How can we use the information provided by process safety performance indicators? Possibilities and limitations

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 197-206

  Pasman, Hans ^a   Rogers, William ^a  

^a Texas AandM University   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian networks; Indicators; Process safety; Risk management

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; BENCHMARKING; DRILLING PLATFORMS; INDICATORS (INSTRUMENTS); MAINTENANCE; OFFSHORE STRUCTURES; PATIENT MONITORING; RISK MANAGEMENT;

INDICATOR VALUES; OFF SHORE PLATFORMS; PROCESS SAFETY; PROCESS SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; RISK FACTORS; RISK LEVELS; TECHNICAL FAILURES; TIME DURATION;

SAFETY ENGINEERING;

EID: 84903791533     PISSN: 09504230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ale B.J.M., Bellamy L.J., Van der Boom R., Cooper J., Cooke R.M., Goossens L.H.J., et al. Further development of a causal model for air transport safety (CATS): building the mathematical heart. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2009, 94:1433-1441.
2. Bellamy L.J., Ale B.J.M., Whiston J.Y., Mud M.L., Baksteen H., Hale A.R., et al. The software tool story builder and the analysis of the horrible stories of occupational accidents. Safety Science 2008, 46:186-197.
3. CCPS Guidelines for risk based process safety 2007, Center for Chemical Process Safety - AIChE, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
4. CCPS Guidelines for process safety metrics 2010, Center for Chemical Process Safety - AIChE, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley 2010.
5. CCPS Process safety leading and lagging metrics 2007, Center for Chemical Process Safety - AIChE, Initial release, New York, 20 December. http://www.aiche.org/ccps/.
6. DSL GeNIe (Graphical network interface) and SMILE (Structural modeling, inference, and learning engine), version 2.0 software 2010, Decision Systems Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh. http://genie.sis.pitt.edu/.
7. Fenton N., Neil M. Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian networks 2013, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742, USA.
8. Ferdous R., Khan F., Sadiq R., Amyotte P., Veitch B. Handling and updating uncertain information in bow-tie analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2012, 25:8-19.
9. Gran B.A., Byeb R., Nyheim O.M., Okstad E.H., Seljelid J., Sklet S., et al. Evaluation of the risk OMT model for maintenance work on major offshore process equipment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2012, 25:582-593.
10. Groth K., Wang Ch, Mosleh A. Hybrid causal methodology and software platform for probabilistic risk assessment and safety monitoring of socio-technical systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2010, 95:1276-1285.
11. Hassan J., Khan F. Risk based asset integrity indicators. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2012, 25:544-554.
12. Hopkins A. Thinking about process safety indicators. Safety Science 2009, 47:460-465. and Reply to Comments, ibidem, 47, 508-510.
13. HSE Developing process safety indicators, a step-by-step guide for chemical and major hazard industries, HSG254 2006, http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg254.htm.
14. HSE Review of significance of societal risk for proposed revision to land use planning arrangements for large scale petroleum storage sites 2007, WS Atkins Consultants Ltd, HSE Books RR512. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr512.htm.
15. Hudson P.T.W. Process indicators: managing safety by the numbers. Safety Science 2009, 47:483-485.
16. HUGIN HUGIN EXPERT graphical user interface/HUGIN decision engine 7.6 2012, Available at. http://www.hugin.com/productsservices/products/release-notes/.
17. Khakzad N., Khan F., Amyotte P. Safety analysis in process facilities: comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2011, 96:925-932.
18. Khakzad N., Khan F., Amyotte P. Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2012, 104:36-44.
19. Khakzad N., Khan F., Amyotte P. Dynamic safety analysis of process systems by mapping bow-tie into Bayesian network. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2013, 91:46-53.
20. Khakzad N., Khan F., Amyotte P. Risk-based design of process systems using discrete-time Bayesian networks. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2013, 109:5-17.
21. Khan F.I., Sadiq R., Husain T. Risk-based process safety assessment and control measures design for offshore process facilities. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2002, A94:1-36.
22. Kip Viscusi W. The value of life 2005, Discussion Paper No. 517 06/2005, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA 02138. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Viscusi_517.pdf.
23. Knegtering B., Pasman H.J. The safety barometer; how safe is my plant today? What and how to measure the actual safety level?. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2013, 26:821-829.
24. Montani S., Portinale L., Bobbio A. Dynamic Bayesian networks for modeling advanced fault tree features in dependability analysis. Advances in safety and reliability 2005, 1414-1422. Francis & Taylor Group, London. Kolowrocki (Ed.).
25. Morales O., Kurowicka D., Roelen A. Eliciting conditional and unconditional rank correlations from conditional probabilities. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2008, 93:699-710.
26. OECD Guidance for industry, public authorities and communities for developing SPI programmes related to chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response (Interim publication scheduled to be tested in 2003-2004 and revised in 2005) 2003, OECD environment, health and safety publications series on chemical accidents No. 11, Paris.
27. OSHA United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Process Safety Management Standard, 29 CFR 1910.119, 57 FR 6356, February 24 1992.
28. 2 transportation and tank station risks. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37:17415-17425. (and erratum 38 (2013) 1662).
29. Pasman H.J., Rogers W.J. Bayesian networks make LOPA more effective, QRA more transparent and flexible, and thus safety more definable!. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2013, 26:434-442.
30. Pearl J. Causality, models, reasoning and inference 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, ISBN-978-0-77362-8; 2nd Edition, ISBN 978-0-521-89560-6. 1st ed.
31. RIVM Reference manual Bevi risk assessments version 3.2 - Module B 01-07-2009, http://www.rivm.nl/milieuportaal/images/Reference-Manual-Bevi-Risk-Assessments-version-3-2.pdf.
32. UniNet, developed by the Risk and Environmental Modeling Group at the Department of Mathematics of the Delft University of Technology. http://www.lighttwist.net/wp/uninet.
33. Vinnem J.E., Bye R., Gran B.A., Kongsvik T., Nyheim O.M., Okstad E.H., et al. Risk modelling of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2012, 25:274-292.
34. Vinnem J.E., Seljelid J., Haugen S., Sklet S., Aven T. Generalized methodology for operational risk analysis of offshore installations. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability 2009, 223:87-97.
35. Yellow Book Methods for the calculation of physical effects, PGS 2, Dutch Government, Ministry VROM (meanwhile changed to Ministry I&M) 2005, downloadable from website. http://www.publicatiereeksgevaarlijkestoffen.nl/publicaties/PGS2.html.