Land use planning

1
Land use planning Seveso plants Communicating
risk

• Ylva Gilbert, Tuomas Raivio and Harriet Lonka
• Gaia Consulting Oy

2
Outline

• LUP and risk management in Finland
• Case study Project Kilpilahti
• A tool under testing Gaia Zoner
• Tentative conclusions

3
A few words about Gaia

• Private Finnish Consultancy with strong roots in
  rigorous research projects for practical
  applications
• Our Safety Team is specialising in complex risk
  and safety management spanning both the strategic
  and operative level
• Recent and ongoing related projects include
• Finding common criteria for risk assessment for
  Safety Reports
• The Finnish Strategy for Transport of Dangerous
  Goods
• Safety management and risk evaluation projects
  for the private sector / forestry, chemical and
  energy sector
• Seveso II Directive and land use planning issues
• Management of complex, long term multi
  stakeholder emergency response situations case
  flood rain
• Evaluations of major emergency exercises
• Development of municipal emergency response plans
  for several municipalities

4
Risk management, LUP and best practice

• A robust LUP in the context of risk management
  exists if it follows these elements
• 1) Consistency Outcomes from broadly similar
  situations are broadly the same under similar
  conditions
• 2) Proportionality The constraint should be
  proportional to level of risk
• 3) Transparency Clear understanding of the
  decision-making process

• The situation in Finland today
• Different municipalities take the risk into
  account in different ways
• The planning constraint arising from societal
  risk is not clearly defined
• The concept of major incident risk is not clearly
  understood by planners, residents, politicians

5
Major incident risk management through LUP in
Finland The problem of the consultation zone

• The legal framework defines a consultation zone,
  within which LU planners have to consult TUKES
  and the Rescue services prior to planning
  decisions
• The information thereof is circulated via a
  letter from the Ministry of Environment and TUKES
• The consultation zone is a 0.5 -2km wide ring
  around the plant
• The zone is defined by TUKES based on generic
  potential risks associated with similar plants
• The legal system does NOT define how to read or
  treat the consultation zone as a risk map
• Confusion arises when the consultation zone is
  taken as being equal to a safety distance, within
  which the risk is high

6
Project Major accident risk in Kilpilahti
industrial area

• Driven by ongoing regional land use planning
  project
• a) Implementation of the requirement to consult
  within the consultation zone
• b) Developing potential national guidelines on
  how to effectively and uniformly communicate risk
  from industry
• Clarification of what major incident risk means
  to LUP through a case study approach
• Combining quantitative and qualitative risk
  assessment to provide a solid overview
• Recognised reoccurring issues with risk
  assessment
• Developing a common language and visualising risk
  
• Clarification of risk acceptance and various
  types of spatial use

7
Background, goals and implementation

• Background A follow-up after the project Seveso
  plants and land-use planning, where the specific
  land-use requirements and restrictions around
  major hazard plants was scrutinized from a
  planning point of view (2004)
• Goals
• To clarify the major incident hazard associated
  with the industrial area
• Pinpoint the geographical extent of the safety
  distance from the plants in Kilpilahti industrial
  area
• This was during the project turned into three
  zones of decreasing risk level
• To develop criteria for relating industrial major
  incident hazard to type of land use
• Implementation A multi stakeholder project using
  interactive working methods combined with
  qualitative and quantitative risk assessment.

8
Kilpilahti industrial area
9
Current consultation zones of individual
facilities largest possible consultation zone
10
Area description

• Kilpilahti industrial area is the largest
  refinery petrochemical complex in the Nordic
  countries
• Established in the 60s, the complex is situated
  in an area of cultural and historical interest,
  some 35 km from Helsinki on the coast
• A unique concentration of companies
• 6 upper tier companies / safety report plants
• Several smaller industrial plants with lower
  requirements
• Currently second round of safety reports being
  approved
• An interesting set up .

11
Project participants

• Private sector
• Air gas factory (Oy Aga Ab)
• Refinery (Neste Oil Oyj)
• Petrochemical industry (Borealis Oy)
• Chemical industry (Borealis Oy, Finnplast Oy,
  Styrochem Oy)
• Gas bottling facility (Innogas Oy)
• TDG rail transport (VR Cargo Oy)
• Authorities
• Land use planners 2 municipalities and regional
  council
• Process Industry Safety / CCA competent
  authority TUKES (Safety Technology Authority)
• Environmental authorities
• Rescue Services

12
Specific Aims and Objectives

• A well founded but simple view on safety
  distances based on actual major incident risks
• Risk recognition by industry itself and approved
  by safety authority
• Consequences and scenarios from safety reports
• A common view of what the established risk means
  in terms of land use planning
• Requires the consideration of potential immediate
  consequences to the surrounding area
• What is the risk acceptance and how does it
  relate to the established risk
• How can the established risk level be used to
  minimise the actual risk for future developments
  through land use planning tools
• Routings
• Services
• Housing

13
The starting point

• Land use planners need to understand what major
  incident risk means in their particular patch and
  relate it to both the current situation and the
  long term pressures for change
• Safety reports contain a large amount of details
  relating to the process, the chemicals, the
  operations, the technical safe guards
• Industry wants to project a safe image but at the
  same time keep people at distance and reserve the
  right to increase and /or change their processes
• Issues arise particularly where the industry is
  historically established near existing housing or
  other development, where additional development
  needs arise frequently

14
Land use planning aspects
Leisure and recreation Footpaths, outdoor
leisure areas
Population centres high rise building
areas, detached housing, rural housing areas
Public services infrastructure Schools, day-care
centres, hospitals, care homes, health centres
Concentrations of people shopping centres,
traffic terminals, sport venues
Other production units, electricity, heat, water
Environment groundwater formations, rivers,
lakes, biospheres, nature reserves, historical
monuments
Traffic routes roads, railroads, water ways,
street network, light traffic routes
15
Safety management at the regional level
Risk evaluation
Risk analysis
Hazard recognition
Data collection
Event trees
Scenarios
Risk assessment
Probability
Consequence
Risk
Internal risk management measures
Safety Distances
Residual Risk reporting
External risk management measures
16
The methdology

• I) Designing the framework
• Definition of terminology, the system and its
  aims and objectives
• Description of status quo and foreseen
  development pressures in the surrounding areas
• based on suitable sectorization
• Identification and pinpointing of the current
  problems through extended interviews
• Preliminary development of tools

• II) Testing and feedback
• Participatory sessions companies and TUKES and
  individual meetings with each company
• Refinement of tool from users point of view
  through
• Joint company workshops and individual sparring
  of risk assessment results
• Land use planner feedback
• Agreeing the consequence classification

• III) Utilising the tool
• Translating visualised risk into risk acceptance
  criteria and land use planning language

17
Gaia Zoner

• The tool is meant to SIMPLIFY risk to the NEED TO
  KNOW LEVEL of land use planners
• What type of major incident hazards are
  associated with the plant?
• What consequences could a major incident have in
  the area
• A successful outcome of the project would be a
  method that is simple for the companies to use
  and for the planners to understand and
  sufficiently low in detail that it can be public
  information
• The aim is NOT to achieve an absolute or perfect
  description of the risk, but to communicate the
  risk at the required level for initial planning
  decisions

18
Many risks, one tool

• A simplified picture of the areal extent of major
  incident consequences
• Combining different types of accidents to assess
  for worst case consequences to humans,
  infrastructure and environment
• The level of detail and resolution kept low,
  reflecting the high insecurity of low probability
  incident assessments

19
The four parts
A- Chemical incident matrix
B- Consequence matrix
C- Sectored area map
D- Sector model
8. Kulloo
9. Kulloviken
7. Kullobäcken
1. Tolkkinen
6. Hästbackantie
B
2. Emäsalon ranta
5. Suoalueet
3. Svartbäck
4. Kringelmalm ja Spjutsund
20
EXAMPLE Number of permanent residents in the
consultation zone sectors, 2003
21
EXAMPLE Central natural and cultural values
22
Zones filled out by companies
23
Aggregated initial (unofficial) results
High risk area
Medium risk area
Increased risk area
24
Current status and special challenges

• Currently, the Zoner is accepted as a good way
  forward and the initial testing is under way
• Biggest issues arise through the differences in
  how the various companies recognise their own
  major hazard incidences
• Systematic approach not clear
• Probabilities not mentioned
• Consequence scenarios not comparable
• Worst case versus typical
• Safety measures working or not
• Terms in which consequences are described
• The last step will be drafting a LUP guideline
  for translating process risk to LUP language

25
Land use planning aspects and risk areas.
Leisure Building?
Single dwellings
Leisure and recreation Footpaths, outdoor
leisure areas
Population centres high rise building
areas, detached housing, rural housing areas
Public services infrastructure Schools, day-care
centres, hospitals, care homes, health centres
Concentrations of people shopping centres,
traffic terminals, sport venues
Other production units, electricity, heat, water
Environment groundwater formations, rivers,
lakes, biospheres, nature reserves, historical
monuments
Traffic routes roads, railroads, water ways,
street network, light traffic routes
26
Translating risk - a question of language or
level?
EXPERT ASSESSMENT TOOL?
PROCESS RISK FOR DUMMIES?