Piping Design for

Potentially Lethal Chemicals

Integrity and reliability are critical for piping and equipment that handle
chemicals with extreme health hazards
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.

The degree of integrity assigned to the design

elements and components of a piping system is
therefore related, not only to the design coincident
of pressure/temperature, but also to the degree of
potential hazard (read volatility or toxicity) that can
be attributed to the fluid itself.

SETTING THE TONE

It is one thing to sit in an office designing and
engineering a CPI (Chemical Process Industry)
facility, but an altogether different thing to work in
and operate such a facility day in and day out.
Working in close proximity to the high pressures and
temperatures often used in processing is cause
enough for concern over a persons well being;
working in close proximity to chemicals that are
considered toxic, hazardous, or reactive escalates
that concern to a very high degree indeed. This is
why integrity and reliability in equipment and piping
systems should be of paramount consideration in
the design of such facilities.

This discussion will focus on piping systems that

contain potentially lethal fluids. It will guide the
designer/engineer through the process of making
the determination for when a fluid should be
considered potentially lethal and what attributes
need to be considered in the design of such systems.
As Fig. 1 shows, of the 4383 work related deaths
overall for 2012, 9% were attributed to exposure to
harmful substances in the workplace.

Integrity, of such things as a piping system, is a

relative term. In all practicality you would not expect
the same level of integrity to be designed into a
Cooling Tower Water piping system as that of a
piping system containing 30% sulfuric acid. Nor
would you expect the same level of integrity to be
designed into a system containing 30% sulfuric acid
as that of a piping system containing cyanogen
bromide.
Figure 2 Distribution of Fatal Injury Events by Gender
(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012)

As Fig. 2 shows, statistics do not disparage between

genders. For those exposed to harmful substances
there is only a 2% differential between men and
women.
Figure 3 points out the fact that even though the
fatality count for the manufacturing sector at 314 is
moderate the per capita rate, at 2.2/100,000 is a
relatively low ratio. But that, by no means, negates
the fact that even one fatality is one too many.

Figure 1 Fatal Occupational Injuries by Major Event

(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012)

1
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

(OSHA) (29CFR), the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) (40CFR), and REACH, a European Union
Regulation. OSHA currently addresses 400
substances within their regulations; Their Chemical
Sampling Information database contains data on
approximately 1500 chemical substances; The EPAs
TSCA (Toxic Substance Control Act), which by the
way is currently under review on Capitol Hill,
Chemical Substance Inventory contains over 62,000
chemical substances; and in general there are
currently in excess of 100,000 MSDS (Material Safety
Data Sheets) on file. Having said that, this discussion
will be more acutely focused on the 140 chemicals
found in OSHAs List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals,
Toxics, and Reactives (Mandatory) found under
29CFR1926.64 Appendix A.

What can skew such data are incidents that draw the
attention of the public and lawmakers. Incidents
such as the 1984 Bhopal, India, incident resulting in a
number of deaths ranging from 2259 to 16,000 and
injuries in excess of 500,000; October 1989 Phillips
Petroleum Company, Pasadena, TX, incident
resulting in 23 deaths and 132 injuries; the May 1991
IMC, Sterlington, LA, incident resulting in 8 deaths
and 128 injuries; the September 2005 explosion at
the Texas City, TX BP refinery where 15 were killed
and 180 injured; and the February 2010 explosion at
the Kleen Energy Power Plant in Middletown, CT that
killed six and injured more than fifty personnel.

In drilling down even further we will look at only

those chemicals that are considered lethal, from a
toxic standpoint; Chemicals that could be considered
within the criteria to be declared candidates for
ASME B31.3 Category M Fluid Service.
The 2012 edition of ASME B31.3 Process Piping code
defines Category M fluid service as:
a fluid service in which the potential for
personnel exposure is judged to be
significant and in which a single exposure to
a very small quantity of a toxic fluid, caused
by leakage, can produce serious irreversible
harm to persons on breathing or bodily
contact, even when prompt restorative
measures are taken.

Figure 3 Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by

Industry Sector (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012)

Not only do such incidents capture the attention of

the public and lawmakers alike they also capture the
attention of organizations such as the NFPA
(National Fire Protection Association) and the ASME
(American Society of Mechanical Engineers). These
and other organizations will quite often modify or
introduce content into their codes and standards in
response to the causal effects of such incidents.

OSHA, under The OSHA Hazard Communication

Standard, Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous
Substances 29CFR1910.1200, defines Hazardous
Chemicals as:

The other relevant metrics required for a safe

operating facility, beyond that of the piping, and
equipment itself, is a well thought out preventative
maintenance program and operating procedure. But
our focus here is on the piping, so let us dig a little
deeper into what we mean when discussing lethal
chemicals.

Any chemical which is a physical hazard or a

health hazard.
It goes on to define physical hazard as
a chemical for which there is scientifically
valid evidence that it is a combustible liquid,
a compressed gas, explosive, flammable, an
organic peroxide, an oxidizer, pyrophoric,
unstable (reactive) or water-reactive.

GETTING INTO THE WEEDS OF CHEMICAL LETHALITY

To put our discussion into context we can turn to
such resources as the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (49CFR), National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), Occupational Safety and Health Organization
2
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

It also defines Health hazard as

a chemical for which there is statistically
significant evidence based on at least one
study conducted in accordance with
established scientific principles that acute or
chronic health effects may occur in exposed
employees. The term "health hazard"
includes chemicals which are carcinogens,
toxic or highly toxic agents, reproductive
toxins, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers,
hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, neurotoxins,
agents which act on the hematopoietic
system, and agents which damage the lungs,
skin, eyes, or mucous membranes.

Appendix A under 29CFR1910.1200 defines the term

toxic in three forms of human interaction:
By ingestion A chemical that has a median
lethal dose (LD50) of more than 50 milligrams
per kilogram but not more than 500
milligrams per kilogram of body weight
when administered orally to albino rats
weighing between 200 and 300 grams each.
By contact A chemical that has a median
lethal dose (LD50) of more than 200
milligrams per kilogram but not more than
1,000 milligrams per kilogram of body
weight when administered by continuous
contact for 24 hours (or less if death occurs
within 24 hours) with the bare skin of albino
rabbits weighing between two and three
kilograms each.
By inhalation A chemical that has a
median lethal concentration (LC50) in air of
more than 200 parts per million but not
more than 2,000 parts per million by volume
of gas or vapor, or more than two milligrams
per liter but not more than 20 milligrams per
liter of mist, fume, or dust, when
administered by continuous inhalation for
one hour (or less if death occurs within one
hour) to albino rats weighing between 200
and 300 grams each.

By ingestion A chemical that has a median

lethal dose (LD50) of 50 milligrams or less per
kilogram of body weight when administered
orally to albino rats weighing between 200
and 300 grams each.
By contact A chemical that has a median
lethal dose (LD50) of 200 milligrams or less
per kilogram of body weight when
administered by continuous contact for 24
hours (or less if death occurs within 24
hours) with the bare skin of albino rabbits
weighing between two and three kilograms
each.
By inhalation A chemical that has a
median lethal concentration (LC50) in air of
200 parts per million by volume or less of
gas or vapor, or 2 milligrams per liter or less
of mist, fume, or dust, when administered by
continuous inhalation for one hour (or less if
death occurs within one hour) to albino rats
weighing between 200 and 300 grams each.

FOOTNOTE: LD50 , in which LD stands for Lethal Dose, is

the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes
the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals. The
LD50 is one way to measure the short-term poisoning
potential (acute toxicity) of a material.
LC50, in which LC stands for "Lethal Concentration", is, in
inhalation experiments, the concentration of an airborne
chemical that kills 50% of the test animals in a given time
(usually four hours). In environmental studies LC values can
also mean the concentration of a chemical in water.

Also found in this discussion is the term highly

hazardous chemicals. OSHA defines this as a
substance possessing toxic, reactive, flammable, or
explosive properties While this definition reaches
beyond the scope of this discussion it nevertheless
captures the essence of and remains within the
realm of potentially lethal chemicals.
Selecting Category M Fluid Service Candidates
If your CPI facility resides in California, Oregon,
Michigan, Kentucky, or any of the Canadian
provinces then you are required by code to comply
with the ASME B31.3 Process Piping code; or if your
facility or project has adopted B31.3 as a compliance
code through self stipulation and contractual
obligation then all of the fluid services used for
processing are required to be Categorized in
accordance with B31.3.

That same Appendix A also defines the term highly

toxic in three forms of human interaction as well:
3
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

chemicals according to their degree of hazard, or

non-hazard, for the purpose of transportation. Of
those 23 Classes and Divisions, 3 would be
considered Category M Fluids:

One such Category to be considered will be the

aforementioned Category M fluid service. The
definition, as stated above, suggests that such fluids
can be lethal or at the very least debilitating to
humans upon exposure. While ASME does not
extend their definition to a list of possible Category
M chemical candidates other resources do, although
in a different manner.

1. (no Class No.) Forbidden Materials,

2. (2.3) Poisonous Gas,
3. (6.1) Poisonous Materials.
49CFR Definitions for the above:
Forbidden Materials (The definition is too
elaborate and lengthy for this venue. Refer to
49CFR 173.21 for clarification)

Other resources consider these types of chemicals as

hazardous or poisonous to personnel. OSHA, the
DOT, the EPA, and the NFPA each provide their own
listing of what they consider hazardous or poisonous
chemicals based on their own set of criteria.

Division 2.3 A gas poisonous by inhalation,

means a material which is a gas at 68F in
accordance with ASTM E681, Standard Test
Method for Concentration Limits of Flammability
of Chemicals or other equivalent method
approved by the Associate Administrator for
Hazardous Materials Safety. The flammability of
aerosols is determined by the tests specified in
49CFR 173.306(i) of this part.

By adopting the consensus of one or more of these

resources for determining whether a chemical is
hazardous or poisonous, and therefore under
consideration as a Category M Fluid, an owner can
use such lists as a resource in the process of
determining which chemicals within their own
facility may be considered Category M Fluid service
candidates.

Division 6.1 A material, other than a gas, which

is known to be so toxic to humans as to afford a
hazard to health during transportation, or which,
in the absence of adequate data on human
toxicity:

OSHA
Under 29CFR OSHA provides a listing of Highly
Hazardous Chemicals, Toxics, and Reactives.
However, their list is broad in its interpretation and
provides a Threshold Quantity (TQ) for each
chemical, which requires further consideration on
the part of the owner. This is a good resource, but
not without the need for additional analysis.

1.

EPA
The EPA under 40CFR provides a listing of Hazardous
Substances as defined by the EPA under the TSCAs
Chemical
Substance
Inventory
list
(http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/t
scainventory/howto.html).
This is justifiably a broad interpretation of hazardous
chemicals that does not define or categorize the
various chemicals to the extent that it would assist
the owner in making a Category M determination.
DOT
The Hazardous Material Table in 49CFR (DOT) has 23
Class and Division Numbers that categorize
4
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

Is presumed to be toxic to humans because

it falls within any one of the following
categories when tested on laboratory
animals (whenever possible, animal test
data that has been reported in the chemical
literature should be used):
(i) Oral Toxicity. A liquid with an LD50 for
acute oral toxicity of not more than
500mg/kg or a solid with an LD50 for
acute oral toxicity of not more than
200 mg/kg.
(ii) Dermal Toxicity. A material with an
LD50 for acute dermal toxicity of not
more than 1000 mg/kg.
(iii) Inhalation Toxicity.
(A) A dust or mist with an LC50 for
acute toxicity on inhalation of not
more than 10 mg/L; or

2.

DOT it could be considered a potential Category M

Fluid.

(B) A material with a saturated vapor

concentration in air at 68F
greater than or equal to one-fifth
of the LC50 for acute toxicity on
inhalation of vapors and with an
LC50 for acute toxicity on
inhalation of vapors of not more
than 5000 ml/mm3; or
Is an irritating material, with properties
similar to tear gas, which causes extreme
irritation, especially in confined spaces.

Declaring a fluid service to be classified as Category

M places added requirements on the design,
fabrication, construction, and examination of the
piping. These additional requirements are identified
in ASME B31.3 Chapter VIII Piping for Category M
Fluid Service. The added requirements themselves
are not significant; however B31.3 Chapter VIII, like
the rest of the code, does not go into the details
required for piping layout requirements and other
detail design considerations.

NFPA
The NFPA's Chemical Hazardous Rating System
places chemicals into three groups: Health,
Flammability, and Reactivity. Within those groups
are twelve Classes. The only group identifying
potential Category M Fluids is the Health group.
Within the Health group are four Classifications. The
Classification identifying possible Category M Fluids
is #4 Danger: May be fatal on short exposure.
Specialized protective equipment required.

There are various aspects of piping design that go

beyond the scope and dictates of a code. And
therein lies the point at which good design and
engineering practice supplements the sound basis of
code requirements and blends with the owners
particular needs and a facilities proprietary dictates.
The B31 series of Codes address the requirements
necessary to assure system safety and integrity by
specifying material limits, stipulating fabrication
requirements, providing minimal examination
requirements, etc., and they do include some
essential design guidelines when needed to achieve
that assurance. They cannot specify routing
requirements, when to use double containment
piping systems, determine accessibility, or whether
this type of piping can or cannot run underground,
etc. This type of detail is owner or site specific. Even
within a large, multi facility corporation these
requirements may vary from plant to plant.

DOT and NFPA

Using both the Hazardous Material Table in 49CFR
and NFPA's Table of Chemical Ratings a
determination of possible Category M Fluids can
readily be made. Any chemical flowing through pipe
or tubing listed as either a "4" in the Health column
of NFPA's Table of Chemical Ratings, or as a
"Forbidden", "2.3", or "6.1" in the "Hazard Class or
Division" column of the Hazardous Materials Table in
49CFR could be considered a Category M Fluid.
While these two resources provide essentially the
same information, they do so with two different
objectives, and therefore do not always agree. As an
example NFPA considers Bromine a Class 3
Warning: Corrosive or toxic, avoid skin contact or
inhalation. While the DOT, under 49CFR, considers
Bromine a Class 6.1 Poisonous Materials. NFPA
considers Chloroform a Class 2 Warning: May be
harmful if inhaled or absorbed. While the DOT
considers Chloroform a Class 6.1.

Whenever a chemical, designated as a Category M

Fluid, is made part of a project there should be a
well-defined basis of design established by the
owner or engineer in order to convey to the designer
a predetermined set of design parameters.
CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR LETHAL FLUID SERVICE
As stated in the Introduction to the ASME-B31.3
piping code, The designer is cautioned that the Code
is not a design handbook In stating this ASME is
explaining to the reader in very few words that this
code will not provide pointers on the best way to
route a piping system, how to support piping, or the
amount of slope a pipeline might require. It will

Regardless of whether or not they agree on the

hazard level of a chemical, if a chemical is indicated
as a 4 by NFPA, or Forbidden, 2.3, or 6.1 by the
5
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

instead provide such criteria, methods, and formulae

for such things as how to determine maximum loads
on piping and ways to test installed piping for leak
integrity. Just as the piping code provides the criteria
for welding, but does not explain how to weld, it also
provides the minimum requirements necessary for a
safe piping system, but does not tell you how to
design it.

concepts I put forth in the writing of this article

are mine and not those of ASME. The process and
procedures
by
which
ASME
publishes
clarifications and responses to inquiries are based
on a thorough, multi-tiered consensus process
established and audited by ANSI (American
Nations Standards Institute). That process
encompasses the thinking of many respected
individuals who are expert in their field and
giving of their time and expertise in both
maintaining the code and responding officially to
inquiries about the code.

The 2012 ASME B31.3 piping code is composed

mainly of ten Chapters and nineteen appendices.
The first six Chapters are considered the base code.
Supplementary to the base code are four additional
Chapters that pertain to the specific needs of piping
systems with conditional requirements that vary
from the content of the base code.

M306.1 Pipe Fittings

M306.1.3 The following shall not be used:
(a) fittings conforming to MSS SP-43 and MSS SP119
(b)proprietary Type C lap-joint stub-end
buttwelding fittings

The supplemental chapters, VII through X, uses the

same paragraph numbers as the base code with a
prefix that identifies the particular chapter it is
associated with.

Under M306.1.3(a) above, fittings manufactured to

MSS SP-43 - Wrought and Fabricated Butt-Welding
Fittings for Low Pressure, Corrosion Resistant
Applications, do not qualify for use in Category M
Fluid Service due to the low integrity design of the
fittings. Mentioned too, under paragraph
M306.1.3(a), are fittings manufactured under
MSS SP-119 - Factory-Made Wrought Belled End
Socket-Welding Fittings (Fig. 4). These fittings also do
not comply due to the low integrity design of the bell
& socket joint.

In the case of Chapter VIII, for Category M Fluid

Service, the paragraph prefix is M. As an example,
the base code paragraph 302.2.4 would be M302.2.4
in Chapter VIII. If there are no additional
requirements in a paragraph beyond that of the base
code there is a statement that clarifies that. As an
example, there are no additional requirements in
paragraph M302.4 beyond what is required in the
base code. The statement under M302.4 in Chapter
VIII is therefore Paragraph 302.4 applies in its
entirety. meaning that the requirements stated in
paragraph 302.4 (of the base code) are sufficient for
the supplemental requirements in Chapter VIII.
With that said, we will take a look at just a few of the
variances required by ASME B31.3 for piping systems
containing a fluid service that may be considered
lethal if personnel come in contact with it. This is to
provide examples of the types of variances that are
required for Category M type fluid services beyond
what is stated in the base code.

Figure 4 Bell End Socket-Welding Elbow with Pipe

With regard to paragraph M307 Metallic Valves

and Specialty Components, paragraph 307.1
applies, subject to the requirements in paragraph
M307.2.
Paragraph M307.2 Specific Requirements, states
in subparagraph (a) that: Valves having threaded
bonnet joints (other than union joints) shall not be
used. Threaded joints, in accordance with

Before taking another step further allow me to

provide something of a disclaimer at this interval.
Even though I hold membership on various ASME
committees, subcommittees, and subgroups,
including that of B31.3, any clarification I make of
statements contained within B31.3, or any design

6
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

(a) Visual Examination

(1) All fabrication shall be examined. (Instead of 5%)
(2) All threaded, bolted, and other mechanical
joints shall be examined. (Instead of random)
(b) Other Examination
(1)
The
random
radiography/ultrasonic
examination requirements of para. 341.4.1(b)(1)
apply except that at least 20% of circumferential
butt and miter welds and of fabricated lap and
branch connection welds comparable to those
shown in Figs. 328.5.4E and 328.5.5 sketches
(d) and (e) shall be examined. (Instead of 5%)
(2) The in-process examination alternative
permitted in para. 341.4.1(b)(1) may be specified on
a weld-for-weld basis in the engineering design or
by the Inspector. It shall be supplemented by
appropriate nondestructive examination.

paragraph 314, are to be used for normal fluid

service and Category D fluid conditions only, but can
be used in severe cyclic fluid service conditions only
when not subjected to external moment loading
such as with thermowells.
M307.2(b) states that: Only metallic valves
conforming to the following requirements may be
used:
(1) Special consideration shall be given to valve
design to prevent stem leakage to the
environment.
What is implied here is the suggested use of a
bellows sealed valve to prevent leakage of vapor or
liquid to the atmosphere by way of the valve stem
gland packing.

This sheds light on the fact that these types of piping

systems demand a much higher level of scrutiny
when being evaluated and are examined to a much
higher degree than required for normal fluid
services.

(2) Bonnet or cover plate closures shall be:

flanged, secured by at least four bolts with
gasketing conforming to para. 308.4; or
proprietary, attached by bolts, lugs, or other
substantial means, and having a gasket design that
increases gasket compression as fluid pressure
increases; or secured with a full penetration weld
made in accordance with para. M311; or secured by
a straight thread sufficient for mechanical strength,
a metal-to-metal seat, and a seal weld made in
accordance with para. M311, all acting in series.

DESIGNING FOR CATEGORY M PIPING SYSTEMS

The need to integrate and instill personnel safety
and well-being into the operation and maintenance
of a CPI facility is a basic essential. Such a core
philosophy extends from the conceptual design of a
facility to its ultimate operation. But this too is
applied in degrees. The design and material
specifications for a chilled water system certainly
would not apply to a system containing a hazardous
or potentially lethal chemical. The added cost
necessary to attain the integrity required for the
more hazardous chemical service would be money
poorly spent on a chilled water system.

The underlined statement above refers to a pressure

seal bonnet design (Fig. 5). Such a design, which will
vary between valve manufacturers, uses the internal
operating pressure of the fluid as a sealing force; as
the internal pressure increases the sealing load on
the pressure seal gasket increases. This provides an
increase in the sealing integrity of the bonnet joints.

In designing a piping system that contains a highly

hazardous chemical the engineer needs to give
added consideration to the following key design
elements that will be touched on as follows:

The above are just a few examples of the added

requirements stipulated for Category M Fluid Service
piping. There are many other instances in which the
requirements for the construction of potentially
lethal piping systems go beyond that of the base
code. And one more example of that lies in the
examination requirements.

Under M341.4 Extent of Required Examination,

Paragraph 341.4.1 applies with the following
exceptions:

Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

Component joint type

Valve design attributes
System drainability
Emergency valve shut-off, isolation, and
shutdown
Protruding instruments and valves

over response time. Multi-turn valves such as gate

and globe valves are a safer valve option from the
standpoint of control. A valve handle that extends
out away from the valve body has the risk of being
inadvertently bumped and unknowingly opened to
flow.

Isolated and controlled access room

Component joint type

One of the key aspects of piping system integrity is
based on the type of component joint type used in
constructing
the
system.
Giving
serious
consideration to the selection of the type of joints
used in the design of a system should include, in
order of priority:

It is suggested that the valve have buttweld

(preferred) or socketweld ends. If there is a need to
remove the valve periodically then a valve with
flanged ends is a consideration, but any type of
mechanical joint should be used sparingly and with
due consideration.

Buttweld joint
Socketweld joint
Flanged joint

The valve bonnet is a mechanical joint and is

therefore a potential leak point. Two bonnet designs
help alleviate this: the welded bonnet and the
pressure seal bonnet. If access to the valves
internals is not a concern then the welded bonnet
would be a consideration. If access to the valve
internals is needed then the pressure seal bonnet
would be an option.

The buttweld, or circumferential weld joint is fully

rated to the strength of the pipe. This should be of
primary consideration. As stated in my June 2010
article in CE magazine titled Piping Design for
Hazardous Fluid Service, the full penetration
buttweld is considered to be as strong as the pipe
with an SIF [Stress Intensification Factor]= 1.0. It
goes on to state that, The socketweld joint has a SIF
= 2.1. Any value in excess of 1.0 will de-rate the
strength of the joint below that of the pipe.

E
G

Where flanges are specified for equipment

connections and break-out joints, the weak point in
the flange joint assembly is the gasket. Should a fire
occur in which temperatures could reach into the
2,700 to 3,000F range the gasket material would be
compromised causing the joint to lose its seal and
leak deadly toxins into the atmosphere.

F
H

A/B Bonnets tendency to move up & down.

C System pressure
D Internal sealing forces against the
spacer ring
E
Bonnet take-up bolts
F
Segmental thrust ring
G Outer row of body studs
H Gasket

Valve design attributes

In identifying the requirements of a valve intended
for a highly hazardous fluid service the short list
would include:

No quarter-turn on/off operation

Buttweld end connections
Pressure seal
Bellows seal

Figure 5 Pressure Seal Bonnet Design

(Courtesy Velan)

Referring to Fig. 5, the pressure seal bonnet is

designed to utilize internal pressure to increase its
sealing capability in direct response to an increase in
internal pressure. As internal pressure increases so
too does the load on the gasket H creating a seal
that exceeds that of the initial gasket pre-load. The
bonnet take-up bolts E establish the initial load on

Quarter-turn valves, such as ball, plug, and butterfly

valves are great for ease of operation and quick
on/off requirements. Those attributes are not
necessarily what is needed for highly hazardous
fluids. What is needed, particularly for manually
operated valves, are valve types that offer control
8
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

the bonnet gasket. The segmental thrust ring F

provides the sealing surface against which the gasket
load is applied. This design provides a high degree of
sealing integrity.

Note:
Reasonable access, as mentioned in the second bullet
point, should give consideration to not having to climb a
ladder or the use of other means of gaining access to a
valve or hose connection. Consideration should also be
given to the fact that workers will most likely be wearing
hazmat suits while working on such highly hazardous fluid
piping.
Appropriately located, as mentioned in the third bullet
point, implies that all local read-out gages should be
located in such a manner as to allow for good line of sight
viewing of the gages dial face without the need for visual
enhancements (magnification) or a temporary means of
access, such as a ladder.

The part of a valve that is the most prone to leak is

at the interface of the valve stem and the packing
used to prevent leakage. The addition of the bellows
seal design prevents fluids or vapors from escaping
to the atmosphere should a leak occur in the stem
packing.
The bellows creates a hermetically sealed barrier
between the service fluid and the stem. This
significantly alleviates the possibility of stem
leakage.

Emergency valve shut-off

At the onset of a fire, explosion, or a major rupture
and leak in a processing unit any highly hazardous
fluid or any fluid that can be considered flammable
should have a means of isolating and halting its flow
at a point outside the battery limits of the facility in
distress. If there are fluid supply lines in which flow
cannot be halted there should be a means of
diverting the fluid to a safe secondary location, away
from the location of the emergency.

Detail - Bellows Weld Connection

with Welded Bonnet

The shutting down of these pipelines should be done

with automated valving from a remote location.
Manual valve isolation, while sufficient for isolating
systems for maintenance work and planned
turnovers is not practical when an event calls for the
evacuation of all non-essential personnel.

Figure 6 Bellows Seal Design

(Courtesy Velan)

System drainability
An essential to designing a piping system handling a
highly hazardous fluid is the ability to safely and
completely drain the system. Piping should be
sloped at a degree that will allow free draining of all
liquids to a point where it can be captured for
containment and removal. The design and layout
should be done in such a way as to provide for:

Appropriately located pressure gages

All piping should be drainable to a pressure
vessel for pump-out to a safe location

In the event of an emergency the plan should be to

give the first responders the best opportunity to get
the situation under control. This means stopping the
flow of all flammable and otherwise hazardous fluids
from entering the area where the event has
occurred. And, as mentioned under System
drainability, design the system so that once all of
the fluids are stopped from entering the area any
residuals in the area are drained to a pressure vessel
so they can then be pumped out of the area to a
secondary location such as a flare stack or secondary
containment. Stopping flow and removing all of the
hazardous fluids from the area is a key element in
preventing escalation and perpetuation of an
already bad situation.

No entrapment of fluids
Sufficient room and reasonable access to:
o valving,
o drains,
o vents,
o hose connections
9

Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

IN CLOSING
Designing a facility to accommodate the storage and
handling of highly hazardous chemicals does not end
with proper design and construction. It is an ongoing
effort of developing procedures and a training
program such as that described in OSHAs Process
Safety Management Guidelines for Compliance.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3133.html

Protruding instruments and valves

It is a necessity to have instruments, gages, and
valves extending at various angles from piping. But
while there is a need for such things as pressure and
temperature gages, drain and vent valves, Y-strainer
drains, and hose connections, added consideration
needs to be given to the branch design of these
types of protruding components.

Developing procedures and a training program for

those that have to work on or around piping and
equipment that contain highly hazardous chemicals
is an essential. And in so doing the process helps
identify possible areas that could be improved upon,
either from a security standpoint or from the
standpoint of making improvements to the design of
the piping system itself.

These types of components protruding from a

pipeline should be kept in a vertical plane. Extending
these branches horizontally from the pipeline adds
the risk that such an extension opens the
opportunity for the gage or valve to be struck by a
maintenance cart (refer to Incident 2 in the June
2010 Chemical Engineering article Piping Design for
Hazardous Fluid Service) or by some other means
with enough force to rupture the piping causing a
catastrophic rupture.

Proportionally there are few catastrophic events that

occur in chemical processing facilities. The majority
of incidents originate from small leaks that were
discovered in time to evacuate personnel, shut down
the system, and rectify the situation. And most
catastrophic events stem from a series of indicators
that were largely ignored until the unthinkable
finally happened.

Isolated and controlled access room

Another major holistic type approach in the handling
of highly hazardous fluids is the possibility of placing
all related piping and equipment for a highly
hazardous fluid service in a controlled environment.
This would be a room under negative pressure in
relation to any surrounding rooms in a facility. The
room would require controlled access by only those
employees trained to handle the highly hazardous
fluids contained in the room.

It happened in Bhopal, India, again in Pasadena, TX,

again in Sterlington, LA, again in Texas City, TX, and
again in Middletown, CT. In each case protocol was
pushed aside, specific concerns were ignored, and in
some cases the cost to risk evaluation was tilted to
the side of cost over risk. Meaning that even though
the risk was high the cost of remediation was more
than the company wished to incur.

Unless these highly hazardous chemicals are used

throughout a plant site injection of these fluids into
a process stream would be accomplished inside the
room. This would be done by routing the process
piping into and out of the controlled access room
where the addition of these fluids into the process
stream would take place. This keeps the raw
hazardous chemicals contained and better
controlled.

From a regulatory standpoint OSHAs Process safety

management of highly hazardous chemicals under
29CFR1910.119 sets forth requirements that each
chemical processing facility must adhere to in the
manufacture, handling, or storage of chemicals
within the guidelines of the regulation. It also
provides guidance for the required Process Hazard
Analysis procedure.

Alarmed and redundant atmosphere sampling and

leak detection devices would be put in place to
notify the control room, first responders, and all
plant personnel that leakage has been detected
followed by a scripted announcement regarding any
action to be taken.

From a piping engineering standpoint the ASME

B31.3 Process Piping code Chapter VIII Piping for
Category M Fluid Service stipulates requirements in
the design, fabrication, inspection, examination,
10

Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine

Author

testing, and installation of piping used to handle

potentially lethal fluids.

W. M. (Bill) Huitt has been involved

in
industrial
piping
design,
engineering and construction since
1965. Positions have included
design engineer, piping design
instructor,
project
engineer,
project
supervisor,
piping
department
supervisor,
engineering
manager,
and
president of W. M. Huitt Co. a piping consulting firm
founded in 1987. His experience covers both the
engineering and construction fields and crosses industry
lines to include petroleum refining, chemical,
petrochemical, pharmaceutical, pulp & paper, nuclear
power, biofuel, and coal gasification. He has written
numerous specifications, guidelines, papers, and
magazine articles on the topic of pipe design and
engineering. Bill is a member of ISPE (International Society
of Pharmaceutical Engineers) where he was a member of
the Task Group on ISPE Water and Steam Systems
Baseline Guide Chapter 10 Rouge and Stainless Steel, CSI
(Construction Specifications Institute) and ASME
(American Society of Mechanical Engineers). He is a
member of the B31.3 Section Committee and Subgroup H
on High Purity Piping, a member of three ASME-BPE
subcommittees and several Task Groups, ASME Board on
Conformity Assessment for BPE Certification where he
serves as Vice Chair, a member of the API (American
Petroleum Institute) Task Group for RP-2611, he serves
additionally on two corporate specification review boards,
and was on the Advisory Board for ChemInnovations 2010
and 2011 a multi-industry Conference & Exposition.

The people that work in such CPI (Chemical Process

Industry) facilities have the right to fully expect that
they can go off to work with the expectation of
returning home safely upon completion of their
shift. It is the job and responsibility of every designer
and engineer of CPI facilities to make certain that
such an expectation is made valid in the design and
construction of CPI facilities in general.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
B31.3 Process Piping (2012)
Occupational Safety and Health Organization (OSHA)
29CFR1910.119 Process safety management of
highly hazardous chemicals
OSHA 29CFR1926.64 Appendix A List of Highly
Hazardous Chemicals, Toxics, and Reactives
(Mandatory) found under 29CFR1926.64
Department of Transportation (DOT) (49CFR)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40CFR)
REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemical substances) The European
Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe
use.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Huitt, W. M., Piping Design for Hazardous Fluid
Service, Chemical Engineering, June 2010

Bill can be reached at:

W. M. Huitt Co.
P O Box 31154
St. Louis, MO 63131-0154
(314)966-8919
[email protected]

11
Published in November 2013 issue of Chemical Engineering magazine