P 110
Fire Water Network Analysis- other sites
Since we have set the terms of reference already while studying JMD Networks,our task became easy but there were several inconsistency issues!
To start with, next to JMD we took up DMD as second. We roped in their Chief Fire officer Vikas Baliyan with one of his assistant. In the case of DMD, since we did a review only in 2012,while implementing PTA 5&6 along with PX tank farm and augmented with 3 X 1000 M3/Hr FW pumps in the new raw water storage pond, we did not have any issue even while implementing the Ethane tank &its infrastructure. This Ethane facility formed a spur loop and did not affect the hydraulics at all. In case of DMD, the two largest simultaneous demand cases were 4000 M3/Hr each in Gas cracker unit and PTA complex.While carrying out the revamp in 2012, we have addressed the spare pumping capacity requirement. Having met Reliance Standard Design factors itself, we were sure that we have fully complied the OISD stipulations . The remote point remnant pressure was more than 8 Kg/cm2 g.
Next we took up HMD (Hazira). HMD had several issues!They are:
1. When originally conceived, HMD had two independent FW pump house ,one in North plot catering to the plants that came up in Hazira Ph.1 and the second came up in South plot during execution of Ph.2 having naphtha cracker,aromatic plant& large storage tanks
2.During those days, the applicable mandate was TAC Rules administering insurance coverage only.
3.As per TAC Rules, the pumping capacity should be 150% of the equivalent hydrant qty.demand with 6 hours pond storage volume to obtain the max. discount on insurance premium.
4. In case of TAC Rules, the remotest point remnant pressure value should be more than 5.25 kg/cm2g with 50% drop enroute.
5.As no one has envisaged that Hazira site will expand this high, the two networks were designed independently but having only manual valves interconnect for extreme emergency service as back up.
6. In those days, no indigenous pump manufacturer had pump sizing more than 650M3/hr and we were forced to opt the same.
By the time new plants and oil terminal at Hazira executed,TAC Rules administering hydrocarbon industry insurance coverage was getting phased out and PESO statutory rules came in picture. So the concerned engineering agencies (DECs) did not bother about the overall network hydraulics at all as long as their requirement of fire water spur take-off provisions were made available. As there was no common agency to carry out close check and monitoring, things went on piecemeal basis.
As I had the responsibility of interfacing with PESO as pivotal point for Reliance,I questioned the concerned and everyone disowned their stake. The fundamental difference between TAC Rules and PESO Rules are:
a) in case of PESO, it is 1 lpm/M2 of 2 largest simultaneous demand areas &3lpm/M2 surface area for tanks. Whereas TAC stipulates the pumping capacity based on sum of equivalent hydrants demand &for tanks@10.2 lpm/M2 surface area
b) In case of PESO, the remnant pressure value to be minimum 7kg/cm2g;but in TAC,it has to be 5.25 kg/cm2g with 50% enroute drop.
These fundamental differences created disturbance in the mind of the management! So they formed task force to carry out the entire hydraulics study from fundamentals meeting statutory stipulations(PESO). The team came to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary to augment one
additional 1x1000M3/Hr arrangement in South pond even to comply OISD stipulations of 3 lpm/M2 tank surface area in the largest dyke in South plot.Fortunately, the pond volume is sufficient even to cater this additional pump and all main header diameter were sufficiently high enough to obtain the remotest remnant pressure of 7Kg/cm2g at 5M/Sec. velocity flow.
The recommendation was given to RTG and it is under implementation.
Contd.....
Key Aspects :- Incident analysis, Technical issue, Team building
Fire Water Network Analysis- other sites
Since we have set the terms of reference already while studying JMD Networks,our task became easy but there were several inconsistency issues!
To start with, next to JMD we took up DMD as second. We roped in their Chief Fire officer Vikas Baliyan with one of his assistant. In the case of DMD, since we did a review only in 2012,while implementing PTA 5&6 along with PX tank farm and augmented with 3 X 1000 M3/Hr FW pumps in the new raw water storage pond, we did not have any issue even while implementing the Ethane tank &its infrastructure. This Ethane facility formed a spur loop and did not affect the hydraulics at all. In case of DMD, the two largest simultaneous demand cases were 4000 M3/Hr each in Gas cracker unit and PTA complex.While carrying out the revamp in 2012, we have addressed the spare pumping capacity requirement. Having met Reliance Standard Design factors itself, we were sure that we have fully complied the OISD stipulations . The remote point remnant pressure was more than 8 Kg/cm2 g.
Next we took up HMD (Hazira). HMD had several issues!They are:
1. When originally conceived, HMD had two independent FW pump house ,one in North plot catering to the plants that came up in Hazira Ph.1 and the second came up in South plot during execution of Ph.2 having naphtha cracker,aromatic plant& large storage tanks
2.During those days, the applicable mandate was TAC Rules administering insurance coverage only.
3.As per TAC Rules, the pumping capacity should be 150% of the equivalent hydrant qty.demand with 6 hours pond storage volume to obtain the max. discount on insurance premium.
4. In case of TAC Rules, the remotest point remnant pressure value should be more than 5.25 kg/cm2g with 50% drop enroute.
5.As no one has envisaged that Hazira site will expand this high, the two networks were designed independently but having only manual valves interconnect for extreme emergency service as back up.
6. In those days, no indigenous pump manufacturer had pump sizing more than 650M3/hr and we were forced to opt the same.
By the time new plants and oil terminal at Hazira executed,TAC Rules administering hydrocarbon industry insurance coverage was getting phased out and PESO statutory rules came in picture. So the concerned engineering agencies (DECs) did not bother about the overall network hydraulics at all as long as their requirement of fire water spur take-off provisions were made available. As there was no common agency to carry out close check and monitoring, things went on piecemeal basis.
As I had the responsibility of interfacing with PESO as pivotal point for Reliance,I questioned the concerned and everyone disowned their stake. The fundamental difference between TAC Rules and PESO Rules are:
a) in case of PESO, it is 1 lpm/M2 of 2 largest simultaneous demand areas &3lpm/M2 surface area for tanks. Whereas TAC stipulates the pumping capacity based on sum of equivalent hydrants demand &for tanks@10.2 lpm/M2 surface area
b) In case of PESO, the remnant pressure value to be minimum 7kg/cm2g;but in TAC,it has to be 5.25 kg/cm2g with 50% enroute drop.
These fundamental differences created disturbance in the mind of the management! So they formed task force to carry out the entire hydraulics study from fundamentals meeting statutory stipulations(PESO). The team came to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary to augment one
additional 1x1000M3/Hr arrangement in South pond even to comply OISD stipulations of 3 lpm/M2 tank surface area in the largest dyke in South plot.Fortunately, the pond volume is sufficient even to cater this additional pump and all main header diameter were sufficiently high enough to obtain the remotest remnant pressure of 7Kg/cm2g at 5M/Sec. velocity flow.
The recommendation was given to RTG and it is under implementation.
Contd.....
Key Aspects :- Incident analysis, Technical issue, Team building
No comments:
Post a Comment