Development of advanced tools and methods for the assessment and management of risk due to atypical major accident scenarios

Proper hazard identification has become progressively more difficult to achieve, as witnessed by several major accidents that took place in Europe, such as the Ammonium Nitrate explosion at Toulouse (2001) and the vapour cloud explosion at Buncefield (2005), whose accident scenarios were not considered by their site safety case. Furthermore, the rapid renewal in the industrial technology has brought about the need to upgrade hazard identification methodologies. Accident scenarios of emerging technologies, which are not still properly identified, may remain unidentified until they take place for the first time. The consideration of atypical scenarios deviating from normal expectations of unwanted events or worst case reference scenarios is thus extremely challenging. A specific method named Dynamic Procedure for Atypical Scenarios Identification (DyPASI) was developed as a complementary tool to bow-tie identification techniques. The main aim of the methodology is to provide an easier but comprehensive hazard identification of the industrial process analysed, by systematizing information from early signals of risk related to past events, near misses and inherent studies. DyPASI was validated on the two examples of new and emerging technologies: Liquefied Natural Gas regasification and Carbon Capture and Storage. The study broadened the knowledge on the related emerging risks and, at the same time, demonstrated that DyPASI is a valuable tool to obtain a complete and updated overview of potential hazards. Moreover, in order to tackle underlying accident causes of atypical events, three methods for the development of early warning indicators were assessed: the Resilience-based Early Warning Indicator (REWI) method, the Dual Assurance method and the Emerging Risk Key Performance Indicator method. REWI was found to be the most complementary and effective of the three, demonstrating that its synergy with DyPASI would be an adequate strategy to improve hazard identification methodologies towards the capture of atypical accident scenarios.

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as Bridge-to-Decision in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

Background. A sizable group of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) can undergo neither surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) nor transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) because of clinical contraindications. The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as a “bridge-to-decision” in selected patients with severe AS and potentially reversible contraindications to definitive treatment. Methods. We retrospectively enrolled 645 patients who underwent first BAV at our Institution between July 2007 and December 2012. Of these, the 202 patients (31.2%) who underwent BAV as bridge-to-decision (BTD) requiring clinical re-evaluation represented our study population. BTD patients were further subdivided in 5 groups: low left ventricular ejection fraction; mitral regurgitation grade ≥3; frailty; hemodynamic instability; comorbidity. The main objective of the study was to evaluate how BAV influenced the final treatment strategy in the whole BTD group and in its single specific subgroups. Results. Mean logistic EuroSCORE was 23.5±15.3%, mean age was 81±7 years. Mean transaortic gradient decreased from 47±17 mmHg to 33±14 mmHg. Of the 193 patients with BTD-BAV who received a second heart team evaluation, 72.5% were finally deemed eligible for definitive treatment (25.4%for AVR; 47.2% for TAVI): respectively, 96.7% of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction recovery; 70.5% of patients with mitral regurgitation reduction; 75.7% of patients who underwent BAV in clinical hemodynamic instability; 69.2% of frail patients and 68% of patients who presented relevant comorbidities. 27.5% of the study population was deemed ineligible for definitive treatment and treated with standard therapy/repeated BAV. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%, cerebrovascular accident occurred in 1% and overall vascular complications were 4% (0.5% major; 3.5% minor). Conclusions. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty should be considered as bridge-to-decision in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be immediate candidates for definitive percutaneous or surgical treatment.

Models and methods for damage and quantitative risk assessment of Natech scenarios

Natural events are a widely recognized hazard for industrial sites where relevant quantities of hazardous substances are handled, due to the possible generation of cascading events resulting in severe technological accidents (Natech scenarios). Natural events may damage storage and process equipment containing hazardous substances, that may be released leading to major accident scenarios called Natech events. The need to assess the risk associated with Natech scenarios is growing and methodologies were developed to allow the quantification of Natech risk, considering both point sources and linear sources as pipelines. A key element of these procedures is the use of vulnerability models providing an estimation of the damage probability of equipment or pipeline segment as a result of the impact of the natural event. Therefore, the first aim of the PhD project was to outline the state of the art of vulnerability models for equipment and pipelines subject to natural events such as floods, earthquakes, and wind. Moreover, the present PhD project also aimed at the development of new vulnerability models in order to fill some gaps in literature. In particular, a vulnerability model for vertical equipment subject to wind and to flood were developed. Finally, in order to improve the calculation of Natech risk for linear sources an original methodology was developed for Natech quantitative risk assessment methodology for pipelines subject to earthquakes. Overall, the results obtained are a step forward in the quantitative risk assessment of Natech accidents. The tools developed open the way to the inclusion of new equipment in the analysis of Natech events, and the methodology for the assessment of linear risk sources as pipelines provides an important tool for a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of Natech risk.