Modeling the Outcome of Chlorine Emission Based on Emergency Response Planning Values over 24 Hours Using the PHAST Software (Case Study: Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant)

Document Type : Original Research

Author

Young Researchers and Elite Club, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aim: Chemical warfare can endanger the security of any country. The present study examined the chlorine gas emission scenario on the outskirts of the Bushehr nuclear power plant over a 24-hour period, so that the study results can be utilized in an emergency response program.
Methods: In order to access the data, the area of Bushehr nuclear power plant was investigated in person and then, in order to assess the worst scenario, chlorine was selected due to its extremely high toxicity. From among the existing scenarios, the catastrophic explosion (immediate release) was selected and finally the risk intervals of this scenario were determined to evaluate the impact of chlorine gas on the target population with the use of ERPGs, IDLH and STEL. PHAST 6.7 software has been used for this purpose.
Results: Based on the criteria for evaluating the effects of exposure to toxic substances, the results of the present study showed that it is not possible to define an emergency planning area at close distances to the explosion origin by using IDLH and STEL criteria. However, based on ERPG concentrations, the chlorine gas passes shorter distances from 06:00 to 10:00 in the morning to reach the values of ERPG2-3 at 2811 and 1040 meters compared to other time periods studied. Conversely, at night, these distances have the largest risk area based on the values of the above mentioned concentrations at 5212 and 1459 meters, respectively.
Conclusion: In order to reduce the vulnerability in accidents, modeling weather conditions based on time periods (morning, noon, evening and night) can be an important tool for planning emergency conditions. Accordingly, it was suggested that the highest risk distance is obtained based on the ERPG1 criterion, i.e. the risk distance based on the lowest concentration of the chemical in the ambient air which does not even make unpleasant odors to be sensed by the residents in the safe areas, especially in similar study zones.

Keywords


1. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis: American of Chemical Engineers; New York, 2000. 2. Fakhraeian H. Chemical Factors. 1st ed. Tehran: Imam Hossein; 2003. 3. Nabi J, Gholamrezania M. Assessment of the implications of chemical bomb explosions using PHAST software. Seventh national defense conference on new war. Tehran: Imam Hossein Comprehensive University; 2017. 4. Naserzadeh Z, Mehrabani M, Kohhpaee H. Modeling Software training for the Consequences of ALOHA Events. 1st ed. Tehran: Sepid Ber; 1394. 5. Sharma RK, Gurjar BR, Wate SR, Ghuge SP, Agrawal R. Assessment of an accidental vapour cloud explosion: Lessons from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. accident at Jaipur, India. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2013;26:82-90. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2012.09.009 6. Jahangiri M, Noroozi A, Sareban Zadeh K. risk assessment and Management. 1st ed. Tehran: Fanavaran; 2013. 7. Ghashghaei R, Sabzghabaei GR, Dashti S, Jafari Azar S, Salehipour F. Modeling and prediction of environmental consequences of methanol as the most dangerous goods in ports (Case Study: Bandar Imam Khomeini). Health and Safety at Work. 2019;9(2): 157-67. 8. Witlox HW, Fernández M, Harper M, Oke A, Stene J, Xu Y. Verification and validation of Phast consequence models for accidental releases of toxic or flammable chemicals to the atmosphere. Journal of loss prevention in the process industries. 2018;55: 457-70. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2018.07.014 9. Wang K, Liu Z, Qian X, Huang P. Long-term consequence and vulnerability assessment of thermal radiation hazard from LNG explosive fireball in open space based on full-scale experiment and PHAST. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2017;46:6. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2017.01.001 10. Witlox HW, Harper M, Oke A, Stene J. Phast validation of discharge and atmospheric dispersion for pressurised carbon dioxide releases. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2014;30: 243-55. 11. Neghab M, Amiri F, Moayedi R, Hosseini SY. Investigation of lung functional capacities and respiratory disorders caused by chlorine gas. Journal of Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention. 2014;2 (2):140. 12. Kariznovi H, Farshad AA, Yarahmadi R, Khosravi Y, Yari P. Consequence Analysis of fire and explosion of a cylindrical LPG tank in a selected industry of oil and gas. IOH. 2017;14(3):37. 13. Zellner T, Eyer F. Choking agents and chlorine gas - History, pathophysiology, clinical effects and treatment. Toxicol Lett. 2019;320:3. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2019.12.005 14. Galal-Gorchev H. Chlorine in water disinfection. Pure Appl Chem. 1996; 68(9):14. doi:10.1351/pac199668091731 15. Pandya N, Gabas N, Marsden Eric. Sensitivity analysis of PHAST's atmospheric dispersion model for three toxic materials (nitric oxide, ammonia, chlorine). J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2013;25(1):24. 16. WebWISER & WISER Application, Version 4.6 software. Available from: https://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/initSearch?tab=Symptoms. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.06.015 17. Mortazavi SB, Parsarad M, Mahabadi HA, Khavanin A. Evaluation of chlorine dispersion from storage unit in a petrochemical complex to providing an emergency response program. Iran Occupational Health. 2011;8(3). 18. Jahangiri M, Parsarad A. Determination of hazard distance of chemical release in a petrochemical industry by chemical exposure index (CEI). Iran Occupational Health. 2010;7(3):55-62. 19. Kashi E, Nasehpoor S, Kareshki H, Farmad M. Analysis of accidents in refineries process. The Third National Conference on Safety Engineering and HSE Management. HSE. 2009. 20. Hanna S, Dharmavaram S, Zhang J, Sykes I, Witlox H, Khajehnajafi S, Koslan K. Comparison of six widely‐used dense gas dispersion models for three recent chlorine railcar accidents. Process Safety Progress. 2008;27(3):248-59. doi:10.1002/prs.10257 21. Atabi F, Ghorbani R, Jabbari M. Assessment of safe distance for five toxic materials commonly in the accidents of chemical road transportation using ALOHA and PHAST software and CEI index (Case Study: Tehran-Qazvin Highway). Iran Occupational Health. 2017;14(4):42-35. 22. Gohar Rakhi M, Torabi M, Akbari F, Gulzazari F. Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Assessment in Process Units. 1st ed. Research Center of Petroleum Industry; 2009. 23. CAMEO Chemicals, Version 2.7 Software. Available from: https://cameo chemicals.noaa.gov. 24. Iran Meteorological Organization. Available from:http://reports.irimo.ir/jasperserver/flow.html?_flowId=searchFlow. 25. Jahangiri M, Rostam A, Sareban Abadi A, Norozi MA, Azmoon H, Jalilian H, et al. Risk assessment and Management. 1st ed. Tehran: Fanavaran; 2013. 26. Beheshti MH, Mosavianasl Z, Tajpoor A, Hajizadeh R. Evaluation the Extent of Explosion, Ignition and Gas Leakage Consequences in Cylinders Containing 26.2-Liters of Liquid Gas, with Passive Defense Approach. J Mil Med. 2018;19(6):551-561. 27. Karimi A. Safety in the oil and gas industry. 4th ed. Tehran: Aylar; 2013. 28. Gupta R C .Veterinary Toxicology: Basic and Clinical Principles. 2nd ed. Elsevier: Academic Press; 2012. 29. Setareshenas N, Khalilipour MM, Shahraki F, Mansouri M. Consequence Modeling of Chlorine Release from Water Treatment Plant. American Chemical Science Journal. 2014;4(1):102. doi:10.9734/ACSJ/2014/5961