API 12F Remote Location Definition 1

[calgaryPE]

Hi,

I am trying to interpret API 12F 13th Edition and the definition of Remote Location. As per the terms and definitions:

3.10
remote location
The location for a tank that is sufficiently distant from any occupied buildings and public areas so that hazards
associated with exposure to an external tank fire (e.g. thermal radiation, projectiles, pool fire due to inventory
release, etc.) cannot reach them. Public areas include those facilities not owned/operated as part of the tank
operations, but rather in use by the general public, such as roads deeded, dedicated, or otherwise permanently
appropriated to the public for public use, occupied buildings, or other public infrastructure.

Sufficient distance is not defined, and is pretty open ended. Does this require a blast study to determine the radius around a tank that explodes that would be affected by debris? Does a building on the site qualify as an occupied building? Is a farmers field that abuts the facility public infrastructure or appropriated to the public for public use?

For context the tank we are looking at is in a small oil battery in rural Saskatchewan Canada, Facility has operations present less than 10% of the time. The facility has farmlands adjacent to it. The client has challenged us that we do not require emergency vent capacity for the external fire case due to section 6.3 in API 12F that indicates that tanks in "remote locations" do not require emergency venting.


Thanks

 

[LittleInch]

I don't think it's as open ended as you think.

It does though require judgements to be made as to whether there is anything which would be affected by a tank fire in the individual tank within the hazardous radius.

This is similar to what a QRA would do which looks at the potential risk issues in terms of fires, explosions etc and the impact of them on people.

So if you set a risk requirement which is typically 1 x 10-3 or -4 for workers and -6 for the public then do a QRA on your location to see where the contours fall.

Farmers fields are not normally seen as "public" in the way you describe.

The building on site could be seen as an occupied building, but in the QRA you would get credit for the time spent on site if it's less than 100%. Plus you can assume that a person there has sufficient knowledge to run away or heed warning sirens etc.

But is all of this worth it for the sake of an emergency vent?

If it is clear there is nothing around this tank for 100m (or 200m up to you) then it's remote and you don't need to bother other than some sort of short document to show you looked at it and considered it.

If anything is closer then as soon as you need to do some work to justify it, you need to consider whether it's worth it or not.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[IFRs]

Is the cost of an emergency vent really that much to pay for the personal and environmental issues you avoid if there is a rupture and leak?

 

[LittleInch]

Also the risk, presumably, is that in the event of a fire next to the tank, you could rupture / explode the tank.

How do you ensure that the firefighters know this?

Not everyone runs away from fires.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[calgaryPE]

Thanks for the input Little Inch.

A QRA is a good option for identifying whether we have mitigated any risk below that of driving to work.

Unfortunately in the economy in western Canada, cost is a sufficient factor.

My goal here is not to "reason" away putting on an extra vent, but to be able to intelligently respond to questions that come from a client, because they will question every "additional" expense.