مدیریت بحران

مدیریت بحران

ارزیابی تاب‌آوری ایمنی در صنایع فرآیندی: یک مطالعه مقطعی در پالایشگاه گازی فاز 19 پارس جنوبی

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 گروه محیط زیست، دانشکده علوم و فنون دریایی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران شمال، تهران، ایران.
2 استادیار، گروه محیط زیست، دانشکده علوم و فنون دریایی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران شمال، تهران، ایران.
3 استاد، گروه محیط زیست، دانشکده علوم و فنون دریایی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران شمال، تهران، ایران.
4 گروه مهندسی بهداشت حرفه‌ای و ایمنی کار، مرکز تحقیقات آلاینده‌های محیطی، دانشکده بهداشت، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی قم، قم، ایران.
چکیده
مطالعه حاضر با هدف ارزیابی تاب‌آوری ایمنی در صنایع فرآیندی در پالایشگاه فاز 19 پارس جنوبی انجام شده و این مطالعه مقطعی و توصیفی-تحلیلی در بازه زمانی 1399-1397 انجام شده است. نمونه مورد مطالعه واحد شیرین‌سازی پالایشگاه گازی فاز 19 پارس جنوبی بود که مبتنی بر 3 مؤلفه اصلی احتمال، شدت و آمادگی از مدلی نیمه‌کمی برای ارزیابی تاب‌آوری ایمنی در صنایع فرآیندی استفاده شد. تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از نرم‌افزارهای SPSS v.25 و AMOS v.24 انجام و 131 منبع خطر شناسایی شد. 4/21 درصد از عناصر خطر شناسایی‌شده در محدوده تهدید ضعیف، 5/59 درصد در محدوده تهدید متوسط(وضعیت هشدار) و 1/19درصد هم در محدوده تهدید شدید(وضعیت بحرانی) قرار دارند. بیشترین و کمترین مقدار شاخص تاب‌آوری طی مطالعه حاضر به‌ترتیب مقدار 500 و 10 بوده و مربوط به عنصر خطر قطع یوتیلیتی و قطع هوای ابزار دقیق است. نتایج نشان داد شاخص تاب‌آوری به‌صورت کلی تا 91 درصد قابل پیش‌بینی بوده و 3 مؤلفه احتمال، شدت و آمادگی هر کدام به‌ترتیب با مقادیر 39/0، 78/0 و 37/0 قادر به پیش‌بینی و تخمین شاخص تاب‌آوری هستند. یافته‌ها بیانگر این بود که شاخص پیامد با توجه به ماهیت فرآیند و عوامل بحرانی موجود در پالایشگاه­ها بارزترین مؤلفه در تعیین پارامتر آسیب‌پذیری و تاب‌آوری سامانه‌ است. از این‌رو ارزیابی تاب‌آوری، توجه به شدت پیامدهای احتمالی و استقرار لایه‌های حفاظتی مختلف برای کاهش دامنه و شدت آسیب ناشی از حوادث فاجعه‌بار بارزترین اصل افزایش سطوح تاب‌آوری سامانه‌های فرآیندی محسوب می‌شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

Evaluation of safety resilience in process industries: A cross-sectional study in gas refinery of South Pars Phase 19

نویسندگان English

Hossein Amouei 1
MAHNAZ Mirza Ebrahim Tehrani 2
Seyed ali Jozi 3
Ahmad Soltanzadeh 4
1 Management of Environment, Department of Environment, Faculty of Marine Science and Technology, Tehran North Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Environment, Faculty of Marine Science and Technology, Tehran North Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor, Department of Environment, Faculty of Marine Science and Technology, Tehran North Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Department of Occupational Health & Safety Engineering, Research Center for Environmental Pollutants, Faculty of Health, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
چکیده English

This study aimed to evaluate the safety resilience in process industries with a passive defense approach in South Pars Phase 19 refinery. This descriptive-analytical study was conducted in the period 2018 to 2020. The study sample included sweetening unit of South Pars Phase 19 gas refinery. Based on the three main components of probability, severity, and preparedness, a semi-quantitative model used for evaluating safety resilience in process industries. Data analysis performed using SPSS v.25 and AMOS v.24 software. 131 sources of danger were identified. 21.4% of the identified hazard elements are in the weak threat range, 59.5% are in the moderate threat range, and 19.1% are in the severe threat range. The maximum and minimum values ​​of the present study's resilience index were 500 and 10, respectively, and are related to the risk element of utility cut-off and instrument cut-off. The results showed that the resilience index is generally predictable up to 91%. The three components of probability, severity, and preparedness predicted the resilience indicators with values ​​of 0.39, 0.78, and 0.37, respectively. The findings indicated that severity index is the most crucial component in determining the vulnerability and resilience parameters of the system due to the nature of the process and critical parameters in refineries. Therefore, resilience assessment, attention to the severity of possible consequences, and the establishment of different protective layers to reduce the amplitude and severity of damage caused by catastrophic events is the most vital principle to increase process systems' resilience levels.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Resilience
Vulnerability
Safety
Process Industry
Refinery
  1. Pramoth, R., S. Sudha, and S. Kalaiselvam, Resilience-based Integrated Process System Hazard Analysis (RIPSHA) approach: Application to a chemical storage area in an edible oil refinery. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020. 141: p. 246-258.
  2. Fomenko, G., et al., Risk-oriented approach to ecological safety management at oil refinery. Strategic decisions and risk management, 2018(2): p. 102-109.
  3. Jain, P., R. Mentzer, and M.S. Mannan, Resilience metrics for improved process-risk decision making: Survey, analysis and application. Safety science, 2018. 108: p. 13-28.
  4. Li, W., et al., A proactive process risk assessment approach based on job hazard analysis and resilient engineering. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2019. 59: p. 54-62.
  5. Hollnagel, E., D.D. Woods, and N. Leveson, Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. 2007: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  6. Woods, D.D., Essential characteristics of resilience, in Resilience engineering. 2017, CRC Press. p. 33-46.
  7. Mitchell, T. and K. Harris, Resilience: A risk management approach. ODI Background Note. Overseas Development Institute: London, 2012.
  8. O'Brien, K., et al., Toward a sustainable and resilient future. 2012, Cambridge University Press.
  9. Khakzad, N., et al., Vulnerability analysis of process plants subject to domino effects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2016. 154: p. 127-136.
  10. Goldbeck, N., P. Angeloudis, and W. Ochieng, Optimal supply chain resilience with consideration of failure propagation and repair logistics. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2020. 133: p. 101830.
  11. Barbour, J.B., et al., Communicating/organizing for reliability, resilience, and safety: special issue introduction. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 2018.
  12. Jain, P., et al., A resilience-based integrated process systems hazard analysis (RIPSHA) approach: Part II management system layer. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2018. 118: p. 115-124.
  13. Jain, P., et al., Process Resilience Analysis Framework (PRAF): A systems approach for improved risk and safety management. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018. 53: p. 61-73.
  14. Ryan, J., Accident and Emergency. Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery 23rd Ed. London, 2000: p. 270-280.
  15. Shao, H. and G. Duan, Risk quantitative calculation and ALOHA simulation on the leakage accident of natural gas power plant. Procedia Engineering, 2012. 45: p. 352-359.
  16. Jing, Y., C. Jianming, and Z. Hong, The Classification of Emergency in Incident Management [J]. Management Review, 2005. 4: p. 37-41.
  17. Nowakowski, T., et al., Sustainable supply chains versus safety and resilience, in Sustainable Logistics and Production in Industry 4.0. 2020, Springer. p. 65-87.
  18. Castillo-Borja, F., et al., A resilience index for process safety analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2017. 50: p. 184-189.
  19. Pritchard, C.L. and P.-R. PMP, Risk management: concepts and guidance. 2014: Auerbach Publications.
  20. Dunjó, J., et al., Conducting HAZOPs in continuous chemical processes: Part I. Criteria, tools and guidelines for selecting nodes. Process safety and environmental protection, 2011. 89(4): p. 214-223.
  21. Khan, F.I. and S. Abbasi, OptHAZOP—an effective and optimum approach for HAZOP study. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1997. 10(3): p. 191-204.
  22. Kotek, L. and M. Tabas, HAZOP study with qualitative risk analysis for prioritization of corrective and preventive actions. Procedia Engineering, 2012. 42: p. 808-815.
  23. Ericson, C.A., Hazard analysis techniques for system safety. 2015: John Wiley & Sons.
  24. Popović, V. and B. Vasić, Review of hazard analysis methods and their basic characteristics. FME Transactions, 2008. 36(4): p. 181-187.
  25. Frazier, T.G., C.M. Thompson, and R.J. Dezzani, A framework for the development of the SERV model: A Spatially Explicit Resilience-Vulnerability model. Applied Geography, 2014. 51: p. 158-172.
  26. Choi, Y. and J.-H. Chung, Multilevel and multivariate structural equation models for activity participation and travel behavior. Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, 2003. 21(4): p. 145-154.
  27. Chung, J.-H. and D. Lee, Structural model of automobile demand in Korea. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002. 1807(1): p. 87-91.
  28. Golob, T.F., Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 2003. 37(1): p. 1-25.
  29. Zou, H., et al., Quantitative assessment of adaptive measures on optimal water resources allocation by using reliability, resilience, vulnerability indicators. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2020. 34(1): p. 103-119.
دوره 10، ویژه نامه پدافند غیرعامل
ویژه نامه پدافند غیرعامل
اسفند 1400
صفحه 49-59

  • تاریخ دریافت 25 اسفند 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری 10 تیر 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش 20 دی 1400