FACULTY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION AND ASSESSMENT

_______________________________________________________________________
_
SMPS5103
PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT
SEPTEMBER 2015
________________________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS
1. This assignment contains question that is set in English.
2. Answer in English only.
3. Your assignment should be typed using 12 point Times New Roman font
and 1.5 line spacing.

4. You must submit your hardcopy assignment to your Facilitator and

ON-LINE via the MyVLE. Refer to the portal for instructions on the
procedures to submit your assignment on-line. You are advised to keep a
copy of your submitted assignment and proof of the submission for
personal reference. Your assignment must be submitted on (6-November
2015).
5. Your assignment should be prepared individually. You should not copy
another persons assignment. You should also not plagiarise another
persons work as your own.
EVALUATION
This assignment accounts for

60% of the total marks for the course.

ASSIGNMENT OBJECTIVES:
The assignment is intended to provide students with the opportunity to demonstrate
knowledge and understanding on the application of process safety management in the
industry.
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION:
PART A: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
1.

Select TWO of the following process safety accidents and discuss in detail. The
discussion should include the description of the cases, key finding issues, the
root cause analysis, PSM violation and changes could be made to avoid the
accident for improvement.
a. Texas City Refinery Explosion March 2005
b. Jacksonville, Florida December 2007
c. Port Wentworth February 2008
d. West Fertilizer Company, West, Texas April 2013
[50 MARKS]

PART B: PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT

CAMs Company produces detergent alkylates plant in Baltimore, Maryland. Linear alkyl
benzene is used to produce biodegradable detergents, which are widely used in
industrial, commercial, and residential cleaners. At CAMs, this chemical was
manufactured by mixing powdered aluminum chloride (the catalyst) with liquid
hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and benzene. However, due to the great
expansion done on the plant to increase the production, management decides to change
its process technology and discontinued the direct addition of aluminum chloride to the
reactor. Instead, powdered aluminum was added to the reactor, where it combined with
hydrogen chloride to form the necessary aluminum chloride. From the laboratory scale

test, the reactor became fouled with a sludge-like catalyst residue and the sludge
formation settled in the vessel and blocked the bottom outlet nozzle. The mixing of
aluminum chloride with water will release a substantial heat and produce hydrochloric
acid.
The process engineer and chemist recommended that water should be added to the
reactor to dissolve the solids. They suggested an 8:1 ratio, with the water added at as
fast a rate as possible.

This approach was based on the idea that rapidly adding a

surplus volume of water would absorb

the energy released by the reaction and

minimize the temperature rise. However, this only applies to the small-scale test, not a
real scale reactor.
As the safety director of the plant,
a. Based on your safety knowledge and experience, identify the major hazards
in this process that you would be concerned about.
b. Perform a complete report on safety review of the suggested process.
Explain in detail the key steps should be carried out to ensure the inherent
safer process. It should include process information, Process Hazard
Analysis (PHA), operating procedures i.e. safe limits for process conditions,
variables, and activities, management of change (MoC), mechanical integrity,
training i.e. recognizing significant changes and emergency response
planning (ERP).
c. If Management of Change involved, what you could emphasize in terms of
operational and organization change i.e. safe limits for abnormal process
conditions, variables and activities, staff competency etc.

[50 MARKS]

ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES / ASSIGNMENT FORMAT:

Your assignment should be typed on A4 paper using 12-point Times New Roman
and 1.5 spacing.

Your assignment should NOT exceed 3000 words, not including appendix and
reference.

Your

must

provide

references.

References

should

use

the

American

Psychological Association (APA) format.

References should include the latest journal/book publication (year 2009 and
onwards).

You are to submit a softcopy of your assignment via email. You must receive
acknowledgement email from your facilitator to confirm submission.

Plagiarism is not acceptable. If you are not sure what is meant by plagiarism,
refer

to

the

various

websites,

which

owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts.

Plagiarised assignments will receive a Fail mark.

discuss

this

matter,

e.g.

PART A: HOLISTIC METHOD USING THE HOLISTIC RUBRIC

3

Discussion on the Demonstrates a

key findings and sophisticated
the root cause.
understanding of
the key findings
and the root
cause with good
justification.

Demonstrates an
accomplished
understanding of
the key findings
and the root
cause.

Demonstrates an
acceptable
understanding of
the key findings
and the root
cause.

Demonstrates an
inadequate
understanding of
key findings and
the root cause.

Analysis and
evaluation of PSM
requirement in the
case study.

Presents an
insightful and
thorough analysis
of all issues
identified;
includes all
necessary PSM
elements
i.e. PSSR, MOC,
PHA analysis,
operation
procedure,
emergency shut
down, employee
training and
participation.

Presents a
thorough analysis
of most issues
identified;
includes most
necessary PSM
elements
.e. PSSR, MOC,
PHA analysis,
operation
procedure,
emergency shut
down, employee
training and
participation.

Presents a
superficial
analysis of some
of the issues
identified; omits
necessary PSM
elements
.e. PSSR, MOC,
PHA analysis,
operation
procedure,
emergency shut
down, employee
training and
participation.

Presents an
incomplete
analysis of the
issues identified.

Makes
appropriate and
powerful
connections
between the
issues identified
Recommendation
and demonstrates
for improvement.
thorough
understanding on
giving appropriate
recommendation.

Makes
appropriate
connections
between the
issues identified
and the safer
operating
procedures;
demonstrates
good
understanding on
giving appropriate
recommendation.

Makes
appropriate but
somewhat vague
connections
between the
issues and the
safer operating
procedures;
demonstrates
limited
understanding on
giving appropriate
recommendation.

Makes little or no
connection
between the
issues identified
and
understanding on
giving appropriate
recommendation.

Criterion

TOTAL

Total marks for Part A = [25 marks x 2] = 50 Marks

Mark

12

25

PART B: HOLISTIC METHOD USING THE HOLISTIC RUBRIC

Demonstrates a
sophisticated
understanding of
the possible
major hazard
with good
justification.

Demonstrates an
accomplished
understanding of
the possible
major hazard.

Demonstrates an
acceptable
understanding of
the possible
major hazard.

Demonstrates an
inadequate
understanding of
possible major
hazard that could
pose the plant.

Explanation on the
procedure
conducting the
safety review.

Presents an
insightful and
thorough
analysis of safety
review
evaluation
steps/process;
includes all
necessary PSM
element
i.e. hazard
information,
hazard
identification,
PSSR, MOC,
PHA analysis,
operating
procedure- safe
limits, variance
procedure
changes,
emergency shut
down, Employee
training and
participation.

Presents a
thorough
analysis of safety
review
evaluation
steps/process;
includes most
necessary PSM
elements
i.e. PSSR, MOC,
PHA analysis,
operating
procedure- safe
limits, variance
procedure
changes,
emergency shut
down, employee
training and
participation.

Presents a
superficial
analysis of safety
review
evaluation
steps/process;
omits necessary
PSM elements
i.e. PSSR, MOC,
PHA analysis,
operating
procedure- safe
limits, variance
procedure
changes,
emergency shut
down, employee
training and
participation.

Presents an
incomplete
analysis of the
safety review
evaluation
steps/process,
shallow in
gaining
information on
what steps
should be taken.

Analysis of MOC.

Demonstrate
excellent
understanding
on the important
changes that
should be
implemented for
the plant
modification i.e.
operating
procedures,
limits on set

Demonstrate
good
understanding
on the important
changes that
should be
implemented for
the plant
modification i.e.
operating
procedures,
limits on set

Demonstrate fair
understanding
on the important
changes that
should be
implemented for
the plant
modification i.e.
operating
procedures,
limits on set
point, training,

Demonstrate
shallow
understanding
on the important
changes that
should be
implemented for
the plant
modification i.e.
operating
procedures,
limits on set

Criterion

Discussion on the
major hazard that
could pose the
plant.

Mark

30

15

point, training,
job competency
and audit. Giving
good justification
on the changes
made
authorisation or
approval step as
part of an MOC
system for
abnormal
situations should
be in place.
TOTAL

point, training,
job competency
and audit. Gives
fair justification
on the changes
made.

job competency
and audit. Gives
fair or none
justification on
the changes
made.

point, training,
job competency
and audit. Gives
none justification
on the changes
made.

50