화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Korean Chemical Engineering Research, Vol.58, No.3, 438-449, June, 2020
DOI10.9713/kcer.2020.58.3.438  Export Citation
화학플랜트에서의 화학물질 누출사고에 대한 배상책임 위험도 산정
Estimation of the Liability Risk for Release of Chemicals at Chemical Plant
문정만, 박달재1, †
  • 서울과학기술대학교 일반대학원 안전공학과, 01811 서울특별시 노원구 공릉로 232
  • 1서울과학기술대학교 공과대학 안전공학과, 01811 서울특별시 노원구 공릉로 232
Jung Man Moon, and Dal Jae Park1, †
  • Department of Safety Engineering, Graduate School, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01811, Korea
  • 1Department of Safety Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01811, Korea
E-mail:
초록
본 연구는 화학 및 석유화학 플랜트 등의 장치산업에서 사업장 외부로 유해화학물질이 누출·확산되어 발생할 수 있는 배상책임 위험도에 대한 산정 방식을 개선하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 환경부 사고대비 물질(14종)에 대해 누출·확산 시뮬레이션, 화학물질 누출사고 사례 분석, 식물피해 영향 자료 분석 등을 통하여 화학물질 누출사고 배상책임 위험도 와의 상관관계인자를 도출하였고, 도출된 결과를 바탕으로 화학물질 배상 책임 위험도 산정 방법을 수정·보완하였다. 14종의 화학물질의 Probit 값과 EURAM 배상책임 위험도의 상관계수는 .0.526로 나타났고, 수정된 화학물질 누출사고 배상책임 위험도와의 상관계수는 0.319로 상관성이 있는 것으로 분석되었다. 수정된 산정 방법론으로 97종에 대한 배상책임 위험도와 ERPG-2 값의 상관계수는 .0.494로 분석되었고, 이는 기존 배상책임 위험도와의 상관관계보다 약 19배 높은 상관관계를 보였고, 부식위험도 값과의 상관계수는 0.91로 분석되었다. 위험도의 증가와 감소에 영향을 미친 상관관계 인자의 표준화 회귀계수(β) 값은 Corrosion Index (0.713), ERPG-2 (0.400), NFPA_Health Index (0.068) 크기 순서로 도출되었다. 이러한 연구결과는 기존과 신규 화학물질의 합리적인 배상책임 위험도 산정이 가능하게 하고, 사업장에서 정량적인 배상책임 위험관리 지표로 활용하는데 도움이 되리라 판단된다.
This study is to improve the method of calculating the risk of liability that arise from release and dispersion of chemicals outside the plant in process industries such as chemical and petrochemical plants. To achieve this goal, the correlation factors with the risk of chemical release accident is derived by simulating release and dispersion of substances (14 types) designated by Ministry of Environment as preparation for accident, analyzing the cases of chemical release and effects of plant life damage. The method of calculating chemical liability risk was modified and supplemented based on the results obtained from the study. The correlation coefficient between the probit value of 14 chemical types and the liability risk by EURAM (European Union Risk Ranking Method) was .0.526, while the correlation coefficient with the modified chemical release accident risk was 0.319. Thus, the value from modified method shows that they appear to be correlated. According to modified calculating methodology, the correlation between ERPG-2 value and liability risk of 97 chemical types was .0.494 which is 19 times higher than existing liability risk correlation as absolute value. And the correlation coefficient of corrosion risk was 0.91. The standardized regression coefficients (β) value of correlation factors that affected the increase and decrease of risk were derived in order of Corrosion Index(0.713), ERPG-2 (0.400) and NFPA Health Index (0.0680) by values. It is expected that these findings this study result will also enable the calculation of reasonable chemical release liability risk for existing and new chemical, and will help use them as quantitative liability risk management indicators for chemical plant site.
Keywords:Chemical liability risk;EURAM (European Union Risk Ranking Method);Corrosion index;ERPG-2;NFPA health index
  1. Park E Park W, Ho J, Lee KS, Hong MK, Ahn BJ, J., of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 24(4), 425-435 (2014).
  2. Rim KT, Koo KH, Park JS, Safety and Health at Work, 4(1), 12-26(2013).
  3. Park K, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 54(6), 781 (2016)
  4. Nam YJ, Gumi City Hall Safety Disaster Department (2013).
  5. Kim SY, Cho CH, Lee EK, Korea Institute of Hazardous Materials, 5(1), 50-58(2017).
  6. National Institute of Chemical Safety, “Report of impact investigation of accident of Tetrachlorosilane chemical release at OCI plant in Gunsan City,” (2015).
  7. ChosunBiz, http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2019/05/20/2019052002697.html(Access date 2020, 02, 05).
  8. Kim JH, Jeong C, Kang SM, Yong JW, Yoo B, Seo JM, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 55(1), 48 (2017)
  9. Korea Insurance Development Institute, “A Study on the Establishment of Environmental Damage Assessment Criteria,” 26-94 (2014).
  10. Kim J, Jung S, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 54(4), 582 (2016)
  11. Kwon HM, Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency, 10-11(2016).
  12. Hansen BG, Van Haelst AG, Van Leeuwen K, Van Der Zandt P, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(4), 772-779(1999).
  13. Kim YS, Park HS, Lee DS, Shin DC, Environmental Health and Toxicology, 18(3), 183-191(2003).
  14. An YJ, Jeong SW, Kim TS, Lee WM, Nam SH, Baek YW, Soil & Groundwater Environment, 13(6), 62-71(2008).
  15. Environmental Media, https://www.ecomedia.co.kr/news/newsview.php?ncode=1065572168945843(Access date 2020, 02, 10).
  16. CCPS, “Guidelines for Consequene Analysis of Chemical Releases,”AIChE, John Wiley & Sons, 241-261(1999).
  17. Park MN, Kim CW, Shin DI, Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas, 22(5), 1-17(2018).
  18. Chah SW, Joo CK, Park HS, Park SJ, Kim PJ, Lee SM, Choi KH, Yi JH, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 41(3), 357 (2003)
  19. Yoon Y, Ph D. Dissertation, Inje University, Kimhae, 1-14(2018).
  20. National Institute of Chemical Safety, Daejeon, 4-128(2016).
  21. National Institute of Chemical Safety, Daejeon, 6-44(2017).
  22. National Institute of Chemical Safety, https://icis.me.go.kr/page-Link.do(Access date 2020, 02, 15).