Pipeline Qra Seminar Pipeline risk assessment Risk acceptance criterion 2 comparing the level of risk found during the analysis process with risk criteria established Introduction to Risk ID: 195903
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Title slide" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Title slide
Pipeline Qra SeminarSlide2
Pipeline risk assessment Risk acceptance criterion
2Slide3
“comparing the level of risk found during the analysis process with risk
criteria established”Introduction to Risk acceptance criterion
Content slide
3Slide4
Why do you have a risk acceptance criterion?End-point of the risk assessmentTo be able to say whether the risk is acceptable or notEstablished by companies (internal) and/or authorities (external)
Base for decision-makingIntroduction to Risk acceptance criterion Content slide
4Slide5
Usually talking about:- Tolerable (acceptable - green)
- Intolerable (unacceptable - red)And then…- ALARP (control to ALARP/acceptable if ALARP - yellow)What is ALARP?
Introduction to Risk acceptance criterion
5Slide6
Two
conflicting objectives need to be balanced -We have a desire to do everything physically possible to remove all risks- We have limited resources and that it is nearly always not practical (nor physically possible) to remove all
riskALARP principle include demonstrate
that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained Introduction to Risk acceptance criterionContent slide6Slide7
When is a risk tolerable (acceptable)?What is a risk
intolerable (unacceptable)?Introduction to Risk acceptance criterionContent slide
7Slide8
Everyday life – risk perception deciding the risk acceptance criterion Definition (Wikipedia)
“the subjective judgment that people make about the characteristics and severity of a risk”19 per 100.000 deaths from driving< 0.5 per 100.000 deaths from flying268 per 100.000 deaths from cardiovascular diseases
Introduction to Risk acceptance criterion
Content slide8Slide9
Risk perception could be depending on a number of factors:- Social context (e.g. group pressure)
- Benefits versus losses (i.e. what could be gained versus lost)- Risk aversion (i.e. better many small accidents than one catastrophe)- Control (e.g. driver versus passenger)- Experience (i.e. unknown or know)Driving versus flying
Introduction to Risk acceptance criterion
Content slide9Slide10
Working life – different theoretical approaches on how to decide the risk acceptance criterion
- Comparison (e.g. statistics on accidents/fatalities and other industries/activities)- State-of-the-art (i.e. as safe as possible)- Economics (i.e. price per human life)Different for organizations (e.g. the well being for many) versus companies (e.g. economical aspects) versus authorities (e.g. combinations)
Introduction to Risk acceptance criterion
Content slide10Slide11
Traffic authorithy in Sweden state that 22.3 million SEK (5.5 million GEL) is the acceptable cost for saving a lifeSafety systems (e.g. traffic barrier) is analyzed with this approachHow many lives could we save with this implementation of safety system – comparison with total cost and the acceptable cost for saving a lie (or several lives)
Example of Risk acceptance criterion – Sweden traffic authority
Content slide
11Slide12
Traffic authority in Norway state that 25.0 million NOK (5.5 million GEL) is the acceptable cost for saving a lifeOffshore
industry in Norway state that up to 100.0 million NOK (up to 27.3 million GEL) is the acceptable cost for saving a lifeExample of Risk acceptance criterion – Sweden traffic authority
Content slide
12Slide13
What kind of risk acceptance criterions are there?Quantitative and qualitative (compare with quantitative risk assessment and qualitative risk assessment)You can have risk acceptance criteria
for everything!-Environmental -Human safety (e.g. discomfort, injuries and fatalities)-Economical-Project (e.g. delay)-Reputation
13Introduction to Risk acceptance criterion
Content slideSlide14
-Environmental (e.g. allowable size of release and impact on the environment)
-Human safety – individual risk (i.e. allowable risk for a single person)- Human safety – group risk/societal risk (i.e. allowable risk for a defined population)- Human safety – consequence distance (e.g. allowable for dispersion of gas)-Economical (e.g. allowable potential loss from investment and cost)-Project (e.g. allowable delay)-Reputation (e.g. allowable attention from news, NGO’s and authorities)
Introduction to Risk acceptance criterion
14Slide15
Current risk acceptance criteria - consequence distance of 200 meters (no activities or structures)Difference between consequence distance of 200 meters (fixed) and consequence distance of X meters (based on calculations of allowable concentrations)
Paper product versus actually practical (e.g. pipelines in urban areas and supply of gas to industries/residences)Example of Risk acceptance criterion – Georgia pipelines
Content slide
15Slide16
Future risk acceptance criteria – human safety based (e.g. individual
risk/societal risk)What could be the benefits?- Flexibility - allow activities and structures within 200 meters (sometimes not!)- Actual knowledge and understand of the risk from the pipelineExample of Risk acceptance criterion – Georgia pipelines
Content slide
16Slide17
Qualitative risk acceptance criteria- Risk matrix
- DescriptionsDescriptions support to the risk matrixDescriptions- Human safety (e.g. minor injury or health effect or multiple fatalities) - Environmental (e.g. major environmental damage over an extensive area, but recovery is possible)
- Reputation (e.g. National public, government or NGO concern)
Qualitative Risk acceptance criterionContent slide17Slide18
Qualitative Risk acceptance criterion
18Slide19
Qualitative Risk acceptance criterion
19Slide20
Quantitative risk acceptance criteria - Numerical values (more or less)
Human safety - individual risk- individual risk for 1st person (e.g. operator)- individual risk for 3rd person (e.g. public)Quantitative risk acceptance criterion
Content slide
20Slide21
Human safety – group risk/societal risk
- group risk/societal risk for 1st person and 3rd person (including the entire population)Presented as FN-curve- Frequency plotted against the number of fatalities- Cumulative frequency of N or more fatalities
- Criteria 1 – 1 fatality with frequency 1 x 10-3
per year- Criteria 2 – 10 fatalities with frequency 1 x 10-5 per year- Criteria 3 – 100 fatalities with frequency 1 x 10-7 per yearOffshore also presented as FAR (Fatal Accident Rate)- Fatalities per 0.1 billion (108) working hours (or exposure hours)Quantitative risk acceptance criterionContent slide21Slide22
FN-curve- Frequency plotted against the number of fatalities
- Cumulative frequency of N or more fatalities - Criteria 1 – 1 fatality with frequency 1 x 10-3 per year- Criteria 2 – 10 fatalities with frequency 1 x 10-5 per year- Criteria 3 – 100 fatalities with frequency 1 x 10-7 per year
- Accident 1 – 100 fatalities with frequency < 1 x 10-9
per year- Accident 2 – 10 fatalities with frequency 4 x 10-7 per year- Accident 3 – 1 fatality with frequency 1 x 10-5 per year- Accident 4 - …Quantitative risk acceptance criterionContent slide22Slide23
Who is deciding the risk acceptance criterion?Established by organizations (guidelines), authorities (legal requirements) and companies (internal requirements)
Different theoretical approaches for organizations (e.g. the well being for many) versus companies (e.g. economical aspects) versus authorities (e.g. combinations)Quantitative risk acceptance criterion
Content slide
23Slide24
Comparison of different quantitative risk acceptance criterion for individual risk:- U.K. – 3
rd party – acceptable at < 1.0 x 10-6 per year- Netherlands – 3rd party - acceptable at < 1.0 x 10
-8 per year
- Netherlands – 3rd party - unacceptable at > 1.0 x 10-6 per year (for new facilities)- Netherlands – 3rd party - unacceptable at > 1.0 x 10-5 per year (for existing facilities)- Venezuela – 1st party – acceptable at < 1.0 x 10-6 per year- Venezuela – 1st party – unacceptable at > 1.0 x 10-3 per yearQuantitative risk acceptance criterionContent slide24Slide25
Comparison of different activities and quantitative risk acceptance criterion for individual risk (usually < 1.0 x 10
-6 per year):- dying (non-specific cause) - 1.0 x 10-2 per year - smoking (20 cigarettes per day) – 5 x 10-3 per year
- 1.0 x 10
-6 per year- killed by lightning - 1.0 x 10-7 per year - killed by meteorite - 1.0 x 10-11 per yearQuantitative risk acceptance criterionContent slide25Slide26
Comparison of different quantitative risk acceptance criterion for group risk/societal risk- Dark blue – Flanders (region in Netherlands)
- Blue – Netherlands- Pink – Denmark (where grey indicate ALARP)- Red – indicative value for U.K.Quantitative risk acceptance criterion
Content slide
26Slide27
Comparison of different activities and quantitative risk acceptance criterion for group risk/societal risk (usually
FAR = 15 – fatalities per 108 working/exposure hours):- staying at home - 3- agriculture – 3.7- 15- driving a car - 57
- driving a motorcycle - 660
Quantitative risk acceptance criterionContent slide27Slide28
Questions?
End slide
28