All Resources

Overview

published on

March 2024

BakerRisk and FORTRESS Protective Buildings geared up for the 2024 Spring Meeting & 20th GCPS, which took place on March 24, 2024 to March 28, 2024! BakerRisk was proud to sponsor this key event in support of process safety. We enjoyed the opportunity to speak with fellow attendees and professionals interested in the latest research, industry guidance, and technologies to mitigate major risks and properly implement process safety strategies.

Attendees spoke with the BakerRisk and FORTRESS Protective Buildings teams at Booth 222 to discover how their teams can tackle their biggest process safety challenges! Naomi Alarcon and Wayne Repich of BakerRisk and Brian Royo and Tim Host of FORTRESS were available throughout the conference at the respective exhibit booths to answer attendee questions on all things process safety.

 

BakerRisk and FORTRESS Protective Buildings team members at the BakerRisk booth for the 2024 AIChE Spring Meeting & 20th GCPS.

Additionally, the BakerRisk team was excited to celebrate our 40th anniversary alongside the GCPS’s 20th anniversary! Attendees celebrated with their drink of choice, on us! Visitors stopped by our booth Tuesday, March 26 from 5:15-6pm for the chance to enjoy a free drink on us and/or a free BakerRisk koozie! Free drinks and BakerRisk koozies were limited to a first-come, first-serve basis. BakerRisk also offered some amazing prizes for the conference raffle: a free 2024 BakerRisk Learning Center (BRLC) training course of the winner’s choice and a BakerRisk Yeti tumbler!

 

 

In addition to all these great activities, BakerRisk was also pleased to support this event by providing technical expertise! Scroll below to discover what Sessions the BakerRisk team supported by Chairing and presenting for throughout the conference:

 

2024 GCPS Symposium Vice Chair for the Process Safety Management Mentoring (PSMM):

Todd Drennen

Todd Drennen headshot

Supervisor Process Safety-PHA, Principal Engineer, Process Safety

 

Monday, March 25, 2024

Track: T1D – 13th Process Safety Management Mentoring (PSMM) Forum

Session: 14 – Tutorials in Process Plant Safety Symposium (PPSS)

Session Description: “Focused on application of best practices for personnel at the plant level. Potential PPSS Tutorial session(s) include practical applications of process safety management principles (see CCPS RBPS elements); risk analyses; asset integrity/mechanical integrity, conduct of operations, layers of protection analyses; operational discipline and the influence of human factors.” – AIChE

 

  • 11:00 AM – 11:30 AM

Presentation: 14 b – “Square Pegs in Round Holes: Avoiding Inappropriate Methods When Considering PHA and LOPA Scenarios”

Presented by: Mikaela Dressendorfer

Mikaela Dressendorfer headshot

Mikaela Dressendorfer, Project II Consultant

Abstract: “Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) and Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA), when applied appropriately, can be powerful tools to identify potential hazards of a process and develop proper safeguarding strategies to prevent them. However, some scenarios do not fit neatly into the standard PHA and LOPA methodologies, and inappropriate application of these methods to such scenarios may result in incorrect conclusions, either requiring unnecessary additional safety systems, or in the worst case leaving potential significant hazards unidentified and without sufficient preventive safeguards.

This paper will identify some common pitfalls of inappropriate application of PHA and LOPA methods, and will suggest appropriate alternative methods, sometimes involving different uses of PHA or LOPA methodology and other times using different study methods all together.”

 

“Best of the best presentations from the last decade of GCPS.”

 

Track: T1B – 39th Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) International Conference

Session: 17 – 20th GCPS Best-of-the-Best Spotlight I

Session Description: “Best of the best presentations from the last decade of GCPS.” – AIChE

 

  • 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM

Presentation: 17c – “Are Unconfined Hydrogen Vapor Cloud Explosions Credible?”

Presented by: Dr. James Kelly Thomas

Dr. James Kelly Thomas, VP, Director of Blast Effects, Senior Principal Engineer

Abstract (2014): “Owner/operators of chemical processing and petroleum refining sites often ask whether unconfined hydrogen vapor cloud explosions (VCEs) can actually occur. This question normally arises during the course of a consequence-based facility siting study (FSS) or a quantitative risk assessment (QRA). While it is generally recognized that a hydrogen release within a process enclosure could lead to an explosion, the potential for an external hydrogen release to cause a VCE is not as widely recognized and is often questioned. This uncertainty appears to stem from the impression that a hydrogen release always ignites quickly and near the point of release such that a flammable cloud does not have time to develop prior to ignition and/or that a hydrogen release never produces a flammable cloud of any significant volume due to its positive buoyancy. Unfortunately, neither impression is correct. Hydrogen releases are actually susceptible to delayed ignition and hydrogen releases can form significant flammable gas clouds near grade level. Unconfined hydrogen VCEs can and do occur. Furthermore, given the potential for rapid flame acceleration associated with hydrogen, the consequences of a hydrogen VCE can be severe. Consideration of such events in FSS and QRAs is therefore warranted.”

 

Track: T1A – 26th Process Plant Safety Symposium (PPSS)

Session: 38 – Implementing Facility Siting Study Recommendations

Session Description: “Now that you have received your facility siting study, how do you interpret the results? How do you incorporate the study into an already existing plant? How do the results impact the project? This session focuses on the impacts of the facility siting studies on existing facilities and encourages the sharing of best practices and examples of successful (or not so successful) facility siting implementation.” -AIChE

 

  • 4:00 PM – 4:30 PM

Presentation: 38b – “Building Design Requirements – Utilizing Your Facility Siting Study Effectively”

Presented by: Karen Vilas

Karen Vilas, BakerRisk Process Safety Consultant and FORTRESS Protective Buildings President

President of FORTRESS Protective Buildings/ Principal Consultant, Process Safety

Abstract:

“With the imminent release of updates to the API’s Recommended Practices 752 and 753 (API RP 752/753), it is the appropriate time to examine two guiding principles that facility owners and operators should consider for implementing facility siting recommendations for occupied buildings.

The first, and most important, guiding principle is “The Golden Rule” — whenever possible, locate your personnel in buildings away from hazardous areas. However, this is not always possible. Some facilities include processes that require operators to be located near the units they are responsible for, while others may not have the real estate to expand beyond their existing footprint. The second guiding principle is that occupied buildings should be designed to protect workers from hazards associated with the facility, which could include explosion, fire and toxic material releases. When reviewing facility siting results and implementing recommendations, these two principles should drive decision making.

Blast-resistant buildings have traditionally been quantified by the ability to resist blast loads for a prescribed level of structural damage. Focus has therefore been placed on the structural performance without fully correlating this to occupant vulnerability. Fire and toxic material hazards and their impact on building occupants is often overlooked, resulting in buildings that do not comply with the full intent of API RP 752/753. The definition of occupant vulnerability, per API RP 752/753, is the “portion of occupants that could potentially experience a life-threatening injury or fatality if a potential event were to occur.” As summarized in the third edition of API RP 752, “owners/operators should understand the basis for the correlation between building damage and occupant vulnerability and assess its applicability.” Why does this matter?

This paper will utilize full scale tests of modular building structures to demonstrate why occupant vulnerability matters – not just building response to blast, fragments, fire, and toxic impacts. This paper will also draw on occupied building siting results from a case study petrochemical facility to discuss where to locate buildings based on demonstrated occupant vulnerability to facility hazards. Armed with information on how building structures respond to hazards as well as where to locate different types of protective buildings based on facility siting study results, you will have the information you need to reduce your onsite risk profile for existing facilities by implementing results from your facility siting study.”

 

 

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Track: T1C – 58th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium (LPS)

Session: 64 – Facility Siting, Consequence Analysis, and Risk Assessment I

Session Description: “Consequence modeling, quantitative risk assessment techniques, and facility siting analyses are vital tools utilized by loss prevention professionals for understanding and managing risk. These methodologies find applications in various areas such as capital projects, on-shore and off-shore facilities, pipelines, transportation, and emergency response. This session aims to explore recent advances and innovative approaches in facility siting, consequence analysis, and quantitative risk analysis.

Additionally, we are interested in the integration and practical application of these tools and techniques within corporate risk assessment. We welcome papers that discuss best practices, share case studies, and highlight valuable lessons learned in the field.We encourage submissions of abstracts from experts, researchers, and practitioners who can contribute to our understanding of effective risk management. The session will provide a platform to exchange knowledge and foster collaboration among professionals working towards safer and more efficient operations.” – AIChE

 

  • 8:00am-9:30am

Session Chair: Kristen Graham

Kristen Graham headshot

Manager of Process Safety Services and BDM, Principal Consultant, Process Safety

 

  • 9:00 AM – 9:30 AM

Presentation: 64c – “A Novel Approach to Strengthening Conventional Light Wood Trailer Portable Buildings”

Presented by: Gabriel Shelton

Senior 2 Engineer, Protective Structures

Abstract:

“The stated purpose of the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 753 document, Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process Plant Portable Buildings (2007), is to “provide guidance for reducing the risk to personnel located in portable buildings from potential explosion, fire and toxic release hazards.” Process plant owners and/or operators routinely house personnel within conventional portable building complexes (e.g., multiple light wood trailers) located within their facilities in accordance with the guidance provided by API RP 753. However, they often find that changes to their facilities (construction of new process areas, expansion of existing process areas, etc.) can mean that the location of their existing conventional portable building complexes no longer conform to the minimum requirements of API RP 753.

Conventional light wood trailer portable buildings not conforming to the minimum requirements of API RP 753 must be relocated, which may involve unexpected capital expenses associated with site preparation and installation of utilities for the relocation effort. This can leave process plant owners/operators looking for alternative solutions such as in-place strengthening of the conventional portable buildings to keep them in place, rather than relocating them. However, intrusive structural strengthening processes, such as adding new interior wall studs or roof beams, are often not a practical option, as conventional light wood trailers are usually leased by the process plant owner/operator from a third-party vendor and structural modifications can, therefore, not be made.

To address this need for alternative solutions but still meet the requirements of API RP 753 to protect occupants of conventional portable buildings from blast hazards, BakerRisk has developed a novel approach to strengthening conventional light wood trailer portable buildings: structural upgrades that are designed to be non-intrusive, installed from the building exterior, and fully removable once the lease period has ended. Full scale vapor cloud explosion testing is presented for both an upgraded and a non-upgraded conventional light wood trailer. The efficacy of the upgrade is demonstrated in this testing, with the upgraded trailer exhibiting Low building damage, and the non-upgraded conventional trailer failing catastrophically.”

 

Track: T1D – 13th Process Safety Management Mentoring (PSMM) Forum

Session: 66 – Tutorials in Loss Prevention Symposium (LPS) Panel

Session Description: “Focused on technological advances in process safety. Potential LPS Tutorial session(s) include modeling, consequence, and risk analyses of fires, explosions (including combustible dusts), new development in failure databases, toxic releases, and reactive chemicals; siting of buildings and equipment; explosion prevention; pressure relief systems; and fire protection.” – AIChE

 

  • 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM

Session Chair and Committee member: Jessica Morris

Manager Software Development, Senior 2 Consultant

 

• 8:30 AM – 9:00 AM

Michael Moosemiller headshot

Senior Principal Consultant, Process Safety

Senior 2 Consultant, Process Safety

Presentation: “66b Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Methods: How to Choose…”
Presented by: Michael Moosemiller and Nathan Knochel

 

 

Track: T1C – 58th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium (LPS)

Session: 84 – Facility Siting, Consequence Analysis, and Risk Assessment II

Session Description: “Consequence modeling, quantitative risk assessment techniques, and facility siting analyses are vital tools utilized by loss prevention professionals for understanding and managing risk. These methodologies find applications in various areas such as capital projects, on-shore and off-shore facilities, pipelines, transportation, and emergency response. This session aims to explore recent advances and innovative approaches in facility siting, consequence analysis, and quantitative risk analysis. Additionally, we are interested in the integration and practical application of these tools and techniques within corporate risk assessment. We welcome papers that discuss best practices, share case studies, and highlight valuable lessons learned in the field.We encourage submissions of abstracts from experts, researchers, and practitioners who can contribute to our understanding of effective risk management. The session will provide a platform to exchange knowledge and foster collaboration among professionals working towards safer and more efficient operations.” – AIChE

 

  • 10:15 AM – 11:45 AM

Session Chair: Kristen Graham

Kristen Graham headshot

Manager of Process Safety Services and BDM, Principal Consultant, Process Safety

 

Track: T1C – 58th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium (LPS)

Session: 105 – Transportation Safety and Risk Analysis

Session Description: “Safe transportation of chemicals and energetic materials is regulated via local, federal, and international laws, rules, and treaties. These are the basic expectations, but the regulations are being challenged by the development of new energy and chemical markets. Large array battery power for locomotives, hydrogen fuel cell air transportation, liquid carbon dioxide pipelines, and hybrid hydrogen-natural gas distribution are examples of growing areas of industry. Companies face challenges in understanding, evaluating, and managing the hazards and risks of these endeavors as they are scaled up to commercial size. The phases of transportation include loading/unloading, charging/discharging, holding, and, of course, transit itself. Modes of transportation include rail, truck, air, marine, and pipeline. Chemicals and energetic materials may include energy carriers such as hydrogen and batteries, bulk chemicals such as ammonia and carbon dioxide, and fuels such as LNG and radioactive materials. This session seeks papers describing best practices for modeling, facility siting, consequence analysis and technical considerations for transportation safety of hazardous materials. Papers discussing risk assessment approaches, technical evaluations and mitigation strategies are encouraged.” – AIChE

 

  • 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM

Session Chair and Committee member: Jessica Morris

Manager Software Development, Senior 2 Consultant

 

  • 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM

Presentation: 105c – “Quantitative Risk Analysis Applied to Transportation of Acute Toxic Chemicals”,

Presented by: Rafael Callejas

Rafael Callejas headshot

Supervisor of Consequence/Risk Analysis Services, Senior 2 Engineer, Process Safety

Abstract: “Transportation of acute toxic chemicals is a key activity in the supply chain, which has been increasing due to market globalization. Routes might include railcar, truck, ship, crane movements, etc. and might pass through locations with high population, which may pose significant risks as an accidental release can potentially expose a large public population.
This presentation will show the application of quantitative risk analysis (QRA) to determine the risk profile along the length of the route and help to identify potential high-risk locations and operations. In addition to discussing the consequence and frequency analysis methodology, refinements of the model using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Finite element analysis (FEA), and other methods will also be presented. It will be demonstrated using case studies how the QRA results can be used for decision-making and developing comprehensive risk mitigation strategies.”

 

BakerRisk and FORTRESS were appreciative of the opportunity to speak with fellow attendees at the 2024 Spring Meeting and 20th GCPS. We are coming to a town near you! Be sure to follow the BakerRisk and FORTRESS LinkedIn pages to stay up to date or our latest conference activities.

Fun fact: Did you know BakerRisk helped close-out the 2022 Spring Meeting & 18th GCPS with special tour and hazard demonstrations for the Technical Steering Committee? Check out the video below for a behind-the-scenes look, including guest reactions! Learn how your team can also enjoy a hazards demonstration day with the BRLC.