FAILURES 2006

DEVELOPMENTS IN POST CONSTRUCTION CODES AND STANDARDS IN THE UNITED STATES

C. Becht IV, J. R. Sims*

Significant activity in preparation of new codes, standards and recommended practices that deal with equipment after it has been placed in service has taken place within the United States. These activities have been driven by the aging of facilities, and by a need to mitigate the increasing numbers of severe losses in process plants. The new codes and standards provide recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice to guide the owner in the inspection, evaluation and repair of existing equipment. This paper describes the current status of many of these activities.

WHY POST CONSTRUCTION CODES AND STANDARDS

The aging of our infrastructure has led to increasing numbers of severe incidents (e.g., >$10 million US) as the decades have passed. Recognizing that steel pipe was not in use at the turn of the 20th century, and arc welding was not commonly used until after World War II, one can readily understand that most industrial facilities have been built during the last 50 years. They were initially constructed with finite economic lives in mind. Yet, we cannot afford to replace them. Thus, there has been an increasing need for good post construction standards for the inspection, evaluation and repair of existing equipment including pressure vessels, piping, and storage tanks. Increasing incidents, including several very large and highly publicized ones, also led, within the United States, to regulatory action. Perhaps the most well known is OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119 Process Safety Management [1]. This regulation requires that recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice (RAGAGEP) be followed. This also created the desirable objective for industry to document what RAGAGEP was. Otherwise, the standard is very subjective. Many American Petroleum Institute (API) standards were developed after this new OSHA regulation was created.

POST CONSTRUCTION CODES

There are a number of post construction codes dealing with inspection, alteration and repair of existing pressure equipment. Post construction codes in the US include the following, listed in order of their original publication dates.
* Becht Engineering Co., Inc., 22 Church Street, Liberty Corner, NJ 07938

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

API 510 NB-23 API 653 API 570

Pressure Vessel Inspection Code [2] National Board Inspection Code [3] Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction [4] Piping Inspection Code [5]

The last of these documents to be published, API 570, has been in place since 1993. Thus, none of these are new, they are simply listed for reference and context. A joint ASME and API committee is being formed to create a new joint API/ASME document that combines the elements included in API 570 and API 510. The scope of the new inspection code will be the same as the existing ones, the petroleum refining and chemical process industry. This Code, as with the API codes, will be for sophisticated owners that have their own, owner-user inspection organization. The National Board Inspection Code (NBIC, NB-23) is a post construction code adopted for use by jurisdictions for inspection and repairs/alterations to pressure retaining items (boilers, pressure vessels and piping) containing internal or external pressure. Use of the NBIC is not limited to specific codes of construction but defines administrative and technical requirements needed to inspect, repair or alter pressure retaining items fabricated to any acceptable code of construction. The NBIC has recently incorporated fitness for service assessment criteria and expanded sections for inspection and repairs to Fiber Reinforced Vessels, graphite vessels, installation requirements for pressure items and incorporated additional inspection information related to specific types of pressure items such as Yankee Dryers (Appendix K). The NBIC continues to be revised on an annual basis with issue dates of December 31st for every year. The NBIC Committee continues to seek input from industries and organizations involved with pressure equipment to address their needs and concerns and facilitate cooperation and communication to improve and unify safety requirements. For example, the NBIC Committee is working closely with ASME Post Construction Committee to utilize their efforts in developing specific guidelines and standards for repairs to pressure items. The NBIC Committee is also looking to expand on various methods of repairs that are consistently utilized by repair organizations that involve welding, bonding or mechanical assembly. Revisions to the NBIC are posted on the National Board web site (www.nationalboard.org) for public review and comment. Interested individuals are encouraged to submit comments to assist in improving the NBIC and facilitate its use internationally. The NBIC is presently being used in over 50 different countries and will continue to expand appropriate information that can be utilized worldwide.

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

POST CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION STANDARDS

Traditional in-service inspection codes for pressure equipment have focused primarily on establishing fixed intervals for internal and external visual examination based on experience and engineering judgement. More recent guidelines and standards that have been published or are in preparation use a risk-based approach to optimise both inspection intervals and the type of non-destructive examination to be used (UT, RT, MT, PT, VT, etc.). These standards generally specify the following steps for each equipment item or piping circuit: x Determine the deterioration mechanisms that are credible considering the materials of construction, operating conditions and fluid service. Guidance on over 100 deterioration mechanisms that have been identified in the refining industry are provided in API-571 [6]. Similar documents have been prepared for the pulp and paper industry and fossil electric power industry and are published in WRC Bulletins 488 and 490 [7, 8]. Determine the probability that the deterioration mechanism will lead to a failure, and determine the failure mode. This is generally done either using a program with built in assumptions, or by a multi-disciplinary team, including an experienced materials engineer. Determine the consequences of the failure(s) identified. This should be done by developing one or more failure scenarios, then determining the potential safety, health, environmental, and economic consequences. Determine the base case or unmitigated risk. Risk is the probability of an adverse event occurring (e.g. corrosion under insulation leading to a leak) times its consequence. If the risk is not acceptable, develop an inspection program that addresses the specific deterioration mechanisms of concern. Combinations of on-stream and off-stream examination strategies are considered to reduce the risk to an acceptable level with the lowest economic impact.

The concepts of risk-based inspection have been developed and are being implemented. The intent of risk based inspection is to utilize finite resources for inspection to the greatest benefit, by allocating these resources in a manner that achieves the greatest overall reduction in risk. The following standards have been developed and/or are in the process of being developed. API RP 581 Base Resource Document-Risk Based Inspection [9]. This document provides one method for risk based inspections. API RP 580 Risk Based Inspection [10]. This document was published in 2002. It provides more general requirements for risk based inspection that enable the user to implement one of a number of possible methods. It is written for the process industry, although it is applicable in the general sense to all industries.

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

ASME Inspection Planning. This document is in draft form. Publication will probably be in one to two years. It provides general requirements for qualitative, semi-quantitative, and fully quantitative risk based inspection. It is intended to apply to all industries. It has been deliberately drafted to largely parallel API RP 580, to maintain consistency in the industry. Where improvements have been made to the text, API will consider incorporation of the different text into the next edition of API 580. The most significant difference is that the ASME document will cover fully quantitative risk based inspection. This was not included in API 580 because fully quantitative risk based inspection planning is not generally used in the process industry.

FITNESS FOR SERVICE

During inspection, flaws that exceed the limits permitted by new construction codes may be found. For example, a degree of corrosion that exceeds the original corrosion allowance may be found. Yet, the equipment or piping may actually be fit for continued service. One example is a local thin area. An area of local corrosion may yet have a high margin to failure, provided there is sufficient remaining metal around that local area (consider, for example, a nozzle, which has no remaining thickness in a local area). ASME Section XI [11], for nuclear power plants, contains methods for evaluating such flaws. Existing non-nuclear post construction codes provide some very limited methods of evaluation (e.g., for evaluating local corrosion or pitting). There was a need in the non-nuclear industry for a document to provide comprehensive methods, to document RAGAGEP. API 579, Fitness-for-Service [12], published in 2000, provides methods for evaluating flaws, with the intent that it be referenced by post construction codes, such as API 510, API 570 and NB-23. It is now referenced in the API documents. API 579 covers a number of types of damage, including assessment of equipment for brittle fracture, general metal loss, local metal loss, pitting corrosion, blisters and laminations, weld misalignment and shell distortions, crack-like flaws, and fire damage. It provides comprehensive flaw evaluation methods for the process industry. It is structured to provide three levels of evaluation for each flaw, from very simple, to highly complex. Specific requirements are not provided for Level 3, the most detailed assessment. Rather, Level 3 provides for current best practice, using sophisticated techniques (e.g., finite element analysis), by experts. ASME and API have formed a joint committee to create a new fitness-for-service document based on API 579, but more generally applicable to all industries, such as utilities. The committee was formed in 2002 and is nearing completion of the new document, which should be published in 2006. Some of the changes to the existing API 579 standard are listed below.

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

(1) (2)

The Sections are now called Parts. revisions.

Most parts have extensive

Part 3 on brittle fracture has several "fine tuning" modifications and a significant change to the definition of shock cooling, which now includes calculations based on heat transfer coefficient. Parts 4 and 5 include many significant changes that modify the way the LTA analysis must be done. It will be necessary to calculate a MAWP for the component and to consider the extent of the thin area to be anything less than the thickness used to calculate the MAWP. In addition, the Level 2 rules for determining the circumferential extent of the thin area have been rewritten using a "design by analysis" approach. New Level 1 rules for the circumferential extent will include screening curves. Part 6 on pitting will have pictures for determining the RSF for a field of pits at Level 1. The Level 2 rules have been modified to require calculation of a MAWP. Part 7 on H2 blisters and laminations has been rewritten entirely, and now includes an "LTA-like" assessment and requirements to evaluate cracks. Part 8 on shell distortions and weld misalignment has been revised to accommodate new approaches. Part 9 on crack-like flaws has been updated without major revisions. However, Appendix C, which provides the stress intensity solutions, has been extensively revised to correct errors in the tables and to modify the calculation approach. The primary emphasis is now on weight function methods rather than the polynomial curve fits. Part 10 on creep damage is completely new. Parts 11 and 12 have been extensively revised.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6) (7)

(8) (9)

(10) Appendix B on Design by Analysis has been divided into four parts and totally rewritten to incorporate the approach being developed for the ASME B&PV, Section VIII, Div. 2 rewrite. (11) Other appendices and parts have extensive, but relatively minor, changes.

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

REPAIR
After a defect is found that is not acceptable via a flaw evaluation/fitness-for-service analysis, a repair or replacement is required for continued operation. A few repair methods are provided in Section XI and in existing post construction codes. However, these are quite limited in scope. Also, there are many repair methods in common use, including those for nuclear power plants per Section XI, that are not recognized in other post construction codes. Recognizing the need in this area, ASME has prepared a new standard, Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping, PCC-2. It provides methods for repair of equipment and piping within the scope of ASME Pressure Technology Codes and Standards after it has been placed in service. These repair methods include relevant design, fabrication, examination and testing practices. The repairs may be either temporary or permanent, depending on the circumstances. Equipment and piping within the scope of ASME Pressure Technology Codes and Standards includes piping (including pipelines) and piping components (such as valves), boilers, pressure vessels (including heat exchangers) and storage tanks. While this standard covers repair of equipment within the scope of ASME Pressure Technology Codes and Standards, it may be used on equipment constructed in accordance with other codes and standards. The standard is being written in modular form. Each repair article is essentially stand alone, with the exception that one section on general requirements applies to all. The first edition of this new standard is approved for publication and will be published in 2006. There is often some interest in permanent versus temporary repairs. Many of the repair techniques included in this new standard are considered to be permanent, intended to remain in place for the life of the repaired component. Others may only be suitable for short term service, and should be replaced with a more permanent repair at the appropriate opportunity. The anticipated life of the repair depends on many circumstances, and could include consideration of risk. As such, the standard does not classify repair methods as permanent or temporary. Rather, technical considerations that affect the expected life of the repair are stated in the individual articles. The articles that are approved for inclusion in the first edition include the following. Note that many other repair articles are in preparation or various stages of approval. As a result, the intent is to publish a first edition in 2006 and a second edition, a year later, in 2007. x x x x x Repair Method for Butt Welded Insert Plates in Pressure Components External Weld Overlay Repair Methods for Internal Thinning Seal Welded Threaded Connections and Seal Weld Repairs Welded Leak Repair Box Full Encirclement Steel Sleeves for Piping

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

x x x x x x x x x x x x

Replacement of Pressure Components Freeze Plugs Repair of Damaged Threads in Tapped Holes Flaw Excavation and Weld Repair Flange Refinishing Mechanical Clamps Pipe Straightening Repair Guidelines for Damaged Anchors in Concrete Non-Metallic Composite Wrap Systems for Piping and Pipework: High Risk Applications Non-Metallic Composite Wrap Systems for Pipe: Low Risk Metal Pipe Non-Metallic Internal Lining for Pipe-Sprayed Form for Buried Piping Pressure and Tightness Testing of Piping and Equipment

PIPELINE DEVELOPMENTS
As a result of recent accidents and driven by impending legislation, significant developments have occurred in the preparation of post construction standards specifically directed at pipeline safety. After an intensive one-year effort, ASME B31.8S, Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines [13] was published in 2002. The Standard is specifically designed to provide pipeline operators with the information necessary to develop and implement an effective integrity management program. The document focuses on risk-based methods. Methods of integrity assessment include inline inspections, pressure testing and direct assessment. The contents of the document include chapters addressing Consequences; Gathering, Reviewing, and Integrating Data; Risk Assessment; Integrity Assessment; Responses to Integrity Assessments and Mitigation (Repair and Prevention); Integrity Management Plan; Performance Plan; Communications Plan; Management of Change; and Quality Control Plan. API Standard 1160, Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquids Pipelines [14] provides similar guidance for liquid transmission pipelines.

BOLTED JOINTS
While the various considerations associated with the design of flange joints are covered in great detail in the ASME Pressure Vessel Code and in the literature, much less attention has been given to the elements that comprise recognized and generally accepted good joint assembly practices. Yet, analyses of flange leak events have time and time again identified the assembly practice employed as the root cause of poor leak-tightness performance, clearly identifying joint assembly as being critical to joint performance and strongly suggesting the need for an industry document covering proven assembly practices. The ASME Post Construction Committee prepared PCC-

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

1, entitled Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly, [15] to address this need. As noted in the title, PCC-1 is a guidelines document that covers the assembly elements essential for leak-tight performance of otherwise properly designed and constructed bolted flange joints for which the torquing method of bolt tightening will be used. Accordingly, these guidelines allow preparation of written procedures for use by joint assemblers that incorporate the proven features deemed suitable for the specific applications under consideration. PCC-1 covers the following proven practices: x x The basic requirements for qualifying joint assemblers and the joint assembly procedure to be used. Examination of working surfaces, including recommended gasket contact surface finish for various gasket types. Also advice regarding the flatness tolerance for flange contact surface is given. Alignment of mating surfaces. Installation of gaskets. Lubrication of working surfaces. Installation of bolts. Numbering of bolts. Tightening of bolts, including tightening methods/load control techniques. Tightening sequence, including group tightening when the number of bolts is 36 or greater. Measurement of gaps. Target torques based on test-verified torque/tension results for both non-coated and coated bolts of nominal diameters from inch to 4 inch. Joint leak-tightness test. Joint disassembly Records.

x x x x x x x x x x x x

A task force has been formed to develop additional details for PCC-1 with respect to the qualification of flanged joint assemblers. The intent is to provide a program for assembler qualification. This qualification program can then be adopted, if desired, by owner-users, code book sections, or others that are looking to improve the quality of the flanged joint assembly process. A follow-on effort to PCC-1 was funded by the Materials Technology Institute, Inc. (MTI) to develop, based on the PCC-1 guidelines, an essentially generic bolted flange joint procedure with the focus being mainly on ASME B16.5 [16] standard pipe flanges. This document fleshes out the details of the PCC-1 topics outlined above in a format that can, with modest supplementation, be quickly transformed into a working written procedure for specific service applications. Additionally, a singlepage bolted joint pretightening check list is provided, as are six, single-page bolt tightening worksheets, one for each of the six bolting patterns for ASME B16.5

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

flanges. These worksheets include the bolt numbering and tightening sequence for the bolt pattern under consideration, such that, with the addition of the appropriate torque information, they serve as a work-efficient field reference. To train joint assemblers in the proper application of this PCC-1-derived bolted flange joint procedure, MTI also arranged for the design of a joint assembly test rig, supplemented by a joint assembler instruction and qualification test using the test rig.

MAINTENANCE
Risk is also being used as a tool to improve maintenance and turnaround decision making. Often one is faced with alternative maintenance strategies, with varied costs and benefits. Sometimes, spending money on maintenance can actually have an unintended effect of increasing risk. This can be the case in refurbishing spared pumps. Other examples are the effect of inspector damage to protective coatings, and removal of protective oxide films to perform inspections. Risk analysis is a powerful tool to rationalize the decision making process. In risk based maintenance planning, the deterioration mechanisms are identified for each piece of critical equipment. Probabilities of failure, on an annual basis, and the consequences, are identified. These consequences can be economic, and can be health safety and environment related. While health safety and environmental consequences can be characterized in dollars, it is common practice to evaluate these qualitatively using a risk matrix. The net present value of the economic risk is calculated, and alternative maintenance strategies to mitigate this risk are evaluated. Alternative strategies can include inspection, walk by inspection, replacement, coating, changing operating parameters, etc. Optimally, the stakeholders from the operating facility are involved, including maintenance, operations and inspection. The maintenance strategy that achieves an appropriate return on investment, in terms of reduced risk, while at the same time accomplishing health safety and environmental objectives, is selected.

SUMMARY
There is a great deal of effort in industry to develop and document inspection, evaluation and repair methods for pressure equipment and piping. Excellent documents that are very useful to industry are being prepared. These will continue to be developed as technology develops.

REFERENCE LIST
[1] [2] OSHA 29 CFR 190.119 Process Safety Management. United States Code of Federal Regulations. API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code. Petroleum Institute. Washington, DC: American

EMAS Publishing 2006

FAILURES 2006

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

NB-23 National Board Inspection Code. Columbus, Ohio: The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors. API 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. API 570 Piping Inspection Code. Institute. Washington, DC: American Petroleum

API 571, Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Pulp and Paper Industry, WRC Bulletin 488, Welding Research Council, 2004 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Fossil Electric Power Industry, WRC Bulletin 490, Welding Research Council, 2004. API RP 581 Base Resource Document-Risk Based Inspection. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute.

[10] API RP 580 Risk Based Inspection. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. [11] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [12] API 579 Fitness-for-Service. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. [13] ASME B31.8S, Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [14] API Standard 1160, Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquids Pipelines. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. [15] ASME PCC-1 Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [16] ASME B16.5, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings NPS Through NPS 24 Metric/Inch Standard, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

EMAS Publishing 2006

10