BASED ON EXPERIENCE TGE GAS ENGINEERING EVOLUTION OF SAFETY DESIGN FOR CRYOGENIC TANKS REVAMP VS. NEW BUILT

Transcription

1 BASED ON EXPERIENCE TGE GAS ENGINEERING EVOLUTION OF SAFETY DESIGN FOR CRYOGENIC TANKS REVAMP VS. NEW BUILT Page 1

2 CONTENT Overview on the services and experience of TGE Gas Engineering GmbH Examples of revamp projects Some spotlights on overall requirements for the design of cryogenic tank farms Conclusion Page 2

3 COMPANY PROFILE TGE Gas Engineering GmbH (TGE) is one of the world s leading contractors for projects involving the storage and handling of liquefied gases in the energy and petrochemical/chemical industries. TGE has over 30 years of experience in this field, providing full range of services from concept /feasibility studies through to Lump Sum Turn-Key Project execution. Our target is to provide to customers the added value based on our experience and Know-How in delivering millions of m³ of Liquefied Gas Storages and Handling Facilities. TGE is a technology focused company that is active worldwide with main operating units throughout Europe and Asia LIQUEFIED GAS STORAGE CAPACITY PERFORMED (m³) Status Sep Overall capacity LNG Ethylene / Ethane Propylene, LPG, etc. Page 3

4 PRODUCT LINES Storages and Terminals for LNG Storage and Terminals for Petrochemical/ Chemical Gas Small-Mid Scale Natural Gas LNG Liquefaction Plants Other Package Plants for gas treatment or elements of storage product lines LNG as Fuel Storage Tank Design Services Page 4

5 FACTS & FIGURES STORAGES AND TERMINALS FOR LNG 17 Projects in Total (EPC & EP+CS) Import Terminals: 9 Export Terminals: 7 Import/Export Terminal: 1 72 LNG Truck/Container Loading Stations STORAGE TANKS Storage Tanks installed 30, ,000 m³ Storage Tanks designed 5, ,000 m³ Storage Tanks installed in Europe 940,000 m³ Storage Tanks installed in Asia 1,908,000 m³ Total Regasification Capacity > 13 mio t/a Total Production Capacity Small-Mid Scale LNG > 3 mio t/a Reference for all relevant International Design Codes: Tanks: EN 14620, EUROCODE API 625, API 620, ACI 376 Facilities: EN 1473, NFPA 59a, INSTALLED CAPACITY 21 Full Containment Tanks 2,838,000 m³ 5 Single Containment Tanks 170,000 m³ TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY 3,008,000 m³ Page 5

6 FACTS & FIGURES STORAGES AND TERMINALS FOR PETROCHEMICAL GASES 36 Projects in Total (EPC & EP+CS) for Petrochemical Products: Ethylene, Ethane, Propylene, Butane, LPG, Ammonia. STORAGE TANKS Tanks installed with capacities from up to 3, ,000 m³ Facilities installed in Europe 327,000 m³ Facilities installed in Asia 1,684,000 m³ LARGEST INSTALLED CAPACITY LPG 120,000 m³ Full Containment 20 Full Containment Tanks with installed capacity INSTALLED CAPACITY 1,205,000 m³ Ethylene Ethane 80,000 m³ Full Containment 120,000 m³ Full Containment 22 Single Containment Tanks with installed capacity 560,000 m³ Propylene 80,000 m³ Full Containment TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY 1,765,000 m³ Ammonia 25,000 ton Full Containment Page 6

7 SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultancy Technical and Commercial Feasibility Studies Site Selection Conceptual Design Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and HAZOP Studies Capital Cost (CAPEX) and Operating Cost (OPEX) Estimation Business Plan for Capital Investments and Operations Basic Engineering and Front End Engineering Design (FEED) Detailed Engineering Procurement/Procurement Services Construction/Construction Services Supervision Services Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning Services Start-Up/Shut Down Services Selection and Training of Operators Operation and Maintenance Services Life-Cycle Engineering Studies and Plant Life-Cycle Optimisation Page 7

8 REVAMP PROJECTS - EXAMPLE 1 15,000 TON AMMONIA TANK BUILT AROUND 1970 (OUTSIDE EU) Ammonia - Toxic, Hazardous to Waters No Flare connected, low tech instrumentation Single wall Overfill protection directly to sewage Various shell penetrations (instruments, manhole) PSV to atmosphere, design pressure 2 psi g Zip-weld -> uncontrolled evaporation Tank insulation: exposed to atmosphere Considered loads: dead weight hydrostatic pressure, internal gas pressure, wind Page 8

9 REVAMP PROJECTS - EXAMPLE 1 15,000 TON AMMONIA TANK BUILT AROUND 1970 External insulation deterioated, structure corroded, undetected icing Ship unloading with hoses BOG system outdated Page 9

10 REVAMP PROJECTS - EXAMPLE 1 25,000 TON AMMONIA TANK NEW BUILT 2013 FC Steel / Steel with bottom outlet acc. to API 620 Design Pressure 290 mbarg State of the Art Instrumentation, DCS, Fail safe SCS New BOG Handling Systems, Unloading Systems, Send out Pumps, etc. Page 10

11 REVAMP PROJECTS - EXAMPLE 1 NEW BUILT AMMONIA TANK OLD TANK REFURBISHED Old tank completely inspected, refurbished Updated instrumentation, valves, safety installations, etc. Back in service together with new tank Sharing process installation as BOG system, send out systems, DCS, etc. Updated to State of the Art Instrumentation Connected to new BOG Handling Systems, Send out Pumps, etc. BUT still an old tank with single wall zip weld lower design pressure bottom outlet instead of submerged in-tank pumps with the related trade off on operation, safety, etc. Page 11

12 REVAMP PROJECTS - EXAMPLE 2 13,000 M³ ETHYLENE TANK COMMISSIONED 1967 (INSIDE EU) Tank was originally designed as Single Containment for Ethylene Service located in a petrochemical complex Inner tank 9% Ni, outer tank CS, Perlite Upgraded several times over it s lifetime First out of service inpection in 1990 Concrete bund wall added in 90 s to upgrade to Double Containment Changed to Propylene service Inspected and modified again in 2015 in order to allow Ethane service Page 12

13 REVAMP PROJECTS - EXAMPLE 2 13,000 M³ ETHYLENE TANK COMMISSIONED 1967 (INSIDE EU) Refurbishment: Best option for operator to satisfy demand on relatively short notice Safety Concept is still acceptable to authorities New Installations for BOG handling, send out, updated Tank Instrumentation, Tank Safety Valves, etc. Certain constraints with regard to the OLD tank had to be solved or compromises are accepted Page 13

14 SAFETY CONCEPTS / DESIGN CRITERIA LOAD CASES OF THE PAST VERSUS ACTUAL APPROACH TO STRUCTURAL DESIGN Load Cases past dead weight hydrostatic pressure, internal gas pressure, wind live loads Verification of allowable stresses metallic components Load Cases actual as before plus seismic ( OBE and SSE) fire blast spill Verification of ULS and SLS for metallic components concrete components Page 14

15 SAFETY CONCEPTS / DESIGN CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS TODAY HSE DESIGN & PERMITTING Individual / mandatory regulations are subject to revision SEVESO III (Directive 2012/18/EU) PURPLE BOOK EN 1473, NFPA59A Störfallverordnung NEW REQUIREMENTS MAY ENDANGER PERMIT FOR CONTINUED OPERATION OF OLD TANK Page 15

16 ESTABLISHMENTS ACC. ART.10 (SEVESOIII) QUALIFYING QUANTITIES Classification of establishment is based on Qualifying Quantities More than 200 ton of total storage of ammonia and liquefied flammable gases incl. LPG and natural gas upper-tier establishment (Seveso II, Seveso III) Safety report (Article 10) (c) demonstrating that adequate safety and reliability have been taken into account in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of any installation, storage facility, equipment and infrastructure connected with its operation which are linked to major-accident hazards inside the establishment; 5. Without prejudice to Article 11, the operator shall periodically review and where necessary update the safety report at least every five years. The operator shall also review and where necessary update the safety report following a major accident at its establishment, and at any other time at the initiative of the operator or at the request of the competent authority, where justified by new facts or by new technological knowledge about safety matters, including knowledge arising from analysis of accidents or, as far as possible, near misses, and by developments in knowledge concerning the assessment of hazards. Page 16

17 REVAMP VS. NEW BUILT CAN OLD TANKS WITHSTAND MODERN REQUIREMENTS? Evaluation on a case-by-case study Evaluation of demands of owners and authorities Design life time of 30 years often already exceeded fatigue corrosion Due to its construction, inspection of steel bottom not possible corrosion monitoring of outer steel tank Uncertainty: findings during inspection may exclude continued operation Loss of permit to operate Page 17

18 REVAMP VS. NEW BUILT CAN OLD TANKS WITHSTAND MODERN REQUIREMENTS? Less safety towards outer hazards: blast, impact, seismic Fire required plot size / safety distances, active cooling systems Corrosion: especially between concrete raft and tank bottom, anchors Undetected icing when using outer insulation sudden failure Thermal loading often neglected Quality of execution: outer tank exposed to environmental conditions during construction Construction stages: (e.g. wind with top-open tank) Process: limited max. pressure on steel tank. bigger compressor, higher OPEX Outer ring stiffeners of tank corrosion Roof spill: carbon steel will fail faster than concrete tank vapor leak (depending on spill size) or spill collection Page 18

19 REVAMP VS. NEW BUILT FULL CONTAINMENT TANK Best available technology Concrete raft, wall and roof durability fire, blast, impact less sensitive for roof loads not subject to sudden failure mechanisms like buckling Inner metallic tank isolated from all external loads except seimic In-tank pumps no wall- or bottom penetrations Insulation not exposed to environmental decay Smaller plot size required Higher internal pressure possible decreased CAPEX AND OPEX for refrigeration system Page 19

20 REVAMP VS. NEW BUILT DOES IT PAY OFF? WHAT TO CONSIDER? INSPECTION & REVAMP Decommissioning Cost Loss of Product to Flare Inertization, Air Purging Inspection Cost Accessibility of Annular Space, Removing Perlite needed? Cost of NDT / m of weld Laboratory Cost Risks of damage due to warming up? NEW BUILT TANK Long Lead Time New Permitting Required Tank: Higher CAPEX but significant savings in OPEX Construction possible in parallel while operating OLD tank State of the Art solution Re-Commissioning Cost Loss of Revenue due to Downtime Page 20

21 CONCLUSION Each plant needs to be reviewed individually Case-by-case evaluation of owner s individual demands and social responsibility Authority requirements need to be considered Revamped tank: low safety high OPEX low CAPEX unpredictable inspection result outcome for OP permit uncertain New-built tank: higher safety low OPEX high CAPEX increase durability and life-time OP permit independent of existing installation Page 21

22 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Vielen Dank cпaсибо большое 多谢 Obrigado Page 22

23 CONTACT TGE Gas Engineering GmbH Mildred-Scheel-Str Bonn Germany tge-service@tge-gas.com Page 23