Health, Safety and Environment Risk Assessment in Gas Pipelines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
662Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research J SCI IND RES VOL 69 SEPTEMBER 2010 Vol. 69, September 2010, pp. 662-666 Health, safety and environment risk assessment in gas pipelines Saeed Malmasi1, Iraj Mohammad Fam2* and Nahid Mohebbi3 1Department of Environment, Faculty of Environment, University of North Tehran IAU, Tehran, Iran 2Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Faculty of Health, University of Hamadan Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran 3Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment and Energy, University of Sciences and Researches, IAU, Tehran, Iran Received 21 October 2008; revised 23 June 2010; accepted 07 July 2010 In this study, health, safety and environment (HSE) risk assessment was carried out using simplified quantitative risk assessment method and Geographic Information System (GIS) on ethylene gas pipeline. Risk levels observed on pipeline length were found to be medium (74.72%), high (23.89%) and very high (1.39%). Keywords: Environment, Gas pipelines, Health, Risk assessment, Safety Introduction pipeline, characteristics of the plan was studied in sub Health, safety and environment (HSE) risk indices (third party damage, corrosion, design and Assessment is a systematic process to make decisions in incorrect operation). When probability of risk increases, order to ensure right execution of pipelines project and the score decreases. Final score of this index consists of to decrease probable risks. In order to reach sustainable sum of all scores of sub indices. Second axis of HSE development aims and decreasing harmful HSE risks, it risk assessment studies is to determine LIF. Risk scores is necessary to conduct HSE risk management studies1,2. in LIF relate to future effects of a deficiency. In LIF, In order to distinguish and assess nature of risks higher scores relate to more impacts and the more (probability, intensity, frequency, and consequences etc.) intensive ones. LIF can be calculated using four main one must choose an appropriate method3. This study factors [product hazard (PH), spill size or leak volume presents risk assessment method to recognize HSE risks (LV), gas dispersion (D) and receptors (R)] (Fig. 1). Thus and future effects, estimating probability of intensity and relation of SI and LIF are as follows: occurrence of risks and their control. HSE risk assessment of ethylene gas pipeline (Khuzestan, Iran) SI = Third Party + Corrosion + Design + Incorrect was conducted as a case study. operations …(1) Experimental Section LIF = PH × LV × D × R …(2) Risk management process consists of identification, assessment and mitigation of risk. Indexing method is a Then, final risk score (R) is calculated as well accepted approach to score threats and consequences for pipelines and facilities. It includes two main indices R= Score of SI / Score of LIF …(3) [sum index (SI) and leak impact factors (LIF)]. All In this study, GIS software4 was used. Scores of indices are analyzed and quantified by using defined indices were overlaid and displayed on route via criteria. First axis of HSE risk assessment is done by Geographic Information System (GIS). Then, indices using SI consisting of all factors, which are effective in were localized. Hence, third party damages scores were increasing potential of accident or risk occurrence in quantified during pipeline length. Corrosion and design length of pipeline. In order to assess ethylene gas index layers were prepared. In second stage of risk *Author for correspondence assessment by indexing method, leak impact index was E-mail: [email protected] assessed during pipeline length via dispersion, MALMASI et al : HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT IN GAS PIPELINES 663 Fig. 1—Risk assessment model Table 1—Risk zoning method on pipeline length Risk indices Factor Zoning method Third parties Population density and Radiant (2 km) is respected damages pavement type in crossing this factor. Hazardous activities Radiant (1 km) is respected Agriculture and water pipeline in area of this factor transportation Stability of area (construction, renovation, etc.) Vulnerability and threats Design Landslide These items are placed Subsidence during course base on Fault movement factors scores and zoning by GIS. Seismic shaking Water bank erosion Corrosion Soil corrosivity Regarding to soil resistivity, pH, moisture, carbonates, MIC etc., soil corrosivity potential are distinguished during pipeline course and zoned by GIS. Ecological Protected areas Radiant (5 km) is respected sensitivities in crossing protected areas and special flora/vegetation. Important ecological rivers Radiant (1 km) is respected in crossing important ecological rivers. receptors sensitivities and product hazards integrated with Index Sum layer [Eq. (3)]. So risk final multiplication [Eq. (2)]. In order to final risk score map was prepared. In general, risk zoning method on placement during pipeline length, leak impact layer was course is summarized (Table 1). Finally, risk scores on 664 J SCI IND RES VOL 69 SEPTEMBER 2010 pipeline route were provided by overlaying these implementation, inspection or control, control risk layers. At the end of this study, control measures and options format were classified. Finally, most significant activities were suggested on final section, in order to and available mitigation and control measures were obtain risk assessment objectives. In terms of selected for each risk index and presented briefly. MALMASI et al : HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT IN GAS PIPELINES 665 Fig. 2—Final risk scores of ethylene gas transferring pipeline in Khuzestan (Iran) Case Study Khuzestan (Iran) ethylene gas pipeline relates to a (Behbahan, Mahshahr Port, Mollasani, Ahwaz, Vais, part of Mahabaad – Asaluyeh ethylene gas pipeline Sheiban and Andimeshk) and 214 villages around them. (1467 km long), which is planned to provide input of Across pipeline length is as follows: 0-58 km, 18; 58- petrochemical industries in southwest, west and 133 km, 4; 133-208 km, 45, 208-283 km, 31; 283-358 northwest of Iran. Pipeline (length, 360 km; diam, 50.8 km, 20; and 358-360 km, 18 people/km. In study area, cm) transfers ethylene gas to petrochemical industries land classification is as follows: first grade pasture, 8.63; of Mahshahr special economic region. This pipe is made second grade pasture, 11.86; third grade pasture, 12.3; of carbon-steel and alo-steel as per ANSI standard urban areas, 12.53; straw, 13.8; water lands, 12.92; dry (%vol, 99.95%; pressure, 28 bars; debi, 1200 kton). Two agriculture, 7.66; agriculture with watering, 8.54; and pressure reinforcement stations (Ramshir and Mahshahr), arid, 12.48%,. Most important lands used in the region a pigging sending and receiving station and 8 were agriculture, residential and waterlands current-disconnecting stations were established on the (ponds and pools). way. Cathodic protection stations were established to prevent corrosion in pipeline. All pieces of equipment Results and Discussion and connectors were buried under ground5. Assessing Highest risks of the plan were found to relate to gas ethylene pipeline passes through 7 cities of province leakage and outburst from pipeline. Ethylene gas is very 666 J SCI IND RES VOL 69 SEPTEMBER 2010 corrosive and reacts with iron very fast. Risk of soil Conclusions corrosiveness in the way of study is high of sulfur and Highest risks of plan related to gas leakage and chloride anions, and the soil because of high humidity outburst from pipeline. In order to improve HSE index, and high concentration acidity. Therefore, it takes a comprehensive program must be introduced. In this lowest score in defined areas. Because of the crossing of study, HSE indices were considered, and a method was pipeline with two faults, probability of fraction and developed using GIS application for quantification of deficiency in pipeline increases. Known risks in indices. pipeline route are summarized (Table 2). After References determining risk scores for each index individually, risk 1 Armitage C J & Conner M, Efficacy of theory of planned was classified by overlaying and integrating two main behavior: a meta-analytic review, Br J Soc Psychol, 40 (2001) layers (SI and LIF) during the route. Risk levels found 471-499. 2 Chen J R & Yang Y-T, A predictive risk index for safety per- in ethylene gas pipeline route were medium (74.72%), formance in process industries, J Loss Prev Proc Ind, 17 (2004) high (23.89%) and very high (1.39%). Area with very 233-242. high risk is located in 110-120 km of the route. 3 Azadeh, M A, Creating highly reliable manufacturing High-risk area is located in 90-100 km and 200-300 km systems: An integrated approach, Int J Reliab Qual Safety of the way. In other parts of the way, degree of risk is Engg, 7 (2000) 205-225. 4 Gherardi S & Nicolini D, Learning the trade: a culture of medium. Fig. 2 shows final risk level distribution in the safety in practice. Organization, 9 (2002) 191-223. way. Some measures to control risks include decreasing 5 Azadeh A & Mohammad Fam I, A framework for development possibility and frequency of occurrence, rectification of of intelligent human engineering environment, Inform Technol probable damages from risk occurrence, declining risk J, 5 (2006) 290-299. 6 Basso B, Carpegna C, Dibitonto C, Gaido G, Robotto A & occurrence outcomes, prevent or decrease damages and Zonato C, Reviewing the safety management system by inci- repairing and protecting expenses. According to dent investigation and performance indicators, J Loss Prev Proc preferences of determined indices, some of the control Ind, 17 (2004) 225-231. measures include concrete casing in crossing places, 7 Azadeh A, Mohammad Fam I, Nouri J & Azadeh M A, Inte- installation of marker in the way of pipeline, using grated health, safety, environment and ergonomics management system (HSEE-MS): An efficient substitution for conventional one-call telephone systems, auditing and patrolling, pre- HSE-MS, J Sci Ind Res, 67 (2008) 403-411. paring crisis management program, preparing valves to 8 Hauschild V D & Bratt G M, Prioritizing industrial chemical cut the current and preparing sensitive barometers.