Annotation:
Semi-quantitative risk assessment method “Layer of Protection Analysis” (LOPA) provides calculation and assessment of acceptability (permissibility) of accident risk scenarios identified during qualitative hazard analysis of a workflow. Risk acceptability level for a separate scenario is determined by comparing a design risk value with established criteria. The results obtained are used as a basis to choose measures (engineering, organizational) to improve the safety of a workflow and substantiate the prioritization of their implementation. For each scenario, the criteria of risk acceptability are established based on the severity of associated consequences. A rapid assessment method for the assessment of the severity of combustible substance accidental discharge consequences using elaborated reference tables has been proposed. These tables establish the compliance of the discharge mass (for overheated fluids) or pool area (for stable fluids) with a certain level of severity of consequences.
References:
1. ГОСТ Р МЭК 61511-1—2018. Безопасность функциональная. Системы безопасности приборные для промышленных процессов. Часть 1. Термины, определения и технические требования. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160087 (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
GOST R MEK 61511-1—2018. Functional safety. Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector. Part 1. Terms, definitions and technical requirements. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160087 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
2. ГОСТ Р МЭК 61511-3—2018. Безопасность функциональная. Системы безопасности приборные для промышленных процессов. Часть 3. Руководство по определению требуемых уровней полноты безопасности. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160132 (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
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 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
3. Layer of Protection Analysis: Simplified Process Risk Assessment. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 2001. 292 p.
4. Summers A.E., Hearn W.H. Risk criteria, protection layers, and conditional modifiers. Process Safety Progress. 2012. Vol. 31. Iss. 2. pp. 139–144. DOI: 10.1002/prs.11478
5. Baybutt P. Using risk tolerance criteria to determine safety integrity levels for safety instrumented functions. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2012. Vol. 25. Iss. 6. pp. 1000–1009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2012.05.016
6. Baybutt P. Risk tolerance criteria and the IEC 61511/ISA 84 standard on safety instrumented systems. Process Safety Progress. 2013. Vol. 32. Iss. 3. pp. 307–310. DOI: 10.1002/prs.11554
7. Галеев А.Д. Определение критериев приемлемости рисков сценариев аварий при использовании метода LOPA // Безопасность труда в промышленности. 2025. № 5. С. 82–89. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-5-82-89
Galeev A.D. Determining the Criteria of the Risk Acceptability of Accident Scenarios Using the LOPA Method. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2025. № 5. pp. 82–89. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-5-82-89
8. Baybutt P. Overcoming challenges in using layers of protection analysis (LOPA) to determine safety integrity levels (SILs). Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2017. Vol. 48. pp. 32–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2017.03.017
9. Casey R., Keogh C. Limitations and misuse of LOPA. Loss Prevention Bulletin. 2019. № 265. pp. 13–16.
10. Bridges W., Dowell III A.M. More issues with layer of protection analysis — From the originators. Process Safety Progress. 2022. Vol. 41. Iss. 1. pp. 52–65. DOI: 10.1002/prs.12295
11. 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
12. First K. Scenario identification and evaluation for layers of protection analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2010. Vol. 23. Iss. 6. pp. 705–718. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2010.07.008
13. Argenti F., Brunazzi E., Landucci G. Innovative LOPA-based methodology for the safety assessment of chemical plants. Chemical Engineering Transactions. 2015. Vol. 43. pp. 2383–2388. DOI: 10.3303/CET1543398
14. Galeev A., Ponikarov S. Numerical investigation of flammable vapour cloud formation from pools of heated organic liquids. Heliyon. 2022. Vol. 8. Iss. 11. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11590
15. Об утверждении Руководства по безопасности «Методика моделирования распространения аварийных выбросов опасных веществ»: приказ Ростехнадзора от 2 нояб. 2022 г. № 385. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1300154646 (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
On approval of the Safety Guide “Methodology of modelling of spread of hazardous substance accidental discharges“: Order of Rostechnadzor of November 2, 2022 № 385. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1300154646 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
16. Об утверждении методики определения расчетных величин пожарного риска на производственных объектах: приказ МЧС России от 26 июня 2024 г. № 533. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1307163227 (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
On approval of the methodology of determination of fire risk design values at production facilities: the Order of EMERCOM of Russia of June 26, 2024 № 533. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1307163227 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
17. Nolan D.P. Handbook of Fire and Explosion Protection Engineering Principles for the Oil, Gas, Chemical, and Related Facilities. Fourth edition. Elsevier, 2018. 507 p.
18. Daycock J.H. Development of a Method for the Determination of On-site Ignition Probabilities (Research Report 226). Health and Safety Executive, 2004. 191 p.
19. СТО Газпром 2-2.3-351—2009. Методические указания по проведению анализа риска для опасных производственных объектов газотранспортных предприятий ОАО «Газпром». URL: https://pozhproekt.ru/nsis/Rd/sto/sto-gazprom/sto-2-2.3-351-2009/1.pdf (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
STO Gazprom 2-2.3-351—2009. Methodological instructions on risk analysis for hazardous production facilities of gas transportation enterprises of Gazprom JSC. Available at: https://pozhproekt.ru/nsis/Rd/sto/sto-gazprom/sto-2-2.3-351-2009/1.pdf (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
20. Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control. Vol. 1. Third edition. Elsevier, 2005.
21. Jagger S., O’Sullivan S. Human Vulnerability to Thermal Radiation Offshore (Report HSL/2004/04). Health and Safety Laboratory, 2004. 30 p.
22. Mudan K.S. Thermal radiation hazards from hydrocarbon pool fires. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 1984. Vol. 10. Iss. 1. pp. 59–80. DOI: 10.1016/0360-1285(84)90119-9
GOST R MEK 61511-1—2018. Functional safety. Safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector. Part 1. Terms, definitions and technical requirements. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160087 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
2. ГОСТ Р МЭК 61511-3—2018. Безопасность функциональная. Системы безопасности приборные для промышленных процессов. Часть 3. Руководство по определению требуемых уровней полноты безопасности. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160132 (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
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 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
3. Layer of Protection Analysis: Simplified Process Risk Assessment. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 2001. 292 p.
4. Summers A.E., Hearn W.H. Risk criteria, protection layers, and conditional modifiers. Process Safety Progress. 2012. Vol. 31. Iss. 2. pp. 139–144. DOI: 10.1002/prs.11478
5. Baybutt P. Using risk tolerance criteria to determine safety integrity levels for safety instrumented functions. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2012. Vol. 25. Iss. 6. pp. 1000–1009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2012.05.016
6. Baybutt P. Risk tolerance criteria and the IEC 61511/ISA 84 standard on safety instrumented systems. Process Safety Progress. 2013. Vol. 32. Iss. 3. pp. 307–310. DOI: 10.1002/prs.11554
7. Галеев А.Д. Определение критериев приемлемости рисков сценариев аварий при использовании метода LOPA // Безопасность труда в промышленности. 2025. № 5. С. 82–89. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-5-82-89
Galeev A.D. Determining the Criteria of the Risk Acceptability of Accident Scenarios Using the LOPA Method. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2025. № 5. pp. 82–89. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-5-82-89
8. Baybutt P. Overcoming challenges in using layers of protection analysis (LOPA) to determine safety integrity levels (SILs). Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2017. Vol. 48. pp. 32–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2017.03.017
9. Casey R., Keogh C. Limitations and misuse of LOPA. Loss Prevention Bulletin. 2019. № 265. pp. 13–16.
10. Bridges W., Dowell III A.M. More issues with layer of protection analysis — From the originators. Process Safety Progress. 2022. Vol. 41. Iss. 1. pp. 52–65. DOI: 10.1002/prs.12295
11. 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
12. First K. Scenario identification and evaluation for layers of protection analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2010. Vol. 23. Iss. 6. pp. 705–718. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2010.07.008
13. Argenti F., Brunazzi E., Landucci G. Innovative LOPA-based methodology for the safety assessment of chemical plants. Chemical Engineering Transactions. 2015. Vol. 43. pp. 2383–2388. DOI: 10.3303/CET1543398
14. Galeev A., Ponikarov S. Numerical investigation of flammable vapour cloud formation from pools of heated organic liquids. Heliyon. 2022. Vol. 8. Iss. 11. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11590
15. Об утверждении Руководства по безопасности «Методика моделирования распространения аварийных выбросов опасных веществ»: приказ Ростехнадзора от 2 нояб. 2022 г. № 385. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1300154646 (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
On approval of the Safety Guide “Methodology of modelling of spread of hazardous substance accidental discharges“: Order of Rostechnadzor of November 2, 2022 № 385. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1300154646 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
16. Об утверждении методики определения расчетных величин пожарного риска на производственных объектах: приказ МЧС России от 26 июня 2024 г. № 533. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1307163227 (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
On approval of the methodology of determination of fire risk design values at production facilities: the Order of EMERCOM of Russia of June 26, 2024 № 533. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1307163227 (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
17. Nolan D.P. Handbook of Fire and Explosion Protection Engineering Principles for the Oil, Gas, Chemical, and Related Facilities. Fourth edition. Elsevier, 2018. 507 p.
18. Daycock J.H. Development of a Method for the Determination of On-site Ignition Probabilities (Research Report 226). Health and Safety Executive, 2004. 191 p.
19. СТО Газпром 2-2.3-351—2009. Методические указания по проведению анализа риска для опасных производственных объектов газотранспортных предприятий ОАО «Газпром». URL: https://pozhproekt.ru/nsis/Rd/sto/sto-gazprom/sto-2-2.3-351-2009/1.pdf (дата обращения: 13.06.2025).
STO Gazprom 2-2.3-351—2009. Methodological instructions on risk analysis for hazardous production facilities of gas transportation enterprises of Gazprom JSC. Available at: https://pozhproekt.ru/nsis/Rd/sto/sto-gazprom/sto-2-2.3-351-2009/1.pdf (accessed: June 13, 2025). (In Russ.).
20. Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control. Vol. 1. Third edition. Elsevier, 2005.
21. Jagger S., O’Sullivan S. Human Vulnerability to Thermal Radiation Offshore (Report HSL/2004/04). Health and Safety Laboratory, 2004. 30 p.
22. Mudan K.S. Thermal radiation hazards from hydrocarbon pool fires. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 1984. Vol. 10. Iss. 1. pp. 59–80. DOI: 10.1016/0360-1285(84)90119-9