The current situation and context of COVID-19 restrictions and subsequent practical impossibilities encourage us to do things differently than before. It turns out that certain activities can be easily done at home. This notion of ‘working from home’ can apply to some meetings which would normally be held on site or in the office. It also applies to the facilitation of process safety studies (such as HAZOP/SIL/LOPA). In fact, process safety studies prove to be well suited for a remote facility approach which can lead to good results.
Our business unit Bureau Veritas Riskcontrol conducts these types of studies on behalf of a wide variety of customers in the food, oil & gas and chemical industry sectors and is keen on sharing this experience. In this news item we tell you more about the essence of a HAZOP study, why it is very well possible to facilitate such a study-workshop remotely and what this entails in a practical setting.
What is a process study such as HAZOP?
The abbreviation HAZOP stands for HAZard and Operability study and is a method to identify hazards and unwanted events within the process industry, mainly related to industrial installations. The aim of the study is to validate the design regarding safety aspects and to provide recommendations in order to increase both safety, reliability and operability of industrial installations.
The HAZOP is being deployed in the design phase of new process installations or at the occasion of anticipated modifications in existing installations having a predicted impact on either safety aspects and/or the environment. For larger process installations the HAZOP is even conducted twice in the design phase. At first at the start of the design phase during the ‘basic engineering phase’ and again during the ‘detailed engineering phase’ when more details are available (such as specifications of storage tanks, pumps and other equipment). The rationale being that the sooner modifications are considered in a design the (relatively) easier it is to adopt these modifications. The identification of potential risks is based on so called guidewords and subsequent parameters. To illustrate this method, we refer for example to the guideword ‘Less’ and parameter ‘Pressure’ which result in the deviation ‘Less pressure’. Any scenario related to a low or reduced pressure is subsequently being analyzed and assessed by the team.
Observation by Tobias Jansen
In October and November of 2020 Bureau Veritas Riskcontrol facilitated a HAZOP during four consecutive weeks. The study was related to the Manyar Smelter (MS) project, a new (second) copper smelter in Indonesia. Since experts from both the United States, Japan, Finland, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy were involved, a fitting and convenient timeslot to conduct the HAZOP was paramount.
To facilitate such a HAZOP of this scale (both in terms of scope as in terms of no. of participants) as described above remotely is a relative new exercise and therefore it was rather exciting to see what results it would bring. The number of involved parties and the search for a feasible timeslot made the endeavor even more exciting.
After a great deal of mutual alignment and planning the timeslot for the remote HAZOP study was fixed at 15:00 – 19:00 CET (Central European Time) which was rather convenient for us if you consider that the team from Japan had to participate during the evening while the American team had to participate in the early hours of the morning.
The approach we adopted included a chairman in charge of coordinating the workshops and expert discussions as well as a ‘scribe’ responsible for recording all proceedings. Furthermore, two applications (Microsoft Teams and Skype) were deployed: one to show the drawings (Process and Instrumentation Diagrams or P&ID’s) and the other to show the worksheets in which the results of the discussions were recorded.
In terms of preparation of the workshops the process installations were divided into logical entities (node definition) by means of color markings applied on the design (P&ID’s). In addition, the set up and connections were submitted to a test in order to enable a start without notable problems (a so-called dry run test).
After the course of four weeks all ‘nodes’ had been discussed and the HAZOP was successfully completed. Any discussion during the workshops were recorded in the so-called ‘parking lot’ to be followed up and to be dealt with at a later stage. All recommendations related to the design were included in a report.
All in all, remote facilitation of a HAZOP of this complexity proves to be a good alternative in comparison to a ‘face-to-face’ approach. Who knows if this working method becomes part of the ‘New Normal’?