Risk Assessment in Practice: A Case Analysis of the Pohang Steel Mill in Korea

Abstract

In this study, the case of Pohang Steelworks, a national infrastructure leading the Korean steel industry, was analyzed. Pohang Works, which is a national infrastructure and a national core technology, requires continuous operation, so a risk assessment is required. The survey involved the participation of 30 safety experts from Pohang Works, and additional interviews were conducted to improve the understanding of the survey results. As a result of the qualitative evaluation, the value of the identified risk was obtained, and the value was variable in probability and damage impact. In addition to being prioritized in order of highest risk, they are also placed according to the size of the risk. As a result, the necessary structural and non-structural treatments were proposed for a total of four hazards. Due to the nature of the qualitative evaluation conducted by internal experts, we were able to confirm that internal experts tend to be very aware of and respond to the risks they often face. It is expected that the objectivity of risk assessment results can be increased by adding quantitative methods in future studies. In addition, it is meaningful in that it practically suggests a treatment that focuses on risk management.

1. Introduction

The Korean steel industry is a representative, successful sector among Korean industries. Pohang Works, established in 1968, is Korea’s first integrated steelworks and produces 15 million tons of steel products annually. It accounts for 35% of domestic crude steel production. In addition, it is attracting attention from the international community as a competitive steel producer [1]. POSCO’s 13-year streak as the top-ranked steel company in the world, as determined by World Steel Dynamics (WSD), a highly regarded steel analysis agency, serves as evidence that Korean steel manufacturers are widely acknowledged for their competitiveness on a global scale. Pohang Steel mill, Korea’s leading steel industry company, can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1 is a panoramic view of the Pohang Works. (a) is a panoramic view of Pohang Works, and (b) is a high-resolution satellite image showing a panoramic view of Pohang Works.

In Korea, the steel industry is a key national industry that drives domestic economic growth and significantly impacts the national economy [2]. Therefore, designating the Pohang Steel mill as a national infrastructure aims for its continuous operation and thorough security. Moreover, the Pohang Steel mill is not only a business site with national core technology but also a preferred national security target facility that operates at the highest security level. The national infrastructure is closely related to the national economy and people’s lives. National infrastructure must be protected from risk factors, such as management crises, accidents, and natural disasters [3]. For the continuous operation of the Pohang Steel mill, it is necessary to identify risks that hinder operations and weaken competitiveness, analyze and evaluate them, and prepare countermeasures accordingly.

Recently, as the economy, society, and environment have changed worldwide, people have begun to be exposed to various risks. In particular, large-scale natural disasters due to climate change and various fluctuating factors in the global economy have emerged as risk factors for the deterioration of the competitiveness of Korea’s steel industry.

Because the Pohang Steel mill requires security maintenance at the national level and protection from natural disasters and adverse events caused by changes in the world economy, challenges in maintaining security owing to the development of science and technology present a major risk [4].

In this study, we conducted a qualitative risk assessment of the Pohang Steel mill in Korea. In the first section, we review the literature on the concepts of risk and qualitative risk assessment. The second section presents a qualitative risk analysis method for the Pohang Steel mill. Finally, the results of the risk analysis are evaluated, and the conclusions are presented.

2. Materials and Methods

There are two main types of risk assessment methods. There is a quantitative evaluation method that analyzes and evaluates numerically and probabilistically, and a qualitative evaluation method that finds, analyzes, and evaluates existing risks. In this study, several methods for qualitative evaluation were used [5]. Checklist, accident prediction question analysis, relative risk ranking, risk and operation analysis, abnormal risk analysis, and worker error analysis are the most representative methods.

This study qualitatively analyzed and evaluated the risks faced in the Pohang Steel mill. This study was conducted using the checklist and relative risk ranking method.

According to the risk assessment process, risk identification, analysis, and evaluation were performed in that order [6]. Furthermore, management alternatives were proposed according to the risk outcomes. Therefore, this study was conducted in four stages, as shown in Figure 2.

In the first step, the risks were identified, which were subject to analysis and evaluation. In the process of risk identification, they were divided into external and internal risks according to their characteristics. In the second step, a qualitative method was introduced to analyze the identified risks using a questionnaire method [6]. In the third step, the risk value for each risk factor was derived based on the results obtained from the questionnaire and interviews. The risk priority was calculated based on the sizes of the derived risk values. In addition, risk was positioned in the Probability–impact (P-I) matrix by reflecting the risk value. Finally, according to risk positioning, a management strategy for each risk was proposed, and a risk management method was considered.

2.1. Case of Study

Established in 1968, the Pohang Steel mill is Korea’s first integrated steelworks, producing 15 million tons of steel products annually, accounting for KRW 18,494.7 billion in annual sales, which attributes for 35% of the total crude steel production in Korea [7].

In addition, as a multinational company leading the global steel industry, we proposed management plans by identifying and analyzing the risks faced by the organization to steadily acquire competitiveness [8].

However, the Pohang Steel mill is exposed to continual risk factors, such as business crises, safety accidents, and natural disasters. The Pohang Steel mill was built in a coastal area in southeast Korea based on advantageous geographical considerations. The Pohang Steel mill consists of large-scale facilities, such as blast furnaces, iron making, steel making, continuous casting, and rolling facilities [9]. Thus, securing a large-scale site is essential yet challenging since most of Korea’s inland areas are mountainous. Ancillary facilities such as railroads, roads, electricity, and water must also be installed. The site of the Pohang Steel mill occupies approximately 9.5-million square meters, which is approximately 23 times the size of 23 football pitches, and large-scale and auxiliary facilities are located inside [10].

To secure a large-scale site, the Pohang Steel mill was constructed in Pohang, a coastal area, which is advantageous for importing and exporting materials and products. The mill has a pier where large raw material transport ships and product export ships can dock for raw material procurement and product exports [9]. As such, although the Pohang Steel mill was built in a coastal area to fully utilize the geographical advantages, its proximity to the sea also means flood damage may occur during storm surges. However, there have been no cases of major damage to the Pohang Steel mill due to natural disasters, but because climate change is causing super typhoons inland, the Pohang Steel mill requires an analysis of new natural disaster risks.

In addition, fire and safety and security accidents occur constantly at the Pohang Steel mill, and in severe cases, businesses may be suspended or become a social problem [11]. This leads to the Pohang Steel mill’s insensitivity to safety and to avoiding social responsibility as a national facility.

The Pohang Steel mill is inevitably exposed to various risks owing to its geographical location, scale, and national role. In addition, there are various risks arising from rapid social and environmental changes worldwide, such as active inter-industry exchanges and climate change. Therefore, as a national infrastructure and facility with the highest security level, a risk assessment of the Pohang Steel mill is essential [3]. The ultimate purpose of the risk assessment is to analyze and evaluate various risk factors and finally establish countermeasures for each risk factor [12]. In the case of industrial facilities that oversee a large part of the local and national economy, it is a necessary process for continuous operation and competitiveness [13].

2.2. Risk Identification

Before identifying risks, it is first important to understand the concept of risk itself. This concept has been used in various fields and has evolved over time with changing societal norms. Although the terms “risk” and “uncertainty” are often used interchangeably, they represent distinct concepts. Risk was defined as “the cumulative effect of uncertain probabilities that may positively or negatively affect project objectives” [14]. In contrast, ISO 31000 [15] defined risk as “the impact of uncertainty on a goal” [16]. In addition, the qualitative definitions of risk have varied. Illustrative instances include the potential for an unfavorable incident, the recognition of an undesirable negative consequence resulting from an event, susceptibility to incurring losses, the repercussions of actions, and associated uncertainties [17].

Despite significant variation in the definitions of risk, they consistently encompass uncertainty, probability of occurrence, and impact. Quantitatively, risk can be represented as the product of the probability of an event and the extent of damage that would be incurred should the event occur [18].

Based on the concept of possibility of occurrence and impact of damage as variables among various concepts of risk, significant risks were identified by utilizing literature, articles, and internal reports on incidents and accidents that occurred at the Pohang Steel mill. The risks identified in this manner can be categorized as either external or internal based on the context in which they occur [19]. External risks comprised the external environment and variables that affected Pohang Steel mill’s deterioration in competitiveness, and largely consisted of four categories: (1) international economic crisis, (2) rapid growth of competitors, (3) natural disasters, and (4) civil complaints from nearby residents.

Due to the slowdown in global economic growth, risks and uncertainties have increased, resulting in a low-growth era, and the global steel industry has been significantly affected, as observed by the deceleration in its growth [20]. The steel industry has exhibited a persistent low-profit structure, primarily due to steel demand, supply, structural factors of the raw materials market, and the steelmakers’ market dominance. Furthermore, sluggish demand has enabled fierce competition among hard manufacturers and imported goods in industries such as automobiles and shipbuilding, which utilize steel as a material. This has further escalated external risks, emerging as competitors rapidly grew in a time when demand recovery was crucial [20]. The Pohang Steel mill is also vulnerable to the risk of natural disasters, particularly those that involve wet conditions such as typhoons and heavy rains. The combination of high-temperature molten metal and moisture can lead to a large-scale explosion.

$$2\mathrm{Al}+3{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}\to 3{\mathrm{H}}_2+{\mathrm{Al}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_3$$

(1)

The presented equation is the reaction equation that occurs when aluminum powder encounters water. This is an oxidation–reduction (redox) reaction in which H₂O acts as the oxidizing agent and Al as the reducing agent. The reaction produces aluminum acid and hydrogen gas, with a significant instant increase in the volume of hydrogen gas leading to a possible explosion. In other words, the reaction can result in a significant explosion.

The risk of damage from tidal waves is a perpetual concern for the Pohang Steel mill due to its coastal location. The reaction equation between aluminum powder and water illustrates the potential for a large explosion to occur when hydrogen gas increases in volume instantly. Because of the geographical characteristics of the Pohang Steel mill, it is not free from encountering storm surges; hence, natural disasters pose a risk [21].

Finally, civil complaints from nearby residents due to coal scattering were identified as risk factors because they could lead to business suspension.

A total of five internal risk factors were identified: (1) fire and explosion, (2) accidents, (3) toxic substance leakage, (4) subcontractor strike, and (5) leaking of confidential information.

In the event of a fire or explosion, Pohang Works must suspend operations until the fire is extinguished and operations in the fire-stricken area can be safely resumed. Stopping operations is detrimental because it is directly related to production, but it continues to occur every year. There are various types of fires and explosions, such as explosions in steelworks blast furnace auxiliary facilities, fires in factories within steelworks, dust explosions, and fires caused by sparks scattered during facility demolition. The materials used and handled in the process can cause large-scale fires or explosions [22]. The causes of fires and explosions are very diverse.

Table 1. Proportion of explosive accidents by cause.

Cause of Fire and Explosion	Proportion (%)
Gas leak	13
Facility (machine) abnormality	6
Welding melting spark	61
Spontaneous combustion	3
Residual gas	3
Glowing splash	6
Electricity	3
Other	3

shows the 7 major causes among them. Gas leak had the second highest proportion, and Facility (machine) abnormality had the third highest proportion with 6%. The cause of the fire and explosion that accounted for the highest proportion was the welding melting spark. Welding melting sparks were the cause of more than 50% of fire and explosion accidents. On the other hand, spontaneous combustion and residual gas accounted for the lowest specific gravity. Glowing splash was ranked third along with Facility (machine) abnormality. Electricity and other accounted for the lowest share.

Fire and explosion are among the main risks at the Pohang Steel mill, to the extent that special fire prevention diagnosis is conducted on subcontractor buildings and auxiliary facilities within the steel mill [23].

Safety accidents occur as frequently as fire and explosion accidents and are the biggest risk to the Pohang Steel mill operation. There are frequent cases in which fatal accidents occur during operation or facility maintenance, or traffic accidents occur on roads within steelworks. As many as 77 and a minimum of 40 safety accidents occur annually [24], which confirms that accidents are a constant risk, and occur continually. From the end of 2020 to the beginning of 2021, six deaths occurred within three months, and safety accidents have occurred frequently in the last three years. Accordingly, accidents are recognized as a major risk, and efforts are being made to invest KRW 1.105 trillion over three years and secure 200 dedicated personnel, including safety and health experts; however, these efforts may still be insufficient [25].

Pohang Steel mill uses a total of 12 hazardous chemicals for pickling, water treatment, and insulation coating in the steel production process. Typically, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, ammonia water, and sodium hydroxide are used and stored. However, in addition to toxic substances, steelworks are always prone to the risk of leakage of toxic substances due to fire and explosion because a large number of combustible substances are stored given the nature of the steelworks. This is because metal fires and oil fires always occur. In addition, in spring and summer, the wind blows from the coastal Pohang steelworks toward the city, so if toxic substances leak, there is a possibility that they will flow into the city, and thus thorough management is required [26].

There are 58 subcontractors working for the Pohang Steel mill, and the number of subcontracted workers is approximately 8933 [27]. The Pohang Steel mill has rarely suffered business setbacks because of strikes by subcontractors. However, because there are more subcontract workers than prime workers, and the process is specialized, the damage caused by subcontractor strikes cannot be overlooked. In 2006, a strike was held by subcontractors and their workers in the Pohang Steel mill, which lasted more than 80 days and caused the bankruptcy of other subcontractors, showing that additional damage can occur [28]. Thus, strikes by subcontractors are also a risk for the Pohang steel mill.

Finally, the risk of confidential information leakage is an internal risk, and in 2019, it was recognized that it could cause damage, including facility failure due to cyber terrorism, and to mitigate risk, related simulation training was conducted. Measures have been taken to strengthen security awareness and prevent security incidents caused by cyber terrorism and ransomware [29]. Security risks have increased with the evolution of smart devices and wireless networks. In addition, the Pohang Steel mill is inevitably exposed to security incidents as outsiders, such as partners and outsourcing companies, enter and exit the plant frequently. Pohang Steel mill is a facility guarded at the highest national security level, but these security risks always exist.

2.3. Risk Analysis

The identified risks were divided into five stages according to the probability of occurrence and damage impact, and a questionnaire was prepared. Figure A1 shows an image of the actual questionnaire form.

The questionnaire classified four identified external risks and five internal risks, with one point allocated for a low probability level and five points allocated for a high probability level. In addition, one point was assigned if the damage impact was small, and five points were assigned if the damage was significant when it occurred among the above nine risks. However, not all risks were scored; only the five most important risks were scored.

When conducting qualitative risk assessments using questionnaires and interviews, extensive quantification of the subjective components is important [30]. The most representative example is providing a criterion for the probability of occurrence and damage impact scale included in the questionnaire. The scale used in this study is listed in

Table 2. Qualitative indicator criteria scale.

	Level	Point	Described
Probability	Very low	1.0	Possible, but may be caused by exceptional circumstances over a period exceeding 1000 years.
	Low	2.0	May be caused by conditions for 100–1000 years
	Medium	3.0	May be caused by conditions projected in 50–100 years
	High	4.0	May be caused by conditions projected over 10–50 years
	Very High	5.0	May occur more frequently than once in 10 years
Impact	Minor	1.0	Damage is present, but negligible
	Light	2.0	Level of concern due to deteriorating competitiveness
	Medium	3.0	Continuous operation is temporarily difficult
	Major	4.0	Circumstances where continuous inability to operate persists
	Catastrophic	5.0	The level at which large-scale unemployment and bankruptcy of related companies occur due to the inability to operate

.

According to the scale in Table 2, questionnaire surveys and interviews were conducted with safety experts, and the levels of the identified risks were consequently analyzed.

3. Results

The risk level, which was ascertained through a questionnaire survey and interviews, was largely confirmed by risk values, priorities, and positioning. Risk priorities were set according to the risk value size. Additionally, it was positioned in the P-I matrix according to the size and severity of the risk value. Based on this positioning, countermeasures that can be established for each risk are examined in the discussion.

3.1. Risk Value

The risk value of each risk factor was calculated. The risk value is the product of the average probability of occurrence and the average damage impact [18].

Through the survey, the average values of probability of occurrence and damage impact were confirmed. As a result of the survey, the lowest probability value was 2.0 and the highest was 5.0. The lowest damage impact value was 3.0, whereas the highest was 5.0. The values of unscored risks were unified to 1.0. Consequently, the average values of the probability of occurrence and damage impact of each risk factor were calculated, as listed in

Table 3. The risk value determined by considering its probability and impact.

	Risk	Probability Average	Impact Average	Risk Value
External	International economic crisis	1.0	1.0	1.0
	Growth of competitor	2.2	2.33	5.1
	Natural disaster	1.07	1.27	1.4
	Complaints from nearby residents	3.53	3.87	13.7
Internal	Fire and explosion	4.33	4.27	18.5
	Safety accident	4.33	4.33	18.7
	Leakage of toxic substances	1.0	1.0	1.0
	Subcontractor strike	1.0	1.0	1.0
	Release of confidential information	4.27	4.13	17.6

.

Looking at external risks, an international economic crisis has a risk value of 1, with a score of 1 being the lowest for both probability and damage impact. The probability of occurrence of a natural disaster was 1.07, and the damage impact was 1.27, with a risk value of 1.4. The probability of a competitor’s rapid growth was 2.2, and the damage effect was 2.33, with a risk value of 5.1. Civil complaints from nearby residents had the highest probability of occurrence and damage impact, with a risk value of 13.7.

The risk value of internal risk is as follows: First, the risk values of accidents and fire and explosion risks were calculated as 18.7 and 18.5, respectively. Both risks were evaluated to have a high probability of occurrence and a large damage impact. Accidents were evaluated as having a greater impact than fires and explosions. With the strengthening of the Severe Disaster Act, significant fines and business disadvantages have been imposed in the event of human casualties due to accidents. A high risk value of 17.6 was also calculated for the risk of confidential information leakage, which seems to be related to the growth of competitors, comprising an external risk. In addition, with the development of daily-use smart devices cases of leakage of corporate secrets often occur. Thus, the possibility of leakage of confidential information was high and the damage impact was large.

However, the risk of leakage of toxic substances and strikes by subcontractors was evaluated as having the lowest score for both probability of occurrence and damage impact. Both risks have a risk value of 1, and the probability of occurrence is minimal; even if it occurs, the damage impact would be insignificant.

3.2. Risk Priority

Deriving risk priority aids in the identification of risks that require active management because they occur frequently and cause numerous losses. Appropriate countermeasures should be prepared according to the priorities and risk values.

As a result of deriving the risk priority according to the risk values, the risks of accidents, fire and explosions, and confidential information leakage were ranked as having a high probability of occurrence. Civil complaints from nearby residents, rapid growth of competitors, and natural disasters recorded the highest values in that order. International economic crisis, Leakage of toxic substances Subcontractor strike had the lowest risk value (see

Table 4. Average values and risk values of risk.

Priority	Risk	Risk Value
1	Safety accident	18.7
2	Fire and explosion	18.5
3	Release of confidential information	17.6
4	Complaints from nearby residents	13.7
5	Growth of a competitor	5.1
6	Natural disaster	1.4
7	International economic crisis	1.0
7	Leakage of toxic substances	1.0
7	Subcontractor strike	1.0

).

As a result of the survey, the calculated risk value was more influenced by the frequency of occurrence than by the damage impact. Accidents, fires, and explosions that occur frequently in practice are considered large risks, whereas risks with a low probability of occurrence, such as natural disasters, toxic substance leakage, and subcontractor strikes, are considered relatively small risks. Overall, we believe that active management is required for risks that have a high probability of occurrence.

3.3. Risk Positioning

Risks can be positioned in the P-I matrix by determining the calculated risk value of each risk. Figure 3 illustrates the positioning of the nine risks. By positioning the analyzed risks in the P-I matrix, the risk level of these nine risks can be understood. Each risk was numbered, and the circle size was adjusted according to the risk values. The larger the risk value, the larger the circle; the smaller the risk value, the smaller the circle. In addition, the risks were positioned according to the average probability of occurrence and the average damage impact of each risk.

As shown in Figure 3, external risks are numbered from 1 to 4, and internal risks are numbered from 5 to 9. Number 1 represents an international economic crisis, 2 represents the growth of competitors, 3 represents natural disasters, and 4 represents civil complaints from nearby residents. Number 5 represents fire and explosions, 6 represents safety accidents, 7 represents a toxic substance leakage, 8 represents subcontractor strike, and 9 represents confidential information leakage. The numbered risk circles were adjusted according to the risk value size. Therefore, number 6 (safety accident), with the largest risk value of 18.7, is the most probable, followed by number 1 (international economic crisis), number 7 (toxic substance leakage), and number, which occupy the same position.

4. Discussion

In total, nine risks were analyzed to determine their risk values and positions. Internal risks such as safety accidents, fires and explosions, and security accidents ranked high, while civil complaints were the only significant external risk value. Other risks such as global economic crises, rapid growth of competitors, natural disasters, toxic gas leakage, and subcontractor strike risks had low values. Positioning this on the P-I Matrix revealed that the probability of occurrence and the effect of damage were directly proportional. This indicates that safety experts who manage risks are acutely aware of the impact of frequently occurring risks. As risks with small risk values can be managed through acceptance, this section will focus on discussing methods to reduce the damage caused by risks with relatively large risk values. To mitigate damage, we propose implementing both structural and non-structural measures that can be prepared on our own, as well as suggesting alternatives that consider the global context.

The risks of fire, explosion, civil complaints, safety accidents, and security accidents, which are most likely to occur in Pohang Works, were evaluated to have a large impact on damage. On the other hand, natural disasters, catastrophic global economic crises, subcontractor strikes, and risks of toxic substance leakage, which have rarely occurred so far, were evaluated as having little impact on damage.

Based on the P-I Matrix that shows the above results, treatments for each risk can be prepared. Figure 4 shows the strategies that can be adopted according to the corresponding area when risk is positioned by reflecting the risk value [31].

If it is positioned in the upper-left corner, a mitigation strategy can be adopted that targets damage reduction rather than lowering the possibility of occurrence [32]. When positioned in the upper-right corner, avoidance strategies can be utilized. As a result, countermeasures can be set for four risks using avoidance strategies. As the risk is high, the avoidance strategy aims to actively prepare measures to reduce the risk occurrence [32]. When positioned in the lower-right corner, the strategy is to guarantee loss prevention by transferring risk to a third party, usually through insurance [32]. Finally, when positioned in the lower-left corner, eliminating all risks is difficult; thus, risks that are unlikely to occur and that do not cause significant damage are not evaluated for countermeasures [32]. Therefore, the remaining five risks are included here.

From the analysis, the identified risks can be managed through avoidance or acceptance strategies. Countermeasures for managing risks that can adopt avoidance strategies are divided into structural and non-structural countermeasures. Structural countermeasures are representative methods for controlling behavior through building equipment, facilities, or preparing rules. Non-structural measures are representative of conducting educational campaigns. As a result of risk positioning, avoidable risks include accidents, fire and explosions, confidential information leakage, and civil complaints from nearby residents. The following structural and non-structural measures can be taken against these risks (see

Table 5. Treatment by risk.

Risk	Type of Treatment	Content
Safety accident	Structural	Expansion of ILS (Isolation-Locking System) to all facilities
		Conducting the ‘Good Drive’ exercise (driving at 40 km/h or less, turning on the headlights even during the day)
	Non-Structural	Compliance with the Fail Safety principle
		Compliance with the Fool Proof principle
		Reinforcing safety education, implementing safety patrol
		Suspension of entry for violators of safety rules
Fire and explosion	Structural	Strictly prohibited fire work (spark work such as welding and cutting)
		Periodic inspection and replacement of old gas piping and facilities
		Establishment of non-smoking zones throughout the steel mill
		Prohibition of possession of ignition sources such as lighters (when entering) and punishment for violators
	Non-Structural	Compulsory completion of firefighting training (direct management, outsourcing companies, even daily workers)
		24-h fire prevention patrol
		Fire prevention campaign
Release of confidential information	Structural	Restriction on external mail sending (if necessary, sending after payment)
		Security checkpoint equipment improvements
		Installation of mobile phone automatic control function app when entering and exiting the steelworks
	Non-Structural	Reinforcing security education and conducting campaigns
		Conduct nighttime security checks
Complaints from nearby residents	Structural	Coal silo installation to prevent coal from scattering
		Perform dust filtering by installing a dust collector
	Non-Structural	Creation of environment for resident welfare
		Creation of revitalization of nearby commercial districts
		Preferential recruitment of local residents to the company

).

First, as a structural measure to avoid accidents, which is an internal risk, a common method is to prevent access to dangerous facilities by expanding the isolation-locking system (ILS) to all facilities. In addition, the ‘Good Drive’ exercise can be performed by driving at less than 40 km/h and turning on headlights even during the day. Non-structural measures include measures to comply with safety principles and strengthen safety education.

Subsequently, to avoid the risk of fire and explosions, strictly prohibiting hot work and periodic inspections should be practiced as well as replacing old gas pipes and facilities. Enforcing the entire steelworks area as a non-smoking area, prohibiting the possession of ignition sources, and punishing employees who violate this comprise structural measures. More effective risk management can be achieved if non-structural measures, such as completion of firefighting training and 24-h fire prevention patrols and campaigns are conducted together.

In the case of confidential leakage risk, structural measures include limiting the sending of mail externally and improving security checkpoint equipment. Non-structural measures include strengthening security education and implementing security campaigns.

Finally, civil complaints from neighboring residents, which present external risks, can be avoided by eliminating the problems raised by neighboring residents. Most complaints from nearby residents concerned the inconveniences caused by dust and noise. Therefore, managing this risk is possible by installing a coal silo and dust collector to prevent coal from scattering and performing dust filtering, respectively. In addition, non-structural measures include creating an environment to improve residents’ welfare and promote commercial districts.

The above-mentioned approach pertains to the measures, both structural and non-structural, that have been implemented to reduce risks at the Pohang Steel mill. While it is crucial for every company, institution, and facility to develop their own treatment methods, we believe that it is equally important to consider and progress treatment strategies from a global standpoint. By expanding the treatment to a global context, we can incorporate the following treatment measures. First, global industrial safety trends can be shared through international symposiums. In this symposium, ways to prevent safety accidents, fires, and explosions can be presented through collaboration between industry, academia, the private sector, and the government. Since the 1990s, security experts in each country have been engaging in academic and technical exchanges to prevent security incidents and enhance cyber security [33].

5. Conclusions

In this study, questionnaires and interviews were utilized to assess potential hazards associated with the Pohang Steel mill, and the collected data were analyzed. A qualitative analysis was conducted to determine the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the identified risks. To minimize subjective bias, a standardized scale was employed during the questionnaire survey to assign points to the probability of risk occurrence and the impact of potential damage. The average values of the identified risks were computed, and the risk value was calculated as the product of these average values. Priority was then determined based on the risk value, and the risk was positioned on the P-I matrix accordingly. Based on the positioning outcome, strategies and countermeasures were proposed for each risk. Notably, several key findings were obtained. The most distinctive feature of this study is the qualitative evaluation conducted by internal experts. Unlike existing disaster management theories, safety professionals in this study were acutely aware of the risks they regularly faced and handled. They believed that risks that occurred occasionally or infrequently would have a lesser impact, whereas risks that occurred frequently would have a more significant impact.

Therefore, it is deemed necessary to conduct a quantitative evaluation in future studies. In addition to the unique insights offered by qualitative research, it is essential to incorporate objective quantitative data and methodology. By combining the objectivity and quantification of quantitative analysis with the reflective nature and depth of the set of quantitative evaluation, the drawbacks of each evaluation method can be addressed. However, since quantitative analysis requires more data and information, it is advisable to use it as a supplement to qualitative evaluation. Additionally, introducing the fuzzy set number by strengthening the linguistic index used in the previous qualitative method can facilitate both qualitative and quantitative analyses.