Process Safety Management – Page 2 – Asset Integrity & Reliability Services

Corrosion and Damage Mechanisms – How do I Learn More? “An example”

Posted by boilerrockllcon June 6, 2018June 6, 2018in Asset Integrity, Inspection, Process Safety Management, ReliabilityLeave a comment

As we discussed in last month’s blog, Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC) or simply leaks in our process facilities is an all too common event. Sometimes we get lucky and it is a minor event but relying on luck is not any way to keep our plant’s safe and reliable. However, other times the leak leads to a serious event and we make the local or national news or worse yet; someone gets injured or loses their life! Today’s blog will be focus on a simple example of using API-571 “Damage Mechanisms affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry” to improve your corrosion and damage mechanism knowledge.

In today’s example, I will assume that I am the area inspector or engineer working in my refineries Crude unit. Therefore, the first thing I do is review the Process Flow Diagram for the Crude Unit/Vacuum in Figure 5-65. (See example in blog photo) For this example, I’m interested in the atmospheric tower side draw piping. So what damage mechanism do I need to worry about for this area of the Crude unit?

DM#1 Sulfidation
DM#6 Naphthenic Acid Corrosion

So, I need to understand more about damage mechanism DM #1 -Sulfidation—Looking at the DM table of contents, we see that Sulfidation is covered in Section 4.4.2 on pg 4-159. Moving to page 4-159 you will find six pages of information related to sulfidation, including pictures, graphs and other details including: High Level Description of Sulfidation, Affected Material, Critical Factors, Affected Units & Equipment, Appearance of Sulfidation, Prevention/Mitigation, Inspection & Monitoring, and Related Damage Mechanisms. Sulfidation (also known as sulfidic corrosion) is the corrosion of carbon steel and other alloys resulting from their reaction with sulfur compounds in high temperature environments. (>500F) There are eight Critical Factors related to Sulfidation discussed with one of them being the alloy composition (determined by the alloys ability to form protective sulfide scales), temperature (increased corrosion as temperatures increase) and concentration of corrosive sulfur compounds.

Section 4.4.2.7 gives you information about the how to Inspect and Monitor for Sulfidation Corrosion:

Evidence of thinning can be detected using external ultrasonic thickness measurements and profile radiography.
Process conditions should be monitored for increasing temperatures and/or changing sulfur levels. See API 584-Integrity Operating Window (IOW) for more information on issues that may assist in the development of an IOW program.
Proactive and retroactive PMI programs are used for alloy verification and to check for alloy mix-ups in services where sulfidation is anticipated. Note: Inadvertent mixing of Alloy material in a piping circuit has led to several major incidents in the Oil and Gas industry.

The remainder of the section contains additional information related to Sulfidation including graphs giving you information on corrosion based on the affects of temperature, Sulfur content and Alloys in your system.

Now, follow the same review of 571 for DM#6- Naphthenic Acid Corrosion and you will have a good understanding of what you need to look for and how to find it for the Crude Atmospheric Tower Side Draw Piping.

API-571 is an excellent resource to use for improving your corrosion knowledge and that of your work force. I hope this very simple example will encourage you to review API-571 for your area of responsibility or area of corrosion knowledge that you would like to learn more. Additionally, API has an API-571 Certification Program available for anyone with a keen interested in corrosion and potentially becoming a technical resource for your facility. See http://www.api.org for additional information.

Actions to Take:

Complete a quick review of API-571.
Review the damage mechanism PFD for your unit or unit you would like to learn more about.
Have one of your employees present an overview of one damage mechanism for their area during a weekly meeting. The employee and those present will all learn from this type of exercise.

Please contact BoilerRock if you need assistance with any of your Reliability or Asset Integrity issues.

Reference: “API Recommended Practice 571, Second Edition. Washington DC: API Publishing, 2011”

Corrosion and Damage Mechanisms – How do I Learn More?

Posted by boilerrockllcon April 30, 2018April 8, 2019in Asset Integrity, Inspection, Process Safety Management, ReliabilityLeave a comment

Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC) or simply leaks in our process facilities is an all too common event. Sometimes we get lucky and it is a minor event but relying on luck is not any way to keep our plant’s safe and reliable. However, other times the leak leads to a serious event and we make the local or national news or worse yet; someone gets injured or loses their life!

Our process safety management programs and particularly our Mechanical Integrity program are designed to help prevent/reduce these type events. Our inspection programs drive the testing and inspections of your equipment and help in identifying problem areas, but how can we do better? We can do better by knowing what we are looking for. Are we looking at a corrosion mechanism that is a general type corrosion? Or is it a corrosion type that is only localized? Or is it a corrosion mechanism that causes cracking? And the list goes on…. The point is you need to know what type of corrosion your looking for to improve your chance of finding the corrosion before it becomes a LOPC/Leak/Event.

The corrosion knowledge of your plant Engineers and Inspectors varys widely but is absolutely vital to your MI/Inspection program. A Damage Mechanism review is common if you are using a risked based inspection program, but often the inspectors looking for the corrosion are only following the inspection instructions of the program rather than understand what they are really looking for. So how do you know what I need to look for? API-571 “Damage Mechanisms affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry” is an excellent resource of information to assist your plant in understanding where the corrosion is most likely to occur and how best to inspect your systems to find it. Note: Although the standard was written for the refining industry, the damage types and how to inspect for them can be used in many industries. It can be difficult to find time for Training and Education and it can be perceived to be expensive, but it is absolutely required for a good inspection program. API-571 is an excellent resource for you to use in improving the corrosion knowledge of your work force.

API-571 has several hundred pages of information which can sound overwhelming, however, it is separated into 60 corrosion mechanisms that help to organize and make the document very useable. Additionally, there are Process Unit-PFD’s with the expected damage mechanisms identified in Section 5.2 of the standard. This makes understanding the potential damage mechanisms for each unit, how to inspect for those mechanisms very simple. I will give a detailed example with next month’s blog, but in the meantime have one of your engineer’s or inspector’s review a common damage mechanism for their area and share it with their group as a learning exercise.

Actions to Take:
1) Review your inspection program and verify that is has corrosion/damage mechanisms identified for your equipment.
2) Complete a quick review of API-571.
3) Review a damage mechanism of interest to you and write down a few things you learned.
4) Share what you learned with your group.

Lessons Learned- How to Prevent the Next Major Incident

Posted by boilerrockllcon January 4, 2018in Asset Integrity, Process Safety Management, ReliabilityLeave a comment

Since the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard was introduced by OSHA in the 1990’s, no other industry sector has had as many fatal or catastrophic incidents related to the release of highly hazardous chemicals as the Oil and Gas industry. If you’re not familiar with the PSM standard, it outlines 14 elements to follow which assist facilities in implementing management system requirements needed to prevent loss of containment and associated fire, explosion and loss of life incidents. In response to the large number of fatal or catastrophic incidents in the industry, OSHA initiated the Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management National Emphasis Program (NEP), in June 2007. The purpose of the NEP was to verify the employers’ compliance with the required PSM elements. Since the start of this review over 10 years ago, the industry has made many improvements and advances but continues to have deaths and major incidents. We must take the lessons learned from other facilities and not repeat the same issues again and again.

This summary highlights 5 elements (5 of 14) of the PSM standard where OSHA issued the most citations during the NEP program review, with the Mechanical Integrity element being the worst actor.

■ Mechanical Integrity (MI) – 6 repeat findings
■ Management of Change (MOC) – 5 repeat findings
■ Process Safety Information (PSI) –4 repeat findings
■ Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) –3 repeat findings
■ Operating Procedures – 2 repeat findings

The 20 most cited reoccurring OSHA findings are as follows:

MI:
• Equipment Deficiencies not properly addressed
• Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Procedures not followed
• Thickness measurements not properly managed
• Inspection frequencies not properly managed
• MI Data not properly reviewed, and anomalies resolved
• Site Specific inspections and Tests not properly established

MOC:
• Changes in equipment design not properly reviewed and documented.
• Changes in operating procedures not properly reviewed and documented.
• Changes in Inspection & Test procedures not properly reviewed and documented.
• Changes to non-process facilities not properly reviewed and documented.
• Time limitations on Temporary Changes not established

PSI:
• Relief System Information not properly documented
• Facility Siting modeling and protection employees
• P&ID’s not accurate
• Relief System Design & Design Basis not documented or followed

PHA:
• Recommendation Resolution not properly addressed
• Facility siting factors not included in PHA review
• Human Factors not included in PHA review

Operating Procedures:
• Emergency S/D procedures not properly addressed
• Safe work practices not adequate

I will dive deeper into a few of these repeat OSHA findings in the future, but if you would like additional details the entire 2017 OSHA publication is available here.

Actions to Take:
1) Review the list of OSHA repeat findings and verify that your PSM or Company Management System addresses these repeat findings sufficiently.
2) If any of the repeat findings are of interest/concern, review the attached OSHA document for additional details.
3) If you are not familiar with your role in your companies Process Safety Management (PSM) program discuss with your supervisor or the PSM/Management System leader at your facility.