Facility risk assessment

Facility Risk Assessment The facility risk assessment effort begins with an initial risk categorization effort made very early in the concept phase of the project. The purpose of risk categorization is to serve as an indicator for the level of effort and scope of the system safety effort. 

Hendershot, D. C. (1991b). The Use of Ouantitative Risk Assessment in the Continuing Risk Management of a Chlorine Handling Facility. The Analysis, Communication, and Perception of Risk, ed. B. J. Garrick, and W. C. Gekler, 555-65. New York Plenum Press. 

In May 1988, a Level-1 PSA was undertaken as part of the general risk assessment at DOE facilities. Revision 0 was completed, and reviewed by BNL, DOE and contractors. The revised report was available July 1990 (Azarm, 1990). The broad objective of the HFBR PRA program is to enhance the safety and operational activities throughout the. remaining lifetime of the reactor... 

Many of the accidents considered in the investigation could occur without causing any significant public casualties. However, if the conditions at the time of the accident were sufficiently unfavorable, the number of deaths among the public could range from tens up to thousands (Table 11.4-1). Table 11.4-1 is the summarized population risk assessed by the study team. It is in frequency per 10,(XX) years of an accident at the indicated facility that causes casualties exceeding the indicated limit. Reference should be made to Canvey (1978) for details. 

A facility risk review (FRR) is intermediate between a qualitative HAZOP and a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) achieved by broad probability and consequence classifications. Although not a risk assessment, an FRR uses PSA to get optimum risk cost-benefit. 

Brown, D. F., W. E. Dunn, and A. J, Polieastro, 1994b Application of a MonteCarlo Model for Transportation Risk Assessment from DOE Facilities, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. 

Chu, T. L. et al., 1990, Quantification of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment of the High Flux Beam Reactoi (HFBR) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, ANS Topical Meeting, The Safety, Siauis and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities, Boise, ID, Sepiember Ol - October 4, 1990. 

T. Main, Inc., Healtli Risk Assessment for Air Emission of Metals and Organic Components for tlie Perc Municipal Waste Energy Facilities , PERC, Boston, MA, 1985. 

M. Kazarians, W. J. Bradford, and M. J. Abrams, "Risk Assessment of a Process Facility," paper presented at AICliE Orange County Section Annual Teclmical Meeting, Oct. 15,1985. 

The risk assessment process begins by identifying specific accident scenarios that apply to the facility under review. Steps include ... 

Because few generic frequency data were available on VCEs in similar facilities, a risk screening per Chapter 4 of this book was not performed. Instead, as a next step, the decision was made to perform a qualitative risk assessment. 

U.S. EPA s recommendations regarding stack emission tests, which may be performed at hazardous waste combustion facilities for the purpose of supporting MACT standards and multipathway, site-specific risk assessments, where such a risk assessment has been determined to be necessary by the permit authority, can be found in the U.S. EPA document on Risk Burn Guidance for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.32 The applicability of the new standards has been demonstrated in the management of hazardous waste incinerators, whose performance was shown to clearly surpass the regulatory requirements in all tested areas.33... 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (Final) EPA530-R-05-006 Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC... 

Assessment of Exposure-Response Functions for Rocket-Emission Toxicants (1998) Review of a Screening Level Risk Assessment for the Naval Air Facility at Atsugi, Japan (Letter Report) (1998)... 

Hazard identification can be performed independent of risk assessment. However, the best result is obtained if they are done together. One outcome is that hazards of low probability and minimal consequences are identified and addressed with the result that the process is gold-plated. This means that potentially unnecessary and expensive safety equipment and procedures are implemented. For instance, flying aircraft and tornadoes are hazards to a chemical plant. What are the chances of their occurrence, and what should be done about them For most facilities the probability of these hazards is small No steps are required for prevention. Likewise, hazards with reasonable probability but minimal consequences are sometimes also neglected. 

Practical techniques for explosion containment and venting are discussed, and the topic of risk assessment for explosives facilities is reviewed. 

The primary document outlining risk assessment methods in the U.S. Department of Defense is a Military Standard, Ref. 39. This document requires a well-documented system safety program, based on risk assessment methods to be included in all new Department of Defense systems and facilities. Hazards analyses of the systems are mandated by this publication. 

A designer, as part of his facility design analysis, should perform a hazards analysis or risk assessment of the various processes which will be conducted within the facility in order to determine what potential thermal dangers or threats exist to personnel and equipment. A hazards analysis or risk assessment will provide for the identification of potential hazards and of the necessary corrective actions/measures to prevent or control the hazard. Early in the design of a facility, the processes and equipment may be conceptual and at this stage, a preliminary hazards analysis can be performed. It is early in the design that a preliminary hazards analysis can be most helpful because its... 

Preliminary Hazard List Description. The incorporation of this information into a PHL entry is shown as Table I. This entry describes the nature of the hazardous event (column 1), why or how the hazard may result in a mishap (column 2), the effects on operating personnel, equipment, and the facility (column 3), the risk assessment code assigned to the uncontrolled hazard (column 4) and any comments the originator may have (column 5). 

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) The systematic development of numerical estimates of the expected frequency and consequence of potential accidents associated with a facility or an operation. Using consequence and probability analyses and other factors such as population density and expected weather conditions, QRA estimates the fatality rate for a given set of events. 

Offshore facilities are dramatically different from onshore facilities because instead of being spread out the equipment is segregated essentially into compartments or separated into a complex of platforms. Offshore facilities pose critical questions of personnel evacuation and the possibility of total asset destruction if prudent risk assessments are not performed. A through analysis of both life safety and asset protection measures must be undertaken. These analyses should be commensurate with the level of risk a particular facility represents, either in personnel exposed or financial loss. An unmanned wellhead platform might only require the review of wellhead shut-in, flowline protection and platform ship collisions to be effective, while manned drilling and production platforms may require the most extensive analysis. 

However, (b) below need not be applied if the facility is used so infrequently that the probability that the pipeline fails while it is occupied is acceptably low. This can be determined by a risk assessment carried out per para. PL-3.5. 

The goal of assessing risk is to build on the knowledge of chemical reactivity hazards, to understand how the hazard properties may lead to loss scenarios in the facility context, and to determine whether existing safeguards are adequate. Therefore, the assessment of risk can be performed at any stage of facility design, development, operation, or alteration. Of course, the more that is known about the facility and its equipment and operation, the more detailed the risk assessment can be. Methods used to determine chemical reaction risks are varied, as are their objectives and data requirements. 

By contrast, the nature of certain accident scenarios could prove to be quite sensitive to some design parameters. It should not be ruled out during the risk assessment phase, especially during detailed design, that discoveries during consequence analysis could lead to the revision of the design basis of the facility or some equipment or components. 

Risk assessment studies can be performed using whatever process information is available (CCPS 1992a). Obviously, the more information and knowledge that is available, the more thorough and valuable the risk study can be. For facilities that must meet regulatory requirements for process hazard analyses, certain process safety information (PSI) is required to be compiled and up to date before starting the analysis. 

---