1 / 30

Risk-Based System for Safety Assessment: LUP Workshop Overview

Explore the evolution towards a risk-based system, with methodologies and future directions, factors influencing the shift, and significance of European guidelines. Discover the challenges in implementing dangerous dose concept over fatality endpoint and the need for consistency in advice across different hazard sites. Delve into the revised system proposal with focus on individual and societal risk criteria, graded advice system, and consideration of domino effects in various sectors. Understand the criteria for different installations and threats such as handling explosives and toxic gases. Receive insights on calculating risks and advice matrices, with a transparent approach to safety assessments.

redell
Télécharger la présentation

Risk-Based System for Safety Assessment: LUP Workshop Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LUP Workshop 24 September 2012, Cyprus LUP in Ireland A ‘Simple’ Risk-based System

  2. Presentation Overview • Previous approach • Why move to more explicit risk system? • Methodology • Future direction

  3. CCA Role • Inspection • Safety Report Assessment • LUP advice • ‘Primus Inter Pares’ on implementation

  4. Previous Experience • LUP since 1999 • Consequence based on single scenarios for Fire/explosion • Risk considered for toxic events • Codified for LPG, Petroleum Storage, Toxic Gases

  5. LPG

  6. Petroleum Storage

  7. Toxic Gas

  8. Zone Advice – Fire/Explosion

  9. Zone Advice - Toxics

  10. Concerns • Demand from both planners and developers to be given more detailed advice on suitable development types • Review undertaken in the UK following the Buncefield major accident of 2005 • European Guidelines on LUP and the need to demonstrably follow the principles set out in that document • Difficulties encountered in using the ‘dangerous dose’ concept, as opposed to the more-widely used endpoint of fatality • Need for consistency of advice across all the different types of hazard sites • Need to take suitable account of Societal (Group) risks • Need to take account of developments on environmental grounds as they impact on LUP • High Court Judicial Review proceedings

  11. Specification for New System - 1 • Propose a revised system remedying the above, which conforms to current European guidelines • A risk-based approach • The use of fatality as an end-point • Identify event frequencies to be used • Identify scenarios to be used in the relevant sectors

  12. Brief for New System - 2 • Propose individual and societal risk criteria • A transparent system of graded advice based on the nature of the receptors • Consideration of damage to property and the environment • Advise on the inclusion of domino effects

  13. Sectors • LPG Installations • Large Scale Flammable Storage Sites (VCE Risk) • Large Scale Flammable Storage Sites (No VCE Risk) • Storage of Class III (1) Petroleum Products (Diesel, Gas Oils) • Sites with Gas Pipelines • Fertilizer Blending/Storage Sites • Warehouses • Chemical/Pharmaceutical Plants • Toxic Gas Drum & Cylinder Stores • Handling/Storing Explosives

  14. Petroleum Class 1 (R 11) • VCE 10-4/year per installation (or 10-5 /yr per vessel), distributed between the locations close to all the main fuel storage tanks. • Overpressure generated .. from a 50,000 m3 VCE with an ignition strength of 7 and a combustion energy of 3.5 MJ/m3 using the TNO multi-energy method

  15. Petroleum Class 1 Establishment • Risks of fatality can be calculated using a probit of Y = 1.47+1.35ln(P), with P in psi • Pool fire extending up to 100 m from the bund wall, with a total frequency of at least 10-4/year • A pool fire which covers the entire surface of the bund with a higher frequency of 10-3/year.

  16. Mechanism • 20m x 20m grid points • Co-ordinates of release locations and receptor • Distances to receptor location • Fatality at receptor location • Risk at receptor location

  17. Risk in each grid

  18. Transfer to Map

  19. Contours for Generic Advice

  20. Fertiliser Establishment • Fire in vicinity of Ammonium Nitrate Fertiliserleading to the decomposition products Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide being released. • Explosion of molten/decomposing Ammonium Nitrate • Probits: • Nitrogen dioxide : Probit = -13.79 + 1.4 ln(c2t) • Nitric oxide : Probit = -150.838 + 15.432 ln(ct) • Overpressure : Probit = 1.47 + 1.35 ln(P)

  21. Fertilizer scenarios • Generally, 3 events selected for modelling. These are: • Outside Stack Fire • Outside Truck fire • Inside Truck Fire • The explosion risks are summed with the toxic risks to generate the final risk contours that are overlaid on the local map.

  22. Risk in each grid calculated

  23. Risk in each grid

  24. Advice Matrix + PADHI

  25. Future Direction • Continue to roll out generic advice • Societal Risk • Population Data • Expectation Value, EV density

  26. Residential Populatiion

  27. Grid Population

  28. Population Distribution - Excel

  29. EV density, Excel

  30. LUP Workshop 24 September 2012, Cyprus Thank You for Your Attention http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Your_Industry/Chemicals/Control_of_Major_Accident_Hazards/Approach_to_LUP_under_Comah_Regs.pdf

More Related