Past, present and future of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) and the incentive it obtained from Land-Use Planning (LUP)

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 2-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Pasman ◽  
Genserik Reniers
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Revision to the UK Pipeline Quantitative Risk Assessment Guidelines IGEM/TD/2 and PD 8010-3

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham D. Goodfellow ◽  
Jane V. Haswell ◽  
Neil W. Jackson ◽  
Roger Ellis
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
External Interference ◽  
Common View ◽  
Failure Frequency ◽  
The Uk

The United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association (UKOPA) was formed by UK pipeline operators to provide a common forum for representing pipeline operators interests in the safe management of pipelines. This includes ensuring that UK pipeline codes include best practice, and that there is a common view in terms of compliance with these codes. Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is used by operators in the UK to determine if individual and societal risk levels at new developments adjacent to existing pipelines are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). In 2008 the UKOPA Risk Assessment Working Group developed codified advice on the use of QRA applied to land use planning assessments, which was published by the Institution of Gas Engineers & Managers (IGEM) and the British Standards Institute (BSI). This advice was designed to ensure a standard and consistent approach, and reduce the potential for disagreement between stakeholders on the acceptability of proposed developments. Since publication of IGEM/TD/2 and PD8010-3 in 2008, feedback from users of the guidance together with new research work and additional discussions with the UK safety regulator, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), have been undertaken and the codified advice has been revised and reissued in June 2013. This paper describes the revisions to the guidance given in these codes in relation to: • Clarification on application • Update of physical risk mitigation measures (slabbing and depth of cover) • Update of HSE approach to Land Use Planning • Update of failure frequency data: ○ Weibull damage distributions for external interference ○ Generic failure frequency curve for external interference ○ Prediction of failure frequency due to landsliding The revised codes, and their content, are considered to represent the current UK best practice in pipeline QRA.

Challenges for introducing risk assessment into land use planning decisions in an Indian context

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 14-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anandita Sengupta ◽  
Debanjan Bandyopadhyay ◽  
Sandip Roy ◽  
Cees J. van Westen ◽  
Anne van der Veen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Planning Decisions ◽  
Indian Context

Urban Flood Risk Assessment and Development of Urban Flood Resilient Spatial Plan for Bhubaneswar

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-291
Author(s):  
Alisa Sahu ◽  
Tushar Bose ◽  
Dipak R. Samal
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Flood Risk ◽  
Flood Hazard ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
Spatial Modelling ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Flood Hazards ◽  
Urban Flood

Urban flooding is growing as a serious development challenge for cities. Urbanization demands the conversion of pervious land to impervious land by pushing the transformation of water bodies, flood plains, wetlands and green spaces into built-up spaces. This affects the hydrological setting of the city’s geographic area. Bhubaneswar, one of the first planned cities of independent India, has expanded rapidly with an increase in the settlement land use cover from 41 km2 to 81 km2 in the last two decades. Non-consideration of disaster risk assessment in the land use plan has placed the city at high disaster risk. Hence, this article explores various avenues for making a flood resilient city through spatial planning. To understand the flood and its consequences, a flood hazard and vulnerability map was prepared by overlaying the existing social and infrastructure networks, and flood risk zones were generated through analytical spatial modelling in GIS. This accounts for the areas in which flood hazards are expected to occur, as well as the area whose socio-economic and infrastructure susceptibility to the disaster is more. The key outcome is to ensure urban development that can work concurrently with nature by integrating disaster risk reduction strategies into land use planning.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document