The Philadelphia Energy Solutions CSB initial findings are out; it was likely a rupture on an elbow that had thinned to .012”, which is about the thickness of 3 sheets of everyday copy paper, and well below the retiral thickness of 0.180”. Nowadays these events can be prevented and it’s disappointing to see such a failure in this day and age.
You can see the CSB’s preliminary video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4wKjGHvs_4
Report: https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/6/pes_factual_update_-_final.pdf
Coming from an integrity management background, it is disappointing to me that some hazardous facilities are not implementing an effective integrity management program for piping. The majority that continue to update their piping integrity programs are continuing to see huge decreases in loss of containment events (LoCs), and their programs are paying back incredible returns, some as high as 10x.
Sadly, according to the preliminary report, this particular elbow on the Alky at PES was not receiving regular inspection, and the adjacent piping was receiving spot UT inspection that did not catch this low point. Reviewing API-571 you will find that it is prudent to place CML’s, on areas of potential turbulence in Hydrofluoric Acid service, and look for localized corrosion where the protective scale is likely damaged by the turbulence. That usually means that scanning methods or Radiography should be employed, and elbows should receive attention where accessible.
LoCs are VERY costly, as this most recent high profile event proves. The longer you delay implementing a solid program, the higher price you’ll inevitably pay for it. Not to mention the price we all pay for the environmental damage and long term health effects. Our society no longer accepts these kind of mistakes.
An effectively implemented piping integrity program should consist of the following main activities:
Systemization & Circuitization (Breaking the piping systems down into manageable sections, first by understanding streams and process, second by understanding common likely damage)
Damage mechanism determination - this process would looks at the materials of construction and could have found the material issues that may have caused accelerated localized corrosion in PES’ case
A CML (Condition Monitoring Location) process that is designed to locate expected degradation
An inspection and testing planning phase that ensures the right technique is used with the right interval of inspection
Field inspection and testing
Re-running/updating assessment of condition and inspection due dates etc. based on inspection findings
Typically these programs need a large workforce to implement and execute the inspection. Those of you managing these programs currently; how do you manage these workforces to ensure value for your investment?