CONTENTS

1. Team specific objectives and stakeholders

2. General risk analysis and mitigation strategies

3. Risk analysis and mitigation solutions related to the pipeline

4. Seismic risk analysis and emergency plan

5. Conclusion

1.1TEAM SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

Risk Assessment in El Fortin main natural and technological risks.

Risks related to the pipeline

Risk Mitigation strategy

Structural and non structural

Short term and long term

Comparison of mitigation solutions: economically and socially

Proposal of emergency plan

1.2 THE STAKEHOLDERS

Barrio’s Inhabitants Local organizations Guayaquil Municipality Firemen Emergency services Hospitals Water Management Company (Interagua) Local cooperative transport, Garbage collection cooperative

(Vachagnon) Schools in the Barrio (schools of Father

Felice Prinelli, Father Tiziano “Parrocchia La Consolata”..)

2.1 WHAT IS RISK?

Risk = hazard * vulnerability Risk: expected damage Hazard: intrinsic characteristics of the dangerous event Vulnerability: exposure propensity to be damage

2.2 RISK ANALYSIS: MAIN HAZARDS

Electric lineInvaded

Landslide• Soil erosion

•Land use

Hygienic -sanitary

•Drinking water• Sewage•Waste

Flood • Precipitation• Predictable• Drainage

Earthquake •High prone•Unpredictable•Lack of awareness

Pipeline Rupture Fire

2.3 SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

Preventive actions to reduce the risk of rupture

Action to face an emergency situation

3.1 THE PIPELINE – GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Length 128 km (1.5 km in the Barrio)

Diameter 10 in. 0.254 m

Maximum capacity Daily 21600 bls/day 3142 m3/day

Hour 900 bls/hr 142.2 m3/day

Full volume 42.300 bls 6683 m3

Average speed of the fluid 0.0779 m/s

Nominal pressure 5.5 bar

Hydrocarbons transported Diesel fuel (most important), Super gasoline, Furnace oil, Jet fuel

Poliducto “Libertad-Pasquales”,

EarthquakeSoil erosionExternal actions

Pipeline exposure & rupture

Fuel leakage Fire

Probability ? Probability ? Rupture scenarios

3.2 THE PIPELINE: RUPTURE SCENARIO

Objective: consequences of pipeline leakage. Two scenarios:

1. Small leakage (blue)• <15% nominal capacity• Long-time detected

2. Important leakage (red) • >15% nominal capacity• quickly detected

Worst case: ruptures in 4 minimal points

Simulation-Volume escaped VS. Hole diameter

Possible location of fuel paths in minimum points

1 2 3 4

3.3 THE PIPELINE– RUPTURE SCENARIO

Fuel will flow along the paths in which rainwater usually flows.

Preventive actions are necessary to reduce the risk.

Diameter of the area will be fuel-flooded due to leakage

Map of the area interested by oil leakage.

1

2

3

4

3.4 RELOCATION

Relocation costs1. Based on results of rupturing scenarios2. Compensation to settlers: loss of terrain and house.

3. Average terrain and building costs in the barrio.

ZoneNo. Lot

North

No. Lot

Center

No. Lot

SouthNo. Lot Total

Lot costs

$

Total costs

$Red 48 45 44 137 164400 1397400

Yellow 219 141 218 578 693600 5895600

Best hypothesis: relocation costs > 150,000$ - huge for Ecuador

Relocation: not a feasible option.

3.5 NATURALISTIC ENGINEERING INTERVENTION

Low effectiveness Expensive

High effectiveness Expensive

Medium effectiveness Expensive

Medium, growing effectiveness Not expensive

Erosion controlling

plant

• Controlling erosion over the pipeline

Gradient demonstration Gradient of the terrain over the pipeline

• Area of intervention 24900 m2

Vetiver grass

• Simplicity, low delivery cost, time saving, low effectiveness. • Survival rate 20-30%• Total cost: 3,750 $

• Rather complex, high cost, high effectiveness• Survival rate >90%• Total cost: 9,744 $

The suggested solution is to use Vetiver tillers.

3.6 NATURALISTIC ENGINEERING INTERVENTION• Vetiver grass: "living

soil nail”: improve shear strength of soil: 30-40%, reduce erosion up to 90%, reduce and conserve rainfall runoff by 70%. Example of erosion control by Vetiver after 2 years

3.7 COMPARISION BETWEEN SOLUTION

Relocation Vetiver grass plantation

Costs > 1,000,000$ 10,000$

Feasibility • Complicated: Lots of actors• consensus of inhabitants involved

• Limited political, material and human resources. • Possibility of participation from inhabitants

Timing Long time frame:• Planning, implementation: • Construction of new residential area, relocating people

Short term:• Plantation: 6-8 weeks,• Performing erosion control effect: after fews years.

Effectiveness Almost eliminates the exposure Partially reduces the hazard directly reduce the pipeline exposure caused by erosion

• Naturalistic engineering: short term, relocation: long term.• Optimum solution: best meets the needs of the stakeholders and their participation is critical for implementation

4.1 THE EMERGENCY PLAN

Comunication system, Actors,

Actions, Evacuation

Earthquake

Facing an emergency situation:Leadership, Planning, Organization and Coordination, Control

Priority of contingency

, Risk, Area,

Population

4.2 SEISMIC RISK ANALYSIS

• Risk assessment• Building typologies and diffusion • Vulnerability index and expected

damage in case of earthquake

• Population and Area involved• 58,500 inhabitants• 56,000 mq

• Priority of contingency Seismic hazard• Seismic events history• Determination of the hazard

4.3 SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT 1. Acceleration Worst earthquake: 0.1825g

2. Vulnerability index for type of house

3. Damage index = % Area damaged

Typology

Area

Fuxia Beige MixedTypology vulnerability

Typology damage

Reinforced Concrete %10 %25 %15 65 1Block %30 %55 %45 44 0.67Bamboo %60 %20 %40 48 0.55Area vulnerability 48.5 50.05 48.75Area damage 0.631 0.7285 0.6715

44

4.4 CREATION OF A SCENARIO

• Population involved:1. Area damaged2. Population Density3. Population involved:

• Victims (50% inhabitants of damaged area) 20,300 (34.8%) death• Injured (30% inhabitants of damaged area) 12,200 (20.9%) injured• To be evacuated (30% inhabitants of damaged area + inhabitants non damaged area) 26,000 (44.9%)

Probability MediumType of risk EarthquakeMaximum historical event

9.9 MM

Effect and area involved

Destruction of buildings, streets, lifelines; All the Barrio is involved.

Community involvement

Evacuation of the whole area, organization of welcome areas and collaboration with the local authorities.

Final evaluation

The seismicity of the area and the typology of buildings and infrastructures determine a medium criticality of the area.

• New facilities planned::• Medical centers• New road system• Schools

• External assistence:• Ambulances • Hospital • Fireman

4.5 DEFINITION OF THE EMERGENCY PLAN

Mayor of Guayaquil

Vice-Mayor of the Barrio

9 Responsible of zone

Civil Protection

5 groups of Alarm Volunteer

10 groups of Evacuation Volunteer

Prefecture and Regional

AdministrationUnity of Local

Crises

•Alarm system Sirens & Alarm volunteers

•Evacuation and Primary Assistance

•First Aid AreaOEMP•Waiting Area•Welcome Area:

BUILDING: 8,700mq•Schools•Medical Centers

TENT CAMP EMERGENCYSEETLEMENT

•The actors

4.6 EVACUATION

•New road system•Suddivision of the Barrio in 9 zones

Evacuation of the whole Barrio in the Red Area using the new road systemTraining program for the population

Meeting area:•Good accessability•Good connection with Fedeer road

• Risks: not really high, related to natural event and wrong behaviour of the population.

• Most important risks: earthquake, flood, pipeline.

• The pipeline could be dangerous for exposure, rupture, leakage and fire.Short term solution: covering areas subjected to erosion with Vetiver .Long term solution: eventually relocation of inhabitants of most exposed areas

• Creating an Emergency Plan to face emergency situations:Upgrading of the Barrio to make the EP really effectiveDirect involvment of the population

• Information campaign to the population is necessary.

5. CONCLUSION

Thanks for the attention