Integrity Risk-Informed Decision Making

Author(s):  
Sherif Hassanien ◽  
Doug Langer ◽  
Mona Abdolrazaghi

Over the last three decades, safety-critical industries (e.g. Nuclear, Aviation) have witnessed an evolution from risk-based to risk-informed safety management approaches, in which quantitative risk assessment is only one component of the decision making process. While the oil and gas pipeline industry has recently made several advancements towards safety management processes, their safety performance may still be seen to fall below the expected level achieved by other safety-critical industries. The intent of this paper is to focus on the safety decision making process within pipeline integrity management systems. Pipeline integrity rules, routines, and procedures are commonly based on regulatory requirements, industry best practices, and engineering experience; where they form “programmed” decisions. Non-programmed safety and business decisions are unique and “usually” unstructured, where solutions are worked out as problems arise. Non-programmed decision making requires more activities towards defining decision alternatives and mutual adjustment by stakeholders in order to reach an optimal decision. Theoretically, operators are expected to be at a maturity level where programmed decisions are ready for most, if not all, of their operational problems. However, such expectations might only cover certain types of threats and integrity situations. Herein, a formal framework for non-programmed integrity decisions is introduced. Two common decision making frameworks; namely, risk-based and risk-informed are briefly discussed. In addition, the paper reviews the recent advances in nuclear industry in terms of decision making, introduces a combined technical and management decision making process called integrity risk-informed decision making (IRIDM), and presents a guideline for making integrity decisions.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 289-289
Author(s):  
Kim Tran ◽  
Rami Rahal ◽  
Carolyn Sandoval ◽  
Geoff Porter ◽  
Sharon Fung ◽  
...  

289 Background: Because treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) have similar survival outcomes but varying side effects, it is important that patients are meaningfully involved in the decision-making process to ensure the chosen treatment aligns with their needs, wants and preferences. Here, we describe PCa patients’ experience with informed decision-making as well as treatment patterns and trends over time. Methods: Focus groups were conducted with 47 men treated for PCa across Canada to understand their cancer journey experience. Thematic analysis was conducted. A subset of this data on informed decision-making is described. Men (≥ 35 years) diagnosed with localized, low-risk PCa from 2011-2013 were identified using data from six provincial cancer registries. Treatment data were identified by linking hospital/cancer centre data with registry data. Descriptive statistics were generated to describe treatment patterns and trends. Results: Focus group participants expressed a desire to be involved in the treatment decision-making process. While many participants felt completely informed about the treatment choices available to them, others felt they had not been properly engaged in the treatment decision-making process. Some participants felt they had opted for surgery or radiation therapy (RT) without full knowledge of the trade-offs between potential benefits and side effects. Others felt they may have made different decisions about their care had they been more informed. From registry data, in 2013 surgery was the most common primary treatment for men with low-risk PCa ranging from 12.0% in New Brunswick to 41.7% in Nova Scotia. RT was the second most common ranging from 6.4% in New Brunswick to 18.3% in Saskatchewan. Varying majorities of men had no record of surgical or radiation treatment, a proxy for active surveillance. Treatment trends over time suggest an increase in the use of non-active treatment approaches from 60.7% in 2011 to 69.9% in 2013. Conclusions: System performance indicators yield useful information about oncology practice patterns and trends. This information is enhanced when combined with patient level information on how men felt about decision-making around their PCa care.


Author(s):  
Simon Candy

The use of Best Practical Environmental Optioneering (BPEO) has long been part of informed decision making within the Nuclear Industry. However, BPEO has typically been applied to specific and discrete objectives, for example the selection of a technology to treat a particular nuclear waste stream. While this has sometimes been extended to cover a number of objectives, no one had applied BPEO to a programme of the size and complexity of that associated with Legacy Ponds & Silos at Sellafield. The programme, spanning more than 30 years, includes a range of different objectives covering ongoing management, recovery, conditioning, storage and ultimately disposal of nuclear wastes. This range of activities is applied across a number of facilities containing multiple, significant waste streams. This paper explains how BPEO was applied to the Legacy Ponds & Silos programme and discussed some of the learning resulting from that exercise.


Author(s):  
Alex Nemeth ◽  
Sherif Hassanien ◽  
Len Leblanc

The use of integrity reliability science is becoming a prevalent element in the pipeline integrity management process. One of the key elements in this process is defining what integrity reliability targets to achieve in order to maintain the safety of the system. IPC2016-64425 presented different industry approaches around the area of defining reliability target levels for pipelines. It discussed the importance of setting operators’ specific integrity target reliability levels, how to choose such targets, and how to determine the safety of a pipeline asset by comparing the probability of failure (PoF) against an integrity permissible probability of failure (PoFp) while keeping an eye on the estimated expected number of failures. Building upon the previous discussion, this paper reviews a risk-based approach for estimating integrity reliability targets that account for the consequence of a potential release. Given available technical publications, the as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) concept, and operators’ specific risk tolerances, there is room for improving the communication of integrity reliability along with selected targets. The paper describes how codes, standards, and operators set reliability targets, how operator specific targets can be chosen, and how industry currently recommends liquid pipelines reliability targets. Moreover, the paper proposes different approaches to define practical reliability targets coupled with an integrity risk-informed decision making framework.


2013 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Peyronnin ◽  
Mandy Green ◽  
Carol Parsons Richards ◽  
Alaina Owens ◽  
Denise Reed ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document