Assessment and comparison of two early warning indicator methods in the perspective of prevention of atypical accident scenarios

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

Volumn 108, Issue , 2012, Pages 21-31

  Paltrinieri, Nicola ^a   Oien, Knut ^b   Cozzani, Valerio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b SINTEF TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Atypical accidents; Dual assurance; Early warning; Indicator; REWI

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT SCENARIOS; BUNCEFIELD; CAUSAL CHAINS; DUAL ASSURANCE; EARLY WARNING; EARLY WARNING INDICATORS; HAZARD IDENTIFICATION; MAJOR ACCIDENTS; ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS; REWI; SAFETY REPORTS; TECHNICAL FACTORS; VAPOUR CLOUDS;

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; INDICATORS (INSTRUMENTS);

ACCIDENTS;

EID: 84865449151     PISSN: 09518320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2012.06.017     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Jovanovic A, editor. 1st iNTeg-risk conference: dealing with risks of tomorrow's technologies. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition; 2009. ISBN: 978-3-941417-40-3.
2. Jovanovic A, Renn O, Salvi O, editors. 2nd iNTeg-risk conference: new technologies & emerging risks. Dealing with multiple and interconnected emerging risks. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition; 2010. ISBN: 978-3-938062-33-3.
3. Jovanovic A, Renn O, Salvi O, editors. 3rd iNTeg-risk conference & 20th SRA-Europe meeting. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition; 2011. ISBN: 978-3-941417-65-6.
4. Paltrinieri N. Development of advanced tools and methods for the assessment and management of risk due to atypical major accident scenarios. PhD thesis. Bologna: Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna; 2012.
5. Paltrinieri N, Wardman M, Dechy N, Salzano E, Cozzani V. Atypical major hazard scenarios and their inclusion in risk analysis and safety assessments. In: Proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference. London: Taylor & Francis; 2010. p. 588-95.
6. Paltrinieri N, Dechy N, Salzano E, Wardman M, Cozzani V. Lessons learned from Toulouse and Buncefield disasters: from risk analysis failures to the identification of atypical scenarios through a better knowledge management. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, in press, Corrected proof available online 23 December 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01749.x.
7. Paltrinieri N, Tugnoli A, Bonvicini S, Cozzani V. Atypical scenarios identification by the DyPASI procedure: application to LNG. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on chemical and process engineering. Milan: AIDIC; 2011. p. 1171-6.
8. K. Oien Risk indicators as a tool for risk control Reliability Engineering & System Safety 74 2 2001 129 145 (Pubitemid 32935122)
9. JE Skogdalen, and J.E Vinnem Quantitative risk analysis offshore - human and organizational factors Reliability Engineering & System Safety 96 4 2011 468 479
10. Oien K, Massaiu S, Tinmannsvik RK, Storseth F. Development of early warning indicators based on resilience engineering. In: Proceedings of the PSAM 10. Probabilistic safety assessment & management conference, 2010.
11. Developing Process Safety Indicators. HSE guidance series, HSG254. HSE, UK, 2006. ISBN 071-7-661-80-6. Retrieved on 7 November 2011 from 〈http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg254.pdf〉.
12. DD. Woods Essential characteristics of resilience N Leveson, E Hollnagel, DD. Woods, Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts 2006 Ashgate Aldershot 21 34
13. Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board. The Buncefield incident 11 December 2005: The final report of the Major Incident Investigation Board: vv. 1-2, HSE Books, 2008. Retrieved on 10 August 2011 from 〈www. buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/volume1.pdf〉, 〈www. buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/volume2a.pdf〉, 〈www. buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/volume2b.pdf〉.
14. 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. p. 0013-0033.
15. UK Parliament Statutory Instrument 1999/743 - Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations, 1999.
16. UK Parliament Statutory Instrument 2005/1088 - Amendments of the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations, 2005
17. COMAH Competent Authority, Buncefield: why did it happen? HSE Books, 2011. Retrieved on 18 January 2012 from 〈http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/ buncefield/buncefield-report.pdf〉.
18. JC. Le Coze Are organisations too complex to be integrated in technical risk assessment and current safety auditing? Safety Science 43 8 2005 613 638
19. JR Phimister, VM Bier, and HC Kunreuther 2004 The National Academies Press Washington
20. Health and Safety Executive & Environment Agency. Prosecution resulting from Buncefield explosion. Retrieved on 18 October 2011 from 〈http://www.hse.gov.uk/news/buncefield/index.htm〉
21. M. Merad Aide à la decision et expertise en gestion des risques 2010 Editions Tec&Doc, Lavoisier Paris
22. U.S. Department of Defense. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), News Transcript, February 12, 2002. Retrieved on 4 July 2011 from 〈http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid= 2636〉.
23. T. Aven, and E. Zio Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making Reliability Engineering & System Safety 96 1 2011 64 74
24. M. Maremonti, G. Russo, E. Salzano, and V. Tufano Post-accident analysis of vapour cloud explosions in fuel storage areas Process Safety and Environmental Protection 77 6 1999 360 365
25. Lechaudel JF, Mouilleau Y. Assessment of an accidental vapour cloud explosion, a case study: Saint-Herblain, October 7, 1991, France. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on loss prevention and safety promotion in the process industries, 1995.
26. Caufield JP, Kossup J. Report on the incident at the Texaco Company's Newark storage Facility 7 January 1983. Loss Prevention Bulletin, 1984;57:11-15. Reprinted in Loss Prevention Bulletin 2006;188:10-3.
27. V. Tufano, M. Maremonti, E. Salzano, and G. Russo Simulation of VCEs by CFD modelling: an analysis of sensitivity Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 11 3 1998 169 175 (Pubitemid 28276563)
28. US Chemical Safety Board. Caribbean petroleum refinery tank explosion and fire, 2009. Retrieved on 20 December 2011 from 〈http://www.csb.gov/ newsroom/detail.aspx?nid=295〉
29. MoPNG Committee Government of India. Independent Inquiry Committee Report on Indian Oil Terminal Fire at Jaipur on 29 October 2009, 2010. Retrieved on 20 January 2011 from 〈http://oisd.nic.in〉.
30. H.R. Bae, R.V. Grandhi, and R.A. Canfield An approximation approach for uncertainty quantification using evidence theory Reliability Engineering & System Safety 86 3 2004 215 225
31. H. Kumamoto, and E.J. Henley Probabilistic risk assessment and management for engineers and scientists 1996 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Press New York
32. Center for Chemical Process Safety. Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis. New York: CCPS, AIChE; 1989.
33. D.A Crowl, and J.F. Louvar Chemical process safety, fundamentals with applications 2002 Prentice-Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
34. Cozzani V, Rota R, Tugnoli A, Busini V, Bubbico R, Salzano E, et al. Safety of LNG regasification terminals: the Blue Book approach. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on chemical and process engineering. Chemical engineering transactions, vol. 24. Milano: AIDIC; 2011. p. 1105-10.
35. J. Wilday, N. Paltrinieri, R. Farret, J. Hebrard, and L. Breedveld Addressing emerging risks using carbon capture and storage as an example Process Safety and Environmental Protection 89 6 2011 463 471
36. P. Lagadec La gestion des crises 1994 Ediscience International Paris
37. J.G. March, L.S. Sproull, and M. Tamuz Learning from samples of one or fewer Organization Science 2 1 1991 1 13
38. K.E. Weick, K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld Organizing for high reliability R.S. Sutton, B.M. Staw, Research in oganization behavior 1999 JAI Press Stamford
39. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Management of operational safety in nuclear power plant. INSAG-13, International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna; 1999.
40. E Hollnagel, and D.D. Woods Epilogue: resilience engineering precepts N. Leveson, E. Hollnagel, D.D. Woods, Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts 2006 Ashgate Aldershot 347 358
41. EPRI (U.S. Electric Power Research Institute). Guidelines for trial use of leading indicators of human performance: the human performance assistance package; 2000.
42. EPRI (U.S. Electric Power Research Institute) and the U.S. Department of Energy. Final report on leading indicators of human performance; 2001.
43. Woods D, Wreathall J. Managing risk proactively: the emergence of resilience engineering. Columbus: Ohio University; 2003.
44. Tierney JJ. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and community resilience: lessons from the emergency response following the September 11, 2001, Attack on the World Trade Center, Disaster Research Center, Preliminary Papers, no. 329; 2003.
45. SINTEF. Building safety in petroleum exploration and production in the northern regions, 2010. Retrieved on 25 January 2011 from 〈http://www. sintef.no/buildingsafety〉.
46. F. Storseth, E. Albrechtsen, and M.H.R. Eitrheim Resilient recovery factors: explorative study Safety Science Monitor 14 2 2010
47. C.F. Kurtz, and D.J. Snowden The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world IBM Systems Journal 42 3 2003