If your risk assessments are not performed well, if recommendations are not implemented using a risk-based approach, or if critical safeguards are not well understood or maintained, that could translate into higher premium costs. It has been said by many that strong process safety practices are excellent for business. Doing the right thing can not only help prevent incidents, it can demonstrate to insurers that your company is a good risk to insure.
One of your industry peers has just suffered a major incident at one of their sites; should you be worried? Not necessarily, but you should be vigilant. Is the event that happened in their facility something that could happen to you? If you’re in the same business the answer is likely yes, but the crux is how the risks are managed at your sites versus theirs. You may be exposed but the silver lining to a very sad and unfortunate event is that you have the opportunity to learn from the unsafe days of others, before it happens on your site.
Do you know how much risk comes with your new acquistion? Whether you are just looking at acquiring a new asset or you’ve recently brought one on into your company it is important to quickly understand the risk that comes with operating the facility. Are all the relevant safety threats being well managed or is it a ticking time bomb ready to put your name at the top of everyone’s newsfeed with a major incident?
Recommendations are the heart and soul of a Process Hazards Analysis (PHA). PHAs are only as effective as the action taken to implement the recommendations made during the study.
Even if a person was allotted reasonable time to review a PHA in its entirety, it is very unlikely that a person can catch all errors. If a PHA cannot be reviewed in its entirety after its completion, there will always be a chance that something critical can be missed.
Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) studies including HAZOP, What-if?, HAZID, etc are subjective and this leads to multiple consistency challenges that have major safety and cost implications. Ensuring complete risk discovery which was featured in a past blog is important but equally important is consistency in the analysis of consequence severities and likelihoods
Many processing facilities are unaware that their PHA may not capture the correct risks comprehensively. At the end of the day, the money and effort spent on a PHA still may not obtain an effective risk reduction in their facilities.
There is growing concern among owners/operators regarding the quality and consistency in the Process Hazard Analyses (PHA) of their facilities. When a PHA is conducted, whether through an internal or contracted facilitator, there can be a strong influence on the data from many factors. These factors affect the integrity of the data and, can lead to increased risk exposures in the facility.
With the industry norm of budget constraints and the continuous effort of trying to do more with less, the ability to correctly prioritize work has become increasingly critical. This becomes especially important when it relates to risk-reducing Safeguards and the prioritization of Safeguards for maintenance. With a growing list of equipment and corresponding Safeguards, the ability to stay on top of maintenance prioritization can be significantly impacted. This can lead to critical Safeguards having delayed or missed maintenance, and in turn lead to unintended and significant risk exposure.