Development of the

Singapore QRA Guidelines

Mike Wardman
Jill Wilday, Laurence Cusco
IChemE Hazards 27 Conference

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Introduction

Contents

Objectives

Process of developing new QRA Guidelines

Contents of new QRA Guidelines

Lessons for QRA in general

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Introduction

Objectives of New Guidelines

Better health, safety and risk management

Benchmarked with international practice

Ongoing sustainable development of Jurong Island

Investor confidence
Minimize unnecessary sterilization of land

Efficient regulation for industry and government

Robust against any future regulatory development

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Process

Collaboration

New QRA
Guidelines

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Process

Process of development

HSL comments and issues

Background
Additional studies review

Agency comments
HSL Drafts Stakeholder interviews and
feedback

Directors
Consultation
SCIC/ Industry
Process
Consultants

Industry
Pilot
Consultants

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Process

Gaps in existing system

Industry Issues Specification of Scenario Link with risk

Duration of required QRA handling management
process methodology problems Prioritisation of
Lack of clarity for risks
Different QRAs Frequency cut-
methodology ALARP
use different offs
Apparent lack of input On-going risk
Modifiers
consistency assumptions so management
not consistent On-going
regulatory
oversight

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 QRA Guidelines

Main changes

Risk based

Revised criteria and harm levels

Customised for fixed installations, pipelines, bulk transport

Specification of methodology (for greater consistency)

Results can be used for system level calculations and downstream safety
management

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 QRA Guideines

Revised QRA Guidelines

Criteria

Technical Guidance

Submission Format

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Criteria Guidelines

QRA Criteria Guidelines

Overall
Scope Risk criteria requirements
for QRA

Bulk
Fixed sites Pipelines transport
routes

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Criteria Guidelines

Risk criteria overview

Protects residential and sensitive

Injury populations

Protects industrial and commercial

Fatality populations

Occupied Protects on-site populations

Buildings
Limits escalation potential beyond
Escalation boundary

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Criteria Guidelines

Risk criteria concept

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Criteria Guidelines

Risk criteria

Measure Criteria Frequency per year

Fixed Pipeline Transport
Injury Industrial/commercial 3E-07 3E-08 3E-08
only
Fatality Within boundary 5E-05 5E-06 5E-06
Industrial only 5E-06 5E-07 5E-07
Escalation Within boundary 1E-04 1E-05 1E-05
Onsite occupied Not exceeded 1E-03 N/A N/A
Buildings
Injury hazard Industrial/commercial N/A N/A applies
range only

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Technical Guidance

Technical Guidance

Specification Consistency in QRAs

Consistency in regulatory
of QRA decisions
assumptions Consistency with risk criteria

Significant differences in
different QRAs
If not Potentially poor decisions

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Technical Guidance

Assumptions

LOC of isolatable sections

Scenario Additional process safety scenarios
Severe VCE
identification Runaway reaction

HSE FRED failure rates

Frequency

Leak hole sizes
Event tree modifiers
analysis OGP ignition probabilities

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Technical Guidance

Consequence harm levels

QRA criteria Toxic Thermal Flash fire VCE

Injury AEGL-3 4 kW/m2 LFL 1 psi
Fatality 3% fatality 4 kW/m2 LFL 5 psi
10% fatality 15.3 kW/m2 7 psi
50% fatality 21.6 kW/m2 10 psi
37.5 kW/m2
Escalation N/A 20 kW/m2 N/A 2 psi
On-site 3% fatality 3% fatality LFL 3% fatality
occupied 10% fatality 10% fatality 10% fatality
buildings
50% fatality 50% fatality 50% fatality
100% fatality

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Technical Guidance

Idealised harm footprints

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Technical Guidance

Footprint weightings

50% 10% 3%

From release point to edge of footprint covers a fatality of around

100% to that of the footprint.
So for 50% fatality, any point between release point and edge of
footprint will be somewhere between 100% and 50%. So we take the
average 75%.
Because there are other footprints at the same positions you have to
deduct their contribution (6.5% and 23.5% = 30%) so 75% - 30% =
45% for the contribution from the 50% fatality footprint.

An agency of the Health & Safety Executive Crown Copyright, HSL 2014 Enabling a better working world
 Technical Guidance

Prioritisation and ALARP

ALARP demonstration for prioritised scenarios

Unless done within new safety case regime

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Prioritisation

Top risk contributors

Those contributing more than 1% of risk:

IR (fatality): 5E-06 per year contour at largest off-

site distance
IR (injury): 3E-07 per year contour at largest off-site
distance
Cumulative escalation: 1E-04 per year contour
On-site occupied buildings: IR(fatality) at each
building

An agency of the Health & Safety Executive Crown Copyright, HSL 2014 Enabling a better working world
 Submission format

Submission format

QRA report
Detailed requirements for contents and structure

Set of data files including

Site map
Tabulated scenario footprints
Risk grids aligned to Singapore coordinate system
Risk contours
Data about on-site occupied buildings

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Lessons learned

Lessons for QRA in general

Consistent QRA methodology needed when results used for land planning

Take account of local/ national factors.

Piloting of any new methodology/criteria is important to ensure sensible

decisions.

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Lessons learned

Lessons for QRA in general

Flexibility in regulatory decisions provided by ALARP.

Link needed to ongoing assurance of risk management over the lifetime of

facility.

QRA should be input to emergency response planning

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 Conclusions

Conclusions

New Singapore QRA guidelines have been produced for land planning
decisions

Collaborative development by the relevant Singapore agencies and HSL

The process involved benchmarking with international practices, drafting,

consultation and piloting.

An outline of the new guidelines has been provided

A number of lessons have been drawn out for QRA in general.

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017
 HSL is the commercial arm of the
Health and Safety Executive, HSE.
Our commercial work delivers high
quality science to meet the needs of
industry and government in the UK
and overseas. Our commercial
customers can commission services
and research using our state-of-the-
art scientific laboratory in Buxton, as
well as analytical expertise from
other parts of HSEs science base.

HSL: HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory Crown Copyright, HSE 2017