Got a risk reduction strategy?

Process safety can be viewed as part of a triad that supports safety in a petrochemical facility. The other two parts are OSHA-type people safety (slips, falls, etc.) and industrial hygiene. The paper will look at process safety from a top down, plant centric view. Process safety can be distilled down to the basic concept of risk reduction. If we reduce risk, our facility will be safer. The obvious problem is that we have potential risks everywhere so how are we going to reduce all these risks to an acceptable level. Clearly we need a strategy or to use a less fancy word – a plan.Too many times it is easy to concentrate on certain aspects such as safety instrumented systems (SIS), layer of protection analysis (LOPA), behavioral safety, prevention, etc. and lose track of the whole picture of what risk reduction entails in a plant.This paper will look at risk reduction in a facility from a plant viewpoint and will cover the details and concepts of risk reduction across a wide spectrum of plant functionalities – safety climate and culture, process safety management, mechanical integrity and risk, layers of protection in risk reduction, loss of containment/hazard relationship, the risk reduction bow-tie diagram, developing a risk reduction strategy, risk reduction strategy elements, and sustainability.It will also discuss some key concepts in dealing with risk reduction in general.     

Evaluating landfill disposal of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood and potential effects on groundwater: evidence from Florida

Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood has been used for more than 50 years. Recent attention has been focused on appropriate disposal of CCA-treated wood when its service life ends. Groups in the US and Europe concerned with the possibility of arsenic migration to groundwater from disposed CCA-treated wood have proposed that consumers be required to dispose of the wood as a hazardous waste, in the most protective of landfills. We examined available data for evidence of arsenic migration from unlined construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfills in Florida, where CCA-treated wood is disposed. Florida was chosen because soil, groundwater, landfill design, weather, and levels of CCA-treated wood use make the state a uniquely sensitive indicator for observing arsenic migration from CCA-treated wood disposal sites, should it occur. We developed and quality-checked a CCA-treated wood disposal model to estimate the amount of wood and associated arsenic disposed. By 2000, an estimated 13 million kg of arsenic in CCA-treated wood was disposed in Florida; however, groundwater monitoring data do not indicate that arsenic is migrating from unlined C&D landfills. Our results provide evidence that highly stringent regulation of CCA-treated wood disposal, such as treatment as a hazardous waste, is unnecessary.