Risk analysis of a fuel storage terminal using HAZOP and FTA

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2017, Pages

  Fuentes Bargues, José Luis ^a   González Cruz, Ma Carmen ^a   González Gaya, Cristina ^b   Baixauli Pérez, Ma Piedad ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE EDUCACIÓN A DISTANCIA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Fault Tree Analysis (FTA); Fuel; HAZard and OPerability analysis (HAZOP); Risk; Storage

Indexed keywords

FUEL; PETROLEUM;

CARGO HANDLING; CONTAINER TERMINAL; FUEL; GAS STORAGE; HAZARD MANAGEMENT; OIL SPILL; PORT OPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRAINING;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAULT TREE ANALYSIS; HAZARD AND OPERABILITY ANALYSIS; OIL SPILL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPAIN; STORAGE; ACCIDENT PREVENTION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DECISION TREE; HUMAN; PROBABILITY; PROCEDURES;

COMUNIDAD VALENCIA; SPAIN;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DECISION TREES; HUMANS; PETROLEUM; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPAIN;

EID: 85021653459     PISSN: 16617827     EISSN: 16604601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14070705     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Tixier, J., Dusserre, G., Salvi, O., Gaston, D. Review of 62 analysis methodologies of industrial plants. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2002, 15, 291-303.
2. Planas, E., Arnaldos, J., Darbra, R.M., Muñoz, M., Pastor, E., Vílchez, J.A. Historical evolution of process safety and major-accident hazards prevention in Spain. Contribution of the pioneer Joaquim Casal. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2014, 28, 109-117.
3. Woodruff, J.M. Consequence and likelihood in risk estimation: A matter of balance in UK health and safety risk assessment practice. Saf. Sci. 2005, 43, 345-353.
4. Reniers, G.L.L., Dullaert, W., Ale, B.J.M., Soudan, K. Developing an external domino prevention framework: Hazwin. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2005, 18, 127-138.
5. Høj, N.P., Kröger, W. Risk analyses of transportation on road and railway from a European perspective. Saf. Sci. 2002, 40, 337-357.
6. Haimes, Y.Y. Risk Modelling, Assessment and Management, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009.
7. Marhavilas, P.K., Koulouriotis, D., Gemeni, V. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: On a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000-2009. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2011, 24, 477-523.
8. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety, 2nd ed., American Institute of Chemical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
9. European Union. Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 4th of July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing directive 96/82/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, 1-37.
10. Persson, H., Lönnermark, A. Tank Fires: Review of Fire Incidents 1951-2003, SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute: Borås, Sweden, 2014.
11. Hailwood, M., Gawlowski, M., Schalau, B., Schönbucher, A. Conclusions drawn from the Buncefield and Naples incidents regarding the utilization of consequence models. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2009, 32, 207-231.
12. Casal, J., Montiel, H., Planas, E., Vílchez, J.A. Análisis del Riesgo en Instalaciones Industriales, Edicions UPC: Barcelona, Spain, 1999. (In Spanish)
13. Batista Abreu, J., Godoy, L.A. Investigación de causas de explosiones en plantas petrolíferas: El accidente de Buncefield. Rev. Int. Desastres Nat. Accid. Infraest. Civ. 2009, 9, 187-202. (In Spanish)
14. Willey, R.J., Hendershot, D.C., Berger, S. The accident in Bhopal: Observations 20 years later. Process. Saf. Prog. 2007, 26, 180-184.
15. Homberger, E., Reggiani, G., Sambeth, J., Wipf, H.K. Seveso Accident, its nature, extent and consequences. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1979, 22, 327-370.
16. International Standard Organization (ISO). Risk Management. In Principles and Guidelines on Implementation, ISO 31000:2010, ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
17. Federación Empresarial de la Industria Química Española (FEIQUE). Estadísticas\Radiografía Económica del Sector Químico 2016. Available online: www.feique.org/pdfs/Radiografia_Economica_del_sector_2016.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2017). (In Spanish)
18. Federación Empresarial de la Industria Química Española (FEIQUE). Estadísticas de Seguridad\Informe de Siniestrabilidad 2013. Available online: www.feique.org/pdfs/informeseguridad2015.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2017). (In Spanish)
19. European Union. Directive 82/501/CEE of the Council of 24 June 1982 on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities. Off. J. Eur. Union 1982, 1, 1-18.
20. European Union. Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Off. J. Eur. Union 1996, 1, 13-33.
21. Dirección General de Protección Civil (DGPC). ¿Qué Hacemos?/Riesgos: Prevención y Planificación/Tecnológicos/Químicos/Distribución. Available online: www.proteccioncivil.es/riesgos/quimicos/distribucion (accessed on 17 January 2017). (In Spanish)
22. Kletz, T.A. What you don’t have can’t leak. Chem. Ind. 1978, 6, 287-292.
23. Kletz, T.A. HAZOP and HAZAN. In Identifying and Assessing Process Industry Hazards, 4th ed., IChemE: Rugby, UK, 1999.
24. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP Studies)—Application Guide, IEC 61882:2001, IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
25. National Institute of Health and Safety at Work (NIHSW). Papers Prevention. Nº 238: HAZOP at Processing Facilities. Available online: www.insht.es/InshtWeb/Contenidos/Documentacion/FichasTecnicas/NTP/Ficheros/201a300/ntp_238.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2015). (In Spanish)
26. Dunjó, J., Fthenakis, V., Vílchez, J.A., Arnaldos, J. Hazard and operability (HAZOP) analysis. A literature review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 173, 19-32.
27. Demichela, M., Camuncoli, G. Risk based decision making. Discussion on two methodological milestones. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2014, 28, 101-108.
28. Mitkowski, P.T., Bal, S.K. Integration of Fire and Explosion Index in 3D Process Plant Design Software. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2015, 38, 1212-1222.
29. Bendixen, L., O’Neill, J.K. Chemical plant risk assessment using HAZOP and fault tree methods. Plant Oper. Prog. 1984, 3, 179-184.
30. Ozog, H. Hazard identification, analysis and control: A systematic way to assess potential hazards helps promote safer design and operation of new and existing plants. Chem. Eng. 1985, 92, 161-170.
31. Ozog, H., Bendixen, L. Hazard identification and quantification: The most effective way to identify, quantify, and control risks is to combine a hazard and operability study with fault tree analysis. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1987, 83, 55-64.
32. Demichela, M., Marmo, L., Piccinini, N. Recursive operability analysis of a complex plant with multiple protection devices. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2002, 77, 301-308.
33. Cozzani, V., Bonvicini, S., Spadoni, G., Zanelli, S. Hazmat transport: A methodological framework for the risk analysis of marshalling yards. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 147, 412-423.
34. Casamirra, M., Castiglia, F., Giardina, M., Lombardo, C. Safety studies of a hydrogen refuelling station: Determination of the occurrence frequency of the accidental scenarios. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 5846-5854.
35. Kim, E., Lee, K., Kim, J., Lee, Y., Park, J., Moon, I. Development of Korean hydrogen fuelling station codes through risk analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 13122-13131.
36. International Standard Organization (ISO). Risk Management. In Risk Assessment Techniques, ISO 31010:2011, ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
37. Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H., Haasl, D.F. Fault Tree Handbook, NUREG-0492, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Rockville, MD, USA, 1981.
38. Segovia Andújar, R. Proyecto de Ejecución de Nueva estación de descarga de productos inflamables en el muelle norte del puerto de Valencia. In Autoridad Portuaria de Valencia, Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain, 2006. (In Spanish)
39. Terminales Portuarias SL (TEPSA). Declaración Ambiental y Responsabilidad Social Corporativa. Available online: www.tepsa.es (accessed on 14 July 2015). (In Spanish)
40. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Royal Decree 1254/1999 of 16 July, on the Control of Major-Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances, Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1999, Volume 172, pp. 27167-27180. (In Spanish)
41. Chang, J.I., Lin, C.C. A study of storage tank accidents. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2006, 19, 51-59.
42. Aneziris, O.N., Papazoglou, I.A., Konstantinidou, M., Nivolianitou, Z. Integrated risk assessment for LNG terminals. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2014, 28, 23-35.
43. Batista Abreu, J., Godoy, L.A. Investigación de causas de explosiones en una planta de almacenamiento de combustible en Puerto Rico. Rev. Int. Desastres Nat. Accid. Infraest. Civ. 2011, 11, 109-122. (In Spanish)
44. Taveau, J. Explosion of Fixed Roof Atmospheric Storage Tanks, Part 1: Background and Review of Case Histories. Process Saf. Prog. 2011, 30, 381-392.
45. National Institute of Health and Safety at Work (NIHSW). Papers Prevention. Nº 333: Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Fault Tree Analysis. Available online: www.insht.es/InshtWeb/Contenidos/Documentacion/FichasTecnicas/NTP/Ficheros/301a400/ntp_333.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2015). (In Spanish)
46. Ronza, A., Carol, S., Espejo, V., Vílchez, J.A., Arnaldos, J. A quantitative risk analysis approach to port hydrocarbon logistics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 128, 10-24.
47. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IAOGP). Storage Incident Frequencies. In Risk Assessment Data Directory, Report No. 434-3, OGP: London, UK, 2010. Available online: http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-03.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2015).