Operational safety in high-stakes domains such as industrial process control, autonomous, and safety-critical systems demand reliable hazard identification. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating safety analysis tasks, single-turn, monolithic inference is brittle: it lacks the self-correction, deliberation, and contextual refinement that safety engineers apply iteratively. In this paper, we introduce HAZDIAL, a framework that investigates whether structured agentic dialogue (multi-agent, multi-turn interactions) improves the quality of NLP-based hazard identification over single-pass baselines. We systematically compare two dialogue modalities: adversarial debate and constructive discussion, and propose an genetic algorithm-based agentic interaction optimization. We evaluate all configurations against a curated golden dataset using standard classification metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1) and a novel dialogue metrics. This work advances the intersection of dialogue systems, multi-agent reasoning, and AI safety, providing empirical evidence for dialogue-driven hazard analysis.