Perspectives: Field Notes

A haphazard approach can hobble hazard reviews

Taking some simple steps can help you avoid common pitfalls in assessing changes

By Dirk Willard, contributing editor

The room grew tense as the reliability engineer complained that the condenser being discussed was slated to be replaced during the next turnaround. The simulator model, the basis of the whole project, didn’t include this change. What had been a plant hazard analysis (PHA) quickly degenerated into a process review.

This is an excellent example of what can go wrong during such evaluations. So, let’s look at what you can do to make your PHA or hazard and operability (HAZOP) study go smoothly.

First, carefully consider the basis for the process change — the reason for the review. What’s the purpose? What’re the options? Of course, the particular situation may limit the choices. Is there a way to avoid safety problems, simplify a process, or reduce hazards? For instance, Can you improve mixing in a reactor and make it smaller? Or Can you eliminate recirculation lines (reducing hazardous inventories)? Which option offers the lowest total cost? Is this the safest option? Consider summarizing the choices in a table. The design team should present these thoughts in a report with a buy-in from the project leader before scheduling a PHA or HAZOP.

With the solution in hand, next account for the plant’s preferences — e.g., for a particular type of flow meter or for RTDs instead of thermocouples. Don’t completely rely on company standards. After all, one unit at the site may prefer steam tracing while another may only accept electric tracing. If these choices pose new safety issues, they need to be considered before the safety review.

Another often missed hazard is scheduling. Can your process change be implemented all at once or will several plant outages be required? Can the plant operate safely with the interim changes? How will other changes in parallel projects affect yours?

Then, of course, there’s operator training — you’ll want to avoid gaps in training. You also should assess how a change will affect operator workload.

Now, you’re ready for the process and instrumentation drawings (P&IDs). First confirm the battery limits and make sure the P&ID you start with is the latest revision. Don’t crowd your P&IDs; leave plenty of room for notes and equipment. When more detail is needed, notes can refer to other documents. Make sure old bubbles are removed. Use color, if possible, to highlight the changes. Don’t be afraid to add a second or third sheet to your drawing set.

Finally, prepare your presentation. Utilize all team members effectively. Don’t assume everyone is familiar with your process or project. Here’s what each attendee will need: 1) P&IDs; 2) process flow diagrams; 3) a material balance; 4) mechanical information; 5) the alarm/trip schedule; 6) the process description; and 7) the purpose of the review and the process changes.

Have reference material on-hand for consideration by your team. For instance, provide a drawing of the entire facility with the area affected by the hazard review highlighted. If equipment will change, create a table comparing the old and the new items. Make available summaries of past PHAs and HAZOPs of the area and accidents with excerpts of concerns listed for discussion during the review if necessary. Time-line via tables the maintenance history of relevant equipment.

Now you’re ready to do your review — but guard against common mistakes.

Hazard reviews often focus too much on operations without considering maintenance. When a new threat appears on the horizon, operation engineers prefer to slap in another instrument rather than use the ones they have in a new way. This adds to the maintenance workload.

Another problem is what I call “the boogie man effect.” Hazard reviews tend to produce unrealistic solutions and imaginary fears. In one case, a caustic scrubber was proposed for a remote unloading facility. Maintaining the scrubber at the proper concentration proved difficult. It sat idle, unfilled, and became a haven for spiders.

Another pitfall is equipment pressure limits. Use the ASME-defined temperatures not the limits for alarms and trips. The code fixes maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP); trips prescribe maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). Trip settings change; avoid ones above 80% of relief settings because that’s the point when valves start to open.

Once the meeting gets started the facilitator needs to get everyone involved. One idea is to go around the table for the first hour asking for opinions from all. However, maintain discipline once the discussion is started. When a sidebar conversation goes too long, ask those involved to provide an opinion on the question at hand or for a contribution to the main discussion. Sometimes, sidebars produce enlightening ideas.

With a design approach that is methodical and with thoughtful planning in preparation for the PHA or HAZOP, this painful process can effectively serve its purpose.

More from this perspective...

Title

A haphazard approach can hobble hazard reviews

Taking some simple steps can help you avoid common pitfalls in assessing changes

06/02/2008

A methodical approach to construction and commissioning

A start-up is only as easy as the preceding steps: construction and commissioning, says Senior Editor Dirk Willard in his monthly column.

02/10/2006

Abandon-in-Place Must End

Leaving equipment derelict instead of demolishing it can prove costly.

08/03/2009

An Alert Operator Is a Safe Operator

Maintaining a good work environment can contribute to a safer plant

04/24/2008

Avoid Job Hunting Pitfalls

Heed a few tips to forestall frustrations.

07/08/2013

Avoid Problems with Random Packing

Careful internals' selection is crucial for absorbers and scrubbers.

11/28/2012

Avoid Project Management Mistakes

A number of common mistakes can sabotage success

11/20/2013

Avoid Surprises During Pump Startup

A well-thought-out approach can eliminate potential problems.

08/26/2010

Avoid a Bad Turn

Centrifugal pump selection demands attention to details.

02/05/2010

Brain Drain Brings Big Headaches

Inexperience and a tough production schedule can be a lethal combination

02/15/2009

Build reliability in during design

Instrumentation that promises to improve reliability may not always be what they seem. You have to consider whether a site can properly maintain sophisticated instruments.

12/19/2007

Carefully Commission Hydrogen Pipe

Safety depends upon scrupulously performing a variety of inspections and tests

06/11/2014

Check out before you start up

In his monthly Field Notes column, Senior Editor Dirk Willard reveals that regardless of the preparation, check-out tests always bring out some surprises.

02/28/2006

Choose Your Next Position Wisely

Finding your dream job takes a bit of soul searching and answering some tough questions.

01/20/2009

Choose the right fluid for your pressure test

Compressed gas often makes the most sense for checking a process, according to Senior Editor Dirk Willard, in this month's Field Notes column.

04/12/2007

Choosing the right contract

A contract can be a stone in your shoe. Knowing which type of contract to choose can make your job easier. Chemical Processing's Senior Editor Dirk Willard provides tips on various types of contracts.

09/20/2006

Consider the Consequences of Chemistry

Reactions can cause a wide variety of non-process problems.

03/06/2013

Contracts Don't Come In On Their Own

Your ability to sell may save you and your company.

08/02/2012

Correctly Manage Change

How you begin is at least as important as your eventual goal

10/10/2008

Deftly Deal with Management of Change

Consider some proven tactics to survive this grueling process.

11/20/2008