Integrity Verification Questionnaire for Process Containment

Offshore Helicopter Operations – Risk Assessment
January 6, 2017
quantitative risk assessment
Use of Quantitative Risk Assessment in Chemical Process Industry
January 7, 2017

Integrity Verification Questionnaire for Process Containment

Safe Operating Envelop for Process Containment

Process Containment Integrity Verification Questionnaire

Process Containment Integrity Verification Questionnaire

The objective of a process containing equipment is to safely contain process fluids (eg. hydrocarbons or other hazardous fluids) under 'reasonably worst case' process conditions, whilst maintaining its integrity and overall risk to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). During design and operational phases, the examination scheme for process containing equipment would include following questions

  • What is the operating envelop and integrity envelop?
  • Have static equipment, rotating equipment and piping being rated for specified conditions of throughput, pressure and temperature?
  • Have design margins been considered for pressure, temperature, velocity considering start-up, shutdown, abnormal operating conditions, malfunctioning of instrumentation, incorrect operation, human errors, utility failure, external fire, thermal expansion
  • Are gaskets and seals rated for specified conditions of pressure and temperature?
  • Have requirements of 'sour service' identified considering the composition of process fluids?
  • Have associated metallurgy specifications determined (e.g. NACE requirements)?
  • Have allowances been defined considering corrosion, erosion, cavitation, flow regime for each process stream?
  • Has the possibility of fluid composition / characteristics (physical and chemical) changing significantly or rapidly with time considered?
  • Has the possibility of hydrate formation and requirement for methanol dosing identified?
  • Have potential 'loss of containment' concerns addressed during design / modifications? e.g. reducing the number of flanged connections and small-bore fittings, increasing the integrity of rotating equipment seals (double dry gas seals for centrifugal compressors, dual mechanical seals for centrifugal and rotary pumps in hazardous service)
  • Are the layout issues such as Separation Distances, Prevailing Wind Conditions, Equipment Congestion and Confinement addressed at the design stage with the aim of reducing the risk of major accident hazards and escalations?
  • Are principles of inherent safety used in design / modification e.g. where possible reduce inventory, pressure and temperature; reduce / substitute toxicity; introduce design and operational simplicity?
  • Have lessons learnt from past incidents been considered?
  • Have Pig launchers / receivers doors been provided with interlock system to prevent opening of the pig door under pressure?
  • Have loading arms and loading system controls equipped with tight coupling and interlocks to prevent loss of containment on hose disconnection?
  • Are technical or operational deviations approved by 'Technical Authorities', identified for the technical management of critical equipment and systems?
  • Is there a scheme of identification / colour coding of critical equipment based on the fluids, fluid direction, equipment name and tags, service?
  • Is there a sparing philosophy that ensure adequate availability of correct spare?
  • Is the storage and retrieval system good enough to ensure that the integrity of the spare is not affected?

To know more, please read our Asset Integrity Management services.

About the Author

Ashish Kulkarni
Ashish Kulkarni
Ashish Kulkarni is the head of Bell Energy Technical Centre, a leading global professional services organization that provides energy assurance, business excellence, business security, business continuity and analytical services.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *