3. QRA

DET NORSKE VERITAS

TM

Report QRA FOR SKANGASS LNG PLANT FERRY BUNKERING PROJECT

SKANGASS AS

REPORT NO./DNV REG NO.: 2013-4091 / 17TLT29-7 REV.1 , 2013-06-11

Det Norske Veritas Report for Skangass AS QRA for Skangass LNG Plant - Ferry bunkering project

MANAGING RISK Rev. No.

Date

Reason for Issue

Prepared by

A

2013-06-03

Draft issue signed and BERTHOM verified

© Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.

DNV Reg. No.: 17TLT29-7 Revision No.: 1 Date : 2013-06-11

Page iii of iv

Verified by

Approved by

RISVIK

ELLING


MANAGING RISK

Table of Contents

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................1 1

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................3

2

FACILITY AND OPERATION DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................4 2.1 Facility description ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Facility operation........................................................................................................................ 4

3

QUALITATIVE COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL BUNKERING SYSTEMS ................6

4

COMPARISON OF RIGID LNG LOADING ARMS AND FLEXIBLE LOADING HOSES ..........7

5

RISK RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................8 5.1 Risk contours .............................................................................................................................. 8 5.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8 5.1.2 Risk contours generated by the Train 1 .............................................................................. 8 5.1.3 Risks contours generated according to the bunkering facility operational phases ........... 11 5.1.4 Risk contours generated by the plant with the bunkering facility .................................... 14 5.2 Individual Risk 1st party and 2nd party ...................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.2 Hours of presence ............................................................................................................. 16 5.2.3 Risk Results ...................................................................................................................... 17 5.3 Societal and Individual Risks 3rd party .................................................................................... 21 5.3.1 Societal Risk for 3rd party ................................................................................................. 21 5.3.2 Hours of presence ............................................................................................................. 22 5.3.3 Individual Risk for 3rd party.............................................................................................. 23

6

SENSITIVITIES ................................................................................................................................28 6.1 Individual Risk 1st party and 2nd party ..................................................................................... 28 6.2 Societal and Individual risk 3rd party ....................................................................................... 31 6.2.1 Societal risk ....................................................................................................................... 31 6.2.2 Individual risk ................................................................................................................... 33 6.3 Sensitivities discussion............................................................................................................. 35

7

SHIP MANIFOLD LOCATION .......................................................................................................36

8

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................37

9

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................39

DNV Reg. No.: 17TLT29-7 Revision No.: 1 Date : 2013-06-11

Page iv of iv


MANAGING RISK

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Skangass is in the process to install an LNG bunkering station at the Fjordline ferry terminal in Risavika, located adjacent to Skangass’ LNG Base Load Plant. Skangass would like to take benefit of the close proximity to ferry terminal (approximately 600 m), by feeding LNG directly from the plant, through an underground pipeline. The Skangass ferry bunkering project is currently in the detailed engineering phase. In order to provide to the reader and the decision maker a risk overview as close as possible to the reality, some of the assumptions have been reviewed, such as, for example, differentiation of risk criteria for ferry terminal workers (2nd party). All the assumptions are available in the Appendix A of this report. The main objective of this QRA is to:  Assess the combined risk for the ferry terminal area, taking into consideration both the new LNG bunkering station and the updated risk results for the Base Load Plant,  Compare the risks with the risk acceptance criteria. Based on experience in LNG bunkering, DNV assesses that the time of detection is likely to be close to 90s in total (60s for detection and initiation, 30s for completion (time to close the valve)). While Skangass estimates, based on its experience, that the total time can be reduced down to 36s (30s for detection and initiation, 6s for completion). Even if a closing time of 6 seconds could be possible if Skangass documents that the facility uses a valve in compliance with this requirement, DNV’s experience shows that time to detect and initiate the ESV is often extended to 60 seconds. Therefore this report contains three sets of risk results: -

The risk picture based on DNV recommendation corresponding to ESD total time of 90s, presented in section 5.

-

Two sets of sensitivities, presented in section 6: o Risk picture based on a mixed inputs from DNV recommendation and Skangass input, 66s ESD total time, o Risk picture based on Skangass estimation, 36s ESD total time.

DNV considers the risk results based on the first alternative (total ESD time of 90s) as the valid results. The two sensitivities are there to help the reader to understand the impact of a shorter duration of ESD completion

Risk calculated for the planned LNG bunkering station and LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1), combined, is presented in the report: DNV Rep. No.: 2013-4091 Revision No.: 1 Date : 2013-06-11

Page 1 of 39


MANAGING RISK  The 1st/2nd party individual risk is found to be within the ALARP region for all personnel categories.  The calculated 3rd party societal risk is acceptable or within the ALARP area for all events.  3rd party Individual Specific Risk is acceptable or in the ALARP area for all individuals except.  The passengers on board the ferry are at lower risk than the passengers at the terminal. As a consequence of this boarding of most of passengers is planned to take place before bunkering, ref. Skangass’ Design Basis /4/. Late-comers will be able to board once the bunkering operations are completed. According to the same reference, no passengers are allowed in the passenger tube during bunkering and only late-comers will board through the tube after bunkering.  The sensitivities show a reduction in the risk picture for 1st party (only for the group “Skangass operators at the ferry terminal jetty”), 2nd party and 3rd party. However, the risk results remain in the same order of magnitude. The detailed engineering of Risavika ferry station is regarded as safer than standard practice. As the calculated risk is in ALARP area, Skangass should consider taking measures to reduce the risk as the one presented below as example. Indeed, ALARP stands for “As Low As Reasonably Practicable”, meaning that the risk is tolerable if risk reduction is impracticable or if its cost is grossly disproportionate to the improvement. Recommendations for risk mitigation provided in the plant’s QRA /1/ are valid also for the bunkering station:  Focus on ignition source control to reduce the ignition probability  In general, reduction of LNG volume in the bunkering pipeline (e.g. either by segmentation or by depressurizing part of the pipelines in between bunkering operation), would reduce the fire and explosion risk.  Liquid bunds/trays around the LNG loading arm where an LNG leak could occur would help limiting the pool size in the event of an LNG leak.  DNV recommends that ESD equipment is qualified for compliance with the requirements to short response time (from gas detection to isolation) assumed in the sensitivities in this analysis.  DNV recommends to apply all the points for manual local supervision as presented in section 8.

DNV Rep. No.: 2013-4091 Revision No.: 1 Date : 2013-06-11

Page 2 of 39


MANAGING RISK

1

INTRODUCTION

Fjordline is converting ferries for use of natural gas (LNG) instead of conventional fuels. In light of this, Skangass is evaluating to install an LNG bunkering station at the Fjordline ferry terminal in Risavika, located adjacent to Skangass’ LNG Base Load Plant. Skangass would like to take benefit of the close proximity to ferry terminal (approximately 600 m), by feeding LNG directly from the plant, through an underground pipeline. The objective of this QRA is to:  Calculate the risk for the ferry terminal area, taking into consideration both the new LNG bunkering station and the updated risk results for the Base Load Plant,  Compare the risks with the risk acceptance criteria, described in appendix C. Risk levels are reported in terms of:  Individual risk for on-site manning (1st/2nd party)  Societal risk for off-site population (3rd party) Report Structure The main part of this report presents background, objectives, risk acceptance criteria and results of the analysis. Mitigating measures are provided as recommendations. The content of the 5 appendices is described below: Appendix

Description

Appendix A Assumptions Appendix B HAZID

Includes all major assumptions for the analysis. HAZID review of the ferry bunkering station in Risavika. Risk definition and criteria for the 1st party, 2nd party personnel, and 3rd party population. Basis and results from LEAK.

Appendix C Risk in hazardous activities and risk criteria Appendix D Leak frequency calculation Appendix E PHAST RISK software package


General description of the software used to estimate the Individual Risk and risk to 3rd party.

Page 3 of 39


MANAGING RISK

2

FACILITY AND OPERATION DESCRIPTION

2.1 Facility description The bunkering facility is designed to complete bunkering of Fjordline ferries in about 1 hour with vapour return. Furthermore the system is designed with no need for cooling down of the bunkering line prior to bunkering operation. The LNG Bunkering facility will consist of the following major equipment components:  LNG Bunkering Pump located in the LNG plant  Fiscal metering located in the LNG plant  8’’ LNG Pipeline  4’’ Vapour Return Line  LNG Loading arm If needed, the details of equipment for the LNG bunkering facility are available in the appendix D of this report. The LNG bunkering pump and fiscal metering package will be located inside the Skangass LNG plant, and the loading arm will be located at the bunkering jetty. LNG transfer pipeline between the LNG plant and the bunkering station will be vacuum insulated and installed below ground to protect it from external damage, ref. Figure 1.

2.2 Facility operation As mentioned above, the bunkering facility is designed to be completed in 1 hour. During the operation, at least two operators will be present at the ferry terminal jetty respectively on the shore side and on the ship side to supervise locally the operation. Beside the fact that the operators help the operation to get going, the operators will be special trained to take actions in case of detection of any type of leak. This continuous local supervision will come in addition to the automatic fire & Gas detection and will help to initiate the ESD system as soon as possible and reduced the leak inventory. Based on experience in LNG bunkering, DNV assesses that the time of detection is likely to be close to 90s in total (60s for detection and initiation, 30s for completion (time to close the valve)). While Skangass estimates on its experience, that the total time can be reduced down to 36s (30s for detection and initiation, 6s for completion). Even if a closing time of 6 seconds could be possible if Skangass documents that the facility uses a valve in compliance with this requirement, DNV’s experience shows time to detect and initiate the ESV is often extended to 60 seconds. Therefore this report contains three sets of risk results: -

The risk picture based on DNV recommendation corresponding to ESD total time of 90s, presented in section 5.

-

Two sets of sensitivities, presented in section 6:


Page 4 of 39


MANAGING RISK o Risk picture based on a mixed inputs from DNV recommendation and Skangass input, 66s ESD total time, o Risk picture based on Skangass estimation, 36s ESD total time. DNV considers the risk results based on the first alternative (total ESD time of 90s) as the valid results. The two sensitivities are there to help the reader to understand the impact of a shorter duration of ESD completion.

Figure 1 LNG Base Load Plant and Fjordline ferry terminal area. LNG pipeline route (indicative) as red line.


Page 5 of 39


MANAGING RISK

3

QUALITATIVE COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL BUNKERING SYSTEMS

Skangass’ intention with its current design is to provide an LNG bunkering system for ferries which is safer than conventional systems, e.g. by truck-to-ship, ship-to-ship or terminal-toship. By ‘conventional’ is meant the small scale LNG filling stations in Norway, which is found acceptable to DSB and the Norwegian Maritime Authority (Sjøfartsdirektoratet), and therefore may be regarded as ‘standard practice’. Naturally, these stations vary in technical features but are typically characterized by  Flexible filling hose  Bolted flange connections requiring manual disconnection  Manual operation (e.g. truck driver, ship crew)  Ventilation lines / relief to atmosphere  No automatic/instrumented shut down upon gas detection Reasons for stating that Skangass’ proposed design is safer are basically due to the simplicity of the bunkering terminal due to the benefit of the close proximity to the Skangass LNG Plant and selection of equipment with low leak frequency. Some examples are:  Simpler – fewer possible leak sources: o No ventilation lines or pressure safety relief valves to atmosphere o All equipment components are selected based on low leak frequency (LNG bunkering pump, LNG bunkering arm, vacuum insulated piping, etc.)  Reduced LNG inventory in the proximity of the bunkering system: o No LNG buffer tank o Pipeline in underground tunnel  Use of best available equipment: o Loading arm instead of hose o ESD link between ship/shore according to the SIGTTO standard o Stainless steel, double wall, vacuum insulated piping – gas detection between the walls – instead of PUR piping outside the plant o Can pump without external seals instead of a centrifugal pump  Automatic, in addition to manual, ESD system  F&G detection and alarm system triggering automatic shutdown of the bunkering system located on shore side and ship side.  Bunkering operation always manned with at least two operators. One on shore side and one on ship side. DNV Rep. No.: 2013-4091 Revision No.: 1 Date : 2013-06-11

Page 6 of 39


MANAGING RISK A thorough assessment of the actual improvement of Skangass’ design as opposed to ‘conventional’ bunkering systems goes beyond the scope of this report, as this would require a detailed assessment of each of the points above. The following is however noted: Each of the points in the list above does not implicitly represent an improvement compared to conventional design, in terms of safety, but as a whole, the technical design of Risavika bunkering station is regarded as safer than standard practice.

4

COMPARISON OF RIGID LNG LOADING ARMS AND FLEXIBLE LOADING HOSES

The memo developed by DNV /5/ presents a qualitative assessment of the difference between rigid LNG loading arms and flexible hoses used in the truck-to-ship operations for instance. Prior to this assessment, Skangass have decided upon rigid LNG loading arms as a base case solution for LNG bunkering at Risavika. In case of maintenance or failure of these loading arms, Skangass are considering using flexible LNG loading hoses as a backup solution for their Ferry Bunkering Station at Risavika. The conclusion presented below summarizes the assessment done. All the details leading to this conclusion can be found in the memo /5/: “DNV agree with Skangass’ prioritization on using rigid loading arms as the base case for the LNG bunkering operations at Risavika. If hoses shall be used as a backup solution, stringent operation and maintenance procedures need to be in place to control risk for loss of containment. DNV suggest to further analyze the risk picture of bunkering operations with flexible hoses. However the available data are not sufficient and consistent enough to develop a possible acknowledged failure frequency for flexible LNG hoses at this stage. This will only be possible after a qualification program, such as the program TNO1 initiated last year”.

1

Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), who has an independent position that allows to give objective scientifically founded judgments and acknowledged as valid source of information for technical safety subjects, have recently focused on the lack of sufficient qualification programs and proven track records for flexible LNG hoses DNV Rep. No.: 2013-4091 Revision No.: 1 Date : 2013-06-11

Page 7 of 39


MANAGING RISK

5

RISK RESULTS

5.1 Risk contours 5.1.1 Introduction The risk contours show location specific risk result. This is the risk for a hypothetical individual assumed to be continuously present at the specific location. “Continuously present” correspond to an exposition of 8760 hours or one year period. For instance, to be exposed to the risk level at the ferry terminal presented in Figure 6, an individual must live there 24 hours/7 days during one year. Normally, individuals will not be continuously present throughout the year, therefore more realistic estimate of the risk for an individual is provided by the individual-specific risk figures, taking the actual exposure time into account, presented in section 5.2 and section 5.3. The ISR is compared against the risk criteria presented in the Appendix C of this report. Note that the risk contours shown are valid for 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties. Below, risk contours are presented for different configurations as follows: -

Risk contours generated by the Train 1 of the plant or as it is today in section 5.1.2 ;

-

Risk contours generated by Train 1 and bunkering facility or as it could be in section 5.1.4.

To help the reader to differentiate the risk due to the different operations phase of the bunkering facility, the risk contours generated by the plant and the bunkering facility for the two operational phases are presented in section 5.1.3. But note that these are considered as snapshots and are only valid during the two specific periods: -

Risk contours generated by Train 1 and bunkering facility between the bunkering operations (23 hours per day);

-

Risk contours generated by Train 1 and bunkering facility during the bunkering operations (assumed taking place 1 hour per day);

5.1.2 Risk contours generated by the Train 1 Figure 2 and Figure 3 show risk contours for the peninsula today due to the existing LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1). The highest risk contour identified is 4E-4 per year covering the northwest part of the LNG plant. The risk contours are comparable as the ones in the update of the 2009 QRA, ref. /1/


Page 8 of 39


MANAGING RISK

Figure 2 Risk contours today: LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) without ferry bunkering installation


Page 9 of 39


MANAGING RISK

Figure 3 Risk contours today: LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) without ferry bunkering


Page 10 of 39


MANAGING RISK

5.1.3 Risks contours generated according to the bunkering facility operational phases The risk contours generated by the LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) and the ferry bunkering facility presented below in the Figure 4 and Figure 5 are there to represent the risk variation between the two different phases system – during bunkering and between bunkering operations. Note that theses risk contours are only valid during the two specific operational phases and do not represent the risk contours a hypothetical individual continuously present in the area. 5.1.3.1 Risk contours between bunkering operations Figure 4 shows risk contours. Note that these risk contours represent the case when no LNG bunkering is taking place. I.e. the figure is a “snapshot” showing the risk a person, present at any point outdoors, is exposed to between bunkering operations.


Page 11 of 39


MANAGING RISK

Figure 4 Risks contours (Train 1 and ferry bunkering system) between bunkering operations


Page 12 of 39


MANAGING RISK 5.1.3.2 Risk contours during bunkering operations Figure 5 shows risk contours for the peninsula due to the LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1), with the ferry bunkering facility installed. These risk contours however are valid during bunkering of LNG. I.e. the figure is a “snapshot” showing the risk a person, present at any point outdoors, is exposed to during bunkering operations. Comparison with Figure 4 shows that the 1E-4 and 1E-5 risk contours are drifted slightly southwards, due to the activity at the jetty during the bunkering. However, according to Figure 5 the risk for passengers outdoors at the ferry terminal is slightly increasing, but remains in the same order of magnitude.

Figure 5 Risk contours (Train and ferry bunkering system) during bunkering


Page 13 of 39


MANAGING RISK

5.1.4 Risk contours generated by the plant with the bunkering facility Figure 6 and Figure 7 show risk contours for the peninsula due to the LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) with the ferry bunkering system installed. The contours show individual risk, for a person present at any point outdoors, continuously exposed 8 760 hours per year, at any time of the day, an average of both bunkering and no bunkering phases. Therefore, these figures are the most appropriate for comparing with today’s risk picture, i.e. Figure 2 and Figure 3. The presence of the underground pipeline increases the overall risk level. The additional pipeline raises the risk around the main pipe rack located at the south of the plant; the areas covered by 2E-4 and 1E-4risk contours appear to be extended southwards. Apart for this increase, the new installation does not change the coverage of risks contours 4E-4, 3E-4 as shown in Figure 2. Concerning the 1E-5 risk contour; it now covers a greater part of the peninsula including the ferry terminal and its surroundings.

Figure 6 Risks Contours for the combination of Train 1 and bunkering facility, average of both bunkering and no bunkering phases.


Page 14 of 39


MANAGING RISK

Figure 7 Risks contours combination of Train 1 and bunkering facility, average of both bunkering and no bunkering phases.


Page 15 of 39


MANAGING RISK

5.2

Individual Risk 1st party and 2nd party

5.2.1 Introduction This chapter presents the calculated individual risk for 1st and 2nd parties. For better seeing what contributes to the risk, the results are presented in the following way: 1. Risk for the area today, due to the existing LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1). The calculated values are compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. Appendix C. 2. The added risk contribution due to the planned ferry bunkering facility, when no LNG bunkering is taking place. I.e. with 7 barg in the pipeline upstream the ESV at the loading arm, 23 hours a day. The calculated values thus do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria. 3. The added risk contribution due to the planned bunkering facility, during bunkering. I.e. 10 barg operating pressure for 1 hour a day. The calculated values thus do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria. 4. Risk for the area after installation of the ferry bunkering facility, equals to the sum of 1-3 above. The calculated values are compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. Appendix C.

5.2.2 Hours of presence To calculate the different specific exposure to the risks expressed in ISR in Table 3 and Table 2, the different hours of presence per group has been assumed as presented in Table 1. Conservatively it has been assessed that the each group is present to all the bunkering taking place during their working days assumed to be 225 days per year. Table 1 Hours of presence per year of 1st party personnel 1. LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1)

2. Ferry bunkering facility – no bunkering

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering

Hours of presence (per year)



1800

1800

225

360

360

225

1440

1440

225

Total

1800

1800

225

Truck loading (1 person per truck per 1.2h) Ship loading (jetty – only during connection and disconnection)

Truck loading terminal

438

438

225

Ship loading terminal

122

122

122

Ship deck (during loading only)


671

671

225

Individual

Control room building

Operator/Maintenance


Location

Control room building (indoor) Most exposed process point Control room building (indoor)

Page 16 of 39


MANAGING RISK Ship bridge (indoor fraction 0.75, during loading only)


671

671

225

Skangass operators at the ferry terminal jetty

Ferry loading terminal

450

450

225

1. LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1)






Table 2 Hours of presence per year of 2nd party personnel

Individual

Location

Ferry terminal – office workers

Ferry terminal indoor

1800

1800

225

Ferry terminal – industry workers

Ferry terminal outdoor

1800

1800

225

5.2.3 Risk Results Table 3 presents calculated Individual Specific Risk (ISR) per working group at the Skangass LNG Base Load plant and ferry bunkering facility (1st party). During bunkering, 2 Skangass personnel are assumed to be at the jetty inside the bunkering station area, and are therefore included as 1st party. : - ISR for all groups in all locations is according to Table 1 within the ALARP area or acceptable. No values exceed the maximum risk criterion of 1E-03 per year. Operators, who are assumed spending 20% of their working time in the process plant and 80% of their time in the control room building, have the highest individual risk of 2.58E-5 per year. -

Adding the ferry bunkering system to the plant involves a slight augmentation of each ISR, especially for the personnel around the loading bay (loading truck area), closest location to the future pipeline’s location.

Table 5 presents calculated Individual Specific Risk (ISR) per working group at the Ferry terminal (2nd Party): - ISR for all groups in all locations is according to Table 5 within the ALARP area. No values exceed the maximum criterion of 1E-04. - Adding the ferry bunkering system to the plant involves a net augmentation of both 2nd party ISR. However, when comparing the contribution to the risk according to the activities running, the phase “no bunkering” is contributing with about 80%. This is due to the high fraction of time (23/24) for this phase compared to the fraction of time bunkering is taking place (1/24).


Page 17 of 39


MANAGING RISK Table 3 Individual specific risks for most exposed persons (1st party). Note that ISRs in column pairs 2. and 3. are additional risk contributions, i.e. they do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. appendix C. 1. LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) Individual

Location




Truck loading terminal Ship loading terminal


3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)

Individual risk (per year)

ISR (per year)

1.18E-05

2.42E-06

1.04E-05

2.14E-06

2.00E-05

4.16E-04

6.50E-06

7.97E-06

5.38E-07

1.18E-05

1.52E-05

1.04E-06

2.47E-06

Total Truck loading (1 person per truck per 1.2h) Ship loading (jetty – only during connection and disconnection)1

2. Ferry bunkering facility – no bunkering Added risk contribution Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)

2.17E-05

4. Combined Risk Individual risk y (per year)

ISR (per year)

5.13E-07

4.22E-05

5.07E-06

4.47E-05

4.50E-07

4.94E-04

7.49E-06

2.00E-05

8.48E-07

4.22E-05

1.83E-05

3.01E-06

1.30E-06

2.58E-05

1.36E-04

6.80E-06

8.00E-05

4.00E-06

9.38E-05

2.41E-06

3.10E-04

1.32E-05

4.45E-05

6.20E-07

9.53E-06

1.33E-07

9.93E-06

1.38E-07

6.40E-05

8.91E-07


4.92E-05

3.77E-06

1.09E-05

8.35E-07

1.33E-05

3.42E-07

7.34E-05

4.95E-06

Ship bridge (indoor fraction 0.75, during loading only)


4.92E-05

2.05E-06

1.09E-05

2.99E-07

1.33E-05

1.28E-07

7.34E-05

2.48E-06



4.45E-05

3.80E-07 *

9.53E-06

4.32E-07

1.08E-04

2.78E-06

1.32E-04

3.59E-06

*Represent risk level for 2 hours of exposure to the LNG Load Base plant when operators are at the ferry terminal jetty.


Page 18 of 39


MANAGING RISK In Table 4 the AIR is calculated based on the Individual Specific Risk (ISR) for each working group and the percentage of the total number of people each group constitutes. The AIR is calculated from the formula

AIR 

 (ISR  Number of personnel)  Number of personnel

As shown in Table 4 AIR is still in the ALARP area, compared with the Skangass acceptance criterion (ref. Appendix C), after installation of the ferry bunkering facility. Table 4 Average ISR for 1st/2nd party Criteria

AIR 1st/2nd party (per year)


Total number of exposed individuals

LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1)

LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) + ferry bunkering facility

59

4.56E-06

6.83E-06

Page 19 of 39


MANAGING RISK Individual specific risks for most exposed persons (2nd party). Note that ISRs in column pairs 2. and 3. are additional risk contributions, i.e. they do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. appendix C. Table 5

1. LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) Individual

Ferry terminal – office workers Ferry terminal – industry workers

Location

Ferry terminal indoor Ferry terminal outdoor

2. Ferry bunkering facility – no bunkering Added risk contribution ISR Individual risk (per (per year) year)

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution ISR Individual risk (per (per year) year)


ISR (per year)

1.02E-06

1.7E-07

1.68E-05

8.20E-07

2.32E-05

7.39E-06

1.2E-06

3.99E-06

3.45E-06

1.08E-04


Page 20 of 39

4. Combined risk Individual risk y (per year)

ISR (per year)

5.96E-07

2.82E-05

1.63E-06

2.77E-06

1.32E-04

7.74E-06


MANAGING RISK

5.3 Societal and Individual Risks 3rd party 5.3.1 Societal Risk for 3rd party Figure 8 presents the calculated societal risk for 3rd party, in terms of F-N curve, before and after having installed the ferry bunkering facility. For better seeing what contributes to the risk, the results are presented in a similar manner as in the previous chapter: 1. Risk due to the existing LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) is shown as the light blue, fully drawn line. The curve may be compared with the acceptance criteria, shown as green and red straight lines, ref. Appendix C. 2. The added risk contribution due to the planned ferry bunkering facility, no LNG bunkering, is shown as the violet, dotted line. The curve may not be compared to the acceptance criteria. 3. The added risk contribution due to the planned bunkering facility, during bunkering, is shown as the red, dotted line. The curve may not be compared to the acceptance criteria. 4. Risk for the area after installation of the ferry bunkering facility, equal to the sum of 13 above, is shown as the dark blue, fully drawn line. The curve may be compared with the acceptance criteria. As can be seen from the figure, the societal risk is still within the ALARP or acceptable area after having installed the ferry bunkering facility.

Figure 8 F-N curves for societal risk 3rd party, DNV inputs


Page 21 of 39


MANAGING RISK

5.3.2 Hours of presence To calculate the different specific exposure to the risks expressed in ISR inTable 7, the different hours of presence per group has been assessed as presented in Table 6. Conservatively it has been assessed that the groups Energiveien+Risavika both, Container area both, Rest companies both are present to the entire bunkering operation duration of 2 hours happening during their working days assumed to be 225 days per year , cf. Appendix A of this report. Also, conservatively it has been assumed that the groups Peninsula and Hiking track are present during the bunkering operation and therefore exposed to the risk. In addition, it has been assessed that the passengers on the ferry or boarding the ferry can be present only during 30% of the bunkering operations, as they cannot be present each evening (cf. Appendix A of this report). Table 6 Hours of presence per year for 3rd party

Individual

Location

1. LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1)






Peninsula

Peninsula

280

280

280

Hiking track

Hiking track

70

70

70

Ferry Terminal – passengers

Ferry terminal indoor

219

110

110

Energiveien+Risavika – office workers

Energiveien indoor

1800

225

225

Energiveien+Risavika – industry workers

Energiveien outdoor

1800

225

225

Container area – office workers

Container area indoor

1800

225

225

Container area – industry workers

Container area outdoor

1800

225

225

Rest companies – office workers

Rest indoor

1800

225

225

Rest companies – industry workers

Rest outdoor

1800

225

225

Rest indoor

8760

365

365

Tananger indoor / Tananger outdoor

8760

365

365

Ferry deck

Passengers indoor

219

109.5

109.5

Parking area - passengers

Passengers outdoor

219

109.5

109.5

Living quarters (indoor fraction of 0.75) Tananger population (indoor fraction of 0.75)


Page 22 of 39


MANAGING RISK

5.3.3 Individual Risk for 3rd party Table 7 shows the calculated Individual Specific Risk for 3rd party, presented similarly as in Table 3. For better seeing what contributes to the risk, the results are presented in the following way: 1. Risk for the area today, due to the existing LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1). The calculated values are compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. Appendix C. 2. The added risk contribution due to the planned ferry bunkering facility, when no LNG bunkering is taking place. I.e. with 7 barg in the pipeline upstream the ESV at the loading arm, 23 hours a day. The calculated values thus do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria. 3. The added risk contribution due to the planned bunkering facility, during bunkering. I.e. 10 barg operating pressure for 1 hour a day. The calculated values thus do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria. 4. Risk for the area after installation of the ferry bunkering facility, equals to the sum of 1-3 above. The calculated values are compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. Appendix C. The highest combined risk is calculated for people present at the North West of the plant (peninsula and hiking track) and in the ferry terminal. However note that all the risk values are within the ALARP area. The combined risk values for people on the peninsula, at the hiking track, in the parking area, passengers inside the ferry and the ferry terminal are within the ALARP area. The rest of the categories are in the acceptable area. It must be noted that the main contributor to the risk for each population is the duration of their presence. Indeed the risk picture for the different categories except the passengers has been assessed with the conservative assumption made that the same people will be present to each bunkering operations all over the year during their working days (225 working days over a year). It is more likely that the different groups will work based on a shift and therefore could work in the morning instead and not be exposed to the risk due to the bunkering activity. It appears that the risk is higher between the bunkering operations than during the bunkering operations for the location parking area, Rest companies, Living quarters. The reasons are twofold: -

In an event of a leak between the bunkering operations, the total inventory of the system has been assumed to be released. No leak control such as ESD system is taken into account.

-

Also, the ignition sources are more present between the bunkering operations in the vicinity of this location. For example, between the bunkering operations, the passengers will have to board the ferry with their cars. Therefore, contribution to the ignition probability from the traffic on the parking and for passengers boarding have


Page 23 of 39


MANAGING RISK been taken into account. Thus the ignition probability is higher, generating a greater risk of fire event. For the Tananger population, the ISR increase, due to the additional ferry bunkering activity, is not significant. The ISR related to the passengers are in the ALARP area but vary according to their location. The passengers on board the ferry are exposed of a lower risk than the passengers at the terminal. As a consequence DNV recommends to keep the boarding of passengers before the bunkering is taking place as suggested in the ref. Skangass’ Design Basis /4/. According to the same reference, no passengers are allowed in the passenger tube during bunkering and only late-comers will board through the tube after bunkering.


Page 24 of 39


MANAGING RISK Table 7 Individual Risk for 3rd party, Base Load Plant and ferry bunkering station combined. Note that ISRs in column pairs 2. and 3. are additional risk contributions, i.e. they do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. appendix C. 1. LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) Individual

Peninsula Hiking track Ferry Terminal – passengers Energiveien+Risavika – office workers Energiveien+Risavika – industry workers Container area – office workers Container area – industry workers Rest companies – office workers Rest companies – industry workers Living quarters (indoor fraction of 0.75) Tananger population (indoor fraction of 0.75)

Location


ISR (per year)

Individual risk y (per year)

ISR (per year)

8.34E-08

3.30E-06

1.06E-07

4.07E-05

1.30E-06

3.06E-05

2.45E-07

4.32E-05

3.45E-07

2.69E-04

2.15E-06

6.53E-08

3.99E-06

8.98E-08

2.32E-05

5.55E-07

2.82E-05

7.10E-07

Negl.

Negl.

8.26E-10

1.70E-10

Negl.

Negl.

1.58E-09

3.25E-10

7.55E-09

1.55E-09

8.26E-09

1.70E-09

Negl.

Negl.

1.58E-08

3.25E-09

1.03E-08

2.12E-09

2.04E-08

4.19E-09

1.58E-07

4.07E-09

1.89E-07

1.04E-08

1.03E-07

2.12E-08

1.16E-07

2.38E-08

1.11E-06

2.86E-08

1.33E-06

7.36E-08

Rest indoor

2.33E-09

4.79E-10

3.98E-10

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

2.80E-09

5.62E-10

Rest outdoor

2.32E-08

4.77E-09

3.98E-09

8.18E-10

7.41E-10

Negl.

2.79E-08

5.60E-09

Rest indoor

2.33E-09

7.55E-09

3.98E-10

1.29E-09

Negl.

Negl.

2.80E-09

8.85E-09

Tananger indoor / Tananger outdoor

1.78E-08 (indoor) / 1.78E-07 (outdoor)

5.80E-08


7.31E-09


Negl.


6.55E-08

Hiking track Ferry terminal indoor Energiveien indoor Energiveien outdoor Container area indoor Container area outdoor

ISR (per year)

3.48E-05

1.11E-06

2.61E-06

1.95E-04

1.56E-06

1.02E-06

4. Combined risk


Peninsula


3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution


Page 25 of 39


MANAGING RISK 1. LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1) Individual

Ferry deck Parking area – passengers

Location

Passengers indoor Passengers outdoor



ISR (per year)

4.00E-07

2.18E-08

2.51E-06

2.38E-06

5.95E-08

3.54E-06


3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution

4. Combined risk


ISR (per year)

Individual risk y (per year)

ISR (per year)

5.16E-08

1.29E-04

6.12E-07

3.19E-05

6.85E-07

4.43E-08

1.89E-06

2.37E-08

7.81E-06

1.27E-07

Page 26 of 39


MANAGING RISK In Table 4 the AIR is calculated based on the Individual Specific Risk (ISR) for each working group and the percentage of the total number of people each group constitutes. The AIR is calculated from the formula:

AIR 

 (ISR  Number of personnel)  Number of personnel

As shown in Table 8 AIR is up from acceptable to ALARP area, compared with the Skangass acceptance criterion (ref. Appendix C), after installation of the ferry bunkering facility. Table 8 Average Individual specific risk 3rd party ferry bunkering station (per year) Criteria

Total number of exposed individuals

LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1)

LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1)+ ferry bunkering system

AIR 3rd party (per year)

10 531

4.67E-08

1.37E-07


Page 27 of 39


MANAGING RISK

6

SENSITIVITIES

The results provided in section 5 are based on DNV recommendation corresponding to a total duration of 90 seconds (60s to detect and initiate ESD and 30s for the ESD to close). However, Skangass estimates that it is possible to activate the ESD system in a shorter time of 36s (30s to detect and initiate ESD and 6s for the ESD valve to close). Even if a closing time of 6 seconds could be possible if Skangass documents that the facility uses a valve in compliance with this requirement, DNV’s experience shows that the detection, initiation time of the ESV is often extended to 60 seconds. Therefore two sensitivities have been developed to investigate the risk picture for: -

A duration of 66 seconds (60s to detect and initiate ESD, as recommended by DNV and 6s for the ESD to close, as suggested by Skangass)

-

A duration of 36 seconds as estimated by Skangass (30s to detect and initiate ESD and 6s for the ESD to close)

For both cases it has been assumed that the consequences of a leak on the pipeline between the bunkering operations will remain the same. Thus only the risk picture during the bunkering operation will be impacted. The results of these two sensitivities are compared against the risk results based on the time recommended by DNV.

6.1

Individual Risk 1st party and 2nd party

For 1st and 2nd party the reduction in ESD time reduce the risk for the Skangass operators and terminal workers at the ferry terminal, For 1st party, Table 9 and Table 10 show the different individual risk according to the ESD time. The individual risk for 2nd party is presented in Table 11 and Table 12. For the most exposed 1st party which are the Skangass operators at the ferry terminal, the individual risk contribution from bunkering is reduced by 62% with initiation and closing time according to Skangass inputs, and the overall LNG-related risk is reduced with 39%. For the most exposed 2nd party, which are the workers at the ferry terminal, the individual risk contribution from bunkering is reduced by approximately 50% with initiation and closing time according to Skangass inputs, and the overall LNG-related risk is reduced with 36% for outdoor workers and 18% for indoor workers.

Table 9 Sensitivity, Individual specific risks for most exposed persons (1st party). Note that ISRs in column 3.. are additional risk contributions, i.e. they do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. appendix C.

Individual


Location

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution DNV inputs

Page 28 of 39

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution DNV and Skangass inputs

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution Skangass Inputs


MANAGING RISK





ISR (per year)



ISR (per year)


2.00E-05

5.13E-07

1.99E-05

5.12E-07

1.98E-05

5.09E-07

4.47E-05

4.50E-07

4.47E-05

4.50E-07

4.47E-05

4.50E-07

2.00E-05

8.48E-07

1.99E-05

8.46E-07

1.98E-05

8.37E-07

Total

1.30E-06

1.30E-06

0.00E+00

Truck loading (1 person per truck per 1.2h) Ship loading (jetty – only during connection and disconnection)1


9.38E-05

2.41E-06

9.36E-05

2.40E-06

9.30E-05

2.39E-06


9.93E-06

1.38E-07

9.93E-06

1.38E-07

9.93E-06

1.38E-07



1.33E-05

3.42E-07

1.33E-05

3.42E-07

1.33E-05

3.42E-07



1.33E-05

1.28E-07

1.33E-05

1.28E-07

1.33E-05

1.28E-07



1.08E-04

3.69E-05

1.05E-04

2.71E-06

5.40E-05

1.39E-06

Table 10 Sensitivity, Individual specific and ferry bunkering station combined.

risks for most exposed persons (1st party). Base Load Plant 4.Combined Risk DNV inputs

Individual



Location


4.Combined Risk DNV and Skangass inputs Individual Individual risk risk (per year) (per year)


ISR (per year)

4.22E-05

5.07E-06

4.22E-05

4.94E-04

7.49E-06

4.22E-05

1.83E-05

Total

4.Combined Risk Skangass Inputs ISR (per year)


5.07E-06

4.20E-05

5.07E-06

4.94E-04

7.49E-06

4.69E-04

7.49E-06

4.22E-05

1.83E-05

3.26E-05

1.83E-05

2.58E-05

2.58E-05

2.58E-05

Truck loading (1 person per truck per 1.2h) Ship loading (jetty – only during connection and disconnection)1


3.10E-04

1.32E-05

3.10E-04

1.32E-05

3.09E-04

1.32E-05


6.40E-05

8.91E-07

6.40E-05

8.91E-07

6.40E-05

8.91E-07



7.34E-05

4.95E-06

7.34E-05

4.95E-06

7.34E-05

4.95E-06



7.34E-05

2.48E-06

7.34E-05

2.48E-06

7.34E-05

2.48E-06



1.32E-04

3.59E-06

1.30E-04

3.52E-06

7.82E-05

2.20E-06


Page 29 of 39


MANAGING RISK nd

Table 11 Sensitivity, Individual specific risks for most exposed persons (2 party). Note that ISRs in column pairs 2. and 3. is additional risk contributions, i.e. they do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. appendix C.

Individual

Location

Ferry terminal – office workers


Ferry terminal – industry workers

Table 12

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution DNV inputs Individual ISR risk (per (per year) year)

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution DNV and Skangass inputs Individual Individual risk risk (per year) (per year)

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution Skangass Inputs Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)

2.32E-05

5.96E-07

2.26E-05

5.81E-07

1.19E-05

3.04E-07

1.08E-04

2.77E-06

1.05E04

2.70E-06

5.39E-05

1.38E-06

Sensitivity, Individual specific risks for most exposed persons (2nd party). Base Load Plant

and ferry bunkering station combined. Individual

Location

Ferry terminal – office workers Ferry terminal – industry workers



4.Combined Risk DNV inputs Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)

4.Combined Risk DNV and Skangass inputs Individual Individua risk l risk (per year) (per year)

4.Combined Risk Skangass Inputs ISR (per year)


2.82E-05

1.63E-06

2.76E-05

1.61E-06

1.69E-05

1.33E-06

1.32E-04

7.74E-06

1.29E-04

7.67E-06

7.81E-05

4.96E-06

Page 30 of 39


MANAGING RISK

6.2 Societal and Individual risk 3rd party 6.2.1 Societal risk Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the societal risk according to the different ESD time. If the detection and closing time is reduced then the societal risk due to the bunkering operation is slightly reduced. The limited reduction observed is because the LNG Base Load Plant, the bunkering facility and the LNG pipeline to the jetty are the main contributors, and the risk change from the loading operation itself is relatively small.

Figure 9 F-N curves for societal risk 3rd party, DNV inputs


Page 31 of 39


MANAGING RISK

Figure 10 Sensitivity F-N curves for societal risk 3rd party, Mixed inputs

Figure 11 Sensitivity F-N curves for societal risk 3rd party, Skangass inputs


Page 32 of 39


MANAGING RISK

6.2.2 Individual risk Table 13 and Table 14 show the different individual risk according to the different ESD total time. We can see that the individual risk is reduced when the ESD initiation and closing time is reduced. The different ISR remain in the same order of magnitude. When comparing between the DNV recommendations (total time of 90s) and a shorter time for closing the valve as in the mixed inputs, a reduction in risk level is observed. Applying the Skangass data for initiation and closing, the total reduction in LNG related risk is 39% for passengers inside the ferry terminal and about 47% for passengers on board the ferry. There is hence a significant risk reduction potential in in actions to reduce the initiation of the ESD system by for example designing a manifold location (cf. section 8) allowing an easy activation by the operators supervising the operation. The reduction in the risk related to bunkering itself is reduced with app. 50% with the Skangass data for initiation and closing of ESD. Table 13 Sensitivities - Individual Risk for 3rd party, Note that ISRs in column 3. is additional risk contributions, i.e. they do not represent total risk during this operational phase, and cannot be compared with the acceptance criteria, ref. appendix C.

Individual

Peninsula Hiking track Ferry Terminal – passengers Energiveien+Risavika – office workers Energiveien+Risavika – industry workers Container area – office workers Container area – industry workers Rest companies – office workers Rest companies – industry workers Living quarters (indoor fraction of 0.75) Tananger population (indoor fraction of 0.75) Ferry deck

Location

Peninsula

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution DNV inputs Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)




ISR (per year)


ISR (per year)

3.30E-06

1.06E-07

3.30E-06

1.06E-07

3.30E-06

1.06E-07

4.32E-05

3.45E-07

4.32E-05

3.45E-07

4.32E-05

3.45E-07

2.32E-05

5.55E-07

2.26E-05

5.41E-07

1.19E-05

2.80E-07

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

1.58E-07

4.07E-09

1.10E-07

2.82E-09

1.65E-08

4.24E-10

1.11E-06

2.86E-08

8.70E-07

2.23E-08

1.27E-07

3.26E-09

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

7.41E-10

Negl.

2.26E-10

Negl.

2.25E-10

Negl.

Rest indoor

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

Tananger indoor / Tananger outdoor Passengers indoor


2.67E-10


2.67E-10


2.67E-10

1.29E-04

6.12E-07

2.83E-05

6.05E-07

1.50E-05

2.91E-07

Hiking track Ferry terminal indoor Energiveien indoor Energiveien outdoor Container area indoor Container area outdoor Rest indoor Rest outdoor


Page 33 of 39


MANAGING RISK

Individual

Parking area – passengers

Location

Passengers outdoor

Table 14 Sensitivities -

3. Ferry bunkering facility – during bunkering Added risk contribution DNV inputs Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year) 2.07E-06

2.59E-08




ISR (per year)


ISR (per year)

2.07E-06

2.59E-08

1.14E-06

1.42E-08

Individual Risk for 3rd party, Base Load Plant and ferry bunkering station

combined. Individual

Location

Peninsula

Peninsula

Hiking track Ferry Terminal – passengers Energiveien+Risavika – office workers Energiveien+Risavika – industry workers Container area – office workers Container area – industry workers Rest companies – office workers Rest companies – industry workers Living quarters (indoor fraction of 0.75) Tananger population (indoor fraction of 0.75) Ferry deck Parking area – passengers

4.Combined Risk DNV inputs Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)

4.Combined Risk DNV and Skangass inputs Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)

4.Combined Risk Skangass Inputs Individual ISR risk (per year) (per year)

4.07E-05

1.30E-06

4.07E-05

1.30E-06

4.07E-05

1.30E-06

2.69E-04

2.15E-06

2.69E-04

2.15E-06

2.69E-04

2.15E-06

2.82E-05

7.10E-07

2.76E-05

6.96E-07

1.69E-05

4.35E-07

1.58E-09

3.25E-10

1.58E-09

3.25E-10

1.58E-09

3.25E-10

1.58E-08

3.25E-09

1.58E-08

3.25E-09

1.58E-08

3.25E-09

1.89E-07

1.04E-08

1.40E-07

9.12E-09

4.72E-08

6.73E-09

1.33E-06

7.36E-08

1.09E-06

6.73E-08

3.46E-07

4.83E-08

Rest indoor

2.80E-09

5.62E-10

2.75E-09

5.61E-10

2.75E-09

5.61E-10

Rest outdoor

2.79E-08

5.60E-09

2.74E-08

5.59E-09

2.74E-08

5.59E-09

Rest indoor

2.80E-09

8.85E-09

2.75E-09

8.84E-09

2.75E-09

8.84E-09

Tananger indoor / Tananger outdoor Passengers indoor Passengers outdoor


6.55E-08


6.55E-08


6.55E-08

3.19E-05

6.85E-07

3.12E-05

6.78E-07

1.79E-05

3.65E07

7.99E-06

1.30E-07

7.99E-06

1.30E-07

7.06E-06

1.18E-07

Hiking track Ferry terminal indoor Energiveien indoor Energiveien outdoor Container area indoor Container area outdoor


Page 34 of 39


MANAGING RISK

6.3 Sensitivities discussion As stated in section 6.2.2, the reduction in ESD involves a reduction of the risk level. This is most notably observed for the terminal workers, both Skangass jetty operators and ferry terminal dedicated workers, and the 3rd party passengers on the ferry and at the terminal. The risk for these populations are in the ALARP area, and risk reducing measures shall hence be evaluated a cost benefit perspective. DNV therefore recommends taking action to reduce as much as practicable the ESD total initiation and closing time to reduce the inventory released. And as presented in the section 8, Skangass will get benefit if the ignition sources are controlled during the bunkering as it will reduce the ignition probability of a drifting cloud and is likely to reduce the overall risk level. It should be noted that risk level reduction is not linearly proportional to the ESD total time reduction, which again is proportional to the volume of LNG released. Indeed, while the time is reduced by 60%, the ISR of the passengers in the ferry terminal is reduced by 39%. Hence, the observed risk reduction is smaller than the actual reduction in closing time for the ESD valve. This result is considered as normal. The reasons are multiple. - In order to ignite the gas cloud has to be within the Lower Flammability Limit (LFL) and Upper Flammability Limit (UFL) when it is exposed to the ignition source. A larger gas cloud will also represent a larger extension of the cloud which is above UFL and hence not ignitable. Hence, some of the ignition sources that for a smaller cloud were exposed to concentration below UFL may now be outside this envelope. - If the larger gas cloud that is built up by longer initiation time and closing time does not expose additional ignition sources, the increase in ignition probability will be less. - The risk model is based on modelling of selected representative scenarios and a representative wind direction and drifting patterns. If the wind direction and release scenarios result in gas dispersion that have a tendency to expose areas with few strong ignition sources, a growth in gas cloud size will not result in a proportionally equivalent increase in risk level. .


Page 35 of 39


MANAGING RISK

7

SHIP MANIFOLD LOCATION

The following comments were given in the previous QRA and remain the same for this version of the report: DNV has reviewed the interim location of the ship bunkering manifold and ventilation intakes, to assess if there could be any non-conformity with respect to the DNV class rules. The review is based on Skangass Design Basis, ref. /4/ and info from Fjordline:  Bunkering location is suggested to be on deck 3, # 106, port side.  Ventilation intakes are located on car deck, # 149-161, both port and starboard sides. Initial comments, taken into consideration that the exact location is not set, are as follows:  Areas within the distance of 3 m from the gas fuel manifold valve are considered as hazardous zone 1 (ref. IEC standard 60092-502, 4.2.2.7)  Areas of 1.5 m surrounding the hazardous zone 1 is considered as hazardous zone 2 (ref. IEC standard 60092-502, 4.2.3.1)  Within the areas described above all electrical equipment need to be certified for the relevant zone.  Air inlets for non-hazardous enclosed spaces shall be taken from non-hazardous areas at least 1.5 m from the boundaries of any hazardous area (ref. IEC standard 60092-502, 8.2.5). Implicitly, this means that ventilation inlets to the accommodation or other gas safe spaces need to be located at least 6 m from the gas manifold. These are general comments which should be considered during the design phase. A bunker manifold which is arranged in such a way that the above requirements are fulfilled will be considered acceptable according to DNV class rules with respect to location. Given that the manifold will be installed at the suggested location, the distance to the ventilation intakes should be sufficient. Detailed review of the entire gas bunkering system in order to verify compliance with DNV rules Pt.6 Ch. 13 “Gas Fuelled Engine Installation” will be carried out on a later stage based on final design.


Page 36 of 39


MANAGING RISK

8

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Risk calculated for the planned LNG bunkering station and LNG Base Load Plant (Train 1), combined, is presented in the report:  The 1st/2nd individual risk is found to be within the ALARP region or acceptable for all personnel categories.  The calculated 3rd party societal risk, in terms of F-N curve, is within the ALARP or acceptable area for all events.  3rd party Individual Specific Risk is found acceptable or in the ALARP area for all individuals.  The passengers on board the ferry are at lower risk than the passengers at the terminal. As a consequence of this boarding of passengers is planned to take place before bunkering, ref. Skangass’ Design Basis /4/. According to the same reference, no passengers are allowed in the passenger tube during bunkering and only late-comers will board through the tube after bunkering.  The sensitivities shows a reduction in the risk picture for 1st party (only for the group “Skangass operators at the ferry terminal jetty”), 2nd party and 3rd party. However the risk results remain in the same order of magnitude. The technical concept of Risavika ferry station is regarded as safer than ‘standard practice’. As the calculated risk is in ALARP area, Skangass should consider taking measures to reduce the risk as the one presented below. Indeed, ALARP stands for “As Low As Practible”, meaning that the risk is tolerable if risk reduction is impracticable or if its cost is grossly disproportionate to the improvement. DNV recommends a high focus on ignition source control to reduce the ignition probability at the Skangass LNG plant and ferry terminal. The traffic should be kept to a minimum. The public should be made aware the potentially hazardous bunkering taking place on the jetty and explained about the different safety procedures. It should be noted that fiscal metring system and/or the direct monitoring of Skangass operators shutting down the ignition sources in the event of a detected leak, are already taken into account in the analysis. In addition, DNV recommends investigating the possibility of controlling the ignition sources due to the car traffic in ferry terminal area. Also, the use of Ex proof equipment at the jetty, and possibly on the ferry, should be considered. It has been found that the groups working in the vicinity of the plant and the ferry terminal see their risk increased. It has been assessed that the main contributor to the risk is the underground pipeline between the bunkering operations that remained under 7 barg of pressure and filled with LNG to cool down the line. In general, reduction of LNG volume in the bunkering pipeline by segmentation part of the pipelines in between bunkering operation would reduce the fire and explosion risk. Also reduction of the standby pressure between the bunkering operations by depressurizing the whole underground pipeline would reduce the fire and explosion risk. This study does not account for any segmentation or depressurization of the loading line.


Page 37 of 39


MANAGING RISK The main contributors to the leak frequencies are small bore fittings and flanges. Thus, it should be considered to evaluate the benefits of using as less as practically possible flanges and small bore fittings in order to reduce further the leak frequency at the jetty. Liquid bunds/trays around the LNG loading arm where an LNG leak could occur would help limiting the pool size in the event of an LNG leak. Short response and closing times recommended by DNV for ESD upon confirmed leak are used in the analysis (60 s for leaks response and 30 s for closing). This is based on continuous local supervision by operators during transfer helping to activate the ESD system manually. It appears that the reduction of the total ESD time will reduce the risk level, however the times estimated by Skangass are shorter than what it is experienced in the industry. Also, DNV recommends that all of the following conditions have to be met in order to justify a short reaction time:  From the start to the end of the loading operation the operators present at the ferry terminal jetty has a view of the loading operation and the loading/unloading arm. In particular, the operator is not sitting inside a building during the loading operation.  The presence of the operators on-site is guaranteed by means of a facility such as a deadman’s handle or by a procedure in the safety management system and is checked during inspections.  The process of actuating the emergency stop device by the operators present in the event of a leak during the loading operation is laid out in a procedure.  The operators present on-site is adequately trained and is also familiar with the applicable procedures.  The emergency stop device is positioned according to the applicable standards, so that an emergency button can be actuated within a short time irrespective of the direction of the outflow. It is also possible to close the ventilation system in the ferry terminal, from the Skangass LNG Plant, upon gas detection. It is recommended to include possible leaks from the ferry bunkering facility in this picture to ensure that the ventilation system closes also upon gas detection from the ferry bunkering facility.


Page 38 of 39


MANAGING RISK

9

REFERENCES

/1/

QRA for Skangass LNG Plant, DNV, Report no.: 2009-0068, Rev 1, 08.05.2009

/2/

Skangass Memo, Risikovurdering ved Installering av Kontainere/Brakke på LNG anlegget, 23.10.2010

/3/

Skangass Memo, QRA Oppdatering: Risikovurdering ved lossing/”tømming” av tankbil til LNG tank 42-TR-101, doc. no. SG200-SG-S-RS-0001, 01.11.2011

/4/

Skangass Project Design Basis, LNG bunkering of Fjordline at Risavikahavn, rev 0 draft, 16.02.2012

/5/

Comparison of LNG loading hoses vs. Rigid loading arms, Memo No. 16DJTWB2/JASTEIN, DNV, 18.03.2013


Page 39 of 39

Det Norske Veritas: DNV is a global provider of knowledge for managing risk. Today, safe and responsible business conduct is both a license to operate and a competitive advantage. Our core competence is to identify, assess, and advise on risk management, and so turn risks into rewards for our customers. From our leading position in certification, classification, verification, and training, we develop and apply standards and best practices. This helps our customers to safely and responsibly improve their business performance. Our technology expertise, industry knowledge, and risk management approach, has been used to successfully manage numerous high-profile projects around the world. DNV is an independent organisation with dedicated risk professionals in more than 100 countries. Our purpose is to safeguard life, property and the environment. DNV serves a range of industries, with a special focus on the maritime and energy sectors. Since 1864, DNV has balanced the needs of business and society based on our independence and integrity. Today, we have a global presence with a network of 300 offices in 100 countries, with headquarters in Oslo, Norway.

Global impact for a safe and sustainable future:

Learn more on www.dnv.com

3. QRA

Recommend Documents