(52g) Modeling Fires with Computational Tools. a Great Power without Responsibilities?

The CCPS has established in its Guideline for Risk-Based Process Safety (RBPS) the understanding of hazards and risks as one of the fundamental elements within the process safety management system. Therefore, an effective safety management requires an adequate risk characterization, which represents the starting point to minimize losses and the efficient use of resources to ensure a business operational continuity.

Risk is the relationship between the severity and the likelihood of occurrence of an event. Thus, the characterization of the risk requires an estimation of the severity or magnitude of the analyzed event. The analyst commonly uses computational tools to evaluate such severity. These tools typically calculate complex mathematical equations and correlations that model the fire dynamics. These computing tools significantly reduce the uncertainty associated with determining the severity of a fire scenario. Additionally, the graphical interface allows the user to enter data and read results in a simple and intuitive way.

Despite all these benefits, obtaining results according to reality depends on the analytical skills of the user rather than the computation tool itself. Introducing data through the graphical user interface does not guarantee an accurate result. It is necessary to understand that such computational tool performs a mathematical algorithm that will show a numerical result despite of any entered data. Therefore, the analyst must have criteria and expertise in the selection of the data, appropriate model and software, among others, to obtain an appropriate result. Additionally, the analyst should have an outstanding skill in handling the information without impacting the quality of the results. The distressing use of simulators and blind trust in the values expressed by the software are alarming. Furthermore, the manipulation of information without considering the impact in the understanding of risk and the decisions-making it is often seen in the industry. Unfortunately, this suboptimal practice has been enhanced by the advantages provided by the software for data entry, and visual result presentations as tables and graphs. Hence, it is necessary to understand that even if the software can yield a result, it does not necessarily represent the reality of the phenomenon studied.

Due to the importance of user competencies and expertise, it has been viewed with concern how the industry has defined a framework for competencies of safety professionals and other specialties, but no specific framework for the consequence analyst exists. To ensure the correct determination of the risks associated with a process, it is necessary to establish a system for the knowledge and skills development in this area. This presentation will show a proposed competency framework for the Consequence Analyst based on the Job Performance Requirement model used by the NFPA in various professional qualification standards (e.g., NFPA 1033, NFPA 1041, NFPA 1001) and the engineering competency model developed by the U.S Department of Labor.

In summary, this presentation will show, a framework of competency for the consequences analyst, which can be used as the basis for a professional development program that allows the analyst to achieve the desired competency. This will allow a correct characterization and a consequent understanding of the risk during such analysis.