Environmental Risk Assessment of a Hydrocracker Unit in Abadan Oil Refinery Using the EFMEA Analysis

Document Type : Original Article


Department of Environmental Management-HSE, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran



Background: The aim of risk assessment is to use a rational method to analyze risks and to identify the possible hazards and outcomes for people, equipment, materials, and the environment.
Methods: The criteria and indices for assessing the environmental, health, and safety risks of the hydrocracker unit were determined by a Delphi questionnaire in this study. Then, an Environmental Failure Mode and Effects Analysis was applied to evaluate, score, and rank the risks based on their probability of occurrence, severity, probability of detection, extent of pollution, and potential of recycling.
Results: According to the results of the Delphi process, 19 out of the 22 items were identified as the main criteria in the environmental, health, and safety risk evaluation of the hydrocracker unit at the Abadan Oil Refinery. However, the results indicated that 67% of the risks associated with the life cycle operation were low while 33% of them were high in terms of intensity. In contrast, 75% of the risks associated with control room operators were low and 25% were high in terms of intensity. On the other hand, 64, 7, and 29% of the risks associated with the activities of site employees were low, moderate, and high in terms of intensity, respectively, while the corresponding figures were 14, 29, and 57% in the case of risks associated with repairs.
Conclusion: Based on the results of techniques of environmental failure modes and effects analysis (EFMEA) and Delphi, appropriate methods can be used to identify and reduce risks in similar industries.


Main Subjects

  1. Dagar V, Khan MK, Alvarado R, Rehman A, Irfan M, Adekoya OB, et al. Impact of renewable energy consumption, financial development and natural resources on environmental degradation in OECD countries with dynamic panel data. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022;29(12):18202-12. doi: 1007/s11356-021-16861-4.
  2. Zhang Y, Khan I, Zafar MW. Assessing environmental quality through natural resources, energy resources, and tax revenues. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022;29(59):89029-44. doi: 1007/s11356-022-22005-z.
  3. Khajeh Hoseini L, Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R, Mohammadi Rouzbehani M, Sabzalipour S. Health risk assessment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in a refinery in the southwest of Iran using SQRA method. Front Public Health. 2022;10:978354. doi: 3389/fpubh.2022.978354.
  4. Sekhavati E, Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R. Optimizing the risk of building environments using multi-criteria decision making. Anthropogenic Pollut J. 2022;6(1):1-7. doi: 22034/ ap.2022.1942672.1121.
  5. Sekhavati E, Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R. Assessment optimization of safety and health risks using fuzzy TOPSIS technique (case study: construction sites in the South of Iran). J Environ Health Sustain Dev. 2021;6(4):1494-506. doi: 18502/jehsd. v6i4.8154.
  6. Raazi Tabari MR, Sabzalipour S, Peyghambarzadeh SM, Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R. Dispersion of volatile organic compounds in the vicinity of petroleum products storage tanks. Environ Eng Manag J. 2021;20(7):1119-36.
  7. Ebadzadeh F, Monavari SM, Jozi SA, Robati M, Rahimi R. Combining the bow-tie model and EFMEA method for environmental risk assessment in the petrochemical industry. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2023;20(2):1357-68. doi: 1007/ s13762-022-04690-y.
  8. Yang X, Haugen S. Classification of risk to support decision-making in hazardous processes. Saf Sci. 2015;80:115-26. doi: 1016/j.ssci.2015.07.011.
  9. Kosmowski KT, Gołębiewski D. Functional safety and cyber security analysis for life cycle management of industrial control systems in hazardous plants and oil port critical infrastructure including insurance. Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association. 2019;10(1):99-126.
  10. Naseri I, Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R, Verijkazemi K, Cheraghi M. Study of risks in rural water supply systems of Khorramshahr city, Iran, based on water safety plan. J Adv Environ Health 2022;10(1):47-58. doi: 10.32598/jaehr.10.1.1236.
  11. Sekhavati E, Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R. Investigation and optimization of air pollution risk by a multi-criteria decision making method using fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study of construction workers. J Adv Environ Health Res. 2021;9(4):265-76. doi: 32598/jaehr.9.4.1229.
  12. Brauer RL. Safety and Health for Engineers. John Wiley & Sons; 2022.
  13. Benn S, Edwards M, Williams T. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability. Routledge; 2014.
  14. Laal F, Pouyakian M, Fallah Madvari R, Khoshakhlagh AH, Halvani GH. Investigating the impact of establishing integrated management systems on accidents and safety performance indices: a case study. Saf Health Work. 2019;10(1):54-60. doi: 1016/j.shaw.2018.04.001.
  15. Khajeh Hoseini L, Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R, Mahmoudi A, Mohammadi Rouzbehani M, Sabz Alipour S. Prioritization of effective strategic parameters in the removal of VOCs from the ROP system by using AHP: a case study of Abadan Oil Refinery. J Health Sci Surveill Syst. 2021;9(3):199-205. doi: 30476/jhsss.2021.90008.1175.
  16. Reason J. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Routledge; 2016.
  17. Leveson NG. Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. The MIT Press; 2016.
  18. Hollnagel E. Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management. CRC Press; 2018.
  19. Abhijith VS, Sowmiya B, Sudersan S, Thangavel M, Varalakshmi P. A review on security issues in healthcare cyber-physical systems. In: Tavares JM, Dutta P, Dutta S, Samanta D, eds. Cyber Intelligence and Information Retrieval. Singapore: Springer; 2022. p. 37-48. doi: 1007/978-981-16-4284-5_4.
  20. Ahmad Z, Thaheem MJ, Maqsoom A. Building information modeling as a risk transformer: an evolutionary insight into the project uncertainty. Autom Constr. 2018;92:103-19. doi: 1016/j.autcon.2018.03.032.
  21. Smith PG, Merritt GM. Proactive Risk Management: Controlling Uncertainty in Product Development. CRC Press; 2020.
  22. Fraser JR, Quail R, Simkins BJ. Questions asked about enterprise risk management by risk practitioners. Bus Horiz. 2022;65(3):251-60. doi: 1016/j.bushor.2021.02.046.
  23. Chaal M, Bahootoroody A, Basnet S, Valdez Banda OA, Goerlandt F. Towards system-theoretic risk assessment for future ships: a framework for selecting Risk Control Options. Ocean Eng. 2022;259:111797. doi: 1016/j. oceaneng.2022.111797.
  24. Meyer T, Reniers G. Engineering Risk Management. De Gruyter; 2022.
  25. Zhang Z, Tang Q, Ruiz R, Zhang L. Ergonomic risk and cycle time minimization for the U-shaped worker assignment assembly line balancing problem: a multi-objective approach. Comput Oper Res. 2020;118:104905. doi: 1016/j. cor.2020.104905.
  26. Sarkheil H, Tahery B, Rayegani B, Ramezani J, Goshtasb H, Jahani A. Evaluating the current status of the national health, safety, and environment management system for integration, harmonization, and standardization of environmental protection. Health Risk Analysis. 2020(1):18-24. doi: 21668/health.risk/2020.1.02.eng.
  27. de Souza Porto MF, de Freitas CM. Major chemical accidents in industrializing countries: the socio-political amplification of risk. Risk Anal. 1996;16(1):19-29. doi: 1111/j.1539- 6924.1996.tb01433.x.
  28. Lu H, Guo L, Azimi M, Huang K. Oil and gas 4.0 era: a systematic review and outlook. Comput Ind. 2019;111:68-90. doi: 1016/j.compind.2019.06.007.
  29. Shekarchi E. Mineral Industries of the Middle East. United States Bureau of Mines, United States Department of the Interior; 1979.
  30. Rahnamay Bonab S, Osgooei E. Environment risk assessment of wastewater treatment using FMEA method based on Pythagorean fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022. doi: 1007/s10668-022-02555-5.
  31. Sulaman SM, Beer A, Felderer M, Höst M. Comparison of the FMEA and STPA safety analysis methods–a case study. Softw Qual J. 2019;27(1):349-87. doi: 1007/s11219-017-9396-0.
  32. Darvishi S, Jozi SA, Malmasi S, Rezaian S. Environmental risk assessment of dams at constructional phase using VIKOR and EFMEA methods (case study: Balarood Dam, Iran). Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2020;26(4):1087-107. doi: 1080/10807039.2018.1558396.
  33. Darvishi S, Jozi SA, Malmasi S, Rezaian S. Environmental risk assessment of dams at constructional phase using VIKOR and EFMEA methods (Case study: Balarood Dam, Iran), Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 2020; 26(4):1087-1107. doi: 1080/10807039.2018.1558396.
  34. Rahman A, Djafri D, Triana V. The risk assessment of occupational safety using job safety analysis (JSA) at PT. P&P Lembah Karet Padang. KnE Life Sci. 2018;4(10):365-76. doi: 18502/kls.v4i10.3741.
  35. Li W, Cao Q, He M, Sun Y. Industrial non-routine operation process risk assessment using job safety analysis (JSA) and a revised Petri net. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2018;117:533-8. doi: 1016/j.psep.2018.05.029.