DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

수소-LPG 복합충전소 정량적 위험성평가에 관한 연구

A Study on the Quantitative Risk Assessment of Hydrogen-LPG Combined Refueling Station

  • 강승규 (한국가스안전공사 수소연구실)
  • 투고 : 2019.11.02
  • 심사 : 2019.12.13
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31

초록

본 연구에서는 수소 복합충전소에 대하여 정량적 위험성 평가를 실시하였다. 평가대상의 복합충전소는 수소-LPG이며 각 충전소의 설비 구성을 분석하고 위험도를 평가하였다. 최종 위험도는 피해영향과 사고빈도를 고려한 개인적 위험성과 사회적 위험성으로 평가한다. 본 연구의 대상이 된 수소-LPG 충전소에 대한 개인적 위험도 산출 결과, 수소-LPG 형태의 복합충전소는 HSE에서 제안하고 있는 허용 불가수준의 위험지역(> 1×10E-3)은 나타나고 있지 않으며, 작업자와 일반인에 대한 개인적 위험수준이 모두 허용범위 내에 분포하고 있다. 그리고 사회적 위험도 평가에서는 해석대상 모델이 허용 가능한 범위(ALARP, As Low As Reasonably Practicable)의 위험도 분포를 보이고 있다. 보다 향상된 안전성 확보를 위해 위험도 순위화 결과에서 높은 위험도를 보이고 있는 수소 저장용기, 디스펜서, 튜브트레일러 누출 및 LPG의 Vapour 회수 라인 등에 대한 정기적인 점검 및 확인을 권장한다.

In this study, a quantitative risk assessment was carried out for a hydrogen complex station. The complex fueling station to be evaluated was hydrogen-LPG, and the components of each station were analyzed and the risk was evaluated. The final risk is assessed by individual and societal risks, taking into account the impact of damage and the frequency of accidents. As a result of individual risk calculation for the hydrogen-LPG fueling station that is the subject of this study, the hydrogen-LPG type fueling station does not show the unacceptable hazardous area (> 1 × 10E-3) proposed by HSE. The level of individual risk for both the public and the worker is within acceptable limits. In societal risk assessment, the model to be interpreted shows the distribution of risks in an acceptable range(ALARP, As Low As Reasonably Practicable). To ensure improved safety, we recommend regular inspections and checks for high-risk hydrogen reservoirs, dispensers, tube trailer leaks, and LPG vapor recovery lines.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Korea Hydrogen Economy Roadmap, 2019, MOTIE
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Notice No. 2016-130, 2016, Notice of Establishing Special Criteria for Complex and Packaged Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Refueling Station Facility Standards, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
  3. SAND2009-0874, 2009, Analyses to support development of risk-informed separation distances for hydrogen codes and standards
  4. Clive Nussey, 2006, Failure frequencies for major failures of high pressure storage vessels at COMAH sites: A comparison of data used by HSE and the Netherlands, HSE, pp.28
  5. Robert E. Melchers, William R. Feutrill, 2001, Risk assessment of LPG automotive refueling facilities, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol.74, Issue 3, pp.283-290 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00080-1