IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v117y2013icp21-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A holistic approach to control process safety risks: Possible ways forward

Author

Listed:
  • Pasman, H.J.
  • Knegtering, B.
  • Rogers, W.J.

Abstract

Pursuing process safety in a world of continuously increasing requirements is not a simple matter. Keeping balance between producing quality and volume under budget constraints while maintaining an adequate safety level proves time and time again a difficult task given that evidently major accidents cannot be avoided. Lack of resilience from an organizational point of view to absorb unwanted and unforeseen disturbances has in recent years been put forward as a major cause, while organizational erosive drift is shown to be responsible for complacency and degradation of safety attitude. A systems approach to safety provides a new paradigm with the promise of new comprehensive tools. At the same time, one realizes that risk assessment will fall short of identifying and quantifying all possible scenarios. First, human error is in most assessments not included. It is even argued that determining human failure probability by decomposing it to basic elements of error is not possible. Second, the crux of the systemic approach is that safety is an emergent property, which means the same holds for the technological aspect: risk is not fully predictable from failure of components. By surveying and applying recent literature, besides analysing, this paper proposes a way forward by considering resilience of a socio-technical system both from an organizational and a technical side. The latter will for a large part be determined by the plant design. Sufficient redundancy and reserve shall be kept to preserve sufficient resilience, but the question that rises is how. Available methods are risk assessment and process simulation. It is helpful that the relation between risk and resilience analysis has been recently defined. Also, in a preliminary study the elements of resilience of a process have become listed. In the latter, receiving and interpreting weak signals to boost situational awareness plays an important role. To maintain alertness on the functioning of a safety management system, the process industry is monitoring safety performance indicators. The critical intensity level upon which management must be alarmed is less simple. Risk assessment may be improved, made dynamic, and be a tool of process control by taking account of short-term risk fluctuations based on sensor signals and the influence of human factors with its long-term changes via indicators. Bayesian network can provide the infrastructure. The paper will describe various complexities when applying a holistic control of safety to a process plant in general, and it will more specifically focus on safeguarding measures such as barriers and other controls with some examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Pasman, H.J. & Knegtering, B. & Rogers, W.J., 2013. "A holistic approach to control process safety risks: Possible ways forward," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 21-29.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:117:y:2013:i:c:p:21-29
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095183201300080X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Amyotte, Paul, 2011. "Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(8), pages 925-932.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    3. Ale, B.J.M. & Bellamy, L.J. & van der Boom, R. & Cooper, J. & Cooke, R.M. & Goossens, L.H.J. & Hale, A.R. & Kurowicka, D. & Morales, O. & Roelen, A.L.C. & Spouge, J., 2009. "Further development of a Causal model for Air Transport Safety (CATS): Building the mathematical heart," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(9), pages 1433-1441.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alsulieman, Abdullah & Ge, Xihe & Zeng, Zhiguo & Butenko, Sergiy & Khan, Faisal & El-Halwagi, Mahmoud, 2024. "Dynamic risk analysis of evolving scenarios in oil and gas separator," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    2. Saurin, Tarcisio Abreu & Werle, Natalia Jaeger Basso, 2017. "A framework for the analysis of slack in socio-technical systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 439-451.
    3. J. S. Busby & B. Green & D. Hutchison, 2017. "Analysis of Affordance, Time, and Adaptation in the Assessment of Industrial Control System Cybersecurity Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1298-1314, July.
    4. Bellamy, Linda J. & Chambon, Monique & van Guldener, Viola, 2018. "Getting resilience into safety programs using simple tools - a research background and practical implementation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 171-184.
    5. Gressgård, Leif Jarle & Hansen, Kåre, 2015. "Knowledge exchange and learning from failures in distributed environments: The role of contractor relationship management and work characteristics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 167-175.
    6. Xiuquan Deng & Zhu Lu & Xinmiao Yang & Qiuhong Zhao & Dehua Gao & Bing Bai, 2018. "Formation Mechanism and Coping Strategy of Public Emergency for Urban Sustainability: A Perspective of Risk Propagation in the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Novak, Jeremy & Farr-Wharton, Ben & Brunetto, Yvonne & Shacklock, Kate & Brown, Kerry, 2017. "Safety outcomes for engineering asset management organizations: Old problem with new solutions?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 67-73.
    8. Mei Liu & Boning Li & Hongjun Cui & Pin-Chao Liao & Yuecheng Huang, 2022. "Research Paradigm of Network Approaches in Construction Safety and Occupational Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-22, September.
    9. Theophilus, Stephen C. & Esenowo, Victor N. & Arewa, Andrew O. & Ifelebuegu, Augustine O. & Nnadi, Ernest O. & Mbanaso, Fredrick U., 2017. "Human factors analysis and classification system for the oil and gas industry (HFACS-OGI)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 168-176.
    10. Bergström, Johan & van Winsen, Roel & Henriqson, Eder, 2015. "On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 131-141.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Xiaoge & Mahadevan, Sankaran, 2021. "Bayesian network modeling of accident investigation reports for aviation safety assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    2. Bauranov, Aleksandar & Rakas, Jasenka, 2024. "Bayesian network model of aviation safety: Impact of new communication technologies on mid-air collisions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    3. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    4. Zhang, Haoyuan & Marsh, D. William R, 2021. "Managing infrastructure asset: Bayesian networks for inspection and maintenance decisions reasoning and planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    5. Chai, Naijie & Zhou, Wenliang & Hu, Xinlei, 2022. "Safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation considering uncertainty and risk preference: A case study in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 267-288.
    6. Park, Jae-Hyun, 2017. "Time-dependent reliability of wireless networks with dependent failures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 47-61.
    7. Pengxia Zhao & Tie Li & Biao Wang & Ming Li & Yu Wang & Xiahui Guo & Yue Yu, 2022. "The Scenario Construction and Evolution Method of Casualties in Liquid Ammonia Leakage Based on Bayesian Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Li, Mei & Liu, Zixian & Li, Xiaopeng & Liu, Yiliu, 2019. "Dynamic risk assessment in healthcare based on Bayesian approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 327-334.
    9. Hassan, Shamsu & Wang, Jin & Kontovas, Christos & Bashir, Musa, 2022. "An assessment of causes and failure likelihood of cross-country pipelines under uncertainty using bayesian networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PA).
    10. Rogerson, Ellen C. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Prioritizing risks via several expert perspectives with application to runway safety," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 22-34.
    11. Majeed Abimbola & Faisal Khan, 2018. "Dynamic Blowout Risk Analysis Using Loss Functions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 255-271, February.
    12. Caputo, Antonio C. & Federici, Alessandro & Pelagagge, Pacifico M. & Salini, Paolo, 2023. "Offshore wind power system economic evaluation framework under aleatory and epistemic uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    13. Leonardo Leoni & Farshad BahooToroody & Saeed Khalaj & Filippo De Carlo & Ahmad BahooToroody & Mohammad Mahdi Abaei, 2021. "Bayesian Estimation for Reliability Engineering: Addressing the Influence of Prior Choice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-16, March.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    15. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    16. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    17. Wang, Jian & Gao, Shibin & Yu, Long & Ma, Chaoqun & Zhang, Dongkai & Kou, Lei, 2023. "A data-driven integrated framework for predictive probabilistic risk analytics of overhead contact lines based on dynamic Bayesian network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    18. Song, Haifeng & Liu, Jieyu & Schnieder, Eckehard, 2017. "Validation, verification and evaluation of a Train to Train Distance Measurement System by means of Colored Petri Nets," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 10-23.
    19. París, C. & Queral, C. & Mula, J. & Gómez-Magán, J. & Sánchez-Perea, M. & Meléndez, E. & Gil, J., 2019. "Quantitative risk reduction by means of recovery strategies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 13-32.
    20. Bing Wu & Huibin Tian & Xinping Yan & C. Guedes Soares, 2020. "A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 422-436, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:117:y:2013:i:c:p:21-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.