Análise de causas raiz de acidentes da indústria de processos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv10n5-021Keywords:
causas raiz, acidentes de processo, liberação, perda de contenção, segurança de processoAbstract
A compreensão das causas raiz de acidentes é fundamental para prevenir incidentes futuros e melhorar a segurança dos processos. Estas referem-se aos fatores subjacentes que levam a um acidente, indo além dos aspectos superficiais e identificando os elementos fundamentais que contribuíram para a ocorrência do evento indesejado. Este trabalho levantou dados de 154 acidentes da indústria química, incluídos todos os Major Accidents, empregando-se a tipologia de causas raiz (e de consequência) proposta por Crowl e Louvar para um levantamento estatístico destes acidentes em comparação a este mesmo autor. Tal tipologia foi estendida para incluir outros elementos como a condição de operação da planta, estatísticas de perdas financeiras e de análise temporal. Estes resultados foram sumarizados em tabelas e gráficos e discutidos ao longo do texto deste trabalho.
References
ABBASSI, R., ARZAGHI, E., YAZDI, M., ARYAI, V., GARANIYA, V., & RAHNAMAYIEZEKAVAT, P. (2022). Risk-based and predictive maintenance planning of engineering infrastructure: Existing quantitative techniques and future directions. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 165, 776–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.07.046
BAYBUTT, P. (2016). Insights into process safety incidents from an analysis of CSB investigations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 43, 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.07.002
Chemical Center for Process Safety. (2011). Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety (First edit). Wiley-Interscience.
CHEN, G., LI, X., ZHANG, X., & RENIERS, G. (2021). Developing a talent training model related to chemical process safety based on interdisciplinary education in China. Education for Chemical Engineers, 34, 115–126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.11.012
CROWL, A. D., & LOUVAR, J. F. (2019). Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications (4th ed.). Pearson.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance: Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression, and Industrial Gases.
GROSSEL, S. S. (2001). Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis: 2nd Edition; By Center for Chemical Process Safety; American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY, 2000, pp. 750. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 14(5), 438–439. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(01)00002-X
LIAW, H. J. (2019). Deficiencies frequently encountered in the management of process safety information. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 132, 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.10.015
MARSH SPECIALTY. (2022). 100 largest losses in the hydrocarbon industry, 27th edition.
MOTALIFU, M., TIAN, Y., LIU, Y., ZHAO, D., BAI, M., KAN, Y., QI, M., RENIERS, G., & ROY, N. (2022). Chemical process safety education in China: An overview and the way forward. Safety Science, 148, 105643. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105643
PASMAN, H. J., ROGERS, W. J., & MANNAN, M. S. (2018). How can we improve process hazard identification? What can accident investigation methods contribute and what other recent developments? A brief historical survey and a sketch of how to advance. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 55, 80–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.05.018
TAYLOR, C., Øie, S., & GOULD, K. (2018). Lessons Learned from Applying a New HRA Method for the Petroleum Industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.10.001.
