製程安全管理績效指標設計

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：6

、訪客IP：18.191.253.62

姓名

謝綉鳳(Shiou-feng Shie) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

環境工程研究所

論文名稱

製程安全管理績效指標設計
(Design of Process Safety Management Performance Indicators)

相關論文

★ 氫氟酸玻璃薄化製程之安全評估與風險控制	★ 台北縣毒性化學物質運作場所災害潛勢分析
★ 潛盾隧道作業安全分析	★ ISO 50001能源管理系統建置機制研究
★ 廢棄物管理e化系統設計與應用	★ 印刷電路板製程高溫烘烤設備失效模式與效應分析研究
★ 承攬風險管理	★ 光電業組立製程人因風險探討
★ 濺鍍耙材噴砂作業粉塵及噪音暴露危害評估	★ 光電廠增光膜製程健康風險評估與控制
★ 行為安全執行策略探討-以某紡絲事業單位為例	★ 高階製程安全管理架構
★ 工業化學品整合管理制度探討	★ 半導體業承攬作業風險評估
★ 職業安全衛生績效管理機制	★ 事件樹於職業安全風險評估應用研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

英國石油Texas City煉油廠蒸氣雲爆炸事故後，英國石油公司延聘貝克專案小組進行事故調查和分析，並提出十項改善建議事項，其中最具關鍵的就是製程安全主動式與被動式績效指標，因此，製程安全績效指標的設計與應用，近幾年已成為許多專家學者研究的重點，本研究深入探討HSE、CCPS、OECD和CEFIC等機構制定的製程安全績效指標設計原則和理念。
本研究以防護層洋蔥模式為依據，探討CCPS第三類參數虛驚事件和其他被動式參數不足之處，CCPS定義的第三類參數包括未超過化學品洩漏量恕限的製程安全事件，以及啟動安全系統如製程偏離、啟動安全儀控系統或釋壓裝置等，主要針對防護層洋蔥模式外層的緊急應變、實體防護、排放系統和安全儀控系統，設計製程安全虛驚事件參數，雖然曾提製程偏離，但對於靠防護層洋蔥模式內層的基本程序控制系統以及警報和操作人員介入，所設計的製程安全虛驚事件參數考量尚不周全，因此，本研究針對基本程序控制系統以及警報和操作人員介入兩道防護層深入探討，並以CCPS製程安全參數設計原則和理念設計績效指標，希望能彌補CCPS製程安全虛驚事件參數的缺失。

摘要(英)

A vapor cloud explosion at British Petroleum’s Texas City refinery proved, once again, the devastating impact of major accident involving large quantities of chemicals. Reports from the Chemical Safety Board and Hazard Investigation on the accident and BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel recommended closer monitoring of process safety data. Despite the comprehensiveness of Process Safety Management, most of chemical and petrochemical companies are not required to report to competent authorities or to reveal to the general public on incidents causing spills, fires, explosions or injuries. Leading and lagging process safety performance indicators become the focus of trade associations, individual companies, government agencies, and academics since 2007.
Development of process safety performance indicators was first proposed by Health and Safety Executive of the UK in late 2006. Both leading and lagging performance indicators are derived from the intended functions or effectiveness of risk control systems. Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers proposed the use of leading and lagging metrics to measure the effectiveness or failure of process safety management. The lagging metrics are defined as process safety incident, other incidents, near miss and unsafe behaviors or insufficient operating discipline. In addition to process safety incident, annual total incident rate and incident severity rate are included as well. CCPS views mechanical integrity, action items follow-up, management of change, and employee training and competency as leading metrics. The European counterpart of American Chemistry Council, the European Chemical Industry Council, has a similar set of leading and lagging indicators. Process safety performance indicators of CCPS, HSE, CEFIC, and OECD guidance for safety performance indicators are analyzed in this study.
In-depth analysis reveals the fact that CCPS performance metrics are mostly derived from the fundamental principle of protection layers. These metrics cover the basic functions of safety instrumented systems, relief devices, and physical protection of post-release. By definition, the lines of defense against chemical process incidents also include basic process control systems and critical alarms and operator intervention. In addition, process control and alarm management precede other protection layers. Hence objective of this study is to design a set of lagging process safety performance indicators capable of evaluating the effectiveness of process control systems and alarm management to supplement the ones proposed by CCPS.

關鍵字(中)

★ 製程安全績效指標
★ 防護層
★ 基本程序控制系統
★ 警報和操作人員介入

關鍵字(英)

★ Process Safety Performance Indicators
★ Protection Layers
★ Basic Process Control systems
★ Alarm and Operator Intervention

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 viii
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 預期成果 3
第二章製程安全績效指標的發展 5
2.1 英國安全衛生署製程安全績效指標設計方法 6
2.1.1 績效指標定義 7
2.1.2 製程安全績效指標設計步驟 8
2.1.3 風險控制系統和指標設計案例 13
2.2 美國化學製程安全中心製程安全主動式與被動式績效參數 17
2.2.1 參數定義 17
2.2.2 被動式參數 18
2.2.3主動式參數 23
2.2.4虛驚事件和其他被動式參數 26
2.3 經濟合作暨發展組織安全管理績效指標設計方法 28
2.3.1 安全績效指標應用範疇 28
2.3.2 安全績效指標定義 29
2.3.3 安全績效指標發展步驟 29
2.4 歐洲化學工業協會製程安全績效指標要求 33
第三章製程虛驚事件與異常狀態管理 35
3.1 防護層洋蔥模式 35
3.2 異常狀態 37
3.3 防護層和績效指標 39
第四章製程安全績效指標設計 41
4.1 基本程序控制系統 41
4.2 警報和操作人員介入 43
第五章結論與建議 50
5.1 結論 50
5.2 建議 51
參考文獻 53

參考文獻

[1] J.A. Baker, N. Leveson, G. Erwin, S. Priest, P.V. Tebo, I. Rosenthal, F.L. Bowman, D. Hendershot, L.D. Wilson, S. Gorton, D.A. Wiegmann, The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel, January 2007.
[2] British Standards Institution, OHSAS 18001:2007-Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems-Requirements, 2007.
[3] A. Hopkins, Thinking about Process Safety Indicators, Safety Science, Vol. 47, pp. 460-465, 2009.
[4] Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, Regulations 1910, 2009.
[5] 行政院勞工委員會，危險性工作場所審查暨檢查辦法，2009年。
[6] Health and Safety Executive, Developing Process Safety Indicators, HGN 254, ISBN 0717661806, 2006.
[7] J. Reason, Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Ashgate Publishing Company, New York, ISBN 1840141050, 1997.
[8] Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, 2008, 取自http://www.aiche.org/ccps/.
[9] Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illness, Regulations 1904, 2001.
[10] 顏俊明、張一岑，淺談變更管理，工業安全衛生月刊，第196期，第14-24頁，2005年。
[11] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidance on Developing Safety Performance Indicators, Head of Publications Service, 2008.
[12] European Chemical Industry Council, Process Safety Metric Reporting: A Global Definition?, 2009, 取自http://www.cefic.be/.
[13] British Standards Institution, Functional safety: Safety instrumented Systems for The Process Industry Sector-Part 3: Guidance for The Determination of The Required Safety Integrity Levels, BS EN 61511-3:2004, London, April 2004.
[14] D.C. Hendershot, Safety Through Design in The Chemical Process Industry: Inherently Safer Process Design, Benchmarks for World Class Safety Through Design Symposium, August 1997.
[15] G. Stephanopoulos, Chemical Process Control, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, ISBN 0131286293, 1984.
[16] E.M. Marszal, C.P.Weil, Implementing Protective Functions in BPCS an Combined Systems, Kenexis Consulting Corporation, 2006.
[17] D. Hatch, Alarms: Prevention is Better Than Cure, The Chemical Engineer, pp. 40-42, 2005.
[18] Magnetrol International, Understanding Safety Instrumented Systems and Safety Integrity Level, October 2007.
[19] A.M. Dowell, Critical Safe Operating Parameters: “Never Exceed”Limit and “Never Deviate” Action, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 20, No.3, pp. 208-214, 2001.
[20] E.L. Cochran, C. Miller, P. Bullemer, Abnormal Situation Management in Petrochemical Plants: Can A Pilot’s Associate Crack Crude?, 1996 IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 806-813, 1996.
[21] J. Errington, P.T. Bullemer, Designing for Abnormal Situation Management, AIChE conference on Process Plant Safety, pp.1-14, 2002.
[22] W.H. Smith, C.R. Howard, A.G. Foord, Alarms Management-Priority, Floods, Tears or Gain?, 4-sight Consulting, pp. 1-8, 2003.
[23] P. Andow, Abnormal Situation Management: A Major US Programme to Improve Management of Abnormal Situations, The Institution of Electrical Engineers, pp. 411-414, 1997.
[24] P. Bullemer, D. Metzger, CCPS Process Safety Metrics Review: Consideration from An ASM Perspective, Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center International Symposium, 2008.
[25] Emerson Electric Co, Control Valve Handbook-Forth Edition, 2005.
[26] K.P.E. Stum, Sensor Accuracy and Calibration Theory and Practical Application, National Conference on Building Commissioning, pp. 1-15, 2006.
[27] J. Feng, S. Megerian, M. Potkonjak, Model-Based Calibration for Sensor Networks, Sensors, pp.737-742, 2003.
[28] D.V.C. Reising, T. Montgomery, Achieving Effective Alarm System Performance: Results of ASM Consortium Benchmarking against the EEMUA Guide for Alarm Systems, 20th Annual CCPS International Conference, Atlanta, 2005.
[29] Health and Safety Executive, HSE Human Factors Briefing Note No. 9 Alarm Handling, 取自
http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/comah/09alarms.pdf.
[30] M. Hollender, T. Atkinson, Alarms for Operators, ABB, 2007, 取自http://www.abb.com/.
[31] B.R. Hollifield, E. Habibi, Alarm management: Seven Effective Methods for Optimum Performance, ISA, USA, ISBN 1934394009, 2007.
[32] L. O'Brien, D. Woll, Alarm Management Strategies, Australian Research Council, November 2004.
[33] Engineering Equipment & Material Users Associations and Health and Safety Executive, Better Alarm Handling, Introducing 2nd Edition EEMUA 191, 2007.
[34] Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Principles for alarm system design, February 2001.
[35] Health and Safety Executive, Better Alarm Handling, pp. 1-4, 2009.
[36] D.G. Dunn, N.P. Sands, ISA-SP18-Alarm Systems Management and Design Guide, ISA EXPO 2005 Automation & Control Conference, 2005.

指導教授

于樹偉(Shuh-woei Yu)

審核日期

2009-7-27

推文