3 replies to this topic

[Dr.Process]

Dear All,

I'm a Process Safety Engineer. My company is doing FEED project for new NUI (unmanned) Platform. I've been assigned to prepare 2 studies I've never done before (which actually usually done by third party):

1. Security Study for NUI Platform
2. Security Risk Assessment for NUI Platform

I've search the net and found 2 API standards for this studies: API 701 and API-Security Vulnerability Assessment Method.
- Are there any other standard I should consider?
- How is the outline of the reports would look like?
- Is there any deliverables required for this srudies (e.g. QRA, HAZID report, equipment list, etc.)?

It would be great if anyone can share template/previous documents of these studies. Thanks

[kkala]

I have participated in a "Safety study" (2006-7) , otherwise called "Seveso-II study", concerning a desulfurization unit of a local refinery (offshore). Things may be quite different in an unmanned sea platform, but here are some notes for want of something better, since no response has been received so far.
1. Our study was mainly based on the relevant manuals of TNO, http://www.tno.nl/index.cfm?Taal=2 . The books were detailed, yet I had not caught any specific note on sea platforms.
2. My interpretation is that mentioned "Security study" is same as "Safety study" mentioned above, including description of the unit, possible escape of flammable or toxic substances to atmosphere, assessment of the consequences for each case of escape (event). Impact is estimated on people and equipment. For a sea platform impact on people will be if there are manned platforms near by.
The Safety study intends to show that the plant operates safely enough to deserve a permit; more information on the study structure can be taken from the authorities which the study is submitted to.
For instance, suppose that the unit has a propane vessel. A total rupture during fire can cause BLEVE, a continuous leakage explosion, etc. Each event is analysed and risk areas (e.g. of 100% fatality, 1% fatality) are specified. Domino effects are also considered. Preventive and fighting measures are described.
3. "Security risk assessment" may be same as "Quantitative risk assessment" (QRA), a more advanced step of the previous study. It estimates probability of every possible event to occur and resulting fatality (as percentage). Objective is to show that all pant area (and area out of it) is safe enough.
4. We submit the safety study after the completion of basic design, or even later. In 2007 we had attached the fire fighting study, the HAZOP study, a special flow diagram and a list of all equipment with their hold up of flammable or toxic substances.
5. Hope the above can be useful, although requirements differ from country to country and from time to time.

Edited by kkala, 11 February 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[S.AHMAD]

1. As far as I am aware, the security study is not the same as safety study
2. I was involved in security study of port facility in six/seven years ago.
3. At that time we were using guidelines given by US Coast Guards and API Standards was not yet available at that time. I believe this API Std is a better one.
4. If I remember correctly, we assess the security based on several scenarios.
5. For example, :Terrorist attack using fishermen boat.:Bomb planted in the chemicals normally used, explosive chemicals kept in store room etc.
6. vulnerability were assessed for each scenario and risk was assessed with and without safeguards.
7. Assessment were based on qualitative basis and used a lot of assessor judgement.

Edited by S.AHMAD, 16 February 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[kkala]

Thanks to S.AHMAD for the clarifications concerning the "security" study. So security study assesses events intentionally done by human intervention, contrary to the "safety" study dealing with events caused unintentionally by some human error or accident. "Safety" study is expected to be realized before "security" study, just to know peculiarities of the plant. I have not heard of the "security" study in the past.