DECember 2009 issue
|
|
Compliance
Does Facilitating a HAZOP Constitute Engineering Practice?
BY JOANNE PHILLIPS, P.ENG.
Compliance Consultant
HAZOP, which stands for hazard operability study, is only one of a number of safety studies that can be performed in a group led by a facilitator.
Other examples of these facilitated studies include what-if safety reviews and process hazard analysis. Even the HAZOP study has variations: knowledge-based HAZOP and creative checklist HAZOP, for example.
But does facilitating these studies constitute the practice of engineering?
This question came before the Enforcement Review Committee June 3, 2008, which started the ball rolling. The ERC tabled the motion, wanting a subcommittee to review the question and come back with more information. Made up of ERC members, along with members of APEGGA well-experienced in the execution and facilitation of HAZOPs, the new subcommittee went to work.
The subcommittee agreed to use the definition of HAZOP provided in the APEGGA Guideline for Management of Risk in Professional Practice. That definition states that a HAZOP is a structured, systematic technique for identifying hazards and operating problems throughout an area or entire facility. The guideline says that this type of study is particularly useful in identifying unforeseen hazards designed into facilities due to lack of information, or introduced into existing facilities due to changes in process conditions or operating procedures.
The definition notes that the HAZOP process may only identify the hazards or concerns needing immediate attention; and that it is not a comprehensive risk assessment but the first step leading into risk analysis, during which consequence and probability for the identified hazards are determined.
The definition of facilitation was never succinctly captured. However, the discussion suggested that the role of the HAZOP facilitator was to guide the team through the steps of the process without performing any of the activities of the team members. If a HAZOP facilitator took over for an absent team member one day, on that day, the facilitator would no longer simply be facilitating; his or her activity would have changed to facilitating and performing an additional activity consisting of whatever the absent team member was responsible for.
As early as the subcommittee’s first meeting on Aug. 14, 2008, the group identified what it felt were the two key questions. These were
-
Do all HAZOPs have to be facilitated by a professional engineer?
-
If a professional engineer facilitates a HAZOP, is it considered the practice of engineering?
During a series of meetings, the group discussed a wide range of topics in an effort to come to a conclusion. Some of these were
-
whether an engineering stamp is required on a HAZOP report as an indictor of whether the activity of HAZOP facilitation is the practice of engineering
-
whether it’s the facilitator’s responsibility to determine if the HAZOP team is adequately qualified
-
whether, in a consulting situation, it is the facilitator’s responsibility to ensure the correct people attend the meetings and whether the chosen HAZOP team members participate
-
who is partitioning the system into nodes or systems
-
who decides the point in design when drawings are appropriate to conduct the HAZOP
-
what the minimum qualifications are to be a facilitator
-
the process of noting and resolving exceptions
-
the legal opinion in a case with an incident, resulting in fault found with the facilitation of the HAZOP.
The definition of the practice of engineering from the EGGP Act formed the basis for the subcommittee’s discussions.
On Dec. 18, 2008, the subcommittee concluded that all HAZOPs do not have to be facilitated by a professional engineer. The committee also concluded, however, that when a professional engineer does facilitate a HAZOP, it is considered the practice of engineering.
This last conclusion, however, is inconsistent with how the EGGP Act defines whether an activity is the practice of engineering, since the focus is entirely on the activity and not the qualifications of the individual engaged in the activity. Just because the individual engaged in an activity is a professional engineer, it does not immediately follow that the activity is the practice of engineering.
In order to conclude that an activity is the practice of engineering, one must answer “yes” to the following two questions:
-
Does the activity constitute the
-
reporting on
-
advising on
-
evaluating
-
designing
-
preparing plans and specifications for
-
directing the construction of
-
directing the technical inspection of
-
directing the maintenance of, or
-
directing the operation of
any structure, work or process that is aimed at the discovery, development, utilization of other matter, materials or energy for the use or convenience of humans?
-
Does the activity constitute the above — and require the professional application of the principles of math, chemistry, physics or another related applied subject?
Since the answer to the second question, when looking at HAZOP facilitation, is no, that means HAZOP facilitation is not the practice of engineering.
Still, it should be noted that professional engineers and geoscientists facilitating HAZOPs do have a higher level of responsibility than do non-professional engineers and geoscientists. These legal, ethical and moral obligations are described in the guideline mentioned earlier.
The author offers special thanks to ERC members Doug Buchanan, P.Eng., and Hugh Powell, P.Eng., Vincent Chiew, P.Eng., Iain Kilpatrick, P.Eng., and Ken Scott, P.Eng., for their generous contribution of time and wisdom through the entire examination.
Thanks to Joel Regenstreif, P.Eng., who participated in the initial HAZOP subcommittee meetings until his job took him out of the country, and to Patrick Wall, P.Eng., who joined the ERC and the subcommittee towards the end of these discussions.