Course Hub
This three-day course is intended to give participants an overview of the PHA / LOPA process by teaching techniques and tools to assist in guiding teams through the qualitative risk analysis process.
0
0
0
What’s included?
Participants will learn techniques and tools to assist in guiding teams through the qualitative risk analysis process. This course will cover a basic understanding of best practices in a successful process hazard analysis and semi-quantitative tools like LOPA . At the end of the course, participants will have the ability to practice techniques and tools covered in mock PHA/LOPA sessions to better prepare them for participating in an actual study.
Process safety managers, engineers, operators, or I&E/Maintenance, project engineers, or anyone else who is anticipated to be involved in a PHA study, whether for an operating company, for an engineering company, or as a consultant.
To acquire the skills to become an effective PHA and LOPA facilitator and/or team member.
Course Facilitators
Important Notes
For 1 day in-person with eLearning courses: eLearning modules will be sent before the start date with 2 days worth of materials and 1 day in person.
Upcoming Sessions
There are no upcoming courses at this time, please contact us for more information.
Customized Courses
While BakerRisk offers a range of pre-packaged courses, we recognize that the most effective courses incorporate your company’s specific hazards, incidents, and lessons learned. Please contact us to discuss how we can custom-tailor courses to fit your company’s needs. Your course may include:
Courses may be offered at your site or a BakerRisk location, depending on the course or your needs.
We’ll walk through your facility to customize courses to suit and include an assessment.
Utilize demonstrations to give a first-hand feel of hazards through simulations.
Case studies using real scenarios, including role play, so participants can apply their new training.
Related Resources
PHA studies serve to identify measures that protect personnel, minimizes equipment damage, and improves operability.
PHA studies serve to identify measures that protect personnel, minimizes equipment damage, and improves operability.
Learn about the basic principles of PHA and LOPA preparation and data requirements.
SEVERAL articles recently published in TCE have introduced relatively novel distillation concepts. At first glance, there are no obvious reasons why these technologies should materially alter the safety profile of a chemical operation. However, as with all new technologies, operating experience is relatively limited. There have been cases where problems have occurred and it is reasonable to speculate on how the emerging methods might perform differently to traditional distillation in a safety context.
The goal of this paper is to review hazard identification techniques available to evaluate the hazards and risks associated with a hydrogen system. In the previous paper of this series, an historical and future view of hydrogen was provided. This paper provides the reader with an overview of techniques used for evaluating the hazards of hydrogen production and consumption.
Discover the importance of risk management in the aerospace industry and how to practice it with BakerRisk’s expert testing and enclosure design services.
HAZOP is so ubiquitous in the process industry today that it is hard to imagine a time when it was not. However there was such a time, and when HAZOPs first came about they were performed much differently than they are today. Fast forward a few decades, and much has been gained in the implementation of HAZOP studies – and much has been lost. This paper gives a 40-year perspective on the history of HAZOP approaches and tools, including 32 years of the author’s personal experience on how HAZOPs go right or go wrong. The pros and cons of the methods currently in use and misuse in different situations are discussed. The overall theme is to drive at the core of what a “good” HAZOP really is, rather than just performing a HAZOP that looks good and is really not, which unfortunately happens all too often today.
Our team is pleased to exhibit at this conference that provides such a valuable opportunity to advance process safety practices on a global scale.
Component failure rate data are used in a variety of quantitative and semi-quantitative study methods related to process safety and reliability, including Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), and Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA). In each of these methodologies, failure rate data are used to determine the probability that specific protective components, such as pressure relief devices, will fail to function as designed when called upon to prevent an incident. In the case of pressure relief devices, standardized probabilities of failure on demand are often applied with minimal consideration of the device type or the process service in which the device is employed. This paper will examine pressure relief device failure rate data from multiple published sources, categorize the data based on device type and service, and then develop guidelines for determining probability of device failure on demand based on the proposed device type and service categories. Additionally, this paper will provide commentary on the administrative aspects of relief device handling relative to observed relief valve reliability.
We are pleased to continue our newly launched Best Practices guidance series! The intent of this series is to provide additional guidance to industry on risk management topics of common interest.
This BakerRisk Best Practice document provides general guidance for performing highly effective HAZOP studies.
BakerRisk will present eight topics at the AIChE 2020 Spring Meeting and GCPS conference.
Many Process Hazards Analyses (PHAs) have been delayed as a result of travel restrictions, which could impact project schedules and revalidation cycles.
Fortunately, the focus on safe behaviors, hazard recognition, and risk management has greatly improved over the past few decades. However, in the early days of the authors’ careers, there wasn’t the same level of safety awareness - and much more risk-taking behavior. In this paper, the authors recount events in which they (and others) were ignorant, careless, or actively put themselves in dangerous situations early in their careers. These poor choices could have, or did actually result in, chemical exposures, fall hazards, overpressure events, and process upsets. The authors describe the circumstances leading to the decisions to take personal risks, what happened (and what could have happened), and the consequences resulting from those poor choices. As George Santayana said in The Life of Reason (1905), “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” These same events could happen today to inexperienced (or even experienced) engineers, and it is hoped that the lessons learned by the authors will prevent others from putting themselves in risky situations.
Contact: +1 (210) 824-5960
