“Benefits” Versus “Consequences” of Skipping an Adequate Hazard Analysis

Over the last few decades, various hazard analysis methodologies have been practiced in the process safety industry for the purpose of initial risk and barrier identification. The  objectives of these studies and their overall significance are understood so vastly amongst global corporations that the methodologies used in the practice are considered more of a global practice than a regional or regulatory standard.  Some of the major advantages of the initial hazard analysis techniques are to assist in the creation of hazard registers and the identification of safety critical elements for subsequent performance standards development.  Additionally, a proper hazard analysis is a very beneficial tool that screens the major accident events that affect human lives, the environment, and the business asset.

 One of the major misconceptions surrounding initial hazard analysis methodologies is that corporations tend to regard the hazard analysis as an unnecessary or optional tool because the initial approach is very high level (similar to an aerial view of a city).  Their rationale is, “The facility is not a first of its kind,” or, “we have a tight schedule and do not have time for such a distraction.”  This logic to skip either the project-wide interactions or discipline-specific hazard analysis leaves room for hazards that could result in design gaps that wouldn’t be identified until later stages of the project, consequently resulting in further delays.

 Recent developments in hazard analyses involve a more structured study that connects the initial hazard analysis to the various safety studies that follow. This paper discusses the differences between the more traditional ways of approaching hazard analysis and the newer developments in hazard analysis. Real-time examples that further outline the benefits of adequate hazard analysis are also provided.