2.838 3.

Article

HAZOP Analysis in Terms of Safety

Operations Processes for Oil
Production Units: A Case Study

Artur de J. Penelas and José C. M. Pires

Special Issue
Celebrating Applied Sciences 20,000 Articles Milestone: Invited Papers in Chemistry Section
Edited by
Prof. Dr. Samuel B. Adeloju

https://doi.org/10.3390/app112110210
 applied
sciences
Article
HAZOP Analysis in Terms of Safety Operations Processes for
Oil Production Units: A Case Study
Artur de J. Penelas 1 and José C. M. Pires 2, *

1 FEUAN-Faculty of Engineering, University Agostinho Neto, Avenida Ho Chi Minh 56,

Luanda 5 0307, Angola; arturpenelas2050@gmail.com
2 LEPABE-Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Porto, Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
* Correspondence: jcpires@fe.up.pt; Tel.: +351-22-508-2262; Fax: +351-22-508-1449

Abstract: The Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) methodology is considered one of the most
effective techniques for risk analysis, developed fundamentally to provide regular processes with
reduced risks that aim to guarantee the safety of activities and the operability of the production
units. The study aims to apply the HAZOP methodology in process and safety operations in the
oil production industry. A crude oil production unit was divided into smaller sections that were
analysed. By applying the HAZOP methodology, 71 possibilities of relevant risks were identified. The
environmental, health and economic impacts were estimated to establish safeguard priorities for them.
The application of this methodology and the defined safeguards generated 47 recommendations
to mitigate the detected problems. The study contributions were to demonstrate the efficacies of
HAZOP methodology to identify potential hazards and evaluate the potential hazards obtained for
malfunctioning of equipment and property in terms of the resultant impacts either new or existing



process facilities, and as a useful tool to provide essential knowledge for the companies’ leaders,

 decision-maker, and operations managers.
Citation: Penelas, A.d.J.; Pires, J.C.M.
HAZOP Analysis in Terms of Safety Keywords: HAZOP analysis; hazard identification; oil production; process safety; production unit
Operations Processes for Oil
Production Units: A Case Study. Appl.
Sci. 2021, 11, 10210. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app112110210 1. Introduction
Industrialisation provides not only well-being and progress, but also brings problems
Academic Editor: Samuel B. Adeloju
and harmful effects to the environment and human health and increases the risk of accidents
and safety issues. Accidents associated with the oil industry can cause various types of
Received: 26 August 2021
Accepted: 22 October 2021
damage and irreparable injuries [1]. Many catastrophic accidents occur not because of a lack
Published: 31 October 2021
of knowledge, but because of the lack of an ideal tool to analyse knowledge precisely [2,3].
Process and chemical units are usually flammable, explosive, and toxic. For this reason,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
identifying these hazards is fundamental for ensuring the safe design and operation of
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
these process plants [4].
published maps and institutional affil- Since the industrial revolution to the present day, the number of techniques developed
iations. to prevent accidents in the process industry is increasing. Nowadays, the most known
techniques, according to the ISO 31010, are: PHA, HAZOP, What If Analysis, FMEA,
FMECA, ETA, FTA, BOWTIE, BAYESIAN NETWORK, HAZID, and LOPA known already
in literature [5]. Therefore, systemic safety evaluation must be performed in those units [6].
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Hazard and operability study (HAZOP) is applied worldwide to process hazard analy-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
ses for processing plants [2,7]. It is considered a proper, organised, and critical examination
This article is an open access article
used to evaluate the potential hazards obtained for malfunctioning equipment and property
distributed under the terms and in terms of the resultant impacts of either new or existing process facilities [7,8]. Dunjó [8]
conditions of the Creative Commons performed the first review of all existing HAZOP literature from 1974 to 2010. The focus
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// was on studies in chemical process facilities and related units. Compared to the other risk
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ analysis methods: Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA),
4.0/). Facilities Risk Review (FRR) and Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA), HAZOP methodology

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112110210 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 2 of 17

is a means-term among them because, in addition to identifying and estimating risks, like
most, it is an excellent tool for recommendations. Dunjó [8] observed that HAZOP is the
most studied Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) method; in fact, much research has
focused on retrofitting HAZOP as process systems evolved. However, the one and only
HAZOP Pattern needs to be improved (for example, it does not include guidance on how
to delimit nodes in a process). Based on the revised documents, HAZOP was found to be
the foundation of process safety and risk management programs.
Modern literature presents numerous applications of the HAZOP methodology as
a risk analysis tool in the most diverse industrial segments, showing its relevance. For
example, Sauer [9] performed a risk analysis of the start-up procedures of an IEA-R1
reactor applying the HAZOP technique. The objective of the study was to predict which
undesirable consequences could be generated due to possible deviations in the procedures
of execution of reactor start-up routines and to evaluate the effectiveness of the method
when applied for analysis of procedures. Sauer [9] analysed 53 reactor start-up instructions
and determined 74 possible procedural deviations. These deviations resulted in 25 change
recommendations covering aspects of reactor design, operation and safety, of which 11
were implemented in the facility’s procedures and systems [9].
Benedetti-Marquez [10] applied the HAZOP methodology to identify and analyse the
operability risks associated with a liquid ammonium nitrate storage tank in a petrochemical
plant in Colombia’s Caribbean region. Among the analysed parameters, it was observed
that: (i) temperature is a key factor, not exceeding the range (130–150 ◦ C); otherwise, an
explosion will occur; (ii) the pH of the tank must be monitored and controlled; and (iii) as
well as the flow to the pumps at the outlet of the tank, so that cavitation is avoided.
Most deviations were classified as moderate (acceptable with risk control). It was
observed that the tank has the necessary instrumentation to keep the temperature and
pressure parameters under control; however, continuous monitoring is recommended due
to possible human errors. Any deviation from normal parameters in this process can result
in the decomposition of ammonium nitrate followed by the explosion [10].
Although HAZOP is an efficient and well-organised technique, it has its limitations.
Baybutt [11] clarifies the limitations of the method. The researcher explains that teams
can lose scenarios, later thoughts can be neglected, participants can become complacent,
the process can be complex, the terms used can be confusing, and studies can have a
decreasing focus and be prolonged. Another limitation of the technique is the time required
to perform a complete examination of an installation [12]. Depending on the size of the
plant, it can take from 1 to 8 weeks for a team of at least five members to complete the
task [13]. Less experienced teams do not have the necessary knowledge to understand the
problems associated with each guide word [14].
Nowadays, many authors very often use computational simulators to assess future
scenarios. Di Nardo [5] analysed a plastic moulding plant with a scenario of risk of a mas-
sive fire using the integration between System Dynamics and Layers of Protection Analysis
technique is provided to enhance risk management results. The results obtained showed
that the probability values related to the various scenarios presented were extremely low,
on the order of 5% growth for scenarios whose main event was the occurrence of fire within
the facilities.
Mitkowski [15] applied the HAZOP methodology for risk analysis in supply chain
management (SCM), to identify risks in organisations modelled with the Collaborative
Planning, Forecasting, and Replenishment (CPFR) model. In addition, the author figures
out that the keywords used commonly by the chemical industry also works perfectly for
the supply chain. Fuentes-Bargues [16] performed a risk analysis at a fuel storage terminal
using HAZOP and FTA. The HAZOP analysis showed that the loading and unloading
zone is the most sensitive within the plant inside a fuel storage terminal. The FTA analysis
indicated that the fuel spill is the most likely event to occur in the tanker loading area. The
results of the FTA allowed for prioritising preventive and corrective measures to minimise
the probability of failure.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 3 of 17

Single [17] developed a programmed logical reasoning algorithm (ontology-based

computer aid for the automation of HAZOP studies) based on an ontology which, through
the modelling of causal relationships and automatically generated risk scenarios, proved
to be very suitable to identify hazardous scenarios and operability problems. Marhavi-
las [18] performed a case study in the sour-crude-oil process industry (SCOPI), where he
proposed a joint analysis using (i) a multi-criteria decision-making technique (MCDM) of
the Hierarchical-Analytical-Typical Process (T_AHP) and Process-Hierarchical-Analytical-
Fuzzy (F_AHP) with (ii) the Hazards and Operability method (HAZOP), respectively,
focusing on deviations with an economic/health/environmental impact.
Da Costa [19] used the HAZOP technique combined with the FTA technique to
calculate the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) in the C.5-01 reactor of an oil refinery unit in
Balikpapan-Indonesia. The process consisted of mixing naphtha and recycled hydrogen
gas in the main reactor through feed inlets and process exchanger equipment. The data were
processed and analysed to assess the SIL level of each component. Three nodes of the unit
were analysed: reactor-stage 1, reactor-stage 2 and reactor-stage 3. Of the 11 components
analysed, four components were in the category of potentially high risks, one with moderate
risks and six with low risks. The temperature was the most unstable parameter. For this
reason, the parameter that required the most attention and treatment [19].
Since HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) engineering issues are rarely taken into
account in risk studies, Choi [2] proposed the HSE-HAZOP. Whereas classic HAZOP
involves analysis based on deviations, regardless of item characteristics, HSE-HAZOP
classifies possible events according to item characteristics. The HSE-HAZOP marks the
flow that deals with the toxic service in the PFD (Process Flow Diagram) and selects it as
a basis for analysing accident scenarios [2]. For example, in a tank loading/unloading
installation, manual operator operation is involved, so human error is considered, but,
if direct operator operation is not involved in process operation, such as a heater, the
human error is not considered. In summary, HAZOP studies have been used for more than
40 years with great success within chemical and the petroleum industry to obtain safer,
more efficient and more reliable oil production units [4].
This paper is a critical analysis of the classic HAZOP methodology used to describe
a case study of a Crude Oil Production Unit (COPU) that, for the first time, performed
HAZOP study as a risk analysis methodology in its facilities. The study contributions
demonstrate from the results presented that, despite the classic HAZOP being questioned
by several researchers, it still remains an effective tool for detection, analysis and mitigation
of risks. However, the paper also suggests that the methodology can be improved when
combined with other event forecasting techniques. HAZOP methodology also aided the
decision-maker of the company’s top management team to continue using HAZOP as the
standard technique for risk analysis of the production unit.
This study aims to apply HAZOP methodology in a real case of a Crude Oil Production
Unit (COPU) to identify potential hazards that may result from operational problems and
how this tool is useful in providing essential knowledge for company leaders, decision-
makers and operations managers. This procedure was the first examination carried out
after five years of the unit operation. This paper is organised into five sections: (1) the
introduction, (2) process description and methodology, (3) case study, (4) results and
discussion, and (5) conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

This section gives a brief technical description of the COPU and its main equipment.

2.1. Production Unit Description

The COPU was projected to produce, process, and transport 10 Mbpd (Millions of
barrels per day) of 33◦ API (American Petroleum Institute) crude oil. The produced gas
associated with the oil (approximately 10 MMscfd Million standard cubic feet per day) is
separated in the plant facilities. Produced water (approximately 10 Mbwpd Millions of
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 4 of 17

barrels of water per day) is also separated and treated in the plant facilities to be re-injected
in a water injection well. After dehydration, salt removal, and RVP (Reid Vapor Pressure)
conditioning, the oil is stored in tanks before being pumped to the custody transfer point
facilities.

2.1.1. Oil Treatment

Crude oil from field production composed of gas, oil and water enters the plant to
the first separation equipment, the free water knock-out drum (FWKO), where the first
bulk water separation is performed. This FWKO vessel is a three-phase separator with
enough capacity to separate most of the free water-fed along with the field inlet stream.
The FWKO drum also has sufficient liquid holdup time to withstand any eventual slug
produced in the feed pipelines. Water removal efficiency is assumed to bring 15% BS&W
(Basic Sediment and Water) in the oily outlet stream for this separator. Separated water is
conducted to the water treatment facilities to be treated. The separated gas is removed to
be used as fuel gas, and excess gas is burnt in the burn pit.
Oily stream from FWKO enters the Heater–Treater separator, which combines a three-
phase separator with a heating media using a fuel gas firetube to heat the inlet stream to the
required temperature needed to achieve the desired separation between oil and emulsified
water. The ideal temperature for the separation of the water–oil fluid is estimated to be in
the range of 150–170 ◦ F. It is assumed that the Heater–Treater’s water removal efficiency
produces 0.5% BS&W in the oily output stream.
The oily stream goes from the Heater Treater to the Electrostatic-Desalter’s final
conditioning unit for final water and salt removal. This equipment uses an electric field
to promote and speed up water coalescence, helping the final separation of the smallest
water drops that previous equipment could not remove. The Electrostatic-Desalter water
removal efficiency is assumed to produce 0.2% BS&W in the oil outlet.
Fresh well water must be injected before the Electrostatic Desalter to achieve the final
dilution required to remove the salt and produce treated oil with less than 15 pounds
per thousand barrels (PTB). To economise dilution water requirements, the Electrostatic
Desalter removed water outlet is recycled to the Heater–Treater. The same diluting effect
occurs since the salt concentration in the Electrostatic-Desalter water outlet is below the salt
concentration in the Heater–Treater water inlet. Figure 1 shows the Process Flow Diagram
(PFD) of the Crude Oil treatment.

Figure 1. Simplified process flow diagram of crude oil treatment.

2.1.2. Water Treatment

Separated water from the FWKO, Heater–Treater and sporadic purges from the
Electrostatic-Desalter enter the water treatment facilities to remove most of the free and
emulsified oil that could come with those water streams.
The first stage in the water treatment system consists of a Skimmer–Tank in which
gravity separation is performed through relatively slow velocity profiles and high retention
time. The outlet water from this tank has an oil concentration below 200 ppm. Finally, the
water produced will be pumped and re-injected into the disposal well.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 5 of 17

Table 1 shows the oil and water processes that are developed to satisfy the production
parameter. Table A1 (in Appendix A) shows the main equipment and assessors used in
COPU HAZOP analysis concerning equipment operating conditions.

Table 1. Oil and water requirements.

Oil
RVP 7 psia
Salt concentration 15 PTB
BS&W 0.5%
Water
Oil concentration 20 ppm
Solids 20 ppm
BS&W—Basic Sediment and Water; RVP—Reid Vapor Pressure; PTB—Pounds per Thousand Barrels.

2.2. HAZOP Methodology

The preparation process for the HAZOP exam is based on several factors and on the
specific objectives of each step, taking into account the sequence of interrogative words:
why, how, where and when [7,8]. The HAZOP methodology can be divided into four
phases [20]:
1. Definition: is the phase where HAZOP team sets the scope and objectives of the
analysis, establishes responsibilities, and selects the team.
2. Preparation: in this phase the study is planned by the team, essential data are collected,
agree on the style of recording, the time is estimated and the schedule is arranged.
3. Examination: this step involves dividing the system into parts, selecting a part and
defining design intent, identifying deviation by using guide words, identifying conse-
quences and causes, identifying protection, detection, and indicating mechanisms,
identifying possible remedial/mitigating measures (optional), agreeing on actions,
and repeating for each element and then each part.
4. Documentation and follow-up: here, the team records the examination, signs off on
the documentation, produces the report of the study, follows up on those actions
implemented, re-studies any parts of system if necessary, and produces the final
output report.
Whitty and Ford [21] stated that an accurate and complete design representation is
necessary to execute a HAZOP examination, which implies at least: (i) a logical (schematic)
description, usually based on Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs)–sometimes
called Engineering Line Diagrams (ELDs); and (ii) a physical layout of the equipment,
usually General Arrangement (GAs) scale drawings, which, together with any other doc-
uments required, define the designer’s “design intent” for the system. This is why the
HAZOP technique is not performed at the conceptual stage of a project, in the earlier phase
of the project, due to the lack of comprehensive P&ID, i.e., any “Piping and Instrumentation
Diagram” at that moment [8].

2.3. Relevant Guide Words and Deviations

In the preparation phase of the HAZOP study, the team leader must propose a list of
guide words to be used to examine the facilities [4]. The choice of words must be made
carefully, as a poorly chosen guide word can significantly limit or generalise the study’s
focus [20]. Below, some examples of guide words studies and the associated deviations
frequently used in the process [20]:
1. Deviation type: Negative. Guide word: No. Example interpretation for the process
industry. No part of the intention is achieved, e.g., no flow
2. Deviation type: Quantitative modification. Guide word. More or Less. Example inter-
pretation for the process industry. A quantitative increase, e.g., higher temperature or
quantitative decrease, e.g., lower temperature.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 6 of 17

3. Deviation type: Qualitative modification. Guide word: As well as or Part of. Example
interpretation for the process industry: impurities present simultaneous execution of
another operation/step, or only some of the intention is achieved. i.e., only part of an
intended fluid transfer takes place.
The HAZOP team uses the guide words to investigate the potential hazards. First, a
node is analysed until all the forecasting possibilities are exhausted. Then, the procedure
moved to the next node and made the same process until all the nodes were analysed. The
causes are identified, the consequences are estimated, and safeguards are established to
help detect, prevent, control, or alleviate hazardous scenarios. Finally, recommendations
are made when safeguards are insufficient to mitigate the problem [18,22].

3. Case Study: HAZOP Analysis of a Crude Oil Production Unit

The analysis was conducted by the HAZOP team leader and supported by a secretary.
Engineers from the operating company (production engineer, maintenance engineer, safety,
health and environment engineer, and a facility engineer) also participated in the study.
The complete examination of the facilities took five days to be carried out, with an average
duration of 8 h of analysis per day.
For analysis, the entire installation was divided into 13 areas or key points designated
by nodes, which corresponds to 100%. Only the results of the first six nodes, approximately
50% of the installations, were presented and analysed in this paper. Table A2 describes the
nodes briefly. The steps that comprise a HAZOP analysis are described below:
(i) Selection of nodes: the nodes were defined according to the functioning and operation
of the equipment and accessories in their neighborhood. The six nodes examined
during HAZOP sessions are briefly described in Table A4.
(ii) Choice of guide words and process limits: words that describe the unit’s process
parameters (pressure, temperature, flow, level and corrosion), associated with words
that indicated deviations in the normal operation of the unit, called guide words
(high, low, none, inverse/reverse, and other). The combinations of these words used
throughout the analysis/study that assigned indicators of equipment functioning
(nodes), showing whether they would be operating inside/outside the standard
(deviations) of operation, allowing the identification of hazards—for example, high
pressure, low temperature, or none flow.
(iii) Identification of the source of deviations or causes of hazards: with the system divided
into smaller sections and each one with the parameters and keywords adequately
identified, the risk analysis was carried out by testing the hypothesis of improper
functioning of the equipment. Based on the probable trends of deviations observed,
it was sought to predict the result, that is, the consequences. If the variation in the
parameter represented a hazard, that problem was documented, and its impact was
later estimated.
(iv) Risk frequency analysis: the frequency analysis was made based on estimates of
the probability of occurrence of scenarios that were predicted to be dangerous. The
frequencies were synthesised using models of frequency estimates. Synthesising the
frequencies involves determining combinations of failures and circumstances that
may cause the scenarios of interest, using the consulting firm’s procedure manual
(adapted from BS IEC 61882: 2001) [20].
(v) Determination of consequences: the analysis of the consequences was based on the
statistically estimated results of a target population regarding the risk of interest and
the effects on safety/health related to this level of exposure (Criteria described in the
CCPS manual, 2011). Consequence estimates were made according to a risk matrix
(Table 2), measuring the level of impact of the consequences in association with safety,
environment, and economy [23].
(vi) Setting barriers: to prevent the consequences of the identified risks from being im-
plemented, measures were taken to mitigate or eliminate these risks; these measures
were established to prevent the progress of a situation that could become potentially
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 7 of 17

disastrous; for this reason, the measures are called barriers. These barriers were
recorded on the HAZOP sheet.
(vii) Recommendations: at the end of the assessment, recommendations were made on the
potential hazards identified in the previous steps to reduce the level of risks analysed
and discussed by the HAZOP team.

Table 2. Risk matrix.

Risk Classification Frequencies

Matrix A B C D E
V M M H H H
Severities

IV M M M H H
III L M M M H
II L L M M M
I L L L M M
Severity Frequency Risks
I Low A Unlikely
II Moderate B Remote (1) Low
III Average C Casual (2) Moderate
IV Critical D Likely (3) High
V Catastrophic E Frequent

3.1. The Sequence of Activities Performed during the Sessions

In the first session, the PIDs and PFDs of the oil production unit were exposed, and
the main equipment operating in that unit and the entry and exit lines were identified, as
well as the devices attached to them. The operating boundaries were then delimited, and
the nodes or nodes around the equipment and the surrounding region were marked using
dashed lines with different colours, one colour for each node to facilitate the distinction.
The first node comprised the first separator vessel in the primary crude oil separation
system, V-001 and the lines associated with it. The general elements of the process were
analysed: pressure, flow, level, temperature, risk of starting and/or stopping operation
and corrosion. The second node involved the second separator vessel in the primary
separation system for crude oil, V-002 and its lines. The general elements of the process were
also analysed: pressure, flow, level, temperature, risk of starting and stopping operation
and corrosion. The third node covered the system of lines that conduct the gas to the
burner or flare. The fourth node comprised the degassing system and associated lines.
In this part of the unit, the analysed parameters were: pressure, flow, temperature, risk
of starting/stopping and risk of fire/explosion. The fifth node corresponded to the third
separator vessel in the primary separation system for crude oil from V-002 and its associated
lines. The sixth node included the water system for dilution in the primary separation
system for crude oil. In all nodes, the general elements of the process analysed were: flow,
level, risk of starting and stopping operation and corrosion/erosion.
Due to the size of the crude oil production and processing facilities, the number of
nodes and the amount of information processed, in this study, all nodes will not be detailed.
Thus, to illustrate clearly, and for academic reasons, the study focuses on the analysis made
in the first node of that unit, as shown in Figure 2.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 8 of 17

Figure 2. Simplified process flow diagram of node 1.

3.2. Risk Classification Criteria

Risk classification is a management tool to prioritise the monitoring of recommenda-
tions. The identified hazards were classified by criteria, at levels: low, medium and high. In
addition, they were grouped into categories according to the harm to people, environment,
assets/property of the company, and impact on the company’s image.
The frequency of the cause and the severity of the consequence were defined according
to BS IEC 61882: 2001, which considers the simplest combination of probability and severity
(see Table A3). The current criteria reflect the belief that the risk rating performed during
the HAZOP studies should be used only to determine qualitative properties for priority
recommendations. It is important to note that the criteria stipulate that the values of
severity and probability should be assigned consistently throughout the study. The risk
classification should be used only to prioritise recommendations, not for quantification.
The HAZOP registration sheets were used to record both the sources of risks and
their consequences, as well as the barriers that were set/inserted, without forgetting the
recommendations.

4. Results
The results of the HAZOP analysis performed on node 1 are shown in Tables A3–A9.
All tables with the results for node 1 are listed in the Annex. Thus, the HAZOP sheet
serves as a guiding document for implementing measures to mitigate hazards by the
operation/maintenance teams of the facilities. The first element analysed was pressure
(Table A3), in two circumstances, when the pressure was higher than the normal value
(high pressure) and when the pressure was lower than the normal value (low pressure). In
both cases, the identification of the possible cause of the values of the pressure parameter
increasing or decreasing beyond the tolerable values pointed to a failure in the circuit
where the pressure valve failed to act appropriately, PV-101 (Pressure Valve—101).
The second element analysed was the flow rate (Table A4). This element was analysed
in four circumstances: (i) when the flow rate was higher than the normal value (high flow);
(ii) when the flow rate was lower than the normal value (low flow); (iii) when the flow
follows a reverse flow (in this case, the event did not occur) and (iv) when the flow follows
another direction (another flow), i.e., when the flow goes to areas to which it is not directed.
In this situation where the element analysed was the flow, the main cause of failure was
the safety system where the sensor of maximum or minimum opening of the flow valve
was responsible for the event.
The third element was the level (Tables A5 and A6), which was analysed in two
circumstances: (i) when more liquid was entering into the separator vessel (high level),
i.e., when more liquid entered in the separator vessel than the acceptable level; and (ii)
less liquid was entering into the vessel (low level), that is, when less liquid entered the
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 9 of 17

separating vessel than what is acceptable. In both circumstances, the main cause was the
malfunction of the level valve, LV–101 (Level Valve–101).
The fourth element analysed was the temperature (Table A7). The fifth element was
the corrosion or erosion that may occur in some equipment elements (Table A8). The sixth
element was the start and shut down element (Table A9).

4.1. Pressure
Regarding the pressure, the “high pressure” deviation would be caused by a failure
of the pressure gauge or by the malfunction of the pressure valves, which, in turn, would
cause more pressure inside the vessel. The “low pressure” deviation does not apply to this
node; however, it is a deviation considered important for the integrity of the vessel and the
substance. For this reason, as a safeguard, it is advisable that the use of the safety valve
must be included in the periodic calibration program to ensure its correct operation.
In similar studies, Benedetti-Marquez [10], Ibraim and Syed [24], and Ishteyaque [25]
noted that the causes of more pressure are pressure safety valve (PSV) failure, compressor
malfunction and pump backflow. As a consequence, it causes damage to the pump. As a
safeguard, it proposes using an alarm, a controller and a pressure indicator. Marhavilas [18]
pointed out as causes of more pressure, failure of the pressure indicator, blocked line and
leakage of raw steam. As a consequence, the fracture of the line, oil spill, risk of fire
and release of H2 S. To mitigate the possible problems, H2 S alarm and fire alarm were
proposed to safeguard the installation of the PSV [16]. For Kletz [26] and Cozzani [27],
these deviations may be caused by a failure in the pressure valve manometer, failure of
the pressure sensors, error in the safety circuit or calibration error of the manometers. As a
safeguard, it is suggested to install a pressure control valve, installation of pressure alarms,
periodic inspections and maintenance of valves and sensors [18,28].

4.2. Flow Rate

Regarding the flow entering to the separator, it was assumed that it could be increased
or reduced; “high flow” when the flow valves are fully open or “low flow”, “no flow” or
“flow reverse” when the pumps are stopped, or the wells are partially shut down. The study
pointed out that the causes of the variations in the flow were the failure of flow control
valves (FCV), valve malfunction, pump failure, valve opening and closing failure and
sensor indicator malfunctions. Consequently, flaws in the production process, an increase
in temperature values and the possibility of the collapse of the pipes were observed. On
the other hand, to solve the problems, periodic inspection of valves and equipment, use of
flow alarms and verification of lines and systems are recommended.
Jagtap [29], Ibraim and Syed [24] claim that the causes of too much flow are: (i) fully
open flow valves; (ii) faulty flow regulating mechanism; (iii) out-of-calibrated controller and
(iv) pump failure. Consequently, the pressure increases rapidly in the pipeline; therefore,
the likelihood of leakage and explosion increases. The researchers also claim that the causes
of less flow are the partial opening of the outlet valve, rupture of the flow inlet pipe to the
vessel due to mechanical damage and minimal leakage in the pipe [16]. As a result, there is
less release of crude oil into the environment and the possibility of increased pressure in
the storage line.
In addition, Sikindar [28], Benedetti-Marquez [10] and Marhavilas [18] pointed out as
causes of more flow, leaving the flow valve fully open, temperature increase and flow valve
failure. Consequently, there would be low stabilisation of crude oil, increased pressure
in the vessel, line rupture, oil spillage, fire risk and H2 S release. As a safeguard, the
installation of a PSV with an automatic opening mechanism, H2 S alarm and fire alarm
were recommended.

4.3. Level
Regarding the effect of the level parameter, two scenarios were assumed: low level
and high level. The “high level” deviation may be related to the non-stopping of the
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 10 of 17

pumps during the activities, failure of the level transmitter during the transfer or due to
the entry of flood water in the vessel or tank. As a result, there may be oil spills, causing
environmental impact and possible effects for people. It is recommended to place the vessel
in a safe space with a second spill containment tank and check that the level transmitter
signals are being transmitted well.
Benedetti-Marquez [10] and Ibraim and Syed [24] found that the causes of more level in
the vessel are: (i) vessel without supervision or inspection; (ii) failure of the level indicator;
(iii) wrong valve opening and (iv) alarm that does not work correctly. On the other hand,
Ibraim and Syed [24] point out as causes of the lower level, cracking or corrosion of the
vessel, damage to the vessel body seal, weak joints between the ceiling and the vessel
structure and damage to the valves and flanges.
Benedetti-Marquez [10] and Ishteyaque [25] indicated the causes of high levels such
as failure of the open LCV (Level Control Valve), increased discharge pressure and blocked
outlet valve. Consequently, floods, loss of production and flow migrating to another
direction may occur. As a safeguard, installation of an alarm of high liquid level, use
of LIC, and constant monitoring of the system are recommended. Ishteyaque [25] and
Orugba [30] further pointed out, as causes of the low level pump, failure and malfunction
of the level meter. The main consequences of Low Flow are emptying of the vessel and loss
of production. As safeguards, it is recommended to use a LIC to operate the pump, make
adequate monitoring and periodic maintenance.

4.4. Temperature
The temperature may also be low or high. The reasons underlying these deviations
may be the failure of the high-temperature controller, reflux controller, a fully open reflux
flow control valve and faulty supply temperature controller. It was recommended to use
high-temperature alarms, maintain the column temperature controllers, regularly check and
maintain the flow lines and valves, and frequently check the tubes of the heat exchangers.
Jagtap [29], Sarsama [31] and Ishteyaque [25] observed that the causes of the high-
temperature deviation might be due to more steam entering the heat exchanger sys-
tem, which will heat the vessel due to a failure in the temperature indicator. Benedetti-
Marquez [10] also noted that the deviation would cause uncontrolled heating of the hydro-
carbon in the vessel, consequent decomposition and risk of explosion. As mitigation, it is
recommended to inspect the tank and calibrate the sensors periodically.
Jagtap [29] and Ishteyaque [25] observed that the causes of the deviation of “low
temperature” can be due to the shutdown of the steam that feeds the heat exchanger, which,
in turn, is due to the failure of the refrigerant temperature meter and failure of the supply of
steam to the line tracing. The low-temperature deviation would result in the crystallisation
of hydrocarbons and clogging of the lines, and loss of production. The recommendation
is to install a temperature transmitter in the recirculation line of the storage tank with an
alarm. In addition, a low steam flow alarm is recommended.

4.5. Starting or Stopping

It was observed that the procedure for starting or stopping the installation could also
affect the production operations of the unit. If the flow is misdirected due to operational
errors during start-up, the error will cause operational problems and economic losses;
another abnormality that can occur during the start of the production unit is the lack of
heat in the lines, which can cause incrustations or paraffin of hydrocarbons embedded in
the pumps before starting.
Benedetti-Marquez [10] and Cozzani [27] stated that these operational errors cause
line clogging, delay in starting, economic loss, damage to the pump, heating and/or
decomposition of the oil into lighter fractions that can lead to the explosion. To minimise
these risks, Kletz [26] and Orugba [30] recommend inserting protections such as low flow
alarm, as well as turning off the suction pump if low amperage, low vibration, high
temperature or low/high pressure are detected in the pump discharge.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 11 of 17

4.6. Paradigm of the HAZOP Methodology

The classic HAZOP methodology (which is not quantitative) shows its fragility when
dealing with high-level risks, especially for complex operations in the upstream sector of
the oil industry [32]. However, despite the patent limitations of the HAZOP methodology, it
remains an excellent risk analysis tool, as evidenced by some studies found in the literature.
Kletz [26], Dunjó [8], Kolberg [33] and Rausand [34] showed that the HAZOP methodology
is a systematic and structured technique. Borelli [35], Pasman [13], Jagtap [29], Taylor [36]
and Marhavilas [18], among others, proved that it is possible to combine the technique
with other tools and increase its efficiency.

5. Conclusions
The paper brings up the discussion made over the years by researchers concerned
with HAZOP studies. Is HAZOP methodology still an efficient tool for analysing complex
units such as COPU? For these aims, a real case study was developed to reinforce the
theoretical framework given by literature:
1. The main contribution of this study was to demonstrate the efficacies of HAZOP
methodology to identify potential hazards that may result from operational issues
in a COPU and as a useful tool to provide essential knowledge for the company’s
leaders, decision-makers and operations managers.
2. The literature and discussion section bring up the certainty that, although many
researchers see HAZOP methodology lacking a lot, it is still ideal for process analysis.
3. From the study case, 80 causes of deviations were identified; it generated 71 risk
scenarios that required the application of approximately 60 safeguards or barriers and
47 recommendations.
4. Among the main causes of deviation, there were safety flaws in the installation,
followed by equipment failures. Furthermore, the measures to solve the problem
were based on safeguards and recommendations to the installation of sensors and
security alarms, as well as the periodic maintenance of the installation.
Although the benefits of operational HAZOP analysis of COPU are satisfactory, the
model does not contemplate human factors. Then, some risks included negligence:
1. The above-stated findings are beneficial and conclusive for the safety of oil production
operations. However, some limitations were noted: the experience of the HAZOP
team influences the efficiency of the results, and the analysis time was not enough.
The methodology should be reinforced with the same quantitative tools or support
decision tools.
2. This paper fails in not presenting all aspects of HAZOP analysis, focusing only on
the analysis of process and operations risks, leaving aside the risks resulting from
human decisions—Human HAZOP and Procedure HAZOP—as well environmental
risk scenarios.
In fact, the risk of accidents is never reduced to zero, only reduced to a tolerable
margin, as proven by the study. Once the recommendations are followed, a new study
should be scheduled to prevent future risks.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, J.C.M.P.; methodology, A.d.J.P.; software, A.d.J.P.; investi-

gation, A.d.J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.d.J.P.; writing—review and editing, J.C.M.P.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was financially supported by the Base Funding—UIDB/00511/2020 of the
Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy—LEPABE—funded by
national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC); J.C.M.P. acknowledges the FCT Investigator
2015 Programme (IF/01341/2015). A.J.P.acknowledges the Angolan Executive Training Program
and Companhia Total E.P. for funding the 3rd edition of the Master’s Program in Environmental
Engineering.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 12 of 17

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Postgraduate Department at Universidade
Agostinho Neto and LESRA—Laboratory of Engineering, Separation, Reaction and Environment.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Main equipment of the Crude Oil Production Unit.

Nr. Equipment Basic Technical Clarifications

V-001: Free Water Knock Out—it is a three-stage separator vessel used to remove free water from crude oil–water
emulsions and gas, using the variations of densities of these substances.
V-002: DP Electrostatic Heater treater—it is a dehydrating vessel. It consists of a pressure vessel with a
heating/degassing section and fire tubes, an oil spill over the box, and a coalescing section with metered
orifice distributors.
V-003: Dual Polarity Electrostatic Desalter—it is a dehydrating and desalting vessel. Electrostatic fields generate forces
that can create conditions for improved coalescence of water droplets, resulting in improved water separation from the
crude oil.
1 Vessels
V-203: Fuel Gas Scrubber—fuel Gas Scrubber or Knock-out (KO) drum or mist eliminators remove the entrained liquid
droplets and slugs from the vapour stream.
V-204: Fuel Gas Scrubber—it assists in removing free liquids present with incoming gas and helps prevent overloading
of downstream final filter elements.
V-008: Pump Degasser—the device that degasses liquid mechanically without using any chemical. When pumping
liquid flows through the orifice into the intake part of the pump, the dissolved gas in the liquid is separated from the
liquid by decompression, and the generated gas–liquid mixture is fed to the inducer.
E-001: Oil Heat Exchanger is a device that transfers heat from one medium to another. Heat is transferred by conduction
through the exchanger materials, which separate the mediums being used.
E-101: Water—Water Heat Exchanger—freshwater flows in and circulates around the hotter wastewater that flows out
Heat
2 in a typical water heat exchanger. The wastewater transfers its heat energy to the freshwater through the interior walls,
Exchangers
heating the freshwater, typically to over 100 ◦ F, and cooling the wastewater as it exits the unit.
E-201: Fuel Gas Heat Exchangers capture exhaust gas and transfer the heat to different energy-consuming parts of your
installation.
P-004: Crude Transfer Pump A/B it is designed to deliver the liquid (oil or water) from the metering tank (or buffer
tank) into the storage tank or mobile tanker or pump the crude oil from a tank to a burner (pump pressure ≧ 2 Mpa) or
into an existing flowline. Screw and centrifugal pump designs are available.
P-202: Slop Oil Pump is a device used to transfer reclaimed petroleum waste mixtures of oil, chemicals, and water
3 Pumps derived from a wide variety of processes in refineries or oil fields.
P-205: Drain Sump Pump A/B is a pump used to remove water accumulated in a water-collecting sump basin.
P-203: Desalter and Sand Jet Water Pumps—Jet pumps can be used for material handling, either for transfer or for
washing by use of the cavitation that can be induced to break up clays, soils, oil etc.
KAE-001: Gas Lift Compressor a device used to comprise gas and injects gas into an oil well to aerate the crude oil,
increasing production.
4 Compressors K-201: Air Compressor A/B the working principle of compressors are similar to pumps; both increase the pressure on a
fluid, and both transport the fluid through a pipe. As gases are compressible, the compressor also reduces the volume
of gas.
TK-201: Slop Tank is an oil tanker used to collect draining’s, tank washings and other oily mixtures.
5 Tanks
TK-202: Utility Water Tank—a water tank is a container for storing potable water.
Pressure Control Valve—a pressure control valve can protect a system from the damages caused by excessive pressure.
These valves can do the pressure control of a system; an example of this is, using a line relief valve to limit the
maximum allowable system pressure.
6 Control Valves Level Control Valve—a level control valve maintains a constant level in a liquid supply such as a reservoir. Level control
valves regulate the flow into the liquid supply, which maintains a constant level to meet the usage demands.
Flow Control Valve—a flow control valve regulates the flow or pressure of a fluid. Flow control valves normally
respond to signals generated by independent devices such as flow meters or temperature gauges.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 13 of 17

Table A2. Nodes selected for HAZOP analysis.

Nodes Operating Parameters

P-60 psig; T-130 ◦ F
1. Separator V-001 and associated lines. Operating conditions: 125 psig a 200 ◦ F
Heat exchangers E-001.
P-40 psig; T-130 ◦ F
2. Separator V-002 and associated lines. Operating conditions: 125 psig a 200 ◦ F
Heat exchangers E-001.
Fire tube heater section
3. Fuel gas for separator V-002. P-30 psig; T-350 ◦ F
Operating conditions: 75 psig a 500 ◦ F
P-35 psig; T-350 ◦ F
4. V-008 degasser and associated pumps. Operating conditions: 75 psig a 195 ◦ F
Pumps P-004 A/B: Q = 10100 BWPD a 70 psig (diferential).
P-75 psig; T-150 ◦ F
5. Separator V-003 e associated lines. Operating conditions: 150 psig a 300 ◦ F
Heat exchengers E-001 and E-101.
Nominal capacity: 1232 bbl
6. Dilution water. Desalination pumps and sandblasting P-203 A/B
Water supply from V-002 and V-003.

Appendix B. HAZOP SPREADSHEETS

Table A3. HAZOP analysis of Pressure Element—Node 1.

Node 1
Separator V-001 and Associated Lines
Element Pressure
Risk Matrix
Guideword Deviation Possible Cause Consequences Safeguards Recommendations
F S R
1. Pressurisation of V-001 1. Update the PID:
and associated lines. R-AH0004-713-1001,
More pressure in 1. PSV-101
1. PV-101 loop 2. Release of flammable REV.3; PSV-101 A/B.
crude input line A/B.
closed failure. material. Listed as fire, but
and separator PAHH-102
More 2. Spurious shot 3. Material damage. B IV M projected as full flow.
vase V-001. with closing
of the 4. Injuries to people. 2. Reassess and
(1. Higher action
SDV-30010. 5. Oil spill and reactivate the platform
Pressure) SDV-30010.
contamination. well shutdown and
6. Loss of production. safety system.
1. Depressurisation of
Low pressure in 1. PV-101 loop V-001 and associated 3. Confirm if the
the crude input open failure. lines. PIT-101 has a
line and separator 2. Leakage on 2. Material damage. low-pressure alarm
Less 1. None. B I L
vase V-001. pipeline or 3. Stop generators. active in the control
(2. Lower pipeline 4. Impossibility of room and, if necessary,
Pressure) fracture. discharging fluids V-001. activate.
5. Unit shut down.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 14 of 17

Table A4. HAZOP analysis of Flow Element—Node 1.

Node 1
Separator V-001 and Associated Lines
Element Flow
Risk Matrix
Guideword Deviation Possible Cause Consequences Safeguards Recommendations
F S R
1. Commissioning
More flow in the 4. Check that the
of the gas lift
separator vessel PIT—101 has a high
compressor
More and in the vessel 1. None. 1. None. C I L flow alarm active in the
2. Full opening of
outlet lines. control room, and
the well flow
(3. High Flow) confirm that it is active.
valves.
1. Stop generators.
Less flow in the 1. Spurious firing
Plant shutdown (SD 2). 5. Check if the
separator vessel of the SDV-30010
Impossibility of 1. FAL-103. FIT—101 has a low
and the vessel 2. Partial
Less/None discharging liquid in 2. Flow C IV M flow alarm active in the
outlet lines. shutdown of the
V-001. control. control room, and
(4. Low wells (electrical
2. Operational confirm that it is active.
Flow/None) system failure).
problems.
Reverse None. (5. Reverse
None. None. None. None.
Flow Flow)
Less flow in the
1. Leakage of
separator vessel 1. Spill of crude oil and 1. Double
Another crude oil at the 6. Check for leak
and the vessel contamination of the containment C I L
Flow exchanger gasket sensors.
outlet lines. environment. zone.
E-001
(6. Another Flow)

Table A5. HAZOP analysis of Level Element—Node 1.

Node 1
Separator V-001 and Associated Lines
Element Level
Risk Matrix
Guideword Deviation Possible Cause Consequences Safeguards Recommendations
F S R
1. Flooding of the V-0001
vessel. 1. LAHH-103
2. Drag of the liquid into with closing
More liquid in the
1. Spurious shot the gas line and action of
separator vessel
More of the treatment unit. SDV-30010. C II M None.
V-001 (7. High
SDV—101. 3. Possible damage to the LAH-102 with
Level)
unit’s generators. closing action of
4. Unit Shut down. SDV 30010.
5. Loss of production.
More liquid in the
separator vessel 2. LV-101 closed Analysed in the previous
More None. C II M None.
V-001 (7. High circuit failure. point.
Level)
11. Flooding of the
V-0001 vessel. 1. LAHH-103
2. Drag of the liquid into with closing
More liquid in the
3. Spurious shot the gas line and action of
separator vessel
More of the treatment unit. SDV-30010. C II M None.
V-001 (7. High
SDV—102. 3. Possible damage to the LAH-102 with
Level)
unit’s generators. closing action of
4. Unit Shut down. SDV 30010.
5. Loss of production.
More liquid in the
separator vessel 4. LV-102 closed Analysed in the previous
More None. C II M None.
V-001 (7. High circuit failure. point.
Level)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 15 of 17

Table A6. HAZOP analysis of Level Element—Node 1.

Node 1
Separator V-001 and Associated Lines
Element Level
Risk Matrix
Guideword Deviation Possible Cause Consequences Safeguards Recommendations
F S R
1. Passage of gas through
the V-102 degasser.
7. Adjust the operating
Less liquid in 2. Possible damage to the 1. LAHH-104
conditions of the cover
separator vessel 1. LV-101 open degasser. with closing
Less B II L gas on the TK-101 to
V-001 (8. Low circuit failure. 3. Release of flammable action of
allow proper operation
Level) material. SDV-101.
of the V-102.
4. Spill and
contamination.
Less liquid in 2. LAHH-104
1. Shipment of gas to
separator vessel 1. LV-101 close with closing Analysed in the
Less V-002. B II L
V-001 (8. Low circuit failure. action of previous point.
2. Operational problems.
Level) SDV-101.

Table A7. HAZOP analysis of Temperature Element—Node 1.

Node 1
Separator V-001 and Associated Lines
Element Temperature
Risk Matrix
Guideword Deviation Possible Cause Consequences Safeguards Recommendations
F S R
Higher
Temperature in
More vase separator 1. None. None. None. None.
V-001 (9. High
Temperature).
2. Inappropriate
Low Temperature
opening of the 1. Operational 1. Periodic check 8. Inspection and
in vase separator
Less deviation valve problems on of the valve in line B II L verification of the
V-001 (10. Low
on line separator. “6”-PF-A01-5002. valve.
Temperature).
“6”-PF-A01-5002.
None None.
Fire/Explosion 3. None. None. None.
(11.Fire/Explosion).

Table A8. HAZOP analysis of Corrosion Element—Node 1.

Node 1
Separator V-001 and Associated Lines
Element Corrosion/Erosion
Risk Matrix
Guideword Deviation Possible Cause Consequences Safeguards Recommendations
F S R
1. Breaking of stages in the
separator vessel V-001. 1. Calibrated
More corrosion. 1. Water system 9. Monitor and
2. Loss of internal coating. oxygen
More (12. Corrosion/ (sandblasting) C I L calibrate oxygen
3. Possible leakage of scavenging
Erosion Risk) entry fails. scavenging system.
hydrocarbons. peak.
4. Spill and contamination.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 16 of 17

Table A9. HAZOP analysis of the Start and Stop Procedure Element—Node 1.

Node 1
Start/Stop Separator V-001 and Associated Lines
Element
Procedures
Risk Matrix
Guideword Deviation Possible Cause Consequences Safeguards Recommendations
F S R
10. Evaluate the
1. Error in
Error on 1. Possible internal installation of the
FWKO start-up
procedures. damage to vessel 1. Commissioning differential pressure
Error procedures C I L
(13. Start/Stop V-001 and Procedure. gauge that works on
(without bypass
Risk) accessories. the SDV-30010
opening).
(permissive opening).

References
1. Abbasi, S.; Bakhtom, S.; Ziaei, M.; Arghami, S. Comparison of Risk Assessment Using HAZOP and ETBA Techniques: Case Study
of a Gasoline Refinery Unit in Iran. J. Human Environ. Health Promot. 2015, 1, 19–27. [CrossRef]
2. Dunjó, J.; Fthenakis, V.; Vílchez, J.A.; Arnaldos, J. Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) analysis. A literature review. J. Hazard. Mater.
2010, 173, 19–32. [CrossRef]
3. Di Nardo, M.; Madonna, M.; Gallo, M.; Murino, T. A Risk Assessment Proposal through System Dynamics. J. Southwest Jiaotong
Univ. 2020, 55. [CrossRef]
4. Kang, J.; Guo, L.; Wang, N. A Simplified HAZOP Analysis based on Fuzzy Evaluation of Node Criticality for Chemical Plants.
Int. J. Simul.-Syst. Sci. Technol. 2016, 17, 1–6.
5. Dunjó Denti, J. New Trends for Conducting Hazard & Operability (HAZOP) Studies in Continuos Chemical Processes. Ph.D.
Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Catalunya, Spain, 2010.
6. Sauer, M.E. Análise dos Procedimentos de Partida de um Reator IEA-R1: Uma Aplicação da Técnica HAZOP; Instituto de Pesquisas
Energéticas e Nucleares: São Paulo, Brasil, 2000; p. 142.
7. Benedetti-Marquez, E.B.; Sanchez-Forero, D.I.; Suarez-Urbina, A.J.; Rodrigues-Urbina, D.P.; Gracia-Rojas, J.; Puello-Mendez,
J. Analysis of Operational Risks in the Storage of Liquid Ammonium Nitrate in a Petrochemical Plant, through the HAZOP
Methodology. Chem. Eng. 2018, 67, 883–888.
8. Baybutt, P. A critique of the Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2015, 33, 52–58. [CrossRef]
9. Munn, A. Common Problems and Recent Trends with HAZOPs. IChemE Symp. 2009, 155, 130–133.
10. Pasman, H.; Rogers, W. How can we improve HAZOP, our old work horse, and do more with its results? An overview of recent
developments. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2016, 48, 829–834.
11. Trujillo, A.; Kessler, W.S.; Gaither, R. Commom mistakes when conducting a HAZOP and how to avoid them. Chem. Eng. 2015,
122, 54–58.
12. Mitkowski, P.T.; Zenka-Podlaszewska, D. HAZOP method in identification of risk in CPFR supply chain. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014,
39, 445–450.
13. Fuentes-Bargues, J.L.; Gonzáles-Cruz, M.; Gonzáles-Gaya, C.; Baixauli-Pérez, M. Risk analysis of a fuel storage terminal using
HAZOP and FTA. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 705. [CrossRef]
14. Single, J.I.; Schmidt, J.; Denecke, J. Ontology-based computer aid for the automation of HAZOP studies. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind.
2020, 68, 104321. [CrossRef]
15. Da Costa, S.R.; Al-Asy’ari, I.I.; Musyafa, A.; Soeprijanto, A. HAZOP study and fault tree analysis for calculation safety integrity
level on reactor-c.5-01, oil refinery unit at alikpapan-indonesia. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 2017, 5, 507–517.
16. Choi, J.-Y.; Byeon, S.-H. HAZOP Methodology Based on the Health, Safety, and Environment Engineering. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2020, 17, 3236. [CrossRef]
17. BS IEC 61882:2001. Hazard and Operability studies (HAZOP)–Application Guide; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2001.
18. Whitty, S.; Foord, T. Is HAZOP worth all the effort it takes? Inst. Chem. E 2009, 155, 143–148.
19. Center for Chemical Process Safety. Layer of Protection Analysis, Simplified Process Risk Assessment; American Institute of Chemical
Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2001; p. 270.
20. Ibrahim, H.A.; Syed, H.S. Hazard Analysis of Crude Oil Storage Tank Farm. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2018, 11, 300–308. [CrossRef]
21. Ishteyaque, S.; Jabeen, S.; Shoukat, S. Hazop study on oil refinery waste water treatment plant in karachi. Black Sea Sci. J. Acad.
Res. 2017, 34, 38–42.
22. Marhavilas, P.K.; Filippidis, M.; Koulinas, G.K.; Koulouriotis, D.E. A HAZOP with MCDM Based Risk-Assessment Approach:
Focusing on the Deviations with Economic/Health/Environmental Impacts in a Process Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 993.
[CrossRef]
23. Kletz, T.A. Learning from Accidents, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2001.
24. Mkpat, E.; Reniers, G.; Cozzani, V. Process safety education: A literature review. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2018, 54, 18–27.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10210 17 of 17

25. Jagtap, M. Hazard and operability (HAZOP) analysis: A review of basics. Clinition’s Sci. J. 2017, 1, 1–15.
26. Sikandar, S.; Ishtiaque, S.; Soomro, N. Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study of wastewater treatment unit producing
biohydrogen. Sindh Univ. Res. J. SURJ Sci. Ser. 2016, 48, 131–136.
27. Orugba, H.O.; Ogbeide, S.E.; Osagie, C. Risk level Assessment of the Desalter and Preflash Column of a Nigerian Crude
Distillation Unit. J. Mater. Sci. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 31–41. [CrossRef]
28. Sarsama, J.; Nissilä, M.; Koski, P.; Kaisalo, N.; Tallgren, J. HAZOP report: PEMBeyond Deliverable 6.5. 2017. Available online:
http://pembeyond.eu/deliverables/D6.5%20HAZOP%20report.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
29. Kolberg, T.A. Evaluation of Subsea7 HIRA (Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment). Master’s Thesis, University of Stavanger,
Stavanger, Norway, 2011.
30. Rausand, M.; Hoyland, A. HAZOP—Hazard and Operability Study. System Reliability Theory. Models, Statistical Methods and
Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
31. Borelli, S.; Ferreira, R.E.; Gabriel, V.; De Campos, F.C. Metodologia HAZOP: Segurança e Sustentabilidade no Processo Industrial.
Rev. Eletrônica FACP 2015, 7, 94–108.
32. Taylor, J. Automated HAZOP revisited. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 111, 635–651. [CrossRef]
33. Crawley, F.; Tyler, B. Chapter 4: The Detailed HAZOP Study Procedure. In HAZOP: Guide to Best Pratice, 3rd ed.; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 13–18.
34. Galante, E.; Bordalo, D.; Nobrega, M. Risk assessment methodology: Quantitative Hazop. J. Saf. Eng. 2014, 3, 31–36.
35. Haridoss, S. Health and Safety Hazards Management in Oil and Gas Industry. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2017, V6, 1058–1061. [CrossRef]
36. International Electrotechnical Commission; International Electrotechnical Technical Commission. Hazard and Operability Studies
(HAZOP Studies) Application Guide; IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.