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

?