a4 integrated approach to deal with new safety and risk

47

A4 Integrated approach to deal with new safety and risk perception aspects of biogas production Olivier Guerrini, M. Zarea Gaz de France, France

Abstract

In the context of the iNTeg-Risk project, the ERRA “Biogas safety and regulation” aimed at

accompanying the development of biogas in Europe by providing first elements to guarantee a high

level of safety in design and operations, thanks to the implementation of the iNTeg-Risk emerging

risks framework and the use of the developed tools of the project.

Drawing on the initial “briefing paper on emerging risks related to the production of biogas” (issued in

2012), a study led by CRIGEN (GDF SUEZ research and expertise centre on gas and renewable

energies) went a step further in the description of the biogas chain and related emerging risks,

especially on the dimensions of: standards and regulations, available technical guidelines, risk

analysis, risk perception and safety practices in the industry, and social acceptance of biogas by the

general public.

This paper presents the main conclusions of the study, and opens on the key perspectives in terms of

recommendations and additional research to be conducted in order to gain an integrated vision of

risks on the field of biogas.

48

Biomethane Production in France Integrated approach to deal with new safety and risk perception aspects

O. GUERRINI*, V. M. ZAREA

Research and Innovation Division – CRIGEN

GDF SUEZ

•Presenting Author

•Contact : [email protected]

Berlin, 10st March 2014

SAFERA Conference

Biomethane production in brief

Risk perception and safety practices in

the biogas industry

Perception and social acceptance of

anaerobic digestion in France

Conclusion and way forward

PRESENTATION SUMMARY

Biogas Production in France Integrated approach to deal with new

safety and risk perception aspects of

biogas production

SAFERA Conference

10st March 2014

49

Anaerobic digest ionOrganic w aste (municipal, industrial…)

203020202010 2040..

Gasif icat ion/methanat ionLignocelulosiqc Biomass (Woody,…)

MicroalgaeOn site product ion and CO2 recycling

2G

3G

Biomethane energy carrier potential

R&D needs

Available

Pilot scale

R&D

1 BioSNG energy carrier : 3 generations of technologiesComplementary pathways targeting different resources

185 TWh

23 TWh (1)

with 1.1 TWh en 2020

100 - 257 TWh(2)

with100 TWh en 2020

Total > 400 TWhWith 241 TWh dès 2020

(1) & (2) Studies from GrDF – 2013 – Available online following the link : Lien Web

Maximum technical potential

FRANCE

4

Why and how to produce biogas ? An increasing number of Biogas facilities with various production modes and uses

5

Organic w astes or ef f luents

Biogas

Methanisat ion

Non-w oody energy

crops

Woody energy

crops

Digestate

Upgrading

Gasif icat ion

Bio-Syngas

Upgrading

Wet materials Dry materials

Methanat ion

Bio-SNG

« Light » t reatement

Pow er CHPHeat Vehicle fuelOn-site

use

Remote use

When there is not enough heat

or vehicle fuel needs near the

biogas product ion site

Biomethane

Biomethane

Inject ion into the gas grid

Anaerobic digestion scope

(considered in the present study)

2G

Why and how to produce biogas ? A wide variety of stakeholders with various positions

Biogas

field

Owner/ Project leader General

Contractor / projects

developers

Waste producers or holders

Local authorities

Engineering and design contractors

Investors

Technology Providers

Facility operators

National public

agencies

Local, regional

and national

institutions

Local and national

associations

Research institutions

7

51

Biogas production in brief


the biogas industry







biogas production

SAFERA Conference

10st March 2014

“Biogas safety and regulation” INTEG-RISK : Accompany the development of biogas in Europe with a high safety level

2012 : Initial “Briefing paper on emerging risks related to the

production of biogas” (EU-VRi / Degrémont / INERIS) :

Investigation on biogas properties, related processes, operator profiles, and safety

issues

Key elements :

9

Sig

nif

ican

t fa

cts

Biogas is a biological process, not a chemical one

Biogas is produced in different sectors, each of which presents different safety and industrial cultures, without any collective learning

Large biogas plant owners are, most of the time, public and local institutions

Biogas production is generally speaking not the final objective, but rather a ‘collateral advantage’ of urban (waste), industrial or agricultural processes

Co

nseq

uen

ces o

n

safe

ty m

an

ag

em

en

t Regulations are derived from the core activity (e.g. wastewater treatment plant)

Petrochemical standards are not exactly applicable to biogas

Safety culture is not the same as in gas or petrochemical industries

There is no collective consensus on safety measures or safe design principles

Biogas operators face high risks in a small part of their activity which is not the main one

Decision-making processes are influenced by different ranges of risk sensitivity

Main

str

ate

gic

re

co

mm

en

dati

on

s 1. Clarify regulations related to biogas (safety measures, biogas specification…)

2. Develop a unified “biogas sector” structured around commonly accepted technical answers and sharing of experiences

3. Help large plant owners to master risks on their biogas plants, right from the start of their projects

52

“Biogas safety and regulation” ERRA: accompany the development of biogas in Europe with a high safety level

GDF SUEZ – CRIGEN’s contribution :

• Further describe the biogas chain and related emerging risks within the iNTeg-Risk

ERMF framework, especially on the following dimensions:

Standards and regulations, technical guidelines

Risk analysis guidelines and practices

Risk perception, safety practices

and safety culture in the industry

Social acceptance of biogas production

in the general public

In brief :

• French perimeter

• Several sectors

• 3 pronged-study:

General overview of the biogas chain

Safety appraisal (T, H & O)

Social acceptance

10

Investigation purposes and methodology

Focus on 2 sectors representative of facility sizes and complexity:• Wastewater treatment sector

• Agricultural sector

These two sectors differ from two perspectives at least:• Their history and their respective cultural heritage

• Facility size

Research objective:• Characterise the representations and safety approaches implemented in the biogas chain

Methodology:• Interviews

• Documents analysis

• Two main questions:

1. Is safety considered as a challenge to master?‒ What are the challenges to the sector? How has safety become a challenge to master?

‒ How dynamic is the sector in terms of safety? What other stakeholders have contributed to this dynamism?

2. What is the overall approach to risk management?‒ How was this approach developed? What are its basics? What are its priorities?

‒ How is it implemented? What standards or measures is it derived from?

‒ How is the ‘human factor’ considered? What measures are taken to strengthen its contribution to risk management?

11

53

Comparative analysis: the Agricultural sector

The ‘farm biogas plant’ case study reveals that:• Efforts are made to take safety issues into account:

Intention to improve understanding of technological risks associated with new biogas plants

Approaches traditionally used to analyze occupational risks are implemented, with the support of multiple partners (including professional associations)

• A strong eagerness exists to assimilate lessons learnt from past incidents and share information

• Particular emphasis seems to be given to regulatory and industry standards compliance:

Despite some difficulties in understanding or having an overview of the different regulatory requirements, given the diversity of applicable laws (environmental regulations, occupational safety regulations, ATEX directive, health regulations)

The agricultural sector in brief:• Specifics:

Relatively new sector in terms of biogas production

Strong dispersion of plant owners, but strong professional associative network

• Main challenge: maintain and strengthen a culture of risk analysis, as well as a “reasonable doubt” level concerning risk management and technical safety measures

• Recommendation: develop generic quantitative risk assessments

Pre-requisite: collect incident statistics

12

Comparative analysis : the Wastewater Treatment(WWT) sector

The ‘waste-water treatment’ case study shows:• A historical focus on occupational safety rather than on industrial safety

• A recent turning point leading to better consideration of industrial safety issues:

Under the influence of regulation, local residents and past accidents

Shift in the vision of biogas process: from a secondary, side-process to a specific process requiring specific treatment

• New approaches in terms of risk analysis, facility design and contractors control:

Better definition of methodology and safety requirements for the design of biogas plants

Special attention paid to lessons learnt from past accidents

• Nevertheless, at this stage it seems that:

Accident analysis focuses on technical issues, leaving apart human and organizational factors

Risk analysis should be enhanced to allow greater ownership by operating personnel

The WWT sector in brief:• Specifics:

Older sector in terms of biogas production

Recent breakthrough in terms of safety appraisal

• Main challenges:

Improve risk analysis and better account for safety at the design stage

Take into account human and organisational factors (HOF)

• Recommendation: closely associate designers and operationals in the field of facility design and risk analysis; take into account HOF throughout the facilities’ life cycle.

13

54

Synthesis : overall safety appraisal in the biogas production industry

Two main lessons:

• Safety is more and more considered as a challenge to master, beyond mere regulatory

compliance

• Risk management systems tend to focus on occupational safety, yet heading towards

greater consideration of industrial risks

14

Three main safety challenges:

1. Improve risk analysis and better

account for safety at the design stage

2. Take into account human and

organisational factors

3. Develop analysis and sharing of

lessons learnt from past accidents

Towards a common

comprehensive and systemic

safety approach adapted to the

specifics of the different biogas

sectors



the biogas industry







biogas production

SAFERA Conference

10st March 2014

55

Investigation purposes and methodology

General appraisal of the social acceptance issues related to biogas:

• Sociological literature on the subject (rare)

• Primary sources (articles, websites, etc.) relating to two types of stakeholders:

National stakeholders: government, economic players, professional bodies and associations

Stakeholders affected by two local urban projects (case studies):

‒ A household waste processing centre in Ivry-Paris XIII

‒ A sorting centre in Romainville

Research objective:

• Characterize the key elements concerning perception of anaerobic digestion (AD) and

biogas production activities:

Main stakeholders who support or oppose AD and/or biogas production

Their image of AD, biogas, and stakeholders and institutions involved in developing this sector

Their position - from promotion and negotiation through to opposition

Points of convergence and divergence about AD and biogas sector and related infrastructures

16

An asymmetrical range of stakeholders on the national level

On the national level, three main groups of players:

1. Stakeholders engaged in AD and biogas chain development:

National authorities: introduce incentive policies

Companies positioned on the chain: promote biogas

2. Stakeholders without a firm position on the subject:

Professional unions: defending jobs and working conditions, they won’t criticize AD in itself

The farming world: embraces a variety of positions

Associations representing local authorities

Environmental protection associations: these are split on the sustainable nature of AD but do not condemn the process in itself.

3. Public opinion: as biogas and AD remains largely unknown by the general public, the latter does not feel really concerned about the issue.

17

Industrialsector

Professional unions

Local governmentassociations

Inhabitantsassociations

Agricultural sector

Environmentalprotection

associations

Public authorities

Players supporting AD and biogas

Players expressing reservations about AD and biogas

Players without a definite position

French national players’ positions

about AD and biogas

56

A dynamic process based on a wide range of concerns on a local level

On a local level, a large sample of local stakeholders’ concerns

about AD units projects:

18

•Smells, pests, noise, traffic and diseases

•Social status loss experienced by neighbours of waste processing plant

Harm (environment and social position)

•Accidents (fire, explosions)

•Health issues

Risk perception (precautionary principle)

•Size of the plant (often seen as too large)

•Proximity from residential and public buildings, industries and transport

•Treated waste perimeter: expression of a territorial justice requirement, especially when this perimeter is extended to other municipalities

Characteristics of the project

•Expressed need for easier access and better information quality

•Requirements for wider participation and discussion opportunitiesAccess to information

•General mistrust in companies, politics, administrative representatives and especially experts

•Criticism of their lack of independence, their methodologies and results

Confidence in decision-makers

•Economic model: excessive costs and excessive public contribution

•Technical credibility: blocking and refusal phenomena are the main arguments quoted

•Quality sustainability: mechanical biological treatment can be seen as an obstacle to source sorting and quality compost

Relevance of the AD technology in itself

(Source: 2 case studies - Ivry-Paris XIII and Romainville)

Summary: lessons learnt and limitations of the study

Stakeholders' perception of socio-technical biogas projects is dynamic and highly changing:• Both associations and individuals seem to shift their positions when projects to build biogas

plants start taking shape.

• While general public opinion is in favour of developing renewable energy, local people won’t necessarily be keen to accept large biogas facilities in their area.

Several variables influence local stakeholders' perception of biogas plants:1. The project's characteristics:

Nature of the substrates and scope of the collection area

Technical processes if they conflict with civil society's values: biogas plants can be seen as ‘vacuum cleaners for waste’

Potential health and environmental hazards

Economic model

2. The area's characteristics:

Social and demographic makeup

History with infrastructure and facilities

3. The measures taken to manage the project and ensure dialogue with local players: Local stakeholders tend to highly value information, participation, independence and quality of studies

To cover all issues of concern to local players, additional research is required in terms of coverage of biogas sectors and configurations

19

57

Introduction: general objectives and

iNTeg-Risk framework



the biogas industry







biogas production

SAFERA Conference

10st March 2014

Main achievements of our current knowledge

Methodological achievements of the study:

• Steps 2 to 4 of the ERMF covered directly

• Contributions to highlight how Step 2 conditions Steps 6 (risk profile), 7 (tolerability

judgement), 8 (risk management), and most important, 9 (communication – consultation) and

10 (continuous improvement loop)

Broad vision of key issues facing the biogas chain:

• Segmentation of biogas production activities at a refined level

• Risk analysis pre-assessment framework

• Pre-diagnosis on HOF issues

• Sociological analysis highlighting significant perception gaps between stakeholders

Main limitations:

• On the five different types of biogas production facilities, only two have been explored in the

first safety-perception study, one in the social acceptance study

• Data representativeness remains limited due to the number of people interviewed or

documents analysed

Need for additional research in order to validate the first assumptions and

complete steps 5 to 10 of the risk-assessment management process

21

58

Four key dimensions recommended for additionalresearch and action in the biomethane field

1. Further characterise the different safety perceptions of biogas production

activities within the biogas production industry:• Enhance representativeness of initial results (questionnaire ?)

• Identify safety challenges facing the biogas production activities

• Capitalise on good practices

2. Deepen the understanding of main obstacles and drivers to social acceptance of

biogas production projects:• In-depth study of the perception of anaerobic digestion and biogas (several sectors and countries)

• Identify the obstacles and drivers that could facilitate acceptance by local and national stakeholders

• Explore the impact on social acceptance of the biogas valorisation modes

3. Collect and review biogas accidents as well as successful project

implementations:• Deepen the current understanding of the biogas production activities by analysing lessons learnt from:

Biogas process incidents or accidents,

Best practices in terms of safety accounted for in design, operations and management,

Successful project implementations in terms of social acceptance.

• Include considerations on Human and Organisational Factors (HOF).

4. Issue recommendations on specific training courses, including:• Key HOF considerations to be taken into account in the design and safety management phases of projects

• Key cornerstones to successfully implement a biogas project in terms of social acceptance

22

Expected outputs:• Representativeness of all biogas production sectors

• In-depth analysis of all ERMF steps

Thank you for

your attention !

http://www.gayaproject.com Contact : [email protected]