WORKPLACE SAFETY
SAFEGUARDING ONE OF THE WORLD’S LARGEST ETHYLENE PLANTS
W
hen you design and build one of the world’s largest ethylene and polyethylene facilities, size amplifies everything: throughput, complexity,
and operational risk. For Chevron Phillips Chemical (CPChem) and QatarEnergy’s Golden Triangle Polymers Project, that reality kept safety at the forefront of every decision. The objective was to build big, operate safely, and sustain it for decades. “Safety isn’t just a goal; it is a foundational principle that guides every decision we make,” says John Bergen, process control engineer for the ethylene unit, who oversees all aspects of process control, including the plant’s safety shutdown systems. “To achieve that, we ensure every process is designed and managed so that materials stay safely contained. We want to ensure that all our employees and contractors go home safely at the end of the day.” Located in Orange, Texas – about 100 miles east of Houston – the facility will include a 2,080 KTA ethane cracker and two 1,000 KTA high- density polyethylene units. The total cost of the project is expected to be around $8.5 billion. With a greenfield complex of this scale, CPChem wanted to ensure nothing was overlooked. That’s why the company viewed Functional Safety Assessments (FSAs) not only as critical to safety but also as an economic decision. Performing Stages 1 and 2 correctly reduces overall project costs by preventing expensive redesigns, delays, and rework later in the process. “CPChem conducted comprehensive internal risk assessments in collaboration with our design contractor,” explains Bergen. “To strengthen the integrity of our safety approach, we also engaged an independent third party to perform an FSA. Their role is to validate our assessments and design specifications, ensuring nothing is overlooked and that we meet or exceed all applicable safety standards.”
FROM RISK TO READINESS
An FSA is an independent, evidence-based review of a plant’s instrumented protection layers against recognised safety standards. It confirms that hazards are correctly identified, required safety functions and Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) are defined, and the design will deliver the performance the risk analysis demands. Stages 1 and 2 lay the foundation for the entire safety lifecycle. Stage 1 tests the quality of the hazard and risk work, while Stage 2 scrutinises the detailed design.
To provide that independent perspective, CPChem engaged SIS-TECH, a Houston-based engineering firm specialising in process safety management, instrumentation, and electrical systems. These early stages are more than technical exercises; they are financial safeguards. “Stages 1 and 2 ensure a high-quality design everyone agrees on,” explains Angela Summers, president and CEO of SIS-TECH and a licensed professional engineer with over 30 years of experience in process safety. “If issues are found early, they’re just changes to a document. Once you get to Stage 3, when the equipment is already installed, the cost and delay can skyrocket.” Stage 3, which is underway now, will provide the ultimate confirmation: ensuring that what’s installed in the field matches the design and performs exactly as intended before startup.
STAGE 1: GETTING THE HAZARD PICTURE RIGHT Stage 1 focused on the initial hazard and risk analysis. The goal is clarity: understanding which operational and business risks exist, what protection layers are required, and whether the assumptions behind those layers are sound.
Eloise Roche, a senior consultant at SIS-TECH, led the Stage 1 assessment. She describes the process as a “cold eyes” review that follows strict rules for identifying and describing instrumented protection layers.
20 WINTER/SPRING 2026 | INDUSTRIAL COMPLIANCE
FUNCTIONAL SAFETY AT SCALE:
Inside Chevron Phillips Chemical’s pursuit to build not just the largest, but the safest ethylene and polyethylene facilities in the world.
“It’s about confirming the risk assessment truly matches the process, and that the instrumented protections are independent, fully described, and aligned with the standard,” says Roche. Both Roche and Summers bring a unique perspective to these reviews. As long-time members of the ISA 84 committee and contributors to the international IEC 61511 safety standard, they don’t just interpret the rules; they help write them. “There is a big difference between trying to interpret the rules and being part of the multi-year process of crafting them,” says Summers. “It’s important to know the intent behind the standard and how to apply it across different regulatory environments worldwide.”
For a mega-project of this scale, that rigor is essential. Multiple companies contribute to the design and execution, and responsibilities can blur. Clear documentation of roles and responsibilities is critical; without it, vital tasks can slip through the cracks. Bergen, from CPChem, has seen the challenge firsthand. “We’re building on proven designs from previous facilities, which gives us confidence in the overall concept,” he says. “However, scaling up introduces complexity, more systems, more interfaces and more opportunities for risk. That’s why we place a strong emphasis on detailed planning, thorough documentation and proactive risk mitigation strategies. The larger the project, the more critical it becomes to be deliberate and precise in how we manage safety.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
