Did you know, the allowable total backpressure for a conventional valve can be larger than 10% of the set pressure? According to API 520-1 §5.3.3.1.3:

"In a conventional PRV application, when the allowable overpressure is 10%, the built-up backpressure should not exceed 10% of the set pressure. A higher maximum allowable built-up backpressure may be used for allowable overpressures greater than 10 % provided the built-up backpressure does not exceed the allowable overpressure."

The Opportunity:

A major United States Refinery hired Smith & Burgess to perform a site-wide revalidation.

The Opportunity:

An offshore floating production facility was originally designed with two flares: one on a boom riser and the other remotely located. Due to the design, the remotely located flare required large amounts of gas to operate. The site was interested in reducing operational costs and emissions by consolidating the two flares into the flare on the boom riser, eliminating the remotely located flare. However, there were concerns with the feasibility of such a flare consolidation, the effects of thermal radiation, and the possibility that system changes would increase the backpressures on the relief devices. Smith & Burgess was hired to review this system.

The Opportunity:

A recent Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) of a cavern storage facility identified several equipment installations requiring safety system upgrades. While the facility management wanted to follow proper review procedures, these proposed mitigation options seemed excessive. As a result, the site hired Smith & Burgess to review the safety systems upgrades to ensure the installations were needed and met regulatory requirements.

The Opportunity:

A review of the “overpressure protection plan” for a wellhead gathering pipeline found that the potential for “multiple simultaneous well shutdown system failures” had been overlooked. The flowing pressure on the inlet to the well choke valve exceeded the allowable pressure in the gathering system. If multiple well safety systems failed, there would be an unacceptable potential for large-scale loss of containment. A Quantitative Risk Assessment of the entire system was needed to determine if the existing overpressure protection system, as a whole, met corporate and regulatory requirements. Initially, the protection plan suggested additional shutdown hardware and increased testing frequency. Smith & Burgess was hired to review this system.

The Opportunity:

As part of a relief valve study, a competing engineering firm recommended a major United States refinery to replace multiple relief valves and modify the associated piping on a column system in order to mitigate for a higher flare load. The proposed changes would have cost the refinery approximately $300,000. Unsure of the recommendations and associated expenses, the refinery reached out to Smith & Burgess to review the EPC’s findings.

The Opportunity:

A major US refinery used a competing engineering contractor to perform a flare and relief systems analysis. Upon completion of the project, the refinery was left with a list of facility upgrades that management deemed excessive. Smith & Burgess was hired to review the relief and flare systems documentation and provide engineering solutions that met corporate and industry requirements.

The Opportunity:

A major United States refinery was recommended to spend $2 Million on a temporary blast proof tent during turnaround from a facility siting study conducted by a third-party contractor.

The Opportunity:

A recent audit of a “rebuild” design package for a major Asian gas plant identified that the EPC may have failed to follow company or industry standards. The owner needed an engineering review of the entire facilities’ relief systems designs prior to their start up in two months. Any deficiencies in company or industry standards needed to be addressed prior to the facilities’ start up.

The Opportunity:

A major United State refinery was proactively ensuring compliance for their PSM Program in preparation for OSHA’s NEP Program. The refinery contacted Smith & Burgess to share best practices on performing PSM / Internal Audits and used this opportunity to train their corporate and site staff to perform future PSM audits.

The Opportunity:

A major United States refinery was in the process of purchasing a new flare system and needed assistance reviewing the bid package from the vendors. The refinery decided that the system was needed based on the outcome of a facility-wide flare study and flare QRA. The new flare system was specified by an EPC and then bid by a major flare vendor. This refinery heard of Smith & Burgess’ flare design expertise and decided to hire us in order to review their vendor’s design package.

The Opportunity:

Regulators will often require that a facility review their process safety management systems on a routine basis. These audits can be performed with internal or external resources. A PSM covered gas plant in the U.S. wanted to hire a consultant to perform an audit. Furthermore, the site wanted the results presented in such a way that they could understand and improve upon the shortfalls of their PSM systems. Based on conversations with other gas plants in the region, the site selected Smith & Burgess to perform the audit.

Mr. Jason Spearow, P.E.  |  Senior Process Consultant

Mr. Spearow is a degreed professional chemical engineer, with over ten years in Process Safety Management, specializing in Relief Systems and Flare Design and Concern Resolution. Jason provides comprehensive relief systems expertise to efficiently solve a client's need in the most cost-effective and safe manner.

Jason has led over 30 domestic and global projects for Upstream and Downstream Oil & Gas Operators and Chemical Manufacturing facilities. Jason is also an experienced trainer responsible for new-hire onboarding and teaches the Relief Systems Design Course offered by Smith & Burgess.

The Opportunity:

In order to meet the minimum corporate and regulatory requirements, a major United States refinery was implementing a Flare Gas Recovery Unit (FGRU) and needed assistance to ensure that the proposed equipment was suitable for their location. The EPC company selected for the project was skilled at refinery greenfield and upgrade projects, but had limited experience with complex flare systems. Smith & Burgess was hired to provide owners with an engineering review of the detailed engineering package prior to final acceptance and construction.

Did you know, When performing a flare header analysis, it is not uncommon to find pressure vessels that ride on the flare, i.e. they have an open path to the flare header?

These vessels are often degassing drums, maintenance knock out drums, or other similar equipment. While there are practically never any relief loads from these equipment contributing to the global scenarios we typically evaluate, it is still important to ensure that the pressure in the drum does not exceed the code allowable accumulation.

The Opportunity:

After a routine preventative maintenance inspection, a refinery found that a major flare header was in need of replacement. This header connected two large sections of the refinery, and the management feared that a majority of the facility would need to be shut down to safely replace the header. The site hired Smith & Burgess to perform a Flare Header QRA to determine the minimum amount of necessary shutdowns in order to safely perform the line replacement. The Flare Quantitative Risk Assessment used load probabilities to determine the likelihood of various events, should a power failure occur.

The Opportunity:

A major United States refinery worked with an EPC on the site’s action items where they recommended a new flare worth approximately $30 Million. The refinery wanted a third-party review on the EPC’s recommendation and hired Smith & Burgess to verify their results.

The Opportunity:

Over the course of a four year time period, a major United States refinery was inundated with over 1,000 action items and asked Smith & Burgess to provide recommended resolutions.

Mr. Nicholas Cristea  |  Technical Lead

Mr. Cristea is a detail oriented Master-degreed chemical engineer specializing in Process Safety Management, with the main focus in Relief Systems Analysis and Documentation. He is a practical problem solver who makes quick, accurate decisions to efficiently solve a client's need in the most cost-effective and safe manner.

Nick has led over 20 domestic and global projects in Tier 1 Upstream and Downstream, Upstream Oil & Gas Operators, and Chemical Manufacturing Facilities with a total direct project revenue of over $10 million and savings generated in the region of $70 million.

The Opportunity:

The Process Superintendent at a large specialty chemical manufacturing complex had over 600 open action items that were past due and needed direction on how to close them. The action items were assigned to the unit engineers who were unable to dedicate the necessary time.

Did you know, under certain circumstances, you need to verify if the Cold Differential Test Pressure (CDTP) is properly compensated for the superimposed backpressure from the flare header?

Have you come across a conventional pressure relief valve relieving to a flare header? Did you know that, under certain circumstances, you need to verify if the Cold Differential Test Pressure (CDTP) is properly compensated for the superimposed backpressure from the flare header?

The Opportunity:

After reading about flare header failures due to high velocities, an owner of a production platform in the Middle East wanted to ensure that the initial inerting/purging of the platform and pipeline would not result in flare header piping failure. Smith & Burgess was hired to review the flare systems for safe operation under the high flow rates associated with the initial facility start-up.

The Opportunity:

A major United States refinery was recommended by an EPC to install a new flare worth approximately $60 Million. Unsatisfied with the EPC's recommendations, the refinery asked Smith & Burgess to perform a third-party review to verify their results.

Did you know, a relief device in liquid service does not always mean that the device is liquid-certified?

Liquid-certified devices are mechanically designed and sized by an engineer to relieve liquid. Per UG-125 of ASME Section VIII, "Vessels that are to operate completely filled with liquid shall be equipped with pressure relief devices designed for liquid service, unless otherwise protected against overpressure."

Did you know to exclude the exit pipe fitting in your PSV outlet pressure drop calculations if your PSV discharges to atmosphere?

If you have performed an outlet pressure drop calculation for a PSV relieving to atmosphere, you may have noticed that often a significant portion of the pressure drop is contributed by the exit pipe fitting. This is because the equivalent resistance of the fitting is high relative to a typical length of pipe.