Understanding and developing quantitative risk criteria

Shah, Jatin N.; Moosemiller, Michael D.

doi:10.1002/prs.11533

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If there are no guidelines for tolerable consequences or risk, it may fall to the process safety engineer to assist project management and corporate HSE in establishing guidelines for the project. A variety of methods for establishing project criteria exist in the literature [2,3]. Having guidelines in place early in the project allows the process safety engineer to disqualify high risk designs or demonstrate the need for additional safety systems.…”

Section: Establishing Design Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

A method to utilize facility siting techniques in the early phases of capital projects to reduce risks and safety spending

Anderson

Hodge

2017

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common complaint when undertaking capital projects is the cost of engineered designs that must be added late in the project in order to mitigate hazards or risks. Due to the typical phasing of these project activities, the facility siting study (FSS) or other consequence or risk modeling is not completed until the layout of the facility has been established. When a site layout is already in a mature state; however, it can be extremely difficult to move hazards or populations to safer locations due to the substantial amount of rework that would be required. With mitigation through relocation thus limited or even unavailable, increasing the safety systems within the unit or adding layers of protection at the buildings of interest becomes the only option. Costs could be reduced and designs made safer if FSS or similar studies could be conducted earlier in the design process.Moving the FSS up into the early design phases comes with its own hurdles, which often revolve around the lack of fully developed process information and a constantly changing facility layout. This requires that any FSS done in the early stages of design must be flexible and expedient to meet the rapidly evolving plant layout and process changes. This paper details a method for performing a FSS during the feasibility stages of a greenfield project through the creation of a design library of hazards and buildings that can be easily moved and edited. This paper presents three case studies to explore examples of early mitigation of blast, fire, and toxic hazards, and provides examples of both consequence-based and risk-based decisions to be considered for each. A discussion of a basic cost saving analysis utilizing the FSS process is also explored. Through the use of FSS early in a design process, the capital project can create an optimized design that meets both geographic constraints and corporate safety goals while providing a potential reduction in overall project cost.1. The control room options, using the Precast Concrete with Steel Frame construction type, can be compared using the risk-based design of the larger building as the basis. The results

show abstract

Section: Establishing Design Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

A method to utilize facility siting techniques in the early phases of capital projects to reduce risks and safety spending

Anderson

Hodge

2017

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Understanding and developing quantitative risk criteria

Shah

Moosemiller

2012

Process Safety Progress

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are several factors that make the establishment of risk criteria a daunting task that few want to undertake. Nonetheless, for large global corporations, it is likely that one or more facilities have to meet governmental requirements. For US facilities, there is an incentive to having risk criteria in that it allows greater flexibility in complying with the updated API Recommended Practice 752 on siting of occupied permanent buildings. Having corporate risk criteria is imperative to ensure that facilities and operations that are not in “regulated jurisdictions” have a consistent framework to make risk‐related decisions. Risk criteria range from the use of the traditional risk matrix (consequence vs. likelihood) to the more quantitative risk criteria that include geographic risk (individual risk) and/or societal risk criteria. This article discusses the steps necessary to help companies develop robust defendable risk criteria that facilitate decision making. Potential pitfalls are also presented and discussed including: (a) the potential to develop criteria that are unachievable or too lax, (b) developing criteria that are inconsistent with other established programs in the company, and (c) reconciling the needs between unit level criteria and business or group level criteria. Typical risk‐tolerance criteria, and examples of issues and pitfalls that are commonly faced by companies developing such criteria, are also presented. © 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2012

show abstract

Cluster-based information fusion for probabilistic risk analysis in complex projects under uncertainty

Zhang

Wang

2021

Applied Soft Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding and developing quantitative risk criteria

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

A method to utilize facility siting techniques in the early phases of capital projects to reduce risks and safety spending

A method to utilize facility siting techniques in the early phases of capital projects to reduce risks and safety spending

Understanding and developing quantitative risk criteria

Cluster-based information fusion for probabilistic risk analysis in complex projects under uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About