IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v95y2010i6p662-670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk analysis and risk acceptance criteria in the planning processes of hazardous facilities—A case of an LNG plant in an urban area

Author

Listed:
  • Vinnem, Jan Erik

Abstract

Planning of hazardous facilities is usually carried out on the basis of a risk-informed decision-making and planning process making use of risk analysis. This practice is well established in Norway under petroleum legislation but less so for onshore facilities under non-petroleum legislation. The present paper focuses on the use of risk analysis studies for risk evaluation against risk acceptance criteria, risk communication and derivation of technical and operational requirements in these circumstances. This is demonstrated through reference to a case study involving an LNG plant currently under construction in an urban area in Norway. The main finding is that risk-informed legislation is a fragile legislative system which is dependent on conscientious and open-minded use by the industrial developer. In the opposite case, the authorities may well be unable to correct the situation and the legislation may fail to protect the neighbourhood from unreasonable exposure to risk. Reference is also made to the international perspective where authorities define what is deemed tolerable risk, which would appear to be a more robust and defensible approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2010. "Risk analysis and risk acceptance criteria in the planning processes of hazardous facilities—A case of an LNG plant in an urban area," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 662-670.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:95:y:2010:i:6:p:662-670
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832010000402
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2005. "On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 15-24.
    2. Ale, Ben J.M., 2005. "Living with risk: a management question," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 196-205.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    2. Török, Zoltán & Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra-Mălina & Mereuță, Alexandru & Maloș, Cristian Valeriu & Arghiuș, Viorel-Ilie & Ozunu, Alexandru, 2020. "Analysis of territorial compatibility for Seveso-type sites using different risk assessment methods and GIS technique," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Aven, Terje, 2019. "Risk aggregation: What does it really mean?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    6. Haugen, Stein & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2015. "Perspectives on risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-5.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hu, Shenping & Fang, Quangen & Xia, Haibo & Xi, Yongtao, 2007. "Formal safety assessment based on relative risks model in ship navigation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 369-377.
    2. Moura Carneiro, F.O. & Barbosa Rocha, H.H. & Costa Rocha, P.A., 2013. "Investigation of possible societal risk associated with wind power generation systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 30-36.
    3. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    4. Nam, Kiil & Chang, Daejun & Chang, Kwangpil & Rhee, Taejin & Lee, In-Beum, 2011. "Methodology of life cycle cost with risk expenditure for offshore process at conceptual design stage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1554-1563.
    5. Tim Bedford, 2013. "Decision Making for Group Risk Reduction: Dealing with Epistemic Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1884-1898, October.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    7. Tang, Yang & Liu, Qingyou & Jing, Jiajia & Yang, Yan & Zou, Zhengwei, 2017. "A framework for identification of maintenance significant items in reliability centered maintenance," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1295-1303.
    8. J. E. Vinnem & T Aven, 2006. "Case illustration of a decision framework for health, environment, and safety management," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 220(2), pages 115-121, December.
    9. Abrahamsen, E.B. & Aven, T., 2008. "On the consistency of risk acceptance criteria with normative theories for decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(12), pages 1906-1910.
    10. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    11. Terje Aven, 2007. "On the Ethical Justification for the Use of Risk Acceptance Criteria," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 303-312, April.
    12. Terje Aven, 2013. "On the Meaning and Use of the Risk Appetite Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 462-468, March.
    13. Cerqueti, Roy & Lupi, Claudio, 2015. "Consistent Risk Acceptance Criteria through Networks," Economics & Statistics Discussion Papers esdp15076, University of Molise, Department of Economics.
    14. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås, 2020. "On the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle for risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    15. Kumar, Sourabh & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2022. "A modeling framework and analysis of challenges faced by the Indian petroleum supply chain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PE).
    16. Julián Candia, 2009. "Advertising And Irreversible Opinion Spreading In Complex Social Networks," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(06), pages 799-815.
    17. Ersdal, Gerhard & Aven, Terje, 2008. "Risk informed decision-making and its ethical basis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 197-205.
    18. Kumar, Sourabh & Kumar Barua, Mukesh, 2022. "Modeling and investigating the interaction among risk factors of the sustainable petroleum supply chain," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    19. RENIERS, Genserik L.L. & DULLAERT, Wout & ALE, B.J.M. & VERSCHUEREN, F. & SOUDAN, Karel, 2006. "Evaluating safety critical staffing arrangements in the CPI," Working Papers 2006013, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    20. J Barabady & T Aven, 2008. "A methodology for the implementation of production assurance programmes in production plants," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 222(3), pages 283-290, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:95:y:2010:i:6:p:662-670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.