Using Quantitative Risk Assessment to Justify Location Class Changes: Case Study

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Rumney ◽  
Graham Goodfellow
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Operating Pressure ◽  
Design Code ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Location Class

Expansion of existing residential and commercial areas, or the construction of new developments in the vicinity of high pressure gas transmission pipelines can change a Location Class 1 into a Class 2 or Class 3 location. Operators are left with a pipeline that no longer meets the requirements of its design code. Reducing the maximum allowable operating pressure of a pipeline, or re-routing it away from the population, can meet the requirements of a design code, such as CSA Z662 or ASME B31.8, but such options have both high costs and significant operational difficulties. Quantitative risk assessment has been employed successfully for many years, by pipeline operators, to determine risk based land use planning zones, or to justify code infringements caused by new developments. By calculating the risk to a specific population from a pipeline, and comparing it with suitable acceptability criteria, a pipeline may be shown to contribute no more risk to a population than other pipelines operating entirely in accordance with the design codes. Risks may be demonstrated to be ‘as low as reasonably practicable’, through the use of cost benefit analysis, without additional mitigation, allowing precious pipeline maintenance funds to be spent most effectively in areas where they will have the highest impact on risk. This paper shows how quantitative risk assessment may be used to justify continued safe operation of a pipeline at its original operating stress following a change of class designation, illustrated with a case study from Western Europe.

scholarly journals Review of QTRA and Risk-based Cost-benefit Assessment of Tree Management

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Stewart ◽  
Dealga O’Callaghan ◽  
Mark Hartley
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Offshore Platforms ◽  
Risk Management Process ◽  
Fig Trees ◽  
The 1960S

Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been in wide use in risk management since the 1960s for systems ranging from aviation, nuclear power, and offshore platforms to medical treatment and pharmaceuticals. The Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA) system is examined considering the principles of QRA. A case study of 14 fig trees in Newcastle, Australia, illustrates some limitations of the QTRA process, and extrapolating risks for a single tree to a group of trees. There is a need for any risk management process involving trees, not only to assess the risk, but to weigh the benefits provided by trees by a risk-based cost-benefit analysis. Tree risk assessors should rely on benchmarks to ensure that their assessment is not outside of the realms of reality or scientific rigor.

scholarly journals CHANGES IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FAMILY 2003–2014: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERING ACHIEVEMENTS, GAPS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (01) ◽  
pp. 1550003 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANK VANCLAY
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Social Risk ◽  
Proportional Change ◽  
The Impact

Over 150 forms of impact assessment can be identified using Google searches, with several new forms appearing since 2003. Since then, the popularity of the various members of the impact assessment family has changed, partly in response to legislative and regulatory changes, and general trends in society. The information explosion and expansion of the internet has resulted in a 32 fold increase in the number of hits for "impact assessment", now over 12 million. The conventional methods most frequently mentioned in 2003 had relatively low proportional change over the last 10 years but remain amongst the most frequently mentioned in 2014: risk assessment, public participation, cost-benefit analysis, public involvement, environmental monitoring, and project evaluation. The terms with highest proportional change (i.e. the super-hot topics) were primarily social concerns, including: equality impact assessment, welfare impact assessment, mental health impact assessment, disability impact assessment, human impact assessment, social impact assessment, and social risk assessment. Other terms that had high proportional change included life cycle impact assessment. Information about the relative popularity of the various forms of impact assessment is used in this paper to discuss issues and trends in the broad field of impact assessment.

scholarly journals The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 4668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Nesticò ◽  
Shuquan He ◽  
Gianluigi De Mare ◽  
Renato Benintendi ◽  
Gabriella Maselli
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Investment Risk ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Mitigation Design ◽  
The Cost

The process of allocating financial resources is extremely complex—both because the selection of investments depends on multiple, and interrelated, variables, and constraints that limit the eligibility domain of the solutions, and because the feasibility of projects is influenced by risk factors. In this sense, it is essential to develop economic evaluations on a probabilistic basis. Nevertheless, for the civil engineering sector, the literature emphasizes the centrality of risk management, in order to establish interventions for risk mitigation. On the other hand, few methodologies are available to systematically compare ante and post mitigation design risk, along with the verification of the economic convenience of these actions. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how these limits can be at least partially overcome by integrating, in the traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis schemes, the As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) logic. According to it, the risk is tolerable only if it is impossible to reduce it further or if the costs to mitigate it are disproportionate to the benefits obtainable. The research outlines the phases of an innovative protocol for managing investment risks. On the basis of a case study dealing with a project for the recovery and transformation of an ancient medieval village into a widespread-hotel, the novelty of the model consists of the characterization of acceptability and tolerability thresholds of the investment risk, as well as its ability to guarantee the triangular balance between risks, costs and benefits deriving from mitigation options.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document