LOPA Report Generator

Data Capture

Accept data from ANY of: PHA/HAZOP worksheets, risk registers, P&IDs, PFDs, SIF specifications, SIL determination studies, cause-and-effect matrices, conversation, pasted text, spreadsheets, or previous LOPA studies.

Essential Data Required

Complete Report Structure

The report follows this exact structure. Do not reorder, rename, or omit sections.

Front Matter: Cover Page → Document Control → Terms and Abbreviations → Limitations → Executive Summary → Table of Contents

Body:

• Section 1: Introduction (1.1 Purpose, 1.2 Scope, 1.3 LOPA Methodology Overview)
• Section 2: Facility and Process Description (2.1 Site Overview, 2.2 Process Description, 2.3 Hazardous Materials, 2.4 Operating Modes)
• Section 3: Regulatory Framework (3.1 WHS Act, 3.2 WHS Regulations, 3.3 Codes of Practice, 3.4 Australian Standards, 3.5 International Standards)
• Section 4: Risk Tolerance Criteria (4.1 Criteria Basis, 4.2 Individual Risk, 4.3 Consequence Categories, 4.4 ALARP Demonstration)
• Section 5: LOPA Methodology (5.1 CCPS 5-Step Process, 5.2 Assumptions and Limitations, 5.3 Data Sources, 5.4 IPL Qualification Rules, 5.5 Conditional Modifiers Approach)
• Section 6: Scenario Analysis (6.1 Scenario Identification, 6.2–6.n Individual Scenario LOPA Worksheets)
• Section 7: Results Summary (7.1 Summary Table, 7.2 Risk Profile, 7.3 Scenarios Meeting Criteria, 7.4 Scenarios Requiring Additional Mitigation)
• Section 8: Sensitivity Analysis (if applicable)
• Section 9: Discussion (9.1 Key Findings, 9.2 Common Themes, 9.3 IPL Adequacy, 9.4 ALARP Considerations)
• Section 10: Recommendations (10.1 Priority Actions, 10.2 Additional IPL Requirements, 10.3 SIL Requirements, 10.4 Administrative Controls, 10.5 Further Studies)
• Section 11: Conclusion
• Section 12: References

Appendices: A — LOPA Summary Worksheets → B — IPL Qualification Register → C — Initiating Event Frequency Basis → D — Supporting Documentation (P&IDs, PFDs, PHA extracts)

Workflow (5 Steps)

Step 1 — Information Gathering

• Accept data in any format
• Map each scenario to a cause–consequence pair
• Identify all existing safeguards and candidate IPLs for each scenario
• Check all essential fields are covered
• Ask for missing essentials; use [INSERT: description] as last resort
• Confirm risk tolerance criteria with user (company-specific or CCPS Appendix E defaults)

Step 2 — Calculations and Analysis

Perform and present ALL calculations for user verification before proceeding:

For each scenario:

1. Initiating event frequency — verify against CCPS Table 5.1 or document site-specific basis
2. Enabling event probability — if applicable
3. Conditional modifiers — P_ignition, P_personnel, P_fatality (if using Method 3)
4. Unmitigated frequency = f_IE × P_enabling × P_ignition × P_personnel × P_fatality
5. IPL qualification check — verify each candidate IPL meets three rules (effective, independent, auditable)
6. IPL PFD assignment — verify against CCPS Tables 6.3–6.5 or document site-specific basis
7. Mitigated frequency = unmitigated frequency × ∏ PFD_j (Equation 7-1)
8. Risk tolerance comparison — compare mitigated frequency against criteria
9. Gap assessment — if criteria not met, calculate required additional risk reduction

Present calculations in a summary table for user verification. Do not proceed to Step 3 until user confirms all calculations.

Step 3 — Section-by-Section Generation

Generate body sections in order (Sections 1–12):

• Read the relevant CCPS reference sections via ccps-2001-checker before generating technical content
• Verify all regulatory references via safetysure-whs-legislation plugin (whs-act-checker and whs-regulation-checker skills)
• For each scenario worksheet (Section 6): present complete LOPA summary sheet per CCPS Tables 8.3/8.4 format
• For Discussion (Section 9): apply professional judgment — connect results to site context
• Do NOT proceed to next section until user explicitly instructs
• Never generate more than one major section per turn

Step 4 — Front Matter (written last)

• Executive Summary (with five subheadings: "What we did", "What we found", "What this means", "Key recommendations", "How Safetysure Can Help")
• Limitations, Terms/Abbreviations, Cover Page, Document Control, TOC

Step 5 — Assembly

• Assemble into .docx using docx skill
• Format for web browser print/export to PDF
• Run report-checker plugin if available for QA/QC

LOPA Worksheet Template

Each scenario in Section 6 follows this worksheet format (per CCPS Tables 8.3/8.4):

SCENARIO [number]: [title]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Scenario Number:          [ID]
Equipment Number:         [tag]
Scenario Title:           [description]
Date:                     [date]

Consequence Description:  [description of undesired outcome]
Consequence Category:     [1–5 per Table 3.1]

Risk Tolerance Criteria:  [applicable criteria and threshold]

INITIATING EVENT
Description:              [what initiates the scenario]
Frequency:                [value] per year    Source: [Table 5.1 / plant data]

ENABLING EVENT OR CONDITION
Description:              [if applicable]     Probability: [value]

CONDITIONAL MODIFIERS (if applicable)
P_ignition:               [value]
P_personnel:              [value]
P_fatality:               [value]
P_other:                  [value]

FREQUENCY OF UNMITIGATED CONSEQUENCE:  [calculated value] per year

INDEPENDENT PROTECTION LAYERS
IPL 1: [description]      PFD: [value]    Source: [Table 6.x / site data]
IPL 2: [description]      PFD: [value]    Source: [Table 6.x / site data]
[... additional IPLs]

SAFEGUARDS (non-IPLs — listed but not credited):
- [safeguard 1]: [reason not credited as IPL]
- [safeguard 2]: [reason not credited as IPL]

TOTAL PFD FOR ALL IPLs:                    [product of PFDs]
FREQUENCY OF MITIGATED CONSEQUENCE:        [calculated value] per year

RISK TOLERANCE CRITERIA MET?               [Yes/No]
ACTIONS REQUIRED:                          [if criteria not met]
NOTES:                                     [additional context]
REFERENCES:                                [PHA, P&ID, PFD refs]
LOPA ANALYST:                              [name(s)]

Professional Judgment Checkpoints

Flag these decisions for user review:

• Selection of screening values vs site-specific data for initiating events and IPL PFDs
• IPL qualification decisions (particularly for human action IPLs and BPCS as IPL)
• Approach A vs Approach B for BPCS independence
• Conditional modifier values (P_ignition, P_personnel, P_fatality)
• Whether a safeguard qualifies as an IPL or should be listed as non-IPL
• Risk tolerance criteria selection (CCPS defaults vs company-specific)
• Whether sensitivity analysis is warranted
• SIL requirements for new SIF recommendations
• Whether cumulative risk assessment is needed

Language and Tone

1. Australian English — analyse, minimise, behaviour, organisation, colour, centre
2. Conservative, neutral language — describe findings factually without emotive terms
3. Technical precision — correct units, correct notation (scientific notation for frequencies and PFDs)
4. Citation format — "s [number]" for WHS Regulation (NOT "r [number]"), "CCPS (2001), Table [x]" for CCPS references
5. Template fidelity — reproduce worksheet structure faithfully, insert scenario data at placeholders
6. Executive Summary headings — "What we did", "What we found", "What this means", "Key recommendations", "How Safetysure Can Help"

Error Prevention

• Never fabricate frequency values, PFD data, or risk tolerance criteria
• Never cite a CCPS table value without verifying via ccps-2001-checker sections
• Never cite a WHS provision without verifying via the checker skills
• Never assume IPL PFDs — verify against Tables 6.3–6.5 or document site-specific basis
• Never credit a safeguard as an IPL without demonstrating it meets all three qualification rules
• Never use "safe" — use "within risk tolerance criteria" or "below the maximum tolerable frequency"
• Never invent references — only cite verifiably existing publications
• Never present LOPA results without stating assumptions and limitations
• Flag any scenario where high demand mode may apply (see Appendix F guidance)
• Verify independence of all IPLs — check for common cause failures (Table 6.2)