2. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
Authors:
Felix Oldani (coordination, editor)
Stéphane Thomas
Florian Hiller
Fulvio Caldelari
Table of Contents
1. Overview ..................................................................... 1
2. Introduction................................................................. 1
2.1 Historical development.......................................1
2.2 Industrial parks have advantages and
disadvantages ....................................................1
3. Models ........................................................................ 2
3.1 Classification ......................................................2
3.2 Organization ......................................................3
3.3 Legal environment..............................................3
3.4 Contracts ...........................................................4
4. Total Risk Profiling (TRP) ............................................... 5
5. Selected “Risk Wheel” components and risk
management considerations for an industrial park......... 6
5.1 Overview............................................................6
5.2 Risk assessment..................................................8
5.2.1 Safety standards
5.2.2 Third party exposure/interdependencies
5.2.3 Site security
5.2.4 Emergency organization
5.2.5 Utilities
5.2.6 Maintenance
5.2.7 Education / Training
5.2.8 Pollution
5.2.9 Natural Hazards
6. Conclusion................................................................. 14
7. Glossary..................................................................... 15
8. References ................................................................. 16
3. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
1
1. Overview
The vast development of industrial parks presents not only many advantages but
also shared and intertwined risks. Companies are faced with a growing need to
manage the complex risk landscape with a more holistic approach that takes into
account the exposure both inside and outside the organization. This imposes
new demands on risk management culture and necessitates increased
transparency, dialogue and cooperation within these industrial communities. This
publication outlines the major risks and mitigation strategies that companies
(with the backdrop of emerging complexity of industrial parks) need to manage
and mitigate.
2. Introduction
2.1 Historical development
Approximately 30 years ago, industrial parks opened a new area for industrial
development. Economic market forces were leading to a series of mergers,
demergers, joint-ventures, acquisitions and divestment and new boundary
conditions were set up for industrial locations not only in Europe but all over the
world. In particular, chemical sites were often affected by these fundamental
changes. In this document we focus on industrial parks, which we define as sites
accommodating several companies that are legally independent but somehow
linked in their daily operation.
Industrial parks comprise:
Independent but interdependent companies.
Leased, rented, shared land and/or buildings.
Shared infrastructure services.
Potential for third party impacts.
A traditional site is owned and used by one single company. Such a site is
normally a self-supporter of its infrastructure and self-sufficient in generating
services and utilities. Often, the transition toward industrial parks is gradual and
unnoticed. Therefore and nowadays, many companies are tied up to an
industrial park without knowing it, or without knowing to which extent they are
actually exposed and interdependent on others.
2.2 Industrial parks have advantages and disadvantages
On one hand, economies of scale, energy optimization, environment constraints,
and logistic cost reduction are some of the positive features of industrial parks.
Enhanced safety, emergency and security management could be easily added
here. For example, if a single isolated facility may justify one trained fire fighter
per shift and three to four volunteers among its operators, the same facility
within an industrial park could be serviced by up to 10-20 professional fire
fighters.
The flip side is that the overall risk, for example in chemical parks, is often
greater than the sum of hazards introduced by individual facilities. If not carefully
monitored, there is an increased risk associated with the dilution of the
responsibilities for safety and risk mitigation.
Many
companies are
tied up to an
industrial park
without
knowing it, or
without
knowing to
which extent
they are
actually
exposed and
interdepend-
dent on
others.
4. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
2
3. Models
The main difference between a traditional site and an industrial park is that the
traditional site has one single owner, user and operator, while the industrial park
always has several users supported by an operator/owner.
3.1 Classification
Industrial parks have diverse organizations that specifically adapt to the
requirements of the local situation. However, the following three models, which
are basically driven by the decision making processes and the ownership
structure of a particular industrial park, can be distinguished:
Model Advantages Inconveniences
Traditional Site
Single company.
Everything within the
fence of the site belongs
to one company
Consistent Safety,
Health and
Environment (SHE)
policy
Straight forward
decision-making
process
Traditional site
management with
clear responsibilities
Limited internal
benchmarking within
the boundaries of the
site
Major User
Single company acts as
park operator and as
such operates major
parts of services and
infrastructure
Consistent EHS policy
Straight forward
decision making
process
Traditional site
management with
clear responsibilities
Limited rights for co-
operators
Often perceived as a
traditional site
Limited cost
competitiveness
Closed Park
Independent service
provider manages and
operates the
infrastructure of the site
Clear decision
making process
Shared risk
management strategy
Consistent
communication (i.e.
one voice)
Limited rights for
individual operators
Monopoly of
infrastructure
providers
Open Park
Co-owned site (e.g.
multiple park owners)
and/or shared services
(e.g. multiple suppliers)
Enhanced cost
control
Variety of service
providers
Attractive for diverse
businesses
Challenges with
multiple interfaces
Possible lack of
consistency
Note: The “Major User” model often is the first step towards a “Closed Park” or
even an “Open Park” model if the Major User (often the former owner) makes
distinct steps to open his site for other users. The boundaries between the three
models can be blurred.
5. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
3
3.2 Organization
The corporate stakeholders present on site may have different standards or
requirements, which results in various approaches e.g. with respect to safety,
emergency management/response etc. This necessitates discussions amongst
users as well as between users and the operator (infrastructure provider) to
address potential issues.
Common standards and clear decision-making processes and protocols should
be established in order to avoid dilution of responsibilities amongst the industrial
park members.
Areas to be considered are:
Emergency Management (e.g. organization, internal processes including
business continuity planning, collaboration on-site and with authorities).
Safety Concept (including process safety, rules within park fence / outside
buildings).
Security Concept (including boundary and access control).
External Communication (e.g. to authorities and neighbors).
Special focus is needed in the areas of cross company hazard identification,
emergency management and external communication; where in case of an
incident the public will make very little distinction between companies. In these
situations the loss of reputation will be site wide. Additionally, rules and
regulations within buildings of industrial parks can conflict with other companies
in the park if not otherwise explicitly defined (e.g. safety rules such as work
permits). However, operators or any other service provider can reduce their
efforts in a harmonized environment.
In any case and for all operation models, a clearly defined interface and decision
making process is of paramount importance to ensure proper operation. (This
includes a straight forward escalation procedure between park users and park
operators.)
3.3 Legal environment
3.3.1 General liability
In industrial parks, the multiplication of legal entities often results in the
fragmentation of responsibilities. It is of vital importance that correct contractual
arrangements are in place and that employees at all levels are aware of their
responsibilities before any incidents occur. Similarly maintenance contractors,
park operators—as any other service provider—are only liable for their own
operations. It is the park owner’s duty to make sure that all park users and park
operators follow the agreed upon general safety standards.
The following examples of governmental regulations on safety are relevant to
industrial park partners. They need to be complemented by internal contracts
between park users and between park users and park operators to ensure day-
to-day business and sustainable development of collaboration on site.
3.3.2 Seveso II
In Europe, respective impacts between park users handling hazardous goods
above defined thresholds are regulated under the Seveso II directive and referred
to as “domino effects”. Under this directive, park users have the obligation to
inform each other of major scenarios likely to exceed the park user’s boundary
limits. This directive imposes cooperation between park partners on site.
It is of vital
importance
that correct
contractual
arrangements
are in place
and that
employees at
all levels are
aware of their
responsibilities
before any
incidents
occur.
6. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
4
The implementation of the Seveso II directive has the following limitations:
The level of analysis is limited to major scenarios.
It does not include business impact analysis.
Abnormal situations are not considered (e.g. plant start-ups, etc.).
It is about a collection of individual risk analysis rather than a comprehensive
site-wide analysis.
If below the set Seveso threshold, small park users do not need to comply
with the regulation although they can severely impact the overall site’s risk
landscape.
Intellectual property barriers may prevent free information exchange between
park partners in the field of safety.
3.3.3 U.S. regulation
With respect to safety, the following two major regulations exist in the U.S:
OSHA PSM Standard 1910.119 “Occupational Safety & Health
Administration, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals”.
U.S. EPA RMP, “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Management
Program Rule” (Section 112r, 1990 Clean Air Act).
These regulations apply to the park owner/operator of the specific process of
hazardous chemicals. While the quantities (e.g. of flammable materials) and its
restrictions may be different from Seveso II guideline, the US regulations focus
on individual risk analysis rather than on a comprehensive site-wide risk
evaluation. In addition, they do not formally address the cooperation between
various park partners.
Other important country specific local regulations which should be addressed in
site service contracts are:
Environmental legislation, emission control (e.g. effluent and fugitive
emissions, etc.).
Guidelines for pollution remediation including allocation key for costs.
Specifications for solid waste treatment and disposal.
3.4 Contracts
An evolutionary transition from a traditional site to an industrial park typically
introduces legal risks. The absence of contractual agreements can severely
impact the ability of the stakeholders to respond to an emergency. These
stakeholders include park users, the park operator, service suppliers, the insurers,
etc.
The following contractual situations are possible:
1. No contractual agreements.
2. Umbrella agreement (between Park Partners).
3. Hold harmless agreement (between Park Partners)
4. Knock-for-knock or no fault agreement (between insurance companies).
It should be encouraged that park users amongst themselves, as well as park
users and park operator, establish clear contracts. Within industrial parks, these
documents normally include several hierarchical levels such as “umbrella
agreements”, “service agreements” and “service level agreements”. All these
documents are dynamic in a sense that they need periodical review and updates
as the industrial park evolves. A knock-for-knock agreement is an agreement
between two insurance companies whereby, when both companies’ policy-
The absence of
contractual
agreements
can severely
impact the
ability of the
stakeholders
to respond to
an emergency.
7. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
5
holders incur losses in the same insured event, each insurer pays the losses
sustained by its own policy-holder regardless of who was responsible.
Hotly debated topic in all industrial parks is the allocation of costs to park users
for lump sum services (e.g. security, fire brigade, etc.). Mutually agreed
algorithms, which adapt to changing boundary conditions and park development
in conjunction with clear dispute settlement processes can help to implement
and maintain sustainable contracts.
4. Total Risk Profiling (TRP)
Opportunities and threats in industry parks are best analyzed using a systematic
approach as discussed below.
Zurich’s Total Risk Profiling (TRP) process is a risk identification and prioritization
tool developed to help management identify, prioritize and mitigate business
risks.
An essential component of TRP is that it offers a holistic, 360-degree approach
that blends financial and technical risk management disciplines. Advantages of
this type of risk assessment tool include that it can be applied with or without
quantification, and that it harnesses the collectively available knowledge of the
participants.
Some sections are elaborated in more detail in the following chapters.
8. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
6
5. Selected “Risk Wheel” components and risk
management considerations for an industrial
park
5.1 Overview
“Risk
Wheel”
Component
Safety
Standards
3
rd
Party
Exposure/
Interdependencies
Site
Security
Emergency
Organization
Opportunities Knowledge
sharing
Agreed and
shared high
standards
Best practice
exchange
Synergies in logistics
Reduction of inherent
safety risks
Lower capital
investments
Access/control
points
Good equipment
Well trained staff
Frequent security
patrols
Joint command centers,
well-staffed and trained
Professional fire brigade
Risks Inconsistencies
Exposure to
companies with
lower standards
Lack of
comprehensive
site wide risk
analysis (see
Seveso II
limitations)
Tenants with high
exposure
Loss of key raw
material supply
Loss of reputation of
one single park user
can affect other park
users
Large number of
people on site
Access control to
single buildings
(Closed Parks)
Open access, split
6esponsibility (Open
Parks)
Shared intellectual property
Complex internal
communication
Disaccord in communication
to public
Priorities of emergency drills
with other tenants
Risk limiting
measures
Strict traffic
regulations
Mutual auditing
Common
management
procedures (e.g.
work permits)
Seveso II studies
Siting studies
Separation of traffic
Entry control
Induction
Registration
Supervision
Structured and aligned
emergency plans with clear
responsibilities
Preplanned scenarios
Training
Exercises
Potential
services to
park owners
or park users
Site assessments
Hazard Analysis
(e.g., ZHA)
Third party exposure
assessments
Total Risk Profiling
(TRP)
Site security
assessments
Hazard Analysis and
assessments for PD/BI and
Liability
Continied on next page
9. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
7
Utilities Maintenance
Education/
Training
Pollution
Natural
Hazards
Shared service
provider at reduced
cost
Redundancy
Access to rarely used
utilities
Enhanced knowledge
management for
smaller companies
Access to larger pool of
qualified staff
Better access to state-
of-the art services
Training of
apprentices in
various disciplines
Access to cost
efficient
qualification
programs
Recruiting
Cost efficient
end of pipe
pollution
control (e.g.
Flare system,
WWTP)
Shared projects
for remediation
Efficient and effective
protective measures
(e.g. flood)
Interfaces not
adequately defined
Centralized services
could represent
common mode
failures (e.g. Flare
system, WWTP)
Liability not covered High staff
turnover
Historical soil
and ground
water pollution
Accidental
pollution causes
harm to other
companies
Implementation of
protection systems
requires the
agreement of all
parties
Systematic approach
to detect common
mode failures
Contingency plans
with specific
measures
Failure Mode & Effect
Analysis (FMEA)
Implementation of
integrated management
system
Adequate contract / SLA
with defined
performance criteria
Adequate/good
condition of
employment
Responsibility
for pre-existing
pollution
defined and
documented
Business impact
analysis
Business continuity
management
Hazard Analysis and
assessments for PD/BI
and Liability
Assessments of Natural
Hazards (NatHaz)
10. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
8
5.2 Risk assessment
5.2.1 Safety standards
Opportunities Risks
Less experienced park users will
benefit from knowledge sharing with
companies that live up to high
standards. In some industrial parks,
safety standards have been raised to
the highest possible standard
applicable to all companies.
Inconsistent safety standards may be
applied for different park users.
Companies with lower standards can
thereby create enhanced exposures to
other tenants.
Different internal safety standards
of tenants and park users related to
work permits may lead to
confusions for operators and
external service providers and may
create unsafe situations.
Risk related to transportation of
hazardous goods within an
industrial park which can cause
damage to partners (especially
during “rush hours“).
Risk limiting measures:
Traffic accidents may be limited by the adoption of strict traffic regulations
(e.g. speed limit enforcement).
Mutual auditing can help set standards on an agreed and high level.
Common set of site procedures (e.g. work permits).
Potential outside services:
Loss Prevention Programs are regular on-site assessments for Property
Damage (PD), Business Interruption (BI) and Liability exposures.
Third party support in areas such as site layout and fire protection concept
review as well as focused hazard analyses (e.g. ZHA).
5.2.2 Third party exposure/interdependencies
Opportunities Risks
Close distances in industrial parks
enable partners on site to:
realize synergies for any
infrastructure services (e.g. utilities,
logistics, waste disposal), and
reduce individual operating costs
and capital expenditures.
An example for the reduction of
inherent risks associated with the
transportation of hazardous goods is
the on-site production of these goods
in order to avoid risky transportation
on road and/or rail.
High exposure may arise from park
users with high risk processes (e.g.
fire / explosion / toxic release /
smoke). This also includes internal
third party exposure due to
sometimes inadequate separations.
Also, exposures from tank storage
areas, warehouses and yard
storages have to be considered.
Loss of the supply of key raw
materials.
One single owner suffering from a
loss of reputation might challenge
the resilience of the entire
industrial park.
Risk limiting measures:
Seveso II studies are legally requested in most countries worldwide.
Facility siting studies can help to reduce internal exposure and
interdependency between users and users/operators of a site.
11. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
9
Exposure from traffic of hazardous substances may be limited by separation
of individual traffic from transport of hazardous goods (e.g. routing, one way
traffic).
Potential services of the insurer to the insured:
Third party exposure assessments and modeling of vapor cloud explosions,
release of toxic chemicals, heat radiations etc.
Lesson learned
In a large petrochemical park, one Park Operator was asked to close a steam
valve, which he did. However, because the assigned employee was rather new in
his position and lacked practical training, he closed the valve straight away thus
triggering a hydraulic shock which created a steam pipe rupture. The pipe
rupture resulted in a total site shutdown for 15 days and affected four users and
additionally caused a decreased production rate of an adjacent refinery. But the
situation could have gotten even worse. The steam line which was situated in a
common pipe rack could have potentially impacted an ethylene oxide line
belonging to a park user and thus could have resulted in a much higher damage.
This example illustrates how the park operator can affect the whole chemical
park.
12. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
10
5.2.3 Site security
Opportunities Risks
Major User Model and Closed Parks:
Establish defined (limited) access
points with control points, fences
around the perimeter, possibly with
video surveillance and intrusion
detection allowing higher level of
control.
Utilize cost effective and efficient
controls by sharing a single, well
equipped, well trained and
adequately staffed common
security service provider for the
entire site (although not
everywhere established).
Open Parks:
Security rounds by the park security
company can provide a certain
control of the people in the area.
In general there is a large amount of
people over a large area, which is
difficult to control. Different
knowledge level and standards may
be in place for the different
companies.
In Closed Parks there are different
parties sharing the same area: it is
the responsibility of each individual
company to restrict the access to
buildings/areas, for example with
badge systems.
In Open Parks individual facilities
are openly accessible. Each
company is responsible for its own
security.
Risk limiting measures:
Particular attention concerning entry control (visitors / contractors / suppliers /
employees) should be devoted to:
Registration (identification).
Safety orientation.
Supervision (visitors must be accompanied at all times).
Potential services of the insurer to the insured:
Site security assessments provide an outside view and help to eliminate
identified risks.
5.2.4 Emergency organization
Opportunities Risks
Small park users may profit from
joint command centers that are
well staffed and trained.
Availability of one fire brigade
within the industrial park, with a
professional or semi-professional
dedicated core team, which is
trained to fight fires and to handle
toxic releases in line with specific
site requirements is for sure more
effective and efficient.
Many industrial parks have high
standards for fire-fighting
equipment/vehicles and/or the
possibility of mutual aid, but this
requires formal agreements and
regular trainings.
Different park users sharing their
intellectual property are creating many
interfaces leading to more complex
communication and increased
organizational requirements between
the different parties involved in an
emergency. Areas of concern are:
Responsibilities may not be clearly
defined (e.g. for evacuation,
intervention).
Communication to the public (who
says what) may not be adequately
organized.
Emergency plans are more difficult
to update due to the multitude of
park users.
Reduced number of fire brigade
emergency drills covering individual
park users’ scenarios due to joint
fire brigade and increased number
of scenarios from different
individual tenants.
13. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
11
Risk limiting measures:
Emergency plans for industrial parks should:
Be specific to the park user.
Be aligned and structured.
Have clearly defined responsibilities and communication channels.
Comprise of pre-planned scenarios for major incidents.
Ensure that emergency training (desktop and life exercises) for individual park
users is properly defined and executed and involves the whole industrial park.
Potential services of the insurer to the insured:
Important elements include regular on-site assessments for Property Damage
(PD), Business Interruption (BI) and Liability exposures.
Technical and organizational support as well as focused hazard analysis for
specific exposures.
Lesson learned
A flammable liquid leaks out of a flange on a pipe rack connecting a tank and a
production building in a chemical park. The tank in the tank farm and the pipe
to the receiving production building are owned by the major user on site. One of
the park operators on site runs the tank farm and the distribution of the
products to the receiving production unit. The product stored in the tank farm
belongs to the park user receiving the product. Who is now in charge to fight
the incident and resolve the issue? Who is liable for any negative impact such as
property damage and business interruption? This example shows the necessity of
clear regulations for emergency management between the partners on site in
order to ensure timely intervention and to avoid bigger damage due to
misunderstandings and insufficient communication.
14. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
12
5.2.5 Utilities
Opportunities Risks
Major User Model:
One single company can operate
major parts of services and
infrastructure, which is more
efficient.
For the park operator the utilities
correspond to the company needs.
Opportunity for the park operator
to generate additional business due
to provision of services to third
parties.
Major User Model:
Other companies have little control
and possibly little priority. They are
fully dependent on the Major User.
Necessary investments may be
delayed in adverse economic
situations.
If one of the utilities is generated
solely by a single critical process
(e.g. steam / electricity generated
from waste heat recovery) then the
reliability may be at risk.
Closed Park Model:
Park operator provides utilities to
all users/tenants generally through
a Service Level Agreement (SLA).
The utilities business is the core
activity of park operator (i.e. he is a
professional operator).
Centrally organized park operators
have a better financial basis, which
is essential when it comes to
maintenance funding or new
investments.
There is a higher degree of
independence in respect of new
investments / required betterments
(less dependent from economical
circles).
Availability and reliability of the
utilities is in general to a high
standard and more cost efficient
(economy of scale).
Smaller users have access to state-
of-the-art services
Closed Park Model:
Companies are fully dependent on
the park operator.
SLA may not be clearly defined
(e.g. liability aspects) or they may
not be in the park users’ best
interest (e.g. smaller companies).
Responsibilities/interfaces may not
be clearly defined.
Centralized services can sometimes
include typical common mode
failures: e.g. flare systems and
waste water treatment plant
(WWTP) are typical examples, since
in many cases there is one single
WWTP servicing the entire
industrial park. Individual park
users may have to take own
mitigation measures to reduce the
exposure.
Open Park Model:
Higher degree of flexibility due to a variety of park users: risks and benefits may
fall into one of the other models or may be associated with the model of an
independent company and are therefore not treated here.
Risk limiting measures:
Systematic approach for identification and assessment of common mode
failures.
Elaboration of contingency plans.
Specific measures derived from contingency plans (e.g. buffer tanks for waste
water pretreatment).
Potential services of the insurer to the insured:
Business impact analysis and business continuity management services to
address specific risks of the industrial park.
15. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
13
Lesson learned
In a chemical park, a flare system was shared between the park operator and
three independent park users. Among the streams collected by the flare was a
dust vent from a polyethylene plant. One morning, large blocks of melted
polyethylene fell down from the flare and the high pressure alarm in the network
was triggered. Following the failure of a filter, excessive dust had been carried
over and nearly blocked the shared flare system. This example illustrates how
one park user can impact a whole chemical park.
5.2.6 Maintenance
Opportunities Risks
Park operators have the advantage
of knowing the installations, safety
standards and site critical
conditions.
They have access to a large pool of
qualified staff.
Liability and responsibility may not
be clearly defined and contractually
agreed.
Risk limiting measures:
Implementation of an integrated maintenance management system.
Set-up of an adequate SLA with clearly defined performance criteria and
incentives.
Potential services of the insurer to the insured:
Important elements include regular on-site assessments for Property Damage
(PD), Business Interruption (BI) and Liability.
Technical support for items such as site layout and fire protection concept
review as well as focused hazard analysis.
16. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
14
5.2.7 Education / Training
Opportunities Risks
Several industrial parks operators
offer educational programs for
apprentices and/or technical
disciplines.
Park users (partners) can profit
from cost efficient educational
programs and from access to a
large pool of skilled people.
Higher turnover of staff of
individual park users due to
proximity of park partners.
5.2.8 Pollution
Opportunities Risks
Cost efficient end of pipe pollution
control (e.g. flare system, WWTP).
Shared infrastructure can help to
use synergies, e.g. to minimize cost
for simultaneously executed
remediation projects.
Older chemical parks may be
historically polluted (soil and
groundwater pollution).
Accidental pollution of one park
user may cause harm to other park
partners (forced Business
Interruption).
Risk limiting measures:
Responsibility for pre-existing pollution must be clearly defined and
documented, which requires written agreements between exposed park
partners.
5.2.9 Natural Hazards
Opportunities Risks
Economies of scale to implement
protective measures.
Site wide storm, flood emergency
plan.
Shared pool of resources to
mitigate impact of natural hazard
based incidence.
Implementation of protection
systems (e.g. flood barriers)
requires the agreement of all park
partners.
Potential services of the insurer to the insured:
Assessment of Natural Hazards (NatHaz) risks in conjunction with standard onsite
assessments for Property Damage (PD), Business Interruption (BI) and Liability
exposures.
6. Conclusion
While partners in industrial parks apparently seek for opportunities and synergies
in the field of favorable economic conditions, improved technical services and
more reliable utilities, the corresponding disadvantages of doing so often are not
that obvious. Hidden risks often emerge over time, especially when individual
park users do not clearly analyze given interfaces, (shared) common mode
failures, different interests of organizational units and/or the accumulation of
individual risks in the park.
When steps
are taken and
exposures
managed, the
businesses
within in
industrial
parks can not
only reap the
benefits of
close
proximity, but
also become
more disaster
resistant.
17. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
15
It is important to institute site assessments for Health and Safety, Property
Damage (PD), Business Interruption (BI) and Liability that are complemented with
technical support (e.g. site and project reviews). This support includes systematic
top down risk assessments approach such as Total Risk Profiling (TRP) and the
more operational front end screening tool such as a hazard analysis tool. When
these steps are taken and industrial park exposures managed, the businesses
within industrial parks can not only reap the benefits of close proximity, but also
become more disaster resistant.
7. Glossary
Chemical Park: A site accommodating several chemical companies, which
consists of separate legal entities. Both the infrastructure and a variable range of
services are provided by the largest chemical company onsite (the Major User) or
by one (or more) independent infrastructure companies.
Industrial Park: Has a similar setup as a chemical park, but is more likely to be
used by companies from other industrial sectors.
Park Owner: Company which owns the land and a substantial part of the
facilities in a park and therefore is main addressee for users and tenants on site.
A park owner may delegate the operation of his infrastructure to a service
provider.
Park Operator: Infrastructure company (or Major User/owner) who owns the
land on which the (chemical) park is built and therefore fulfills the role of the
owner/landlord.
Park Partners: All companies involved in an industrial park (operators and
users).
Park Users: All companies which are not infrastructure companies.
Plant Operators: Companies which operate facilities in a park and therefore are
addressees of process safety regulations. These companies can be park users or
the park operators.
Safety Environment Health (SHE)
Service Level Agreement (SLA): Service Level Agreement is a part of a service
contract where the level of service is formally defined. In practice, the term SLA is
sometimes used to refer to the contracted delivery time of the service or other
performance indicators.
(Traditional) Site: A site owned and operated by a single company. All activities
on the site are conducted directly by this company or are carried out by third
parties exclusively on behalf of this company.
Total Risk Profiling (TRP): TRP, a derivative of the Zurich Hazard Analysis (ZHA)
has been developed during the 1990s and is a robust risk analysis methodology
that uses a team to analyze the vulnerabilities within a particular scope. TRP
operates from a top-down perspective and covers the entire spectrum of
business risks by typically applying a strategic time horizon.
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
18. Industrial Parks
Risks and opportunities of a shared infrastructure
16
Zurich Hazard Analysis (ZHA): The Zurich Hazard Analysis (ZHA) has been
developed during the 1980s and is a robust risk analysis methodology that uses a
team to analyze the hazards within a particular scope. ZHA operates from a
bottom-up perspective and covers all type of risks by typically applying an
operational time horizon.
8. References
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS): “Process Safety and Risk
Management of Chemical Parks - A report by the European Process Safety
Centre in conjunction with the Center for Chemical Process Safety” (2006).
http://www.aiche.org/sites/default/files/docs/embedded-
pdf/Chemical%20Parks.pdf (last accessed Jan 15, 2013)
Germany Trade & Invest “Germany’s Chemical and Related Process industry
2011 – A Profile of Selected Investment Sites” (2011).
http://www.chemicalparks.com/PressReleases/Documents/GermanysChemicaland
RelatedProcessIndustry2011.pdf (last accessed Jan 15, 2013)
CHEMIETECHNIK: “Services in Chemical Parks – Trends and Outlook”, Armin
Scheuermann (2011).
http://www.chemietechnik.de/texte/anzeigen/114337 (last accessed Jan 15,
2013)
