sostenibilidad

Artículo
Evaluación del riesgo ambiental de incendio y explosión
en tanques de almacenamiento de productos petrolíferos
1 1, 2 1 3
Razieh Doregar Zavareh , Tooraj Dana *, Emad Roayaei , Seyed Massoud Monavari y Seyed Ali Jozi

1 Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente, Subdivisión de Ciencia e Investigación,

Universidad Islámica Azad, Teherán 1477893855, Irán
2 Departamento de Salud, Seguridad y Medio Ambiente, Universidad Tecnológica del Petróleo, Abadan P.O.
Box 63187-14317, Irán
3 Departamento de Medio Ambiente, Sucursal del Norte de Teherán, Universidad Islámica Azad, Teherán
1651153511, Irán * Correspondencia: tooraj_da@yahoo.com; Tel.: +98-9125011036

Citación: Doregar Zavareh, R.; Dana,
T.; Roayaei, E.; Monavari, S.M.; Jozi,
S.A. La Evaluación de Riesgo
Ambiental de Incendio y Explosión en
Tanques de Almacenamiento de
Productos Petrolíferos. Sostenibilidad
2022, 14, 10747.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ su141710747
Resumen: El presente estudio proporciona un marco para evaluar el riesgo ambiental asociado con el
fuego y la explosión de tanques de almacenamiento de gasolina en depósitos de petróleo. El marco
propuesto incluye tres etapas principales: formulación de problemas, análisis de riesgos y descripción
de riesgos. Al formular el problema se determinaron y reunieron los detalles básicos necesarios. En el
proceso de análisis de riesgos se utilizó el modelo de fuente, vía y receptor (SPR). Cada pieza fue
analizada utilizando herramientas que proporcionan resultados apropiados y mantienen la integridad del
modelo; Además, los resultados se pueden utilizar en todo el proceso. Se desplegó el índice de incendio
y explosión del Dow (F&EI) para examinar la fuente, se midieron las características de la dispersión de
contaminantes y la trayectoria de transmisión para inspeccionar la vía, y los indicadores de
vulnerabilidad del receptor y el grado de impacto se determinaron para examinar el receptor. Por último,
los resultados de la evaluación del riesgo se presentaron en forma de cuadros de descripción del riesgo.
El propósito de esta integración era desarrollar un marco que evaluara a fondo el riesgo asociado con el
fuego y la explosión hasta el punto de las consecuencias ambientales y proporcionara una mejor
comprensión de los resultados. Este estudio, realizado por primera vez específicamente para un
depósito de petróleo, proporciona una visión exhaustiva que contribuye enormemente a los gerentes y a
los tomadores de decisiones.
Palabras clave: evaluación del riesgo ambiental; tanques de almacenamiento; incendio y
explosión; gasolina; SPR

Editor académico: Lucian-

Ionel Cioca
Recibido: 16 de julio de 2022
Aceptado: 25 de agosto de 2022
Publicado: 29 de agosto de 2022
Nota del editor: MDPI se mantiene
neutral con respecto a las
reclamaciones jurisdiccionales en
mapas publicados y afiliaciones
institucionales.
Copyright: © 2022 por los autores.
Licenciatario MDPI, Basilea, Suiza.
Este artículo es un artículo de acceso
abierto distribuido bajo los términos y
condiciones de la licencia Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY)
(https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introducción
En los depósitos y refinerías de petróleo se almacenan temporalmente grandes
cantidades de productos derivados del petróleo para las próximas transmisiones. Estos
productos suelen almacenarse en tanques de techo flotante y tanques de techo fijo [1]. Los
tanques de almacenamiento de techo flotante son tanques en forma de cilindro que se
caracterizan por su techo móvil que cubre la superficie del líquido, flotando hacia arriba o
hacia abajo con el nivel de líquido [2]. Los tanques de almacenamiento de techo flotante
mitigan las pérdidas de producto causadas por la evaporación; sin embargo, las
consecuencias de incidentes relacionados con este tipo de cisternas pueden ser
considerablemente catastróficas [3]. Los tanques de almacenamiento de techo flotante son
altamente amenazantes [4-7]. Junto con la creciente demanda mundial de energía, también
se ha ampliado el almacenamiento de combustible líquido en terminales de petróleo, lo que a
su vez puede aumentar la probabilidad de incendios, explosiones y liberación de sustancias
tóxicas, de las cuales el incendio es el incidente más común [8].
Los accidentes en los depósitos de petróleo pueden causar daños destructivos al medio
ambiente [6,9]. Las consecuencias medioambientales pueden resultar de por sí aún más
importantes que los daños económicos, ya que los primeros pueden llamar la atención de los
medios de comunicación y del público en general y, posteriormente, deshonrar a la organización
[10]. El índice de EEI es un enfoque preferente para evaluar los riesgos ambientales porque es un
método sencillo que los responsables de la toma de decisiones pueden utilizar fácilmente [11]. El
EEI es el proceso de identificación y evaluación de posibles impactos adversos (es decir,
exposición a sustancias químicas o no químicas liberadas por actividades industriales) sobre
organismos, poblaciones o factores, por ejemplo, agua, aire, plantas y animales; por lo tanto, las opiniones de los expertos
comunidades. El ambiente sobre estos factores
consiste en múltiples

Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710747 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sostenibilidad 2022, 14, 10747 2 de 17

están obligados a alcanzar el resultado final [12]. La evaluación del riesgo ecológico es
utilizada en la gestión del riesgo por los tomadores de decisiones que fusionan los resultados
de la evaluación del riesgo con consideraciones económicas, políticas y sociales para
mejorar la calidad de vida de las personas [13]. Cabe señalar que las industrias son
responsables de mitigar los riesgos medioambientales que causan [14].
El concepto de riesgo fue presentado por primera vez por Pascal (1657) junto con
la invención de la teoría de la probabilidad [15]. La evaluación del riesgo desempeña un
papel crucial en la evaluación de las consecuencias de posibles accidentes; además, es
una herramienta notable para desarrollar estrategias y medidas preventivas para reducir
los daños potenciales [16,17].
Existen muchos métodos cuantitativos y cualitativos para la evaluación de riesgos,
por ejemplo, HAZOP, MADM, MCDM, FTA y FMEA. Los métodos cualitativos ayudan a
identificar riesgos y obtener una visión general del riesgo. Los métodos cuantitativos
contribuyen a estimar las consecuencias y examinar los detalles pertinentes; en
consecuencia, pueden emplearse para proporcionar un plan más preciso para reducir el
riesgo. La integración de los métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos puede ayudar a
gestionar los riesgos de forma más eficaz [18].
Numerosos estudios han abordado el análisis de las causas profundas y la
evaluación del riesgo de incendios y explosiones en las industrias petroleras. Xie et al.
[19] utilizaron una amalgama de varios métodos para evaluar el riesgo de incendios y
explosiones en los depósitos de petróleo. Bouafia et al. [3] analizaron la liberación de
gasolina de los tanques de almacenamiento utilizando métodos HAZID y corbata de
moño y modelaron las áreas afectadas con el software PHAST. Guo et al. [20] evaluaron
el riesgo de accidentes de tanques de almacenamiento utilizando la red difusa
bayesiana sobre la base del método de agregación de similitud. Combinando una matriz
de riesgos y el modelo de corbata, Luo et al. [21] y Lu et al. [10] evaluaron la seguridad
de los tanques esféricos de gas natural y los gasoductos, respectivamente. Al investigar
una refinería grande, Zhao et al. [22] evaluaron el riesgo de incendio o explosión en
terminales de petróleo utilizando el Dow F&EI. Fu et al. [23] examinaron el riesgo de
fuga de gas natural licuado de los buques a GNL mediante la definición de medidas
adecuadas y complementarias. Wang y Song [24] también clasificaron la seguridad del
lugar del estudio utilizando el Dow F&EI. Wu y Chen [25] presentaron una evaluación
cuantitativa de los incendios de tanques de petróleo causados por rayos.
También hay estudios dedicados a la evaluación del riesgo ambiental. Por ejemplo,
Vora et al. [12] propusieron un marco de evaluación del riesgo ambiental para los
vertidos de agua producida, los vertidos de perforación y las emisiones de las soluciones
EOR en el proceso de extracción de petróleo. Zelenˇáková y Zvijáková [26] identificaron
26 parámetros tras negociar con expertos, realizar estudios de campo y revisar la
literatura para evaluar los efectos ambientales de las inundaciones. Qinqin et al. [27]
determinaron las fuentes de riesgo ambiental de incendio y explosión en la industria
petroquímica mediante el análisis de pajarita y evaluaron el riesgo ambiental mediante
un índice integrado de EEI. Topuz et al. [14] también emplearon tres factores para
examinar el riesgo ambiental y la salud humana en las industrias que utilizan sustancias
peligrosas.
Shahriar et al. [28] analizaron el riesgo de los gasoductos y oleoductos utilizando el
método de la pajarita y evaluaron las consecuencias en tres categorías (social, ambiental y
económica) siguiendo las opiniones de los expertos. Para evaluar el riesgo de un derrame de
petróleo en la superficie del agua, Bi y Si [29] identificaron las consecuencias en cuatro
categorías: ambientales, económicas, sanitarias y sociales, utilizando la técnica del AHP y las
opiniones de los expertos. Yari et al. [30] utilizaron el método de análisis jerárquico difuso
para identificar los riesgos ambientales. Los métodos MADM son eficientes en la evaluación
y gestión de riesgos y ayudan a los gerentes a tomar decisiones. Yari et al. [31] utilizaron
este método para gestionar las operaciones de voladura.
Varios estudios abordan la evaluación del riesgo de explosión o incendio de
tanques de petróleo e identifican las causas y las dimensiones de seguridad de estos
accidentes. También hay estudios sobre las consecuencias ambientales de los riesgos
en las industrias de procesos. Sin embargo, en el presente estudio se propuso un marco
integrado y gradual de evaluación de riesgos para las explosiones de incendios y
gasolina en los depósitos de petróleo y las consecuencias ambientales de esos
accidentes.
El modelo conceptual de esta investigación está respaldado por métodos básicos y
aceptados, y sus pasos se han implementado utilizando métodos innovadores que han conducido
a la integración y comprensión correcta de la evaluación del riesgo ambiental. La base principal de
este estudio se creó de acuerdo con las tres etapas básicas de la evaluación del riesgo ecológico
de la EPA,
 El modelo conceptual de esta investigación está respaldado por métodos básicos y
aceptados, y sus pasos se han implementado utilizando métodos innovadores que han
conducido a la integración y comprensión correcta de la evaluación del riesgo ambiental.
El principal
Sostenibilidad 2022, 14, 10747 3 de 17
La base de este estudio se creó de acuerdo con las tres etapas básicas de la evaluación de
riesgos ecológicos de la EPA, incluyendo la formulación de problemas, el análisis de riesgos y
la descripción de riesgos. Los REP
se utilizó el método para el análisis de riesgos, que muestra el proceso de riesgo, incluido el inicio, incluida la
formulación de problemas, el análisis de riesgos y la descripción del riesgo. El método SPR fue (ocurrencia del accidente)
hasta el final (consecuencias). El análisis de riesgos de la EPA es más apropiado para el análisis de riesgos, que muestra el
proceso de riesgo, incluyendo el inicio (ocurrencia de priato para una especie y evalúa la interacción de los factores estresantes
con los organismos y la repetición del accidente) hasta el final (consecuencias). El análisis de riesgos de la EPA es más
apropiado para una especie que responde a factores estresantes, lo que requiere datos detallados. El método SPR analiza un
accidente y evalúa la interacción de los factores estresantes con los organismos y la respuesta a los factores estresantes,
que
de manera integral e integrada. Este estudio se realizó sin necesidad de requerir datos detallados. El método SPR analiza
un accidente en una información completa y detallada (en algunos de los pasos) que generalmente se asocia con los desafíos.
Por lo tanto, una forma integrada. Este estudio se realizó sin necesidad de requerir datos detallados (en algunos
se presenta un método innovador que puede ser útil para los gestores de riesgos de pasos industriales de alto riesgo) que suele
estar asociado con desafíos. Por lo tanto, un método innovador es
intentos.

que pueden ser útiles para los gestores de riesgos de las industrias de alto riesgo.
2. y métodos
Materiales
2. y
Seguimiento de los riesgos ecológicos primarios en el marco de la evaluación de los trabajos facilitados por la Agencia de Protección del Medio Ambiente

32 y diversos estudios[12,17,27,33,34], presenta el presente estudio propuesto como un estudio comprensivo, de

de los Estados Unidos[32][ y] 12,17,27,33el,34], comprensible, fácil

usar, holístico y medioambientalLos principales ámbitos de actuación delas propuestas son los siguientes: El marco de trabajo de la Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente se
práctico, práctico y

presenta en las Figuras1.

1.

FigureFigure1.1.Elmodelo conceptual propuesto.

22.1.1.. ProblemFormulation
Los datos se asocian con la tesis de la investi-gación, la evaluación de la calidad de la enseñanza superior, la evaluación
de la calidad de la enseñanza superior, la evaluación de la calidad de la enseñanza superior, la evaluación de la calidad de la
enseñanza superior, la evaluación de la calidad de la enseñanza superior, la evaluación de la calidad de la enseñanza superior,
la evaluación de la calidad de la enseñanza superior, la evaluación de la calidad de la enseñanza superior, la evaluación de la
calidad de la formación profesional, la evaluación de la calidad de la formación profesional, la evaluación de la calidad de la
formación profesional, la evaluación de la calidad de la formación profesional y la calidad de la formación profesional, así como
la evaluación de la calidad de la calidad de la calidad de la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación
profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación
profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación
profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación
profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación profesional, la formación
profesional, la formación profesional, la formaciónel modelo conceptual de evaluación del riesgo y el punto final de evaluación se
evalúan en esta fase.

2.1.1. Declaración de problema

2.1.1. Declaración de problema
Las consecuencias de los accidentes pueden causar daños a las plantas, a la salud humana y al medio ambiente
Las consecuencias de los accidentes pueden causar daños a las plantas, a la salud humana y al medio ambiente
medio ambiente y ecología [27]. Considerando el almacenamiento de gasolina como un medio químico inflamable, y la
ecología [27]. Considerando el almacenamiento de gasolina como producto químico inflamable en tanques de petróleo
de techo flotante y examinando los incidentes e investigaciones conexos sobre depósitos de petróleo, en tanques de
petróleo de techo flotante y examinando los incidentes conexos y la investigación sobre depósitos de petróleo,
los incendios y las explosiones fueron elegidos como el riesgo más crítico y su riesgo ambiental fue el fuego y la
explosión fueron elegidos como el riesgo más crítico y su riesgo ambiental se estableció como el objetivo del estudio. Los
tanques de aceite de techo flotante son el equipo más vulnerable en el petróleo establecido como objetivo del estudio. Los
tanques de aceite de techo flotante son el equipo más vulnerable en los depósitos de petróleo [6]. El fuego y la explosión se
evaluaron utilizando el método Dow.
depósitos [6]. El fuego y la explosión se evaluaron utilizando el método Dow.
2.1.2. Estudio de caso
En esta investigación, se consideró un depósito de petróleo en un estudio de caso
debido a su importante papel en el suministro de combustible para la metrópoli de
Teherán. Este depósito de petróleo se encuentra en las inmediaciones de zonas
residenciales en la parte noroeste de una ciudad. La figura 2 muestra una imagen
satelital del sitio de estudio.
 2.1.2. Estudio de caso
En esta investigación, se consideró un depósito de petróleo en un estudio de caso
debido a su importante papel en el suministro de combustible para la metrópoli de Teherán.
Este depósito de petróleo se encuentra en las inmediaciones de
Sostenibilidad 2022, 14, 10747 figura 2 muestra una imagen
zonas residenciales en la parte noroeste de una ciudad. La
satelital4de 17 el sitio de estudio.

Sostenibilidad 2022, 14, x PARA REVISIÓN POR PARES 5 de 18

Cuadro 1. Situación y estado ecológico del lugar de estudio.

Parámetro Descripción
Geográfico Latitudes: entre 35°46 55 y 35°46 43 N
coordenadas Longitud: entre 51°17 43 y 51°18 6 E
Clima Moderado: la temperatura media diaria es de 17,4 °C
Desde el norte: no hay asentamiento.
Desde el Sur: la frontera del depósito de petróleo cerca de los restaurantes ubicados en el Distrito
5 de Teherán
Distancia a Municipio.
asentamientos Desde el este: 435 m del distrito de Hesarak
Desde el oeste: 25 m de un complejo residencial con 12.000 metros cuadrados y 167 m de
Parque Forestal de
Kuhsar.
Dirección del viento West (W)
El río Hesarak fluye a lo largo del límite oriental y meridional del depósito de petróleo
Aguas superficiales Kan River se encuentra a unos 2,8 km de la frontera occidental de este
depósito de petróleo
Nivel de las aguas
subterráneas Aproximadamente iguales o superiores a 130 m
El depósito de petróleo en estudio situado en el noroeste de una ciudad está sujeto a la
inestabilidad causada por
inundaciones debido a su proximidad a la cuenca del río Kan, la alta proporción relativa de las
construcciones,
Riesgo de inundación relativamente alta densidad de población y vivienda, cambios en el uso de la tierra, invasión del
río
banco y su cama, y la explotación inadecuada del curso de
agua.
Geología Formación roja superior, conglomerado y arenisca
Culpa El sur del sitio que bordea una falla
El sitio de estudio no se encuentra en ninguna de las zonas protegidas por la Organización
Zonas con medio Irán y las autoridades internacionales; además, carece de las características de los espacios
ambiente naturales contienen-
Figura 22.. Ubicación del
protección mental depósito de petróleo..
especies vegetales y animales específicas.
El sitio de estudio se encuentra en el extremo norte de una ciudad. Las poblaciones de los
mencionados
2.1.3. Estado ecológico del lugar de estudio

Situación socioeconómica 2.1.3. Estado ecológico del lugar de estudio

Trict y esta ciudad son 858,346 y 8,737,510 personas, respectivamente.

En el cuadro 1 se resume el estado ecológico del lugar de estudio.

En el cuadro 1 se resume el estado ecológico del lugar de

estudio.
2.2.
2.2. Análisis de Riesgos
En el riesgo est el se muestra en la figura

En este momento, el análisis de riesgos se realiza siguiendo el enfoque que se muestra en la

figura 3. Se trataba de intentar evaluar el conjunto del proceso desde el punto de partida hasta el punto
final; por lo tanto, el proceso de evaluación del riesgo incluye la inspección de la fuente de liberación, la
vía de exposición y el efectreceptor (SPR).
 Figura 3. Evaluación del riesgo ambiental asociado a incendio/explosión en este estudio.
Figura 3. Evaluación del riesgo ambiental asociado a incendio/explosión en este estudio.
22.2.2.1.1.
. Fuente
Aquí, la fuente se refiere a un accidente crítico que causa daños al medio ambiente. En

Aquí, la fuente se refiere a un accidente crítico que causa daños al medio ambiente.
este estudio, la fuente se refiere a incendio o explosión de un tanque de gasolina en el depósito de petróleo ubicado en En este estudio, la fuente se
refiere a incendio o explosión de un tanque de gasolina en el depósito de petróleo ubicado
the northwestern region of a city.

in the northwestern region of a city.

The hazards associated with the risk source correlate with the characteristics of the

The hazards associated with the risk source correlate with the characteristics of the
substance and the site. The hazardous properties of substances are usually defined as substance and the site. The hazardous properties of
substances are usually defined as po-
potential dangers [14]. Furthermore, the process, equipment, and current site status may tential dangers [14].
Furthermore, the process, equipment, and current site status may af-affect the occurrence of an accident.
fect the occurrence of an accident.
The Dow F&EI was employed to examine the characteristics mentioned above. This
index is widely used in the petrochemical industry. The index also covers aspects related
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 5 of 17

The Dow F&EI was employed to examine the characteristics mentioned above. This
index is widely used in the petrochemical industry. The index also covers aspects related to
the inherent hazards of substances, operating conditions, quantities used, and influential
hazard factors of petrochemical units. The factors influencing the process—classified as
material factors, special process hazard factors, and general process hazard factors—were
considered in the index calculation. To calculate the F&EI, a special value called the penalty
or penalty factor was assigned to each risk factor based on its degree of risk. An increased
penalty factor indicates a rise in the severity or likelihood of fire and explosion risk. If a factor
fails to cause any damage or hazard, the penalty factor is assumed to be zero [35].

Table 1. Location and ecological status of the study site.

Parameter Description

0 00 0 00
Geographical Latitudes: between 35 46 55 and 35 46 43 N
0 00 0 00
coordinates Longitude: between 51 17 43 and 51 18 6 E
Climate Moderate: the average daily temperature is 17.4 C
From the North: there is no settlement.
From the South: the border of the oil depot near the restaurants located in District 5 of Tehran
Distance to Municipality.
settlements From the East: 435 m from the Hesarak district
From the West: 25 m from a residential complex with 12,000 square meters and 167 m from
Kuhsar Forest Park.

Wind direction West (W)

Hesarak River flows along the eastern and southern boundary of the oil depot
Surface water
Kan River is located about 2.8 km from the western border of this oil depot

Groundwater level Approximately equal or more than 130 m

The oil depot under study located in the northwest of a city is subject to instability caused by
flooding due to its proximity to the Kan River basin, the high relative share of constructions,
Flooding risk
relatively high density of population and housing, land-use changes, encroachment on the river
bank and its bed, and improper exploitation of watercourse.

Geology Upper red formation, conglomerate, and sandstone

Fault The south of the site bordering a fault

The study site is located in none of the zones protected by the Environment Organization of Iran
Areas with environmental protection and international authorities; moreover, it lacks the characteristics of natural areas containing
specific plant and animal species.

The study site is located on the northern edge of a city. The populations of the mentioned district
Socio-economic status
and this city are 858,346 and 8,737,510 people, respectively.

The stressors of fire and explosion of gasoline storage tanks may result from (1)
ignition and thermal radiation, (2) toxic cloud dispersion, (3) liquid flow, and (4) increased
level of noise and vibration [3].

2.2.2. Pathway
 The pollutant-transmitting pathways include water, soil, and air [12,27,34]. The
pathway is examined in two ways: indicators determining the characteristics of the
pollutant-transmitting path and the dispersion range.
Pathway characterization
(1) Air: floating masses of pollutants are likely to be dispersed; henceforth, the
local air pollution may expand and turn to regional air pollution. The prevailing winds [36] and the region’s topographic
position (the presence of physical barriers) [37] have the highest impact on the distribution of air pollutants.
(2) Water: water supplies may transfer contaminants [38] (e.g., stored fuel,
firewater, and other extinguishing agents). The parameters overshadowing the exposure probability of water resources
(surface water and groundwater level) were also identified.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 6 of 17

(3) Soil: permeability is the foremost factor affecting the distribution of soil
contaminants. In this regard, the soil granularity, i.e., whether the soil is coarse- or fine-grain, may affect the
permeability level.
Dispersion level
Event tree analysis (ETA) is a deductive logic with a beneficial graphical representation
that can help to identify the various consequences of a critical event [23]. The event tree
starts with the critical event and ends with the output events, i.e., consequences [ 28]. The
traditional ETA assumption is access to accurate data, which is often unrealistic. Therefore, it
leads to incorrect results and challenges the objectives of risk analysis [39]. Applying a
different approach, the present study employed, for the first time, the graphical representation
of ETA to evaluate the distribution of environmental pollutants as a result of fire and explosion
(as the consequence of fire and explosion). The ETA method was used to determine the
pollutant distribution in air, water, and soil in this study. Actually, the spread of pollution in
water, soil, and air environments is the result of fire and explosion. The protection layers may
affect the dispersion level; therefore, the opinions of experts on the influence of each
protection layer were asked for using the Delphi method, and then the dispersion level was
determined for each pathway. The event tree associated with the pollutant dispersion caused
by fire and explosion is shown in Figure 4. This tree started with the critical event of fire and
explosion; protective layers reduce the amount of pollution spread in air, water, and soil
environments, so the range of spread in each of the pollution transfer environments is
determined from extremely low to extremely high. For example, after assessing the
performance of the protective layers, experts predict that the contamination by fire and
explosion in the air will spread at levels that are extremely low, low, moderate, high, or
extremely high. In the following sections, the characteristics of
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18 each contamination transmission environment and the definitions of
distribution leveling
are presented.

Figure 44.. The event tree associated withthepollutantdispersioncausedbyfirefireandexplosion..

The dispersion probabilityinin each ofof the environments was determined based on the
effectiveness ofof the identifiedidentified protective layers (barriers), which play an effective role inin
accidentassessment[4[4]. .AssumingAssumingthatthatprotectivetivelayerslayerssupplementsupplementeacheachother,other, thepresent-
study considered the total efficiency of the barriers in the level of dispersion. In

sent study considered the total efficiency of the barrierslesseninglessening the level of disper-
contrast, conventional ETA considers the success probability of every single protective layer sion. In contrast, conventional
ETA considers the success probability of every single pro- in determining the type of upcoming events or accidents (Table 2 displays
the dispersion tective layer in determining the type of upcoming events or accidents (Table 2 displays
pathways in the exposed environment.

the dispersion pathways in the exposed environment.

Table 2. Descriptions associated with the pollutant dispersion pathways.

Pathway Description
Air pollution
Air
Increased vibration and noise lev
Surface waters (Hesarak rivers
Water
Groundwater
Soil Surface soils and substrates
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 7 of 17

Table 2. Descriptions associated with the pollutant dispersion pathways.

Pathway Description
Air Air pollutionIncreased vibration and noise
Water Surface waters (Hesarak rivers)Groundw
Soil Surface soils and substrates

To determine the limits of the distribution of pollution, and by reviewing the incidents
that have happened in Iran and the world, Table 3 was created and given to experts to
score points. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were measured using
content validity and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. The pollutants may spread on-site or
off-site [12,23]. Due to the changes in the pollutant concentration during conveying within
physical environments and the self-purifying ability of the environments identified (soil,
water, and air), the significant effects of pollution and impacts upon the receptor may
dispute distance, i.e., although pollutants are flowing through the environment, their
severity may recede. Therefore, pollutant dispersion is divided into two aspects, namely
‘extent of dispersion’ and ‘extent of exposure.’ There is no source that specifically shows
the level of dispersion of contamination. In fact, Table 3 is part of the innovation of the
study and has an information gap. Therefore, by studying the accidents that have
occurred around the world and specifically the accidents recorded on the CSB website,
scientific studies and articles and expert opinions gained during the workshop sessions
are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. The pollutant dispersion.

Dispersion Level Description

No.
Extent of Dispersion Exte

Extremely low Air, water, and soil: slight pollutant dispers

1
study site

Air: 1000 m
2 Low Water: 2000 m
Soil: slight pollutant dispersion off-s

Air: 3000 m
3 Moderate Water: 5000 m
Soil: 1500 m
Air: 6000 m
4 High Water: 10,000 m
Soil: 2000 m
Air: 15,000 m
5 Extremely high Water: 15,000 m
Soil: 2500 m

2.2.3. Receptor
The third level of assessment dealt with the receptor characterization and its
vulnerability to the effects of the accident. The biological and socio-economic indicators
were defined to assess the vulnerability of environmental receptors. The receptors were
examined from two aspects: the receptor vulnerability and degree of impact.
Receptor vulnerability

Biological Indicators
 The foremost goal in assessing environmental risk is to measure the vulnerability of
ecological receptors [27]. Accordingly, the hazard level is determined using the important
indicators identified for this purpose. Environmental components likely to be exposed and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 8 of 17

affected include terrestrial ecosystems, plants and animals, and population density [14].
The indicators identified in this regard are as follows:
Protected areas (of ecological value) [38].
Animals: the indigenous and introduced species in the affected area or species with
a degree of protection [26,38].
Plants: on-site green spaces, plants of Kuhsar forest park, self-sown plants, and
hand plants in Tehran city or species of conservation value [36,38].

Socio-Economic Indicators
Socio-economic parameters include human-related indicators and provide the
extent of damage to mankind as part of the environment. The most important
indicators identified are as follows:
Population density: the number of people per unit area in the affected area [26,27,38,40].
Man-made land-use changes: the type of man-made changes that may endanger
human life and exacerbate the condition in the case of being damaged [26,27]. In
assessing the damage to land uses (industry, agriculture, tourism, housing, etc.),
the activities and land uses of the region are of strategic importance.
Disruption in fuel supply: it is of crucial importance owing to its prominent role in the
economy, welfare, security, national image, and the occurrence of chaos.
Historical and cultural areas: the registered sites, buildings, and places that are
historically and culturally valuable [29].
Severity of impact
Based on reviewing the related accidents in Iran and abroad and applying the
experts’ opinions, the severity score of the environmental impacts is provided in Table 4
[23,41]. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were measured using content
validity and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. Health effects depend on the type of the
contaminant, its concentration, duration of exposure, other existing pollutants, and
individual sensitivity [42].

Table 4. The severity of impact.

No. Degree Description

1 Extremely low No impact

Biological: minor effects on the green space of th

2 Low
Human-related: reversible effects on personnel

Biological: minor off-site effects

3 Moderate
Human-related: reversible effects on citizens’ health/se
to the site personnel

Biological: acute off-site effects

4 High
Human-relate: acute effects on citizens’ health/death
injuries to several site personnel

Biological: acute and long-term effects off-s

5 Extremely high
Human-related: severe injuries to or death of sever
2.3. Risk Description
Risk assessment is a systematic and scientific method used to prognosticate and
prevent adverse risk-related events by collecting and integrating qualitative and
quantitative data [28]. Risk description is the last step in the environmental risk
assessment process. At this stage, the risk assessors use the analysis phase results to
estimate the risk and report the results to the risk managers. In this study, the results
obtained in each part of the risk analysis were systematically presented to risk managers.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 9 of 17

3. Results
3.1. Problem Formulation
The purpose of the problem formulation is to identify the problem under scrutiny. In
the present study, the following elements were identified to better understand the
problem at hand:
Study site: an oil depot in the northwest of a city, specifically gasoline storage tanks.
The site ecology: the site in question is located in the northwest region of a city (the
site’s ecological characterization was presented in the previous section).
The accident of foremost concern: fire and explosion.
Conceptual model: risk analysis using the SPR model.
Endpoint and objective: mitigating risk and preserving the environment.
3.2. Risk Analysis
y 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
Figure 5 shows a schematic of the steps and parameters involved in risk analysis. The
results of each section are separately presented in the following sections.

Figure 5. The steps and parameters of environmental risk analysis.

Figure 5. The steps and parameters of environmental risk analysis.
3.2.1. Source
3.2.1. Source
Calculation of the Dow F&EI
Calculation of the DowTheresultsF&EIassociated with each phase of the F&EI calculations are presented in Table 5.
The results associated with each phase of the F&EI calculations are presented in Table
5.

Table 5. Gasoline material factor and properties.

HC(BTU/LB) NFPA CLASSIFICATION Flash Point Boiling Point

erial MF
×103 N(R) N(F) N(H) (Deg F) (Deg F)
oline 16 18.8 1 3 0 −45 100–400
General process hazards factor (F1)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 10 of 17

Table 5. Gasoline material factor and properties.

HC(BTU/LB) NFPA CLASSIFICATION Flash Point Boiling Point

Material MF 3

(Deg F) (Deg F)
10 N(R) N(F) N(H)
Gasoline 16 18.8 1 3 0 45 100–400

General process hazards factor (F1)

Base factors Penalty factor range Penalty factor used

Base factor 1 1
Material handling and transfer 0.25–1.05 0.85
Access 0.2–0.35 0
Drainage and spill control 0.25–0.5 0.20
General process factor 2.05

Special process hazards factor (F2)

Base factors Penalty factor range Penalty factor used

Base factor 1 1
Toxic materials 0.8–0.2 0.2
Sub-atmospheric pressure 0.5 0
Operation near flammable materials 0.8–0.3 0.5
Low temperature 0.2–0.3 0
Quantity of flammable-unstable material 1.57
Corrosion and erosion 0.1–0.75 0
Leakage from joins and packing 0.1–1.5 0
Uses of fired equipment 0
Hot oil heat exchange system 0.15–1.15 0
Rotating equipment 0.5 0.5
Special process hazards factor 3.77

Degree of Hazard
After calculating the process risk factors, the F&EI of gasoline tanks was measured
via Equation (1) by multiplying the unit risk factor (F3) values by the material factor (MF).
According to Dow guidelines, 5 degrees of hazard are set. The index obtained in this
study equaled 123.52 for the gasoline tank, which is in the moderate risk range.

F&EI = F3 MF = 7.72 16 = 123.52

The F&EI Hazard Zone Measurement
According to the results associated with the Dow F&EI, the zone of the accident caused
by the fire and the explosion of a gasoline tank in an oil depot was measured to be 31 m.

R = 0,84 X = 0,84 123,52 = 103,75 F = 31 m

2 2 = 3019 M
A=PR = 33816 F 2
There is at least one more tank in each zone of the four gasoline tanks.

3.2.2. Pathway
 The characteristics of the exposure pathway and the exposure range were measured to
investigate the role of the exposure pathway in environmental risk assessment.

Pathway Characterization
Considering the characteristics of the pathway, the degree of environmental hazard
may vary. Therefore, the pathways were characterized following the investigation into
the current ecological status (Table 6).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 11 of 17

Table 6. The results associated with the pathway characterization.

Index Score
Parameter
1 2 3 5
4
Air
Towards
Toward the
Away from Toward the margins Towards the villages/low-density
Prevailing winds city/valuable
residential areas of the city promenade settle-
ments/natural area ecological areas

The foot of the

Adjacent to mountain and the
Topographic position Plain
Mahur hill probability of
air trapping
Water
Groundwater level Groundwater level Groundwater level Adjacent to wells, Adjacent to wells,
more than 10 m/no more than 5 m/no more than 5 m/wells aqueducts, and springs, and
Groundwater level well and spring at a well and spring at a and springs at a springs/exploited aqueducts/exploited
distance of about distance of about distance of groundwater level groundwater level
1500 m 700 m approximately 300 m about 5 m or less less than 5 m
Adjacent to rivers,
lakes, and other
surface water
Lack of permanent Permanent bodies of resources of special
A permanent river at Adjacent to rivers,
water resources at a surface water at a ecological
Surface water a distance of about lakes, and other
distance of about distance of about importance or
500 m surface water sources
2000 m 1500 m overflow to areas of
ecological
value/habitat of
special species
Soil
Soil permeability Fine-grained Coarse-/fine-grained Coarse-/fine-grained Coarse-grained

Dispersion Level
The results associated with the level of pollutant dispersion in water, soil, and air
were obtained using the graphic-mathematical ETA method, analyzing the related
accidents and surveying experts. The protective layer potential in effectively reducing the
fire and explosion consequences was also determined using the Delphi method. The
final results related to the ranking of protection layers are presented in Table 7. Kendall’s
and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were measured at 0.73 and 0.72, respectively.

Table 7. The performance scores of protective layers in mitigating F&EI consequences.

No. Protective Layer Score

Alarm systems warning to (1) people on the site and (2) service
1 4.846
organizations such as the fire department
Cooling of adjacent equipment and structures with portable sprinklers
2 4.846
(Deluge system)
3 Emergency response plan 4.769
4 Urgent medical measures 4.154
5 Evacuating staff from the site 4.154
6 Fixed foam system (foam injection from the top of the tank) 4.077
7 Portable foam system 4.077
Cooling adjacent equipment and structures with water spray using
8 4
portable devices
9 Drawing material from the tank 3.923
10 Monitoring surrounding areas by observing or patrolling personnel 3.923
11 Gas detectors that constantly monitor the surrounding areas 3.923
12 Evacuating residents adjacent to the site 3.923
13 Equipping tanks with an automatic deluge system 3.308
14 Fixed foam system (foam injection from the bottom of the tank) 3.154

The pollutant dispersion in air, water, and soil was estimated by considering the
function of the protective layers (Table 8). The validity and reliability of this section were
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 12 of 17

confirmed by experts’ opinions and Cronbach’s alpha (which was more than 0.7 (0.78)),
respectively.

Table 8. The results of pollutant dispersion in all exposed environments.

No. Exposed Environment Dis

1 Air
2 Water
3 Soil

3.2.3. Receptor
The results associated with the impacts on the receptor are presented in two parts
as follows:

Receptor Vulnerability
The vulnerability of the receptor, considering its current position in the region, is
shown in Table 9.

Table 9. The receptor vulnerability to the hazards caused by fire and explosion.

Index Score
Parameter
1 5
2 3 4
Biologic
Distance between 200 Distance between 1000 Distance less than 1000
and 3000 m to areas and 2000 m to areas m to areas under the
under the protection of under the protection of protection of the
In or adjacent to areas of
Ecological Lack of protected area the Environment the Environment Environment
recorded
areas exposed to damage Organization or other Organization or other Organization or other
national and national and national and ecological value

international authorities international authorities international authorities

and forest reserves and forest reserves and forest reserves
Species without
One species of A species of
Animals No/very few animals conservation value and Vulnerable species
non-endemic conservation value conservation value

Natural
vegetation/fruitful
No/very little Urban green space Hand-plant trees Natural vegetation (of
Plants trees/agriculture as
vegetation (shrubs and bushes) (non-fruitful) well as hand-plant trees conservation value)

and green space

Socioeconomic
Population density No population 20 74 153 250
Emergency response
centers (fire department,
No residential,
Micro-scale commercial Industrial, service, and medical
Man-made land-uses industrial, service, or Commercial land use
commercial land use
land use centers)/residential
commercial land uses land use/oil fields or
 similar areas
Storage of one type of Contains more than one

type of fuel in
Duty to fueling intercity fuel/tank with a
Fuel providing storage/tanks with a
Supporting site
capacity of fewer than
gas stations
capacity of more than
3 million liters
3 million liters l
No registered area of Registered areas of Registered areas of
Registered areas of
Historical and Registered areas of
the historical and regional value national value national and international and
cultural areas
cultural area supra-regional value national value

Severity of Impact
Table 10 presents the extent of potential impacts on the receptors. The reliability of
this questionnaire was measured at 0.76 using Cronbach’s alpha.

Table 10. The results of the severity of impacts.

Exposed Aspect Extent of Potential Impa

Biologic 2.4
Socioeconomic 4.7
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 13 of 17

3.3. Risk Description

The results associated with each part, viz. source, pathway, and receptor, are
presented in Table 11 to conclude the findings and describe the potential hazards.

Table 11. Risk description.

Source Pathway Receptor

The
characteristics Pathway Receptor
Group of site and characteristics Pollutant dispersion (exposure) vulnerability Degree of impact

substances

Method Dow Index Questionnaire Index Questionnaire

Human-
Results Air Water Soil Results Biologic
Results 3 of 5 related
presented in presented in
Table 6 4.4 4.1 3.4 Table 9 4.2 4.7

4. Discussion
In this study, the environmental risk assessment was conducted via integrating
complementary methods. In the future, this method can be employed as a structured
framework to investigate oil depots in different geographical locations and conditions as well
as other sectors of the oil industry (refineries and petrochemicals, to name a few). A variety of
techniques used in risk assessment can be considered complements rather than substitutes
because each technique evaluates the system under analysis in a distinct way and from a
specific perspective. It is scientifically proven that no technique is adequately powerful
enough to answer all questions, or applicable to all conditions. In this research, the problem
was first formulated as a step-by-step study. Then, the SPR model was applied to analyze the
impacts. The source characterization was carried out using the Dow index. Following the
calculation of three identified factors (material factor, general process hazard factor, and
certain process hazard factor), the extent of hazard lay at a medium range and the fire zone
and the affected radius were measured at 31 m and 3019 square meters, respectively.
Considering the similar characterization of four gasoline tanks, the result can be generalized
to other tanks as well; therefore, the probable scenarios can be formed as follows:
1. If tank No. 3 has a fire accident, according to the Dow method calculations, the fire
will affect a radius of 31 m, in which two storage tanks, including tank No. 1 containing diesel and tank No. 5 containing
gasoline, are located, which can possibly influence it.
2. If a fire or explosion occurs in Tank No. 5, subsequently, Tank No. 3 containing
gasoline will also be in danger.
3. If tank No. 5 has a fire accident, there is a tank within 31 m of it, including tank No. 3
containing gasoline, which is likely to be affected by the accident.
4. If tank No. 11 has a fire incident, tank No. 3 containing gasoline and tank No. 8
containing kerosene will be affected.
5. If a fire occurs in Tank No. 10, subsequently, Tank No. 11 and Tank No. 9
containing gasoline and diesel, respectively, will also be in the danger zone.
In fact, if any of the four tanks containing gasoline has a fire accident, the other tanks
that are in their danger zone will probably be affected and catch fire as well. Immediate and
correct actions regarding risk managers are very important because affecting the tanks
located in the danger radius will possibly spread the fire, affecting more tanks. Each of these
scenarios that actually shows the domino effect needs separate studies. Therefore, the time,
 cost, quality, and focus of studies are limiting factors. It may be better to model one of the
most extreme scenarios with appropriate methods. This scenario is probably primary because
it sees more tanks in close proximity than the other scenarios.
6. The control room, offices, and machinery station should be distanced at least 31 m
from the fuel tanks.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 14 of 17

According to the study by Bouafia et al. [3], the exposure area of a fuel tank containing a
maximum of 2,500,000 L of gasoline was measured to be 1963 square meters using the
Phast pool fire model. Even though their estimated value is less than the exposure area
calculated in the present study, it is somewhat justifiable by taking into account the lower
volume of fuel; however, the role of other factors should not be overlooked.
Since the oil depot of concern is located at the northwestern border of a city (365 m
from the Hesarak district), and also regarding the presence of restaurants in the vicinity
of this oil depot, safety is a matter of crucial importance because in the event of an
accident, not only will the oil depot operation shut off but also considerable environmental
and especially human damages will follow.
The pathways were characterized using a five-point scale to analyze the exposure
pathway (water, soil, and air). To this end, some indicators were defined for each of the
pathways. Due to the prevailing wind flowing toward the city, the location of the oil depot—at
the foot of the mountain—and the possibility of air trapping, a score of five was allocated to
the air pathway. Groundwater received a score of 1, and surface water received a score of 4
due to the proximity of the Hesarak River to the oil depot in question. Given the varied
granularity of the site soil, i.e., coarse-grain and fine-grain, the permeability received a score
of 4. The scope of pollutant dispersion was plotted using the graphic-mathematical ETA
method. Protective layers mitigating dispersion were identified and rated using the Delphi
method, and then the dispersion level in each environment at exposure, i.e., air, water, and
soil, was scored by experts using the Likert scale. According to the findings, air, water, and
soil had the highest dispersion, in the stated order. The effects on receptors were evaluated in
the risk analysis process. To this end, the receptor vulnerability was first analyzed using a
five-point scale by defining the indicators that determine the current situation. From the
biological aspect, the parameter of the ecological area was assigned a score of 1 due to the
lack of an area under environmental protection, the animal parameter was given a score of 2
due to the lack of both endemic species and species of conservation value, and the plant
parameter received a score of 4 owing to natural vegetation (albeit scant), fruitful trees,
agriculture, and urban green spaces. The highest impacts pointed to the socio-economic
aspect. In this regard, the population density and man-made land use parameters were
assigned a score of 5 due to the proximity of the Tehran metropolis. Similarly, the fueling (fuel
supply) parameter, an economically notable parameter affecting national image, chaos, and
public welfare, received a score of 5. As there is no registered historical and cultural site in
the exposure area, this parameter was assigned a score of 1. According to experts’ opinions,
the average exposure intensities of socio-economic and biological receptors were estimated
at 4.7 and 2.4, respectively.
Risk description using the SPR model can substantially help risk appraisers, decision
makers, and managers to develop a plan and reduce and control risks and related
consequences. The score of the F&EI—ranked third out of five—showed the high possibility
of pollutants’ movement through air and water, and high vulnerability of receptors—as iden-
tified in this study—especially mankind, proving the importance of the F&EI as a hazard of
crucial concern in the study site, which is required to be taken into account. Therefore,
examining the safety of the site with the latest and most valid methods; controlling and
managing the potential causes of danger; mitigating the quantity of fuel storage in this depot;
determining the feasibility of site relocation by observing safety, environmental, technical, and
economic issues; and diminishing operations seem to be of great necessity.
The knowledge related to the source, pathway, receptor model for the fate of
microplas-tics in the environment has been investigated in a previous study [34].
Vora et al. [12] proposed an ERA framework for the EOR solutions in the process of
oil extraction in three main steps, viz., problem formulation, risk analysis, and risk
description. In the present applied study, the source, pathway, receptor model was
employed to analyze risk for a case study, while the studies mentioned above were
merely a review of previously published research.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 15 of 17

5. Conclusions
In this study, the basis of the model was formed using the basic approaches and
acceptable frameworks of ERA of EPA and SPR. In the form of a conceptual model, the
objectives of the study include risk assessment from the beginning and occurrence of the
accident to the end, and its environmental consequences.
Considering that the environmental risk assessment in this study starts from the fire
and explosion accident, each step was done in a specific way.
An appropriate and integrated combination of methods was performed for
environmental risk assessment. Comprehensive visibility helped make the output of the
technical methods (Dow) a, appropriate input for environmental assessment.
Since the risk rating obtained by the Dow method is in the middle class, due to the
conditions of the pathways, especially the air, and the proximity of the oil storage to a
large city, which includes the vulnerability of the receptors, the management plan risk is
important, which can be presented during a study and scientific program.
The proposed model considerably reflects the current knowledge and gaps via a
structured environmental risk assessment framework; however, it can be expanded with
further findings. Various scenarios can be put forth, emphasizing the domino effects of
fire and explosion accidents in the oil depot. In this process, the routes and the modes of
dispersion must be well understood and analyzed in more detail by considering other
factors, such as concentrations and main transport processes. Studies can also be
designed to scrutinize the damage to plants and animals, considering various
concentrations depending on the accident in question. In this way, it is possible to
provide a more accurate and quantitative estimation of the damage severity.
Furthermore, an emergency preparedness plan can be developed by providing methods
for controlling the environmental damage caused by the spread of pollution.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.D.Z. and T.D.; metodología, R.D.Z.; software,

R.D.Z.; validación, S.M.M., S.A.J. y E.R.; formal analysis, E.R.; investigación, S.M.M.; resources,
S.A.J.; data curation, S.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, R.D.Z.; writing—review and
editing, T.D.; visualization, E.R.; supervisión, S.M.M.; project administration, R.D.Z.; funding
acquisition, T.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded by the Ministry of Petroleum of the Islamic Republic of Iran
(970712/16), which is highly appreciated.
Data Availability Statement: Data related to this article are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We thank Hajialiloo for providing access to the data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Doregar Zavareh, R.; Dana, T.; Roayaei, E.; Monavari, S.M.; Jozi, S.A. Emission Risk Assessment of Toxic Gases of Floating
Roof Tanks. Pollution 2022, 8, 875–888. [CrossRef]
2. Zinke, R.; Köhler, F.; Klippel, A.; Krause, U.; Leitl, B. Emissions of volatile hydrocarbons from floating roof tanks and their local
dispersion: Considerations for normal operation and in case of damage. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2020, 66, 104179. [CrossRef]
3. Bouafia, A.; Bougofa, M.; Rouainia, M.; Medjram, M.S. Safety Risk Analysis and Accidents Modeling of a Major Gasoline
Release in Petrochemical Plant. J. Fail Anal. Prev. 2020, 20, 358–369. [CrossRef]
4. Necci, A.; Argenti, F.; Landucci, G.; Cozzani, V. Accident scenarios triggered by lightning strike on atmospheric storage tanks.
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2014, 127, 30–46. [CrossRef]
5. Qin, R.; Khakzad, N.; Zhu, J. An overview of the impact of Hurricane Harvey on chemical and process facilities in Texas. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 45, 101453. [CrossRef]
6. Shi, L.; Shuai, J.; Xu, K. Fuzzy fault tree assessment based on improved AHP for fire and explosion accidents for steel oil
storage tanks. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 278, 529–538. [CrossRef]
7. Zinke, R.; Melnychuk, J.; Köhler, F.; Krause, U. Quantitative risk assessment of emissions from external floating roof tanks during
normal operation and in case of damages using Bayesian Networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2020, 197, 2–12. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 16 of 17

8. Pouyakian, M.; Jafari, M.J.; Laal, F.; Nourai, F.; Zarei, E. A comprehensive approach to analyze the risk of floating roof storage
tanks. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 146, 811–836. [CrossRef]
9. Kang, J.; Liang, W.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Z.; Liu, D.; Yin, W.; Zhang, G. A new risk evaluation method for oil storage tank zones
based on the theory of two types of hazards. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2014, 29, 267–276. [CrossRef]
10. Lu, L.; Liang, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, H.; Lu, Z.; Shan, J. A comprehensive risk evaluation method for natural gas pipelines by
combining a risk matrix with a bow-tie model. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 25, 124–133. [CrossRef]
11. Chen, S.; Chen, B.; Fath, B.D. Ecological risk assessment on the system scale: A review of state-of-the-art models and future
perspectives. Ecol. Model. 2013, 250, 25–33. [CrossRef]
12. Vora, M.; Sanni, S.; Flage, R. An environmental risk assessment framework for enhanced oil recovery solutions from offshore
oil and gas industry. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 88, 106512. [CrossRef]
13. DEAT. Ecological Risk Assesment, Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 6; Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT): Pretoria, South Africa, 2005.
14. Topuz, E.; Talinli, I.; Aydin, E. Integration of environmental and human health risk assessment for industries using hazardous
materials: A quantitative multi criteria approach for environmental decision makers. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 393–403. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
15. Khan, F.; Rathnayaka, S.; Ahmed, S. Methods and Models in Process Safety and Risk Management: Past, Present and Future.
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2015, 98, 116–147. [CrossRef]
16. Khakzad, N.; Khan, F.; Amyotte, P. Quantitative risk analysis of offshore drilling operations: A Bayesian approach. Saf. Sci.
2013, 57, 108–117. [CrossRef]
17. Xin, P.; Khan, F.; Ahmed, S. Dynamic Hazard Identification and Scenario Mapping Using Bayesian Network. Process Saf.
Environ. Prot. 2016, 105, 143–155. [CrossRef]
18. Nakayama, J.; Sakamoto, J.; Kasai, N.; Shibutani, T.; Miyake, A. Preliminary hazard identification for qualitative risk
assessment on a hybrid gasoline-hydrogen fueling station with an on-site hydrogen production system using organic chemical
hydride. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 7518–7525. [CrossRef]
19. Xie, S.; Dong, S.; Chen, Y.; Peng, Y.; Li, X. A novel risk evaluation method for fire and explosion accidents in oil depots using bow-tie
analysis and risk matrix analysis method based on cloud model theory. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 215, 107791. [CrossRef]
20. Guo, X.; Ji, J.; Khan, F.; Ding, L. Fuzzy bayesian network based on an improved similarity aggregation method for risk
assessment of storage tank accident. Process Saf. Environ. Pro.t 2020, 144, 242–252. [CrossRef]
21. Luo, T.; Wu, C.; Duan, L. Fishbone diagram and risk matrix analysis method and its application in safety assessment of natural
gas spherical tank. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 174, 296–304. [CrossRef]
22. Zhao, J.; Li, W.; Bai, C. Risk Evaluation for Fire and Explosion Accidents in the Storage Tank Farm of the Refinery. Chem.
Eng. Trans. 2017, 62, 1345–1350. [CrossRef]
23. Fu, S.; Yan, X.; Zhang, D.; Li, C.; Zio, E. Framework for the quantitative assessment of the risk of leakage from LNG-fueled
vessels by an event tree-CFD. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2017, 43, 42–52. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, J.; Song, W.H. Fire and Explosion Index calculation method incorporating classified safety measure credits. J. Loss
Prev. Process Ind. 2013, 26, 1128–1133. [CrossRef]
25. Wu, D.; Chen, Z. Quantitative risk assessment of fi re accidents of large-scale oil tanks triggered by lightning. EFA 2016, 63,
172–181. [CrossRef]
26. Zelenˇáková, M.; Zvijáková, L. Risk analysis within environmental impact assessment of proposed construction activity.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 62, 76–89. [CrossRef]
27. Qinqin, C.; Jia, Q.; Yuan, Z.; Huang, L. Environmental risk source management system for the petrochemical industry.
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2014, 92, 251–260. [CrossRef]
28. Shahriar, A.; Sadiq, R.; Tesfamariam, S. Risk analysis for oil & gas pipelines: A sustainability assessment approach using
fuzzy based bow-tie analysis. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2012, 25, 505–523. [CrossRef]
29. Bi, H.; Si, H. Dynamic risk assessment of oil spill scenario for Three Gorges Reservoir in China based on numerical
simulation. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1112–1118. [CrossRef]
30. Yari, M.; Bagherpour, R.; Khoshouei, M.; Pedram, H. Investigating a comprehensive model for evaluating occupational and
environmental risks of dimensional stone mining. Rud. Geološko-Naft. Zb. 2020, 35, 101-109. [CrossRef]
31. Yari, M.; Monjezi, M.; Bagherpour, R.; Sayadi, A.R. Blasting Operation Management Using Mathematical Methods. Eng. Geol.
Soc. Territ. 2015, 1, 483–493. [CrossRef]
32. Norton, S.B.; Rodier, D.J.; van der Schalie, W.H.; Wood, W.P.; Slimak, M.W.; Gentile, J.H. A framework for ecological risk
assessment at the EPA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1992, 11, 1663–1672. [CrossRef]
33. Waldschläger, K.; Lechthaler, S.; Stauch, G.; Schüttrumpf, H. The way of microplastic through the environment–Application of
the source-pathway-receptor model (review). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 713, 136584. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Holdgate, M.W. A Perspective of Environmental Pollution. Int. Relat. 1980, 6, 850–851. [CrossRef]
35. AIChE. Dow’s Fire & Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, 7th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1994.
36. Stevens, C.J.; Bell, J.N.B.; Brimblecombe, P.; Clark, C.M.; Dise, N.B.; Fowler, D.; Lovett, G.M.; Wolseley, P.A. The impact of
air pollution on terrestrial managed and natural vegetation: Air pollution impacts on vegetation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys.
Eng. Sci. 2020, 378, 20190317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10747 17 of 17

37. Goldemberg, J.; Lucon, O. Energy, Environment and Development, 2nd ed.; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 2010. [CrossRef]
38. Papadopoulou, M.P.; Antoniou, C. Environmental impact assessment methodological framework for liquefied natural gas
terminal and transport network planning. Energy Policy 2014, 68, 306–319. [CrossRef]
39. Ferdous, R.; Khan, F.; Sadiq, R.; Amyotte, P.; Veitch, B. Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie
diagram: An innovative approach. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2011, 91, 1–18. [CrossRef]
40. Tenerelli, P.; Gallego, J.F.; Ehrlich, D. Population density modelling in support of disaster risk assessment. Int. J. Disaster Risk
Reduct. 2015, 13, 334–341. [CrossRef]
41. Kokangül, A.; Polat, U.; Dagsuyu,˘ C. A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney
methodologies. Saf. Sci. 2017, 91, 24–32. [CrossRef]
42. Kampa, M.; Castanas, E. Human health effects of air pollution. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 151, 362–367. [CrossRef]