Safety analysis methods HAZOP

Another widely used safety analysis method in process industry is the Hazard and Operability Analysis, better known as Hazop (Kletz, 1992). The conventional Hazop is developed to identify probable process disturbances when complete process and instrumentation diagrams are available. Therefore it is not very applicable to conceptual process design. Kletz has also mentioned a Hazop of a flowsheet, which can be used in preliminary process design, but it is not widely used. More usable method in preliminary process design is PIIS (Edwards and Lawrence, 1993), which has been developed to select safe process routes. 

Hazard and Operability Analysis (Hazop) (Kletz, 1992) is one of the most used safety analysis methods in the process industry. It is one of the simplest approaches to hazard identification. Hazop involves a vessel to vessel and a pipe to pipe review of a plant. For each vessel and pipe the possible disturbances and their potential consequences are identified. Hazop is based on guide words such as no, more, less, reverse, other than, which should be asked for every pipe and vessel (Table 1). The intention of the quide words is to stimulate the imagination, and the method relies very much on the expertise of the persons performing the analysis. The idea behind the questions is that any disturbance in a chemical plant can be described in terms of physical state variables. Hazop can be used in different stages of process design but in restricted mode. A complete Hazop study requires final process plannings with flow sheets and PID s. 

The Dow and Mond Indices and Hazop presented in Chapter 4 are widely used for the safety evaluations of process plants. They cover well those risks and hazards existing on a chemical plant. However a lot of detailed information is needed to complete those analysis. In the early stage of process design many of the required process details are still unknown. Therefore the presented safety analysis methods are not directly applicable in their full mode. 

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. 

The first task is crucial in process system safety analysis, because the effectiveness of the other two tasks depends on it. The technique of hazard and operability (HAZOP) study is a systematic approach to identifying most potential hazards and operating problems. The technique in contrast to the traditional methods is simple, creative, and flexible. 

In the following sections several quahtative methods of safety analysis are described. Among them hazard indices and HAZOP studies were specifically devised for analyses of process plants. 

In 1985, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) initiated a project to produce the Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures. This document, prepared by Battelle, includes many system safety analysis tools. Even though frequently identified as hazard and operability (HazOp) programs, the methods being developed by the petrochemical industry to use preliminary hazard analyses, fault trees, failure modes, effects, and criticality analyses, as well as similar techniques to identify, analyze, and control risks systematically, look very much like system safety efforts tailored for the petrochemical industry (Goldwaite 1985). 

Chapter 3 presents introductory aspects of safety and human factors. Chapter 4 is devoted to methods considered useful to perform patient safety analysis. These methods include failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis (FTA), root cause analysis (RCA), hazard and operability analysis (HAZOP), six sigma methodology, preliminary hazard analysis (PFfA), interface safety analysis (ISA), and job safety analysis (JSA). Patient safety basics are presented in Chapter 5. This chapter covers such topics as patient safety goals, causes of patient injuries, patient safety culture, factors contributing to pahent safety culture, safe practices for better health care, and patient safety indicators and their selection. 

HAZOP and wAat-iJ/safety checklists, two of the most common safety methods in the chemical industry, are explained. Sample process problems, which engineers face every day at work, are shown. Other safety tools, such as fault tree analysis, failure modes and effects analysis, human factors safety analysis, and software safety, are explained. Examples of the use of these tools are also presented. 

This approach considered the unique aspects of the MARS reactor plant with respect to traditional PWRs. So, the HAZOP method was used to identify initiating events, the fault tree technique was used to evaluate the probability of failure of non-traditional components or systems and the event tree method was used to identify possible evolutions of accidental sequences. Twenty-eight different initiating events, grouped in 8 main categories, were identified and their evolutions were analyzed. The results of the probabilistic safety analysis are summarized in Figure IV-11. 

In this section we give a brief description of three commonly used methods of safety analysis Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. Those are the methods which, in our opinion, can mostly benefit fix)m being extended with more formal semantics. We do not cover here Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) which is a "structured brainstorm" - type method with the main stress on managerial aspects. However, as HAZOP may make use of FTA, ETA and/or FMEA, it can also benefit firom the proposed approach. 

Figure 21.2 illustrates how the starting point, the directions and the scope of each method fit into the accident-analysis framework of Chapter 6. Two of the methods. Fault tree analysis and Comparison analysis are deductive in that they start with the unwanted event. They proceed by analysing the underlying incidents and deviations (Fault tree analysis) or contributing factors (Comparison analysis). Several of the methods are mainly inductive in that they start with a deviation and proceed by studying the effects of this deviation. This applies to HAZOP, Failure mode and effect analysis. Event tree analysis and CRIOP, although they also have a component of causal analysis. Coarse analysis and Job-safety analysis start with the hazard and use a combination of inductive and deductive analyses. 

Methods for performing hazard analysis and risk assessment include safety review, checkhsts, Dow Fire and Explosion Index, what-if analysis, hazard and operabihty analysis (HAZOP), failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, and event tree analysis. Other methods are also available, but those given are used most often. 

There are various types of analyses that are used for a process hazard analysis (PHA) of the equipment design and test procedures, including the effects of human error. Qualitative methods include checklists, What-If, and Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) studies. Quantitative methods include Event Trees, Fault Trees, and Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA). All of these methods require rigorous documentation and implementation to ensure that all potential safety problems are identified and the associated recommendations are addressed. The review should also consider what personal protective equipment (PPE) is needed to protect workers from injuries. 

If the other elements of the PSM program have been properly implemented, particularly the MOC and Prestartup Safety Review (PSSR) elements, then the hazards analysis validation should be quite straightforward. If the first hazards analysis was a HAZOP, it is often appropriate for the subsequent analyses to use either the What—If or the Checklist methods. Doing so will save time, and will probably provide for a superior analysis because the team members will be using a fresh way of thinking and will be less likely to be bored. 

First, the importance of learning lessons from past process safety incidents is highlighted in Section 3.2. The subsequent section presents preliminary hazard review procedure, risk matrix, what-if method, plot plan and layout review, pressure relief system review and fire safety design aspects. Section 3.4 presents PHA techniques and procedures hazards and operability analysis (HAZOP), failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), instrumented protective system (IPS) design, fault trees, event trees, layer of protection analysis (LOPA) and finally SIS life eyele. The importanee of revision of PSI is highlighted in Seetion 3.5. 

Dunjo, J., Vichez, J. A. Amaldos, J. 2009. Thirty Years After the First HAZOP Guideline Publication. Considerations, ESREL 2008 European Safety and Reliability Conference, Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis Theory, Methods and Applications - Martorell et ah (eds). Copyright 2009Taylor Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48513-5, 2009. 

In addition to updated content of the first edition, the revised second edition of the Basic Guide to System Safety has a more expanded and useful glossary of terms it also contains a new chapter describing the basic concept, utility, and function of the hazard and operability study (HAZOP) and what-if analysis. Both of these analytical techniques have been used quite routinely and successfully in the petrochemical industry for decades. As with all analytical methods and techniques presented in this text, it is suggested that the HAZOP smdy and what-if analysis have definite application to general industry operations as well. 

The successful use of both the HAZOP study and the what-if analysis is dependent on the expertise and experience of the individuals who make up the review teams. Essentially, both are really nothing more than exercises in communication. While each method can be conducted as a separate analysis, the what-if analysis is almost always a primary component of a complete HAZOP study. Information is presented, discussed, analyzed, and recorded. Specific safety aspects and requirements are identified so that appropriate design considerations can be determined. The objective is accident prediction, and the end result is accident prevention. 

Another well-known technique of hazard identification is the HAZOP (HAZard and OPerability) method. With this method, hazards are identified and analyzed using sessions with operational experts. At the same time, the experts come up with potential solutions and measures to cope with the identified hazards (Kletz, 1999). The advantage of HAZOP with respect to the functional approach is that also nonfunctional hazards are identified during the brainstorm with operational experts. However, in applying HAZOP, one needs to take care that hazard analysis and solution activities do not disturb the hazard identification process, which could leave certain hazards unidentified or inappropriately solved . Leaving such latent hazards in a design typically is known to be very costly in safety critical operation. 

Based on the experience gained in using the hazard identification part of HAZOP in a large number of safety analyses and on scientific studies of brainstorming, NLR has developed a method of hazard identification for air traffic operations - by means of pure brainstorming sessions (De Jong, 2004). In such a session no analysis is done and solutions are explicitly not considered. An important complementary source is formed by hazards identified in previous studies on related operations. For this purpose, hazards identified in earlier studies are collected in a TOPAZ database. 

Several methods are available for identifying and assessing hazards (Kletz, 1990). Hazards can be identified through checklists, failure mode effect analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, what-if analysis, and hazard and operability studies (HAZOP). Assessing hazards can be done through hazard analysis (HAZAN), codes of practice, the Dow Explosion Index, and prototype index of inherent safety (PIIS). 

---