A Passive Fire Protection Course is Critical: The Experts’ View

A Passive Fire Protection Course is Critical: The Experts’ View

We Asked the Questions You Want Answered

A passive fire protection (PFP) course is critical for asset integrity and health and safety of employees. Poorly applied PFP systems put at risk both, as well as adding huge costs to the industry when rectification must be executed.

The Institute of Corrosion has been working with PFPNet to address these issues. The outcome is the Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme, led by the evolution of needs within the oil and gas industry.

Together with PFPNet, we’ve spoken to many industry experts, including:

  • Shivas Lindsay, Fixed Gas Platforms Process Safety Lead & Technical Authority, Woodside Energy
  • Bill Hedges, Chief Engineer, Materials & Integrity Management, BP
  • Sebastien Viale, Paint and Insulation Group Leader at Technip Energies
  • David Stowers, Associate Consultant at PFP Specialists
  • Gautam Arya, Managing Director at Muehlhan Middle East Holding Limited
  • Sarah Vasey, Global Project Director at Sherwin-Williams
  • David Mobbs, Business Development Manager at Corrosion Integrity Management Ltd
  • Gareth Hinds, President of the Institute of Corrosion
  • Simone Thurlbeck, Visiting Professor, University of Manchester and Director at PFPNet
  • John Dunk, Director of PFPNet and Passive Fire Protection Specialists

Why do we need this PFP course?

The PFP market over the past 10 years has become much more competitive,” says Bill Hedges. Though he says that more suppliers entering the market is a good thing, he adds, “This also means that they’re not able to provide the inspectors we need at our facilities when the PFP has been applied.

It’s become evident that the quality standards associated with PFP installation have become quite poor over the recent years,” says John Dunk. “Therefore, having a qualified inspector to inspect the installation becomes very much more important.

What are the consequences of poorly applied PFP?

Poor installation of PFP systems can have extreme consequences. The financial cost of poorly applied PFP can be colossal, and PFP is critical for health and safety and asset integrity.

If passive fire protection has been badly applied, it means that we don’t know how it would act in a fire. Therefore, the safety of personnel and facilities could be undermined,” says Shivas Lindsay.

It could also lead to corrosion under the passive fire protection, which is a problem,” says Bill. “If we need to repair it, it’s very expensive. We estimate it can cost anywhere between 10 to 100 times the original cost if we have to go back and repair.

Why are current inspection regimes missing PFP installation defects?

The need for an upgrade in PFP inspection competency across the entire industry is highlighted by many of the experts we have spoken to.

The main reason we miss defects is because we don’t have enough experienced inspectors to find them,” continues Bill. “We find this to be especially true in more remote parts of the world, where we’re constructing many of our facilities these days.

Simon Thurlbeck remarks, “In my experience of inspecting lots of PFP systems over the last 20 or 30 years, I’ve found many errors and mistakes in the way things have been done.

Some people have the misconception that passive fire protection is just like regular paint – even the paint you might apply in your own house,” says Bill. “That’s far from the truth.

Improving PFP inspector competence

There’s a clear gap in the market in passive fire protection. We’re looking to raise the bar and support industry to set higher standards for people who are qualified to inspect work on passive fire protection systems and sign off work on passive fire protection systems,” says Gareth Hinds.

Introducing the Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme

The comments from these experts give a flavour of the desire within the industry for a huge upgrade in the training and competency of PFP inspection. Which is why the Institute of Corrosion (ICorr) and PFPNet have developed a market-leading Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme specifically aimed at the training of inspectors who inspect installation of hydrocarbon passive fire protection coating materials.

We’ve really tried to write the course in a way that people are going to absorb it and enjoy it,” says Sarah Vasey.

The main purpose of this course is to properly qualify inspectors of hydrocarbon passive fire protection coatings used to resist hydrocarbon fires,” says David Stowers. “It’s not a fire engineering course, but we do start with an overview of the effects of fires on plants and structures – and, hence, the need for PFP.

The course isn’t a PFP application course, either, but it does look in detail at the application and quality control requirements of the most widely used hydrocarbon PFP materials. The course also covers installation issues that influence how well PFP will withstand operational and environmental demands.

At the end of the course,” says Simon, “there’s quite a detailed examination that covers all the course materials that participants have heard over the previous few days.

Then there is a peer review,” says Sarah, who is excited by the panel of people who will be conducting it. “People in the industry who we look up to,” she says.

Sebastien sums up the real-world benefits of this training when he says, “It’s great to have people like PFPNet putting together a course that will improve the knowledge of inspectors. For me, this is improving safety.

Who should attend the course?

The people who will benefit from this course in the first instance are those inspectors who are currently practising PFP inspection on major projects,” says David Mobbs.

We’re looking for those who have a minimum Level 1 Paint Inspector course. We would like to have seen them work in the PFP industry for a minimum of three years,” confirms Sarah.

In addition to these early-stage course participants, John Dunk says, “the course could also be of interest to engineers or other parties who just want to understand passive fire protection and its installation.

Those who will benefit from this course include:

  • Owner-operators who will need to build the course into specification, to ensure that PFP is fully considered and that the design and application of PFP meets improving standards and industry best practice;
  • Fabricators and applicators who will need to have their inspectors competently trained, demonstrating that they are committed to maintaining improved standards of application and inspection; and
  • Inspection houses who will need to have trained inspectors ready to meet the market requirement.

In summary

Developed by highly experienced industry experts – people who really understand the needs of the industry – this course will raise the competence of persons responsible for inspecting and signing off on the quality of installation of such systems, covering epoxy intumescent and cementitious PFP systems in the hydrocarbon industries.

With the need for improved PFP inspection, there is a career path for people in this discipline. This comprehensive Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme will be the springboard for all those who want to develop their career in this area.

We cover the course content in more detail in our article ‘PFP Course for Inspectors – Finally, Training That Meets Industry Needs’.

For more information, contact either John Dunk at PFPNet or David Mobbs at ICorr.

A Passive Fire Protection Course is Critical: The Experts’ View

PFP Course for Inspectors – Finally, Training That Meets Industry Needs

PFP Inspection Training Developed by Industry Experts for the Industry

In the last few weeks, we’ve published several articles about passive fire protection. These include:

In this article, we briefly review the reasons why a comprehensive, market-leading PFP course for inspectors is considered essential by the oil and gas industry. We also examine the nuts and bolts of the new Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme that has been launched by the Institute of Corrosion and PFPNet.

PFP is failing too often

Market dynamics have reduced the level of qualified inspection that helped to ensure correct application of PFP systems before plant is commissioned.

Greater competition in the coatings market has pressured margins. A consequence of this is that suppliers of epoxy intumescent and cementitious PFP coatings no longer provide on-site technical services free of charge. Combined with the drive for the oil and gas industry to reduce project costs, there has been a reduction in available competence to ensure quality installations.

Additionally, there has been a tendency to treat PFP coatings like paint, despite specialist skills and understanding required for quality PFP installation.

The result of these factors has been a decline in the quality of PFP application. In turn, this leads to failure of PFP with the associated financial and human cost impacting the industry.

The huge cost of poorly installed PFP

The cost of correcting poorly-applied PFP systems can be huge. Where installations are sited offshore or in remote locations, maintenance and repair costs can be up to 20 times more expensive than when performed in the construction yard.

Currently, 85% of coating failures occur within one to three years. Most of these failures occur because of:

  • Incorrect specification choice
  • Poor surface preparation
  • Poor application
  • Climatic conditions

Inspection of PFP systems and applications should capture the issues that lead to such failures before they happen – thus reducing rectification needs and costs.

PFP is critical for health and safety and asset integrity

Protecting an asset from fire protects the asset’s integrity, helping to achieve your paramount priority – the safety of your people.

However, many lives have been lost in offshore fires and explosions over the years – lives that may have been saved if PFP had not failed. When compared to paint, PFP coatings are much more complex.

There are many stages in the application process and specific skills and controls are needed to ensure that final installation meets the requirements for the lifetime of the asset.

PFP inspection is a critical exercise

With PFP playing such a key role in keeping people safe and the added financial risk of requiring rectification of poorly installed PFP systems, inspection of PFP is a critical exercise that can help reduce costs and save lives.

Yet, the industry itself knows there is a massive shortfall of experienced people to perform PFP inspections, especially in remote locations. Hence the need for new, improved, comprehensive training for PFP inspection. Training that will meet the standards expected by the industry, and that equips PFP coating inspectors with the expertise to identify risks of failure before they occur – thus reducing the industry’s costs, improving its safety record, and saving lives.

What expertise does the Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme deliver?

This is the most comprehensive course available anywhere in the world – developed by industry experts for the industry, in response to the industry’s needs.

Accredited by the Institute of Corrosion and PFPNet, the course has four main modules:

  • Online, which is designed as a pre-learning module to ensure all candidates understand the basics of corrosion and corrosion protection
  • 4½ days of classroom study with an industry expert
  • A predominantly written examination which will take half a day at the end of the classroom sessions
  • A Peer Review in line with all L3 qualifications

In total, course attendees will spend 10 to 20 hours training online, and around 40 hours in the classroom.

The course will be delivered through the Institute of Corrosion’s normal channels via IMechE Argyll Ruane, and additionally through the PFP manufacturers to meet the demand from global operators.

The course will be invigilated, and the exam papers collected to be marked. The tutors, invigilators and exam markers are all independent. The Peer Review will be an online meeting arranged within one month of completion of the course.

Successful candidates will be recognised as being highly professional in the inspection of PFP and accredited by the industry as the only standard specific and meaningful to the application and inspection of PFP systems.

In brief, elements covered in the training programme include:

  1. Role and Duties of a PFP Inspector
  2. Introduction to PFP
  3. Normative Documents
  4. Classification Society Type Approval
  5. Qualification of PFP Systems
  6. PFP Materials and Systems
  7. Epoxy PFP Degradation Mechanisms
  8. Fire Performance and Defective Application
  9. Pre-Job Meeting
  10. Surface Preparation
  11. Epoxy PFP Extent and Thickness Details
  12. Epoxy PFP Application Equipment
  13. Final Thickness Determination
  14. Examples of Application Defects
  15. Reporting
  16. Health and Safety

The agenda is similar for the cementitious PFP course with specifics on these types of materials replacing the epoxy specific items on the above list.

How will this course impact the oil and gas industry?

The course will provide the industry with inspectors specifically trained in the inspection of PFP. Thus, it will raise standards in pre-commissioning application of PFP coatings. The industry should benefit from a decrease in the amount of re-work on this safety-critical area of a project build, leading to significant cost savings.

The training programme has been developed by industry experts in collaboration with PFPNet – the industry body dedicated to raising standards in the specification, testing, use, application, and maintenance of Passive Fire Protection systems.

Who should take the Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme?

The course will benefit anyone who is involved in PFP, but specifically those involved in inspection. Training delegates will come from owner/operators and engineering houses, but in the main from fabricators, applicators, and inspection houses, as well as private inspectors.

In the first instance, prospective candidates for the course are likely to be those currently working on PFP installations who wish to upgrade ahead of others. Inspectors who know their trade should pass with flying colours.

The general requirement to be considered for this training will be to have at the least L1 Paint Inspector qualification and a minimum 3 years in the industry. As with all L3 courses, all potential candidates will be vetted to ensure suitability.

For more information, contact either John Dunk at PFPNet or David Mobbs at ICorr.

Or register for the launch of this exciting new training programme here.

A Passive Fire Protection Course is Critical: The Experts’ View

PFP Training – A Global Event

Who Will Benefit from PFP Training, and How Can You Get On Board?

In previous articles, we have discussed the financial cost of getting passive fire protection wrong and why PFP is critical for health and safety and asset integrity.

We’ve uncovered the need for improved standards in training, knowledge and expertise to prevent damaging and costly accidents occurring, especially in dynamic environments; for example, where modification to existing structures may require removal of or damage to the original PFP installation.

Simply put, well-designed, properly applied, and comprehensively inspected PFP protects people, assets and businesses. If the application process is not controlled and aligned with QA/QC standards for the coating used, you risk:

  • The final system not meeting the design’s fire specification
  • Flaws in the coating system leading to corrosion underneath the coating which is not externally visible and has consequent impact on fire performance
  • Degradation of the coating over time due to severe environmental effects

Market dynamics are directing a new approach to PFP inspection

Market dynamics are directing a new approach to PFP inspection. This approach is industry-led rather than mandated by legislation.

As margins have reduced for manufacturers of PFP coatings, the free-of-charge on-site technical service personnel provided by manufacturers are no longer extensively offered. In addition, the oil and gas industry has sought to keep project costs down, with the effect that nobody in the contract chain wants to pay for PFP specialist qualified inspection services. The result is little or no inspection from individuals who can identify and prevent problems with PFP installation.

The knock-on effects of this reduction in expertise for the oil and gas and hydrocarbon processing industries, where PFP is critical, are expensive complications further down the line:

  • The cost of substandard PFP can be experienced in the tragic loss of human lives
  • The financial cost of rectifying problems is many, many times the cost of initial application

Consequently, there has been a strong desire from companies and individuals in the industry to develop best practices, navigate regulations, and improve standards that remove confusion and conflict. This has culminated in the development of new PFP training courses designed to accredit individuals who are involved in PFP installation and inspection.

Who will benefit from PFP training?

Driven by industry needs and defined by industry experience, the new and unique Institute of Corrosion/PFPNet Fire Protection Coatings Inspector Training Programme will qualify inspectors of epoxy intumescent and cementitious PFP coatings used to protect against hydrocarbon fires. The course is designed to provide evidence of distinctive competence to properly understand and inspect PFP installation in new construction or retrofit situations.

In brief, there are three categories of operator who will benefit from this training:

  • The owner operator/engineering house who will need to build the course into specification, to ensure that PFP is fully considered and that the design and application of PFP meets improving standards and industry best practices
  • The fabricator/applicator who will need to have their inspectors competently trained, demonstrating that they are committed to maintaining improved standards of application and inspection
  • The inspection houses who will need to have trained inspectors ready to meet the market requirement

Gain PFP expertise through blended learning

Blended (sometimes called ‘hybrid’) learning combines online training with traditional ‘classroom’ training to maximise effectiveness. The decision to present this PFP course in this manner was easy to make. It also means that COVID-19 risks are minimised, as you’ll be doing around 10 to 20 hours of study online.

The online part of the course will prepare you for the classroom learning. In the classroom, you’ll benefit from working in a group, gaining different perspectives, and improving the effectiveness of learning. The classroom sessions are delivered over four and a half days.

When you have completed the classroom sessions there will be a half-day exam, with peer review completed within 28 days.

Who is delivering the training?

Training of this status deserves to be delivered by the best of training establishments. The Institute of Corrosion is pleased to have been selected as a partner, and training will be delivered via IMechE Argyll Ruane.

In addition, you will also be able to access this training via the PFP manufacturers. In alphabetical order, these are:

  • Carboline
  • International Paint
  • Jotun
  • PPG
  • Sherwin-Williams

The official launch of this exciting new training is set to take place on 23rd September, via a Teams meeting to be delivered in the East and then delivered in the West later the same. At this launch, you’ll also be introduced to some of our expert course presenters for this PFP training.

To register for the launch, or to discuss which of the three training mechanisms will be best for you, contact either John Dunk at PFPNet or David Mobbs at ICorr.

A Passive Fire Protection Course is Critical: The Experts’ View

PFP – Critical for Health & Safety and Asset Integrity

Mitigating Installation Risk to Keep Assets and People Safe

Asset integrity, health and safety, and PFP (passive fire protection) should be comfortable bedfellows, because PFP primarily works in two ways:

  • Employing construction elements to contain fire or limit its spread
  • Fire protection to structural elements to protect from the heat of a fire causing those structures to fail and collapse

By protecting structures from fire using PFP, you protect the integrity of an asset and this helps you achieve what is your first concern – the safety of your people.

PFP – Protection for people

Passive fire protection, such as intumescent epoxy or cementitious coatings, provides protection for people because it provides protection for structures and maintains structural integrity. In an ideal world people who live or work in a building or other installation should be able to escape hazard such as fire.

Indeed, individuals who work in commercial office buildings have become used to unannounced fire drills to test how quickly and effectively they are able to exit the building to a safe location on hearing the fire alarm.

However, what do you do when you can’t simply get away? Imagine an offshore oil and gas installation, most likely hundreds of miles from dry land with the working and living areas of the structure possibly hundreds of feet above the sea, which in cold climates may be cold enough to cause death by hypothermia for anyone entering that environment within a very short time.

In these cases, containment of the fire within the area that is burning and protection of the surrounding structure to allow an orderly abandonment by lifeboat is indeed a matter of life and death.

Unfortunately, over the years a number of offshore fires and explosions have taken the lives of offshore workers, and whilst valuable lessons have been learned on how to prevent fires and put in place rigorous safety practices, these tragic events still occur.

Types of PFP

There are several types of PFP to protect assets and people.

For example, defend-in-place strategies seek to limit the spread of fire and smoke to other compartments. Installations may be designed to restrict the ability of fire and gas to move beyond their point of origin.

In oil and gas installations, steel is treated with PFP products to protect it against hydrocarbon fires which are rapid temperature rise fires that can raise the temperature of unprotected steel to beyond its point of collapse within a few minutes. Epoxy intumescent coatings are commonly used. They need to be adhesive, hard but flexible, tough, and protect against corrosion. When they are exposed to heat, they need to create an insulating carbonaceous char to protect the steel.

In comparison to paint used for anticorrosion, PFP coatings are more complex and may have stages in their application, such as the installation of reinforcing mesh, where specific controls and skills are vital to ensure that the final installation meets design requirements for the lifetime of the asset.

Failure to control the application process and follow the appropriate QA/QC standards for the coating in question can lead to many problems, including:

  • The final system will not meet the design fire specification in the event of a fire
  • Flaws in the coating system such as voids, uncured material or other defects can lead to corrosion underneath the coating which is not externally visible
  • Degradation of the coating over time due to severe weathering which is common in certain environments

Application, maintenance, and safety

Issues with PFP installation can occur well into the lifetime of the asset, as oil and gas installations are often dynamic environments where modification to existing structures and addition of services such as cabling and piping may require removal of or damage to the original PFP installation.

Frequently, those carrying out such works are not aware of the original design PFP requirements. In some cases it has been shown that maintenance staff are not aware that they have removed a fire safety-critical item during modification works.

Thus, having individuals well trained in PFP to supervise and ensure remedial works are carried out to a high standard is extremely important.

Applicators often have no knowledge of PFP

Materials used for PFP are highly regulated in terms of their quality and performance, which is independently verified, but the application and inspection of PFP is less well regulated.

At the time of writing, owner operators typically specify that inspectors of PFP coatings should be Paint Inspector Level 2 qualified – but anticorrosion coatings knowledge and experience is not adequate when it comes to PFP coatings. This is an issue that is putting the integrity of assets at risk, and, most importantly, means that people within high-risk installations have a higher risk to their health and safety.

The Passive Fire Protection Network (PFPNet), together with the Institute of Corrosion, is developing and delivering PFP training courses designed to accredit individuals who are engaged in PFP installation and inspection. The courses may well also be of interest to engineers and professionals who need to have an understanding of the practical elements of PFP installation and maintenance.

Training will be provided by qualified individuals, and an important part of the overall programme is accreditation of the course along with qualification of the individuals who successfully conclude the training. Within the training, there will be elements that cover health and safety while at work – meeting CSCS H&S requirements for UK-based work.

This new training has been developed by drawing on the experience and needs of the industry, and will ensure that best practices are followed to and above current regulations. We expect the PFPNet Competency Framework to be mandated by asset owners and other stakeholders as a requirement for projects and operations.

For more information, contact either John Dunk at PFPNet or David Mobbs at ICorr.

Passive Fire Protection – The Financial Cost of Getting It Wrong

Passive Fire Protection – The Financial Cost of Getting It Wrong

There is change afoot in the world of passive fire protection (PFP), especially in the protection of structures in high-risk industries such as oil and gas. Unlike in many other sectors, it is the industry itself that is leading the way in more stringent competencies in application and inspection of PFP to ensure quality installations.

What are the forces that are driving this change? In this article, the first in a six-part series we’ll be publishing over the coming weeks, we look at the financial cost of getting passive fire protection application wrong.

What is passive fire protection?

PFP systems reduce the rate at which temperature rises on the protected structure. They do this primarily through heat absorption, reflection and insulation. They are passive because they don’t require external activation to work, such as water deluge, which is why they are considered more reliable, provided they are installed correctly.

In high-risk facilities such as offshore oil and gas installations, the most common form of PFP is epoxy intumescent coatings. These protect structural steel from extreme heat and provide full corrosion protection. They work by swelling and producing a carbonaceous char when heated, which insulates the steel substrate.

How are PFP coatings applied?

Epoxy intumescent coatings are usually applied by spray application using dedicated spray pumps. They must be applied onto properly prepared surfaces, and surface preparation and priming are critical to their adhesion and, in consequence, longevity. Epoxy PFP systems are frequently reinforced with a fibre mesh system, the primary purpose of which is to reinforce the char formed in a fire situation. On occasion they might be reinforced with a wire mesh, but in some systems there is no reinforcement. Typically, the thickness of an epoxy intumescent coating is between 3mm and 20mm.

The significant advantage of epoxy PFP coatings is their toughness and durability, meaning that they can be applied to steel before it is erected. In modular construction they have the ability to withstand the steel deformation when modules are loaded for transportation to their installation site and during the offloading and installation process.

PFP is failing – but why?

The international standards for PFP have been improved tremendously over the last few decades, especially in response to headline disasters like Piper Alpha and more recent incidents. However, in recent years the industry has witnessed a marked increase in the failure of PFP before the plant is commissioned. The reason for this appears to be changing market dynamics. Let us explain.

There used to be only very few manufacturers that produced epoxy PFP intumescent coatings. It was a highly specialised field, and consequently the margins were high. These manufacturers would provide free-of-charge on-site technical service personnel to help ensure correct application of PFP.

Over the years an increasing number of manufacturers have entered the epoxy intumescent market, chasing the same market opportunity. Consequently, margins have been reduced and a level of commoditisation has taken place. Additionally, the drive in the oil and gas industry to reduce project costs has exerted considerable pressure in all areas of construction and supply. The result has been an inability for manufacturers to offer the same level of on-site technical services that was previously provided free of charge, and instead fabricators and contractors are charged for these services. There is no doubt that this has resulted in a reduction in available competency to ensure quality installations.

A further factor is the tendency to treat epoxy intumescent coatings like paint and even to call them ‘paint’. Whilst they are similar, especially the epoxy types, there are significant differences requiring specific skills and understanding for quality PFP installations.

Shortage of early-stage technical competency is a false economy

PFP is an expensive necessity, and from a financial point of view keeping a lid on those costs is important. However, the cost of correcting poorly applied PFP is colossal. When a PFP system is incorrectly installed or fails, the impact can include:

  • Risk to the project schedule and potential delay of production due to lack of authority to operate whilst corrective action is taken
  • The high cost of access, including scaffolding, to carry out remedial work, particularly in the offshore environment
  • Impact on other trades whilst areas are ‘quarantined’ for corrective PFP work to be carried out
  • The sheer difficulty of removing and reinstating in an on-site environment

Experience from a leading coatings manufacturer shows that:

Offshore maintenance is 15 to 20 times more expensive than performing work at a yard, and corrosion accounts for 60% of offshore maintenance costs. Further, 85% of coating failures appear within 1 to 3 years, with 95% of failures occurring because of:

  • Incorrect specification choice
  • Poor surface preparation
  • Poor application
  • Climatic conditions

To put this into perspective, PFP that is commissioned at an implementation cost of, say, $10 million for a facility in an isolated area of the world (the best fields are usually isolated, right?) and is poorly implemented could cost $150 million to $200 million in rectification costs.

From a purely financial viewpoint, it’s clear that if you spend money upfront you save hugely on project overrun costs, let alone the project complexity of re-work.

How the industry is evolving

The industry is calling for improved competency in the application and inspection of PFP. It simply cannot continue to burn cash on rectification requirements that could and should be avoided. Whilst development, testing and certification for use of PFP materials is regulated, the application and inspection of PFP is not regulated in the same way.

Currently, owner operators specify that inspectors should be paint level 2 qualified as a minimum. What this means is that someone who has good knowledge of paint, but no knowledge or experience of PFP, can go onto a site and inspect PFP. As manufacturers continue to bring new and improved products to the market, with additional features and benefits, this issue is magnified.

In response to this and other issues, PFPNet was established around four years ago to tackle what was becoming a significant loss of skill in the industry across a broad range of PFP topics. With an objective to improve knowledge and understanding, and increase competency across the hydrocarbon passive fire protection industry, PFPNet – whose membership comprises owners, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, and others – has tapped into the skills of its members to tackle key subjects including improving quality of installation.

As PFPNet has evolved and grown with a broad range of membership of companies and individuals who truly understand the business, it has become clear that there is a real desire to develop best practice, navigate regulations, and remove confusion and conflicts.

The result is the evolution of a new PFPNet Competency Framework, which will lay out the knowledge and competency levels expected across all disciplines in the fireproofing of industrial facilities. It is expected that this framework will be mandated by owners and other stakeholders as a requirement for projects and operations.

To stay in the know and be part of the PFP conversation, contact either John Dunk at PFPNet or David Mobbs at ICorr.