An Introduction to API 2350 The Blast That Started It All http://www.apgsensors.

com/aboutus/blog/api-2350-requires-leadership
Like our blog? Youll LOVE our newsletter! Get monthly updates from the best of The Measurement Expert blog.

First Name Last Name Email Company

1 2 0 form-17984aa3d95 webform_client_for

Next Page >

.

Blog Terms List

Oil & Gas Industry Bulk Liquids Industry Chemical Industry Food & Beverage Industry Water & Wastewater Industry Level Measurement Applications Pressure Measurement Applications Remote Monitoring Applications Presence Detection Applications Process Control & Automation Ultrasonic Sensors Level Probes Pressure Transducers

Digital Pressure Gauges Float Switches Hazardous Locations How-To Technology Remote Communications

by kelvinf on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:55 Bookmark/Search this post with

On December 11th, 2005 at about 6 a.m. in the morning a massive explosion, originating from an oil storage terminal, rocked the town of Hemel Hempstead, a municipality located outside of London, UK. All of the windows in nearby buildings were blown out, and there were later reports claiming that the blast could be heard in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The event measured a 2.4 on the Richter scale and news agencies described the incident as the biggest in peacetime Europe. Luckily, there were no deaths since the office buildings in the vicinity were mostly empty. However, 43 people were injured and 2 were seriously injured. The explosion took place at one of the tanks at the Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal. This initial blast subsequently led to smaller explosions and ultimately resulted in a major conflagration. It took over two days for crews to put out the fire. In all, 20 storage tanks were destroyed. Soon after the incident, a government inquiry was conducted. The investigation reported that the explosion was caused by an overfilling of tank 912 at the Buncefield depot. This overfilling led to a rapid formation of a vapor cloud that was eventually ignited by an unknown ignition source. Investigators concluded that it was faults in the management system related to tank filling that was to blame. Terminal operators had little control over flow rates and timing of receipts. Meaning they did not have sufficient information available to them to manage the incoming fuel properly. The companies responsible for the depot were fined millions of Pounds. Events like the Buncefield Incident and others gave rise to the petroleum industry revisiting its standards on tank overfill protection. A direct result is the publishing of API 2350 Edition 4.

Created by the American Petroleum Institute, API 2350 outlines the minimum requirements needed to comply with the latest best practices to prevent tank overfills in petroleum facilities. While we plan to discuss specific components found in the standard in future articles, we thought we would take just a moment to point out a major difference between the new and older editions. Instead of the standard just making strict specifications that companies are required to adhere to, like UL, or CSA certifications, edition 4 takes an approach that is comparable to continuous improvement operation standards like six sigma. The standard advocates that companies weave an overfill prevention process into the underlying fabric of the corporation.
In order to be effective, these systems must be integrated into the corporate culture and must be fit for purpose. Even the simplest of such systems require lots of time, energy and resources and must be actively supported by the very top level of the organization. Without top management active support and promotion, there is no hope for a working management system. Phil E. Meyers, API 2350 Committee Chairman

Look forward to future articles where we will go into further detail as to what components make up the standard. Please contact us if you have questions about the standard between now and then.
Image by Winstainforth via Wikimedia Commons

API 2350: Implementing a Sound Management System Requires Leadership

by kelvinf on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 15:16 Bookmark/Search this post with

Last week we introduced API 2350 Edition 4, an industry standard created by the American Petroleum Institute. API 2350 outlines the minimum requirements needed to comply with the latest best practices to prevent tank overfills in petroleum facilities. We mentioned that new to this edition is the requirement for a management system. Today, we would like to talk about that further.

Management systems help organizations reach their objectives through defined processes and activities. They are the written instructions that must be followed by the individuals in an organization. Many companies use management systems to comply with regulations, meet environmental standards, and reduce accidents. The purpose of implementing a management system in regards to API 2350 is to ultimately eliminate tank overfills. The management system required by the standard is referred to as an overfill prevention process (OPP). Even though API 2350 requires an overfill prevention process it does not provide specifics as far as how to develop or implement one. However, like most other management systems it is vital that top management play the primary role in endorsing and supporting an OPP. This way, processes for all of the OPP components listed below will be implemented using a formal corporate program structure:

Formal risk assessment Formal written operating procedures and practices including safety and emergency response procedures Trained and qualified personnel Functional equipment Scheduled inspection and maintenance programs for instrumentation Systems to address both normal and abnormal conditions Management of change process A system to deal with overfill near misses and incidents A system to share lessons learned

The purpose here is to ensure that management systems are formally integrated into the core of a companys operations. The investigation into the Buncefield Incident specifically referenced that the management systems in place [] relating to tank filling were both deficient and not properly followed [] So to be in compliance with API 2350, a formal system must be documented consisting of the principles found within the standard. Next week we will go into further detail on what is involved in performing a risk assessment on your tanks. Dont hesitate to contact us with questions. We will be happy to help.
Image by Michael Parry via Wikimedia Commons

API 2350: Tank Categories Help Evaluate Safety Needs

Like our blog? Youll LOVE our newsletter! Get monthly updates from the best of The Measurement Expert blog.

First Name Last Name

Email Company
1 2 0 form-dc53bf5209da webform_client_for

Next Page >

.

Blog Terms List

Oil & Gas Industry Bulk Liquids Industry Chemical Industry Food & Beverage Industry Water & Wastewater Industry Level Measurement Applications Pressure Measurement Applications Remote Monitoring Applications Presence Detection Applications Process Control & Automation Ultrasonic Sensors Level Probes Pressure Transducers Digital Pressure Gauges Float Switches Hazardous Locations How-To Technology Remote Communications

by kelvinf on Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:27 Bookmark/Search this post with

Last time I mentioned that I would be discussing the risk assessment component of API 2350 this week. But, before I get into the heart of that, we need to first understand the parameters involved in the standard to perform an effective risk assessment. Before you can start implementing efforts to reduce risk at your facilities, you must first have a good understanding of the existing situation. You need to know the type of instrumentation each tank has, its level of concerns (LOCs), the rate at which the tank empties and fills, and the level of attendance by personnel near each tank. As part of this, API 2350 requires that each tank be classified according to three category systems described in the standard. The purpose of the categories is to help tank owners and operators to better evaluate their safety needs. They are as follows:

Category 1

In this configuration, all operations are performed manually by a local operator. Basically this means that an actual person has to be right there by the tank to shut the valve during a receipt in order to prevent an overflow. Also, there are no transmittable alarms or equipment to annunciate alarms. So while there may be tank level gauging equipment installed, it is entirely up to the operator to know when a high level has been reached.

No transmittable alarms or equipment to annunciate alarms Overfill prevention performed manually by local operator

Category 2

Moving to the next category we can see that the tank is now equipped with sensors and alarms to notify personnel of a high level. Furthermore, shutting off the valve no longer requires an operator to be there right next to the tank. Since the sensors and alarms can transmit the level information, an operator may be able to cancel a receipt by closing the valve remotely from a control room.

Tank levels may be read using sensors that can transmit signals and annunciate alarms Overfill prevention requires manual intervention by a local or remote operator

Category 3

The only difference between this category and the previous one is that a category three tank is equipped with an independent high high level alarm. This category is theoretically more reliant since it has a backup sensor in case the primary one fails. Just like category two the operator may cancel a receipt from a remote location or locally.

Tank levels may be read using sensors that can transmit signals and annunciate alarms Equipped with independent high high level alarm Overfill prevention requires manual intervention by a local or remote operator

Automatic Overfill Prevention System (AOPS)

The next category is separate from the first 3 categories. The Automatic Overfill Prevention System is never intended to be used on its own but in addition to one of the other configurations (usually category 2 or 3). Sometimes AOPS is referred to as category four. The advantage to AOPS is that it is capable of executing a shut off without human intervention.

System is independent of and in addition to one of the other three categories Overfill prevention is executed automatically without intervention from an operator

These categories are only part of the parameters that make up the standard. Next week we will discuss LOCs and attendance level and how these factor into the risk assessment. Let us know if you have any questions on these categories or anything else pertaining to the standard and we will be glad to help.
Image by Ross via Wikimedia Commons