The virtue of a questioning mindset

The Hazards 36 Process Safety Conference will take place on 17–19 November in Manchester. We asked four experts to consider an emerging issue: the differences between process safety in energy transition sectors and legacy industries

Be willing to change

Ashley Hynds, head of section - risk advisory at DNV

Core process safety skills remain unchanged. We still need to understand hazards, assess risks and ensure equipment is well designed and maintained, management systems are robust, and competent people are in place.

Energy transition technologies are being developed and deployed rapidly, but with limited operational history. While traditional industries have decades of learning, standards, data and design approaches, new sector understanding is still developing, leading to greater uncertainty and risk. We can use the knowledge and good practice from traditional industries but it won’t always be appropriate without adaptation. A questioning mindset is essential.

A good example is determining a safe hazard distance from a hydrogen vent stack. I’ve seen assessments that focus solely on thermal radiation if ignition occurs.

“Many technology developers don’t have a grounding in process safety”

However, hydrogen can also generate damaging explosion overpressures even when ignited in the open air, requiring much greater separation distances. Some current standards don’t properly account for this.

Another challenge is that many technology developers don’t have a grounding in process safety. Combined with commercial pressures to deploy quickly, there is a risk that hazards are not adequately considered. I’ve seen proposals to store large quantities of hydrogen within buildings without adequate consideration of ventilation or inherent safety measures.

AI can support HAZOP studies and help identify weak signals from operational data. But it should augment – not replace – human expertise, because it can be blind to its own weaknesses.

More than ever, we need people who understand the technologies and hazards, remain curious and willing to challenge, and take the safety-critical decisions.

Embrace cross-sector learning

Eamon chandler, chair of the conference technical committee and a refinery operations and process safety consultant

The process safety management (PSM) systems developed in the legacy industries will continue to form the backbone of industrial major hazards management. PSM combines a whole set of different management processes: operations, design, integrity and reliability, risk management, and so on. To be successful, this all requires a strong multidisciplinary approach. This is an environment where chemical engineers thrive; they are adaptable integrators and can communicate work across discipline boundaries. We must continue to build an awareness of how skills apply beyond the legacy industries to build safe outcomes.

Second, over the past five years at Hazards we’ve seen growing interest in the energy transition and new energy technologies and content coming from other sectors (for example, water, battery technology, automotive). Our strengths – understanding the process technology, and building the different processes encompassed by PSM – need to adapt to work for these new areas. Risk assessment capability and skills will be key, assuring the right risk assessment technique is applied to the right problem. Too often I see the real issues are lost in the detail. Taking good practice in risk assessment to new environments will require a new set of skills. Additionally, we need to transfer our “barrier management” concepts into a broader landscape.

“We must build awareness of how skills apply beyond legacy industries”

Our key weakness remains why we don’t use outcomes of incident learnings to prevent recurring flaws.

At Hazards 36 you will hear how audits and investigations show up gaps among good practices. With fewer incidents over the years, some skills are waning. In the near future, we need to embrace cross-sector learning even more.

Organisational maturity is key

Soondus Moorhead, risk control consultant with CNA Hardy

Process safety skills developed within legacy industries are directly applicable to energy transition sectors. Irrespective of the technology involved, the fundamental objectives remain unchanged.

Many proven tools and methodologies from legacy industries can be applied directly to energy transition sectors. Techniques such as quantitative risk assessment, bowtie analysis and asset integrity management provide a structured approach to identifying hazards, assessing risks and implementing effective controls. The core principles remain relevant today.

The key difference, however, is often organisational maturity. Many energy transition technologies are moving rapidly from laboratory research to pilot and commercial-scale production, leaving limited time for technology maturation, operational learning and the

“The need for risk management and competent people remains unchanged”

accumulation of reliable performance data.

Many organisations operating in these sectors are small companies, technology developers or startups focused on bringing innovative solutions to market. They may not yet possess extensive in-house process safety expertise, mature management systems or decades of operational experience.

This creates an opportunity for experienced process safety professionals from legacy industries to transfer knowledge, lessons learned and proven practices to emerging sectors. Some of these technologies, such as hydrogen, also require new ways of thinking.

Ultimately, the need for robust risk management, effective safety barriers, strong leadership and competent people remains unchanged. The challenge is ensuring innovation is supported by the disciplined process safety approach developed over decades in traditional industries.

Process safety provides continuity

Zsuzsanna Gyene, process safety engineer and independent industrial safety consultant

The fundamental process safety skills required in energy transition sectors are largely the same as those used in established high-hazard industries. The main difference is the context in which these skills are applied. Legacy industries benefit from decades of operating experience, established standards and a substantial body of lessons from incidents. In energy transition sectors, some technologies, applications and regulatory expectations are still developing. There may be less operating data available, and new facilities are often introduced alongside existing infrastructure.

This makes cross-sectoral learning particularly important. Experience from refining, offshore operations, chemicals, nuclear and other high-hazard sectors can provide a strong foundation, but it still needs to be considered carefully in relation to different materials, operating conditions, technologies and interfaces. The value lies not simply in transferring established methods, but in understanding which lessons remain directly relevant and where further knowledge is still needed.

Process safety specialists can help connect different technical and professional perspectives and provide a common understanding of major hazard potential across disciplines.

From my experience, the strongest contribution process safety can make is to provide continuity,

"No single sector has all the answers"

ensuring that established knowledge and lessons remain part of the transition as technologies and operating environments change. Cross-sectoral learning is the way forward for all high-hazard industries, because no single sector has all the answers and many of the most valuable lessons are transferable.

Zsuzsanna Gyenes will present Chernobyl Beyond the Control Room: Systemic Failure and Organisational Drift in a High-Hazard System and will open the conference with a remembrance marking the 50th anniversary of the Seveso accident