Analisis HAZOP

(1)

PEMBUATAN FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN (FEED) TOTAL PROJECT

KAMOJANG UNIT 5 (1 X 30 MW) - JAWA BARAT

ANALISIS HAZOP - GPP

A 30 Mei 2012 Issued for Approval ASY PSN OOK TJA WDR

DISIAPKAN DIPERIKSA DISETUJUI DIPERIKSA DISETUJUI

REV TANGGAL DESKRIPSI PERSETUJUAN PERSETUJUAN

PT. LAPI ITB PT.PGE

KODE STATUS : IFR = Issued for Review, IFA = Issued for Approval, IFU = Issued for Used

Tindakan memperbanyak (copy) secara total atau sebagian dan/atau penggunaan dokumen ini

DILARANG tanpa adanya izin tertulis dari pemilik.

NOMOR DOKUMEN REVISI STATUS

(2)

PEMBUATAN FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN (FEED) TOTAL PROJECT KAMOJANG UNIT 5 (1 X 30

MW) – JAWA BARAT

JUDUL NOMOR DOKUMEN HALAMAN

Analisis HAZOP - GPP KMJ5 – PP – HS – DTN – 001 2 of 16

TABULASI HALAMAN REVISI

Hal REVISI Hal REVISI

A B 0 1 2 3 4 5 A B 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 36 2 37 3 38 4 39 5 40 6 41 7 42 8 43 9 44 10 45 11 46 12 47 13 48 14 49 15 50 16 51 17 52 18 53 19 54 20 55 21 56 22 57 23 58 24 59 25 60 26 61 27 62 28 63 29 64 30 65 31 66 32 67 33 68 34 69 35 70

(3)

Analisis HAZOP - GPP KMJ5 – PP – HS – DTN – 001 3 of 16 LEMBAR KOMENTAR Komentar: NO REFERENSI, PARAGRAPH, ATAU BAB

KOMENTAR PT. PGE RESPON PT. LAPI ITB

1 2 3

PERUSAHAAN PT.PGE PT. LAPI ITB

OLEH POSISI TANGGAL

(4)

Analisis HAZOP - GPP KMJ5 – PP – HS – DTN – 001 4 of 16 DAFTAR ISI 1 PENDAHULUAN ... 5 2 TUJUAN ... 5 3 DEFINISI ... 5 4 METODOLOGI ... 5 5 HASIL CHECKLIST ... 6 6 REFERENSI………..6

LAMPIRAN 1 DAFTAR PERIKSA (CHECKLIST)……….7

LAMPIRAN 2 What-If ANALYSIS WORKSHEET………....9

LAMPIRAN 3 HAZOP WORKSHEET………10

LAMPIRAN 4 FORMAT REKOMENDASI……….11

LAMPIRAN 5 PRELIMINARY HAZARD ANALYSIS ……….12

WORKSHEET LAMPIRAN 6 RISK RANKING MATRIX………13

(5)

1 PENDAHULUAN

PT. Pertamina Geothermal (PGE) bermaksud untuk melaksanakan Pembangunan Pembangkit Listrik Panas Bumi (PLTP) Unit 5 agar mendekati nilai kapasitas 30 MW dengan mengalirkan uap produksi dari sumur Cluster A dan Cluster C. Oleh karena itu diadakan proyek “Front End Engineering Design (FEED) Total Project Kamojang Unit 5 (1x30 MW) – Jawa Barat”.

2 TUJUAN

Tujuan dari dokumen ini adalah untuk menjabarkan hasil analisis Hazard Operability (HAZOP) untuk PLTP unit 5 Pertamina Area Geotermal Kamojang pada bagian Power Plant.

3 DEFINISI

Berikut adalah definisi dari pihak-pihak yang dimaksud dalam dokumen ini: 1. KLIEN adalah PT. Pertamina Geothermal sebagai pemilik proyek.

2. KONSULTAN adalah PT. LAPI ITB sebagai pihak yang menyediakan jasa Konsultasi Teknis dan didukung ELC sebagai sub konsultan.

3. VENDOR (Pabrikan atau Sub-Kontraktor) adalah pihak yang memproduksi atau menyediakan material serta jasa pelayanan untuk melakukan pekerjaan yang telah ditetapkan oleh KONSULTAN.

4 METODOLOGI

Analisis HAZOP untuk PERTAMINA Area Geotermal Kamojang unit 5 ini menggunakan salah satu metode yang umum digunakan untuk analisis HAZOP yaitu Metode “What If-Checklist”.

(6)

5 HASIL CHECKLIST

Check list mengenai HAZOP dituangkan dalam bentuk pertanyaan- pertanyaan detail yang bersangkutan dengan HAZOP. Checklist tersebut dijabarkan dalam Lampiran 1 dan Lampiran 2.

6 REFERENSI

1. KMJ5-PP-PR-DTN-001 GPP Design Basis

2. KMJ5-PP-PR-PCD-001 Comissioning & Start Up Procedure GPP 3. KMJ5-PP-PR-DTN-002 GPP Process Philosophy

(7)

LAMPIRAN 1

DAFTAR PERIKSA (CHECKLIST) Bagian : Start Up dan Shut Down Power Plant

No. Daftar Pertanyaan Ya Tidak

I. Start Up

1. Apakah sistem supervisi dan kontrol berjalan baik ? 2. Apakah semua auxilary service boards tersedia ? 3. Apakah Turbin dan generator siap untuk digunakan ? 4. Apakah turbin tripped ? dan pastikan stop valves, control

valves, dan stand by valves tertutup

5. Apakah Emergency Governor dalam kondisi tripped ? 6. Apakah power tersedia untuk pompa emergency bearing

oil dan switch pada posisi auto start ?

7. Apakah filter oli duplex pada jalur pipa menuju bearing dalam keadaan bersih ?

8. Apakah level tangki oli masih berada di antara level minimum dan maksimum ?

9. Apakah semua saluran pipa terbuka lebar dan casing saluran terbuka dengan benar ?

10. Apakah jalur untuk mengalirkan uap dapat beroperasi pada tekanan 10 barg dan steam tersedia untuk menjalankan turbin ?

11. Apakah level Condensor dan level CT Basin ada pada level yang benar ?

12. Apakah sistem compressed air dapat berjalan ? 13. Apakah Vacum breaker valve tertutup ?

14. Apakah valve hot pump recirculation terbuka dan control valve untuk pengecekan tertutup ?

15. Apakah valve untuk mengalirkan air ke kondenser dalam keadaan tertutup ?

(8)

16. Apakah sistem reinjeksi, blow down dan flash vessels bekerja dengan baik ?

17. Apakah semua peralatan safety sudah tersedia ? II. Shut Down

1. Apakah tes fungsionalitas semua peralatan telah dilakukan ?

2. Apakah auxilary service dapat dijalankan melalui jalur transmisi setelah circuit breaker untuk generator terbuka?

(9)

LAMPIRAN 2

WHAT – IF ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Perusahaan :

Unit Operasi : Area/Fasilitas : No. Gambar :

Tanggal :

(10)

LAMPIRAN 3

HAZOP Worksheet

Perusahaan : Unit Operasi : Area/Fasilitas : Sesi :

Node : No. Gambar :

Parameter : Intention :

(11)

LAMPIRAN 4

FORMAT REKOMENDASI PT. PERTAMINA GEOTHERMAL

Studi HAZOP

Perbaikan Tindak Lanjut & Rekomendasi Nama Proyek : No. Proyek : Studi HAZOP : Rekomendasi : Permasalahan : Rekomendasi :

Ditanda-tangani oleh : Tanggal : o Tim HAZOP : o Unit Operasi/Bagian : o Kontraktor : o Lain-lain : Usulan : Selesai Pekerjaan : Oleh : Disetujui : Tanggal : Tanggal :

(12)

LAMPIRAN 5

PRELIMINARY HAZARD ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Perusahaan :

Unit Operasi : Area/Fasilitas : No. Gambar :

Tanggal :

(13)

LAMPIRAN 6

RISK RANKING MATRIX HAZARD SEVERITY

Category Descriptive Word Expected Event Consequence

I Catasthropic

 Multiple Fatalities

 Multiple hospitalization of ten or more workers and/or members of

public

 Extensive facility property/equipment damage, major business

interruption; or

 Catasthropic environmental impact.

II Critical

 Fatality

 Multiple hohspitalization of less than ten workers and/or injury to members of the public

 Major equipment damage, moderate business interuption

 Severe environmental impact; or

 Large public disruption.

III Significant

 Release of large or moderate quantities of flammable or toxic material (minimal impact)

 Less severe medical treatment injury of a worker(s)

 Moderate equipment damage, minor business interruption

 Moderate environmental impact; or

 Small public disruption.

IV Minor

 Release of minor quantities of flammable or toxic material  First aid injury of worker

 Minor equipment damage, negligible business interruption; or

 Minor environmental impact.

INDIVIDUAL EVENT FREQUENCY LEVEL

Level Descriptive Word Definition

A Frequent Repeated events could be expected in life of facility.

B Probable Several events could be expected in the life of facility.

C Possible Single event could reasonably be expected to occur in life of facility.

D Improbable Occurence of a single event not expected during the lifetime of a

particular facility, but could be expected over the lifetimes of several similar facilities.

E Highly Improbable Event occurrence during lifetimes of several similar facilities would not

(14)

RISK ASSESSMENT RANKING

Risk Rank Descriptive Word Expected Event Consequence

1 Very High  Immediate corrective action required

 Engineered remedial action required

2 High  High priority corrective action required

 Engineered remedial action preferred

3 Moderate  Reduced priority corrective action required

 Engineered or procedural remedial action

4 Low  Significant corrective action to further reduce risk not required

 Minor adjustments or changes should be implemented, where

possible

5 Very Low  Corrective action to further reduce risk not necessary

Matrix Notes Hazard Severity:

 OSHA reportable events (report within 8 hrs) fall under the Critical or Catastrophic Severity Categories. The minimum OSHA reportable event (fatality; or 3 or more workers hoapitalized) falls under the Critical Hazard Severity.

 Public disruption includes evacuation, blockage of highways, etc. Negative publicity for the company may also

be implicitly included, as appropriate, in public disruption and/or business impact.

 Financial criteria for equipment damage and/or business interruption may be established for a particular project

to better define the degree of loss corresponding to each Hazard Severity Category. RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Hazard Severity Category Frequency Level (Probability) A B C D E I 1 1 2 3 4 II 1 2 3 4 5 III 2 3 4 5 5 IV 3 4 5 5 5

(15)

Individual Event Frequency Level:

Descriptive Word in Individual Event Frequency Level are intended to approximately correspond to the numerical frequencies below.

Level Descriptive Word Numerical Frequency Definition

A Frequent 100_{to 10}-1_/yr _{Repeated events could be expected in life of facility.}

B Probable 10-1_{to 10}-2_/yr _{Several events could be expected in life of facility.}

C Possible 10-2_{to 10}-4_/yr _{Single event could reasonably be expected to occur in}

life of facility.

D Improbable 10-4_{to 10}-6_/yr _{Occurence of a single events not expected during the}

lifetime of a particular facility, but could be expected over the lifetimes of several similar facilities.

E Highly Improbable <10-6 _{Event occurence during lifetimes of several similar}

facilities would not be expected.

Risk Assessment Ranking:

 A Risk Rank of 4 is the as low as reasonably practical level (i.e. cost effective corrective actions should be implemented).

(16)

LAMPIRAN 7

HAZARD ANALYSIS KEYWORD FLAMMABLES  IGNITION  FIRE  EXPLOSION/BLEVE  MAJOR LEAK/SPILL  TLV CHEMICALS  TOXICITY  CORROSION  REACTION HEALTH HAZARDS  CHEMICAL CONTACT  CRYOGENIC CONTACT  NOISE  VIBRATION  ODOR  HEAT CONTACT  ASPHYXIANTS  IRRITANT  ELECTRO STATIC  TLV OPERATION HAZARDS  PRESSURE EXTREME  TEMPERATURE EXTREME  MATERIAL OUT OF PLACE  HIGH/LOW LEVEL MODE OF OPERATION  START-UP  SHUTDOWN (EMERGENCY, NORMAL)  MAINTENANCE  EMERGENCY LOSS OF SERVICES  ELECTRICITY  WATER  PNEUMATIC  COOLING SYSTEM  OTHER SEVICES EXTERNAL EVENT

 EXTREME WEATHER (FLOODING, EARTHQUAKE)

 ACCIDENTAL IMPACT  LIGHTNING

EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS