首页> 外文会议>AIChE Meeting >Comparing PHA Review Techniques: A Case History on Review Meeting Dynamics and Missed Hazards
【24h】

Comparing PHA Review Techniques: A Case History on Review Meeting Dynamics and Missed Hazards

机译:比较PHA评论技巧:审查会议动态和错过危险的案例历史

获取原文

摘要

Complete, thorough, and correct process safety management depends to a large extent on complete, thorough, and correct process hazard identification. Not enough attention is given in the industry to the failure to identify hazards at process hazard analysis (PHA) review meetings. Findings from the examination of incidents and disasters in industry indicate that not all process hazards are recognized during PHA reviews, and yet a "check the box" mentality persists. This is unacceptable: We cannot manage a hazard if we don't know that it exists. Lives and property depend on managing all the hazards, not just the ones we happened to find on a particular day. HazOp is widely recognized as the standard for conducting thorough PHA reviews. But does it always work? If not, why not? And what can we do to improve our odds of identifying all the hazards that exist in a given process facility?
机译:完整,彻底和正确的过程安全管理在很大程度上取决于完整,彻底和正确的过程危险识别。在工业中没有足够的重视,未能在工艺危险分析(PHA)审查会议上识别危险。审查行业的事件和灾难的调查结果表明,并非所有过程危害都在PHA评论期间得到了认可,但“检查盒子”的心态仍然存在。这是不可接受的:如果我们不知道存在,我们无法管理危险。生命和财产取决于管理所有危险,而不仅仅是我们碰巧在特定一天找到的危险。 HAZOP被广泛认可为进行彻底PHA评论的标准。但它总是有效吗?如果没有,为什么不呢?我们可以做些什么来提高识别给定流程设施中存在的所有存在的危险的几率?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号