A W orld utomation

May 2008
IB
I
R
T
S
R
D
IN
R
R
D
E
T
O
C
PY
IN
PR
34
Automation World l May 2008
FO
PE
SO
N
AL
R
EA
G
O
N
.
Y
L
T
N
O
FO
D
O
U
TI
.
N
)PX5P
8Z_`\m\X
:FDG<K<EK
NFIB=FI:<
]fi
IB
O
U
TI
.
N
R
T
S
I
R
T
D
FO
N
O
Safety
IN
G
O
.
Y
L
N
D
R
R
D
E
T
IN
PR
PY
PE
SO
AL
R
EA
N
FO
Safety is a topic that is on everyone's mind. No one wants to be interviewed on
television after an explosion at their plant or after a severe injury occurs. You want
reassurance that everyone in your company knows how to conduct themselves in
a safe manner. Everyone wants to be proud of the way their company operates.
O
C
L
L
L
L
7h[oekhiW\[jof[hiedd[bWiY[hj_\_[Z
WioekhWkjec[Y^Wd_Y5
:eoekhcWY^_d[ef[hWjehiadem^em
j^[_hcWY^_d[mehai5
:e[ioekhcWdW][c[dj_]deh[iW\[jo
fhe]hWci5
>Wl[oek^WZWiW\[jo_dY_Z[dj_dj^[
fWijo[Wh5
May 2008 l Automation World
35
“Even
car mechanics have qualifications. Just look at the row of framed
certifications from classes they have taken,” says Luis Duran, brand director
at safety systems manufacturer Triconex, part of Invensys Process Systems, in Lake Forest, Calif.
“Generally speaking, everywhere we go in life, we expect people to be competent,” adds Chuck
Miller, DeltaV Safety Instrumented Systems business development manager, at process controls
vendor Emerson Process Management, in Austin, Texas. “We have drivers licenses, pilots have
licenses and ratings, even food service workers are certified. But there are no real competency or
certification requirements for manufacturing safety people. The only other profession I can think of
without certification requirements is politicians.”
The topic of safety is covered by several governmental
and standards organizations. Many times, they recognize the standards of each other. In the United States,
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is charged with overseeing workplace
safety. The European standards body, the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) issues standards.
Another standards body in the United States is
the National Fire Protection Association, which
promulgates NFPA 70, also known as the
National Electrical Code. Still another standard is ANSI/ISA 84, developed by the
Instrumentation, Systems and Automation
Society (ISA) and adopted by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI).
According to Miller and others, both
OSHA and IEC, through its standards
61508 and 61511, state that people involved
with the safety lifecycle must be competent in
the area in which they deal. This is not always
the case, in practice, and it may be difficult to
implement. “In my experience,” states Miller, “even
people we consider to be safety experts may not be
expert in all areas of the lifecycle. For example, a reliability engineer may know a lot about the equipment,
but may not be able to competently go into the plant and
effectively calibrate and maintain that equipment.”
There is another aspect to the problem of competency
in safety areas in today’s workforce. Angela Summers,
Ph.D., is president of SIS-Tech Solutions, a Houstonbased process safety consultancy, and author of “Guidelines for Safe and Reliable Instrumented Protective
Systems (IPS),” published by the Center for Chemical
Process Safety (CCPS). She sees knowledge walking out
the door with every staff person who retires or leaves
for another job. “Only a small amount of knowledge
can save many hours of work or prevent mistakes leading to process hazards,” Summers says. “Process safety
competence is sustained by a foundation of written
process safety information, covering the process hazards,
technology and equipment. Unfortunately, many users
do not see the value of this documentation, having relied
so long on the tribal knowledge of their organizations.
G
IN
R
SO
PY
O
ED
C
T
IN
PR
Automation World l May 2008
FO
R
PE
N
AL
E
R
AD
O
N
O
TI
.
“Tribal knowledge” grows during hazard analyses
conducted throughout the equipment life to identify
and evaluate events caused by abnormal equipment
operation, Summers says. “Each set of new eyes provides another opportunity to identify previously unseen
risk in the process design basis,” she notes.
Knowledge also evolves over time, as lessons learned
during research and development are supplemented
by those learned during equipment operation, Summers continues. “Loss of containment events identify
weaknesses in the risk reduction strategy, leading to a
re-examination of design and management practices.
Continuous analysis and improvement of design and
management practices is the best means for counteracting loss of expertise through retirements and
downsizing and equipment degradation through age
and obsolescence,” concludes Summers.
IB
U
R
T
S
I
R
.
Y
L
N
T
D
FO
N
O
DEI7<;JO7M7H;D;II
The problem of competency is not confined to the
process industry. Discrete manufacturing, or machine
control, has its own set of safety problems. J.B. Titus is
manager of business development and safety standards
at automation supplier Siemens Energy & Automation
Inc., in Norcross, Ga., and a specialist in this side of
manufacturing. “The two approaches have some overlap and some differences,” says Titus. “When machines
really started to be driven by safety systems technology
and standards around the 2002 or 2003 time frame,
by and large, the market wasn’t even aware of safety
systems. What we often found was that people were
actually disabling safeties. In old systems, that was as
simple as jumpering a relay,” Titus relates. “New systems, however, contained diagnostics so that the status
of the system could be easily compared to design. We
actually organized an awareness campaign with materials and complementary copies of the standards. We’d
rent a conference room in a hotel and hold hands-on
experience in the new safety systems.”
But a simple hands-on demonstration doesn’t solve all
the competency problems in safety—especially on the
process side of manufacturing. Siemens E&A National
Process Safety Manager Charlie Fialkowski, based in
the Spring House, Pa., office, adds, “OSHA uses a term ‘competent
person’ who has training and/or experience to be knowledgeable in
procedures and standards. This is not the same thing as a ‘qualified’
person—someone who can put their hands on the system.”
To be safety competent, a user needs to know how the overall
system works, Fialkowski notes. The industry has been struggling
to figure out how to define all this, he observes, adding that an
independent board, the CFSE Governance Board, administers
certification tests for Certified Functional Safety Expert. “You can
find them on the Web at www.cfse.org,” he points out. “Achieving
N
O
TI
.
sonnel have the knowledge to properly use these techniques.” Only
about 50 percent of those who take the CFSE exam pass, and only
about 600 a year attempt the exam, according to Goble.
Taking a holistic view of safety involves more than a narrow
knowledge of just a few safety mantras. SIS-Tech’s Summers maintains that the individual’s role in a safe operation must be closely
related to competency requirements. “I don’t need a person who
can repeat clauses from a standard or the gospel of some instructor.
What I need is someone who is really good at his or her assigned
task, whether it is a risk analysis or a proof test,” she declares.
“A person needs to be competent in the skills and knowledge
associated with his or her job,” Summers notes. “It is interesting
how sometimes we forget the simplest things. If we go back to the
fundamentals of quality assurance, W. Edwards Deming believed
that 85 percent of an employees’ effectiveness is determined by the
system he works within, only 15 percent by his own skill. Users
must implement a management system with work processes and
metrics that ensure equipment operates consistently in a safe manner, fulfills government and jurisdictional requirements, and meets
recognized good engineering practices,” Summers advises. “Work
processes and procedures should document minimum activities, so
users achieve expected task quality, whether it is performed by the
best, average or somewhat distracted employee.”
IB
U
R
T
S
I
R
.
Y
L
N
T
D
FO
N
O
O
±*U´TBCJHHFSUBTLUIBOZPV
G
NJHIUUIJOL.PTUTBGFUZ
IN
D
PSHBOJ[BUJPOTVTFEUPCFSVOEA
CZUIFTFBUPGUIFJSQBOUT° L R
A
N
BOETPNFTUJMMBSF²
SO
this certification takes the guess work out of whether
ERan individual
P
is a safety competent individual. The certification program requires
R
10 years of related engineering experience,
submission of a case
O
F achieving better than ?DLEBL;;L;HOED;
study, four references from other experts and
Y
80 percent on a two-part exam.”
Emerson’s Miller reinforces this broad view of safety and training.
P
O automation and safety prod- “This idea goes to all areas of operations. All shall be evaluated for
Bill Goble, managing partner of
C
ucts and consulting company, exida.com LLC, based in Sellersskills, process knowledge and safety training. A safety management
D
ville, Pa., offers additionalEadvice for developing a competent
must also be established and this must contain an evaluaT that covers the entire safety lifecycle system
workforce. “A basic course
tion
plan.
a continuous improvement program. You want to
IN An overall understanding of the pro- get the rightIt ispeople
is a start for most people.
in place who are responsible, enthusiastic and
PR is important. More in-depth training is supported by management,” he says.
cess and the vocabulary
required for those actually performing the analysis work—especially
knowledge of the analysis methods they are using. Most important are the limitations of such methods and the assumptions
used when the methods were developed.”
Combining experience with knowledge assures further competency. “The knowledge of safety analysis methods requires constant
usage,” Goble says. “A company will generally be better off contracting with experts when doing jobs that are done only once or twice a
year.” An expert who does the job every week is typically much faster
and more accurate, Goble observes. “Many of the safety analysis
techniques are relatively new, and it is rare that current plant per-
This organization should cut across the lines of engineering,
operations, maintenance and management, Miller observes. As an
aside, he adds, “IEC 61511 states that when these people are not
available, suitably experienced and qualified personnel should be
recruited. Competency across an organization requires a leadership
framework with all the right people in place to support it.”
Miller recalls how manufacturers complained back in the early
1970s that OSHA rules designed to reduce workplace accidents
were an unfair burden. Now, companies often prominently post
a large sign on their properties proclaiming X numbers of hours
worked without a lost time accident. “In the next 10 to 15 years,
"WPJEJOH"SD'MBTI
)";"3%4
Five to ten times per day in the
United States, a worker is severely
injured or killed in an electrical arc flash
accident, according to Joe Weigel,
product manager in Square D Services Marketing for automation
and electrical products supplier Schneider Electric, in Palatine, Ill.
He cites numbers to the effect that the cost to an employer and
insurance company can be $8 million to $10 million if the victim
survives. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) in its standard NFPA 70E 2004, which is about to revised later this year or
next, describes a detailed reference for facilities to meet the requirements of workplace electrical safety. The regulation is also known as
the National Electrical Code.
Weigel notes that the regulation has been around for many
years and covered all manner of hazards for electrical equipment,
but until 2000, it had no way to reference the hazards of arc flash.
In that year, after the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) was able to publish
formulas for estimating the hazards
8&*(&- of arc flash and arc blast, this hazard
4)"3&4"'&8 suddenly went from something peoREQUIREMENTS ple knew anecdotally to something
FROM THE NFPA: that everyone was discussing.
EA
±&BDITFUPGOFXFZFT
QSPWJEFTBOPUIFS
PQQPSUVOJUZUPJEFOUJGZ
QSFWJPVTMZVOTFFOSJTLJO
UIFQSPDFTTEFTJHOCBTJT²
.
N employees, and
safety will no longer be implemented by novice
IO
training and certification will not be T
optional,” adds Miller.
“Unambiguous authority will be given.
BUAll departments will be
I
involved—and constantly evaluated.”
TR and knowledge is through
Another way to increase safetyS
awareness
I
joint professional volunteer work.
D Summers says, “CCPS has recently
published on its Web siteR(www.aiche.org/ccps/metrics/index.aspx)
a report on New Leading
FO and Lagging Indicators of Process
Safety Performance.
T There is so much interest in this CCPS
O
guidelines book
that there are more than 50 committee
N projectgovernment,
.
members representing
industry, education and engiLY
neering companies.
Most people do not realize all of the exciting
N
things
Ogoing on at the committees right now. I feel privileged to
beG
part of it.”
N
Then
there is still another take on achieving a safety-competent
I
D workforce—involving
everyone in risk assessment activities.
Mike Duta, manager of machine safety
HOHFWULFDOVDIHW\
services at vendor Rockwell Automation
SURJUDPZLWKFOHDUO\
This electrical worker is
Inc., in Milwaukee, leads the assessment
GHILQHGUHVSRQVLELOLWLHV
preparing to don Oberon
services team. The team performs risk
Co.
ARC65
FR-rated
2 'RQGXFWDQHOHFWULFDO
personal protective
assessments at client sites, actually working
V\VWHPDQDO\VLVWR
equipment (PPE). This
GHWHUPLQHWKHGHJUHHRI
with the individuals who need to be proDUFIODVKKD]DUG
protective clothing system
tected as part of the analysis. “Companies
consists of a coat, bib
3 'RQGXFWVDIHW\
that have top management active support
overall, hood and hard
WUDLQLQJIRUDOOZRUNHUV
for safety invest the time to ensure that
cap, as well as insulated,
4 )QVXUHWKDWWKHUH
people who are responsible have the technical
voltage-rated gloves
LVDGHTXDWHSHUVRQDO
background and training in machine safety,”
and
leather
protectors.
SURWHFWLYHFORWKLQJDQG
This PPE exceeds the
Duta says. “Many people may know all
HTXLSPHQWRQKDQG
requirements of NFPA
the OSHA regulations and analysis tools,
5 )QVXUHWKHSURSHU
70E Hazard Risk Category
and that their electrical engineers and
WRROVDUHRQKDQGIRU
4. Photo Copyright 2005
VDIHHOHFWULFDOZRUN
managers are well versed in NFPA 70,
Oberon Company
robotics standards and ANSI standards. A
6 %SSO\ZDUQLQJODEHOV
WRDOOHTXLSPHQW
top-down approach drives responsibility.”
Arc flash incidents affect not only
Dan Hornbeck, manager of safety systems business, also at
power equipment, but also automaRockwell, says, “Look at the top companies who have visible
tion and control. Weigel says that original equipment manufactursafety programs, such as DuPont, General Motors, Procter &
ers who build control panels are redesigning the panels so that
Gamble and Johnson & Johnson. They have proven the approthey can isolate the 480 volt AC power from the DC part of the
priate cost rewards from safety management. I assure you that
panel, or they are looking at ways to reset the programmable
Rick Wagoner, chief executive officer at GM, is very aware of
logic controller from outside the cabinet, eliminating a need to
the safety metrics of the company. These companies assure that
open the cabinet door and expose workers to high energy. “This
safety people are technically competent. Oftentimes, when a
affects almost every one of our customers except maybe for
safety manager reports through the human relations department,
single family home construction,” Weigel adds.
they don’t have that in-depth technical knowledge.”
1 )VWDEOLVKDQ
N
R
SO
R
D
E
T
O
C
PY
IN
PR
Automation World l May 2008
FO
PE
AL
R
Six Tips
eJeCWa[IW\[jof
;L;HOED;ÈI8KI?D;II
6LFK;LGGRZVRQYLFHSUHVLGHQWRI7DIHW\6HDO)VWDWH
)QYLURQPHQWIRU
WKH7FKQHLGHU)OHFWULF2RUWK%PHULFDQ3SHUDWLQJGLYLVLRQVKDUHV
VL[WLSVIRUHOHYDWLQJVDIHW\WRWKHKLJKHVWYLVLELOLW\LQ
DQRUJDQL]DWLRQEDVHGXSRQKLVH[SHULHQFHGULYLQJ
VDIHW\IRUWKHPDQXIDFWXULQJDUPRIWKLVHOHFWULFDO
FRPSRQHQWVDQGDXWRPDWLRQVXSSOLHU
1. :h_l[iW\[joj^hek]^jef
Identifying hazards and accomplishing a risk assessment process
helps mitigate dangers. “We engage everyone from operations to
maintenance to the cleaning crew to identify hazards. Part of the
process includes defining what kind of training process they
need in order to know how to work around their equipment,”
says Hornbeck. “Another benefit from this engagement
overcomes two trends current in manufacturing—going
from an older to a younger, less experienced workforce,
and using automation to enable one operator to cover
more equipment. This creates a further hazard as operators switch from machine to machine.”
N
U
R
T
S
IB
O
TI
.
I
cWdW][c[djYecc_jc[dj$8KH
FKLHIH[HFXWLYHRIILFHUDQGKLVVWDIIPXVW
EHYRFDODERXWWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIVDIHW\
R
2.
T
H[ZkY[^WpWhZi_dj^[
mehafbWY[$;RUNRQHOHFWULFDODQG
HUJRQRPLFFRPSOLDQFHWUDLQLQJ,DYHSHUVRQDO
SURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQWDYDLODEOH
D
FO
O
N
±*EPO´UOFFEBQFSTPOXIP
N DBOSFQFBUDMBVTFTGSPNB
O TUBOEBSEPSUIFHPTQFMPG
3. Fhel_Z[`eX#h[bWj[ZiW\[jo
G
jhW_d_d]$4URYLGHHPSOR\HHVDJRRGRULHQWDWLRQQRW
IN TPNFJOTUSVDUPS8IBU*OFFE
MXVWIRUVDIHW\EXWDOVRIRUKRZWRGRWKHMREZLWKRXW
D
JTTPNFPOFXIPJTSFBMMZHPPE
SXWWLQJWKHPVHOYHVDWULVN8HDFKKRZWKHPDFKLQHZRUNV+HWWKHPWR EA
R
WKLQNDERXWKRZQRWWRSXWWKHPVHOYHVDWULVN*RFXVRQVWDWHVRIPLQG
BUIJTPSIFSBTTJHOFEUBTL²
L
.
Y
L
A
VXFKDVLIWKH\DUHUXVKHGWLUHGDQJU\RUFRPSODFHQW8KH\QHHGWR
UHFRJQL]HZKHQWKH\DUHVWDUWLQJWRIHHORQHRIWKHVHHPRWLRQVDQGWHOO
WKHPVHOYHVWRVWRSEHIRUHWKH\JHWKXUW)QFRXUDJHWKHPWRWDNHWKLV
WUDLQLQJKRPHDQGSUDFWLFHLW+HWVDIHKDELWVLQVWLOOHGLQHYHU\RQH
N
SO
4.
R
R
PE
F[h\ehciW\[joWkZ_ji$)QVXUHWKDWSURJUDPVDQG
SUDFWLFHVDUHEHLQJGRQH8KLQJVFKDQJHVRHYHU\RQH VH\HVPXVWEH
IRFXVHGRQWKHVDIHW\JRDO
5.
O
C
PY
FO
A[[fiW\[joWmWh[d[ii_d\hedje\[l[hoed["
[l[hoZWo$7WDUWRIZRUNGD\VWUHWFKLQJRUH[HUFLVHSURJUDPVDVRQH
H[DPSOHFDQSURYLGHVXSHUYLVRUVZLWKDFKDQFHWRWDONWRWKHFUHZDERXW
VDIHW\DPRQJRWKHUWRSLFV
D
E
T
IN
R
6. BWkdY^WmWhZiWdZh[Ye]d_j_edfhe]hWci$%VN
P
DQ\RQHDWWKHSODQWKRZORQJLWKDVEHHQVLQFHWKHUHZDVDGRFWRU V
FDVHDFFLGHQW8KH\VKRXOGNQRZ-IWKHSODQWKDVJRQHGD\VZLWKRXW
LQMXU\SHUKDSVJLYHHYHU\RQHDIUHHGULQNLQWKHFDIHWHULD*RURU
GD\VSHUKDSVDIUHHOXQFK,DYHVHQLRUPDQDJHPHQWUHFRJQL]HSHRSOH
WHDPVDQGSODQWV
ADEMOEKHC79>?D;
Once again, the issue comes back to operators knowing their
machine or process as one of the keys to safety. Says Duta, “I see a
lot of operators who don’t understand their equipment. They don’t
always know what happens when they push a button. They should
know every control element and know what each mode of operation is. Whenever we finish a risk assessment where the operators
and team thoroughly go over a machine, I always hear the comment, ‘Boy, I wish we could do this more often.’ ”
While the experts, and even some companies, have a handle on
safety competency, Miller, of Emerson, sums up the best. “It’s a
bigger task than you might think. Most safety organizations used
to be run by the seat of their pants—and some still are. They say,
‘We haven’t had an incident in 20 years. It will never happen to us.
We know how to run our business.’ But if you look at reports from
the United States and the United Kingdom, plus other documentation, there is always one common denominator for when problems
occur—people. Someone didn’t operate, design or maintain the
process right. Or they took chances when they shouldn’t have. Just
as the latest report, the Baker Report on the BP Texas City explosion, stated, people were the problem.”
(#17518) Copyright 2008 Summit Media, LLC. Reprinted with permission from the May 2008 issue of Automation World.
For more information about reprints from Automation World, contact PARS International Corp. at (212) 221-9595.
ER-00096-May08