(40aw) Safe and Sustainable - Optimized and Sustainable Pfp Safety Systems to Mitigate Credible Release Events

Define the hazard, quantify the risk and implement the mitigation. The specification and use of PFP (Passive Fire Protection) materials, specifically those applied to safety-critical elements such as structural steel to address hazards in the processing industry, are not novel. De facto approaches using prescriptive single protection thicknesses for hydrocarbon pool fire loads often lead to unnecessary cost or, in some instances, increased risk. The versatility of structural steel based on its geometry, heated perimeter, and volume will provide the means to optimize protection thickness for accidental design loads, striking the right balance between risk and cost and providing the most optimum solution to address the credible hazard(s). Now let’s consider carbon intensity. Is it possible to elevate safety considerations using optimized approaches to reduce the energy and carbon emissions associated with raw material acquisition, transportation, and manufacturing processes for PFP materials and systems? Can the process industry implement learnings from prior loss-of-containment incidents while adopting a change in mitigation approach and material specification during the design process that factors in the calculated embodied carbon of PFP materials that ultimately get to the heart of one of the most significant contributors to this loss-of-containment?

Our challenge, to a large degree, isn't that we don't have enough data points. It's more centered around taking the multiple points of data we do have, aligning and amalgamating them to show results we can then take and implement for more effective solutions. A big part of this challenge is that, typically, in our large organization, silos exist. While they serve their purpose, they leave gaps for people to help connect the dots, mainly when we’ve learned basic lessons in industrial processing. To compound this issue, we have new challenges, including one that does not appear to be going anyway anytime soon: The loss of existing expertise, particularly with process safety, as individuals with decades of experience leave the workforce. Known as the "silver tsunami" or the "great crew change," the last couple of years have revealed how at risk we are for substantial knowledge gaps. Shakeel K Kadri, Executive Director and CEO of the Center for Chemical Process Safety, said, "The exodus of an aging workforce has created a huge issue around how industry will meet its critical need of process safety knowledge transfer. This issue needs a holistic improvement approach, including enhanced education of process safety in engineering education, effective assimilation of process safety knowledge for early career industry professionals, and ongoing reinforcement of process safety training in the workforce." We must effectively assimilate the current workforce with expertise before an even further exodus of knowledge. The implications are critical.

While human behavior remains the most significant contributor to incidents, there has been a trend in recent years regarding mechanical integrity, particularly corrosion as a damage mechanism, as a marked contributor to loss-of-containment incidents. Some of this can be fixed by a more thorough assessment of the existing infrastructure and the codes and standards applicable to current manufacturing and by paying particular attention to critical areas, especially areas such as corrosion under insulation.

While there has been some progress, the number of incidents each year, and their costs, continue to rise. In response, our fire protection systems must continue to be robust, specific, and applicable to the process area and environment.

Knowledge sharing and effective collaboration are now more critical than ever as we continue to develop and advance in the selection, manufacturing, and implementation of solutions for process industry applications.

Simply put, we have not been efficient when designing and implementing PFP material approaches to address credible hazards. There is a built-in risk aversion here, which, while understandable, has led to implementations that are far too generic in some cases, especially in the last few years. While comprehensive in general, industry-wide RP (recommended practices) do not provide the engineer, designer, or facility operator with the specificity needed to support the most efficient approach. As we have learned over the years, in some cases, there is an "over-engineering" of the systems, resulting in unintended overspending, schedule overruns, commission delays, and additional consequences such as premature material fatigue, which include significant challenges in their initial pre-service life implementation, and post-in-service performance.

The nature of such approaches simply highlights that in our efforts to address and mitigate risk, we inadvertently create more with unintended consequences. To remedy this, we need to consider the following systematically during the FEED, Design, or Operational stages of any facility:

1. What needs to be protected?
2. What are the credible threats, probability, and severity of release events?
   1. Pre-fire Durability
   2. Pressurized Releases (Hydrocarbon Jet Accidental Load)
   3. Non-pressurized Releases (Hydrocarbon Pool Accidental Load)
3. What PFP systems or safe practices can optimize the mitigation of credible threats?
   1. Layout
   2. Member Shape and Sizing
   3. Multi-Temperature and Multi-Section assessments
   4. Redundancy Analysis
4. What is the impact of global warming potential on PFP system selection, and how will optimization efforts contribute to a carbon-neutral future?

Although some improvements in this area have been made, particularly in implementing material solutions with functional testing and related in-service performance through legacy installations, there is still work yet to do. The key lies in this: While testing and development are crucial and continue to evolve, we have learned much in the last decade, particularly from what failed, and we must adequately capture these learnings, share them, and seek to design and implement better solutions than we have in the past.

Regarding sustainability, to set and define measurable goals for a carbon-neutral future, we must have the capacity to quantify the total global warming potential for indirect and direct emissions. The last several years have focused heavily on Scope 1 and 2 emissions which can be considered operational and measurable. More recently, there has been an additional emphasis on Scope 3 emissions relating to the embodied carbon content, expressed in COâ‚‚ equivalent units for materials manufactured and installed in upstream and downstream facilities, including PFP. The displayed carbon content for materials, including PFP, is best represented in a Type III Environmental Product Declaration (EPD). The Life Cycle Analysis will capture raw material extraction through to end-of-life use, described in the EPD, ensuring the data provided will assist with not only capturing and quantifying the global warming potential but also provide a means for the contract chain to evaluate and implement safe, sustainable, and optimized material approaches that can in part contribute to the carbon neutral goals implemented by operators. Although reducing emissions is not directly related to mitigating fire hazards, a systematic approach, as outlined above in defining risks and optimizing the PFP material selection, may result in less material being produced, manufactured, and shipped, thus providing a sustainable approach that will reduce the risk of overspend, and install a degree of engineering practice to mitigation strategies.

The net benefit of implementing safe, optimized, and sustainable PFP approaches are end-to-end transparency, consumer trust, and brand reputation - not only the operator but anyone involved along the value chain can see the measurable and impactful difference and celebrate being part of the solution.