Quantitative Risk Assessment in Iran’s Natural Gas Distribution Network

Payam Amir-Heidari, Mehrzad Ebrahemzadih, Hadi Farahani, Jamshid Khoubi

Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Kurdistan Environmental Health Research Center, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran; Department of Occupational Health, Faculty of Health, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI), Tehran, Iran.

DOI: 10.4236/ojsst.2014.41008                

Abstract

Natural gas (NG) is one of the widely used domestic fuels in most of the countries, and because of economical and environmental advantages, its consumption is continuously increasing. As a result, complex piping systems are being installed to transport and distribute the gas for end users. Pipelines carrying NG are a significant source of hazard for their adjacent society. The risk of this hazard could be high especially in distribution network and urban areas where the population density is high. The common causes of accident in NG distribution network are: third party interference, corrosion, fatigue, stress corrosion cracking (SCC), etc. Accident in network leads to leakage and release of NG and consequent injuries and losses. To prevent these adverse outcomes, the risks should be identified and assessed carefully, so that they can be controlled and managed properly. In this work, risk assessment of NG distribution pipelines was surveyed and quantitative methods were recommended for assessing the individual and societal risks of distribution network.

Keywords

Distribution Network; Natural Gas; Pipeline; Risk Assessment

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Arnaldo, J., Casal, J., Montiel, H., Sanchez-Carricondo, M. and Vilchez, J.A. (1998) Design of a Computer Tool for the Evaluation of the Consequences of Accidental NG Release in Distribution Pipes. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 11, 135-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(97)00041-7
[2]	PHMSA. http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/PetroleumPipelineSystems.htm
[3]	Jo, Y.-D. and Ahn, B.J. (2002) Analysis of Hazard Area Associated with High Pressure Natural-Gas Pipeline. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 15, 179-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(02)00007-4
[4]	Haimes, Y.Y. (2008) Risk modelling, Assessment, and Management. 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc. Publication, New York.
[5]	Han, Z.Y. and Weng, W.G. (2010) An Integrated Quantitative Risk Analysis Method for NG Pipeline Network. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 23, 428-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2010.02.003
[6]	Enamul Hossain, M., Ketata, C., Ibrahim Khan, M. and Rafiqul Islam, M. (2009) Flammability and Individual Risk Assessment for NG Pipelines. ASPES, 1, 33-44.
[7]	Van Duijne, F.H., Aken, D. and Schouten, E.G. (2008) Considerations in Developing Complete and Quantified Methods for Risk Assessment. Safety Science, 46, 245-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.003
[8]	HSE (1994) Risks from Hazardous Pipelines in the United Kingdom, HSE Contract Research Report No. 82/1994.
[9]	PHMSA Significant Incident Files, 2011.
[10]	7th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group, Gas Pipeline Incidents, 2008, Document No. EGIG 08. TV-B. 0502.
[11]	Marhavilas, P.K., Koulouriotis, D. E. and Voulgaridou, K. (2009) Development of a Quantitative Risk Assessment Technique and Application on an Industry’s Worksite Using Real Accidents’ Data. Scientific Journal of Hellenic Association of Mechanical & Electrical Engineers, 416, 14-20.
[12]	Marhavilas, P.K., Koulouriotis, D. and Gemeni, V. (2011) 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. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 24, 477-523.
[13]	Almoussawi, R. and Christian, C. (2005) Fundamentals of Quantitative Risk Analysis. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 7, 61-77
[14]	Marhavilas, P.K. andKoulouriotis, D.E. (2008) A Risk Estimation Methodological Framework Using Quantitative Assessment Techniques and Real Accidents’ Data: Application in an Aluminum Extrusion Industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21, 596-603.
[15]	Woodruff, J.M. (2005) Consequence and Likelihood in Risk Estimation: A Matter of Balance in UK Health and Safety Risk Assessment Practice. Safety Science, 43, 345-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.07.003
[16]	Trucco, P. and Cavallin, M. (2006) A Quantitative Approach to Clinical Risk Assessment: The CREA Method. Safety Science, 44, 491-513.
[17]	Suddle, S. (2009) The Weighted Risk Analysis. Safety Science, 47, 668-679.
[18]	Amir Heidary, P. (2011) Risk Assessment of NG Pipeline. 3rd Iranian Pipe & Pipeline Conference, 24-25 May 2011, Tehran.
[19]	Bacon, J.F. (1988) King Report. British Gas Corporation, London, 1988.
[20]	Cagno, E., Caron, F., Mancini, M. and Ruggeri, F. (2000) Using AHP in Determining the Prior Distributions on Gas Pipeline Failures in a Robust Bayesian Approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 67, 275-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(99)00070-8
[21]	Jo, Y.D. and Crowl, D.A. (2008) Individual Risk Analysis of High-Pressure NG Pipelines. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21, 589-595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2008.04.006
[22]	Spyros, S. and Fotis, R. (2006) Estimation of Safety Distances in the Vicinity of Fuel Gas Pipelines. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 19, 24-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.05.002
[23]	Cagno, E., Caron, F., Cipolletti, D., Mancini, M. and Ruggeri, F. (1997) Assessment of the Failure Probability of Underground Pipelines for the Gas Supply in a Metropolitan Environment: A Robust Bayesian Approach (Italian), Technical report CNR-IAMI, 97-12.
[24]	Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) (1994) Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs. Wiley-AICHE, New York.
[25]	ALOHA User’s Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency Management, Washington DC, 2007.
[26]	Pietersen, C.M. (1985) Analysis of the LPG-Incident in San Juan Ixhuasapec, Mexico City. TNO Report, The Netherlands.
[27]	API RP 521, Guide for Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems. American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC, 1997.
[28]	Rausch, A.H., Eisenberg, N.A. and Lynch, C.J. (1977) Continuing Development of the Vulnerability Model (VM2). Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Washington DC.
[29]	Crowl, D.A. and Louvar, J.F. () Chemical Process Safety. 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, 130-135.
[30]	Park, K.-S., Lee, J.-H., Jo and Y.-D. (2004) An Approchto Risk Managementof City Gas Pipeline. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 82, 446-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/psep.82.6.446.53210
[31]	Jonkman, S.N., Van Gelder, P.H. and Vrijling, J.K. (2003) An Overview of Quantitative Risk Measures for Loss of Life and Economic Damage. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 99, 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00283-2
[32]	Sklavounos, S. and Rigas, F. (2006) Estimation of Safety Distances in the Vicinity of Fuel Gas Pipelines. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 19, 24-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.05.002
[33]	Finney, D.J. (1971) Probit Analysis. 3d Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 23.
[34]	Jo, Y.-D. and Ahn, B.J. (2005) A Method of Quantitative Risk Assessment for Transmission Pipeline Carrying NG, Journal of Hazardous Materials, A123, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.01.034
[35]	IGE (2001) Steel Pipeline for High Pressure Gas Transmission. Recommendations on Transmission and Distribution Practice IGE/TD/1. 4th Edition, Institution of Gas Engineers, London, Communication 1670.
[36]	Michalis, D.C. (1999) The Control of Major Accident Hazards: The Land-Use Planning Issue. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 65, 151-178.