Natech Management in Turkey


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Natech Management in Turkey

  1. 1. 3rd International Disaster and Risk Conference 30 May – 3 June 2010, Davos – Switzerland Emerging Risks – NATECH Risk Reduction and Its Implementation Natech Management in Turkey Serkan Girgin, Ph.D.
  2. 2. Major Natural Disasters Between 1990-2005 Damage Event Date Dead Injured Homeless Affected Zone I II (M US$) Earthquake (Erzincan) 13/03/92 653 PGA 3,850 ≥ 0.4 95,000 0.3 – 0.4 250,000 750 Avalance (14 events) 1992 328 Area 53 42% 11,600 66%24% 30,000 25 Avalance (31 events) 1993 135 Pop. 95 45% 1,100 71%26% 3,000 10 Landslide (Senirkent) 13/07/95 74 Ind. 46 51% 2,000 76%25% 10,000 65 Earthquake (Dinar) 01/10/95 94 Dams 240 46% 40,000 69%23% 120,000 100 Flood (Izmir) 04/11/95 63 117 6,500 300,000 1,000 Earthquake (Corum) 14/08/96 - 6 9,000 17,000 30 Flood (West. Blacksea) 21/05/98 10 47 40,000 1,200,000 1,000 Earthquake (Ceyhan) 27/06/98 145 1,600 88,000 1,500,000 500 Earthquake (Kocaeli) 17/08/99 17,480 43,953 675,000 15,000,000 13,000 Earthquake (Duzce) 12/11/99 763 4,948 35,000 600,000 750 Earthquake (Sultandağı) 03/02/02 42 327 30,000 222,000 95 Earthquake (Bingol) 01/05/03 177 520 45,000 245,000 135 TOTAL 19,964 55,802 1,078,200 19,497,000 17,460 Ref: Ergunay, 2007
  3. 3. Kocaeli Earthquake, 1999 Date: 17 August 1999, 03:02am Duration: 45 s Location: 40.7 N, 29.9 E Depth: Ref: Gülen and Kalafat, 2000 15.9 km Magnitude and Intensity: MW - 7.4, MSK - X Ref: Özmen, 2000 Dead: Homeless: Damage: 17,480 675,000 15 B US$ Injured: Affected: 43,953 15,000,000
  4. 4. TUPRAS Izmit Refinery Fire Fire at chemical warehouse Breaking of containers and reaction Fire at crude oil unit Collapse of 115m tall, 10m diameter stack breaking 63 pipelines and a heater Fire at naptha tank farm Sparks created by bouncing of the floating roofs Started at 4 tanks, spread to 2 additional tanks
  5. 5. TUPRAS Izmit Refinery Fire Evacuation of nearby settlements Marine pollution No domino effect No deaths or injuries during fire fighting Operational in 2.5 months, full capacity in 12 months Cost of recovery: 57.8 M $ Ref: Danis and Gorgun, 2005
  6. 6. AKSA Acrylonitrile Spill Acrylonitrile release to air, sea and groundwater Damage of 3 storage tanks Amount: 6400 tons Death of all animals and vegetation within 200m radius Intoxication of 27 workers Evacuation of nearby villages Doubts on fatalities due to increased cancer risk Clean-up 53,000 m³ GW pumped out for treatment/recovery in 4 years Ref: Demir, 1999 Concentration: 80,000ppm to non-detectable levels
  7. 7. Common Shortcomings Inadequate design and construction Insufficient emergency planning Natech events were not foreseen although natural disaster (earthquake) risks were well known Insufficient first response Collapse of relied response mechanisms Lack of sufficient response equipments Limited human resources Poor emergency management Especially at local level
  8. 8. TUPRAS Izmit Refinery Lessons Learned Revised emergency Increased response response plans capacity Natech events are taken into Portable diesel water pump consideration (900m³/h), monitor and 6” Disaster plans hose (2km) Fire events at four different Water sprinkler and foam locations systems at all tanks Fire at the largest storage tank Water canons with minimal water supply (50 fixed, 10 portable) Increased fire water capacity Bi-monthly emergency (5 times) response practices Sea water connection to fire Based on probable scenarios water system including natechs Gas and flame sensors Participation of all refinery Increased oil barrier stock personnel (3 km)
  9. 9. Legislative Framework Disaster Management Evolution of disaster management 1923 – 1942 Response to disasters on a case-specific basis 1943 – 1952 Law on Protection from Floods (1943) Law on Precautions to be Taken Before and After Earthquakes (1944) Earthquake Zones Map Building Code 1953 – 1999 Law on Civil Defense (1958) Disaster Law (1959) Settlement Law (1959) Establishment of G. D. of Disaster Affairs (1965) 1999 onwards Proactive measures and emergency management oriented regulations
  10. 10. Legislative Framework Natechs Disaster Management should be General Staff National Prime Ministry taken into Central Disaster Ministries consideration Coordination Council Service Groups: Province Governor Service Groups: Emergency Response• •Communication Communication Response Emergency Emergency Committee • •Transportation Service Groups Transportation Response Services • •Rescue and Debris Removal Rescue and Debris Removal • •First Aid and Medical Disaster Office and Medical First Aid Response • •Preliminary Damage Assessment and Temporary Shelter Preliminary Damage Assessment and Temporary Shelter Teams Emergency • •Public Security Public Security Response • •Approbation, Renting, Confiscation and Distribution Military Approbation, Renting, Confiscation and Distribution Plan • •Agricultural Agricultural • •Lifeline Lifeline District Head Official Emergency Response Emergency Response Emergency Committee Service Groups Response Services Emergency Response Response Military Teams Plan
  11. 11. Legislative Framework Emergency Management Prime Ministry 1997 2009 1999 General Secretariat Crisis Crisis of National Security Coordination Assessment and Disaster and Council Council Follow-up Council Emergency General Directorate of Prime Ministry Crisis Management Emergency Management Center Administration Management Secretariat Ministry of Heath Regional Crisis State Minister of Management Center Economics General Staff, 2002 Crisis Management Center Ministries, Public Crisis: Institutions Terrorism, Natural disasters, Technological accidents, Crisis Management Center Provinces Epidemics, Economic depression Emergency: Crisis Management Center Districts Natural disasters, Technological accidents, Immigration
  12. 12. Responsible Authorities Risk Assessment and Mitigation Disaster and Emergency Management Administration (Earthquakes, Landslides, Rock Falls, Avalanches) Ministry of Settlement and Public Works G. D. of Highways (Landslides) Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Forest Fires, Industrial accidents) G. D. of State Hydraulic Works (Floods) G. D. of State Meteorological Works (Storms)
  13. 13. Legislative Framework Management of Industrial Accidents Circular on Emergency Planning for Major Industrial Accidents (Ministry of Environment, 1996) Inspired by 82/501/EEC (Seveso) Directive and UNEP/APELL Not legally binding Accident Information Form was incorporated to the Regulation on Environmental Auditing Draft Regulation Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents (Ministry of Labor and Social Security, 1999) Adaptation of Seveso Directive Not approved by the Council of Ministries
  14. 14. Legislative Framework Management of Industrial Accidents Environmental Emergency Action Plan for the Marmara Region (Ministry of Environment, Middle East Technical University, 2001) Regional action plan for environmental emergencies including Natech events inline with disaster management framework Uniformed emergency response plan format for establishments Supervision principles GIS-based information system to collect data on natural disaster risks, natural resources and industrial facilities Put not into practice
  15. 15. Legislative Framework Management of Industrial Accidents Approximation of Seveso II Directive in Turkey (Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ekodenge, 2006) DSIP for the Seveso II Directive Draft Regulation on Control of Major Industrial Accident Hazards Draft Communiqués on Safety Report and Emergency Plans, Public Information, Inspection Web-based information system to collect data on establishments Regulatory impact assessment of Seveso-II Directive (Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Regional Environmental Center, 2010) Technical support projects for Seveso II Directive (Ministry of Environment and Forestry, EU, 2011)
  16. 16. Conclusions Although not quantified sufficiently, natural disaster risks are high in Turkey Serious Natech events have been occurred in the past, and are quite likely to happen in the future Preparedness of industrial facilities to natech events: High in facilities having natech experience Not only natech, but also major industrial accident preparedness is limited in majority of facilities
  17. 17. Conclusions Although there have been several efforts, legal framework for control of major industrial accidents is lacking Risky establishments are not known Data for risk assessment is not sufficient Legal framework for disaster management still focus on natural disasters (mainly earthquakes) Information on natural disaster risks are limited
  18. 18. Conclusions Natech risk assessment is not sufficient Lack of information on technological and natural disaster risks hinders Natech risk assessments Methodologies are required for regional Natech risk assessment and mapping Credible Natech scenarios How to develop realistic Natech scenarios? What should be the scope? Preparedness to Natech events Are we ready for the Istanbul Earthquake?
  19. 19. Istanbul Earthquake Scenario Future Natechs? Mw=7.0, probability is 41-62% in 25 years Expected outcomes: 70.000 fatalities 130.000 injured 600.000 homeless 50.000 heavily damaged buildings 60 billion USD economic losses (25-28% of GNP) Natechs?