ارزیابی ریسک های محیط زیستی مجتمع پتروشیمی کرمانشاه با روش FMEA

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه محیط‌زیست، دانشکده منابع طبیعی و محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران

2 گروه برنامه‌ریزی آموزشی و ارزیابی عملکرد HSE، شرکت ملی صنایع پتروشیمی ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

سابقه و هدف:
با گسترش صنعت­های مختلف، باوجود ایجاد رفاه برای انسان، خطر­ها و ریسک­های نهفته جدیدی نیز برای وی به وجود ­آمده ­است. صنعت پتروشیمی با توجه به گستردگی و حجم فعالیت­ ها و توانایی ایجاد خطر هم برای انسان و هم برای محیط‌زیست جزء صنعت­ های با ریسک بالا محسوب می­شود. هدف از این تحقیق، ارزیابی و رتبه ­بندی ریسک ­های منتج از فعالیت­های فرآیندی در مجتمع پتروشیمی کرمانشاه است. 
مواد و روش‎ها:
تحقیق حاضر یک پژوهش تحلیلی- میدانی است که در یک بازه زمانی حدود10 ماه در مجتمع پتروشیمی کرمانشاه انجام گرفت. در این تحقیق ضمن بررسی خط­های تولید محصول­ ها (اوره و آمونیاک)، تیمی 5 نفره از کارشناسان و خبرگان تشکیل شد. سپس به تهیه­ ی لیستی ابتدایی از مهم‌ترین ریسک­ ها و خطر­ها در حوزه­ ی محیط‌ زیست اقدام و در مرحله ­ی بعد با استفاده از روش طوفان فکری و تکنیک دلفی اقدام به اصلاح لیست ابتدایی خطر­ها و ریسک ­های محیط زیستی شد و در قالب روش FMEA سنتی و فازی به ارزیابی ریسک محیط زیستی پرداخته شد.
 نتایج و بحث:
بنابر نتایج به ­دست ­آمده از تعداد 38 ریسک شناسایی شده با روش FMEA سنتی، بالاترین رتبه مربوط به ریسک انتشار گازهای هیدروژن و آمونیاک در زمان از سرویس خارج شدن واحد آمونیاک و کمترین رتبه متعلق به ریسک پساب ­های آمونیاکی است. همچنین بیشترین فراوانی تأثیر ریسک ­ها مربوط به آلودگی هوا و نیز بیشترین دلیل ریسک ­ها مربوط به نقص در شبکه و اتصال­ها هستند. نتایج فازی سازی ورودی ­ها و خروجی روش FMEA نشان می­دهد که از مجموع 15 ریسک که به صورت کلی در مجتمع پتروشیمی با نظر­های خبرگان شناسایی شده بیشترین عدد اولویت فازی در بخش بهداشتی مربوط به آلودگی صوتی (75/0)، در بخش ایمنی مربوط به سقوط از ارتفاع (75/0) و در بخش محیط‌زیست مربوط به کاهش منابع اکولوژیکی (613/0) طبق جدول 9 است. 
نتیجه­ گیری:
طبق نتایج این تحقیق، رویکرد FMEA فازی می­تواند به عنوان جایگزین مناسبی برای رویکرد سنتی FMEA در زمان نیاز به بیان نتایج، با دقت بیشتر باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Environmental risk assessment of Kermanshah petrochemical complex using FMEA method

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sajjad Bahrami 1
  • Ahad Sotoudeh 1
  • Naser Jamshidi 2
  • Mohammad Reza Elmi 1
1 Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources and Desert Studies, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
2 HSE Training Planning and Performance Assessment Manager, National Petrochemical Company, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Development of various industries, despite providing human welfare, has potential risks for mankind. Due to its extensive operations and activity and also the potential risk for humans and the environment, the petrochemical industry is considered a high-risk industry. The purpose of this study was to assess and prioritize the risks resulting from process activities in Kermanshah petrochemical complex using two approaches (i.e., the traditional and fuzzy FMEA method). Material and methods: The present study was an analytical-field research that has been conducted in Kermanshah petrochemical complex for 10 months. In this study, the product lines (urea and ammonia) were investigated and also a team of five experts was formed. In addition, an initial list of the most important risks and hazards in the environmental field was prepared and then, by using Brainstorming and Delphi Technique, the list was corrected. Finally, environmental risk assessment in the form of traditional and fuzzy FMEA methods was evaluated.  Results and discussion: According to the results, 38 risks were identified by traditional FMEA. The highest priority risk was related to hydrogen and ammonia gas emissions when the ammonia unit was out of service by RPN number of 491. The lowest priority risk belonged to ammonia effluents by RPN number of 28. Also, the highest risks to air pollution, as well as the causes of the risks were related to defects in the system and connections. The results of input fuzzification and output FMEA method showed that among the 15 identified risks in the petrochemical complex, the highest number of fuzzy priority in the health section was related to noise pollution (0.75), in the safety section was falling from the heights (0.75), and in the environmental sector for the reduction of ecological resources (0.613). Conclusion: Comparing these two approaches suggest that the traditional FMEA is powerful in the early stages of risk assessment process, and on the other hand, the fuzzy approach is more flexible and user-friendly in the stage of prioritizing the risks.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Risk Assessment
  • Environment
  • fuzzy- FMEA
  • Kermanshah Petrochemical

مراجع

  1. Bowles, J.B. and Pelaez, C.E., 1995. Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 50(2), 203–213.
  2. Bozdag, E., Asan, U., Soyer, A. and Serdarasan, S., 2015. Risk prioritization in failure mode and effects analysis using interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Expert Systems with Applications. 42(8), 4000–4015.
  3. Chang, C.L., Liu, P.H. and Wei, C.C., 2001. Failure mode and effects analysis using grey theory. Integrated Manufacturing Systems. 12, 211–216.
  4. Chen, Y.S., Chong, P.P. and Tong, M.Y., 1994. Mathematical and computer modelling of the pareto principle. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 19(9), 61-80.
  5. Chen, Zh., Wu, X. and Qin, J., 2014. Risk assessment of an oxygen-enhanced combustor using a structural model based on the FMEA and fuzzy fault tree. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 32, 349- 357.
  6. Chin, K.S. Chan, A. and Yang, J.B., 2008. Development of a fuzzy FMEA based product design system. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 36, 633-649.
  7. Deshpande, A., 2011. Fuzzy fault tree analysis: revisited. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management. 2(1), 3–13.
  8. Health and Safety Executive, 2016. Understanding the task. http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/resources/understanding-the-task.pdf.
  9. Jozi, S.A., Farbod, Sh., Arjmandi, R. and Noori, J., 2013. Environmental risk assessment and management of the utility plant of the 15 and 16 phases in the south pars area using efmea method. Journal of Environmental Researches. 4(2), 135- 147.
  10. Jozi, S.A., Goleiji, N. and Mohammadfam, I., 2011. Environmental risk assessment and management of the Olefin Plant inArya Sasol Petrochemical Complex usingEFMEA method. Journal of Sciences and Techniques in Natural Resources. 6(4), 147- 159.
  11. Khasha, R., Sepehri, M.M., Khatibi, T. and Soroosh, A.R., 2013. Application of fuzzy FMEA to workflow improve in the operating room. Journal of Industrial Engineering. 47(2), 135-147.
  12. Khodaee, R. and Roghanian, E., 2012. The new model for risk assessment projects, Monthly Oil & Energy, 7(66), 52-71.
  13. Liu, H.C., Liu, L. and Lin, Q.L., 2013. Fuzzy failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning and belief rule-based methodology. IEEE Transactions on Reliability. 62, 23–36.
  14. Liu, H.C., Liu. L., Liu, N. and Mao. L.X., 2012. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended vikor method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications. 39, 12926–12934.
  15. Liu, Y., Fan, Z.P., Yuan, Y. and Li, H., 2014. A FTA-based method for risk decision-making in emergency response. Journal of Computers and Operations Research. 42, 49-57.
  16. Morris, P. and Therivel, R., 2005. Methods of environmental impact assessment: Part II; Brookes. An environmental risk assessment and risk management. Second Edition. Spon Press. Taylor and Francis. London. 492 pp.
  17. Nadal, M., Schuhmacher, M. and Domingo, J.L., 2004. Metal Pollution of Soils and Vegetation in an Area with Petrochemical Industry. Science of the Total Environment. 321, 59–69.
  18. Nivolianitou, Zoe, Risk analysis and risk management: a European insight, Law, Probability and Risk, 2002, I <https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/1.2.161>
  19. Omidvar, M. and Nirumand, F., 2017. Risk assessment using FMEA method and on the basis of MCDM, fuzzy logic and grey theory: A case study of overhead cranes. Journal of Health and Safety at Work. 1(7), 63-77.
  20. Ricci, P.F., 2006. Environmental and health risk assessment and management principles and practices. Springer. Netherland.479 pp.
  21. Riplova. K., 2007. Tool of risk management: failure mode and effects analysis and failure modes, effects and criticality analysis. Journal of Information, Control and Management Systems. 5(1), 111-120.
  22. Roghanian, E. and Mojibian, F., 2015. Using fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy logic in project risk management. Iranian Journal of Management Studies (Ijms). 8(3), 373-395.
  23. Shahriar, A., Sadiq, R. and Tesfamariam, S., 2012. Risk analysis for oil & gas pipelines: a sustainability assessment approach using fuzzy based Bow-Tie analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 25, 505-523.
  24. Shao, C.,Yang, J., Tian, X., Ju, M. and Huang, L., 2013. Integrated environmental risk assessment and whole-process management system in chemical industry parks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 10, 1609-1630.
  25. Shariati, Sh., 2014. Underground mine risk assessment by using FMEA in the presence of uncertainty. Decision Science Letters. 3, 295- 304.
  26. Song, W., Ming, X., Wu, Z. and Zhu, B., 2014. A rough topsis approach for failure mode and effects analysis in uncertain environments. Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 30, 473–486.
  27. Tarr, M.A., 2003. Chemical degradation methods for wastes and pollutants, environmental and industrial applications. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York Rasel.
  28. Teoh, Ping Chow & Case, Keith. (2004). Failure modes and effects analysis through knowledge modeling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 153. 253-260. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.298.
  29. Tixier, J., Dusserre, G., Salvi, O. and Gaston, D., 2002. Review of 62 risk analysis methodologies of industrial plants. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 15, 291–303.
  30. Yang, J., Huang, H.Z., He, L.P., Zhu, S.P. and Wen, D., 2011. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades using Dempster–Shafer evidence theory under uncertainty. Engineering Failure Analysis. 18, 2084–2092.
  31. Yang, Z. and Wang, J., 2015. Use of fuzzy risk assessment in FMEA of offshore engineering systems. Ocean Engineering. 95. 195-204.
  32. Zade, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control. 8. 338-353.
  33. Zhang, Z. and Chu, X., 2011. Risk prioritization in failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications. 38, 206–214.
  34. Website of Kermanshah Petrochemical Industries Company, KPIC.ir /2014. September/. https://www.kpic.ir/
فصلنامه علوم محیطی
دوره 16، شماره 3
مهر 1397
صفحه 1-24

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار