Thank you
This live web event has ended. Thank you for attending.
Description
| Hazard vs Risk Management Discussed | |
| John discussed the differences between hazard and risk and how both are managed. They explained that risk is defined as the probability of an event occurring times the severity of its consequences, often measured in monetary terms. Hazards, on the other hand, are deterministic assessments; if certain criteria are met, an event must be managed. They also highlighted that while the US primarily evaluates hazards deterministically and risks probabilistically, these two often do not align. John emphasized the importance of considering the probability of events occurring, even if the probability is small. They also mentioned the use of a semantitative risk analysis matrix by the AIAG and the Center for Chemical Process Safety to identify acceptable and unacceptable risks. | |
| Process Hazard Analysis for Aging Facilities | |
| John discussed the challenges that come with the aging of a facility, including equipment wear, personnel changes, and erosion of operational controls. They stressed the importance of process hazard analysis to identify potential hazards and prevent them from starting or propagating. John emphasized the management of explosion hazards, particularly in relation to combustible dust, and highlighted the legal requirement for Dust Hazard Analysis in facilities to comply with OSHA regulations. They also clarified that a DHA is a detailed analysis of all fire and deflagration hazards associated with a process, system, or facility. | |
| Design Hazard Analysis for Fire Protection Engineers | |
| John discussed the process of executing a DHA (Design Hazard Analysis) for fire protection engineers. They emphasized the importance of identifying each component of the process and evaluating each location against four basic criteria. They highlighted the necessity for testing particulate's chemical makeup, size distribution, and deflagration metrics, despite the high cost. John further explained that the particulate size may change throughout the process, with fugitive dust declarations being critical. They concluded by stating that suspension mechanisms also need to be considered. | |
| Explosion Risks in Agricultural Facilities | |
| John discussed the potential for explosions in agricultural facilities, with a focus on the Imperial Sugar refining facility. They emphasized the importance of identifying potential ignition sources, such as loose buckets banging against casings, and the risk of dust accumulation and cleaning cycles in dust collectors. John also highlighted the possibility of equipment failures and accidents contributing to ignition sources. They referred to a past incident in Eugene, Oregon, and explained the hazards associated with dust suspension and ignition in buildings. John further discussed the role of a Dust Hazard Analysis (DHA) in identifying potential hazards and proposing a plan for remediation. They also explained the evaluation of ignitors, using a metric called MIE, and the process of converting it to power density, which is critical for predicting whether an ignition source is competent. | |
| Dust Hazard Analysis and Management Strategies | |
| John discussed the application of a dust hazard analysis to equipment and facilities, emphasizing the importance of identifying areas where dust poses a hazard and implementing a hazard management strategy. They highlighted the need to consider both deflagration and fire hazards, and the fact that each type of hazard requires its own protection strategy. John demonstrated the process of assessing a wood chip to wood granule process system, outlining the steps and potential remedial strategies. They also discussed the potential hazards of cyclones and silos, suggesting protection strategies and emphasizing the importance of testing the fine fraction to determine the MEc. John concluded by stating that they would document their conclusions on a synopsis chart and move on to the next location in the facility. | |
| Hazard Management in Dust Collection Systems | |
| John discussed the process of identifying and managing hazards in a dust collection system. They also highlighted the need to evaluate the potential for fires and deflagrations, and to identify any additional hazards introduced by hazard management strategies. John underscored the significance of considering personnel safety, particularly in relation to flame impingement and the possibility of CO leaks in inerted environments. They concluded by stating that the same analytical framework should be applied to each building compartment, identifying potential hazard locations and documenting housekeeping criteria and equipment that can release dust. | |
| Commodity Standards and Dust Layer Depths Discussion | |
| John discussed the application of commodity specific standards, with a focus on Nfp. 652, 654, 66, and 61. They explained the criteria for each, including allowed dust densities and adjustments for less dense dust, and the importance of understanding layer depths. John shared an example of a reconstruction of an explosion at a foundry facility to illustrate the amount of material burned and resulting dust layer depth. They also mentioned a project challenging the compliance of these standards and highlighted the limitations and assumptions in the criteria. John discussed the adoption of a standard that allowed users to choose one of three methods for evaluating explosion hazards in buildings. They stressed the need for experimental validation of current standards and shared insights from their and their colleague's research, suggesting that the angle of repose might be a better predictor of dust accumulation risks. | |
| Fire and Electrical Safety Standards Discussed | |
| John discussed the standards and criteria for evaluating fire and electrical safety hazards in buildings. They emphasized the need for flame-resistant garments in buildings identified as fire hazards and the importance of equipping electrical equipment with specific listings for dusty locations. John also highlighted the challenges in the NFPA standards due to disagreements between electrical code and dust control personnel. They concluded that all electrical equipment must be suitable for a hazard area and explained the relationship between frequency of cleaning and the rate of dust release. John then reviewed an electrical code in the context of a paper recycling facility and concluded that no hazardous conditions existed due to insufficient dust concentrations. John also discussed potential fire hazards in exhaust tubes and dust collectors and the lack of experimental validation for the mass equations in NFP 6 54. They also responded to a question about identifying competent or incompetent igniters for design, clarifying that there is currently no authoritative reference to justify this analysis for design. |