Risk Criteria in an International Setting

Transcription

1 Risk Criteria in an International Setting IChemE S&LPG: Risk Criteria in Decision Making Mark Boult & Philip Nalpanis 15 th June 2010

2 Agenda Comparison of regulatory criteria Examples of applying criteria for Individual Risk Examples and pitfalls of applying criteria for Societal Risk Applying criteria to transport What if there are no criteria? Concluding remarks and discussion Slide 2

3 Who uses what kind of risk criteria? Country Individual Risk (IR) Societal Risk (SR) Other UK: Safety Cases ( FN curve) RI; ALARP + GD UK: Land Use Planning ( ) Implied Consequence Netherlands FN curve (optional) Belgium: Flanders FN curve Hong Kong (flexible for existing) FN curve ALARP for SR Brazil (3 states) (flexible if SR met) FN curve Singapore Consequence Malaysia Australia: Western Australia Onsite: Prelim. FN ALARP Australia: New South Wales FN curve WA, UK LUP Australia: Queensland ALARP + GD Australia: Victoria Interim FN curve ALARP Canada (guidance) Implied For LUP France Decision Matrix Switzerland FN curve USA: Federal Agencies FN curve: DoD USA: Santa Barbara County, CA Screening QRA FN curve USA: New Jersey IMO FN curve ALARP Abu Dhabi FN curve ALARP Slide 3

4 2 or 3 bands? Country 2 Bands 3 Bands UK: Safety Cases/Reports UK: Land Use Planning Netherlands Belgium: Flanders Hong Kong Brazil (3 states) Singapore Malaysia Australia: Western Australia Australia: New South Wales Australia: Queensland Australia: Victoria Canada France Switzerland USA: Federal Agencies USA: Santa Barbara County, CA USA: New Jersey IMO Abu Dhabi Slide 4

5 Individual Risk Criteria: All Public IRPA: UK Road accidents Accidents at home Death from cancer All accidents Accidents on railway Run over by vehicle Fatality through hospital acquired infection Fatality in hospital Struck by lightning Death from CJD UK SC - existing facility - & IMO UK SC - new facility - & IMO ADNOC Netherlands São Paulo & Rio Grande do Sul São Paulo & Rio Grande do Sul Victoria US: New Jersey - Cancer US NRC - NPP US DOE - NPP - new plants - new pipelines Slide 5

6 Individual Risk Criteria: Land Use IRPA: People at work, parking Vulnerable people Industrial Members of public Industrial Commercial Sensitive Low density activities Residential, 25 persons Site fence Vulnerable people Normally unoccupied General public General public Very large and sensitive Commercial Non-industrial Residential Light industrial, 25 persons Schools & Hospitals Residential Small units UK Singapore WA, NSW, Qu land ADNOC Flanders Wallonia Susceptible people Industrial Commercial Canada Slide 6

7 Example 1: Existing plant Slide 7

8 Example 2: New Chemical Plant Where to build: Flanders or Singapore? Proposed new plant Site Slide 8

9 Example 2: Flanders option 10-4 /year 10-5 /year 10-6 /year 10-7 /year Site IRPA: Industry Residential Natural Hospitals etc. Waterways Agriculture People at work, parking Vulnerable people Industrial Members of public Industrial Commercial Sensitive Low density activities Residential, 25 persons Site fence Vulnerable people General public Very large and sensitive Commercial Non-industrial Residential Light industrial, 25 persons Schools & Hospitals Residential UK Singapore WA, NSW, Qu land ADNOC Flanders Slide 9

10 Example 2: Singapore option /year /year /year /year Proposed new plant Now considering building the plant in Saudi Arabia! IRPA: People at work, parking Vulnerable people Industrial Members of public Industrial Commercial Sensitive Low density activities Residential, 25 persons Site fence Vulnerable people General public Very large and sensitive Commercial Non-industrial Residential Light industrial, 25 persons Schools & Hospitals Residential UK Singapore WA, NSW, Qu land ADNOC Flanders Slide 11

11 Example 3: Abu Dhabi Phase 1 of petrochemicals complex: Middle zone Preliminary QRA No occupied locations within inner/ middle/outer zones, but Existing motorway between 2 plants! - Should this be permitted? Inner zone Motorway! Outer zone IRPA: People at work, parking Vulnerable people Industrial Members of public Industrial Commercial Sensitive Low density activities Residential, 25 persons Site fence Vulnerable people General public Very large and sensitive Commercial Non-industrial Residential Light industrial, 25 persons Schools & Hospitals Residential UK Singapore WA, NSW, Qu land ADNOC Flanders Slide 12

12 Frequency (/year) of N or more fatalities Societal Risk Criteria (Upper Limit) UK HSE RdJ & RGdS Victoria Hong Kong São P & WA existing Flanders Santa Barbara Netherlands & CH WA new NSW Number of fatalities, N Slide 13

13 Frequency (/year) of N or more fatalities Getting it wrong 10-2 Hong Kong Airport proposed to build a new tank farm A QRA was carried out as part of the EIA 10-3 The EIA was approved by the Director of Environmental Protection 10-4 Next door is a steel mill owned by SWS 10-5 SWS were concerned that a catastrophic rupture of a full fuel tank resulting in 100% loss of contents and bund overtopping could result in the 10-6 aviation fuel spreading into the mill, igniting, and resulting in a large conflagration 10-7 This scenario had been identified in the QRA but excluded from the analysis as not credible 10-8 In court, SWS were able to get the EIA approval quashed. Why? 10-9 Number of fatalities, N - No 1 analysis had been done to determine whether the above scenario, however incredible, could result in >1000 fatalities Slide 14

14 Frequency of N or More Fatalities (fatalities per year) Applying criteria to transport The Hong Kong experience (LPG) 1.0E-02 Future Case (2006) Mitigated Future Case Interim Acceptable LPG Transport Criteria 1.0E-03 Only lower PHI criterion (Acceptable/ ALARP) used Multiplied by number of sites managed using QRA 1.0E-04 ALARP Region ALARP needed to be demonstrated, with risk mitigation measures 1.0E E E-07 Acceptable Region 1.0E E Number of Fatalities (N) Slide 15

15 Quis custodiet? A 5.5 km propylene pipeline is being build in Singapore IRPA: People at work, parking Vulnerable people Industrial Members of public Industrial Commercial Sensitive Low density activities Residential, 25 persons Site fence Vulnerable people General public Very large and sensitive Commercial Non-industrial Residential Light industrial, 25 persons Schools & Hospitals Residential The pipeline corridor width is 5 m, so thermal radiation and explosion overpressure effects could certainly go offsite within a residential area QRA consultant reduced pipeline leak frequencies, taking into account safety measures, so scenarios became non-credible (< 10-6 /year) Authority disagreed with approach, so offsite scenarios were considered credible Temporary (6 months) approval to operate granted Contractor has to implement additional safety measures and demonstrate risk acceptance criteria are fulfilled (within 6 months) UK Singapore WA, NSW, Qu land ADNOC Flanders AND 37.5 k/m 2 thermal radiation & 0.5 psi explosion overpressure must not go offsite Slide 16

16 Frequency (/year) of N or more fatalities Applying risk criteria to transport Individual risk Individual risk + impact criteria? F-N curves: how do you apply criteria to a 5 km pipeline and a 500 km pipeline? (How many pipeline-km = 1 establishment?) RdJ Hong Kong Netherlands (1 km) Switzerland (300 m) Statoil EPN (10 km) Number of fatalities, N Slide 17

17 Same facility, different countries (1) From: Leendert Gooijer (RIVM), Comparison of 4 QRA approaches based on a fictitious LPG plant, Loss Prevention 2010, Bruges. Hypothetical LPG storage facility - Rail/road tanker delivery; storage; road tanker loading Done for: - UK (individual and societal risks) - France (scenarios assigned to MMR risk matrix; risk contours) - Netherlands (individual and societal risks) - Belgium Walloon region (individual risks) Country Value Distance (m) UK (HSE) Inner zone (no housing, hotels ) 280 Middle zone (no hospitals, schools) 380 France (Ineris) Aléa (limit value for expropriation) 270 Netherlands (RIVM) IR 10-6 per year (houses, schools, hospitals) 250 Belgium Walloon Region (FPMs) IR 10-5 per year (no houses ) 200 IR 10-6 per year (schools, hospitals) 375 Slide 18

18 Same facility, different countries (2) Slide 19

19 Same facility, different countries (3) Country1 Value OK / Not OK? UK (HSE) Inner zone (no housing, hotels ) Middle zone (no hospitals, schools) IR? FN France (Ineris) Aléa (limit value for expropriation) MMR IR < 270 m Netherlands (RIVM) IR 10-6 per year (houses, schools, hospitals) IR? FN w. ERP Belgium Walloon Region (FPMs) IR 10-5 per year (no houses ) IR 10-6 per year (no schools, hospitals) IR? Slide 20

20 Where no criteria exist What do/would you do? Slide 21

21 Where no criteria exist Example Village New LNG Plant Individual Risk: UK HSE criteria - Maximum tolerable risk for workers 10-3 per year - Maximum tolerable risk for members of the public 10-4 per year - Negligible risk 10-6 per year Client would not accept stricter criteria, claiming above used everywhere! Site Boundary Societal Risk: Admin Building Ro-Ro Terminal Slide 22

22 Where no criteria exist Example cont d 10-3 per year 10-4 per year 10-5 per year 10-6 per year 10-7 per year! Admin Building Options Ro-Ro Terminal Move village (unacceptable to client) ERP to include evacuation of village PFP on refrigerant storage tanks Consider relocating ro-ro berth 10-3 per year 10-4 per year 10-5 per year 10-6 per year 10-7 per year Slide 23

23 Concluding remarks Several countries/states/agencies apply regulatory criteria - They represent different histories and legal systems They are applied to the source (establishment) and/or receptor (e.g. external development) They apparently display a wide range but in practice the resulting decisions aren t always so different Operators/consultants should ensure at the outset that they have the same understanding of the criteria as the relevant statutory authority Where no statutory criteria exist, company criteria may be used or another regime s criteria applied Transport poses particular issues applying societal risk criteria Slide 24

24 Discussion Slide 25 25

25 Slide 26