(32az) The Impact of PSM on Mining, Ports, and Railways: A Pssr Experience.

Pre-startup safety review (PSSR) is an essential tool to check if a process is safe to operate prior to its startup. Performing PSSR offers many known safety benefits, but also addresses changes, assures design specifications adherence, among others that strengthen a well-designed Process Safety Management (PSM) program. However, in many industries, such as mining, railway, and port, especially in Brazil, PSM tools and theory are not fully implemented and still are not part of routine activities. Therefore, this work addresses 6 PSSR case studies on PSM’s non-familiar activities (mining, port, and railway industries within one single company), to analyze and share its applicability, benefits, effectiveness, effort to perform, and results. An issue that justified this work is to check whether PSSR in such industries is as beneficial as it is in industries that are familiar with PSM, such as chemical, nuclear, and aviation, as previous experience shows.

PSSR protocols were based on corporate's reference protocol (in accordance to CCPS’s PSSR best practice book), which is presented as a start feed reference to PSSR’s leaders and that should be adjusted to each scenario. The reference is of the long/complex form and presents 9 different sections, namely: i) occupational safety, ii) machine guarding, iii) ergonomics, iv) occupational Health, v) operations and process safety, vi) environmental safety, vii) emergency response and communities, viii) electrical safety, ix) fire safety. Each of these sections requires a specialist representative, forming a multidisciplinary team. The protocol presents more than 120 items to be checked during PSSR. The PSSR multidisciplinary team, after adjusting the protocol (and prior to the operation startup) conducts field and documental verifications. The possible outcomes from items verifications in the protocol are: i) ‘yes’ (fully complied); ii) ‘no’ (not fully complied); iii) ‘not applicable’. ‘Not fully complied’ issues must be treated by action plans. After evaluation, those issues are classified as a) Impediment (Level 1: not safe to operate), b) Immediate Action needed (Level 2: issues must be addressed in less than 6 months) and c) Planned Action needed (Level 3: issues may take more than 6 months). In specific cases, after a contingency plan implementation, even with Impediments identified, the startup may be allowed.

The first case study was a Sludge Thickener reactivation/rebuild PSSR, in a new construction scenario type, after its partial collapse in 2023. The PSSR was performed in long/complex format and had 133 items listed in the verification protocol. Issues lead to the following action plans: 8 Level 1, 7 Level 2, and 14 level 3 actions. The protocol was applied, verified and approved within the planned deadline and the startup happened according to the project’s schedule. The level 1 (impediment) actions were concluded before the startup and the operation leaders feedback were extremely positive, as critical issues were identified. Calls attention that PSM team initially considered to conduct a simple/short form review, later switching to the complex/long form after realizing the scenario’s complexity.

Another case is a post-turnaround startup review after a ship loader (jetty machine) major maintenance activity that lasted 7 days. The review was performed in its simple/short form and totalized 132 verification items. Issues lead to the following: 1 Level 1, 6 Level 2, and 6 Level 3 action plans. Again, review was conducted, verified and approved within the deadline and the startup happened according to the project’s schedule. Level 1 actions were concluded before the startup. The first experience of the local operation team lead to important feedback. They found that PSSR resembled a current routine activity (operation readiness checklist) although through a much deeper review. Several issues identified were not related to the specific maintenance turnaround and were also reported. This finding revealed also need for better communication between maintenance and operation teams, to assess safety matters in daily basis.

A new Bucket Wheel Reclaimer equipment was the third analyzed case. The equipment was a replacement after the collapse of the prior machine in 2023. The review was performed in its complex/long form and was comprised by 153 verification items. In total, 87 Level 1, 40 Level 2, and 26 level 3 action plans were mapped. The review was performed, verified and approved within the deadline and, once again, the startup happened according to the project’s schedule. The level 1 actions were concluded before the startup. Much improvement in maturity of the local operation team was noted after they found that PSSR could have prevented the previous machine collapse.

The fourth case study presents a new Ore Crushing equipment review, conducted by means of complex/long PSSR. 184 verification items were evaluated. As a result, 31 Level 1, 104 Level 2, and 22 level 3 action plans were identified. PSSR was applied, verified and still presented unfinished Level 1 actions prior to startup, related to the fire protection system. This caused the crushing system startup to be delayed, which despite impacting operational activities, was well regarded and seen as beneficial by the local leaders.

A railway return to operation, after a river bridge major maintenance, is the fifth case study. Simple/short PSSR was conducted with 28 verification items listed. Only 2 issues were found (Level 1 type). The review was conducted, verified and approved within the maintenance turnaround deadline and the operation was reestablished as planned. The level 1 action plans were concluded before the startup and the railway operation leaders showed great interest on disseminating PSSR over other ongoing projects. This safety review was the first experience in this specific railway.

The last case study was the restart of a Mothballed process: the startup of an entire ore processing line (comprised by sieving, crushing, transporting, storing, classifying, among other processes). The complex/long PSSR mapped 137 verification items. As outcome, action plans list presented 4 Level 1, 6 Level 2, and 18 level 3. The review was conducted, verified and approved within the planned deadline. All Level 1 action plans were concluded before the startup. Since it was the second PSSR application in the site, the discussions were remarkably deeper compared the first experience. Showing that PSSR can contribute also to organizational safety culture.

As described, 6 PSSR were conducted resulting in 382 action plans to deal with issues found prior to startup — of which 82.7% were already concluded in less than 6 months. From total, 33.2% were mapped for Impediments (not safe to operate) — 6 contingency plans were developed and implemented — 42.7% immediate actions and 22.5% planned actions. The action plans’ adherence is an important sign that teams have realized the value of PSSR. It should be considered that it was the first experience of the local Process Safety Management team. The main achievement was reassuring that PSSR is effective and applicable to other than Chemical industries was the most relevant achievement — even for challenging and novelty situations, and different scenarios, such as new projects, return of Mothballed operations and turnaround due to major maintenance interventions. In addition, after a thorough analysis, it was concluded that the critical issues detected and addressed prior to startup could have potentially caused fatalities, environmental accidents and financial negative outcomes.

Besides the direct and clear benefits in safety, quality and productivity, indirect benefits were also observed: (i) improvement of organization safety and reliability culture, with clear feedback from stakeholders, (ii) feedback for process safety routine activities, (iii) bringing different teams closer together, driven by safety purposes and (iv) operational teams’ maturity increase, since PSSR is now being performed due to operation teams’ best interests – and not due to organizational rules.