Inside Chevron Phillips Chemical’s pursuit to build the largest and safest ethylene and polyethylene facilities in the world

When you design and build one of the world’s largest ethylene and polyethylene plants, everything gets bigger: how much you produce, how complicated things are, and the risks involved

For Chevron Phillips Chemical (CPChem) and QatarEnergy’s Golden Triangle Polymers Project, this meant safety was the top priority in every decision. The goal was to build something huge, run it safely, and keep it that way for many years.

“Safety isn’t just a goal; it is a foundational principle that guides every decision we make,” said John Bergen, process control engineer for the ethylene unit, who oversees all aspects of process control, including the plant’s safety shutdown systems. “To achieve that, we ensure every process is designed and managed so that materials stay safely contained. We want to ensure that all our employees and contractors go home safely at the end of the day.”

Located in Orange, Texas, the facility will include a 2,080 KTA ethane cracker and two 1,000 KTA high-density polyethylene units. The total cost of the project is expected to be around $8.5 billion.

With a brand new plant this big, CPChem wanted to make sure nothing was missed. That’s why the company saw Functional Safety Assessments (FSAs) as necessary for both safety and saving money. Doing Stages 1 and 2 right from the start helps avoid costly changes, delays, and extra work later on.

“CPChem conducted comprehensive internal risk assessments in collaboration with our design contractor,” said Bergen. “To strengthen the integrity of our safety approach, we also engaged an independent third party to perform an FSA. Their role is to validate our assessments and design specifications, ensuring nothing is overlooked and that we meet or exceed all applicable safety standards.”

From risk to readiness

An FSA is an external, fact-based review of a plant’s safety systems against accepted safety rules. It ensures that hazards are identified, safety steps and Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) are set, and the design will work as needed to keep people safe.

Stages 1 and 2 set the groundwork for the whole safety process. Stage 1 assesses how well dangers and risks are studied, while Stage 2 examines the detailed design.

To get that outside view, CPChem brought in SIS-TECH, a Houston-based company focused on safety, equipment, and electrical systems. These early steps are not just technical checks; they also help protect the project’s budget.

“Stages 1 and 2 ensure a high-quality design everyone agrees on,” said Angela Summers, president and CEO of SIS-TECH and a licensed professional engineer with over 30 years of experience in process safety. “If issues are found early, they’re just changes to a document. Once you get to Stage 3, when the equipment is already installed, the cost and delay can skyrocket.”

Stage 3, which is happening now, will give the final check: making sure what is built matches the plans and works as it should before the plant starts running.

Stage 1

Stage 1 focused on the initial assessment of dangers and risks. The goal is to be clear: know the risks, what safety steps are needed, and whether the reasons for those steps make sense.

Eloise Roche, a senior consultant at SIS-TECH, led the Stage 1 assessment. She describes the process as a “cold eyes” review that follows strict rules for identifying and describing instrumented protection layers.

“It’s about confirming the risk assessment truly matches the process, and that the instrumented protections are independent, fully described, and aligned with the standard,” said Roche.

Both Roche and Summers bring a unique perspective to these reviews. As long-time members of the ISA 84 committee and contributors to the international IEC 61511 safety standard, they don’t just interpret the rules; they help write them.

“There is a big difference between trying to interpret the rules and being part of the multi-year process of crafting them,” said Summers. “It’s important to know the intent behind the standard and how to apply it across different regulatory environments worldwide.”

For a project like this, being careful is a must. Many companies help design and build it, and jobs can get mixed up. Writing down who does what is very important; if not, essential tasks can be missed. Bergen, from CPChem, has seen this problem himself.

“We’re building on proven designs from previous facilities, which gives us confidence in the overall concept,” he said. “However, scaling up introduces complexity, more systems, more interfaces, and more opportunities for risk. That’s why we place a strong emphasis on detailed planning, thorough documentation, and proactive risk mitigation strategies. The larger the project, the more critical it becomes to be deliberate and precise in how we manage safety.”

Summers adds that this isn’t just about safety, it’s about protecting the business itself.

“When you’re building bigger, you are also producing more,” said Summers. “If there’s a disruption, the financial impact can escalate quickly: from lost production to missed delivery commitments. That’s why early assessments matter so much.”

Roche points to three factors that strengthen an assessment team:

• Human performance: thinking about more than just equipment and rules, and focusing on the people who will use and take care of the systems, including their training and the steps they follow.
• Seniority and experience: having assessors who have worked on many projects and seen many problems, so they can spot small mistakes that could cause issues in the future.
• Standards competence: knowing the current SIS rules and advice very well, and being aware of any changes that might be coming soon.

Stage 2

With the main risks understood in Stage 1, Stage 2 checked if the detailed design could provide the required safety. This is where aspects such as SIL checks, system configurations, testing, and equipment inspection frequency are compared to the risk study. It’s also when people’s needs and the ease of system maintenance begin to shape the design.

Stage 2 also established the basics for safe, steady plant operations once the plant is handed over. Procedures, testing methods, and training materials had to align with the design so that the teams running and maintaining the plant can keep it working well for many years.

“We believe that knowledge sharing is the most powerful safety tool,” Bergen said. “If someone doesn’t understand how a system works, or why it works a certain way, they’re more likely to make mistakes. Our goal is to make it easier to succeed and harder to fail.”

Stage 3

Construction is now well underway. As sections of the plant are completed and turned over, Stage 3 will provide the final confirmation that what’s been installed matches the design and performs as intended.

Summers notes that Stage 3 also aligns closely with regulatory requirements under OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) and the EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP).

“It’s the final check to ensure everything is installed, tested, and ready before a plant can safely start up,” she said. “It includes inspecting hardware, reviewing test results, and confirming that operations and maintenance procedures, along with training, align with the design.”

When functional safety systems work, potential issues are managed seamlessly, and operations continue without disruption.

Bergen and the team at the Golden Triangle Polymers Project have their own way of measuring success.

“While this facility is rightfully recognised for its size, we want it to be known for its safety,” Bergen said. “High production capacity and high safety standards are not mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand. Safety is embedded in our design philosophy, our work processes, and our culture. It’s not something we add on; it’s something we build in from the start.”