Scenarios hazard analysis

Example Chemistry Hazard Analysis Scenarios (Mosley et al. 2000)... 

Hazard analysis does have limitations. First, there can never be a guarantee that the method has identified all of the hazards, accident scenarios, and consequences. Second, the method is very sensitive to the assumptions made by the analysts prior to beginning the procedure. A different set of analysts might well lead to a different result. Third, the procedure is sensitive to the experience of the participants. Finally, the results are sometimes difficult to interpret and manage. 

An important part of hazard analysis and risk assessment is the identification of the scenario, or design basis by which hazards result in accidents. Hazards are constandy present in any chemical faciUty. It is the scenario, or sequence of initiating and propagating events, which makes the hazard result in an accident. Many accidents have been the result of an improper identification of the scenario. 

When considering release scenarios, the most hazardous unit in a plant should be chosen, based on inventoiy and process conditions. The idea is to imagine the release of material in the fastest way that is reasonably possible. The worst realistic scenario should be considered. This can be based on the outcome of a review, from a HAZOP study or a hazard analysis. The time a scenario will take is almost always considered to be continuous, because after a few minutes a stable dispersion distance exists. Making the time longer will not necessarily change the hazard distance. 

You can quickly identify these plant sections by reviewing process flow diagrams and valving arrangements. Isolation points are defined by control valves or powered block valves that can be remotely activated. Process hazard analysis techniques help you identify the maximum credible accident scenarios. (Note that manual valves should not be considered reliable isolation points unless they are located to be accessible following a major accident. However, remotely-activated valves can only be considered reliable isolation points if there are adequate reliability engineering and maintenance programs in place.)... 

The human factors audit was part of a hazard analysis which was used to recommend the degree of automation required in blowdown situations. The results of the human factors audit were mainly in terms of major errors which could affect blowdown success likelihood, and causal factors such as procedures, training, control room design, team communications, and aspects of hardware equipment. The major emphasis of the study was on improving the human interaction with the blowdown system, whether manual or automatic. Two specific platform scenarios were investigated. One was a significant gas release in the molecular sieve module (MSM) on a relatively new platform, and the other a release in the separator module (SM) on an older generation platform. 

One of the most important elements of the PSM Rule is the process hazard analysis (PrHA). It requires the systematic identification of hazards and related accident scenarios. The PSM Rule allows the use of different analysis methods, but the selected method must be based on the process being analyzed. The PSM Rule specifies that PrHAs must be completed as soon as possible within a 5-year period. However, one-fourth of the PrHAs must have been completed by May 26, 1994, with an additional one-fourth completed each succeeding year. The highest risk processes were to be done first. A schedule for PrHAs must be established at the outset of a process safety management (PSM) program to give priority to the highest risk processes. PrHAs must be reviewed and updated at least every 5 years. 

Under the PSM Rule, the PrHA element requires the selection and application of appropriate hazard analysis methods to systematically identify hazards and potential accident scenarios associated with highly hazardous chemicals. The components of a PrHA are summarized and explained below. 

Partial what-if analyses for the two example processes described in Section 4.0 are shown in Tables 4.9 and 4.10. Although for actual, more complex analyses, the what-if tables for each line or vessel would be separate, for these examples, a single table was developed. A preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) would identify that the intrinsic hazards associated with HF are its reactivity (including reactivity with water, by solution), corrosivity (including carbon steel, if wet), toxicity via inhalation and skin contact, and environmental toxicity. The N2 supply system pressure is not considered in this example. The specific effects of loss of containment could be explicitly stated in the "loss of HF containment" scenarios identified. Similarly, the effects of loss of chlorine containment, including the reactivity and toxicity of chlorine, could be specified for the second example. 

V Process hazard analysis (PHA) must be performed by a team of experts, including engineers, chemists, operators, industrial hygienists, and other appropriate and experienced specialists. The PHA needs to include a method that fits the complexity of the process, a hazards and operability (HAZOP) study for a complex process, and for less complex processes a less rigorous process, such as what-if scenarios, checklists, failure mode and effects analysis, or fault trees. 

The essence of the ASTM E 2012 approach is to determine incompatibility scenarios that could foreseeably occur by examining all possible binary combinations. It may be necessary to review a process by using a systematic method such as a process hazard analysis (PHA) to identify all incompatibility scenarios that have a significant likelihood of occurrence and severity of consequences. The same review can then be used to evaluate whether adequate safeguards exist or whether further risk reduction is warranted. 

Layers-of-protection analysis (LOPA) is a semiquantitative methodology for analyzing and assessing risk. It is typically applied after a qualitative hazards analysis has been completed, which provides the LOPA team with a listing of hazard scenarios with associated safeguards for consideration. LOPA uses simplified methods to characterize the process risk based on the frequency of occurrence and consequence severity of potential hazard scenarios. The process risk is compared to the owner/operator risk criteria. When the process risk exceeds the risk criteria, protection layers are identified that reduce the process risk to the risk criteria. 

Many different loss event scenarios are possible with intentional chemistry. All of them relate to losing containment or control of the intended reaction, starting another reaction, side reaction or series of reactions that are not intended or expected. A process hazard analysis, using a hazard and operability (HAZOP) study or other appropriate method, should be used to systematically identify and evaluate a full set of loss event scenarios. General causes of uncontrolled reactions include, but are not confined to, the following list ... 

For larger or more complex facilities, a systematic approach to identifying incompatibility scenarios and analyzing their severities and likelihoods may be warranted. A process hazard analysis (PHA) approach such as a hazard and operability (HAZOP) study can be an effective tool to facilitate such an effort, and may be required by regulation if the process falls within the scope of regulations. These methods are discussed in Section 4.5. 

Unique aspects of reactive hazards that should be examined during process hazard analysis (PHA), such as the need for reactive chemical test data, and methods to identify and evaluate worst case scenarios involving uncontrolled reactivity. 

RMP requires covered processes to have a hazard assessment, a prevention program, and an emergency response program. The hazard assessment must evaluate the accidental release of regulated substances, including the worst case scenario. RMP contains requirements for prevention of accidental releases, which include the same basic elements as the OSHA PSM Standard. Therefore, the limitations described in Section 5.1.2.2 with respect to process safety information and process hazard analysis also apply to RMP. 

Several qualitative approaches can be used to identify hazardous reaction scenarios, including process hazard analysis, checklists, chemical interaction matrices, and an experience-based review. CCPS (1995a p. 176) describes nine hazard evaluation procedures that can be used to identify hazardous reaction scenarios-checklists, Dow fire and explosion indices, preliminary hazard analysis, what-if analysis, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), HAZOP study, fault tree analysis, human error analysis, and quantitative risk analysis. 

Figure 5-1 shows how the FHA is integrated into an overall risk assessment. A process hazard analysis is required to identify likely fire scenarios that are carried forward to the FHA. An FHA provides the tools to characterize the hazards and evaluate consequences. The results are incorporated into an overall risk assessment. See Chapter 6 for more information on fire risk assessment. 

The process hazard analysis can be a starting point for the selection of fire scenarios. The process hazard analysis can be reviewed to develop a list of scenarios that result in fire as a consequence. Generic release sizes for small, medium, and large releases have been proposed as shown in Table 5-1 (Spouge, 1999). This saves time by eliminating the need to develop a detailed scenario. The analyst can use these release sizes to perform fire modeling calculations and determine the impact by moving the release point locations. The release criteria are considered to be representative of scenarios that could reasonably be expected to occur. 

Fire hazard analysis (FHA) is the process to determine the size, severity, and duration of a scenario and its impact on personnel, equipment, operations, and the environment. Chapter 5 provided details of performing an FHA. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the FHA process. For example, one scenario could be a seal failure where the material being released is ignited and afire results. In assessing consequences, several questions must be considered ... 

If a recommendation asks for a change in the process, the action must undergo a formal process hazard analysis (PHA) study, such as a HAZOP or other methodology, before implementation. This systematic and formal approach identifies and evaluates hazards associated with the proposed revisions. The study may uncover failure scenarios, adverse consequences, and obscure relationships that are not immediately apparent. The CCPS publication Hazard Evaluation Procedures i is an excellent guide to selection and proper application of PHA methodologies. 

Conduct a thorough Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) for the following areas raw material storage, raw material feed systems, catalyst preparation, and catalyst storage. The PHA leader must he on the approved corporate list. Ensure the following scenarios are considered ... 

Fire gas toxicity is an essential component of any fire hazard analysis. However, fire toxicity, like flammability, is both scenario and material dependent. Bench-scale assessment of fire gas toxicity either adopts an integrative approach, where the material is burnt in a fixed volume of air, allowing the initially well-ventilated fire condition to become under-ventilated to an unknown degree, or the ventilation is controlled, so that individual fire stages may be replicated. 

The hazard analysis of any industrial process impacts on risk assessment. Risk assessment involves the estimation of the frequency and consequences of a range of hazard scenarios and of individual and societal risk. The risk assessment process is shown in Figure 3.1. The risk criterion used in hazard analysis is the fatal accident rate (FAR). The FAR is defined as the number of fatalities per 108h exposure. The actual FAR in the U.K. was 3.5 in the chemical industry in 1975. No doubt the ideal FAR value should be zero, which is difficult to achieve in practice. 

What If "What-If" questions scenarios that prompts process hazard analysis concerns. 

The Process Hazards Analysis team takes a systematic approach to identify potential process hazards and to document them [51]. The Hazardous-Operation Analysis (Haz-Op) is a method by which the process procedures, process and instrument diagrams, and process flow diagrams are evaluated for operability and safety. Fault-Tree Analysis (FTA) is also a method, which investigates the assessment of what-if scenarios and failure conditions. The outcomes of this analysis are recommendations for the col-... 

---