IJ_JULY-AUG_2010

JULY AUG. 2010_____ Vol 16 Issue 4

The only publication focused on fixed equipment reliability solutions in the Oil & Gas and Petrochemical Industries

Detection of p. Corrosion Under Insulation & Blockages on Piping System Using Profiler System Advancements p. in Integrity Management Obtaining Greater Value from Thickness Data

4

7

PRCI & p. Partners Complete Consolidated Research Report Subsea p. Pipeline Integrity Management Workshop

14 14 151 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNALJuly/August2010

CSB Issues p. Final Report-Urea Tank Collapse

July/August 2010_____ Vol 16 Issue 4

IJ Industry.....Activities

Planner

The Inspectioneering Journal does not warrant nor guarantee the accuracy of any information contained, nor the extent of inclusiveness, in the Industry Activities Planner. It is imperative that interested parties contact the sponsoring organizations, for each particular event, to verify dates, information and locations, prior to any planning or decision making regarding the value of each event. Readers may contact the Inspectioneering Journal office to obtain appropriate contact information. Please e-mail any activities of interest you think applicable to the Inspectioneering community to [email protected].

The Inspectioneering Journal is a bi-monthly, copyright protected, periodical published six times per year. Please address all correspondence to: The Inspectioneering Journal 5315 FM 1960 West, Suite B 237 Houston, TX 77069 USA Phone: (281) 397-7075 Fax: (281) 397-9996 Email: [email protected] Website: www.inspectioneering.com Publisher: Dawn Alvarado Chief Editor: Gregory C. Alvarado Contributing Authors:Metalcare Inspection Services, Inc

AU G U S T 2 0 1 024 NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 One Day Seminar, NACE Headquarters,Houston, TX > For more information visit the NACE web site http://events.nace. org/conferences/mro175/index.asp

S E P T E M B E R 20 1 02 Subsea Pipeline Integrity Workshop, Marriott Westchase Hotel,Houston, TX USA > For more information see the article this issue and visit the website www.prci.org

19-23 NACE Corrosion Technology Week 2010, Orlando, FL, USA > For moreinformation visit the NACE web site http://events.nace.org/technical/ctw2010/ index.asp

22-24 International Maintenance Conference Excellence Conference,Toronto, Canada > For more information visit the NACE web site http://www. imec.ca/

O C TO B E R 2 0 1 020-21 5th Annual International Offshore Pipeline Forum and Exhibition, Norris Convention Center, Houston, TX, USA > For more informationvisit the web site www.asme-ipti.org

26-27 Mary Kay OConnor International Symposium - Beyond Regulatory Compliance, Making Safety Second Nature, HiltonConference Center, College Station, Texas, USA > For more information visit the web site http://psc.tamu.edu/symposia/2010/symposium-program

Santhosh Lukose Craig EmslieSonomatic Ltd Sonomatic Ltd

27 - Oct 1 8th International Pipeline Conference Hyatt Regency Hotel and TelusConvention Center, Calgary, Alberta Canada > NDE, CAS, RL, FFS, RBI, RI, VE. For more information visit the web site http://www.internationalpipelineconference. com/

N OV E M B E R 20 1 01-2 2nd Annual World Refining Technology Summit and Exhibition,Hilton Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates > For more information visit the web site http://www.standardboard.com/wrts2010/

Karen Gibson

(ISSN 1082-6955)

1-4 ADIPEC (Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates > For more information aboutthis upstream event visit the web site www.adipec.com

YES

I would like to subscribe to the INSPECTIONEERING JOURNALSingle subscriptions cost $250.00 U.S. per year (6 issues). 10% discount for 2 yr. subscriptions. Contact us for details on multiple subscription pricing. Non-U.S. subscribers add $50.00 per year for postage.

Digital Subscriptions Available: Send pricing, format and delivery questions to [email protected]

IND E X Detection of Corrosion Under........ 4-6 Insulation & Blockages on Piping System Using Profiler System Advancements In Integrity .......... 7-10 Management Obtaining Greater Value from Thickness Data PRCI & Partners Complete .............. 14 Consolidated Research Program Subsea Pipeline Integrity .............. 14 Management Workshop CSB Issues Final Report -............ 15-18 Urea Tank Collapse

______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Subscriber Name (Recipient) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Company Name ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ City State/Province Zip/Code ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Phone Fax ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Email URL

Renewal Check Enclosed

New Subscription Bill Me (payment due in 30 days)___________ ___________ __________Cardholder Name

The Inspectioneering Journal assumes no responsibilities or liabilities for the acuracy or application of methodologies, technologies, philosophies, references, case histories, or unauthorized release of company information in relation to any printed subject matter in the Inspectioneering Journal The Inspectioneering Journal, the editors and authors, or anyone acting on their behalf, assume no responsibility or liability, without limitation, for the use of information published in the Inspectioneering Journal.

Credit Card No.

____________________ ____________________ ___________________Expiration Date

_________________________________________ ________________________________________Cardholder Signature Date

Please make checks payable to The Inspectioneering Journal 5315 FM 1960 West, Suite B 237 Houston, TX 77069 Telephone: (281) 397-7075 Fax: (281) 397-9996 Email: [email protected] Website: www.inspectioneering.com

IJ Article Submission and Publication 1. All articles must adhere to the Guidelines and Requirements listed on our web site at http://www.inspectioneering.com/publishanarticle.htm. 2. Authors must have/obtain authorized permission to print, with company and name byline, in this publication. 3. Send duplicates of all photos, illustrations, and visual aids with permission to reprint. Must be submitted with draft article. IJ retains right to reprint and archive all visual aids submitted for use. 4. Unless otherwise requested, articles must be one page in length, 10 to 12 cpi, single spaced. 5. Editor and contributing editors will make all final decisions regarding acceptance of article, i.e. value and appropriateness judgements, along with editing decisions. 6. Author is responsible for final review, following step 5, and authorization from his/her employer to release, as necessary. 7. All articles accepted by the IJ become the property of the IJ. No reprint is permitted without prior written authorization.

DETECTION OF CORROSION UNDER INSULATION AND BLOCKAGES ON PIPING SYSTEM USING PROFILFER SYSTEMBy: Santhosh Lukose Metalcare Inspection Services Inc Fort McMurray, AB, Canada. T9H 5N4E-mail questions or comments to [email protected]

Santhosh LukoseCUI (Corrosion Under Insulation) has always been a challenge for plant operators, quality assurance/reliability engineers and equipment owners. It is hard to identify the problem until it has become an emergency situation, often leading to unit shut downs or even the whole facility shut down for emergency repairs. As per industry statistics, next to leakages in flanged joints, the highest incidents of piping failure in process industry is caused due to corrosion in pipe, especially under insulation. There are a number of methods used today to inspect for corrosion under insulation. The most common and straightforward way to inspect for corrosion under insulation is to cut plugs in the insulation that can be removed to allow for ultrasonic testing. The other commonly used methods are profile radiography, and complete insulation removal. More advanced methods now available includes real-time X-ray and low Intensity X-ray Imaging. The Ultrasonic Thickness spot readings and profile radiography gives accurate values of remaining wall thickness but UT readings require the insulation to be removed and proper surface preparation. However, many times plugs removed for UT thickness gauging can itself be the source of moisture leakage. The main problem with this technique is that corrosion under insulation tends to be localized and unless the inspection plug is positioned in the right spot, the sites of corrosion can be missed. Radiography is time consuming and requires cordoning off the areas to be inspected. Both these techniques are reliable and economical only if you know the exact location of erosion and or corrosion, which is almost impossible. CUI and erosion are mostly localised and often inspection results can be misleading as area as close as a few millimetres from corroded areas can be with normal thickness values. Tangential X ray, a relatively new technique shows the outer surface of the pipe but gives little information about the wall thickness or any erosion from inside.

HOW CUI IS CAUSED:

An insulated piece of equipment can have trapped moisture by two means: moisture can become trapped due to cyclic equipment and condensation forming and being trapped under insulation. The second and more common reason is rain/ snow. Rainwater or water from melting snow will eventually enter weak points in the system and pour onto the surface under insulation. The difference when compared to a stack is that the water gets trapped because of the insulation and is not allowed to escape. Thermal shock can also be a significant cause of CUI. Thermal shock is categorized by a dramatic rise or fall in the temperature of the equipment. Thermal shock may occur when a unit is turned on or off, during the normal cyclic conditions the unit may exhibit, or when the steel is exposed to water that has penetrated the jacketing.

CHALLENGES IN INSPECTION

CUI is difficult to find because the insulation covers the corrosion problem until it is too late. It is expensive to remove the insulation, inspect and then reinstate the insulation after inspection. Inspection of the covered areas without removing the coverings reduces the cost of carrying out an inspection. Therefore the development of non-destructive testing methods to detect corrosion in the above situations is therefore a major benefit to the industry. And same or worse is the case with erosion, especially when it happens at unexpected locations most often due to unusual operating conditions or turbulent flow in pipe lines and a variety of other reasons. And if this erosion is in an insulated line, the problem is multiplied many folds.

INTRODUCING THE PROFILER:

Low Intensity X-ray Image Profiling is an advanced inspection tool to assist reliability engineers / Quality control inspectors and life extension programs in process industry. Used in conjunction with other inspection techniques, this technique offers a cost effective, fast and reliable inspection program for most insulated and non insulated piping in industry both offline and online. The profiler basically utilizes the principle of radiography. A collimated beam of Gadolinium 153 isotope is used as the source and the photons emitted from the source

4 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL

July/August 2010

Profiler scan can reveal density variations caused by corrosion, welds, wet insulation, blockages, and any other indication caused by a change in density. The Profiler is capable of inspecting all known materials used in pipe fabrication, including carbon steel, stainless steel, cast iron, aluminium, plastic, and PVC. A stitch in time saves nine says the old proverb; a wet insulation identified and corrective action taken in time can save the pipe from getting corroded. Imagine the advantages of preventing corrosion rather than taking corrective action after the pipe is corroded. Periodical scheduled scans can detect wet insulation and corrective action can be taken even before corrosion starts eating up the pipe walls.

ADVANTAGES:are received at a receiver. Custom designed application software converts the amount of photons received into thickness values. The profiler uses a low intensity collimated gamma ray source of Gadolinium 153 mounted on a C arm. The principle of inspection is based on the absorption of gamma radiation in the tested material. The scanning is performed using a small radioactive source (Gd 153) and a sensitive electronic detector / receiver. The source and detector are kept external to the pipe and positioned on opposite sides at a fixed distance apart.

Results of a Profiler inspection are graphically displayed in real time to the operator and do not need days or weeks of waiting for a film to be processed or detailed analysis of inspection data by another interpreter. Corrosion or other problems like leakage, wet insulation etc are found in real time, and the pipe may be marked for additional remedial action or further investigation using complimentary NDT methods. Compared to more conventional inspection methods like ultrasonic thickness testing and industrial radiography, the Profiler is capable of collecting much more data in a short period, thus making the profiler a much more productive inspection tool. The Profiler is simple to use, portable & works on a rechargeable battery and can perform in most process environments to provide quick, reliable results. The major advantages of Low intensity x-ray imaging can be summarised as: Noneedofcostlyinsulationremoval Noneedofcordoningofftheareasasrequiredin radiography Nophysicalcontactisrequiredwiththepiping and so even high temperature pipes can be inspected online.( No temperature, weather or surface condition limitations) Noneedofsurfacepreparation. Evennonmagnetic,nonmetallicpipescanbe inspected Candetectwetinsulationwhichinturnwillleadto CUI ( prevention is better than cure) Candetectinternalerosion/corrosionandgives absolute values of remaining wall thickness.

Gamma rays travel from the source through the pipe to the detector where the photons received are counted. A proprietary software specially developed for this equipment converts the photon counts and displays a graphical image that corresponds correctly to the pipe condition of the pipe being scanned. Once calibrated to a known thickness value of the piping material, it can detect most anomalies in process piping that causes a change in density from one area of pipe to another. The Profiler may be used to inspect insulated piping without insulation removal, including straight runs of pipe, elbows, tees, reducers, weld-neck flanges, and most other piping components.

TYPICAL APPLCATIONS:

Whether bare piping or insulated piping, The Profiler system is capable of detecting/identifying: InternalCorrosion ExternalCorrosion WeldLineidentification HeatAffected(HAZ)Corrosion BlockageandFouling ChangesinPipeSchedule Determinationofproductlevelinpiping Wetinsulation WaterorIceintheinsulation without a costly insulation removal and reinstallation process.


July/August2010

DETECTION OF CORROSION UNDER INSULATION AND BLOCKAGES ON PIPING SYSTEM USING PROFILFER SYSTEMLIMITATIONS:Like any other NDT technique, the Lixi profiler also has its limitations too. The largest C-arm of the profiler has an opening of 18 inches and so piping with a maximum diameter of 18 including insulation can only be inspected using Lixi Profiler. As the C-arm straddles the pipe being inspected, piping that has access to both sides can only be inspected using this tool. The maximum double wall thickness of 30 mm of steel ( or equivalent) can only be inspected with precision and accuracy using this technique, even though spot readings can be taken for up to 50 mm of double wall thickness. It should also be noted that this tool is NOT recommended for weld inspections or detection of cracks or pin holes. However most pin holes are associated with deterioration mechanisms causing localised thinning! Moreover extensive training and experience is required for the interpretation of the scan data acquired by the profiler.

pig was lost in the serpentine coil and unable locate the pig for several days. That is where our team came in with The Profiler system and it took less than few hours to locate the exact location of the blockage and even the extent of blockages at though out the entire length of the coil. The profiler equipment was calibrated with steel step wedge to match the density of the steel pipe and double wall thickness of empty pipe was checked. The empty pipe was found to have a double wall thickness of 17mm which matched the manufactures data of the pipe schedule. On scanning the tubes, different readings ranging up to 25mm was found. The area with the highest reading of 25 mm was cut and examined. It was found to be tightly packed with coke that corresponds to full blockage. Areas with intermediate readings were found to have partial blockage or a layer of coke deposit around the tubes inside wall. The areas of full blockage were cut out and cleaned. Areas with partial blockage were cleaned using cleaning pigs as there was enough room for the pig to navigate through. The conventional method of repair which would have been cutting out 27 return bends and cleaning them welding them all back, the job was completed by cutting just 7 U bends and thus saving a lot of down time of the equipment and additional work. More than identifying the blockage locations, the profiler is able to estimate the extent of blockage too. Case Study 2: In another case, while conducting corrosion survey on boiler tubes in an oil sands facility in Alberta, a section of the tubes were found to have increased in wall thickness on a section of the coil. On further verification it was found to be tubes of higher schedule, an error in the drawing and the as built drawing was updated accordingly. The profiler is an ideal tool to verify actual wall thickness or schedules of pipes and exact location of the transition, welds, even under insulation.

CASE STUDIES:Case Study 1: The profiler has been successfully used in the oil sands industries in Canada for detection of hardened bitumen built-ups/blockages in radiant heater coils and caustic lines. In one case, radiant heater coils were blocked with hard bitumen due to coke formation at elevated temperatures. The maintenance team had tried to flush it out with high pressure water/steam and, even attempted to send a pig through the line to open up the blockage. Eventually the

Metalcare Inspection Services Inc. Fort McMurray, AB, Canada. T9H 5N4The author has been working in the industry for over 20 years. He has worked around the globe in India, Middle East, Singapore and Canada. He is currently employed by Metalcare Inspection Services in Canada, as the Corporate QHSE Manager and also serves as an advanced inspection specialist. He is a certified AWS and CWB certified welding inspector and also an Alberta Inservice Pressure vessel Inspector and Certified API 510 ( pressure vessels), 570 (Process Piping) and 580 ( Risk Based Inspection) inspector. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Santhosh Lukose


July/August 2010

Advancements in Integrity Management Obtaining Greater Value from Thickness DataBy Craig Emslie BSc, Integrity Services Specialist, and Karen Gibson CEng CMarEng MIMarEst, Principal Integrity Engineer, both of Sonomatic Ltd, Scotland , UKE-mail questions or comments to [email protected]

Karen GibsonInspection intervals for equipment have in the past been defined in a prescriptive manner. However, industry is now embracing the Risk Based Inspection (RBI) approach which in contrast prioritises inspections based on an assessment of the risk to each individual item. The key outcome of any RBI scheme is a prioritised and focused inspection schedule. This ensures high-risk items get correct scrutiny and produces a safety-focused and cost-effective inspection scheme. RBI is now recognised as a key tool in meeting legislative requirements, as detailed in theHSEsbestpracticeguidelines. There are many RBI schemes in use, but they have a number of common elements: Assessment of the credible threats to an item of equipment Potential failure modes and mitigation measures Resulting consequences Associating a measure of risk with each item Combining risk with inspection history to determine future inspection intervals and methodologies.

Economic approach to RBI increasing the value of information

The following potential sources of information for review would normally already exist: Productionrecords:recordsrelatingtoshutdowns are generally good, and when used in conjunction with high-level accounting information can provide actual and hidden shutdown and production activities costs. Again there is a compromise between the detail of the analysis and the associated economic gain. Accounting information: generally accurate with respect to cost, generally less accurate with respect to descriptions and understanding the nature of the expense without detailed analysis of each item. A high-level analysis will give: Overall production cost per asset Overall income per asset Evaluationofthe cost associated withan unplanned shutdown, specifically with respect to the direct cost of repairs and

The RBI process is adequate for initial assessment and to control initial risk, but must be continuously updated and revisited to ensure it remains a live system. Assessments often include more detail related to safety and environmental risk, and while business risk is normally included, the consequences are not always evaluated in great detail. An overview of the RBI process is shown below, including the qualitative process used when updating takes place during a noted substantial change in process. The obvious limitation of the RBI process is the lack of a clear link between cost/business information and RBI activities, and no detailed analysis of historical and financial data. However, significant value can be added by analysing information that has already been captured.


July/August2010

Advancements in Integrity Management Obtaining Greater Value from Thickness Dataindirect costs arising from the loss of production while operating costs are still incurred Evaluation of the cost associated with a planned shutdown, again specifically with respect to the direct cost of shutdown and indirect cost related to loss of production. Inspectionhistory:largeamountsofdatastoredbut not fully analysed after inspection is completed and alarmlevelschecked.Furtheranalysisisnormally possible in the form of corrosion rate trending, extreme value analysis to assess degradation beyond the inspection regions, refinement of inspection intervals and locations, and reduction in the risk of unplanned failure if updated regularly.

The total cost of production is the sum of operating cost and cost associated with reducing operating cost. This can be optimised but an understanding of associated costs and benefits is required. If the systems are in place to make this evaluation possible then a better decision can be made with regard to the level of inspection/maintenance required.

Operating cost

Cost

Expense associated with reducing cost Total cost

Level of detailOften the cost incurred is much less than the potential saving, but as expenditure is required before savings are made, commitment from all parties (Production, Integrity etc) is needed. Prior analysis allows a rigorous demonstration of cost/benefit prior to incurring cost in order to motivate extra expenditure. Setting up a system to effectively evaluate cost/benefit usually requires initial set-up costs which require longterm commitment to realise gains, and it is often difficult to see gains in the short term when cost are associated with events (e.g. leak in pipe).

Trade-off between cost and benefitThe inherent costs of reducing business risk include An increase in inspection expenditure as some inspection is required from a safety standpoint Anincreaseinanalysisoftheinspectiondata Anincreaseinfabricmaintenanceviareplacement of equipment prior to failure rather than at failure which can incur minimal extra cost. With pressure on short-term cost, some operators have chosen to reduce inspection expenditure by, for example, substituting prescribed advanced technologies with conventional NDT approaches, utilising conventional service contractors to provide specialist technologies at reduced rates, and using an inappropriate NII (non-intrusive inspection) process to defer IVI (internal visual inspection). Ultimately the above cost-savings approach often fails. Our experience is that the costs (lost production, unplanned repair etc) far outweigh any short-term savings.

When revisiting data, the following issues should be taken into account: Ifcomponentsarenotdegradingrapidlyandhave a long remaining life, then over-analysis will not yield significant value Conversely,ifthecomponentisdegradingrapidly, or the integrity is unknown, there could be significant value in conducting further analysis Clearly,itwouldintheabovecasesbeanadvantage to be able to optimise the level of intervention. This can be achieved by a phased approach: Initial phase: Broad analysis and system setup

Optimising level of detail


July/August 2010

Analysis of planned and unplanned events Analysis of cost associated with events and general operating costs Development of simplified but realistic methodologies to facilitate cost benefit of future events. Subsequentphasesfocussedon Identification of regions of maximum cost benefit Evaluationofindividualcases Refinement of the initial analysis.

Example of Mapping of CO2 Corrosion

Statistical analysis of inspection dataStandardmanagementofpipingintegrityusuallyincludes wall thickness measurements, taken at specified intervals at a large number of locations, which results in large data setsbeingbuiltupovertime.Sometrendingmaybecarried out, but typically the main value of the inspection is taken as indicating the condition at the time it is made. Generally, anomaly criteria have been pre-determined and this results in a pass/fail assessment carried out by the inspection technician. The application of statistical analysis can extract additional information from the established data set and this can give substantial value to the integrity management process. Corrosion processes can appear to be random and unpredictable but there is often some underlying order and this is demonstrated by the following diagrams.100

Example of O2 Corrosion

Example - CO2 corrosion

10

-1

Example of Mapping O2 Corrosion Sonomatichascarriedoutanalysisusingthedistribution plotting method as illustrated above of a wide range of data for vessels and piping and this has shown that there is typically some underlying order in corrosion processes. Orderly behaviour means there is a basis for using statistical methods in which the known condition of the parts of a system is harnessed to estimate the condition of the remainder of system. Typically for topsides piping inspections, the data set has thickness measurements over specific pre-determined regions/features. Measurements do not have 100% coverage for a complete system. At this point the use of statistical methods can provide additional confidence in the condition of the systems unmeasured portions and ultimately give confidence to the entire integrity management process, without the requirement to carry out extensive, time-consuming and costly additional NDT. The analysis can be applied in a number of ways: Understandingthedistributionofdamagethrough a system Estimatingcorrosionrates Estimatingminimumremainingthicknessoflines Possible integration to form an essential part of piping integrity management.

Proportion of area

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

10

-5

8

9

10

11

13 14 12 Thickness (mm)

15

16

17

18

Example of CO2 Corrosion

TheuseofExtremeValueAnalysis(EVA)allowsestimates to be made for large areas based on the inspection of small areas.


July/August2010

Advancements in Integrity Management Obtaining Greater Value from Thickness DataUpon completion of data collection for selected areas, or from original data sets, the susceptibility is then ranked. The objective is to use additional information from analysis as input to defining ongoing inspection requirements. It can be used to define a risk-based approach where a combination of estimated minimum and average corrosion rates defines the probability i.e., is typically main driver for the inspection interval. Coverage that is, the extent of straights or number of features is driven by corrosion susceptibility and by results of extreme value analysis. (Additional coverage can improve the estimate of minimum and allow re-ranking.) The implementation process is shown below. It should be noted that the approach is not an alternative to existing methods of inspection planning for piping but provides supporting information for decision making. It uses existing available information on the actual condition as an input to planning decisions. The input is made at the integrity review stage of the RBI process. The items for inspection are selected according to the recommended coverage but corrosion/inspection engineering input should also be taken on board as per good practice.

inspection programme without compromising integrity.

Sonomatic integritySonomatic has developed and implemented practical methods for the application of sophisticated statistical methods in relation to integrity management processes. There are many situations in which statistical analysis is able to extract significant additional value from existing inspection data, thereby enhancing future inspections. Our approach and the results we get are readily incorporated into existing inspection/integrity management systems. The output from the process provides detailed definition of inspection requirements on a per line/featuretype basis, intervals coverage and techniques which can be incorporated into a revised inspection philosophy and supporting inspection procedures. Our analysis team are experienced in the development and practical implementation of statistical analysis methods in integrity management which can deliver significant benefits to operators and are gaining wider interest and acceptance within the industry.

Implementation process The benefit of using the statistical method is that the process makes best use of the measured condition of piping as planning input. There is value in the inspection data beyond condition acceptable and the approach uses this to enhance decision making. The added advantage is that the inspection process does not need revisiting to gain the data required. However, the more accurate and the larger the data set, the greater the potential benefit given. The result of the process is improved classification of corrosion/failure susceptibility and increased confidence that future inspection is appropriately applied according to risk. The redefined inspection requirements give a structured approach to inspection planning, ensuring that the resulting value of future inspections is maximised. Ultimately the process assists in achieving a cost-effective


July/August 2010

API Inspection Summit and Expo

Check it out.January 24-27, 2011 Galveston Island Convention Center Galveston, TexasAPI invites you to attend the API Inspection Summit and Expo in Galveston, Texas, at the Galveston Island Convention Center, January 2427, 2011. The API Inspection Summit will provide you with the opportunity to learn about new and existing industry codes and standards, and to hear about emerging trends from experts. The API Inspection Summit is the only networking event for inspectors in the industry. The API Inspection Summit was designed with you in mind. This four-day summit offers: Over 50 timely topics addressing the needs of both new and veteran inspectors Interactive sessions to discuss existing and emerging issues Each day focuses on a specific topic area, and yet is diverse enough to fulfill most educational and networking needs Flexible program gives attendees the ability to attend one, two, three or all four days Many sessions are offered more than once to allow even greater flexibility Whether you are an NDT examiner searching for a career path, an API inspector looking to advance your skills, or an inspection/reliability manager desiring a greater understanding of the issues involved with the inspection of todays facilities. The API Inspection Summit is THE meeting to attend. These tough times call for a renewed emphasis on inspection and reliability, one inspection at a time. Topics include: Turnaround Planning and Organization Metallurgy/Corrosion NDE (Advanced) Risk Based Inspections (RBI) Fitness for Service (FFS) Regulatory Coatings/Linings and Cathodic Protection Codes/Standards/Recommended Practices Welding/Repair Inspector Roles and Responsibilities Inspection/Mechanical Integrity Programs Lessons Learned Inspection Applied to: Drilling Equipment, Production Systems, Pipeline, Tanks, Pressure Equipment and Offshore Structures

Register now

at www.api.org/inspectionsummit.

To discover all of APIs Events, go to www.api.org /meetings.Copyright 2010 American Petroleum Institute, all rights reserved. API and the API logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of API in the United States and/or other countries.


July/August2010

Phone: 403 251 3951 Fax: 403 251-6732 GST #81658 9345 RT0001

2011 Conference: March 02 - 04

www.ipeia.com

May 1, 2010

Call for Papers

The 2011 Program Committee for IPEIA is soliciting presentations with a focus on the pressure equipment industry and its technologies. Presentations that deal with issues of pressure vessel design, storage tanks, plant operations, inspection, maintenance, and in particular, Case Studies dealing with specific examples, root cause failure analysis, accident / incident investigation, and multi-jurisdictional concerns. Conference Attendees have common concerns and interests, and always appreciate hearing from their peers. 2011 represents a slight departure from our typical presentation format, as the conference proceedings are now published and archived on our Web Site. This requires our Authors to submit their abstract for acceptance, followed by a written paper that will be published, and finally their Presentation (typically PowerPoint) that will be presented at the Conference. Our Program Committee has representatives from many different disciplines within the Pressure Equipment Integrity industry. All members of the committee are at your disposal to help you develop your abstract and presentation. We will be accepting abstracts until September 10th, 2010. All general enquiries should be forwarded to Kelly Jaskow, Conference Administrator, E-mail: [email protected]. As Kelly keeps track of all submissions, please copy her into any initial communications to committee members. If you have any questions on any of the following topics, please contact the following committee members; NDT/NDE Equipment Corrosion Engineering, FFS, RBI Engineering, Design Regulatory, Jurisdiction Equipment Design Metallurgy, Welding, Failure Analysis Owner/User Inspection, Turnaround Planning, & Chief Inspector Fabrication, Repairs Welding, Construction Turnaround/Maintenance NDT Applications Technician Certification Environmental, Corrosion Mark Palynchuk, 2011 Program Chairman [email protected] Boyd McKay, 2011 Program Vice-Chairman 2012 Program Chairman [email protected] Marc Fransen [email protected] Bruce Levan [email protected] Trent Tarleton [email protected] Ken LaPlante [email protected] Robert Welke [email protected]

An Association of Pressure Equipment Integrity Professionals


July/August 2010


July/August2010

PRCI and Partners Complete Consolidated Research ProgramIn coordination with a team of research partners, including BP, PHMSA, GL Noble Denton (formerly Advantica), and Electricore, Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) recently completed the consolidated program on assessing the remaining strength of pipe with external corrosion. The consolidated program consists of six (6) separate projects that all address external corrosion to pipelines, including High Strength Steels, Biaxial Loading, Cyclic Loading, Low Toughness Pipe, and an evaluation of the assessment methods used to determine remaining strength of corroded pipe. The culmination of the work is a Guidance Document that compiles the key findings of the individual projects. The Guidance Document was submitted to PHMSA in April 2010 and represents the final task of the program. Completing the Guidance Document is a significant milestone for PRCI and their research partners, concluding 6+ years of research and a key technical resource for managing corroded pipelines. To ensure broad uptake by the industry and to make the results of this work publicly available, they plan to compile the reports/guidance document completed under the consolidated program in a compendium of research on the Assessment and StructuralSignificanceofCorrosiononPipelines.This compendium will be made available through the PRCI website in the coming months. Formoreinformationvisitthewebsite www.PRCI.org

SubSea PiPeline integrity ManageMent WorkShoPHouston, Texas Marriott WestchasePipeline Research Council International (PRCI) will be sponsoring a workshop in Houston, TX on September 2, 2010, to provide a forum for industry stakeholders to identify the needs and requirements for a comprehensive approach to Subsea Pipeline Integrity Management (SPIM). PRCI has previously approved a research project (PRCI Project SPIM 11: Development of a Subsea Pipeline Integrity Best Management Practices) to develop industry Best Management Practices to assist pipeline operators, oil and gas producers, and pipeline inspection and service companies with integrity management of subsea pipelines. The workshop will serve as the formal initiation of that project. PRCI will use the input provided by the workshop participants to establish the framework upon which the comprehensive program will be developed, as well as the more detailed elements to be addressed in the broader program structure. The information gathered during the workshop lead to the development of a comprehensivetechnicalapproachtoSPIMthatcanbe used as a basis for standards development, including ASTM,API,NACE,andotherswithapplicationglobally, regardless of geographic operational considerations. Formoreinformationvisitthewebsite www.PRCI.org

Notice-Subscription Agency Orders No Longer AcceptedPlease note that the Inspectioneeering Journal will no longer accept subscription orders of any type via subscription agencies. Due to postal mix-ups, and poor communication which lead to delayed delivery of Journals and monetary losses we can no longer accept orders via subscription agencies. Introduction of this third party to the order and delivery process adds a layer of complexity which has lead to problems. Please use the order form in this journal, or you may download an order form from http://www.Inspectioneering.com/ mailorderform2.htm or by visiting the journal web site at www.Inspectioneering.com We apologize for any inconvenience. We want to assure you continue to receive your Inspectioneering Journals, on time. This should reduce your overall cost, too. Make sure you subscribe directly with the Inspectioneering Journal for your 2009 subscriptions. Please feel free to contact me with any comments or feedback. It is appreciated. Greg Alvarado, Chief Editor


July/August 2010

In a report issued May 27, 2009 for an investigation into the November 2008 fertilizer tank collapse at Allied Terminals in Chesapeake, VA, the U.S. ChemicalSafetyBoard(CSB)recommendedthatthe Commonwealth of Virginia regulate or authorize local jurisdictions to regulate the design, construction, maintenance and inspection of large fertilizer storage tanks located on the Elizabeth River. On November 12, 2008, an aboveground storage tank catastrophically failed releasing two million gallons of liquid urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) fertilizer and seriously injuring two workers. The release overtopped a containment dike and flooded sections of a nearby residential neighborhood, requiring remediation of the soil. At least 200,000 gallons of spilled fertilizer could not be accounted for, and some reached the nearbyElizabethRiver,whichflowsintotheChesapeakeBay.

CSB ISSUES FINAL REPORT

on Allied Terminals Catastrophic Fertilizer Tank CollapseBoard Calls for Regulation of Similar Tanks

community evacuation, and two releases into waterways. The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The agencys board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems. The Board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, andregulatoryagenciessuchasOSHAandEPA.Visitourwebsite, www.csb.gov For more information, contact Public Affairs Specialist Hillary Cohen at (202) 261-3601, 202-446-8094 cell. Editors Note: The following statistics are provided as a courtesy to Inspectioneering subscribers.

CSB Board Member William Wark said, By recommending regulationofsimilarstoragetankslocatedontheElizabethRiver, we hope to protect not only communities and workers but also the vitality of the Chesapeake watershed. CSB investigators found that the tank involved in the accident referred to as Tank 201 had undergone welding work. Contractors removed the vertical riveted seams and replaced them with welded plates with the intent of strengthening the joints. Similar work was done to three other tanks at the facility. TheCSBsinvestigationfoundthattheweldingperformedonthe tanks did not conform with recommended industry practices, saidInvestigationsSupervisorRobertHall,PE.Additionallythe company did not ensure that post-welding inspections were conducted prior to refilling the tank to its maximum capacity. ThereportnotedthattheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency regulates the safety of petroleum storage tanks, but liquid fertilizer and other non-petroleum tanks are regulated by individual states. Virginia is one of 33 states that do not currently have regulations forliquidfertilizertanks,theCSBsaid.

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTEINDIVIDUAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS STATUS

In addition to calling for state action to regulate storage tanks, As of March 22, 2010 the Board urged the EPA to revise and reissue a safety bulletin onliquidfertilizertankhazardsandaskedTheFertilizerInstitute Active Certificates (TFI),atradeassociation,tourgemembercompaniestorequire appropriate inspections of tanks used to store 5/04 9/04 3/05 11/05 04/06 10/06 04/07 09/07 03/08 10/08 03/09 10/09 03/10 liquid fertilizer at terminal API 510 4103 4322 4513 4466 4731 4844 5110 5321 5770 5907 6321 6507 6958 facilities. In December 2008, the API 653 3177 3197 3354 3304 3438 3472 3637 3794 3876* 3966 4091 4301 4382 board issued an urgent QUTE 70 83 92 100 110 119 129 128 122 131 146 162 173 recommendation calling on Allied Terminals to take API 936 68 82 117 141 195 228 260 288 316 356 410 457 486 immediate action to reduce TES 11 14 45 67 95 116 139 188 251 298 328 369 391 the risk of a catastrophic failure of three tanks located API 571 8 29 62 96 122 138 172 196 at its facility -- one about 250feetfromtheSouthHill API 580 18 85 117 135 180 230 Neighborhood. The CSB also recommended that API 577 20 38 57 70 Allied Terminals select an TOTAL 10558 11074 11651 11611 12283 12661 13383 14061 15171 15655 16757 17580 18640 independent engineering firm to evaluate the specified tanks and within 30 days provide a report prepared by the independent tank engineering Total Number of API Certified Individuals = 10692 firm to the City of Chesapeake. The independent report resulted in Allied Terminals significantly reducing the maximum liquid levels USA CANADA OTHER TOTAL of the remaining tanks. Certified 6,707 1,422 2,563 The CSB investigation identified sixteen other tank failures at nine facilities in other states between 1995 and 2008. These sixteen failures resulted in one death, four hospitalizations, oneIndividuals Active Certificates (62.7%) 12,137 (65.1 %) (13.3%) 2,298 (12.3%) (24.0%) 4,205 (22.6%) 10,692 18,640

API 570

3129

3376

3530

3533

3714

3874

4079

4262

4555 4738 5150 5375 5754


July/August2010

VISIT ThE IJ dISCUSSION FORUmOverall Program Growth

Distribution of certified individuals by the employment type

Employment typeFull time employee of an owner/user Full time employee of an inspection agency Independent contractor Unidentified

Total3488 3725 1011 2474

Percent32.7% 34.8% 9.5% 23.1%

www.Inspectioneering.com

Demographic data for all API-certified individuals(Based on the data available, 90% reporting)Total inspectors Age Group Percentage of total

Age 65 and older Age 60-64 Age 55-59 Age 50-54 Age 45-49 Age 40-44 Age 35-39 Age 30-34 Age 25-29 Age 24 and youngerACTIVE CERTIFICATES IN US AND CANADA

241 614 1091 1432 1365 1497 1544 1227 625 50

2.50% 6.30% 11.30% 13.60% 14.80% 15.50% 15.90% 12.70% 6.50% 0.10%

510 570 571 577 580 653 936 TES QUTE TOTAL

As of 10/083840 3318 49 5 18 2887 198 291 123 10729

As of 03/094035 3527 51 13 22 2929 208 321 145 11269

USA

As of 10/094110 3642 65 21 35 3081 235 361 155 11705

As of 03/10

CanadaAs of 10/08864 570 17 2 8 368 80 6 1 1916

As of 03/09931 620 20 2 10 390 106 6 1 2086

As of 10/09958 629 26 6 13 419 117 6 0 2174

As of 03/101026 668 31 7 17 423 119 7 0 2298

4280 3793 73 27 47 3112 257 382 166 12137

Countries with most certificatesCountriesUSA Canada India Malaysia Saudi Arabia Singapore United Kingdom Qatar UAE Egypt

Certificates held12137 2298 859 409 350 280 252 250 239 223

Demographic data for US-based APIcertified individuals(Based on the data available, 92% reporting)Total inspectors Age Group Percentage of total

Distribution of certified individuals by industry typePetroleum Chemical Other Pulp/Paper Any of the above Unidentified TOTAL 5252 (49.1%) 947 (8.9%) 227 (2.1%) 50 (0.5%) 2462 (23.0%) 1754 (16.40%) 10692July/August 2010

Age 65 and older Age 60-64 Age 55-59 Age 50-54 Age 45-49 Age 40-44 Age 35-39 Age 30-34 Age 25-29 Age 24 and younger

215 532 834 1030 852 904 822 621 315 33

3.5% 8.6% 13.5% 16.6% 13.8% 14.6% 13.3% 10.0% 5.1% 0.5%


API 570 - Piping InspectorsYear 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003CANDIExam administration DATES PASS

FAIL 61 85 98 84 125 78 88 48 60 54 58 105 127 169 169 167 244 226 221 74 244 332 55 339 320 104 321

PASS % 78.9 79.9 77.6 80.3 69.7 76.8 65.1 80.7 77.4 81.4 77.1 66.2 65.5 46.2 52.3 54.2 50.4 52.6 57.3 53.2 52.9 51.2 61.3 49.4 49.8 53.2 49.6

PASS POINT 100 104 105 102 102 102 102 104 104 95 97 100 100 110 111 111 112 109 109 109 110 110 110 109 109 109 111

AVE. SCORE 114.48 116.71 116.12 114.11 109.75 113.08 107.3 117.9 115.3 111.3 112.4 108.8 105.7 105.9 109.4 109.6 109.6 107.3 110.3 108.2 107.4 111.0 104.1 104.6 105.7 105.8

June December June December June December June December June December June December June December June December June December June September December June September December June September December

289 424 437 427 412 336 252 249 266 291 253 311 368 314 354 365 492 477 518 158 518 681 142 670 637 222 637

228 339 339 343 287 258 164 201 206 237 195 206 241 145 185 198 248 251 297 84 274 349 87 331 317 118 316

EXAM PERFORMANCE

2004 2005AVE. SCORE 70.55 72.56 109.65 112.16 109.64 114.51 114.7 115.9 112.8 119.6 115.5 108.6 107.4 108.5 112.9 108.9 109.0 109.5 106.5 107.8 104.5 100.1 107.7 107.6 108.6 105.3

API 510, Pressure Vessel InspectorsYear 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Exam Administration June December June December June December June December June December June December June December June December June December June September December June September December June September December CANDIPASS DATES 224 145 257 167 237 131 263 157 233 130 315 192 275 167 242 161 226 129 340 240 337 224 316 205 300 208 318 183 304 192 394 238 391 233 520 318 571 330 206 115 613 372 638 354 175 86 586 318 604 284 321 173 659 330 FAIL 79 90 106 106 103 123 108 81 97 100 113 111 92 135 112 156 158 202 241 91 241 284 89 268 320 148 329 PASS % Pass Point 64.7 65 55.3 59.7 55.8 61.0 60.7 66.5 57.1 70.6 66.5 64.9 69.3 57.6 63.2 60.4 59.6 61.2 57.8 55.9 60.7 55.5 49.1 54.3 47.0 53.9 50.1 101 103 109 110 110 112 112 112 112 114 110 104 100 107 108 106 106 106 106 106 105 105 103 109 112 112 110

2006 2007

2008

2009

API UT ExaminersYear 2002 2003 Exam administration February November April October December 2004 2005 April October April October November 2006 January April October December 2007 2008 May November April (China) May November 2009 February March September September November 2010 February CANDIDATES 22 22 6 22 20 29 18 18 13 12 16 17 14 10 29 30 18 32 28 18 33 12 22 35 14 PASS 13 13 3 11 4 14 9 10 5 0 9 6 5 6 18 14 6 26 14 11 19 5 8 12 7 FAIL 9 9 3 11 16 15 9 8 8 12 7 11 9 4 11 16 12 6 14 7 12 7 14 23 7 PASS % 59.0 59.0 50.0 50.0 20.0 48.6 50 55.5 38 0 56% 29% 36% 60% 62% 47% 33.3 81.3 50 61.1 57.6 41.8 36.4 34.3 50

2008

2009

API 653 Aboveground Storage Tanks InspectorsYear 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Exam AdministrationMarch September March September March September March September March September March September March September March September March September March September March September March September March

CANDIDATES 230 187 227 238 204 194 199 122 245 251 274 201 210 299 265 313 288 366 347 336 388 323 407 425

PASS 165 126 154 171 122 119 116 68 191 195 213 153 145 197 139 189 169 244 226 188 229 183 244 250

FAIL 65 61 73 67 82 75 83 54 54 56 61 48 65 102 126 124 119 122 121 148 159 140 163 175

PASS % 71.7 67.4 67.8 71.85 59.8 61.3 58.3 55.7 78.0 77.7 77.7 76.1 69.1 65.9 52.5 60.4 58.7 66.7 65.1 56.0 59.0 56.7 60.0 58.8

PASS POINT 96 98 101 102 110 110 111 111 100 100 98 102 98 101 102 103 105 104 103 105 106 106 106 107

AVE. SCORE 105.86 105.64 108.21 110.55 111.44 112.22 112.81 112.13 109.82 109.17 110.55 111.7 105.9 107.0 101.7 106.0 107.7 110.1 106.9 105.7 108.6 107.2 107.2 110.2

API UT Examiners ( Sizing)Year 2007 2009 Exam administration pilot December 11 CANDIDATES PASS 3 1 10 9 FAIL PASS %


July/August2010

VISIT ThE IJ dISCUSSION FORUmAPI TES Tank Entry supervisors.Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 CANDIExam administration DATES March September March September March September March September October 2008 2009 2010 March September March September March 14 34 26 36 25 25 73 90 29 116 61 78 91

API 571Year 2006 2007 2008

Exam CANDIadministration DATESMarch September March September March September March September 34 69 65 70 72 64 81 81

PASS8 21 33 34 26 16 33 30

FAIL 26 48 32 36 46 48 48 51

PASS % 23.5 30.4 50.8 48.6 36.1 25 40.7 37

PASS POINT (out of 70) 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49

AVE. SCORE 42.1 44.7 47.0 47.0 42.7 41.8 44.6 44.2

www.Inspectioneering.comPASS13 31 21 29 20 23 50 51 22 69 31 42 60 FAIL 1 3 5 7 5 2 23 39 7 47 30 36 31 PASS % 92.9 91.2 80.8 80.6 80.0 93.0 68.5 56.7 75.9 59.5 50.8 53.9 65.9 PASS POINT (out of 120) 84 86 84 86 84 86 84 86 86 84 86 86 86 92.4 84.0 72.7 86.8 91.2 AVE. SCORE 94.7 96.9 91.7 92.6 92.7 97.9 87.1

2009

API 580Year 2007 2008 2009 CANDIExam administration DATES March September March September March September 30 87 88 80 97 91

PASS18 68 31 19 45 47

FAIL 12 19 57 61 52 44

PASS % 60 78.2 35.2 23.8 46.4 51.6

PASS POINT (out of 70) 49 49 49 49 49 50

AVE. SCORE 48.5 53.1 45.5 42.0 46.7 48.7

API 936 - Refractory PersonnelYear 2002 2003

API 577AVE. SCORE 72.4 67 44.8 57.1 53.5 56.7 54.1 57.0 59.4 55.2 59.4 58.7 59.6 52.2 52.2 56.3 57.9 54.8 54.6 59.4 57.8 54.1 80.7 72.7CANDIExam Year administration DATES 2008 2009 March September March September 24 27 26 20

Exam CANDIadministration DATESSeptember March June September December 23 16 2 33 10 12 26 8 16 16 32 25 12 14 24 8 20 26 26 33 25 17 37 52 42 67

PASS

FAIL 6 2 0 17 0 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 5 1 2 0 8 12 5 1 12 19 2 18

PASS % 73.9 87.5 100 48.9 100 75 84.6 87.5 93.8 93.8 93.8 92.0 91.7 100 79.2 87.5 90 100 69.3 63.7 80.0 94.1 67.6 63.5 95.2 68.7

17 14 2 16 10 9 22 7 15 15 30 23 11 14 19 7 18 26 18 21 20 16 25 33 40 46

PASS POINT (out of 75) 46 48 46 48 46 48 48 48 48 46 48 48 46 46 46 48 48 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

PASS21 18 18 12

FAIL 3 9 8 8

PASS % 87.5 66.7 69.2 60

PASS POINT (out of 70) 49 49 49 50

AVE. SCORE 56.3 50.8 51.1 53.1

2004 2005

March September March June September September

Recertification quiz statisticsProgram 510 570 653 Total Passed 3198 2491 1998 7687 Failed 79 70 317 466 Passed on second attempt 61 63 260 384 Not taken a second time 11 5 28 44 Failed twice 7 2 29 38

2006

March May September November December

2007

March July September

2008

January March April August (3) September (2) March September

2009

510

510/570 THIRD ADMINISTRATION STATSNew applicants Retakes Total Registered Total takers Passed September 2007 September 2008 156 143 103 150 259 293 206 (80% of the registered) 175 (60% of the registered) 115 (56%) 86 (49.1%) September 2007 98 94 192 158 ( 82%) 84 (53%) September 2008 100 108 208 142 (68%) 87 (61.3) September 2009 243 153 396 321 173 (53.9%) September 2009 187 116 303 231 123 (53.2%)

570New applicants Retakes Total registered Total takers Passed


July/August 2010

Prevention = Safety + ProfitabilityE2G software offers the winning formula for plant preventative maintenance... that's why major refiners consider it to be an integral part of their plant business process. API RBI - The industry standard for risk management and inspection planning, developed through the API consensus process and documented in API 581 VCESageTM - The benchmark program for equipment review and analysis of structural integrity, code compliance, re-rating and remaining life evaluations VCEIntelliJointTM - The total joint solution that incorporates knowledge in all the areas required to effectively solve the root cause of leakage VCEDamage MechanismsTM - The quick reference guide to identify the potential damage mechanisms that can cause costly equipment failureFor information, call our Software Help Desk at 216-658-4777.

Smart Technology for Aging InfrastructureShaker Heights, OH Houston, TX www.equityeng.com

IJ_JULY-AUG_2010

Documents

Transcript of IJ_JULY-AUG_2010