Using Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) to Assess and Manage Environmental Risks of Pipelines in GIS Environment: A Case Study ofa Near Coastline and Fragile Ecosystem Located Pipeline

Authors: Jahangir Jafari, Nematollah Khorasani, Afshin Danehkar

Abstract:

Having a very many number of pipelines all over the country, Iran is one of the countries consists of various ecosystems with variable degrees of fragility and robusticity as well as geographical conditions. This study presents a state-of-the-art method to estimate environmental risks of pipelines by recommending rational equations including FES, URAS, SRS, RRS, DRS, LURS and IRS as well as FRS to calculate the risks. This study was carried out by a relative semi-quantitative approach based on land uses and HVAs (High-Value Areas). GIS as a tool was used to create proper maps regarding the environmental risks, land uses and distances. The main logic for using the formulas was the distance-based approaches and ESI as well as intersections. Summarizing the results of the study, a risk geographical map based on the ESIs and final risk score (FRS) was created. The study results showed that the most sensitive and so of high risk area would be an area comprising of mangrove forests located in the pipeline neighborhood. Also, salty lands were the most robust land use units in the case of pipeline failure circumstances. Besides, using a state-of-the-art method, it showed that mapping the risks of pipelines out with the applied method is of more reliability and convenience as well as relative comprehensiveness in comparison to present non-holistic methods for assessing the environmental risks of pipelines. The focus of the present study is “assessment" than that of “management". It is suggested that new policies are to be implemented to reduce the negative effects of the pipeline that has not yet been constructed completely

Keywords: ERM, ESI, ERA, Pipeline, Assalouyeh

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1056619

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents.
[2] 1. Anonymous. Pollution Probe, Clean Air, Clean Water, Environmental Risk Assessment, Environmental Concepts and Tools. Five Winds International. 2004. Page 1. Available online at: http://www.fivewinds.com/uploadedfiles_shared/EnvironmentalRiskAss essment040127.pdf. (Last accessed Jan. 2010).
[3] Schiller Helmut, Carlo Van Bernem, Hansjörg L. Krasemann. Automated Classification Of An Environmental Sensitivity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 110: 291-299. 2005. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-8041-8
[4] Mok Kang Sang. A sensitivity analysis of the Korean composite environmental index. Ecological Economics 43: 159-174. 2002.
[5] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response and Restoration. Anonymous Report on Environmental Sensitivity Index. 2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
[6] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response and Restoration. Environmental Sensitivity Index Mapping. October 2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
[7] Muhlbauer, W. Kent. Pipeline Risk Management Manual: Ideas, Techniques, and Resources. 422pp. Burlington: Elsevier Inc. 2004.
[8] Stansbeny, R. R. Usually Sensitive Areas: A Definition for Pipeline Operators. Presented at API Pipeline Conference, Environmental Session, Dallas, TX, 1995.
[9] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments. 59(60). March 29, 1994.
[10] Morgan, B. The Importance of Realistic Representation of Design Features in the Risk Assessment of High- Pressure Gas Pipelines. Presented at Pipeline Reliability Conference, Houston, TX, September, 1995.
[11] Hadid M., H. Afra. Sensitivity analysis of site effects on response spectra of Pipelines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 20: 249-260. 2000.
[12] Brazier, A.M. & R.L. Greenwood. Geographic information systems: a consistent approach to land use planning decisions around hazardous installations. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 61: 355-361. 1998.
[13] A. Belluck David and L. Benjamin Sally (Eds.). A Practical Guide to Understanding, Managing, and Reviewing Environmental Risk Assessment Reports. Florida: Lewis Publishers. 2001.
[14] Ramesh Babu J., Subramanian R. Chetan Birajdar. Risk associated with cross country Natural Gas pipeline- IORS. 2009. http://www.cholarisk.com/
[15] Huges, D., Assessing the Future: Water Utility Infrastructure Management, American Water Works Association, Chap. 13. 2002.
[16] King, K.F.S. Agroforestry And The Utilisation Of Fragile Ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 2: 161-168. 1979.
[17] Francis, Andrew, Alan Edwards, Richard Espinera, Jane Haswell, Mike Bilo, David Carter. Weighted expectation: a new risk-based method for assessing land use development proposals in the vicinity of major hazards. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 12: 379- 390. 1999.
[18] Nansingh Permanand & Shari Jurawan. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, Environmental Sensitivity of a Tropical Coastline (Trinidad, West Indies) to Oil Spills. 5(2): 161-172.1999.
[19] Wieczorek Arthur, Dimas Dias-Brito, Joao CarlosMapping oil spill environmental sensitivity in Cardoso Island State Park and surroundings areas, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 872-886. 2007.
[20] M. Rey Benayas Jose, Enrique de la Monta├▒a. Identifying areas of highvalue vertebrate diversity for strengthening conservation. Biological Conservation 114: 357-370. 2003.
[21] Datta. T.K. Seismic response of buried pipelines: a state-of-the-art review. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 192: 271-284. 1999.
[22] Svoray Tal, Pua Bar (Kutiel), Tsafra Bannet .Urban land-use allocation in a Mediterranean ecotone: Habitat Heterogeneity Model incorporated in a GIS using a multi-criteria mechanism. Landscape and Urban Planning 72: 337-351. 2005.
[23] Fontaine F., B. Debray, O. Salvi.; I. Linkov Et Al. (Eds.). Managing Critical Infrastructure Risks. Chapter 4: Protection Of Hazardous Installations And Critical Infrastructures - Complementarity Of Safety And Security Approaches, Application Of The Aramis Methodology. 65-78. Springer. 2007.