LEAK TESTING
IT’S MORE
WHEN COMPLICATED
THAN YOU
REINSTATING THINK
PLANT
ANDY BRAZIER AND MICHELLE CORMACK
SIRP – Safe Isolation and Reinstatement of Plant
What is reinstatement of plant?
Returning the process plant back to service following intrusive maintenance
What does it achieve?
Control of major accident hazards
Prove integrity of plant
Reduce likelihood of leaks when process fluids are reintroduced on plant restart
How is this achieved?
Leak testing
Relevant Industry Guidance
HSG253 - The Safe Isolation of Plant and
Equipment, (HSE, 2006)
Almost no mention of how to safely
reinstate plant
Guidance on Safe Plant Reinstatement,
(Energy Institute, 2023)
Issued in 2023 to plug the industry
guidance gap
Types of Leak Test
Full reinstatement leak test
Typically carried out at 90%-95% of the system design pressure if there is a
system PSV installed or 100-110% of system design pressure where no system
PSV installed
Sensitive leak test
Uses a tracer gas, such as helium, and specialist detection equipment to detect
leaks as small as 5scf/yr
Gross leak test
Carried out at low pressure typically to check for larger leaks before a full leak
test or service test
Service test
Reintroduction of process fluids with periodic leak checks carried out of a pre-
determined duration
Reverse integrity test
Uses specialist gaskets to prove individual joint integrity
Choosing the correct test
Full Reinstatement Leak Test
Pneumatic or hydraulic test carried out at, or close to, system design
pressure
Demonstrates disturbed joints do not leak at highest foreseeable
pressures
The safest option, or is it?
Hazards of Leak Testing
High pressures
Stored energy and projectiles
Flexible hoses
Temporary equipment and fittings
Fluid injection (100psi is all it takes to penetrate the skin)
Asphyxiation from test gas
Low temperature embrittlement
Hydrates
Corrosion
Humans
Safety Critical Task
Analysis (SCTA)
Tried and tested qualitative method. It involves:
Describing the task method in a structured and
systematic way so that anomalies, ambiguities and
inconsistencies can be identified and resolved;
Analysing each task step to identify potential human
errors and consequences;
Evaluating Performance Influencing Factors (PIF)
that may make the likelihood of error greater;
Considering the risk controls in place and
determining if they are sufficient to reduce risks of
the task to As Low As Reasonably Practicable
(ALARP).
Leak testing is amenable to this approach
Case Study
Fuel Gas System on Offshore Gas Installation
Leak Test Envelope
Leak test options
Service test – deisolate the plant and introduce gas via its normal
route
Gross leak test – inject low pressure nitrogen through the vent on the
knock-out drum
Full reinstatement test – inject high pressure nitrogen via a ‘suitable’
connection
Platform had prepared a detailed leak test procedure
Marked up P&ID
Leak test SCTA
Leak test – potential pitfalls
De-isolating PSVs but not the rest of the
system
Sanction To Test (STT)
Finding a suitable connection for the leak test
gas taking into account
Non-return valves
HP-LP interfaces
Accessibility
Gas break-through to drains
What if remedial work had to be done?
Summing up
We had a procedure that looked good and appeared to be consistent
with latest guidance
The SCTA highlighted a number of potential issues – in addition to the
personal safety issues of handling high pressure gas
Using a liquid leak test fluid would be less hazardous – but
Not an option in many gas systems
Contaminated liquid to be disposed of
Can we reduce the test pressure if operating pressure is much lower
than design pressure?
Reverse Integrity Test (RIT) gaskets may be a future option – but
introduce their own issues
Conclusion
Human errors during plant reinstatement
Failure to make a joint (missing gasket, bolts not tightened)
Joints made incorrectly (wrong gasket, misalignment etc.)
Full reinstatement leak testing is not inherently safe, it adds
complexity and is vulnerable to human error
SCTA proved to be effective
Full testing at high pressure is clearly required for commissioning new
plant
How often do joints fail catastrophically after normal intrusive
maintenance?
How much credit can we take for good plant design, joint integrity
management systems and competent technicians?
