Interested in linking to "Safeguard Your Safety Review"?
You may use the Headline, Deck, Byline and URL of this article on your Web site. To link to this article, select and copy the HTML code below and paste it on your own Web site.
By G.C. Shah, Mustang Engineers
If listeners misunderstand what a speaker means, problems can arise. Such an assumption gap is particularly dangerous during a process hazard analysis (PHA). It could result in inadequate identification of hazards and major hazards left hidden.
Typically, PHA activities are collaborative efforts between a facilitator and a team. The facilitator asks a series of questions and the team then works collectively to identify hazards. Because its results form the basis for subsequent safety analyses, the PHA is recognized as the foundation upon which the safety of the entire project rests. So, here, we'll look at several assumption gaps to consider while performing a PHA. This list isn't by any means comprehensive.
Metallurgy. During the design stage, material selection gets considerable attention to ensure hardware can handle the corrosion and erosion anticipated during normal and abnormal operations. However, there may be some assumption gaps.
Consider a question by the PHA facilitator: "Is the metallurgy of the equipment adequate for all anticipated operations — normal as well as abnormal?"
Featured Sponsor
The PHA team typically would respond "Yes. Metallurgy has been considered thoroughly in design."
The team may assume that quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) in place at the fabricator and construction contractor will ensure equipment is free from metallurgical defects. However, this may not be true in all situations. Indeed, in view of recent cases of poor quality control at various international fabrication shops, always re-examine the assumption of QA/QC.
A PHA facilitator should confirm that systems (e.g., material inspection and welding procedures) are in place to verify equipment meets all safety requirements.
Multi-plant sites. Plant acquisitions and joint ventures can result in sites housing operating units belonging to different organizations. Often, the organizations share some utilities or services. The accounting and business agreements generally are worked out in meticulous detail. However, the lower-level procedural issues, including safety and risk containment, aren't given sufficient thought in some cases. For instance, many units may share a common flare and a flare header and may have good accounting (flow totalizers) — but may lack effective coordination on flare design, modification or operation among various units.
Some questions to ponder include:
Vents. Some vents may discharge directly to the atmosphere. On the process and instrumentation diagrams, they usually are shown as "vented to a safe location." The term "safe location" may not get scrutinized during a PHA. An assumed "safe location" may not be sufficiently safe. Some natural-gas vents and turbine exhausts are routed to the atmosphere. While such vents may be small and generally pose minimal fire hazard, it's appropriate to ensure that: