Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward Natech Resilient Industries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience

Part of the book series: Disaster and Risk Research: GADRI Book Series ((DRRGBS))

Abstract

Natural hazard triggered technological accidents (known as Natechs) are a subject of increasing concern due to the growing exposure of highly industrialized and urbanized areas to natural hazards. The increasing trend of such accidents along with their potentially devastating consequences has led to growing awareness and international efforts aimed at reducing Natech risk. However, despite the growing interest and increasing awareness, there is still a low level of preparedness for Natech events and there are limited contributions regarding the industry’s Natech resilience. Addressing Natech risk effectively requires a paradigm shift in the scope of analysis of these hazards beyond industrial facilities’ fence lines from both a proactive and reactive perspective, and considering area-wide implications. In this chapter, we discuss the concept of resilience engineering (RE) as it is applied to the process industries (industrial installations, such as the oil, petrochemical, and chemical industries, that produce, handle, and use large volumes of hazardous materials), the evolution of RE over time, and the existing gaps for Natech resilience. We then propose a comprehensive framework for Natech resilient industries that contemplates the interaction in a territory between the technical and organizational systems, risk governance, risk communication, and stakeholder participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to the Center for Chemical Process Safety, process safety culture refers to the common set of values, behaviors, and norms at all levels in a facility or in the wider organization that affect process safety.

References

  • Akatsuka H (2012) Koatsu Gas no Jiko ni Manabu [Learning from High-pressure Gas Accidents]. High Pressure Gas Safety Association, Tokyo, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Almufti I, Willford (2013) REDi™ Rating system: resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildings

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Cozzani V (2007) A methodology for the quantitative risk assessment of major accidents triggered by seismic events. J Hazard Mater 147(1):48–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2011) On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Anal 31(4):515–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Baba H, Watanabe T, Nagaishi M, Matsumoto H (2014) Area business continuity management, a new opportunity for building economic resilience. Procedia Econom Finance 18:296–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Baram MS (1984) The right to know and the duty to disclose hazard information. Am J Public Health 74(4):385–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergström J, van Winsen R, Henriqson E (2015) On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: a literature review. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 141:131–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertazzi PA (1999) Future prevention and handling of environmental accidents. Scand J Work Environ Health 25(6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhamara R, Dani S, Burnard K (2011) Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. Int J Prod Res 49(18):5375–5393

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga F, Gigliotti R, Monti G, Morelli F, Nuti C, Salvatore W, Vanzi I (2014) Speedup of post earthquake community recovery: the case of precast industrial buildings after the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2405–2418

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch KM, Bradbury JA (2006) Comparison of DOE and army advisory boards: application of a conceptual framework for evaluating public participation in environmental risk decision making. Policy Stud J 34(4):723–754

    Google Scholar 

  • CalARP (2014) Guidance for California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program Seismic Assessments, CalARP Program Seismic Guidance Committee. http://www.caloes.ca.gov/FireRescueSite/Documents/SGD%20LEPC%20I%20Approved%2003%2012%202014.pdf

  • CCPS (2018) Process Safety Glossary. https://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/glossary/process-safety-glossary/chemical-process-industry. Accessed 01 Jan 2019

  • Cook D, Fitzgerald K, Chrupalo T, Haselton CB (2017) Comparison of FEMA P-58 with other building seismic risk assessment methods. FEMA

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowl D, Louvar J (2002) Chemical process safety: fundamentals with applications. Second, Edition edn. Prentice Hall International, United States of America

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz AM, Krausmann E (2008) Damage to offshore oil and gas facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita: an overview. J Loss Prev Process Ind 21(6):620–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz AM, Krausmann E (2009) Hazardous-materials releases from offshore oil and gas facilities and emergency response following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. J Loss Prev Process Ind 22:59–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz AM, Krausmann E (2013) Vulnerability of the oil and gas sector to climate change and extreme weather events. Clim Change 121(1):41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz AM, Steinberg LJ (2005) Industry Preparedness for Earthquakes and Earthquake-Triggered Hazmat Accidents in the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 21(2):285–303

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2012) Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, Official Journal of the European Union, L 197/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa PM (2013) Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster: an anthropological approach. Asia Eur J 11(1):53–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Galderisi A, Ceudech A, Pistucci M (2008) A method for na-tech risk assessment as supporting tool for land use planning mitigation strategies. Nat Hazards 46(2):221–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Gheorghiu AD, Török Z, Ozunu A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V (2014) NaTech risk analysis in the context of land use planning. Case study: petroleum products storage tank farm next to a residential area. Chem Eng Trans 36:439–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Girgin S, Necci A, Krausmann E (2017) Natech hazard and risk assessment, In: Words into Action Guidelines, National Disaster Risk Assessment— Governance Systems, Methodologies and Use of Data, Part 3, Chapter 10, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Girgin S, Necci A, Krausmann E (2019) Dealing with cascading multi-hazard risks in National Risk Assessment: the case of Natech accidents. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 35:101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101072

  • Guha-Sapir D, Hoyois P, Below R (2016) Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2015: The numbers and trends. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). http://www.cred.be/sites/default/files/ADSR_2015.pdf

  • Ikeda, S (2014) Interdisciplinary framework of risk communication as an integral part of environmental risk analysis in postindustrial risk society: three case studies of the 1999 amendment of air pollution control law, dioxins, and the EMF risks. J Disaster Res 9:628–637

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain P, Mentzer R, Mannan MS (2018a) Resilience metrics for improved process-risk decision making: Survey, analysis and application. Saf Sci 108:13–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain P, Rogers WJ, Pasman HJ, Keim KK, Mannan MS (2018b) A Resilience-based Integrated Process Systems Hazard Analysis (RIPSHA) approach: Part I plant system layer. Process Saf Environ Prot 116:92–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadri F, Birregah B, Châtelet E (2014) The impact of natural disasters on critical infrastructures: a domino effect-based study. J Homel Secur Emerg Manage 11(2):217–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinoshita, T (2014) Short history of risk communication in Japan. J Disaster Res 9:592–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiyohara K (2016) Incidence of Accidents Involving High Pressure Gases in Japan: Causes, Trends, and Recommended Countermeasures. Kyoto University, Kyoto, Civil Engineer

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Cruz AM (2013) Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Nat Hazards 67:811–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Salzano E (2017a) Natech risk assessment and management: reducing the risk of natural-hazard impact on hazardous installations. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Fendler R, Averous-Monnery S, Cruz AM, Kato N (2017b) Chapter 4 – Status of Natech risk management. In Natech risk assessment and management, 53–68. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Necci A, Girgin S (2017c) Natech emergency management: rising to the challenge. Loss Prev Bull 254, Inst Chem Eng IChemE. 12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Renni E, Campedel M, Cozzani V (2011) Industrial accidents triggered by earthquakes, floods and lightning: lessons learned from a database analysis. Nat Hazards 59(1):285–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Landucci G, Antonioni G, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V (2012) Release of hazardous substances in flood events: damage model for atmospheric storage tanks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 106(C):200–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Landucci G, Antonioni G, Necci A, Cozzani V (2016) Quantitative risk assessment of cascading events triggered by floods. Chem Eng Trans 48:901–906

    Google Scholar 

  • Masys AJ, Ray-Bennett N, Shiroshita H, Jackson P (2014) High impact/low frequency extreme events: enabling reflection and resilience in a hyper-connected world. Procedia Econ 18:772–779

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee S, Nateghi R, Hastak M (2018) A multi-hazard approach to assess severe weather-induced major power outage risks in the U.S. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 175:283–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Necci A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V, Krausmann E, Borghetti A, Nucci CA (2013) A model for process equipment damage probability assessment due to lightning. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 115(C):91–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen T (2018) A Resilience Engineering -related approach applying a taxonomy analysis to a survey examining the prevention of risks. Saf Sci 101:108–120

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003) Guiding principles for chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response. Series on chemical accidents No. 10. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/chemical-accidents/Guiding-principles-chemical-accident.pdf

  • OECD (2012) OECD workshop on Natech risk management: 23–25 May 2012. Dresden, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015) Addendum number 2 to the OECD guiding principles for chemical accident prevention, preparedness, and response (2nd edn) to address natural hazards triggering technological accidents (Natechs). OECDENV/JM/MONO(2015)1. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2018) UN/OECD Workshop. Natech risk management – natural hazards triggering technological accidents, workshop proceedings. Umweltbundesamt, Germany. Available at: https://natech-workshop.de/workshop-proceedings

  • Ohtake F, Okuyama N, Sasaki M, Yasui K (2012) Impacts of the Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake on the labor market in the disaster areas. Japan Labor Review 9(4):42–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang M, Dueñas-Osorio L, Min X (2012) A three-stage resilience analysis framework for urban infrastructure systems. Struct Saf 36–37:23–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Palenchar MJ (2008) Risk communication and community right to know: a public relations obligation to inform. School of advertising and public relations publications and other works

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey B, Okazaki K (2005) Community based disaster management: empowering communities to cope with disaster risks. United Nations Centre for Regional Development

    Google Scholar 

  • Patriarca R, Bergström J, Di Gravio G, Costantino F (2018) Resilience engineering: current status of the research and future challenges. Saf Sci 102:79–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Perko T (2016) Risk communication in the case of the Fukushima accident: impact of communication and lessons to be learned. Integr Environ Asses 12(4):683–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, O’Leary M (2000) Man-made disasters: why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail. Saf Sci 34(1):15–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Reniers G, Cozzani V (2013) Domino effects in the process industries: modelling, prevention and managing. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Reniers G, Khakzad N, Cozzani V, Khan F (2018) The impact of nature on chemical industrial facilities: Dealing with challenges for creating resilient chemical industrial parks. J Loss Prev Process Ind 56:378–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2017) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Taylor & Francis

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Klinke A (2013) A framework of adaptive risk governance for urban planning. Sustainability 5(5):2036–2059

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Klinke A (2015) Risk governance and resilience: new approaches to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity. In: Fra Paleo U (ed) Risk governance: the articulation of hazard, politics and ecology pp 19–41. Springer Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahebjamnia N, Torabi SA, Mansouri SA (2018) Building organizational resilience in the face of multiple disruptions. Int J Prod Econ 197:63–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzano E, Basco A, Busini V, Cozzani V, Marzo E, Rota R, Spadoni G (2013) Public awareness promoting new or emerging risks: Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards (NaTech). J Risk Res 16(3–4):469–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzano E, Di Nardob M, Gallob M, Oropallob E, Santillob L (2014) The application of System Dynamics to industrial plants in the perspective of Process Resilience Engineering. Chem Eng Trans 36:457–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengul H, Santella N, Steinberg L, Cruz A (2012) Analysis of hazardous material releases due to natural hazards in the United States. Disasters 36(4):723–743

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro MD (2005) Equity and information: Information regulation, environmental justice, and risks from toxic chemicals. J Policy Anal Manag 24(2):373–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirabe M, Fassert C, Hasegawa R (2015) From risk communication to participatory radiation risk assessment. Fukushima Global Communication Programme, Working Paper Series (21)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirali GA, Motamedzade M, Mohammadfam I, Ebrahimipour V, Moghimbeigi A (2016) Assessment of resilience engineering factors based on system properties in a process industry. Cogn Technol Work 18:19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg LJ, Cruz AM (2004) When natural and technological disasters collide: lessons from the turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999. Natural Hazards Review 5(3):121–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson A, Seville E, Vargo J, Roger D (2010) Benchmark resilience: a study of the resilience of organisations in the Auckland region. Resilient organisations research report 2010/03

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Paba MC, Cruz AM, Munoz F (2018) Stakeholder input for a common, global, comprehensive risk management framework for industrial parks to manage risks from natural hazards. Oral presentation at Kyoto university disaster prevention research institute annual metting, DPRI Annuals 61B

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Paba MC, Perreur M, Munoz F, Cruz AM (2019) Systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis of Natech research in the past four decades. Saf Sci 116:58–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.033  

  • Tierney KJ (1997) Business Impacts of the Northridge Earthquake. J Contingencies Crisis Manag 5(2):87–97

    Google Scholar 

  • UNECE (2014) The aarhus convention: an implementation guide (2nd edn). Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • UNISDR (2015) Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. UNISDR/GE/2015 - ICLUX EN5000 (1st edn), United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • UNISDR (2018) Words into action guidelines: implementation guide for man-made and technological hazards. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • van Asselt MBA, Renn O (2011) Risk governance. J Risk Res 14(4):431–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Villa V, Paltrinieri N, Khan F, Cozzani V (2016) Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Saf Sci 89:77–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman Z, Stevenson J, Kachali H, Seville E, Vargo J, Wilson T (2014) Organisational resilience following the Darfield earthquake of 2010. Disasters 38(1):148–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Willey RJ, Crowl DA, Lepkowski W (2005) The Bhopal tragedy: its influence on process and community safety as practiced in the United States. J Loss Prev Process Ind 18(4):365–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods D, Wreathall J (2003) Managing risk proactively: the emergence of resilience engineering. Columbus, OH: Institute for Ergonomics, The Ohio State University

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaolong L, Cruz AM (2019) Study on the spatial distribution characteristics of Natech events in United States. Oral presentation at Kyoto University Disaster Prevention Research Institute Annual Metting. DPRI Annuals 62B

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Kaken Grant 17K01336, April 2017–March 2020); and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT scholarship, 2016–2019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Ana Maria Cruz

  2. Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Maria Camila Suarez-Paba & Dimitrios Tzioutzios

  3. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

    Elisabeth Krausmann

Authors
  1. Maria Camila Suarez-Paba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitrios Tzioutzios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Maria Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elisabeth Krausmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Maria Cruz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto, Japan

    Muneta Yokomatsu

  2. Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Suarez-Paba, M.C., Tzioutzios, D., Cruz, A.M., Krausmann, E. (2020). Toward Natech Resilient Industries. In: Yokomatsu, M., Hochrainer-Stigler, S. (eds) Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience. Disaster and Risk Research: GADRI Book Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4320-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4320-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-4319-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-4320-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation