Safety Oimate Practice and its Affecting Variables in the Chemical Process Industry

화학공정산업에서 안전문화 이행과 영향 변수

  • Baek, Jong-Bae (Department of Safety Engineering, Chungju National University)
  • 백종배 (충주대학교 안전공학과)
  • Published : 2006.08.31

Abstract

The major purpose of this paper to identify safety climate practices, and to find the affecting variables that influence to the difference in the level of safety climate between plants and employees. And this paper attempted to find the interventions for improving safety climate in the chemical plants. The questionnaires were developed from literature review, especially made by HSE(Health and Safety Executive) in the UK and distributed to managers and workers. The frequency analysis was applied for identifying the level of safety climate. The affecting variables(plant size, accident occurrence, accident experience, injury experience and severity, and length of employment) are tested through analysis of variance(ANOVA). The results of frequency analysis showed that both managers and workers recorded generally high level of safety climate, and the major underlying problems are inadequate H&S procedures/rules, pressure for production, and rule breaking. According to the outcomes of ANOVA, the variable 'length of employment' is the only variable which makes the level of safety climate different. From the survey of safety climate practice, this study finds the level of safety climate and three major underlying problems in safety climate factors of the responded plants, and presents two interventions for improving safety performance. Despite of these outcomes, the applied factors are remained questionable for reflecting as the best ones for identifying safety climate in the chemical industry. In addition, the bias caused by self-report exist in the reliability of the response, and the equivalent size of respondents.

References

  1. Cullen, W. D., The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster', Department of Energy: HMSO, 1990
  2. Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., Bryden, R., Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features, Safety Science, Vol. 34, pp. 177-193,2000 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00012-6
  3. Jong-Bae Baek, A Measure for the Improvement Status of Process Safety Culture in the Chemical Process Industries, Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas, Vol. 10, No.2, 2006
  4. Petersen Dan, Human error reduction & safety management 3rd edition, International Thomson Publishing, 1996
  5. Reason, J., Achieving a safe culture: theory and practice, Work and Stress, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 293-306, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379808256868
  6. Health and Safety Laboratory(HSL), Safety Culture: A review of the literature, HSL Human Factors Group, 2002
  7. Health and Safety Executive(HSE), Safety culture maturity model. HSE, HSE Books, 2000
  8. Fennell, D., Investigation into Kings Cross Underground Fire. Department of Transport, HMSO, 1988
  9. Glendon, A. I., Stanton, N. A., Perspectives on safety culture, Safety Science, Vol. 34, pp. 193-214, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00013-8
  10. Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R., Fleming, M., Organizational and Human factors in offshore safety(OTH 97 543), London: HSE, 1997
  11. Michael O'Tool, The relationship between employees' reputations of safety and organizational culture, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 33, pp. 231-243, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00014-2
  12. Zebroski, E., Lessons Learned from Man-made Catastrophes, in Risk Management, New York: Hemisphere Publishing, 1991
  13. Cox, S., Flin, R., Safety culture: philosopher's stone or man of straw, Work and Stress, Vol. 3, No. 12, pp. 189-201, 1998