Adnoc Hse Risk Management 5c6s1
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 445h4w
Overview 1s532p
& View Adnoc Hse Risk Management as PDF for free.
More details 6h715l
- Words: 7,619
- Pages: 26
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
ADNOC GROUP HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
HSE RISK MANAGEMENT
APPROVED BY :
DATE: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 1 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
2.
3.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1
POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2
THE ADNOC HSEMS ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4
RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 3
DEFINITIONS & ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................... 4 2.1
DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 5
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & ASSESSMENT................................................................................................. 6 3.1
DEFINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT/MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 6
3.2
IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.3
EVALUATE (ANALYSE & ASSESS) HAZARDS ..................................................................................................... 7
3.4
3.3.1
Quantitative Risk Assesment (QRA) ................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2
Semi -quantitative Risk Assessment.................................................................................................... 7
3.3.3
Qualitative Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 8
MANAGE THE RISK TO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL........................................................................................................ 9 3.4.1
3.4 4.
Demonstrating ALARP ..................................................................................................................... 10
REVIEW/ THE RISKS ............................................................................................................................. 11
CRITERIA FOR RISK TOLERABILITY ........................................................................................................... 13 4.1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 13
4.2
THE FRAMEWORK FOR RISK CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 13 4.2.1
Individual Risk Criteria (IR) ............................................................................................................ 13
4.2.2
Societal Risk Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.3
FACTORS AFFECTING THE RISK CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 15
4.4
ADNOC TARGET INDIVIDUAL RISK (IR) CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 15
5.
THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPROACH ............................................................................................... 17
6.
DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 18 6.1
GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
6.2
THE HSE CASE APPROACH .............................................................................................................................. 18
ATTACHMENTS:
1. SEMI-QUANTITATIVE RISK MATRIX………………………………………………………... 19 2. QUALITATIVE RISK MATRIX………………………………………………………………... 20 3. DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF CONSEQUENCE CATEGORIES…………………………………... 21 4. ADNOC INDIVIDUAL RISK (IR) ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA………………………………… 24 5. F-N CURVE FOR SOCIETAL RISK……………………………………………………………. 25
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 2 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Policy Requirements The ADNOC HSE Policy states that ADNOC and Group Companies will “conduct activities in a manner designed to minimise HSE risks, protect health and safety of employees, contractors, customers, the community at large and the environment in which the Group activities are conducted.” The Policy furthermore states that “ADNOC, through active participation of all employees and contractors, will strive to manage HSE risks with the goal of preventing accidents, injuries and occupational illnesses, progressively minimising environmental impact by reducing discharges and using energy efficiently and producing safe, quality products. On general HSE issues, ADNOC Group will manage all risks to a level which is ALARP”. 1.2 The ADNOC HSEMS The systematic approach to HSE management as required to implement this policy was documented in the ADNOC HSE Management System (HSEMS) Guideline, issued mid 1997. The Guideline was designed to assist the Group Companies in implementing their own HSEMS and ensure that contractors apply similar systems. The Guideline makes specific reference to “Evaluation and Risk Management” as a separate element of the eight elements which comprise the ADNOC generic HSEMS model. By applying an HSEMS approach which is based on structured, risk based assessment and management principles, ADNOC and Group Companies will make better business decisions and reduce risk which will subsequently aid prevention of incidents and losses. The assessment and control of risk are essential requirements for proactive HSE management. In order to make a value judgement and to decide on what risks are acceptable, an easily understood set of criteria should be set and followed rigorously. Risk criteria are required to promote consistency in evaluating the results of relevant studies and to formulate a proactive approach to accident and incident prevention. 1.3 Purpose of this Document This document describes the risk management concepts, principles and processes which are recommended for use as well as risk tolerability criteria which shall be utilised as guidance within the ADNOC Group Companies. This Guideline specifically aims: •
To introduce risk management in order to assist ADNOC and Group Companies in their development toward a common and consistent approach to risk management amongst ADNOC, its Group Companies and the other Abu Dhabi Oil & Gas Concessionaires.
•
To introduce common risk terminology as a basis for sharing of principles, training methods, ideas and resources throughout ADNOC, its Group of Companies and the other Abu Dhabi Oil & Gas Concessionaires.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 3 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
•
To highlight some of the techniques used to arrive at the qualitative and quantitative assessments.
•
To set the basis for risk acceptance criteria and to set specific and consistent tolerability criteria for qualitative and quantitative assessment of risk levels which are applicable throughout the ADNOC Group of Companies.
The principles of risk management as outlined in this Guideline are meant for all ADNOC and Group Company managers and supervisors. The guideline should assist management in making critical HSE decisions as well as assist line supervision and foremen in the day to day management of site HSE risks. Since ADNOC HSEMS Section 3.2: Element 6 requires all ADNOC and Group Companies to have systems which identify, assess, and manage risks, this document will be useful during the development and updating of risk management systems and procedures. This guideline does not aim to provide detailed guidance on specific hazard identification (e.g. HAZOP, HAZAN, HAZID) or risk assessment techniques (e.g. QRA). Reference should be made to specialist resources and to a variety of detailed documentation available throughout the industry. 1.4 Responsibilities Ultimate responsibility for effective management of HSE rests with senior management. It should ensure that HSE risk management is fully integrated across the organisation and into all activities. Senior management should: •
Ensure that the organisation has access to sufficient knowledge, skills and experience and resources to manage the HSE risks in a responsible manner and in accordance with legislation.
•
Allocate HSE responsibilities and abilities, including risk management.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 4 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
2. DEFINITIONS & ABBREVIATIONS 2.1 Definitions Accident – See ‘incident’. ALARP- means to reduce a risk to a level which is ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ and involves balancing reduction in risk against the time, trouble, difficulty and cost of achieving it. This level represents the point, objectively assessed, at which the time, trouble, difficulty and cost of further reduction measures become unreasonably disproportionate to the additional risk reduction obtained. Consequence (or severity) is the loss that can be inflicted if the hazard event occurs. Frequency is the number of occurrences of an event per unit time. Hazard(s) is an object, physical effect, or condition with potential to harm people, property, the environment or the company reputation. Hazard Management is the systematic process of: - Identifying potential hazardous events and their potential consequences (hazard analysis) - Evaluating the risk potential of the hazardous event occurring (risk analysis) - Managing the risk at an ALARP risk level, which may be achieved reducing the probability of a hazardous event occurring or mitigating its potential consequences - Reviewing the hazards and risks on a periodic basis. Incident is an event or chain of events which has caused or could have caused injury, illness, and/or damage (loss) to assets, the environment, company reputation or third parties. Individual Risk – Individual risk ‘IR’ is defined as the combined fatal risks to a ‘named individual’. IR would include such factors as: - Total Risk, the sum of contributions from all hazards exposed to - Occupancy, the proportion of time exposed to work hazards - Vulnerability, the probability that exposure to the hazard will result in fatality IR (Individual Risk) = ∑ Frequency x Occupancy x Vulnerability Public - anybody not directly employed by ADNOC, the ADNOC Group Companies or contractors (including sub-contractors) working for ADNOC and/or Group Companies. Public Risk – identical to Individual Risk but relates to the public rather than the ‘named individual’ who is usually employed by ADNOC, the ADNOC Group Companies or contractors (including sub-contractors) working for ADNOC and/or Group Companies Risk is the product of the measure of the likelihood of occurrence of an undesired event and the potential adverse consequences which this event may have upon:
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 5 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
-
People - injury or harm to physical or psychological health Assets (or revenue) - damage to property (assets) or loss of production Environment - water, air, soil, animals, plants and social Reputation - employees and third parties. This includes the liabilities arising from injuries and property damage to third parties including the cross liabilities that may arise between the interdependent ADNOC Group Companies. Risk = Frequency x Consequences
Societal Risk (SR) – Societal risk is generally used to describe multiple injury accidents/fatalities, or to describe risks to ‘unnamed’ individuals, which could include the public and is usually described by F-N Curves (Frequency vs. Deaths listed in increasing order of magnitude, 10, 100, 1000 etc.). Societal Risk may also be calculated as a single value known as “Expectation Value” (EV) or “Potential Loss of Life” (PLL), which is given by the expression: SR = ∑ Frequency of hazard occurring X Proportion of time person(s) are exposed X Number of people exposed X Vulnerability Worker - anybody who is directly employed by ADNOC, the ADNOC Group Companies or contractors (including sub-contractors) working for ADNOC and/or Group Companies. 2.2 Abbreviations ADNOC EV FAC FMEA HAZAN HAZOP HSE HSEIA LTI MTC RWC PHSER P&ID PLL QRA
- Abu Dhabi National Oil Company - Expectation Value - First Aid Case - Failure Mode and Effect Analysis - Hazard Analysis (review/study) - Hazard and Operability (review/study) - Health, Safety and Environment - Health Safety and Environment Impact Assessment - Lost Time Incident - Medical Treatment Case - Restricted Work Case - Project Health, Safety and Environmental Reviews - Process & Instrumentation Diagram - Potential Loss of Life - Quantitative Risk Assessment
Page 6 of 25
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & ASSESSMENT 3.1 Define Hazard Assessment/Management Systems Risk management can only be achieved via management of known and potential hazards and this requires the definition of a Hazard Assessment/Management System. The ADNOC HSEMS Guideline Section 3.2: Element 6.0 (risk management) requires that ADNOC and Group Companies have programmes and procedures (e.g. management systems) which: -
identify hazardous activities, the potential hazardous event, and consequences assess and prioritise risks in cost effective manner ensure that design of new facilities incorporates HSE reviews ensure that acquisitions and asset disposal are evaluated for HSE risks ensure that HSE hazards from equipment and facility decommissioning are managed.
It is vital that the programmes and procedures which are developed are assessed versus risks, which are identified and managed. Continuous improvement is the key to future HSE performance. With reference to figure 1, management of hazards is a 4 step closed loop continuous process:
hazard(s)
Review &
4
Identify the
hazards & risks
1 3 2
Evaluate
Manage the risk (to acceptable level)
(Analyse & assess) the risk
FIGURE 1. The 4-step hazard management process 3.2 Identification of Hazards Examples of hazard identification techniques include HSE audits, HSE inspections, peer reviews, safe job reviews, task analysis, HAZOPs, HSEIAs, PHSERs, FMEAs, model reviews, P&ID Reviews, accident/incident & near miss reporting. Failures of software and hardware systems as well as incidents of human error should be considered in the identification of hazards.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 7 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
3.3 Evaluate (Analyse & Assess) Hazards All identified hazards should be subject to an evaluation for risk potential. This means analysing the hazard for its probability to actually progress to a loss event, as well as the likely consequences of this event. There are 3 risk assessment methods widely used in the Petro-chemical industry: - Quantitative (QRA) - Semi-quantitative - Qualitative 3.3.1 Quantitative Risk Assesment (QRA) QRA uses historical/statistical and failure data along with computer generated consequence modelling to generate ‘people’ risk data. From QRAs one will get individual risk (IR), public risk and/or societal risk (SR). ADNOC does not stipulate QRA as policy requirement, that is, to perform QRA for every facility or operation with the aim to numerically quantify overall ‘people’ risk levels. With reference to the ADNOC Group Guidelines for HSE Impact Assessments (April 1997), an HSE risk assessment is required for new projects, in which the complexity and size of the project will dictate the complexity of the assessment methodology. In this context, ADNOC recommends that project teams or Group Companies utilize QRA where benefits may be obtained from comparison of risk management options. QRA should be considered as a single component rather than as a replacement of the complex risk management framework. 3.3.2 Semi -quantitative Risk Assessment The semi-quantitative approach depends on a select team of experienced personnel who have access to accident, historical and failure data to make “professional” probability decisions. Semi-quantitative assessments might determine consequences based upon in-house modelling or use of hazard impact tables such as depicted in Figure 2. The probability categories relate to the theoretically calculated chance of major incidents happening. They do not relate to actual events as experienced on specific plants, locations or companies. A full A-4 size copy of the matrix can be found in Attachment 1. A detailed explanation of the criteria used to rate the potential consequences of a hazard event can be found in Attachment 3.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Page 8 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
Probability
Severity
5. Catastrophic
People
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
2. Marginal
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect Minor effect Slight effect
A Improbable 1 in 100,000 years
B Remote 1 in 10,000 years
C Occasional 1 in 1000
D Probable 1 in 100
E Frequent 1 in 10
years
years
years
HIGH RISK Considerable impact Minor impact Slight impact
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP) LOW RISK
FIGURE 2. Risk Potential Matrix – Semi-quantitative The risk matrix is divided into three risk categories as defined below: High Risk Unacceptably high This level of risk exposes the Company to intolerable losses to People, Assets, Environment or Reputation. The hazard should be eliminated or its risk reduced to tolerable levels immediately. ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO LOWER THE RISK.
Medium Risk Acceptable but must be managed at ALARP The hazard(s) must be managed to reduce the frequency and/or the severity of the hazardous events to ALARP. RISK REDUCTION MEASURES MUST BE PLANNED AND DOCUMENTED.
LowRisk Acceptable without required further action. Correction(s) may be applied as resources allow. 3.3.3 Qualitative Risk Assessment The qualitative approach also uses a risk potential matrix as a guide in determining risk potential. The matrix as depicted in Figure 3 facilitates quick reference and assignment of risk levels for each of the three risk categories (High, Medium, Low). Thus hazards identified during audits, inspections, reviews, accident/incident investigation, qualitative risk assessment etc. may be assessed using this matrix. A full A-4 size copy of the matrix can be found in Attachment 2. A detailed explanation of the criteria used to rate the potential consequences of a hazard event can be found in Attachment 3.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Page 9 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
Probability A Severity
5. Catastrophic
People
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
2. Marginal
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect
Considerable impact
Minor effect Slight effect
Has occurred in world-wide industry but not in ADNOC
B
D
E
HIGH RISK
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP)
Minor impact Slight impact
C
Has occurred Has occurred Happens several Happens several in other in specific times per year times per year ADNOC Group ADNOC Group in same in specific Company location or Company ADNOC Group operation Company
LOW RISK
FIGURE 3. Risk Potential Matrix - Qualitative
When assessing risks associated with the consequences of an ‘incident’ such as a fire, explosion, oil spills, acute illnesses or fatality then the risk is ‘acute’ or ‘incidental’. Plotting these risks on the Risk Matrix is relatively simple. There are also risks of a long term nature relating to environmental discharges and emissions or exposure to health hazards. These ‘chronic’ or ‘routine’ risks are the ones where the pre-defined limits are exceeded over time, and can also be plotted on the Risk Matrix. The Risk Matrix may also be used on a scenario by scenario basis to prioritise risk reduction efforts. It is adaptable to varying levels of information and depths of evaluation By adopting the qualitative Risk Matrix approach, a company will adopt transparent risk tolerability criteria. It brings transparency into the evaluation, using the experience and consensus of the risk assessment team, and thus an understanding of the risk can be reached fairly easily. Company management can determine whether the risk levels inherent in the company’s operations are tolerable and whether they fit with current corporate policies and objectives. 3.4 Manage the risk to acceptable level After the risk has been identified and analysed as per above, management decides what corrective action (if any) is necessary to manage the hazard at an acceptable and ALARP risk level. Depending on the nature of the specific hazard(s), this may require different steps to: •
Prevent the hazards from occurring (eliminate) or to reduce the likelihood of the incidents;
•
Mitigate the consequences of the hazards which are inherent to the type of operation or working environment and which cannot be prevented altogether and have a chronic likelihood to develop into incidents with harmful consequences.
•
Recover from the consequences of incidents. Recovery measures should be developed for all foreseeable emergencies with the aim to prevent escalation e.g. from critical into severe or worse severities.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Page 10 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
If the risk is low, no action may be required. Medium and high risks require that management formulate a corrective action plan, which should include: •
Agreed actions, responsible person(s), and completion date(s). In formulating these plans, it is important to realise that risk management measures include organisational and system measures, such as: -
•
personnel training and qualification procedures change control and documentation procedures quality assurance, maintenance and inspection procedures periodic personnel medical check-ups and prophylactic medical treatments such as vaccination/immunisation)
Follow up that includes regular updates for progress to ensure actions are closed per the plan.
3.4.1 Demonstrating ALARP In all cases consideration should be given to reducing risk to a level deemed ALARP reflecting among other factors local conditions and circumstances, the balance of cost and benefits and the current state of scientific and technical knowledge. To reduce a risk to an ALARP level involves balancing reduction in risk to a level, objectively assessed, where the trouble, difficulty and cost of further reduction measures becomes unreasonably disproportionate to the additional risk reduction obtained, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Risk Tolerability Criterion
$
ALARP?
Risk Intolerable
ALARP
Cost
Disproportionate
FIGURE 4. Demonstrating ALARP Demonstrating ALARP requires consideration of all the hard and soft issues related to a range of options. It requires a judgmental decision at the right level in the organisation with the full knowledge of all options, associated risks and costs. Specifically in the context of project engineering, ALARP is not just a demonstration that risks of the preferred or selected option are acceptable and/or comparable to other similar developments. Demonstrating ALARP requires consideration of fundamentally different options to provide assurance that the company gets best value for money over the lifetime of a facility or operation.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 11 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
In defining ALARP risk reduction measures, the potential for changes in risk tolerability criteria with time should be borne in mind for those projects or operations with a considerable life span. Rather than applying fit-for-purpose now, the contingency should be built-in which allows for seamless ALARP upgrade without costly retrofits. What is considered ALARP today may no longer be acceptable in the future, for example: •
the applicable legislation may change,
•
public awareness may increase and/or tolerance may decrease,
•
the company’s own HSE objectives may become more stringent.
Determining the exact level of ALARP is difficult and depends on many factors such as internal/external influences and the nature of the hazards and associated risks. One may arrive at different ALARP definitions for identical hazards/risks which occur at different locations. As such it is critically important to fully understand the effects of risk reduction measures, specifically for those risks which require multiple measures to achieve ALARP. The effects of the individual measures should be fully explored with a view to avoiding potential clashes and/or overlaps. Every effort should be made to ‘design out’ rather than add on mitigation controls/measures. In the various attempts to achieve ALARP one should be cautions and not over-complicate: •
equipment and process control/shutdown system designs,
•
procedures for systems and processes, and
•
personnel training and qualification criteria.
Specifically for projects, ALARP should be pursued with risk reduction measures that have obvious, clear and measurable effects on the estimated risk level. Application of these measures may initially appear expensive but should have preference over combinations or multitudes of measures which, albeit easier and at less cost from a project perspective, have obscure effects or require significant operations/maintenance effort in the medium/long term. In addition to the long term cost liability, there is the danger that some of these overlapping measures become neglected with time and possibly excessive reliance is put on what are deemed to be the key risk reduction measures. Where quantitative risk assessment is used, then the costs of the various options can be compared with the respective risks and ALARP illustrated in a graph similar to figure 4 above. In qualitative analysis, ALARP is established using standards, legislative requirements and judgement based on experience. Regardless of the risk assessment methodology used, it still needs to be demonstrated, at a reasonable cost, that risks are ALARP from all points of view. 3.4 Review/ the Risks Depending on the magnitude of risks and the potential consequences of hazards, these should be periodically reviewed by competent staff. The reviews should involve those
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 12 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
parts of the organisation which are involved in day-to-day management of these hazards i.e. the operations and maintenance functions. As a typical issue for these reviews one should if the base assumptions have changed since the original design was implemented or since the risks were reviewed previously e.g.: • Has the plant/equipment performance lived up to the expectations of the original design in of accidents, incidents and equipment uptime? • Has the oil, product or equipment price changed significantly i.e. what is the current cost of production loss and/or equipment replacement? • Have there been significant and unexpected changes in age and/or technical integrity of equipment e.g. excessive corrosion, wear/tear? • Have there been significant hardware changes and if so, have the risk associated been adequately reviewed in the context of previously defined risk levels? • Is the average experience level of plant operators and maintainers still the same? • Can new technology provide lower (and possibly cheaper) ALARP levels? • Have legislation and/or public perceptions changed regarding what is now considered acceptable/unacceptable? • Have there been changes outside Company influence which could affect overall risk levels e.g. population build-up around facilities in previously isolated areas, increased road traffic, security aspects, etc? Specifically for those issues which are managed at ALARP risk level but still remain toward the upper end of the ALARP region, management should insist on a minimum review frequency (e.g. annually) to be conducted by appropriate and expert personnel. The documented results of these reviews should be fully auditable.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 13 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
4. CRITERIA FOR RISK TOLERABILITY 4.1 Introduction The assessment and control of risk are essential requirements for a proactive HSE management system. In order to make a value judgement and to decide on what risks are acceptable, an easily understood set of criteria should be set and followed rigorously. Risk criteria are required to promote consistency in evaluating the results of relevant studies and to formulate a proactive approach to incident prevention. This document sets out the basis for selecting the risk acceptance criteria and explains some of the techniques used to arrive at the quantitative assessments made to understand the risk levels. 4.2 The Framework for Risk Criteria The two diagrams below are intended to guide ADNOC and Group Companies in decision making in response to recommendations and feed-back from QRA and HSEIA reports. 4.2.1 Individual Risk Criteria (IR) Ideally, there is a need to determine the limits for IR, based on numeric values (based on QRA studies and HSEIAs) which would be regarded as intolerable. Figure 5 shows the principle of this framework.
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1000 per year ALARP Benchmark existing installations 1 in 5,000 per year
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION ALARP Benchmark new installations 1 in 50,000 per year
maximum tolerable limit 1 in 100,000 per year
ACCEPTABLE REGION
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 10,000 per year
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION (Risk must be demonstrated to have been reduced to a level which is practicable with a view to cost/benefit) maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1,000,000 per year
ACCEPTABLE REGION INDIVIDUAL RISK TO WORKERS
INDIVIDUAL RISK TO THE PUBLIC
(including contractor employees)
(all those not directly involved with company activities)
FIGURE 5. Risk Acceptance framework for Individual Risk to Worker or Public The ALARP principle which underlines the regulation of risk depicts three particular regions viz.: the unacceptable region, the ALARP region and the broadly acceptable region.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 14 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
At the top of the triangle is the unacceptable level, on or above which the risk is so great or the outcome so unacceptable that it must be refused altogether. At the other extreme is the broadly acceptable region, where there is no requirement to undertake additional HSE measures, i.e. the risk is, or has been made, so small that no further precaution is necessary. In between lies a wide range of risk levels to which the ALARP principle applies, i.e. the risk must be reduced to the lowest level practicable, bearing in mind the benefits flowing from its acceptance and taking of the costs of any further reduction. Thus for the risks which fall within the ALARP region, some weighing of costs and benefits is necessary to determine compliance with the ALARP principle. 4.2.2 Societal Risk Criteria The ALARP principle applies in the same way for societal risk as for Individual Risk (Figure 5). Societal risk tolerability would be utilised in reporting QRA results. Societal risk should not be confused as being the risk to society or the risk as being perceived by society. The word “societal” is merely used to indicate a group of people and societal risk refers to the frequency of multiple fatality incidents, which includes workers and the public. Societal risk is usually represented by F-N (fatality - frequency) curve such as Figure 6 below. The F-N Curve represents societal risk for a single fixed installation only, like a refinery, a process plant or a platform. F-N Curve for Societal Fatal Risk 1.00E+00
FREQUENCY (per year)
1.00E-01 1.00E-02
Unacceptable Risk
1.00E-03
X
1.00E-04 1.00E-05
ALARP
1.00E-06 1.00E-07
Acceptable Risk 1.00E-08 1
2
10
FATALITIES
100
1000
FIGURE 6. F-N Curve: Societal Fatal Risk Tolerability, Single Fixed Installation Only To illustrate an example of societal risk, note the ‘X’ in the upper portion of the graph which is marked “Unacceptable Risk”. The ‘X’ is located at the axis of the lines ‘1.00 E-04’ ( 1 in 10,000 years) and 10 fatalities. The ‘X’ thus represents an event which would kill 10 people at a frequency of once in 10,000 years. This is unacceptable. This principle of societal risk indicates that society’s tolerance for risk decreases as fatalities increase.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 15 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
4.3 Factors affecting the risk criteria The risk criteria for numerical risk levels is generally based on risk comparisons. However, there are some factors which need to be considered in order to ensure that the proposed risk criteria reflects adequately the nature and risk levels for activities/processes used at ADNOC and Group Companies. These factors include the following: i)
Risks which may be tolerable for workers in a hazardous industry are not necessarily tolerable for a member of the public who may be exposed to the work activity hazards.
ii) Risk criteria selected by different industries are not necessarily the same. Risk criteria adopted by different countries may also not be the same. iii) The concept of ALARP is based on cost - benefit assessment and requires explicit valuation of a life. Refer to section 5.0. iv) The QRA criteria for risk relates to Individual Risks to workers (and the public) as well as to societal risks as a result of fatal accidents. Injuries and/or ill health are not included in this method of risk assessment. v)
Multiple fatality accidents require use of F-N Curves for risk tolerability. See Figure 6.
4.4 ADNOC Target Individual Risk (IR) Criteria ADNOC Maximum Individual Risk Criteria Workers
Public
Existing installations
New installations
All installations
Benchmark
IR = 1 in 5,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-4)
IR = 1 in 50,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-5)
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
Unacceptable
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 10,000 or above (IR > 10-4)
Acceptable
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5) (IR < 10-5)
IR = 1 in 1,000,000 or below (IR < 10-6)
Where IR = Individual Risk (fatality per person/year)
TABLE 1. ADNOC quantitative risk tolerability criteria The tolerable risk level lies between the acceptable and unacceptable levels in which ALARP must be demonstrated. Once a specific hazard is demonstrated by analysis to result in acceptable risk there is no requirement, other than the HSEMS continuous improvement principles, to further reduce risk under the ADNOC ALARP criteria. Workers would include ADNOC & Group Company employees and contractors. The public includes the general public, visitors, fishing vessels and any third party who is not directly involved in the ADNOC and/or Group Company work activities. The tolerability criteria above should not be misinterpreted as the number of fatalities that
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 16 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
ADNOC is prepared to accept in conducting operations. They must be used only in QRA context as statistical probability that equipment, systems and procedures fail and result in fatalities. The “IR benchmark” for new installations is the overall IR level which project teams should aim for when deg new facilities. The design of existing installations is set which leaves less flexibility in reducing absolute risk levels than for new designs. As such, the benchmark IR target for existing installations is set one order of magnitude higher than for new installations. This benchmark should be used when deg major alterations/modifications to existing facilities.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 17 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
5. THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPROACH The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach is an effective risk management tool as it aids consistency in decisions for health, safety and environmental resource allocation. The CBA approach requires monetary evaluation of risks or the monetary evaluation of the loss. Some typical examples are: -
loss of plant, assets (e.g. rebuild cost) loss of product and/or revenue loss of sales or customers (e.g. through loss of reputation) loss of life loss of or damage to a natural resource cost of clean-up (e.g. following accidental and/or chronic contamination)
The evaluation of measures to avert loss of life requires ‘Valuation of life’ for which different figures have been used by various industries and countries. ADNOC, at this time, does not specify a common ‘Valuation of life’ criterion which is to be applied throughout the Group Companies. ADNOC recommends that individual Group Companies define appropriate criteria which match industry standards as pertaining to their specific business. A significant consideration in this is the ADNOC HSEMS expectation that Group Companies should continually improve their performance towards meeting or exceeding their particular industry benchmarks, standards and expectations.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 18 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
6. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 6.1 General It is imperative that those hazards and effects (acute and chronic) identified as presenting significant HSE risks are documented. As a minimum recording requirement, with reference to the 3 risk assessment methods as outlined in Section 3.3: •
Where QRA is performed, the risk management measures should be fully documented for all hazards resulting in IR > 10-4.
•
Where semi-quantitative or quantitative assessment is used, the risk management measures should be documented for all hazards with severity potential ‘Catastrophic’ or ‘Severe’ (refer to figures 2 and 3).
These records are of vital importance for operations personnel in developing procedures and work instructions aimed at managing the hazards at ALARP. Similarly, and following the development of the hazard management measures, these records should be given a key role in the communication and training efforts which are required to implement the risk management measures. The documentation should provide an outline of: •
The assessment results (together with the data sources and assumptions used)
•
A comprehensive description of the selected and evaluated risk reduction measures
•
The relevant HSE-critical systems and procedures in use to manage the risk at ALARP.
A formal ‘Hazard & Effects ’ is recommended as a quality record which demonstrates that all hazards and effects have been identified, are understood and are being properly controlled. The should be periodically reviewed as a development or operation progresses through its life-cycle. It is considered beyond the scope of this document to provide details on how to develop such a . 6.2 The HSE Case approach An effective method to document all of the above is the HSE Case approach. For complex and multi-faceted companies this may requires a subdivision of the company or organization into key plants/facilities or operations which have different HSE impacts or have different procedural aspects to manage these impacts. Typical example of HSE Cases are platform or plant, drilling, road transport and marine HSE Cases. Specifically in the Exploration & Production sphere, HSE Cases are legislated requirements in some countries. Where implemented, HSE Cases have proven their considerable value in staff training and developing comprehensive understanding of the applicable risks and the hazard management measures to control these. HSE cases are not mandatory within the ADNOC Group of Companies. However, ADNOC recommends that Group Companies implement HSE Cases where clear benefits can be demonstrated in comparison with the conventional risk documentation methods. If undertaken, then HSE Cases should be controlled documents and should be subject to periodic reviews (3-5 years) to accuracy and validity of recorded details.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 19 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 1: RISK POTENTIAL MATRIX – SEMI-QUANTITATIVE Probability
Severity
5. Catastrophic
People
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
2. Marginal
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect Minor effect Slight effect
A Improbable 1 in 100,000 years
B Remote 1 in 10,000
C Occasional 1 in 1000
years
years
D Probable 1 in 100
E Frequent 1 in 10
years
years
HIGH RISK Considerable impact Minor impact Slight impact
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP) LOW RISK
The risk matrix is divided into three risk categories as defined below: High Risk
Unacceptably high This level of risk exposes the Company to intolerable losses to People, Assets, Environment or Reputation. The hazard should be eliminated or its risk reduced to tolerable levels immediately. ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO LOWER THE RISK.
Medium Risk Acceptable but must be managed at ALARP The hazard(s) must be managed to reduce the frequency and/or the severity of the hazardous events to ALARP. Risk reduction measures must be planned and documented. LowRisk
Acceptable without required further action. Correction(s) may be applied as resources allow.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 20 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 2: RISK POTENTIAL MATRIX - QUALITATIVE Probability A People
Severity
5. Catastrophic
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
2. Marginal
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect Minor effect Slight effect
Has occurred in world-wide industry but not in ADNOC
B
D
E
Has occurred Has occurred Happens several Happens several in other in specific times per year times per year ADNOC Group ADNOC Group in same in specific Company location or Company ADNOC Group operation Company
HIGH RISK
Considerable impact
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP)
Minor impact Slight impact
C
LOW RISK
The risk matrix is divided into three risk categories as defined below: High Risk
Unacceptably high This level of risk exposes the Company to intolerable losses to People, Assets, Environment or Reputation. The hazard should be eliminated or its risk reduced to tolerable levels immediately. ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO LOWER THE RISK.
Medium Risk
Acceptable but must be managed at ALARP The hazard(s) must be managed to reduce the frequency and/or the severity of the hazardous events to ALARP. Risk reduction measures must be planned and documented.
Low Risk
Acceptable without required further action. Correction(s) may be applied as resources allow.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 21 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 3: Detailed breakdown of consequences for the four Risk Management Categories 1. People Severity
Description
5
Multiple fatalities - from an accident or occupational illness (poisoning, cancer).
4
Single fatality or permanent total disability - from an accident or occupational illness (poisoning, cancer).
3
Major injury or health effects (including Permanent Disability) – Affecting work performance in the longer term, e.g. prolonged absence from work. Irreversible health damage without loss of life, e.g. noise induced hearing loss, chronic back injuries.
2
Minor injury or health effects –Affecting work performance, e.g. restriction to activities (restricted work case –RWC) or need to take a time off work to recover (lost time incident – LTI). Limited, reversible health effects, e.g. skin irritation, food poisoning.
1
Slight injury or health effects (incl. first aid case –FAC and medical treatment case – MTC). Not affecting work performance or causing disability.
2. Assets Severity
Description
5
Extensive damage – Substantial or total loss of operation (costs in excess of US$10,000,000).*
4
Major – Partial operation loss (2 weeks shutdown, costs up to US$10,000,000).*
3
Local damage – Partial shutdown (can be restarted but costs up to US$500,000).*
2
Minor damage – Brief disruption (costs less than US$100,000).*
1
Slight damage - No disruption to operation (costs less than US$10,000)*.
These losses in US$ are meant as guidance only. Individual ADNOC Group Company may use more appropriate figures provided they are within the above quoted limits.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 22 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 3, continued. 3. Environment Severity
Description
5
Massive effect – Persistent severe environmental damage or severe nuisance extending over a large area. In of commercial or recreational use or nature conservation, a major economic loss for the company. Constant, high exceedance of statutory or prescribed limits
4
Major effect – Severe environmental damage. The company is required to take extensive measures to restore polluted or damaged environment to its original state. Extended exceedance of statutory or prescribed limits
3
Localised effect – Limited loss of discharges of known toxicity. Repeated exceedance of statutory or prescribed limit. Affecting neighbourhood. Spontaneous recovery of limited damage within one year.
2
Minor effect – Contamination. Damage sufficiently large to attack the environment. Single exceedance of statutory or prescribed criterion. Single complaint. No permanent effect on the environment.
1
Slight effect – Local environmental damage. Within the fence and within systems. Negligible financial consequences
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 23 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
4.
1.0
Reputation
Severity
Description
5
International impact – International public attention. Extensive adverse attention in international media. National/international policies with potentially severe impact on access to new areas, grants of licenses and/or tax legislation.
4
National impact – National public concern. Extensive adverse attention in the national media. Regional/national policies with potentially restrictive measures and/or impact on grant of licenses. Mobilization of action group.
3
Considerable impact – Regional public concern. Extensive adverse attention in local media. Slight national media and/or local/regional political attention. Adverse stance of local government and/or action groups.
2
Limited impact – Some local public concern. Some local media and/or political attention with potentially adverse aspects for company operations.
1
Slight impact – Public awareness may exist, but there is no public concern
Note: Reputation also s for the liabilities arising from injuries and property damage to third parties including the cross liabilities that may arise between the interdependent ADNOC Group Companies. ADNOC, at this time, does not specify financial criteria for each of the severity categories which are to be applied throughout the Group Companies. ADNOC recommends that individual Group Companies define appropriate financial criteria which match their specific business.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 24 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 4: Risk Acceptance framework for Individual Risk to Worker or Public
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1000 per year ALARP Benchmark existing installations
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 10,000 per year
1 in 5,000 per year
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION
ALARP Benchmark new installations 1 in 50,000 per year
(Risk must be demonstrated to have been reduced to a level which is practicable with a view to cost/benefit)
maximum tolerable limit 1 in 100,000 per year
maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1,000,000 per year
ACCEPTABLE REGION
ACCEPTABLE REGION INDIVIDUAL RISK TO THE PUBLIC
INDIVIDUAL RISK TO WORKERS (including contractor employees)
(all those not directly involved with company activities)
The ADNOC quantitative risk tolerability criteria are summarised below: ADNOC Maximum Individual Risk Criteria Workers
Public
Existing installations
New installations
All installations
Benchmark
IR = 1 in 5,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-4)
IR = 1 in 50,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-5)
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
Unacceptable
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 10,000 or above (IR > 10-4)
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
IR = 1 in 1,000,000 or below (IR < 10-6)
Acceptable
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
Where IR = Individual Risk (fatality per person/year)
Workers would include ADNOC & Group Company employees and contractors. The public includes the general public, visitors, fishing vessels and any third party who is not directly involved in ADNOC & Group Company work activities.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 25 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 5: F-N Curve which defines Society Fatal Risk Tolerability (for Single Fixed Installation only)
F-N Curve for Societal Fatal Risk 1.00E+00
FREQUENCY (per year)
1.00E-01 1.00E-02 1.00E-03
Unacceptable Risk
1.00E-04 1.00E-05
ALARP
1.00E-06 1.00E-07
Acceptable Risk 1.00E-08 1
2
10
FATALITIES
100
1000
Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
ADNOC GROUP HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
HSE RISK MANAGEMENT
APPROVED BY :
DATE: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 1 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
2.
3.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1
POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2
THE ADNOC HSEMS ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4
RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 3
DEFINITIONS & ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................... 4 2.1
DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 5
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & ASSESSMENT................................................................................................. 6 3.1
DEFINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT/MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 6
3.2
IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.3
EVALUATE (ANALYSE & ASSESS) HAZARDS ..................................................................................................... 7
3.4
3.3.1
Quantitative Risk Assesment (QRA) ................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2
Semi -quantitative Risk Assessment.................................................................................................... 7
3.3.3
Qualitative Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 8
MANAGE THE RISK TO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL........................................................................................................ 9 3.4.1
3.4 4.
Demonstrating ALARP ..................................................................................................................... 10
REVIEW/ THE RISKS ............................................................................................................................. 11
CRITERIA FOR RISK TOLERABILITY ........................................................................................................... 13 4.1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 13
4.2
THE FRAMEWORK FOR RISK CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 13 4.2.1
Individual Risk Criteria (IR) ............................................................................................................ 13
4.2.2
Societal Risk Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.3
FACTORS AFFECTING THE RISK CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 15
4.4
ADNOC TARGET INDIVIDUAL RISK (IR) CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 15
5.
THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPROACH ............................................................................................... 17
6.
DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 18 6.1
GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
6.2
THE HSE CASE APPROACH .............................................................................................................................. 18
ATTACHMENTS:
1. SEMI-QUANTITATIVE RISK MATRIX………………………………………………………... 19 2. QUALITATIVE RISK MATRIX………………………………………………………………... 20 3. DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF CONSEQUENCE CATEGORIES…………………………………... 21 4. ADNOC INDIVIDUAL RISK (IR) ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA………………………………… 24 5. F-N CURVE FOR SOCIETAL RISK……………………………………………………………. 25
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 2 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Policy Requirements The ADNOC HSE Policy states that ADNOC and Group Companies will “conduct activities in a manner designed to minimise HSE risks, protect health and safety of employees, contractors, customers, the community at large and the environment in which the Group activities are conducted.” The Policy furthermore states that “ADNOC, through active participation of all employees and contractors, will strive to manage HSE risks with the goal of preventing accidents, injuries and occupational illnesses, progressively minimising environmental impact by reducing discharges and using energy efficiently and producing safe, quality products. On general HSE issues, ADNOC Group will manage all risks to a level which is ALARP”. 1.2 The ADNOC HSEMS The systematic approach to HSE management as required to implement this policy was documented in the ADNOC HSE Management System (HSEMS) Guideline, issued mid 1997. The Guideline was designed to assist the Group Companies in implementing their own HSEMS and ensure that contractors apply similar systems. The Guideline makes specific reference to “Evaluation and Risk Management” as a separate element of the eight elements which comprise the ADNOC generic HSEMS model. By applying an HSEMS approach which is based on structured, risk based assessment and management principles, ADNOC and Group Companies will make better business decisions and reduce risk which will subsequently aid prevention of incidents and losses. The assessment and control of risk are essential requirements for proactive HSE management. In order to make a value judgement and to decide on what risks are acceptable, an easily understood set of criteria should be set and followed rigorously. Risk criteria are required to promote consistency in evaluating the results of relevant studies and to formulate a proactive approach to accident and incident prevention. 1.3 Purpose of this Document This document describes the risk management concepts, principles and processes which are recommended for use as well as risk tolerability criteria which shall be utilised as guidance within the ADNOC Group Companies. This Guideline specifically aims: •
To introduce risk management in order to assist ADNOC and Group Companies in their development toward a common and consistent approach to risk management amongst ADNOC, its Group Companies and the other Abu Dhabi Oil & Gas Concessionaires.
•
To introduce common risk terminology as a basis for sharing of principles, training methods, ideas and resources throughout ADNOC, its Group of Companies and the other Abu Dhabi Oil & Gas Concessionaires.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 3 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
•
To highlight some of the techniques used to arrive at the qualitative and quantitative assessments.
•
To set the basis for risk acceptance criteria and to set specific and consistent tolerability criteria for qualitative and quantitative assessment of risk levels which are applicable throughout the ADNOC Group of Companies.
The principles of risk management as outlined in this Guideline are meant for all ADNOC and Group Company managers and supervisors. The guideline should assist management in making critical HSE decisions as well as assist line supervision and foremen in the day to day management of site HSE risks. Since ADNOC HSEMS Section 3.2: Element 6 requires all ADNOC and Group Companies to have systems which identify, assess, and manage risks, this document will be useful during the development and updating of risk management systems and procedures. This guideline does not aim to provide detailed guidance on specific hazard identification (e.g. HAZOP, HAZAN, HAZID) or risk assessment techniques (e.g. QRA). Reference should be made to specialist resources and to a variety of detailed documentation available throughout the industry. 1.4 Responsibilities Ultimate responsibility for effective management of HSE rests with senior management. It should ensure that HSE risk management is fully integrated across the organisation and into all activities. Senior management should: •
Ensure that the organisation has access to sufficient knowledge, skills and experience and resources to manage the HSE risks in a responsible manner and in accordance with legislation.
•
Allocate HSE responsibilities and abilities, including risk management.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 4 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
2. DEFINITIONS & ABBREVIATIONS 2.1 Definitions Accident – See ‘incident’. ALARP- means to reduce a risk to a level which is ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ and involves balancing reduction in risk against the time, trouble, difficulty and cost of achieving it. This level represents the point, objectively assessed, at which the time, trouble, difficulty and cost of further reduction measures become unreasonably disproportionate to the additional risk reduction obtained. Consequence (or severity) is the loss that can be inflicted if the hazard event occurs. Frequency is the number of occurrences of an event per unit time. Hazard(s) is an object, physical effect, or condition with potential to harm people, property, the environment or the company reputation. Hazard Management is the systematic process of: - Identifying potential hazardous events and their potential consequences (hazard analysis) - Evaluating the risk potential of the hazardous event occurring (risk analysis) - Managing the risk at an ALARP risk level, which may be achieved reducing the probability of a hazardous event occurring or mitigating its potential consequences - Reviewing the hazards and risks on a periodic basis. Incident is an event or chain of events which has caused or could have caused injury, illness, and/or damage (loss) to assets, the environment, company reputation or third parties. Individual Risk – Individual risk ‘IR’ is defined as the combined fatal risks to a ‘named individual’. IR would include such factors as: - Total Risk, the sum of contributions from all hazards exposed to - Occupancy, the proportion of time exposed to work hazards - Vulnerability, the probability that exposure to the hazard will result in fatality IR (Individual Risk) = ∑ Frequency x Occupancy x Vulnerability Public - anybody not directly employed by ADNOC, the ADNOC Group Companies or contractors (including sub-contractors) working for ADNOC and/or Group Companies. Public Risk – identical to Individual Risk but relates to the public rather than the ‘named individual’ who is usually employed by ADNOC, the ADNOC Group Companies or contractors (including sub-contractors) working for ADNOC and/or Group Companies Risk is the product of the measure of the likelihood of occurrence of an undesired event and the potential adverse consequences which this event may have upon:
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 5 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
-
People - injury or harm to physical or psychological health Assets (or revenue) - damage to property (assets) or loss of production Environment - water, air, soil, animals, plants and social Reputation - employees and third parties. This includes the liabilities arising from injuries and property damage to third parties including the cross liabilities that may arise between the interdependent ADNOC Group Companies. Risk = Frequency x Consequences
Societal Risk (SR) – Societal risk is generally used to describe multiple injury accidents/fatalities, or to describe risks to ‘unnamed’ individuals, which could include the public and is usually described by F-N Curves (Frequency vs. Deaths listed in increasing order of magnitude, 10, 100, 1000 etc.). Societal Risk may also be calculated as a single value known as “Expectation Value” (EV) or “Potential Loss of Life” (PLL), which is given by the expression: SR = ∑ Frequency of hazard occurring X Proportion of time person(s) are exposed X Number of people exposed X Vulnerability Worker - anybody who is directly employed by ADNOC, the ADNOC Group Companies or contractors (including sub-contractors) working for ADNOC and/or Group Companies. 2.2 Abbreviations ADNOC EV FAC FMEA HAZAN HAZOP HSE HSEIA LTI MTC RWC PHSER P&ID PLL QRA
- Abu Dhabi National Oil Company - Expectation Value - First Aid Case - Failure Mode and Effect Analysis - Hazard Analysis (review/study) - Hazard and Operability (review/study) - Health, Safety and Environment - Health Safety and Environment Impact Assessment - Lost Time Incident - Medical Treatment Case - Restricted Work Case - Project Health, Safety and Environmental Reviews - Process & Instrumentation Diagram - Potential Loss of Life - Quantitative Risk Assessment
Page 6 of 25
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & ASSESSMENT 3.1 Define Hazard Assessment/Management Systems Risk management can only be achieved via management of known and potential hazards and this requires the definition of a Hazard Assessment/Management System. The ADNOC HSEMS Guideline Section 3.2: Element 6.0 (risk management) requires that ADNOC and Group Companies have programmes and procedures (e.g. management systems) which: -
identify hazardous activities, the potential hazardous event, and consequences assess and prioritise risks in cost effective manner ensure that design of new facilities incorporates HSE reviews ensure that acquisitions and asset disposal are evaluated for HSE risks ensure that HSE hazards from equipment and facility decommissioning are managed.
It is vital that the programmes and procedures which are developed are assessed versus risks, which are identified and managed. Continuous improvement is the key to future HSE performance. With reference to figure 1, management of hazards is a 4 step closed loop continuous process:
hazard(s)
Review &
4
Identify the
hazards & risks
1 3 2
Evaluate
Manage the risk (to acceptable level)
(Analyse & assess) the risk
FIGURE 1. The 4-step hazard management process 3.2 Identification of Hazards Examples of hazard identification techniques include HSE audits, HSE inspections, peer reviews, safe job reviews, task analysis, HAZOPs, HSEIAs, PHSERs, FMEAs, model reviews, P&ID Reviews, accident/incident & near miss reporting. Failures of software and hardware systems as well as incidents of human error should be considered in the identification of hazards.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 7 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
3.3 Evaluate (Analyse & Assess) Hazards All identified hazards should be subject to an evaluation for risk potential. This means analysing the hazard for its probability to actually progress to a loss event, as well as the likely consequences of this event. There are 3 risk assessment methods widely used in the Petro-chemical industry: - Quantitative (QRA) - Semi-quantitative - Qualitative 3.3.1 Quantitative Risk Assesment (QRA) QRA uses historical/statistical and failure data along with computer generated consequence modelling to generate ‘people’ risk data. From QRAs one will get individual risk (IR), public risk and/or societal risk (SR). ADNOC does not stipulate QRA as policy requirement, that is, to perform QRA for every facility or operation with the aim to numerically quantify overall ‘people’ risk levels. With reference to the ADNOC Group Guidelines for HSE Impact Assessments (April 1997), an HSE risk assessment is required for new projects, in which the complexity and size of the project will dictate the complexity of the assessment methodology. In this context, ADNOC recommends that project teams or Group Companies utilize QRA where benefits may be obtained from comparison of risk management options. QRA should be considered as a single component rather than as a replacement of the complex risk management framework. 3.3.2 Semi -quantitative Risk Assessment The semi-quantitative approach depends on a select team of experienced personnel who have access to accident, historical and failure data to make “professional” probability decisions. Semi-quantitative assessments might determine consequences based upon in-house modelling or use of hazard impact tables such as depicted in Figure 2. The probability categories relate to the theoretically calculated chance of major incidents happening. They do not relate to actual events as experienced on specific plants, locations or companies. A full A-4 size copy of the matrix can be found in Attachment 1. A detailed explanation of the criteria used to rate the potential consequences of a hazard event can be found in Attachment 3.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Page 8 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
Probability
Severity
5. Catastrophic
People
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
2. Marginal
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect Minor effect Slight effect
A Improbable 1 in 100,000 years
B Remote 1 in 10,000 years
C Occasional 1 in 1000
D Probable 1 in 100
E Frequent 1 in 10
years
years
years
HIGH RISK Considerable impact Minor impact Slight impact
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP) LOW RISK
FIGURE 2. Risk Potential Matrix – Semi-quantitative The risk matrix is divided into three risk categories as defined below: High Risk Unacceptably high This level of risk exposes the Company to intolerable losses to People, Assets, Environment or Reputation. The hazard should be eliminated or its risk reduced to tolerable levels immediately. ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO LOWER THE RISK.
Medium Risk Acceptable but must be managed at ALARP The hazard(s) must be managed to reduce the frequency and/or the severity of the hazardous events to ALARP. RISK REDUCTION MEASURES MUST BE PLANNED AND DOCUMENTED.
LowRisk Acceptable without required further action. Correction(s) may be applied as resources allow. 3.3.3 Qualitative Risk Assessment The qualitative approach also uses a risk potential matrix as a guide in determining risk potential. The matrix as depicted in Figure 3 facilitates quick reference and assignment of risk levels for each of the three risk categories (High, Medium, Low). Thus hazards identified during audits, inspections, reviews, accident/incident investigation, qualitative risk assessment etc. may be assessed using this matrix. A full A-4 size copy of the matrix can be found in Attachment 2. A detailed explanation of the criteria used to rate the potential consequences of a hazard event can be found in Attachment 3.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Page 9 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
Probability A Severity
5. Catastrophic
People
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
2. Marginal
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect
Considerable impact
Minor effect Slight effect
Has occurred in world-wide industry but not in ADNOC
B
D
E
HIGH RISK
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP)
Minor impact Slight impact
C
Has occurred Has occurred Happens several Happens several in other in specific times per year times per year ADNOC Group ADNOC Group in same in specific Company location or Company ADNOC Group operation Company
LOW RISK
FIGURE 3. Risk Potential Matrix - Qualitative
When assessing risks associated with the consequences of an ‘incident’ such as a fire, explosion, oil spills, acute illnesses or fatality then the risk is ‘acute’ or ‘incidental’. Plotting these risks on the Risk Matrix is relatively simple. There are also risks of a long term nature relating to environmental discharges and emissions or exposure to health hazards. These ‘chronic’ or ‘routine’ risks are the ones where the pre-defined limits are exceeded over time, and can also be plotted on the Risk Matrix. The Risk Matrix may also be used on a scenario by scenario basis to prioritise risk reduction efforts. It is adaptable to varying levels of information and depths of evaluation By adopting the qualitative Risk Matrix approach, a company will adopt transparent risk tolerability criteria. It brings transparency into the evaluation, using the experience and consensus of the risk assessment team, and thus an understanding of the risk can be reached fairly easily. Company management can determine whether the risk levels inherent in the company’s operations are tolerable and whether they fit with current corporate policies and objectives. 3.4 Manage the risk to acceptable level After the risk has been identified and analysed as per above, management decides what corrective action (if any) is necessary to manage the hazard at an acceptable and ALARP risk level. Depending on the nature of the specific hazard(s), this may require different steps to: •
Prevent the hazards from occurring (eliminate) or to reduce the likelihood of the incidents;
•
Mitigate the consequences of the hazards which are inherent to the type of operation or working environment and which cannot be prevented altogether and have a chronic likelihood to develop into incidents with harmful consequences.
•
Recover from the consequences of incidents. Recovery measures should be developed for all foreseeable emergencies with the aim to prevent escalation e.g. from critical into severe or worse severities.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management
Page 10 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer
Risk Management Guidelines
Version:
1.0
If the risk is low, no action may be required. Medium and high risks require that management formulate a corrective action plan, which should include: •
Agreed actions, responsible person(s), and completion date(s). In formulating these plans, it is important to realise that risk management measures include organisational and system measures, such as: -
•
personnel training and qualification procedures change control and documentation procedures quality assurance, maintenance and inspection procedures periodic personnel medical check-ups and prophylactic medical treatments such as vaccination/immunisation)
Follow up that includes regular updates for progress to ensure actions are closed per the plan.
3.4.1 Demonstrating ALARP In all cases consideration should be given to reducing risk to a level deemed ALARP reflecting among other factors local conditions and circumstances, the balance of cost and benefits and the current state of scientific and technical knowledge. To reduce a risk to an ALARP level involves balancing reduction in risk to a level, objectively assessed, where the trouble, difficulty and cost of further reduction measures becomes unreasonably disproportionate to the additional risk reduction obtained, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Risk Tolerability Criterion
$
ALARP?
Risk Intolerable
ALARP
Cost
Disproportionate
FIGURE 4. Demonstrating ALARP Demonstrating ALARP requires consideration of all the hard and soft issues related to a range of options. It requires a judgmental decision at the right level in the organisation with the full knowledge of all options, associated risks and costs. Specifically in the context of project engineering, ALARP is not just a demonstration that risks of the preferred or selected option are acceptable and/or comparable to other similar developments. Demonstrating ALARP requires consideration of fundamentally different options to provide assurance that the company gets best value for money over the lifetime of a facility or operation.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 11 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
In defining ALARP risk reduction measures, the potential for changes in risk tolerability criteria with time should be borne in mind for those projects or operations with a considerable life span. Rather than applying fit-for-purpose now, the contingency should be built-in which allows for seamless ALARP upgrade without costly retrofits. What is considered ALARP today may no longer be acceptable in the future, for example: •
the applicable legislation may change,
•
public awareness may increase and/or tolerance may decrease,
•
the company’s own HSE objectives may become more stringent.
Determining the exact level of ALARP is difficult and depends on many factors such as internal/external influences and the nature of the hazards and associated risks. One may arrive at different ALARP definitions for identical hazards/risks which occur at different locations. As such it is critically important to fully understand the effects of risk reduction measures, specifically for those risks which require multiple measures to achieve ALARP. The effects of the individual measures should be fully explored with a view to avoiding potential clashes and/or overlaps. Every effort should be made to ‘design out’ rather than add on mitigation controls/measures. In the various attempts to achieve ALARP one should be cautions and not over-complicate: •
equipment and process control/shutdown system designs,
•
procedures for systems and processes, and
•
personnel training and qualification criteria.
Specifically for projects, ALARP should be pursued with risk reduction measures that have obvious, clear and measurable effects on the estimated risk level. Application of these measures may initially appear expensive but should have preference over combinations or multitudes of measures which, albeit easier and at less cost from a project perspective, have obscure effects or require significant operations/maintenance effort in the medium/long term. In addition to the long term cost liability, there is the danger that some of these overlapping measures become neglected with time and possibly excessive reliance is put on what are deemed to be the key risk reduction measures. Where quantitative risk assessment is used, then the costs of the various options can be compared with the respective risks and ALARP illustrated in a graph similar to figure 4 above. In qualitative analysis, ALARP is established using standards, legislative requirements and judgement based on experience. Regardless of the risk assessment methodology used, it still needs to be demonstrated, at a reasonable cost, that risks are ALARP from all points of view. 3.4 Review/ the Risks Depending on the magnitude of risks and the potential consequences of hazards, these should be periodically reviewed by competent staff. The reviews should involve those
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 12 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
parts of the organisation which are involved in day-to-day management of these hazards i.e. the operations and maintenance functions. As a typical issue for these reviews one should if the base assumptions have changed since the original design was implemented or since the risks were reviewed previously e.g.: • Has the plant/equipment performance lived up to the expectations of the original design in of accidents, incidents and equipment uptime? • Has the oil, product or equipment price changed significantly i.e. what is the current cost of production loss and/or equipment replacement? • Have there been significant and unexpected changes in age and/or technical integrity of equipment e.g. excessive corrosion, wear/tear? • Have there been significant hardware changes and if so, have the risk associated been adequately reviewed in the context of previously defined risk levels? • Is the average experience level of plant operators and maintainers still the same? • Can new technology provide lower (and possibly cheaper) ALARP levels? • Have legislation and/or public perceptions changed regarding what is now considered acceptable/unacceptable? • Have there been changes outside Company influence which could affect overall risk levels e.g. population build-up around facilities in previously isolated areas, increased road traffic, security aspects, etc? Specifically for those issues which are managed at ALARP risk level but still remain toward the upper end of the ALARP region, management should insist on a minimum review frequency (e.g. annually) to be conducted by appropriate and expert personnel. The documented results of these reviews should be fully auditable.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 13 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
4. CRITERIA FOR RISK TOLERABILITY 4.1 Introduction The assessment and control of risk are essential requirements for a proactive HSE management system. In order to make a value judgement and to decide on what risks are acceptable, an easily understood set of criteria should be set and followed rigorously. Risk criteria are required to promote consistency in evaluating the results of relevant studies and to formulate a proactive approach to incident prevention. This document sets out the basis for selecting the risk acceptance criteria and explains some of the techniques used to arrive at the quantitative assessments made to understand the risk levels. 4.2 The Framework for Risk Criteria The two diagrams below are intended to guide ADNOC and Group Companies in decision making in response to recommendations and feed-back from QRA and HSEIA reports. 4.2.1 Individual Risk Criteria (IR) Ideally, there is a need to determine the limits for IR, based on numeric values (based on QRA studies and HSEIAs) which would be regarded as intolerable. Figure 5 shows the principle of this framework.
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1000 per year ALARP Benchmark existing installations 1 in 5,000 per year
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION ALARP Benchmark new installations 1 in 50,000 per year
maximum tolerable limit 1 in 100,000 per year
ACCEPTABLE REGION
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 10,000 per year
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION (Risk must be demonstrated to have been reduced to a level which is practicable with a view to cost/benefit) maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1,000,000 per year
ACCEPTABLE REGION INDIVIDUAL RISK TO WORKERS
INDIVIDUAL RISK TO THE PUBLIC
(including contractor employees)
(all those not directly involved with company activities)
FIGURE 5. Risk Acceptance framework for Individual Risk to Worker or Public The ALARP principle which underlines the regulation of risk depicts three particular regions viz.: the unacceptable region, the ALARP region and the broadly acceptable region.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 14 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
At the top of the triangle is the unacceptable level, on or above which the risk is so great or the outcome so unacceptable that it must be refused altogether. At the other extreme is the broadly acceptable region, where there is no requirement to undertake additional HSE measures, i.e. the risk is, or has been made, so small that no further precaution is necessary. In between lies a wide range of risk levels to which the ALARP principle applies, i.e. the risk must be reduced to the lowest level practicable, bearing in mind the benefits flowing from its acceptance and taking of the costs of any further reduction. Thus for the risks which fall within the ALARP region, some weighing of costs and benefits is necessary to determine compliance with the ALARP principle. 4.2.2 Societal Risk Criteria The ALARP principle applies in the same way for societal risk as for Individual Risk (Figure 5). Societal risk tolerability would be utilised in reporting QRA results. Societal risk should not be confused as being the risk to society or the risk as being perceived by society. The word “societal” is merely used to indicate a group of people and societal risk refers to the frequency of multiple fatality incidents, which includes workers and the public. Societal risk is usually represented by F-N (fatality - frequency) curve such as Figure 6 below. The F-N Curve represents societal risk for a single fixed installation only, like a refinery, a process plant or a platform. F-N Curve for Societal Fatal Risk 1.00E+00
FREQUENCY (per year)
1.00E-01 1.00E-02
Unacceptable Risk
1.00E-03
X
1.00E-04 1.00E-05
ALARP
1.00E-06 1.00E-07
Acceptable Risk 1.00E-08 1
2
10
FATALITIES
100
1000
FIGURE 6. F-N Curve: Societal Fatal Risk Tolerability, Single Fixed Installation Only To illustrate an example of societal risk, note the ‘X’ in the upper portion of the graph which is marked “Unacceptable Risk”. The ‘X’ is located at the axis of the lines ‘1.00 E-04’ ( 1 in 10,000 years) and 10 fatalities. The ‘X’ thus represents an event which would kill 10 people at a frequency of once in 10,000 years. This is unacceptable. This principle of societal risk indicates that society’s tolerance for risk decreases as fatalities increase.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 15 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
4.3 Factors affecting the risk criteria The risk criteria for numerical risk levels is generally based on risk comparisons. However, there are some factors which need to be considered in order to ensure that the proposed risk criteria reflects adequately the nature and risk levels for activities/processes used at ADNOC and Group Companies. These factors include the following: i)
Risks which may be tolerable for workers in a hazardous industry are not necessarily tolerable for a member of the public who may be exposed to the work activity hazards.
ii) Risk criteria selected by different industries are not necessarily the same. Risk criteria adopted by different countries may also not be the same. iii) The concept of ALARP is based on cost - benefit assessment and requires explicit valuation of a life. Refer to section 5.0. iv) The QRA criteria for risk relates to Individual Risks to workers (and the public) as well as to societal risks as a result of fatal accidents. Injuries and/or ill health are not included in this method of risk assessment. v)
Multiple fatality accidents require use of F-N Curves for risk tolerability. See Figure 6.
4.4 ADNOC Target Individual Risk (IR) Criteria ADNOC Maximum Individual Risk Criteria Workers
Public
Existing installations
New installations
All installations
Benchmark
IR = 1 in 5,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-4)
IR = 1 in 50,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-5)
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
Unacceptable
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 10,000 or above (IR > 10-4)
Acceptable
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5) (IR < 10-5)
IR = 1 in 1,000,000 or below (IR < 10-6)
Where IR = Individual Risk (fatality per person/year)
TABLE 1. ADNOC quantitative risk tolerability criteria The tolerable risk level lies between the acceptable and unacceptable levels in which ALARP must be demonstrated. Once a specific hazard is demonstrated by analysis to result in acceptable risk there is no requirement, other than the HSEMS continuous improvement principles, to further reduce risk under the ADNOC ALARP criteria. Workers would include ADNOC & Group Company employees and contractors. The public includes the general public, visitors, fishing vessels and any third party who is not directly involved in the ADNOC and/or Group Company work activities. The tolerability criteria above should not be misinterpreted as the number of fatalities that
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 16 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
ADNOC is prepared to accept in conducting operations. They must be used only in QRA context as statistical probability that equipment, systems and procedures fail and result in fatalities. The “IR benchmark” for new installations is the overall IR level which project teams should aim for when deg new facilities. The design of existing installations is set which leaves less flexibility in reducing absolute risk levels than for new designs. As such, the benchmark IR target for existing installations is set one order of magnitude higher than for new installations. This benchmark should be used when deg major alterations/modifications to existing facilities.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 17 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
5. THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPROACH The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach is an effective risk management tool as it aids consistency in decisions for health, safety and environmental resource allocation. The CBA approach requires monetary evaluation of risks or the monetary evaluation of the loss. Some typical examples are: -
loss of plant, assets (e.g. rebuild cost) loss of product and/or revenue loss of sales or customers (e.g. through loss of reputation) loss of life loss of or damage to a natural resource cost of clean-up (e.g. following accidental and/or chronic contamination)
The evaluation of measures to avert loss of life requires ‘Valuation of life’ for which different figures have been used by various industries and countries. ADNOC, at this time, does not specify a common ‘Valuation of life’ criterion which is to be applied throughout the Group Companies. ADNOC recommends that individual Group Companies define appropriate criteria which match industry standards as pertaining to their specific business. A significant consideration in this is the ADNOC HSEMS expectation that Group Companies should continually improve their performance towards meeting or exceeding their particular industry benchmarks, standards and expectations.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 18 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
6. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 6.1 General It is imperative that those hazards and effects (acute and chronic) identified as presenting significant HSE risks are documented. As a minimum recording requirement, with reference to the 3 risk assessment methods as outlined in Section 3.3: •
Where QRA is performed, the risk management measures should be fully documented for all hazards resulting in IR > 10-4.
•
Where semi-quantitative or quantitative assessment is used, the risk management measures should be documented for all hazards with severity potential ‘Catastrophic’ or ‘Severe’ (refer to figures 2 and 3).
These records are of vital importance for operations personnel in developing procedures and work instructions aimed at managing the hazards at ALARP. Similarly, and following the development of the hazard management measures, these records should be given a key role in the communication and training efforts which are required to implement the risk management measures. The documentation should provide an outline of: •
The assessment results (together with the data sources and assumptions used)
•
A comprehensive description of the selected and evaluated risk reduction measures
•
The relevant HSE-critical systems and procedures in use to manage the risk at ALARP.
A formal ‘Hazard & Effects ’ is recommended as a quality record which demonstrates that all hazards and effects have been identified, are understood and are being properly controlled. The should be periodically reviewed as a development or operation progresses through its life-cycle. It is considered beyond the scope of this document to provide details on how to develop such a . 6.2 The HSE Case approach An effective method to document all of the above is the HSE Case approach. For complex and multi-faceted companies this may requires a subdivision of the company or organization into key plants/facilities or operations which have different HSE impacts or have different procedural aspects to manage these impacts. Typical example of HSE Cases are platform or plant, drilling, road transport and marine HSE Cases. Specifically in the Exploration & Production sphere, HSE Cases are legislated requirements in some countries. Where implemented, HSE Cases have proven their considerable value in staff training and developing comprehensive understanding of the applicable risks and the hazard management measures to control these. HSE cases are not mandatory within the ADNOC Group of Companies. However, ADNOC recommends that Group Companies implement HSE Cases where clear benefits can be demonstrated in comparison with the conventional risk documentation methods. If undertaken, then HSE Cases should be controlled documents and should be subject to periodic reviews (3-5 years) to accuracy and validity of recorded details.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 19 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 1: RISK POTENTIAL MATRIX – SEMI-QUANTITATIVE Probability
Severity
5. Catastrophic
People
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
2. Marginal
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect Minor effect Slight effect
A Improbable 1 in 100,000 years
B Remote 1 in 10,000
C Occasional 1 in 1000
years
years
D Probable 1 in 100
E Frequent 1 in 10
years
years
HIGH RISK Considerable impact Minor impact Slight impact
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP) LOW RISK
The risk matrix is divided into three risk categories as defined below: High Risk
Unacceptably high This level of risk exposes the Company to intolerable losses to People, Assets, Environment or Reputation. The hazard should be eliminated or its risk reduced to tolerable levels immediately. ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO LOWER THE RISK.
Medium Risk Acceptable but must be managed at ALARP The hazard(s) must be managed to reduce the frequency and/or the severity of the hazardous events to ALARP. Risk reduction measures must be planned and documented. LowRisk
Acceptable without required further action. Correction(s) may be applied as resources allow.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 20 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 2: RISK POTENTIAL MATRIX - QUALITATIVE Probability A People
Severity
5. Catastrophic
Assets Environ- Repument tation
Multiple fatalities Extensive or permanent damage total disabilities
4. Severe
Single fatality or permanent total disability
3. Critical
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
2. Marginal
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
1. Negligible
Slight injury or health effects
Major damage
Slight damage
Massive effect
International impact
Major effect
National impact
Localised effect Minor effect Slight effect
Has occurred in world-wide industry but not in ADNOC
B
D
E
Has occurred Has occurred Happens several Happens several in other in specific times per year times per year ADNOC Group ADNOC Group in same in specific Company location or Company ADNOC Group operation Company
HIGH RISK
Considerable impact
MEDIUM RISK (ALARP)
Minor impact Slight impact
C
LOW RISK
The risk matrix is divided into three risk categories as defined below: High Risk
Unacceptably high This level of risk exposes the Company to intolerable losses to People, Assets, Environment or Reputation. The hazard should be eliminated or its risk reduced to tolerable levels immediately. ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO LOWER THE RISK.
Medium Risk
Acceptable but must be managed at ALARP The hazard(s) must be managed to reduce the frequency and/or the severity of the hazardous events to ALARP. Risk reduction measures must be planned and documented.
Low Risk
Acceptable without required further action. Correction(s) may be applied as resources allow.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 21 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 3: Detailed breakdown of consequences for the four Risk Management Categories 1. People Severity
Description
5
Multiple fatalities - from an accident or occupational illness (poisoning, cancer).
4
Single fatality or permanent total disability - from an accident or occupational illness (poisoning, cancer).
3
Major injury or health effects (including Permanent Disability) – Affecting work performance in the longer term, e.g. prolonged absence from work. Irreversible health damage without loss of life, e.g. noise induced hearing loss, chronic back injuries.
2
Minor injury or health effects –Affecting work performance, e.g. restriction to activities (restricted work case –RWC) or need to take a time off work to recover (lost time incident – LTI). Limited, reversible health effects, e.g. skin irritation, food poisoning.
1
Slight injury or health effects (incl. first aid case –FAC and medical treatment case – MTC). Not affecting work performance or causing disability.
2. Assets Severity
Description
5
Extensive damage – Substantial or total loss of operation (costs in excess of US$10,000,000).*
4
Major – Partial operation loss (2 weeks shutdown, costs up to US$10,000,000).*
3
Local damage – Partial shutdown (can be restarted but costs up to US$500,000).*
2
Minor damage – Brief disruption (costs less than US$100,000).*
1
Slight damage - No disruption to operation (costs less than US$10,000)*.
These losses in US$ are meant as guidance only. Individual ADNOC Group Company may use more appropriate figures provided they are within the above quoted limits.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 22 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 3, continued. 3. Environment Severity
Description
5
Massive effect – Persistent severe environmental damage or severe nuisance extending over a large area. In of commercial or recreational use or nature conservation, a major economic loss for the company. Constant, high exceedance of statutory or prescribed limits
4
Major effect – Severe environmental damage. The company is required to take extensive measures to restore polluted or damaged environment to its original state. Extended exceedance of statutory or prescribed limits
3
Localised effect – Limited loss of discharges of known toxicity. Repeated exceedance of statutory or prescribed limit. Affecting neighbourhood. Spontaneous recovery of limited damage within one year.
2
Minor effect – Contamination. Damage sufficiently large to attack the environment. Single exceedance of statutory or prescribed criterion. Single complaint. No permanent effect on the environment.
1
Slight effect – Local environmental damage. Within the fence and within systems. Negligible financial consequences
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 23 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
4.
1.0
Reputation
Severity
Description
5
International impact – International public attention. Extensive adverse attention in international media. National/international policies with potentially severe impact on access to new areas, grants of licenses and/or tax legislation.
4
National impact – National public concern. Extensive adverse attention in the national media. Regional/national policies with potentially restrictive measures and/or impact on grant of licenses. Mobilization of action group.
3
Considerable impact – Regional public concern. Extensive adverse attention in local media. Slight national media and/or local/regional political attention. Adverse stance of local government and/or action groups.
2
Limited impact – Some local public concern. Some local media and/or political attention with potentially adverse aspects for company operations.
1
Slight impact – Public awareness may exist, but there is no public concern
Note: Reputation also s for the liabilities arising from injuries and property damage to third parties including the cross liabilities that may arise between the interdependent ADNOC Group Companies. ADNOC, at this time, does not specify financial criteria for each of the severity categories which are to be applied throughout the Group Companies. ADNOC recommends that individual Group Companies define appropriate financial criteria which match their specific business.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 24 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 4: Risk Acceptance framework for Individual Risk to Worker or Public
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1000 per year ALARP Benchmark existing installations
UNACCEPTABLE REGION maximum tolerable limit 1 in 10,000 per year
1 in 5,000 per year
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION
ALARP OR TOLERABILITY REGION
ALARP Benchmark new installations 1 in 50,000 per year
(Risk must be demonstrated to have been reduced to a level which is practicable with a view to cost/benefit)
maximum tolerable limit 1 in 100,000 per year
maximum tolerable limit 1 in 1,000,000 per year
ACCEPTABLE REGION
ACCEPTABLE REGION INDIVIDUAL RISK TO THE PUBLIC
INDIVIDUAL RISK TO WORKERS (including contractor employees)
(all those not directly involved with company activities)
The ADNOC quantitative risk tolerability criteria are summarised below: ADNOC Maximum Individual Risk Criteria Workers
Public
Existing installations
New installations
All installations
Benchmark
IR = 1 in 5,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-4)
IR = 1 in 50,000 or below (IR < 2 x 10-5)
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
Unacceptable
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 1,000 or above (IR > 10-3)
IR = 1 in 10,000 or above (IR > 10-4)
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
IR = 1 in 1,000,000 or below (IR < 10-6)
Acceptable
IR = 1 in 100,000 or below (IR < 10-5)
Where IR = Individual Risk (fatality per person/year)
Workers would include ADNOC & Group Company employees and contractors. The public includes the general public, visitors, fishing vessels and any third party who is not directly involved in ADNOC & Group Company work activities.
Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Management Guidelines
Page 25 of 25 Effective Date: March 2000 Approved by: Chief Executive Officer Version:
1.0
Attachment 5: F-N Curve which defines Society Fatal Risk Tolerability (for Single Fixed Installation only)
F-N Curve for Societal Fatal Risk 1.00E+00
FREQUENCY (per year)
1.00E-01 1.00E-02 1.00E-03
Unacceptable Risk
1.00E-04 1.00E-05
ALARP
1.00E-06 1.00E-07
Acceptable Risk 1.00E-08 1
2
10
FATALITIES
100
1000
Related Documents 2w1qw
Adnoc Hse Risk Management 5c6s1
September 2020 0
Risk (hse) 34q1k
December 2019 167
Risk Management 1rt
April 2020 36
Risk Management 1rt
April 2020 19
Risk Management 2b1r5d
April 2020 23
Risk Management 1rt
April 2020 30More Documents from "Khawar Nehal" 6z5k67
Adnoc Hse Risk Management 5c6s1
September 2020 0
The Event App Bible Mobile Apps For Events Free Ebook 61y9
November 2019 69
Polyhouse Training 5r496e
December 2019 42
As 4997-2005 5b116j
November 2019 46
Lift Slab Construction 4r601
November 2019 69