Learn how we helped a greenfield petrochemical complex successfully establish a proper integrity program prior to startup.
-->
Learn how we helped a greenfield petrochemical complex successfully establish a proper integrity program prior to startup.
Facilities are often designed without the involvement of key O&M stakeholders.
Pinnacle’s team of experts implemented a five-stage integrity program prior to the facility’s startup.
As a result of Pinnacle’s work, the facility was able to reduce the risk of loss of containment events, optimize inspection costs and ensure regulatory compliance.
Greenfield projects, which are undeveloped construction sites, are often designed and built without operations, maintenance, or integrity in mind. However, a petrochemical complex located in Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia, had three goals when it came to its new site:
With these challenges in mind, the operator requested that Pinnacle build a qualitative Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) program for ongoing management. In response, Pinnacle recommended the following strategies for the greenfield project:
After presenting its objectives and goals to the operator, Pinnacle implemented the following:
Pinnacle first built an asset and piping classification structure by systemizing and circuitizing the units’ piping and fixed equipment. This methodology was customized for the project, but it laid the foundation for flagging each asset as PSM or non-PSM, and also prepared for the risk-based assessment.
Once the classification effort was completed, Pinnacle customized a consequence of failure assessment that accounted for the flammability of the service; the toxicity and environmental effects of release; and financial implications for operations upon release. Each of these were defined by using RAGAGEP, and a conservative approach was taken to set triggers that assigned each asset into buckets based on these categories.
To assess the probability of failure for the risk calculation, Pinnacle performed a damage/corrosion analysis on each of the PSM regulated assets, including an assignment of potential damage mechanisms and their projected rates and/or susceptibilities. This analysis accounted for all the design basis for the unit and utilized the process breakdown, contaminant levels, operating conditions, metallurgy, startup/shutdown procedures, the presence of insulation, and whether the asset had been Post Weld Heat Treated, to develop the model.
Based on Pinnacle’s customized, qualitative approach to risk assessment for this project, a probability of failure and consequence of failure rating were assigned to each asset and an overall risk level was calculated. This risk level was then coupled with the pertinent damage mechanism(s), as determined by the corrosion/damage assessment, to develop an inspection plan for each asset, including an inspection method, the extent of method application and an inspection interval.
To alleviate field sketching and streamline the work process, Pinnacle utilized the construction isometrics generated by the EPC company to develop piping inspection drawings for the PSM piping, per the already determined piping circuits. Using the corrosion model and risk calculations, Pinnacle then made recommendations on how many CMLs should be assigned to each asset. The facility personnel were then tasked with assigning the CMLs in the field based on accessibility and also performing baseline inspections. These drawings were sent back to Pinnacle, where the assigned CMLs were updated on the CAD drawings.
As a result of Pinnacle’s program implementation, a total of 1,598 fixed equipment and associated piping, which is roughly 80 percent of the assets at the facility, were listed as having high consequence, mostly due to high flammability and financial implications upon loss of containment. The consequence distribution is as follows:
Consequence Level | % Distribution |
---|---|
Low | 3% |
Medium | 16% |
High | 81% |
In addition, the damage mechanisms that were recognized throughout the facility through the damage/corrosion study are provided:
Based on the consequence evaluation and damage projections, the following risk profiles were produced as a percentage of the overall assets falling in each damage type (mechanical and metallurgical failure not included):
Internal Thinning | Cracking | External Thinning | |
---|---|---|---|
High | .03% | 21.0% | 0.0% |
Medium High | 3.7% | 24.2% | 53.8% |
Medium | 78.4% | 50.8% | 37.9% |
Medium Low | 16.1% | 4.0% | 7.9% |
Low | 1.6% | 0.0% | 0.3% |
These results were then used to drive strategic inspection plans, per the damage mechanisms and risk category, producing specific inspection methodologies and intervals. In the end, this facility received a foundational integrity program for its fixed equipment and piping, including a qualitative risk-based approach to managing its inspections. The results include:
From startup, this facility is now performing targeted inspections to mitigate the probability of specific loss of containment events. This translates to finding damage areas before it leads to an event, and being able to plan repairs, replacements, and necessary design changes proactively, rather than reactively.
Due to the facility’s risk-driven inspection program, site management can be confident that it is directing its inspection budget to the right assets and activities.
This facility wanted to ensure it was inspecting its assets in accordance with OSHA’s PSM guidelines. Per the systematic approach, the facility can be confident that is accounting for assets, classifying them, and assessing the assets’ risk, which ultimately leads to compliance.