Evaluation fire risk assessment

It is the general consensus within the worldwide fire community that the only proper way to evaluate the fire safety of products is to conduct full-scale tests or complete fire-risk assessments. Most of these tests were extracted from procedures developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Because they are time tested, they are generally accepted methods to evaluate a given property. Where there were no universally accepted methods the UL developed its own. 

Figure 5-1 shows how the FHA is integrated into an overall risk assessment. A process hazard analysis is required to identify likely fire scenarios that are carried forward to the FHA. An FHA provides the tools to characterize the hazards and evaluate consequences. The results are incorporated into an overall risk assessment. See Chapter 6 for more information on fire risk assessment. 

In light of improved knowledge about the hazards posed by occupational lead exposure, the Department of Defense (DOD) asked the National Research Council to evaluate potential health risks related to recurrent lead exposure of firing-range personnel. Specifically, DOD asked the National Research Council to determine whether current exposure standards for lead on DOD firing ranges protect their workers adequately and to evaluate potential risk-assessment options. 

A simplified fire safety evaluation of a building (see Table F.2). It consists of analyzing and scoring hazard and other related risk parameters to produce a rapid and simple estimate of relative fire risk. A detailed fire risk evaluation may not include attributes such as human behavior and attitudes. The structure of a risk index system facilitates quantification and inclusion of such factors. Where a quantitative fire safety evaluation is desirable, detailed fire risk assessment may not be cost-effective or appropriate. Fire risk indexing may provide a cost-effective means of fire safety... 

It is the general consensus within the worldwide fire community that the only proper way to evaluate the fire safety of products is to conduct full-scale tests or complete fire-risk assessments. 

Roger, C., J. L. Boccio, and M. A. Azarm, 1985, Evaluation of Current Methodology Employed in Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Fire Events at Nuclear Power Plants, BNL report A-3710, February. 

Understanding fire hazards is essential to risk reduction and fire protection decision-making. A fire hazard analysis (FHA) is a tool used to understand fire hazards. The process of quantifying the fire hazard is typically motivated by the need to determine the overall hazard of a process or facility or to have a decision-making tool for fire protection systems (Chapter 6). An FHA is an important element of a risk assessment and can also be used as a stand-alone hazard evaluation tool. 

Major elements of an occupational safety and health program address recognition, evaluation, and control of hazards. The activities may include risk assessment and charting of probability and severity of potential incidents. The activities may deal with routine functions as well as non-routine functions. Changes in operations and conditions or equipment may also trigger these activities. Inspections, reviews, and other analysis methods will help identify the hazards, the likelihood of occurrence and the potential severity. For example, there should be inspections of repair and maintenance work to ensure that guards and other protections are in place or an area is clear of flammable and combustible materials and sources of heat and fire. Previous chapters offered several methods for hazard recognition and control. 

It is unlikely that a building or premises will have no controls in place for the management of fire, it is therefore essential when evaluating the level of fire risk that any such controls are analysed and included in a risk assessment record. Having identified and recorded the current controls that are in place and any shortcomings they may have, analysis of residual risk can be made. 

In this study detailed fault trees with probability and failure rate calculations were generated for the events (1) Fatality due to Explosion, Fire, Toxic Release or Asphyxiation at the Process Development Unit (PDU) Coal Gasification Process and (2) Loss of Availability of the PDU. The fault trees for the PDU were synthesized by Design Sciences, Inc., and then subjected to multiple reviews by Combustion Engineering. The steps involved in hazard identification and evaluation, fault tree generation, probability assessment, and design alteration are presented in the main body of this report. The fault trees, cut sets, failure rate data and unavailability calculations are included as attachments to this report. Although both safety and reliability trees have been constructed for the PDU, the verification and analysis of these trees were not completed as a result of the curtailment of the demonstration plant project. Certain items not completed for the PDU risk and reliability assessment are listed. 

There are a variety of process safety risks one needs to assess with chemical processes. In general, these risks will lead to an evaluation of the potential for the process to have precipitous changes in temperature and or pressure that lead to secondary events such as detonations, explosions, over pressurizations, fires, and so forth. The most cost-effective way of avoiding these sorts of risks is through the adoption of inherent safety principles. Inherent safety principles are very similar to and complementary to pollution prevention principles, where one attempts to use a hierarchy of approaches to avoid and/or reduce the risk of an adverse event. The reader is referred elsewhere to a more complete treatment of this important area of process design. ... 

The necessary emergency measures to be taken following accidental spillage or poisoning have to be assessed, and national fire control legislation will also apply. Exceptional risks to the community surrounding a chemical plant may have to be evaluated under major accidents hazards legislation, such as the European Community (EC) Seveso Directive [4]. 

A formal hazard analysis of the anticipated operations was conducted using Preliminary Hazard Assessment (PHA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) techniques to evaluate potential hazards associated with processing operations, waste handling and storage, quality control activities, and maintenance. This process included the identification of various features to control or mitigate the identified hazards. Based on the hazard analysis, a more limited set of accident scenarios was selected for quantitative evaiuation, which bound the risks to the public. These scenarios included radioactive material spills and fires and considered the effects of equipment failure, human error, and the potential effects of natural phenomena and other external events. The hazard analysis process led to the selection of eight design basis accidents (DBA s), which are summarized in Table E.4-1. 

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of passive protections of tankers in the reduction of the overall risk due to LPG road and rail transportation. In the first part of the study (Section 2) the effect of the thermal protection on the time to BLEVE was analyzed. In the second part of the study (Section 3), the results obtained were used to investigate the potential effect on risk due to the reduction of the probability of the fired BLEVE, following the adoption of the road tanker coating. A case-study derived from actual LPG road transportation scenario in Europe was analyzed, and a Transport Risk Analysis (TRA) was performed. Thus, TRA results allowed to widen the economic aspect of this issue (Section 3). Costs were identified and assessed considering also the amortization and taxes, while benefits were assessed taking into account the risk reduction as a number for life loss reduction. Finally, the comparison between costs and benefits provided an evaluation of the economic impact connected with the adoption of passive fire protections of tankers. 

---