Development and Implementation of a Liquid Pipeline Quantitative Risk Assessment Model

Author(s):  
Jerico Perez ◽  
David Weir ◽  
Caroline Seguin ◽  
Refaul Ferdous

To the end of 2012, Enbridge Pipelines employed an in-house developed indexed or relative risk assessment algorithm to model its liquid pipeline system. Using this model, Enbridge was able to identify risk control or treatment projects (e.g. valve placement) that could mitigate identified high risk areas. A changing understanding of the threats faced by a liquid pipeline system and their consequences meant that the model changed year over year making it difficult to demonstrate risk reduction accomplished on an annual basis using a relative scoring system. As the development of risk management evolved within the company, the expectations on the model also evolved and significantly increased. For example, questions were being asked such as “what risk is acceptable and what risk is not acceptable?”, “what is the true risk of failure for a given pipe section that considers the likelihood of all threats applicable to the pipeline”, and “is enough being done to reduce these risks to acceptable levels?” To this end, starting in 2012 and continuing through to the end of 2013, Enbridge Pipelines developed a quantitative mainline risk assessment model. This tool quantifies both threat likelihood and consequence and offers advantages over the indexed risk assessment model in the following areas: • Models likely worst case (P90) rupture scenarios • Enables independent evaluation of threats and consequences in order to understand the drivers • Produces risk assessment results in uniform units for all consequence criteria and in terms of frequencies of failure for likelihood • Aggregates likelihood and consequence at varying levels of granularity • Uses the risk appetite of the organization and its quantification allows for the setting of defined high, medium, and low risk targets • Quantifies the amount of risk in dollars/year facilitating cost-benefit analyses of mitigation efforts and risk reduction activities • Grounds risk assessment results on changes in product volume-out and receptor sensitivity • Balances between complexity and utility by using enough information and data granularity to capture all factors that have a meaningful impact on risk Development and implementation of the quantitative mainline risk assessment tool has had a number of challenges and hurdles. This paper provides an overview of the approach used by Enbridge to develop its quantitative mainline risk assessment model and examines the challenges, learnings and successes that have been achieved in its implementation.

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song YANG ◽  
Shuqin WU ◽  
Ningqiu LI ◽  
Cunbin SHI ◽  
Guocheng DENG ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 127 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. HARTNETT ◽  
L. KELLY ◽  
D. NEWELL ◽  
M. WOOLDRIDGE ◽  
G. GETTINBY

A quantitative risk assessment model investigating the risk of human infection with campylobacter from the consumption of chicken meat/products is currently being formulated. Here such an approach is used to evaluate the probability that a random bird, selected at slaughter from Great Britain's national poultry flock, will be campylobacter-positive. This is determined from the probability that a flock chosen at random contains at least one colonized bird and the within-flock prevalence of such a flock at slaughter. The model indicates that the probability bird chosen at random being campylobacter-positive at slaughter is 0·53. This probability value has associated uncertainty, the 5th percentile being 0·51 and the 95th percentile 0·55. The model predicts that delaying the age at first exposure to campylobacter can have a significant impact on reducing the probability of a bird being campylobacter-positive at slaughter. However, implementation of current biosecurity methods makes this difficult to achieve.


Author(s):  
Susan Urra ◽  
Jessica Green

Most pipeline leaks and ruptures can be attributed to some degree to human factors. Therefore, identifying, measuring and improving areas of potential human factor issues can greatly decrease the risk of pipeline failure. ‘Human factors’ refers to the study of various aspects of human characteristics and job experience, job and task design, tools and equipment design, and work environment which can affect pipeline operations and overall system performance. Enbridge Pipelines has developed a risk assessment model that assesses the risk of human factors along the company’s nationwide liquid pipeline system. The Human Factors Risk Assessment Model generates a risk score for each aspect of the pipeline as well as an overall risk score which highlights the business areas of highest concern. The implementation of the model included the execution of a pilot study to calibrate the model. To perform the pilot, data was collected from the control center, field and office locations through different methodologies such as survey, interview and databases available. The results from the control room operation surveys indicate that the main areas of human error potential in the control room can be mitigated by decreasing the number of manual calculations the operators have to complete and ensuring operators aren’t taking on extra work that should be completed by other areas. These workload improvements would decrease the chance of an operator having to complete two or more control operations at the same time. Lastly, controlling the amount of phone activities that interfere with monitoring and control operations also gives an opportunity to reduce the potential for human error in the control room. Improvements that can be made in the office to reduce human error potential include the development of a human factors standard and improving the critical procedure observation and management of change systems. Measuring, acknowledging and mitigating human factor risks at Enbridge will yield a decrease in the risk of pipeline failure across the entire liquid pipeline system.


Food Control ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 106804
Author(s):  
Fernanda B. Campagnollo ◽  
Marianna M. Furtado ◽  
Beatriz S. Silva ◽  
Larissa P. Margalho ◽  
Joyce A. Carminati ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document