Document 2qMYe9GEjOqYYqnOkd2y8z84a

DIERS IMPLEMENTATION BY W. J. JANECEK P. L. SIMISKEY DOW CHEMICAL - TEXAS OPERATIONS PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION AT THE VINYL CHLORIDE SAFETY ASSOCIATION 1989 MEETING BOSTON SEPTEMBER 28, 1989 WJJ/kkd 9/13/89 CTL020509 Information contained in this presentation was developed for use by The Dow Chemical Company. Therefore, your company is responsible for whether this information would be suitable for your use. Dow makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or appropriateness for your use of this information or that it is complete and without omissions, and Dow disclaims any liability arising out of your use of them. CTL020510 DIERS IMPLEMENTATION ABSTRACT The technology developed by The Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS) has been documented and published and continues to be the subject of interpretation. Application of this technology to new pressure relief system designs is fairly straightforward. Application to existing pressure relief systems presents many challenges including management commitment, funding, and training. This paper outlines how _one^ of our larger sites has initiated overall implementation of DIERS technology. Also included are some typical personnel requirements, general computer resource utilization, and a priorization model. CTL020511 DIERS IMPLEMENTATION The purpose of this paper is to discuss implementation of DIERS technology, both in existing operations and proposed new operations. Dow started to implement DIERS technology in 1984 with the formation of a Pressure Relief Emphasis Team which goes by its natural acronym of PRET. The team was given a charter to identify, develop, communicate, and implement technology and tools to enable qualified engineers from our organization to efficiently design appropriate relief systems for emergency pressure relief. We have recently reviewed that charter or mission statement and find it still valid. One of the first things we did was to find out where we were, where we needed to go, or where we were headed. We put together a package of round-robin or design problems. The problem sets included, a flow diagram and equipment sketch along with a "textbook" description of problem statements. The description included vessel size, maximum allowable working pressure, normal temperatures, vessel contents, etc. The credible or relief scenario was also given. Runaway reactions were specifically excluded. We sent them to six major areas and asked that experienced people size the appropriate reliefs for the example problems. They were to use any applicable location or site-specific CTL020512 criteria. We got a range of answers back that really surprised us. For example, the calculated sizes ranged from as much as a 3K4 to a 6Q8 for the same problem. The answers for another problem ranged from as much as 3K4 to 3 - 8T10 or one 12W16. We also noted considerable variation in maximum allowable piping lengths. In addition, we found that checking for two-phase flow possibilities was not uniform. We found that credits for insulation varied from location to location. There were some questionable evaluations of physical properties for mixtures, and in some cases, rules of thumb caused a variation in some of the sizes. There were no right or wrong answers to these problems and the conclusions above are the reasons for the noted variations. At the same time that all of the above was being evaluated, the DIERS technology was really starting to emerge, be summarized, and made available to the general public. This includes the two-phase work that was done by Fauske and Associates. In addition, SAFIRE and FAI's VSP were commercially available. In our presentation to management, the team included a simple schematic of what this VSP analytical device looks like, and brief details on how it works. We made our management aware of the advantages of the VSP over the ARC: that it is quicker, cheaper, and more accurate than the ARC for most of our needs; It does not require detail knowledge of the specific chemistry added to kinetics and the thermodynamics of your problem; It can be used to design early intervention systems to prevent run-away reactions or 2 CTL020513 gather base-case data. Also, the base-case data can be used to design a new relief system or rate an existing relief system. When one wants to make a slight catalyst change, change the order of addition, or change the overall recipe, the effects of the proposed change on relief system requirements can be determined by comparing the two cases. The team made the following recommendations to our management for implementation: 1. Adopt A "Reviewer System" (defined later) 2. Train The Necessary People 3. Use The New Techniques On All New Projects 4. Develop Plans For Evaluating Existing Facilities We got started real fast in the training effort and put together what we called a "Global Train-the-Trainer" session to which we invited two representatives from all our locations, including the overseas locations, to send appropriate personnel to our Corporate headquarters to participate in a training session on all this new technology. We had a very good response and the participating locations and number of representatives are shown in the attached appendix. We have taken a look at our operations in Texas to see how many existing systems need review. We have registered in our operations in Freeport, 12500 relief systems. We have an adjacent operating site at Oyster Creek that has 750, and with a recent acquisition added another 1300 systems to our overall CTL020514 3 count. If we allow for dual installations and in some cases, duplicate installations, we expect that the 14500 will be reduced to about 9000. We have put together a list of workhour activities shown in the appendix. The first thing to do is list the device and assign a priority. We envision about 15 minutes with our prioritization program. Data collection and isometric sketches will require about 4 hours and is applicable to all systems. Then we have three categories of calculations; BASIC, COMPLEX, and REACTIVE. 1. BASIC calculations are taken to mean single phase, and only one component. 2. COMPLEX calculations cover everything else except reactive. 3. REACTIVE, of course, speak for themselves. We have data that indicates about 50% of the valves fall in the Basic category, approximately 35% in the Complex category, and the remaining 15% in the Reactive category. The historic hours required to calculate each type are: Basic 3 hrs Complex 12 hrs Reactive 30 hrs If the 9000 count and/or the 50:35:15 split is not applicable to your operation, some other combinations are shown in the appendix. The high percentage of reactives does not mean a large number of reactions for each plant. It 4 CTL020515 indicates that there are many systems handling the same reactive materials. It is important to note that our estimates do not include any of the analytical time that is required to run any ARC or VSP experiments. To accomplish this overall we have established a project team. We found, as a result of some recent acquisitions, that it works better to send a project team in to get all those things done that we consider top priority rather than issue general guidelines and letting plants come up with their own plans for the compliance. We have included the following functions on our project team: Project Manager Chemical Engineers to calculate Reviewers Analytical Coordinators (reactive data acquisition) Field Technicians (data collection and isometric sketches) Clerical Support The charter to that group was first of all to define the overall magnitude of the project and to then start working on the highest priority areas. We also included a little logic diagram (attached) of how things might go through the process starting with the plants doing the listing, prioritizing, gathering the data, and ending with recommendations for any systems that require changes. It is also important to note that our cost estimates do not include any actual hardware changes or revisions. CTL020516 5 REVIEWER CONCEPT - First, we eliminated the "certified designer list" (a list of around 250 to 350 "certified designers"). Certified designers were those who completed an open book test (about nine problems) and submitted their test to the system administrator. If everything looked fine, then they would have their first one or two designs reviewed by a knowledgeable person and if everything was in order, certified status was achieved. The reviewer concept requires that all designs be reviewed by an approved reviewer. We have two levels of reviewers: Reviewers who can review and sign for basic and complex designs and Senior Reviewers who can do the same for any level of design. The reviewers will be kept abreast of the latest technology. The reviewers' function is to review the design basis and assumptions, not arithmetic. The organizational structure has been assembled and is called our Relief Systems Technology Group. The structure is attached. This group has also taken on all of the related training effort. Before that team really got started, they looked at what some of their plans and needs were: 1. A Mission Statement to guide their efforts 2. Identify and Scope the required computer tools 3. Develop a Prioritization System A. Team does high priority systems B. Production folks do the lower priority systems 4. Develop an electronic registration system CTL020517 6 5. Develop an integrated calculation and documentation system A. Scenario Selection (DIERS WCCQ and an "Expert System") B. Calculations (SAFIRE or in-house programs) C. Specific Audit Checklist for each system The Audit Checklist would be a customized checklist for that particular relief system alone. It would have key questions on it, key statements indicating what things went in to establishing a credible scenario, what instrumentation credits were taken to help reduce the size of the relief device, other things such as credit for insulation - things that which can be changed throughout the life of the system and perhaps not be picked up in any other fashion. 6. Training Effort 7. Plans for new versus existing systems. The Mission Statement of the Relief Systems Technology Group and attributes of the perfect tool are also shown in the appendix. To find out which systems needed to be worked on first, we put together a little prioritization model (attached). First of all, we worked at prioritizing by categories - those that were reactive and/or highly viscous (highly viscous in our operation is something greater than 500 centipoise) known foamers, those systems that have high operating levels in their vessels, systems that have obvious piping restrictions, or systems assumed adequate. Within those categories we 7 CTL020518 prioritize considering flammability, toxicity, and volume. Guidelines were given as to what is meant by non, moderate, high, small, medium, and large. For example, small is less that 50 gallons. Implementation on new capital projects started as soon as a core group of personnel were trained. With existing systems, the prioritization model identifies where to start calculating and documenting. In summary, it is important to structure the system so that the procedures and the system remain after the project team is gone. The system which has been put together should not operate in an atmosphere wherein no one knows how to do any of the calculations by hand. CTL020519 8 INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PRESENT ATION WAS DEVELOPED FOR USE BY THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY. THEREFORE, YOUR COMPANY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHETHER THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR YOUR USE. DOW MAKES NO WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY OR APPROPRIATENESS FOR YOUR USE OF THIS INFORMATION OR THAT IT IS COMPLETE AND WITHOUT OMISSIONS, AND DOW DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF YOUR USE OF THEM. CTL020520 PRESSURE RELIEF EMPHASIS TEAM (ESTABLISHED IN 1984) JOHN MONROE GENE DEHAVEN JIM HUFF (RET.) DAVE WINEGARDNER PAT SIMISKEY VAL JANECEK LARRY LAFITTE HUGH VEACH KEY CONTACTS ROY VINING (PAST CHAIRMAN) LOUISIANA WESTERN MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TEXAS TEXAS LOUSIANA SARNIA 8 REMOTE LOCATIONS TEXAS WJJ/LRL 8/88 CTL020521 CHARTER IDENTIFY, DEVELOP, COMMUNICATE AND IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGY AND TOOLS TO ENABLE QUALIFIED ENGINEERS WITHIN DOW TO EFFICIENTLY DESIGN APPROPRIATE RELIEF SYSTEMS FOR EMERGENCY PRESSURE RELIEF. WJJ/ss 8/88 CTL020522 ROUND ROBIN PROBLEMS 6 NORTH AMERICAN SITES 9 STANDARD RELIEF PROBLEMS A. RELIEF SCENARIO GIVEN B. "TEXT BOOK" PROBLEM DESCRIPTION C. USE LOCATION SPECIFIC CRITERIA D. ALL NON-REACTIVE EXAMPLE RESULTS OR ANSWERS A. RANGE FROM 3K4 TO 6Q8 FOR ONE PROBLEM SET B. RANGE FROM 3K4 TO 3 EA 8T10 OR 12W16 FOR ANOTHER SET C. RANGE OF 100 TO 185 FEET OF ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE PIPING OTHER FINDINGS OR CONCLUSIONS INCLUDE: CTL020523 CONCLUSIONS FROM ROUND-ROBIN 1. TWO-PHASE FLOW CONSIDERATIONS NOT UNIFORM. 2. VARYING FLOW EQUATIONS WERE USED. 3. CREDITS FOR INSULATION AND VESSEL SHAPES NOT UNIFORMLY APPLIED. 4. QUESTIONABLE EVALUATION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR MIXTURES. 5. USE OF "RULES OF THUMB" CAUSED VARIATIONS. WJJ/LRL CTL020524 PIERS TECHNOLOGY TWO-PHASE FLOW BASED ON FAI EXPERIMENTATION. JIM HUFF (MICHIGAN) WAS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF PIERS EXPERTISE. COMPUTER PROGRAMS SAFIRE. REACTIVE SYSTEMS VENT SIZING PACKAGE (FAUSKE/FIKE). WJJ/lrl 8/88 CTL020525 Figure 1. Small-scale test equipment with closed and open test cell designs. CTL020526 I ADVANTAGES OF VSP QUICKER, CHEAPER, MORE ACCURATE THAN ARC (ACCELERATING RATE CALORIMETER) DOES NOT REQUIRE DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF CHEMISTRY, KINETICS, THERMODYNAMICS, ETC. CAN BE USED TO DESIGN EARLY INTER VENTION SYSTEMS TO PREVENT RUNAWAY CHEMICAL REACTIONS. AFFORDABLE FOR EVALUATING RESEARCH CHANGES SUCH AS NEW CATALYST, NEW BLENDS, ETC. WJJ/ss 8/88 CTL020527 SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ADOPT "REVIEWER" SYSTEM. TRAIN NECESSARY PEOPLE. USE NEW DESIGN TECHNIQUES ON ALL NEW PROJECTS. DEVELOP PLANS FOR EVALUATING EXISTING FACILITIES. WJJ/ss 8/88 CTL020528 GLOBAL TRAIN-THE-TRAINERS SESSION LOCATION GERMANY (STADE) REPRESENTATIVES 1 US (2-TEXAS & 1-EASTERN) 3 CANADA (2-SARNIA & 1-FT SASK) 3 HOLLAND (TERNEUZEN) 2 BRAZIL (GUARUJA & ARATU) 2 PACIFIC AREA TRAINING NEW ZEALAND 9 STUDENTS AUSTRALIA 9 STUDENTS HONG KONG & SURROUNDINGS WJJ/ss 8/88 9 STUDENTS CTL020529 TEXAS OPERATIONS SAFETY VALVE REVIEW NUMBER OF VALVES TO CONSIDER: REGISTERED IN TEXAS OPERATIONS 12,500 REGISTERED AT OYSTER CREEK 750 REGISTERED AT LAPORTE 1.300 TOTAL ALLOWING FOR DUAL AND DUPLICATE 14,550 INSTALLATIONS, WE EXPECT TO REVIEW ABOUT 9,000 SYSTEMS. WJJ/ss 8/88 CTL020530 WORK-HOUR REQUIREMENTS ACTIVITY APPLICABLE TO HRS/ACT HOURS LIST/PRIORITIZE 9000 0.25 2,250 DATA/ISOS 9000 4 36,000 BASIC CALCS 9000 (.5)* 3 13,500 COMPLEX CALCS 9000 (.35)* 12 37,800 REACTIVE CALCS 9000 (.15)* 30 40.500 TOTAL HOURS = 130,050 BASED ON ONE DIVISION'S EXPERIENCE WJJ/dn 3/3/89 CTL020531 W0RK-YRS/M5 REQUIRED TO DO CALCULATIONS NO. OF PSV'S % SPLIT - BASIC/COMPLEX/ REACTIVE 9000 7000 5000 3000 1000 50/35/15 1 70/20/10 1 1 68/$5.2 1 55/54.2 1 1 53/54.1 1 43/53.3 1 1 38/52.9 1 30/52.3 1 1 23/51.8 1 18/51.4 11 11 1 8/50.6 1 6/50.5 11 DOES NOT INCLUDE ARC/VSP TIME OR COSTS RWV 6/87 CTL020532 PROJECT TEAM APPROACH CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A PROJECT TEAM WITH THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF FUNCTIONS INCLUDED PROJECT MANAGER CHEMICAL ENGINEERS PRESSURE RELIEF DESIGN REVIEWERS ANALYTICAL COORDINATORS FIELD TECHNICIANS CLERICAL PROJECT TEAM CHARTER o DEFINE OVERALL MAGNITUDE OF PROJECT o START WORKING ON HIGHEST PRIORITY AREAS WJJ/dn 3/3/89 CTL020533 CTL020534 REVIEWER CONCEPT ELIMATE "CERTIFIED DESIGNER LIST ANYONE CALCULATE 3 LEVELS OF REVIEWERS BASIC (30-50) COMPLEX (12-15) REACTIVE (6-8) CHECK BASES -- NOT ARITHMETIC PLS/10-87 CTL020535 1 1 TRAINING AND REVIEW 1 PROJECT MANAGER 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT CLERK 1 1 1 1 1 ANALYTICAL CHEMICAL RESEARCH COORDINATOR ENGINEERS ENGINEERS TRAINING REVIEW GET NECESSARY ANALYTICAL WORK DONE DO REACTIVE & COMPLEX CALCUL. REVIEW. (FOR PRODUCTION AREA) DO REACTIVE & COMPLEX DOCUMENT. (FOR RESEARCH AREA) RWV 7/87 CTL020536 TEAM PUNS/NEEDS 1. MISSION STATEMENT 2. IDENTIFY AND SCOPE REQUIRED COMPUTER TOOLS 3. DEVELOP A PRIORITIZATION SYSTEM A. TEAM DOES HIGH PRIORITY SYSTEMS B. PUNT/PRODUCTION DOES LOW PRIORITY SYSTEMS 4. DEVELOP ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM 5. DEVELOP INTEGRATED CALCULATION AND DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM A. START IS SCENARIO SELECTION VIA ES/AI B. CALCULATIONS C. FINISH IS AUDIT CHECKLIST 6. TRAINING EFFORT 7. NEW VS EXISTING INSTALLATIONS WJJ/DN 3/3/89 CTL020537 THE MISSION OF THE RELIEF SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GROUP IS: 1. TO AUTOMATE AND REFINE THE RELIEF SYSTEMS CALCULATION AND DOCUMENTATION TOOLS. 2. TO TRAIN OTHERS IN RELIEF SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. 3. TO CALCULATE AND DOCUMENT RELIEF SYSTEMS. PLS 3/7/88 CTL020538 PERFECT TOOL MAIN FRAME BASED/PC INTERACTIVE FORCED LOGIC TREE SIZES AND RATES SYSTEM INTERFACES PHYS PROP FILES SELF TRAINING ISOMETRICS ON COMPUTER UNIFORM DOCUMENTATION CUSTOMIZED CHECKLIST ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION PLS/ss 10/87 CTL020539 A PRIORITIZATION MODEL o PRIORITIZE BY CATEGORY REACTIVE VISCOSITY >500 CP FOAMY OPERATING LEVEL PIPING RESTRICTIONS ASSUMED ADEQUATE o PRIORITIZE WITHIN CATEGORIES F - FLAMMABILITY (NON, MOD, HIGH) T - TOXICITY (NON, MOD, HIGH) V - VOLUME (SMALL, MED, LARGE) PRIORITY INDEX = (F + T) x (V + 1) WJJ/dn 3/3/89 CTL020540 IMPLEMENTATION 1. NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS TRAINING GO 2. EXISTING SYSTEMS ESTABLISH PROJECT TEAM SURVEY PRIORITIZE CALCULATE DOCUMENT PLS/ss 8/88 CTL020541 SUMMARY OBJECTIVE STRUCTURE SUCH THAT THE SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES REMAIN AFTER THE TEAM DISSOLVES. "DANGER" NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO CALCULATE AFTER THE TEAM LEAVES. WJJ/ss 8/88 CTL020542