BP Oil Refinery Cherry Hills

Project Description

Key Question: What compromise is acceptable for industrial processes to meet the intent of NFPA 25?

Custom protocol for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of all fire and life safety systems at the second largest refinery in the U.S.A.

 

 

Customer : British Petroleum, Cherry Hills
Category : Research / Industrial
Date : 2010
Status : Complete
Tags : Industrial

British Petroleum requested that I review their refinery site-wide fire protection inspection, testing, and maintenance of existing equipment and devices. The Cherry Point BP refinery is the second largest refinery in the continental United States of North America. Extensive reviews and interviews of key BP facility personnel were performed over two (2) weeks at the Cherry Hills refinery. Recommendations were formulated and provided to Cherry Hills BP management to assist improve the inspection, testing, and maintenance for the Cherry Point refinery site.

Challenge

Many fire protection systems are used in different industrial facilities, including petroleum products refineries. However, it must be recognized that industrial processes are tied ti the process. Hence, the frequency of inspection, testing, and maintenance are affected by the industrial processes.

Compromise: Process versus NFPA 25 requirements

The refinery decision makers were briefed about what the traditional NFPA 25 requires for the different type of fire protection systems.  A similar conversation took place with different responsible individuals in charge of different processes.

Adjustments of frequency of inspections, testing, and maintenance of fire protection systems.

Given that there was no specific protocols dealing with different processes, it was big substantial improvements to compromise on the frequency criteria.

Solution

Cooperation of all parties was critical to achieve the intent behind NFPA 25. The inspection, testing, and maintenance of all fire protection systems in the refinery did not follow the intent of NFPA 25. This was due to requirements of the petroleum products refining process.

Understanding the limitations of each process and adjusting to those limitations were critical to apply NFPA 25 requirements as closely as possible.

The refinery decision makers were briefed about what the traditional NFPA 25 requires for the different type of fire protection systems. A similar conversation took place with different responsible individuals in charge of different processes.

Adjustments of frequency of inspections, testing, and maintenance of fire protection systems.

Given that there was no specific protocols dealing with different processes, it was big substantial improvements to compromise on the frequency criteria.

Results

The review and site inspection of the British Petroleum oil refinery was a unique challenging project.? It was with the diligence and cooperation of the refinery staff that sufficient understanding of the different processes and on-site fire and life safety capabilities.

It was a rewarding project as I have discovered that NFPA 25 is an excellent detailed document.? However, It was primarily intended to be applied to fire and life safety systems in structures rather than industrial facilities.? The key challenge is to apply the intent of the document to industrial processes that have unique requirements such as startups and shut downs.? Indeed, industrial processes in oil refineries did not match the frequency of the classical frequencies mandated by NFPA 25.

British Petroleum at Cherry Hills management was pleased with recommended compromise

During the site visit and the formulation of the strategy for developing a protocol unique to the processes at the Cherry Hills refinery, management was informed.? Concurrence was also obtained from all levels of affected departments.

Compromises reached were in-line with the intent of NFPA 25

Given unique processes and location, unique solutions were developed and applied.? The guiding document was NFPA 25 of the current edition.