Sizzling HAZOP Chair: Recipe Revised

Almost 10 years ago I submitted the first (of what turned out to be many) abstracts for Process Safety Conference Papers – in this case the IChemE flagship event Hazards 25. It was entitled ‘Recipe for a Sizzling HAZOP Chair!’, which concluded:

‘This paper will take a light hearted but empirical look at this important subject. Using the analogy of preparing a good dish, the author will draw on his experience of having run over 50 HAZOPs and similar reviews, in addition to numerous dialogues with other experienced facilitators as well as citing research work which has been carried out in this field, to try to develop a formula for a Sizzling HAZOP chair!’

Perhaps I rather overdid the use of exclamation marks! In any event, the abstract was accepted and ultimately became a poster presentation.

Revisiting the paper now with the accumulated experience since, I realise that I was probably missing a secret ingredient along with a potential poison to avoid. The name of these 2 protagonists: tea and radish.

Last month I attended an excellent evening seminar run by the Hazards Forum on the subject of ‘Human Decisions and System Performance’, one of the key elements of which was the application of Non-Technical Skills (NTS). These are behavioural attributes which can leverage technical knowledge to the benefit of system performance and, in the case of process safety, reduce residual risk. These include (but are not limited to):

·??????? Communication

·??????? Collaboration

·??????? Cooperation

·??????? Organisation

·??????? Time Management

·??????? Prioritisation

·??????? Adaptability

·??????? Creativity

·??????? Emotional Intelligence

·??????? Enthusiasm

An IChemE poll of Process Safety Practitioners revealed that NTS was considered least important in a list key Process Safety Competences for a Chemical Engineer – which I consider extremely concerning as, for me, NTS can both improve and degrade outcomes.

Perhaps part of the reason for the poor performance of NTS in the questionnaire is that decision to name the category thus. I suggest that a different name may both better enlighten and enthuse (both NTS themselves). How about tea – or TEA. Technical Enhancement Abilities.

Furthermore, I believe there is a poisonous ingredient which has the potential to seriously degrade the outcome – the humble radish. Or RADISH. Rigidity, Arrogance, Divisiveness, Ignorance, Selfishness, Hostility. The application of one or more of the RADISH elements will probably mean that the residual risk for any particular high hazard process being reviewed to increase.

As Process Safety Practitioners, we need to be aware that technical knowledge is a minimum but insufficient criteria for our role. And if you apply more RADISH than TEA, it would probably be better for the outcome if you stayed at home instead of leading a HAZOP review. As a seasoned practitioner myself and author of this article, you would not be surprised if I were to provide examples of TEA. More important is the acknowledgement of times when I brought RADISH to the review, so that I can avoid this in future:

R

Arrogance: Suggesting deviations, consequences ahead of team (Taqa Atrush)

D?

Ignorance: Lack of Preparation (STW DSEAR Training – Avonmouth not STW site)

S?

Hostility: Anger in front of team / client (Petrofac Waste to Energy)

I have also provided different types of TEA over my 12 year career as a HAZOP chair:

Communication: Traffic Lighting (Arkema)

Collaboration: Interfaces (Worley FLNG)

Cooperation: HAZOP program plus ALARP Step (Eley)

Organisation: Task assignment (JM Bioforming)

Time Management: Noding heuristic (several)

Prioritisation: De-noding (Shell Curlew)?;

Adaptability: Rising 1 hour earlier each day (TCO)

Creativity: PS Blogs

Emotional Intelligence: Hofstede Power Distance (Linde Carmel Olefins)

Enthusiasm: PSM Highlights (Savannah)

Bon Appetit!