A framework of the risk assessment for the supply chain of hazardous materials


This paper shows a framework of risk assessment models and analyzes the Mexican context of the supply chain for hazardous materials. A new set of risk assessment models is developed for each main activity of the closed-loop supply chain for hazardous materials. This model can be used to evaluate suppliers, transportation routes, outsourcing options and the material itself. A proportional risk-assessment technique is used to define risk cost calculation for the hazardous materials management using the National Fire Protection Agency classification. Hazardous materials represent a logistics challenge because of the risk involved at their handling. From 2006 to 2009 a total of 1,200 accidents were reported at different points of the supply chain. The investigated models require a previous analysis of the activities in order to calculate factors, such as the accident rate and possible affected population, among others; that could affect the cost in case of an accident. Analyzing the risk, cost values can be used by decision makers to determine which activities should be outsourced in order to avoid the risk itself or to fulfill laws and regulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Alcantara, M., & Gonzalez, T. (2001). Modelacion de radios de afectacion por explosiones en instalaciones de gas. CENAPRED. Mexico.

  2. 2.

    Alp, E. (1995). Risk-based transportation planning practice: Overall methodology and a case example. Information Systems and Operational Research, 33(1), 4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Alvarez, L., Velasco, L., Espinoza, R., & Perez, S. (2013). Analysis of outsourcing in Mexico. Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings, 8(1), 855–860.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Arroyo, P., Gaytan, J., & Boer, L. (2006). A survey of third party logistics in Mexico and a comparison with reports on Europe and USA. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26(6), 639–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Assadipour, G., Ke, G.Y., & Verma, M. (2015). Planning and managing intermodal transportation of hazardous materials with capacity selection and congestion. Transportation Research Part E, 76, 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Barkan, C.P.L. (2008). Improving the design of higher-capacity railway tank cars for hazardous materials transport: Optimizing the trade-off between weight and safety. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 160, 122–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bryant, D.L., & Abkowitz, M.D. (2007). Development of a terrestrial chemical spill management system. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 147(12), 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Coates, B. (2007). Could CAFTA be the latest conduit for outsourcing pollution? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Erkut, E., Tjandra, S.A., & Verter, V. (2007). Hazardous materials transportation. Handbooks in operations research and management science, 14, 539–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Federal Railroad Adminstration, Deparment of Transportation, & Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (2013). Lac-megantic railroad accident discussion and dot safety recommendations. Federal Railroad Administration, 78 (152 Wednesday, August 7), 48224–48229. (Notices).

  11. 11.

    Handfield, R., Sroufe, R., & Walton, S. (2005). Integrating environmental management and supply chain strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Institute of Hazardous Materials Management. What are hazardous materials. Retrieved March, 2014, from http://www.ihmm.org/about-ihmm/what-are-hazardous-materials.

  13. 13.

    Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Censo de población y vivienda 2010. Retrieved August, 2016, from http://www.inegi.org.mx/.

  14. 14.

    Killmer, K. (2002). A risk/cost framework for logistics policy evaluation: Hazardous waste management. The Journal of Business and Economics Studies, 8(1), 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Liu, X., Saat, M.R., & Barkan, C.P.L. (2013). Integrated risk reduction framework to improve railway hazardous materials transportation safety. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 260, 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Liu, X., Saat, M.R., & Barkan, C.P.L. (2014). Probability analysis of multiple-tank-car release incidents in railway hazardous materials transportation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 276, 442–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Madrigal, D. (2013). Accidentes de pipas pusieron en riesgo a 5.6 millones de personas en 4 años. La cronica de hoy, Queretaro, Mexico, Newspaper, 14/05/2013.

  18. 18.

    Marhavilas, P., Koulouriotis, D., & Gemeni, V. (2011). Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 24(5), 477–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mentzer, J.T. (2004). Fundamentals of supply chain management: Twelve drivers of competitive advantage. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Miller, V., & Mukherji, A. (2010). Offshoring sectors: a critical comparison of Mexican maquiladora plants with Indian outsourcing offices. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 18(1), 25–53.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mullai, A., & Larsson, E. (2008). Hazardous material incidents: Some key results of a risk analysis. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 7(1), 65–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Murray, M. Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations. About.com. Retrieved February, 2013, from http://logistics.about.com/od/legalandgovernment/a/Federal-Hazardous-Materials-Transportation-Regulations.htm.

  23. 23.

    National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) (2012). NFPA 704, Standard system for the identification of the hazards of materials for emergency response. NFPA. US.

  24. 24.

    Oggero, A., Darbra, R., Munoz, M., Planas, E., & Casal, J. (2006). A survey of accidents occurring during the transport of hazardous substances by road and rail. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 133(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Reniers, G., Dullaert, W., Ale, B., & Soudan, K. (2005). Developing an external domino accident prevention framework: Hazwim. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 18(3), 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Timlon, J. (2011). Sustainable strategic sourcing decisions: The logic of appropriateness applied to the Brazilian market. Strategic Outsourcing, 4(1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Torres, R. (2015). Deberán reconstruir el hospital dañado. Resource document.El Economista. http://eleconomista.com.mx/distrito-federal/2015/02/02/debera-reconstruir-hospital-danado. Accessed 20 december 2016.

  28. 28.

    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2013). Recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods, model regulations. No. 13. United Nations.

  29. 29.

    Verma, M., & Verter, V. (2007). Railroad transportation of dangerous goods: Population exposure to airborne toxins. Computers and Operations Research, 34(5), 1287–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Verma, M., & Verter, V. (2010). A lead-time based approach for planning rail–truck intermodal transportation of dangerous goods. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(3), 696–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Verma, M., Verter, V., & Gendreau, M. (2011). A tactical planning model for railroad transportation of dangerous goods. Transportation Science, 45(2), 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Verma, M., Verter, V., & Zufferey, N. (2012). A bi-objective model for planning and managing rail-truck intermodal transportation of hazardous materials. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(1), 132–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Vilchez, J.A., Sevilla, S., Montiel, H., & Casal, J. (1995). Historical analysis of accidents in chemical plants and in the transportation of hazardous materials. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 8(2), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Woodruff, J.M. (2005). Consequence and likelihood in risk estimation: a matter of balance in UK health and safety risk assessment practice. Safety Science, 43(5), 345–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2008). Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 111, 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor M. Rayas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rayas, V.M., Serrato, M.A. A framework of the risk assessment for the supply chain of hazardous materials. Netnomics 18, 215–226 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11066-017-9117-7

Download citation


  • Supply chain
  • Risk assessment
  • Hazardous materials
  • Environmental risk cost
  • Mexico