← Polyodos · Methods wiki · Industrial and technical risks
Method

⚠ PHA — Preliminary Hazard Analysis

The starting point for industrial risk analysis: systematically identify facility hazards before proceeding to more detailed methods.

1What is PHA?

L'Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) systematically identifies facility hazards early in a project's or operation's lifecycle. It reviews every system or item of equipment to list what could go wrong, without seeking FMEA's exhaustiveness or LOPA's quantitative precision. It is a structured first pass and often the gateway to more detailed methods for the most critical scenarios.

Polyodos provides two PHA variants: Physical-risk PHA (general purpose, this page) and Safety-report PHA (the SEVESO/ICPE regulatory variant—see the dedicated page).
Unlike FMEA, which has the dedicated NF EN IEC 60812 standard, PHA has no standalone standard. It is a technique documented in ISO 31010 — Risk management — Risk assessment techniques — sous le nom Preliminary Hazard Analysis.

2Definitions

TermDefinition
HazardAn inherent property of equipment or a substance that can cause harm, such as stored mechanical energy, a toxic substance, or electrical voltage. A hazard exists independently of any incident; it is a potential, not an event.
Hazardous eventThe abnormal situation that would materialise the hazard, such as rupture of a pump casing. It is the shift from potential to incident.
CauseWhat may lead to the hazardous event, such as prolonged cavitation or internal corrosion.
ConsequenceWhat results if the hazardous event occurs, such as projected metal fragments or flooding of the room.

In practice, the Hazard field is often completed using broad categories to facilitate classification and statistics: Mechanical (rupture, projection, crushing), Chemical (leak, toxicity, reaction), Electrical (short circuit, electric shock), Thermal, Ergonomique…

3Before starting: model the system

Like FMEA, PHA relies on an initial breakdown of the facility into systems and items of equipment — voir la notion transverse Facility modelling, shared by PHA, FMEA, HAZOP, and Bow-Tie.

4Method steps

  1. Break down the facility into systems or items of equipment (see modelling above).
  2. Identify the hazard associated with each item of equipment (energy, substance, movement, etc.).
  3. Describe the hazardous event : the abnormal situation that would materialise the hazard.
  4. List the causes that may lead to the event.
  5. List the consequences for people, the environment, and property.
  6. Rate the scenario en severity level and probability, avant mesures (voir section suivante).
  7. List existing and planned measures, then rate the scenario again after measures.
PHA works well as a multidisciplinary group review involving operations, safety, and maintenance. Diverse viewpoints reduce blind spots more than sophisticated tooling.

5Rate risk in PHA

The general principles for rating risk—matrix, scales, and before/after measures—are shared by all methods. See the cross-cutting concept Rate a risk. PHA combines two metrics, each rated from 1 to 4 in Polyodos:

Severity

LevelLabelSignification
1NegligibleFirst aid with no time off work
2SignificativePartial temporary incapacity under three days
3GravePartial permanent incapacity or hospitalisation over one day
4CatastrophiqueDeath or total permanent incapacity

Probability (likelihood)

LevelLabelIndicative frequency
1Highly unlikely< 10⁻⁴ / an
2Unlikely10⁻⁴ – 10⁻² / an
3Likely1 occurrence possible par an
4FrequentPlusieurs occurrences attendues

Criticality matrix

Criticality results from combining Severity × Probability in a configurable matrix, producing a four-level scale:

LevelLabelSignification
1AcceptableMaintenir la vigilance
2MonitorPlanned treatment
3Non acceptableShort-term treatment required
4InacceptableUrgent treatment; stop if necessary
The default matrix covers only severity and probability levels 1 to 4. If a scenario is rated beyond them, such as Severity 5 on a custom scale, criticality cannot be resolved automatically until the matrix is extended. The example below demonstrates this actual case.

6Existing and planned measures

Each scenario distinguishes existing measures (already in place and considered in the before-measures rating, often blank when the scenario is not yet covered) from planned measures (the action plan, whose implementation justifies the after-measures rating). This uses the same distinction between prevention / protection qu'en AMDEC :

TypeActs onExemples
PreventionProbabilityPeriodic vibration monitoring, visual inspection, preventive replacement of wear parts, and procedures governing hazardous operations (work permit)
ProtectionSeverity / detectionGas detector with alarm and automatic shutdown, residual-current device, and thermal protection

7Example completed in Polyodos

The Polyodos demonstration dataset for a drinking-water treatment plant covers four scenarios across Pumping, Chemical Treatment, and Storage systems:

#System / EquipmentHazardCausesHazardous eventConsequences GPC Planned measures G'P'C'
1Pompage — Pompe centrifuge P-101Mechanical Prolonged cavitation, excessive vibration, internal corrosion Rupture de la volute de pompe Projected metal fragments, flooding of the pump room, production shutdown G4 P2 R3 Monthly vibration monitoring (piezo sensors), replacement of mechanical seals every two years G3 P1 R2
2Traitement chimique — Cuve chlore CL-301Chemical HDPE wall corrosion, rupture of the filling connection, overpressure during unloading Fuite de chlore liquide Toxic atmosphere (chlorine gas), severe respiratory irritation, site evacuation G5 P2 R? Chlorine-gas detector with audible alarm and automatic shutdown, unloading procedure with work permit, annual tank inspection G4 P1 R2
3Pumping — Electric motor M-101Electrical Wiring degraded by moisture, prolonged motor overload, circuit-breaker failure Short circuit causing a switchboard fire Electrical-room fire, loss of pumping power, operator electric-shock risk G3 P2 R2 Annual electrical-installation inspection, 30 mA residual-current device, and motor thermal protection G2 P1 R1
4Storage — Treated-water tank CS-301Mechanical Reinforced-concrete ageing, differential ground settlement, hydraulic overpressure Concrete tank rupture (structural crack) Major overflow (500 m³), downstream flooding, groundwater contamination G4 P1 R2 Quarterly visual inspection (cracks and deformation), geotechnical ground assessment every ten years G3 P1 R2
PHA table — Polyodos demonstration dataset for a drinking-water treatment plant (before / after measures)
Line 2: the chlorine tank is rated Severity 5, outside the default scale (1 to 4), so before-measures criticality cannot be read directly from the standard matrix until it is extended to this level. This is an actual demonstration-data case, not an error in the example; it illustrates the pitfall described above, where a custom scale is not carried into the matrix.
Section to be expanded — Polyodos screenshots showing entry of this table and the matrix view.

8Common mistakes

MistakeWhy it is a problem
Confusing a hazard with a hazardous eventA hazard is an inherent property, such as high pressure; a hazardous event is an abnormal situation, such as tank rupture. Mixing them makes the causes inconsistent.
Rating only after measuresWithout a before-measures rating, the actual effectiveness of barriers cannot be assessed and the most critical scenarios cannot be prioritised.
Extending a scale without extending the matrixAdding a custom severity level, such as 5, without updating the criticality matrix leaves scenarios with no calculable risk level, as shown above.
Seeking exhaustiveness at the expense of perspectivePHA loses its purpose if it becomes FMEA in disguise. A broad overview is more useful, followed by deeper HAZOP or FMEA analysis of critical scenarios.

9Further reading

FR