Trends in the Dynamics of Background Indicators of Accident Hazards at Hazardous Production Facilities


For the constructive implementation of a risk-oriented approach in the field of ensuring industrial safety, the real guidelines are needed for the existing hazards of accidents, as well as the achieved and desired level of ensuring industrial safety. One of the important indicators of the industrial safety state can be the background risk of accidents, which is recorded not at a separate hazardous production facility, but in the branch systems of hazardous industries. By changing the ratio of the background risk of an accident in the industry and at a specific supervised facility, one can judge the status and the efficiency of industrial safety management systems at an operating hazardous production facility. A hazardous production facility, as the main source of knowledge about hazards and the application of forces in the field of ensuring industrial safety, has the distinctive properties of both «hazard» and «productivity». To assess the state of safety at a hazardous production facility, special indicators are required that show the interaction of the properties of «hazard» and «productivity». The article presents the trends in the proposed indicators of accident hazard in certain industries over the past 25 years. These indicators do not cancel, but only supplement the traditional indicators of accidents and injuries allowing to assess the risk of accidents in the transitional and crisis periods. The background risk of an accident is a representative indicator for assessing the efficiency of using both traditional control and supervision approaches and mastering modern risk-oriented approaches to industrial safety regulation. 

1. Besserman J., Mentzer R.A. Review of global process safety regulations: United States, European Union, United Kingdom, China. India. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2017. Vol. 50. pp. 165–183.
2. Pecherkin A.S., Grazhdankin A.I. Background Indicators of Accident Rate — Indicators of Efficiency of Introduction of Instruments for Industrial Safety Regulation. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2017. № 5. pp. 5–8. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2017-5-5-8
3. Sumskoy S.I., Lisanov M.V., Lisanov A.M. Analysis of data on accident rate at explosive and fire hazardous pipeline transport facilities. XXIX Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., posvyashchennaya 80-letiyu FGBU VNIIPO MChS Rossii (29th International scientific-practical conference dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the FGBU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia). In 2 parts. Pt. 2. 2017. pp. 31–33. (In Russ.).
4. Koteswara Reddy G., Yarrakula K. Analysis of accidents in chemical process industries in the period 1998-2015. International Journal of ChemTech Research. 2016. Vol. 9. № 4. pp. 177–191.
5. Brinchuk M.M., Golichenkov A.K., Klovach E.V., Krasnykh B.A., Sidorov V.I. 20 Years to the Federal Law № 116-FL «On Industrial Safety of Hazardous Production Facilities». Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2017. № 4. pp. 37–45. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2017-4-37-45
6. Sidorov V.I., Pecherkin A.S., Klovach E.V., Kruchinina I.A. Scientific Support for Industrial Safety is Thirty Years. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2020. № 4. pp. 7–16. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2020-4-7-16
7. Grazhdankin A.I., Kara-Murza S.G. White Book: Industry and Construction in Russia for 1950-2014. Moscow: Nauchnyy ekspert, TD Algoritm, 2016. 224 p. (In Russ.).
8. De Rademaeker E., Suter G., Pasman H.J., Fabiano B. A review of the past, present and future of the European loss prevention and safety promotion in the process industries. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2014. Vol. 92. Iss. 4. pp. 280–291. DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2014.03.007
9. Grazhdankin A.I., Pulikovskiy K.B. Russian Industry and Industrial Dangers in Transition Period. Accident Rate and Traumatism of Deindustrialization. Bezopasnost v tekhnosfere = Safety in Technosphere. 2013. Vol. 2. № 6. pp. 64–69. (In Russ.).
10. Villa V., Paltrinieri N., Khan F., Cozzani V. Towards dynamic risk analysis: a review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Safety Science. 2016. Vol. 89. pp. 77–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002
11. Khan F.I., Abbasi S.A. Major accidents in process industries and an analysis of causes and consequences. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 1999. Vol. 12. Iss. 5. pp. 361–378. DOI:10.1016/S0950-4230(98)00062-X
12. Klovach E.V., Rubach E.A., Baranovskiy E.V. Implementation of the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2018. № 4. pp. 49–56. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2018-4-49-56
13. Bochkov A.V., Safonov V.S. Special analysis and assessment of risk indicators for rare events in regard to dangerous industrial facilities. Nauchno-tekhnicheskiy sbornik Vesti gazovoy nauki = Scientific-Technical Collection book. 2020. № 1 (42). pp. 84–95. (In Russ.).
DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2022-11-14-19
Year: 2022
Issue num: November
Keywords : hazardous production facility показатель опасности аварий risk-oriented approach фоновый риск аварии