Natural hazard impacts on critical infrastructures

Transcription

1 Natural hazard impacts on critical infrastructures Risk assessment and mapping Serkan Girgin Elisabeth Krausmann Amos Necci Joint Research Centre the European Commission's in-house science service JRC Science Hub: ec.europa.eu/jrc Joint Research Centre

2 Natural Hazard Triggered Technological Accidents Technological accidents with hazardous-materials releases (at fixed installations, offshore platforms or pipelines) caused by natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes, flood, landslides) 2

3 Source: Sankei Getty Images A Kouchiyama 3

4 Characteristics of Natechs Accidents Simultaneous releases from single or multiple sources over wide areas Unavailability of lifelines needed for accident mitigation (water, power) Competition for scarce resources (simultaneous response efforts to cope with the natural and technological events) Hazmat releases hampering emergency response (endangering rescue personnel and disaster victims) Non-functional or inappropriate standard civil protection measures 4 4

5 Obstacles to Natech Risk Reduction Lack of recognition that industry is vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards. Lack of guidance on how to identify Natech hazards and assess the associated risk. Lack of information due to incomplete knowledge of dynamics of Natech accidents and hence lack of scenarios. Questions about adequacy of design basis: Design codes and standards aim at preservation of life safety, not prevention of loss of containment. Uncertainty as to which level of damage or failure is to be expected above the design-basis loading. 5

6 Priority work areas Implement and enforce regulations for Natech risk reduction Develop methods, tools and guidance for Natech risk management Develop dedicated Natech emergency management plans Develop Natech risk maps Raise awareness and improve risk communication Train stakeholders on Natech risk reduction 6

7 JRC Activities Identification of vulnerable equipment, scenarios and consequences Site surveys for Natech damage assessment (e.g. Japan, China) Statistical analysis of accident data Lessons learned and recommendations Natech risk assessment trainings (e.g. Natech Workshops) Natech database: enatech Natech risk assessment and mapping framework: RAPID-N 7

8 RAPID-N Web-based, publicly available decision-support tool for Natech risk assessment and mapping Unites natural-hazard assessment, damage estimation and consequence assessment in one tool! Features Modular architecture Easy and quick data entry Automated data estimation Rapid and scalable analysis Visualization 8

9 Methodology Natural Hazard Damage Consequence Hazard Map - Probabilistic - Deterministic Site Data Process Unit Data Risk States Manual Input Natural Hazard Parameters Damage Probability Consequence Analysis Hazard Parameter Estimation Methods Fragility Curves Natech Risk Historical Data - Hazard Parameters - Damage states - Consequences Risk Receptor Data - Land-use - Population 9

10 Natural Hazard Assessment Natural Hazard Hazard Map - Probabilistic - Deterministic Site Data Manual Input Natural Hazard Parameters Hazard Parameter Estimation Methods 10

11 Damage Assessment Damage Process Unit Data Damage Probability Fragility Curves Historical Data - Hazard Parameters - Damage states - Consequences 11

12 Risk Assessment Consequence Risk States Consequence Analysis Natech Risk Risk Receptor Data - Land-use - Population 12

13 Modelling Framework 13

14 Data Availability > 21,000 earthquakes (> M 5.5) > 56,400 earthquake catalog data > 11,800 ShakeMaps > 5,500 industrial facilities Refineries Power plants > 64,500 plant units Storage tanks > 300 properties > 550 property estimators Application areas Land-use planning Emergency planning Preliminary Natech damage estimation Early warning Complete implementation of U.S. EPA RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis methodology 14

15 Case Study Industrial facility Earthquake scenario Fiber production plant Mw storage tanks Strike-slip fault Kerosene Acrylonitrile 15

16 Case Study Flammable Substance Kerosene Substance Consequence: Pool Kerosene fire Tank End-point: Type 2 nd degree Cylindrical burns (40s Vertical exp.) Roof DS1 Type No releasefixed roof Diameter 12 m DS2 No release Height 18 m DS m³ release Volume 248 m² pool 2064 (within m³ dike) Dike area 69 m end-point 22 m distance x 24 m Dike DS4 volume 619 m³ release 830 m³ 415 m² pool (within dike) Fill level 60% 90 m end-point distance Filled volume 1238 m³ DS m³ release Stored quantity 8588 m² pool 935 (dike tons overflow) 408 m end-point distance 16 d e PGA PGV 6.18 km g cm/s MMI HAZUS, %, Anchored DS1 No damage 45.00% DS2 Minor damage, no release 46.56% DS3 Moderate damage, minor 5.86% release DS4 Severe damage, major release 0.87% DS5 Collapse, loss of content 1.72%

17 Case Study Toxic Substance Acrylonitrile Consequence: Tank Type Atmospheric Cylindrical dispersion vertical End-point: Roof Type ERPG-2 Internal (0.076 floating mg/l) roof DS1 Anchorage No releaseunanchored DS2 Diameter No release25 m DS3 Height 62 m³ release 16 m Volume 1238 m² pool 7750 (within m³ dike) 1.29 km end-point distance Dike area 50 m x 50 m DS m³ release Dike volume 2009 m² pool 4020 (within m³ dike) Fill level 1.93 km end-point 80% distance DS m³ release Filled volume 6200 m³ 8588 m² pool (dike overflow) Stored quantity 3.38 km end-point 4925 tonsdistance d e PGA PGV 6.25 km g cm/s MMI HAZUS, 2010 Near full, Unanchored DS1 No damage 0.90% DS2 Minor damage, no release 13.19% DS3 Moderate damage, minor 28.34% release DS4 Severe damage, major release 18.33% DS5 Collapse, loss of content39.25% 17

18 Ongoing and Future Research Extension to other natural hazards Floods, Lightning Extension to other industrial infrastructures Pipelines Automated Natech damage and consequence estimation (Alert) Reporting to interested parties and authorities Consideration of risk receptors Cascading effects 18

19 Pipeline Natech Risk Assessment Prototype completed in 2016 (JRC Technical Report JRC101463) 19 Pipeline-specific entities Pipeline Pipeline Segment Point of interest (POI) Pipeline-specific data Damage states Fragility functions Properties Property estimators Pipeline-specific features Overlapping segments Auto-segmentation Automated POI generation Impact zone consolidation

20 Flood Natech Risk Assessment Prototype completed in 2016 (MAHB-ECHO AA ) Collection of scientific and technical knowledge Methodologies Hazard data sources Equipment vulnerability Consequence analysis Gap analysis Modifications Further development EFAS/RAPID-N interoperability (JRC Technical Report JRC105055) Flood forecasts --> Natech Alert Data sharing/cooperation between systems 20

21 Outlook Natech Analysis enatech RAPID-N SystemNIDAT EMSC EFAS USGS EMM 21 RAPID Simple Basic GDACS

22 Conclusions Natural hazards can affect industry with possibly major consequences on man, the environment, the economy and the supply chain A framework for Natech risk reduction exists but further research needed to better understand, e.g.: Why Natech accidents occur? (enatech) Which are Natech-prone areas? (RAPID-N) Does the design basis for installations in these areas need to be expanded to cover Natechs (à climate change)? What additional measures (prevention/mitigation) are needed and how should they be evaluated? What are the implications for prevention and preparedness planning? 22

23 Thank you for your attention! RAPID-N rapidn.jrc.ec.europa.eu enatech enatech.jrc.ec.europa.eu Contact 23