MAJOR HAZARD INSTALLATIONS SYMPOSIUM20 OCTOBER 2016 | 9.00AM to 4.45PM

THE JTC SUMMITTHEATRETTE @ LEVEL 28 JURONG TOWN HALL ROAD SINGAPORE 609434

CONTENTS

• Synopsis

• Opening Address

• MOU between Workplace Safety and Health Institute and Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences

(ICES), A*Star

• Presentation I: Safety Case Regime for Major Hazard Installations

• Presentation II: Safety Case – An MHI’s Perspective

• Presentation III: The Science of Safety Case

• Presentation IV: Guide to the WSH (MHI) Regulations

• Panel Discussion

• Presentation V: An Introduction to the Safety Case Joint Work Group (SC JWG)

• Presentation VI: Safety Case Assessment Guide – Predictive Aspects

• Presentation VII: Safety Case Assessment Guide – Overview of Technical Assessment & Process Safety

Asessment

• Presentation VIII: Safety Case Assessment Guide – Mechanical

• Presentation IX: Safety Case Assessment Guide – Emergency Aspects of Safety Case

• Presentation X: ALARP Demonstration & Closing Remarks

• Annex A: Programme Outline

SYNOPSIS

The Major Hazard Installations (MHI) Symposium was held on 20 October 2016 with 270 participants in attendance. The Symposium aimed to update MHIs on the impending Safety Case regime. It covered key aspects of the Safety Case Assessment Guide developed by the Safety Case Joint Industry-Government Work Group (SC JWG). There was also the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Institute and A*STAR’s Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), aimed at advancing WSH research and capability building in chemical and process safety, and enhancing support to stakeholders in the implementation of the Safety Case Regime.

Opening Address

by MR SAM TANMinister of State, Prime Minister’s Office & Ministry of Manpower & Deputy Government Whip

The opening address was delivered by Mr. Sam Tan, Minister of State (MOS) for Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of Manpower. MOS Tan shared that the chemical industry is one of the largest contributors to Singapore manufacturing, contributing 29% of the total manufacturing output, making it an important industry not just for Singapore but to those workers hired in this industry.

MOS Tan announced two changes to the regulatory framework for MHIs: (i) the effect of a Safety Case regime effected through the Workplace Safety and Health (MHI) Regulations and (ii) the establishment of Major Hazards Department (MHD) as a single regulatory front to look into Safety, Health and Environment matters for MHIs.

The WSH (MHI) Regulations which will take effect on 1 September 2017, will require MHIs to show that adequate, effective and reliable control measures are in place to reduce the risks of major incidents to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP).

To implement the Safety Case regime, MOS Tan announced that a new inter-agency department known as the Major Hazards Department (MHD) was set up by Ministry of Manpower on 1 September 2016. MHD comprises officers from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), National Environment Agency (NEA) and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), and they will be working hand in hand to conduct safety case assessments, site verifications and incident investigations.

MOS Tan also informed that Workplace Safety and Health Institute (WSH Institute) and A*STAR’s Institute of Chemical and Engineering and Sciences (ICES) will come together to cooperate in the area of research, provision of technical advice, analytical testing services and training through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). He encouraged all MHIs to leverage on these initiatives to be more effective in addressing WSH challenges.

MOS Tan concluded his speech by encouraging MHIs to take up ownership of their Safety cases and to be open to share and learn from one another’s experiences.

From Left: Mr Kok Ping Soon, Deputy Secretary (Development) for Ministry of Manpower; Dr Gan Siok Lin, Executive Director of WSH Institute; Mr Sam Tan, Minister of State for Manpower & Prime Minister’s Office; Dr Keith Carpenter, Executive Director of ICES; Mr Suresh Sachi, Deputy Managing Director (Corporate & Legal) and General Counsel of Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).

MOU between Workplace Safety and Health Institute and Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), A*Star

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Workplace Safety and Health Institute (WSHI), an institute under the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), and Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), a research institute under the Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), was signed for a period of five years.

The purpose of the WSH Institute-ICES MOU is to advance chemical and process safety-related research and build technical capability to support in WSH hazard management in MHIs. Both organizations will cooperate in the areas of research, provision of technical advice and analytical testing services, training and outreach. Topics of interest include risk modelling and verification, fires and explosions, safety case verification and process safety incident investigation.

Presentation I:

Mr. Go showed a video on Singapore’s Safety Case Journey and introduced the Safety Case Technical Guide which would provide industry with a consistent way of interpreting the technical requirements under the safety case regime.

The Safety Case Technical Guide covered 9 focal areas

• Descriptive information about MHI• Major Accident Prevention Policy & Safety and Health Management System (Focus on major accidents)• Predictive (Identification of major accidents and risk assessment)• Process Safety• Mechanical Engineering• Electrical, control & Instrumentation• Human Factors (Safety critical task, roles and design)• Emergency Response (Incorporating domino impacts)• ALARP (Gap analysis and demonstration)

Mr Go stressed the importance of identifying areas where there are risks of major accidents and put in efforts to close gaps. Following the systematic identification of risks of potential major accidents through the Safety Case, MHIs will be able to understand better and prioritise on where it matters and manage the risks more effectively.

The Safety Case regime also allows regulators to come together as a single front and manage MHIs more efficiently. Potential harmonisation and streamlining of existing regulatory requirements by the various agencies may be explored at a later stage of the regime implementation.

Mr Go shared that Safety Case implementation is on track with the development of Safety Case Technical Guide & Assessment Guide, with the Safety Case regime to be effected by 3Q 2017.

Mr. Go concluded his presentation by emphasising the importance of leadership commitment and resource allocation for the preparation of the Safety Case.

Safety Case Regime for MHIs

by MR GO HENG HUATDirector, OSH Specialist Department & Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

Presentation II:

Mr. Fowler started his session by sharing his experience of a major incident at a facility where he had worked as a production manager. He highlighted the need to know how to handle incidents because it is a reality that serious incidents and fatalities do occur. The Safety Case regime places an emphasis on operators to actively demonstrate that their facilities are operated safely.

Mr. Fowler shared that many components of the Safety Case Regime already exist in local industry today, but has some new elements including Human Factors and ALARP demonstration. He shared that ALARP is a fundamental concept in safety management which involves weighing risks versus resources to control those risks. ALARP drives operators to continuously improve as best practices evolve and to demonstrate that their risks are ALARP.

With regards to human factors, Mr Fowler reminded that human error is often a factor in accidents and needs to be actively considered in process safety. This means that operators need to demonstrate that with appropriate staffing levels, training and human-machine interfaces, human errors could be minimised.

Mr. Fowler also mentioned that the Safety Case regime allows MHIs to consider process safety in a holistic and systematic manner and simplifies interfacing with the regulatory authorities. Moving forward, SCIC is planning initiatives to build capabilities for Safety Case implementation, including offering practitioner training and collaborating with MHD to establish a best practice sharing platform.

Mr. Fowler ended his presentation by saying that good safety is good business and that a well-designed, well- maintained, well-run plant in the long term is a profitable plant.

Safety Case – An MHI’s Perspective

by MR. STEPHEN FOWLERGeneral Manager of Shell Jurong Island & Director for Singapore Chemical Industry Council

Presentation III:

Dr. Salim started his session by sharing that Science is defined as a systematic activity that generates knowledge in the form of verifiable descriptions about our surroundings. Safety Case is defined as an evidence-based document developed by the facility operator through a systematic activity that includes hazard and risk identification, risk controls and safety management system implementation to ensure effective application of control measures. It is also goal-based, that is, operators need to demonstrate ALARP.

Dr. Salim also cited that science forms a basis for safety case. Where information is not available in literature, Science is a tool to address and fill knowledge gaps in process knowledge. Knowledge gaps are relative because what is known to a person or an organization may be an unknown to another. As such, communication is essential within an organization where internal resources are first exhausted before looking for suitable external resources to bridge those knowledge gaps.

Science-based evidence is highly creditable and is better able to withstand scrutiny. New information generated through scientific investigation can be moulded together, synthesized into knowledge to generate the process understanding for the preparation of the safety case. Through the use of Science, understanding for safety case and demonstration of ALARP goals can be enhanced.

The Science of Safety Case

by DR. SHAIK SALIMScientist at Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), A*Star

Presentation IV:

Mr. Lim started his session with the definition of Major Hazard Installation (MHI). By 1 September 2017, the provisional MHI certificate will take effect and it will replace the current factory certificate registered with MOM. Agencies are working towards a seamless transition of the current factory licenses for the existing MHIs and existing MHIs should continue to operate their plants in the meantime.

Mr. Lim elaborated on the MHI Registration Process:

• Application of MHI: MHIs who meet the definition of MHI using the MHI assessment form will apply to be an MHI using the MHI application form.

• Safety Case Preparation: MHIs are strongly encouraged to prepare their safety case ahead of the MHD official confirmation in December 2016. The MHI needs to prepare safety case according to Safety Case Technical Guide and they will be assessed based on the criteria specified in Safety Case Assessment Guide.

• Pre-receipt meeting: This is a mandatory meeting between the MHI and MHD to align the expectations of the Safety Case submissions. Pre-receipt meetings will be held 6 months before the Safety Case submission deadline. The purpose is to seek alignment in descriptive information about the MHI; predictive aspects which include the methodology and selection of the major accident scenarios (MASs), safety critical events (SCEs) and; ALARP methodology and ALARP demonstration of 1 SCE.

• Safety Case Submissions: MHD will inform the existing MHI of submission deadline. The safety case are to be submitted 6 months before the planned commissioning date for new MHIs. MHD’s assessment of the Safety Case will be conducted through a rigorous review of the Safety Case and site verifications. • Issue MHI certificate of registration: The Certificate will be issued upon the acceptance of the safety case and the payment of registration fees through LicenseONE portal. This MHI certificate is valid for 5 years and the registration fee is a one-time processing fee per registration. In order to assist the MHI industry to transit into the Safety Case regime, MOM will waive 50% of the fees for the MHI’s first registration.

Mr. Lim explained that the main objective of Provision of Information in the WSH(MHI) Regulations is to enhance management of potential domino effects. MHIs are required to share pertinent information among the designated group of MHIs. MHIs should take into account this information in their safety case, especially for their emergency response plans.

Mr. Lim cited that notification and reporting of process-related incidents would follow current incident reporting requirements via iReport. MHIs would continue to adhere to reporting requirements of accidental release under the licensing conditions of SCDF’s P&FM Licence and NEA’s HS Permit.

Guide to the WSH (MHI) Regulations

by MR. LIM ENG WEESenior Specialist of the Major Hazards Department

Panel DiscussionThe panel discussion was moderated by Ms Jamie Lim, Acting Deputy Director, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower. The four panellists are as follows:

Ms Jamie LimActing Deputy Director

Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

MODERATOR

Mr Go Heng HuatDirector

OSH Specialist Department & Major Hazards Department,

Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

Dr. Shaik SalimScientist

Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES),

A*Star

Mr. Lim Eng WeeSenior Specialist

Major Hazards DepartmentMinistry of Manpower

Mr. Stephen FowlerGeneral Manager

Shell Jurong Island Director

Singapore Chemical Industry Council

PANELLISTS:

Mr Go opened the discussion panel by summarising the presentations shared by the speakers.

Qn: How can industry communicate to top management the importance of committing resources for Safety Case implementation, with a view towards accident prevention rather than mitigation?

Mr Fowler highlighted that top management can be engaged through various platforms like the MHI symposium with a key take-home message. Engagement of top management and dialogue between MHD and industry is a continuous process for continuous improvements, not just to meet requirements of Safety Case every 5 years.

Ms Lim agreed that Safety Case is a continuous journey. In organising events, MHD will continue to engage top management.

Qn: Are there resources to learn from Safety Case/ALARP examples globally?

Dr. Shaik Salim noted that WSH Institute scans for trends and knowledge and could be a potential resource. Professional organizations are useful networks which provide a source of learning. MNCs typically have a network of global offices from which local offices can learn from.

Mr Fowler informed that SCIC and MHD were planning to establish a best practice sharing platform for Safety Case. This would help to build a vibrant community for sharing and enable industry to learn from other cases.

Mr Go added that safety case forums and conferences were good platforms for practitioners to share their experiences. While the U.S does not have the Safety Case regime, he highlighted that the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) was a good resource for both industry and regulators to learn from other incidents. He acknowledged that while there is no local equivalent to the CSB for sharing past incidents, MOM encourages sharing facilitated by professional bodies and by industry.

Qn: The definition of ‘serious harm’ to multiple persons is ambiguous. For sharing of information to address domino effects, is industry expected to share specific recommendations and are they legally liable? This should not be the case unless substances are highly toxic or unique.Mr Lim shared that the legal guide will include more examples to illustrate the definition of ‘serious harm’. ‘Serious harm’ would include life-threatening or long term effects, or substantial numbers of people affected.

Ms Lim highlighted that if the safety case is accepted, neighbours would only need to address the residual risk, which would most likely only impact ERP. Under special circumstances, MHD could help to facilitate discussions between companies to develop cost-effective solutions.

Mr Go reiterated that only relevant information would need to be shared. He encouraged industry to be forthcoming so that issues can be raised and discussed for resolution.

Qn: What constitutes a ‘modification’ during Safety Case review? Does it refer to a change in major risk profile or would changes in the grades of raw materials and products be considered as well?The cost of registration is on the high side.

Ms Lim clarified that Safety Case is evidence-based. An MHI would need to demonstrate that its risk profile remained the same after a proper assessment i.e. risk assessment, HAZOP etc. If the risk profile remains the same, the use of different additives in a process would not be considered a modification.

She added that the registration fees were set in consideration to industry and MHD resources required for Safety Case preparation and assessment. For the first cycle, there is a 50% reduction in fees to help industry adapt to the changes.

In addition, any changes in a company’s risk profile for subsequent SC submission and MHI registration renewal would not incur additional fees. This would encourage sharing and update of the Safety Case by MHIs. Mr Fowler noted that there were other regulatory fees that MHIs were subject to. He highlighted that SCIC would continue to discuss with regulators opportunities to simplify fees.

Mr Fowler highlighted that other jurisdictions charge for Safety Case assessment by man-hours. For such fee structures,

there is no certainty on the cost incurred by companies, and costs could be on a much larger scale than that of fixed registration fees.

Mr Go gave the example of UK HSE which charges by man-hour for Safety Case processing. Typically, assessments could last for weeks, resulting in a much higher cost, as compared to a fixed levy on licensing.

Qn: What is the criteria for escalation effects? Can companies use existing information from pre-approved QRA if possible? Could they interpolate/extrapolate to meet the escalation effect criteria?

Ms Lim emphasized that it was critical to address impact to sensitive receptors and clarified that this issue was still undergoing deliberation by JWG.

Interpolation/extrapolation may not be suitable as results would depend on the model used.

Currently, MOM is proposing 2psi and 20kW/m2 contours for the worst case scenarios that can extend beyond the site.

Qn: What is the difference between the MHI Assessment form sent in 2015 and the upcoming one which will be sent by 2016? When will MHIs know their SC submission dates?

Mr Lim clarified that the objective of the first MHI Assessment form was to get a sense of MHIs and their inventories. The new form is more structured with proper procedures and guidance. It is also an opportunity for MHIs to review their inventories as these may have changed since 2015. MHD will inform MHIs of their SC submission dates by Dec 2016.

Presentation V:

Mr. Bhatnagar shared SC JWG’s role in supporting the enhancement of Process Safety Regulatory Framework in Singapore.

SC JWG activities included development of the Safety Case Technical Guide and Assessment Guide; development of a strategy to build industry safety case capabilities and to identify opportunities to harmonise Safety Case regime with existing regulatory requirements.

Mr. Bhatnagar mentioned that Safety Case contains all information required to demonstrate that the MHI can be operated safely. He highlighted that developing Safety Case will help MHI to move from “We Think” to “We Know” it is safe to operate the facility. The main components of a Safety Case consist of (i) descriptive information of MHI (ii) major accident prevention policy (iii) safety management system description (iv) Risk assessment (v) technical aspects of a safety case (vi) emergency response plan (vii) ALARP demonstration for selected MASs and (viii) Review of MAPP & ERP in light of any new domino information received.

An Introduction to the Safety Case Joint Work Group (SC JWG)

by MR AMIT BHATNAGARProcess Safety Manager of Singapore Refining Company and SC JWG Co-Lead

Presentation VI:

Mr Chen began his presentation by explaining the definitions of Major Accident Hazards (MAH), Major Accident Scenario (MAS) and Major Accident. He also gave an overview of the predictive aspects of Safety Case and the assessment criteria for predictive aspects of the safety assessment guide. Mr Chen shared that the criteria to fulfill the predictive aspects are:

• Identify and describe in detail all initiating events and event combinations which could cause MAH to be realized into MAS;• Describe a representative and sufficient set of MASs;• Justify the risk assessment methodologies used on the depth of analysis and degree of rigour required when conducting detailed assessment on the respective set of MASs. MASs with a higher level of risk shall be conferred with a greater degree of rigour during the assessment process;• Human factors have been taken into account and integrated in the overall risk assessment.;• Adequate assessment of the extent and severity of the consequences for representative set of identified MASs and describe or reference consequence assessment model used, limits of applicability of model used and assumptions made and the values used in the model; • Estimates of the probability (in qualitative or quantitative terms) of each MAS analysed.; and• Describe how MHIs uses risk assessment to identify the SCEs (those that dominate the risk contribution at different distances and critical in identifying suitable risk reduction measures) from the representative set of MASs for the purpose of ALARP demonstration

Mr Chen concluded his presentation by highlighting some of the common pitfalls in predictive aspects. These include the failure to consider high consequence low probability accident scenarios, lack of justification and information about the effectiveness, availability and reliability of safety systems, limited description and/or evaluation of escalation potential and domino effects, omission of process related scenarios in consequence and likelihood assessment, selection of inappropriate mathematical models and failure to present detailed information to cover the predictive aspects in safety case.

Safety Case Assessment Guide – Predictive Aspects

by MR CHEN FU YISenior Engineer, National Environment Agency / Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

Presentation VII:

Mr Cha highlighted that the safety case assessment guide as a whole is very similar to the technical guide. In a technical assessment, Mr Cha shared that MHIs will need to demonstrate that appropriate industry codes and standards have been used; adequate safety and reliability have been taken into consideration during lifecycle of MHIs; technical and predictive demonstration are logical, coherent and cohesive and; appropriate performance indicator and performance standards have been developed.

Mr Cha elaborated on some of the key process safety assessment criteria through the use of examples. While guidance has been provided in the assessment guide for the respective criterion, he shared examples on the expected outcome from these criterion and other factors of consideration such as the following:

• Show a clear link between measures taken and the SCEs.• Show that installations have been designed to an appropriate standard by conducting a gap analysis of facilities

and processes against the current codes and standards for ALARP demonstration. • Show that utilities that are needed to implement any measures defined in the safety case have suitable reliability,

availability and survivability.• Show that appropriate measures have been taken to prevent and effectively contain releases of dangerous

substances.• Describe how adequate control measure have been provided to protect the plant against excursions beyond

design conditions.• Show that there are robust systems for identifying locations where flammable substances could be present and

how the equipment has been designed to take account of the risk.

Lastly, Mr. Cha reminded that it is the MHI’s discretion to decide how best to present the process safety aspect to MHD to make the necessary demonstration and show that adequate safety has been taken into consideration in the design, construction, operation, maintenance and modification of facilities and infrastructure connected with the MHI’s operation.

Safety Case Assessment Guide – Overview of Technical Assessment & Process Safety Assessmentby MR RANDY CHASenior Specialist, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

Presentation VIII:

Mr Soh started off his presentation by highlighting the importance of mechanical integrity in safety case by reminding everyone that a loss of containment could result in a potential major accident. In a plant lifecycle, the processes can be split into initial integrity (design and construction) and continuing integrity (operation, maintenance and modification).

Mr Soh gave an overview of the assessment criteria for mechanical integrity, covering design, construction, maintenance and modification. He explained using examples that MHIs are expected to:

• Show that installations have been designed to an appropriate standard;• Detail presence and integrity of mechanical measures for containment and mitigation measures;• Show all foreseeable direct causes of major accidents have been accounted;• Show that materials of construction used are suitable;• Show how installations have been constructed to appropriate standards;• Show how construction is assessed and verified;• Show an appropriate maintenance regime is established;• Show critical equipment and systems are examined by a competent person at suitable intervals; and• Show that results of periodic examination and maintenance are used to ensure continued safety

Mr Soh recommended that depending on the risk and the proposed plans, further discussion and action may be taken.

Safety Case Assessment Guide – Mechanical

by MR SOH ZI QUANSenior Specialist, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

Presentation IX:

At the start of his presentation, Captain Teo shared that while there are many technical criteria, there are 4 main ones that have more importance for emergency response aspects.

On the equipment and systems installed to limit consequence of major accidents, Captain Teo used a hypothetical crude oil storage tank on fire to illustrate the importance of such a criterion.

On the organisation, arrangements and provisions for the alerting and intervening in the event of a major accident, Captain Teo recommended to identify the nature and location of key control points, first aid point, IPP facilities, facilities that requires special rescue operations or special occasion. Additionally, it is important to pay attention to location of access routes and escape routes, occupancy load and establish a communication process during incident.

Captain Teo stressed that safety cases shall describe the mobilisable resources in sufficient detail and relate to MASs described in the safety case, to contribute to the overall measures necessary to minimize the consequences of a major accident.

On the preparation of emergency response plan, Captain Teo highlighted that it should cover at least SCEs identified in a safety case and off-site consequences from neighbouring MHIs. This aims to achieve better appreciation of onsite risks for parties involved in the emergency response and helps MHI evaluate if they are sufficiently resourced to handle the SCEs identified.

Emergency Aspects of Safety Case

by CAPTAIN TEO SOON CHYESenior Staff Officer, Singapore Civil Defence Force, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

Presentation X:

Ms Lim started her presentation by clarifying that demonstration is more than a mere statement or description that As Low As Reasonably Practical (ALARP) level has been achieved. Instead, it is important for Major Hazard Installations (MHIs) to show through reasoned and supported arguments, all practical measures that can be reasonably implemented have been implemented to reduce the risk for Safety Critical Events (SCEs). Additionally, Ms Lim emphasized that the adopted control measures must be shown to collectively eliminate or minimize risk to ALARP levels and there is no fixed approach in showing that ALARP has been achieved.

Ms Lim went on to describe that risk reduction is considered ALARP when any incremental sacrifice to implement additional control measures does not derive additional benefit. Recommended approaches to achieve ALARP were to adopt inherently safer design and to implement good practices and engineering principles.

On ALARP demonstration, Ms Lim shared that MHIs have to first evaluate options for control measures to reduce risks, identify further risk reduction measures that are reasonably practicable and conclude with an action plan on what were and will be implemented. Ms Lim then went on to discuss the assessment criteria in ALARP demonstration include technical criterion such as:

• Describe how MHIs use risk assessment to help make decisions about the measures necessary to prevent major accidents or to mitigate their consequences;• Show the approaches or methodologies used to support the MHI’s evidences and justifications for ALARP demonstration; and• Provide details on the additional control measures that MHIs can put in place to reduce the risks from SCEs and assess future risk reduction measures that are reasonable and practical to adopt

Ms Lim shared in her closing remarks the process and timeline for MHI application and Safety Case submission and encourage MHIs to work closely with Major Hazards Department for a successful Safety Case regime.

ALARP Demonstration & Closing Remarks

by MS JAIME LIM Acting Deputy Director, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

Annex A: Programme OutlineTime Event08:30 - 09:00 Registration09:00 - 09:10 Opening Address

Mr Sam Tan, Minister of State, Prime Minister’s Office & Ministry of Manpower & Deputy Government Whip

09:10 - 09:30 Safety Case Regime for MHIsMr Goh Heng Huat, Director, OSH Specialist Department & Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

09:30 - 09:50 Safety Case - An MHI’s PerspectiveMr Stephen Fowler, General Manager of Shell Jurong Island & Director for Singapore Chemical Industry Council

09:50 - 10:10 The Science of Safety CaseDr. Shaik Salim, Scientist at Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), A*Star

10:10 - 10:25 MOU between Workplace Safety and Health Institute and Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), A*Star

10:25 - 10:45 Tea Break

10:45 - 11:30 Guide to the WSH (MHI) RegulationsMr Lim Eng Wee, Senior Specialist of the Major Hazards Department

11:30 - 12:00 Q&A12:00 - 13:00 Lunch & Networking13:00 - 13:30 An Introduction to the Safety Case Joint Work Group (SC JWG)

Mr Amit Bhatnagar, Process Safety Manager of Singapore Refining Company and SC JWG Co-Lead

13:30 - 13:55 Safety Case Assessment Guide – Predictive AspectsMr Chen Fu Yi, Senior Engineer, National Environment Agency / Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

13:55 - 14:20 Safety Case Assessment Guide – Overview of Technical Assessment & Process Safety Assessment Mr Randy Cha, Senior Specialist, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

14:20 - 14:40 Q&A

14:40 - 15:00 Tea Break

15:00 - 15:25 Safety Case Assessment Guide – MechanicalMr Soh Zi Quan, Senior Specialist, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

15:25 - 15:50 Emergency Aspects of Safety CaseCaptain Teo Soon Chye, Senior Staff Officer, Singapore Civil Defence Force, Major Hazards Department

15:50 - 16:15 ALARP Demonstration & Closing RemarksMs Jaime Lim, Acting Deputy Director, Major Hazards Department, Occupational Safety and Health Division, Ministry of Manpower

16:15 - 16:45 Q&A

16:45 End of Session

Published in March 2017 by theWorkplace Safety and Health Institute, Singapore1500 Bendemeer Road, #04-01Ministry of Manpower Services Centre Singapore 339946

Website : www.wsh-institute.sg Email : contact@wshi.gov.sg

All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without prior written permission.