ESD Requirement - Code or Specific Risk Reduction

[NewMechanicalEngr]

Are there instances where codes call for ESD's just because it is good safe practice as opposed to ESD's that are installed to reduce risk to a quantified level?

If so, can you provide your insight on the differences between standard ESDs for code and ESDs for specific risk reduction?

We have various ESDs (PLC's with SD valves in many cases) throughout our facility for which I have no quantified basis for their existence. I cannot say whether they were installed after a risk assessment determined the need for additional risk reduction or for some other reason.

I am trying to figure this out so I can determine what type of documentation, PM, testing, etc is needed for these.

Thanks in advance!!!

 

[glowing]

Ask BP about the idea of having redundancy on critical applications. Not law in the US, but it is in most places. I think you basically have to look at cause and effect, as well as other failsafes in place. If it is for pressure for example, is there a PSV there? If so, probably safe. If not, you might want redundancy.

 

[JLSeagull]

Different clients implement different corporate standards that often supplement the industrial code requirements and different industries use different codes (Food processing is different than offshore gas processing). Others are involved in optional costs. Offshore measurement devices and control systems based upon API RP 14C make for a great starting point for similar onshore facilities.

 

[glowing]

There are fields that require an ESD after any schedule change even. So in a gas well you would have to have one off the well head (and potentially a down hole ESD as well), at the separator, at the line heater, and prior to the pipeline.

 

[dcasto]

risk analysis dictates on shore OSHA jurisdictional facillities, otherwise they are under DOT jurisdiction which has prescriptive rules for overpressure protection.