Development and Execution of Consequence Assessment for Liquid Pipeline Facilities

Safety in Offshore Platforms—Use of QRA in the Norwegian Offshore Industry

This study explores the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in environmental health and public safety within the USA, focusing on pollution monitoring, emergency response, and sustainable practices for public. With the growing challenges posed by climate change, pollution, and emerging public health threats, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in environmental health and public safety strategies has become imperative. This comprehensive review explores the diverse array of AI applications implemented in the United States to address environmental issues and enhance public safety measures. The paper analyzes the multifaceted role of AI across various domains, including air and water quality monitoring, disease surveillance, disaster response, and infrastructure resilience. The advancements in AI technologies that have revolutionized data collection, analysis, and prediction in environmental health are examined. Machine learning algorithms, sensor networks, and satellite imagery are examined as tools for real-time monitoring and early detection of environmental hazards. Additionally, the paper investigates the integration of AI in public health surveillance systems, showcasing how predictive analytics and data-driven models contribute to the identification and containment of infectious diseases. Furthermore, the study sheds light on the incorporation of AI in disaster management, emphasizing the role of predictive modeling and risk assessment in optimizing emergency response strategies. The implementation of smart city technologies and intelligent infrastructure systems is discussed, highlighting how AI contributes to enhancing public safety and minimizing the impact of natural disasters. The review also critically evaluates the ethical, legal, and privacy considerations associated with the widespread adoption of AI in environmental health and public safety initiatives. It addresses concerns related to data security, algorithmic biases, and the need for transparent and accountable governance frameworks. Through an in-depth analysis of case studies, policies, and initiatives, this review provides insights into the successes and challenges of AI implementation in the USA. It concludes with recommendations for future research directions and policy considerations to ensure the responsible and effective integration of AI technologies in safeguarding environmental health and public safety. The findings presented in this review contribute to the broader discourse on leveraging AI for sustainable and resilient communities in the face of evolving environmental and public health challenges.

Using quantitative risk assessment in the chemical process industry

Application of in vitro skin penetration measurements to confirm and refine the quantitative skin sensitization risk assessment of methylisothiazolinone

_ This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 220333, “Quantitative Risk Assessments: Why They Fall Short and How To Use Them Better,” by Peter A.R. Hudson, SPE, and Timothy G.L. Hudson, SPE, Hudson Global Consulting. The paper has not been peer reviewed. _ This paper discusses the limitations of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) with respect to the usefulness of the concept in managing day‑to‑day and emerging risks and the effect of change. The current use of QRA creates a mismatch between the management of risks on paper and real‑world situations. This paper proposes updating QRA by transforming it into an active management tool linked to proactive management of risks through bowtie and similar models. Challenges of QRA The purpose of QRA is to establish a number that represents the likelihood of incidents and to undertake measures that mitigate risk to within an acceptable level. In a range of industries, it can be observed that what are presumed to be very unlikely events, based on QRA reports, nevertheless appear to occur with regularity. Major events, such as refinery explosions and rail fires, in theory, should occur so rarely that a single instance should not be expected. In oil and gas, the expected rate of fires and explosions is approximately one incident per 10 years per refinery. This is orders of magnitude away from the intended level. Hyperbolically, it should be closer to once in the lifetime of the universe. One real‑world example is the Texas City refinery explosion on 23 March 2005 that resulted in the deaths of 15 people and 170 injuries. Shortcomings in that incident included overreliance within QRA on historical data that did not reflect the unique conditions and actual operations at the refinery. The QRA underestimated the likelihood of organizational and human‑error deficiencies, which were significant contributors to the incident. The QRA used simplified assumptions that failed to capture the complexity of the refinery’s operations and the scale of catastrophic failure modes. An example from the nuclear industry is the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on 11 March 2011. Following a massive earthquake and tsunami, the cooling systems at the nuclear plant failed, leading to a core meltdown in three reactors, extensive radioactive contamination, and significant evacuation zones. The QRA underestimated the risks because of several factors, including the natural hazard, the effectiveness of redundancy systems, and the effect of organizational and regulatory failures. The QRA assumed that redundancy systems would function correctly without considering how a single event might cause simultaneous failures. These examples demonstrate that discrepancies between predicted failure rates or rates of negative outcomes from QRA and actual failure rates can be attributed to several factors. These factors include limitations in data, modeling assumptions, human factors, unforeseen events, and the complexity of real‑world operations. An appendix is included in the complete paper to ensure that unfamiliar readers understand the basic concepts of QRA and understand forms of data and sources for such data.

The effective mitigation of landslide risk requires analytical approaches. In qualitative risk assessment, the components of risk, which are hazard, elements at risk and vulnerability, are expressed verbally and the final result is in terms of ranked or verbal risk levels (IUGS 1997). Qualitative risk assessment is subjective in nature. Quantitative risk assessment involves quantification of risk components and computation of risk. The purpose of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is to calculate a value for the risk to enable improved risk communication and decision-making (Lee & Jones 2004). For landslides, the use of quantitative risk assessment procedures is recommended. Several frameworks for QRA have been proposed by many experts and organizations (e.g. Varnes 1984, Whitman 1984, Einstein 1988, Fell 1994, Wu et al. 1996, Morgenstern 1997, Fell & Hartford 1997, Einstein 1997, Aleotti & Chowdhury 1999, Ho et al. 2000, Roberds 2001, Dai et al. 2002, Nadim & Lacasse 2003, Lee & Jones 2004, IUGS 1997, AGS 2000, NRC Transportation Research Board 1996, GEO 1998). The QRA frameworks have common intention to find answers to the following questions (Ho et al. 2000, Lee & Jones 2004):1 What are the probable dangers/problems? [Danger Identification]2 What would be the magnitude of dangers/problems? [Hazard Assessment]3 What are the possible consequences and/or elements at risk? [Consequence/Elements at Risk Identification]4 What might be the degree of damage in elements at risk [Vulnerability Assessment]5 What is the probability of damage? [Risk Quantification/Estimation]6 What is the significance of estimated risk? [Risk Evaluation]7 What should be done? [Risk Management]Depending on the characteristics of a landslide, available data, scale of investigation and nature of consequences, the QRA frameworks may differ. Hazard assessment for a specific slope usually involves probabilistic analysis of the given slope, while hazard assessment for a region generally requires the computation of frequency of the landslides in the region. The probabilistic models used for a specific slope depend on the failure mechanism (flows, falls or slides) and slope material (soil or rock). Furthermore, the characteristics of a landslide and scale of investigation influence the consequence/elements at risk, vulnerability, risk quantification/assessment, risk evaluation and risk management. Two important aspects of QRA for landslides are the lack of wellestablished acceptable risk criteria and methods forABSTRACT: Two important aspects of quantitative landslide risk assessment, vulnerability and acceptable risk, are studied as part of a new Integrated Risk Assessment Framework (IRAF). IRAF consists of four steps: data collection, hazard assessment, vulnerability assessment, and risk assessment. Data collection involves obtaining the appropriate data for the hazard, vulnerability and risk assessments. The hazard component integrates the numerical and probabilistic analyses to exploit the added knowledge from the two approaches. A new 3-dimensional framework for quantification of vulnerability is proposed. The fourth component of IRAF is risk assessment, with the computation and evaluation of the risk based on some acceptability criteria. IRAF is implemented for rock slopes. To define an acceptability criterion, published data were collected. Various terminology relating to acceptable risk used in the literature, such as acceptable vs. tolerable, specific vs. total, voluntary vs. involuntary and individual vs. societal, are discussed.

The use of quantitative risk assessment in HACCP

This study examines public safety challenges and collaboration between Barangay Public Safety Officers and the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO), aiming to enhance police-community partnerships and strengthen public safety measures in the National Capital Region. Using a descriptive-correlational research design, data were collected from 45 barangay public safety officers and 45 NCRPO police officers through questionnaires. The study explored correlations between identified challenges and the effectiveness of public safety measures to propose an improved policy framework. Findings reveal high effectiveness in current public safety measures, supported by excellent police service delivery, strong local executive backing, and robust community partnerships. Respondents, predominantly middle-aged male college graduates, consistently perceived public safety measures positively across demographic categories. However, critical challenges persist in community engagement, organizational support, and policing strategies, reflecting systemic issues common to other regions and departments. A perfect linear correlation was found between these challenges and the effectiveness of public safety measures, underscoring their direct impact on overall performance. The study emphasizes addressing these challenges to enhance public safety outcomes and foster stronger police-community collaborations, providing valuable insights for policy improvements in the NCR

Occupational and public health and safety in a changing work environment: An integrated approach for risk assessment and prevention

Risk assessment—an insurer's perspective

For decades now the oil companies and the communities they operate in the vicinity of have had a kind of love-hate relationship with many ups and downs on the way. On the one hand the communities love the economic benefit and regional advancement that the oil companies bring in their wake while on the other they decry the real as well as imaginary environmental, health or safety related threats posed by the oil, gas and petrochemical plants operating in their midst. As the population increases with time so does the demand for land required for urban development. This by necessity results in building of residential and commercial areas in close proximity of process plants, refinery and other oil handling facilities. This paper highlights the need for mutual cooperation that must exist amongst all parties concerned: the Company, the urbanization and planning bodies, community leaders, public servants, journalists and industrialists. This cooperation can only materialize through mutual trust which in turn can only be generated through a better understanding by all of the actual risks associated with various oil refining and oil handling facilities and the risk mitigation measure that the Company employs to ensure all real risks are reduced to a level as low as is reasonably practicable. The concept of "zero-risk" being attainable in a process environment is infeasible. For land use decision-making we must apply formal techniques of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) and other recognized risk evaluation methods that are being used by many government organizations in Europe and North America. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have issued quite comprehensive guidelines on this topic which have found acceptance worldwide. This paper briefly explains how the QRA technique works and provides several real life examples of use of QRA in land use planning in Bahrain. There is an immediate need for rational risk mitigation by the Company and rational risk acceptance by the community -- all for the sake of common national interest and vision for the future. Creation of a joint review board working in an advisory capacity might be the answer.

Solid waste treatment and disposal: effects on public health and environmental safety

The need for an efficient assessment of the occupational risk of the employees involved in the construction of buildings and structures was established. A study was conducted for substantiating the system for ensuring the safety of personnel in the construction complex using quantitative risk criteria developed based on of mathematical modeling. Technological processes at the construction sites and in the organizations are considered. The methods of complex (integral) system analysis, process analysis, aggregation and optimization of risk parameters were also applied. Based on the systematic studies of the technological processes at facilities under construction, a methodology for assessing occupational risk was developed. The ways and means of achieving the strategic goal of the occupational safety, which is to ensure the safe professional activity of personnel, are considered. The possibility of forming a set of criteria for the quantitative assessment of occupational risk based on the mathematical modeling is shown. The key to obtaining efficient evaluative expressions is the use of real statistical data in the numerical form. The importance is noted considering the interaction of various harmful and hazardous production factors that affect personnel and are formed according to the principle of systems emergence. The developed criteria for the quantitative assessment of occupational risk are an objective and reliable basis for the development of an efficient system for ensuring the safety of construction employees. The described technique is based on the fundamental provisions of the physical and mathematical theory, the scientific discipline «Life Safety», the theory of prognostic and experimental research. It can be used to develop measures for creating a safe working environment in all the industries.

Predictive Tests for Irritants and Allergens and Their Use in Quantitative Risk Assessment

to a particular method of estimating risks known by its > e a practitioners as "quantitative risk assessment" or "QRA." This term specifically identifies a sophisticated statistical estimate of the risk of a particular untoward health event, usually cancer, as the result of a specified exposure to a toxic chemical or physical agent. Ten years ago, quantitative risk assessment was more or less a scientific novelty, a mathematical device seemingly developed for the amusement of biostatisticians and epidemiologists. In I 9 8 5, the Public Health Service Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) established the Subcommittee on Environmental Health Risk Assessment (SEHRA). As director of an institute that performs quantitative risk assessment, I was named chairman of the subcommittee. Though previously there had been several reviews of risk assessment by various groups, SEHRA was the first standing organization in the Public Health Service charged with coordinating risk assessment as a discipline. The establishment of SEHRA suggests that by I985 risk assessment had crossed an important threshold of professional and bureaucratic awareness within the Service. Today, risk assessment is attracting considerable attention at the very highest levels of government. Late in I990, an organization was established at the White House to coordinate risk assessment throughout the national government. The Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET), an organization convened by