HAZOP is a structural technique, which may be applied typically to a hydrocarbon production processes. It is essentially a qualitative process.
Like i said earlier in my previous article on Risk Management Techniques Used In The Oil & Gas Industries, Before looking at risk mitigation during the process element of the hydrocarbon cycle, it is highly imperative to identify the hazards to a specific location.
HAZOP’S (Hazard Operability & Study)
HAZID’s (Hazard Identification ) are used for this purpose
Benefit of HAZOP
Proactive Hazard
Identification enables the Owner to make rational and cost effective decision
in terms of Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) concerns.
Identification enables the Owner to make rational and cost effective decision
in terms of Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) concerns.
Use of HAZOP is
used as a tool to identify potential hazard and operability
used as a tool to identify potential hazard and operability
problems
1.
HAZOP
is one of the process Hazard Analysis Methodology
HAZOP
is one of the process Hazard Analysis Methodology
2.
HAZOP is frequently used within the
framework of Process Safety management System
HAZOP is frequently used within the
framework of Process Safety management System
3.
HAZOP may be used to provide management with knowledge of where
potential hazards may exist, and to provide information on:
HAZOP may be used to provide management with knowledge of where
potential hazards may exist, and to provide information on:
·
Mitigation
recommendation for plants design modifications prior to construction
Mitigation
recommendation for plants design modifications prior to construction
·
Mitigation
recommendations for providing specific details for administrative controls
Mitigation
recommendations for providing specific details for administrative controls
·
Hazard
information communication
Hazard
information communication
HAZOP may also be used to:
·
Provide
recommendation on studies where information is backing.
Provide
recommendation on studies where information is backing.
·
Provide
the priority for implementing mitigation recommendations.
Provide
the priority for implementing mitigation recommendations.
HAZOP goals to identify all probable hazards
or operation problems, and /or in
or operation problems, and /or in
·
To
judge whether an identified problem to
be mitigated either by engineering or by administrative control
To
judge whether an identified problem to
be mitigated either by engineering or by administrative control
Process parameter is an aspect of a process that describe it
physical, chemically or in terms of what is happening:
physical, chemically or in terms of what is happening:
ü FLOW
ü PRESSURE
ü TEMPERATURE
ü LEVEL
ü COMPOSITION ETC
Study Process
1.
When deviation is found meaningful for a
process parameter at a node, Team identified credible cause(s) that generate
corresponding deviation.
When deviation is found meaningful for a
process parameter at a node, Team identified credible cause(s) that generate
corresponding deviation.
2.
Corresponding
to the credible cause(s). Team identified the possible consequence (s) that the
deviation results in, assuming all the protection don’t exist
Corresponding
to the credible cause(s). Team identified the possible consequence (s) that the
deviation results in, assuming all the protection don’t exist
3.
Then,
Team identified if a mitigation and/ prevention measure has already been
applied in the present engineering (mitigation or prevention)
Then,
Team identified if a mitigation and/ prevention measure has already been
applied in the present engineering (mitigation or prevention)
4.
Team evaluated a Risk Rank based on the Risk
Banking Criteria to conclude whether the risk is lowered by present design to
acceptable level or not.
Team evaluated a Risk Rank based on the Risk
Banking Criteria to conclude whether the risk is lowered by present design to
acceptable level or not.
5.
When the Team concluded that the Risk was
higher than 4 (1or 2 or 3) additional safeguards was recommended to reduce the
Risk to acceptable level if any
When the Team concluded that the Risk was
higher than 4 (1or 2 or 3) additional safeguards was recommended to reduce the
Risk to acceptable level if any
6.
Team made a Risk Rank again based on the
Ranking Criteria in consideration of recommendation.
Team made a Risk Rank again based on the
Ranking Criteria in consideration of recommendation.
Risk is expressed by the product of
Severity and likelihood.
Severity and likelihood.
Risk Ranking
Issue Description Required
1.
Very High risk
– Unacceptable
Very High risk
– Unacceptable
2.
High
risk – Critical Mitigate the hazard by implementing engineering controls
and, if necessary, administrative controls to reduce the risk ranking to an
acceptable level.
High
risk – Critical Mitigate the hazard by implementing engineering controls
and, if necessary, administrative controls to reduce the risk ranking to an
acceptable level.
3.
Medium Risk– Undesirable Mitigate the hazard
with administrative and /or engineering controls to reduce the risk rank to an
acceptable level.
Medium Risk– Undesirable Mitigate the hazard
with administrative and /or engineering controls to reduce the risk rank to an
acceptable level.
4.
Low Risk: Acceptable identified hazard is acceptable and does not require further mitigation
Low Risk: Acceptable identified hazard is acceptable and does not require further mitigation
Likelihood
1.
Very
Likely – Could occur more often than once per month
Very
Likely – Could occur more often than once per month
2.
Likely – Could occur made often than once per
year.
Likely – Could occur made often than once per
year.
Could occur several time in
plant life
plant life
3.
Unlikely –
Could occur once in plant life
Unlikely –
Could occur once in plant life
4.
Very likely – Not expected in plant life
Very likely – Not expected in plant life
Severity
Extreme Harm
·
Multiple
fatalities
Multiple
fatalities
·
Process and damage
Process and damage
·
Major/Extended
duration/full scale response /Long term effect
Major/Extended
duration/full scale response /Long term effect
·
Potential on site death
Potential on site death
·
Multiple
Major equipment damage
Multiple
Major equipment damage
·
Serious/Significant
resource commitment /Long term effect
Serious/Significant
resource commitment /Long term effect
Moderate Harm
·
Potential onsite minor injury or minor health
effects
Potential onsite minor injury or minor health
effects
·
Single minor equipment damage
Single minor equipment damage
·
Moderate
/Limited response if short duration
Moderate
/Limited response if short duration
Slight /No Harm
·
No
injury or health effect
No
injury or health effect
·
No
equipment damage
No
equipment damage
·
Minor/Limited
or no response need
Minor/Limited
or no response need
Risk Assessment by the British Organization | |||
Likelihood of Harm | Severity of Harm | ||
Slight Harm | Moderate Harm | Extreme Harm | |
Very unlikely | Very low risk | Very low risk | Very high risk |
Unlikely | Very low risk | Medium risk | Very high risk |
Likely | Low risk | High risk | Very High risk |
Very likely | Low risk | Very high risk | Very High risk |
Note: These categorizations and the resulting asymmetry of the matrix arise from the example of harm and likelihood illustrated within the British Standard Organization should adjust the design and size of the matrix to suit their needs. | |||
Risk Management Process
IDENTIFYING A HAZARD- were it start:
·
Assessing
the Risk: evaluating the potential
incident’s that could be caused by the hazard.
Assessing
the Risk: evaluating the potential
incident’s that could be caused by the hazard.
·
Assessing
consequences – determine the potential
consequences of an incident taking place
Assessing
consequences – determine the potential
consequences of an incident taking place
·
Assessing
probabilities – determine the probability of the incident taking place.
Assessing
probabilities – determine the probability of the incident taking place.
·
Managing
the Risk – what action will be take to
eliminate or mitigate that risk
Managing
the Risk – what action will be take to
eliminate or mitigate that risk
·
Higher or medium risks reduced to as low as
reasonably practical (ALARP)
Higher or medium risks reduced to as low as
reasonably practical (ALARP)
·
Lower
risks reduced further where benefits exceed the cost
Lower
risks reduced further where benefits exceed the cost
Hazard | Source |
Struck by | Falling/moving pipe, tongs, and /or spinning chain, Kelly, rotary table etc, high pressure hose connection failure causing employees to be struck by whipping hose, tools/debris dropped from elevated location in rig vehicles. |
Caught In/Between | Collars and tongs, spinning chain, and pipe, clothing gets caught in rotary table/drill string |
Fire/Explosion/High Pressure Release | Well blowout, drilling/ tripping out/ swabbing etc result in release of gas which might be ignited if not controlled at the surface welding/ cutting near combustible materials, uncontrolled ignition sources near the well head, eg heater in the doghouse, unapproved or poorly maintained electrical equipment: above ground detonation of perforating gun. |
Rig Collapse | Overloading beyond the rated capacity of the rig; improper raising and lowering for rig: existing maintenance issues with the rig structure which impacts the integrity. |
Falls | Fall from elevated areas of the rig ie stabbing boar, monkey board, ladder, etc fail from rig floor to grade |
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Exposure | H2S release during drilling, swabbing, perforating operations, etc resulting in employee exposures production tank gauging operations, gaugers sometimes exposed to H2S |
Recommended post ; Common Terms To Understand in Health and Safety(HSE)
Share this writeup with friends if you find it interesting and Educating
