Pressure relief valve inspection interval

Abstract

Determining the correct interval for pressure relief valve inspection, testing, and maintenance remains a major challenge for facilities covered by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Process Safety Management Standard. To this end, guidance is provided by API Standard 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In‐Service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration, by API Recommended Practice 576, Inspection of Pressure‐relieving Devices, by API Standard 520, Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure‐Relieving Devices, Part II‐Installation, and by NB‐23, National Board Inspection Code—Part 2 Inspection. Furthermore, ASME BPVC, Sections I and VIII, provide general guidelines for the repair of pressure relief valves. However, the testing and inspection interval listed, up to ten years, is the maximum time span between shop inspections and overhaul. Further direction is often requested for determining the proper interval for valves in typical process services, especially in cases of PRV chattering. Recent API STD 520 Part II guidance on performing engineering analyses for PRV installations, based on service and specific installation, is included here. In this paper, a decision‐making approach to determining these intervals based on a combined understanding of risk‐based inspection, quality assurance, engineering analyses, and facility experience is presented. The approach provides process operators and managers with additional assistance in making this determination. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Process Saf Prog 37:37–41, 2018

Occupational Safety Analysis for COVID-Instigated Repurposed Manufacturing Lines: Use of Nanomaterials in Injection Moulding

“…Implementation of probability-based approaches would require the collection of failure data on these specific safety compartments from multiple sources with a view to developing the relevant failure rate libraries for the technologies in question. An inspection and maintenance program for the compressor and related pressure valves [61] is important to reduce the residual risk as much as reasonably practicable. Moreover, concerning FM23, appropriate safety measures for protection against electrocution (electric shock) are compulsory due to the potential short-circuit caused by water spillages.…”

Risks and limitations of steam curtains protection in case of flammable gases leakage

“…The root cause of propylene leakage was the loss of containment of a flange connection on the inlet of the pressure relief valve located on the pipe rack. The loss of containment was caused by excessive and destructive vibrations triggered by chattering 4 of the pressure relief valve 5 …”

“…The loss of containment was caused by excessive and destructive vibrations triggered by chattering 4 of the pressure relief valve. 5 As part of the comprehensive investigation of this event, in addition to a detailed analysis of the correct design of the safety valves, 6 attention was also paid to the activation of the steam curtains for propylene vapor suppression with regard to their real efficiency and the potential risk of electrostatic charge generation, 7 which could paradoxically be the initiating source. 8 In general, the steam curtains can be used to help disperse small toxic gas leaks but are more often used to divert flammable gases away from identified sources of ignition.…”