LOPA as Practiced at a Global Manufacturing API Facility

被引:3
作者
Evenson, G. [1 ]
Befus, S. [1 ]
Dolfi, M. [1 ]
Muir, A. [1 ]
Pinho, D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Pfizer Inc, New York, NY 10017 USA
关键词
LOPA; Risk Assessment; PROTECTION ANALYSIS; LAYER;
D O I
10.1002/prs.10351
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
The standard risk assessment practices used in industry since the OSHA 1910.119 regulation was issued, are to conduct Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs) for hazardous and exothermic (or otherwise high risk) processes. During PHAs, the potential consequences of an undesired event are evaluated along with the safeguards that exist to mitigate the consequences or reduce the frequency of the event. If the PHA team determines that the risk is still not tolerable, additional safeguards are recommended to reach a tolerable level of risk. Typically, a Quantitative Risk Assessment can be completed to evaluate the effectiveness of these existing or newly proposed safeguards. Unfortunately, this is a complex and time-consuming, task. The reactively new methodology of Layer of protection analysis (LOPA) allows a PHA team to evaluate the effectiveness of safeguards in reducing risk in an efficient yet semi-quantitative fashion using some basic assumptions and standard lookup tables. The LOPA methodology can be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of Safety instrument functions (SIF) (e.g., automated critical interlocks and alarms) to achieve a tolerable risk. The LOPA methodology provides consistency in an approach to risk assessments and communications. It can support an effective mechanical integrity or risk-based maintenance system for critical components of an SIF. This article describes LOPA and includes several scenarios that will provide an overview of how the LOPA methodology is used in a multi-batch pharmaceutical facility. (C) 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 28: 312-316, 2009
引用
收藏
页码:312 / 316
页数:5
相关论文
共 6 条
[1]  
BRIDGES WG, 2001, GUIDELINES LAYER PRO
[2]   Layer of protection analysis and inherently safer processes [J].
Dowell, AM .
PROCESS SAFETY PROGRESS, 1999, 18 (04) :214-220
[3]  
EVENSON G, 2009, LOSS PREVENTIONS S P, P161
[4]   Using layer of protection analysis to define safety integrity level requirements [J].
Freeman, Raymond .
PROCESS SAFETY PROGRESS, 2007, 26 (03) :185-194
[5]  
STUDY K, 2009, PROCESS SAF PROG
[6]  
ZOGG H, 1987, ZURICH HAZARD EVALUA