The highly anticipated and controversial risk assessment report for the Extraction Project in Broomfield by DNV GL USA is Item 7 on the Tuesday, Feb. 19 Study Session Agenda. The City contracted with DNV GL in October 2018 and DNV GL will do the presentation, which the City states should be available by audio file later. You can read the 508-page document, including a 30-page text followed by data appendices, here.
In the summary of Tuesday’s agenda report, it states, “Among the 412 hazard scenarios (cause/threat-consequence pairs), five were identified with serious (orange) risks (with safeguards in place), 71 hazard scenarios were identified as medium (yellow) risk, and 336 were identified as low (green) risk.” The DNV GL report states, “All serious risk scenarios are related to traffic accidents due to the increased traffic on nearby roadways from transports carrying dirt, water, equipment, mud, completions and fracking fluids, for example.”
On p. 28, it lists the two recommendations to address medium risks out of the entire study as:
“Add a reference to ignited oil droplets hazards in the emergency response plan.”
“Consider creation of bowties compliant with Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Guidelines showing barriers, with supporting safeguards and responsibilities of different parties associated with each barrier (barrier metadata, etc.).”
According to a January 7, 2019 letter from Broomfield Health and Safety First, Broomfield Concerned and Wildgrass Oil and Gas Committee to the City, “the risk analysis has been a requirement since the final negotiations with Extraction and remains a requirement still today.” They traced the history as: “Extraction agreed to conduct a risk analysis; Extraction then included the Charles Taylor matrix in the first three iterations of the CDP; Extraction then disagreed with the matrix and promptly removed it from the CDP, but refused to do their own analysis; and finally, the City made the risk analysis a condition of the CDP approval (even though the risk analysis is required per the CDP) and then approved the CDP, but stated that, ‘Broomfield will contract with DNV-GL to complete a risk assessment process’ followed by a concerning statement that, ‘[i]f additional mitigation measures are warranted, Broomfield will take action to address them.’ It appears that the contract between the City and DNV-GL is for a Hazard Identification (HAZID), rather than a quantitative risk analysis.”