Think facility, act on integrity

Abstract

The Chemical Processing Industry (CPI) has witnessed growth in Mechanical Integrity (MI) programs, which have evolved from standards‐based compliance, to continuous improvement programs, and on to risk‐based programs. For instance, operators (i.e., manufacturers) have redesigned corporate standards, plant‐level procedures and field practices to keep pace with incident learnings and recommended practices, such as those espoused by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers' (AIChE) Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Furthermore, the property insurance industry has duly taken note of this MI evolution, giving rise to a significantly greater focus on MI programs during insurance surveys and inspections. Meanwhile, incident investigators remain in demand as incidents with MI‐related causes continue to occur in the CPI. This apparent disconnect naturally raises questions in regards to subjects such as “risk based inspection (RBI),” “reliability centered maintenance (RCM),” “industry best practice,” and “inspection, testing and preventive maintenance (ITPM).” MI programs play a considerably important role in the process safety lifecycle of equipment. The engineering design phase of a project may be on the order of just days, up to several years for a complete plant. Procurement and construction typically follow a similar timeline proportionate with the engineering design phase. However, once a facility becomes fully operational, the time devoted toward operation and maintenance will normally far out‐weigh the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) period, and may last for many decades. As such, the process safety equipment lifecycle (PSEL) may be largely governed by the MI program. The PSEL is explained in this article, with an examination of the central elements which should be embraced by a comprehensive MI program. While the article demonstrates the breadth and depth of MI, it aptly proposes a practical approach toward the management system that forms the foundation of a robust MI program. The proposed framework leverages the Onion Skin diagram in the context of the equipment lifecycle to create an intuitive approach to MI management. This management system framework is comprehensive, sound, and practical for implementation at facilities of most any size. © 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 36: 264–272, 2017

Our Process Safety Journey Continues: Operational Discipline Today

“…Additional details on these incidents—and many others—are provided elsewhere . We must note a common theme over the years: a common lack of operational discipline at some level in the organization, whether making decisions to manage the company's operations or when operating or maintaining the equipment handling the hazardous materials and energies . In addition, the process safety systems required to effectively manage the individual barriers to effectively manage the risks for safe and reliable operations were either not developed or were weak (i.e., had holes in the barriers), as was depicted in Figure .…”

“…In particular, everyone who directly or indirectly affects the equipment life cycle must have the discipline to follow their procedures and standards. The decisions from people at all levels in an organization that impact the processes and equipment integrity is discussed in greater detail elsewhere . Too many incidents have occurred due to poor operational discipline by individuals or groups in an organization.…”

An approach for teaching process safety risk engineering and management control concepts using AIChE's web‐based concept warehouse

“…Severe incidents causing fatalities, injuries, environmental damage, significant property damage, and significant business losses have occurred when uncontrolled changes were made to processes or equipment, adversely affecting the original process or equipment design . Thus, it is essential that a facility maintain its equipment integrity .…”