한국안전학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Safety)

  • 제32권6호
  • /
  • Pages.46-53
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1738-3803(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2383-9953(eISSN)
한국안전학회 (The Korean Society of Safety)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

보호시스템 보증시험 적용이 장외영향평가 안전성 확보에 미치는 영향

Effect of Proof Test of Protective System on Securing Safety of Off-site Risk Assessment

  • 김민수 (환경부 화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 김재영 (환경부 화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 이은별 (환경부 화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 윤준헌 (환경부 화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 박재학 (충북대학교 안전공학과)
  • Kim, Min-Su (Division of Accident Prevention and Assessment, National Institute of Chemical Safety, Ministry of Environment) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Young (Division of Accident Prevention and Assessment, National Institute of Chemical Safety, Ministry of Environment) ;
  • Lee, Eun-Byeol (Division of Accident Prevention and Assessment, National Institute of Chemical Safety, Ministry of Environment) ;
  • Yoon, Junheon (Division of Accident Prevention and Assessment, National Institute of Chemical Safety, Ministry of Environment) ;
  • Park, Jai Hak (Department of Safety Engineering, Chungbuk National University)
  • 투고 : 2017.08.31
  • 심사 : 2017.11.16
  • 발행 : 2017.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The risk is expressed as consequence of damage multiplied by likelihood of failure. The installation of a protective system reduces the risk by reducing the likelihood of failure at the facility. Also, the protective system has different effects on the likelihood of failure according to the proof test cycle. However, when assessing risks in the Off-site Risk Assessment (ORA) system, the variation in risk was not reflected according to the proof test cycle of protective system. This study was conducted to examine the need for proof test and the importance of cycle setting by applying periodic proof test of the protective system to ORA. The results showed that the likelihood of failure and the risk increased with longer proof test cycle. The risk of a two-yearly proof test was eight times greater than that of a three-month cycle. From the results, the protective system needs periodic proof test. Untested protective system for a long term cannot be reliable because it is more likely to be failed state when it is called upon to operate. In order to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, it is effective to differently set the proof test cycle according to the priority. This study suggested a more systematic and accurate risk analysis standard than ORA. This standard is expected to enable an acceptable level of risk management by systematically setting the priority and proof test cycle of the protective system. It is also expected to contribute to securing the safety of chemical facilities and at the same time, will lead to the development of the ORA system.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. NICS, "Preparation Guide of Off-site Risk Assessment", National Institute of Chemical Safety, Daejeon, 2014.
  2. CCPS, "Guidelines for Initiating Events and Independent Protection Layers in Layer of Protection Analysis", WILEY, Agawam, 2014.
  3. KOSHA, "Technical Guideline on Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), Notification KOSHA Guide P-113- 2012", Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, Incheon, 2012.
  4. H. J. Kim, H. C. Lee, S. I. Jang, P. S. Shin, D. S. Lim and T. O. Kim, "Development of Procedure and Application of K-RBI", Theories and Applications of Chem. Eng., Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 2383-2386, 2004.
  5. H. C. Lee, P. S. Shin, D. S. Lim and T. O. Kim, "Development of Implemental Procedure for K-Risk Based Inspection", Journal of the Korean Society of Safety, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 31-37, 2006.
  6. ME, "Chemical Control Act", Ministry of Environment, Sejong, 2017.
  7. ME, "Report of Chemicals Statistical Surveys", Ministry of Environment, Sejong, 2014.
  8. NICS, "Chemistry Safety Clearing-house", National Institute of Chemical Safety, Daejeon, 2017.
  9. ME, "Regulation on Preparation of Off-site Risk Assessment, Notification 2017-104", Ministry of Environment, Sejong, 2017.
  10. NICS, "Technical Guideline on Selection of Accident Scenario, Notification 2016-4", National Institute of Chemical Safety, Daejeon, 2016.
  11. API, "Risk-Based Inspection Technology : API Recommended Practice 581, 2nd edition", American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 2008.
  12. AIHA, "ERPG(Emergency Response Planning Guidelines)", American Industrial Hygiene Association, Falls Church, 2016.
  13. U. S. EPA, "Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis", United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 2009.
  14. Y. Jung, B. Kim, H. Heo, B. Yoo, C. Sin, Y. Yoon, J. Yoon and B. Ma, "A Study on the Simplified Estimating Method of Off-site Consequence Analysis by Concentration of Hydrochloric Acid", Journal of the Korean Society of Safety, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 52-58, 2017. https://doi.org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2017.32.2.52
  15. NICS, "Technical Guideline on Calculation of Damage Consequence of Chemical Accident, Notification 2015-1", National Institute of Chemical Safety, Daejeon, 2015.
  16. D. B. Turner, "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates", United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 1970.
  17. CCPS, "Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, Second Edition", American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, pp. 119-140, 2000.
  18. CCPS, "Simplified Process Risk Assessment: Layer of Protection Analysis", American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2001.
  19. Mark Tweeddale, "Managing Risk and Reliability of Process Plants", Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington, 2003.
  20. OREDA, "Offshore Reliability Data Handbook 4th Edition", Det Norske Veritas, Hovik, pp. 511-803, 2002.
  21. MTL Instruments, "An introduction to Functional Safety and IEC 61508, AN9025-3", MTL Instruments, Perth, 2002.
  22. L. C. Cadwallader and R. S. Willms, "TSTA Piping and Flame Arrestor Operating Experience Data", Fusion Engineering and Design, Vol. 98-99, pp. 2112-2115, 2014.