risk engineer’s energy forum (reef) july 27, 2016 david black€¦ · api 2001: fire protection...
TRANSCRIPT
Risk Engineer’s Energy Forum (REEF)July 27, 2016David Black
What is a Fire Hazard Analysis? Why and How BakerRisk Methodology Using FireHAT Applications and Outcomes of FHA
Qualitative or quantitative assessment of likelihood and/or consequences of fire scenarios
API 2001: Fire Protection in Refineries API 2510/A: LPG Processing / Storage API 2218: Fireproofing
**All reference performing Fire Hazard Analysis, but none discuss how…
Deviations and Contributing Factors
Preventive SafeguardsNormal Operating Conditions
Loss of Primary Containment
Aggravating Factors
Mitigating Safeguards
Manageable EventUnmanageable Event
ERT Response
Fixed Protection
Remote Isolation
Fire Proofing
Adequate Water Supply
Secondary+ Releases
Poor Drainage
Critical Exposures
Congestion
Unmanaged Obstructions
Detection
TimeWeather
“Manageable” Event Limit
FHA should be a detailed analysis to: Gather and review intelligence about the nature of
the fire Review and analyze available countermeasures Apply and deploy appropriate weapons and tactics Develop information to generate a battle plan to
deal with fires
FHA needs to: Review specific, credible scenarios Understand effects of realistic process conditions and
materials Understand the effects of weather and time on
scenario Evaluate the consequences of modeled scenarios Has to see whole picture not just the component parts
SafeSite3G® - BakerRisk’s consequence modeling tool
Used primarily for facility siting studies Models: Extent of overpressure events (VCEs) Toxic Releases Thermal Impacts (heat contours) for pool and jet fires
What are the countermeasures? Fixed fire protection applications Firewater delivery Passive Fireproofing Fire and Gas Detection
Each countermeasure has an Achilles’ heel: Fixed fire suppression can be poorly
installed/maintained, etc. Firewater delivery systems can be undersized Fire monitors can be in poor shape, undersized,
obstructed Fireproofing can be missing or in poor repair
Introducing “FireHAT” Built to leverage SafeSite3G® consequence data Adds layers to model capabilities of: Water Spray Systems Fire Monitors Firewater delivery systems Passive Fireproofing
Assembles whole picture, from component parts
FireHAT also: Evaluates effectiveness of fire and gas detection Helps optimize F&G detector placement Models and predicts performance of drainage
systems
Step 1: Consequence Modeling Build SafeSite3G® model Previous facility siting study very beneficial, but
can do from scratch
Step 2: Build FireHAT Mitigation layers Input data for firewater system, delivery systems,
fireproofing, etc. Data provided in advance from plot plans, fire
pump tests, etc.
Step 3: Site Visit Gather specific scenario data, mitigation particulars Looking at extent and condition of fireproofing Make/model of fire monitors Flows/pressures of fixed spray systems Update consequence and mitigation layers in FireHAT
Step 4: Roundtable “PHA-style” Workshop BR-facilitated team of operations, ERT, safety, others
as needed Review modeled scenarios Discuss operator and ERT responses Challenge / Validate assumptions and expectations Converge on right scenarios and realistic responses Address the gaps
Provides support for other, more specific fire-related studies
Opportunity to evaluate process to optimize “inherently safer design” for greenfield projects
Operational Facilities: Determination of “worst case” water demands Fireproofing gap analysis Detection placement, coverage, design, etc. Development of fire pre-plans
▪ Review passive fireproofing performance
FHAs are important to understand the fire exposures AND to understand if those exposures are being adequately managed
Our proposed methodology is a hybrid of qualitative review and quantitative modeling/analysis
?