Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hazid Hazop Sil Tor
Hazid Hazop Sil Tor
GUEBIBA TO CFTP
HAZID/HAZOP/SIL/ TOR
HAZID/HAZOP/SIL TOR
001/AR03/13 03/12
HAZID/HAZOP/SIL TOR PAGE: 2 /23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................................................4
Compagnie Franco-Tunisienne des Pétroles.............................................................................................4
2. HAZID STUDY.................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 SCOPE & OBJECTIVES OF THE HAZID STUDY............................................................................................5
2.2 HAZID TECHNIQUE..................................................................................................................................5
2.3 HAZID RECORDING..................................................................................................................................6
3. HAZOP STUDY................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1 SCOPE & OBJECTIVES OF THE HAZOP STUDY.......................................................................................7
3.2 HAZOP METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................7
3.3 HAZOP TECHNIQUE...............................................................................................................................8
3.4 HAZOP RECORDING..............................................................................................................................11
3.5 HAZOP NODES.....................................................................................................................................11
3.6 HAZOP TEAM.......................................................................................................................................11
3.7 HAZOP FOLLOW UP.............................................................................................................................11
3.8 HAZOP RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................12
3.9 PROCESS SYSTEMS / FACILITIES..............................................................................................................12
3.10 REPORT................................................................................................................................................ 12
4. SAFETY INTEGRITY LEVEL (SIL)..................................................................................................13
4.1 SCOPE & OBJECTIVES OF THE SIL STUDY.............................................................................................13
4.2 PROBABILITY OF FAILURE........................................................................................................................13
4.3 SIL CLASSIFICATION...............................................................................................................................14
1.1.1 RISK GRAPH TECHNIQUE......................................................................................................................14
1.1.2 LAYER OF PROTECTION ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................15
4.4 RISK MATRIX..........................................................................................................................................15
4.5 RISK REDUCTION....................................................................................................................................16
4.6 RISK ANALYSIS TEAM..............................................................................................................................16
4.7 SIL RECORDING.....................................................................................................................................17
5. APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................. 18
5.1 PROCESS SAFETY RISK GRAPH................................................................................................................18
5.2 COMMERCIAL RISK GRAPH......................................................................................................................20
5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK GRAPH.................................................................................................................21
5.4 TYPICAL PROBABILITIES OF FAILURE ON DEMAND (PFODS) FOR MENTIONED TYPES OF
INDEPENDENT PROTECTION LAYERS (IPLS)................................................................................................23
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR REV. 0
PAGE: 3 / 23
1. INTRODUCTION
This document provides significant aspects and considerations of HAZID, HAZOP, and SIL study related to
the construction of new pipeline from guebiba/tb to cftp project.
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR REV. 0
PAGE: 4 / 23
2. Abbreviations
IPF : Instrumented Protective Function
3. HAZID Study
For this project, HAZID (Hazard Identification) analysis is required: the overall objective is to produce a
facility in respect of which all risks to the human, Environment, company reputation and the assets
have to be identified and minimized.
To list all the needed documents about the project, that must be prepared in the following basic or
detail design phase.
Considering the simplicity of the design, the risk-ranking for the recommendations has been limited to
cases where a clear critical consequence was specified and the recommendation is proposed as a
choice between different solutions.
For all the recommendations requiring further analysis, design and / or engineering studies /
documents, operating procedures development, or other efforts that however must be done or
prepared, the risk ranking will be considered superfluous.
The specific intention of this Hazards review is to highlight and estimate hazards deriving from the new
pipeline from Guebiba/TB to CFTP, not only at normal operation phase but also during construction,
commissioning and maintenance activities.
The analysis is concentrated on the inherent external and internal hazards for the project, and is focussed
on specific parts of the selected process, philosophies and operational concepts.
A part is dedicated to the environmental aspect where potential impacts, corresponding causes,
consequences and associated protections are identified, this analysis enables quick and yet trustful setting
of documented Environmental Protection and regulatory compliance measures.
With the help of guidewords, hazards will be identified together with potential means of control and
mitigation.
For each hazard, a qualitative assessment of the expected likelihood and severity of consequences will be
given, on the basis of the risk assessment documents.
The minutes of the HAZID Review detailing the hazards, causes and consequences, risk-ranking,
recommendations and residual risk ranking will be recorded in HAZID Worksheets.
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR REV. 0
PAGE: 6 / 23
4. HAZOP Study
HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) is a qualitative methodology that identifies possible deviations from
the correct functioning of the process, analyzing moreover the consequences of such anomalies and the
actions to be taken in order to limit them to the smallest possible areas.
- To identify possible deviations from the intended operation that can cause personnel or
equipment harm as well as operation disturbances (accidental events),
- To establish how deviations from the design intent can arise,
- To assess whether such deviations and their consequences can have a negative effect upon
the safe and efficient operation of the system,
- To recommend actions, whenever is necessary, in order to remedy to the deviations.
And the secondary words, which are combined with a primary keyword, are the different HAZOP
guidewords permit to suggest possible deviations: No, Less, More, Part of, As well as, Reverse, Other
than…etc.
In practice, the process parameters are combined with standard guidewords to set down a list of
deviations from the normal operation of the system under review. The following combinations were used
in this Study:
The system will be divided into discrete Nodes (a "node" is a sub-system or a portion of a systems which
can be analyzed alone, e.g. a tank, a header, a pump, even a single line, together with the relevant
connections to the interfaces), and the methodology will be applied thoroughly to each node until all the
system be fully analyzed.
Clarify the design intent and the normal operating conditions of the Node;
Identify a Deviation from the intent or operating conditions by applying parameter and a
Guidewords;
List possible Causes and Consequences of the Deviation (a Deviation can be considered
“meaningful” if it has credible causes and can result in harmful consequences);
The following figure summarizes the HAZOP Procedure that has been applied.
Node Selection
HAZOP PROCEDURE
Recommendations
The cases where there are no credible causes of deviation, and/or no events giving rise to significant
consequences, will not been recorded on the Worksheets.
The keyword combinations will be discussed following an iterative process in order to identify potential
problems, as the diagram mentioned below:
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR REV. 0
PAGE: 10 / 23
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
The record will be made during the session using laptop, and will be projected onto a suitable screen
so that all team members can see inputs to the record as it is produced.
Chair the HAZOP meetings: Trigger the discussion using guidewords and parameters,
The team will include a nominated scribe, responsible for recording discussion and findings.
The relevant discipline specialists should close-out the addressed actions, indicating the resolution and
providing references and evidence of implementation. The action sheet completed with close-out
information shall be returned to the HAZOP Actions Coordinator. The HAZOP Actions Coordinator
should review the responses and proceed until full resolution of all pending issues.
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR Rev. 0
PAGE: 12 /23
When an action is closed, the HAZOP Actions Coordinator should mark the action as “CLOSED” in the
action status column. When all actions will be closed, the Coordinator can issue the close-out report
(i.e. the collection of all the resolutions and action close-outs). All Actions shall be ideally closed
before the end of the Engineering Phase.
4.10 REPORT
The HAZOP Report is a key document pertaining to the safety of the plant. It should provide sufficient
information on each element so that, either read alone or together with available and clearly cross
referenced documents, an assessment can be made of the adequacy of the HAZOP study carried out.
- Introduction;
- Methodology;
- Team members;
- HAZOP results:
Reporting principles,
Classification of recordings,
Main results;
- Appendices:
P&IDs (marked),
List of participants.
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR Rev. 0
PAGE: 13 /23
To categorise the safety integrity of a safety function the probability of failure is considered – in effect
the inverse of the SIL definition, looking at failure to perform rather than success.
It is easier to identify and quantify possible conditions and causes leading to failure of a safety function
than to guarantee the desired action of a safety function when called upon.
Two classes of SIL are identified, depending on the service provided by the safety function
For safety functions that are activated when required (on demand mode) the probability of
failure to perform correctly is given, whilst
For safety functions that are in place continuously the probability of a dangerous failure is
expressed in terms of a given period of time (per hour) (continuous mode).
The probabilities of failure are related to one of four safety integrity levels, as shown in Table 1:
Probability of failure
Mode of operation – on demand (average Mode of operation – continuous
Safety Integrity
probability of failure to perform its design (probability of dangerous failure per
Level (SIL)
function upon demand) hour)
b A single E/E/PES is not sufficient
4 ≥ 10-5 to < 10-4 ≥ 10-9 to < 10-8
3 ≥ 10-4 to < 10-3 ≥ 10-8 to < 10-7
2 ≥ 10-3 to < 10-2 ≥ 10-7 to < 10-6
1 ≥ 10-2 to < 10-1 ≥ 10-6 to < 10-5
a No special safety requirements
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR Rev. 0
PAGE: 14 /23
Consequence Severity
Personnel Exposure
Demand Rate
The SIL rating is calculated using the response to the 4 questions and the appropriate SIL level is
generated using the IEC risk graph attached in Appendix (6.1).
Each of the loops reviewed shall be subjected to an Asset Protection Review. This shall be carried out
on the following basis:
Consequence Severity
Demand Rate
The risk graph for asset / economic loss is provided in Appendix. Before this chart is used, it must be
calibrated for the specific plant it is used on. Consequence severity should represent the meaningful
range of negative impacts towards important asset or economic objectives (e.g. reliability,
replacement or repair costs)
The equivalent CIL rating is calculated using the response to the 2 questions and the appropriate
equivalent CIL level is generated using the IEC risk graph attached in Appendix (6.2).
NO.
HAZOP/HAZID/SIL/SIMOPS ToR Rev. 0
PAGE: 15 /23
Each of the loops reviewed shall be subjected to an Environmental Review. This shall be carried out on
the following basis:
Consequence Severity
Demand Rate
Environmental protective functions should be assessed against a risk graph that provides the range of
negative consequences with respect to important environmental objectives for the specific plant, area
of operation and local legislative requirements. For example, violation of discharge permits or flare
consents spills of varying magnitude.
The equivalent EIL rating is calculated using the response to the 2 questions and the appropriate
equivalent EIL level is generated using the IEC risk graph attached in Appendix (6.3).
The risk matrix is a method categorizing the frequency or likelihood and severity of a risk event using
multiple qualitative levels. The risk matrix tolerance will represented with risk matrix. The OMV risk
matrix is shown below:
SIL Facilitator;
Secretary;
Process Engineer;
Safety Engineer;
Instrument Engineer;
Operations Personnel;
Specialist Engineers and Technicians (for example HVAC and Rotating Machinery).
The SIL discussion will recorded by the SIL Secretary using dedicated software “LOPA”, It‘s a tool
integrated in the “HAZARD REVIEW SOFTWARE – 2015 VERSION”.
6. Appendices
W1 W2 W3
C1
- - -
P1
1 - -
F1
C2
P2
2 1 -
Starting
Point P1 2 1 1
F2
P2
3 2 1
C3 3 3 2
F1
F2
NR 3 3
C4
NR NR NR
- = No safety requirements
Possibility of
- ease of recognition of danger (for example seen
avoiding the
immediately, detected by technical measures or
hazardous event
detected without technical measures);
(P)
- avoidance of the hazardous event (for example
P2 Almost impossible escape routes possible, not possible or possible
under certain conditions);
- actual safety experience (such experience may
exist with an identical EUC or a similar EUC or may
not exist)
Demand Rate once in
W1 5. The purpose of the W factor is to estimate the
every 30 years or more.
frequency of the unwanted occurrence taking place
Demand Rate between 3 without the addition of any safety-related systems
W2
– 30 years. (E/E/PES or other technology) but including any
Probability f the
external risk reduction facilities
unwanted
6. If little or no experience exists of the EUC, or
occurrence (W)
the EUC control system, or of a similar EUC and
Demand Rate between
W3 EUC control system, the estimation of the W factor
0.3 – 3 years
may be made by calculation. In such an event a
worst case prediction shall be made.
C0
W1 W2 W3
C1
- - -
C2
- - -
Starting C3 1 1 -
Point
C4
2 2 1
- = No safety requirements
C0
W1 W2 W3
C1
1 - -
C2 2 1 -
Starting C3 3 3 2
Point
C4
NR NR 3