Analysis Follow-

Up Consideration
Vadhel Iqbal
1406574314
Teknik Industri
Development of
recommendation
Most hazard evaluation result in recommendations
or action items to improve the safety of a process
Recommendation must be assoiated with
improving the safety of an operation and must be
tied directly to the hazard evaluation
Prioritization of Hazard Evaluation
Results
Describe the strategies for prioritizing hazard
evaluation recommendation and discusses
specific hazard evaluation techniques that make
prioritization easier

Three basic questions that must be asked :

1. What are the primary results of a hazard
evaluation?
2. What are the appropriate criteria for a hazard
evaluation team to use in prioritizing the results?
3. What approaches exist for performing the
prioritization?
 Types of Results :
1. Lists of identified hazards, perceived problems,
or potential incident scenarios
2. Descriptions of the significance of these
problems or incidents
3. Recommendations for reducing or eliminating
the hazards, coming into compliance with codes
or standards, or reducing the risks associated
with the incident scenarios
 Basis for prioritization
The five most common criteria for ranking the safety improvement
recommendation of a hazard evaluation are :
1. The identification of any situation that violates a regulatory
requirement, corporate or site standard, or applicable
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice
2. The identification of any factual error or disrepancy, such as a
mislabeled piee of equipment, an omission from a piping and
instrumention diagram, or steps in a standard operating
procedures that are out of sequence
3. The analysts understanding of the risk posed by the potential
incidents adressed by each recommendation
4. The analysts perception of the risk reduction that would be
gained by implementing the specific recommendation
5. The risk reduction gained by implementing the recommendation
in comparison to the resources required to implement it
 Approaches for prioritizing recommendations

Usually does May Usually does

not
Safety review What-if analysis HAZOP study
Checklist What- Fault tree
analysis if/checklist analysis
analysis
Relative Failure modes Event tree
Ranking and effect analysis
analysis
Preliminary Human Cause-
hazard analysis reliability consequences
analysis analysis
 Typical ways of ranking recommendations from
hazard evaluation
1. Divide the list of safety improvements
alternatives into two or more categories on the
basis of practicality, such as high and low
priority; or high, and low priority
2. Classify the list according to the perceived
urgency with which the items should be
considered for implementation
3. Have the hazard evaluation team pick the top
one, s five, or ten action items, and document
the teams justification for each of them
Documentation of Hazard
Evaluation
Purposes for documenting the results of a hazards
evaluation :
1. To consolidate and preserve the primary results
of the study for future use
2. To provide evidence that the hazard evaluation
has been performed according to sound
engineering practice
3. To support other PSM program activities
 Other consideration that also influence the design
of hazard evaluation report
1. The report should contain sufficient information
to allow adequate scrutiny of the technical
quality of the analysis
2. The report should carefully define its scope and
limitations
3. The team should consider documenting any
action items or recommendation that were
identified and report immediately
4. The report should provide the basis for following
up the unresolved action items
 Items to consider including in hazard evaluation reports
Item
Study Objectives
Physical and analytical scope
Analysis team composition
Meeting dates and duration
Hazard evaluation technique
description
Process/activity description
Drawing, specification, and
procedural list
Action items/suggestions
Detailed documentation of any
review meeting ; technique-
specific list, forms, or graphical
Description
Primary purposes and ancillary
needs
Specific process areas, systems,
and equipment covered
Participants in the review
When, where, and how long the
team met
Rationale for selection of the
hazard evaluation techniques
Description of the system
analyzed
Documents used as the basis of
analysis
Recommendations made to
management for risk reduction
Minutes of meetings, summaries
of topic covered, attendance list
 The questions that should always be asked by
every hazard evaluation reports :
1. Who did the study?
2. On what process area or operation was the study
performed?
3. Which technique was used?
4. What are the important results and conlusions?
 Another detailed that can be included for a more
detailde reports :
1. A section describing the specific details of the
hazard evaluation technique used in the study
2. A description of the process
3. Justification for each of the action items
4. Typed versions of the hazard evaluation team
meeting notes that have been thoroughly
reviewed for consistency and accuracy
5. Copies of any techniques-specific models or
worksheets that may have been used to explain
why the hazard analysts concluded particular
events were significant
Developments of a Management
Response to a Hazard Evaluation
Example of risk management considerations
1. How serious is the safety problems
2. How beneficial is the potential safety solution?
3. Does the proposed solution create adverse
effects elsewhere?
4. How expensive is the proposed solution?
5. Does the solution require capital resource
allocation or adding more personnel, or can it be
done under the current operating budget?
 Typical reasons why rejecting a hazard evaluation
team recommendation might be justified
1. A detailed engineering analysis following the
hazard evaluation indicates the suggestion was
not a good idea for the following specific reasons
2. Other information, which was not available to the
hazard evaluation team, indicates that the
hazard is not as significant a problem as the
team thought
3. A review of the data upon which the team based
its finding revealed error in the data, which when
corrected indicates the finding is no longer
warranted
Resolution of Action Items
Organizations should establish a management
system to track progress on action items form the
time the items are recommended until they are
resolved
After managers reach a decision about which
hazard evaluation recommendations are to be
implemented, the tracking system should focus
on the status of the implementation of each item
Communication of Special
Findings/Sharing of Information
Sometimes a hazard evaluation may discover
findings or information that should be
communicated beyond the plant or process
evaluated by the study. Because hazard evaluation
can require significant resources and their results
can prevent major incidents, the results of all hazard
evaluation should be communicated to those who
can benefit from the knowledge
Use of Hazard evaluation Results
over the Plant Lifetime
The following plant lifetime stages delienated by
CCPS
1. Process development
2. Detailed design
3. Construction and start-up
4. Operating lifetime
5. Extended shutdowns
6. Decommisioning