Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
10 years, 20 RISKworlds!
This, the 20th edition of RISKworld,marks the 10 year milestone forRisktec. In that time, the companyhas grown from a start-up businessof the then Nutec Group, to anindependent, employee-owned companywith over 130 staff, providing acomprehensive range of risk andsafety consulting and training services.
We are delighted with what wehave achieved so far, which is atestament to the quality and hardwork of our people, and the long-term support of our clients. Wehave strived to maintain many ofour ‘start-up’ values, including astrong desire to understand fullyour customers’ requirements anddeliver value for money, while beingstraightforward and easy to dobusiness with. We are always receptiveto feedback, particularly on how wemight improve our service.
Our training business continues todevelop strongly. The established face-to-face classroom-based postgraduateprogrammes, leading to PgCert,PgDip or MSc awards from Liverpool
John Moores University, are nowcomplemented by web-based distancelearning programmes. This makes ourtraining accessible to people acrossthe world, with the added benefitof flexible study to fit around workand personal commitments.
This edition of RISKworld presents anumber of topical articles. Despitethe endeavours of high hazardindustries, serious accidents continueto occur. Whether the initiator isman-made (such as the Gulf of Mexicoblowout) or natural (as at theFukushima nuclear plant), theimpact on lives and livelihoods canbe devastating.
We continue to advocate therigorous, yet proportionate, assessmentof risk and the implementation ofappropriate controls to preventmajor accidents from happening.However, recent events have alsoreinforced the need for a wellprepared emergency response.
Contact: Alan Hoy (Warrington)[email protected]
RISKTEC SOLUTIONS Launch - Sept 2001 Projects - 1826 Clients - 584 Employees - 135 Offices - 10
RISKworldRISKworldissue 20 autumn 2011 the newsletter of risktec solutions limited
In This IssueWelcome to Issue 20 of RISKworld.If you would like additional copiesplease contact us, and feel free topass on RISKworld to other peoplein your organisation. We wouldalso be pleased to hear anyfeedback you may have on thisissue or suggestions for futureeditions.
Contact: Steve Lewis (Warrington)[email protected]
Contents
IntroductionAlan Hoy marks our 10 yearanniversary and brings us up-to-date on the latest news concerningRisktec’s postgraduate programme.
State of emergencyThe Fukushima nuclear accidentraises important questions aboutthe preparedness of the rest of theworld in the face of extremeevents. John Llambias looks forlessons learned.
Bang on!Martin Fairclough shows us how toget the most out of explosion analysisusing computational fluid dynamics.
ALARP mythsThe ALARP principle has spawned anumber of myths. Andy Lidstonegets to the bottom of some of themore commonly held misconceptions.
Distance learningPeter Moar fills us in on Risktec’snew distance learning programme.
All changeThe introduction of new signallingtechnology on the LondonUnderground marks the beginningof a quiet revolution. GordonDixon reports on the associatedchallenges.
RISKworldcomingsoon …
Ten years, twentyRISKworlds!
RISKTEC SOLUTIONS Launch - Sept 2001 Projects - 1826 Clients - 584 Employees - 135 Offices - 10
RISKworldissue 20 autumn 2011 the newsletter of risktec solutions limited
In This IssueWelcome to Issue 20 of RISKworld.If you would like additional copiesplease contact us, and feel free topass on RISKworld to other peoplein your organisation. We wouldalso be pleased to hear anyfeedback you may have on thisissue or suggestions for futureeditions.
Contact: Steve Lewis (Warrington)[email protected]
Contents
IntroductionAlan Hoy marks our 10 yearanniversary and brings us up-to-date on the latest news concerningRisktec’s postgraduate programme.
State of emergencyThe Fukushima nuclear accidentraises important questions aboutthe preparedness of the rest of theworld in the face of extremeevents. John Llambias looks forlessons learned.
Bang on!Martin Fairclough shows us how toget the most out of explosion analysisusing computational fluid dynamics.
ALARP mythsThe ALARP principle has spawned anumber of myths. Andy Lidstonegets to the bottom of some of themore commonly held misconceptions.
Distance learningPeter Moar fills us in on Risktec’snew distance learning programme.
All changeThe introduction of new signallingtechnology on the LondonUnderground marks the beginningof a quiet revolution. GordonDixon reports on the associatedchallenges.
RISKworldwS lroKSIR K dd
oiD
oGulerteiqafgngekradnurgrednU
nodhtngolonhcwenfnotccudo
nlhcdetehn
a
SIRneTTe
auqehtdeveihcca
deraeWWe
sgniniartfoegnarffatss031eeyeolpmeGcetuuNsamorfrttahtnIehtskrameht,sihT
olevediartruO
oevorpmikcabdeefeW.htiwioffothgiartsfeulavremotssucu
gnortssafoynamtneilcruoa,elpoep
cSMrommargorpcecceaffa-otsp
002tpeeS-hcnuunaLSNSOITUUTLOSCETKSKIR
1102nmutua02eussii
lAnoitcudortnI
stnetnoC
[email protected])nn)otgnnirrirraW(siweLevetS:tcctatnoC
.snoitideerutufurofsnoitseggusroeussisihtnoevahyamuoykcckabdeeffe
ynaraehotdesaelpebosladluoweW.noitasinagroruoyni
elpoeprehtootdlrowKSIRnossapoteerfrleeffedna,sutcctatnnocesaelpseipoclanoitiddaekildluowuoyfI.dlrowKSIRfo02eussIotemoccoleW
eussIsihTnI
cgnisusisylananoisolpxefotuotstomehtteegotwohsuswohshguoccriaFnitrrtaM
!nognaB
.denraelsnosselrofoskoolsaibmalLnhoJ.stneve
emertxtefoeccafaehtnidlrowehtfotssterehtfossenderaperpeht
tuobasnoitsseuqtnatrropmisesiartnediccaraelcunamihsukuFehT
ycnegremefoetatSSt
.emmargorpetaaudargtssops’cetksiRgninreccenoccswentssetaalehtnoetad
-ot-pususgnirbdnayrasrevinnaraey01ruoskramyoHn
strropernoxnodr.noitovuo
ninibehtsmonoLeoyet
gnillangisoirtniehTe
.
gnahcllA
.emmargorpgninraeleccenatssidwens’cetksiRnonisusllffiraoMreteeP
gninraelecnatsiD
.snoitpeccenoccosimdlehylnommoceromehtfoemosfomottobehtotsteeg
enotssdiLydnA.shtytmforebmunadenwapssahelpccnirpPRALAehT
shtymPRALA
.sccsimanyynddiuffllanoitaattupmo
segelaaaicciossat
lKwS lroKSIRRR
soon …comingR wKw
sc
!sdlrowKSytnewt,sraeyn
drahdnaytilottnematsetasihcihw,rafaosevahewtathwhtiwdethgiled
.seceivrednagnitlusnoccoyteefeasdnaksirevisneherpmoccoagnidivorp,frevohtiwiynapmocdenwo-e,tnednepedninaot,puorG
nehtehtfossenisubpu-tratsnworgsahynapmoceht,emi.cetkksiRrofoenotsselimraey01e,dlrowKSSIRfonoitideht002
otseunitnocssenisubgnin
.eciviresruothhgimewwohnoylraluccuitrrap,otevitppeceersyawlaeraeWssenisubodotysaednadrawrogniebelihwyy,enomroforevileddnastnemeriuqer’sruoylluffudnatsrednuoterisedgnidulcclni,seulava’pu-trrtatss‘ruoniatnniamotdevirtssevaheWWe.stfotroppusmretgnolehtdnaruofokrow
stneserpdlrowKSIRfonoitidesihT
.stnemtimmoccolanosrepdnakrowodnuoratffiotydutsselbixelffotifenebdeddaehthtiw,dlrowehtssorcraelpoepotelbissececagniniartruosekamsihT.semmargorpgninraeleccenatstiddesab-bewybdetnnemelpmocwonerayy,tisrevinUserooM
nhoJlooprevLLimorfsdrawapiDgP,trreCgPotgnidael,semetaaudargtsopdesab-moorssalc-ecceafdehsilbatsseehT.ylgnorts
tnocetaairporppafonoitatnemelpmiehtdnaksirfotnemssessa,etaatnoitrroporpteey,suorogirehtetaccaovdaoteunitnnocoeW
.gnitatsstavaedebnacasdoohilevildnasevilnotcctapmieht,)tnalpraelcclunamihsukuFehttaasa(larutanro)tuuowolbocixieMfofluGehtsahcus(edam-namsirotaitiniehtrehteethW.rucccooteunitnocstnnedicicasuoires,seirtssudnidrazahhgihfosruovaedne
ehtetipseD.selcclitrralacipotforebmuna
[email protected])notgtniirraW(yoHnaalA:tcatnoC
.esnopseryccynegremederaperpllewarofdeenehtdecrfonieroslaevahstnnevetneceer,revewoH.gnineppahmorfstnediccicarojajmtnneverpotslor
01-secceiffO531-seeyolpmE485-stneilC6281-stcctejojrP100
detimilsnoituloscetksiirforettelswweneht
rK roKSI ddw
dd
RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld
2
The recent events at the FukushimaDaiichi nuclear power plant in Japanhave caused the international nuclearcommunity to review their approach toextreme events [e.g. Ref 1] and, inparticular, emergency preparedness.
On the 11th March 2011, havingsurvived a powerful Magnitude 9earthquake, the nuclear reactors wereshut down safely only to find post-tripreactor cooling compromised by the 14metre tsunami that hit the site about onehour later. With the unprecedenteddestruction to the plant andsurrounding infrastructure, the loss ofoff-site and on-site power led to loss ofcooling and core meltdown. Over thenext week or so, cooling water wasinjected into reactors by previouslyuntried and unplanned means. Electricalsupplies were gradually re-establishedand uncontrolled radioactive dischargeswere eventually brought under control.
Emerging lessonsAs the international communitycontinues to investigate this event, thelessons emerging relate to:
• Underestimating the likelihood of extreme events.
• The lack of emergency preparedness for such extreme events.
• The added difficulty in the command, control and coordination of emergency response in the aftermath of extreme events, including availability of off-site equipment and resources.
• The need to ensure the welfare of emergency response personnel, as well as the nearby public.
• The importance of full, clear and timely public communication.
However, it is the culture of the plantpersonnel and emergency services in theface of an extreme emergency that,
perhaps, gives the most food forthought. The fact that there has not yetbeen a single fatality directly attributedto the Fukushima nuclear accident is atestament to the exemplary response ofthe people involved, who were highlyresourceful and dedicated.
Whether this was influenced byJapanese culture or not, it highlights theneed for the international community toimprove the understanding of humanbehaviour under such stressful conditions,and test the capability of the local andwider organisations to respond.Considerations include:
• The ability of site personnel to deal both physically and emotionally with the developing situation, and act quickly and decisively in view of the potential devastation at the plant.
• The extent of knowledge, skills and training necessary to respond rationally to unforeseen events without outside expert advice.
• The effect of a reduced number of personnel on-site at night and weekends.
• The willingness of personnel from the site and emergency services to work within the radiation exclusion zone.
• Whether additional on-site or nearby emergency equipment should be available.
ConclusionExtreme natural events will happen.Such events do not differentiatebetween developed or emergingnations and the consequences do notrespect plant, regional or nationalboundaries. In spite of unforeseendevastation and intense scrutiny fromthe rest of world, the Japanese nationsucceeded in providing effectiveleadership and resources to limit theconsequences of the Fukushima nuclearaccident. Is the rest of the worldprepared to deal with such an extremeevent?
References1. ONR, Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami:
Implications for the UK Nuclear Industry, Interim Report, May 2011.
Contact: John Llambias (Warrington)[email protected]
State of EmergencyThe Challenge of Responding to Extreme Events
Earthquake and tsunami damage at the Fukushima nuclear power plant
d RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld R
3
CFD for designComputational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)studies are often performed to assessthe dispersion of flammable or toxicreleases, or overpressures resulting fromexplosions. Traditionally, the output ofsuch studies is a report containing 2Dand 3D graphical presentations ofresults, sometimes accompanied byshort videos showing how thedispersion or overpressures developover time. The results may also becombined with event frequencies toderive ‘exceedence plots’ which indicatethe likelihood of overpressuresexceeding certain magnitudes.
These studies are generally targeted atdesigners with a view to improvingunderstanding and informing thedesign, e.g. for developing a blast walldesign to protect against a 1 in 1,000year explosion.
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) isoften used to assess probabilistically therisks associated with a facility, includingthose due to explosions.
In principle, CFD should enable morerefined QRA modelling of explosions,but often the CFD output is of limitedbenefit due to a range of factors,
including, for example:
• The large number of scenarios that need to be considered in the QRA, compared to the limited number of design cases.
• Extracting information from a CFD report can often be difficult and time consuming, and relies on manual estimates from figures or interpolation from data tables.
Ironically, this means that non-CFDconsequence modelling software mayhave to be used instead, noting that thisapproach is unable to take specificaccount of the facility geometry.
In summary, the traditional CFDapproach produces a fairly standard setof outputs which is not suited to thedevelopment needs of QRA models.
CFD for design & QRABetter integration of CFD studies andQRA can be achieved by specifying theoutputs required by the QRA in advanceand having raw data from CFDsimulations delivered in electronicformats that can be interrogated easily.In the past, this has been hampered bythe significant volume of data involved,but modern data storage and transfer
arrangements mean this is no longersuch an issue. With the whole datasetavailable, the inherent limitations of thedata published in the CFD report nolonger applies.
Making it clear from the start whatresults are needed for QRA can alsoreduce the requirement for additionalanalysis runs. For example, by specifying agrid of overpressure results across thefacility rather than just at specific designelements means that it can also be usedby the QRA to answer much wider questionsrelating to the effect of overpressures atdifferent locations (an issue that wouldtraditionally involve time consumingiterations with the CFD analyst).
Recent experience tells us that it ispossible to obtain targeted outputs ofraw data from CFD studies withoutsignificantly affecting cost, providedthey are specified in advance.
Optimising QRA Making the most of CFD data dependson building the QRA model so that CFDoutput can be imported directly,without the need for post-processing.Achieving this relies on a consistentspecification and format between theQRA and CFD. On occasion it is alsopossible to automate this data transferprocess. Overall, this makes thingsmuch more efficient and enables morestraightforward updates to the QRAfollowing revisions to the CFD.
Ultimately, this should result in a QRAthat is informed more explicitly by CFDresults, enabling a more representativeevaluation and understanding of risk,and its sensitivity to potentialexplosions.
ConclusionAs the use of CFD to support QRAcontinues to increase, getting theinterface right at an early stage canreap real benefits in cost-effectiveness,as well as producing a betterunderstanding of risk and, by extension,more focused risk mitigation.
Contact: Martin [email protected]
Integrated use of CFD in QRA
RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld RISKworld
4
The ALARP principle recognises that noindustrial activity is entirely free from riskand, quite sensibly, requires that risks arereduced to levels that are As Low AsReasonably Practicable, or ‘ALARP’.
The ALARP level is reached when the time,trouble and cost of further reductionmeasures become grossly disproportionate tothe additional risk reduction obtained.
Determining if this is the case normallyrelies on ensuring compliance withaccepted good practice, and evaluating
options for improvement at key pointsthroughout the lifecycle of a facility.
While simply stated, the mechanics ofwhen and how to apply the ALARPPrinciple, are for some, shrouded inmystery – perhaps because ALARP decision-making is not black and white.
As a result, there are many ‘myths’ ormisconceptions about the ALARP Principle.Below, we debunk four common myths byportraying the reality of a good ALARPjustification.
Key to successThe key messages that come across arethat ALARP decision-making should:• Be applied throughout the whole
project/facility lifecycle.• Be integrated with existing safety
processes.• Consider accepted good practice.• Identify options and consider a range
of factors.• Be underpinned by sound
engineering argument.The more complex the project, the moresophisticated the supporting ALARPprocess is likely to be, involving as itdoes a larger number of potentially
affected stakeholders. Equally, the higherthe associated risk, the more robust andcomprehensive the supporting argumentsand evidence should be.
ConclusionTo some, the ALARP principle may seemlike another legislative hurdle. However,in the right hands, the ALARP principleis a very powerful means of choosingbetween improvement options orshowing that no further improvement iswarranted. As the ALARP principle isapplied with increasing success, we canonly hope that the myths surroundingits use will fade away.
References1. http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/
alarpglance.htm
Contact: Andy Lidstone (Warrington)[email protected]
Debunking the ALARP Principle – Four Myths and Realities
LEGENDS OF RISKTEC No. 20
You spent how much
on the cost-benefit analysis?!!
OSDNEGEL
You spent
CETKTSIRFO
You spent how
.oN 20
much
20
You spent
on the cost
You spent how
on the cost-benefit !!analysis?
w much
benefit
Fig. 1 – The nature of ALARP assessmentvaries according to risk
Myth #1 – Ensuring that risks are reduced ALARP always means continuously improving safetyReality #1 – ALARP assessment is not synonymous with continuous improvementWhile it is true that as technology develops, new and potentially better methods of risk control may become available, it is not a giventhat they should be adopted. It is the responsibility of the operator/owner to assess the options available periodically and determinewhether the cost, time and trouble of implementing new risk controls are grossly disproportionate to their risk reduction, in which caseimprovement is not warranted.
Myth #2 – ALARP assessment should focus on quantitative cost-benefit analysisReality #2 – A balanced ALARP decision is needed, which considers a range of factorsCost and risk reduction are just two of many potential factors that should be considered during ALARP decision-making. The overridingdecision should be based on sound engineering argument supported by a range of factors. This should start with benchmarking againstgood practice, followed potentially by qualitative consideration of the benefits and detriments of an appropriate range of options. Inless clear-cut situations quantitative cost-benefit analysis may help, but should always be supported by other means of assessment. Thenature of ALARP decision-making should also vary according to risk (see Fig. 1).
Myth #3 – ALARP assessment is a separate activity to designReality #3 – The ALARP process should feature prominently at every stage of the facility/project lifecycleThe ALARP principle is an extremely powerful tool that can be used to great effect as a front-end activity. In this role it can influence notonly the design but also the amount of analysis and the level of application or interpretation of codes and standards. A good design reviewprocess should identify improvements early on (when they are cheapest). In the operational phase, as operational feedback grows, ALARPassessment can be used as a risk-based decision tool for improving procedures and processes. Decommissioning options should also beassessed using the ALARP principle, since a short-term increase in risk can often be weighed against the long-term reduction in risk.
Myth #4 – If a few organisations have adopted high standards, these define ALARP levelsReality #4 – ALARP relates to risk reduction based on accepted good practiceIn the context of the ALARP principle, good practice has a very precise meaning in the UK – it refers to those standards for controllingrisk which are recognised by the UK’s Health & Safety Executive (HSE) as satisfying the law when applied to a particular circumstance,and includes Approved Codes of Practice, HSE guidance, national and international codes and standards [Ref 1]. Although someorganisations may implement higher standards than this to meet corporate goals, this does not constitute accepted good practice.Equally, an improvement should not be immediately discounted simply because it is not recognised as good practice. Organisationsshould make their own assessment of the available options, taking into account their own particular circumstances.
Risk and safety management is arelatively new profession, yet thedemands on risk managementpractitioners are greater than ever due toincreasingly complex legal requirements,coupled with higher company standardsand new technologies.
To meet this challenge, forward-thinkingorganisations and individuals need todevelop their practical risk and safety skills,knowledge and experience by the mostcost-effective route.
Risktec’s solutionAs a validated partner of Liverpool JohnMoores University (LJMU) in the UK,Risktec goes beyond traditional trainingand delivers postgraduate qualificationsvia face-to-face (F2F) classroom teachingand web-based distance learning (DL)methods.
Programmes may be customised toindustry sector and client requirements.
Our main award programmes are:• Certificate of Professional Development
(CPD) for single modules.• Postgraduate Certificate (PgCert).• Postgraduate Diploma (PgDip).• Masters Degree (MSc).
Our training can also be delivered on anattendance-only basis, without assessment.Options range from individual modules tomulti-year staff development partnerships.
All of our teachers have been through acomprehensive development process andUniversity validation in order to teach atpostgraduate level. As a result, we providea unique mixture of theory and practicalexperience.
Key benefitsThe key benefits to the student include:• Receipt of a formal qualification from a
recognised institution.• Demonstration of learning rather than
just attending a training course.
• Specific learning, with case studies directly related to the place of work, which also reduces the self-study burden.
• Pathways through programmes that are tailored to individual needs.
The key benefits for the client companyinclude:• More skilled resource with formal
qualifications and greater staff retention.
• Relevant learning, by tailoring case studies and methods.
• Up-to-date topics delivered by approved risk practitioners.
• A modular approach that maximises flexibility.
• Effective use of training budget through targeted, client-specific learning.
For a copy of our new training cataloguecontact: Peter Moar (Warrington)[email protected] or visitwww.risktec.co.uk
Risk and Safety Management EducationClassroom and distance learning
5
6
UK Principal Office Wilderspool Park Greenall’s Avenue Warrington WA4 6HL United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)1925 611200 Fax +44 (0)1925 611232
Other UK OfficesAberdeenAshfordEdinburghGlasgowLondon
Middle EastDubaiMuscat
North AmericaCalgary Houston
For further information, including office contact details, visit: www.risktec.co.uk or email:[email protected]
On 23 June 2011, a new signallingtechnology, known as ‘moving block’, wasquietly enabled on the Jubilee Line of theLondon Underground. While passengersmay have been oblivious to this change,the new technology allows the number oftrains per hour to increase and journeytimes to reduce without changing theexisting infrastructure – an improvementthat will come into its own during the2012 Olympics.
On the moveA moving block signalling system has anumber of advantages over a traditionalfixed block system. A fixed block systemrelies on track circuits or axle counters toconfirm when a train has left a definedsection of track (the block) beforeallowing another train into that area. Theblock sizes or, equivalently, the number ofclear blocks required between trainsdepends predominantly on the line speedand braking distances. A moving blocksystem, on the other hand, can adjust
Sending the Right Signals – New Signalling Technology for the Jubilee Line
train separation in real time – the controlsystem provides a braking curve [see Fig 1]and movement authority to a train basedupon its reported location, speed and thedistance to the train ahead. The systemallows trains to run closer together andreduces train waiting time, while ensuringa minimum safe braking distancebetween trains is maintained, so trainscan brake to a stop before reaching thetrain in front.
The new Transmission Based Train Control(TBTC) system on the Jubilee Line wasdeveloped by Thales UK, with safety andassurance support from Risktec Solutions.
On the Jubilee Line, the TBTC systemconsists of five Vehicle Control Centres(VCCs), which manage five sections of theline, and communicate with one normaland one standby Vehicle On-BoardComputer (VOBC) on each train. Afailsafe design ensures that on failure of aVCC or VOBC or loss of communication,the brakes engage automatically.
Operational challengePrevious applications of the moving blocksignalling system have been on greenfield sites, such as for the KCRC network inHong Kong, Docklands Light Railway inLondon, Las Vegas Monorail, and theVancouver Skytrain, from which thegeneric baseline was developed. Thechallenge with the Jubilee Line was toinstall, test and commission the TBTCsystem on an operating railway, havingmodified the system to meet theoperational needs of London Underground.
Testing solutionTo limit the disruption to tube operations,the TBTC was installed initially on just onesection of the line. Testing wasconstrained to night-time and weekends,when signalling would be switched fromthe existing fixed block system to theTBTC system. Moving block signalling wassuccessfully introduced into service forthis section of line in December 2010,whilst testing continued on the remainingsection. This transitional period broughtits own challenges, since trains had toswitch from the fixed to the moving blocksystem as they crossed between linesections. The added potential for loss ofsignal control resulted in specific alarms,protection devices and failsafe brakingsystems at the shared boundary.
To reduce the potential for human error,each line section was also segregatedfrom the other, in terms of signallinghardware, control room staff, maintenancecrews and testers.
All systems goThe TBTC system has been fully operationalalong the length of the Jubilee Line sinceJune 2011, and has lived up to its promises,delivering increased capacity and shorterjourney times, while demonstrating itsreliability. What’s more, TBTC is nowbeing rolled out to the Northern Line.
Contact: Gordon Dixon (London)[email protected]
Co
urt
esy
of
Tub
e Li
nes
Figure 1 – Moving block braking curves
