Proposed ANE Facility

97 Pages·2011·3.08 MB·English

PROPOSED ANE FACILITY
KURRI KURRI TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
FINAL HAZARD ANALYSIS

ORICA AUSTRALIA
PREPARED FOR: Richard Sheehan
Orica Australia

DOCUMENT NO: J20210-007
REVISION: 0
DATE: 24 February 2011

Document: J20210-007 Sherpa Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 40 110 961 898)
Revision: 0 Phone: [phone]
Revision Date: 24 February 2011 Fax: [phone]
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0 Web: www.sherpaconsulting.com
DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD

METHOD
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED
OF ISSUE
A 17 February 2011 Draft for client comment J Polich - - PDF
0 24 February 2011 Final Revision J Polich P Johnson J Polich PDF

RELIANCE NOTICE
This report is issued pursuant to an Agreement between SHERPA CONSULTING PTY LTD („Sherpa
Consulting‟) and Orica Australia which agreement sets forth the entire rights, obligations and liabilities
of those parties with respect to the content and use of the report.
Reliance by any other party on the contents of the report shall be at its own risk. Sherpa Consulting
makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, to any other party with respect to the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report and assumes no
liabilities with respect to any other party‟s use of or damages resulting from such use of any information,
conclusions or recommendations disclosed in this report.

Title: QA Verified:
Proposed ANE Facility P Johnson
Kurri Kurri Technology Centre
Final Hazard Analysis Date: 24 February 2011

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 2
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 6
1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Objective .................................................................................................................................. 13
2.3 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 13
2.5 Risk Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.6 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 17
2.7 Links to Other Studies ............................................................................................................. 17
3 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Site Overview ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 ANE Project Overview ............................................................................................................. 18
3.3 Location and Surrounding Land Use ....................................................................................... 18
3.4 Site Security ............................................................................................................................. 19
3.5 Site Layout ............................................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Australian Standard Separation Distances .............................................................................. 19
3.7 ANE Plant Process Overview .................................................................................................. 25
3.8 Technology Centre Existing Facilities...................................................................................... 26
4 REVIEW OF QRA BASIS AND PROJECT SAFETYSTUDIES ....................................................... 27
4.1 Review of QRA Basis .............................................................................................................. 27
4.2 Review of HAZOP.................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 Review of FSS ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.4 Review of CSS ......................................................................................................................... 28
5 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 29
5.1 Hazardous Materials for Proposed ANE Plant ........................................................................ 29
5.2 Hazardous Materials at Existing Technical Centre Facilities .................................................. 31
5.3 External Events........................................................................................................................ 31
5.4 Bushfires .................................................................................................................................. 32
5.5 Potential Hazardous Incident Scenarios ................................................................................. 36
5.6 Scenarios for Quantitative Assessment .................................................................................. 36

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 3
5.7 Rule Sets for Incident Inclusion ............................................................................................... 37
6 QRA BASIS ..................................................................................................................................... 46
7 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 48
7.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 48
7.2 Effect Levels of Interest ........................................................................................................... 48
7.3 Explosion Consequence Assessment Assumptions ............................................................... 50
7.4 Explosion Scenario Consequence Results ............................................................................. 53
7.5 Onsite Escalation ..................................................................................................................... 58
7.6 Toxic Effects Consequence Assessment ................................................................................ 67
8 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS AND RISK RESULTS ............................................................................ 70
8.1 Individual Fatality Risk ............................................................................................................. 70
9 RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................... 72
9.1 Individual Fatality Risk ............................................................................................................. 72
9.2 Explosion Injury Risk ............................................................................................................... 72
9.3 Escalation Risk (Offsite Property) ............................................................................................ 73
9.4 Toxic Injury / Irritation Risk ...................................................................................................... 73
9.5 Risk to Biophysical Environment ............................................................................................. 75
10 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 78

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION
APPENDIX B. HIRAC INFORMATION
APPENDIX C. EXPLOSION OVERPRESSURES CONSEQUENCE MODELLING METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX D. QRA SCENARIOS
APPENDIX E. SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS
APPENDIX F. REFERENCES

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 4
TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of Compliance with Risk Criteria ......................................................................... 12
Table 2.1: NSW Individual Risk Criteria, New Plants ........................................................................... 15
Table 2.2: NSW Escalation Risk Criteria, New Plants ......................................................................... 16
Table 2.3: NSW Risk Criteria, Existing Plants ...................................................................................... 16
Table 3.1: Existing Facilities Inventory Summary ................................................................................. 26
Table 5.1: NO Toxicity ......................................................................................................................... 31
2
Table 5.2: External Events ................................................................................................................... 31
Table 5.3: Proposed ANE Production Facility Hazardous Material Properties .................................... 34
Table 5.4: Rule Set for Scenarios Considered in QRA ........................................................................ 38
Table 5.5: Hazardous Scenarios Considered in FHA, Proposed ANE production facility ................... 39
Table 5.6: Hazardous Scenarios Considered in QRA, Existing Technical Center Facilities ................ 45
Table 6.1: QRA Basis, Proposed ANE PLant ....................................................................................... 46
Table 6.2: QRA Basis, Existing Kurri Facilities ..................................................................................... 47
Table 7.1: Fatality / Overpressure Correlation ..................................................................................... 48
Table 7.2: Impact Levels For Toxic Effects .......................................................................................... 50
Table 7.3: ANS and AN Explosion Efficency ........................................................................................ 51
Table 7.4: TNT Equivalence ................................................................................................................. 52
Table 7.5: Separation Distances Between Inventories ........................................................................ 53
Table 7.6: Consequence Analysis Results – Overpressures Proposed ANE PLant ............................ 63
Table 7.7: Consequence Analysis Results – AS2187.1 Separation Distances Proposed ANE Plant . 64
Table 7.8: Consequence Analysis Results – Overpressures for Existing TEchncial Centre Inventories65
Table 7.9: Consequence Analysis Results – AS2187.1 Separation Distances Existing Kurri Facilities66
Table 7.10: Consequence Analysis Results – NO Dispersion ............................................................. 69
2
Table 8.1: Orica Frequency Scale ........................................................................................................ 71
Table 9.1: Compliance with Individual Fatality Risk Criteria ................................................................ 72
Table 9.2: Compliance with Injury Risk Criteria .................................................................................... 73
Table 9.3: Compliance with Escalation Risk Criteria ............................................................................ 73
Table 9.4: Compliance with Toxic Injury / Irritation Risk Criteria .......................................................... 74

FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Site Location .................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3.2: Kurri Kurri Technical Centre Site Layout ....................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3: Proposed ANE Plant Layout .......................................................................................... 24
Figure 7.1: Proposed ANE Plant Worst Case Explosion – Aggregate Inventory ............................ 55
Figure 7.2: Proposed ANE Production Facility - ANE (maximum storage) Explosion ..................... 56
Figure 7.3: Proposed ANE Plant – ANS Storage Tank (largest inventory) Explosion ..................... 57
Figure 7.4: Research Magazine and Quarry Services Explosion (Maximum NEQ) ........................ 59
Figure 7.5: Research Laboratory Explosion (Maximum NEQ) ........................................................ 60
Figure 7.6: Mixing Laboratory Explosion (Maximum NEQ) ............................................................. 61
Figure 7.7: Test Cell Explosion (Maximum NEQ) ............................................................................ 62

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 5
ABBREVIATIONS
AEGL Acute Emergency Guideline Level
AEMSC Australian Explosive Manufacturers Safety Committee
AN Ammonium Nitrate
ANE Ammonium Nitrate Emulsion
ANS Ammonium Nitrate Solution
APZ Asset Protection Zone
AS Australian Standard
BOS (Orica) Basis of Safety
CSS Construction Safety Study
CoP Code of Practice
DG Dangerous Goods
DGRs (NSW DoP) Director General‟s Requirements
DoP (NSW) Department of Planning
EA Environmental Assessment
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
FHA Final Hazard Analysis
FRMP Fire Risk Management Plan
FSS Fire Safety Study
HAZOP Hazard and Operability study
HIPAP Hazard Industry Planning Advisory Paper
HIRAC Hazard Identification Risk Assessment and Control
KI Kooragang Island
MAE Major Accident Event
ML Mixing Laboratory
MMU Mobile Manufacturing Unit
MSDS Material Safety Datasheet
NEQ Net Explosive Quantity
NO Nitric Oxide
NO Nitrogen dioxide
2
NOx Oxides of nitrogen (includes NO, NO and others)
2
OXS Oxidiser Solution
PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis
PW Protected Works
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
QS Quarry Services depot
RFS NSW Rural Fire Service
RL Research Laboratory
RM Research Magazine
SHE Safety Heath and Environment
TNT Trinitrotoluene
tpa Tonnes per annum

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 6
UK HSE United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive
UN United Nations

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 7
1 SUMMARY
Background
Orica Australia Pty Ltd (Orica) proposes to build a new Ammonium Nitrate Emulsion
(ANE) Production Facility at their existing Technology Centre site at Richmond Vale,
NSW to meet the projected regional ANE demand to 2020 and beyond. The
Technology Centre site currently undertakes research and commercial production of
various Class 1 explosives and Class 5 ANEs. The site is several kilometres away
from populated areas and the current explosives facilities are well separated from each
other and site boundaries, as the site complies with the quantity distance rules in
AS2187.1-1998 Explosives – Storage, Transport and Use Part 1: Storage.
The proposed ANE Production Facilities comprise the ANE Production Facility or Plant
and associated infrastructure such as offices and access roads. The proposed ANE
Production Facility will manufacture Class 5.1 ANEs classified as UN number 3375.
Materials meeting this classification are precursor materials which behave as
Dangerous Goods of Class 5 – Oxidisers, rather than as Class 1 – Explosives. These
materials undergo final processing at the point of use (eg at a mine site) and only
become explosives at that stage.
The NSW Department of Planning (DoP) Project Approval (09-0090, July 2010)
requires that a Final Hazard Analysis (FHA) be prepared in accordance with the DoP
Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Papers No 6 Hazard Analysis Guidelines
(HIPAP 6) and No 4 Risk Criteria for Land Use Safety Planning (HIPAP 4).
Orica retained Sherpa Consulting Pty Ltd (Sherpa) to prepare the FHA.
Purpose and Scope
The overall objective of the FHA is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the
hazards and risks associated with the facility and the adequacy of the safeguards.
The FHA covers the proposed ANE Production Facilities and also potential interactions
with the existing facilities on the Technology Centre site. The FHA takes into account
the detailed design and outcomes of the Hazard and Operability study (HAZOP) and
Fire Safety Study (FSS) for the ANE plant.
Major Findings
The risk associated with the ANE plant area has been assessed and compared against
the DoP risk criteria.
There have been no changes to the project scope and design since the Preliminary
Hazard Analysis (PHA) was prepared which increase or otherwise alter predicted
offsite risk levels. Therefore the results of the FHA confirm the preliminary results
presented in the PHA. As per the PHA conclusions, the proposed facility complies with
all land use safety planning risk criteria.

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 8
Hazardous Incidents
The potentially significant hazardous incidents identified were:
ANE Production Facility - explosions involving raw materials, ie ammonium
nitrate solutions (ANS) or ammonium nitrate, or emulsion products (ANE) due
to contamination or external heating.
ANE Production Facility – ANS decomposition and toxic decomposition product
(NOx) formation.
Existing Technology Centre facilities – explosion in existing Class 1 high
explosives, ANE or AN facilities. Note there are no significant toxicity impacts
associated with explosion of high explosives.
External factors were considered in the hazard identification. Bushfire was the only
identified external event of potential concern.
Methodology
The assessment followed the methodology given in HIPAP 6 and also the DoP
guideline Multi-Level Risk Assessment. For this study, sufficient quantitative analysis
was undertaken to identify the events with the potential to have an offsite impact on
people or property, including potential escalation effects from or to the existing site
facilities.
The ANE Production Facility assessment was prepared using maximum storage
inventories for individual scenarios, including an assessment of an aggregated Net
Explosive Quantity (NEQ) to cover an escalation scenario involving all susceptible
inventories in the ANE Production Facility. Assessment of the existing facilities was
also conservatively based on the maximum aggregate NEQ for each area.
Analysis of the consequences of these incidents on people or property was
undertaken using a TNT equivalent model for explosion effects and standard
air dispersion packages for toxic impacts (TNO Riskcurves, BP Cirrus and US
EPA ALOHA).
Evaluation of likelihood of the hazardous incidents occurring was based on the
order of magnitude frequency assessments from the qualitative frequency
rankings applied in Orica‟s hazard study workshops. Likelihood was assessed
only for those incidents where the consequence analysis showed offsite
impacts were possible.
Risk levels were compared with risk criteria given in HIPAP 4.
This is a level 2 risk assessment as defined in the Multi-Level Risk Assessment
guidelines. A level 2 approach was selected as the initial consequence assessment

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 9
indicated only a small number of scenarios with the potential to have offsite impacts.
This approach was confirmed in the FHA.
Risk Results:
This study has found that there are no neighbouring hazardous inventories,
infrastructure or populations that may be affected by an explosion event. Due to the
large separation distances between the various hazardous inventories and the site
boundaries, very few events were identified with potential to cause injury or fatality
outside the site boundary. For those few events, the population potentially affected is
very low as the area within a one kilometre distance from the site boundary is largely
unpopulated. In summary:
No explosion events were identified associated with the ANE Production
Facilities or existing Technology Centre facilities with the potential to affect
offsite residential or industrial populations, or occupied buildings.
No explosion events were identified with the ANE Production facilities or
existing Technology Centre facilities with potential to damage offsite property or
infrastructure.
No explosion events were identified which would result in escalation incidents
between the proposed ANE Production Facilities and existing facilities at the
Technology Centre.
Dispersion modelling of toxic decomposition products (modelled as NO ) from a
2
worst case decomposition occurring in the largest ANE Production Facility
inventory demonstrated that there would be no offsite fatality effects. Injurious
concentrations would not be exceeded in any residential areas. Irritation effects
were possible in populated areas at a very low frequency (below the irritation
risk criterion).
The quantitative risk criteria are complied with as summarised in Table 1.1.
Safeguards:
The detail design stage for the project has been completed. Risk assessment activities
have occurred throughout the design process, including completion of a HAZOP and
FSS (which were reviewed to prepare the PHA and the FHA). In addition, quantitative
consequence explosion overpressure results were utilised early in the design process
to identify required separation distances between inventories and site boundaries,
determining the production facility location and layout.
Key safeguards include:
Minimisation of inventories to minimise offsite consequences of potential
explosion events.
Separation distances from site boundaries and existing facilities.

Document: J20210-007
Revision: 0
Revision Date: 24 February 2011
Document ID: J20210-007 FHA Rev 0
Page 10