A review of HSE's risk analysis and protection-based analysis ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.2.2 Reasons for Using a Protection-Based Approach 55 3.2.3 Selection of Event 56 3.2.4 Combination of Results 56 3.2.5 General Points - Recommendations 59 3.3 APPROACH FOR BULK LPG STORAGE 59 4 REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS USED 63 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 70 5.1 REVIEW OF HSE’S RISK ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 70 5.1.1 Overall Conclusions 70 5.1.2 Recommendations 70 5.2 REVIEW OF HSE’S PROTECTION BASED APPROACH 74 5.2.1 Overall Conclusions 74 5.2.2 Recommendations 74 5.3 REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS USED 78 5.3.1 Overall Conclusions 78 5.3.2 Recommendation 81 5.4 REVIEW FINDINGS RELATING TO BULK LPG STORAGE 81 5.4.1 Overall Conclusions 81 5.4.2 Recommendations 81 ANNEX A Details of Incidents Reported to MARS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) involvement in land use planning, and the principles on which it bases its advice, is set out in the HSE document “Risk Criteria for Land Use Planning in the vicinity of Major Industrial Hazards” (1) . This document was published in 1989 and, therefore, it is over 14 years since the principles in it were determined and agreed. Consequently, HSE undertook a fundamental review (2) (3) of its involvement in land use planning to determine if its approach was still valid, legally robust and in line with broader governmental and European policy. In addition, this review sought to address the expressed concerns of certain external stakeholders that HSE was being too conservative in some of its approaches in this area. The Implementation of the Fundamental Review of Land Use Planning (IFRLUP) project was set up to implement the following recommendations of this review: • the criteria and methodology used for setting planning zones and for “calling in” planning applications should be reviewed and, if necessary, revised and then published; • HSE’s advice to local authorities (LAs) on chemical major hazards and pipelines should be further codified so that consistent, transparent and accurate advice can be given without the demand on HSE resources that detailed individual assessment of planning applications requires; and, • the codified generic advice should be devolved to LAs so that they can deal with the vast majority of planning applications which are in the vicinity of chemical major hazards and pipelines. This report forms part of the process by which these aims are being met, constituting a review of the risk analysis and protection based assessment approaches that HSE uses in the course of providing land-use planning (LUP) advice to Local Authorities (LAs). Certain issues (namely Hazardous Substances Consent and the risk / hazard basis for setting the consultation zones) were remitted to HSE’s Policy Group for consideration and have not, therefore, been addressed within this report. It is recommended that these issues are fully explored and the outcomes documented. (1) HSE (1989). Risk criteria for land-use planning in the vicinity of major industrial hazards. HMSO. (2) Safety Policy Directorate, HSE. 'Fundamental Review of HSE's Policy on Siting and Land-Use Planning for Major Hazard Installations including Pipelines, Report 6, The Land-Use Planning Policy - Recommendations'. (3) HSE, 'The outcome of the fundamental review of HSE's policy on land-use planning for major hazard installations and pipelines'. HSC paper HSC/misc/02/16. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT HSE 0016072 SEPTEMBER 2004 i
Page 1 and 2: www.erm.com Delivering sustainable
Page 3: CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTROD
Page 7 and 8: • certain assumptions relating to
Page 9 and 10: REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS USED Overall
Page 11 and 12: 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The H
Page 13 and 14: worthwhile (sometimes almost total)
Page 15 and 16: 1.3.1 Study Definition The Study De
Page 17 and 18: The data are derived from records o
Page 19 and 20: • severe distress to almost every
Page 21 and 22: 1.3.7 Risk Evaluation Once a numeri
Page 23 and 24: • selecting the event or events u
Page 25 and 26: 2 REVIEW OF HSE’S RISK ANALYSIS A
Page 27 and 28: • HSE, UK; • NCSR Demokritos, S
Page 29 and 30: 2.2.1 Comparison of Accident Experi
Page 31 and 32: support the findings of the work on
Page 33 and 34: The findings of the ASSURANCE Proje
Page 35 and 36: 2.3.1 Comparison with Historical Ac
Page 37 and 38: Table 2.3 Estimated Number of Sites
Page 39 and 40: teams concerning site-specific deta
Page 41 and 42: 2.4.1 Model and Methodology Evaluat
Page 43 and 44: for people indoors would be somewha
Page 45 and 46: occurred, originating from the pipi
Page 47 and 48: the predicted burn area). However,
Page 49 and 50: stadium were declared unusable. A t
Page 51 and 52: For example, assume that the harm c
Page 53 and 54: Table 2.5 Concentrations Required t
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 2.6 Concentrations Required
Page 57 and 58:
2.4.5 Choice of Harm Criterion Curr
Page 59 and 60:
Figure 2.9 Variation in Risk of Dan
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 2.10 Risk Analysis Process -
Page 63 and 64:
easonable correspondence between th
Page 65 and 66:
• “the possibility that the pro
Page 67 and 68:
a risk analysis, and those for MHI
Page 69 and 70:
3.2.5 General Points - Recommendati
Page 71 and 72:
According to reviews performed on b
Page 73 and 74:
4 REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS USED Table
Page 75 and 76:
Table 4.1 Assumptions Used in HSE A
Page 77 and 78:
Assumption Explanation Application
Page 79 and 80:
Assumption Explanation Application
Page 81 and 82:
4. HSE perform further investigatio
Page 83 and 84:
Risk Analysis Element Review Approa
Page 85 and 86:
9. HSE continues to perform researc
Page 87 and 88:
Review Area Specific Subjects Revie
Page 89 and 90:
Table 5.3 Summary of Review Finding
Page 91 and 92:
5.3.2 Recommendation It is recommen
Page 93 and 94:
Annex A Details of Incidents Report
Page 95 and 96:
Table A1.1 Accidents Reported to th
Page 97 and 98:
Date Description Effect Accident Ty
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
show all

A review of HSE's risk analysis and protection-based analysis ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?