Quantitative Evaluation by Protection Layer Analysis (LOPA) for Equipment in Imam Khomeini Petrochemical Aromatic Unit

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Environmental Sciences, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Environmental Technologies Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

3 Department of Electrical Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.



Background: In the petrochemical industries, accidents are generally catastrophic which endanger human, environment and economic. In the industries, there is a wide range of flammable and toxic substances that affect health and safety of workers. They have also adverse effects on society. Numerical risk and impact assessment as well as design for protective layers against catastrophic events are necessary for designing process units.
Methods: First, the occupational-process and environmental safety hazards were measured by hazard and operability (HAZOP) and environmental failure mode and effects analysis (EFMEA) techniques. Then, the risk was assessed using the layer and operability analysis (LOPA) method.
Results: The results showed that a total of 50 safe and health items and 37 environmental risks were identified by HAZOP and EFMEA methods in Imam Khomeini Petrochemical Aromatic Unit. There were 17, 19 and 14 items with low, medium and high level risk, respectively.
Conclusion: This study showed that the LOPA method is more comprehensive than hazard identification methods for the analysis of protective layers. The important actions were blockage of the excess gas to the flare and release the H2S gas. Also, evaluation of the environmental aspects of aromatic unit activities showed that air pollutant production in the power supply unit, waste disposal of reactor tank, waste disposal of condensate tank and reactor fire and explosion were at a high level risk.


Main Subjects

  1. Mousavi M, Asare M. Industrial Risk Management Using Different Risk Assessment Methods. Tehran, Iran: The Second Scientific Conference Process Engineering; 2014. [Persian].
  2. Zarei E, Dormohammadi A. The Semi-Quantitative and Quantitative Risk Assessment in the Process Industries. Fanavaran; 2014. p. 256. [Persian].
  3. Ouazraoui N, Nait-Said R, Bourareche M, Sellami I. Layers of protection analysis in the framework of possibility theory. J Hazard Mater. 2013;262:168-78. doi: 1016/j.jhazmat.2013.08.042.
  4. Arendt JS, Lorenzo DK. Evaluating Process Safety in the Chemical Industry: A User’s Guide to Quantitative Risk Analysis. 1st ed. New York, US: American Institute of Chemical Engineers; 2009.
  5. Moloudpourfard B, Rasoulzadeh Y, Alizadeh SS. Risk assessment of cephalexin crystals production unit in one of the pharmaceutical companies using LOPA technique. Iran Occupational Health. 2017;13(6):87-97. [Persian].
  6. Heidarian M. Analysis of New Methods in Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification. Tehran, Iran: The Fifth Annual Conference and Exhibition of HSE and Security Systems; 2015. Available from: https://civilica.com/doc/568925. [Persian].
  7. Taghani O, Hoseini SM. Risk Assessment of the Construction of a Refinery in South Pars Region. Tehran, Iran: The Seventh International Conference on Comprehensive Crisis Managemen; 2015. Available from: https://civilica.com/doc/427765. [Persian].
  8. Baharlouei M, Gholamniya R, Aghababae A. Analysis of Protective Layers Using the LOPA Method and Determination of the Safety Integrity Level of the SIL Process in the Octanizer Part of the Gasoline Unit in Isfahan Oil Refining Company. Hamadan, Iran: The Second International Oil, Gas, Petrochemical and HSE Conference; 2017. Available from: https://civilica.com/doc/771578. [Persian].
  9. Cialkowski E. Layer of protection analysis as a multifunctional team problem solving tool. Process Saf Prog. 2017;36(3):257-63. doi: 1002/prs.11870.
  10. Renjith V, George S. Risk assessment of LNG regasification terminal using cascaded fuzzy-LOPA. Int J Adv Sci Res Manag. 2017;2(10):59-66.
  11. Mohammadfam E, Kianfar A. Application of hazard and operability analysis technique in health, environmental and safety risk assessment A case study of the oil warehouse of the National Petroleum Products Division. Environmental science and technology. 2018;12(1):39-49.
  12. Hematinia S, Rezaeyan S, Jozi SA. Environmental risk assessment of urban development projects Tehran 19th district using spatial EFMEA (case study: the operation of provincial parks). Sustain Dev Environ. 2020;1(2):69-86. [Persian].
  13. Hyatt N. Guidelines for Process Hazards Analysis (PHA, HAZOP), Hazards Identification & Risk Analysis. Dyadem Press; 2003. p. 21.
  14. Jahangiri M. Introducing the Layered Protection Analysis (LOPA) Method in Process Hazard Analysis. Tehran, Iran: The Second National Conference on Safety Engineering and HSE Management; 2007. Available from: https://civilica.com/doc/89999/. [Persian].
  15. Bahr NJ. System Safety Engineering and Risk Assessment: A Practical Approach. CRC Press; 2014. https://www.routledge.com/System-Safety-Engineering-and-Risk-Assessment-A-Practical-Approachsecond/Bahr/p/book/9781138893368.
  16. Boyle T. Health and Safety: Risk Management. Routledge; 2019. https://www.routledge.com/Health-and-Safety-Risk-Management/Boyle/p/book/9781138349216.
  17. Fleury D, Brenac T. Accident prototypical scenarios, a tool for road safety research and diagnostic studies. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33(2):267-76. doi: 1016/s0001-4575(00)00041-5.