QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR LNG RECEIVING TERMINALTable of Contents Page1 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Background 11.2 Objectives 11.3 Scope of Work 11.4 Report Structure 22 SITE DESCRIPTION 12.1 Site Location and Layout 12.2 Main Operating Modes 22.2.1 LNG Composition 42.2.2 Main Flows in the Terminal 42.2.3 Main Process Description 52.3 Weather 62.4 Population 82.5 Ignition Sources 102.5.1 Data Required 102.5.2 Identification of Ignition Sources 113 STUDY METHODOLOGY 143.1 Definitions 143.2 Key Components in a QRA Study 153.3 Risk Criteria 203.3.1 On-site Risk Criteria 203.3.2 Off-site Risk Criteria 224 RISK ANALYSIS 254.1 Hazard Identification 254.2 Failure Case Selection 264.3 Frequency Estimation 294.3.1 Generic Data 294.3.2 Leak Hole Size Determination & Frequency Estimation 304.4 Consequence and Impact Analysis 334.4.1 Leak Duration Determination 334.4.2 Release Modelling 354.4.3 Possible Consequence Outcomes 384.4.4 Worst Credible Scenarios 505 FLARE HAZARD ANALYSIS 515.1 Flare Hazard Analysis 515.2 Thermal Radiation 535.3 Burning Rain 545.4 Flammable Gas Dispersion 546 RISK RESULT AND ASSESSMENT 586.1 Phase I Construction 586.1.1 Individual Risks 586.1.2 On-Site Potential Individual Risk (IRPA) 596.1.3 Societal Risks 616.2 Phase II Construction 636.2.1 Individual Risks 636.2.2 On-Site Potential Individual Risk (IRPA) 636.2.3 Societal Risks 657 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 677.1 Phase I Construction 677.1.1 Risk Results of Dormitory for Night Shift after relocation 677.1.2 Risk Results of the Integration Building after relocation 687.2 Phase II Construction 697.2.1 Risk Results of Dormitory for Night Shift after relocation 697.2.2 Risk Results of the Integration Building after relocation 707.2.3 Risk results of the Metering Station after relocation 707.2.4 Risk Results of the Metering Station with an anti-Blast Wall in place 728 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 758.1 Results 758.2 Recommendation for Improvements 768.3 Conclusion 789 REFERENCES 95