The semi-quantitative risk assessment method «Layer of Protection Analysis» (LOPA) is used, as a rule, to assess the risk acceptability of increased hazard scenarios identified during the qualitative hazard analysis (HAZOP) and to make the respective risk management decisions. The adopted risk management measures can include the introduction of additional protection layers to prevent or mitigate the consequences of potential scenarios or increasing the safety integrity level for safety instrumented functions of safety instrumented systems.
When using the LOPA method for risk assessment, as well as other methods, the risk management decisions are made based on the comparison of the design risk value with the established criterion of acceptability. The absence of a unified approach to establishing scenario risk acceptability criteria can cause significant discrepancies in risk assessment results: in some cases, the existing hazard can be underestimated, and in other cases, overestimated. The divergence of opinions creates preconditions to establish the diversity of approaches to acceptability criteria.
The study discusses various approaches in order to determine the scenario risk acceptability criterion when performing LOPA, such as ALARP, determining acceptable risk using the risk reduction matrix, and the concept of acceptable individual risk. The choice of approach based on the risk reduction matrix represented in IEC 61511-3 is substantiated. The limitations associated with the approach and potential ways to overcome them have been discussed. An example of the use of LOPA, where the risk acceptability is determined using the ALARP principle, and the risk reduction matrix has been provided.
2. GOST R MEK 61511-3—2018. Functional safety. Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector. Part 3. Guidelines for the determination of the required safety integrity levels. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160132?ysclid=m9uxm4w9qr49227420 (accessed: March 3, 2025). (In Russ.).
3. Guidelines for Safe Automation of Chemical Processes. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 1993. 424 p.
4. Layer of Protection Analysis: Simplified Process Risk Assessment. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 2001. 292 p.
5. Torres-Echeverria A.C. On the use of LOPA and risk graphs for SIL determination. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2016. Vol. 41. pp. 333–343. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.12.007
6. On approval of the Safety Guide «Methodological premises of hazard analysis and accident risk assessment at hazardous production facilities»: the Order of Rostechndazor of November 3, 2022 № 387. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1300154647 (accessed: March 3, 2025). (In Russ.).
7. Jones-Lee M., Aven T. ALARP — What does it really mean? Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2011. Vol. 96. Iss. 8. pp. 877–882. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.006
8. Makhutov N.A., Reznikov D.O., Lisanov M.V. Risk Regulation and Management Related to the Operation of Hazardous Production Facilities. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2020. № 12. pp. 85–91. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2020-12-85-91
9. Zhukov I.S., Lisanov M.V. About the unity of acceptable risk criteria at hazardous production facilities. Nauchno-tekhnicheskiy sbornik «Vesti gazovoy nauki» = News of Gas Science: Scientific and Technical Collection. 2022. № 2 (51). pp. 82–90. (In Russ.).
10. Summers A., Vogtmann W., Smolen S. Improving PHA/LOPA by consistent consequence severity estimation. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2011. Vol. 24. Iss. 6. pp. 879–885. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2011.06.022
11. Lisanov M.V., Sumskoy S.I., Shvyryayev A.A. Uncertainties of the quantitative emergency risk assessment at oil-gas facilities. Nauchno-tekhnicheskiy sbornik «Vesti gazovoy nauki» = News of Gas Science: Scientific and Technical Collection. 2018. № 2 (34). pp. 125–134. (In Russ.).
12. Guidelines for Initiating Events and Independent Protection Layers in Layer of Protection Analysis. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 2014. 384 p.