NOV.

DEC.
2008
_____

Vol 14
Issue 6

Charles Foster p. 4
Farewell
Utilities High
Energy Piping
Systems
p. 5
Merry Christmas,
p.6
Happy New Year
Digital Still
Cameras
API Inspector p. 7
Summit
p. 9
Inservice
Inspection
ASME 6th p. 12
& Happy Holidays!
Symposium
NPRA p. 13
Conference
2009 ASME p. 14
PVP Conference
Learning p. 15
From The Past
CSB Statement p. 17
For BP Safety
Panel
Tokyo Risk-BE p. 20
Conference Highlights
Inspector p. 21
Shortage 1 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008
 IJ Industry.....Activities Planner
November/December The Inspectioneering® Journal does not warrant nor guarantee the accuracy of any infor-
2008 mation contained, nor the extent of inclusiveness, in the Industry Activities Planner. It
is imperative that interested parties contact the sponsoring organizations, for each par-
_____ ticular event, to verify dates, information and locations, prior to any planning or decision
making regarding the value of each event. Readers may contact the Inspectioneering®
Journal office to obtain appropriate contact information.
Vol 14 Issue 5
Please e-mail any activities of interest you think applicable to the Inspectioneering®
community to tij@gte.net.
The Inspectioneering® Journal
is a bi-monthly, J A N UA RY 20 0 9
copyright protected, 19-23
API Exploration and Production Winter Standards Meeting,
periodical published Grand Hyatt San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. For more information visit the
six times per year. web site www.api.org

27-30
Please address all * API Inspectors Summit, Galveston, Texas USA > CAS, FFS, RBI, MI, RI, RL,
correspondence to: VE, NDE. For more information visit the web site www.api.org * Check the API
The Inspectioneering® Journal web site to confirm location and timing. Due to the impact of Hurricane Ike to
Galveston Island, API is evaluating the venue and will post any changes ASAP.
5315 FM 1960 West,
Suite B 237
Houston, TX
77069 USA FE B RUA RY 2 0 0 9
11-13
Phone: (281) 397-7075 13th Annual IPEIA Conference, The Banff Center, Banff, Alberta Canada
Fax: (281) 397-9996 > CAS, BRI, FFS, HDE, MI, RBM, RI, RL, VE. For more information visit the web
Email: tij@gte.net site http://www.ipeia.com/
Website:
www.inspectioneering.com
Publisher: MA R C H 20 0 9
Dawn Alvarado 22-26
NACE Corrosion 2009 Conference and Expo, Atlanta, Georgia, USA >
For more information visit the web site www.nace.org
Chief Editor:
Gregory C. Alvarado 31-April 2
European Coatings Show 2009, Nuremberg, Germany > For more
information visit the web site www.european-coatings-show.com/en/
Contributing Authors:
Charles L. Foster
Pacific Gas & Electric

John T. Reynolds MAY 20 0 9

Pro-Inspect, Inc. 19-22
NPRA Annual Reliability and Maintenance Conference and
Exhibition, Grapevine, Texas USA > For more information visit the web
site www.npra.org

(ISSN 1082-6955)
 � YES
I would like to subscribe to the INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
Single subscriptions cost $250.00 U.S. per year (6 issues). 10% discount for
2 yr. subscriptions. Contact us for details on multiple subscription pricing.
Non-U.S. subscribers add $50.00 per year for postage.

Digital Subscriptions Available:

Send pricing, format and delivery questions to tij@gte.net

IND E X - _
___
___
______
____
___
___
___
_____
_______
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
Subscriber Name (Recipient)

Charles Foster Farewell....................4 _

___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_
Company Name
Utilities High Energy.......................5
_
___
____
____
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
__
Piping Systems Address

Digital Still Cameras........................6 _

______
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
____
____
_____
____
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_____
___
City State/Province Zip/Code

API Inspector Summit................... 7-8 _

___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_ _
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
__
Phone Fax
Inservice Inspection................... 9-11
_
___
_____
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
____
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_
Email URL
ASME 6th Symposium..................... 12
� Renewal � New Subscription
NPRA Conference........................... 13 � Check Enclosed � Bill Me (payment due in 30 days)

2009 ASME PVP Conference............. 14

_
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_
Cardholder Name
Learning From The Past............ 15-16
Part 2 of 2 _
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_
Credit Card No. Expiration Date

CSB Statement for _

___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
__
BP Safety Panel....................... 17-19 Cardholder Signature Date

Tokyo Risk-BE Conference .............. 20 Please make checks payable to The Inspectioneering Journal
5315 FM 1960 West, Suite B 237
Highlights
Houston, TX 77069
Telephone: (281) 397-7075 Fax: (281) 397-9996
Inspector Shortage........................ 21 Email: tij@gte.net Website: www.inspectioneering.com

The Inspectioneering® Journal

assumes no responsibilities or
liabilities for the accuracy or
application of methodologies,
technologies, philosophies,
references, case histories, or
un-authorized release of
company information in rela-
tion to any printed subject mat-
ter in the Inspectioneering®
Journal The Inspectioneering®
Journal, the editors and authors,
or anyone acting on their behalf,
assume no responsibility or lia-
bility, without limitation, for the
use of information published in
the Inspectioneering® Journal.
IJ Article Submission and Publication
1. All articles must adhere to the Guidelines and Requirements listed on our web site at
http://www.inspectioneering.com/publishanarticle.htm.
2. Authors must have/obtain authorized permission to print, with company and name byline, in this publication.
3. Send duplicates of all photos, illustrations, and visual aids with permission to reprint. Must be submitted
with draft article.
“IJ” retains right to reprint and archive all visual aids submitted for use.
4. Unless otherwise requested, articles must be one page in length, 10 to 12 cpi, single spaced.
5. Editor and contributing editors will make all final decisions regarding acceptance of article, i.e. value and
appropriateness judgements, along with editing decisions.
6. Author is responsible for final review, following step 5, and authorization from his/her employer to release,
as necessary.
7. All articles accepted by the “IJ” become the property of the “IJ”. No reprint is permitted without prior
written authorization.
 Farewell to Charles (Chuck) Foster
By Dawn and Greg Alvarado,
IJ Publisher and Chief Editor
It is with great sadness that we report the demise of Chuck Foster.
Chuck was one of the founding editors of the Inspectioneering Journal.

Charles “Chuck” Foster II

Passed away unexpectedly on Saturday, November
1, 2008 while traveling on business in China. Chuck
was an equipment reliability visionary and was still
working full time in his profession until the time of his
death. He was a very knowledgeable, positive person
who cared deeply about people and improving the
state of technology, always stepping up to help young
inspectors and engineers and bringing together people
where he saw opportunities to improve the state of
plant reliability through their synergy. He expected
nothing in return for these efforts other than to be kept
up to date with their progress and new developments.
We knew Chuck personally, too. While he was serious
about his work, he was also a generous, fun-loving
loyal friend who lived life to the fullest.
He was born in Visalia, CA on December 2, 1949 to
Charles Leigh Foster and Ruth Dewabel Foster. Chuck
is survived by his wife, Rosalie Foster of Vacaville;
sister, Jeanne Bignall (Ron Bignall); brother, Tim
Foster (Rene Foster); daughters, Kembir Halbur (Doug
Halbur), Eva Bingman (Bill Bingman), Jessica Kirksey
(Randy Kirksey), Tiffany Stone (Tyler Glenn), Camille
Ancona (Anthony Ancona); sons, Courtney Foster
(Kate Foster), Nick Mossman (Michele Mossman);
and nine grandchildren, Daniela Mossman, Kyle,
Aaron and Kersten Halbur, Jacob Kirksey, Joshua and
Skye Bingman, and Dominic and Isabella Ancona. He
is also survived by many close friends, all of whom
he loved dearly. A memorial was be held on Sunday,
November 23, 2008 in Lafayette, CA
In honor of Chuck and as a benefit to more recent
Inspectioneering Journal (IJ) subscribers we provide
copies of his two published IJ articles, which follow.
The information is still relevant and is a testimony to
his vision. Both the technologies, Acoustic Emission
Testing and the use of Digital Still Cameras, are still
in wide use today and have undergone considerable
development since the original publication of these
articles.

4 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008

 BIO: Charles Foster
Meet the Editors Chuck is a staff engineer for Welding, NDE and Metallurgy, with
March 1995 Pacific Gas and Electric in San Francisco, CA. He is responsible for
support of fossil fuel and hydroelectric facilities’ mechanical integrity/
monitoring programs. Chuck is responsible for new inspection program
development and implementation, also. He is chairman of AWS G-2
Committee (Joining Alloys Group)

March 1995
Volume 1 Issue 1

UTILITIES’ HIGH ENERGY PIPING SYSTEMS-

UTILITY INDUSTRY’S APPLICATION OF ACCOUSTIC
EMISSION (AE) YEILDS MEASURABLE
IMPROVEMENT IN INSPECTION PROGRAM COST
AND OVERALL SYSTEM INTERGRITY
By Charles L Foster,
Staff Engineer Pacific Gas & Electric

High energy piping (HEP) systems, main stream lines and
hot reheat lines (typically low chrome molydbbenum steels),
are susceptible to creep damage can lead to leaks, and in
extreme cases, catastrophic rupture. To ensure safe and
reliable operation as plants age, utilities periodically inspect
critical components, conventional inspection methods for
HEP systems are radiographic (RT), ultrasonic (UT), field
metallography and replication, and magnetic particle (MT)
testing.
These methods are labor intensive, require extensive
scaffolding for access and removal of insulation. Costs
are estimated @ $2.6 million per inspection cycle for the
5,000 of hot reheat piping in 5 fossil units. Conservative
estimates show at least a $190K, net savings, using AE, at
one site, alone.
Use of AE was studies s a global screening techniques
due to potential benefits. Material defect when stressed by
operating conditions emit acoustic energy (elastic strain
waves). AE piezoelectric transducers can defect and
locate the source of this energy. Centrally located data
acquisition equipment collects and analyzes incoming
emissions. Follow-up, localized UT or RT inspections, are
conducted only at these identified AE source locations, Less
labor intensive than conventional inspection practices, AE
requires the installation of Waveguides, at 15’ intervals, to
handle the 950 to 1,000°F surface temperatures. Sensors
are attached to the Waveguides. A 1/4” diameter hole is
cut in the insulation at each attachment point where the
1/4” diameter rods are stud welded to the exterior pipe
surface.
Waveguides and sensors can be attached on-stream,
eliminating the need for an outage to install the AE
equipment. Once installed, the AE monitoring is conducted
during plant load cycling and plant cooldowns.
AE applications guidelines, developed by EPRI, can be
used as a foundation for AE inspection of seam-welded
hot reheat piping in power plants. Normal plant operation
provides the stressing mechanism for the test. A floating
threshold is used to compensate for the fluctuating
background noise caused by stream flow.
Results have shown good cross-correlation to conventional
inspection techniques. Additionally, AE indicated activity
at a spool piece, which upon further investigation may
required replacement.
Tests have shown that significant AE activity is generated
during normal plant load cycling. This work justifies future
development as a continuous, on-line monitoring tool for
high energy piping (HEP) systems to defect flaws activated
during plant operation and warn of critical growth. EPRI
continues development with AE technology to achieve
grater effectiveness and efficiency.

5 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008

 January/February 1996
Volume 2 Issue 1

DIGITAL STILL CAMERAS

INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS
OF INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION
Save on Outage/Turnaround Related Cost · Improve Communication
By: Charles Foster,
“IJ” Editor, Pacific Gas & Electric
A picture is worth a thousand words and thousands As soon as I finished the inspection the digital still camera
of dollars. There are many instances where in-service afforded the opportunity to immediately show maintenance
inspection reports are greatly enhanced by including planners and management precisely what damage existed
photographic documentation. Using a conventional high and the areas needing repair. Transferring the images to a
quality 35 mm camera requires cumbersome amounts of television screen allowed viewing by a large group involved
equipment and consumes a lot of time. Developing film in the repair work. Images were then stored on VCR tape
ASAP is an additional trip away from the inspection site for additional review as repairs progressed.
and is an immediate necessity to insure picture quality
Based on the photos and ability to quickly review, we
before the area is no longer accessible. The inspector must
were able to mobilize a work crew within one hour of the
then paste these acceptable photos onto report pages and
inspection, saving at least 3 hours. When a power plant is
make another trip to obtain color copies for the report.
forced from service replacement power costs can add up to
Approximately five years ago digital still cameras began thousands of dollars per hour. Thus, the three hour savings
appearing in the market. Most early digital cameras fit into alone translated into thousands of dollars in savings.
one of two categories, either too big and expensive to be
Within 24 hours of the initial inspection, a hard copy report
practical for in-service inspection work or when small and
detailing the failure with photo images was in the hand of
inexpensive enough, lacked sufficient resolution to produce
the client.
pictures of adequate quality.
File size is the only downside to these cameras. Typical
Recent advances in technologies have changed that
size is 0.9 MB. Nearly 10 MB of computer storage space
picture. A new generation of relatively inexpensive digital
would be required for 10 images. I recommend hard drives,
still cameras produce high resolution color images, interface
Bernoulli’s or other high capacity magnetic storage media
well with computers, and are small and easy to use.
for practical use.
Printing technology has improved geometrically, as well.
Specifications of the system used for inspection
Color photo prints can be downloaded from the digital
documentation:
camera to a special printer or photos can be downloaded to
a PC or MAC notebook or desktop computer. Resolutions Manufacturer: Casio 4Model: QV - 10B
of 600 dpi or better can be achieved in black & white or Recording System: Digital (JPEG based)
color. One can easily import or insert these photos into Signal System: NTSC 4Recording Media: 16
most word processor documents. Some of the cameras Mbit Flash Memory
allow viewing via television and/or downloading to VCR’s. Number of Photos: 96 (640 x 480 dpi) 4Delete Function:
Most of the cameras allow immediate reviewing of the image Single photo or all photos
at which time a quick check confirms picture quality. Lenses: Normal and macro 4Aperture: F2 or F8
manual switching
Lighting requirements vary from model to model. Many
Shutter speed: 1/8 to 1/4000 second 4Monitor: 1.8:
utilize ambient light. Some of the cameras have a two-lens
TFT, LCD
system, landscape (70mm) and a macro lens with a three-
Power supply: Four AA cells or AC adapter
inch minimum focal length.
Battery life: Approx. 120 minutes. Low battery will not
Digital Still In Action affect stored images.
Dimensions: 2.6” x 5.12” x 1.6” 4Weight: 6.7 oz.
Recently a water wall tube failure necessitated an
(excluding batteries)
unscheduled outage. Use of the digital camera made a big
Cost: $700 US. Color Photo Printer $500 US
difference in the amount of time required to return the unit
to service.

6 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008

 API Inspector Summit Conference
and Exhibition
Confirmed for Galveston, Texas
January 27-30, 2009
This bi-annual venue is confirmed for Galveston Island, Texas. Since the conference content is focused specifically
for inspection and fixed equipment reliability professionals we provide the following partial listing of presentations
for your information and to pique your interest. We strongly recommend you visit the API web site, www.api.org, to
view a complete listing and description of sessions. Presenters include owner operators, regulators, engineering
and inspection consulting and training companies. Sessions include but are not limited to:

• Keynote Address – The Honorable John Bresland, • Piping Circuitization and Risk Based Inspection
President, U.S. Chemical Safety Board Requirements – Lynne Kaley, The Equity
• 101 Essential Elements of Pressure Equipment – Engineering Group
John Reynolds, Shell Global Solutions (Retired) • Metallurgical Damage Mechanisms and
• A Quantitative Solution (RBI) Made Practical – Nondestructive Examination - Ronald Lansing,
Phil Henry & Lynne Kaley, The Equity Engineering HSB Reliability Technologies
Group • Fire Damage Inspections for Fitness for Service
• Case Study: Risk Based Inspection for Bundle Certifications - Joe Frey, Stress Engineering
Assessment – Phil Henry, The Equity Engineering Services
Group • How Inspectors Can Use Fracture Mechanics –
• Application of RBI to Offshore Equipment – Roger Cordes, Stress Engineering Services
Albert van Roodselaar, Chevron • Automated Inspection, Fitness for Service and
• Risk Based Inspection Reassessment – Remaining Life Assessment of Reformer Heater
Greg Alvarado & Lynne Kaley, The Equity Tubes - Tim Hill, QuestReliability
Engineering Group • Improving the Effectiveness of PMI - John Bailey,
• Advanced Technologies for Heat Exchanger Tube SGS Inspection
Inspection – Karl Marks, Acuren Inspection • Guidelines and Application Procedures for API RP
• Advances in Guided Wave Testing Inspection 578 Positive Material Identification (PMI) Using
Programs – Dr. David Alleyne, Guided Ultrasonics XRF/OES Technologies – Don Mears/Raymond
Limited Lindeen, Houston Analytical
• An Introduction to Coatings and Linings – • Overview of Advanced Inspection Techniques
Bob Brewer, FTS Inspection & Engineering for Equipment integrity Management – Sam
• API Certifications, Recertification and Ternowcheck, MISTRAS Holdings
Supplemental Inspection Certifications – • The 2010 Inspector – The Evolving Role of the
John O’Brien, API Subcommittee on Inspection Pressure Equipment Inspector - Mark Smith,
Chairman MSTS
• API 571 Damage Mechanisms for Inspectors – • Inspection of Refrigerated Storage Tanks – P.E.
Charlie Buscemi, Stress Engineering Jesus Esquivel, COMIMSA
• API 577 Welding, NDE and Metallurgy – • Managing Equipment Integrity Using Real Time
Frank Furillo, Consultant, ExxonMobil (Retired) Process Monitoring – Boyd McKay, The Equity
• Bolting, Gasketing and Piping Connections – Engineering Group
Dave Reeves, Chevron • Projected Changes in Inspection Codes –
• AUT in Lieu of Internal Inspection – Dave Bajula, John O’Brien, Chevron and Stephen Crimaudo, API
Acuren Inspection • PSM Compliance: Large Scale Programs to
• Developing a Mechanical Integrity Inspection Plan – Establish the Suitability for Service of Non-
Duane K. Edwards, Acuren Inspection Compliant Fixed Equipment – W. Brown,
• Electro-Magnetic Inspection of Wire Rope – The Equity Engineering Group
David R. Hall, Acuren Inspection • Characteristics of the Most Effective Inspector –
• Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) Kelley Jones, Pro Inspect
Inspection of Furnace Tubes – Robert S. Grandahl, • Protecting Your Investment with Refractory
Acuren Inspection Inspection – Bob Beaver/Jim Allen, MISTRAS
• EMAT Inspection on Piping – Kevin Flores, Holdings
Acuren Inspection

7 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008

 API Inspector
Summit Conference
and Exhibition
• The Importance of Integrity Operating Windows
in Maintaining Pressure Equipment integrity –
John Reynolds, Shell Global Solutions (Retired)
• The Role of Inspection in Capital Projects:
Optimizing Cost and Performance by Getting
it Right from the Start – Rodney Addison, FTS
Inspection & Engineering
• NEP Audits of Refineries – Don Nguyen, OSHA,
Houston South Area Office
• The Appropriate Use of Acoustic Emission in Plant
Inspections – Claudio Allevato, Stress Engineering
• The Inspector Writes – Technical Writing for
Inspectors Part 1 & 2 – Mark Smith, MSTS
• Statistical Modeling of NDE Uncertainties – Luc
Huyse, Chevron
• Waste Heat Boilers: FFS Case Histories – J.R.
Jones, The Equity Engineering Group
• Non Intrusive Inspection Alternatives – Mike
Wechsler, Conam Inspection
• Nozzle Inspections Using Phased Array
• Using IR Techniques in Fixed Equipment
Inspection Programs – Joey Poret, Chevron
• Optimizing the Number and Locations of CMLs –
Ryan Sitton, Pinnacle AIS
• New Insights in Repairing Damaged Pipelines
Using Composite Materials, – Chris Alexander,
Stress Engineering
• The Keys to Maintenance and Repair of Coke
Drums – Derrick Rogers, Welding Services, Inc.

Many of the presentations occur multiple times to

maximize attendees’ opportunities to attend their
sessions of choice, just in case of overlap. Visit
www.api.org to learn more and to register for the
conference!

Notice-Subscription Agency
Orders No Longer Accepted
Please note that the Inspectioneeering Journal will no longer accept
subscription orders of any type via subscription agencies. Due to postal mix-
ups, and poor communication which lead to delayed delivery of Journals and
monetary losses we can no longer accept orders via subscription agencies.
Introduction of this third party to the order and delivery process adds a layer
of complexity which has lead to problems.
Please use the order form in this journal, or you may download an order
form from http://www.Inspectioneering.com/mailorderform2.htm or by
visiting the journal web site at www.Inspectioneering.com

We apologize for any inconvenience. We want to assure you continue to

receive your Inspectioneering Journals, on time. This should reduce your
overall cost, too.

Make sure you subscribe directly with the Inspectioneering Journal for your
2009 subscriptions. Please feel free to contact me with any comments or
feedback. It is appreciated. Greg Alvarado, Chief Editor

8 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008

 In-Service Inspection and Repair Codes
and Standards
How Do They All Work Together?
By John Reynolds
Pressure Equipment Integrity Consultant
Pro-Inspect, Inc.

INTRODUCTION John T. Reynolds

After pressure equipment (aka fixed or static equipment) is designed, fabricated, and constructed to new
construction codes and standards (C/S), it is placed in-service, at which time the API In-service Inspection
(ISI) C/S and ASME Post-Construction C/S begin to govern. Within the API Standards Organization, the
Subcommittee on Inspection (SCI) produces and maintains most of the ISI standards that govern in the
refining and chemical process industry. Also within the API, the Corrosion and Materials Subcommittee
(CMSC) produced many recommended practices that are referenced in the ISI C/S. Within the ASME, the
Post Construction Committee (PCC) produces and maintains most of the post construction (means the
same as ISI) standards that govern equipment after it has been placed in-service.

This article shows how many of those ISI C/S are intended to work together to maintain the safety and
reliability of in-service pressure equipment and piping. An important note for each reader of this article
is to be cognizant of using the latest edition of each of the referenced ISI C/S. Both the API and ASME
use the rigorous, standardized consensus building process outlined by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) for formulating and publishing their respective C/S. Because of active ISI standardization
programs within both societies, the latest editions of the referenced ISI C/S have some important revisions
and additions that make each of the referenced ISI C/S better and more useful for the owner-user. So it’s
very important that each reader have access to the latest edition of each of the referenced ISI C/S at the
end of this article.

9 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008


In-Service Inspection
Inspection Planning
Figure 1 (15) is a simplified block diagram that shows the
process for managing pressure equipment with in-service
inspection (post-construction) codes and standards. As
you can see, the first step after being placed in-service is
the oval labeled “Risk Analysis and Inspection Planning
Codes and Standards”. At this point the process begins
to determine what the ISI strategy needs to be for optimum
safety and reliability of the in-service pressure equipment.
Within the API, this process starts with API-510 (1) and API-
570 (2) for inspection planning and execution for pressure
vessels and piping respectively. These two codes provide
a comprehensive plan for the in-service inspection, repair,
rating, and alteration of pressure vessels and piping. But
they are not stand-alone documents. Each of these codes
contains references to many other ISI C/S that provide
additional valuable information that will assist the owner-
user in determining the optimum ISI strategy.
Since risk analysis is now a predominate part of inspection
planning in the oil and chemical industry, both API RP 580
(3) and API RP 581 (4) are referenced in both the API 510 &
570 Codes for inspection planning. API RP 580 1st edition
is currently being extensively revised and updated for the
2nd edition. The ANSI/API ballot resolution process is
expected to be completed in the spring of 2009 at the API
Refining Standards Meeting, with publication of the 2nd
edition of API RP 580 expected near year-end 2009. This
recommended practice covers all the appropriate steps
for any and all RBI processes and software to follow that
expect to produce quality inspection planning based on
risk analysis.
For those owner-users that would like one specific, detailed
method of risk analysis with commercially available software
to conduct RBI in accordance with the principles outlined
in API RP 580, then API RP 581 will be useful. On the other
hand, there may be other useful methods of conducting
RBI that may be in compliance with the principles outlined
in API RP 580. Note that the ASME has published a
standard that is parallel to API RP 580, which is known as
ASME PCC-3-2007, Inspection Planning Using Risk-Based
Methods (13). This document covers RBI for equipment
in other industries outside of the oil, chemical and gas
processing industries.
Another very useful recommended practice in the ISI
planning stage on Fig 1 is API RP 571 (5), which covers
damage mechanisms that afflict pressure equipment in the
oil and chemical industry. It supports RBI by supplying
the necessary damage mechanism information for doing
inspection planning, i.e. what damage mechanisms to look
for, where to look, what NDE techniques will be useful, etc.
Besides updating the current text on damage mechanisms,
10 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008
the next edition that is in preparation will include major
improvements to the section in each damage mechanism
covering “Inspection and Monitoring”. Additional NDE
information is planned for:
• Application and limitations of the various NDE techniques
• Considerations for equipment access for each technique
• Options available for continuous monitoring
• Decision charts that will help users to determine what
techniques are best suited to find and size each damage
mechanism
Additionally, there are two sister documents (Recommended
Practices) that accompany (and are heavily referenced by)
the main ISI codes that are very useful in the planning stage
for ISI. They are API RP 572 (6), which accompanies the
API 510 Code on ISI for Pressure Vessels, and API RP 574
(7) that accompanies the API 570 Code on ISI for Piping
Systems. These two “sister documents” contain valuable
information on inspection and repair practices associated
with pressure vessels and piping that does not appear in
the two main codes themselves, and as such owner-users
need to have ready access to the most recent edition of
each of these RP’s in order to have the full compliment of
information necessary and available for strategic inspection
planning for pressure vessels and piping.
Another valuable standard for pressure vessel and piping
inspection planning is API RP 576 for Pressure Relieving
Devices (8). It too is referenced by API 510 and will be in
the pending 3rd edition of API 570. API RP 576 covers
information related to the inspection and servicing of most
types of pressure relieving devices used in our industry.
Parallel to inspection planning for pressure vessels and
piping is inspection planning for heaters and boilers. In that
case, the most useful standard is API RP 573, Inspection
of Fired Heaters and Boilers (14). This standard basically
covers all the necessary information for planning and
conducting inspections of heaters and boilers.
Fitness for Service Assessment
After successful planning for the necessary ISI in Fig 1,
we come to a decision diamond on what to do with the
inspection findings, if any. If there are no findings what so
ever, we simply recycle back to the inspection planning oval
and plan the next inspection. If, on the other hand, we do
have some findings from the inspection, we proceed to the
box labeled “Fitness for Service Assessment Codes and
Standards” in order to determine whether or not repairs or
replacement might be needed for continued safe, reliable
service.
Once again, the two primary codes, API 510 and API 570
come back into play for guidance on how to evaluate
inspection findings. In each of these codes there is
guidance and some simplified analytical methods to help
determine fitness for continued service. Where more
detailed inspection and engineering guidance for fitness for
service analysis may be needed, the two codes extensively
reference the recently published joint standard API RP 579-
1/ASME FFS-1, which supercedes the first edition of API
RP 579 on FFS (7). This standard has been extensively
revised and improved, so again it behooves owner-users to
make sure that they have access to the latest edition.
Repair or Replace
Once the fitness for service assessment has been
completed, we come to the next decision diamond on
our block diagram to determine whether or not repairs or
replacements will be needed, either now or at some time
in the future. If not, then we once again recycle back
to inspection planning for the next inspection. If some
repairs or replacements will be needed, then we move on
to the final box on our block diagram labeled “Repairs or
Replacement Per ISI Codes and Standards”. And once
again, several more ISI C/S are available to help the owner-
user determine how best to plan and conduct the repairs or
replacements needed.
As you would expect, our two well-rounded codes and
their two sister documents for in-service inspection and
repair of pressure vessels and piping, API 510, API 570,
API RP 572 and API RP 574 are the mainstays as they
provide considerable guidance on repair or replacement
strategies, as well as guidance on appropriate QA/QC for
those repairs.
But several more C/S also come into play in this box on our
block diagram.
First is API RP 577 on Welding Inspection and Metallurgy
(10), which is an excellent source of welding information
and QA/QC for inspectors and engineers covering
the specific welding issues and needs for repairs and
replacements of pressure vessels and piping in the refining
and petrochemical industry.
Next is API RP 578 on Material Verification Program for
New and Existing Alloy Piping Systems (11), of which a
major component is Positive Material Identification (PMI).
Clearly with experience in the industry revealing that
rogue material substitution is a considerable problem in
the industry, owner-users should apply the principles and
practices in this recommended practice in order to minimize
their chances that inadvertent substitution of materials
of construction will occur on any repairs or replacements
specified for in-service equipment. The reader should
note that this document also covers (as the title implies)
material verification for existing piping systems; so, as
such this recommended practice also comes into play in
the inspection planning oval in Fig. 1.
Another useful standard for the repair and replacement
block in Fig. 1 is ASME PCC-2-2006, Repair of Pressure
Equipment and Piping (12). This relatively new standard
covers numerous standardized practices for conducting
repairs to in-service pressure vessels and piping. As
such, extensive references to this standard have been
incorporated into the upcoming editions of both API 510
and API 570. The first edition covered 17 of the more
common repair methods. The second edition, which is
due out very soon, covers 10 additional repair methods.
Additional methods are currently in preparation by the
11 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
ASME Post Construction Committee for future inclusion in
this document.
Summary
This article has attempted to show how most of the API and
ASME in-service inspection codes and standards interact
in Fig 1 to provide the owner-user with expectations,
requirements and recommended practices for the inspection
and repair of pressure vessels and piping.
Finally, if you have comments on this article or wish to
participate in the standardization process in either the API
or ASME, please contact me through tij@gte.net. Both of
these standards development organizations are always
looking for subject matter experts who can commit to
creating and improving our ISI standards.
References:
1. API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code, 9th edition,
April 2006
2. API 570 Piping Inspection Code 2nd edition, October,
1998 (3rd edition in balloting)
3. API 580 Risk-Based Inspection, 1st edition, March
2002 (2nd edition in balloting)
4. API RP 581 API Risk-Based Inspection, 2nd edition
5. API 571 Damage Mechanisms in the Petrochemical
Industry 1st edition, December 2003 (2nd edition in
preparation)
6. API 572 Pressure Vessel Inspection Practices, 2nd
edition,February 2001 (3rd edition in preparation)
7. API 574 Inspection Practices for Piping System
Components, 2nd edition, June, 1998 (3rd edition
approved and in preparation for publication)
8. API RP 576 Pressure Relieving Devices, 2nd edition,
9. API RP 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness for Service
Assessment, 2nd edition, June, 2007
10. API 577 Welding Metallurgy and Inspection 1st edition
October, 2004 (3rd edition in preparation).
11. API 578 Material Verification Programs for Piping
Systems, 1st edition, May, 1999 (2nd edition in final
preparation for publication)
12. ASME PCC-2-2006, Repair of Pressure Equipment
and Piping, 1st edition, January 2007 (2nd edition
in final publication process).
13. ASME PCC-3-2007 Inspection Planning Using Risk-
Based Methods 1st edition, June 2008.
14. API RP 573, Inspection of Fired Heaters and Boilers
15. Credit for the original figure one, upon which this one
is based, goes to Dave Lang, Chairman, ASME PCC.
November/December 2008
 ASME SIXTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
ON PUMPING MACHINERY
Announcement and Call for Papers
This symposium is part of the ASME 2009 FLUIDS
ENGINEERING DIVISION SUMMER MEETING, August
2 to 5, 2009 at the Vail Cascade Resort and Spa
Vail, Colorado, USA
The sixth ASME INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
PUMPING MACHINERY provides an opportunity
for a series of papers on all aspects of pumping and
pumping machinery from research and development
through design and performance prediction to selection,
applications, installations, operation and maintenance.
The objective is to encourage further development of
pumping technology through the reporting and exchange
of information afforded by this ASME meeting.
All categories and sizes of pumps and pumping systems
will be addressed, including centrifugal, axial-flow and
other kinds of rotodynamic pumps and hydraulic power
recovery turbines, as well as rotary and reciprocating
positive displacement pumps. Topics around which
sessions will be organized are as follows:
1. Applications and Systems: Single- and multistage
pumps and pumping systems for general water service;
chemical and petrochemical plants; aerospace vehicles;
various circulating services; oil field crude (singleand
multiphase), pipelines, and refineries; fossil-fuel utility
boiler feed, condensate, etc.; nuclear utility coolant,
feed, charge, etc.; cryogenic services, including single-
and multiphase flows in pumps and hydraulic power
recovery turbines; flood and fire control; paper stock,
sewage, dredge, and other solids handling applications;
integral motor-pump packages; high-speed operation;
and micro sizes.
2. Simulation of Flow and Performance: Analysis of
steady and unsteady single- and multiphase flows
in pumps, inducers, and hydraulic power recovery
turbines, including cavitation, gas-liquid, and solid-liquid
flows via one-dimensional and multidimensional flow
analysis, including quasi-three-dimensional analysis and
attendant loss models, CFD methods of flow analysis
and performance prediction of individual and combined
hydraulic components; pump-system interactions;
model testing, including numerical and experimental
simulation of sumps; and reliability and life predictions.
3. Experimental Developments: LDV and PIV
measurement of flow fields, cavitation, pump-system
interactions, seals, magnetic drives, canned motors,
integral motor pumps, magnetic and product-lubricated
12 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008
bearing concepts, variable-speed pumps and control
systems.
4. Hydraulic-Mechanical Interactions: Rotor-dynamic
analysis and related instabilities; unsteady flows,
including stall, surge, and pressure pulsations, blade-
vane interaction, analysis of pump-system instabilities.
5. Planning, Evaluation, Operation: Expert systems
for diagnostic monitoring and control, commercial
evaluation, selection and performance-curve generation,
statistical control of production and testing, hydraulic
and mechanical data management, operation and
maintenance.
6. Design and Manufacturing Processes: Computerized
design and manufacturing methods, techniques and
procedures for rotodynamic pump impellers, inducers,
casings, suction bays, volutes, diffusers, crossovers
and return channels; rotary pump rotors and casings;
seals and bearings; magnetic bearings; modal, stress
and thermal analysis; numerically controlled machining.
SELECTION OF PAPERS
Acceptance of presentations will be on the basis of 500-
word abstracts and completed papers. Abstracts should
state clearly the objective, results and conclusions.
To submit an abstract, please go to http://www.
asmeconferences.org/FEDSM09 and click on “submit
abstract.” You will be prompted to set up an account
and then upload your abstract to the website. Papers will
be grouped together on a CD with other presentations
made at the Fluids Engineering meeting. The CD will
be available at the meeting. Papers must conform to
ASME standards as published in the Journal of Fluids
Engineering.
DEADLINES
• Abstract submisssion December 31, 2008
• Notification of abstract acceptance January 16, 2009
• Submission of full-length draft papers March 20, 2009
• Notification of paper acceptance May 1, 2009
• Submission of ASME Copyright Form (1903) June 5,
2009
• Final paper submission June 19, 2009
The Fluid Applications and Systems Committee
(FASTC) of the ASME Fluids Engineering Division
(FED) in conjunction with the FED coordinating groups
for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CGCFD) and Fluid
Measurements (CGFM) are sponsoring this symposium.
 NPRA
Reliability &
Maintenance
Conference &
Exhibition
Call for Questions
May 19-22, 2009 Grapevine, Texas
The 3-day program includes keynote addresses,
technical and management presentations,
discussion groups, structured question and
answer sessions, and an exhibition of products
and services. Presentations focus on improving
reliability in the refining and petrochemical industry,
covering topics such as effective maintenance
organization, productivity, equipment reliability,
health and safety, training, environmental
control, predictive/preventive maintenance,
maintenance and engineering standards,
inspection, procurement, and innovative reliability
technology.

The 2009 NPRA Reliability & Maintenance

Conference will include three (3) Question &
Answer sessions which will provide attendees
an opportunity to learn how other companies
have handled challenges similar to those that
others may be facing and to share learnings with
other attendees. NPRA is accepting relevant and
significant questions for the panelists.

You may submit questions for the following

sessions -Maintenance Business Strategies
(new in 2009), Reliability Proven Practices
(especially the challenges of developing your
organization’s reliability skills), and Turnarounds
by visiting the web site http://www.npra.org/
meetings/?fa=callForPapers Suggested topics
are provided. Submission deadline for call for
questions is January 9.

For more information on the conference visit the

web site www.npra.org
13 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008
 2009 ASME Pressure Vessels
and Piping Conference
Prague Czech Republic
“Sustainable Energy for the Third Millennium”
The PVP conference is an international • Fluid-Structure Interaction
technical forum for the participants to further • High Pressure Technology
their knowledge-base by being exposed to • Materials & Fabrication
diverse topics and exchange opinions and • Operations, Applications, & Components
ideas both from industries and academia in • Seismic Engineering
different topics related to Pressure Vessel • Non Destructive Examination
and Piping technologies for the Power and • Nanotechnology
Process Industries. PVP is looking forward to • Student Paper Competition
fruitful technical exchanges from participants
in Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Americas For information, mail, fax, or e- mail any que-
and the Oceania islands. ry to the Conference Chair, the Technical Pro-
gram Chair or the Sponsoring Chair (listed
The ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping below):
Division is the sponsor of the PVP-2009
Conference with participation by the ASME PVP Conference Chair
NDE Division. More than 150 paper and panel Luc H. Geraets, Ph. D.
sessions are planned, as well as workshops, SUEZ Nuclear Activities
tutorials, NDE and Software Demonstration Place du Trône 1 (B401)
Forums, and the Student Paper Competition. Brussels, BELGIUM B-1000
Phone/Fax: +32 2 510 7442/7411
GENERAL TOPICS: E-mail: luc.geraets@suez.com

• Codes & Standards PVP Technical Program Chair

• Computer Technology and Bolted Joints Prof. Young W. Kwon
• Design & Analysis Naval Postgraduate School
Dept. of Mechanical & Astronautical Engi-
neering
700 Dyer Road
Monterey, CA 93943, USA
Phone/Fax: 831-656-3468/2238
E-mail: ywkwon@nps.edu

Or visit the web site http://www.asmeconfer-

ences.org/pvp09/

14 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008

Part 2 of 2

Learning
from the
Past
Not Letting “the Pendulum”
Swing to the Opposite Extreme
in Our Mechanical Integrity
Programs

Editorial by Greg Alvarado, Chief Editor

E-mail questions and comments to tij@gte.net

Note: This article is in honor of Ms. Carolyn Merritt, former Chairman & CEO
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and the work she and her team
accomplished during her tenure. Carolyn was 61 when she passed away on August 29,
2008. Ms. Merritt of Palatine, Ill., died in St. Louis on Friday of breast cancer, board
spokesman Daniel Horowitz, said.

Gregory C. Alvarado She was chairwoman from 2002 to 2007, leading efforts to push for increased safety at
Chief Editor the workplace while improving the young agency’s reputation. After a refinery explosion
Inspectioneering Journal in Texas City, Texas, in 2005, she pushed for more corporate investment in chemical-
process safety.

Editorial
It has been over 3 years since the fatal blast at the BP Texas City Refinery on March 23, 2005, where 15 lives were lost,
more than 170 people injured and survivor’s lives changed forever. History can be an odd thing.
It is important to preserve as accurate an account as possible if we are to learn from the past. I believe it is important to
protect ourselves from ourselves from rationalizing the past to justify movement toward “rationalization of abnormalities”,
as explained by Mr. Don Holmstrom from the US CSB, appearing in paragraph 21 of the copy of the presentation given by
the US Chemical Safety Board to the BP Independent Panel, headed by James A. Baker III, former US Secretary of State.
This presentation immediately follows this article. Each paragraph is numbered. These paragraphs will serve as references
further in this editorial.
The refining and petrochemical industries seem to go through cycles when it comes to management priority given to
mechanical integrity (MI) of equipment (For a listing of sample incidents see references 1, 2 and 4 in “Related Reading” at
the end of this editorial). As soon as a major industry event occurs some monies are given to the “hoped for” improvement
to these programs. Usually, some incremental advancement is made. Likely, not commensurate for the effort, but some
improvement is achieved. I believe reasons for the slight or “incremental” overall improvements we see are varied. I believe
both Ms. Merritt’s report to the Independent Review Board and the Report of the Independent Review Board, referenced
later in this editorial, point us in the right direction.

15 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008


Learning
from the
Past
I am not sure if this is a trend but I am beginning to sense the
pendulum swing back in the other direction in a few places,
i.e. in some places I am hearing of budget cut backs where
they had been “freed up” in the mechanical integrity arena.
This is probably a management reaction to tighter margins
and a feeling of disorganization or lack of optimization in
applying those newly allocated monies.
It is important to note that these issues and challenges
exist at nearly all operating facilities, to varying degrees,
not just BP. There is, and likely always will be, room for
improvement. Right now, we have plenty of opportunities.
I believe technology exists today to help us achieve greater
improvements in safety and reliability performance of
equipment (for more details see “Related Reading” references
3, 5, 6, and 7) in fact, step change improvements. Many of
these programs and technologies are being implemented
today by pacesetter sites and corporations, albeit
fragmented, at best. Once these individual initiatives are
set up correctly, effective interdependent communications
are established and the information is used correctly we
will begin to see greater strides. In some sense it is almost
like chemical dependence recovery, i.e. first being willing to
admit we have issues, for the community to stop enabling
and management to start empowering. The design of
such overall programs requires experienced, informed
and empowered cross-functional teams and exceptional
leadership with the ability to see how the various parts fit
and function together.
The main challenge is cultural. A “flawed” cultural veil of
smoke clouds our vision. As the “smoke” dissipates the
answers will become clearer. But we must begin to clear
the “smoke”. A myriad of sub-challenges lies underneath
the cultural layer, which is “thick”. Let’s see how many
can be addressed, with proposed solutions covered by
going through the paragraphs of the report from Ms. Merrit
and Mr. Holmstrom following this editorial. Here we go,
paragraph:
In Part 1 of this two part series I covered issues related to
the following US Chemical Safety Board statement through
paragraph 21. In part 2, I will cover the remaining as related
to fixed equipment reliability and mechanical integrity.
Another important development has occurred since writing
part 1, i.e. the world economic meltdown! It becomes even
more important as companies tighten their fiscal belts, that
budget cutting does not compromise mechanical integrity.
16 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008
Paragraphs 22-27 again echo the importance of fostering
a culture that raises the awareness of plant workers to
conditions and practices that could lead to unsafe events.
The author recommends that management reward such
vigilance.
Within these paragraphs the importance of improving the
effectiveness of mechanical integrity programs is stressed.
Some recommendations include internal and external
auditing. If you are planning audits I recommend that in
addition to compliance, since you are looking for gaps and
areas of non-compliance and vulnerability in your program,
you also consider opportunities for industry best practices
implementation.
The CSB also recommends metrics. In addition to audit
scores other metrics that have developed include, but are
not limited to, Risk-based Inspection relative risk measures,
tracking leaks/failures, etc. As budget cuts loom tools like
quantitative Risk Based Inspection again prove their value
by helping you prioritize where you spend your limited
resources. Your RBI program should be able to produce
the numbers you need to perform cost/risk benefit analysis
for inspection, turnaround and capital project analysis,
planning and cost justification and to show management
what the risk and reliability ramifications are to MI program
budget cutting.
As of late, I have observed many owner operator companies
implementing best practices and tackling tough issues like
improving the effectiveness of piping reliability programs, no
small task. I encourage readers not to lose this momentum.
To do this, we must improve at using available knowledge
and tools to create and present a credible, valuable case
to management so we don’t drift backwards and keep
pressing forward.
Paragraph
Related Reading:
1. The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety
Review Panel, January 2007
2. Still Going Wrong, Trevor Kletz, 2003 ISBN 0-7506-7709-0
3. New Forces at Work, Industry Views of Critical Business
Trends, D. J. Peterson and Sergej Mahnovski, Rand Science
and Technology, 2003
4. The 100 Largest Property Losses 1971-2001 (Large Property
Damage Losses in the Hydrocarbon-Chemical Industry,
20th Edition: February 2003, A Publication of Marsh’s Risk
Consulting Practice)
5. You Don’t Get Something for Nothing, Inspectioneering®
Journal May/June 2008 by Greg Alvarado ISSN1082-6955
6. 101 Essential Elements in a Pressure Equipment Integrity
Management Program - 13 part Inspectioneering® Journal
series running from May/June 2000 issue and concluding with
the May/June 2002 Issue by John Reynolds ISSN1082-6955
7. Why Operating Sites Just Don’t Get It, Inspectioneering®
Journal May/June 2007 Issue ISSN1082-6955
The following is a statement from the US Chemical safety and Hazard Investigation Board and used
as reference for the preceding article.

Statement for the BP Independent

Safety Review Panel
Carolyn W. Merritt, Chairman & CEO
(1) U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, for catastrophic and tragic incident. Our investigation has
Houston, Texas, November 10, 2005 revealed that this incident was completely preventable.

(2) Secretary Baker, thank you for the opportunity to speak
to the Independent Safety Review Panel, which has been
tasked with investigating the corporate safety culture
and safety management systems at BP’s North American
refineries. My fellow Board Members and I commend BP for
accepting our urgent recommendation to create this panel,
and we greatly commend each of you for your willingness
to serve.
(7) We felt the situation was urgent and did not want to wait
until our investigation was complete – which could take
another year – to get this panel’s work started. And so we
issued the first recommendation that was designated as
“urgent” in the Board’s eight-year history.

(3) This is an extraordinarily competent and diverse panel,

and it is chaired by one of the nation’s most distinguished
public servants. The experience of each panel member is
worthy of praise, but I must single out one in particular: Dr.
Irv Rosenthal, who served on the Chemical Safety Board for
five productive years, from 1998 to 2003. He is a delight to
work with, and I know you will all come to appreciate his
incisive observations and his gentle humor.

(4) Mr. Secretary, you have a long record of service to

this country, and you are being challenged once again.
We are confident that when the panel’s work is done, the
information you have accumulated, and recommendations
you have made, can enhance the safety of every worker in
the oil and chemical industry.Because of the interest in this
case, your work can have an impact not just in this country
but overseas as well.
(5) Aside from the human toll, the petroleum industry can
ill afford destructive incidents at a time of critical gasoline
supplies. The entire BP Texas City refinery – representing
3% of the nation’s capacity – has been shut down since
late September due to safety concerns. So the work of this
panel will most assuredly be in the national interest.
(6) The Chemical Safety Board issued the recommendation
to form this panel after our investigators uncovered evidence
of serious management problems at the Texas City refinery.
We began to realize there might be systemic issues of
management culture and oversight that are not localized
to one site. These management problems set the stage
(8) The March 23 incident in Texas City was the one of the
worst U.S. workplace disasters in fifteen years. This incident
was followed by other serious incidents at the same facility
in July and August that had the potential for harm.
(9) At this time I would like to call on the CSB’s lead
investigator, Don Holmstrom, who will present a summary
of the findings and key safety issues that we presented at
the community meeting October 27 in Texas City.
[Mr. Holmstrom’s Presentation]
Thank you, Mr. Holmstrom.
(10) Before I began my term on the Board in 2002, I worked
in industry for many years. I managed health and safety
programs and became keenly aware of how the culture of a

17 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008


BP Statement
company can affect the safety of workers and communities.
My experience shows that if the highest level of management
and the corporate board do not actively support operational
safety and management of risk, then safety programs don’t
have much of a chance. Safety cannot be achieved from the
shop floor alone.
(11) A good safety culture is the embodiment of effective
programs, decision making and accountability at all levels.
It is a much different concept from simply having good
procedures on paper.
(12) There is a widespread misperception that safety
culture can be improved solely through modifying unsafe
worker behaviors. While human errors contribute to most
major incidents including this one, they are rarely the root
cause. The mistakes that were made in Texas City have
their roots in decisions made by managers at the facility
and the corporate level, sometimes years earlier.
18 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008
(13) Thus when we talk about safety culture, we are talking
first and foremost about how managerial decisions are
made, about the incentives and disincentives within an
organization for promoting safety. Are production and cost
control being rewarded at the expense of safety and risk
management?
(14) One thing I have often observed is that there is a great
gap between what executives believe to be the safety culture
of an organization and what it actually is on the ground.
Almost every executive believes he or she is conveying a
message that safety is number one. But it is not always so
in reality.
(15) When we were developing our urgent recommendation
to BP, we gave great consideration to how the independent
panel should be structured and composed. We realized
that the panel should have extensive representation from
outside the oil and chemical sector. We believe that both
BP and the industry as a whole will benefit greatly from the
insight and wisdom contained in this room.
(16) The truth is that the concepts of safety culture have
been recognized and implemented more fully and over
a longer period in some of the sectors represented here
including aviation, space, and the nuclear navy. These
sectors have a great deal of experience in managing
catastrophic hazards.
(17) One of the touchstones for the Board’s recommendation
was the work of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board,
with which many of you are quite familiar. The Columbia
Board produced a startling picture of management
conditions, decision making and attitudes that set the
stage for the space shuttle disaster in January 2003.
The management culture in the shuttle program was one
that inadvertently promoted risk taking and increased the
chance of a major catastrophe.
(18) I would submit that the findings and recommendations
of the Columbia Board also have a lot to teach the oil and
chemical industry. We hope you will use the Columbia Board
as one model for how you can perform your task.
(19) There are many other possible sources of guidance
for the panel’s work. Some were referenced in the
Board’s urgent recommendation, including the work of
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International
Labor Organization, the Conference Board, the International
Standards Organization, and the U.K. Health and Safety
Executive.
(20) One of my aspirations is that all industrial managers
treat safety and major accident prevention with the same
degree of seriousness and rigor that is brought to financial
transactions. Few people would operate a major corporation
today without a strict system of financial controls and
auditing, where everyone within the corporation recognizes
the severe consequences for noncompliance.
(21) That same standard of diligence is not always applied
to risk management and safety. If you get away with
a flawed safety decision one day or repeatedly, far from
facing penalty you may actually end up rewarded, perhaps
for boosting production. You may come to believe that what
was thought to be unsafe is actually safe, based on your
experience. It is a phenomenon that is sometimes called
“normalization of abnormalities.”
(22) A good culture is all about constant measurement and
improvement. It is about having rigorous auditing procedures
throughout the organization. It is about ensuring that
workers are encouraged and actually rewarded for bringing
safety problems to the attention of management, even to
the highest levels. It is about encouraging the reporting and
the investigation of warning events.
(23) Many of the CSB team’s findings are indicative of
management culture issues at BP. The findings also raised
serious concerns about the effectiveness of mechanical
integrity programs, hazard analyses, management of
change programs, and incident investigation programs.
There are also many other issues in the March 23 incident
that are perhaps harder to quantify but equally important,
and I’ll offer some examples.
(24) One is management of fatigue. Our information
indicates that on the day of the incident, some BP
operators had worked 30 days straight, 12 hours per day,
some with two-hour commute times.
(25) Another is the downsizing of both supervision and
training. For example,
BP Texas City went from 38 trainers in 1998 to just nine
in 2005. And on the day of the incident there was no
supervisor with appropriate experience overseeing key
phases of the startup operation.
(26) Another concern is workload management. On
March 23, a single board operator was responsible for
simultaneously running the controls of three different
complex process units, including the isom unit that was
starting up.
27) Finally, there is the issue of how obsolete equipment
is managed. The blowdown drum and stack in Texas
City was half-century old technology. Yet in the 1990s it
was completely rebuilt according to its original design,
which was by then recognized as antiquated and unsafe.
How does BP’s management assure they are using
current safety equipment that is appropriate for the risks
involved?
(28) And so there are a great many important issues to
look into, and that is why you are here, Mr. Secretary and
19 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
members of the panel: to examine why BP evidently allowed
serious deviations from good safety practice to exist and to
persist. More importantly, you are asked to recommend any
needed changes in BP’s governance, structure, management
systems, and organizational culture so that these facilities
are safer in the future.
(29) In conducting your work, it will be useful to establish
some terms of comparison. For example, it will be important
to understand how BP’s North American refineries, which
were mostly acquired through recent mergers, have
been assimilated into the corporation. Do these facilities
have similar cultures, and what measures has BP taken
to establish a favorable culture at these sites? How do
these facilities compare with other BP sites in the UK or
elsewhere?
(30) We would ask the panel to consider establishing
some measurable benchmarks for the safety management
systems and culture of other high-risk sectors, such as the
aviation and nuclear industries. The panel may also benefit
from seeking the cooperation of at least one other oil or
chemical corporation that is willing to share information
about its management systems and cultural performance.
(31) Finally, I would encourage the panel to do as much as
possible of its business in the public eye. This will have two
benefits: the panel’s work will be more credible, and the
panel’s work will be more valuable to industry as whole.
In fact, I would suggest that you consider convening one
or more public hearings with outside witnesses to begin
establishing some of the benchmarks from other high-risk
sectors that I mentioned.
(32) Mr. Secretary, you can see from our presentation
that all is not well at BP. The workers deserve better. The
community deserves better. And at a time when petroleum
supplies are in critical demand, the nation deserves better.
(33) I believe that your efforts can have a profound impact
on many corporations who will be awakened and warned
by your work. I am confident this panel will carry out its
mission with independence and thoroughness. And in the
end, what you find and report and recommend will be of
great importance in improving safety throughout industry.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and we will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
November/December 2008
 Highlights of the 4th International Workshop
on Risk-Based Engineering Held in Tokyo
The workshop occurred from November 18 to 20th at
Aoyama Gakuin University.
Risk-based engineering activities are being carried out
internationally. The purpose of this venue is to help
attendees understand risk based engineering activities
going on around the world, and to discuss the future
trend, finding ways to cooperate with each other.
The first RIMAP-NIMS Workshop on Risk-Based
Engineering was held on 15 March 2004, at the National
Institute for Materials Science, NIMS, Tsukuba, in
Japan. The purpose of the workshop in Tsukuba was to
mutually understand the situation of risk assessment of
power plants and chemical plants and the technological
development for risk-based engineering in Europe and
Japan.
The 2nd International Workshop
on Risk-Based Engineering was
held on 12 and 13 December
2005 at Meijo University,
Nagoya, Japan. The theme of the
workshop in Nagoya was “Next
Steps for Risk-based Engineering
Development”.
The 3rd International Workshop
on Risk-Based Engineering was
organized by Prof. Kee Bong Yoon
and held on 23 and 24 April 2007
in Seoul, Korea. In this workshop,
the industrial application of RBM/
RBI (Risk-based Maintenance/
Risk-based Inspection) and the
latest developments in risk-based
engineering were presented and
discussed. The topic of risk
and safety of hydrogen vessels
and hydrogen-related materials
problem were touched upon as
RBI technology can be applied to this field.
In this 4th workshop, the activity on risk assessment
of engineering plants in Europe, USA, Korea, China
and Japan were presented and discussed as well as
the development of codes and standards related to
risk-based engineering. State of the art in advanced
technologies (including non-destructive testing) were
presented, as they are a necessary part of risk-based
engineering. The role of corrosion damage (one of
the important damage factors together with fatigue
damage in failure accidents of engineering plants) in risk
assessments was also presented and discussed, under
the cooperation of the JSPS 180th Committee on Risk-
Based Equipment Management.
The Watanabe Memorial Foundation for the Advancement
of Technology Naito Taisyun Science and Technology
Foundation supported the event in cooperation with:
• The Society of Materials Science, Japan
• The Society of Chemical Engineers, Japan
• High Pressure Institute of Japan
20 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008
• Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance
• The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers
• The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan
• The High Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan
• The Japan Welding Engineering Society
• The Japanese Society of Non-Destructive Inspection
• The Japan Society of Maintenology
• Petroleum Association of Japan
• Japan Petrochemical Industry Association
• The Japan Gas Association
• Thermal and Nuclear Power Engineering Society
Presenters and presentations included the following
from Japan, USA, Europe, Korea and China:
Dr. Kaisa Simola, Technical
Research Centre of Finland
(VTT), “Activities on Risk-
informed In-service Inspections
in the European Network for
Inspection and Qualification”
Dr. Robert Kauer, TÜV SÜD
Industrie Service GmbH,
Munich, “Application Cases
for RBI in Chemical and
Petrochemical Plants”
Mr. Greg Alvarado, The
Equity Engineering Group,
Inc., Vice President, “Recent
Developments And Technology
Improvements In API 581
Risk-Based Inspection
Planning Technology
– Technology Overview”,
“Recent Developments and
Technology Improvements in
API 581, Risk-Based Inspection
Planning Technology – Industry
Applications”
Dr. Russell D. Kane, President, iCorrosion LLC
“Use of Real-Time Corrosion Monitoring & Modeling for
Increasing Plant Safety, Reliability and Efficiency”
Mr. Sridhar Srinivasan (Honeywell International, Inc)
“Quantification of Risk of Corrosion Damage through
Application of Advanced Prediction Models”
Dr. Toshihiko Sasahara (Central Research Institute of
Electric Power Industry), “Performance Demonstration
in Japan-Status and Experience”
Prof. Yoshihiro Mizutani (Tokyo Institute of
Technology), “Fundamental study on ultrasonic testing
for nuclear power plant”
Prof. Sun Dong Bai (University of Science &
Technology, Beijing), “National Program of Materials
Service Safety”
Dr. Yoshikazu Yokono (Pony Industry Co.,Ltd.)
“Non-destructive Evaluation for Corrosion-damaged
Materials”
Prof. Hideo Cho (Aoyama Gakuin University)
“ Corrosion monitoring by Acoustic emission technique
– Development of an optical fiber AE system and its
application to corrosion detection”
Prof. Jun’ichi Sakai (Waseda University)
“Activities of JSPS’s 180th Committee for Risk Based
Plant Management”
Mr. Kei Ito, Prof. Junichi Sakai (Waseda University)
and Dr. Shigemitsu Kihara ( Best Materia Co., Ltd)
“Development of technical module for erosion-
corrosion”
Prof. Hiroyuki Inoue (Osaka Prefecture University)
“Electrochemical noise analysis for monitoring the
initiation of localized corrosion”
Local Houston Group Makes Strides
to Solve Industries
Inspection Professional Shortage
The ATTC (APIP Texas Training Consortium) is a group
made up of APIP, San Jacinto College, and 10 member
companies. With the help of the Texas Workforce
Commission, this Consortium is now able to provide
free training to those people who are interested in a
long-term career in the fields of NDT (Non-Destructive
Testing) and Quality Inspection.
Free training is being offered for those who qualify
under a grant from the Texas Workforce Commission.
This training is administered through a Consortium
of companies operating in Texas; and coordinated
& delivered by San Jacinto Colleges Continuing &
Professional Development Division. Any Consortium
member company can send their employees free of
charge to train in Nondestructive Testing, Inspection,
QA/QC and Professional Development courses.
APIP supports each and every ATTC member equally.
All Consortium companies are considered leaders in
their field, and APIP is confident that they can provide
opportunities for successful growth and career
advancement.
APIP (Association of Plant Inspection Professionals) is
a nonprofit organization whose membership consist of
individual inspectors, inspection companies and other
organizations that provide support to the refining,
petrochemical, energy, aerospace and other related
inspection industry. It is the purpose and intent of
this organization to provide its members a forum
whereby collectively and mutually they can improve
and enhance the Inspection Service Industry.
21 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
A panel discussion also covered the topic, “How do
we need to act to improve safe operation and cost
reduction using Risk Based Maintenance”
The panel:
Mr. Hiroshi Ishimaru
(Sumitomo Chemical engineering Co., Ltd)
Dr. Toshikazu Shibasaki
(Chiyoda Advanced Solutions)
Dr. Robert Kauer
(TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH)
Mr. Gregory C. Alvarado
(The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.)
Mr. Mohdamin M. Bukhari
(Saudi Aramco Oil Company)
Dr. Russell D. Kane
(President, iCorrosion LLC)
Planning has started for the 5th RBE Workshop.
Nondestructive testing (NDT) is testing that does not
destroy the test object and is vital for constructing and
maintaining all types of components and structures
in industries such as petrochemical, power, aircraft,
automotive, etc.
Eight Reasons to Consider a Career in NDT
1. The work can be very rewarding. NDT personnel
work hard in helping to keep products and
systems operating safely. The sense that
you making the world a safer place by helping to
prevent accidents and protecting the
environment can be very gratifying.
2. NDT is an exciting and challenging career field.
3. The demand for qualified technicians is high.
4. Once trained, the field of NDT is filled with
opportunities for career growth and
advancement.
5. NDT is a high technology field driven by
technology advancements in a variety of
industries.
6. Competitive pay with benefits and career
stability.
7. When trained, it is easy to find employment.
8. Relocation opportunities are available.
The model appears to be working. For more
information visit the web site http://www.apip-usa.
org/attc-training-overview.html or http://www.apip-
usa.org/
November/December 2008
 Prevention = Safety + Profitability
E2G software offers the winning formula for plant preventative maintenance... that's why major
refiners consider it to be an integral part of their plant business process.
API RBI - The industry standard for risk management and inspection planning, developed
through the API consensus process and documented in API 581

VCESageTM - The benchmark program for equipment review and analysis of structural integrity,
code compliance, re-rating and remaining life evaluations

VCEIntelliJointTM - The “total joint solution” that incorporates knowledge in all the areas required
to effectively solve the root cause of leakage

VCEDamage MechanismsTM - The quick reference guide to identify the potential damage
mechanisms that can cause costly equipment failure

For information, call our Software Help Desk at 216-658-4777.

Smart Technology for Aging Infrastructure

Shaker Heights, OH Houston, TX
www.equityeng.com

22 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL November/December 2008