HAZOP/LOPA Quality Assurance - How to Balance the Implementation of HAZOP/LOPA Across a Corporation

Although Process Safety Management (PSM), requiring good-quality Process Hazard Analyses, was promulgated in the United States in 1992, and HAZOP Study techniques date back to the mid-1970's, the HAZOP Study technique (and companion techniques such as LOPA) can still present challenges in uniformly applying PHA in a high quality fashion. Subjective variations are a function of many factors, including team composition, HAZOP/LOPA facilitator, process unit history and past upsets, regulatory environment, safety culture, and available process safety information. These variations can have a significant impact on the validity of the HAZOP/LOPA results. One of the objectives of this paper is to provide experience-based tips for Process Hazard Analysis reviews, and some key characteristics that the reviewer can scrutinize to promote quality implementation. Another key objective of this paper is to address a key issue facing many corporate-level or facility-level PSM/RMP Coordinators, which is uniformity of application to ensure hazards are thoroughly identified/ranked/prioritized, without inconsistencies in risk-ranking driving unnecessary design/operations changes. This paper will also review tips for structuring the HAZOP Study to facilitate later updates and revalidation. Key topics addressed within the paper include:
 - Quality objectives, including setting-the-pace for subsequent HAZOP/LOPA usage/updates
 - Challenges to the facility/corporate PSM/RMP Coordinator
 - Checklist for assessing the quality of individual HAZOP/LOPA Studies
 - Tips for achieving high quality HAZOP/LOPA Studies
 - Why strive for uniform high-quality application
 - Tips for achieving uniformity at the facility and corporate level
 - Meaningful metrics for monitoring the success of a synchronized program
 - Key actions for corporate-level or facility-level PSM/RMP Coordinators