(69c) Strategic Facility Siting - a Different Perspective

Existing occupied buildings in most refineries and chemical plants present significant opportunities for risk reduction and loss prevention. Poor facility siting issues exist primarily due to reactive site selection decisions that were made incrementally over time as processing units were expanded. As a result, it is common to find high-risk occupied buildings dispersed across the property. In some cases these high-risk facilities house people who do not need to be exposed to risk by nature of their job function. Modern risk assessments highlight the non-compliance to ALARP for buildings.

Strategic facility siting differs from tactical facility siting in several key respects.

Tactical facility siting focuses on select high risk buildings to be relocated to a “nearby” vacant site and hardened to withstand projected risk factors for that site. Whatever organizational units that were in the high risk building are simply relocated to the new building, thereby reproducing any operational inefficiencies or fragmentation of operations that existed in the original building. These tactical projects are typically piecemeal and only the worst rated buildings are addressed. Other buildings at or near ALARP are left unaddressed.

A strategic facility siting first makes a high level assessment of all occupied buildings collectively. It examines the populations and job positions of those occupants to determine their need to work near risk generators. Also, it is common to find organizations in fragmented locations simply because space was available at their time of need. A strategic facility siting exercise examines the best siting for different types of buildings balancing safety with productivity. It also seeks to consolidate fragmented operations for improved operational efficiencies. Other key benefits of a strategic approach include:

• A single master facility siting plan can be used to quickly identify a migration strategy, avoiding a separate, time consuming facility siting study for each building.

• Facilities housing people now hose job function does not require risk exposure can be built to normal standards (no hardening, etc.)

• Replacement facilities can be constructed in phases as high risk buildings are removed.

• An opportunity to discover process expansion sites inside the fence when high risk buildings are demolished.

• An opportunity for improved operating efficiencies between fragmented groups.

The positive economics of safety and holistic facility siting cannot be overstated. Safety is simply good business. The most effective and economical way to reduce risk is to move people away. Clearly outside operators and maintenance must work risk exposure areas but there are blast resistant structures to provide them safe haven during an event. The cost of a major fatality incident is catastrophic and can be avoided through good planning. In addition, there are significant operational efficiencies gained through consolidating fragmented operations.

 In this presentation you will learn:

• The Difference Between Strategic Facility Siting and Tactical Facility Siting

• The Benefits of a Strategic Approach and the Limitations of a Tactical Approach

• Major Opportunities (Beyond Risk Reduction) Presented by A Strategic Approach

• Mitigation measures as a result of risk assessments

• Reduced Capital and Operating Cost

• Success Case Studies