AIChE Midwest Regional Conference-Sept.

2008
University of Illinois (UIC) Chicago

Hazard Evaluation Procedures UPDATE
By Review of CCPS book Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, Third Edition
(Purchase Book from www.wiley.com) by N. Sankaran – UOP - Honeywell *The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not represent those of UOP LLC or Honeywell International Inc.

1

Historical
Dec. 3, 1984 – Catastrophic toxic release of MIC
at Bhopal, India over 100,000 injured.

1985 – Industry leaders asked AIChE to lead
effort to eliminate such catastrophic events.

March, 1985 – CCPS formed to
Advance Process Safety technology Serve as Process Safety resource Foster – P.S. knowledge in Education Promote – Process Safety as key value

2

Historical (cont’d)
First step forward – write a book on “Guidelines for Process Hazard Evaluation Procedures” Mother of all future project efforts Dedicated to Tom Cararody – 1st Director

3

Guidelines for HEP Book
Keeps Process Engineers updated on the effective methodologies that process safety demands. Includes information not included in previous editions, giving a comprehensive overview of this topic area. Almost 200 pages of worked examples are included to facilitate understanding.

4

Guidelines for HEP Book(cont’d) Contents Hazard Evaluation Procedures – 9 chapters Worked Examples – 13 chapters Appendices – Five Comprehensive References (Purchase Book from www.com) 5 .wiley.

Progress in 23 Years Product of various company sponsor groups National & International interaction Forms integrated companion to other AIChE guidelines / publications 1st Edition 1985 120 Pages 22 figures 6 tables 15 glossary items KeptIntroductory 3rd Edition 2008 550 pages 80 figures 150 tables 90 glossary items Detailed 6 .

and property. and generates output signals causing the process and its associated equipment to operate in the desired manner and within normal production limits. Common cause failure: The occurrence of two or more failures that result from a single event or circumstance. Layer of protection: A physical entity supported by a management system that is capable of preventing an initiating cause from propagating to a specific loss event or impact. environment.HEP-3 Glossary Basic process control system (BPCS): A system that responds to input signals from the process and its associated equipment. Illustrate: Precise & thorough – adopted in other guidelines Above illustrate interaction with other disciplines 7 . other programmable systems. Uses qualitative techniques to pinpoint weaknesses in design and operation of facilities that could lead to incidents. Worst credible case: The most severe incident considered plausible or reasonably believable. Hazard evaluation: Identification of individual hazards of a system. determination of the mechanisms by which they could give rise to undesired events. and/or from an operator. and evaluation of the consequences of these events on health (including public health).

119 Clean Air Act – 49 CFR.Importance of HEP-3 Unprecedented interest in hazard evaluation Prevention of incidents.68 International Standards – IEC-61511 (ANSI/ISA-84. economic impacts Striving for zero accidents Public/Governmental agency interest Process Safety Management Laws & Regulations OSHA – 29CFR 1910.00 8 .

5 HAZOPs) methodologies Scenario Risk Estimation (Ch.Changes in 3rd Edition New section added on Inherent Safety Review (p.64) Reorganized into Non-scenario based (Ch.7) Hazard Evaluation as applied to: Procedure Based Operations Programmable Systems Facility Siting Human Factors Emphasis on Process Life Cycle considerations Additional checklists & forms in Appendix A 9 .4 checklists) and scenario based (Ch.

Interrelation of Book Chapters 10 .

) Should be performed throughout Life Cycle of Process (De. O DC) 11 . explosions Needed to improve safety & manage risks Compliments traditional Industrial Safety & Health Cornerstone of the PSM program Used in investigation of causes of accidents Managing change to processes Identify critical equipment & special needs (M. D. C. etc.E. Overview Effort to identify/analyze hazardous situations associated with processes (11) Identify weaknesses in designs & operation of facilities which can lead to releases. T. I.H. fires.

lead and document hazard analysis Benefits based on experience of many PS Professionals 3 x 30 x 25 .250 years 12 .2.H.E. Overview (cont’d) Two Parts of Book Part 1 – (Page 1-292) Specific steps to perform HE using 11 techniques Some more common than others Part 2 – (Page 292-460 pages) Examples to assist in developing scope. organize.

Benefits of Hazard Evaluation (12) Fewer incidents over life of process Reduced consequences Improved emergency response Improved understanding of process and training More efficient & productive operations Improved regulatory/community relations Need significant investment over life of facility Limitations Analysis never complete/perfect Results cannot be verified Based on present subjective judgement Based on existing knowledge HE is an essential to reduce process risks Maintain process safety culture Ensures compliance with C. C. S. N) 13 . L Establishes/enhances organizational competence Maintains interaction among all stakeholders (E. R.

releases.1) Hazard Evaluation – 1st steps in managing process risks Prevents Episode Events – fires. software problems.Introductory (Ch. How to Use. Select Methods. external factors For High Quality – continued effort of multi-disciplinary groups Identify if more detailed methods are needed – LOPA. CPQRA Guidance on HI. human errors.31) 14 . Implementation Limitations of Hazard Evaluation (p. explosions Historically handled by good engineering design/operating practices HE focuses on equipment failures.

Process Risk Management Aspects of Risk Management As Related to PS Evaluate hazards and risk (Hazard Analysis) Manage the Risk (9 items-Op. audits) 15 . Procedures-17) Learn from Experience (metrics.

Anatomy of a Loss Event Elements of Loss Events Process hazards (24).119 – Process Safety Management 40 CFR 68 – EPA Risk Management Program Limitations of Hazard Evaluations (31) 16 . initiating causes (18). emergency stages of an event Hazard Evaluation Regulations 29 CFR 1910. incident causes (10)-p.19 Normal. abnormal.

46) Initial session important – process overview. Scribe Other professionals needed for team (p. etc. facility walk-down.40) Sept-up project on software Skills – Leader.2) Success of entire project is dependent on adequate preparation An infrastructure to support HE Various phases of process have different objectives (p.37) Scope and boundaries Information requirements (p.44) Team leader responsibilities (p.Preparation for HE (Ch. 17 .

39) 18 .Information Needs for HE Information needs for HE during Project Life Cycle (p.

57 Hazard Identification results (hazard list) p.55 Chemical interaction matrix p.65 19 .Hazard Identification (Chapter 3) First part of hazard evaluation Types of consequences – human. economic (52) Material property data for HazID – (Pyrophonic) p.58 Hazard Identification checklist (Polymerize) p.53 Hazardous compounds (Acids) p.60 Application of Inherent Safety p. environmental.

g. reduce the quantity of a hazardous material Substitute (e.g.g. and that are forgiving of errors that are made) 20 . design facilities that eliminate unnecessary complexity and make operating errors less likely. or facilities that minimize the impact of a release of a hazardous material Simplifiy (e. active. procedural approaches Four basic strategies include: Minimize (e. use less hazardous conditions.g.Inherent Safety Strategy & Application IS design strategies – More reliable/safe than passive. a less hazardous form of a material. substitute the hazardous material with a less hazardous material Moderate (e.

Application of Inherent Safety 21 .

67) Checklist Analysis Common Features Broad brush look at hazards Done during early stages of design Types Small System – chemical unloading facility Large Process – a petroleum process Hazard Categories HC-I .Negligible HC-II .4) Preliminary Hazard Analysis (MIL-STD-882) Safety Review Relative Risk Ranking Methods (6 Index-Discussion-p.Catastrophic 22 .Non-Scenario Based HE Techniques 4 Techniques (Ch.Marginal HC-III .Critical HC-IV .

update to current standard Checklist .Examples for Discussion PHA . process Risk Index .H2S feed system to a plant Safety Review . equipment.Extend life of a plant.Substance hazard index of various chemicals in plant 23 . materials.DAP Process.

74) Sample Worksheet 24 .Time Estimates (p.

analytical method based on incident scenarios What-If/Checklist Analysis Hazard & Operability Slides (HAZOP) Fault-Tree Analysis (FTA) Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA) Event-Tree Analysis (ETA) Other Techniques All 8 techniques generate/evaluate incident scenarios 25 .Scenario Based HE Procedures Predictive.

Scenario Based HE Procedures Features Perform very detailed Hazard Analysis Qualitative but can be structured for detailed studies (SIS. external events 26 . ETA. Question Areas Equipment failure.) Need more time and effort Each method illustrated by example What-If Experienced personnel brainstorming process with a series of questions – each representing potential failure or misoperation. human error. LOPA) Need special training and skills (FTA. etc.

110 Sample HE checklist – p.113 Summary Most commonly used method Least structured Can be used at any stage of Life Cycle Useful when focusing on MOC reviews 27 .105 Typical questions – p.111 Hazards checklist – p.Scenario Based HE Procedures Sample worksheet structure – p.

132) 28 .Hazard & Operability Studies Identify Hazards (S. E) Problems which prevent efficient operation Deviation of a parameter with a consequence for which safeguards are needed Guide Word + Parameter = Deviation More + Flow = More Flow General & specific parameters Library of deviations for specific equipment (p. H.117) DAP Process HAZOP example & worksheet (p.

Overview of HAZOP Technique 29 .

Overview of HAZOP Technique Example library of relevant deviations for process section types 30 .

FMEA-Failure Modes. module or subsystem failures Bottoms up analysis Spreadsheet where FM. Effects Analysis Analysis of consequences of component. consequences. probability of occurrence.138) Sample worksheet of a DAP Batch Reactor (p. causes.139) 31 . proposed safeguards are noted Example of FM of equipment – HE (p.

Fault Tree Analysis Starts with a TOP event & identifies causes Top down analysis Intermediate events – related to top event using logical operations such as AND and OR gates Example of damage to reactor due to high process temperature (p.156) 32 .

Damage to Reactor Development of the Top event for the emergency cooling system example 33 .

Other Techniques Event Tree Analysis – Evaluates protective system failures Loss of cooling to oxidation reactor – p.167 Loss of Containment Analysis Five other methods with references – p.173 34 .166 Cause – Consequence Analysis – p.

Selection of HE Techniques Factors of influence are Motivation for the study Type of information available Resource availability Analyst/Management preference Typical effort needed for 12 methods – Large/Small systems (p.185) Example Flowcharts (p. REL. combined reviews (p. Maint.190-194) Is relevant checklist available – use CL Is detailed design info available – consider HAZOP Is the process a mechanical or electric system – consider FMEA Integrating S. Q & Sec into HE. E.204) 35 .

Applications of HE Techniques During a Process Life Cycle 36 .

Risk Based Adequacy of Safeguards (Ch.7) Layer of Protection Analysis Simplified quantitative Risk Analysis CCPS – Concept book Five step procedure (p.226) Example LOPA (Runaway Reactors – p.231) Scenario description Frequency of unmitigated consequence Total PFD of all IPLs Frequency of mitigated consequence Risk tolerance criteria met 37 .

255) 38 . scheduled.Follow-up of Hazard Evaluation Development of Recommendation – immediate action. further evaluation Simple Risk Matrix (p.244) Documentation for follow-up Development of Management responses Special findings/sharing of information HE results useful over Life Cycle of the plant (p.

4 x 4 Risk Matrix 39 .

266 Programmable Logic Controllers-Control of Processes Chemical Reactivity Hazards *.Inadequate Venting of Gases Combination Methods – HAZOP/LOPA Human Factors Study – Negative Factors Leading to Errors. P.277-9 HRA – Human Reliability Analysis Facility Siting issues * * Separate CCPS/guideline books available 40 .Special Hazard Analysis Applications 60-70% of accidents in 2 decades occurred during non-routine modes of operations. Hazard Analysis of Procedure-based Operations Unloading a Toxic Chemical – p.

plant expansions Covers 2 aspects – How to Perform.448 41 .HE Methods – Worked Examples (Ch. conclusions.g. process descriptions. Event Tree Analysis) Cover – 9 phases of Life Cycle (e. worksheets. discussions. Training Applied to VCM – Manufacture operations Illustrative – block flow diagrams. Sample worksheet for every method – FMEA. p. tables.g. 10-22. observations. 293-460 11 methods (e. scope. checklists. p.

Useful Appendices (A) Checklist items – corrosion types (464) Management of Change – Impact Evaluation List (456) Reactivity checklist – Reactivity with air (470) Inherent safety checklist – 5 categories – 3 pages (472) 42 .

Power (12) Miscellaneous (2) How are equipment & piping protected from corrosion? Operations (22) Maintenance (13) Personnel Safety (68) Environmental Protection (24) Management Issues (21) 43 .Supplemental HAZID Questions (Appendix B) Process (20) Unit siting/layout (16) Equipment Pressure relief (20) Piping & valves (30) Pumps (6) Compressors (6) Reactors (8) Vessels (9) HE (8) Furnaces (4) Instrumentation (23) Elec.

Unwin Co.Hazard Evaluation Software 9 samples listed PHA . .Isograph .USA HAZOP .USA 44 .UK PHA-PRO – Dyadem – Canada PHA-Works – PrimaTech .

Safety Video Program World Bank – Hazard Evaluation manual US Chemical Safety Board – Hazard Investigation IChemE (UK) – Sister org. 244 references for more detailed studies 45 . including AIChE-CCPS National Safety Council .Process Safety Enhancement Resources Organizations Listed 40 premier organizations listed. WCS. to AIChE US EPA – Risk Management Program.

Join new project sub-committee Project examples: Guidelines/concept books Databases (PERD).How Do You Participate? How do you participate in a project like this? CCPS Member Co. (PSID) Web-based Safety Projects Special Interest items List of Current Projects (30) Benefits: Trade knowledge Contribute diversity of experience Lesson in concensus approach 46 .

Contractor. Members Importance of subjects takes precedence over sales volume.Participation (cont’d) New projects submitted to Technical Steering Committee Sub-committee formed – Leader. Eng. 47 .

2. 8. 10. 4.General Comments (4.3) Guidelines for HEP Book . 1 (14) Concept of Risk Management (15) Anatomy of a Loss Event (16) Preparation for HE (17) Information Needs (18) 48 . 9. 12.5) Progress Update (6) Sample Glossary (7) Importance of HEP-3 (8) Changes in 3rd Edition (9) Interrelation of Chapters (10) HE Overview. 14. Title Slide Historical (2. 5. 11. 3.Index 1. 7. 13. Benefits (11-13) Introductory-Ch. 6.

21) Non-Scenario Based Techniques (22-24) Scenario Based HE Procedures (25-34) Selection of Techniques (35. 27.Index 15. 18. 21. 24. 47) 49 . 16. 22. 19. 23. Hazard Identification-Ch. 36) LOPA (37) Follow-up of Hazard Evaluation (38. 3 (19) Inherent Safety Strategy & Application (20. 39) Special Applications (40) Appendices (42) Supplemental Checklist (43) Software (44) Process Safety Organizations (43) Participation (46. 20. 26. 17. 25.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful