This study presents a risk assessment study on an amine-based CO2 capture process. Based on the critical risks identified by a hazard and operability study (HAZOP) conducted in our previous work, we performed detailed quantitative risk assessment, including frequency estimation using fault tree analysis (FTA) and consequence estimation using the process hazard analysis software tool (PHAST). As a result of our FTA study on explosion accidents in the absorber column as a top event, we identified 25 basic events and eight intermediate events that lead to the top event. The probability of a T-102 explosion was estimated to approximately 3.55E-03 per year, which satisfies international safety regulations. Additionally, we performed consequence estimation for three types of accidents in an absorber, namely toxic substance leakage, explosions, and fireballs, under two different weather conditions, namely modest and worst conditions. It was determined that in the event of a toxic substance leakage accident, the effect zone of acid gas with high toxic substance content is approximately four-times larger than that of raw gas.

Quantitative Risk Assessment Safety Fault Tree Analysis Consequence Assessment CO2 Separation

Olivier JG, Schure K, Peters J, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 5 (2017).
Abas N, Khan N, Journal of CO2 Utilization, 8, 39 (2014).
Energy G, IEA (International Energy Agency), Paris, France (2019).
Marjanovic V, Milovancevic M, Mladenovic I, Journal of CO2 Utilization, 16, 212 (2016).
Kim SH, Ko DH, Mun JY, Kim TH, Kim JY, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 35(4), 941 (2018)
Schakel W, Oreggioni G, Singh B, Stromman A, Ramirez A, Journal of CO2 Utilization, 16, 138 (2016).
Kim M, Kim J, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 132, 853 (2018)
Spigarelli BP, Kawatra SK, Journal of CO2 Utilization, 1, 69 (2013).
Global C, Institute (2013): The Global Status of CCS: 2013 Melbourne (2013).
Zhang Z, Pan S, Li H, Cai J, Olabi AG, Anthony EJ, Manovic V, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 125, 109799 (2020)
Vega F, Baena-Moreno F, Fernandez LMG, Portillo E, Navarrete B, Zhang Z, Appl. Energy, 260, 114313 (2020)
Krzemien A, Wieckol-Ryk A, Duda A, Koteras A, Journal of Sustainable Mining, 12(4), 18 (2013).
Krzemien A, Wieckol-Ryk A, Smolinski A, Koteras A, Wieclaw-Solny L, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 43, 189 (2016)
ten Veldhuis JA, Clemens FH, van Gelder PH, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7(11), 809 (2011).
Christou M, Porter S, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, EUR, 18695 (1999).
You CH, Kim JY, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 56(3), 335 (2018)
Kim J, Kim J, Lee Y, Moon I, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 26(6), 1429 (2009)
CCPS, “Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedure with worked examples”, CCPS of the AIChE (1992).
CCPS, “Guidelines on technical planning for on-site emergencies”, CCPS of the AIChE (1995).
Lee S, Kim K, Kim T, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind., 25(6), 1085 (2012)
Hyun K, Min S, Choi H, Park J, Lee I, Tunnel. Underground Space Technol., 49, 121 (2015)
Han ZY, Weng WG, J. Hazard. Mater., 189(1-2), 509 (2011)
DNV software, PHAST version 6.7 software (2012).
CCPS, Layer of protection analysis: Simplified process risk assessment, New York (2001).
Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96(8), 925 (2011)
Lees F, Loss prevention in the process industries, Butterworths, USA (2001).
Sam M, Lees’ loss prevention in the process industries (third edition), Butterworths, USA (2005).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory, Fault Tree Handbook, USA (1981).
Rosyid OA, Jablonski D, Hauptmanns U, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 32(15), 3194 (2007)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory, Reactor safety study: An assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants (1975).
KOSHA GUIDE P-102-2012 (2012).
KOSHA GUIDE P-107-2016 (2016).
Korean Statistical Information Service, Statics Korea (2013).
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), AIHA Guideline Foundation, ERPG/WEEL Handbook (2015).
Kayes PJ, World Bank Manual of Industrial Hazard Assessment Techniques, Technica Ltd., London (1985).
KOSHA CODE P-73-2001 (2001).