API 510and570 BallotResults Fall2007 510-570prelimballresults-F07

Attachment 2
API 510 and 570 Ballot Results – Fall 2007
Enclosed are the ballot results for consideration at the Fall 2007 meeting of the API Task Group
on Inspection Codes. This attachment includes the following ballots:
Scorecard
Ballot # Title
Item #
510-25-07 510-136 Inspection of Vessels not exceeding ASME 15 psig limits

510-26-07 510-167 Interim Repairs
510-27-07 510-169 Vessels in Cyclic Service (Reballot)
510-28-07 510-172 ASME PCC-2 References
510-29-07 510-173 Corrosion Averaging in Reinforced Areas
570-25-07 570-043 Operational Envelope and Process Parameter Monitoring
570-26-07 570-046 Missed Piping Traps
Ballot 510-25-07
Scorecard Item: 510-136

Title: Inspection of Vessels not exceeding ASME 15 psig limits
Date: July 2007
Contact: Name: Contact: Jim Riley
Company: Chevron
Phone: 510-242-5396
E-mail: jrri@chevron.com
Purpose: Section 1.2.2 excludes vessels in Appendix A that are excluded by ASME code limits.
Appendix a. item 8. Excludes vessels with an internal or external operating pressure not
exceeding 15 psig but with no limitation on size. This might mislead owner-users where
vessels in corrosive or toxic service, or large vessels of significant size (pressure x volume,
potentially erosive such as large catalyst circulation vessels, etc.), process capacity, higher
consequence (both flammable and business impact) should receive inspection to maintain
mechanical integrity. The intent is to encourage owner-users to evaluate if these vessels
should include inspection similar to those vessels that are not excluded from ASME code
limits.
Source: API 510 9th (Re-write) edition
Revision: 3
Rationale: Large vessels and their structures, even though excluded by ASME code limits, still require
inspection for mechanical integrity. The large vessels are typically designed to ASME Code
structural requirements (wind, seismic, loadings, etc.), and supporting structures are
designed to UBC or IBC life-safety structural design requirements.
These large vessels must have structural integrity to support external loads, as well as
pressurized system integrity to contain a fluid or fluids in the operational context to prevent
consequences of failure.
Notes: 1) Discussed at the API Fall 2006 Conference Task Group on Codes. A number of
committee members were uncomfortable with the wording which was being added to
Section 1.2.2. Therefore, the ballot was completely changed and new wording more to
the point, leaving the owner-user the discretion to determine which large vessels the
Code may apply to, was drafted.
2) OSHA citations refer to requirement to include equipment that is important for safety in
the Mechanical Integrity element of PSM. “If equipment types other than those listed in
paragraph j(1) are important to safety, then MI applies to those types of equipment also
(PSM Standard Preamble, OSHA letter of 5/24/94, OSHA letter of 7/11/94, OSHA letter
of 11/30/94, OSHA letter of 12/7/95) “
3) Discussed in Spring 2007 conference. Dennis Layman suggested dropping “large”
vessel reference to include all pressure vessels that the owner-user may include based
on consequence of failure.
4) Bill Neill raised an inquiry March, 2007, as follows: Ken Tam indicated in his email, the
Appendix A d. (should be c.) exemption for volume and pressure first appeared in the
first edition of API 510, Sept. 1980. Please note. The ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1 Introduction
exemptions U-1 (j) are believed to be for new construction. I am not clear on why a new
construction exemption should be used for in-service exemptions.
Page 1 of 2
Ballot 510-25-07
1.1.1 Coverage
This inspection code covers the in-service inspection, repair, alteration, and rerating activities
for pressure vessels and the pressure-relieving devices protecting these vessels. This
inspection code applies to all refining and chemical process vessels that have been placed in
service unless specifically excluded per 1.2.2. This includes:
a. vessels constructed in accordance with an applicable construction code;
b. vessels constructed without a construction code (non-code) - a vessel not fabricated to a

recognized construction code and meeting no known recognized standard;
c. vessels constructed and approved as jurisdictional special based upon jurisdiction

acceptance of particular design, fabrication, inspection, testing, and installation;
d. non-standard vessels - a vessel fabricated to a recognized construction code but has lost
it’s nameplate or stamping;
e. vessels that are exempted in accordance with the criteria in ASME Section VIII: Division 1
should be considered for inclusion based on risk (potential degradation and consequence
of failure) as determined by the owner-user.
Page 2 of 2
API Ballot Summary Sheet
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-25-07 Inspection of Vessels Excluded by ASME Limits Ballot ID: 1216
Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Coordinator: Roland Goodman
Proposal: Add a provision to the scope to consider the need to inspect vessels that are excluded from ASME code limits.
VotingCategory
Vote Results
Voter Interest Category Company Comments Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote
Moraya Al-Gahtani Operator-User Saudi Aramco No X
Gregory Alvarado Contractor Equity Engineering Group, Inc. No X
Roger Armstrong Operator-User Monsanto Company No X
John Britton Contractor Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc. No X
Robert Dolejs Contractor UOP LLC Yes X
Roger Duvic Contractor Vessel Statistics Inc. No X
Wayne Elliott Contractor Elliott Services, Inc. No X
Eric Ellis Operator-User Lyondell Houston Refining, LP No X
Nat Faransso Contractor KBR No X
John Fiore Contractor FTS, Inc. No X
Frank Furillo Operator-User ExxonMobil Corp. No X
Mark Geisenhoff Operator-User Flint Hills Resources, LP No X
Craig Harley Contractor General Physics Corp. No X
Gary Heath Contractor All Tech Inspection No X
Peter Hunt Operator-User Suncor Energy, Inc. No X
Morris Kline Contractor HMT Inspection No X
Owen Konski Operator-User Syncrude Canada Ltd. No X
Dennis Layman Operator-User BP p.l.c. No X
John Ludman Operator-User DuPont Engineering No X
John McMillan Contractor Mechanical Integrity Inc. No X
Rick Nichols Contractor Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. No X
Robert Pechacek Contractor General Electric Inspection Services No X
John Reynolds Consultant Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. Yes X
Delano Richie Manufacturer PetroChem Inspection Services No X
James Riley Operator-User Chevron Energy & Technology Company Yes X
Richard Roberts Contractor Quest TruTec No X
Clay Rodery Operator-User BP North America Inc. No X
1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-25-07 Inspection of Vessels Excluded by ASME Limits Ballot ID: 1216

Proposal: Add a provision to the scope to consider the need to inspect vessels that are excluded from ASME code limits.
VotingCategory
Roy Schubert Operator-User Shell Canada Energy, Ltd. No X
Michael Shallis Contractor Acuren Inspection, Inc. No X
Larry Siqueiros Operator-User Marathon Petroleum Company LLC No X
Ryan Sitton Consultant Pinnacle Asset Integrity Services No X
Robert Smallwood Consultant No X
Kelly Smith Operator-User ConocoPhillips No X
Nick Sowa Contractor Conam Inspection & Engineering Service No X
Kenneth Tam Consultant No X
Roland Valdes Contractor Inspection Solutions, LLC No X
John Watson Operator-User Dow Chemical No X
Steven Wells Contractor Pro-Inspect Inc. No X
Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

Balloting Totals: 31 1 0 6
Total Responses: 32
Total Ballots: 38
Response Rate (Affirmative / Total Ballots): 82% Must be > 50%
Approval Rate (Affirmative / [Affirmative + Negative] ): 97% Must be > 67%
Consensus: YES
2
API Ballot Comments and Resolution
Ballot: 510-25-07 Inspection of Vessels Proposal: Add a provision to the scope to consider the need to Ballot ID: 1216 Date: September 10, 2007
Excluded by ASME Limits inspect vessels that are excluded from ASME code limits.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Voter Name Clause No./ Type of Comment (justification for change) by the Voting Proposed change by the Voting Member Comment Resolution
# (Vote) Subclause Comment Member
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
1 John Reynolds 1.1.1 Technical I think we should draw paricular attention to the Note: Specific attention is drawn to
Shell Global large process vessels operating at less than 15 large vacuum process vessels
Solutions (US) Inc. psig, like vacuum flashers. Hence, I suggest we containing hydrocarbon fluids, like
add the following note. vacuum flashers.
(Affirmative)
2 Robert Dolejs 1.1.1.e Editorial I would slightly change the wording to make it read
UOP LLC better by adding the word "which" as such:
(Affirmative) .....criteria in ASME Section VIII, Div 1 which
should be considered.....
3 Roland Goodman 1.1.1e Editorial Delete "that are" in the beginning of this sentence. "vessels exempted in accordance with
American the criteria in ASME . . ."
Petroleum Institute
(NonVoter)
4 James Riley Technical Refer to revisions and comments suggested in
Chevron Energy & ballot return by John O'Brien to eliminate the
Technology Appendix A
Company
(Negative)
Page 1 of 1
API electronic balloting template/version April 2003
Ballot 510-26-07

Title: Interim Repairs
Date: July 2007
Company: Chevron
Phone: 510-242-5396
Purpose: ASME PCC-2 2006 has wording regarding considerations of suitability for continued service
application of temporary repairs that is an improvement upon the wording currently in API
510. Additionally, the NBIC Part 2 Subcommittee on Repairs and Alterations is considering
new wording regarding “interim repairs”. The term “interim” versus the current term
“temporary” is a better fit when considering the appropriate longevity of such repairs. It
connotes that the engineered application may be intended for a longer period of time than
just forcing a very near maintenance opportunity such as for some period with a future
corrosion allowance or other known limitation that is considered by the engineer and
inspector. The requirement to document the “due date” for the interim repair already exists in
the current wording.
Revision: 1
Rationale:
Notes: 1) Question about how long temporary repairs are good for, or what is earliest maintenance
opportunity have been raised. The answer on longevity of a temporary repair lies with
each individual temporary repair based on the unique considerations and the
engineering alternative taken.
2) Revise the term “temporary” to “interim”. This includes table of contents references 3.6
and 8.1.5.1 and those in the text of API 510 as shown below.
3) Revise the wording to refer to the “technical considerations” that should be reviewed as
part of determining the period of safe intended operation for an interim repair. Add words
to documentation required to provide engineering basis and implementation details so
that the “interim” repair is justified rather than a quick “temporary” repair to make it to the
first maintenance opportunity.
4) Change the “should” to “shall” for wording requiring documentation of “interim” repairs.
This is in keeping with good engineering practice for Management of Change when
considering “in-kind” restoration versus “interim” repair alternatives which provide a
“more permanent” repair. As the word “temporary” takes on the extended connotation of
“interim” with some planned period, it is important to document the design, nature, extent
and anticipated interim period of the repair.
5) Replace the wording “suitable permanent repair” with the wording “more permanent
repair”. This removes the need for subjective criteria to substantiate what a “suitable”
permanent repair is. The technical considerations and documented engineering basis
will substantiate the decision between alternatives for a more permanent repair that
restores suitability for service for the “interim repair” period.
Page 1 of 2
Ballot 510-26-07
3.60 temporary interim repairs

Repairs made to pressure vessels to restore sufficient integrity to continue safe operation for an
interim period until permanent repairs can are to be conducted
7.8.2 Pressure vessel and pressure-relieving device records shall contain four types of
information pertinent to mechanical integrity as follows:
a. Construction and design information. For example, equipment serial number . . . .
c. Repair, alteration, and rerating information. For example, (1) repair and alteration forms like
that shown in Appendix D; (2) reports indicating that equipment still in-service with either
identified deficiencies, temporary interim repairs or recommendations for repair, are suitable
for continued service until repairs can be completed; and (3) rerating documentation
(including rerating calculations, new design conditions, and evidence of stamping).
8.1.5.1 Temporary Interim Repairs
8.1.5.1.1 General
Temporary repairs Interim repairs may only be suitable for short-term service and should be
removed and replaced with suitable permanent repairs a more permanent repair at the next
available maintenance opportunity. The anticipated life of the interim repair depends on many
circumstances, including consideration of risk. Temporary Interim repairs may remain in place
for a longer period of time only if the technical considerations that affect the expected life of the
interim repair are evaluated, approved, and documented by the engineer and inspector.
Documentation of temporary interim repairs should shall include
a. location of the temporary interim repair,
b. specific details about the interim repair design and implementation, e.g. engineering basis
summary, material of construction, thickness, size of welds, NDE performed.
c. details of analyses performed,
d. requirements for future inspections, and
e. due date for installing a permanent repair.
8.1.5.1.2.1 Fillet-welded patches may be used to make temporary repairs to damaged,

corroded, or eroded areas of pressure vessel components. Cracks shall not be repaired in this
manner unless the engineer determines that the cracks will not be expected to propagate from
under the patch. In some cases, the engineer may need to perform a fitness-for-service
analysis. Temporary Interim repairs using fillet-welded patches shall be approved by an
inspector and engineer. The use of fillet-welded patches may be subject to the acceptance of
the governing jurisdiction.
Page 2 of 2
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-26-07 Interim Repairs Ballot ID: 1217

Proposal: Replace the term "temporary repairs" with" interim repairs" to better describe the potential longevity of such repairs.
VotingCategory
Vote Results
Gregory Alvarado Contractor Equity Engineering Group, Inc. No X
John Britton Contractor Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc. No X
Robert Dolejs Contractor UOP LLC No X
Wayne Elliott Contractor Elliott Services, Inc. No X
Nat Faransso Contractor KBR Yes X
John Fiore Contractor FTS, Inc. No X
Mark Geisenhoff Operator-User Flint Hills Resources, LP Yes X
Gary Heath Contractor All Tech Inspection No X
Peter Hunt Operator-User Suncor Energy, Inc. Yes X
Morris Kline Contractor HMT Inspection No X
Owen Konski Operator-User Syncrude Canada Ltd. Yes X
John McMillan Contractor Mechanical Integrity Inc. No X
Rick Nichols Contractor Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. No X
Robert Pechacek Contractor General Electric Inspection Services No X
James Riley Operator-User Chevron Energy & Technology Company No X
1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-26-07 Interim Repairs Ballot ID: 1217

Proposal: Replace the term "temporary repairs" with" interim repairs" to better describe the potential longevity of such repairs.
VotingCategory
Michael Shallis Contractor Acuren Inspection, Inc. No X
Robert Smallwood Consultant No X
Nick Sowa Contractor Conam Inspection & Engineering Service No X
Kenneth Tam Consultant Yes X
Roland Valdes Contractor Inspection Solutions, LLC No X
Steven Wells Contractor Pro-Inspect Inc. No X

Total Responses: 32
Total Ballots: 37
Consensus: YES
2
Ballot: 510-26-07 Interim Repairs Proposal: Replace the term “temporary repairs” with” interim Ballot ID: 1217 Date: September 10, 2007
repairs” to better describe the potential longevity of such repairs.
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
1 Mark Geisenhoff 3.60 Editorial Suggest eliminating the phrase "to be" 3.60 temporary interim repairs
Flint Hills temporary
interim 3.60 temporary interim repairs Repairs made to pressure vessels to
Resources, LP restore sufficient integrity to continue
repairs Repairs made to pressure vessels to restore
(Affirmative) safe operation for an interim period
sufficient integrity to continue safe operation for an until permanent repairs are conducted
interim period until permanent repairs are to be
conducted
2 Roland Goodman 3.60 Editorial Add the word "that" before restore, "mechanical" Repairs made to pressure vessels that
American before integrity and delete "to be" at the end of the restore sufficient mechanical integrity
Petroleum Institute sentence. to continue safe operation for an
interim period until permanent repairs
(NonVoter) are conducted.
3 Ken Gottselig 8.1.5.1.2.1 Technical Change first sentence from "Fillet-welded patches change to
Lyondell Chemical may be used to make temporary repairs to
damaged, corroded, or eroded areas of pressure "Fillet-welded patches may be used to
Company make interim repairs to damaged,
vessel components"
(NonVoter) corroded, or eroded areas of pressure
vessel components"
4 John Reynolds 8.1.5.1.1e Technical Although I'm OK with most of this change; however Suggest changing "e" to read "due
Shell Global I see a potential problem with making a "due date date for installing a more permanent
Solutions (US) Inc. for installing a permanent repair" as mandatory i.e. repair, where necessary".
following a "shall" statement because of the
(Negative) previous statement that these interim repairs "may
remain in place for longer periods of time....".
5 Peter Hunt 3.6, 7.8, Technical I have no idea what the difference is between leave temporary as the operative word
Suncor Energy, Inc. 2, interim and temporary. unless in the definition we can
8.1.5.1.1 differentiate between the two words
(Negative) Here is a definition I found for interim:
"serving as a temporary measure until something
more complete and permanent can be established"
They appear to be one and the same.
Page 1 of 2
Ballot: 510-26-07 Interim Repairs Proposal: Replace the term “temporary repairs” with” interim Ballot ID: 1217 Date: September 10, 2007
repairs” to better describe the potential longevity of such repairs.
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
6 Owen Konski Technical Overall, I agree with the ballot. I still have difficulty Some how place or document a
Syncrude Canada with "interim" as it is still subjective and can be requirement (in the risk
Ltd. open to selective adjustment. Too many times assessment?)that defines a time frame
'interim' winds up being longer than first thought or for the interim repair. Can this time
(Affirmative) anticipated - for various reasons. parameter be part of a definition for
'interim'?
7 Nat Faransso 8.1.5.1.1 Technical The word "suitable" has been removed due to I Recommend deleting "more" before
KBR being subjective. The replacement word "more" is permanent repairs.
also subjective and does not seem to serve the
(Affirmative) intent.
8 Kenneth Tam Editorial 8.1.5.1.2.1 - In the first line, change the word
(Affirmative) temporary to interim to read ....to make interim
repairs ....
Page 2 of 2
Ballot 510-27-07

Title: Vessels in Cyclic Service
Date: July 2007
Contact: Name: Jim Riley
Company: Chevron
Phone: 510-242-5396
Purpose: Section 5.4 is a generic list of typical damage mechanisms which does not address vessels
in cyclic service other than referring to API RP 571 fatigue in general. This proposed change
takes relevant information from the SCI Roundtable on PSA and other related cyclic service
and places it in Section 5.4 for owner-users to consider.
Revision: 2
Rationale: Previous ballots for cyclic service were considered too detailed and unclear. This ballot
greatly simplifies the wording so that owner-users are alerted to the potential for failures, yet
they are left with the flexibility to perform applicable engineering evaluations and consider
NDE alternatives.
Notes: 1) Reviewed by Bob Sims
2) Review by T/G on Codes 5/1/2006 . Unanimous vote to go to ballot with added wording
on fatigue evaluations by Bob Sims, and suggestion by Eric Ellis to make the
considerations apply to both temperature and pressure concerns.
3) Discussed at 2006 Spring and Fall meetings, and also at Spring 2007 meeting.
5.4.4 Vessels in cyclic service (cycles of pressure, temperature, or combinations of both

pressure and temperature) should be evaluated for potential failures. The following
considerations should be evaluated where applicable for vessels in cyclic service:
a. originally designed and fabrication based on an applicable construction code with additional
consideration of cyclic service operation;
b. potential for corrosion under insulation (CUI);
c. potential for fatigue cracking of the vessel and contributing fatigue propagation from internal
supports attached to the vessel;
d. the need for appropriate NDE to detect fatigue failure or distortion [such as external
ultrasonic shearwave flaw detection, external and/or internal wet fluorescent magnetic
particle testing, time-of-flight diffraction ultrasonics (TOFD), out-of-roundness measurement,
and measurements of weld seams for peaking or flattening].
Page 1 of 1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-27-07 Cyclic Service Vessels (Reballot) Ballot ID: 1209

Proposal: Incorporates relevant information from the SCI Roundtable on PSA and other related cyclic service.
VotingCategory
Vote Results
Gregory Alvarado Manufacturer Equity Engineering Group, Inc. Yes X
John Britton Manufacturer Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc. No X
Robert Dolejs Manufacturer UOP LLC No X
Wayne Elliott Manufacturer Elliott Services, Inc. No X
John Fiore Manufacturer FTS, Inc. No X
Mark Geisenhoff Operator-User Flint Hills Resources, LP No X
Gary Heath Manufacturer All Tech Inspection No X
Peter Hunt Operator-User Shell Canada Ltd. No X
Morris Kline Manufacturer HMT Inspection No X
Dennis Layman Operator-User BP p.l.c. Yes X
John McMillan Manufacturer Mechanical Integrity Inc. No X
Rick Nichols Manufacturer Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. Yes X
Robert Pechacek Manufacturer General Electric Inspection Services No X
1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-27-07 Cyclic Service Vessels (Reballot) Ballot ID: 1209

Proposal: Incorporates relevant information from the SCI Roundtable on PSA and other related cyclic service.
VotingCategory
Roy Schubert Operator-User Shell Canada Energy, Ltd. Yes X
Michael Shallis Manufacturer Acuren Inspection, Inc. No X
Robert Smallwood Contractor No X
Nick Sowa Manufacturer Conam Inspection & Engineering Service No X
Roland Valdes Manufacturer Inspection Solutions, LLC No X
Steven Wells Manufacturer Pro-Inspect Inc. No X

Total Responses: 31
Total Ballots: 38
Consensus: YES
2
Ballot: 510-27-07 Cyclic Service Vessels Proposal: Incorporates relevant information from the SCI Ballot ID: 1209 Date: September 10, 2007
(Reballot) Roundtable on PSA and other related cyclic service.
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
1 Gregory Alvarado Technical See changes below. 5.4.4 Vessels in cyclic service (cycles
Equity Engineering of pressure, temperature, or
Group, Inc. combinations of both pressure and
temperature) should be evaluated for
(Negative)
potential failures. The following
considerations should be evaluated
where applicable for vessels in cyclic
service:
a. originally designed and fabrication
based on an applicable construction
code with additional consideration of
cyclic service operation;
b. potential for internal or external
corrosion (e.g. corrosion under
insulation), cracking, or other types of
damage during cycling and at steady
state;
c. potential for fatigue cracking of the
vessel and contributing fatigue
propagation from internal or external
vessel attachments, repairs,
modifications, corrosion, damage (e.g.
gouges);
d. engineering analysis to determine
maximum tolerable flaw sizes and
critical locations to assist in selection of
NDE of suitable sensitivity and areas
for inspection;
e. the need for appropriate NDE to
detect fatigue failure or distortion [such
as external ultrasonic shearwave flaw
detection, external and/or internal wet
fluorescent magnetic particle testing,
Page 1 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
time-of-flight diffraction ultrasonics

(TOFD), out-of-roundness
measurement, and measurements of
weld seams for peaking or flattening].
2 David Martinez 5.4 Other I have reviewed the ballot item and agree with the
Hovensa, LLC proposed changes as written.
(NonVoter)
3 Nat Faransso 5.4.4.d Technical The paragraph has included time of Flight Replace "Time of Flight Diffraction
KBR Diffraction (TOFD). Since other automated UT (TOFD)" by "Automated UT
techniques such as Phased Array may also be techniques"
(Affirmative) used and since TOFD may not be suitable for
Austinitic steel, such limitation may not serve the
intended purpose.
4 Takayasu Tahara 5.4.4 Technical It will be better to add following notes between b Potential for corrosion fatigue
Petroleum and c of 5.4. (especially in No-PWHTed carbon
Association of steel deaerator)
Japan
(NonVoter)
5 Rick Nichols 5.4.4 (a) Technical Change "fabrication" to "fabricated" (a) originally designed and fabricated
Roddey based on...
Engineering
Services, Inc.
(Affirmative)
6 Roy Schubert 5.44 c Editorial 5.44 c - nozzles / manways can be subjected to Consider adding:
Shell Canada fatigue
c. potential for fatigue cracking of the
Energy, Ltd. vessel and attached nozzles and
(Affirmative) contributing fatigue propagation from
internal
supports attached to the vessel;
Page 2 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
7 John Reynolds 5.4.4 Technical While I whole heartedly agree with the need for this Delete 5.4.4b and revise 5.4.4a a to
Shell Global addition since it closes a long standing "hole" in our read: "Was the vessel originally
Solutions (US) Inc. code, I disagree that we need a statement about designed and fabricated based on an
consideration for CUI. CUI is covered elsewhere in applicable construction code with due
(Negative)
510 and applies to all vessels regardless of consideration to cyclic service
whether they are in cyclic service or not. The other operation?" Then revise the other two
three considerations are specific to cyclic service, considerations to make them questions
where CUI service is not. I have no problem with to match the format of "a" above.
mentioning CUI as a potentially compounding issue
in a follow-on sentence, but don't think we should Stike the word "internal" from "c", since
confuse the fatigue issue by adding it to the list in fatigue crack can eminate from either
the manner shown. internal or external support
attachments.
Also revise the list of considerations into questions
for consideration, as shown below, and make these Then make the lead-in sentence a
fatigue "considerations" a requirement, not a "shall" statement instead of a "should"
suggestion. Also revise the lead-in sentence to statement to read" The following
draw attention to the fact that these considerations considrations shall be evaluated for
are for their impact on inspection plans, which is their impact on inspection plans where
sort-of assumed but not implicitly stated. applicable for vessels in cyclic service"
Add "cracking" before failures at the
end of the first sentence.
8 Roland Goodman 5.4.4 Editorial Delete "pressure and temperature" in the 5.4.4 Vessels in cyclic service (cycles
American parenthesis. of pressure, temperature, or
Petroleum Institute combinations of both) should be
Add commas before and after "where applicable".
evaluated for potential failures. The
(NonVoter)
Replace "an" with "the" in item (a). following considerations should be
evaluated, where applicable, for
vessels in cyclic service:
a. originally designed and fabrication
based on the applicable construction
code with additional consideration of
cyclic service operation;
Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
9 Dennis Layman 5.4.4 Technical BP supports the proposal; however, adding a more
BP p.l.c. clear definition of what constitutes "cyclic service"
should be considered. Most vessels are subject to
(Affirmative) pressure and/or temperature changes. The
magnitude and frequency are the concerns. As an
alternative to a definition, perhaps adding a few
examples of cyclic service vessels may be
beneficial.
Page 4 of 4
Ballot 510-28-07

Title: ASME PCC-2 References
Date: July 2007
Company: Chevron
Phone: 510-242-5396
Purpose: ASME PCC-2 2006 is first edition of Post Construction Repair of Pressure Equipment and
Piping Code. This ballot contains the initial references to PCC-2 and its applicable articles.
Revision: 0
Rationale: The ASME PCC-2 was published in 2006 and contains a number of relevant articles related
to pressure vessel component repair and pressure or tightness testing. The API 510 9th
edition proceeded in parallel with the ASME PCC-2 balloting and was not able to take
advantage of these valuable references. This ballot includes the pertinent information that
may be used by owner-users. In some cases, the ASME PCC-2 requirements, limitations,
etc. may be more detailed and rigorous than those found in API 510. In general, the
discretion to use the ASME PCC-2 articles is left to the owner-user to determine as well as
their obligation to meet the stated requirements and limitations therein.
Notes:
SECTION 2—REFERENCES
The most recent editions of the following standards, codes, and specifications are cited in this
inspection code.
ASME
PCC-2-2006 Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping
5.8 Pressure Testing

5.8.1 When to Perform a Pressure Test
5.8.1.1 Pressure tests are not normally conducted as part of routine inspection. A pressure
test is normally required after an alteration. After repairs are completed, a pressure test shall be
applied if the inspector believes that one is necessary. Alternatives to pressure tests are
outlined in 5.8.7.
5.8.1.2 Pressure tests are typically performed on an entire vessel. However, where practical,
pressure tests of vessel components/ sections can be performed in lieu of entire vessels (e.g. a
new nozzle). An engineer should be consulted when a pressure test of vessel
components/sections is to be performed to ensure it is suitable for the intended purpose.
5.8.1.3 General good practice for determining the reasons for and type of test, the test
pressure, and the procedure for pressure and tightness testing may be found in ASME PCC-2
Part 5: Article 5.1.
Page 1 of 2
Ballot 510-28-07
8.1.5.1.5 Welded Leak Box Repair

Normally, leak boxes are used to contain leaks at packings, at flanged and gasketed joints, or to
contain leaks (or potential leaks) due to local thinning. A welded leak box consists of an
enclosure to seal off or reinforce a component. The general good practice, including
precautions, limitations and considerations when using a welded leak box for as an interim
repair, may be found in ASME PCC-2, Part 2.
8.1.5.2 Permanent Repair

8.1.5.2.1 Typical permanent repair techniques include:
a. Excavating the defect, and blend-grinding to contour in accordance with API 579, Part 5.
b. Excavating a defect and repair welding of the excavation.
c. Replacing a section or the component containing the defect.
d. Weld overlay of corroded area.
e. Adding strip or plate lining to the interior surface.
f. External weld overlay for internal thinning.
Repairing a crack at a discontinuity, where stress concentrations are high, (e.g. crack in a
nozzle-to-shell weld) should not be attempted without prior consultation with an engineer.
General good practice related to the typical permanent repair techniques above or other
permanent repairs may be found in the following ASME PCC-2 articles:
⎯ Part 2: Article 2.1, Butt-Welded Insert Plates in Pressure Components;
⎯ Part. 2: Article 2.2, External Weld Overlay to Repair Methods for Internal Thinning;
⎯ Part 3: Article 3.1, Replacement of Pressure Components;
⎯ Part 3: Article 3.3, Damaged Threads in Tapped holes;
⎯ Part 3: Article 3.4, Flaw Excavation and Weld Repair.
8.1.5.2.2 Insert Plates

Damaged or corroded shell plates may be repaired by removing a section and replacing it with
an insert patch (flush patch) that meets the applicable code. Insert patches may be used if the
following requirements are met:
a. Full-penetration groove welds are provided.
b. The welds are radiographed in accordance with the applicable construction code. Ultrasonic
examination, by an industry-qualified UT shear wave examiner, may be substituted for the
radiography if the NDE procedures are approved by the inspector.
c. All insert plate corners that do not extend to an existing longitudinal or horizontal weld shall
be rounded having a 1 in. (25 mm) minimum radius. Weld proximity to existing welds shall
be reviewed by the engineer.
d. General good practice for replacing portions of pressure-retaining vessel shells by using
insert plates may be found in ASME PCC-2 Part 2: Article 2.1.
Page 2 of 2
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-28-07 ASME PCC-2 References Ballot ID: 1210

Proposal: Adds references to ASME PCC-2 covering vessel component repair and pressure/tightness testing.
VotingCategory
Vote Results
Gregory Alvarado Manufacturer Equity Engineering Group, Inc. No X
Mark Geisenhoff Manufacturer Flint Hills Resources, LP No X
Peter Hunt Operator-User Shell Canada Ltd. Yes X
Rick Nichols Manufacturer Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. Yes X
1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-28-07 ASME PCC-2 References Ballot ID: 1210

Proposal: Adds references to ASME PCC-2 covering vessel component repair and pressure/tightness testing.
VotingCategory
Roy Schubert Operator-User Shell Canada Energy, Ltd. Yes X

Total Responses: 31
Total Ballots: 38
Consensus: YES
2
Ballot: 510-28-07 ASME PCC-2 References Proposal: Adds references to ASME PCC-2 covering vessel Ballot ID: 1210 Date: September 10, 2007
component repair and pressure/tightness testing.
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
1 David Martinez Other I have reviewed the ballot item and agree with the
(NonVoter)
2 Takayasu Tahara Technical
Petroleum
Association of
Japan
(NonVoter)
3 Rick Nichols 8.1.5.2.1 Editorial If there is any chance that the Section numbers will
Roddey change in the PCC document, suggest that we not
Engineering include specific section number references. The
Services, Inc. user can look in the table of contents or index to
find the right section. If the section numbers
(Affirmative) should change, the S/C will have to come back and
edit 510.
4 Roy Schubert 8.1.5.1.5 Technical remove the word for after the words"welded leak when using a welded leak box as an
Shell Canada box" interim
Energy, Ltd. repair, may be found in ASME PCC-2,
(Affirmative) Part 2.
5 Peter Hunt 8.1.5.1.5 Editorial Leak boxes may also be mechanical types (i.e. "A welded or mechanical leak box
Shell Canada Ltd. bolted) as well as welded. Add mechanical leak consists of an ..."
boxes to "A welded leak box consists of an ..." The
(Affirmative) PCC includes mechanical leak boxes even though
the title is Welded Leak Boxes (working off a draft
of this document)
6 John Reynolds 8.1.5.1.5 Technical In 8.1.5.2.1, put the new "f" right after the current Add a new paragraph 5.1.5.1.6 which
Shell Global and "c", since they are closely related. would read substantially the same as
Solutions (US) Inc. 8.1.5.2.1 8.1.5.1.5, but refer to the PCC-2
Why not reference the rest of the articles in PCC-2, mechanical clamps article.
(Affirmative) especially the mechanical clamps article in an
additional paragraph 5.1.5.1.6?
Page 1 of 2
Ballot: 510-28-07 ASME PCC-2 References Proposal: Adds references to ASME PCC-2 covering vessel Ballot ID: 1210 Date: September 10, 2007
component repair and pressure/tightness testing.
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
7 Roland Goodman 5.8.1.3 Editorial See editorial changes. 5.8.1.3 See ASME PCC-2, Part 5,
American Article 5.1, for information on
Petroleum Institute determining the reasons for and type of
test, the test pressure, and a
(NonVoter) procedure for pressure and tightness
testing.
8 Roland Goodman 8.1.5.1.5 Editorial See editorial changes on the last sentence. See ASME PCC-2, Part 2, for
American precautions, limitations, and
Petroleum Institute considerations when using a welded
leak box for as an interim repair.
(NonVoter)
9 Roland Goodman 8.1.5.2.1 Technical Add paragraph numbers for ease of reference and 8.1.5.2.2 Repairing a crack at a
American delete the titles of the PCC-2 sections (the titles will discontinuity, where stress
Petroleum Institute be included in references section). concentrations are high, (e.g. crack in
a nozzle-to-shell weld) should not be
(NonVoter)
attempted without prior consultation
with an engineer.
8.1.5.2.3 See the following sections in
ASME PCC-2 for information on the
permanent repair techniques listed in
8.1.5.2.1 and other permanent repairs:
-- Part 2, Article 2.1;
-- Part 3, Article 3.4.
10 Roland Goodman 8.1.5.2.2 Editorial See editorial changes. See ASME PCC-2, Part 2, Article 2.1,
American for information on replacing portions of
Petroleum Institute pressure-retaining vessel shells by
using insert plates.
(NonVoter)
Page 2 of 2
Ballot 510-29-07

Title: Corrosion Averaging in Reinforced Areas
Date: July 2007
Company: Chevron
Phone: 510-242-5396
Purpose: Clarify limit for corrosion averaging within and near structural discontinuities, and 2)
Reference the applicable API 579 Part where corrosion thickness averaging in areas where
there are structural discontinuities is covered.
Revision: 0
Rationale: Technical corrections and clarifications regarding corrosion averaging of locally thinned
areas within or adjacent to structural discontinuities.
Notes: 1) An inquiry (510-I-04-07) was received which identified that there was a transition
between wording in API 510 8th Edition and API 9th Edition regarding thickness
averaging limitations of locally thinned areas near structural discontinuities. This ballot
will clarify the limitations and refer to the API 579 Part that contains information
regarding corrosion thickness averaging in these reinforced areas. It is important to
recognize that areas of reinforcement must be separated from base plate areas when
considering locally thinned areas and the thickness averaging criteria. The logic behind
this ballot comes from the following look-back and look-ahead at API 510 and API 579:
2) The original API 510 8th Edition wording prohibited extending outside of the area of
reinforcement for thickness averaging of a locally thinned area. This was sort of “inside-
looking-outside” of the question of reinforcement limits based on being within the
reinforcement calculation window. The wording in API 510 9th edition (reason for change
not documented) changed to limit thickness averaging for “nozzles” to not extend into the
area of reinforcement (stay away from the reinforcement window area). This is sort of
“outside-looking-inside” of the question of reinforcement limits.
3) By changing from prior 8th edition wording about “reinforcement area” to the current 9th
edition wording about “nozzle”, the reference for structural discontinuity went from
general “reinforcement” area to specific “nozzle”. This change lost continuity with
potential other types of reinforcement areas other than just nozzle-specific ones. Another
consideration that is not transparent when dealing with limits for nozzle reinforcement, is
that sometimes the reinforcement (such as a reinforcing pad) may be designed larger
based on piping load considerations which go beyond just the area of opening
reinforcement requirement. This is an important consideration and suggests that the 9th
edition change to “outside-looking-in” was a good change for nozzle reinforcement limits
so that the additional design reinforcement for such extended design-load considerations
are not compromised by extending thickness averaging into the additional reinforcement
area beyond that required by the reinforcement window that addresses only the area of
opening reinforcement. This ballot limits thickness averaging for areas outside of nozzle
reinforcement so that it stops at the more restrictive limit.
4) Meanwhile, as the transition between API 510 8th and 9th editions occurred with the
change in wording and perspective regarding limitation of thickness averaging near
reinforcement window to nozzle-specific, API 579 Part 4 was progressing which provides
information about considerations for thickness averaging in locally thinned areas near
Page 1 of 3
Ballot 510-29-07
structural discontinuities. It provides specific information and reference figures for

several types of reinforcement windows (nozzles, conical section transitions, and flange
connections).
5) This ballot is aimed at clarifying what the intended limitations are concerning corrosion
averaging in locally thinned areas, either within or outside of reinforcement windows, and
to refer to the API 579 Part 4 content. It also recognizes the change from the former API
579 to the joint standard API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, XXXX 2007 (API 579 SECOND
EDITION).
Former API 510 8th Edition wording for reference:
5.7 Corrosion and Minimum Thickness Evaluation

c. The depth of corrosion may be determined by gauging the uncorroded surfaces within the
vessel when such surfaces are in the vicinity of the corroded area. When the minimum actual
thickness or maximum corrosion rate is to be adjusted, one of the following evaluation
techniques should be considered:
a. For a corroded area of considerable size in which the circumferential stresses govern, the
least thickness along the most critical element of the area may be averaged over a longitudinal
length not exceeding the following:
1. For vessels with inside diameters less than or equal to 60 inches (150 centimeters), one-half
the vessel diameter or 20 inches (50 centimeters), whichever is less.
2. For vessels with inside diameters greater than 60
inches (150 centimeters), one-third the vessel diameter or
40 inches (100 centimeters), whichever is less.
When the area contains an opening, the distance on either side of the opening within
which the thicknesses are averaged shall not extend beyond the limits of the
reinforcement as defined in the ASME Code. If, because of wind loads or other factors, the
longitudinal stresses govern, the least thickness in a similarly determined length of arc in the
most critical plane perpendicular to the axis of the vessel also shall be averaged for computation
of the longitudinal stresses. The thickness used for determining corrosion rates at the respective
locations shall be the average thickness
determined as in the preceding. For the purposes of 5.4, the actual thickness as determined by
inspection shall be understood to mean the most critical value of the average thickness that has
been determined.
Current API 510 9th Edition wording with inserted changes to be made (Changes in
bold/underline)
7.4.2 Evaluation of Locally Thinned Areas
7.4.2.1 For a corroded area of considerable size the wall thicknesses may be averaged over a
length not exceeding the following:
Page 2 of 3
Ballot 510-29-07
For vessels with inside diameters less than or equal to 60 in. (150 cm), one-half the vessel
diameter or 20 in. (50 cm), whichever is less.
For vessels with inside diameters greater than 60 in. (150 cm), one-third the vessel diameter or
40 in. (100 cm), whichever is less.
7.4.2.2 Along the designated length, the thickness readings should be equally spaced. For
areas of considerable size, multiple lines in the corroded area may have to be evaluated to
determine which length has the lowest average thickness.
7.4.2.3 If circumferential stresses govern, (typical for most vessels) the thickness readings are
taken along a longitudinal length. If longitudinal stresses govern (because of wind loads or other
factors), the thickness readings are taken along a circumferential length (an arc).
7.4.2.4 When performing corrosion averaging near structural continuities (e.g. a nozzle,
conical section transition, and flange connection), the limits for thickness averaging shall be
considered separately for the reinforcement window area and the area outside/adjacent to the
reinforcement window a nozzle, the designated length shall not extend within the limits of the
reinforcement as defined in the construction code.
a. When performing corrosion averaging near a nozzle, the designated length shall not extend
within the limits of the reinforcement as defined in the construction code. Consideration shall be
given to any extra reinforcement included in the nozzle reinforcement design (e.g. a larger
extended reinforcing pad diameter to address piping load considerations).
b. Technical considerations for corrosion averaging within the reinforcement window for
structural discontinuities is provided in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Part 4.
7.4.2.5 When performing remaining life calculations in 7.2, the lowest average of any length in
the corroded area is substituted for tactual.
Page 3 of 3
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-29-07 Corrosion Averaging in Reinforced Areas Ballot ID: 1211

Proposal: Clarify the limit for corrosion averaging within and near structural discontinuities, and reference the applicable parts of API 579 covering corrosion
thickness averaging in areas where there are structural discontinuities.
VotingCategory
Vote Results
Rick Nichols Manufacturer Roddey Engineering Services, Inc. No X
1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 510-29-07 Corrosion Averaging in Reinforced Areas Ballot ID: 1211

Proposal: Clarify the limit for corrosion averaging within and near structural discontinuities, and reference the applicable parts of API 579 covering corrosion
thickness averaging in areas where there are structural discontinuities.
VotingCategory

Total Responses: 31
Total Ballots: 38
Consensus: YES
2
Ballot: 510-29-07 Corrosion Averaging in Proposal: Clarify the limit for corrosion averaging within and near Ballot ID: 1211 Date: September 10, 2007
Reinforced Areas structural discontinuities, and reference the applicable parts of
API 579 covering corrosion thickness averaging in areas where
there are structural discontinuities.
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
1 Gregory Alvarado 7.4.2.4 Technical Simply stated, all FFS rules should be removed
Equity Engineering from API 510 and API 570 and replaced with a
Group, Inc. direct reference to API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. The
thickness averaging rules in API 510 and API 570
(YetToVote)
are not correct and may result in unconservative
assessments. In addition, what is in these
documents is confusing and of limited.
We are now on the second edition of API 579, the
expertise for FFS assessments reside in the
API/ASME FFSJC, its time to remove all FFS rules
from API 510 and API 570. This is duplication of
material, duplication of effort, and likely a waste of
committee members time.
In addition, we just published the joint API/ASME
document to enhance acceptance by jurisdictions.
Duplication of rules in API 510 and API 570 only
confuse the issue. In fact, a jurisdiction may
decide to limit FFS evaluations based on the old
FFS rules in API 510 and API 570, not a good
situation.
We should be pointing users of 510. 570 and 653
inspection documents to the API/ASME joint
standard for the reasons stated above.
Greg Alvarado on behalf of D.A. Osage
(NonVoter)
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
3 John Reynolds 7.4.2.4 Technical I support this improvement to this section. My 7.4.2.4 When performing corrosion
Shell Global comments are minor editorial attempts to averaging near structural
Solutions (US) Inc. improvement understanding and wording. Revise discontinuities (such as a nozzle,
to add other areas of high local stress, as shown. conical section transition, and flange
(Affirmative) Structural continuities did not seem like the right connection), the limits for thickness
description, so I changed it to "discontinuties", but averaging must be considered
I'm not sure that's the right word, but separately for the reinforcement
"reinforcement window area" is not all inclusive of window area (or other area of local
the type of joint that we're addressing, though it high stress) and the area
obviously covers nozzles. outside/adjacent to the reinforcement
window (or other area of local high
stress).
a) revise second sentence to add wind
loads: Consideration must be given to
any extra reinforcement included in the
nozzle reinforcement design (such as a
larger extended reinforcing pad
diameter to address piping load
considerations, or wind loads).
4 John Reynolds 7.4.2.4a Technical Para a: "When performing corrosion averaging Perhaps simply stating this is cleaner/
Shell Global near a nozzle, the designated length shall not better : " b. Fitness-for-service for
Solutions (US) Inc. extend within the limits of the reinforcement as corroded areas within the
defined in the construction code." clashes with reinforcement window for structural
(Affirmative) Para b. Technical considerations for corrosion discontinuities is provided in API 579-
averaging within the reinforcement window for 1/ASME FFS-1, XXXX 2007 (API 579
structural discontinuities is provided in API 579- SECOND EDITION) Part 4. "
1/ASME FFS-1, XXXX 2007 (API 579 SECOND
EDITION) Part 4.
The 510 code says you shall not do thickness

averaging, but 579 gives guidelines to do so....
Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
5 Roland Goodman 7.4.2.4b Editorial See editorial change. b. See 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Part 4, for
American technical considerations when
Petroleum Institute performing corrosion averaging within
the reinforcement window for structural
(NonVoter) discontinuities.
6 James Riley Technical Correct the typo for the wording "structural
Chevron Energy & continuities" to read correctly as "structural
Technology discontinuities"
Company
(Affirmative)
7 John O'Brien 7.4.2.4 Editorial 7.4.2.4 line one has a typo I believe and it should Make the correction as identified in the
Chevron Energy read 'When performing corrosion averaging near comment.
Technology structural discontinuities'
Company
(NonVoter)
Page 3 of 3
Ballot 570-25-07

Title: Operational Envelope and Process Parameter Monitoring
Date: July 2007
Company: Chevron
Phone: 510-242-5396
Purpose: Add the definition for “operational envelope” and “process parameter monitoring” along with
applicable new paragraphs that recommend (non-mandatory) these practices
Revision: 0
Rationale: A number of owner-users are following internal practices in the areas of operational
envelope and process parameter monitoring to ensure safe production operations. Refer to
NACE conference September 2004 3.0 Section II – Managing Critical Process Variables
Related to Maintaining Equipment Reliability as a source (Shell, Flint Hills Resources, Dow,
Imperial Oil: others known to be using similar practices are Chevron, BP)
Notes: Define concept of “operational envelope” and “process parameter monitoring” and include
them in Section 6 - reference to practices in SECTION 6 – FREQUENCY AND EXTENT OF
INSPECTION. Use the same wording that was approved in the ballot for API 510.
3.xx operational envelope
The physical, technical, environmental, business and process safety constraints within which a
process unit must be operated. The operating parameters that provide for just the mechanical
integrity limitations are referred to as the integrity operational envelope.
3.xx process parameter monitoring
The monitoring of key and critical process parameters that are needed to ensure that the
process stays within the operational envelope. Those process parameters that greatly influence
corrosiveness and possible materials degradation within an operating process are referred to as
integrity-based process parameters.
6.1.2 Process Surveillance
The following may effectively be used to ensure safe production and proactively monitor piping
condition:
a. An operational envelope may be established for a process.

b. A process parameter monitoring program may be established for a process.
Page 1 of 1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 570-25-07 Operational Envelope & Process Parameter Monitoring Ballot ID: 1212

Proposal: Add definitions for “operational envelope” and “process parameter monitoring” along with new sections that discuss these practices.
VotingCategory
Vote Results
Robert Dolejs Manufacturer UOP LLC Yes X
1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 570-25-07 Operational Envelope & Process Parameter Monitoring Ballot ID: 1212

Proposal: Add definitions for “operational envelope” and “process parameter monitoring” along with new sections that discuss these practices.
VotingCategory

Total Responses: 32
Total Ballots: 38
Consensus: YES
2
Ballot: 570-25-07 Operational Envelope & Proposal: Add definitions for “operational envelope” and Ballot ID: 1212 Date: September 10, 2007
Process Parameter Monitoring “process parameter monitoring” along with new sections that
discuss these practices.
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
1 Gregory Alvarado Technical I understand what the authors are attmepting to do 3.xx operational envelope
Equity Engineering with references to words such as physical,
environment and business and process safety. Operating envelopes or limits are
Group, Inc. defined and applied to key and critical
See edits below which try to make the definitions
(Negative) more understandable to an inspector and other process parameters. Operating
technical people who are responsible for following outside the envelope/s could lead to
570 rules and guidelines. premature failure of equiment and
subsequent release of materials. This
release could negatively impact health
and safety, the environment and
business or reliability performance.
The monitoring of key and critical
process parameters that are needed to
ensure that the process stays within
the operational envelope. Those
process parameters that greatly
influence equipment or materials
degradation within an operating
process are equipment integrity-based
process parameters.
(NonVoter)
3 Peter Hunt 3.XX Editorial Need to add regulatory on fisrt sentence. The physical, technical, environmental,
Shell Canada Ltd. business, regulatory and process
safety constraints within which a
(Affirmative)
process unit must be operated.
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
4 John Reynolds 3.xx Technical Suggest we adopt the definition that has been integrity operating envelope
Shell Global successfully balloted for the ISIJC
integrity operating window
Solutions (US) Inc.
(Negative) Established limits for process variables
that may can affect the integrity of the
equipment if the process operation
deviates from the established limits for
a predetermined amount of time.
5 John Reynolds 6.1.2 Technical Suggest we adopt the wording of the ISIJC for 4.1.2 Integrity operating
Shell Global Integrity Operating Envelopes which has been envelopes (windows) should be
Solutions (US) Inc. successfully balloted. established for all variables process
parameters (both physical and
(Negative) chemical) that could impact equipment
integrity if not properly controlled.
Examples of the process parameters
variables include temperatures,
pressures, fluid velocities, pH, flow
rates, chemical or water injection rates,
levels of corrosive constituents,
chemical composition, etc. Key
process parameters for integrity
operatingor envelopes should be
identified and implemented, upper and
lower limits established, as needed,
and variations deviations from these
limits should be brought to the
attention of inspection/engineering
personnel. Particular attention to
monitoring integrity operating
envelopes should also be provided
during start-ups, shutdowns and
significant process upsets.
6 John Reynolds 3.xx Editorial Slight edit change to allign with IOE terminology First sentence: add "integrity" in front
Shell Global Process from ISIJC of operational
Solutions (US) Inc. Parameter
Monitoring
(Negative)
Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
7 Robert Dolejs 3.xx Editorial 1. Change the second sentence of the operational
UOP LLC envelope definition as follows: The operating
parameters that establish a boundary for just the
(Affirmative)
mechancial integrity limitations are referred to as
the operational envelope.
2. delete the second sentence in the process
parameter monitoring defintion or make it a
separate defintiion.
8 Roland Goodman 3 Editorial The second sentences of both definitions should 3.xx operational envelope
American be included as notes.
The physical, technical, environmental,
Petroleum Institute business and process safety
(NonVoter) constraints within which a process unit
must be operated.
NOTE The operating parameters that
provide for just the mechanical integrity
limitations are referred to as the
integrity operational envelope.
The monitoring of key and critical
process parameters that are needed to
ensure that the process stays within
the operational envelope.
NOTE Those process parameters
that greatly influence corrosiveness
and possible materials degradation
within an operating process are
referred to as integrity-based process
parameters.
Page 3 of 3
Ballot 570-26-07

Title: Missed Piping Traps
Date: July 2007
Company: Chevron
Phone: 510-242-5396
Purpose: Cover piping that may fall outside of a normal piping circuit inspection program and not be
recognized as a being a localized corrosion concern
Source: API 570
Revision: 0
Rationale: A lesson learned in industry stemmed from a failure where a “swing-out” spool that was
installed near a pump discharge was thought to be isolated and not removed after a plant
turnaround. The block valve failed and the temporary spool which was then subject to the
process failed due to sulfidation. This ballot addresses all temporary piping spools (including
swing-out spools) that may be left, either isolated, or in continuous operation to prevent a
PMI problem or potential failure due to unexpected degradation or hidden failure.
Notes: 1) Instrument bridle piping is sometimes missed in a piping circuit inspection program.
5.3.5 Service-Specific and Localized Corrosion
An effective inspection program includes the following three four elements, which help identify
the potential for service specific and localized corrosion and select appropriate TMLs:
a. An inspector with knowledge of the service and where corrosion is likely to occur.
b. Extensive use of nondestructive examination (NDE).
c. Communication from operating personnel when process upsets occur that may affect
corrosion rates.
d. Identification of piping that may be missed from the ordinary piping circuit inspection
programs that pose a degradation concern. Examples of piping that may inadvertently be
missed include instrument bridles for equipment connecting to piping circuits, temporary
piping used during maintenance outages, and swing-out spools.
Where a temporary (or swing-out) piping spool has not been removed prior process operation
start-up, the owner-user should verify that the temporary piping is either effectively isolated from
the process (such as double-block valve or isolation blind), or that the temporary piping is of
adequate material and mechanical design for the continued process operation. Particular
concern is raised for temporary piping that may become subject to high temperature sulfidation.
If the temporary piping is isolated and left for a significant period of time, lock-out/tag-out may
be considered to prevent inappropriate and inadvertent service.
Page 1 of 2
Ballot 570-26-07
A few examples of where this type of corrosion might be expected to occur include the following:
a. Downstream of injection points and upstream of product separators, such as in

hydroprocess reactor effluent lines.
b. Dew-point corrosion in condensing streams, such as overhead fractionation.
c. Unanticipated acid or caustic carryover from processes into non alloyed piping systems or
caustic carryover into steel piping systems that are not postweld heat treated.
d. Ammonium salt condensation locations in hydroprocess streams.
e. Mixed-phase flow and turbulent areas in acidic systems.
f. Mixed grades of carbon steel piping in hot corrosive oil service [450°F (230°C) or higher
temperature and sulfur content in the oil greater than 0.5 percent by weight]. Note that non
silicon killed steel pipe, such as A-53 and API 5L, may corrode at higher rates than does
silicon killed steel pipe, such as A-106, especially in high-temperature sulfidic environments.
g. Under-deposit corrosion in slurries, crystallizing solutions, or coke producing fluids.
h. Chloride carryover in catalytic reformer regeneration systems.
i. Hot-spot corrosion on piping with external heat tracing. In services that become much more
corrosive to the piping with increased temperature, such as caustic in carbon steel,
corrosion or stress corrosion cracking (SCC) can occur at hot spots that develop under low-
flow conditions.
Page 2 of 2
9/10/2007
Ballot: 570-26-07 Missed Piping Traps Ballot ID: 1213

Proposal: Cover piping that may fall outside of a normal piping circuit inspection program and not be recognized as a being a localized corrosion concern
VotingCategory
Vote Results
Craig Harley Contractor General Physics Corp. Yes X
Dennis Layman Operator-User BP p.l.c. Yes X
1
9/10/2007
Ballot: 570-26-07 Missed Piping Traps Ballot ID: 1213

Proposal: Cover piping that may fall outside of a normal piping circuit inspection program and not be recognized as a being a localized corrosion concern
VotingCategory
Michael Shallis Manufacturer Acuren Inspection, Inc. Yes X
Steven Wells Manufacturer Pro-Inspect Inc. Yes X

Total Responses: 31
Total Ballots: 38
Consensus: YES
2
Ballot: 570-26-07 Missed Piping Traps Proposal: Cover piping that may fall outside of a normal piping Ballot ID: 1213 Date: September 10, 2007
circuit inspection program and not be recognized as a being a
localized corrosion concern
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
1 Gregory Alvarado Technical I added "no flow" to the examples of conditions and Where a temporary (or swing-out)
Equity Engineering suggest wording not be limited to particularly piping spool has not been removed
Group, Inc. sulfidation as this may cause readers to only prior process operation start-up, the
consider this one damage mechanism. We can owner-user should verify that the
(Affirmative) work this at the meeting. temporary piping is either effectively
isolated from the process (such as
double-block valve or isolation blind),
or that the temporary piping is of
adequate material and mechanical
design for the continued process
operation, including no flow. Particular
concern is raised for temporary piping
that may become subject to high
temperature sulfidation.
If the temporary piping is isolated and
left for a significant period of time, lock-
out/tag-out may be considered to
prevent inappropriate and inadvertent
service.
2 Craig Harley General Editorial Replace the term TML with CML.
General Physics
Corp.
(Affirmative)
(NonVoter)
4 Nat Faransso 5.3.5.d Editorial needs "to" between prior and process Add "to" between "prior" and "process
KBR (2nd Para,
1st line)
(Affirmative)
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
5 Steven Wells Technical Some contract companies do capture this type of

Pro-Inspect Inc. piping. We lable it as intermittent service piping.
In this arena we will ask questions like is the
(Affirmative) spool/circuit flushed when taken out of service etc.
so we can peg the corrosion rate.
6 Peter Hunt 5.3.5 Technical Ackward sentence in first para below bulleted removed prior to an operational
Shell Canada Ltd. items. i.e removed prior process operation start-up process start-up
(Affirmative)
7 John Reynolds 5.3.5 Technical Although I agree that this issue is a good edition to Move the temporary and swing-out
Shell Global our inspection standards, I don't think it fits well in spool issue to API RP 578, 2nd edition.
Solutions (US) Inc. 5.3.5, which is a list of "soft stuff" like knowledge
Move the level bridle piping comments
and work practices for inspectors. I think it fits
(Negative) to SBP section
much better in API 578 which is now being
updated.
BTW: Level bridle piping issue fits much better
under Small Bore Piping and Secondary Piping
sections.
8 Michael Shallis Editorial Section 5.3.5 Change "TML's" to "CML's"
Acuren Inspection,
Inc.
(Affirmative)
9 Roland Goodman 5.3.5d Editorial Move examples to a separate line per the API style d. Identification of piping that may be
American guide. missed from the ordinary piping circuit
Petroleum Institute inspection programs that pose a
degradation concern.
(NonVoter)
EXAMPLES Instrument bridles for
equipment connecting to piping
circuits, temporary piping used during
maintenance outages, and swing-out
spools.
Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
10 Roland Goodman 5.3.5 Editorial See editorial changes to the last two sentences in Special attention should be given to
American second paragraph. temporary piping that can become
Petroleum Institute subject to high temperature sulfidation.
If the temporary piping is isolated and
(NonVoter) left for a significant period of time, lock-
out/tag-out procedures may be used to
prevent inappropriate and inadvertent
service.
11 Dennis Layman 5.3.5 Technical The addition of paragraph 5.3.5.d is acceptable; "Where a temporary (or swing-out)
BP p.l.c. Service however, the proposed paragraph following item d. piping spool has not been removed
Specific includes recommended maintenance practices, prior to process operation start-up, the
(Affirmative) and which should not be part of an Inspection Code. owner-user should verify that the
Localized temporary piping is effectivey isolated
Corrosion from the process or verify that the
temporary piping is adequate material
and designed for the continued
process operation."
12 James Riley Technical Add the information in the RP 574 recent ballot,
Chevron Energy & definition for "deadlegs", Note list of piping to that
Technology in this ballot.
Company
(Affirmative)
Page 3 of 3

API 510and570 BallotResults Fall2007 510-570prelimballresults-F07

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

API 510and570 BallotResults Fall2007 510-570prelimballresults-F07

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Attachment 2

API 510 and 570 Ballot Results – Fall 2007

510-25-07 510-136 Inspection of Vessels not exceeding ASME 15 psig limits

Scorecard Item: 510-136

a. vessels constructed in accordance with an applicable construction code;

b. vessels constructed without a construction code (non-code) - a vessel not fabricated to a

c. vessels constructed and approved as jurisdictional special based upon jurisdiction

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

Scorecard Item: 510-167

3.60 temporary interim repairs

a. Construction and design information. For example, equipment serial number . . . .

8.1.5.1 Temporary Interim Repairs

a. location of the temporary interim repair,

c. details of analyses performed,

d. requirements for future inspections, and

e. due date for installing a permanent repair.

8.1.5.1.2.1 Fillet-welded patches may be used to make temporary repairs to damaged,

Ballot: 510-26-07 Interim Repairs Ballot ID: 1217

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Ballot: 510-26-07 Interim Repairs Ballot ID: 1217

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

Scorecard Item: 510-169

5.4.4 Vessels in cyclic service (cycles of pressure, temperature, or combinations of both

b. potential for corrosion under insulation (CUI);

Ballot: 510-27-07 Cyclic Service Vessels (Reballot) Ballot ID: 1209

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Ballot: 510-27-07 Cyclic Service Vessels (Reballot) Ballot ID: 1209

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

time-of-flight diffraction ultrasonics

Scorecard Item: 510-172

5.8 Pressure Testing

8.1.5.1.5 Welded Leak Box Repair

8.1.5.2 Permanent Repair

8.1.5.2.2 Insert Plates

Ballot: 510-28-07 ASME PCC-2 References Ballot ID: 1210

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Ballot: 510-28-07 ASME PCC-2 References Ballot ID: 1210

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

Scorecard Item: 510-173

structural discontinuities. It provides specific information and reference figures for

Former API 510 8th Edition wording for reference:

5.7 Corrosion and Minimum Thickness Evaluation

7.4.2 Evaluation of Locally Thinned Areas

Ballot: 510-29-07 Corrosion Averaging in Reinforced Areas Ballot ID: 1211

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Ballot: 510-29-07 Corrosion Averaging in Reinforced Areas Ballot ID: 1211

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

The 510 code says you shall not do thickness

Scorecard Item: 570-043

3.xx operational envelope

3.xx process parameter monitoring

6.1.2 Process Surveillance

a. An operational envelope may be established for a process.

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Start Date: 8/2/07 Closing Date: 9/7/07 Associate: Roland Goodman

Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

Scorecard Item: 570-046