Use of Risk Analysis During the Operations Phase

  • Jan-Erik VinnemEmail author
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)


Quantitative risk analysis was for a long time used mainly for the design phase and for extensive modifications. If the analysis was carried out in the operations phase, it was conducted in a way corresponding to use in the design phase, without reflecting the vast differences between design and operation from a HES (or strictly speaking major hazard risk) management point of view. The use of QRA in the operations phase has increased in the last ten to fifteen years. It is now conducted in different ways, in order to reflect the important differences from a management point of view. Several aspects in this connection are discussed in this chapter including updating of QRA studies, operational improvements, barrier improvements, and analysis of maintenance and modifications. The main use of risk evaluations in the operations phase is for qualitative evaluations, as review and work preparation tools. This is also briefly considered.


Risk Level Emergency Preparedness Risk Reduce Measure Plateau Period Isolation Valve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. AIBN (2011) AIBN mandate. Accessed 26 March 2011
  2. Alme IA, He X, Fylking TB, Sörman J (2012) BOP risk and reliability model to give critical decision support for offshore drilling operations. Presented at PSAM/11ESREL2012, Helsinki, Finland, 24–28 June 2012Google Scholar
  3. Aven T, Vinnem JE (2007) Risk management, with applications from the offshore petroleum industry. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bento J-P (2000) Human–technology–organisation; MTO-analysis of event reports. OD-00-2. Restricted (In Swedish)Google Scholar
  5. Boring RL, Blackman HS (2007) The origins of the SPAR-H method’s performance shaping factor multipliers. Paper presented at the 8th IEEE conference on human factors and power plantsGoogle Scholar
  6. Gould KS, Ringstad AJ, van de Merwe K (2012) Human reliability analysis in major accident risk analyses in the Norwegian petroleum industry. Paper presented at HFC forum, Halden, Norway 17–18 October 2012Google Scholar
  7. Gran BA et al (2012) Evaluation of the risk model of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations. Loss Prev Process Ind 25(3):582–593MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. HSE (2005) Safety case regulations, health and safety executive. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Majdara A, Nematollahi MR (2008) Development and application of a risk assessment tool. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(2008):1130–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. NEA (2005) CSNI technical opinion papers: #7—Living PSA and its use in the nuclear safety decision-making process; #8—Development and use of risk monitors at nuclear power plants, NEA No. 4411, Nuclear Energy Agency, OECDGoogle Scholar
  11. NOU (1986) Uncontrolled blowout on mobile drilling unit West Vanguard 6th October 1985, Norwegian Ministry of Justice, 14 March 1986 (in Norwegian only)Google Scholar
  12. Puglia WJ, Atefi B (1995) Examination of issues related to the development and implementation of real-time operational safety monitoring tools in the nuclear power industry. Reliab Eng Sys Saf 49:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. PSA (2011a) Regulations relating to management and the duty to provide information in the petroleum activities and at certain onshore facilities (the management regulations), PSA, 1.1.2011Google Scholar
  14. PSA (2011b) Regulations relating to conductin petroleum activities and at certain onshore facilities (the activities regulations), PSA, 1.1.2011Google Scholar
  15. PSA (2011c) Investigation—gas leak on Gullfaks B 4.12.2010, PSA, 24.3.2011,
  16. Sklet T, Vinnem JE, Aven T (2006) Barrier and operational risk analysis of hydrocarbon releases (BORA–release) Part II, Results from a case study. J Hazard Mater A137:692–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Standard Norway (2011) Risk based maintenance and consequence classification, NORSOK Standard Z-008, Rev. 3, June 2011Google Scholar
  18. Statoil (2011) Investigation report, COA INV, Gas leak on Gullfaks B (in Norwegian with English summary), Statoil, 1.2.2011 (
  19. Vinnem JE, Pedersen JI, Rosenthal P (1996) Efficient risk management: use of computerized QRA model for safety improvements to an existing installation. In: 3rd International conference on health, safety and environment in oil and gas exploration and production, New Orleans, USA, SPE paper 35775Google Scholar
  20. Vinnem JE (2013) Use of accident precursor event investigations in the understanding of major hazard risk potential in the Norwegian offshore industry. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H], J of Risk Reliab 227(1):66–79 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations