The goal of the study is to adapt and develop the integrated HAZOP/LOPA method to promptly assess the safety integrity level of safety functions in a single session. During the study, the advantages and disadvantages of the integrated approach were systematized, and practical recommendations for joint use of the qualitative Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) method and the semi-quantitative risk assessment Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) method were elaborated, preserving the key benefits of HAZOP, that are, the systematic approach combined with the creative nature of the hazard identification process. The proposed method is illustrated using an example of a petrochemical facility.
The main scientific and practical results of the study are as follows. A critical analysis and systematization of the key advantages and disadvantages of the integrated method were conducted, providing specialists with the necessary grounds to make a decision regarding its use. Within the modification of the approach, primarily, a hazardous event, that is, an emission or unit destruction, is to be adopted as the endpoint of the scenario analysis. This helps to exclude conditional modifiers associated with potential conditions of scenario development after the emission and focus on the hazard identification during the session. Secondly, the risk reduction matrix from GOST R EIС 61511-3—2018 Functional Safety. Safety instrumental systems for industrial processes. Part 3. Guidance for determining required safety integrity levels” was integrated as a unified basis to establish permissible risk criteria. A set of practical recommendations on the optimization of HAZOP/LOPA was developed, that included the use of the cause-by-cause documentation method, determining a hazardous event as the endpoint of the scenario (for example, accidental leakage of a unit or hazardous substance emission), selective use of the LOPA approach, inclusion of a LOPA specialist in the working group, and the requirement for moderator’s competencies in both methodologies.
It is important to emphasize the limited applicability of the approach to scenarios in which a harmful event (injury, fatality) rather than a hazardous event is used as the endpoint of analysis. This is specifically relevant if the permissible risk criteria for certain scenarios are established by the distribution of permissible individual or social risk among them. In such cases, conditional modifiers might be considered, which can lead to a disproportionate increase in session duration and a shift of focus from hazard identification to discussions of accident development, which contradicts the basic principles of HAZOP.
GOST R 27.012—2019. Dependability in technics. Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies). Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200170007 (accessed: October 3, 2025). (In Russ.).
2. Об утверждении Руководства по безопасности «Методические основы анализа опасностей и оценки риска аварий на опасных производственных объектах»: приказ Ростехнадзора от 3 нояб. 2022 г. № 387. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1300154647 (дата обращения 03.10.2025).
On approval of Safety Guide “Methodological premises of hazard analysis and accident risk assessment at hazardous production facilities”: the Order of Rostechnadzor of November 3, 2022 № 387. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1300154647 (accessed: October 3, 2025). (In Russ.).
3. Crawley F., Tyler B. HAZOP: Guide to Best Practice. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2015. 168 p.
4. ГОСТ Р МЭК 61511-3—2018. Безопасность функциональная. Системы безопасности приборные для промышленных процессов. Часть 3. Руководство по определению требуемых уровней полноты безопасности. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160132 (дата обращения: 03.10.2025).
GOST R MEK 61511-3—2018. Functional safety. Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector. Part 3. Guidelines for the determination of the required safety integrity levels. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160132 (accessed: October 3, 2025). (In Russ.).
5. Layer of Protection Analysis: Simplified Process Risk Assessment. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). New York, 2001. 270 p.
6. Baybutt P. Analytical methods in process safety management and system safety engineering — Layers of protection analysis: Handbook of loss prevention engineering. Wiley-VCH, 2013. pp. 593–635.
7. Внедрение методологии анализа опасностей HAZOP при проектировании нефтегазовых объектов компании ТНК-ВР / М.В. Лисанов, В.В. Симакин, Е.В. Ханин, А.П. Елаев // Безопасность труда в промышленности. 2010. № 12. С. 23–27.
Lisanov M.V., Simakin V.V., Khanin E.V., Elaev A.P. Implementation of Methodology for Hazards Analysis HAZOP during Designing TNK-BP Oil and Gas Facilities. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2010. № 12. pp. 23–27. (In Russ.).
8. Нормативно-методическое обеспечение и опыт проведения анализа опасностей технологических процессов методами HAZID/HAZOP / В.В. Симакин, М.В. Лисанов, Е.В. Ханин, Л.В. Бланк // Безопасность труда в промышленности. 2017. № 6. С. 64–72. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2017-6-64-72
Simakin V.V., Lisanov M.V., Khanin E.V., Blank L.V. Normative and Methodical Support and the Experience of Conducting Hazards Analysis of Technological Processes by HAZID/HAZOP Methods. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2017. № 6. pp. 64–72. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2017-6-64-72
9. Johnson R.W. Beyond-compliance uses of HAZOP/LOPA studies. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2010. Vol. 23. Iss. 6. pp. 727–733. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2010.05.009
10. Guidelines for Enabling Conditions and Conditional Modifiers in Layer of Protection Analysis. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). New York: Wiley, 2014. 136 p.
11. Галеев А.Д. Определение критериев приемлемости рисков сценариев аварий при использовании метода LOPA // Безопасность труда в промышленности. 2025. № 5. С. 82–89. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-5-82-89
Galeev A.D. Determining the Criteria of the Risk Acceptability of Accident Scenarios Using the LOPA Method. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2025. № 5. pp. 82–89. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-5-82-89
12. Галеев А.Д. Оценка уровня тяжести последствий сценариев аварий при проведении анализа слоев защиты (LOPA) // Безопасность труда в промышленности. 2025. № 10. С. 80–86. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-10-80-86
Galeev A.D. Assessment of the Severity Level of Accident Scenario Consequences when Performing Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA). Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2025. № 10. pp. 80–86. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-10-80-86
13. Galeev A. Establishing risk tolerance criteria for incident scenarios in LOPA. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2026. Vol. 99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2025.105799
14. Bridges W., Dowell A.M. More issues with layer of protection analysis — From the originators. Process Safety Progress. 2022. Vol. 41. Iss. 1. pp. 52–65. DOI: 10.1002/prs.12295
15. Norton K.D., Surmeli S., Maher S.T. Linking LOPA and value engineering. Process Safety Progress. 2013. Vol. 32. Iss. 2. pp. 160–164. DOI: 10.1002/prs.11556
16. Banick W.R., Wei C. Advanced analysis to supplement HAZOP/LOPA for effective process design. Process Safety Progress. 2016. Vol. 36. Iss. 2. pp. 192–201. DOI: 10.1002/prs.11855
17. Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures. 3rd Ed. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). New York: Wiley-AIChE, 2008. 470 p.
18. Уточкин А.Ю., Рахматуллин Р.Р. Модернизация процесса окисления изопропилбензола в гидропероксид изопропилбензола в производстве фенола и ацетона // Вестник технологического университета. 2015. Т. 18. № 10. C. 98–99.
Utochkin A.Yu., Rakhmatullin R.R. Modernization of the process of isopropylbenzene oxidation into isopropylbenzene hydroperoxide in phenol and acetone production. Vestnik tekhnologicheskogo universiteta = Herald of Technological University. 2015. Vol. 18. № 10. pp. 98–99. (In Russ.).
19. Guidelines for Initiating Events and Independent Protection Layers in Layer of Protection Analysis. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 2014. 384 p.