[SystemSafety] Risk Based Planning and Assessment - tank farms

[Carl Sandom]

Andy,

 

You're definitely not alone in your thinking. An interesting book on the
topic of risk assessment which is in agreement with your view is: The Black
Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nicholas Taleb. I presented a
paper at the Australian System Safety Conference in 2011 where I raised some
of the problems I have encountered relating to risk assessments, one problem
typically being an over reliance on 'expert judgement' (you can find the
paper at http://www.isys-integrity.com/Papers.htm if you're interested). In
my experience there is nearly always a need to improve the validity of
safety assurance (i.e. risk assessment) claims through the use of
meta-evidence (e.g.. present evidence about evidence to answer questions
such as: who made the expert judgements?, how competent were they to do so?
etc.). 

 

Best Regards

Carl

_________________________________

Dr. Carl Sandom PhD CEng FIET MIEHF

Director and Consultant

iSys Integrity Limited

10 Gainsborough Drive

Sherborne

Dorset, DT9 6DR

United Kingdom

_________________________________

 

 

From: systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of James
Ronback
Sent: 18 December 2012 04:34
To: systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Risk Based Planning and Assessment - tank farms

 

Andy, 

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. 

In addition to natural hazards, I'm also interested in how effectively city
planning departments make use of risk based planning and assessment for
developing industrial areas near residential ones, e.g. jet fuel tank farms.
I gather some recommendations were made in the UK after the Buncefield
incident in 2005, but regulations are still in the works in the UK since
nothing has been published yet.  

Jim


COMAH - Buncefield: Why did it happen? - HSE
http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/buncefield/buncefield-report.pdf 

Learning the Lessons  from Buncefield
http://www.dsb.no/Global/Farlige%20stoffer/Dokumenter/Sevesokonferanse%20201
0/Sevesokonferansen%202010%20-%20Learning%20the%20lessons%20from%20Buncefiel
d.pdf

-------- Original Message -------- 


Subject: 

RE: [SystemSafety] Risk Based Planning and Assessment


Date: 

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:51:41 -0500


From: 

Loebl, Andy  <mailto:loeblas at ornl.gov> <loeblas at ornl.gov>


To: 

James Ronback  <mailto:jim_ronback at dccnet.com> <jim_ronback at dccnet.com>

 

My experience in the United States is with the Department of Homeland
Security and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  
To me risk based planning and assessment processes to not hold my
confidence.  Even probabilistic risk assessment 
methods, as employed here, seems both weak and unsubstantiated.  To me, the
practice is based on "expert judgment"  
which I interpret as someone, somewhere, is guessing and somehow this is
codified and legitimatized.  Unless, of 
course, there is someone higher up in the decision making process who
disagrees with the expert judgment, for 
personal, political, or even professional reasons and decides to change that
judgment, which in turn becomes 
codified and legitimatized.  
 
For example, regardless of the probability, how many mega-quakes, like
Yellowstone, are we willing to accept?  
Since the average frequency has been ~600,000 years between eruptions and
the last one was 640,000 years ago, 
does that mean we should move out of the areas likely to be affected or what
should those people living in the 
affected areas do?  Mt. Fugi is another example.  People in Japan have
populated the hillsides of the volcano, 
and like Mt. St. Helens, Fugi will erupt certainly soon, in geologic time,
but what should be done today?
 
In short, the only way to really have confidence in the guessing that goes
into even the best risk assessments, 
users of those assessments cannot be allowed to use those assessments at a
scale for which it is not intended.  
Determining risk values, as the U.S. Coast Guard and homeland security does,
and quantifies the results at an 
interval scale, to my way of thinking, is taking 'judgment'   too far.
 
I think I am alone at this thought.  I also have not studied my objections
enough to offer alternatives.  I hope 
all this makes sense to you.
 
andy
 
-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] 
On Behalf Of James Ronback
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:17 PM
To: systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: [SystemSafety] Risk Based Planning and Assessment
 
 
Which countries have risk based planning and assessment processes that
you would recommend or deprecate?
 
Jim Ronback, P. Eng. (System Safety Engineer - retired)
 
 
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12
 
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
 
 
 

 

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5965 - Release Date: 12/16/12

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20121218/3c9a332d/attachment-0001.htm>