Dynamic approach to risk management: Application to the Hoeganaes metal dust accidents

Abstract Several major accidents caused by metal dusts were recorded in the past few years. For instance, in 2011, three accidents caused by iron dust killed five workers at the Hoeganaes Corp. facility in Gallatin, Tennessee (USA). In order to prevent such accidents, a dynamic approach to risk management was defined in this study. The method is able to take into account new risk notions and early warnings and to systematically update the related risk. It may be applied not only in the design phase of a system, but also throughout the system lifetime as a support to a more precise and robust decision making process. The synergy of two specific techniques for hazard identification and risk assessment was obtained: the Dynamic Procedure for Atypical Scenarios Identification (DyPASI) and the Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA) methods. To demonstrate its effectiveness, this approach was applied to the analysis of Gallatin metal dust accidents. The application allowed collecting a number of risk notions related to the plant, equipment and materials used. The analysis of risk notions by means of this dynamic approach could have led to enhanced hazard identification and dynamic real-time risk assessment. However, the approach described is effective only if associated to a proper safety culture, in order to produce an appropriate and robust decision making response to emerging risk issues.

[1]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Modelling of BP Texas City refinery accident using dynamic risk assessment approach , 2010 .

[2]  Nicola Paltrinieri Development of advanced tools and methods for the assessment and management of risk due to atypical major accident scenarios , 2012 .

[3]  Nicolas Dechy,et al.  Towards a new approach for the identification of atypical accident scenarios , 2013 .

[4]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory , 2009 .

[5]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Application of inherent safety principles to dust explosion prevention and mitigation , 2009 .

[6]  Faisal Khan,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR DUST AND HYBRID MIXTURE EXPLOSIONS , 2013 .

[7]  Angela S. Blair,et al.  Dust explosion incidents and regulations in the United States , 2007 .

[8]  S. Kaplan,et al.  On The Quantitative Definition of Risk , 1981 .

[9]  Faisal I Khan,et al.  Risk-based maintenance of ethylene oxide production facilities. , 2004, Journal of hazardous materials.

[10]  Christian Delvosalle,et al.  ARAMIS project: a comprehensive methodology for the identification of reference accident scenarios in process industries. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[11]  D. Vose Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide , 2000 .

[12]  N. Pletneva COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 31000–2009 “RISK MANAGEMENT. PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES” , 2014 .

[13]  Joseph Tiran,et al.  Condition-based fault tree analysis (CBFTA): A new method for improved fault tree analysis (FTA), reliability and safety calculations , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  Dynamic Procedure for Atypical Scenarios Identification (DyPASI): A new systematic HAZID tool , 2013 .

[15]  Rolf K. Eckhoff,et al.  Current status and expected future trends in dust explosion research , 2005 .

[16]  Warren D. Seider,et al.  Plant-specific dynamic failure assessment using Bayesian theory , 2006 .

[17]  Tasneem Abbasi,et al.  Dust explosions-cases, causes, consequences, and control. , 2007, Journal of hazardous materials.

[18]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  Assessment and comparison of two early warning indicator methods in the perspective of prevention of atypical accident scenarios , 2012, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[19]  Nicolas Dechy,et al.  Lessons Learned from Toulouse and Buncefield Disasters: From Risk Analysis Failures to the Identification of Atypical Scenarios Through a Better Knowledge Management , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.