See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228521317

Analysis of Fuel Stations Hazards by Using Risk Assessment Criteria

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS
0 5,897

7 authors, including:

Dr. Mohd Faris Khamidi S.R.M. Kutty

University of Reading Malaysia Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
116 PUBLICATIONS   486 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   318 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dr Azmi Mohd Shariff

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Malaysia
221 PUBLICATIONS   1,369 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Inherently Safer Process Plant Design Assessment View project

Building Information Modelling (BIM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Mohd Faris Khamidi on 15 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

ANALYSIS OF FUEL STATIONS HAZARDS BY USING RISK

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
MIRZA MUNIR AHMED1,*, MOHD FARIS KHAMIDI1, S.R.M. KUTTY1
AZMI MOHD SHARIFF2
1
Civil Engineering Department-Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar,
31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
2
Chemical Engineering Department-Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar,
31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
E-mail: drmirzamunirahmed@gmail.com*

ABSTRACT

Injury free work environment is an essential element for any successful project. Better safety
performances can be achieved only if safety matters priority at all stages of project addressed
adequately. Concrete efforts of owners, contractors, sub contractors and designers are equally
important at different levels of project. It is necessary to develop such strategies that can help to
reduce injury cases. Past safety studies investigated various methods to improve injury statistics
but it still contains more room for improvement. This paper will present the application of risk
assessment criteria (RAC) to identify critical, major, moderate and minor activities during fuel
station operation. Health safety & environmental hazards related to fuel stations activities will
be identified, estimate the associated risks and necessary control measures for mitigation of
identified risks will be highlighted in this study. The RAC used in this study is widely applying
in upstream oil and gas sector in Pakistan. Poor maintenance, carelessness, house keeping,
mechanical fault and robbery found to be the major causes of occurrences of unsafe acts and
unsafe conditions at fuel stations. RAC are methods of work system design and helpful to
address associated risks in a project. During study it was felt that many resources are available
within an organization to minimize accidents/injuries but due to not fully utilization of these
resources accidents/incidents happen. After calculating risks, application of available resources
can be done more appropriately. In case of unavailability, requirements can be highlighted and
applied strategically to get better results.

Keywords: Accidents； Assessment； Incidents； Mitigation； Risk

INTRODUCTION
Study conducted to determine mitigation measures to improve safety records during fuel
station operation. Occurrences of unsafe acts and unsafe condition (UAUC) at fuel stations are
quite common. The major trades for occurrences UAUC are related to poor maintenance,
carelessness, house keeping, mechanical fault and robbery. Fuel pumps are available all around
the world to fulfill the fuel demands of people. There are three modes of transportation to supply
fuel to these stations. These are railways, roads and pipe lines. Hazards associated with every
mode are unique and requires different measures to eliminate risk. Furthermore extra vigilance
and care is requires during fuelling of vehicles and refueling of underground fuel storage tank.
Variety of vehicles comes at fuel stations for fuelling. The safety standards implementation not
only pertained to at site but also viable during transportation. Most of the standards pertaining to
this industry are extremely outdated and hardly enforced and implemented (standards are simply
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

non-exist). Research conducted in X company (not a true name as the permission to use their
real name was not given). Company X is one of the oil marketing companies in Pakistan. The
company has retail network comprising more than 2500 retail outlets across the country. It has
an extensive storage capacity. Apart from the retail outlets, it also playing very important role to
cater the fuel demands of power generation, railways, sugar and textile industry. It also serving
its part to fulfill oil requirement demands of forces as well.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The objectives of study are;
1- Risk evaluation by using risk assessment criteria (RAC).
2- Highlight potential accidents, incidents, near miss and miscellaneous cases during
fuel station operations.
3- Helps to improve HSE system, programs and performances

LITERATURE REVIEW
Risk assessment criterions are widely used to calculate the risks associated with various
hazardous activities. Many risks assessment criterions are available and using by various
organizations. Use of appropriate risk assessment criteria at appropriate place is very important.
Risk assessment criterions developed to calculate risks for construction activities cannot be
applicable to determine risks for petroleum sector. One reason behind is the development of
base data use for development of risk assessment criteria varies from one sector to another.
Therefore it is very essential to choose relevant criteria. Research and development to give value
to health and safety conditions are ongoing by last many years in industries. The preference to
hazardous aspects in scientific areas is equally important [1], [2], [3]. 15 studies related to safety
measurement were conducted in last 20 years [4]. To improve safety measure at sites by using
risk assessment tool was highlighted in most of studies. Risk evaluation helps to generate safety
climate. Safety climate helps to reduce accidents and injuries [5], [6]. The development of
safety climate followed by some rules. Safety climate development is difficult initially but once
it established it gives long lasting incentives [7], [8], [9]. HSE statistics improvement measures
in an organization give positive reinforcement to employees and helps in reduction of incidents
and accidents [10]. HSE improvement measures indicate positive perception of management
committee [11], [12]. Concentrations on safety measures in different countries are different.
Some countries pay more attention to develop safety culture but some gives little. Overall safety
conditions in developing countries are not even up to acceptable level [13].

DEFINITIONS

Hazard. Hazard can be a situation, condition or environment which has a potential to cause
harm, damage, human injury or ill health or combination of these.

Accident. Unexpected happenings that may cause loss or injuries to people who are not at fault
for causing the injuries.

Incident. An undesired event which under slightly different circumstances, could have resulted
in harm to people or loss of process.
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

Risk. Risk is the product of occurrences of a hazardous event or exposure and the severity of
injury or ill health that can be caused by event or exposure.

Risk Assessment. Process of evaluating the risk arising from a hazard taking into account the
adequacy of any existing controls, and deciding whether the risk is acceptable or not.

Risk Control. Process of deciding how and to what extent, reduce or eliminate risk factors by
considering the risk assessment, engineering factors, and social, economic and political concerns
[14].

Severity. Severity is defined as the degree of injury or illness which is reasonably predictable.

Likelihood. Likelihood is defined as the chance that a given event will occur.

RISK EVALUATING CRITERIA

Risk evaluation criteria used in this study is widely applying in upstream sector of
Pakistan to determine risks. Risk associated with any activity depends upon two parameters. i-e
severity and likelihood. Risk is the multiplicative product of severity times likelihood.

Risk Score = L _______ x S _______ = ________

TABLE: 1 Risk evaluation criteria used to calculate risks associated with hazardous
activities.

LIKELIHOOD
Extremely
Often likely Unlikely Very unlikely
likely
Could happen at Could happen but Could happen but
SEVERITY Could happen at
sometime very rarely probably never will
any time
(F) 08 (G) 06 (H) 04
(E) 10
Death or permanent
disability or extreme
100 80 60 40
damage to equipment or
property (A) 10
Long term illness or
serious injury or major
80 64 48 32
damage to property or
equipment (B) 08
Medical treatment several
days off work or minor
60 48 36 24
damage to equipment or
property (C) 06
First Aid needed or
negligible property 40 32 24 16
damaged (D) 04

Some literature reads likelihood as a frequency or probability. Likelihood is divided

into four categories, i-e extremely likely (E), often likely (F), unlikely (G) and very unlikely (H).
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

Number value i-e (10), (08), (06) and (04) assigned to each category respectively. Severity is
also divided into four main categories i-e Death or permanent disability or extreme damage to
equipment or property, long term illness or serious injury or major damage to property or
equipment, medical treatment several days off work or minor damage to equipment or property
and first aid needed or negligible property damaged. Number assigned to measure the impact as
(A) 10, (B) 08, (C) 06 and (D) 04. There are 5 rows and 5 columns in a risk evaluation matrix.
Table-1 shows the risk evaluation criteria. Risk calculated by multiplying likelihood number
with severity and put up respectively in table form.
Table 2 shows evaluation scale. Evaluation scale consists of four main groups. After
calculating risk associated with respective activities. Every activity assigned likelihood and
severity number. Risk calculated by multiplying likelihood and severity. Based upon this risk
number/factor, risk again categorized into four main groups. Those activities contains risk score
(80-100) are termed as critical, (50-79) are considered as major, (30- 49) are moderate and less
than 29 are considered as minor. Action required depends upon category of hazard. For further
enhancing the risk evaluation criteria different colors used to indicate potential of risk.
All hazardous activities recorded in risk identification and assessment sheet (Appendix-
A). On the basis of these findings, hazards and risk summary report (Appendix-B) was prepared
in consultation with HSE Representative.

TABLE 2: Risk Evaluation Scale

Evaluation Scale
Score Category Action Required
Isolate the hazard immediately. Take Corrective measures on
80 – 100 Critical
high priority and eliminate the hazard as soon as possible.
Isolate the hazard as soon as practicable. Engineering control and
50 – 79 Major Administrative controls need to be taken. Regularly monitor the
cause(s) until rectification.
Must fix the cause(s) when time and resources permit.
30 – 49 Moderate
Administrative control is to be taken
Need to monitor and consider. Administrative control is to be
≤ 29 Minor
taken & use appropriate PPE

RISK CONTROL HIERARCHY

Data was collected and analyzed during risk identification and evaluation process.
Hazards were prioritized and control measure suggested. Considerations were given to reduce
the risks according to following hierarchy:

 Reduce / Eliminate Hazard

 Substitution of hazardous activity
 Engineering controls
 Administrative controls / Signage(s)
 Use of Personnel Protective Equipment

FUEL STATIONS ACCIDENTS RECENTLY HAPPENED

Appended below are few accidents recently happened at fuel stations.
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

FIGURE 1: A tank lorry caught fire on FIGURE 2: Car CNG cylinder burst.
road during transportation of fuel. Husband & wife with 2 Childs died on
spot.

FIGURE 3: Two tank Lorries during FIGURE 4: The roof of a petrol station
overtaking on highways rolled down from gets damaged by typhoon Megi in Isabela
road. Drivers died on scene. province, northern Philippines. (19th
October, 2010).

ACCIDENT, INCIDENTS, NEAR MISSES AND MISCELLANEOUS CASES

Appended below are accidents, incidents, near misses and miscellaneous cases related to
fuel stations. These activities provide better understanding about the potential hazardous
activities occurs during fuel station operation.

Accidents
1. A Suzuki carry (Passenger Vehicle) arrived for CNG filling, during refueling the vehicle
CNG cylinder was burst. As a result a woman (passenger) was died on the spot and the driver
was also died later.
2. CNG blast took place at M/S Al-Aziz sub station Distribution Board (DB) room. As a result
walls of DB room, door with fixture, slogan wall skin, and canopy false ceiling was
damaged. Five employees got minor injuries.
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

3. Three snatchers snatched the cash and mobiles from the staff of the retail outlet 34.
4. While a Tank Lorry (T/L) # AKU-3132 entering into the facility, it hit the conservancy
worker near gantry. He was died.
5. A T/L # TOL-7904 hit other T/L # LLK-4423. Major damages occurred.

Incident
1. During decanting of High Speed Diesel (HSD) from T/L. Diesel splashed & entered in the
eye of worker. Immediately eye ointment provided to the worker. 60 liters diesel spilled.
2. While a worker was working with a grinder. Grinder slipped from his hand and hit his foot.
The worker sent to the hospital.
3. Suicidal attack opposite to sub station no 21. 2 pump attendants got minor injury & heavy
loss occurred at the outlet.
4. Joint sheet of closed flange suddenly become leaky near HSD filling pump
5. While a mechanic was opening the nut bolts of shutter for repairing suddenly wrench hit his
arm. He got minor injury.
6. While a welder was setting the wooden planks at 3rd course of the Tank # 438, the welder
fell in the tank and got minor injuries.
7. A worker was coming down the T/L, he slipped and fell down. He got injury on his head. He
immediately sent to the hospital for medical treatment.
8. While a T/L # LSB-5214 came for decanting, hit with angle iron of decantation bay # 06,
caused rupturing of the tank and flow out of the Product.
9. A driver of the T/L # TLD-0021 became unconscious due to severe pain in his chest. Heart
attack was confirmed by the doctor.
10. A rocket was shot by the terrorists to the depot, cause hole of 6 inch diameter in the north
side of the boundary. The product was leaked from the hole and caught fire which was
extinguished by staff immediately.

Near- Misses
1. Crush stones lying near railway track, which can cause slipping and tripping hazard.
2. While a T/L reported on a checking bay and a worker checking it suddenly he was about to
slip but remained safe.
3. 6 inch diameter pipeline near loading pump house was found corroded.
4. It was observed that the brake interlock system was not working properly.
5. Smoke was observed from the bonnet of the T/L # GLT-9093, while it was parked for the
sealing after filling of HSD.
6. A worker was using the cell phone near gantry.
7. Filling operator was saved from bullet, fired by nearby person outside the facility.
8. While filling operation, a spring of the loading arm broke and came out of safety box. No
injury happens.
9. Ware house in charge was unloading the empty packages in front of the exit gate, there was
no access to reach to the gate in case of emergency.
10. During fire drill dry chemical powder (DCP) fire extinguisher was used, but the gauge of the
bottle remained on the green zone, despite the fact that bottle was empty.
11. While a worker was tightening the bolts of the flange under tank wagon, his head struck with
iron grinder but he escaped from any injury.
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

Miscellaneous
1. Due to continuously rainfall, smoke appeared with minor spark in the SAP System Light
tower, where a small module assembly fell down.
2. A socket was burnt due to short circuit.
3. During replacing of Reinforced Cement Concrete drainage pipeline in cafeteria, workers
were not using PPE.
4. A power plug was burnt at biometric machine.
5. After electric failure, while a worker was started the generator suddenly water from the
radiator was overflowed.
6. Due to heavy wind the pole light at main gate was broken and hanging with complete
assembly.
7. The shaft of HSD pump No. 07 was damaged, as a result the pressure gauge pipe was
detached and coupling guard was also damaged. 50 liters fuel spilled.
8. While a worker was started up its Personal Computer a spark appeared in the extension wire.
9. The Magnetic contactor of HSD Motor was burnt.
10. During refueling of PK-312, lift of H/S # 10 came down itself suddenly.
11. Left back side indicator of Vehicle # CN-4338 was found fused.
12. Single Pole (220 volt) supply breaker of premises pole lights has been burnt due to over
heating.
13. Electric choke of light at main gate was burnt.
14. A trouble message was appearing continuously on screen of Fire Alarm. System
15. Electric power socket for supply of 1 phase centrifugal pump was over heated.
16. Air pressure got dropped due to pneumatic pressure pipe’t’ joint failure.
17. Improper wiring was found back side of the office building.
18. Spark was observed on the electric supply terminals of electric Geyser element.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 3 shows Evaluated Risk after multiplying severity and likelihood. Six months data
collected and total 232 activities were evaluated by using risk evaluation criteria. 5 activities fall
under category extremely severe. These hazards could be happen at any time and could cause
death or permanent disability or extreme damage to equipment or property. 30 activities were fall
under category often likely. These 30 activities could happen sometime and can cause death or
permanent disability or extreme damage to equipment or property. Total 10 activities, 5 in
unlikely and 5 in very unlikely category falls. Unlikely activities could happen but very rarely
and can cause death or permanent disability or extreme damage to equipment or property. Very
unlikely activities could happen but probably never will occur again, these activities also have a
potential to cause death or permanent disability. 10 activities fall under often likely and 25
activities fall under unlikely category. Often likely activities could happen but very rarely.
Cumulative of often likely and unlikely activities (10 + 25) have a potential to cause long term
illness or serious injury or major damage to property or equipment. 117 activities collectively
(5+20+56+36) can result a medical treatment, several days off work or minor damage to
equipment or property. Finally 35 activities can be cause first aid cases or negligible property
damage.
Table 4 shows the evaluation scale results after calculating risk by using risk evaluation
criteria. 35 activities enter under critical, 20 activities are major, 106 activities are moderate and
71 activities fall under minor category. Respective actions required with reference to categories
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

are also mentioned. 106 activities comes under moderate category and contains risk score 30 to
49. The actions required to correct these activities are must fix the cause(s) when time and
resources permit. Administrative control needs to be taken.

TABLE 3: Evaluated Risk after multiplying severity and likelihood

LIKELIHOOD
Extremely likely Often likely Unlikely Very unlikely
Could happen at any Could happen at Could happen but Could happen but
SEVERITY
time sometime very rarely probably never will
(E) 10 (F) 08 (G) 06 (H) 04
Death or permanent
disability or extreme
5 30 5 5
damage to equipment or
property (A) 10
Long term illness or
serious injury or major
10 25
damage to property or
equipment (B) 08
Medical treatment several
days off work or minor
5 20 56 36
damage to equipment or
property (C) 06
First Aid needed or
negligible property 20 15
damaged (D) 04

TABLE 4: Evaluation scale results after calculating risk by using risk evaluation
criteria

Evaluation Scale

Number of Hazardous
Score Category Action Required
Activities
Isolate the hazard immediately. Take Corrective measures on high
80 – 100 Critical
35 priority and eliminate the hazard as soon as possible.
Isolate the hazard as soon as practicable. Engineering control and
50 – 79 Major Administrative controls need to be taken. Regularly monitor the
20 cause(s) until rectification.
Must fix the cause(s) when time and resources permit.
30 – 49 Moderate
106 Administrative control is to be taken
Need to monitor and consider. Administrative control is to be
≤ 29 Minor
71 taken & use appropriate PPE

CONCLUSION
Six months data collected and analyzed. Total 232 activities were analyzed by using risk
evaluation criteria (RAC). Potential hazardous activities related to fuel station operations
highlighted. Maximum no of 106 activities fall under moderate category. 71 activities come
under minor category. Most of the activities come under moderate and minor categories were
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

related to minor injury cases and near misses. 35 activities were noticed as critical and require
isolation of hazard immediately. Some cases reported were related to CNG cylinder burst,
robbery and snatching. Company should add these hazards in their company policy in a way that
they are aware that these hazards are occurring and we are attentive to response to these hazards.
One way to response positively is that company should nominate selected employees to do these
particular tasks. 20 activities contain risk (50 – 79) and are major hazards. Corrective actions
require isolation of hazard as soon as practicable. Engineering control and administrative
controls need to be taken. Regularly monitor the cause(s) until rectification. By analyzing
activities using RAC help to identify the most critical activities. Based on evaluation scale score
activities categorized into four main groups and control measures suggested. These control
measures helps to improve the HSE conditions at site as well as it also viable to eliminate the
risks related to potential unsafe conditions during operation. One of the most effective technique
for improving safety is the reporting of incidents and accidents and sharing lessons learned.
After each serious accident of significant “near miss” the investigation or detailed description
(include circumstances and consequences of the incident, analyzing its causes with formulation
of practical recommendations) should be conducted by the competent investigation team. The
main objective is learning practical lessons, share them and ensure that each group is learning the
benefits. To further improve HSE systems programs and performances the results of risk
assessment should be well communicated to the working staff in the appropriate language.
Working Instructions (WI) should be displayed at selected workstation. All the workers /
employees should follow the working instructions and understood the hazards associated with
the job and fulfil the job after taking all the precautionary measures. Concerned Department
Head should ensure that the safe operating procedures are communicated to all the concerned
and new employees who are required to perform their relevant job.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper would not have been completed without the excellent supervision from
lecturer Dr Mohamad Faris Khamidi Civil Engineering department University Teknologi
PETRONAS, Malaysia. I am very thankful to him for his precious time and concentration. My
heartily gratitude to Dr. Shamsul Rahman B M Kutty and Dr. Azmi Shariff for providing the
much needed guidance and critical constructive discussion throughout the preparation of this
paper. I am also very thankful to Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for his study opportunity and
use of precious resources for study.

REFERENCE
[1] Muscatello, J.R., Heshizer, B.P., Safety teams: Government and business organizations want
them and use them, but are they legal? Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2003, pp.
81–115.
[2] Vanderperre, E.J., Makhanov, S.S., Risk analysis of a robot-safety device system.
International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2002, pp.
79–87.
[3] Gillen, M., Baltzb, D., Gasselc, M., Kirschd, L., Vaccaroe, D., Perceived safety climate, job
demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers.
Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2001, pp. 391–439.
[4] Ali M. Alhemood, Ashraf M. Genaidy Richard Shell, Michael Gunn, Christin Shoaf,
Towards a Model of Safety Climate Measurement. the development of safety climate
International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

measurement tool, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE),

Vol. 10, No. 4, 2004, pp. 303–318.
[5] Brown R, Holmes H, The use of factor-analysis procedure for assessing the validity of an
employee safety climate model. Accid anal Prev, Vol. 18, 1986, pp. 445–70.
[6] Glennon DP, Safety climate in organizations, In: Ergonomics and Occupational Health.
Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia and
New Zealand,1982, pp. 17–31.
[7] Zohar D, Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications, J
Appl Psychol, Vol. 65, No. 1, 1980, pp. 96–101.
[8] Dedobbelear N, Beland F, A safety climate measure for construction sites, J Safety Res, Vol.
22, 1991, pp. 97–103.
[9] Donald IJ, Canter DV, Employee attitudes and safety in the chemical industry, Journal of
Loss Prevention in the Process Industry, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1994, pp. 203–8.
[10]Berends J, On the measurement of safety culture [unpublished report], Eindhoven, The
Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology, 1996.
[11]S. Mohamed, T.H. Ali, W.Y.V. Tam *, National culture and safe work behaviour of
construction workers in Pakistan, Safety Science, Vol. 47, 2009, pp. 29–35.
[12]Gillen, M., Baltzb, D., Gasselc, M., Kirschd, L., Vaccaroe, D., Perceived safety climate, job
demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers,
Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2001, pp. 391–439.
[13]Coble, R.J., Haupt, T.C., Construction Safety in Developing Countries, In: 2nd International
Conference of CIB on W99, Hawaii, United States, 1999, pp. 903–908.
[14]Health Safety & Environment Management System, Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment
and Management, PPL, Pakistan.
 International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010) Appendix-A

Risk Identification & Assessment Sheet

Location of Fuel Station: ___________________ Date: _______________

Risk Assessment

Existing

Risk Rating
Likelihood
Description of Explanation Suggested Control

Severity
S. # Control
Hazard of Hazard Measure
Measure

Prepared by: _______________ Reviewed by: ____________________

Dept. Head

Appendix-B

Hazard & Risk Summary Report

Location of Fuel Station: _____________________

Effected
Hazard Priority
Description Group / Control Planned
Area (Based on risk Status
of Hazards Persons / Measures Date
scale)
Property
 International Conference on Environment 2010 (ICENV 2010)

Prepared by; _______________________________ Reviewed by: __________________________

Dept. Head

View publication stats