HAZOP (Process)

What Is HAZOP? A Quick Introduction

HAZOP—short for Hazard and Operability Study—is a structured, team-based technique used to identify how a process can deviate from its intended design and how those deviations could create hazards or operability problems. Think of it like a forensic “what-could-go-wrong?” workshop that combs through P&IDs and procedures using systematic guide words to provoke discussion and surface risk.

In simple terms: you take each part of a process (a “node”), apply standard prompts (guide words like No, More, Reverse), and explore causes, consequences, safeguards, and actions. The result is a prioritized action list that makes plants safer and smoother to run.

Why HAZOP Matters in Process Industries

From oil & gas and chemicals to pharma and food processing, processes are complex and tightly coupled. Minor deviations—say, a stuck valve or an incorrect setpoint—can cascade into major incidents. HAZOP delivers value by:

• Catching design weaknesses before startup
• Uncovering operational failure modes that lead to trips or quality losses
• Improving instrumentation, alarms, and interlocks
• Creating traceable, risk-based actions to reduce residual risk

Origins and Standards Governing HAZOP

IEC 61882 and CCPS Guidance

Modern HAZOP practice is rooted in seminal work at ICI (UK) and has since been standardized. Two authoritative references you can cite in your internal procedures are:

• IEC 61882 — “Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies) — Application guide”
• CCPS (AIChE) Guidelines — Deep guidance on conducting process hazard analyses

For broader regulatory context, see OSHA PSM 29 CFR 1910.119 (U.S.) and the Seveso III Directive (EU).

Alignment with OSHA PSM and Seveso

OSHA’s PSM standard requires a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) at least every five years for covered processes. HAZOP is the most common PHA technique because it’s thorough, transparent, and auditable. In Europe, Seveso’s major accident prevention regime expects similarly rigorous hazard identification and risk management.

External reading (authoritative):

• OSHA PSM: https://www.osha.gov/process-safety-management

Where HAZOP Fits in the Process Safety Lifecycle

Concept → FEED → Detailed Design → Operations

You’ll often hear “HAZID early, HAZOP later.” At Concept/FEED, you’re framing hazards broadly (HAZID, Bow-Tie). At Detailed Design, when P&IDs are mature, a full HAZOP is most effective because line sizes, control loops, and safeguards are defined. During Operations, you’ll revalidate HAZOPs periodically and when significant changes occur.

Revalidation and Management of Change (MoC)

Two golden rules:

1. Revalidate at least every five years (or per regulation/company standard).
2. Trigger a mini-HAZOP/targeted PHA whenever an MoC could alter risk (equipment changes, control logic tweaks, feedstock changes, etc.).

When to Do a HAZOP (Timing & Triggers)

• Pre-startup of new units or major revamps
• After incident learnings suggest systemic gaps
• Before capacity increases/debottlenecking
• When new chemicals, modes, or operating envelopes are introduced
• Prior to SIS re-design if protection layers shift

HAZOP Team Structure and Roles

A HAZOP is only as good as its team.

• Facilitator/Leader: Keeps pace, applies guide words, ensures objectivity, mediates scope.
• Scribe: Captures deviations, causes, consequences, safeguards, and actions with discipline.
• Process Engineer: Design intent, process constraints, thermodynamics.
• Instrumentation/Controls: Loops, alarms, trips, interlocks, SIS/SIF logic.
• Operations/Shift Rep: Realistic operating practices and “tribal knowledge.”
• Maintenance/Reliability: Failure modes, proof test intervals, degradation patterns.
• HSE/Process Safety: Risk methods, regulatory alignment, escalation criteria.
• Vendor/Contractor (as needed): Package units, skids, proprietary systems.

Tip: Keep the core table to ~6–10 people; invite specialists for specific nodes.

Defining Scope and Selecting Nodes

Scope answers: What’s in? What’s out? Boundaries avoid debating utilities you don’t own or upstream/downstream systems that aren’t affected.

Nodes are logical chunks of a process chosen to make discussion manageable—commonly between two control valves, or an equipment item (e.g., Reactor R-101, Pump P-201 + suction/discharge, Heat Exchanger E-301). For each node, you consider relevant parameters (flow, pressure, temperature, level, composition, agitation, phase, utilities, etc.).

HAZOP Guide Words and Process Parameters

Classic Guide Words (Examples)

• No/Not (no flow, no agitation)
• More (more flow, higher pressure)
• Less (less temperature, lower level)
• As Well As (additional component/impurity enters)
• Part Of (incomplete reaction, partial component)
• Reverse (backflow)
• Other Than (wrong fluid, wrong materials)
• Early/Late (timing deviations for batch/sequence)
• Before/After (incorrect sequence)

Common Parameters

• Flow, Pressure, Temperature, Level
• Composition/Concentration
• Phase (vapor/liquid/solid), Density, Viscosity
• Agitation/Mixing Rate, Residence Time
• Utilities (steam, nitrogen, cooling water, instrument air)

For each Guide Word × Parameter, you examine deviation → causes → consequences → safeguards → actions.

The Deviation–Cause–Consequence–Safeguard Method

This is the HAZOP backbone:

1. Deviation: “More pressure” at Reactor R-101.
2. Potential Causes: Control valve failure shut, cooling loss, exotherm runaway, blocked vent.
3. Consequences: Overpressure → relief lift → containment loss → fire/toxic exposure.
4. Existing Safeguards: Pressure control loop, high-pressure alarm, PSV sized per API 520/521, SIS trip to isolate feeds, emergency vent.
5. Actions/Recommendations: Increase proof-test frequency, add high-high pressure trip, improve alarm rationalization, change setpoints, add quench, modify procedures/training.

Risk Ranking: Severity, Likelihood & Risk Matrices

Teams often use a 3×3 or 5×5 matrix. Define severity (S) and likelihood (L) categories with clear calibration (e.g., S1–S5 from minor to catastrophic; L1–L5 from remote to frequent). Agree tolerability criteria and what risk bands trigger mandatory actions (e.g., all High/Red require safeguards or design changes).

Key is consistency: a “High” in Unit-A should mean the same in Unit-B.

Safeguards and Independent Protection Layers (IPLs)

Not all safeguards are equal. IPLs must be effective, independent, and auditable. Examples:

• Passive/Hardware: PSV, rupture disk, dike, blast wall.
• Control/Instrumented: BPCS loops (not independent), SIS/SIF with target SIL.
• Detection/Alarm: Gas/fire detection (alarm alone isn’t an IPL unless it ensures action).
• Procedural/Administrative: Checklist, SOP, operator response (weaker; verify human factors).
• Mitigation: Sprinklers, deluge, emergency scrubbers, ESD.

If you plan to rely on IPLs for risk reduction, connect HAZOP findings to LOPA to verify risk targets.

Recording Actions, Owners, and Closure

Every action should have:

• Clear wording (what, where, why)
• Named owner (single accountable person)
• Due date (realistic and risk-based)
• Closure evidence (document link, MOC reference, test record)

A brilliant HAZOP with weak action tracking is just a long meeting.

HAZOP vs. FMEA vs. LOPA vs. What-If

• HAZOP: Deviation-driven, node-by-node, qualitative with risk ranking.
• FMEA: Failure-mode-centric at component level; great for packages and equipment.
• LOPA: Semi-quantitative risk evaluation to test if IPLs meet tolerable risk targets.
• What-If/Checklist: Faster, broader sweeps; good for early phases or utilities.

Often, you’ll blend techniques: HAZOP for process nodes, FMEA for vendor skids, LOPA for high-risk scenarios.

A Worked Mini-Example (Pump Transfer System)

Node: Pump P-101 (Tank T-101 to Tank T-102), with suction strainer, discharge control valve, flow indicator, low-level trip on T-101, and check valve on discharge.

Deviations & Discussion:

• No Flow
  Causes: Pump trip, motor failure, suction isolation closed, strainer plugged.
  Consequences: Downstream starvation → reactor level low → batch upset; pump overheating.
  Safeguards: Low-flow alarm, motor overload trip, low-level trip on T-101.
  Actions: Add differential pressure indicator across strainer; SOP for cleaning frequency; consider low-flow recycle.
• Reverse Flow
  Causes: Check valve stuck open; discharge backpressure higher than suction.
  Consequences: Backspin → pump damage; contamination of T-101.
  Safeguards: Check valve, non-return feature, isolation procedures.
  Actions: Upgrade to double-check or add non-slam check; preventive maintenance interval.
• More Pressure (Discharge High)
  Causes: Downstream block valve closed; control valve failure closed.
  Consequences: Overpressure of line; potential leak/rupture.
  Safeguards: PSV on line, high-pressure alarm, relief to safe location.
  Actions: Verify PSV set/size; add position feedback on block valves; alarm rationalization to ensure operator action.
• Other Than (Wrong Fluid)
  Causes: Mis-lineup; hose cross-connection during maintenance.
  Consequences: Quality impact; possible incompatible reaction.
  Safeguards: Line labeling, key interlocks, permit-to-work.
  Actions: Color-coding, positive isolation procedure, valve lockout.

This compact example shows the HAZOP rhythm: deviation → cause → consequence → safeguards → actions with risk ranking on each.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

• Over-scoping or under-scoping: Define clear system boundaries and goals.
• Rushing nodes: Allocate realistic time; complex reactors need deeper dives.
• Siloed thinking: Invite operators/maintenance—real-world insights matter.
• Action bloat: Write sharp, do-able actions; prioritize by risk.
• Weak independence claims: Don’t double-count the same loop as an IPL.
• Document chaos: Use a consistent template and disciplined scribing.

Documentation, Reporting, and Audit Readiness

A strong HAZOP record includes:

• Basis and scope, node list, P&ID revisions
• Team roster with credentials and roles
• Method (guide words, risk matrix), assumptions
• Full deviation tables with safeguards and actions
• Action tracker with status and evidence
• Sign-offs and MOC linkage for implemented changes

Auditors love traceability: show line-of-sight from finding → action → closure.

Digital HAZOPs: Tools, Remote Sessions & Data

Modern teams leverage:

• PHA software for node management, libraries, and action tracking
• Live P&ID viewers and 3D models to reduce ambiguity
• Remote collaboration (with strict document control)
• Data handoff to LOPA/SIS and alarm management tools

Best Practices Checklist

• Freeze the right P&ID set before kickoff.
• Write a HAZOP plan (scope, method, risk criteria).
• Brief the team with a pre-read (process narrative, hazards).
• Pick meaningful nodes aligned to control boundaries.
• Calibrate risk matrix with corporate tolerability.
• Challenge independence of safeguards; document proof test intervals.
• Keep actions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound).
• Tie actions to MoC and verify closure.
• Revalidate on schedule or when changes occur.

Conclusion

HAZOP is the process industry’s powerhouse tool for discovering how a plant can drift into danger or dysfunction—and how to stop that from happening. By systematically applying guide words to well-chosen nodes, engaging a cross-functional team, and tying findings to robust safeguards and actionable follow-ups, you transform design intent into durable, auditable process safety. Whether you’re commissioning a new unit or tuning a mature facility, a well-executed HAZOP is one of the highest-ROI safety and reliability investments you can make.

FMEA (Failure Modes & Effects Analysis)

Hierarchy of Controls in Risk Assessment

Designing a 3×3 vs 5×5 Risk Matrix

Gas Cylinder Handling JSA – Job Safety Analysis

Tower Crane Operation JSA – Job Safety Analysis

---

FAQs

1) What documents do I need before starting a HAZOP?

Up-to-date P&IDs, PFDs, control narratives, relief device summaries, alarm setpoints, cause-and-effect diagrams, operating procedures, and any recent incident/MoC history.

2) How long does a typical HAZOP take?

Depends on scope and complexity. A small utility system may finish in a day; a large continuous unit can run several weeks. The key is pacing—enough time to probe risk without analysis paralysis.

3) Can HAZOP be used for batch processes?

Yes. Use sequence-oriented guide words (Early/Late/Before/After) and consider charging, reaction, hold, and discharge phases as distinct nodes or scenarios.

4) Do alarms count as independent protection layers (IPLs)?

Only if they’re proven to deliver reliable operator action within the required time. Many organizations treat plain alarms as non-IPLs unless supported by performance data and procedures.

5) How does HAZOP relate to LOPA and SIL?

HAZOP identifies hazardous scenarios and existing safeguards. LOPA tests whether risk reduction is adequate and whether SIS/SIF must achieve a specific SIL target. They are complementary steps in a consistent risk framework.