PROCESS HAZARD SCENARIO COMPLETENESS AS A KEY RESULT INDICATOR FOR HAZOP STUDY QUALITY – THREE PHASE SEPARATOR CASE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/jest.v9.227Keywords:
HAZOP, Key Result Indicator, Quality, Scenario, CompletenessAbstract
Scenario completeness refers to the extent to which all credible process hazard scenarios have been identified and documented. Ensuring the completeness of process hazard scenarios is foundational to the quality and credibility of a Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study. As the cornerstone of qualitative risk assessment in the process industry, HAZOP’s effectiveness depends on the systematic identification of all credible deviations and their associated hazardous consequences. This paper proposes hazard scenario completeness as a key result indicator for evaluating the quality of HAZOP studies, based on the recognition that omitted scenarios can significantly underestimate risk and compromise safeguard adequacy. A structured framework is presented for assessing scenario completeness, including benchmarking against established scenario taxonomies – such as API RP 14C – and analysing coverage through cause-consequence pairs. The approach emphasizes the role of historical data, expert knowledge, and consistency in the identification of representative and credible hazard scenarios across different process nodes. The findings suggest that incorporating scenario completeness as a quantifiable metric can enhance the reliability, traceability, and defensibility of HAZOP outputs. This approach offers a practical basis for both internal quality assurance and external regulatory validation of process hazard analyses.
References
Baybutt, P. 2014. On the completeness of scenario in process hazard analysis (PHA). Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 55: 492-499.
Alshethry, F. A. M. 2017. Auditing the Quality of Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) Studies, Texas A&M University. Dissertation.
Cameron, I. et.al. 2017. Process hazard analysis, hazard identification and scenario definition: Are the conventional tools sufficient, or should and can we do much better? Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 110: 53-70.
Baybutt, P. 2003. On the ability of process hazard analysis (PHA) to identify accidents. Process Safety Progress. 22 (3): 191-194.
Aven, T. 2016. Ignoring scenarios in risk assessmens: Understanding the issue and improving current practices. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 145: 213-220
Markowski, A.S., and Siuta, D. 2017. Selection of representative accident scenarios for major industrial accidents. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 111: 652-662.
Baybutt, P. 2015. A critique of the Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 33: 52-58.
Eames, P. 2022. ‘A HAZOP Leader’s Handbook. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Aven, T. 2013. On the meaning of black swan in a risk context. Safety Science. 57: 44-51.
Glette-Iversen, I, and Aven, T. 2021. On the meaning of and relation between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 211: 107625
Aven, T. 2015. Implication of black swans to the foundation and practices of risk assessment and management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 134: 83-91.
Baybutt, P. 2017. Validity of engineering judgment and expert opinion in hazard and risk analysis: the influence of cognitive biases. Process Safety Progress. 37 (2): 205-210.
Graham, K. and Thomas, J.K. 2021. Facility siting – negotiating the minefield of “maximum-credible event”. Process Safety Progress. 40 (4): 1-13.
Wang, Z., Wang, Ren, M. and Gao, D. 2023. New hazard event classification model via deep learning and multifractal. Computers in Industry. 147: 103875.
Khan, F.I. and Abbasi, S.A., 2002, A criterion for developing a credible scenarios for risk assessment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 15: 467-475.
Kletz, T. A., 1999, Hazop and Hazan–Identifying and Assessing Process Industry Hazards, 4th edition, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, UK.
Jingsong, Z., Lin, C., Tong, Q and Bingzhen, C. 2009. Learning HAZOP expert system by cased-based reasoning and ontology. Computers and Chemical Engineering. 33: 371 - 378.
CCPS AIChE. 2001. Layerof Protection Analysis – Simplified Process Risk Assessment. Wiley, New York, US.
Roche, E., Dupont, W., and Summers, A. 2018. Beyond HAZOP: analyzing common cause and system scenarios. Process Safety Progress. 38 (3): 1-5.
API RP 14C 8th Edition. 2018. Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of Safety System for Offshore Production Facilities. American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C., US.
ISO 10418 3rd Edition. 2019. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Offshore Production Installations – Process Safety Systems. International Standard Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pasman, H.J. and Rogers, W.J. 2020. How to treat expert judgment? With certainty it contains uncertainty!. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 66: 104200
Rae, A. and Alexander, R. 2017. Forecast or fortune-telling: when are the expert judgments of safety risk is valid? . Safety Science. 99: 156-165
Amendola, A., Contini, S., and Ziomas, I. 1992. Uncertainties in chemical risk assessment: results of an European benchmark exercise. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 29: 347-363
IEC 61882 2nd Edition. 2016. Hazards and Operability Studies (HAZOP Studies) – Application Guide. International Electrotechnical Committee, Geneva, Switzerland
Bellamy, L.J., Mud, M., Manuel, H.J., and Oh, J.I.H. 2013. Analysis of underlying causes of investigated loss of containment incident in Dutch Seveso plants using the storybuilder method. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries.26: 1039 – 1059
Bellamy, L.J. 1994. The influence of human factors science on safety in the offshore industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 7(4): 370 – 375
Mukharror, D.A., et.al. 2025. Assessing the completeness of safeguard identification in hazards and operability (HAZOP) studies for oil and gas facilities as a quality metric: An Indonesian case study. Process Safety Progress. 45 (2): 1-15
Kletz, T.A. 2006. Training by discussion. Education for Chemical Engineers. 1: 55 – 59
Ale, B.J.M. 2002. Risk assessment practices in the Netherlands. Safety Science. 40: 105 - 126
Taylor, J.R., et.al. 1982. Risk analysis of a distillation unit, Riso National Laboratory. Riso-M No. 2319
