Golder Associates

105 Pages·2002·4.25 MB·English

Reportto
HAZARD STUDY
FOR THE BULK POL FACILITIES
IN THE PORT OF ANCHORAGE AREA
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
PREPARED BY
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)
(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:8)
AUGUST, 2002
Golder Associates Inc.
1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK USA 99507
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

REPORT ON

HAZARD STUDY
FOR THE BULK POL FACILITIES
IN THE POA AREA

Submitted to:

Municipality of Anchorage
POL Task Force
August 9, 2002

DISTRIBUTION:

4 Copies Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, Douglas Askerman
1 Copy Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, Jacques Boutet
4 Copies Government Hill Community Council, Anchorage Alaska, Steve Gerlek
4 Copies Chevron, Phil Wetmore
1 Copy Williams, Anchorage, Alaska, Belinda Breaux
1 Copy AFSC, Anchorage, Alaska, Tom Mushovic
1 Copy Tesoro, Anchorage, Alaska, Ron Noel
1 Copy Alaska Railroad Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska, Ernie Piper
1 Copy Golder Associates Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, Mark Musial
1 Copy Golder Associates Ltd., Calgary, Brian Griffin

August 2002 013-5504
OFFICES ACROSS ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA
August 2002 -i 013-5504

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
ABSTRACT
ES 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................ES-1
ES 1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................ES-1
ES 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE..............................................................................ES-2
ES 1.3 SCOPING AND PUBLIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PHASE I)....................ES-4
ES-1.4 RISK MITIGATION ASSESSMENT (PHASE II)............................................ES-7
ES-1.5 RISK MITIGATION PLAN (PHASE III)..........................................................ES-8
MEASURES EVALUATED...............................................................................................ES-9
COST BENEFIT SURVEY AND RECOMMENDED PLAN..........................................ES-11
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY..................................................................................ES-14
LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................ES-14
1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................1
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE..............................................................................................2
1.3 SCOPING AND PUBLIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PHASE I)....................................3
1.4 RISK MITIGATION ASSESSMENT (PHASE II)............................................................4
1.5 RISK MITIGATION PLAN (PHASE III)..........................................................................4
1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION..............................................................................................5
2. STUDY FACILITIES................................................................................................................6
2.1 FACILITIES DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................6
2.2 FACILITIES OPERATION................................................................................................7
2.3 HISTORICAL INCIDENTS...............................................................................................8
2.3.1 Records Review........................................................................................................8
2.3.2 Data Summary........................................................................................................11
2.4 AIR QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................15
2.5 SITE CONTAMINATION HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISKS..............................16
2.6 SITE TOUR.......................................................................................................................17
2.7 FIRE FIGHTING AND EVACUATION PLAN..............................................................17
3. LAND USE REGULATIONS.................................................................................................18
3.1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................18
3.2 CODES AND STANDARDS...........................................................................................18
3.2.1 Fire Codes...............................................................................................................18
3.2.2 Industry Standards..................................................................................................20
3.3 GUIDELINE REVIEW.....................................................................................................20
3.3.1 American Planning Association..............................................................................20
3.3.2 HUD Guidelines......................................................................................................20
3.3.3 US Coast Guard......................................................................................................21
3.4 SELECTION OF COMMUNITY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS......................................21
3.4.1 Denver, Colorado....................................................................................................22
3.4.2 Coos Bay, Oregon...................................................................................................22
3.4.3 Fairbanks, Alaska....................................................................................................22
3.4.4 Long Beach, California...........................................................................................23
3.4.5 Fort Collins, Colorado............................................................................................23
Golder Associates
August 2002 -ii 013-5504

3.4.6 1996 Review by the Municipality of Anchorage....................................................23
3.5 SUMMARY OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.............................................................23
4. PUBLIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PHASE I).....................................................................25
4.1 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................25
4.1.1 Risk Assessment Approach.....................................................................................25
4.1.2 Definition of a Hazard Scenario..............................................................................26
4.1.3 Study Risk Matrix...................................................................................................27
4.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION.........................................................................................29
4.3 RISK ESTIMATION........................................................................................................35
4.3.1 Consequence Analysis............................................................................................35
4.3.2 Frequency Analysis.................................................................................................39
4.3.3 Risk Estimates.........................................................................................................43
4.4 RISK RANKING..............................................................................................................43
5. RISK MITIGATION ASSESSMENT (PHASE II).................................................................45
5.1 OVERVIEW OF RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES....................................................45
5.2 CURRENT OR PLANNED RISK MITIGATION MEASURES.....................................46
6. RISK MITIGATION PLAN (PHASE III)...............................................................................55
6.1 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................55
6.2 HIGHER RISK HAZARD SCENARIOS.........................................................................55
6.3 RISK MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES..........................................56
6.3.1 Measure 1) – Continue to Implement Current Measures........................................57
6.3.2 Measure 2) – Implement Planned Measures...........................................................57
6.3.3 Measure 3) - Ongoing Risk Communication..........................................................57
6.3.4 Measure 4) - Buffer Zones......................................................................................59
6.3.5 Measure 5) - Engineering Controls.........................................................................61
6.3.6 Measure 6) - Quantitative Risk and Engineering Assessment................................61
6.3.7 Measures 7) and 8) - Risk Elimination...................................................................62
6.4 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS...........................................................................................63
6.5 RISK MITIGATION PLAN.............................................................................................67
6.6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY.................................................................................70
6.6.1 Continue to Implement Current Measures..............................................................70
6.6.2 Implement Planned Measures.................................................................................70
6.6.3 Implement Recommended Alternate Measures......................................................71
6.6.4 Limitations..............................................................................................................72
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................................73
8. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................74

TABLES

FIGURES

APPENDICES
Golder Associates
August 2002 -iii 013-5504

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 POL Facility Operations in the POA Area.......................................................................9
Table 2.2 Incident Data Summary (From Appendix B).................................................................12
Table 2.3 Spill And Fire Incident Distribution (Number of Incidents)..........................................14
Table 3.1 Summary of Setback Requirements In Codes, Standards, and Guidance......................24
Table 3.2 Setback Requirements for Tanks in Selected Communities...........................................24
Table 4.1 Study Risk Matrix..........................................................................................................28
Table 4.2 Hazard Scenario Worksheet...........................................................................................30
Table 4.3 Summary of Fire Hazard Scenario Frequency Estimates...............................................40
Table 4.4 Summary of Consequence Severity Estimates...............................................................41
Table 4.5 Hazard Study Risk Profile..............................................................................................44
Table 5.1 Checklist to Identify Risk Mitigation Measures.............................................................47
Table 5.2 Current or Planned Risk Mitigation Measures...............................................................48
Table 6.1 Higher Risk Hazard Scenarios.......................................................................................56
Table 6.2 Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis................................................................................64
Table 6.3 Ranking of Mitigation Cost Benefit...............................................................................68

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map
Figure 1.2 Hazard Study Area and POL Operators
Figure 2.1 Schematic of Petroleum Product Flows Through the Terminals
Figure 2.2 POL Facilities and Surrounding Land Use
Figure 4.1 Hazard Scenario Schematic
Figure 4.2 Generic POL Release Consequence Event Tree
Figure 4.3 Example Fire Modeling Results
Figure 5.1 Risk Mitigation Scenario

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Facility Layout Schematics for Each POL Operator
Appendix B Historical Spill Incidents and Fire Incidents
Appendix C Site Photographs
Appendix D Description of ARCHIE Consequence Model
Appendix E Consequence Modeling
Appendix F Frequency Assessment
Golder Associates
ABSTRACT
Hazard Study
for the Bulk POL Facilities
in the Port of Anchorage Area

In response to public concerns regarding the petroleum storage (POL) facilities, the Municipality
of Anchorage formed a Task Force and commissioned Golder Associates Inc. to carry out a
hazard study addressing the following questions:

1. Is there a public hazard (the potential for harm from fires) associated with the POL
facilities?
Golder – There is a risk from potential fires at the POL facilities that is defined by eighteen
representative hazard scenarios having event frequencies ranging from 1 in <10 years to 1 in
>10,000 years and event consequences that range from “site fire safety issues” to” public
exposure to fatality from a fire”.

2. If there is a public hazard, what can be done to mitigate the risk associated with the
public hazard, if anything?
Golder - POL operators are implementing codes, regulations, and operating procedures to
reduce public risk. However, a number of additional measures are outlined in the report to
further reduce the frequency and/or consequences associated with the fire hazard scenarios
(Table 6.3).

3. What is the cost benefit of implementing mitigation measures?
Golder - Comparison of mitigation costs and benefits (i.e., relative decrease in risk per dollar
spent) indicates that the optimum use of POL operator and community resources involves
implementation of the current and planned mitigation measures, along with additional mitigation
measures addressing the reduction of both fire frequency and consequence (p. 67 and Table 6.3).
A Phased approached is recommended for the additional mitigation measures to first implement
those required to better define risk and cost.

Many industry experts, third party reviewers, and concerned citizens provided input to this study.
The resulting risk profile shows what Golder Associates consider to be a small public risk,
because of prevention measures in place and the existing distance between the POL facilities and
adjacent neighborhoods described in the report. However, it is recognized that different
conclusions may be drawn. In order to minimize potential differences between stakeholders, it is
important that dialog continues between the public, industry and government on future plans,
projects, and changes at the POL facilities.

While addressing the fire hazards associated with operation of the POL facilities in the POA area
may serve to mitigate other hazards present, it is important to note that these other hazards were
not specifically addressed by this study, as described in the report.
Golder Associates
August 2002 ES-1 013-5504

ES 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES 1.1 BACKGROUND
The handling and distribution of petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) through bulk terminals at
the Port of Anchorage (POA) has been carried out since before 1950. However, as POL
operations have grown over the years, so has the interest of the nearby Government Hill
neighborhood and the general public in public health and safety consequences associated with
these facilities. A number of historic and recent incidents have raised public concern that some
mitigation or control of risk is required to guide both existing and future neighborhood and POL
development. In response to public concerns, the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) formed a
Task Force to address three questions regarding the POL facilities:
• Is there a public hazard associated with the POL facilities?
• If there is a public hazard, what can be done to mitigate the risk associated with the public
hazard, if any?
• What is the cost benefit of implementing mitigation measures?
The Task Force is comprised of the following stakeholders:
• Municipality of Anchorage.
• Government Hill Community Council.
• POL Operators - Anchorage Fueling and Service Company (AFSC); Chevron Products
Company (Chevron); Tesoro Alaska Company, Anchorage Terminals #1 and #2 (Tesoro);
and Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. (Williams).
• Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC).
To assist their investigation, the MOA, with oversight by the Task Force, commissioned Golder
Associates Inc. (Golder) to carry out a Hazard Study for the bulk POL facilities in the POA area.
This study was divided into the following three phases that generally correspond to the three
questions posed to the Task Force:
• Phase I Scoping and Public Hazard Assessment.
• Phase II Risk Mitigation Alternates Assessment.
• Phase III Risk Mitigation Plan.
Golder Associates
August 2002 ES-2 013-5504

ES 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The objectives for the Hazard Study are to identify public hazards from POL facilities in the POA
area, estimate and rank the associated risks, and evaluate potential risk mitigation measures. The
study area (Figure ES-1) includes the POL bulk terminal facilities located in the POA area,
bounded by the C Street/Ocean Dock Rd. interchange to the south, Government Hill to the east,
Gull Avenue and the POL marine terminals to the north, and Knik Arm to the west.
The specific objective for the Hazard Study is to evaluate public health and safety risks to the
adjacent residential neighborhood of Government Hill posed by fires at the POL facilities.
Additional public receptors potentially exposed to POL risks include other facilities and activities
nearby the POA such as Air Force housing, industrial workers in the POL area, and people
traversing the POA area. The risks to these additional public receptors are not specifically
evaluated in this study, but the Task Force can evaluate these more generally based on the risk
results for the Government Hill residents.
The scope of work carried out to achieve the study objectives included the following tasks:
1. Data collation and tour of facilities.
2. Hazard identification.
3. Safeguard evaluation.
4. Code compliance review.
5. Accident scenario annual frequency analysis.
6. Accident scenario public consequence analysis.
7. Public risk estimation and ranking.
8. Alternative risk mitigation measures.
9. Risk benefits and costs.
10. Risk mitigation plan.
11. Stakeholder communication.
12. Reporting.
Golder Associates
PPoorrtt ooff AAnncchhoorraaggee ((PPOOAA))
SSTTUUDDYY AARREEAA
PPOOAAVVYY ((SSppaagghheettttii FFaarrmm))
PPOOAA MMaarriinnee
EEllmmeennddoorrff
TTeerrmmiinnaall
TTeessoorroo ##22 AAiirr FFoorrccee BBaassee
TTeessoorroo ##11 AAFFSSCC
SSqquuiirrrreell CCaaggee
FFoorrmmeerr DDeeffeennssee FFuueellss SSiittee
BBlluuffff RRooaadd
..
dd
RR
CChheevvrroonn
WWiilllliiaammss kk
cc
oo
DD GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt HHiillll CCoommmmuunniittyy
nn
eeaa RR oo aa dd
OOcc LL oo oo pp
ee AAllaasskkaa RRaaiillrrooaadd
gg
dd
ii
rr
BB SShhiipp CCrreeeekk
tt
ee
ee
rr
tt
SS
CC
PROJECT
POAHAZARDSTUDY
0 900 1800
MUNICIPALITYOFANCHORAGE
APPROXIMATESCALE,FEET TITLE
HAZARD STUDY AREA
AND POL OPERATORS
REFERENCE: PROJECT No.013-5504.001FILE No.AIRPHOTO_ES1.CDR
AerialphotographyprovidedbyAEROMAPU.S. DESIGN MRM 01/02 SCALE~1"=900' REV. 0
CADD CAV 02/02
ofAnchorage,dated9/20/2001 FIGURE ES-1
CHECK BG 08/02
REVIEW MRM 08/02
August 2002 ES-4 013-5504

ES 1.3 SCOPING AND PUBLIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PHASE I)
Phase I of the Hazard Study documented historical issues and provided a basis for the Task Force
to evaluate potential public risks. The work used risk analysis methods to identify accident
hazard scenarios, estimate associated risks, and rank the risk results. Public safety risks
associated with accidental fire or explosion at the POL facilities in the POA area were defined as
a measure of both the likelihood and the severity of harm to nearby people and structures.
Although safety was the primary focus, the potential for damage to public property was also
addressed. Environmental risks from an accidental spill that does not lead to a fire or explosion
are dealt with through the Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans, that are regularly
updated and submitted by the POL terminal operators to the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC). Public health risks from air quality issues, such as chronic exposure to
fugitive emissions from terminal operations, are discussed based on historical studies in the area,
but detailed evaluation was not included in the scope. Human health and ecological risks from
POA area contamination were also documented from previous studies but not included in this
study.
Hazard scenarios leading to a fire or explosion were first identified through a “What If” analysis
based on industry and site experience. A workshop was held with Task Force members to
incorporate stakeholder experience in developing the hazard scenarios. A total of 18
representative hazard scenarios describing the range of fire risks associated with the POL
facilities were identified as follows:
1. Liquid leak from storage tank inlet or outlet piping
2. Vapor escaping from liquid leak from storage tank
3. Liquid leak from tank bottom
4. Liquid spill during tank filling
5. Rupture of tank inlet or outlet piping
6. Catastrophic tank/piping/valve rupture
7. Catastrophic tank rupture (toppling or buckling) from earthquake
8. Catastrophic tank rupture from sabotage
9. Large leak from pipeline valve
Golder Associates