The Fixed Equipment Reliability Journey – Are We on Track? – Part 1

In the mid to late 1980s, continuing in the 1990s, the groundwork for improving asset reliability management and increasing return on investment for equipment in the oil and gas, petrochemical, and process safety management sectors seemed to be moving forward with various technological developments. This editorial begs the question: Are we seeing improved reliability and turnaround execution performance as a result?

Remember, one of the primary reasons we perform inspections is to obtain information to fine-tune our equipment reliability and related remaining life predictions. This information feeds our predictive models. This means inspection and engineering depend on one another to achieve optimized business and superior safety performance. This also points to the importance of on-stream monitoring. Whether it is to address high temperature hydrogen attack, coke drum cracking, or other challenges, are we making reasonable progress with on-stream monitoring? Not to be missed, is the importance of accurate predictive models, which by the way, new shiny objects like digital twins heavily rely on.

In addition to on-stream nondestructive testing advancements, process engineering-related initiatives like the development of integrity operating windows to catch and determine the impact of operating practices and behaviors on damage progression, now allow us to adjust our predictions in nearly real-time. After all, if the equipment was always operated the way it was designed (including the impact of varying/changing feed materials) we would not experience as many leaks and incidents.

Other initiatives, some referred to as special emphasis programs, have come to the fore, covering areas such as corrosion under insulation, chloride stress corrosion cracking, managing equipment in anhydrous ammonia stress corrosion cracking, various other forms of cracking, metallurgical degradation and corrosion, fitness-for-service, and more. Credible consideration of these topics plays an appropriate role in reliability programs.

The Early Days

The primary motivation for the founding of Inspectioneering in May 1995 was to provide clarity for owner-operators considering the emerging technologies, codes, and best practices while also attempting to correct inaccurate information and misapplication of the technologies. Inspectioneering also wanted to enable owner-operators on this quest for reliability and safety and to help them get their heads around how to effectively implement these technologies. Further, we wanted to help them understand the total implementation cost of these technologies and the value of such. There was, at the time, a lot of overselling and just plain inaccurate messaging, whether intentional or not.

The inaccurate, partially informed messaging of these technologies and subsequent misapplication gave some service providers and the associated technologies a black eye. These technologies (e.g., automated ultrasonic testing, heat exchanger tube inspection tools, data management software) oftentimes did not deliver on their proposed value. This was unfair to those who were using the tools correctly and not overselling to end users.

In the mid-90’s, our industry was in flux. It was a critical period in the evolution of fixed equipment reliability programs. What was happening during this period? The following list is by no means exhaustive:

• Several large industry events, such as an amine absorber failure at a refinery in northern Illinois that took the lives of 17 people in 1984 and the 1989 piping failure that resulted in 3 fatalities, set the stage for OSHA’s landmark process safety management (PSM) ruling 29 CFR 1910.119 (promulgated in 1992) that included mechanical integrity program requirements.
• Work had begun by the Materials Properties Council (MPC) on developing engineering technology that would become API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service (FFS). The MPC FFS joint industry project (JIP) started in April 1988. This transitioned to an API effort, kicking off the first API Commitment on Refinery Equipment (CRE) Task Group meeting in 1992. In 2002, the first API/ASME Joint FFS Committee was held.
• Circa 1990/1991, API initiated a JIP to develop risk-based inspection technology. This led to the development of API RPs 580 and 581.
• In the late 1980s to early 1990s, automated ultrasonic testing and other tools were growing in popularity for detecting corrosion and cracking damage primarily.  A few owner-operator organizations began implementing qualification demonstration programs for NDE operators, equipment, and procedures. This was to help assure a minimum level of competency, thereby avoiding over- and under-calling damage.
• The eventual emergence of API RP 571 to credibly identify damage mechanisms.
• The concept of integrity operating windows to catch changes in process conditions that might accelerate damage or cause otherwise unanticipated forms of damage.

Conclusion

This era laid the foundation for the reliability improvements we enjoy today. However, as we reflect on these advancements, an important question arises: Are we on track to achieve our goals? In the next article, we will explore how these advancements laid the groundwork for on-stream inspection practices and the benefits they bring.