API 510 and RBI

[unclesyd]

Was just talking to one of my former colleagues working at a chemical plant in Louisiana. In the discussion he mentioned that API 510 and RBI were going to moved under the umbrella of the ASME.

Any of the ASME participants know anything about this?

 

[metengr]

unclesyd;
RBI and Repair Guidelines are being developed and will soon be published by the ASME Post Construction Committee (PCC). These are being treated as reference documents and guidelines, and will not become part of construction code.

API and the NBIC are post construction repair codes widely accepted by almost all Jurisdictions. Post construction repair and RBI guidelines will not become part of Jurisdiction requirements UNLESS they are adopted as separate documents OR the NBIC endorses them. There is currently a Task Group for the NBIC that will be reviewing ASME PCC repair guidelines as they are published and it will be evaluating the feasibility of RBI.

 

[unclesyd]

metengr,
This has me a little worried as a very high percentage of design engineers I consider code proficient have very poor credentials when it comes to facilitating repairs. Some can work off computer while others are joined at the comm port. If fact one of the best design engineers in respect to coded vessels I have ever worked with doesn't have a clue about repairs and design repairability of PV's. Even more removed is the designers that have a rudimentary concept of inspection, especially the limits there of.

As you know under the present lineup for RBI, guided mostly by the oil patch, which in itself presents problems the chemical industry, we can still use a wide range of resources to setup a inspection program or resolve a repair problem which in reality is covered only by the AI umbrella. We satisfy one jurisdiction. I see this in respect to the chemical industry, sans oil patch, getting to be a bear or burden that management won’t support and we will end up dumbing down the whole system.
I have a lot more concerns but will not bother anyone anymore for the present.

 

[metengr]

unclesyd;
I appreciate your concern. As far as RBI guidelines ASME or otherwise, I see very limited (probably no) acceptance by the Jurisdictions that regulate both boilers and pressure vessels. Most of the Boiler Chiefs that I know thru the NBIC main committee meetings over the years are adverse to risk.

The Jurisdictions that regulate only boilers could be a serious problem because pressure vessels are left out of regulations (unregulated). In this case, the self insured company's in the oil or gas industry or third party insurers need to have competent Inspectors and engineers that understand risk based technology. Some of these RBI guidelines are very complex, and if not followed properly could end up causing harm to plant equipment or injury to site personnel.

 

[jte]

metengr and unclesyd-

I have to agree on the "design for inspection and maintainability" thing. I've changed design philosophy probably more than I'd like to admit having spent several years at a refinery after working 10 years at an E&C.

On the RBI front, we've been using it for a while at my refinery (special exemption) and RBI is well on its way to being formally available to all operators in California. I'm not completely familiar with the timing, but I'd expect it to be a few months. Take a look at page 4 (Section 6551 c) of

http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/drillingrefininghandlingproposedreg.pdf

We'll also upgrade from NB-23 1992 to NB-23 2003. I can't figure out why we can't just say "latest edition." So in some ways we're leading the way, in others trailing way behind. I guess we're all a bit that way...

jt