1. Title slide PIPELINE QRA SEMINAR

2. PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION 2

3. “comparing the level of risk found during the analysis process with risk criteria established” INTRODUCTION TO RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 3

4. Why do you have a risk acceptance criterion? End-point of the risk assessment To be able to say whether the risk is acceptable or not Established by companies (internal) and/or authorities (external) Base for decision-making INTRODUCTION TO RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 4

5. 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 5

6. 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 risk ALARP principle include demonstrate that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained INTRODUCTION TO RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 6

7. When is a risk tolerable (acceptable)? What is a risk intolerable (unacceptable)? INTRODUCTION TO RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 7

8. 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 flying 268 per 100.000 deaths from cardiovascular diseases INTRODUCTION TO RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 8

9. 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 slide 9

10. 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 slide 10

11. Traffic authorithy in Sweden state that 22.3 million SEK (5.5 million GEL) is the acceptable cost for saving a life Safety systems (e.g. traffic barrier) is analyzed with this approach How 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 11

12. Traffic authority in Norway state that 25.0 million NOK (5.5 million GEL) is the acceptable cost for saving a life Offshore industry in Norway state that up to 100.0 million NOK (up to 27.3 million GEL) is the acceptable cost for saving a life EXAMPLE OF RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION – SWEDEN TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Content slide 12

13. 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 13 INTRODUCTION TO RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide

14. -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 14

15. 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 15

16. 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 pipeline EXAMPLE OF RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION – GEORGIA PIPELINES Content slide 16

17. Qualitative risk acceptance criteria - Risk matrix - Descriptions Descriptions support to the risk matrix Descriptions - 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 CRITERION Content slide 17

18. QUALITATIVE RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION 18

19. QUALITATIVE RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION 19

20. Quantitative risk acceptance criteria - Numerical values (more or less) Human safety - individual risk - individual risk for 1 st person (e.g. operator) - individual risk for 3 rd person (e.g. public) QUANTITATIVE RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 20

21. Human safety – group risk/societal risk - group risk/societal risk for 1 st person and 3 rd 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 year Offshore also presented as FAR (Fatal Accident Rate) - Fatalities per 0.1 billion (10 8 ) working hours (or exposure hours) QUANTITATIVE RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 21

22. 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 CRITERION Content slide 22

23. 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 23

24. Comparison of different quantitative risk acceptance criterion for individual risk: - U.K. – 3 rd party – acceptable at 1.0 x 10 -6 per year (for new facilities) - Netherlands – 3 rd party - unacceptable at > 1.0 x 10 -5 per year (for existing facilities) - Venezuela – 1 st party – acceptable at 1.0 x 10 -3 per year QUANTITATIVE RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 24

25. 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 year QUANTITATIVE RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 25

26. 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 26

27. Comparison of different activities and quantitative risk acceptance criterion for group risk/societal risk (usually FAR = 15 – fatalities per 10 8 working/exposure hours): - staying at home - 3 - agriculture – 3.7 - 15 - driving a car - 57 - driving a motorcycle - 660 QUANTITATIVE RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERION Content slide 27

28. QUESTIONS? End slide 28