A Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study is a structured, systematic examination of a process design by a multidisciplinary team, aimed at identifying potential hazards and operability issues. By breaking a complex process into manageable sections (“nodes”) and applying standardized guidewords (e.g. No, More, Less), HAZOPs stimulate brainstorming about what might go wrong. When done correctly, a HAZOP produces a “comprehensive index” of hazards and failure modes that could endanger people, equipment or the environment. This makes HAZOP a leading tool in process safety. However, the rigor and cost of HAZOPs mean that mistakes in their planning or execution can seriously undermine their value. The following sections describe common HAZOP pitfalls and best practices to avoid them.
Planning and Preparation
- Incomplete or Outdated Process Safety Information: A very common pitfall is starting the HAZOP without complete, up-to-date process data. This includes current Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), process flow diagrams, operating procedures, and data on materials (flammability, toxicity, etc.). If information is missing or wrong, the team can overlook hazards. Best practices: Before the HAZOP, verify and assemble all process safety information (PSI) and design documents. Reserve sufficient time in planning to review PFDs/P&IDs line-by-line (see Node Definition below). Owners should ensure external facilitators receive complete data. Team members must come prepared with this background; participants should not treat the HAZOP as a chance to “get information” but should arrive having reviewed key documents.
- Poor Team Composition or Size: HAZOPs rely on a diverse, multidisciplinary team. Too many or too few people can both harm the process. A group that is too large tends to lose focus and spend excessive time on minor issues. Conversely, too small a team may lack critical expertise. Pitfalls include omitting key roles (e.g. operations, maintenance, controls, safety engineering) or having only managers that stifle open discussion. Best practices: Assemble 5–10 qualified people plus the facilitator and scribe. Include people with process, control-system, equipment and human factors expertise. For example, Saltegra Consulting notes that an effective HAZOP team typically includes a facilitator, process/chemical engineer, operations representative, instrumentation/control engineer, and a scribe. If any required specialty (e.g. knowledge of potential dust explosions or runaway reactions) is missing, invite external experts. Seek a balanced team: studies suggest an ideal size of roughly 8–10 to maximize participation while staying manageable. The facilitator should foster a collegial atmosphere so “alpha” personalities do not dominate.
- Inexperienced or Inattentive Facilitator: The HAZOP leader’s skill is critical. An untrained or overly passive facilitator can allow errors (e.g. skipped issues, endless tangents). Best practices: Choose an experienced HAZOP facilitator (often an external consultant or senior engineer) who can guide brainstorming without dictating technical details. The facilitator should not act as a process expert on all issues; instead they should ask probing questions and draw out the team’s knowledge. Where possible, assign a dedicated scribe so the facilitator can focus on guiding discussion. A good scribe also speeds up documentation and prevents team idle time. Ensure the facilitator plans the schedule: allocate sufficient hours per node and build in breaks to keep the team fresh.
- Inadequate Time and Scope Definition: Estimating the time needed for each node can be tricky, but under-allocating time invariably leads to rushed analysis. Likewise, failing to define the study’s scope and nodes properly can cause gaps or redundancies. Best practices: Use process flow diagrams to divide the system into logical nodes (equipment or process steps with a single design intent) and mark these on the P&IDs in advance. Avoid “super-nodes” that combine dissimilar sections of the process. As Primatech consultants warn, grouping multiple units into a single node may give a high-level view but often “interferes with scenario identification” and causes many hazards to be missed. The team should generally adopt a line-by-line approach, breaking the process whenever design intent changes significantly. (Reserve one or more global nodes for external events if needed.) Planning the nodes carefully ensures that no critical segment of the process is skipped or double-counted.
- Logistical Setup: A poor meeting environment can undermine even a well-planned HAZOP. Common issues include inadequate room space, missing equipment, or interruptions. Best practices: Book a quiet, large room where the team can face each other and see the diagrams. Arrange tables for good eye contact and provide amenities (food, water) to keep energy up. Clarify ground rules: no incoming calls or email checking during sessions, except on break. If possible, use an offsite venue away from plant distractions. The facilitator should manage breaks and avoid fatigue – a schedule with too few pauses can degrade focus.
Download Complete Industrial/Occupational Health, Safety & Environment (HSE) Management Toolkit
Execution of the HAZOP
- Loss of Focus and Discipline: During the workshops, distractions are a major pitfall. Team members dropping in and out, cell phone use, or side conversations pull attention away from the HAZOP. Best practices: The facilitator must enforce focus: forbid cell phones and unrelated discussions during the session. Plan regular breaks (every 1–2 hours) so participants can check messages, use restrooms, etc., outside the meeting time. The study room should be used only for HAZOP work during sessions. By minimizing interruptions, the team can fully concentrate on identifying deviations.
- Inhibited Brainstorming: The power of a HAZOP is thorough, open brainstorming. Common mistakes here include skipping guidewords or nodes (“we already know the worst case”), superficially listing obvious causes, or plowing through the process without reflection. Best practices: Always apply all standard guidewords (No, More, Less, etc.) to each process parameter at each node. Even if the most obvious deviations are identified early, the facilitator should explore deeper. Never dismiss a node as “covered” without discussion. The DEKRA safety group calls cutting off brainstorming a “minimalist HAZOP,” which defeats the purpose of the method. Instead, the facilitator should encourage detailed discussion: for each guideword, ask “what can cause this deviation?” and “what are the consequences?” Do not rely solely on gut feeling that “nothing more will show up.” Often non-obvious hazards emerge only after the team digs deeper.
- Overreliance on Templates or Past HAZOPs: A related trap is treating the HAZOP like a paperwork exercise. Some teams try to “copy” a previous study or rigidly stick to a checklist of causes. However, each process and project is unique. Best practices: Tailor the analysis to the current design and conditions. Prior HAZOP reports or generic spreadsheets can inform the team, but should never substitute for fresh analysis. As one source notes, using old templates risks a “cut-and-paste” approach alien to the spirit of HAZOP. The facilitator should remind the team that equipment or control logic may have changed since the last study. In short, use guidewords as prompts for creative thinking, not as a box-checking quiz. Figure: A HAZOP must be tailored to the current process. Copying a past HAZOP or using a generic template can blind the team to changed process details.
- Treating the HAZOP as a Form-Filling Exercise: Some teams mistakenly believe all rows of the HAZOP worksheet must be filled. They mechanically go through each guideword-parameter pair, sometimes generating repetitive or trivial entries. Best practices: Remember the purpose of the worksheet: to spur discussion of hazards, not to complete a table. If a single failure scenario affects multiple parameters, it’s fine to note it once and focus on its analysis. The facilitator should prevent the meeting from turning into a “bureaucratic HAZOP,” where filling blank cells becomes the goal. Instead, encourage strategic dialogue. If a guideword yields no new hazards, simply move on – don’t invent scenarios just to populate cells. Emphasize quality over quantity of entries: a few well-understood deviations with full consequences and safeguards are better than many superficial notes.
- Overlooking or Misrepresenting Safeguards: During analysis, the team must document existing safeguards that would mitigate each hazard. A common pitfall is to list anything vaguely protective without scrutinizing its effectiveness. Examples include noting “operator training” or “alarm” as a safeguard without considering whether it is reliable or sufficient. Best practices: Challenge each identified safeguard: Is the instrument regularly maintained? Do operators actually heed the alarm in time? Safeguards that rarely function (e.g. blocked relief valves, ignored generic alarms) should not be counted as effective. If there is doubt about a control’s adequacy, note that in the HAZOP and propose verifying it. In essence, treat safeguards with the same rigor as hazards: question and validate them.
- Poor Recommendation Practices: The ultimate goal of HAZOP is to produce actionable recommendations that reduce risk. Common errors at this stage include: issuing a recommendation for every negative scenario (even if well-protected); using vague language (“consider study of…”); or letting participants launch into detailed design work during the meeting. Worse, some teams misuse HAZOP to compile a wish-list of unrelated improvements, hoping management will approve them under the guise of safety. Best practices: First, only recommend changes when a hazard is not already acceptably protected. If a deviation has sufficient safeguards, it may need no action beyond periodic review. Quantify risk where possible: using a semi-quantitative rating (or even simple “acceptable/unacceptable”) helps filter out low-risk issues. Second, write each recommendation as a clear, specific action. For example: “Install a redundant pressure transmitter on Column C to increase reliability (see rationale above)”. Avoid open-ended phrasing like “investigate possibility of…” or trying to design the fix in the HAZOP itself. If the best solution is unclear, note the need for follow-up engineering study. Always assign each action to an owner and a target date for follow-up.
- Examples of Recommendation Pitfalls: In one case study, an operations manager used a HAZOP to ask for a costly online chromatograph in a distillation column, ostensibly for safety monitoring. In reality, a simple temperature profile would have achieved the same safety objective at far lower cost. This “wish-list” recommendation diverted focus from true safety needs. In another example, a team member attempted to calculate and specify an exact relief valve diameter within the HAZOP session. Such detailed engineering during the meeting is inefficient – the HAZOP should flag that a new relief valve is needed, not determine its size on the spot. In both cases, the facilitator should step in: keep recommendations outcome-oriented and let detailed design follow later.
Download Complete Industrial/Occupational Health, Safety & Environment (HSE) Management Toolkit
Follow-Up and Documentation
- Failure to Track and Act on Recommendations: A surprisingly common issue is management delay or neglect in addressing HAZOP findings. A recommendation list that sits unreviewed negates the HAZOP’s value. Best practices: After the study, the site’s management-of-change (MOC) or safety team must review each recommendation promptly. Each item should be evaluated for feasibility and tracked to closure. Maintaining a log (or software tracking) with status updates ensures that items do not fall through the cracks. Regulators expect that all recommendations be either implemented or formally closed with justification. In practice, good PSM practice is to treat every HAZOP recommendation seriously and document its final disposition.
- Not Updating the HAZOP as a Living Document: A HAZOP worksheet should not remain static. Over time, process changes, new operating experience, or incidents can invalidate parts of the analysis. Best practices: Treat the HAZOP as a living document. Any significant change in the process (new equipment, changed control logic, new chemistry, etc.) should trigger a HAZOP review or at least an addendum. The PHA team should periodically revisit the HAZOP when process safety information is updated. Similarly, if a near-miss or accident occurs (on-site or at a similar plant), review the HAZOP to ensure the scenario was covered. Update safeguards and notes as needed. In short, the HAZOP should always reflect current knowledge – outdated worksheets can lull management into a false sense of security.
- Documentation Clarity: Finally, poor documentation during the HAZOP can doom it. If discussions are not clearly recorded, important hazards or conclusions may be lost. Best practices: Use a skilled scribe or electronic worksheet so that discussions are captured in real time. The notes should be legible and unambiguous. Immediately after each session, the facilitator and scribe should review the record to ensure nothing was missed. A clear HAZOP report (including narrative explanation of each critical scenario) helps implementers understand the intent of each recommendation. Remember: the value of the HAZOP depends on future action on its output. Invest effort in thorough, accurate documentation so the work endures.
Key Recommendations
- Assemble the right team: multidisciplinary with the full range of expertise, but kept at a manageable size.
- Secure high-quality data: complete, current P&IDs and operating data, and have all participants review them in advance.
- Define scope carefully: use appropriate node granularity (avoid “super-nodes”), and cover all process segments.
- Ensure a skilled facilitator leads the study, with support from a dedicated scribe.
- Run the workshop with discipline: minimize interruptions, enforce focus, and encourage open brainstorming (apply all guidewords, don’t skip steps).
- Use the worksheet as a guide, not a checkbox: focus on identifying deviations, not filling every cell.
- Verify safeguards and write clear recommendations: only recommend actions for inadequately protected hazards, and phrase them as specific actions.
- Follow up relentlessly: track every recommendation and update the HAZOP whenever the process or its risk profile changes.
By anticipating these pitfalls and adhering to best practices, teams can make their HAZOP studies truly effective. The powerful technique of HAZOP delivers maximum value when conducted thoroughly and managed diligently. In the words of experts, an HAZOP “is a brainstorming exercise…with knowledgeable personnel,” and its success hinges on the discipline and experience of the facilitator and team. Keeping the analysis rigorous, participatory and up-to-date will help prevent oversight of critical hazards and ensure the safety of process operations.
Click HERE to download or any of the following documents: