(60cc) Comparison of Perception of Risk between Capital Projects and Revalidation Projects

Hazard and operability studies (HAZOPs) are an excellent way of determining the risk associated with a chemical process. However, the perception of risk varies between capital and revalidation projects. Revalidation projects are often performed due to requirements from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other regulatory agencies and are a common practice in many companies. However, these projects pose additional challenges due to factors such as out of date or inaccurate information, an unknown design basis, complacency towards risks, and in some cases motivational bias to avoid change. On the other hand, there may be more information available about operating conditions and failure rates. In order to accurately risk rank scenarios, voting can be used to help establish consensus within the team and to assign a risk ranking based on the severity of the consequence and the likelihood of the initiating event. In this study, a comparison of voting results was performed for capital projects and revalidation projects to identify differences in risk perception and the level of uncertainty of participants. Participants were asked to risk rank specific scenarios that could lead to negative outcomes such as vessel overpressure, pump cavitation, etc. Data was taken from a series of HAZOPs for different companies within the petrochemical industry (upstream, midstream, and downstream). The level of uncertainty of participants about the outcome of different scenarios and the risk perception of participants, based on the severity ranking, was tracked in order to compare results for participants with different project roles (engineers, operators, project managers, etc.). This information was then used to identify biases in voting patterns. Lessons learned from these HAZOPs and the voting patterns of participants is useful for identifying motivational and cognitive biases present in capital project and revalidation project HAZOPs. An understanding of these biases can help facilitators guide discussions more effectively and assist HAZOP participants in achieving a more accurate consensus, with the ultimate goal of improving HAZOP results and making facilities safer to operate.