Process Design Engineering_September 2024 Batch

A: Option A would let operations credit isolation that isn't demonstrable during audit, creating a COMAH non-conformance. Option B assumes as-built status without evidence, which fails under inspection when tag reconciliation is requested. Option C misreads function and ignores bleed sizing and positive isolation criteria. Option D recognises intent versus evidence and forces verification before claiming DBB in a safety case.

A: Option A would drive severe liquid carryover because droplet settling doesn’t scale that way at field densities. Option B imports flare KO logic and ignores continuous separation duty. Option C overshoots volume badly and signals a slugging assumption that isn’t stated. Option D aligns with common production separator practice without inflating vessel size.

A: Option A would explain control issues but not sustained carryover with stable feed. Option B raises entrainment risk but usually shows as pressure drop changes and noise. Option C fits carryover yet typically shows rising level and chemical history flags. Option D links unstable level signal with gas ingestion and downstream liquid slip.

A: Option A underestimates by three orders due to phase error. Option B keeps volumetric units and breaks API 521 methodology. Option C drops the actual continuous flow assumption inherent in blocked outlet. Option D correctly converts 100 m3/h by density to mass flow at relief conditions.