Presenters Janelle Burd, PE, LEED AP BD+C Sr. Mechanical Engineer/Fuel System Specialist 27 years of...
-
Upload
yosef-laybourn -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Presenters Janelle Burd, PE, LEED AP BD+C Sr. Mechanical Engineer/Fuel System Specialist 27 years of...
Presenters
Janelle Burd, PE, LEED AP BD+CSr. Mechanical Engineer/Fuel System Specialist • 27 years of experience in fuel system design• Pipeline Integrity Management Plans (IMP- POL)• Engineering Project Planning Studies
Hassan Sahudin, PE, LEED AP BD+C, ENV SPSr. Structural Engineer/Project Manager• 25 years of experience • Specialized focus on fueling facilities • Pipeline Integrity Management Plans (IMP-POL)• Engineering Project Planning Studies
1
Pipeline Integrity Management Plan(IMP-POL)
and Project Planning Studies
(PPS)
Common Deficiencies
18 November 2013
PETRO Expo 2013
Agenda
• Burns & McDonnell Overview
• IMP- POL’s & Planning Studies
• Assessment Objectives
• 3 Most Common Deficiencies
Pipe Support
Thermal Relief
Containment
• Additional Deficiencies
• Conclusion
• Q &A
3
Burns & McDonnell
Overview:• Founded in 1898 • 100% Employee-Owned• Over 4,300 Employees• $2B in Revenues per year • More than 30 Offices• We deliver successful DOD projects worldwide• 50+ years of experience in design, construction,
inspection and operational assistance of POL facilities• Partners include AFCEC, USACE, NAVFAC, National
Guard, Reserves, DLA HQ, DLA-Energy
Our Mission: “Make Our Clients Successful”
4
U.S. POL/Fueling Project Sites
5
International Fueling Project Sites
6
IMP-POL: • 6 Regions total
57 sites completed 17 sites future
• Follow-On IMP: 1 site in US 2 sites in Japan
Project Planning Study (PPS): • 14 sites in US• 1 each in Italy, Greece, Gitmo
IMP-POL and PPS Sites
7
What is an IMP-POL and Project Planning Study?• Funded by Defense Logistic Agency – Energy (DLA-Energy) • Two Parts of DLA-Energy’s Centrally Managed Program (CMP)• Condition assessment programs
IMP-POL and Project Planning Studies
Tank Integrity Management (API 653 & STI)
Project Planning Study (PPS)
Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (IMP-POL)
Automatic Tank Gauging
Automated Fuel Service Station
Pipeline Pressure Testing (API 570)
Terminal Automation
Pressure Vessel Inspection (API 510)
Cathodic Protection System Integrity Management
Piers and Marine Loading Arms
Rail Maintenance
Hydrant System Tuning (upcoming)
8
Ultimate Goal for DLA-Energy and Installations: • Provide site specific record for each facility
Condition assessment Testing and inspection Intervals Responsible execution agency
• Plan and fund projects, improvements and repairs• Risk management
Ultimate Goal
9
• Local, State, and Federal Environment Governing Standards
• API and ASME
• NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
• UFC 3-460-01, Petroleum Fuel Facilities
• UFC 3-460-03, Maintenance of Petroleum Systems
• UFGS-01 35 29, Safety and Occupational Health Requirements
• 33 CFR 156, Oil and Hazardous Material Transfer Operations
• 40 CFR 112, Oil Pollution Prevention
• 49 CFR 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline
• DESC-P-12 - DLA-E / DESC Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) Funding Policy for Fixed Petroleum Facilities
Typical Codes and Standards
10
Provide DLA-E and Base Fuels Personnel with:
• Assessment of facilities conditions and pipeline integrity
• Overview and understanding of existing POL infrastructure
• Record of the general integrity and condition of the piping systems
• A “road map” of integrity management and maintenance
• Identification of highest-risk elements
• Recommendations for further actions
Assessment Objectives
11
• Pipe Support Issues• Thermal Relief Issues• Valve and Flange Seals – Weeps and Leaks• Soft Materials – Brass and Bronze Valves
and Piping• Galvanic Reactions – Dissimilar Metals• Soil-Air / Concrete-Air Interfaces• Coating Failure• Cathodic Protection Issues
Common Deficiencies found during
site assessments:
IMP-POL – Common Deficiencies
12
• Pipe Support Issues• Thermal Relief Issues• Secondary Containment Issues • Insufficient Fuel Lab Ventilation• Corrosion/Coating Failure• Lighting Issues• Use of Sight Flow Indicators • Lack of EFSO Stations• Grounding Issues
Common Deficiencies
found during site
assessments:
Planning Studies – Issues
13
Pipe Support
Thermal Relief
Secondary Containment
3 Most Common Deficiencies
14
Issues: • Lack of Isolation Pads
• Concrete Saddles
• Support failure
• Temporary Supports
• Inadequate Support
• No Lateral Restraint
• Spring Can Supports Disengaged
Deficiency 1 - Pipe Support
15
Lacks Isolation Pad
Metal-metal contact
Pipe Support
16
Concrete Saddle
Concrete-steel contact, moisture collection
Pipe Support
17
“Clamshell” anchors
Moisture collection
Pipe Support
18
Metal Roller Supports
Metal-metal contact
Pipe Support
19
“Spider” Supports
Corrosion, displaced support
Pipe Support
20
Improper pipe supports
Lacks Lateral Restraint
Pipe Support
21
Risks from Undetected/Unaddressed Issues:
• Excessive pipe movements • Pipe or joint failure • Equipment and Tank Damage • Unintended release• Environmental impact• System shut down • Impact to mission
Risks: Pipe Support
22
Risk Mitigation Recommendations:• Metal to Metal contact – Teflon barriers, pads, pipe collars
• Concrete saddles – Replace with approved pipe support
• Support failure – Perform pipe stress analysis and replace
• Wood support – Replace with approved material
• Inadequate Support – Replace with appropriate style
Owner Impact – Preventative maintenance is less costly than equipment repair/ replacement and potential environmental clean up
Risk Mitigation: Pipe Support
23
Issues:• Insufficient Thermal Relief • Cascading Issues• Improper Setting • Thermal Reliefs Not Tested• Closed Isolation Valves
The internal pipe pressure increase resulting from fluid thermal expansion can equal as much as 75 psi for every degree rise in the fuel temperature if not relieved!
Deficiency 2 - Thermal Relief
24
Risks from Undetected and Unaddressed Issues:• Over pressurization of equipment and valves – Costly repairs and
replacement• Leaking Flanges and Joints – Increased maintenance costs• Danger to operators due to high system pressures• Potential for catastrophic failure of pipe or components
Thermal Relief Risks
25
Risk Mitigation Recommendations:• Conduct a thermal relief study • Change operating procedures
– leave relief valve open
Owner Impact – Preventative maintenance is less costly than equipment repair/ replacement and potential environmental clean up!
Thermal Relief Risk Mitigation
26
Regulations: 40 CFR Part 112, NFPA 30, and UFCs Issues:• Absence of Secondary Containment
• Cracks in Containment Concrete
• Joints Sealant Failure
• Liner System Problems
• Lack of Containment Curbs
Deficiency 3 – Secondary Containment
27
Absence of Containment Over Water
Risk contamination of waterways
Secondary Containment
28
Absence of Containment at Grade
Risk ground contamination
Secondary Containment
29
Absence of Containment Below Grade
Risk groundwater contamination
Secondary Containment
30
Cracks in Containment Concrete
Breach in Containment
Secondary Containment
31
Joint Sealant Failure
Breach in Containment
Secondary Containment
32
Liner System Problems
Ineffective Containment
Secondary Containment
33
Lack of Curbing
Ineffective Containment
Secondary Containment
34
35
Say What?
Leak Detection Plant
Secondary Containment
Risks to unaddressed problems:• Inability to detect small leaks
• Inability to contain fuel spills
• Environmental impact
• Non-compliance
Containment Risks
36
Risk Mitigation Recommendations:• Repair cracks in concrete
• Seal joints with jet-fuel resistant sealant
• Provide adequately sized secondary containment or remote spill containment system
• Install perimeter curbs on equipment pads/pipe causeway
Owner Impact – Preventative maintenance is less costly than equipment repair/ replacement and potential environmental clean up!
Containment Risk Mitigation
37
Additional Deficiencies:• Brass/Bronze Bodied Valves
• Sight Flow Indicators
• Soil-Air / Concrete–Air Interfaces
• Product Labeling
• Lubricated Swivel Joints
• Fuel Lab Inadequate Ventilation
• Coating Failure
• Dissimilar Metals
• Inadequate Ground Clearance
Additional Deficiencies
38
Brass/Bronze Bodied Valves
Issue: Soft bodied valves and piping such as brass, bronze
and copper present in fueling system.
Risk: NFPA 30 and 30A - Metals with lower melting point
are not to be used in fueling systems.
Recommended Mitigation: Remove and replace with UFC compliant valves and
piping. UFC 3-460-01 - valves are to be CS or SS bodied.
39
Sight Flow Indicators
Issue: Sight flow indicator in certain configurations are
subject to tank head pressure or system pressure.
Risks: Sight glass failure may cause significant leak UFC 3-460-01 - Sight flow indicators are not to be
provided on thermal relief piping, filtration devices, or product recovery tanks.
Recommendation: Remove sight flow indicators in these
configurations and repair the piping.
40
Soil - Air Interface
Issue: Piping is not properly coated.
Risks: Deterioration of Extruded Polyethylene (UG pipe
coating) coatings due to UV exposure
Recommendation: Expose the soil/air interface, prep and coat 12
inches below grade level and 6 inches above. Heavy body, surface tolerant epoxy coating Compatible with polyethylene and the existing
aboveground pipe coating.
41
Lubricated Swivel Joints
Issues: Lack of proper maintenance/lubrication may
cause seized joints Typically found at Truck Loading / Truck
Offloading. (All Products)
Risks: Compromised fuel quality (Aviation Fuel) UFC 3-460-01: Aluminum or SS non-lubricated
swivel joints
Recommendation: Replace with non-lubricated type swivel joints
42
Fuel Lab Inadequate Ventilation
Issues: Inadequate ventilation rate Improper equipment
Risks: Air quality concern Explosion hazard
Recommendation: Replace with proper fume hood
43
Coating Failure
Issue: Coating failure causing pipe corrosion
Risks: Leaks in pipes Failure at supports.
Recommendation: Clean and recoat Piping - UFGS Spec Section 09 97 13.27.
44
Dissimilar Metals
Issues: Galvanic corrosion
Risks: Failure of bolts Maintenance issue
Recommendation: Provide isolation flange kit
45
Inadequate Ground Clearance
Issues: Piping located too close to grade
Risks: Corrosion Maintenance issue
Recommendation: Raise piping 18” clearance min
46
Conclusion
How thorough assessments help Bases/Installations:
• Identify items with higher risks of failure
• Recommend Mitigation Plans
• Reminder of items requiring maintenance and repairs
• Awareness of funding mechanism
A well-qualified consultant is a critical partner in your success !
47
Questions / Answers
48