1. Risk Engineer’s Energy Forum (REEF) July 27, 2016 David Black
Fire Hazard Analysis using “FireHAT” BakerRisk’s Hybrid Methodology and Tool for Conducting Scenario-Based Fire Hazard Analyses

2. Agenda What is a Fire Hazard Analysis? Why and How
BakerRisk Methodology Using FireHAT
Applications and Outcomes of FHA

3. What is a Fire Hazard Analysis?
Qualitative or quantitative assessment of likelihood and/or consequences of fire scenarios

4. References to FHA 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…

5. PHA vs. FHA Preventive Safeguards Normal Operating Conditions
Loss of Primary Containment
Deviations and Contributing Factors

6. The “Manageable” Consequence

7. The “Unmanageable” Consequence

8. Scenario-Based Fire Hazard Analysis
Manageable Event
Unmanageable Event
Mitigating Safeguards
Adequate ERT response
Ample Fire Water Supply
Remote Isolation
Secondary Release Points
Unprotected Support Steel
Untimely or Inadequate Response
Aggravating Factors
Unprotected Support Steel

9. Managing Fires – The Battlefield
“Manageable” Event Limit
Remote Isolation
ERT Response
Fire Proofing
Secondary+ Releases
Poor Drainage
Weather
Time
Unmanaged Obstructions
Fixed Protection
Critical Exposures
Congestion
Detection
Adequate Water Supply

10. Sun Tzu: Know Your Enemy, Know Yourself
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

11. Know Your Enemy… 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

12. …and now a word about consequence modeling…
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

13. Thermal Radiation of Jet Fire – 2” release Scenario

14. Know Yourself What are the countermeasures?
Fixed fire protection applications
Firewater delivery
Passive Fireproofing
Fire and Gas Detection

15. Countermeasure Weaknesses
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

16. The Whole Picture 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

17. Sample of FireHAT Output

18. FireHAT
FireHAT also:
Evaluates effectiveness of fire and gas detection
Helps optimize F&G detector placement
Models and predicts performance of drainage systems

19. FHA – the BakerRisk Methodology
Step 1: Consequence Modeling
Build SafeSite3G® model
Previous facility siting study very beneficial, but can do from scratch

20. Mitigation Modeling 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.

21. Site Visit 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

22. Workshop 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

23. Outcomes of FHA
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

24. Validation of Firewater System Model @ BR Test Site

25. Fireproofing
Review passive fireproofing performance

26. Summary
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

27. Questions / Comments ?