The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessment in Improving Hazardous Installations Siting: A Case Study

Document Type: Research Article

Authors

Faculty of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-8639 Tehran, I.R. IRAN

Abstract

Safety distance has already been a main measurement for the hazard control of chemical installations interpreted to mean providing space between the hazardous installation and different types of targets. But, the problem is how to determine the enough space. This study considers the application of quantitative risk assessment to evaluating a compressed natural gas station site and to identify nearby land use limitations. In such cases, the most important consideration is to assure that the proposed site would not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. This scope is possible by categorization of estimated levels of risk imposed by the proposed site. It means that an analysis of the consequences and likelihood of credible accident scenarios coupled with general acceptable risk criteria should be undertaken. This enables the calculated risk of the proposed site to be considered at an early stage, to allow prompt responses or in the later stages to observe limitations. It is concluded that not only adequate distance is not been provided but also the compressed natural gas station is located in the vicinity of populated areas and this is chiefly because of inadequate risk assessment studies and ambiguities in defining acceptable risk criteria.

Keywords


[1] Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS)., “Guidelines for Facility Siting and Layout”, American Institute of Chemical Engineers(AIChE),New York, pp. 1-50 (2003).2] Cozzani V., Bandini R., Basta C., Christou D., Application of Land-Use Planning Criteria for the Control of Major Accident Hazards: A Case-Study, Journal of Hazardous Materials., 136, p. 170 (2006).

[3] Bajpai S., Gupta J.P., Site Security for Chemical Process Industries, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries., 18, p. 301 (2005).

[4] Abdolhamidzadeh B., Rashtchian D., Ashouri E., A New Methodology for Frequency Estimation of Second or Higher Level Domino Accidents In Process Plants Using Mote Carlo Simulation, Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering., 28, p. 21 (2008).

[5] Havens J., Spicer T., United StatesRegulations for Siting LNG Terminals: Problems and Potential, Journal of Hazardous Materials., 140, p. 439 (2007).

[6] Kaszniak M., Holmstrom D., Trailer Siting Issues: BP Texas City, Journal of Hazardous Materials., 159, p. 105 (2008).

[7] Marangon A., Carcassi M., Engebo A., Nilsen S., Safety Distances: Definition and Values, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy., 32, p. 2192 (2007).

[8] Taylor S.W., The Role of Consequence Modeling in LNG Facility Siting, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 142, p. 776 (2007).

[9] Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), “Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis”, 2nd ed., American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE),New York, pp. 95-118 (2000).

[10] MedinaH., Arnolds J., Casal J., Process Design Optimization and Risk Analysis, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, p. 566 (2009).

[11] Rigas, F. and Sklavounos, S., Major Hazards Analysis for Populations Adjacent to Chemical Storage Facilities, Process Safety and Environmental Protection., 84, p. 1 (2004).

[12] Lees F.P., “Loss Prevention in the Process Industries”, 3rd ed, Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford. pp. 853-952 (2005).

[13] Cheremisinoff, N.P., “Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties”, Butterworth-Heinemann,London, pp. 311-350 (2000).

[14] “CNG Station in F-6 Afire After Gas Cylinder Explosion”, Available from http://www.ParkTribune.com, Saturday, Nov. 04, (2006).

[15] “Blueline Gutted at CNG pump”,Chandigarh, India, Available from http://www.Tribuneindia.com, Thursday, Aug. 21, (2003).

[16] Xieqin, “High-Pressure Gas Storage at the Filling Station of Vehicle Compressed Natural Gas”, Tianranqi Gongye/Natural Gas Industry, 18, (1998).

[17] Communication with HSE Department, Gaz Khodro Company, National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC), (2010).

[18] Chung J.B., Kim H.K., Competition, Economic Benefits, Trust, And Risk Perception in Siting A Potentially Hazardous Facility, Landscape and Urban Planning., 91, p. 8 (2009).

[19] Ward P., Susan B., "Evaluation of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fueling System",CaliforniaEnergy Commission, (1999).

[20] "Process Manual of Banihashem CNG Station", Greater Tehran Gas Company,Tehran,Iran, (2001).

[21] Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), “Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures”, 3rd ed., AmericanInstituteofChemical Engineers(AIChE),New York, pp. 425-568 (2007).

[22] Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), “Guidelines for Consequence Analysis of Chemical Releases”, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), New York, pp. 108-215 (1999).

[23] Casal, J, “Evaluation of the Effects and Consequences of Major Accidents in Industrial Plants”, Elsevier,Oxford,UK, pp.185-211 (2008).

[24] Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Activity Responsible Function (ARF) Technical Library, Internal DNVReport,Norway, (1996).

[25] System and Reliability Research, “Fault Tree Handbook”,U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, (1981).

[26] Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), “Guidelines for Developing Quantitative Safety Risk Criteria”, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), New York, pp. 298-305 (2009).

[27] Badri N., Nourai F., Rashtchian D., Quantitative Risk Assessment to Site CNG Refueling Stations, Chemical Engineering Transactions., 19, p. 255 (2010).

[28] Hirst I.L., Carter D.A., A Worst Case Methodology for Risk Assessment of Major Accident Installations, Process Safety Progress., 19, p. 2 (2000).

[29] Ball D.J., Floyd P.J., “Societal Risks, Final Report”, (1998).