07 facility siting protocol - v2215g rev 3.1 macros 11 …ballots.api.org/files/fps.pdf · facility...

Facility Siting Assessment Protocol -- Permanent Buildings2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15

Rating Weight Score Points_Possible

Percent_Points_Possibl

eObservations Instructions

1.

1.A 4 0.0 16 0%

Review to determine if all occupied permanent buildings have been assessed for inclusion in the program.What "good" looks like: A documented process (e.g. separate procedure, or a section of the PHA procedure) is in place to identify buildings intended for occupancy, and to screen these buildings for inclusion in the facility siting program, exclusion from the facility siting program, or those buildings that will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

1.A.i 4 0.0 16 0%

A building is intended for occupancy if it has personnel assigned (with the exception listed in 1B) or it is used for a recurring group personnel function. Examples of buildings intended for occupancy include, but are not limited to:- buildings which may become occupied during emergencies (e.g. buildings/rooms designated as shelter-in-place for fire and/or toxic material release, emergency command centers);- change houses;- conference rooms;- control rooms;- field operator buildings (i.e. buildings where operators are routinely located, sometimes referred to as “operator shelters”);- guardhouses;- laboratories with assigned personnel;- lunchrooms;- maintenance shops with assigned personnel;- offices;- orientation rooms;- training rooms;- warehouse buildings with assigned personnel;- “buildings within buildings” (i.e. buildings intended for occupancy located within other buildings;- rooms intended for occupancy (e.g. office, shop, control room) within an enclosed process area.

Assessment

Determination of buildings requiring building siting evaluation

Does the facility have a documented system for determining which buildings to include in its facility siting program?

Does the documented system (i.e., a procedure/policy document) identify/describe the types of buildings intended for occupancy included in the building siting evaluation? [shall]

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15




eObservations InstructionsAssessment

1.A.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

The search for structures being used for recurring activities when these are not intended should be performed using a thorough survey of the facility and its property. Examples of these types of unintended occupied structures and indications that are being used in this manner include:- Abandoned bldgs. being used by facility personnel or contractors for maintenance activities because they are close or convenient to where their work occurs. Signs that a structure is being used as a working space include: functional heating or A/C, functional toilets, lighting still functional, lockers in use, the presence of desks, working telephones, computers, working papers, etc.- Open air spaces being used by maintenance or project personnel as a supervisor's, supply, or administrative work space on a semi-permanent basis.- Trailers or other portable structures that have become quasi-permanent (after that maintenance for which they were originally intended has become completed). Concentrations of contractor trailers often become permanent in this manner. - Temporary structures built from scaffolding and plastic wrapping that have become quasi-permanent (after that maintenance for which they were originally intended has become completed).

1.A.iii 2 0.0 8 0%

Categories and examples of structures and buildings excluded from the building siting evaluation are shown as follows:- Structures with roofs and no walls whose primary function is to provide limited protection to personnel from weather including, but not limited to: bus stops, pavilions, welding covers, truck loading canopies, covered walkways, and smoking canopies- Enclosed process areas where only essential personnel are assigned to perform activities similar to those performed at an outdoors process areaBuildings which do not have personnel assigned and require at most, only intermittent access including, but not limited to: analyzer buildings, field sampling/testing stations, electrical substations and motor control centers (MCCs), remote instrumentation enclosures, equipment enclosure buildings, abandoned buildings (i.e. removed from service, unused for any function, and no longer intended for occupancy), operator shelters with intermittent use, and buildings which primarily house materials

Have buildings excluded from the facility siting program been identified? [implied should]

Have buildings and structures that are not intended for occupancy being used on a recurring basis by facility personnel or contractors in a manner that results in them being occupied.

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





1.A.iv 1 0.0 4 0%

The basis for the building’s inclusion or exclusion should consider the number and frequency of visitors and the cumulative level of occupancy among all visitors. These buildings include, but are not limited to: smoking shelters, weather shelters, dock attendant stations, loading rack personnel stations, and restroom buildings.

0.0 60 0%

2.

2.A 4 0.0 16 0%

2.B4 0.0 16 0%

If a consequence-based assessment approach is used, is it based on the maximum credible event (MCE) for each building and type of hazard considered? [shall]

If a site-specific spacing table approach is used, is it based on the MCE for each building considered, to cover explosions, fires and toxic material release hazards? [shall]

If a simplified analysis is used, is it based on conservative assumptions as a means to account for the details not included in the analysis? [should]

2.C2 0.0 8 0%

Building siting evaluation criteria

Are buildings with no personnel assigned, but occupied by individuals for a short duration, evaluated on a case-by-case basis for inclusion or exclusion from the building siting evaluation? [should]

Building Siting Determination OVERALL:

Building siting evaluation process

Assessment approach and scenario selection

- Assessment approach- Scenario selection basis- Analysis methodologies- Applicability of analysis methodologies- Data sources used in the analysis- Applicability of data sources- Building siting evaluation criteria- Results of the analysis

Instruction to the assessor: Interview someone who has responsibility for determination of the assessment approach to determine how the methodology and scenario's are selected and documented. Obtain a copy of a facility siting study to determine if the study followed the site practice and procedure per section 2B.What "good" looks like: The basis for the building siting evaluation, including items 2.A.i through 2.A.viii, the criteria against which the building siting evaluation is judged, and the results are all documented in detail.

Have the following elements of the building siting evaluation been documented? [shall]

Process area specific factors include equipment failure rate data, design of the equipment in the process area, process stream composition, and operating conditions.

What "good" looks like: The assessment methodologies are evaluated for which is most appropriate, and the basis for the choice documented. Assumptions made in the assessment, including the scenario chosen for those methodologies for which a basis scenario must be used, are documented. If a scenario-based assessment methodology is used, the scenario selected is the Maximum Credible Event. Scenarios, when used, take into account process specific conditions and factors, and consider relevant unit, site, company and industry loss history.

Building siting evaluation criteria for the consequence-based approach can be expressed as building exposure criteria or consequence criteria. These criteria are specific to the materials of construction, b ildi d i d h d t ( l i fi t i t i l

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





- Prior to starting a building siting evaluation, have the building siting evaluation criteria for new and existing buildings been selected consistent with the selected assessment approach(es)? (should)

- Do building siting evaluation criteria for the risk-based approach address the risk to the building occupants as a group (aggregate risk) and the risk to an individual? [shall]

2.D

2.D.i 4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: The facility siting evaluation for existing buildings includes all of the potential process hazards to which the building could be subjected, including explosion, fire, and flammable or toxic vapor or gas ingress.

2.D.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

The basis for the prioritization may include, but is not limited to:- combination of building damage and building occupancy; - mitigation measures that can be implemented more quickly than others such as: - relocation of personnel (especially those who are not categorized as essential personnel), - provision of blast resistant modular buildings, - window hazard mitigation;- risk.What "good" looks like: Existing buildings that are included in the facility siting evaluation are compared against the criteria, and the buildings that fail to pass the criteria are identified and prioritized for addressing the deficiencies.

Existing buildings

Building siting evaluation for existing buildings. Have building siting evaluations for existing buildings intended for occupancy included assessment of explosion, fire and toxic material release hazards to which the buildings can be exposed? [shall]

Mitigation plan for existing buildings- Has a prioritized list of all buildings intended for occupancy that fail to meet the building siting evaluation criteria been developed? [shall]

building design, and hazard type (explosion, fire, toxic material release). Building exposure criteria are typically expressed as: blast load, thermal flux and exposure time, flammable gas concentration, or toxic concentration and exposure time. Consequence criteria are typically expressed as: occupant vulnerability, potential building damage, or building internal environment degradation (i.e. inability to support human life). Risk-based building siting evaluation criteria may be expressed as numerical values of individual risk, aggregate risk or exceedance values. They can also be expressed as graphical formats which include cumulative frequency vs. consequence (F/N) curves, or matrices with numerical axes. When a spacing tables approach is used, the building siting evaluation criteria are the appropriate values in the spacing table. The criterion is satisfied when the separation distance in the spacing table is met or exceeded.

What "good" looks like: The basis for building siting evaluation criteria is documented. The criteria selected are consistent with the evaluation methodology used. The criteria selected for a risk-based approach, when used, address both risk to building occupants as a group, as well as risk to the individual.

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





- Has a mitigation plan and an associated schedule to address all existing buildings requiring mitigation been developed and completed? [shall]

This plan may include measures as follows:- Passive - Eliminate hazard (e.g. substitute less hazardous materials, reduce process pressures or temperatures) - Prevent release (i.e. reduce frequency of scenario) (e.g. upgrade metallurgy or equipment design, reduce leak sources) - Control size of scenario (e.g. minimize equipment congestion or confinement, utilize spill containment, minimize release rate) - Mitigate effect to building occupants (e.g. relocate personnel, upgrade buildings to protect personnel during scenario)- Active - Prevent release (i.e. reduce frequency of scenario) (e.g. safety instrumented systems) - Control size of scenario (e.g. emergency shutdown systems, automatic fixed fire protection systems) - Mitigate effect to building occupants (e.g. building HVAC shutdown on detection of flammable or toxic gas or vapors)- Procedural - Prevent release (i.e. reduce frequency of scenario) (e.g. mechanical integrity inspection, safe work permits) - Control size of scenario (e.g. manual fire fighting systems) - Mitigate effect to building occupants (e.g. emergency response plans, evacuating building occupants during startup/shutdown)

The building mitigations may be phased-in consistent with other relative risk mitigation efforts.

What "good" looks like: A building mitigation plan and schedule is in-place based on the prioritization of buildings that fail the evaluation criteria, and progress is being made against the plan and schedule.

2.D.iii Hierarchy of mitigation measures

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





2.D.iii.1

Has a hierarchy of potential mitigation measures been chosen considering reliability and effectiveness of the measures? [implied should]

1 0 4 0%

Owners/operators may elect to implement measures that reduce the consequence and/or frequency of scenarios. Measures listed above are given in order of decreasing reliability (passive, active, or procedural) and categorized by type (eliminate, prevent, control, and mitigate). When selecting a mitigation measure it is important to evaluate how effective the measure will be in reducing the consequence or the frequency of the scenario. Protection of building occupants requires a balanced approach between passive, active, and procedural measures. Owners and operators should be cautious when relying upon active and procedural measures in mitigation for vapor cloud explosions (VCEs) because time between the initial release of flammable material and the VCE may be insufficient for these measures to be effective.

Instructions to auditor: What "good" looks like: The evaluation of mitigation measures follows the hierarchy, as appropriate. Randomly audit three occupied buildings that have previously been mitigated for facility siting hazards. The site's use of all passive mitigations per Table 1 in API 752 would be a high score, use of all procedural mitigations would be a low score, and a mix would be a medium score depending on how heavy the mix was in either direction.

2.E Reserved

2.F

2.F.i

4 0.0 16 0%

Areas of competency include, as appropriate, the application of the methodology being employed, hazard identification, scenario development, flammable and toxic gas dispersion modeling, fire modeling, explosion modeling, blast response of structures, design of buildings to resist thermal loading and gas ingress, frequency assessment, and quantitative risk assessment techniques.Instruction to assessor: Interview a sample of those responsible for performing siting evaluation to determine how they are competent in the analytical methods. Obtain training records (if applicable).What "good" looks like: Competency and training are documented. For siting studies completed by consultants or offsite company employees, interviewing may not be possible, ask the site to present the qualifications of the person(s) completing the studies.

2.G

4 0.0 16 0%

Management of building occupancy

Personnel performing building siting evaluation

Are personnel performing the building siting evaluation competent in the analytical methods used in the evaluation? [shall]

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





2.H 4 0.0 16 0%

Situations that may require MOC evaluation include, but are not limited to:- changes to plant operations, processes or equipment (including decommissions or additions) cause a change in potential for, or severity of, explosion, fire, or toxic impacts at the building location;- a new building intended for occupancy is added to the facility;- a modification or addition to an existing building occurs that could cause a change in the potential for, or severity of, explosion, fire, or toxic material release impacts;- the building’s occupancy status changes from not intended for occupancy to intended for occupancy;- the number of personnel or time spent inside the building increases either permanently or for a defined period of time

What "good" looks like: Criteria to determine when a change in building status, as described above, have been defined. The criteria, review process and authorization levels and requirements are included in the MOC policy and procedure(s). Periodic checks are made to ensure that appropriate changes involving buildings have been reviewed and managed through the MOC process.

0.0 124 0%

Have policies and practices been developed to address housing of personnel located in buildings intended for occupancy considering exposure level to explosion, fire, and toxic material release? [shall]

Has consideration been given to locating nonessential personnel as far as practicable from the hazard and discouraging congregation of personnel in buildings close to process areas? [should]

Is it periodically confirmed that buildings not intended for occupancy remain unoccupied? [should}

Management of change - Have building siting evaluation situations been identified that require MOC? [shall]

Building Siting Evaluation Process OVERALL:

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





3.

Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how explosion hazards are assessed.. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that section 3 considerations are followed and if the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that buildings are located per plan and that none are outside of plan.

3.A 4 0.0 16 0%

Where no potential explosion scenario is identified which could adversely affect the building under consideration, a building siting evaluation for explosion is not required. This is applicable to both new and existing buildings intended for occupancy.What "good" looks like: Each building intended for occupancy has been evaluated for potential impact from explosions.

3.B

4 0.0 16 0%

VCEs are typically the dominant explosion scenarios for refineries and petrochemical plants. Other explosion types may dominate at some facilities. The following sections describe the building siting evaluation process for external VCEs, such as:- internal VCEs, such as inside enclosed process units or other enclosures- condensed phase chemical explosions- dust explosions- pressure vessel bursts (PVBs)- reactive chemical explosions- boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE)

Building siting evaluation for explosion

General- Has it been determined if each building intended for occupancy could be impacted by explosion? [shall]

Determining the VCE blast loads on buildings- Has the explosion evaluation included calculation of blast loads on buildings? (shall)

Implementation and Execution

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





What "good" looks like: The explosion evaluation is performed on each building intended for occupancy, and has been conducted by use of a blast curve technique, such as the Baker-Strehlow-Tang (BST) methodology, Congestion Assessment Methodology (CAM) or TNO Multi-Energy Methodology (MEM), an advanced blast simulation technique (computational fluids dynamics model), or appropriate equivalent methodology. Also, a common industry practice is to show the overpressure curves overlaid on a facility plot plan, thereby showing which areas of the facility are safe or not safe with respect to existing bldgs. and new bldgs.

"The TNT equivalency method shall not be used to assess VCE blast loads for building siting evaluation. The TNT equivalency method does not recognize differences in fuel reactivity or variations in flame speed due to congestion or confinement. In addition, the magnitude and duration of the modeled TNT explosion can be significantly different from VCEs. Other methods are more suitable for modeling VCEs." (API RP 752, section 6.3.1)

Design blast loads may be calculated using a consequence-based or risk-based approach.What "good" looks like: Blast loads are calculated in the siting and specification of blast design criteria of new buildings intended for occupancy, and documented. Blast load calculations include the peak overpressure and impulse or duration.

3.C

3.C.i

3.C.i.1 Have buildings intended for occupancy located within other buildings been assessed for potential impacts resulting from the blast load and the response of the outer building? [should]

2 0.0 8 0%What "good" looks like: The inner building is evaluated for impacts from the blast load as well as for impacts of the blast load on the outer building.

3.C.ii Building damage level assessment

General

Building analysis and design tools

Are blast loads taken into account in selecting the type of building construction when siting new buildings intended for occupancy? (shall)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





3.C.ii.1 Have appropriate tools been used to evaluate the building structural response to blast loads? [should]

Have structural response criteria for building components been established as part of the detailed structural analysis process? (shall)

Has the building damage level assessment and/or detailed structural analysis also addressed nonstructural components that may present debris hazards from roofs, walls, windows, doors, ceilings, and mechanical services? [shall]

Have buildings which fail to meet the building siting evaluation criteria been included in the mitigation plan or subjected to a more detailed analysis? (shall) 2 0.0 8 0%

A building damage level assessment uses tools that relate blast load to overall building performance or damage levels. Charts (or software that automate use of charts) have been developed based on the assessment of representative buildings. Tables listing the lowest overpressures from the charts that cause specific damage levels (pressure asymptotes) may also be used. Building damage tables that only cite overpressure values may be based on short duration loads and may not be appropriate for long duration blast loads such as from vapor cloud explosions.What "good" looks like: Appropriate tools have been used by personnel competent in their use, and the evaluation documented.

A detailed structural analysis uses appropriate dynamic analysis methods to assess response of structural components (beams, columns, slabs, frames, etc.) to blast load.

Buildings constructed of brittle materials such as, but not limited to unreinforced masonry (e.g. block, brick, or clay tile), unreinforced concrete, poured gypsum and cement-fiber/asbestos panels lack ductility and fail in a brittle manner when blast loads exceed their capacity.What "good" looks like: Detailed structural analysis is used to specify design criteria for blast, for new buildings and additions or structural modifications to existing buildings; building damage level assessments are not solely relied upon. The detailed structural analysis also included non-structural components. The detailed structural analysis is fully documented.

3.C.ii.2 Have buildings that are not an appropriate structural match to the representative buildings been analyzed using a detailed structural analysis or by selecting a weaker building for a conservative building damage level assessment? [should] 2 0.0 8 0%

What "good" looks like: Building damage level assessments are typically performed on an appropriate, representative structural match. If an appropriate structural match is not available, then either a weaker building is chosen as the representative structural match, or a detailed structural analysis is performed. Qualified structural expertise is consulted to determine appropriate matching.

3.D

1 0.0 4 0%

Building damage assessment results can be used to estimate the potential vulnerability of building occupants. The primary hazards to personnel located indoors are building collapse and debris. Debris may include building materials thrown from exterior walls or dropped from ceilings/roof. Building contents located on, against, or near external walls may also become debris. Occupant vulnerability can be estimated based on published methodologies. Different models use different definitions of occupant vulnerability and are appropriate for specific types of construction. Occupant vulnerability has been correlated to building damage for some building types. For a consequence analysis, measures of building damage can be used as a criterion in lieu of occupant vulnerability.

0.0 60 0%

Occupant vulnerability from explosions- If occupant vulnerability is used, has the basis for occupant vulnerability, or the correlation between occupant vulnerability and measures of building damage used as a criterion in lieu of occupant vulnerability, been assessed, understood and documented? [should]

Building Siting Evaluation for Explosion OVERALL:

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





4

Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how fire hazards are assessed.. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that section 4 considerations are followed and if the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that buildings are located per plan and that none are outside of plan.

4.A

4 0.0 16 0%

Where no potential fire scenario is identified which could adversely affect the building under consideration, a building siting evaluation for fire is not required. This applicable to both new and existing buildings intended for occupancy.

What "good" looks like: Each building intended for occupancy has been evaluated for potential impact from flammable vapor or gas release, or from thermal radiation.

What "good" looks like: Fire loads are calculated in the siting and specification of design criteria of new buildings intended for occupancy, and documented.

4.B

4.B.i

4 0.0 16 0%

4.B.ii

2 0.0 8 0%

4.B.iii

4 0.0 16 0%


What "good" looks like: Buildings intended for occupancy are evaluated for potential exposure to fire. Buildings that could potentially be exposed to fire are evaluated for protection of occupants. To protect building occupants from fire, possible design and mitigation options are investigated. To further protect occupants in case the design and mitigation measures fail, a strategy of shelter-in-place, evacuation, or a combination of both are selected. The strategy selected is incorporated into emergency plans, trained and practiced.Has the concept for protection of building occupants from fire hazards been

reflected in the site emergency response plan, building design features, escape route design, and other emergency response elements? (should)

If a building can be exposed to smoke or an external flammable mixture, does the building have features to prevent infiltration and formation of smoke or a flammable mixture inside the building? (shall)

Building siting evaluation for fire

General

Have buildings intended for occupancy been evaluated for impact by flammable vapor release or thermal radiation? (shall)

Are new buildings intended for occupancy sited and designed to meet the building siting evaluation criteria for fire? (shall)

Concept selection for buildings exposed to fire

Has either shelter-in-place or evacuation been chosen to protect building occupants from external fire? (shall)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





4.B.iv

4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: If evacuation is chosen as a strategy to protect building occupants from external fire, means to provide a safe evacuation route and protection of evacuating personnel from fire exposure are evaluated, specified and documented. This includes the items in the bulleted list.

4.C

4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: The analysis of existing buildings intended for occupancy is compared to building siting criteria for fire, and the results documented. If the building fails the criteria, it is placed on the building mitigation plan and prioritized with other buildings in the plan. A schedule is developed for mitigation of the building. Mitigation is performed according to the schedule.

0.0 88 0%

5

Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how toxic hazards are assessed. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that section 4 considerations are followed and if the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that buildings are located per plan and that none are outside of plan.

5.A

5.A.i

4 0.0 16 0%

Where no potential toxic or flammable material release scenario is identified which could adversely affect the occupants of the building under consideration, a building siting evaluation for toxic material release is not required. This applicable to both new and existing buildings intended for occupancy.What "good" looks like: Each building intended for occupancy has been evaluated for potential impact from toxic vapor or gas release. NOTE: It can be assumed the building is impacted and thus no dispersion modeling is necessary.

What "good" looks like: Potential toxic loads are calculated in the siting and specification of design criteria of new buildings intended for occupancy, and documented.

Building siting evaluation for toxic material release

General

Have buildings intended for occupancy been evaluated for impact of ingress by a toxic or flammable material release? (shall)

Are new buildings intended for occupancy sited and designed to meet the building siting evaluation criteria for toxic material release? (shall)

Building Siting Evaluation for Fire OVERALL:

Determining if existing buildings require mitigation

Have existing buildings intended for occupancy been compared with the owner’s/operator’s building siting evaluation criteria for fire? (shall)

Have buildings which fail to meet the building siting evaluation criteria for external fire been included in the mitigation plan or subjected to more detailed analysis? (shall)

When the “evacuation for fire” concept is chosen, have the following emergency response features been provided:- emergency action procedures and training that will facilitate evacuation,- emergency exits and safe evacuation routes,- evacuation plan that directs personnel to a designated “shelter-in-place” or specified assembly area,- means to warn building occupants of the presence of a flammable release or fire,- plan to account for occupants,- PPE as necessary for scenario potential exposure(shall)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





5.B

4 0.0 16 0%

The owner/operator may assume that on-site buildings intended for occupancy can be impacted by releases of toxic materials or they may choose to carry out toxic gas dispersion modeling for each building intended for occupancy. The threshold may be either a toxic material concentration/dose external to the building (which could impair escape) or toxic material concentration/dose inside the building. Owners/operators may use one or more gas dispersion models to calculate the concentration of toxic material at specified outdoor locations.What "good" looks like: Dispersion modeling is performed to evaluate building occupant exposure to potential toxic vapor or gas cloud releases. The dispersion modeling is based on Maximum Credible Scenarios. Acceptance criteria are developed against which to compare the dispersion modeling results. Modeling assumptions, inputs and results are documented.

5.C

5.C.i

4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: Buildings intended for occupancy are evaluated for potential exposure to toxic vapor or gas clouds. Buildings that could potentially be exposed to a toxic cloud are evaluated for protection of occupants. To protect building occupants

5.C.ii

4 0.0 16 0%

5.C.iii

2 0.0 8 0%

A score of 3 will be given if the site's practices meet the requirements listed. A score of 4 will be given if the site meets the criteria below:

The performance requirements for these features may be designed/assessed based on:- length of time personnel are required to remain in the building; - length of time that the toxic material impedes escape from the building; or- appropriate industry standards, guidelines and practices.

What "good" looks like: If the shelter-in-place strategy is selected to protect building occupants from toxic release, the resistance of the building to toxic vapor or gas infiltration versus expected length of time of exposure is evaluated to determine the safe amount of time personnel can shelter in the building. Also evaluated in determining the safe amount of time that personnel can shelter in the building are the length of time that the external toxic cloud can impede escape. The need for provisions for additional PPE, supplied fresh air, and cooling of occupants during shelter-in-place is evaluated.

Determining the toxic effects at buildings

If a gas dispersion modeling approach is selected, have thresholds been established for use as building siting evaluation criteria for toxic material release? (shall)

Concept selection for buildings exposed to toxic material release

Has either shelter-in-place or evacuation been chosen to protect building occupants from toxic material release? (shall)

Has the concept for protection of building occupants from toxic material release hazards been reflected in the site emergency response plan, building design features, escape route design, and other emergency response elements? (shall)

Shelter-in-place for toxic material release

When the “shelter-in-place for toxic materials release” concept is chosen, have the following features been provided for each building intended for occupancy:- HVAC systems capable of shutdown of the system or placement in recirculation mode, whichever is more appropriate; - systems to notify occupants of external material release;- emergency communications equipment (telephones are acceptable); - PPE as necessary; - seals for windows, doors, and penetrations?(should)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





5.C.iv

2 0.0 8 0%

Some materials are both toxic and flammable. A toxic exposure could precede or follow a fire or explosion.What "good" looks like: The building siting evaluation considers possible domino effects of fire, flammable vapor or gas cloud, or toxic vapor or gas cloud exposure after and explosion.

5.D

5.D.i

4 0.0 16 0%

A score of 3 will be given if the site's practices meet the requirements listed. A score of 4 will be given if the site meets the criteria below:

What "good" looks like: If evacuation is chosen as a strategy to protect building occupants from external toxic release, means to provide a safe evacuation route and protection of evacuating personnel from toxic exposure are evaluated, specified and documented. This includes the items in the bulleted list.

5.E

4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: The analysis of existing buildings intended for occupancy is compared to building siting criteria for toxics, and the results documented. If the building fails the criteria, it is placed on the building mitigation plan and prioritized with other buildings in the plan. A schedule is developed for mitigation of the building. Mitigation is performed according to the schedule.

0.0 112 0%

0%

0%

0%

Ratings completed: 0 Observations Completed: 0Ratings Not Completed: 34 Observations Not Completed: 34

Permanent BuildingsWeighting # of Total Possible %

1.0 3 0 12 0%1.5 0 0 0 0%2.0 8 0 64 0%3.0 0 0 0 0%4.0 23 0 368 0%

Total 34 0 444 0%

Permanent Building - Management Systems Score:Permanent Building - Implementation Score:

Permanent Building - OVERALL SCORE:

Building Siting Evaluation for Toxic Material Release OVERALL SCORE:

Determining if existing buildings require mitigationHave buildings which fail to meet the building siting evaluation criteria for toxic material release been included in the mitigation plan or subjected to more detailed analysis? (shall)

Evacuation for toxic material release

Evacuation for toxic material releaseWhen the “evacuation for toxic material release” concept is chosen, have the following emergency response features been provided for each building intended for occupancy:- emergency action procedures and training that will facilitate evacuation,- emergency exits and safe evacuation routes, - evacuation plan that directs personnel to a designated “shelter-in-place” or specified assembly area,- means to warn building occupants to the presence of a toxic material release,- plan to account for occupants,- PPE as necessary for scenario potential exposure (shall)

When a building can be exposed to both flammable and toxic materials in a single release, has the building siting evaluation considered potential explosion damage, which may compromise the performance of the building as a shelter-in-place for toxic material release? (should)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15





Facility Siting TotalWeighting # of Total Possible %

1.0 8 0 32 0%1.5 0 0 0 0%2.0 40 0 320 0%3.0 0 0 0 0%4.0 77 0 1,232 0%

Total 125 0 1,584 0%

DISCLAIMER: A company’s performance on this assessment is not intended to be used, and should not be used, to determine compliance with any applicable legal requirement, including 29 C.F.R. 1910.119. This assessment is not meant to prescribeor limit how a company meets the requirements of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119. Companies can implement their own programs and procedures to satisfy the PSM performance standard.

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15

Facility Siting Assessment Protocol -- Portable Buildings2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15




6.

6.A 4 0.0 16 0%

0.0 16 0%

7

7.A 4 0.0 16 0%

Instruction to the assessor: Review the documented system for portable buildings to determine if management of personnel is addressed per section 2.A. Verify that the documented system is followed. Obtain a list of all MOC/MOOC changes to the buildings including the items listed in 2A

What "good" looks like: Criteria have been developed with respect to the placement of occupied portable buildings in proximity to process areas containing hazardous materials. First preference is to locate occupied portable buildings remotely, especially for non-essential personnel. Personnel management in buildings is specifically a part of MOC/ MOOC. The basis and authorization for placement of occupied portable buildings is documented.

7.B

7.B.i 4 0.0 16 0%

7.B.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

Instruction to the assessor: Obtain a copy of portable building procedures or other documented systems related to placement of, changes to, and occupancy of portable buildings.Verify that the documented system is followed:1. Obtain a list of all occupied portable buildings2. Obtain a list of all MOC changes to the buildings including the items listed in 1.B3. Verify the accuracy of the list by physical observation.What "good" looks like: Criteria to determine when a change with respect to occupied portable building status, including the changes listed in the bulleted list, have been defined. The criteria, review process and authorization levels and requirements are included in the MOC policy and procedure(s). Changes described in section 1B are easily identified and queried through the sites MOC system. Periodic checks are made to ensure that appropriate changes involving buildings have been reviewed and managed through the MOC process.

Managing Change Specific to Portable Buildings OVERALL:

The facility’s portable building policies or procedures (shall)

The emergency response plan for the portable building in the event of an explosion, fire, or toxic release incident (shall)

Instruction to the assessor: Review the written policy/procedure for siting of portable buildings.What "good" looks like: There is a written policy and/or procedures addressing placement and occupation of portable buildings, including portable buildings that are only occupied for a short duration, such as those listed at left. Personnel are informed of the policies or procedures, especially those occupying portable buildings. Occupied portable buildings are included in emergency plans, and personnel are informed, trained and drilled in those plans.

Is there a documented system to address the following questions when considering placement of a portable building near a covered process area? (shall) - Do personnel need to be located near a covered process area? (should) - Do personnel need to occupy a portable building? (shall) - Can the portable building be placed further from the covered process area, while allowing the occupants to effectively perform their tasks? (should) - Have personnel who are not essential been located as far as reasonably practicable from a covered process area? (shall)

Management of Personnel in Portable Buildings

Assessment

Managing change specific to portable buildings.

Does the facility have a documented system for managing change specific to portable buildings (shall)? Does the documented system require formal written approval by senior management for deviations from established company policies or procedures? (should). Does the document address the following changes?Reassigning personnel? (should)Changing process conditions? (should)Adding a building? (should)Modifying a building? (should)Reclassifying a building function (e.g., temporary to permanent) (should)Relocating a building? (should)Introducing new hazards affecting a building? (should)

Is there a documented system to inform personnel occupying portable buildings of the following?

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





7.C

7.C.i 4 0.0 16 0%

Instruction to the assessor: Examine a sampling of building assessments for hazards evaluated and acceptance/rejection criteria.What "good" looks like: A process is in place to identify portable buildings intended for occupancy, and to include these buildings in the facility siting program. In addition, if there are portable buildings not intended for occupancy that are deemed important enough to evaluate under the facility siting program, these unoccupied buildings have been identified and screened. The evaluation of the portable buildings is documented.

7.C.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

This section differentiates between siting requirements of RP 752 and 753. RP 752 occupancy threshold examples shall not be used. Sections 2.5.2 b (occupancy load), c (percentage of individual time in occupancy), and d (peak occupancy)

7.C.iii 1 0.0 4 0%

What "good" looks like: A process is in place to identify portable buildings and shelters that will be handled on a case-by-case basis in the facility siting program. The basis for inclusion or exclusion of these buildings from the facility siting program is documented.

7.D

7.D.i 4 0.0 16 0%

7.E 2 0.0 8 0%

Instruction to the assessor: Review the documented risk mitigation measures per section 2E and verify that the documented measures are in place by a field review of a representative sample of portable buildings. If the mitigation measures are not documented, then field review a sample of buildings to verify what is in place.

Are portable buildings or shelters occupied only for short duration (e.g., portable toilet facilities, smoking shelters, weather shelters) evaluated on a case-by-case basis? (should)

What "good" looks like: There is a process to identify and document portable buildings that are not intended for occupancy. This process includes measures to ensure and verify that these buildings remain unoccupied, or to review a change in their status to "occupied" under the MOC process.

Portable Buildings Intended for Occupancy

Have the occupancy hour threshold examples in API RP 752, second edition (2003), been used to exclude portable buildings from a siting evaluation? (shall not)

Are controls implemented to ensure that the use of portable buildings NOT intended for occupancy does not change to “portable buildings intended for occupancy”?

Are there documented risk mitigation measures for other portable structures (e.g. mobile environmental monitoring stations, supplied air trailers, inert entry life support trailers, vehicles housing equipment stations, etc.) that include: - Direct communications of occupants with operations? (shall) - Authorized work permit for their temporary presence? (shall) - Awareness training of process unit hazards for occupants? (shall) - Emergency response and evacuation procedures? (shall) - Minimized occupancy, which includes controls to confirm that personnel not directly involved in a critical on-going activity (e.g. start-up and planned shut-down) are evacuated from these portable structures? (shall)

Portable Buildings NOT Intended for Occupancy

Are portable buildings that are intended to be occupied evaluated for siting relative to explosion, fire, and toxic release? (shall)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





7.F 4 0.0 16 0%

See Table 1, RP 753, (this includes portable buildings that have facilities that could be used for meetings.)Instruction to the assessor: Field review a representative sample of portable buildings to insure controls are in place.Interview a sample of affected operators, crafts, and contractors to determine their level of understanding of Zone 1 restrictions on occupancy.What "good" looks like: The documented risk mitigation measures should be a part of either a documented facility siting review, part of the unit PHA, or identified as PSI. However documented, it should be readily accessible.

0.0 124 0%

Are controls in place to restrict occupancy to only essential personnel in portable buildings located in Zone 1? (shall)

Management System of Personnel in Portable Buildings OVERALL:

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





8.

8.A 2 0.0 8 0%

See RP 753, Appendices A and B for the basis description of Zone 1, 2, and 3.Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how portable buildings are located. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that section 3 considerations are followed and if the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that portable buildings are located per plan and that none are outside of plan.What "good" looks like: An analysis method is selected, and the basis for the decision documented. Analyses performed under the selected analysis method are documented for assumptions, methodology and results.

8.B

8.B.i 4 0.0 16 0%

8.C

8.C.i 4 0.0 16 0%

8.C.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

8.C.iii 4 0.0 16 0%

8.D

Have detailed analyses pursuant to API RP 753 Subsection 3.2 been performed for light wood trailers located in Zone 2? (shall)

What "good" looks like: Analyses of portable buildings intended for occupancy are performed and documented regarding assumptions, methodology and results.

Have detailed analyses pursuant to API RP 753 Subsection 3.2 been performed for portable buildings (other than light wood trailers) located in Zone 1? (shall)

Siting requirements for portable buildings intended for occupancy near congested volumes less than 7,500 cubic ft.

Siting requirements for portable buildings near congested volumes greater than 1,000,000 cubic ft.

Are portable buildings intended for occupancy located either at a standoff distance greater than 330 ft., or at a distance determined by a properly performed Detailed Analysis pursuant to Section 3.2 of API 753? (shall)

Siting requirements for portable buildings near congested volumes from 7,500 to 1,000,000 cubic ft.

Are light wood trailers intended for occupancy excluded from Zone 1? (shall)

Does this facility have occupied portable buildings that are not Blast Resistant Modules (BRM) located in Zone 1 or Zone 2? If no, then score 8.A and skip to question 8.J. If yes, then score the questions in this section.


Methods for Locating Portable Buildings for Explosion Hazards

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





8.D.i 4 0.0 16 0%

8.E

8.E.i 4 0.0 16 0%

8.E.ii 1 0.0 4 0%

8.F

8.F.i 4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: Analyses of portable buildings intended for occupancy are performed and documented regarding assumptions, methodology and results.

8.F.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: Only person(s) competent in the analysis methodologies perform portable building siting assessments, and their qualifications documented, such as education, experience, training records, licenses, certifications, etc. Criteria to determine competence is documented.

8.G

Have either a consequence analysis or a quantitative risk assessment been performed for all portable buildings in an area designated as "Zone 1" or "Zone 2"? (shall)

Were personnel performing the detailed analysis competent in the analytical procedures and the components of the analysis. (shall) Did the areas of competency include, as appropriate: - the application of the methodology being employed, (shall) - hazard identification, (shall) - scenario development, (shall) - flammable dispersion modeling, (shall) - explosion modeling, (shall) - blast response of structures, (shall) - frequency assessment, (shall) - mathematical techniques. (shall)

Detailed Analysis

Simplified Method for hazard evaluation for placement of portable buildings

Is the Simplified Method only used for placement of portable buildings in Zone 3? (shall)

Has mitigation of potential window hazards been considered (should)?

Consequence Analysis

Is the standoff distances greater than or equal to 570 feet for light wood located in Zone 1? (shall)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





8.G.i 2 0.0 8 0%

What "good" looks like: Scenarios for consequence analysis are based on the Maximum Credible Event, also considering incidents and their outcomes that have or could have occurred in similar process units within industry (e.g., full-bore rupture of process piping systems, completely filled congested volumes.) Evaluations for Vapor Cloud Explosions include the items in the bulleted list of 8.H.ii. Other possible sources for explosion overpressures, such as those listed in 8.H.iii, are considered as appropriate. The placement of a particular type of portable building includes evaluation of the structure to the blast loads that can credibly be imparted to it at the standoff distance(s) of interest (i.e. where the building is located for an existing portable building, or a location being considered for placement of a portable building).

8.G.ii 2 0.0 8 0%

8.G.iii 4 0.0 16 0%

8.G.iv

4 0.0 16 0%

Additional sources of information are:Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, Baker, Cox, Westine, Kulesz, and Strehlow, Elsevier, 1983Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects, TNO “Yellow Book,” CPR 14E, The Hague, Netherlands, 1997.Methods for the Determination of Possible Damage to People and Objects Resulting from Releases of Hazardous Materials, TNO “Green Book,” CPR 16E, The Hague, Netherlands, 1992.Risk-Based Explosives Safety Analysis, Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board Technical Paper No. 14, Alexandria, Virginia, February 2000

Were consequence analyses conducted based on major release scenarios? (should)

Were the suitability of a particular type of portable building and the appropriate standoff distance determined based on the blast response of

structures? (shall)

Were the following explosion hazards considered, if appropriate? (should) - Condensed phase chemical explosion? (should) - Dust explosion? (should) - Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions (BLEVEs)? (should) - Vapor cloud explosions at enclosed process units? (should) - Pressure vessel burst? (should) - Runaway chemical reactions? (should)

Did the estimated Vapor Cloud Explosion blast loading include the following:? (should) - Flammable cloud size? (should) - Fuel reactivity? (should) - Process area congestion? (should) - Congested volume? (should) - Confinement? (should) - Explosion severity or flame speed? (should) - Separation distance between adjacent congested volumes? (should) - Distance between the hazardous process area and the portable building? (should)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





8.H

8.H.i 1 0.0 4 0%

8.H.ii 2 0.0 8 0%

8.H.iii 2 0.0 8 0%

8.H.iv 2 0.0 8 0%

8.H.v 2 0.0 8 0%

8.I

8.I.i 2 0.0 8 0%

8.I.ii 2 0.0 8 0%

8.I.iii 1 0.0 4 0%

8.J

8.J.i 4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: Acceptance criteria are developed and documented for the siting of occupied portable buildings in hazardous locations.

8.J.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: The design of occupied portable buildings for blast resistance are evaluated for each individual building and situation. The evaluation is documented with respect to assumptions, evaluation methodology, acceptance criteria and results.

Absent other technical basis, was API RP Table 2 and the associated technical basis for this Table in Appendix A used to determine overpressure effects on metal trailers, wood trailer with wider studs or other wall-constructed trailer? (should)

Do QRAs take into account a full range of release scenarios? (should)

Do QRAs assume portable buildings are occupied by one or more individuals at least 40 hours a week? (should)

Do QRAs take credit for cases where building(s) will not be used or located at that site for less than a year? (should NOT)

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

Was a QRA conducted based on information generated as a result of detailed consequence analysis? (can)

Do QRAs assume this occupancy level for the entire year? (should)

Light Wood Trailer Overpressure Damage Levels

Absent other, more sophisticated, technical basis, was API RP Table 2 and the associated technical basis for this Table in Appendix A used to determine overpressure effects on light wood trailers? (should)

This section will only be scored if the site uses the QRA methodology for siting portable buildings. If the site uses spacing tables or consequence analysis, then these questions should be marked N/A and not scored. What "good" looks like: The basis for the QRA, including scope, assumptions, data sources and acceptance criteria, is documented. The QRA evaluates a range of release sizes, with release rates based on process conditions. Occupancy of portable buildings is assumed to be at least 40 weeks per year for an entire year. Results of the QRA are documented.

What "good" looks like: The technical basis and results for the evaluation of light wood trailers, including blast overpressure effects is documented. Acceptance criteria are documented. Decisions regarding the siting of occupied light wood trailers, including authorization approvals, is documented.

Were more sophisticated analysis tools applied to overpressure effects on portable buildings, including light wood trailers, that may result in different damage predictions than shown in Table 2? (can)

Portable Building Blast Resistance Requirements

Have facility owners and operators developed criteria as to when a blast resistant portable building will be allowed in hazardous locations? (shall)

Are the design of portable buildings specifically designed for significant blast loads evaluated on a case by case basis? (shall)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





8.J.iii

8.J.iii.aWas a detailed blast analysis conducted as described in API RP 753, Section 3.2 (shall) 4 0.0 16 0%

8.J.iii.b

Did the facility conduct a structural analysis that included the following: (shall)

8.J.iii.b.1

Establish blast design basis loading (shall) - Design or assess the structure of portable buildings using established blast resistant design procedures. (shall) - Establish design criteria in terms of the allowable structural response that are appropriate for the intended use of the building. (shall) - Design or assess the support system of portable buildings to limit the acceleration and displacement of the building, including overturning and sliding. (shall) - Address door operability and function after blast. (shall) - Design or assess non-structural features of portable buildings to limit flammable vapor or smoke ingress (post explosion event) and dislodgement of internal features. (shall) - Address applicable explosion risk reduction measures. (shall)

4 0.0 16 0%

The ASCE 1998 is recommended for blast resistant design or assessment of portable buildings for petrochemical facilities

What good looks like (see 3L below): a) internal furniture, office equipment and fixtures are secure to minimize projectiles, b) documentation that the building was assembled and installed per the manufacture's recommendations c) ridge beams and columns in double wide trailers have proper connectionsd) Buildings are orientated with the short face toward the controlling explosion hazarde) There are adequate emergency doors and adequate egress. There are doors away from the controlling explosion hazard.f) egress paths are identified relative to the potential explosion hazard and overpressure generated escalation eventsg) the building meets local building codes and electrical area classifications, and;h) there is a documented periodic inspection program for portable building not intended for occupancy to ensure that the occupancy status has not changed.

8.J.iii.cDid the facility conduct a fire and toxic release hazards analysis that included the following: (shall)

8.J.iii.c.1

The fire rating of the building shell for thermal radiation and (if applicable) flame impingement. (shall) 4 0.0 16 0%

8.J.iii.c.2

Specify flammable and/or toxic release mitigation systems (alarms, HVAC emergency shutdown systems, water sprays, etc.). (shall) 4 0.0 16 0%

8.J.iii.c.3

Determine means of escape and emergency evacuation in the event of a toxic/flammable gas release or a fire. (shall) 4 0.0 16 0%

8.J.iii.c.4

Specify personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements for building occupants. (shall) 4 0.0 16 0%

8.K

Does this facility have occupied portable buildings located in Zone 1 or Zone 2? If no, then score 8.J.iii and skip to question 9. If yes, then scores the questions in this section.

Additional Explosion Risk Reduction Practices

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





8.K.i 2 0.0 8 0%

8.K.ii 2 0.0 8 0%

8.K.iii 2 0.0 8 0%

8.K.iv 2 0.0 8 0%

Examples include but are not limited to, replacing glass window with polycarbonate panel, eliminating windows, or applying safety film)

8.K.v 2 0.0 8 0%

Example: for a rectangular portable building, it is preferred to orient the short face of the building toward the controlling explosion hazard. Documentation/procedures?

8.K.vi 2 0.0 8 0%

Compliance with electrical classification required.

8.K.vii 2 0.0 8 0%

0.0 428 0%

9

9.A 2 0.0 8 0%

9.B 4 0.0 16 0%

9.C 2 0.0 8 0%

9.D 4 0.0 16 0%

9.E 4 0.0 16 0%

Methods for Locating Portable Buildings for Explosion Hazards Execution OVERALL:

Did the facility perform a detailed fire analysis to determine the safe location of portable buildings based upon the extent of the flammable cloud and radiation levels from specific process hazards? (shall)

Are portable buildings not intended for occupancy inspected periodically to ensure that the occupancy status has not changed. (should)

Have internal furniture, office equipment and fixtures been secured to minimize projectile hazards inside the portable building? (should)

Is documentation available demonstrating that the facility ensured that portable buildings are assembled and installed in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations and local building codes. (should)

For double-wide trailers, is documentation available to ensure that ridge beams and columns are properly connected? (should)

Have window hazards in all portable building regardless of occupancy or location been evaluated and, as necessary, mitigated to protect from potential explosions . (should)

Have potential explosion hazard directions been considered when orientating portable building? (should)

Do portable buildings comply with electrical area classifications (should)

Refer to API Standard 521 for guidance on maximum radiation level exposures.Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how fire hazards are addressed. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that section 4 considerations are followed and if the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that these considerations are followed.What "good" looks like: Each building intended for occupancy has been evaluated for potential impact from flammable vapor or gas release, or from thermal radiation from potential exposure to fire. Buildings that could potentially be exposed to fire are evaluated for protection of occupants. To protect building occupants from fire, possible design and mitigation options are investigated. To further protect occupants in case the design and mitigation measures fail, a strategy of shelter-in-place, evacuation, or a combination of both are selected. The strategy selected is incorporated into emergency plans, trained and practiced. If the shelter-in-place strategy is selected to protect building occupants from external fire, the resistance of the building to fire versus expected length of time of exposure is evaluated to determine the safe amount of time personnel can shelter in the building. Also evaluated in determining the safe amount of time that personnel can shelter in the building are the length of time that external fire or flammable vapor or gas cloud

Are portable buildings excluded from placement in locations where flammable liquid spill scenarios could affect the building. (shall NOT)

Are portable buildings excluded from placement within the dike, berm or bund areas of storage tanks of flammable or combustible materials? (shall NOT)

Fire Hazards

Did owners and operators provide sufficient spacing for fire hazards to allow personnel to escape safely. (shall consider)

Did owners and operators separate portable buildings from flares based upon guidance in API Standard 521. (should)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





9.F 4 0.0 16 0%

0.0 80 0%

10

10.A

2 0.0 8 0%

Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how toxic hazards are addressed. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that section 5 considerations are followed and if the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that these considerations are followed.

10.B

10.B.i

2 0.0 8 0%

10.B.ii

2 0.0 8 0%

Were portable buildings located in areas where a toxic release can reach ERPG-3 levels designed to meet either of the following: (should)

If a site does not use a shelter in place strategy for portable buildings, then 10.2.i should be marked N/A and not scored.

What "good" looks like: Each building intended for occupancy has been evaluated for potential impact from toxic vapor or gas release. Dispersion modeling is performed to evaluate building occupant exposure to potential toxic vapor or gas cloud releases. The dispersion modeling is based on Maximum Credible Scenarios. Modeling assumptions, inputs and results are documented. Acceptance criteria are developed against which to compare the dispersion modeling results. The analysis of existing buildings intended for occupancy is compared to building siting criteria for toxics, and the results documented. If the building fails the criteria, mitigation options, including those in the bulleted list, are evaluated, or an alternative siting location is chosen. Buildings that could potentially be exposed to a toxic cloud are evaluated for protection of occupants.

can impede escape, flammable vapor or gas cloud ingress into the building, and smoke infiltration into the building. The need for provisions for additional PPE, supplied fresh air, and cooling of occupants during shelter-in-place is evaluated. If evacuation is chosen as a strategy to protect building occupants from external fire, means to provide a safe evacuation route and protection of evacuating personnel from fire exposure are evaluated, specified and documented. This includes the items in the bulleted list. The analysis of existing buildings intended for occupancy is compared to building siting criteria for fire, and the results documented. If the building fails the criteria, alternate siting locations for the portable building are chosen.

Toxic Release Hazards

Did owners and operators provide sufficient spacing for toxic release hazards. (shall consider)

Fire Hazards Execution OVERALL

Did owners and operators consider additional fire risk reduction measures including listed below: (should) - Position emergency exits away from the nearest potential fire hazard (should) - Escape routes that lead away from nearest potential fire hazards (should) - Locate mustering areas away from potential fire hazards (should) - Develop emergency procedures and related training which will facilitate evacuation given an incident involving a fire (should) - Use fire rated portable buildings (should) - Install fire protection measures (e.g., water sprays or deluge systems) (should)

Be designed for shelter-in-place, or (should)

Have an emergency response plan that includes the following: (should) - Evacuation plan that directs personnel to a designated “shelter in place” or specified assembly area. (should) - Plan to account for occupants. (should) - Personal protective equipment (PPE) to be used by all occupants during the evacuation if required. (should)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15





10.C

2 0.0 8 0%

To protect building occupants from toxics, possible design and mitigation options are investigated. To further protect occupants in case the design and mitigation measures fail, a strategy of shelter-in-place, evacuation, or a combination of both are selected. The strategy selected is incorporated into emergency plans, trained and practiced. If the shelter-in-place strategy is selected to protect building occupants from toxic release, the resistance of the building to toxic vapor or gas infiltration versus expected length of time of exposure is evaluated to determine the safe amount of time personnel can shelter in the building.

Also evaluated in determining the safe amount of time that personnel can shelter in the building are the length of time that the external toxic cloud can impede escape. The need for provisions for additional PPE, supplied fresh air, and cooling of occupants during shelter-in-place is evaluated. The building siting evaluation considers possible domino effects of fire, flammable vapor or gas cloud, or toxic vapor or gas cloud exposure after and explosion. If evacuation is chosen as a strategy to protect building occupants from external toxic release, means to provide a safe evacuation route and protection of evacuating personnel from toxic exposure are evaluated, specified and documented.

0.0 32 0%

0%0%

0%


Portable BuildingsWeighting # of Total Possible %

1.0 4 0 16 0%1.5 0 0 0 0%2.0 23 0 184 0%2.5 0 0 0 0%3.0 0 0 0 0%3.5 0 0 0 0%4.0 30 0 480 0%

Total 57 0 680 0%


Portable Building - Management Systems Score:Portable Building - Implementation Score:

Portable Building - OVERALL SCORE:

Toxic Release Hazards Execution OVERALL

Do portable buildings used for Shelter-In-Place have the following features as a minimum: (should) - Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC) systems with the capability of rapid shutdown of the system or placement into recirculation mode, whichever is more appropriate? (should) - HVAC shutdown response system included in the emergency response plan? (should) - Exhaust fans and duct penetrations of exterior surfaces equipped with a positive seal against infiltration of outside air? (should) - Emergency communications equipment available? (telephones are acceptable) (should) - Appropriate PPE available and maintained for use by all occupants during the evacuation as necessary? (should) - Adequate window and door seals present? (should)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

Facility Siting Assessment Protocol -- Tents2215g rev 3.1 11-6-15

Purple questions are unique to tent siting.




11.

11.A 4 0.0 16 0%

Review to determine if all occupied tents have been assessed for inclusion in the program.What "good" looks like: A documented process (e.g. separate procedure, or a section of the PHA procedure) is in place to identify tents intended for occupancy, and to screen these tents for inclusion in the facility siting program, exclusion from the facility siting program, or those tents that will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

11.A.i 4 0.0 16 0%

Tents intended for occupancy shall be included in the tent siting evaluation. A tent intended for occupancy has personnel assigned to it, or is used for a recurring personnel function.

Examples of tents that have personnel assigned include, but are not limited to:• Guardhouses, tool stations, maintenance shops, field operator shelters, offices, laboratories, or warehouses.• Tents for fabrication, welding, or equipment assembly that can be performed remotely from the process unit.

Examples of tents used for a recurring personnel function include, but are not limited to functions such as:• Breaks or meals.• Change houses, orientation, training, or meetings.• Weather shelters (e.g., cool down and warm-up tents) unless excluded in 4.2(a).

Assessment

Determination of tents requiring siting evaluationDoes the facility have a documented system, specific to tents, for determining which tents to include in its facility siting program?

Are tents intended for occupancy included in the tent siting evaluation? [shall]

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

11.A.ii 2 0.0 8 0%

Categories and examples of tents excluded from the siting evaluation are shown as follows:-Temporary tents, regardless of their size, that provide weather protection or regulatory compliance as their primary function for equipment or work activities that cannot be feasibly performed remotely from the process unit or equipment.

Examples of tents used for weather protection include, but are not limited to: In situ welding, grit blasting, thermal spray aluminum application and similar activities on installed equipment/piping, Non Destructive Testing (NDT) of installed equipment/piping, Weather protection of piping or equipment such as vessels, compressors, turbines, etc. Examples of tents used for regulatory compliance include but are not limited to: In situ asbestos or lead paint remediation, In situ hazardous materials abatement or decontamination, Catalyst loading and unloading, Refractory repair/installation, Tents intended to meet owner/operator industrial hygiene requirements for extreme environmental conditions -Tents that enclose process areas where only essential personnel are assigned to perform activities similar to those performed at an outdoor process area. The basis for excluding such tents is the recognition that certain work activities must be performed in or near the process area (e.g., a tent enclosing an operating compressor). - Individual small tents (i.e., less than 150 sq. ft.) made out of lightweight components The basis for excluding such tents is that the number of occupants is low, the components are lightweight, and the risks inside and outside the tent are similar. Installation of multiple small contiguous tents to perform the function of a larger tent is not allowed by this exclusion. - Tents that only require intermittent access. The basis for excluding such tents is that a person would only spend a relatively small amount

11.A.iii 1 0.0 4 0%

The basis for inclusion or exclusion should be documented and consider the hazards, the number of tent occupants, how much time (frequency and duration) occupants are in the tent, and the purpose of the tent.

0.0 44 0%12

12.A 4 0.0 16 0%

Instruction to the assessor: Interview someone who has responsibility for determination of the assessment approach to determine how the methodology and scenario's are selected and documented. Obtain a copy of a facility siting study to determine if the study followed the site practice and procedure per section 12B.What "good" looks like: The basis for the siting evaluation, including items 12.A.i through 12.A.v, the criteria against which the tent siting evaluation is judged, and the results are all documented in detail.

Have tents excluded from the facility siting program been identified? [implied should]

Are tents with no personnel assigned, but occupied by individuals for a short duration, evaluated on a case-by-case basis for inclusion or exclusion from the tent siting evaluation? [should]

Tent Siting Determination OVERALL:Tent siting evaluation process

Have the following elements of the tent siting evaluation been documented? [shall] - Assessment approach - Scenario selection basis - Analysis methodologies - Data sources used in the analysis - Results of the analysis

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

12.B

4 0.0 16 0%

Process area specific factors include equipment failure rate data, design of the equipment in the process area, process stream composition, and operating conditions.What "good" looks like: The assessment methodologies are evaluated for which is most appropriate, and the basis for the choice documented. Assumptions made in the assessment, including the scenario chosen for those methodologies for which a basis scenario must be used, are documented. If a scenario-based assessment methodology is used, the scenario selected is the Maximum Credible Event. Scenarios, when used, take into account process specific conditions and factors, and consider relevant unit, site, company and industry loss history. Start-up, shutdown and emergency shutdown situations are included in the scenario selection process.

Industry groups, insurance associations, regulators, and owner/operator companies have developed experience-based spacing tables for minimum building spacing for fire, These building specific tables are not appropriate for tent siting evaluation.

12.C

2 0.0 8 0%

Tent siting evaluation criteria for the consequence-based approach can be expressed as tent exposure criteria or consequence criteria. These criteria are specific to the materials of construction, tent design, and hazard type (explosion, fire, toxic material release). Tent exposure criteria are typically expressed as: blast load, thermal flux and exposure time, flammable gas concentration, or toxic concentration and exposure time. Consequence criteria are typically expressed as: occupant vulnerability, potential tent damage, or tent internal environment degradation (i.e. inability to support human life). Risk-based tent siting evaluation criteria may be expressed as numerical values of individual risk, aggregate risk or exceedance values. They can also be expressed as graphical formats which include cumulative frequency vs. consequence (F/N) curves, or matrices with numerical axes. When a spacing tables approach is used, the tent siting evaluation criteria are the appropriate values in the spacing table. The criterion is satisfied when the separation distance in the spacing table is met or exceeded.

What "good" looks like: The basis for tent siting evaluation criteria is documented. The criteria selected are consistent with the evaluation methodology used. The criteria selected for a risk-based approach, when used, address both risk to tent occupants as a group, as well as risk to the individual.

12.D12.D.i

4 0.0 16 0%

Interview a sample of those responsible for performing siting evaluation to determine how they are qualified to make tent siting decisions. Obtain training records (if applicable).What "good" looks like: Competency and training are documented. For siting studies completed by consultants or offsite company employees, interviewing may not be possible, ask the site to present the qualifications of the person(s) completing the studies.

12.D.ii

4 0.0 16 0%

The owner/operator has an established, documented, procedure or work process for siting tents and is following it.

Personnel performing tent siting evaluation

Has the owner/operator established a procedure or work process regarding tent siting approval and identify the qualification of personnel who are responsible for the tent siting evaluation.? [shall]

Are personnel performing the tent siting evaluation qualified to consider the technical data regarding the performance of tents when exposed to explosions, fires, or toxic material releases? [implied shall]

Tent siting evaluation criteria - Prior to starting a tent siting evaluation, have the tent siting evaluation criteria for new and existing tents been selected consistent with the selected assessment approach(es)? (should) - Do tent siting evaluation criteria for the risk-based approach address the risk to the tent occupants as a group (aggregate risk) and the risk to an individual? [shall]

Assessment approach and scenario selection - If a consequence-based assessment approach is used, is it based on the maximum credible event (MCE) for each tent and type of hazard considered? [shall] - If a site-specific spacing table approach is used, is it based on the MCE for each type of tent considered, to cover explosions, fires and toxic material release hazards? [shall] - If a simplified analysis is used, is it based on conservative assumptions as a means to account for the details not included in the analysis? [should]

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

12.E

12.E.i 4 0.0 16 0%

12.E.ii 2 0.0 8 0%

12.E.iii 2 0.0 8 0%12.F

12.F.i 4 0.0 16 0%

0.0 120 0%

1313.A

13.A.i 4 0.0 16 0%

These include, but are not limited to, the following: • Proximity to flares, vent stacks, and atmospheric relief valves that could result in fire or toxic exposure• Proximity to sewers and vents that could result in fire or toxic exposure• Proximity to cranes, heavy lift activities, and vehicle traffic.• Obstructions to escape routes by tent components (e.g., guy wires

should be marked/flagged to mitigate potential tripping hazard).

13.A.ii 4 0.0 16 0%

Egress/exits may be covered by fire codes (e.g., NFPA 101 Life Safety Code [Reference 8] and NFPA 102 Standard for Grandstands, Folding and Telescoping Seating, Tents and Membrane Structures [Reference 9]) or company policy.

13.A.iii 4 0.0 16 0%

13.A.iv 4 0.0 16 0%

It should be recognized that some tents are not designed for loadings from significant weather events (high winds, snow storms, etc.) and all tents have limits to their structural capacity.

13.A.v 4 0.0 16 0%

Management of tent occupancy Instruction to the assessor: Interview those responsible for tent occupancy to determine how the site meets guiding principles.What "good" looks like: Tents are periodically checked to ensure:-Tents are being used as intended-Occupancy levels are consistent with original intentions and approvals.-Tents no longer in use are removed or secured from occupancy.

The checks are documented.

Have procedures and practices been developed that are designed to control the use of tents by personnel in accordance with the guiding principles? These include:- Locate personnel away from process areas consistent with safe and effective operations.- Minimize the use of tents intended for occupancy in close proximity to process areas.- Manage the occupancy of tents in close proximity to process areas.- Design, construct, install, modify, and maintain tents intended for occupancy to mitigate hazards that the tent siting could present to occupants in the event of explosion, fire, and toxic material release.- Manage the use of tents intended for occupancy as an integral part of the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of a facility. [shall]

Is it periodically confirmed that tents are being used as intended, and the tent siting is re-evaluated if the intended use changes.? [should]Are tents which are no longer needed removed or secured ? [should}

Tent siting evaluation General

Does the owners/operator consider potential hazards when siting tents intended for occupancy? [shall]

Does the owners/operator consider local environmental conditions, local building codes, and tent manufacturer recommendations when selecting, constructing, and maintaining tents intended for occupancy? [shall]

Owners/operators should have a procedure in place to evacuate a tent in the event that environmental loading could exceed the tent’s structural capacity intended for occupancy? [shall]

Are tents intended for occupancy prohibited from being located in the dike, berm or bund areas of storage tanks containing flammable, combustible or toxic material? [shall]

Does the owners/operator verify that tents included for occupancy:• Comply with any activity limitations (e.g., restrictions on equipment with open flames inside the tent), occupancy loading, design, or spacing and siting requirements from local and national/jurisdictional fire codes.• Are provided with adequate tent egress/exits. • Use materials consistent with applicable fire codes and local standards (e.g., use fire resistant fabrics).• Are sited consistent with the owner/operator’s safe working practices.[shall]

Management of change Situations that may require MOC evaluation include, but are not limited to:• Changes to plant operations, processes or equipment (including

Have specific tent siting guidelines and procedures for managing change been developed? [shall]

Tent Siting Evaluation Process OVERALL:


11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

13.A.vi 4 0.0 16 0%

Where specific features (e.g., heating, ventilation or air conditioning (HVAC), blast resistance, gas detection system, and/or safety instrumented systems are used to meet the siting evaluation criteria), the performance and/or design requirements shall be documented. These specific features shall be monitored and maintained over the life cycle of the tent. Where procedures are used to meet the siting evaluation criteria, it shall be verified that they are implemented, effective, and continuously applicable while the tent is in use.

14.

Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how explosion hazards are assessed. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that section 3 considerations are followed and if the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that tents are located per plan and that none are outside of plan.

14.A

14.A.i 4 0.0 16 0%

Where no potential explosion scenario is identified which could adversely affect the tent under consideration, a tent siting evaluation for explosion is not required.What "good" looks like: Each tent intended for occupancy has been evaluated for potential impact from explosions.

14.B VCEs are typically the dominant explosion scenarios for refineries and petrochemical plants. Other explosion types may dominate at some facilities. The following sections describe the evaluation process for external VCEs, such as:- internal VCEs, such as inside enclosed process units or other enclosures- condensed phase chemical explosions- dust explosions- pressure vessel bursts (PVBs)- reactive chemical explosions- boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE)

14.B.i 4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: The explosion evaluation is performed for each tent intended for occupancy, and has been conducted by use of a blast curve technique, such as the Baker-Strehlow-Tang (BST) methodology, Congestion Assessment Methodology (CAM) or TNO Multi-Energy Methodology (MEM), an advanced blast simulation technique (computational fluids dynamics model), or appropriate equivalent methodology.

14.B.ii 4 0.0 16 0%Tent siting evaluation requirements are based on the Zone of the location of the tent. The zones are determined in accordance with API 753.

14.C14.C.i

14.C.i Has the performance of tents sited in Zone 1 been documented to meet the owner/operators criteria based on risk assessment, detailed structural analysis, and/or explosion testing? [Implied Shall]

4 0.0 16 0%

What "good" looks like: Tents in Zone 1 have a detailed structural analysis or documented blast testing data indicating that the tent is acceptable for use in the location it is sited.

14.C.ii Are only essential personnel housed in tents sited in Zone 1?? [implied Shall] 4 0.0 16 0%

14.C.iii Are non-wind rated pole, light frame tents, tension membrane tents, scaffolding tents and engineered tents located in Zone 2, only allowed outside of the 0.6 psi blast contour? [Implied Shall] 4 0.0 16 0%

If these types of tents are located inside the 0.6 psi blast area, then either detailed structural analysis or blast testing data is required indicating that the tent is acceptable for use in the location it is sited.

General

GeneralHas it been determined if each tent intended for occupancy could be impacted by explosion? [shall]

Determining the VCE blast loads for tent siting.

Has the explosion evaluation included calculation of blast loads for the location of each tent included in the evaluation? (shall)

Has the zone location of each tent (Zone 1, 2, or 3 per API 753) been determined for each tent included in the evaluation.?

Tent analysis and siting for explosion

Tent siting evaluation for explosion

Where specific features (e.g., heating, ventilation or air conditioning (HVAC), blast resistance, gas detection system, and/or safety instrumented systems are used to meet the siting evaluation criteria); are theDesign requirements documented?Are the features monitored and maintained?Are the features verified to be implemented and effective? [shall]

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

14.C.iv Are engineered tents with no sides, 90 mph wind rated pole tents, and 90 mph light frame tents located in Zone 2, only allowed outside of the 0.9 psi blast contour and outside of the 80 psi-ms impulse area? [Implied Shall]

4 0.0 16 0%

If these types of tents are located inside the 0.9 psi blast area and/or the 80 psi-ms blast area, then either detailed structural analysis or blast testing data is required indicating that the tent is acceptable for use in the location it is sited.

14.C.v Has the site evaluated the number of exits for emergency egress and the egress/escape paths away from the hazardous area? (Implied should)

2 0.0 8 0%

14.C.vi Are unanchored objects located away from the sides of the tent?

2 0.0 8 0%

Unanchored objects near the tent sides can be "thrown" into the occupied space in the event of an explosion. A rule of thumb is to keep a clear area near the side facing the blast of 1/2 the tent wall height.

14.C.vii Are large or heavy overhead objects anchored to prevent them from falling in the event of an explosion? (should)

2 0.0 8 0%

Such objects should be adequately secured to prevent tent occupant injury. Sudden tent displacement in response to the blast may cause attached overhead items such as lights, and HVAC equipment to fall. Overhead equipment should be secured or supported to prevent this injury potential.

0.0 232 0%

15

Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for tent siting at the facility to understand how fire hazards are assessed. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that tents are located per plan and that none are outside of plan.

15.A

15.A.i 4 0.0 16 0%

Tent siting for fire hazards shall follow API RP-752 Section 7, with the following additional considerations: 1. The analysis may account for the reduced fire potential with process areas that are shut down and de-inventoried of hazardous materials for the entire time the tent is occupied.2. Tents are more vulnerable to fire exposure than permanent buildings and may cause additional hazards. Flame impingement and radiant heat may degrade or ignite, melt or soften the tent fabric materials and may potentially release toxic fumes or drip hot material on personnel 3. Occupants inside tents may be more vulnerable to flash fires from expanding burning vapor clouds than occupants inside buildings.4. Shelter-in-place for fire is not a practical option for tents.

Where no potential fire scenario is identified which could adversely affect the tent under consideration, a siting evaluation for fire is not required.

What "good" looks like: Each tent intended for occupancy has been evaluated for potential impact from flammable vapor or gas release, or from thermal radiation.

Tent Siting Evaluation for Explosion OVERALL:

Implementation and ExecutionTent siting evaluation for fire

GeneralHave tents included in the tent siting evaluation been sited and designed to meet the owner/operator’s tent siting evaluation criteria for fire? (shall)

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

15.A.ii 2 0.0 8 0%

The assessment of safe egress from a tent included in the tent siting evaluation should consider the amount of time available to evacuate, the number of occupants in the tent, the number of exits, and location of exits away from the fire source. The tent may initially shield occupants from thermal radiation associated with external fires, allowing time for tent egress and emergency response.The assessment of safe evacuation should consider the evacuation route/distance, the fire thermal flux and duration, and the total number of people involved in the evacuation.

0.0 24 0%

16

Instruction to the assessor: Interview a representative responsible for facility siting at the facility to understand how toxic hazards are assessed. Obtain a copy of a representative sample of facility siting studies for the site and validate that the sites procedures are followed. Verify by inspection that tents are located per plan and that none are outside of plan.

16.A16.A.i

4 0.0 16 0%

Where no potential toxic material release scenario is identified that could adversely affect the occupants of the tent under consideration, a siting evaluation for toxic material release is not required; however, the determination shall be documented.

16.A.ii

4 0.0 16 0%

Tent siting for toxic material release shall follow Section 8 of API RP-752 with the following additional considerations:1. The analysis may account for the reduction in potential toxic material releases when process areas are shut down and de-inventoried for the entire time the tent is occupied.2. In most cases, tents are not suitable for shelter-in-place for toxic material release. Tents typically have high gas infiltration rates but specialized tents can be specifically designed to have low infiltration

rates. 16.A.iii

2 0.0 8 0%

Evacuation for toxic material release includes both egress from the tent and evacuation to a designated assembly area in accordance with owner/operator’s emergency response plans. The assessment of egress from a tent included in the tent siting evaluation should consider the amount of time available to evacuate, the number of occupants in the tent, and the number of exits.The assessment of evacuation should consider the evacuation route/distance and the total number of people involved in the evacuation.

0.00 40.00 0%

0%0%0%


TentsWeighting # of Total Possible %

1.0 1 0 4 0%1.5 0 0 0 0%2.0 9 0 72 0%3.0 0 0 0 0%4.0 24 0 384 0%

Tent Siting - OVERALL SCORE:

Have occupied tents which could be impacted by fire been assessed for safe egress from the tent and safe evacuation to a designated assembly area? [should]

Have tents intended for occupancy been evaluated for impact by a toxic material release? (shall)

Tent Siting Evaluation for Fire OVERALL:Tent siting evaluation for toxic material release

General

Have tents included in the tent siting evaluation been sited and designed to meet the owner/operator’s tent siting evaluation criteria for toxic material release? (shall)

Have occupied tents which could be impacted by toxic material release been assessed for safe egress from the tent and safe evacuation to a designated assembly area? [should]

Tent Siting Evaluation for Toxic Material Release OVERALL SCORE:

Tent Siting - Management Systems Score:Tent Siting - Implementation Score:

11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

Total 34 0 460 0%


11/16/2015 1:55 PM of 34 2215g rev 3.0 10-23-15

07 facility siting protocol - v2215g rev 3.1 macros 11 …ballots.api.org/files/fps.pdf · facility...

Documents