Russian Federation
This study aims to test an original methodology for assessing the risk of accidents and occupational injuries at chemically hazardous sites producing sulphuric acid. While sulphuric acid has broad industrial applications, its production process entails significant risks. The proposed methodology evaluates the state of the occupational health and safety management system using two independent indices: accident risk and occupational injury risk. Accident risk is assessed through expert evaluation, whereas occupational injury risk is determined using statistical methods. The accident risk level is calculated as the ratio of two factors: the hazard of the chemically hazardous site and the vulnerability of personnel to destructive factors in the event of an accident. Site hazard is defined by criteria grouped into four clusters: organisational, technical, human,and technological. Occupational injury risk is measured as the ratio of injury frequencyto the severity of health consequences. The findings demonstrate that effective occupational health and safety measures can maintain accident risk at a low level, even at facilities operating high-hazard technological equipment. The study found no significant differences between the sulphuric acid production technology employed and the levels of accident risk and occupational injury among workers at the site.
man-made emergency, risk, risk assessment, chemically hazardous site, hazardous chemical, accident, occupational injury
1. Chenier Ph.J. Survey of Industrial Chemistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986. P. 433.
2. Statista Research Department. Market volume of sulfuric acid worldwide from 2015 to 2022, with a forecast for 2023 to 2030 // Chemicals & Resources. Chemical Industry. 2023. URL: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1245226/sulfuric-acid-market-volume-worldwide/ (data obrashcheniya: 08.12.2024).
3. Greenwood N.N., Earnshaw A. Chemistry of the Elements. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997. P. 653.
4. Roy P., Sardar A. SO2 emission control and finding a way out to produce sulphuric acid from industrial SO2 emission // Journal of Chemical Engineering & Process Technology. 2015. Vol. 6. № 2. P. 1000230. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7048.1000230.
5. Anderson A.R. Top five chemicals resulting in injuries from acute chemical incidents – hazardous substances emergency events surveillance, nine states, 1999–2008 // Surveillance Summaries. 2015. Vol. 64 (SS 02). P. 39–46.
6. Yemelin P.V., Kudryavtsev S.S., Yemelina N.K. Improving the industrial safety management system at enterprises with chemically hazardous sites // Journal of Safety Scienceand Resilience. 2024. Vol. 5. № 4. P. 432–448. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2024.06.005.
7. Yemelin P.V., Kudryavtsev S.S., Yemelina N.K. The methodological approachto environmental risk assessment from man-made emergencies at chemically hazardous sites // Environmental Engineering Research. 2021. Vol. 26. № 4. P. 100–111. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2020.386.
8. STAMP – holistic system safety approach or just another risk model? /H. Altabbakh [et al.] // Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2014. Vol. 32. P. 109–119.
9. Kariuki S.G., Löwe K. Integrating human factors into process hazard analysis // Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2007. Vol. 92. № 12. P. 1764–1773.
10. Rodriguez M., Diaz I. A systematic and integral hazards analysis technique appliedto the process industry // Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2016. Vol. 43.P. 721–729.
11. Development of a FRAM-based framework to identify hazards in a complex system /M. Yu [et al.] // Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2020. Vol. 63. № 1.P. 103994. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2019.103994.
12. Gimel'shtejn L.Ya., Ludzish V.S. Avarijnost' i travmatizm na predpriyatiyah ugol'noj promyshlennosti // Bezopasnost' truda v promyshlennosti. 1996. № 11. S. 13–14.
