Advanced Industry and Robotics
The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI)
GCRI · Advanced Industry and Robotics
Spatial intelligenceObservations, models and their uncertainty in one view
Process safety prevents the fires, explosions and toxic releases that can occur when plants handle hazardous substances at scale. Major accidents are rare, but their consequences for workers, neighbours and the environment can be catastrophic. This page sets out how major accidents develop, how process safety is managed and measured, and what evidence serves the operators, regulators and communities responsible.
Industrial process safety · Plant 3 · Shift 1
layers of protection
| High-pressure trip | SIS | Q1 | Healthy |
| Relief valve RV-12 | Mechanical | Q2 | Healthy |
| Gas detection zone 4 | Detection | Q3 | Bypassed |
| Robot cell light curtain | Safeguard | Q4 | Healthy |
Fig.Plant operations and safety. Design wireframe with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
Chemical and major accident hazards. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Major accidents usually follow the failure of several safeguards at once: design, alarms, procedures, relief systems and emergency response.
Deferred maintenance, small modifications and normalised deviations gradually erode safety margins until an initiating event finds a gap.
Floods, earthquakes, lightning and heat can damage equipment and power, triggering releases at multiple points at once.
Communities near hazardous sites face the consequences of releases. Land-use planning and public information reduce harm.
Night lights, population density, flood water and true-colour imagery over Germany, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 4
Infrastructure exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
Infrastructure exposure, framed on Germany. Layers as NASA publishes them, each with its own date.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Process safety lessons are designed for the Global Sector Risk and Resilience series. Seveso III, ILO Convention No. 174 and the OECD Guiding Principles (third edition, 2023) set the frame; operator lessons are published only with agreement.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Industry and manufacturing: the hazards it names, the systems and sectors that carry the loss, the controls that dampen it and the data that observe it. Choose the components, pick an initiating hazard and step through the cascade. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every coupling weight is a stated assumption you can change. A teaching model, not a forecast, an assessment or a certification.
Hazards
Systems and couplings
Controls
NS-0 Constitution and principlesNS-9 Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-11 Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NS-12 Software, model and AI/ML artifacts (supply chain, model cards, dataset sheets)NRS-H60 Hazard family: Supply-chain and flow disruption (NHS-1 sys.supply-chain)NRS-H50 Hazard family: Industrial and process accidents (NHS-1 infra.industrial)NRS-H109 Hazard family: Energy-transition technology failures (NHS-1 tech.energy-transition)NRS-X10 Chemical, industrial, nuclear and radiological safetyNRS-H54 Hazard family: Signal and platform disruption (NHS-1 cyber.platform)NRS-K14 Domain pack profile: Manufacturing industrial (DOMAIN-014)Observation
Example geography
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Process safety events by tier | count per million hours worked | annual | Operator reporting under API RP 754 or similar | REPORTED |
| Major accidents notified | count | annual | eMARS and national databases | Published statistics |
| Overdue safety-critical maintenance | count | monthly | Maintenance systems | OBSERVED |
| Upper-tier major hazard establishments | count | per update | Seveso registers | Published statistics |
| Safety instrumented functions tested on schedule | percent | annual | Test records | OBSERVED |
| Population within hazard zones of major sites | people | per assessment | Land-use planning analyses | ESTIMATED |
The model, its assumptions, its data and its uncertainty, in the form a scientist or engineer would check. Structures follow published methods. The values drawn are illustrative, not findings.
The couplings between the systems in industrial process safety: signs of influence, a reinforcing and a balancing loop, and cross-links where stress jumps.
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| eMARS major accident reporting system (European Commission JRC) | Reported major accidents and lessons | Public, EU terms |
| US Chemical Safety Board investigation reports | Detailed investigations of chemical accidents | Public domain, US government |
| Seveso establishment registers (eSPIRS) | Major hazard establishments in Europe | Public, EU terms |
| CCPS process safety resources | Industry guidance and metrics | Licence per publication |
| OECD chemical accidents programme | Guidance and lessons learned | Public, OECD terms |
Advanced Industry and Robotics prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Operators of hazardous facilities | Which barriers and maintenance to prioritise | Barrier reviews; event data |
| Major hazard regulators | Where to inspect and what to require | Accident and inspection evidence |
| Land-use planners and emergency services | How to plan around major sites | Hazard zone and population evidence |
Which loss-of-containment scenarios a facility faces and how severe they could be.
The layers of protection, from design and control to relief systems and emergency response.
How degradation, maintenance backlogs and change erode protection over time.
How land-use planning and emergency arrangements protect neighbouring communities.
Major accidents rarely have a single cause. Investigations repeatedly find combinations of design flaws, failed or bypassed safeguards, poor management of change, production pressure and missed warnings. The image of aligned holes in successive barriers captures how latent weaknesses combine.
Low personal injury rates do not indicate good process safety. Organizations that measure only slips and trips can miss the degradation of critical safeguards. Leading indicators of barrier health are needed.
Natural hazards can trigger industrial accidents. Floods, earthquakes, extreme heat and lightning can damage containment and disable safeguards at the moment emergency services are stretched.
Transitions bring new hazards. Hydrogen, ammonia, batteries and new chemicals used in the energy transition have properties that existing practice may not fully address.
| Method or data | What it shows | Its limit |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard identification studies | Credible accident scenarios | Depend on imagination and expertise |
| Consequence modelling | Extent of fires, blasts and toxic clouds | Sensitive to weather and release assumptions |
| Layer of protection analysis | Adequacy of safeguards | Uses generic failure data |
| Accident investigation | Root causes of past events | Lessons often not transferred across firms |
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Nexus Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.