Systems Safety Engineering Report

The hazard analysis process was inadequate, and no control was exercised over the potential hazard of manually entering incorrect constants, a very common human error. If system safety engineers had identified the constants as critical, then a process would have existed for monitoring the generation of these critical variables. In fact, neither the existence of a system safety program or any form of hazard analysis is mentioned in the accident report. If such a program had existed, one would think it would be mentioned. 

The NPRDS is an industry-wide system for monitoring the performance of selected systems and components at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. Information in NPRDS is derived from a standardized format input report prepared by U.S. nuclear plant licensees. The plants are as)ced to submit failure reports on catastrophic events and degraded failures within the defined reportable scope reporting of incipient events is optional. Command faults are not reportable unless they malce an entire system unavailable. In addition, the plants are as)ced to file component engineering reports on all components within the selected systems and reportable scope. These reports contain detailed design data, operating characteristics, and performance data on the selected systems and components (over 3000 components, from approximately 30 systems, per unit). The selected systems are primarily safety systems. 

In the late 1990s, MTBE came under serious attack on grounds of both efficacy and safety. A report by the National Research Council (1999) stated that the addition of oxygen additives in gasoline, including MTBE and ethanol, are far less important in controlling pollution than emission control equipment and technical improvement to vehicle engines and exhaust systems. 

The District Engineering Inspectors Report confirmed that the machine was completely isolated and the ammonia system was not protected by a safety valve or any type of pressure-relief device. The cause of the accident was the presence of the steam hose underneath the equipment to melt the ice on the drain valve or to help evacuate the system. The inspectors report could not determine if these preparations were intentional or accidental. [5]... 

DOE Order 5480.23, Chg. I, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, Paragraph 8.b.(3)(d), as amplified in paragraph 4.f.(3)(d)4 of Attachment 1 to the Order, requires a description of the facility and operations conducted in the facility, including design of principal structures, components, systems, engineered safety features, and processes. (DOE 1994a). 

Coit, D.W. Dey, K.A. 1999. Analysis of grouped data from field-failure reporting systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 65 95-101. 

While the Road Safety Auditor concentrates on road safety issues, the client or design project engineer will have to weigh up the various consequences of implementing the recommendations within the Road Safety Audit Report. Generally, the project engineer will prepare an Exception Report or at least a feedback form explaining why recommendations have been rejected. However, occasionally there will be situations where decisions are very difficult and in these cases it may be necessary to introduce a system of arbitration. 

Systems Thinking. We have harmonized our quality management systems and sustainability reporting to improve our performance. We have a Product Comphance management process to ensure that the plants and products engineered and delivered are reliable and meet all applied safety standards during all phases of the product life cycle ... 

In March 2007, the American Society of Safety Engineers held a Symposium on Measuring Performance for Safety Success. Scorecards, Dashboards, and other reporting systems were mentioned. Gerald A. Turner, Senior Associate at The Balanced Scorecard Institute, was a key speaker. His subject was Using the Balanced Scorecard to Achieve Health Safety Performance Excellence. ... 

The attractiveness of systems and engineering approaches in reducing safety incidents has unfortunately not eUminated individual behaviour as the most frequently reported cause. An analysis by Endsley (1999), that most human error incidents resulted from a loss of situational awareness (SA) rather than judgement or skill based decisions, emphasized the importance of attention recovery mechanisms for safety critical roles. Marty papers have been published dealing with attention recovery and fatigue countermeasures to date, however, none have been found that include a mechanism to enable instantaneous and cued recovery at the moment of demand. This chapter formalizes a practice based approach to recovery of SA delivered in over 20 years of counselling and coaching performance with a diversity of clients. 

In particular, the SMS organization must be independent from operations and engineering/manufacturing. The reason is that the SMS organization needs to be able to inform top leadership of the safety health of the company and its operations. If the SMS organization reports to a division head, then it is likely that intended or unintended pressures will influence the system safety process. The SMS organization must also cover the entire system life cycle. 

Because system safety is really a field that crosses all parts of engineering and society, you should not limit your thinking to the traditional data sources. Obviously, the first place to start is with your company, looking at the historical data on similar systems, past accidents (and near misses— we can learn a lot from what we barely averted), trend analyses, engineering reports, and analyses. 

It was Ae responsibility of the VLU Project Team to deliver the overall Engineering Safety and Assurance Case (ESAC), comprising of the System Safety Case, Railway Operational Readiness Report, System RAM Status Report and System Performance Status Report. 

O Leary, M. 2002. The British Airways human factors reporting programme. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 75(2), 245-255. 

Maerivoet, S. De Moor, B. 2005. Cellular automata models of road traffic. Physics Reports 419 1-64. Montewka, L, Hinz T., Kujala, P. Matusiak, J. 2010. Probability modeling of vessel collisions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 95 573-589. 

L.H.J. Goossens, A.R. Hale, M. Mud, J. Oh, I.A. Papazoglou, J.Y. Whiston, 2008. Accidents in the construction industry in the Netherlands An analysis of accident reports using Storybuilder, Reliability Engineering System Safety, 93, 10, 1523-1533. 

Aven, T. 2012. Foundations of Risk Analysis. Wiley. Aven, T Guikema, S. (2011). Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) doesariskassess-ment report the analysts or the experts Rehabihty Engineering and System Safety 96(2011)1257 1262. Clemen, R.T. Winklei R.L. 1999. Combining distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk analysis, Vol. 19, No 2, 1999. 

At the beginning of the planning process the fire safety engineer or the author of the fire safety report must be consulted. For the best practice the fire safety engineer is the same person or at least a person in the same organization as the planner of CFPS. This is because CFPS are to support and to implement integrated fire protection systems and to reach the life and fire safety goals, which has, been carried out in fire safety report. 

---