Mechanical Integrity versus Process Safety Management Requirements

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Hugo Julien
Organization:
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Pages:
8
File Size:
679 KB
Publication Date:
Jan 1, 2014

Abstract

According to OSHA 29 CFR Part 1910.119 (Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals), Canadian Provincial Safety Standard Acts or Federal laws, the owner of stationary equipment (Boilers, stacks, piping, pressure vessel, etc.) should follow a complete inspection plan and follow an Integrity Operating Windows (IOW’s) adapted for each of them. Some important variables shall be included in the inspection plan such as specific damage mechanisms versus alloy used in the original design, process conditions, etc. Some North American’s standards exist, like the one listed in ASME PTB-2-2009, to help owner to create such inspection program. The new API RP 584, Integrity Operating Windows (IOW’s) can guide Mining & Metals owners to find out their specific IOW’s. Inspection frequencies are often described in the Jurisdiction Safety Acts such as the British Columbia B.C. Reg. 104/2004, etc. but often left in the owner representative responsibility (Bill C-21, federal Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act). Every deficiency should be repaired according to recognized Codes such as ASME PCC-2, etc.. If flaws not conforming to the original Code of construction are found, this article will introduce the Fitness-For- Service assessment principles to be able to accept it without any repairs.
Citation

APA: Hugo Julien  (2014)  Mechanical Integrity versus Process Safety Management Requirements

MLA: Hugo Julien Mechanical Integrity versus Process Safety Management Requirements. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 2014.

Export
Purchase this Article for $25.00

Create a Guest account to purchase this file
- or -
Log in to your existing Guest account