Scribd
Upload
109 views23 pages

Risktec Solutions: Uses, Abuses and Misuses of QRA

Uploaded by

Arun Kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views23 pages

Risktec Solutions: Uses, Abuses and Misuses of QRA

Uploaded by

Arun Kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 23

Risktec Solutions

risk management and assessment for business

Uses, abuses and misuses of QRA

"We should remember that risk assessment data can be like the captured
spy: If you torture it long enough, it will tell you anything you want to know.“
© 2018 Risktec Solutions Limited
William Ruckelshaus (first administrator of U.S. EPA)
Discussion points

 What is risk and what is a QRA?


 Why bother?
 Uses of QRA
 Misuses, abuses and uncertainty
What is risk and what is a QRA?

 Risk is a combination of the consequences and likelihood of bad stuff happening


 What do you think when someone says QRA?
 It’s just the expression of risk in a numerical measure – the chance of an explosion killing Fred
the operator is 1 in 10,000 years
 Today we’re going to discuss O&G safety related QRA, but it’s not just this
The QRA Process
Increasing Frequency of Occurrence – HOW OFTEN

Increasing Severity Of Consequences – HOW BAD

Use to “filter out” the


major risks Major Risks
Location Specific Individual Risk (LSIR)

Risk for a hypothetical individual 4E+002


who is positioned at a location for
24 hrs/day, 365 days per year – 3E+002
standard “yardstick”. Usually
presented in the form of Risk 2E+002
Contours.
1E+002

Metres
0

-1E+002

-2E+002

-3E+002
-3E+002 -2E+002 -1E+002 0 1E+002 2E+002 3E+002 4E+002 5E+002

Metres
Example Societal Risk FN Curve:

Societal Risk : Example


1.00E+00

1.00E-01
Intolerable Region

Cumulative Frequency (/yr)


1.00E-02

1.00E-03

1.00E-04

1.00E-05
ALARP Region
1.00E-06

1.00E-07
Broadly
1.00E-08 Acceptable
Region
1.00E-09
1 10 100 1000 10000
N or Greater Statistical Fatalities

Societal Risk Profile Societal Risk Criteria


Example (UK) Risk Criteria

Individual risk 10-6 fatalities/y


Why bother

Isn’t my risk matrix good enough?


Why bother to quantify risk?

 If you have high perceived risks


 If something is new, complicated or unusual
 Gives a better appreciation of low frequency, high consequence events
 Simpler approaches are imposing impractical requirements
Why bother to quantify risk?

 Worst case credible consequence type assessments may not accurately reflect the risk
 Analyse many scenarios and also interactions of scenarios
 Integrated – can provide a holistic view of risks
 Identify risk contributions and risk reduction measures
Uses of QRA

© 2018 Risktec Solutions Limited


Uses of QRA

 Regulatory requirement (not in Canada, well apart from BC for LNG plants……..)
 Concept selection (Which is the lowest risk concept – good use for QRA, it’s relative in nature)
 Engineering design – risk reduction measures
 Construction – SIMOPS risks from operating facilities
Uses of QRA

 Emergency planning – identify likely scenarios


 Abandonment – more offshore, decommissioning options
 Building risk assessment – where to put manned / critical buildings
 Transportation risk – often a major contributor
 Land use planning – limited in N America
Misuses, abuses and
uncertainty

© 2018 Risktec Solutions Limited


Misuses and Abuses

 We want a QRA now! Why, what for? Err, I’m not sure: Diving into quantification without doing
sensible qualitative work first or defining the scope
 We’ve made the dodgy decision, without any real basis – now prove its OK with your fancy QRA
model…………..
 Expecting demonstration that risks quantitatively low justifies not following good practice
 Assessing risks to large groups of people in terms of individual risk measures and targets
Misuses and Abuses

 Not considering all hazards: An operator has to drive around a lot of well pads. His risk from
hydrocarbons is low.
 But what is his risk from driving? All this has to be considered too and can easily be the biggest risk
contributor
 Working in the acid gas compressor enclosure is high risk. OK, we’ll send 5 different operators
in to check it every day and their individual risk will be fine
 No. This is ‘salami slicing’ the risk. The risk to the worker group should be considered
Misuses and Abuses

 The risk is below our intolerable level – so is it OK if we don’t do anything else


 The ALARP principle normally stops this. Even if risks are below the intolerable levels, further risk
reduction measures should be investigated. QRA allows these to be focussed on the main contributors
to risk
 Reverse ALARP: It’s really expensive to implement this element of normal good practice (say a
shutdown system) and my QRA / cost benefit analysis shows it’s not worth it
 The ALARP principle should stop this. Normal good practice, code, standards, etc. are taken as a given
and shouldn’t be eroded on the basis of QRA.
Misuses and Abuses

 Taking a generic QRA and applying it to other sites / systems uncritically


 Ignoring the things that are ‘too difficult’ to calculate quantitatively
 Believing the QRA can tell you everything.
 Believing that stating risk to lots of significant figures means the results are really accurate
 At best QRA give an idea of the order of magnitude of risk and is best used comparatively
 Not considering uncertainty – more of this later
Misuses and Abuses

 Using consultants, but being left with a model that you don’t understand
 Using generic data without adjusting – modify accordingly if appropriate
 Dodgy Cost Benefit Analysis – gold plating systems for the benefit of CBA when lower cost
options exist
Accuracy and uncertainty

 How accurate, or repeatable do you think QRA is?


 In the early eighties the UK HSE reviewed QRA and concluded it was over conservative by
approximately a factor of 2-10
 QRA often compounds conservative assumptions
 So it’s important to use best estimates rather that a series of worst cases
 Comparison exercise (Italy, 1988-1990), 11 different teams completing an ammonia plant QRA
 Considerable variability; due to different levels of details and different tools
Accuracy and uncertainty

 How to cope with uncertainty?


 Complex uncertainty analysis techniques exist – e.g. Monte Carlo simulation.
 All complex uncertainty techniques are impractical for QRAs with any degree of complexity
 Identify the main influences to risk (leak frequency, manning exposure….)
 Vary these influencing factors and see the impact on risk
 Take a view on the results – perhaps take more conservative values
Summary

 QRA is a powerful when used appropriately


 It’s only one part in the risk assessment and management process
 Get it in the correct context by doing the appropriate qualitative work first
 It’s prone to error, misuse and uncertainty – go into any analyses recognising the shortcomings
 Further reading: Good practice and pitfalls in risk assessment RR151, UK HSE
Thank you for your attention

enquiries@risktec.tuv.com
risktec.tuv.com
+44 (0)1925 611200

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy