A Proposal for Improving the Efficiency, Effectiveness, Quality, and Usefulness of PHA Identification of Controls

Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) is an important discipline for identification and understanding of hazard causes, consequences, consequence severity, controls / safeguards, end consequence likelihood, risk assessment, recommendations for reducing risk, and prioritization of recommendation resolution.

Controls / safeguard discussion and documentation is fraught with potential problems. If controls identified by members of the PHA team are not adequate and are not included in the list, team members may reduce their participation as they become increasingly discouraged and disengaged. If controls that are not adequate are included in the list, the sheer number of listed, inadequate controls may result in: a false sense of sufficiency of the listed controls; a risk likelihood and risk rank that are less than actual; and reduced recommendation resolution priority, if a recommendation is made at all.

Accordingly, consistency, discipline, and rigor of controls discussion and documentation is recommended for useful, quality PHAs, whatever methodology is employed. Unfortunately, the time required for useful, quality PHAs employing consistency, discipline, and rigor can also result in tedium, reduced participation of the members, and increasing discouragement and disengagement anyway.

This paper outlines a proposal in which leaders of PHA studies list and annotate controls suggested by members of the PHA Team to be reviewed in the study for quick, instructive, and collaborative disposition. The controls listed for each scenario can be sorted and discussed by the annotations which may be modified in the finalizing discussion.

Using such an approach would encourage participation by all members of the PHA Team and reduce occasion for discouragement and disengagement. Application of the approach supports: quicker, improved evaluation and documentation of the effectiveness of controls; improved quickness and quality of evaluating likelihood and risk rank; better evaluation of the need for recommendations; and proper prioritization of recommendation resolution.