The Second Benefit of Damage Mechanism Reviews

Contributed by: Dheerajkumar R Narang

Damage Mechanism Review(s) and Process Safety Management
Damage mechanisms in the process industry refer to the various forms of degradation that pressure equipment and process piping may experience. These mechanisms, which can be mechanical, thermal, metallurgical, environmental, or thinning, depend on factors such as metallurgy grade, operating conditions, and process fluid constituents. According to the first article in this series, conducting damage mechanism reviews (DMR) is crucial for compliance with Process Safety Management (PSM) elements and other reliability assessments. A DMR process involves systematically identifying susceptible damage mechanisms and their failure modes for in-service equipment and piping. It typically covers mechanical, metallurgical, and environmental damage mechanisms and requires input from various facility personnel, including unit operators, inspectors, and engineers.

Damage Mechanism Reviews (DMR) significantly enhance the effectiveness of compliance with engineering-intensive PSM elements, offering improvements in efficiency and cost savings. The DMR process closely interacts with these engineering-intensive PSM elements, such as PSI, PHA, and MOC, leading to more effective overall PSM compliance [1]. States like California and Washington have recently updated their PSM standards, especially for petroleum refineries, to include requirements for DMR and other safety assessments. The DMR process not only facilitates regulatory compliance but also supports the implementation of best practices in reliability and asset integrity management. This article will explore the additional benefits of DMR, including their role in cost-effective reliability programs and broader regulatory compliance.

READ: The First Benefit of Damage Mechanism Reviews

The second benefit of DMR is that it leads to cost effective and efficient implementation of major reliability (asset integrity) best practices such as robust inspection programs (IP), integrity operating windows (IOWs) and risk driven asset reliability plans (ARPs), bad actor management (BAM) program, and performing fitness for service (FFS) assessments.

The third benefit of DMRs will be explained in the subsequent article of this series.

Damage Mechanism Review(s) and Asset Integrity (Reliability) Management
An example of a reliability management system (RMS) for a hydrocarbon downstream facility (refinery) [8] is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Reliability Management System (RMS) for a Downstream Facility (Refinery) [8]

The interlinkages depicted in Figure 2 among various reliability and asset integrity best practices for a process plant highlight significant opportunities for efficiency improvements and cost savings in achieving reliability targets. Site management and leadership should identify common areas or processes that affect the efforts required for the development and implementation of key reliability best practices on site.

DMR is a common area or process that can impact the development and implementation of reliability best practices to a great extent. The importance of DMR is depicted in Figure 3 for a risk-based inspection program development and implementation on site [9].

Figure 3. Damage Mechanism Review Embedded in the RBI Methodology [9] (Major Steps in Probability and Consequence of Failure Assessment)

DMR processes are embedded in both the probability of failure and consequence of failure calculations shown in Figure 3. It is evident that there is a strong link between the DMR process and RBI reliability best practices.

Table 3. Relationship between DMR and Reliability Best Practices at Process Plants [1]

Additionally, the DMR process, when combined with the aforementioned reliability best practices, may have a weaker relationship with other federal and state PSM elements, such as employee participation, compliance audits, operating procedures, training, contractors, and process safety culture assessments. It is important to note that process units and equipment not covered by PSM standards still require the implementation of reliability best practices.

Assessing the links between reliability best practices and the damage mechanism review process reveals significant opportunities for enhancing efficiency and reducing costs when implementing a reliability management system framework in process plants.

READ: 5 Ways of Managing Data and Digital Technology to Streamline Processes in Oil and Gas

DMR Framework for Process Plants
There is a need to develop a comprehensive DMR framework that enables site leadership to fully realize the benefits of the DMR process, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Damage Mechanism Review (DMR) Framework for Process Plants [1]

The corporate objectives of a process plant depend on various factors, including the type of industry (e.g., hydrocarbon, petrochemical), recognized performance benchmarks (e.g., maintenance costs per equipment distillation capacity), market conditions (e.g., product demand), macroeconomic factors (e.g., retail and supply chain conditions), applicable engineering standards (e.g., ASME, IBR), and recommended best practices (e.g., API, AMPP NACE). The two primary corporate objectives of process plants, as depicted in the DMR framework, are process safety management compliance and asset integrity (reliability) management.

Subsequently, asset integrity (avoiding loss of containment) is the first step toward achieving reliability, and a successful PSM program can ensure the asset integrity of plant assets operating under processes covered by federal or state PSM standards. However, asset integrity (reliability) also requires assessing process units not explicitly covered by the PSM standard, as all units in a process plant contribute to safe and reliable operations, affecting engineering, maintenance, production, and operational excellence.

The DMR process, thus, can help achieve both the process safety management and asset integrity (reliability) objectives, interchangeably, of a process plant facility. The goals related to these corporate objectives [10] are as follows:

Loss Prevention and Process Safety Goals
The DMR process significantly contributes to the successful implementation of key process safety management elements, such as process hazard analysis, incident investigation, mechanical integrity, and others. A successful PSM program at a process plant helps prevent major process safety incidents and serves as a critical driver for loss prevention across the plant, including:

• Reduction in reportable process safety incidents and/or workplace injuries
• Improved process safety and greater performance motivation for the plant personnel
• Efficient and better quality of process hazard analysis review, recommendation, and closure
• Successful updating of mechanical integrity program in accordance with current RAGAGEP (engineering standards and recommended best practices)
• Safer pre-startup safety review (PSSR) program accommodating all types of damage(s)
• Incorporation of integrity operating windows or safer operating limits addressing all types of damage mechanism(s), susceptibility rate(s) etc.
• Sound basis for management of change, incident investigation and root cause failure analysis

LISTEN: Episode 12: Navigating US Methane Rules with the American Petroleum Institute (API)

Sustainable Operations and Reliable Assets
Asset integrity management of process plant assets is crucial for achieving the sustainable operation goals set by plant management. There is a significant overlap between implementing major reliability best practices and process safety management elements, particularly those centered around the DMR process. However, when the process safety management standard does not apply due to not meeting the minimum threshold quantity or other regulatory criteria, plant assets still require adherence to all asset integrity (reliability) best practices to prevent loss of containment, process safety incidents, and production slowdowns.

A successful asset integrity management program with effective implementation of DMR process can help achieve the following:

• Organized, coherent and reliable asset integrity (reliability) procedure(s) enabling plant personnel to fulfill their asset life cycle responsibilities
• Improved mechanical availability, reliability metrics (MTTF, MTBF) for the plant assets
• Reduced number of unplanned shutdown or slowdown of the plant assets
• Longer turnaround intervals due to successful identification and remediation of bad actor(s)
• Improved productivity and product yield in terms of production rate and quality
• Reduction in discretionary inspection, maintenance, and repair work for low-risk assets
• Optimization of inspection and maintenance budget due to risk driven criticality assessment
• Extension of useful life for the plant assets through DMR centered fitness for service or remaining life assessments
• Major reduction in the overall asset life cycle cost for future assets by eliminating known mechanical integrity threats right in the design stage of a capital project

Business Continuity and Stakeholder Confidence
Process plants that possess the necessary operational and engineering discipline to successfully implement both process safety and asset integrity management programs consistently report better financial results and become industry leaders. Sustained, safe, and reliable plant operations enhance stakeholder confidence among plant personnel, business partners, contractors, public communities, and regulatory bodies.

The goals for business continuity and stakeholder confidence are as follows:

• Reduction or elimination of property damage and production (business) interruption losses
• Avoidance or reduction in litigation costs arising out of major process safety incidents
• Elimination of environmental clean-up or remediation costs resulting from major process safety incidents
• Less attention from federal or state regulatory entities such as OSHA, EPA, and Cal/OSHA
• Maintaining uninterrupted supply chain of services, raw materials, and inventories from existing and new business partners (vendors, contractors)
• Improved asset reliability and safe operation lead to increased operational efficiency and reduced production costs
• Reduction in inspection, maintenance, replacement, and repair budget for existing plant assets
• Plant management can focus on new capacity addition (production increment) projects rather than capacity restore (due to safety incidents) projects
• Plant can focus on innovation and market development, with all the barriers to sustained and reliable plant operation being eliminated

Ultimately, an effective process safety and asset integrity management program can help a facility achieve the highest level of operational excellence, significantly enhance shareholder value, and support more corporate social responsibility initiatives, as outlined in the DMR framework.

The second benefit of DMRs is that they lead to cost-effective and efficient implementation of key reliability (asset integrity) best practices. These include robust inspection programs (IPs), integrity operating windows (IOWs), risk-driven asset reliability plans (ARPs), bad actor management (BAM) programs, and fitness-for-service (FFS) assessments.

Additionally, the DMR framework enables plant management and leadership teams to visualize and understand the interrelationships among corporate objectives, process safety, reliability engineering programs, and the benefits of operational excellence, including loss prevention, sustained operations, and enhanced shareholder value.

View the abbreviations and definitions here.

References:
1.Narang D. Dual Benefits of Damage Mechanism Reviews. In: 2024 Spring Meeting and 20th Global Congress on Process Safety. AiCHE; 2024. Accessed June 2, 2024. https://www.aiche.org/academy/conferences/aiche-spring-meeting-and-global-congress-on-process-safety/2024/proceeding/paper/83c-dual-benefits-damage-mechanism-reviews

2.R Narang D. Non-Digital Method of Process Safety Management (PSM) Compliance, OSHA PSM and EPA RMP Rulemaking Initiatives, and Methodology to Estimate Related Economic Impact on PSM Facilities in the United States of America. Int J Eng Manuf. 2024;14(2):1-22. doi:10.5815/ijem.2024.02.01

3.Washington Adopts New Refinery Process Safety Management (PSM) Rule. Accessed January 21, 2024. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2a14b47e-03ad-47be-83ec-3f469e92f2ce

4.5189.1. Process Safety Management for Petroleum Refineries, California. Accessed December 29, 2023. https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5189_1.html

5.1201 Accidental Release Prevention Regulation, State of Delaware. Accessed January 15, 2024. https://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title7/1000/1200/1201.shtml

6.Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) Program, State of New Jersey. Accessed January 31, 2024. https://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/tcpa/tcpadown.html

7.Docket OSHA-2013-0020. Unified Agenda and Updates on PSM Rule Making. Published 2013. Accessed December 29, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OSHA-2013-0020/unified-agenda

8.Narang D. SECRETS TO BECOMING A WELL-INFORMED RISK BASED INSPECTION (RBI) PROFESSIONAL. Insp J. 2018;24(3). https://inspectioneering.com/journal/2018-06-28/7762/secrets-to-becoming-a-well-informed-risk-based-inspection-profes

9.Narang D. Selection and Integration of Risk Based Inspection Tool in Hydrocarbon Facilities. Presented at: American Petroleum Institute Inspection and Mechanical Integrity Summit; February 2, 2017; Galveston, Texas.

10.The Business Case for Process Safety, 4th Edition, Centre for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Accessed January 5, 2024. https://www.aiche.org/ccps/business-case-process-safety-pdf