Regarding HAZOP issues
Thread Content
HAZOP is a method for identifying safety risks. I would like to ask which companies have used this approach?
This has already become the standard procedure for safety audits in the industry, and it is used by almost all major chemical companies (except those in China). China is also making vigorous efforts to implement it, but it will still take some time before it becomes widespread. I recall that a few months ago in Shanghai, hydrogen sulfide spread throughout half of the city from a chemical plant; in subsequent news interviews, technicians explained that it was caused by a leaking valve. Those with experience can tell at a glance that this factory doesn’t have any so-called process safety system, let alone a more rigorous HAZOP analysis. In terms of safety assessment, it is assumed that any valve could leak, and corresponding remedial measures are then implemented based on the potential consequences
Our company uses HAZOP; it is a tool for PHA analysis. I think it’s pretty cumbersome, but it’s somewhat useful. He analyzed all the equipment used in the manufacturing process based on certain criteria to determine whether there were any safety hazards; if so, he noted them down. Think about it: every device... has many hazard factors, and many of them are repetitive. So even after a year of conducting PHA analysis, we cannot complete all the tasks within the process. Moreover, not all employees participate in this analysis, so it still has certain limitations.
HAZOP was first introduced by ICI, and later became a standard practice for risk analysis in large chemical companies. Objectively speaking, HAZOP analysis requires significant manpower and time, but it does help improve process safety. The key is to ensure that the resulting actions are carried out, as well as to convey the relevant information to the appropriate personnel (for example, by including it in SOPs)
Reply to 4#: To be honest, the amount of work involved in the initial analysis is already quite substantial. Here, it’s considered good if we can complete the initial analysis; few people go on to carry out the subsequent steps, and there’s no one to supervise them. Problems identified during production are generally optimized in the form of audit reports and improvement suggestions.