P 111
Fire Water Network Analysis DMD& NMD
As part of our task, the team continued the exercise for the remaining manufacturing locations.
First in case of DMD, post PTA 5&6 implementation in 2012, only a coal based power plant and
Ethane receipt facility have come in. As we have augmented the fire water capacity and added new pumps during PTA implementation and closely checked the network hydraulic analysis, the exercise became simple.That too since only a spur branch loop was taken to cater to the large ethane tank and its infrastructure adjacent to cracker complex, there was no issue either in terms of demand or system pressure etc. So the study became simple and closed very quickly.
Next we took the analysis for NMD. As it is, a similar study was carried out for NMD in 2011 itself post the fire audit carried out by my team. Added to that, NMD implemented various add-on mini projects like EO/EG expansion, adding EO storage,cracker modification to take ethane as alternative feed stock etc. but did not complete the fire water augmentation recommendations. So the confusion enhanced. Though we issued recommendation to add a fresh sourcing for fire water in ETP guard pond area with addition of new pumps as well as replace part of ring main with increased diameter, they implemented only change of the headers in the ring main without considering the new pumps recommendation and the pond. Added to misery,the implementation of ethane as feed stock to cracker changed the entire scenario of cracker unit area demand. The complete internal layout got altered with introduction of additional equipment and compressor , making the inter distance fire break going away.
Luckily at the same time, the site was studying the raw water storage augmentation to overcome MIDC failure to adhere to their supply commitment of fresh water. When one analysed the original fire water storage and the number of pumps installed, we could neither meet the demand nor the remote point remnant pressure. So the new raw water pond became a blessing in disguise. But at the same time ,there was complete misunderstanding to the site management regarding the absolute
necessity of additional pumps requirement. They were under the wrong impression that with the existent system itself they could meet OISD stipulations since that call for only 3 lpm/M2 for tank surface area against Reliance Design basis (NFPA equivalent)of 10.2 lpm/M2 surface area !
They have overlooked that the plant area demand is 1 lpm/M2 land area that too 2 largest simultaneous demand areas have to be met. Here also, since there was complete alteration of cracker plant internal layout, the old fire break got vanished and area became very large. The plant area demand increased more than twice the original ,whereas the original pond/pumping system were designed based on TAC Regulations that too barest minimum to obtain insurance cover. When I personally explained to NMD management and working level team, they realized the folly and took up with the top management for budget sanction to add the requisite number of pumps in the new raw water pond. The augmentation process is on.
As VMD complex is too old (more than 40 years) and the company has stopped investing in any new projects or system augmentation , the team did not undertake the review and analysis of its fire water system at all.
In case of Silvaasa complex, since it is only a polyester manufacturing unit, that too the fire water augmentation took place only in 2013, this team did not feel the necessity to undertake its review.
That leaves only all the marketing oil terminals owned by Reliance. These are yet to be undertaken.
Meanwhile I have left the Loss prevention Engg. ,Mr Anthony Mankodi have retired from Reliance and the task is outstanding.
Contd.....
Key Aspects:- Incident analysis, Technical issue
Fire Water Network Analysis DMD& NMD
As part of our task, the team continued the exercise for the remaining manufacturing locations.
First in case of DMD, post PTA 5&6 implementation in 2012, only a coal based power plant and
Ethane receipt facility have come in. As we have augmented the fire water capacity and added new pumps during PTA implementation and closely checked the network hydraulic analysis, the exercise became simple.That too since only a spur branch loop was taken to cater to the large ethane tank and its infrastructure adjacent to cracker complex, there was no issue either in terms of demand or system pressure etc. So the study became simple and closed very quickly.
Next we took the analysis for NMD. As it is, a similar study was carried out for NMD in 2011 itself post the fire audit carried out by my team. Added to that, NMD implemented various add-on mini projects like EO/EG expansion, adding EO storage,cracker modification to take ethane as alternative feed stock etc. but did not complete the fire water augmentation recommendations. So the confusion enhanced. Though we issued recommendation to add a fresh sourcing for fire water in ETP guard pond area with addition of new pumps as well as replace part of ring main with increased diameter, they implemented only change of the headers in the ring main without considering the new pumps recommendation and the pond. Added to misery,the implementation of ethane as feed stock to cracker changed the entire scenario of cracker unit area demand. The complete internal layout got altered with introduction of additional equipment and compressor , making the inter distance fire break going away.
Luckily at the same time, the site was studying the raw water storage augmentation to overcome MIDC failure to adhere to their supply commitment of fresh water. When one analysed the original fire water storage and the number of pumps installed, we could neither meet the demand nor the remote point remnant pressure. So the new raw water pond became a blessing in disguise. But at the same time ,there was complete misunderstanding to the site management regarding the absolute
necessity of additional pumps requirement. They were under the wrong impression that with the existent system itself they could meet OISD stipulations since that call for only 3 lpm/M2 for tank surface area against Reliance Design basis (NFPA equivalent)of 10.2 lpm/M2 surface area !
They have overlooked that the plant area demand is 1 lpm/M2 land area that too 2 largest simultaneous demand areas have to be met. Here also, since there was complete alteration of cracker plant internal layout, the old fire break got vanished and area became very large. The plant area demand increased more than twice the original ,whereas the original pond/pumping system were designed based on TAC Regulations that too barest minimum to obtain insurance cover. When I personally explained to NMD management and working level team, they realized the folly and took up with the top management for budget sanction to add the requisite number of pumps in the new raw water pond. The augmentation process is on.
As VMD complex is too old (more than 40 years) and the company has stopped investing in any new projects or system augmentation , the team did not undertake the review and analysis of its fire water system at all.
In case of Silvaasa complex, since it is only a polyester manufacturing unit, that too the fire water augmentation took place only in 2013, this team did not feel the necessity to undertake its review.
That leaves only all the marketing oil terminals owned by Reliance. These are yet to be undertaken.
Meanwhile I have left the Loss prevention Engg. ,Mr Anthony Mankodi have retired from Reliance and the task is outstanding.
Contd.....
Key Aspects:- Incident analysis, Technical issue
No comments:
Post a Comment