10/23/2014 Hazard and operability study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hazard and operability study

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A hazard and operability study (HAZOP) is a structured and systematic

Look up Hazop in
examination of a planned or existing process or operation in order to identify Wiktionary, the free
and evaluate problems that may represent risks to personnel or equipment, or dictionary.
prevent efficient operation; it is carried out by a suitably experienced multi-
disciplinary team (HAZOP team) during a set of meetings. The HAZOP technique is qualitative, and aims to
stimulate the imagination of participants to identify potential hazards and operability problems; structure and
completeness are given by using guideword prompts. The relevant international standard [1] calls for team members
to display 'intuition and good judgement' and for the meetings to be held in 'a climate of positive thinking and frank
discussion'. The HAZOP technique was initially developed to analyze chemical process systems, but has later been
extended to other types of systems and also to complex operations such as nuclear power plant operation and to use
software to record the deviation and consequence.

Contents
1 Method
1.1 Outline
1.2 Guide words and parameters
2 Team
3 History
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 Further reading

Method
Outline

The method applies to processes (existing or planned) for which design information is available.[a] For continuous
processes, this commonly includes a piping and instrumentation diagram or process flow diagram which is examined
in sections, chosen so that for each a meaningful design intent (the desired, or specified range of behaviour for that
item, not just its design duty point ) can be specified. For example, in a chemical plant, a pipe may be intended to
transport 2.3 kg/s of 96% sulfuric acid at 20 °C and a pressure of 2 bar from a pump to a heat exchanger but a
prudent designer will have allowed for foreseeable variations – hotter/stronger acid, pump ‘no-flow’ pressure on the
line - before the design reaches detailed HAZOP and (where possible) that wider design envelope should be
explicitly identified and taken as the ‘design intent’ basis for HAZOP study .[b] The intended duty of the heat
exchanger may be to heat 2.3 kg/s of 96% sulfuric acid from 20 °C to 80 °C but its full design intent will also
include ‘glimpse of the obvious’ functions; eg maintaining containment of hot acid (and of the heating fluid,and
preventing leakage of one into the other). The size of sections should be appropriate to the complexity of the system
and the magnitude of the hazards it might pose. The HAZOP team then determines what are the possible significant
Deviations from each intent, feasible Causes and likely Consequences. It can then be decided (at the HAZOP, or by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_and_operability_study 1/6
10/23/2014 Hazard and operability study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

subsequent analysis) whether existing, designed safeguards are sufficient, or whether additional actions are
necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level. For batch and other sequential operations a logic flow diagram
should be available for HAZOP study as well: equipment may have different design intents at different points in the
operation (all should be considered) and hazards may arise from performing operations out of sequence. When
HAZOP meetings were recorded by hand they were generally scheduled for three to four hours per day.[c] For a
medium-sized chemical plant where the total number of items to be considered is 1200 (items of equipment and
pipes or other transfers between them) about 40 such meetings would be needed.[2] Various software programs are
now available to assist in meetings.

Guide words and parameters

In order to identify deviations, the team applies (systematically, in order [d]) a set of Guide Words to each section of
the process. To prompt discussion, or to ensure completeness, it may also be helpful to explicitly consider
appropriate parameters which apply to the design intent. These are general words such as Flow, Temperature,
Pressure, Composition. The current standard[1] notes that Guide words should be chosen which are appropriate to the
study and neither too specific (limiting ideas and discussion) nor too general (allowing loss of focus). A fairly
standard set of Guide Words (given as an example in Table 3 of [1]) is as follows:

Guide Word Meaning

Complete negation of the design
NO OR NOT
intent
MORE Quantitative increase
LESS Quantitative decrease
AS WELL AS Qualitative modification/increase
PART OF Qualitative modification/decrease
Logical opposite of the design
REVERSE
intent
OTHER THAN Complete substitution
EARLY Relative to the clock time
LATE Relative to the clock time
BEFORE Relating to order or sequence
AFTER Relating to order or sequence

(The last four guide words are applied to batch or sequential operations.) Where a guide word is meaningfully
applicable to a parameter e.g. NO FLOW, MORE TEMPERATURE, their combination should be recorded as a
credible potential deviation. The distinction between some guide words may not always be remembered by the team
(LESS COMPOSITION should suggest less than 96% sulfuric acid, AS WELL AS COMPOSITION should suggest
a contaminant whereas OTHER THAN COMPOSITION should suggest something else such as oil) or be well
observed by the plant (if a 60% sulphuric/ 15% nitric acid mixture could be fed instead, the possibility could be
flagged up against LESS, AS WELL AS, OTHER THAN).

HAZOP-type studies may also be carried out by considering applicable guide words and identifying elements to
which they are applicable[1] or by considering the parameters associated with plant elements and systematically
applying guide words to them; although this last approach is not mentioned in the relevant standard, its examples of
output include a study (B3) recorded in this way.[1] The following table gives an overview of commonly used guide
word - parameter pairs and common interpretations of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_and_operability_study 2/6
10/23/2014 Hazard and operability study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parameter /
Other
Guide More Less None Reverse As well as Part of
than
Word
reverse deviating deviating
Flow high flow low flow no flow contamination
flow concentration material
high low
Pressure vacuum delta-p explosion
pressure pressure
high low
Temperature
temperature temperature
different
Level high level low level no level
level
sequence
too long / too short / missing wrong
Time step backwards extra actions
too late too soon actions time
skipped
slow no
Agitation fast mixing
mixing mixing
fast
slow no unwanted
Reaction reaction /
reaction reaction reaction
runaway
Start-up / actions wrong
too fast too slow
Shut-down missed recipe
Draining / deviating
too long too short none wrong timing
Venting pressure
Inertising high low none contamination wrong
pressure pressure material
Utility
failure
failure
(instrument
air, power)
DCS failure
[e] failure

Maintenance none
wrong
Vibrations too low too high none
frequency

Once the causes and effects of any potential hazards have been established, the system being studied can then be
modified to improve its safety. The modified design should then be subject to another HAZOP, to ensure that no
new problems have been added. [f]

Team
A HAZOP study is a team effort. The team should be as small as possible consistent with their having relevant skills
and experience [g] A minimum team size of 4[1]-5 [3] is recommended. In a large process there will be many HAZOP
meetings and the team may change as different specialists and possibly different members of the design team are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_and_operability_study 3/6
10/23/2014 Hazard and operability study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

brought in, but the Study Leader and Recorder will usually be fixed. As many as 20 individuals may be involved[4]
but is recommended that no more than 7[1]-8[3] are involved at any one time (a larger team will make slower
progress): each team member should have a definite role as follows [1] (with alternative names from other sources):

Name Alternative Role

someone experienced in HAZOP but not directly involved in
the design, to ensure that the method is followed carefully.
Study leader Chairman Responsible for ensuring that discussion leads to a definite
conclusion and is adequately recorded, problems are
documented and recommendations passed on
to record discussions (accurately but comprehensibly), to
Recorder Secretary or scribe alert Study Leader when this becomes impossible,[h] to
document problems and recommendations
(or representative
of the team which
Designer To explain any design details or provide further information
has designed the
process)
(or representative
To consider it in use and question its operability, and the
User of those who will
effect of deviations
use it [i])
according to
someone with relevant technical knowledge, eg knowledge
specialism; eg
Specialist about effect of varying reaction conditions; training in human
Chemist ; Human
reliability analysis, and human error identification
Factors Specialist
Maintainer (if appropriate) someone concerned with maintenance of the plant.

In earlier publications it was suggested that the Study Leader could also be the Recorder[4] but separate roles are
now generally recommended. Software is now available from several suppliers to aid the Study Leader and the
Recorder.

History
The technique originated in the Heavy Organic Chemicals Division of ICI, which was then a major British and
international chemical company. The history has been described by Trevor Kletz[4][5] who was the company's safety
advisor from 1968 to 1982, from which the following is abstracted.

In 1963 a team of 3 people met for 3 days a week for 4 months to study the design of a new phenol plant. They
started with a technique called critical examination which asked for alternatives, but changed this to look for
deviations. The method was further refined within the company, under the name operability studies, and became the
third stage of its hazard analysis procedure (the first two being done at the conceptual and specification stages) when
the first detailed design was produced.

In 1974 a one-week safety course including this procedure was offered by the Institution of Chemical Engineers
(IChemE) at Teesside Polytechnic. Coming shortly after the Flixborough disaster, the course was fully booked, as
were ones in the next few years. In the same year the first paper in the open literature was also published.[6] In 1977
the Chemical Industries Association published a guide.[7] Up to this time the term HAZOP had not been used in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_and_operability_study 4/6
10/23/2014 Hazard and operability study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

formal publications. The first to do this was Kletz in 1983, with what were essentially the course notes (revised and
updated) from the IChemE courses.[4] By this time, hazard and operability studies had become an expected part of
chemical engineering degree courses in the UK.[4]

See also
Cybersecurity HAZOP (CS-HAZOP)

Hazard analysis Process Safety Management Safety engineering

Hazard Analysis and Critical Risk assessment HAZID
Control Points

Notes
a. ^ The HAZOP technique can also be applied where design information is not fully available - and doing so may be useful
in knocking bad ideas on the head before too much time is wasted upon them - but a meeting carried out on that basis is not
a 'HAZOP' within the meaning of the standard which notes its restrictive redefinition of the term "The term HAZOP has
been often associated, in a generic sense, with some other hazard identification techniques (e.g. checklist HAZOP, HAZOP
1 or 2, knowledge-based HAZOP). The use of the term with such techniques is considered to be inappropriate and is
specifically excluded from this document."[1]
b. ^ Otherwise the HAZOP gets bogged down
c. ^ Hours were restricted for a number of reasons: to allow the secretary time to manage the records, to allow attendance by
busy people with valuable insights, and because HAZOP meetings (and HAZOP team members) tend to lose focus if they
go on too long. The last two considerations still apply: “The success of the HAZOP study strongly depends on the alertness
and concentration of the team members and it is therefore important that the sessions are of limited duration and that there
are appropriate intervals between sessions. How these requirements are achieved is ultimately the responsibility of the study
leader.” [1]
d. ^ If an individual team member spots a problem before the appropriate guideword is reached it may be possible to maintain
rigid adherence to order; if most of the team wants to take the discussion out of order no great harm is done if they do,
provided the Study Leader ensures that the secretary is not becoming too confused, and that all guidewords are (eventually)
adequately considered
e. ^ This relates to the Distributed Control System (DCS) hardware only; software (unless specially carefully written) must
be assumed to be capable of attempting incorrect or inopportune operation of anything under its control
f. ^ ie the modifications (and their possible effect on other plant items) should undergo re-HAZOP
g. ^ and affiliation “Where a system has been designed by a contractor, the HAZOP team should contain personnel from both
the contractor and the client.” [1]
h. ^ eg he is unclear what conclusion has been reached against a guideword (or he suspects the Study Leader has missed one)
i. ^ If similar plant exists, its users should also be represented

References
1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k British Standard BS: IEC61882:2002 Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies)- Application

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_and_operability_study 5/6
10/23/2014 Hazard and operability study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guide British Standards Institution. “This British Standard reproduces verbatim IEC 61882:2001 and implements it as the
UK national standard.”
2. ^ Swann, C. D., & Preston, M. L., (1995) Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol 8, no 6, pp349-353
"Twenty-five years of HAZOPs"
3. ^ a b Nolan, D.P. (1994) Application of HAZOP and What-If Safety Reviews to the Petroleum, Petrochemical and Chemical
Industries. William Andrew Publishing/Noyes. ISBN 978-0-8155-1353-7
4. ^ a b c d e Kletz, T. A., (1983) HAZOP & HAZAN Notes on the Identification and Assessment of Hazards IChemE Rugby
5. ^ Kletz, T., (2000) By Accident - a life preventing them in industry PVF Publications ISBN 0-9538440-0-5
6. ^ Lawley, H. G.,(1974) Chemical Engineering Progress, vol 70, no 4 page 45 "Operability studies and hazard analysis"
AIChE
7. ^ Chemical Industries Association (1977) A Guide to Hazard and Operability Studies

Further reading
Kletz, Trevor (2006). Hazop and Hazan (4th Edition ed.). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0852955065.
Tyler, Brian, Crawley, Frank & Preston, Malcolm (2008). HAZOP: Guide to Best Practice (2nd Edition ed.).
IChemE, Rugby. ISBN 978-0-85295-525-3.
Gould, J., (2000) Review of Hazard Identification Techniques, HSE
(http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2005/hsl0558.pdf)
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5211/docs/RBDM_Files/PDF/RBDM_Guidelines/Volume%203/Volume%203-
Chapter%2010.pdf
Hazard and Operability Studies (http://www.lihoutech.com/hzp1frm.htm) Explanation by a software supplier
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/plansforaction/pdf/hazards/haz_hipap8_rev2008.pdf
Whitty, Steve; Foord, Tony. "Is HAZOP worth all the effort it takes?" (http://4-
sightconsulting.co.uk/Current_Papers/HAZOP/hazop.html). Retrieved 7 July 2014. Potential problems with
HAZOPs (authors sell HAZOP expertise, so presumably some promotional intent, but the issues described are
genuine/recognisable)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazard_and_operability_study&oldid=615949816"

Categories: Process safety Safety Safety engineering

This page was last modified on 7 July 2014 at 13:58.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_and_operability_study 6/6