Australian Pressure Equipment Knowledge

1 Scope   This note provides some guidance on the above for often difficult task of being responsible and accountable for taking risks with PE.

It is based on a variety of cases briefly outlined below and new WHS laws

 

 

Asbestos in NSW homes                   Radio 2CH 28/10/2012

6 seismologists  jailed (gaoled) in Italy       SMH  20/10/2012

Defective PS                            March 2012

Ban fireworks                                      1987

LPG underground tank NIMBY           1986

Severely cracked steam pipe              1985

Inspection of 12000 t ammonia tank   1985

LBIs yearly inspection of air receivers 1984

Cat cracker failure and rerating           1984

Acoustic emission research                 1983

Acceptability of defective oil tanks.      1955 and 57

Hot tapping of oil piping and tank        1954

WW II risks enormous- even "friendly fire". 170 killed in one training unit    1942-45

The above typical examples were experienced by one contributor to this note

 

Media helping by reporting incidents but not helping in providing guidance

3 RISK 

.1  here the definition is               see. GN        

.2  R = PoF x CoF   

.3  Risk to who?  In relation to the particular PE hazard - in parliament, city head office, PE owner, PE Plant manager, advisor , nearby public, those at the source of the hazard.   All have different views on acceptability of risk. 

.4 These views change with time and circumstances eg in WW II oxygen air gas cylinder pressures were universally increased 10% to help the war effort - this still stands because experience has shown that increased risk was fully justified

.5 Is the risk imposed or voluntary?

4 RISK CRITERIA.  

.1 What is acceptable risk?  Society etc is constantly at risk. There is no such thing as no risk. There would be no collision risk from cars if there were no cars, but what would happen if there were no fast ambulances etc. Similarly no PE little or no petrol or electric power now - Balance needed ?

.2 Nationally: Society based  on local and global experience and risks taken successfully ie democratic  especially when well informed via APEK.  

Usually in laws, regulations and regulatory controls 

AU Standards give general considered consensus criteria as a good guide for all society 

 .3 Others: company or personal - net benefit under immediate and near future circumstances

 .4 one major criterion is " would you be willing to do or experience it yourself?"

5 DECISION  Who makes the final decision? Risk-taker or risk-averse

 Be objective, holistic and balance own ideas with input for others, Don't ignore human factors especially those with strong basis

6 JUSTIFICATION.  

.1 Science, experience, relativity, uncertainty,impact on ....

.2  National:   benefit exceeds costs by more than about 5%.(Here values must take 

    all into account). Sometimes  not very rational eg Hitler on risk

 .3 Others:  various, often personal, arrogant, preconceived ideas, and inflexible

7 COMMUNICATION.  Ref SMH 27/10/2012. Transparently communicate:

a) there is a risk and  give basis - all in terms that can be clearly understood by 90% 

    of adults. ie go easy on scientific mathematical probabilistic language

b) who did? Independent, biased, what do they gain?,

c) impact CoF examples big and small

d) PoF comparison eg with lightning, meteorite etc risks

e) $ to reduce may be used for better improvement

f) government or others will strive to ensure PoF will aim for zero 

g) future rules may be amended and this case not neglected

h) the presenter of justification must be credible, knowledgeable, had some direct experience, has some responsibility and accountability, sincere, clear and believable    Preferably not an actor. 

These were all features of the above cases and successful resolution of people's concerns

You have no rights to post comments