Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  484 / 648 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 484 / 648 Next Page
Page Background

CDOIF

Chemical and Downstream Oil

Industries Forum

CDOIF is a collaborative venture formed to agree strategic

areas for joint industry / trade union / regulator action aimed at

delivering health, safety and environmental improvements with

cross-sector benefits

Page 16

Supplement to Guideline – ‘Environmental Risk Tolerability for COMAH Establishments’

Storage Terminal Example v0.0

Receptor Type 15 – fresh and estuarine water habitats (adjacent estuary)

Frequency per establishment per receptor per year

MATTE

Consequence

Level

10

-8

– 10

-7

10

-7

– 10

-6

10

-6

– 10

-5

10

-5

– 10

-4

10

-4

– 10

-3

10

-3

– 10

-2

>10

-2

D – MATTE

Intolerable

C - MATTE

TifALARP

B - MATTE

Broadly Acceptable

Mi

UnMi

A - MATTE

Mi

UnMi

Sub MATTE

Tolerability not considered under the CDOIF environmental risk tolerability methodology

In a full Phase I assessment the unmitigated and mitigated risk tolerability would be defined for each

relevant environmental receptor.

3.4 Outcome of Phase I Screening

From these matrices, it can be seen that all of the unmitigated risks to all receptors are in the

‘intolerable’ range. When the protection provided by the preventative and mitigation controls are

accounted for, the mitigated risk to most receptors is reduced to within the TifALARP range.

However, one environmental receptor, the Godwit living in the estuary (receptor type 13 – particular

species), remains in the ‘intolerable’ range. This is primarily driven by the higher consequence level

(C) of a MATTE harming this receptor.

The outcome of this screening level assessment is that the Godwit residing in the estuary are one of

the most vulnerable receptors in the event of an acute release, primarily from scenarios H01

(release from a semi-buried tank), H02 (acute release of diesel during vessel unloading at the jetty)

and H04 (release of fire water containing foam and entrained hydrocarbons). The pathways by

which the Godwit population could be impacted are migration within the drainage network and

overland flow (scenarios H01 and H04) and by direct release into surface water (scenario H04).