Industrial organisations generate a massive amount of information about how risk is identified, managed and controlled, from DSEAR and ATEX assessments and hazardous area classifications to inspection findings, maintenance activity, equipment records, management of change and operational procedures. Most of this information is considered independently and often represents conditions at a particular point in time.

 

EXPAS was founded to address this gap by transforming engineering evidence and operational data into a transparent view of explosion risk and how that risk may be changing.

Central to the EXPAS approach is operational control. Rather than focusing solely on whether assessments, safeguards and systems exist, it considers the factors that determine whether those controls can continue to be relied upon in practice.

 

A critical safeguard may have been correctly specified and installed, but its effectiveness over time can be influenced by maintenance activity, equipment condition, inspection findings, outstanding actions and the operational behaviours and management systems that support it. Individually, these are separate pieces of information. Considered collectively, they can provide valuable signals about the underlying condition of the risk and where weaknesses may be developing. EXPAS structure this evidence across four connected dimensions: Ignition Exposure, Control Fragility, Escalation Potential and Risk Trajectory.

 

Ignition Exposure considers the conditions and operational factors influencing exposure to credible ignition sources, while Control Fragility examines the resilience of the engineering and operational controls relied upon to prevent or mitigate an event. This moves the focus beyond simply confirming that a control exists, towards understanding how effectively it is being maintained, managed and supported operationally.

 

Escalation Potential considers how an initial event could develop if prevention or mitigation measures were unsuccessful, providing greater visibility of the pathways through which an incident could escalate into a more significant explosion, fire, business interruption or loss.

Bringing these signals together over time creates Risk Trajectory, providing a view of whether the underlying risk position is stable, improving or deteriorating as operational conditions and evidence change.

 

Transparency is fundamental to the approach. Rather than producing a black box score, the intelligence remains traceable to the engineering evidence and operational information supporting it, allowing users to understand what is influencing the risk position and where attention may be required.

EXPAS is not intended to replace established DSEAR, ATEX, engineering assessment or inspection processes.

 

Instead, it builds upon them by connecting information that has traditionally existed across separate documents, systems and operational activities.

 

For industrial operators, this can provide earlier visibility of emerging weaknesses and stronger evidence of how explosion risk is being controlled. For insurers and risk engineers, it can provide a more consistent and transparent understanding of the operational factors influencing the underlying risk.

Knowing that a control exists is only part of the picture.

 

Understanding whether it can still be relied upon, what could happen if it fails and which direction the risk is moving provides a much deeper view of risk.

 

That is the shift from static assessment to Explosion Risk Intelligence.

 

Author 

Mike Brimble