API Ballot Summary Sheet 9/2/2003

Transcription

1 Ballot: API Ballot Summary Sheet 9/2/ : , Robotic in Lieu of Internal Inspection AMS ID: 247 Start Date: 7/8/03 Closing Date: 8/29/03 Associate: Roland Goodman Coordinator: Valeen Young Proposal: Vote Results Voter Comments Affirmative Negative Abstain Did t Vote Nelson Acosta HMT Inspection Moraya Al-Gahtani Saudi Aramco Gregory Alvarado Equity Engineering Group, Inc., The Joel Andreani Equity Engineering Group, Inc., The Ronald Bailey American Tank & Vessel, Inc Mark Baker Baker Consulting Group, Inc Ernie Blanchard IMC-Phosphates Steven Braune AEC Engineering, Inc Jerry Burke GE Panametrics Steve Caruthers Tank Consultants, Inc John Cornell BaCo Enterprise, LLC 7127 Earl Crochet Kinder Morgan Dwayne Davis Stone & Webster Domingo de Para ExxonMobil Jeffrey DeArmond BP p.l.c Robert Dolejs UOP LLC Robert Elliott Alyeska Pipeline Service Wayne Elliott Elliott Services Kenneth Erdmann Matrix Service Robert Ferrell The National Board of Boiler & Pressure V David Flight Dow Chemical, The Laurence Foster Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC John Fumbanks Pond and Inc Frank Furillo ExxonMobil Alan Geis Colonial Pipeline Mark Geisenhoff Flint Hills Resource Group, LP Ty Hagen Hagen Engineering International, Inc. 1

2 Ballot: API Ballot Summary Sheet 9/2/ : , Robotic in Lieu of Internal Inspection AMS ID: 247 Start Date: 7/8/03 Closing Date: 8/29/03 Associate: Roland Goodman Coordinator: Valeen Young Proposal: Gary Heath All Tech Inspection Co Marty Herlevic James Machine Works, Inc Peter Hunt Shell Chemical LP Wendell Johnson Conam Inspection N. Kelley Jones Pro-Inspect Inc Randy Kissell TGB Partnership Morris Kline HMT Inspection John Lieb Tank Industry Consultants, Inc John Ludman DuPont Engineering Technology Francis Maitland TAQ. Inc David Martin Conservatek Industries, Inc James McBride Petrex, Inc John McMillan Mechanical Integrity Inc James McVay Tesoro Petroleum Carl Mikkola Enbridge Energy, Inc Douglas Miller Chicago Bridge & Iron (CBI) Ron Miller Physical Acoustics Corporation Bhana Mistry TIW Steel Platework John Mooney George Morovich TEMCOR Philip Myers ChevronTexaco Corporation David Nasab Kellogg Brown & Root Richard Nichols Roddey Engineering Services, Inc John O'Brien Innovative Research Consultants Robert Pechacek General Electric Inspection Services, In 5193 Richard Pinegar Cargill Inc Roy Ralph Petro-Canada John Reynolds Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc Michael Richardson International Paper James Riley ChevronTexaco ERTC Clinton Schulz Citgo Refining & Chemical Co. 2

3 Ballot: API Ballot Summary Sheet 9/2/ : , Robotic in Lieu of Internal Inspection AMS ID: 247 Start Date: 7/8/03 Closing Date: 8/29/03 Associate: Roland Goodman Coordinator: Valeen Young Proposal: Michael Shallis Longview Inspection Marilyn Shores Sunoco Logistics Kelly Smith ConocoPhillips Larry Speaks Mass Technology Corporation Kenneth Tam Donald Thain Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc Roland Valdes Inspection Solutions, LLC Leith Watkins Explorer Pipeline John Watson The Dow Chemical Steven Wells Capstone Engineering Services, Inc Richard Whipple Fluor Daniel, Inc. Affirmative Negative Abstain Did t Vote Balloting Totals: Total Responses: Total Ballots: Response Rate : Approval Rate: Consensus: % 87% YES Must be > 50% Must be > 67% 3

4 Section. Mark Baker Baker Consulting Group, Inc. Many times for a newer tank (<10 years old), a owner will elect to use robotic inspection to determine the bottom corrosion rate to satisfy With the proposed change as worded, a owner will be required to perform an internal inspection within the first 10 years of service. I agree and support your intent, but feel there should be an exception for new tanks where the owner has good records of the construction, maintained the tank, and there are no indications from prior external inspections that a problem would exist inside the tank. Philip Myers ChevronTex aco Corporation While the rationale summarizes the issues, there is still contradiction. Under RBI NO Internal Inspection is required. I believe it is up to Owner/Operator to determine: 1) if risks warrant inspection tanks under unusual circumstances. 2) If any inspection, or a robotic inspection is warranted We must maintain the risk based provisions. In addition, since there is no limit to the "smallness of a tank" as answered in a previous inquiry, very small tanks are simply not accessible for internal inspections. Robotics inspection may be appropriate in lieu of internal inspections. I will vote to change this paragraph only if there is an exemption for tanks under 30 feet in diameter for internal inspections altogether. API electronic balloting ing template/version Page 1 of 6

5 Section. David Martin Conservatek Industries, Inc.. If the internal inspection is required solely for the purpose of determining confirming the condition and integrity of the tank bottom that was determined during a previous out-ofservice inspection, this internal inspection may be accomplished with the tank in-service Change if to of Earl Crochet Kinder Morgan Editorial Word "if" should be "of" in front of the word determining. Earl Crochet Kinder Morgan Editorial Change second if to of - "If the internal inspection is required solely for the purpose if confirming the condition and integrity of the tank bottom that was determined during a previous out-of-service inspection,..." Peter Hunt Shell Chemical LP Editorial I agree that a robotic inspection cannot be a substitute for an internal inspection. It might become a substitute for a tank floor inspection, if it can be shown to give the same quality results. Change worf "if" immediately preceeding the change at the word "confirming" from "if" to "of". API electronic balloting ing template/version Page 2 of 6

6 Section. Mark Geisenhoff John O'Brien Eugene Silverman Flint Hills Resource Group, LP Innovative Research Consultants InTank Services, Inc. We should not restrict the use of on-stream techniques on tanks that have not been previously inspected. Numerous tanks are being constructed with designs such as double bottoms with leak detection. These types of designs have a low consequence of failure. The supplement of a robotic inspection as a first time inspection in order to confirm an estimated corrosion rate should continue to be allowed. I also disagree with the statement that there is no wording that addresses the application of RBI to tanks which have not been internally inspected. The first sentence of As an alternative to the procedures in 6.4.2, an owner-operator may establish the internal inspection interval using risk-based inspection (RBI) procedures clearly allows the user to use RBI as a substitute for section Leave the document as it currently stands. I believe that the proposal and rationale are confused. Statements have been made in the rationale do not believe that it is the intent of API 653 to allow petroleum tanks to go without an internal inspection exceeding 20 years. That is incorrect as Section clearly allows that under an RBI approach. I believe that in attempt to produce clarification we are likely to add confusion. I do not believe having studied very carefully that there is not any current confusion in the 653 document dealing with the subject matter. In changing we need to be very sure that there is added value in the change against the possible restrictions we impose. One misconception relative to the use of robotic technology is its use as a substitute for all internal inspections where such information is acquired through tank entry. The use of robotic technology is not being API electronic balloting ing template/version Page 3 of 6

7 Section. offered to comply with the internal inspection requirements of API STD 653, but is designed to determine the floor thickness, corrosion rate and floor integrity once the tank s baseline condition is established during a previous manned entry out-of-service inspection. Additionally, the use of immersion ultrasound in the flaw detection mode allows the in-service inspector to identify product side and soil side pitting and corrosion through liners and to evaluate liner integrity. This capability allows the inspector to provide accurate remaining useful life information to the tank owner in order to extend the internal inspection interval. As indicated in API STD 653, the analysis of ultrasonic thickness data used to calculate corrosion rates and minimum remaining thickness must be completed by an individual, knowledgeable and experienced in relevant inspection methodologies and reviewed by an authorized inspector who is responsible for the evaluation of the tank and who assures the quality and completeness of the in-service NDE results. The internal inspection interval is determined by a number of factors including the results of the remaining useful life calculations and the results of alternative internal inspection intervals referenced in API STD 653 paragraph The use of direct floor thickness measurements acquired with the use of robotic technology in combination with a risk-based inspection (RBI) procedure may extend the internal inspection interval depending on the judgment of the authorized inspector and an engineer(s) knowledgeable and experienced in tank design and corrosion. As stated in API STD 653 paragraph 4.4.1, API electronic balloting ing template/version Page 4 of 6

8 Laurence Foster Randy Kissell Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC TGB Partnership Section. excessive foundation settlement of storage tanks can affect the integrity of tank shells and bottoms. Therefore, monitoring the settlement behavior of tanks is a recognized practice to assess the integrity of tank bottoms. Robotic technology available today allows the tank inspector to measure and monitor tank bottom and shell settlement more precisely since settlement is measured while the tank is under load. Thousands of measurement points with an accuracy of inch are acquired throughout the tank floor rather than at a finite number of elevation axes cited in Appendix B of API STD 653. As a result detailed tank bottom 3- dimensional renderings an Leave existing wording as-is. For the 10 year inspection to determine the corrosion rate of a new bottom, the use of robotics should be acceptable. As proposed, it would eliminate robotics as and option, and require the tank be taken down at 10 years. James McBride Petrex, Inc. Editorial In the 2nd sentence, before NDE, remove one of the sets of "of the". John Reynolds Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. Editorial In the 3rd sentence, before confirming, change "if" to "of". Add "to be necessary" after "determined" in the modified wording, so that the new sentence reads: "confirming the condition and intergrity of the take bottom was determined to be necessary during a previous out-of-service inspection." I note that one word is incorrectly shown from the existing wording: "If the internal inspection is required solely for the purpose if" (if should be of)"determining confirming the condition and integrity of the tank bottom that was determined during a previous out-of-service inspection," The word "determined" does not make a lot of sense to me without some explanation as shown below. API electronic balloting ing template/version Page 5 of 6

9 Section. Kelly Smith Richard Nichols Morris Kline Manfred Lengsfeld ConocoPhilli ps Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. HMT Inspection Fluor Daniel, Inc. submitted language Leave paragraph as is. As the new language is written, I don't see that it adds value to the intent of the paragraph. I also believe that under certain cicumstances, robotics can be used to satisfy the 20 year internal inspection. Entire ballot Other I am not convinced by Marilyn's argument about the intent of the current wording, but I do not feel strongly enough to submit a negative. General Committee should consider adding some type of minimum language addressing the quantity of ultrasonic data that would be acceptable to establish tank bottom integrity. I realize that this approach is not required in other sections of API - 653, but without the quality visual inspection in a out-of-service inspection aren't we offering a weak option. Par. Editorial Delete one of the terms 'of the'. Second sentence of par. has the term 'of the' twice in front of 'NDE results'. API electronic balloting ing template/version Page 6 of 6