Rank: Forum user 
|
I find myself in a rather peculiar situation were I am being asked to sign off as an approver on behalf of the company I work for, on a HAZOP for a design I know little about.
The company I work for have got some consultants to design a process for a new product, I have seen a few unfished P&ID’s and attended a few of the HAZOP sessions that were being led by the 3rd.party
I couldn’t really add much to the HAZOP as I am not very familiar with the process – so in short I don’t feel comfortable signing it as a representative of the company
For me the whole process from idea to tender and URS I’ve not seen. Just because I have an EHS title there seems to be an expectations for me to sign the HAZOP off that was led by a third party.
I would suggest the plant manager signs off against this if he/she is confident it is ok. I love to know peoples thoughts on it. I'm not being put under pressure to sign it but I will refuse to do so as I don't understand the process or ramifications shoud something in the future go wrong and the HAZOP is reporoduced in court later down the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mersey - while there is nothing in black and white which would indicate who should be doing this, it seems to me that if you do not understand the process (not the HAZOP methodology), and are uncomfortable signing this off then you are not the right person to be doing so. Sounds a bit like the old "It's Safety, so sign off should be by the Safety bod". Let's suppose that you are mixing 100 kg of chemical X with 50 kg of chemical Y, you might understand the intended outcome, but if we are dealing with complex organic chemistry there could be a multitude of potential byproducts. If you don't understand the potentials then you are unlikely to be suitable for signing off to say that the HAZOP has adequately considered what could happen. Difficult enough if you stick to inorganic reactions where one element such as iron may have multiple valencies!
|
 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have attended many HAZOP's over the years in an Occ Safety capacity. They have always been run by and for Process Engineers. I have attended as a bit part and contributed very little to only the 'operability' part of the study. The owner of the 'process' should be accepting the HAZOP findings. If you do not have operational control over the process how can you sign for the hazard study into it?
|
1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree with everything above ...
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hazop actions, in my experience are usually signed off by all 3 1. The person the action was originally placed on 2. The HAZOP leader/chairman 3. Finally the project manager One thing to watch for is that the HAZOP actually states what has been done to satisfy the action - NOT what will be done at a future date etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Agree with Ian...I would normallt validate the action response but in this instance the project manager or the plant manager is the ultimate sign off authority. It can also be validated externally is it is part of a documentation to support a safety case.
|
1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.