Special Session on Experience Sharing around the French ......the guides. 7th International Conference on Integrated Disaster Risk Management 1 - 3 October 2016 - Isfahan-Iran

7th International Conference on Integrated Disaster Ri sk Management1 - 3 October 2016 - Isfahan-Iran

Special Session on Experience Sharing around the Frenc h Practical Approach of

Seismic Security Engineering and Risk Management

Example of Overall Seismic Security Engineering


High Risk Industries in France

Joint Action by Public Authorities, Owners/Operator s & the French Association for Earthquake Engineering for a safe

design and operation taking into account the seismi c hazard

Jean-Philippe GIRARD, Alain PECKER, Pierre SOLLOGOU B* & Marc BOUCHONAssociation Française de Génie Parasismique (AFPS), Pa ris, France

E-mail: [email protected]


Before After

Prevention Crisis managementVulnerability Evaluation/relocation

Emergency prepardness Compensation


•• SomeSome «« definitionsdefinitions »»• Hazard return period• Ground properties• Hazard level• Organization


Some « definitions »

France



FranceVery weak

Weak

Moderate

Medium

Medium:

1/475 year��

<0.16g or <1,6m/s²

Resolution by county



• Standard risk• Risk for the Environment• Nuclear facilities

Classification of facilities



• Standard risk• Risk for the Environment• Nuclear facilities




• Standard risk


-Category I , those with little risk for people and economy (example: sheds);-Category II, those with standard risk (example: ho uses, shops);-Category III , those with significant risk (example: residential buildings

with more than 300 inhabitants, schools);-Category IV , strategic facilities (example: fire brigades, airports…).



• Standard risk• Risk for the Environment

• Nuclear facilitiesAbove a givenradionuclide/quantity/concentration/containment




• Standard risk

• Risk for the Environment

• Nuclear facilities

High Risk Industries

Low risk Industries



• Standard risk

• Risk for the Environment

• Nuclear facilities

High Risk IndustriesThose for which any equipmentmay lead to fatalities outside the plant in permanent living areas


• Some « definitions »

•• HazardHazard return return periodperiod• Ground properties• Hazard level• Organization


• Standard risk• Risk for the

Environment• Nuclear facilities

~ Integrityconfinement…

~ 10000 y return period

Nuclear facilities


High risk industries (SEVESO) new builds

No fatalities

induced by systems


High risk industries (SEVESO) retrofitting

-IV (firebrigade)

-III (school)

475 y return period

II (my house) Escape/

Stability

-I (sheds)

Normal risk(new

builds)

Design criteria

Hazardcriteria

Sub-categoryFacilitycategory

Hazard return period


• Some « definitions »• Hazard return period

•• GroundGround propertiesproperties• Hazard level• Organization


• Standard risk• Risk for the

Environment• Nuclear facilities

StudyNuclear facilities


Seismic zone+

groundx1 to

1.4/1.8


IV (firebrigade)

III (school)

II (my house)

Seismic zone +ground

x1 to 1.4/1.8

I (sheds)Normal

risk(new

builds)

GroundSub-categoryFacilitycategory

Ground properties


• Some « definitions »• Hazard return period• Ground properties

•• HazardHazard levellevel• Organization

New facilities From 0,32 m/s² to 4,9 m/s²

7th International Conference on Integrated Disaster Ri sk Management1 - 3 October 2016 - Isfahan-Iran ~ Integrity

confinement…Specific study

~ 10 000 y return period

Nuclear facilities

3.52 m/s²rock

2.42 m/s²rock

1.54 m/s²rock

0.88 m/s²rock



No fatalities induced by

systems

2.96 m/s²rock

2.04 m/s²rock

1.30 m/s²rock

0.74 m/s²rock



1.4 x ��-IV (firebrigade)

1.2 x ��-III (school)

1.6 m/s²1.1 m/s²0.7 m/s²0.4 m/s²475 y return period


Stability

0.8 x ��-I (sheds)Normal

risk(new

builds)

rock

Design criteria

Zone 4Zone 3Zone 2Zone 1Hazardcriteria

Sub-categoryFacilitycategory

Hazard level


3.52 to 4,90 m/s²~ 5000 y return period


No fatalities induced

by systems

2.96 to 4,14 m/s²~ 3000 y return period


2.24-IV (firebrigade)

1.92-III (school)

1.6 m/s²

475 y return period


Stability

1,28-I (sheds)Normal

risk(new

builds)

groundx1 to

1.4/1.8

Design criteriaZone 4Hazard

criteriaSub-categoryFacility

category

Hazard level (from 1 to 3)


• Some « definitions »• Hazard return period• Ground properties• Hazard level

•• OrganizationOrganization , , developmentdevelopment and and implementationimplementation



• Organization• How to comply?• Handbook• Verification and Validation process• Time scale to develop guides

Those for which any equipment may lead to fatalitiesoutside the plant in permanent living areas



The French Government has issuedOrders and Ministerial rules

• Then industries, through theirrepresentative organizations, developpeda work plan for implementation

Those for which any equipment may lead to fatalitiesoutside the plant in permanent living areas


High Risk IndustriesThose for which any equipment may lead to fatalities outsi de the plant in permanent living areas

Shall

Should

Implementation

Documention



Shall

Should

Implementation

Government

Ownersassociations

Operators



Shall

Should

Implementation

Government

Ownersassociations

Operators



Shall

Should

Implementation

Government

Ownersassociations

Operators


-a Supervision Committee reporting to the Ministry ,

-a Leading Committeeto co-ordinate activities,

-Working Groups with representativesof the industry, Research & Development institutes and the French Association for Civil Engineering (AFPS) to develop the guidance documents in different fields.


Organizationto develop the guides



How to comply?-For the required earthquake level, prevent fatalities out of the site-Prevention by:

• land administrative measures, • design,• mitigation, • shutdown upon earthquake


Landadministrative measures


Design or mitigation


Shutdown upon earthquake

Inventory over the limit


Inventory belowthe limit





Inventorybelow the limit

By design By design






But not design to withstandthe referenceearthquake

By design By design






But not design to withstandthe referenceearthquake

By design By design


HandbookA set of six documents were developed both by the

AFPS and the SNCT [1] an association for boiler design and operation

1. General Methodology Guide (DT106, 127 pages) guidance in all the fields of implementation of the regulation

2. Detection of earthquake and how to put the facility in a safe state (DT105) to limit the impact

•[1] Syndicat National de la Chaudronnerie, Tuyauterie et Maintenance industrielle


HandbookA set of six documents were developed both by the

AFPS and the SNCT [1] an association for boiler design and operation

1. Atmospheric storage tanks (cylindrical vertical & horizontal, cryogenic, DT109 to 110);

2. Support structures (DT111);3. Pipes and valves (DT113);4. Process material (DT114).


Handbook


Vérification and Validation

• Working group edition (writing +verification)

• Reviewed by the scientific committee of the APFS

• Validation by a technical support organization of the Ministry

• Green light for publication by the Ministry

• Available on the website of the Chemical Industry Owners' Association (UIC)


Benchmarking

Those tests demonstrated applicability of the metho ds but also highlighted difficulty to retrofit units in the vey low seismicity area where the previous regulation did n ot required seismic hazard care.

The second test uses automatic isolation valves to prevent releases from high volume horizontal storage tanks.

As a result of these case studies a set of checklis ts were prepared including one on site civil work conformit y assessment for the two lowest seismic zones.

The set of documents was benchmarked on two facilities: • a pharma-chemical production unit, close to Paris, in the very low seismic zone, and• a chemical unit manufacturing nylon, in the seismic zone 3.


Ressources and Planning

• More than sixty people were involved in the development of the guidance documents.

• The work was performed over a period of three years (2012-2013-2014).


Final decisionSuch facilities were ruled by a previous 1993

Ministerial ruleBased on these latest developments and

lessons learnt, the Ministerial rule was updated to define deadlines:

• Implementation of this regulation– Now for new facilities– Retrofit of oldest facilities before January 1st 20 25

with a panel of 15 facilities as pilot


CONCLUSION• A coherent and unique approach specifies now the requirements

for earthquake prevention for all kind of facilities in France• A European code for construction is shared all over E urope• Under the umbrella of the Ministry and industries’ associations,

guidelines for implementation to high risk facilities have been developed as a handbook . It can be used as a tool box to retrofit existing high risk industry’s facilities

• Developed under working groups of industry, research and development institutions and owners’ association‘s representatives.

• This will ease the work of the engineering offices of the few thousands of such facilities operated today in France. Organization, validation process and benchmarking were the key issues for the success of this work.


Contributions

• The AFPS, apart from its duties studying earthquakes and its consequences on building and mankind, contributes to the overall support of this activity.

• This work has been supported by the French Ministry of Environment, Energy and Sea, and performed under an agreement between the Chemical Industry Owners' Association (UIC) and the French Association for Earthquake Engineering (AFPS)


��

Documents

Special Session on Experience Sharing around the French ......the guides. 7th International Conference on Integrated Disaster Risk Management 1 - 3 October 2016 - Isfahan-Iran