In recent years, several approaches that go beyond the traditional PHA methodolodgy were developed, documented and implemented. Companies should implement these approaches to ensure compliance with regulations, risk management responsibility and business management aproach. The competence of the PHAs teams is essential for the quality of the studies be satisfactory. So it is important in every organization the definition and implementation of a training program and training in the techniques of qualitative and quantitative risk analysis and especially on what to do in terms of management (PSM) with the results of these studies.
The methods of PHAs and quantitative studies have vulnerabilities and understand them can minimize its negative impacts on their quality and how to use them in order to add value to the organization.
What is observed in many organizations is that quantitative studies and risk are carried out in order to meet the legislation and that they do not have the focus after the output of the analysis software to be conducted a risk engineering work to study the results presented in terms of the effects of simulated accidents and how these effects can cause personal injury, structural, risk of domino effect in accidental scenarios among other assessments.
Most consulting firms conclude their study of risk, delivering to the customer numbers / effect of achieving results that cold form and not associated with the process and plant make these studies are not broken down into concrete actions engineering risk, risk-based maintenance, training and risk-based training and above all create the professional and the organization itself the real sense of vulnerability risk scenarios.
So we question how these jobs are hired most often by people who do not know in depth the methodologies, the ability to produce useful information that each study can bring in and question the way the studies are conducted by professionals and companies stopping only in the generation of the minimum information necessary to satisfy legal requirements which can not influence effectively in the effective management of risk scenarios and their probability of occurrence and ability to cause large losses.
This work causes a complete turnaround, bringing a reflection of how the technical reports of quantitative risk assessments should be developed and how they are using a simple language can be interpreted internally in organizations, allowing further analysis and studies through the company's professional and do not cause a natural and intrinsic resistance in professional firms that most often due to not being properly prepared and due to the unfriendly manner of reports full of numbers and output software that alone and not related to the process, layout of facilities, site location, proximity to other potentially critical scenarios among other things.
We have seen in several organizations that the greatest concern is choosing which software is to use, whether to have the accuracy of meters, the mathematical results produced when it is completely unknown in many potential the organizations of this information for the production of works and more contributive to engineering risk level applied to existing plants, their products and the results of these simulations, in order to know but through the correct definition of the effects that you want to obtain the results, which the extent and damage capacity that can be triggered by the respective analyzed scenario .
These issues are clear and impossibly amplified when observing accident events, where it is evident that organizations unaware of their damage capacity and when happen scenarios which occur initially in a system / equipment and rapidly spreads to other systems / equipment, causing the extremely high potential losses to people, facilities, environment and organization's image.
See more of this Group/Topical: Global Congress on Process Safety