Human hazard analysis

SCF/SYS/A/108/4523, 2001. Human Hazard Analysis A Demonstrator for a Means of Compliance, a Technical Report by the Systems Centre of Competence. Airbus UK Ltd, FUton.. 

Process Hazards Analysis. Analysis of processes for unrecogni2ed or inadequately controUed ha2ards (see Hazard analysis and risk assessment) is required by OSHA (36). The principal methods of analysis, in an approximate ascending order of intensity, are what-if checklist failure modes and effects ha2ard and operabiHty (HAZOP) and fault-tree analysis. Other complementary methods include human error prediction and cost/benefit analysis. The HAZOP method is the most popular as of 1995 because it can be used to identify ha2ards, pinpoint their causes and consequences, and disclose the need for protective systems. Fault-tree analysis is the method to be used if a quantitative evaluation of operational safety is needed to justify the implementation of process improvements. 

Designs should be based on knowledge of what the human body (and human nature) will do. Include educated operators in design reviews. The HAZOP methodology for process hazard analysis offers an excellent opportunity to identify design and procedural opportunities for inherently safer systems. After all, the OP in HAZOP stands for operability (COPS, 1992). For example, a safe start-up procedure that requires the operator to walk up and down the stairs three times to manipulate valves in the correct sequence can be made inherently safer by locating the valves so that operator has to walk up the stairs only once during the start-up. 

A critical assembly is a split bed on which fissionable material used to mock up up a separated reactor core that is stacked half on each half. One half is on roller guides so that the two halves may be quickly pulled apart if the neutron multiplication gets too high. Use the Preliminary Hazards Analysis method described in section 3,2.1 to identify the possible accidents that may occur and the qualitative probabilities and consequences. List the initiators in a matrix to systematically investigate the whole process. Don t forget human error. 

Assume that the system described below exists in a process unit recently purchased by your company. As the manager, the safety of this unit is now your responsibility. You are concerned because your process hazard analysis team identified the potential for an operator error to result in a rupture of the propane condenser. You have commissioned a human reliability analysis (HRA) to estimate the likelihood of the condenser rupturing as the result of such an error and to identify ways to reduce the expected frequency of such ruptures... 

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. 

Banks, W., Wells, J. E. (1992). A Probabilistic Risk Assessment Using Human Reliability Analysis Methods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis, Human Factors, and Human Reliability in Process Safety. New York American Institute of Chemical Engineers, CCPS. 

There arc oilier methods of hazard identification. A "wliat-if analysis presents certain questions about a particular hazard and then tries to find llie possible consequences of that hazard. The human-error analysis identifies potential human errors that will lead to an accident. They can be used in conjunction with llic two previously described methods.. ... 

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. 

Process hazard analysis considers equipment failure, human factors-including errors of omission and commission, and previous incidents. 

Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) can be defined as the application of a systematic method to a process design in order to identify potential hazards and operating problems. It determines the causes and consequences of abnormal process conditions that arise from equipment failure, human error or other events. The goal is to determine whether opportunities exist to reduce the risks of the toll s hazards and then to implement warranted action items. The AJChE CCPS guideline Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, Second Edition with Worked Examples is a good resource for fully detailed approaches to process hazard analysis. It provides an introduction to hazard evaluation as well as guidance on ... 

Robots are best suited (in their present form) for tedious, repetitive and humanly-hazardous jobs. Tablet analysis, immunoassay determinations, polymer solubility, etc are ideal applications. Less routine perhaps, but just as tedious, are studies of enzyme action and activity which require variation in reagents and perhaps incubation timing, the "optimisation of chemical reactions or... 

If a consumer is exposed to hazardous product characteristics, the severity level or potential consequence of this exposure must be evaluated. Human factors analysis is conducted to determine the consequences (i.e., potential product-related injuries) based on the foreseeable behaviors consumers will use when interacting with products. Virtual and physical models of the human anatomy are used to effectively diagnose and demonstrate hazardous product characteristics. (In contrast to a physical hazard such as those noted above, physical in this human context relates to the usage of three-dimensional (3D) models of various parts of humans relevant to the exposures associated with use and/or misuse of a product.)... 

Human factors analysis utilizes accurate virtual and physical simulations of the human anatomy to identify the potential hazards posed by consumer products. 

Human loudness perception depends in a complex manner on both frequency and the overall loudness of sound. (For example, bass is more difficult to hear in music played at low volume than in the same music played at high volume.) To capture this behavior, two weighting scales have been developed for use in sound hazard analysis. The most common of these is the A weighting scale, which is commonly used to assess occupational and environmental noise. The A scale weights sounds in the 1000-6000 Hz range much more heavily than low-frequency sounds. The A-weighted intensities (dBA) of some common sounds are listed in Table 5. By contrast, the C weighting scale is used for very loud sounds and is a much flatter function of frequency. 

---