:
Focus is "Working on ourselves"
Start small with clear easy steps; grow as needed to drive significant process safety
improvements
Dont prescribe how, focus on the desired outcomes
Focus on mitigating real risk, not low risk items - move the needle
Should be applicable to all refiners and petrochemical sites/companies, (i.e. small,
medium, and large sites)

The guiding principles allowed each program development team to focus on what was important
and design high-quality programs to improve process safety performance across the entire
industry. As a result, the Advancing Process Safety programs are applicable to all refining and
petrochemical manufacturing sites regardless of their size or company type.

1.1.3 Desire of Industry to Improve

In the early development of these programs it was apparent that industry had a clear desire to
improve process safety performance. Industry motivation advanced each of these programs
through the development process and enhanced their quality. They developed programs they
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
knew would be constructive and beneficial to all of industry. This push by industry enabled
these programs to be developed with the assistance of over 150 industry volunteers with a
breadth of knowledge and resources and allowed for quick adoption of these programs by
industry. Within 8 month of release approximately 95% of the U.S. refining capacity was
actively participating in one or more of the programs. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of AFPM
membership participation by refining capacity, companies, and sites.

Figure 1: AFPM Member participation in Advancing Process Safety Programs (as of
3/8/2013)
AFPM Participating Refining
Members
% of member
participation
Refining Capacity
bbl/day
16,650,089 99%
Member
Companies
32 84%
Member Sites 118 94%
NOTE: Total US refining capacity equals 17,264,178 barrels per day.

1.2 Program Development and Governance

Development of the Advancing Process Safety Programs began in July 2010 with a group of
process safety professionals named the Process Safety Workgroup (The Workgroup). The
Workgroup began with 15 volunteers and has grown to almost 30. Shortly after development
work began, Subgroups were formed for each of the proposed programs. The Workgroup was
tasked to oversee the program development by the Subgroups and report back to the AFPM and
API executive leadership on a frequent basis. In addition to the program Subgroups, a Subgroup
of company legal representatives was established to assist with legal issues that arose during the
program development process. Each program was assigned a legal representative. With the
support of company leadership, the legal Subgroup quickly worked through issues while
maintaining the quality and effectiveness of the programs.

The Workgroup developed the concept for each program in seven months, and then spent
another year developing the tools for preparation of the program launch in April 2012.

The governance that led to the development of these programs remains in place and serves an
important role managing each program and providing feedback for continuous improvement (see
figure 2.)






GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2: Oversight and governance of the Advancing Process Safety Programs
6
Organization / Governance
API
PROCESS SAFETY GROUP
AFPM
MANUFACTURING/
SAFETY & HEALTH
COMMITTEE
API
REFINING
SUBCOMMITTEE
AFPM
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
PROCESS SAFETY
WORKGROUP
(~ 25 Companies)
PROCESS SAFETY
ADVISORY GROUP
Event Sharing
Regional
Networks
Hazard
Identification
Metrics
Training and Certification
Process Safety Site Assessment
AFPM formerlyNPRA
Legalsupportprovidedbyparticipatingcompaniesandtradeassociations

2. Program Descriptions and Product Offerings

Following are detailed descriptions of each program and the products or tools that are available
to industry.

2.1 Process Safety Metrics & Analysis Program

In April 2010, an industry standard was published that created a single definition of a process
safety event to allow industry to collect, analyze and benchmark process safety performance.
The Process Safety Metrics & Analysis program was developed to support industry
implementation of the ANSI/API RP 754 Process Safety Indicators for the Refining and
Petrochemical Industries [1] standard. The Subgroup is tasked with helping sites report
consistent and accurate Tier 1 and Tier 2 events (as defined in RP 754) that help measure the
process safety performance of the refining and petrochemical industry, provide benchmarking
opportunities, and analyze data to help identify opportunities for improvement.

2.1.1 Expert Input of Event Categorization

The Metrics & Analysis Subgroup is comprised of several industry representatives that
contributed to the development of API 754 and are therefore in a unique position to assist
industry in answering questions related to the standard. Since the release of the standard, this
group helped sites with API 754 interpretations, answered questions to clarify categorization of
specific events and collected unique API 754 event examples to further enhance understanding
of API 754 definitions. API 754 Tier 1 and Tier 2 definitions are located in Appendix A. The
Subgroup has posted a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page on the API web site [2] which
can be accessed from the references section of the paper.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________

2.1.2 Quarterly Conference Calls

The Metrics & Analysis Subgroup host conference calls on a quarterly basis for process safety
professionals to discuss new FAQs, share industry experiences and lessons learned from
effective Tier 3 and Tier 4 metrics implementation, clarify mis-interpretations of the 754
standard, and hold an open question & answer forum. The calls have proven to be effective in
helping industry report consistent PSE metrics to the trade associations. For example, based on
calendar year 2010 PSE reporting, it was noticed the many sites were not reporting contractor
hours and PSEs from pressure relief devices (PRD) consistently. Both of these issues were
discussed in detail on a quarterly conference call. As a result, the 2011 PSE reporting showed a
significant improvement in the accuracy of this specific information. In addition to quarterly
conference calls, this group presents at industry forums, helps solicit support for API 754 with
international trade associations and puts on industry workshops.

2.1.3 Analysis of Process Safety Event Data

AFPM and API collect industry PSE data on an annual basis to develop a benchmarking report
for industry. The Metrics & Analysis Subgroup is responsible for analyzing the report to identify
industry trends and opportunities for process safety performance improvements. In addition, this
group provides feedback to other programs within Advancing Process Safety in order to help
them focus their efforts on real risks and events that are occurring in industry.

Figure 3: Example of Benchmarking Tool with Sample Data
In addition to the Annual
Report, the Subgroup
developed a Process
Safety Metrics data
analysis and
benchmarking tool on the
AFPM Safety Portal as
shown in figure 3. This
tool allows industry
representatives to drill
down into the API 754
categories and benchmark
their companys
performance against the
rest of refining and
petrochemical industry.

Figure 3 is an example of
a company performing a
search with the Process
Safety Metrics data
analysis and benchmarking tool. The search results reflect all Tier 1 Process safety event
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
submissions from 2010. The Y-axis is the count of process safety events and the X-axis
represents the number each site submitted.

2.1.4 Industry Participation in Process Safety Metrics

In calendar year 2011, 105 Refining Sites and 98 Petrochemical sites reported their Tier 1 and
Tier 2 process safety event data to participate in the annual AFPM Process Safety Event Report.
In addition, many companies have developed implemented and Tier 3 & Tier 4 metrics.

One participating company that collects and reports Tier 1 & 2 PSE metrics also developed a full
suite of Tier 3 & 4 metrics to track their performance across all sites. After collecting several
years of data, they were able to perform a deep dive analysis on process safety events and
make significant recommendations to improve programs that ultimately reduced risk and
improved their performance. Over the years, this company has observed significant
improvements in their Tier 1 and Tier 2 process safety performance.

Another participating company has a corporate wide focus on Tier 3 Safe Operating Limit
Exceedences (SOLEs) that helped to highlight the critical importance of implementing a robust
operating limits program at their refineries. Their program includes a clear definition of a safe
operating limit versus a reliability operating limit, a mandatory policy, procedure or internal
company standard that defines operating limit implementation schedules and milestones, site
procedures, complete operating parameter and limit assessments, complete alarm strategies and
configurations, and operating limit guideline documents for all major process units, fired heaters,
rotating equipment, offsite, and utilities. To track the Tier 3 metrics, this company established a
Tier 4 metric to monitor implementation progress and investigate Tier 3 SOLEs for trend
analysis and learning.

These companies and others share lessons learned and process safety achievements from their
metrics programs in detail on quarterly API 754 conference calls and presentations at Regional
Network meetings.

2.2 Process Safety Event Sharing Program

Learning from incidents is fundamental for safety management and incident prevention. The
Event Sharing Program was created to provide a mechanism for industry to share causal factors
and lessons learned information from API 754 Tier 1 process safety events as well as other Tier
2 events, key findings and near misses considered to have high learning value for industry
(HLVE).

The Event Sharing Subgroup developed an Event Sharing Database that allows industry
representatives to input process safety events and near misses. The categories utilized by the
database are taken from API 754 so that companies can easily enhance their API 754 data to
include causes and learnings.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
The Event Sharing Database was launched in April 2012 with approximately 50 events. One
year later, the database contains over 100 events from more than 20 process units in petroleum
refining and petrochemical manufacturing.

2.2.1 Event Sharing Database

The Event Sharing program database is located in the AFPM Safety Portal. The database allows
users to search by:
Keywords
Refining and Petrochemical Process
Mode
Equipment Point of Release
Equipment Initiating Release
Material
Cause
Classification (Tier 1, Tier 2 HLVE, Near Miss HLVE, Key Finding HLVE)
HLVE Event

The events can be viewed on the screen or opened in a PDF or Excel file. This program is
continuously improved based on feedback from users. In 2013 the database will be upgraded to
include the ability to upload a file or picture to the event submission. The Subgroup is also
investigating the ability to add sub-categories to the existing API 754 categories based on a
recommendation from both the Metrics & Analysis Subgroup and the Event Sharing Subgroup.
After reviewing the API 754 data and the submissions in the Event Sharing Database, the
Subgroup would like to investigate further into each category, specifically piping systems, where
the Subgroups were seeing a majority of the events submitted. By understanding more about
events stemming from piping systems, industry can learn and prevent similar events in the future.

2.2.2 Safety Bulletins
Figure 4: Process Safety Bulletin
The Event Sharing Subgroup is responsible for
maintaining the integrity of the Event Sharing Database
as well as distributing event information from the
database through the AFPM Process Safety Bulletins, as
shown in figure 4. The January 2013 bulletin focused on
Residual Elements in HF Alkylation Piping Caused
Failure and was released to over 1000 industry
representatives. Based on the information in the bulletin,
one company upgraded its inspection program enterprise-
wide to investigate for the failure mechanism described in
the event. Another company distributed the bulletin to
their sites with directions to inspect the units for the
hazard described. Based on the inspection results,
preventative actions were taken to reduce the physical
risk around residual element hazards. This event was also
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
discussed in detail during several regional network meetings.

2.3 Hazard Identification Program

The Hazard Identification program was developed to create resources for industry on process
safety hazards that are not currently addressed in existing industry standards (API, ASME, and
NFPA). The Subgroup is developing a library of documents designed to provide information
and ready guides for potentially overlooked and not widely known process safety hazards. The
library will also share process safety hazard lessons learned from industry related incidents in
order to improve process safety awareness and retain institutional knowledge on process safety
hazards for future generations. Hazard Identification documents can be used for operator
certification, PHA preparation, MOC hazard assessment, tailgate topics, emergency drills and
more.

2.3.1 Hazard Identification Documents

Hazard Identification Documents are located in the AFPM Safety Portal and are accessible to all
AFPM members. Completed documents include Hot Taps, LPG Storage, Flare Operations,
Process Sampling for QA/QC, Shift Turnover, Vacuum Trucks, Critical Crane Lifts, and
Atmospheric Tank Preparation for Out of Service Maintenance.

The Hazard Identification Document sections include:
1. Purpose and Use
2. Scope
3. Examples of Inherent Concerns and/or Hazards
a. Specific hazards organized by task
4. References and Resources
a. Standards, regulations, public reports, and other public reference material
5. Industry Incidents
a. A listing of industry incidents with links to public reports that are associated with
the hazards described in the document.

Document topics are picked from industry input, hazards identified from recent industry events,
and feedback from other Advancing Process Safety Programs. An online form is available on
the Safety Portal for industry representatives to suggest topics for future development.

The documents are often discussed in detail during the Regional Network meetings. The
network participants are asked to confirm that their sites practices and procedures address all of
the hazards included on the Hazard Identification document. Some sites have implemented
updates to a practice or procedure based on a specific Hazard Identification document.

For example, the Shift Turnover document was discussed during a Regional Network meeting. It
was noted that many of the sites represented did not have a formal process for shift turnover. As
a result, participants were asked to talk to their sites about developing a shift handover procedure
and provide feedback during the next network meeting.

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
Another site distributed several of the documents to their contractors to ensure they had complete
knowledge of potential hazards when working on tanks or vacuum trucks at their site.

2.4 Process Safety Regional Networks

The Process Safety Regional Networks Program was developed to allow informal collaboration
between process safety practitioners at the plant level in an effort to impact overall safety
performance. There were several trade association groups sharing process safety information
across the industry, however, many of those groups did not include plant level practitioners.
This program was modeled after the success of the Western States Petroleum Association
(WSPA) Process Safety Group in California and the Rocky Mountain Process Safety Group in
Montana. Currently there are eight Process Safety Regional Networks in the U.S. as shown in
Figure 5. The two on the West Coast are facilitated by WSPA and the other six are facilitated by
AFPM. The agenda items focus on process safety practices, lessons learned from industry
events, industry standards, regulatory challenges, hazard identification, and other topics viewed
as a priority by the network members.

The Regional Network Program has been successful in utilizing the Advancing Process Safety
Programs to help facilitate sharing and conversation. Network participants have provided
important feedback and suggestions for improvement of the Advancing Process Safety Programs.
Figure 5: Regional Network Map
Examples of topics
discussed at the
Network meetings
include: Culture
Surveys, Hot Taps
and Live Flare Work
procedures, process
safety training for
new employees,
electronic MOCs,
Process Safety
Metrics, Incident
Sharing, Process
Control Systems,
Process Safety
Information,
Emergency MOC
procedures,
Mechanical Integrity,
Operational
Discipline, Employee Participation, and more. The Networks informal sharing allows sites to
compare and contrast various methods to achieve the same result.

To facilitate sharing among regions, AFPM developed a module on the Safety Portal that allows
all regional network participants to view and search agendas, meeting minutes, documents, and
WSPA
Region and
Hawaii
Regional Networks
NPRA 2010
Washi ngton State and
Al aska
Rocky Mountain Region
Central States Region
Mid-West Region
East Coast
Region
Eastern
Gulf Coast
Region
Texas Gulf
Coast
Region
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
presentations shared in other regions. For example, an individual can search on MOC and
view the presentation given during a Central States Regional meeting on electronic MOCs and a
presentation given during a Rocky Mountain Regional meeting on emergency MOCs. Contact
information for regional participants is also provided to allow greater information sharing.

Currently there are 150 process safety practitioners from companies representing 95% of the
U.S. refining capacity participating on the eight Regional Networks in the United States. This
number includes professionals from several petrochemical sites. The networks meet several
times a year in the U.S. with the common goal of collectively enhancing process safety
performance.


2.5 Process Safety Training & Certification
Figure 6: Process Safety Training
The goal for the Process Safety Training and
Certification program is to help training vendors,
industry and other 3
rd
parties create their own
programs based on criteria developed by industry, to
ensure training topics and delivery are consistent and
meets industrys expectations. To date, training
criteria has been developed for: What is Process
Safety?, Hazard Recognition, Process Safety
Leadership, Conduct of Operations and Risk
Assessment. Training vendors, companies or other
3
rd
parties can submit their training programs (based
on the industry developed training criteria) to API for certification under APIs Training
Provider Certification Program thereby ensuring that the training meets industrys needs.

One company recently incorporated the approved training criteria into their own program titled,
I am a Process Safety Leader (See Figure 6). The feedback from employees has been positive
and effective in bringing elements of process safety into their individual jobs and responsibilities.
In the picture shown above, the company utilized the Swiss Cheese Model to demonstrate the
critical layers of protection and each individuals role in making sure there are never any holes
in the cheese.

2.6 Process Safety Site Assessments

The Process Safety Site Assessment Program developed by API focuses on higher risk process
safety-related activities in the refining and petrochemical industry. The assessments were at first
focused on the petroleum refining industry, but are now available to petrochemical
manufacturing and chemical facilities. The assessments are conducted by independent, industry
qualified third party teams of expert assessors and focus on both the quality of a sites written
programs and the effectiveness of field implementation.

Protocols for the assessments were developed by industry experts in accordance to the API
standards development process. The protocols were widely distributed for review and comment
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
and are available through API by request. The protocols contain sections on Process Safety
Leadership, Management of Change, Mechanical Integrity (fixed equipment), Safe Work
Practices, Operating Practices, Facility Siting, Process Hazard Analysis, and HF Alkylation (API
RP 751 [3]). The assessment does not qualify for a three year PSM audit, however, the full API
RP 751 assessment can be used for the three year RP 751 audit.

The assessors are first screened to ensure adequate process safety experience, undergo industry
led assessor training, and are further interviewed by industry representatives before potentially
being selected to the assessor pool. Assessor teams have on average 35 years of experience
per person - this experience level is one of the elements that make this assessment program
unique from other industry assessments. In addition, the assessors are trained to help the facility
get better rather than focusing on what is wrong with the site. Teams are staffed with enough
assessors such that the assessment can be completed in one week.

Seven assessments have been completed since April 2012 and more are being scheduled for 2013
and 2014. This program is designed to promote learning from sharing of experiences and
industry proven practices, provide benchmarking opportunities for a site through the use of
industry proven protocols, and serve as a feedback mechanism for analysis of performance data
to identify trends and patterns as shown in the sample data analysis of figure 7.

Figure 7: Sample Data Analysis
83% 87%
49% 90%
88%
75%
91% 71%
81%
75%
80%
76%
74%
81%
78%
98%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leadership (62)
Alarm Mgmt (14)
Fatigue Mgmt (10)
Oper Rounds (19)
Procedures Safety (65)
Shift Handover (19)
Wkplace Conditions (7)
Mechanical Integrity (64)
Permit Procedures (61)
Safety Procedures (28)
Systems (13)
MOC (89)
PHA (31)
Permanent (62)
Portable (111)
Tents (2)
Average Scores by Sub-Category (# of questions)
Operating
Practices
(134)
83%
Safe Work
(102) 79%
Facility Siting
(175)
79%

NOTE: The above data is very preliminary and is being shown only as examples of the types of
analysis that can be accomplished. No conclusions or actions should be taken as a result of this
data.

3. Communication and Continuous Improvement

It was clear from the beginning that development of the Advancing Process Safety programs was
only the first step. Additional processes and tools were necessary to enhance industry
communication and allow for continuous feedback. The Workgroup developed several tools to
78%
72%
69%
77%
58%
71%
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leadership (8)
Oper ating Practices
(7)
Mechanical Integri ty
(19)
Safe Work Practices
(39)
Management of
Change (7)
Process Hazard
Anal ysis (7)
Faci lity Siting (5)
Average on Key Questions (#of questions)
Overall Average = 73%
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
help industry stay informed and up to date on the programs. These tools provide processes and
feedback mechanisms of the programs.

3.1 AFPM Safety Portal [4]
Figure 8: AFPM Safety Portal
It was acknowledged early in the
development of these programs it would
be necessary to provide a single place to
house information on all of the products
and tools developed for each program.
The Safety Portal was developed to be an
interactive database where member
companies enter safety statistics and
events, search on that data, receive
notifications when new information is
entered and analyze existing industry data.
A snapshot of the portal is shown in figure
8.

The portal is organized by the following
tabs Event Sharing, Process Safety
Metrics, Hazard Identification documents,
Regional Networks, Safety & Health
Committee, Reports, References, and
Injury & Illness metrics. The portal has
the ability to keyword search across all of the tabs. For example, if someone is searching for Hot
Taps, the search results will provide the following results; all events in the event sharing
database that had a keyword of Hot Taps, all hazard identification documents that deal with hot
taps, the Mid-West Regional Network presentation on Hot Taps, and all AFPM conference
papers and presentations on Hot Taps. Within a few seconds, the user can have a tremendous
amount of information that previously would have taken hours to perform through internet
searches and several segregated database searches.

In addition to searching, the Safety Portal has a customized homepage and sends email
notifications to users when new data is uploaded. Based on the feedback received, the portal has
allowed individuals within industry to participate in the Advancing Process Safety Programs
without spending a lot of time or resources searching and analyzing the information.

3.2 API Website Program Information
The API website contains information on three of the Advancing Process Safety Programs
Metrics & Analysis/API RP 754; Training and Certification; and Process Safety Site
Assessments. All website links are located in the references section of this paper.

3.2.1 Metrics & Analysis API RP 754

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
Individuals can learn more about API RP 754 [5] as well as access the document (read-only) free
of charge on the API website [6]. In addition, a series of four API 754 webinars were developed
to help industry become familiar with the document. The webinars cover: 1) Business Case and
Leadership Overview; 2) Tier 1 and Tier 2 Process Safety Events; 3) Tier 3 and Tier 4 Process
Safety Indicators; and 4) Implementation of API 754. For each of the topics, there is the final
webinar, slide pack and notes [7].

3.2.2 Training and Certification

Information for the Training and Certification program can also be found on the API website.
The actual training criteria that has been developed for What is Process Safety?, Hazard
Recognition, Process Safety Leadership, Conduct of Operations and Risk Assessment are posted
online [8].

3.2.3 Site Assessments

As mentioned above, API has developed a new 3
rd
party Process Safety Site Assessment
program. The following information about this program is available on the API website [9]:

Program description
Program Guidance Document
Assessment Protocols (by request)
Assessor Qualification Process
Assessor Qualification Requirements

3.3 Advancing Process Safety Newsletter

The Advancing Process Safety Newsletter is the latest communication tool developed by The
Workgroup. The newsletter updates industry representatives on a trimester basis on new reports,
program updates, and activities within the Advancing Process Safety Programs. The newsletter
is distributed to approximately 1000 industry representatives. This tool has been successful in
increasing awareness and participation at sites that were not previously participating as well as
notifying Safety Portal users of updated information and reports.

3.4 Presentations at Conference and Workshops

Process Safety Workgroup members are always looking for opportunities to speak at
conferences, workshops and other industry forums to share information on the Advancing
Process Safety programs and new industry learnings that have resulted from the programs. Other
international trade associations in Canada and Europe have contacted Workgroup participants to
request information and guidance documents on the Advancing Process Safety Programs in order
to use them as a model for their own programs.

3.5 Integration of Programs and Continuous Improvement

GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
Developing the programs and communicating them broadly is not enough to ensure continuous
improvement in process safety performance. Each program needs to be evaluated on a
continuous basis so that it can be updated and learnings captured to share throughout the refining
and petrochemical industry. This ensures that industry resources are focused on items that pose
the greatest risk. The Workgroup is responsible for identifying integration opportunities.

Here are a few examples of the integration of the programs:

Site Assessments revealed that some sites may have inconsistent Hot Taps and Live
Flare Work procedures compared to others in the industry. The Site Assessment
Subgroup submitted these as topics for consideration through the online form for the
Hazard ID Subgroup. This resulted in Hot Taps being added as a Hazard ID Document
and Live Flare Work was placed in the queue for 2013 development. The new Hazard
ID documents are shared at the Regional Network Meeting and with site contractors.
A site submitted a Tier 1 event to the event sharing database, the Event Sharing
Subgroup recommended that the hazard be widely communicated throughout industry.
A Process Safety Bulletin was developed and distributed. The Regional Network
participants discussed the bulletin in detail during their meetings. Based on this
knowledge, sites can inspect their process units for similar hazards and therefore
prevent a possible similar event.
An analysis of Process Safety Tier 1 & Tier 2 PSEs and the Event Sharing Database,
showed a significant amount of events occurring in Piping Systems. The Event Sharing
Subgroup decided to update the event sharing form to include sub categories for piping
systems to better understand the hazards. Once data is collected, it will be shared with
the Hazard ID Subgroup to potentially develop a Hazard ID document and the Site
Assessment Subgroup to update their protocols.

The integration of these programs allows each program to develop tools and products that are
based on actual hazards seen in industry and allows individual sites to focus their resources on
items that will improve their process safety performance.

4. Conclusion

AFPM and API successfully completed the development and implementation of six process
safety programs to assist the U.S. refining and petrochemical manufacturing industries improve
their process safety performance. The programs are process safety metrics & Analysis, event
sharing, hazard identification documents, regional networks, training & certification, and site
assessments. There is significant support from almost the entire refining industry which includes
active participation from 95% of the U.S. refining capacity and several petrochemical companies
and we are actively recruiting new participants. Executive leadership, clear guidance, and the
desire from the industry to improve were key factors that led to the preliminary success of these
programs.

The Workgroup developed processes to evaluate and improve the Advancing Process Safety
programs to ensure their effectiveness in improving process safety performance in the future. It
is too early to clearly understand the correlation between these programs and the actual process
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
safety improvements; however, initial industry feedback indicates a connection may be apparent
in the future.

The Advancing Process Safety initiative driven by an energetic, supportive leadership and
designed by the vastly, knowledgeable process safety experts from the refining and
petrochemical manufacturing industries provides an amazing step forward to enhance a process
safety culture that will lead to process safety performance improvements.





































GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
5. Appendix A: API RP 754 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Definitions

A Tier 1 or Tier 2 Process Safety Event begins with an unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material,
including non-toxic and non-flammable materials from a process that results in one or more consequences
described in the RP.













Tier 1 Consequences Tier 2 Consequences
an employee, contractor or subcontractor days away
from work injury and/or fatality
An employee, contractor or subcontractor recordable injury
a hospital admission and/or fatality of a third-party
an officially declared community evacuation or
community shelter-in-place

A fire or explosion resulting in greater than or equal to
$25,000 of direct cost to the Company
A fire or explosion resulting in greater than or equal to $2,500 of
direct cost to the Company
A release of material greater than the threshold
quantities described in Table 1 of the standard in any
one-hour period
A release of material greater than the threshold quantities
described in Table 12of the standard in any one-hour period
A pressure relief device (PRD) discharge to
atmosphere whether directly or via a downstream
destructive device that results in one or more of the
following four consequences:
- liquid carryover;
- discharge to a potentially unsafe location;
- an on-site shelter-in-place;
public protective measures (e.g. road closure);
- and a PRD discharge quantity greater than the
threshold quantities in Table 1 of the standard in any
one-hour period
A pressure relief device (PRD) discharge to atmosphere whether
directly or via a downstream destructive device that results in one
or more of the following four consequences:
- liquid carryover;
- discharge to a potentially unsafe location;
- an on-site shelter-in-place;
public protective measures (e.g. road closure);
- and a PRD discharge quantity greater than the threshold
quantities in Table 2 of the standard in any one-hour period
A release of material greater than the threshold
quantities described in Table 1 of the standard in any
one-hour period
A release of material greater than the threshold quantities
described in Table 2 of the standard in any one-hour period
GCPS 2013 __________________________________________________________________________
6. References

[1] Process Safety Performance Indicators for the Refining and Petrochemical Industries, API
Standard 754, first edition, 2010
[2] API 754 Frequently Asked Questions [Online] Available:
http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/process-safety/process-safety-
standards/measuring-process-safety-rp-754.aspx
[3] Safe Operation of Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation Unit, API Standard 751, third edition, 2007
[4] AFPM Safety Portal [Online] Available: http://safetyportal.afpm.org/
[5] API 754, additional information [Online] Available: http://www.api.org/environment-health-
and-safety/process-safety/process-safety-standards/standard-rp-754.aspx
[6] API 754, read only copy [Online] Available: http://publications.api.org/
[7] API 754, educational webinars [Online] Available: http://www.api.org/environment-health-
and-safety/process-safety/rp-754-webinars/rp754-webinars.aspx
[8] Training and Certification program information and criteria [Online] Available:
http://www.api.org/certification-programs/training-provider-tpcp/advancing-process-safety.aspx
[9] Process Safety Site Assessment program information [Online] Available:
http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/process-safety/advancing-process-safety-
programs/api-process-safety-site-assessment-program.aspx