Lessons Learned from Toulouse and Buncefield Disasters: From Risk Analysis Failures to the Identification of Atypical Scenarios Through a Better Knowledge Management

Risk Analysis

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1404-1419

  Paltrinieri, Nicola ^a   Dechy, Nicolas ^b   Salzano, Ernesto ^c   Wardman, Mike ^d   Cozzani, Valerio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b INSTITUT DE RADIOPROTECTION ET DE SÛRETÉ NUCLÉAIRE IRSN   (France)

^c CNR   (Italy)

^d HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Atypical accidents; Bow tie diagram; HAZID; Industrial risk

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT SCENARIOS; ASSESSMENT PROCESS; BOW TIE; BUNCEFIELD; EARLY WARNING; HAZARD IDENTIFICATION; HAZID; INDUSTRIAL RISKS; MAJOR ACCIDENTS; SAFETY REPORTS; TOULOUSE;

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ACCIDENTS;

ACCIDENT; ACCIDENT PREVENTION; DIAGRAM; EARLY WARNING SYSTEM; EXPLOSION; FAILURE ANALYSIS; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEM; PLANNING PROCESS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY;

ACCIDENT; ARTICLE; DISASTER; DISASTER PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FRANCE; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENT; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; UNITED KINGDOM;

ACCIDENTS; ACCIDENTS, OCCUPATIONAL; DISASTER PLANNING; DISASTERS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FRANCE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY MANAGEMENT;

ENGLAND; FRANCE; HAUTE GARONNE; MIDI-PYRENEES; TOULOUSE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84865091851     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01749.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Paltrinieri N, Wardman M, Dechy N, Salzano E, Cozzani V (eds). Atypical major hazard scenarios and their inclusion in risk analysis and safety assessments. Pp. 558--595 in Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference, Taylor & Francis, London, 2010.
2. Dechy N, Bourdeaux T, Ayrault N, Kordek MA, Le Coze JC. First lessons of the Toulouse ammonium nitrate disaster, 21st September 2001, AZF Plant, France. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2004; 111:131-138.
3. Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board, The Buncefield Incident 11 December 2005: The Final Report of the Major Incident Investigation Board. Kew Richmond, Surrey: HSE Books, 2008.
4. Bradfield A, Wells GL. Not the same old hindsight bias: Outcome information distorts a broad range of retrospective judgments. Memory & Cognition, 2005; 33:120-130.
5. Guidelines for Safety Investigation of Accidents. Oslo, ESReDA-European Safety Reliability and Data Association, June 2009.
6. Dechy N, Dien Y, Llory M (eds). Les échecs du retour d'expérience: Problématiques de la formalisation et de la communication des enseignements tirés, in Papiers de la conférence Lambda-Mu 16 de l'ImdR. Avignon, 2008.
7. Juvenal. Satires (VI, 165).
8. Taleb NN. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House, 2007.
9. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). News Transcript, February 12, 2002. Available at: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2636, Accessed on January 10, 2011.
10. Atkinson G, Buston J, Salzano E, Dechy N, Van Wijk L, Joyce B, Cope M, Paltrinieri N. Atypical vapour cloud explosion type events. Deliverable D1.4.4.2, EC project iNTeg-Risk, 7th FP, Grant: CP-IP 213345-2, December 1, 2010.
11. Lagadec P. La Gestion Des Crises. Paris: Ediscience international, 1994.
12. Merad M. Aide à la decision et expertise en gestion des risques. Pans: Editions Tec&Doc, Lavoisier, 2010.
13. Dechy N, Mouilleau Y. Damages of the Toulouse disaster, 21st September 2001. Loss Prevention Bulletin, 2004; 179: 3-11.
14. Buston J, Van Wijk L, Dechy N, Joyce B, Watkins P, Cope M, Milner A. Description and analysis of events leading to major atypical accidents. Deliverable D1.4.4.1, EC project iNTeg-Risk, 7th FP, Grant: CP-IP 213345-2, December 1, 2010.
15. st September 2001 disaster in Toulouse: An historical overview of the land use planning, in Proceedings of the 28th ESReDA, Seminar on the Geographical Component of Safety Management: Combining Risk, Planning and Stakeholder Perspectives. Karlstad University, Sweden, June 2005.
16. Council Directive (EC) 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 010, Brussels 14/01/1997, pp. 0013-0033.
17. Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 345, Brussels 31/12/2003, pp. 0097-0105.
18. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1981; 1:11-27.
19. CNN International. Puerto Rico firefighters work to contain massive fuel blaze, 2009. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/10/23/puerto.rico.explosion/, Accessed on January 14, 2011.
20. Indian Oil Corporation. Independent Inquiry Committee Report on Indian Oil Terminal Fire at Jaipur, 2009. Available at: http://oisd.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?id_pk=22, Accessed on January 14, 2011.
21. Delvosalle C, Fiévez C, Pipart A. ARAMIS, Deliverable D.1.C, WP 1. Faculté Polytechnique de Mons, Major Risk Research Centre, 2004.
22. Risk Governance Deficits. Geneva, International Risk Governance Council, 2009.
23. FP7 Project iNTeg-Risk Early Recognition, Monitoring and Integrated Management of Emerging, New Technology Related Risks. Annex I (DoW) to Grant agreement no. CP-IP 213345-2, April 07, 2009.
24. Renn O. White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. Geneve, IRGC-International Risk Governance Council, 2005
25. Rasmussen J. Risk management in a dynamic society: A modeling problem. Safety Science, 1997; 27(2/3):183-213.
26. Paltrinieri N, Wardman M. Hazard identification review and assessment of unknown risks. Deliverable D1.4.4.3, EC project iNTeg-Risk, 7th FP, Grant: CP-IP 213345-2, December 1, 2010.
27. Paltrinieri N, Wardman M, Dechy N, Salzano E, Cozzani V (eds). Towards a checklist for identification of atypical event scenarios, pp. 379-391 in Steinbeis Edition. II iNTeg-Risk Conference: New Technologies & Emerging Risks, Dealing with Multiple and Interconnected Emerging Risks. Stuttgart; 2010. pp. 379-391.
28. Marlair G, Kordek MA. Safety and security issues relating to low capacity storage of AN-based fertilizers. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2005; 123:13-28.
29. Cox S, Cox T. The structure of employee attitudes to safety-A European example. Work and Stress, 1991; 5:93-106.
30. Pidgeon N, O'Leary M. Man-Made disasters: Why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail. Safety Science, 2000; 34:15-30.
31. ACSNI Human Factors Study Group. Third Report: Organising for Safety. Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, Health and Safety Commission, 1993.
32. Hale AR. Culture's confusions. Safety Science, 2000; 34:1-14.
33. Guldenmund FW. (Mis)understanding safety culture and its role in safety management. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:1466-1480.
34. Reason J. The contribution of latent human failures to the breakdown of complex systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London), Series B, 1990; 327:475-484.
35. Phimister JR, Bier VM, Kunreuther HC. Accident Precursor Analysis and Management: Reducing Technological Risk Through Diligence, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.
36. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. Organizing for high reliability, pp. 81-123 in Sutton RS, Staw BM (eds). Research in Organization Behavior 21. Stamford, CT: JAI Press; 1999.
37. Dien Y, Dechy N, Guillame E. Accident investigation: from searching direct causes to finding in-depth causes. Problem of analysis or/and of analyst? in Proceedings of the 33rd ESReDA Seminar. Ispra, November 13-14, 2007.